[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Do water molecules carry watches?
If not, how do they know if they have been heated quickly?
If they don't know, then how can they act differently?

No. The experimenters are the ones with watches.
The rapid requirement is stated in the definition of bumping in the Wikipedia article. Consequently, if it's not rapid, it's not bumping.

The other difference between bumping and microwave superheating in my experience, is bumping occurs when the heating is still on going. On the other hand, in microwave superheating, the boiling can occur long after the heater is turned off, and the water is moved away from the microwave.

[Bored chemist]

On the other hand, in microwave superheating, the boiling can occur long after the heater is turned off, and the water is moved away from the microwave.

I assure you that this happens with conventional heating too.

That's the reason for instructions like this
"The avoidance of ?bumping? can be achieved by the addition of pieces of broken pot or special anti-bumping
granules, which promote smooth boiling. Anti-bumping material should only be added to a cold liquid. If there is a
need to add it to a liquid that has already been heated, the liquid should be removed from the heat and allowed to
cool for several minutes, otherwise it may boil over.''
here
https://www.ase.org.uk/sites/default/files/chemistry%20PDFs/PDFs/Anti%20bumping%20granules.pdf

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The link says.

Anti-Bumping Granules
In Safeguards in the School Laboratory (11th edition), section 6.2 we state:
"The avoidance of ?bumping? can be achieved by the addition of pieces of broken pot or special anti-bumping
granules, which promote smooth boiling. Anti-bumping material should only be added to a cold liquid. If there is a
need to add it to a liquid that has already been heated, the liquid should be removed from the heat and allowed to
cool for several minutes, otherwise it may boil over.''
A letter received from a member provides a dramatic illustration of the necessity for this advice:
"During a class distillation of an ethanol/water mixture the teacher in charge realised that the pupils had not added
anti-bumping granules. He asked the pupils to stop heating and remove the bungs from the flasks. On adding
granules to two of the flasks violent boiling occurred and hot ethanol was thrown out, to a height of one metre or
more. The ethanol on the bench was then ignited by a bunsen burner ...... "

The obvious difference with my setup is the heated media. It uses ethanol/water mixture, while I used de-ionized water.

[Bored chemist]

Did you think your post made sense?

Don't you understand what this means?

"Anti-bumping material should only be added to a cold liquid. If there is a
need to add it to a liquid that has already been heated, the liquid should be removed from the heat and allowed to
cool for several minutes, otherwise it may boil over.''

Where, in that warning, does it say it only apples to a mixture of alcohol and water?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Did you think your post made sense?

Don't you understand what this means?

Do you understand what my experimental results mean? I heated de-ionized water in a borosilicate beaker using microwave, infrared cooker, and gas stove. The microwave consistently produced superheated water. The other heater consistently produced normally boiling water. There must be at least one unidentified factor causing the difference.

Do you understand what understanding means?
Blindly accepting authoritative texts is not understanding.

[Bored chemist]

Blindly accepting authoritative texts is not understanding.

Refusing to accept the testimony of someone who worked in a lab for 30 years or so is also "not understanding" reality.
I told you the observations and you asked for documentation. I provide documentation, and you say I shouldn't accept it.

Heating stuff in test tubes and flasks  over a Bunsen burner or hot plate or heating mantle has, over the centuries, produced superheating so reliably that people invented anti bumping granules  specifically to stop it.
The fact that you, on a few occasions, did not see it doesn't change that, does it?

There's nothing magic about microwaving stuff
The only big  difference is that the temperature gradients are typically less steep..

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Refusing to accept the testimony of someone who worked in a lab for 30 years or so is also "not understanding" reality.

Testimonies have lower scientific value than experimental results. Moreover, I don't know the details of your experience.

[Bored chemist]

Testimonies have lower scientific value than experimental results.

You have just tried to tell us that the observations made by a scientist in a laboratory have less value than the observations made by a scientist in a laboratory.

[Bored chemist]

I don't know the details of your experience.

That's OK, because I do.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I told you the observations and you asked for documentation. I provide documentation, and you say I shouldn't accept it.

Your documentation still can't answer my question, what caused the difference in my experimental results.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Testimonies have lower scientific value than experimental results.

You have just tried to tell us that the observations made by a scientist in a laboratory have less value than the observations made by a scientist in a laboratory.

How can I know that you didn't lie or being mistaken?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I don't know the details of your experience.

That's OK, because I do.

Why should I trust you?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The fact that you, on a few occasions, did not see it doesn't change that, does it?

What is the probability that ten out of ten trials giving the same results come from random events?
Let's say that my borosilicate beaker has too much imperfections that it can't produce superheated water by infrared nor gas stove. But microwave oven can still consistently produce superheated water. There must be something that caused the difference. Which so far hasn't been identified.

[Bored chemist]

Testimonies have lower scientific value than experimental results.

You have just tried to tell us that the observations made by a scientist in a laboratory have less value than the observations made by a scientist in a laboratory.

How can I know that you didn't lie or being mistaken?

You can't.
But that's equally true whether I'm being a scientist or being a scientist.
Why would it be more trustworthy if I was a scientist rather than a scientist?

Your PoV makes no sense.
It's still me.

[Bored chemist]

There must be something that caused the difference. Which so far hasn't been identified.

Here's a candidate.
What testing did you do to check it?

The only big  difference is that the temperature gradients are typically less steep..

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's another video trying to explain superheated water by microwave. It says that water can become hotter than its boiling point without actually boiling. Unfortunately, it's not demonstrated in the video, since the thermometer only show 208?F, instead of a number larger than 212?F.

Measuring the temperature of superheated water is challenging, since foreign material dipped in it can cause it to boil. Infrared thermometer has its own challenges, since it's affected by emmissivity of the surface.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Testimonies have lower scientific value than experimental results.

You have just tried to tell us that the observations made by a scientist in a laboratory have less value than the observations made by a scientist in a laboratory.

How can I know that you didn't lie or being mistaken?

You can't.
But that's equally true whether I'm being a scientist or being a scientist.
Why would it be more trustworthy if I was a scientist rather than a scientist?

Your PoV makes no sense.
It's still me.

You would be more trustworthy if I can replicate your experiment.

[Bored chemist]

Countless observations of bumping have been recorded.
You can buy stuff to stop it.
https://apcpure.com/product/anti-bumping-granules/

If you can't replicate it, that's your screw up.

[Bored chemist]

Infrared thermometer has its own challenges, since it's affected by emmissivity of the surface.

I have good news for you.
The emissivity of water near its boiling point is the same as the emissivity of water near its boiling point.
A more interesting problem is how far into the water does the thermometer "see"?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I just found this.

https://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/superheating.htm

Why does it occur to a greater degree in microwave ovens than in saucepans or kettles?
In a microwave oven, the water is usually hotter than the container, whereas parts of the kettle or saucepan are usually hotter than the water. Further, the surfaces of some containers used in microwave ovens may be very smooth, almost at a molecular scale, whereas this is not true for kettles or saucepans.
Microwave ovens heat the water directly: the microwaves pass through the container and the water, and the water itself absorbs energy from them. The container absorbs little energy directly. In a kettle or saucepan, the container itself (saucepan) or a heating element (some kettles) is hotter than the water. The hottest points cause a small amount of local superheating, boiling is initiated here, and this then stirs the water.

Just like any hypothesis, its veracity still needs to be verified.