Original: Preface to Dong Xingwen How should I express it?

[GB28234-2020] I always think there is a problem. On April 27 this year, my colleague asked an expert who had participated in the three versions of [GB28234] in a group because of the product issues of our company [GB28234-2020]. It was nothing wrong. Later, because someone asked me about the trouble, I joined the group chat. After reading the discussion in the group before, one of the generals said: [GB28234-2020] needs to be changed. The group leader, a doctor, replied: [GB28234-2020] No problem. I was a little moved by these two sentences, so I wrote an article along with other questions. I think the article is written clearly and easily understood, and I am very kind and clicked until it is. I posted it in the group managed by the blog the next day. In the technical exchange group that claims to be professional, no one really answers my doubts about [GB28234-2020], only screen sweeping and other attacks. Until the reply to the blog in the evening, I read the reply content and had three feelings:

(1) The blog should be a participant in the formulation of [GB28234-2020], but I don’t know if the views and remarks he involved represent the consensus between the formulation of [GB28234-2020] and the participants?

(2) Answer the question that is not. Maybe I have really problems with my expression and level. I didn’t understand it if I should, of course I might pretend not to understand it. I said that the ambiguity in the definition of [GB28234-2020] should be eliminated, and the similarities and differences in the sterilization effects between equipment caused by the ambiguity of the definition of [GB28234-2020] should be eliminated, and he asked me to put some effort into the design of my own product; I talked about the upper limit of the physical and chemical indicators of [GB28234-2020], and he told me that the original intention of the invention deviated from slightly acidic electrolytic water (I am ignorant, who was the inventor? Where did I publish the original intention?)…

(3) As a former partner of the proposer of the term "ginseng and radish", isn't Huo Bo the real advocate of this technology? In fact, I never object to any technical process including "gluten radish into ginseng". We have basically done various crafts in recent years, and it depends on the choice of parents' food and clothing. Only by adapting to the market can we survive. In order to improve my expressiveness, avoid answering questions that are not answered. This article first writes out your doubts about [GB28234-2020]. In order not to be kicked out of the group by others and to be responsible for their own speeches, this article was published on the Fangxin official account.

 If two people have the same priors, and their posteriors for a given event A are common knowledge, then these posteriors are equal.

This is a sentence that was made popular by Wan Weigang. It is placed here, hoping that there will be a rational and sincere debate below. It is not easy to formulate national standards. The predecessors and experts involved in the standard formulation have devoted a lot of effort, promoting the development of acidic electrolyzed water generators and providing a basis for our promotion. However, there is no unchanging absolute standard. The micro-acidic electrolyzed water generator has developed very rapidly in the past two years. With so many colleagues conducting research, it is bound to promote its development. The calibration time has not changed so much yet. We cannot use the development of the market and technology in the past two years to deny the efforts and dedication of the predecessors and experts who set the standards. We sincerely thank the formulators of the national standard for the convenience they have brought us. We hope that experts can interpret it in a timely manner to solve practical problems. I also hope that the experts will forgive my limited knowledge level and candid way of expression. [GB28234-2020] Mathematical Expression of Doubt One Note 1: Universal definite equations and Logical Derivations. Compared with the "GB 28234-2011 Safety and Hygiene Standard for Acidic Electrolyzed Electrolyzed Water Generators", the "GB28234-2020 Hygiene Requirements for Acidic Electrolyzed Water Generators" has added contents such as micro-acidic electrolyzed water generators, but narrowed the scope of requirements and deleted the safety requirements. The first point of doubt is the definition of slightly acidic electrolyzed water. In the absence of other national standards regarding slightly acidic electrolyzed water, we can only consider it the only correct definition. We must manufacture equipment and produce slightly acidic electrolyzed water in accordance with its definition. Let's get straight to the point. Please look at the following picture:

This figure is the section of "GB28234-2020" 3.6 on slightly acidic electrolyzed water, which describes how a slightly acidic electrolyzed water generator generates slightly acidic electrolyzed water and its reaction equation. Similar descriptions appear more than once in the standard. I divide the content of 3.6 into three parts, namely A, B and C. Among them, the content A in the red box explains the conditions and methods of its generation; The content B in the blue box indicates the final generation result; The content C in the green box is the chemical expression from A to B. As a science student, one can translate the above content into mathematical expressions, solve mathematical problems, and then translate it back to handle real-world problems. Mathematical expression one: Does a universal definite equation have a unique and stable solution? Part A can be regarded as multiple independent variables x₁, x₂... The set of, and part B can be regarded as multiple dependent variables y₁, y₂... A collection of. Whether correct or not, it can be written as a universal definite equation. Solving a universal definite equation requires initial and boundary conditions. However, the mathematical definite solution conditions translated according to 3.6 are very limited and there is no solution for the time being. For this reason, based on experience, we need to artificially provide some definite solution conditions. This will inevitably lead to different solutions being generated when different people set different definite solution conditions. In other words, according to 3.6, the generalized definite equation expressed mathematically has no solution or multiple solutions, and there is no unique and stable solution. Let's translate this mathematical conclusion back to 3.6 and endow it with practical significance. We need to determine whether the content of 3.6 can comply with the above conclusion? That is, is the content of 3.6 valid? It is also necessary to introduce some physical and chemical knowledge related to the reaction of this system. Note 2. For example: Oxidation reactions may always exist in anodic reactions;

(2) The reactions of different valence states of available chlorine in the chlorine evolution reaction may also exist to varying degrees.