On 03/03/2019 08:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 02/03/2019 23:10, Max Demian wrote:
On 02/03/2019 18:11, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 02/03/2019 17:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

It is renewable, uses no energy to produce it, reduces soil and
water pollution (as compared to landfill), has organic fertiliser
as a by-product and the production cycle captures methane,
resulting in a zero-emissions fuel.

Thanks for not answering my question which was, how does it differ from
methane. Are you implying that it doesn't?

If you were trying to describe how it's produced, you've not done that
either.

If it's made from something growing, it'll take the carbon from the
atmosphere so it'll be carbon neutral.

North sea gas was made from something growing, and presumably it did
take the carbon from the atmosphere so it is carbon neutral.

Its just time we put it back to help plants grwow.

It's just recycling plant waste to plant food.

So we're back to growing crops for biofuel are we?

at 0.1W per square meter...

The whole ecoleft **** depends on state education having made meeja
studdies more mandatory than mathematics.



--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

On 03/03/2019 08:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:

I personally think the pre packed food with plastic over it is
probably extremely wasteful also they fill the package with gas of
some kind to help preserve the contents.

Nitrogen, I imagine. Harmless as 80% of what you breathe is nitrogen.

Meat is sometimes packed in pure oxygen to keep it pink. They
demonstrated this in "Bang Goes the Theory" I think with a glowing spill.

--
Max Demian

On 03/03/2019 08:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, for a start most of my milk still comes in glass bottles because its
delivered. The problem with glass is that its heavy to transport of course
and it has to be cleaned every round trip.
Cartons are now recyclable it seems so I do that, as with cans and plastic
food containers.
The problem with recycling is that sadly the same carton cannot be cleaned
and sterilised, it needs to be melted down into something to make something
else and there seems a finite number of times you can do this, probably more
energy hungry than sterilising a bottle , but I've never seen a comparison.
Paper bags are fine, and still with us of course but they are a pain if you
walk to do your shopping and its raining.

Vegetables need to be put into something, especially if multiple. (I
don't mind sticking a label on a single courgette.) Supermarkets won't
trust us with paper bags: Tesco (used to) provide paper bags with a
plastic window for mushrooms.

I personally think the pre packed food with plastic over it is probably
extremely wasteful also they fill the package with gas of some kind to help
preserve the contents.

The plastic trays for fresh meat and fish can't be recycled easily as
they are usually black which is the same colour as the conveyor belts
and have a different plastic for the clear lid.

I need to see what it looks like; not every store has fresh food
counters and the operatives aren't very good at cutting a precise amount
of fish.

--
Max Demian

On 03/03/2019 05:20, Rod Speed wrote:

snipped

Bull****. It doesnt taste at all.

You're wrong, and I have also tasted chemically pure water too.

I have never done that and my formal qualifications are in chemistry.

Pure water isnt.

Thats not pure water.

So it isnt PURE WATER. PURE WATER isnt acidic.


There is no such thing as 'pure water', there are different standards
for different purposes.

Several grades of purified water have pH ranges from 5 to 8.

Anyone who claims to know a lot about water is probably bull****ting.
It is still the subject of much study. eg...

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/6/1998.abstract?etoc

Cheers
--
Clive

On 02/03/2019 23:57, wrote:
On Saturday, 2 March 2019 23:22:07 UTC, Max Demian wrote:

snipped

https://www.theguardian.com/business...ions-says-firm

(Nasty idea. They'll fall over and spill.)

Wine in polythene bags would save even more. But those aren't what most consumers want in a wine product.


NT

Dual function. When empty and inflated you have a 'Glasgow Pillow'.

Cheers
--
Clive

On 02/03/2019 21:18, Bill Wright wrote:
On 02/03/2019 18:32, dennis@home wrote:


Banning the sale of bottled water would be a good way to save some of
the environment.
It really isn't needed.

What if your tap water is horrid to taste?

Bill

Cheap filter.

On 02/03/2019 21:34, Chris Green wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 02/03/2019 18:22, newshound wrote:
On 02/03/2019 18:12, Tim Streater wrote:


Glass is heavier than plastic, but I suppose someone might develop
lighter weight tougher glass.

They already did, the small thin bottles used for continental style
beer in supermarkets being an example.

OK. That still leaves the weight issue, although I'd be in favour of
banning plastic bottles either way.


Cheaper, lighter, safer. The problem is not the bottles, it is the
people who don't take care disposing of them.

Banning the sale of bottled water would be a good way to save some of
the environment.
It really isn't needed.

Banning TV would save more, think of the electricity that would be
saved. Lots of things could be banned that we don't need to survive.


TV is far less polluting than driving tons of water about in lorries
when better stuff comes out of the tap.

On Saturday, 2 March 2019 19:39:17 UTC, wrote:
Banning the sale of bottled water would be a good way to save some of
the environment.
It really isn't needed.
Most isn't. The same is true of coke, fizy orange & all the other soft drinks.
I think you'd have an uphill job banning them all.

They could be made more expensive though, like fags and alcohol.

Owain

On Saturday, 2 March 2019 21:18:04 UTC, Bill Wright wrote:
What if your tap water is horrid to taste?

Drink beer instead.

Owain

On 02/03/2019 23:21, Max Demian wrote:
On 02/03/2019 19:39, wrote:

Soft drinks are a different product. Water is water.


Sodastream in the 80s were able to resell genuine concentrates from one
of the cola companies and a good range of Schwepps.

Bearing in mind the concentrates often exist anyway for a) pub
dispensers; b) transporting from the factory to the bottling plant (that
may not be owned by the company).

Not licensing them is just bloody minded and I assume that's the reason
because why would you sell "generic" cola for Sodastream if you could
(and did) sell the genuine article.

It was one of those things that made perfect sense.



--
Email does not work

On 02/03/2019 18:11, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 02/03/2019 17:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 02/03/2019 16:34, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 2 March 2019 14:48:02 UTC, BroadbackÂ* wrote:
When I was a young man, a long time ago, bottles were glass and bags
were paper. Why cant the supermarkets revert to those? Bottles were
returned and paper used to light our fires. Then we moved to gas
(mainly) central heating, Now that is a no no. Incidentally what will
happen to the businesses that primarily sell gas appliances? Will
they
be compensated?

Domestic gas is to be banned in a few years.

If you call 30 years a few. Even so, biogas is being considered as
an acceptable alternative, so it might be more akin to the
changeover from town gas to natural gas than a complete end to gas
as a fuel.

What's so magic about biogas? How does it differ from methane?


It is renewable, uses no energy to produce it, reduces soil and water
pollution (as compared to landfill), has organic fertiliser as a
by-product and the production cycle captures methane, resulting in a
zero-emissions fuel.

Thanks for not answering my question which was, how does it differ from
methane. Are you implying that it doesn't?

If you were trying to describe how it's produced, you've not done that
either.


I did answer your question. I gave the differences that make biogas a
suitable alternative to fossil fuel gas. Those are the only relevant
differences that would affect its choice as a substitute.

However, its similarity to natural gas, in being a good source of
methane, would also make it a better choice than, say hydrogen. On
average, biogas contains slightly less methane than natural gas; 55-70%
cf 60-90%. However, the gas that reaches the consumer today has been
processed to be almost pure methane and, if that can also be done with
biogas, it could result in a seamless changeover.



--
--

Colin Bignell

On 03/03/2019 15:59, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/03/2019 18:11, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 02/03/2019 17:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 02/03/2019 16:34, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 2 March 2019 14:48:02 UTC, BroadbackÂ* wrote:
When I was a young man, a long time ago, bottles were glass and bags
were paper. Why cant the supermarkets revert to those? Bottles were
returned and paper used to light our fires. Then we moved to gas
(mainly) central heating, Now that is a no no. Incidentally what
will
happen to the businesses that primarily sell gas appliances? Will
they
be compensated?

Domestic gas is to be banned in a few years.

If you call 30 years a few. Even so, biogas is being considered as
an acceptable alternative, so it might be more akin to the
changeover from town gas to natural gas than a complete end to gas
as a fuel.

What's so magic about biogas? How does it differ from methane?


It is renewable, uses no energy to produce it, reduces soil and water
pollution (as compared to landfill), has organic fertiliser as a
by-product and the production cycle captures methane, resulting in a
zero-emissions fuel.

Thanks for not answering my question which was, how does it differ from
methane. Are you implying that it doesn't?

If you were trying to describe how it's produced, you've not done that
either.


I did answer your question. I gave the differences that make biogas a
suitable alternative to fossil fuel gas. Those are the only relevant
differences that would affect its choice as a substitute.

However, its similarity to natural gas, in being a good source of
methane, would also make it a better choice than, say hydrogen. On
average, biogas contains slightly less methane than natural gas; 55-70%
cf 60-90%. However, the gas that reaches the consumer today has been
processed to be almost pure methane and, if that can also be done with
biogas, it could result in a seamless changeover.



As usual you have simp0ly not done the sums.

The total land area of Great Britain is 209,331 km^2

The average outout of a field of best practice biomass growth in terms
of unprocessed biomass is 0.2W/sq m opr 0.2MW/sq km

So if the *whole of great britain* were laid down to biofuel - assuming
it could be grown in the scottish highlands etc - would be around 40GW.

Convert that into gas and you wouldnt get anywhere near that.

The TOTAL energy consumption of the UK averages out at 256GW give or take.

THERE IS NOT ENOUGH SUNLIGHT FALLING ON THE ENTIRE UK TO GROW ENOUGH
BIOMASS TO REPLACE NMATUYRAL GAS AND FOSSIL FUELS BY A FACTOR of 6:1

BIOMASS is ten times less efficent than windmills, which are 50 times
less efficient than solar panels, in terms of ouput per unit land area,
and the only virtue is that they represent stored energy.

Why dont you go away and do some basic research before spouting your
mindless fact free fourth hand 'opinions'


--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 02/03/2019 18:32, dennis@home wrote:

Banning the sale of bottled water would be a good way to save some of
the environment.
It really isn't needed.

Obviously not drank some of the 'liquids' that pass themselves of as
drinking water down south.

On 02/03/2019 21:21, Fredxx wrote:
Actually pure water is meant to taste foul!

Nope, pure water ( H2O ) is pretty tasteless it's the ions and Minerals
and... that make it 'taste' of anything

On 03/03/2019 12:37, wrote:
On Saturday, 2 March 2019 21:18:04 UTC, Bill Wright wrote:
What if your tap water is horrid to taste?

Drink beer instead.

Didn't 'they' use to do that in Victorian times?

"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/03/2019 08:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, for a start most of my milk still comes in glass bottles because
its
delivered. The problem with glass is that its heavy to transport of
course
and it has to be cleaned every round trip.
Cartons are now recyclable it seems so I do that, as with cans and
plastic
food containers.
The problem with recycling is that sadly the same carton cannot be
cleaned
and sterilised, it needs to be melted down into something to make
something
else and there seems a finite number of times you can do this, probably
more
energy hungry than sterilising a bottle , but I've never seen a
comparison.
Paper bags are fine, and still with us of course but they are a pain if
you
walk to do your shopping and its raining.

Vegetables need to be put into something, especially if multiple. (I don't
mind sticking a label on a single courgette.)

Ours do it on everything now, even nectarines and apples,
as I discovered when I put the plastic bag of nectarines on
the self checkout machine and had it tell me what it was
instead of me having to tell the machine what it was.

Supermarkets won't trust us with paper bags:

Ours do. The breadmix mostly comes in very solid paper bags.

Tesco (used to) provide paper bags with a plastic window for mushrooms.

I personally think the pre packed food with plastic over it is probably
extremely wasteful also they fill the package with gas of some kind to
help preserve the contents.

The plastic trays for fresh meat and fish can't be recycled easily as they
are usually black which is the same colour as the conveyor belts and have
a different plastic for the clear lid.

Ours dont have a clear lid, clingwrap instead.

I need to see what it looks like; not every store has fresh food counters
and the operatives aren't very good at cutting a precise amount of fish.

I dont bother with commercial fish. Its either come
from a sewer in Vietnam etc or from raping the oceans.

"Clive Arthur" wrote in message
...
On 03/03/2019 05:20, Rod Speed wrote:

snipped

Bull****. It doesnt taste at all.

You're wrong, and I have also tasted chemically pure water too.

I have never done that and my formal qualifications are in chemistry.

Pure water isnt.

Thats not pure water.

So it isnt PURE WATER. PURE WATER isnt acidic.

There is no such thing as 'pure water', there are different standards for
different purposes.

Duh. The purest has no taste.

Several grades of purified water have pH ranges from 5 to 8.

Thats not pure water.

Anyone who claims to know a lot about water is probably bull****ting.

No one said anything about knowing a lot about it. What
was being discussed was what pure water tastes like.

It is still the subject of much study. eg...
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/6/1998.abstract?etoc

wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 2 March 2019 19:39:17 UTC, wrote:
Banning the sale of bottled water would be a good way to save some of
the environment.
It really isn't needed.
Most isn't. The same is true of coke, fizy orange & all the other soft
drinks.
I think you'd have an uphill job banning them all.

They could be made more expensive though, like fags and alcohol.

The voters would **** over any political party actually stupid enough to try
that.

On 03/03/2019 17:19, soup wrote:
On 02/03/2019 21:21, Fredxx wrote:
Â*Actually pure water is meant to taste foul!

Â*Nope, pure water ( H2O ) is pretty tasteless it's the ions and Minerals
and... that make it 'taste' of anything

Pretty tasteless I will accept, it certainly won't blow your head off.

I wonder if you have ever drunk 'ultrapure' water?

"soup" wrote in message
...
On 02/03/2019 18:32, dennis@home wrote:

Banning the sale of bottled water would be a good way to save some of the
environment.
It really isn't needed.

Obviously not drank some of the 'liquids' that pass themselves of as
drinking water down south.

Not surprising given how many times its been thru humans
before it ends up in your glass with some of them.

"soup" wrote in message
...
On 03/03/2019 12:37, wrote:
On Saturday, 2 March 2019 21:18:04 UTC, Bill Wright wrote:
What if your tap water is horrid to taste?

Drink beer instead.

Didn't 'they' use to do that in Victorian times?

Yep, but it wasnt much like the beer we drink today.

On 03/03/2019 18:16, Rod Speed wrote:


"Clive Arthur" wrote in message

snip

There is no such thing as 'pure water', there are different standards
for different purposes.

Duh. The purest has no taste.

So it's the 'purest' now is it, rather than 'pure'? By what metric?
The well know Speed Scale?

But it's an interesting point. Why would something have no taste?
Water is not inert, even Speed 10 water (the purest water, triple
distilled from the finest vacuous bull****). It will still affect your
taste buds.


Several grades of purified water have pH ranges from 5 to 8.

Thats not pure water.

Anyone who claims to know a lot about water is probably bull****ting.

No one said anything about knowing a lot about it. What
was being discussed was what pure water tastes like.

You never could bull**** your way out of a paper bag. (c)
NoNothingMotorMouthGob****es

Cheers
--
Clive

Fredxx wrote
soup wrote
Fredxx wrote

Actually pure water is meant to taste foul!

Nope, pure water ( H2O ) is pretty tasteless it's the ions
and Minerals and... that make it 'taste' of anything

Pretty tasteless I will accept, it certainly won't blow your head off.

I wonder if you have ever drunk 'ultrapure' water?

I have. It has no taste.

On 03/03/2019 19:37, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxx wrote
soup wrote
Fredxx wrote

Â*Actually pure water is meant to taste foul!

Nope, pure water ( H2O ) is pretty tasteless it's the ions and
Minerals and... that make it 'taste' of anything

Pretty tasteless I will accept, it certainly won't blow your head off.

I wonder if you have ever drunk 'ultrapure' water?

I have. It has no taste.

Many water filter manufacturers call their filtered output as ultra
pure, that is not the same as 'ultrapure' water in a medical context.

Clive Arthur wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Clive Arthur wrote

There is no such thing as 'pure water', there are different standards
for different purposes.

Duh. The purest has no taste.

So it's the 'purest' now is it, rather than 'pure'?

Only because of your nit picking and only for you, the nit picker.

By what metric?

Chemical analysis, stupid.

But it's an interesting point. Why would something have no taste?

Because nothing but pure water has no taste for humans.

Water is not inert, even Speed 10 water (the purest water, triple
distilled from the finest vacuous bull****). It will still affect your
taste buds.

It wets them, but has no taste.

Several grades of purified water have pH ranges from 5 to 8.

Thats not pure water.

Anyone who claims to know a lot about water is probably bull****ting.

No one said anything about knowing a lot about it. What
was being discussed was what pure water tastes like.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
where it belongs

On 03/03/2019 18:56, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/03/2019 17:19, soup wrote:
On 02/03/2019 21:21, Fredxx wrote:
Â*Actually pure water is meant to taste foul!

Â*Â*Nope, pure water ( H2O ) is pretty tasteless it's the ions and Minerals
and... that make it 'taste' of anything

Pretty tasteless I will accept, it certainly won't blow your head off.

I wonder if you have ever drunk 'ultrapure' water?

Not to my knowledge, is 'ultrapure' some sort of tradename?
Have sipped some distilled water (about as pure [H2O only] as it gets).

On 03/03/2019 19:27, Clive Arthur wrote:

But it's an interesting point.Â* Why would something have no taste? Water
is not inert, even Speed 10 water (the purest water, triple distilled
from the finest vacuous bull****).Â* It will still affect your taste buds.

Affecting your tastebuds is not the same as tasting of something.

The jury is still out but the current pet theory is that water will
'reset' the taste buds, so later in that sip of water it tastes quite
bitter (it is fairly neutral in taste but because it has the effect of
washing away previous tastes it resets the taste buds so the sour(ish)
ones fire as much as the others, but poisons being sourish the sour
tastebuds are considered {by the brain} as more important so more heed
is paid to them than the sweet ones).
Hence something 'cleansing' being considered sour(ish)

On 03/03/2019 19:55, soup wrote:
On 03/03/2019 18:56, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/03/2019 17:19, soup wrote:
On 02/03/2019 21:21, Fredxx wrote:
Â*Actually pure water is meant to taste foul!

Â*Â*Nope, pure water ( H2O ) is pretty tasteless it's the ions and
Minerals
and... that make it 'taste' of anything

Pretty tasteless I will accept, it certainly won't blow your head off.

I wonder if you have ever drunk 'ultrapure' water?

Â*Not to my knowledge, is 'ultrapure' some sort of tradename?
Have sipped some distilled water (about as pure [H2O only] as it gets).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrapure_water

As the article suggests it a term used by the semiconductor industry but
is also used in medical areas such as dialysis.

Unfortunately Wodney is getting confused with many drinking water filter
companies who market their water as being "ultra pure" (usually two
words), which of course it isn't.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/03/2019 19:37, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxx wrote
soup wrote
Fredxx wrote

Actually pure water is meant to taste foul!

Nope, pure water ( H2O ) is pretty tasteless it's the ions and Minerals
and... that make it 'taste' of anything

Pretty tasteless I will accept, it certainly won't blow your head off.

I wonder if you have ever drunk 'ultrapure' water?

I have. It has no taste.

Many water filter manufacturers call their filtered output as ultra pure,
that is not the same as 'ultrapure' water in a medical context.

And its the ultra pure water in the chemical sense that I have tasted.

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Clive Arthur
wrote:

On 03/03/2019 18:16, Rod Speed wrote:


"Clive Arthur" wrote in message

snip

There is no such thing as 'pure water', there are different standards
for different purposes.

Duh. The purest has no taste.

So it's the 'purest' now is it, rather than 'pure'? By what metric?
The well know Speed Scale?

But it's an interesting point. Why would something have no taste?

Because it doesn't activate any taste bud.

Water is not inert, even Speed 10 water (the purest water, triple
distilled from the finest vacuous bull****). It will still affect your
taste buds.

Unlikely. Taste buds are usually activated by more complex molecules.

Like choride ions and hydrogen ions? They account for two types of
taste.

--

Roger Hayter

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 05:19:31 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

They could be made more expensive though, like fags and alcohol.

The voters would **** over any political party actually stupid enough to try
that.

Would they, you driveling psychopathic 85-year-old troll?

--
Norman Wells addressing senile Rot:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On 03/03/2019 13:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/03/2019 23:21, Max Demian wrote:

Soft drinks are a different product. Water is water.

Sodastream in the 80s were able to resell genuine concentrates from one
of the cola companies and a good range of Schwepps.

Yes, I used to have a SodaStream until it broke. Very useful, but
probably a lot more expensive than shop brand soda nowadays. (ASDA
lemonade 35p for 2l; ASDA cola, 6x330ml cans, £1.50.) The SodaStream
does avoid the need to cart lots of water home, though.

--
Max Demian

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 05:16:31 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

"Clive Arthur" wrote in message
...
On 03/03/2019 05:20, Rod Speed wrote:

snipped

Bull****. It doesn¢t taste at all.

You're wrong, and I have also tasted chemically pure water too.

I have never done that and my formal qualifications are in chemistry.

Pure water isnt.

That¢s not pure water.

So it isnt PURE WATER. PURE WATER isnt acidic.

There is no such thing as 'pure water', there are different standards for
different purposes.

Duh. The purest has no taste.

Duh. It tastes of water, senile idiot!

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On 03/03/2019 17:22, soup wrote:
On 03/03/2019 12:37, wrote:
On Saturday, 2 March 2019 21:18:04 UTC, Bill WrightÂ* wrote:
What if your tap water is horrid to taste?

Drink beer instead.

Didn't 'they' use to do that in Victorian times?

Yeah kids went straight from mother's milk to beer.

--
Max Demian

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 06:15:40 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

What if your tap water is horrid to taste?

Drink beer instead.

Didn't 'they' use to do that in Victorian times?

Yep, but it wasn¢t much like the beer we drink today.

So, what was it like then, psychopathic Mr Know-it-all?

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 06:13:47 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:



Obviously not drank some of the 'liquids' that pass themselves of as
drinking water down south.

Not surprising given how many times its been thru humans
before it ends up in your glass with some of them.

So, HOW many times has it passed thru humans, psychopathic Mr Know-it-all?

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 05:12:59 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

Vegetables need to be put into something, especially if multiple. (I don't
mind sticking a label on a single courgette.)

Ours do it on everything now

Nobody gives a ****, psychopathic Ozzie troll! This is a UK group, in case
you haven't noticed yet! tsk

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

On Sun, 03 Mar 2019 20:27:55 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 03/03/2019 13:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/03/2019 23:21, Max Demian wrote:

Soft drinks are a different product. Water is water.

Sodastream in the 80s were able to resell genuine concentrates from one
of the cola companies and a good range of Schwepps.

Yes, I used to have a SodaStream until it broke. Very useful, but
probably a lot more expensive than shop brand soda nowadays. (ASDA
lemonade 35p for 2l; ASDA cola, 6x330ml cans, £1.50.) The SodaStream
does avoid the need to cart lots of water home, though.

You're being ripped off. Aldi do diet lemonade for 17p/2l !



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"soup" wrote in message
...
On 03/03/2019 19:27, Clive Arthur wrote:

But it's an interesting point. Why would something have no taste? Water
is not inert, even Speed 10 water (the purest water, triple distilled
from the finest vacuous bull****). It will still affect your taste buds.

Affecting your tastebuds is not the same as tasting of something.

The jury is still out but the current pet theory is that water will
'reset' the taste buds, so later in that sip of water it tastes quite
bitter (it is fairly neutral in taste but because it has the effect of
washing away previous tastes it resets the taste buds so the sour(ish)
ones fire as much as the others, but poisons being sourish the sour
tastebuds are considered {by the brain} as more important so more heed is
paid to them than the sweet ones).

I dont get any effect like that and I only drink tap water
straight out of the tap into a glass at room temp.

Hence something 'cleansing' being considered sour(ish)

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/03/2019 19:55, soup wrote:
On 03/03/2019 18:56, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/03/2019 17:19, soup wrote:
On 02/03/2019 21:21, Fredxx wrote:
Actually pure water is meant to taste foul!

Nope, pure water ( H2O ) is pretty tasteless it's the ions and
Minerals
and... that make it 'taste' of anything

Pretty tasteless I will accept, it certainly won't blow your head off.

I wonder if you have ever drunk 'ultrapure' water?

Not to my knowledge, is 'ultrapure' some sort of tradename?
Have sipped some distilled water (about as pure [H2O only] as it gets).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrapure_water

As the article suggests it a term used by the semiconductor industry but
is also used in medical areas such as dialysis.

Unfortunately Wodney is getting confused with many drinking water filter
companies who market their water as being "ultra pure" (usually two
words), which of course it isn't.

Wrong, as always. I was using the term in the chemical sense.