I worry about my microwave

Light, just how many times have you said something so amazingly stupid that the whole room goes quiet because people can't believe that you said it? It just happened again.

You may be the first industry hack to deny the existence of induced currents in organic tissues. In fact you've denied the existence of all induced currents. I'm glad Westinghouse didn't hear you say that. Why do people not bother to try to explain some things to you? They don't want to go through sixteen rounds of lectures to get one simple concept into you, especially without being paid for it.

You've proven yourself the fake, Light. Case closed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ha! Typical of the little jerk MetaKron. I never once said "all induced currents." And we are talking about microwaves here, dummy, not magnetic fields. Once again your complete lack of knowledge is showing since you cannot distinguish between a magnetic field and electromagnetic radiation.

So who's proven themselves to be tha fake? Why, our local know-it-all (know-nothing) MetaKron, that's who.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And just who was it that had to go through "sixteen rounds of lectures" to get one simple concept of a heatpump into him? Why, that was MetaKron too!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll admit my post was a tad facetious, because I knew we weren't talking
about literal antennae. And in all seriousness I recognize that psychology
makes valuable contributions to our lives. I still don't know if I'd go so far
as to call it a science. Perhaps a necesary art, like economics or what-not.

I was also hoping that we'd get back on topic somewhat, because this
thread was halfway derailed when I posted. Now it's degenerated into
pure name-calling, so I guess I'll give it up as a bad lot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That was his plan, and somehow I'm just not good with this kind of static.

The truth is that microwaves induce currents in anything that is conductive, just like radio waves. In fact, they are radio waves. They act exactly like magnetic fields that change their intensity and direction because that is what they are. The current that they induce is proportionate to the rate of change of the magnetic field. That rate of change is proportionate to the frequency. Since you get about 1.4 billion (10^9) complete cycles per second, and peak to peak is 2.818 times RMS, and you double that, you get 5.636 * 1.4 * 10^9 * measured voltage for a rate of change. For each microvolt, that's a rate of change of 7890 volts per second. 120 VAC has a rate of change of about 40580 volts per second. This is how things that look miniscule can start to add up. If that exposure is high enough to induce a millivolt RMS, you've got 7.89 million volts per microsecond, and that's up there. It will very effectively couple whatever power does leak out. We're still talking about fairly small amounts of energy, but we don't know where they might concentrate when standing waves get going. The trouble is that the body contains some very small and sensitive structures. How do you think that ionizing radiation even can cause trouble, like UV cancers? UV comes in packets that are very, very small but they are concentrated enough to deliver their energy to a very small volume.

There's just enough that we don't know that we had better take a hard look when there is an indicator that there might be trouble.

 

It's unimportant because the original questions posed at the start of this thread have been dealt with. So there's no longer any topic to return to at this point.

 

So let's start over again and hope that Light is through with his attempts to psyche me out.

What is going on with microwaves? First, if you are reading this, you are very likely to have access to Google. There are numerous encyclopedias out there that explain the workings of a microwave oven and what microwaves are.

The microwaves generated by a microwave oven are the same kind of Hertzian wave that is generated by almost anything that you would call a radio transmitter. There are differences like frequency and intensity, and some transmission modes use what are known as Gaussian pulses with are essentially radio frequency static with readable patterns.

A radio wave is exactly what you get when you run electricity through a conductive material like copper wire. It is generated by the change in the current flowing through the conductor. You can use a loop of wire, a battery like a flashlight battery, and an AM radio to demonstrate this. Turn the radio to a place on the dial that you don't hear a station, or the station is weak. Attach the loop of wire to one end of the battery and tap the other end with the other end of the wire. You will hear clicking on the radio receiver. If you don't, wrap some of the wire around the radio. There, you have made a crude transmitter.

Radio waves induce current in anything conductive. This is one of the principles of electromagnetics that has been known for a very long time. That current is there whether you have a detector for it or not. The detector does not change the material so that it produces electrical current. It just measures what is there. A human body is made of about the same material as a piece of meat in the microwave and has very nearly the same physical properties. This is why the human body makes a pretty good antenna for radio reception. If you are trying to listen to a weak station on a radio you can often enhance reception by touching the antenna. It doesn't work on every station because not every wavelength couples as well.

A microwave oven generates a radio wave with a short wavelength and enough power to induce large electrical currents in the material that you are trying to heat. These electrical currents excite the water molecules and most other molecules in the food. Unfortunately, electrical currents have a tendency to break down most compounds that they come in contact with. They are ionizing because they knock electrons around. This may or may not be a bad thing, but we should take it into account. We've seen the kind of denial that there can be anything bad about microwaving food. It goes as far as revising the known laws of physics.

 

I've made no attempts to present anything less than factual information.

On the other hand, you, Metakron, truly are one of those to whom the the saying applies "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." As I said before, you know some of the very basics but have almost absolutely NO understanding of things beyond the minimum needed to get through high school.

Form the above paragraph it's clearly evident that you do not even know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Microwaves are FAR below the frequency band of ionizing radiation.

Ionizing radiation begins at around the frequency of UV light. Microwaves cover the band of about 1Ghz - 100Ghz. The conventional microwave oven operates at about 2.5Ghz. For comparison, visible light, which is also non-ionizing, extends up to about 1,000THz.

The only thing you've said that is actually accurate and useful was the suggestion to use Google. And since you were obviously also too lazy to have done that yourself before posting the half-truths of your confused mind, I did exactly that to provide evidence of what I'm saying as opposed to your worthless garbage.

For anyone who's interested in the real truth, not Metakron's half-baked physics, take a look here: http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cach.../mwave.html microwaves +"living tissue"&hl=en

 

That's a shell game, Light. If you were just trying to teach me to use Google, which I use a hell of a lot, you would have given up your little joke a long time ago. No induced currents in living tissue? How much do you want to embarass yourself?

I am perfectly aware that ionizing radiation is the kind of radiation that knocks electrons from their shells by brute force, energizing them enough to make them escape. That starts at the UV range of the spectrum.

Electrons are caused to migrate by exposure to any RF. This is because of electrical current, not ejected electrons, and that is why there is a technical difference. One thing that some technicians have found out the hard way is that it doesn't take very many watts to cause RF burns. There is a thing about the rapid change in rate of the current that makes the effective voltage much higher against any structure that has certain physical properties and we don't know what all of those physical properties are. Some electrolysis can take place. You might say that the current reversals reverse the electrolysis, but most such reactions are not reversible.

The problem just gets worse when you are talking about actually shaking molecules around. This can break up molecules into smaller pieces. I'm not completely convinced that a body can process quite as well amino acids and sugars whose molecules have been bent, folded, spindled, and mutiliated.

 

No, I'm not trying to teach you how to use Google or anything else.

The thing is, your mangled information would be comical if it weren't for the fact that it misleads people.

And once again, YOU attempt to now claim that you knew something all along which you clearly did not. Your methods are clearly like that of any kid who did something stupid and then try to claim, "Yeah, I meant to do that!" Pathetic.

As far as heat "shaking molecules around and breaking them up", you are only exhibiting your ignorance once again.

It's also equally clear that you NEVER show any references to back up your misunderstandings - as I did with my information - because there is NO reference that supports you in any way. You just make it up as you go along and expect people to believe you. It doesn't work - you've been caught by others than just myself many times in many other threads. Yet you never seem to learn. And that's a prime example of extreme egotistical stupidity. You always think you can weasel your way out of it. That doesn't work either and you've gained quite a reputation here for being among the most ignorant posters ever.

 

Obviously Dennis Leary writes your material.

 

Now that's a fine response to a scientific debate.

Typical.

 

Maybe it's Seth McFarlane, actually.