What is reverse osmosis water?
How does it compare to regular osmosis water
what about filtered water
Can be found in Vitamin Water
I had trouble uploading an image, Is anyone else having this problem recently?
7
answers
|
Answer it!
|
sort by:
active |
newest |
oldest
The Wikipedia article is accurate and factual. If you don't like what it says, that's your problem with not recognizing, understanding, or accepting scientific information.
Reverse osmosis, as clearly described in the article, is a process by which external pressure is used to drive water through a semipermeable membrane, leaving behind dissolved minerals or other "impurities."
Normal osmosis is a pressure gradient caused by differing concentrations of dissolved materials on either side of a membrane. Osmotic pressure will push more-pure water across the membrane into the more-dissolved side, diluting the latter.
There is absolutely nothing special about water purifiied by reverse osmosis. You could equally well purify water with a distillation column.
Reverse osmosis, as clearly described in the article, is a process by which external pressure is used to drive water through a semipermeable membrane, leaving behind dissolved minerals or other "impurities."
Normal osmosis is a pressure gradient caused by differing concentrations of dissolved materials on either side of a membrane. Osmotic pressure will push more-pure water across the membrane into the more-dissolved side, diluting the latter.
There is absolutely nothing special about water purifiied by reverse osmosis. You could equally well purify water with a distillation column.
Apr 29, 2009. 1:40 PMChicken2209 (author)
says:
Its not my problem, teachers wont except it anymore ... which is still my problem
I agree that it is "your" problem, in that you (properly, I think) can't cite Wiki as your source in a school report. That's different than the original claim you made (and which you've since deleted :-).
Having said that, the good Wiki articles themselves properly cite original sources for the information they present. What you, as a researcher, should be doing is going to those original sources, reading them, and then citing them in your paper.
Having said that, the good Wiki articles themselves properly cite original sources for the information they present. What you, as a researcher, should be doing is going to those original sources, reading them, and then citing them in your paper.
Apr 29, 2009. 4:20 PMChicken2209 (author)
says:
I actually had a teacher once who wouldn't accept those original sources... but I don't know why as for the original claim the first part was almost a direct copy of what one of my teachers once said I find it funny, like how NM pointed out, how she called google a source
Harrumph. Perhaps that teacher (for good or ill) just wouldn't accept online-only information as reliable. Sad to say, (s)he is approximately correct, because the reader doesn't really have any way to judge reliability or accuracy. With commercially published material (books, magazines, and journals), the reader can (usually) trust the publisher to have done fact checking and other background stuff to ensure that the information isn't complete nonsense, or to at least identify uncorroborated statements. You don't generally have that online.
Apr 29, 2009. 5:13 PMChicken2209 (author)
says:
She let us use online sources, But I think she didnt want use to use wiki's sources is because maybe a student would copy from wikipedia and claim their sources are the same as wikipedia's
. OK, if Google (not really a source, it's a search engine) and Wikipedia aren't up to your standards*, try this
.
.
- Who in the world is "we"? Are you an editor?
 |
