Re: Panguitch water - 0.4 nm smaller water molecules??
realhaggis_at_hotmail.com
Date: 02/09/05
- Next message: Bruce Sinclair: "Re: Verifying someone's chemistry background"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: How much TNT would it take to blow up Mecca?"
- In reply to:(deleted message) somebody_at_compusmart.ab.ca: "Re: Panguitch water - 0.4 nm smaller water molecules??"
- Next in thread: Oscar Lanzi III: "Re: Panguitch water - 0.4 nm smaller water molecules??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 9 Feb 2005 12:45:24 -0800
somebody@compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
> realhaggis@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >There is a website (crude) at http://shop4ufree.com/ and I think at
> >http://www.panguitchwater.com (seems to be down at the moment). The
> >claims made are that 'normal' water is only 3-5% efficient at
> >hydration, but this water supplement, this super water, is 100%
> >efficient. They don't explain how this was determined, obviously.
> >
> >This super water is said to be 0.4 nm smaller than a regular water
> >molecule (they also don't say if this is the length of each HO bond
or
> >the distance between the hydrogens). I
>
> Here http://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.html is an interesting and
> informative "review" article on all kinds of special waters that are
> being promoted: larger molecules, smaller molecules, larger clusters,
> smaller clusters. Amazing, the stuff that people can concoct.
>
> FWIW, I checked the web site http://www.panguitchwater.com It's
> operational and states now that this "water averages 0.4 nm in size".
>
> Roger
Thanks! That's a great site. I did misremember the size claim, but
some checking around lists water with a diameter of between 2 and 3.2
angstroms, so a 4 angstrom molecule would actually be larger.
Also amusing was the 100% bioavailability of their super water. My
friend the pathologist said "You wouldn't want water to have 100%
bioavailability, because some needs to stay in the GI tract (unless you
like to poop out rocks...)" Maybe you had to be there.
>Forget about chemistry. Psychology and psychiatry are the pertinent
>disciplines.
>Bill
This made me chuckle... absolutely true.
- Next message: Bruce Sinclair: "Re: Verifying someone's chemistry background"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: How much TNT would it take to blow up Mecca?"
- In reply to:(deleted message) somebody_at_compusmart.ab.ca: "Re: Panguitch water - 0.4 nm smaller water molecules??"
- Next in thread: Oscar Lanzi III: "Re: Panguitch water - 0.4 nm smaller water molecules??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|