Forgot to mention...this is bunk too....
An engineer at radar manufacturer in MA was walking by some unshielded
equipment and reached for
his candy bar in a pocket. It was warm and gooey. The year was about 1950.
2.4GHz was picked because that's where the FCC would allow the things to
be. Period.
jk
At 11:25 AM 1/30/2001, you wrote:
>There's a kind of FAQ on this, by the author of *How Things Work: the
>Physics of Everyday Life*, Louis A. Bloomfield at
><http://rabi.phys.virginia.edu/HTW//microwave_ovens.html>. He says:
>
> While most microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz, that frequency is
> not a resonant frequency for the water molecule. In fact, using a
> frequency that water molecules responded to strongly (as in a
> resonance) would be a serious mistake--the microwaves would all be
> absorbed by water molecules at the surface of the food and the
> center of the food would remain raw. Instead, the 2.45 GHz
> frequency was chosen because it is absorbed weakly enough in
> liquid water (not free water molecules) that the waves maintain
> good strength even deep inside a typical piece of food. Higher
> frequencies would penetrate less well and cook less evenly. Lower
> frequencies would penetrate better, but would be absorbed so
> weakly that they wouldn't cook well. The 2.45 GHz frequency is a
> reasonable compromise between the two extremes.
>
>So water does absorb 2.4GHz radiation, but it's not a resonant
>frequency. 'course, I wonder how those LAN technologies work in
>the vicinity of microwave ovens.
>
>Randolph
-----------------------------
James S. Kaplan KG7FU
Eugene Oregon USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rio.com/~kg7fu
ICQ # 1227639
Have YOU tried Linux today?
-----------------------------
