waterjournal.org Open in urlscan Pro
192.185.48.142 Public Scan

Back to summary

URL:
https://waterjournal.org/archives/holster/
Submission: On November 07 via api (November 7th 2021, 1:38:27 pm UTC) from US — Scanned from DE

Form analysis
5 forms found in the DOM

GET https://waterjournal.org/

<form method="get" class="searchform" id="searchform" action="https://waterjournal.org/">
  <input type="text" class="field" name="s" id="s" placeholder="Search">
</form>

GET https://waterjournal.org/

<form method="get" class="searchform" id="searchform" action="https://waterjournal.org/">
  <input type="text" class="field" name="s" id="s" placeholder="Search">
</form>

GET https://waterjournal.org/

<form method="get" action="https://waterjournal.org/" class="mobile-searchform">
  <input type="search" name="s" autocomplete="off" placeholder="Search">
  <button type="submit" class="searchform-submit">
    <i class="icon icon-magnifier"></i>
  </button>
</form>

GET https://waterjournal.org/

<form method="get" class="sidr-class-searchform" id="sidr-id-searchform" action="https://waterjournal.org/">
  <input type="text" class="sidr-class-field" name="s" id="sidr-id-s" placeholder="Search">
</form>

GET https://waterjournal.org/

<form method="get" action="https://waterjournal.org/" class="sidr-class-mobile-searchform">
  <input type="search" name="s" autocomplete="off" placeholder="Search">
  <button type="submit" class="sidr-class-searchform-submit">
    <i class="sidr-class-icon icon-magnifier"></i>
  </button>
</form>

Text Content

* Home
* Current Volume
* Past Issues
* About
* Submissions
* Editors
* Contact
*

EFFECTS OF RADIO FREQUENCY WATER TREATMENT ON REVIVAL OF WILTED FLOWERS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew Holster

ATASA Research, New Zealand

Correspondence Email: ATASA030@gmail.com

Correspondence Address: 93 Omaru Rd., RD3, Te Kuiti, New Zealand.

Keywords: RF water treatment, EM water treatment, exclusion zone water, EZ
water, Vi Aqua, flower wilting, magnetic water memory

Draft 3. 31 Oct 2015, Te Kuiti, New Zealand.

Received February 8, 2015; Revised October 18, 2015; Accepted November 28, 2016;
Published March 16, 2017; Available Online March 17, 2017

doi: 10.14294/WATER.2016.7

ABSTRACT

An experiment to detect an effect of radio frequency (RF) radiation (27.5 MHz)
on properties of water through its effects on the revival of wilted catsear
dandelions was performed. The RF treatment was applied using a commercial
product, the “Vi~Aqua PlantMate.” Around 1,500 pairs of stems were tested in the
experiment. There is a long-standing controversy over whether RF treatment has
any long-lasting effects on properties of water. Effects were found when treated
water contained significant impurities, and when the RF treatment was applied to
the flower stems while immersed in the treated water. The positive results
indicate that the RF treatment significantly affects water transport within the
plant. It is inferred that it enhances osmosis into cells and capillary
transport through the plant’s vascular system. The effects began to show after
about 20 minutes, and efficacy of the water treatment lasted for a period of at
least several hours. The primary aim was to verify the phenomena. The challenge
to explain the phenomena is briefly addressed in discussion. Pollack’s (2013) EZ
(Exclusion Zone) theory is suggested as the primary framework for an
explanation. It is suggested that the RF treatment does not provide the energy
responsible, but catalyzes absorption of free IR (Infrared) or MW (Microwave)
radiation by the water, and this energy is stored as electrical energy through
the creation of EZ structures.

INTRODUCTION

A number of investigators, from the late 1980s onwards, have found radio
frequency (RF) electromagnetic treatment of water can have significant effects
on its properties. A number of commercial devices have also been designed to
apply RF radiation to water, with claims of beneficial effects on growth and
health for plants, reduction of lime-scale formation, and other effects. But
while RF water treatment has been researched and commercialised for over twenty
years now (Morse, 1997),2 there is still little scientific consensus about
whether it works, or how it works. Some scientists have supported the concept,3
but others claim such effects are impossible, and debunkers commonly dismiss
these products as a fraud4.

This paper reports on a series of experi-ments conducted specifically to test
whether RF water treatment can be observed to affect properties of water through
a direct effect on water transport within a plant. The method was to compare the
effects of RF treated water against untreated water on the revival of wilted
catsear dandelions (Hypochoeris radicata). Revival requires water transport up
the stem, and turgor pressure to build within cells, to return rigidity to the
wilted stems. This is principally dependant on osmosis into cells, and capillary
processes in the vascular system.

The RF treatment was applied using a product called the “Vi~Aqua PlantMate”**
(Web Ref 1). It applies an EM radio wave of approximately 27.5 MH into a body of
water through an immersed antenna. This device was chosen for convenience, and
equivalent products are available (e.g. Web Ref 3). This is referred to as “VA
treatment,” which may be considered to refer to any generic RF treatment of this
kind. Scientific interest here lies in whether this kind of EM treatment can
affect properties of water at all, not in testing product claims.

I note that scientific debunkers commonly attack this product technology as a
fraud (Web Refs 9-12), and there is a sceptical tradition in the field that
claims it is impossible for RF treatment to have significant effects, or for
water to retain properties. However, my review of the literature found no
positive scientific evidence against claimed treatment effects, and to the
contrary, substantial evidence indicating real effects in a variety of contexts.
The only realistic criticism I have found states that “manufacturers fail to
offer scientific evidence for product performance”. But in fact there have been
numerous published experiments and field trials over the past twenty years. They
range from micro-physical studies showing distinct effects on electromagnetic
properties of water (See (Leahy et alia, 2000); for more extensive references,
(Chibowski and Holysz, 1995); (Colic, M. and Morse, 1998); (Higashitani and
Oshitani, 1998)), and on organic systems (Cosgrove, 1993), (Ellingsrud and
Johnsson, 1993), (Krizaj and Valencic, 1989), (McQueen and Cosgrove, 1994)), to
macro-physical studies of effects on plant growth, including some controlled
scientific experiments (O’Kiely and O’Riordan, 1998), as well as field trials
(Web Refs 6, 7), and expert testimonials (Web Ref 18). A former professor at the
University of Limerick and pioneer and promoter of the VA technology, has
various essays on the subject (Darragh, 2009). In terms of generic theoretical
claims that water cannot support complex structures or processes required for
any such effects, recent studies show that water is far more complex than
traditionally thought. This is illustrated by the remarkable images in (Ho,
2014), by new detailed observation and analysis showing quantum structure for
the first time (De Ninno et alia, 2014), and by the broad new paradigm of water
structure presented in (Pollack, 2013). I return to this below and in
discussion.

The present experiment falls between experiments in physical chemistry that show
effects of RF radiation on micro-physical properties of water, and biological
studies showing effects on plant growth or metabolic processes. It investigates
a simpler effect relevant to both viz. water transport in a plant. It is
conceptually simple, and seeks to confirm direct effects of the water treatment
though a simple, macroscopic organic system, occurring on the time scale of an
hour. The experiment can be easily reproduced without complex equipment. Many of
the previous studies support the plausibility of the effects found here. RF
treatment has been repeatedly confirmed to alter EM properties of water, and to
affect growth in plants, although it is not the purpose to review this
literature here. However, there appears to be no adequate explanation of
effects, and little scientific consensus after two decades of controversy.

I note two important difficulties in ex-plaining the effects. One is that water
is thought to be too chaotic to retain significant structure for more than
fractions of a second – the relaxation time for electrically-induced structures
at a molecular level is assumed to be very short. Another is that the RF
radiation used has very low energy. The wave-length of the light used is about
10 meters, with a frequency of about 27.5 MHz. The quanta of energy of
individual photons (E = hf) is very small compared to energies in chemical
bonds, heat energy (i.e. atomic kinetic energy reflecting temperature), or in
microwave, infra red or visible light (see Supplement 3). The energy of visible
light is about 100 million times the RF energy. Hence scepticism that RF
radiation could alter properties of water is natural.

However, research demonstrates real phenomenon in various contexts. Research
into the magnetic memory of water (Colic and Morse, 1998; Leahy, 2000) led
directly to the technology application itself (Morse Patent 1997).

“The magnetic water memory effect is probably one of the most challenging
problems of modern physical chemistry. It is well known to many engineers that
water treated with magnetic or electromagnetic fields retains the modified
properties for hours or days. Such modified water is used to reduce scale
deposition onto metallic surfaces, enhance cement hydration, or enhance the
growth rate of plants and animals. The existence of the magnetic memory of water
was a rather anecdotal phenomenon until recently when the members of several
laboratories reported sophisticated physico-chemical measurements which
quantified this exciting process.” Colic and Morse (1998), p. 265.

Early investigators, such as (Chibowski and Holysz, 1995), (Higashitani and
Oshitani, 1998), (Colic and Morse, 1998), (Leahy et alia, 2000), discovered
surprising micro-physical features of the RF treatment (e.g. altering zeta
potentials) published in a cluster of scientific papers, mainly in the 1990s.
But this research seems to have failed to gain general acceptance. A separate
tradition is represented by (Pollack 2013), who proposes a theory of “EZ water”
unifying a century-old “alternative” tradition of water research. Of central
relevance here, the effects of charge separation induced by infrared EM
radiation plays a central role, and is claimed to underlie processes of osmosis
and capillary action. Pollack does not attempt to explain RF water treatment,
but I argue in Discussion that his theory is the necessary framework for an
explanation. The primary aim here however is to directly address the question:
Does the radio frequency EM treatment have an effect on properties of water,
lasting a significant period, and significantly affecting water transport in
plants?

METHOD AND PROCEDURE

The effects of various treatments were compared through the times taken for
samples of wilted catsear dandelion (Hypochoeris radicata) to revive.5 Samples
of around 180-200 straight stems with healthy flowers were normally collected at
a time, and allowed to wilt for varying periods ranging from about three hours
to two days. Paired sub-samples, subject to two different treatments, were then
revived by immersion of stems in buckets of water, and revival times recorded.
Stems were individually paired according to similarity in appearance, size and
degree of wilting.

Each comparison of two stems is referred to as a single trial. In each
individual trial, the two stems were subject to two alternative treatments. A
single experiment is a set of trials performed simultaneously, with a common
pair of treatments, using a common source of stems. Such single experiments were
conducted on up to 37 pairs of stems at a time, using five pairs of
stem-holders. Two such experiments could normally be conducted in a day. This
uses the full range of stems in the picked sample, excluding around 20% of stems
that were damaged or failed to wilt. These combined samples represent a range of
wilting periods.

Around 1,500 trials were conducted in the series of experiments reported here.
Generally 74 trials could be done each day, in two samples of 37, taken from a
single sample of 180-200 stems picked in the morning. There were variations,
e.g. to test effects of longer wilting periods (up to 2 days between picking and
revival). Effect sizes for stronger effects mean that a daily experiment of
about this size already shows evidence of patterns with moderate statistical
significance. Repetitions of such daily experiments were combined to achieve
statistical confidence and replication.

Treatments were always compared pair-wise. There is no effective concept of an
average time for revival relative to a given treatment, since revival times
depend on wilting period and severity, stem sizes, temperature, etc, which are
not practically controllable. This means that all treatment comparisons are
mutually independent, i.e. data from one comparison is not reused in another
comparison.

Stems were wilted until they drooped to an angle of 100-180 degrees and became
rubbery. They were wilted vertically in boards with small holes drilled to hold
them loosely upright. They were revived in special holders, placed over buckets
of water, with treated samples (A) in one set of buckets, and untreated (or
alternatively treated) samples (B) in the second set. Time was recorded when
they reached horizontal. Further details to replicate the measurement procedure
are given in Appendix.

FACTORS

Effects were dependant on primary factors as follows.

Type of water. Four water preparations were used in the main experiments.

(i) RAIN Water (Te Kuiti cottage supply for household)

(ii) BORE Water (Te Kuiti farm supply for household and animals)

(iii) BORE + GRIT Water (Te Kuiti bore water with 50 mls of grit added to 9
litres of water)6

(iv) RAIN + SALT Water (Te Kuiti rain water with 50 mls of rock salt added to 9
litres of water)

The rain water and bore water were both good quality drinking water, and
appeared equivalent in effects. Two other water sources were used in preliminary
experiments:

(v) TAKAKA Water (Takaka household water)

(vi) HUTT Water (Lower Hutt household water)

VA treatment target. “VA” means application of radio frequency of approx. 27.5
MH for a period of 30 seconds, using the “Vi~Aqua Plant Mate.” The target of the
application of the VA treatment is critical. Three main VA treatments were used,
along with no treatment.

(i) VA Water only: VA treatment of (a bucket of) water, into which stems are
subsequently immersed for revival.

(ii) VA Stems only: VA treatment of water with stems immersed, the stems then
transferred to untreated water for revival.

(iii) VA Both: VA treatment of water in which stems are immersed and left for
revival.

(iv) VA None: no VA treatment: untreated stems revived in untreated water.

These treatment variations help isolate whether the effect is transmitted
through the water alone, through an effect on the stems alone, or through both
in conjunction. E.g. if effects had been evident with VA treatment of stems
alone, but not with VA treatment of water alone, one might infer that the effect
is not carried through the water, but instead through the plant.

These two factors define treatment types. Combinations are notated as follows.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1. List of Experimental Treatments, defined by Water Type and VA Target
Type.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stem-trimming. In all the main experiments, stems were trimmed by at least 2 cm,
to a uniform length of 9.5 cm (from the “hook,” where the stem bends),
immediately before immersion. Trimming was not a subject of investigation in
itself, apart from one short experiment showing the effect of trimming on
untreated samples. Stem-trimming is well known to speed the revival of wilted
flowers. This effect is often attributed to the removal of air bubbles formed in
the end of the stem, which are thought to slow capillary transport, e.g.
(Elgimabi and Ahmed, 2009).

Wilting period and wilting severity. Variations in wilting are important, but
form part of the definition of samples, not treatments. Individual stems wilt at
different rates, may be wilted for different periods of time, and subsequently
revive in different periods of time. These can be referred to as individual
wilting rate, wilting period, and revival time. These variables are
statistically related, through a construct called wilting severity. The more
severe the stage of wilting, the longer the revival time. Fast-wilting stems
reach more advanced stages of wilting severity in shorter times. Revival time is
primarily sensitive to wilting severity. Stems that wilt slowest usually revive
fastest.

The range of wilting severity was controlled by using the first 148 wilted
stems, from the complete picked batches of 180-200. The first 74 (37 pairs), of
rapid wilters, was selected for the first batch of trials, generally taking
about 4-6 hours to wilt, then the next 74 for the second batch of trials about
3-5 hours later. Around 30 stems will not wilt suitably, or be damaged, or not
have suitable pairs, and 180-200 is enough to select 148 good pairs of suitably
wilted stems. This means the samples are primarily defined by the picked sample,
and about 80% were used from each picked sample.

Other Environmental Factors. Other factors that could vary between experiments,
but not between treatment groups within experiments, include temperature and
sunlight during wilting and revival, and rainfall prior to picking the flowers.
The range of these factors was minimised. Experiments were done on fine days, in
ambient light, in the New Zealand summer, with water temperatures between 18-26
C. Experimental variations were not undertaken to test these systematically.
These factors may have minor effects, but there was no indication that the
variations allowed were significant in differentiating treatment effects.

Stem Condition Factors. Other factors that vary between individual stems within
a single experiment include stem diameter, condition, and the growth-stage of
individual flowers. These are important sources of individual variation: e.g.,
larger stems usually revive better, and stems with flower heads in better
condition (less dehydrated, more colour in the flowers) usually revive better.
Stems were revived in matched pairs to control for this natural variation. This
pairing reduces measurement error compared to taking two simple random
selections from the picked sample. Individual variation was reduced by selecting
long straight medium-sized stems in the picked sample.

To facilitate replication, I describe the procedure in greater detail in
Appendix 1. My main recommendation for future replication would be to record the
revival process using time-lapse video, taking revival times from playback. This
would improve reliability and save substantial observation time. It would also
allow the full sample of revival times to be recorded (so that the tails of the
distributions are not discarded).

DATA AND ANALYSIS

Data was recorded on the following variables.

Primary factors:

1. Water Type
2. VA Treatment
3. Stem Trimming

Time measurements:

4. Date-time stems were cut
5. Date-time stems were immersed
6. Date-time stems had recovered to horizontal

Classification:

7. Stem-holder colour-code
8. Stem sequence number in holder

Other Environmental Factors:7

9. Air and water temperature
10. General weather conditions
11. Lighting conditions

Data was reData was recorded on record sheets and transcribed to a spreadsheet.
When data was occasionally written in the wrong cells in sheets it was obvious
as the experiment proceeded, and all transcription mistakes were able to be
corrected.

Analysis of statistical significance was done first using unpaired two-tailed
homoscedastic t-tests, using accumulated data from multiple trials, with tails
removed. To check the accuracy of the t-test, a program was written to directly
estimate likelihood of results occurring by chance, by simulating 2,000-4,000
random combinations of data samples. This empirical estimate of significance was
usually about 10% weaker than the t-test, showing the t-test is a good estimate.

Effect sizes (Cohens D) and normalised average effects are reported. Histograms
of ordered recovery time data provide the best visual presentation of the
effects. P-values on one-tailed t-tests are shown in the initial summary, Table
2. Two-tailed tests are given in the more detailed analysis tables.

Tails occurred because some stems fail to recover at all, or fail to recover in
a reasonable time, and are abandoned. This depends on the degree of wilting and
other conditions. Almost all moderately wilted stems in ordinary water recover
(90%) within 100 minutes or so, and most trials were stopped after about 120-180
minutes.

More generally, trials were usually stopped when only a few stems remained
(<10%) and showed no further immediate signs of recovery. These represent
outliers and stopping the experiment at this point is a practical method of
excluding outliers. Almost all stems will recover given enough time, but some
take 3-6 hours. A few will not recover at all. Some trials were followed for 12
hours to examine outliers.

The frequency distributions are heterogenous, and show overlaid cyclic modes.
The distributions made by combining multiple experiments are not very Gaussian,
being a much flatter heterogenous assemblage, with one large mode and subsequent
smaller modes. The t-test is not strictly valid since the distributions are not
very normal, but it proves quite robust in practise, shown by good agreement
with the empirical significance tests. The latter are theoretically more
accurate, but as the t-test is simple and widely used, the t-test p-values are
given, and represent a consistency check against the empirical method.

EXPERIMENTS

Initial trials (at Takaka and Lower Hutt, November-December 2014) were used to
develop the method and test for effects. The main experiments reported here were
conducted in December 2014-January 2015 at the Thompson farm, Te Kuiti. Twelve
main treatment variations were tested.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2. List of experiments, with treatments compared.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3. Main Experiment Trial Counts: BORE and BORE + GRIT, Te Kuiti.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4. Secondary Experiments Trial Counts: Rain and Salt Rain, Te Kuiti.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 5. Preliminary Experiments Trial Counts: Trimming, Hutt and Takaka.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

** This paper does not investigate claims made by product manufacturers.

Only the first experiment has a variation of trimming, and subsequent
experiments all used trimmed stems (except some initial trials at Takaka).
Experiments numbered 1 – 12 are reported in the Results section next. I note
here that Experiment 2 represents the primary positive effect.

Additional analysis of Experiment 2 breaks out wilting degree as a factor.

Experiment 2: BORE + GRIT: VA BOTH versus VA NONE

* 2a. Light – Medium wilted sample
* 2b. Severely wilted sample
* 2c. Very Severely Wilted sample

VA treatment affects revival rates, i.e. proportion of samples revived, as well
as times, and this is seen with severely wilted samples, where revival rates are
lower.

Analysis is for data with tails removed. ∆t is the difference between treated
and untreated times. Cells show average dif-ference in revival time (∆t/Avg(t)),
effect size (∆t/StDev(t)), and p value (1-tailed t-test in this table).
Experiments 1, 2, 3, 4 are highly significant. Experiment 10 is weakly
significant. Experiment 9 has weak significance (only 0.17 on a two-tailed
test).

These two earlier experiments are less reliable, as the method was still being
refined.

RESULTS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 6. Summary of effects for ten experiments at Te Kuiti with 1-tailed
t-tests.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 7. Effects for the two preliminary experiments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Result Experiments 1-4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1. Experiments 1 – 4. The first four experiments have strong-medium
effects.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Experiment 1 shows the strong effect of stem trimming.

Experiment 2 shows the strong effect of VA Both treatment when used with grit
water, a 26% average improvement, with 15 min decrease in times.

Experiment 3 shows the VA Both treatment beats VA Water treatment by 13% on
average, about 6 mins decrease in times.

Experiment 4 shows the negative effect of the grit when added to the bore water.
It slows revival by 24% on average, about 14 minutes per stem.

Experiment 2 might first be suspected to work by some chemical process of
nullifying the effect of the grit. But the VA treatment of the grit water alone
(in Experiment 3 and 6) does not have the same effect. Other experiments below
also show no clear advantage to the VA Water treatment alone, or to the VA Stems
treatment alone.

Result Experiments 5-8

Figure 2. Experiments 5-8. These four experiments showed weak or no effects.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The two noteworthy points shown here are: (a) the EM treatment only appears to
work with water containing impurities (grit), and (b) the EM treatment does not
appear to have its distinct positive effect unless both stem and water are
treated together. Treating either water or stem separately with VA slows down
revival slightly, in the period of about 40 to 100 minutes.

Result Experiments 9-12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 3. Experiments 9-12. These four experiments show strong-medium effects.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VA Both treatment for clean rain water had a small retardation effect, the same
as for VA Stems treatment. Given the addition of (50 mls) of salt to the clean
rain water, the VA Both treatment improved revival by 14%, or about 6 minutes,
with the effect coming into play after about 30-40 minutes. The Hutt and Takaka
samples were early in the process, but are included for completeness (especially
as the Takaka experiment initially appeared anomalous). The Hutt sample in
experiment 11 was the first time the positive effect was seen. The Takaka sample
in experiment 12 was the first set of trials, and only water was treated, not
stems in water. This shows a negative effect of the VA Water treatment, similar
to experiment 6. This should only happen if the Takaka water is receptive to the
EM treatment. It is concluded that failure to treat the stems results in slowing
the revival, at least initially.

Experiment 1 Detail. Stems Trimmed versus Untrimmed

This detail is shown to emphasise that the statistical data does not include the
data in the tails. In this case, the effect took only 21 trials to become
evident. Additional trials were not done, as the effect is well known, and it
was not the purpose to investigate it. To illustrate the tails, the full data
for this case is shown in Supplement 2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 4. Experiment 1. Trimmed versus Untrimmed Stems.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 8. Summary for Experiment 1.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wilting Periods

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 9. Wilting periods for trials of VA Both against VA None in Bore + Grit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We next consider the variation in the pattern between using light-medium wilted
stems, severely wilted stems, and severely wilted stems, for the previous
experiment. The range of wilting periods for the experimental treatment is shown
below.

The influence of wilting period on revival time appears in the following
correlations. This also shows the correlations of revival times of individual
paired stems.

The variations are broken down in the next three sections, showing results
separately for light-medium wilting, severe wilting, and very severe wilting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 10. Correlations with wilting periods for trials of VA Both against VA
None.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Experiment 2 Detail. Bore + Grit : VA Both

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 5. Bore + Grit: VA Both versus VA None, combining light, medium and
severely wilted samples, excluding the very severely wilted sample.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 11. Summary for Experiment 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This represents multiple daily experiments (221 trials). This excludes the very
severe wilting trial, presented separately below, but includes all trials of VA
Both against VA None using the BORE + GRIT water. Daily experiments consistently
showed a similar pattern. Using the BORE + GRIT water, and treating both water
and stems with VA, speeds up the revival by about 28% on average, with an effect
size of 0.41. This is a large effect, and very highly significant (p = 0.0001).
Data was accumulated over 8 separate days of experiments. It appears that VA
treatment makes no difference for approximately the first 20 minutes, and the
effect becomes progressively more pronounced for stems that take longer to
revive. The VA treatment has a large effect on the tail – 34 stems failed to
recover with VA treatment, versus 52 without VA treatment. The tail is too long
to show here, but includes significant numbers of very long wilting periods,
because some of the experiments used severely wilted flowers.

This is the main positive result. It first became evident in the Lower Hutt
trials in December 2014, but that data is not combined here as the water type
was different.

Experiment 2a. Light-Medium Wilting: VA Both versus VA None

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 6. BORE + GRIT Water: VA Both versus VA None, Light-Medium Wilting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Experiment 2b. Severe Wilting: VA Both versus VA None

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 12. Summary for Experiment 2a.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The treatment effect is highly significant, and still quite pronounced, with 19%
change in average time, and effect size of 0.33. However it is much less than
the 28% change and 0.41 effect size for the full sample. Revival times are
generally shorter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 7. BORE + GRIT Water: VA Both versus VA None, Severe Wilting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 13. Summary for Experiment 2b.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a sample of severely wilted stems, wilted between 19-27 hours. The
effect of VA treatment is stronger for these than light-medium-wilted stems,
with 32% (versus 19%) average difference, and 0.48 (versus 0.33) effect size. VA
successfully revives multiple stems that do not recover at all without VA
treatment. This is seen in the tail, with 24 failed revivals with VA (22%), but
35 without VA (33%).

Experiment 2c. Very Severe Wilting: VA Both versus VA None

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 8. BORE + GRIT Water: VA Both versus VA None, Very Severe Wilting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 14. Summary for Experiment 2c.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The revival times are very long, and the untreated sample is now being dominated
by stems that fail to revive: 54% of the untreated sample and 33% of the treated
sample. The tails are left in as gaps (0 values) in the graph above to emphasise
this. The dominance of these tails means that the statistical description used
previously in no longer very meaningful. The difference between treatments on
revival counts is significant on a one-tailed test at p = 0.034. Although this
sample is relatively small (37), there appears little doubt about the effect.
The VA treatment effect seems to come into play here after about 200 minutes. As
well as recoding revival times, stems that started to revive but failed to fully
revive in 12 hours were also recorded. The effect of VA in reviving a larger
number of stems is reflected in the counts, graphed below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 9. VA Both versus VA None for very severely wilted sample.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 10. VA Both versus VA None for very severely wilted sample

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The VA treatment apparently helps severely stressed cells recover osmotic
function to build turgor pressure. This indicates a subsequent effect on plant
metabolism.

INTERPRETATION

The VA treatment was found to be effective when the treated water had
impurities, and when the VA treatment was applied to stems and water together.
In this case it significantly increased water transport within the stems. The
effect is most dramatic on severely wilted stems, where the recovery rate
greatly increases, showing it aids highly stressed cells to begin functioning
again. It appears that addition of impurities to the water is necessary for the
treatment to have a strong and immediate effect. Dissolved minerals (salt) alone
produced a significant effect (14%; 6-minute average difference), but impurities
provided by the grit (colloids, larger suspended particles) produced a much
larger effect (25-35%; 15+-minute difference). The cell water in the stems is
rich in salts and minerals, and this may provide a similar enhancement of
effects on stem water. The effects became evident after about 20 minutes. I draw
attention to the following points of interpretation.

* RF treatment notably enhanced water transport in the plants, but only when
the treated water had impurities added, and the effects notably increased
when both the bulk water and the stem water were treated together.
* Adding impurities to the water introduces electrically active particles, but
also introduces micro-bubbles, and this may be a relevant factor.1
* Effects depend not only on the potential of the water solution to interact
with the RF radiation initially, but also on a mechanism to retain effects
from this interaction. Particles and micro-bubbles may play separate roles in
such a process.
* It seems the treatment confers some holistically dependant property, as the
behavior is different when the water is treated separately from the stems.
* It seems likely that the effect on stem revival is mediated by enhanced
osmosis through the cell membrane, as this is a critical process in creating
turgor pressure.
* It seems equally likely that the effect is mediated by enhanced capillary
transport, increasing the flow and availability of water through the vascular
system.
* It appears prima facie that the system does not acquire the state responsible
for enhanced water transport immediately, but develops this state within
about 20 minutes, from the fact that effects were not apparent in the first
20 minutes.
* However, this might simply be due to a relative difference in effects on
fast-reviving stems. Relatively few stems revive in the first 20 minutes, and
those that do are already in a state enabling rapid recovery, so they may be
relatively unaffected by enhanced water transport in this period.
* The primary goal of this experiment was to verify a phenomenon that has been
reported anecdotally, and this was successful.
* The experiment supports water scientists taking such EM treatments seriously
as a topic of fundamental research.
* It also identifies flower revival as a domain where such effects can be
readily detected, and inferred to affect processes of further interest in
their own right.
* Different kind of research is needed to establish effects claimed by
manu-facturers of such water treatment products, i.e. benefits for plant
growth, health, nutrition, fertilization, etc. Such effects may be tested in
field trials, without an understanding of fundamental mechanisms.
* After 20 years or more of controversy, many orthodox water scientists
continue to deny RF water treatment as a real phenomenon, or worthy of
scientific attention, and yet such effects appear readily observable in
simple experiments.

DISCUSSION: EXPLAINING THE PHENOMENON

The goal of science is to provide explanations, not merely to collect evidence
of phenomena. The present results, and many others in the field of RF effects on
water, raise a serious explanatory challenge. I conclude with a brief discussion
of this, and propose a possible explanation. We can separate two parts required
in an explanation of this phenomenon. (1) How does the EM radiation affect the
water properties in the first place? (2) How does this subsequently enhance
water transport in the plant?

On the first question, I first note some basic facts about EM interaction with
water. Pure water strongly absorbs EM radiation only at a few special
frequencies, notably in some microwave and infrared bands that correspond to
natural vibrational resonances of water molecules, and at ultraviolet ionising
frequencies that provides energy sufficient to displace electrons from the lower
orbits of hydrogen or oxygen atoms. These energies are all vastly greater than
those in the RF range. Interaction with EM radiation is much enhanced by the
presence of dissolved minerals like salt (NaCl), or anything that provides a
source of “free” electrically charged particles. Salt water absorbs across the
whole spectrum of EM radiation to a moderate degree, including low-energy radio
waves, but still not efficiently (e.g. sea water is transparent to a significant
depth, only weakly interacting with visible light, and similarly with radio
waves.) We can assume a fraction of the RF radiation interacts with the water
solution, but the mystery is how this energy could produce significant effects.
This frequency has such low energy that it is difficult to see how it could
modify water properties directly. The fact it does so is evident from a range of
pioneering studies, including those surveyed in (Leahy 2000). But I have not
found any convincing explanation of the fundamental mechanism of RF interaction
with water.

There is a related, and even more striking phenomenon recently observed, the
ionization of salt water by RF radiation, discovered by J. Kanzius, a
self-taught inventor, in 2007. In experiments reported in (Roy, Rao, Kanzius,
2008), salted water subject to polarized RF radiation at 13.5 MHz (half the VA
frequency) ionizes sufficiently rapidly to produce enough hydrogen to sustain a
steady flame. Hydro-gen production starts immediately the radiation is applied,
and ceases when it is stopped. The rate of hydrogen production increases with
the NaCl concentration. The only previous method known to ionize water, used by
Faraday in 1831, is to apply a significant voltage (>1.2 V). The RF is far below
the requisite ionizing energy. The total energy that could be transferred from
the RF radiation to the water is far less than required to ionize the hydrogen
in the “burning water” experiment. In the RF water treatment examined here, the
total energy transmission into the water is much less again, as the radiation is
applied for only 20-30 seconds. And the same energy can be applied to somewhat
larger or smaller volumes of water, apparently with the same effect. The effect
is not dependant on the total RF energy density applied to the water.

I infer that the RF radiation does not provide the primary energy in either
phenomenon. As an alternative hypothesis, I suggest it “catalyzes” a process
enabling the water to absorb energy from another source. This source is most
plausibly IR (infra-red) radiation: heat radiation that saturates the
environment, and helps keep the water at an equilibrium temperature. This is
being weakly exchanged with the water in any case, and is integral to
maintaining its thermal equilibrium. IR radiation is vastly more energetic than
the RF radiation being applied. The source might also be microwave radiation,
from the sun, or possibly even CMB (cosmic microwave background radiation),
although this is probably too weak, although relatively energetic. (The CMB
saturates the universe at a temperature of 2.73°C. The energy is in a distinct
black body spectrum, peaking at around 150 GHz, which is some 5,000 times more
energetic than the 27 MHz frequency of the RF radiation.) Wavelengths above
about 20 GHz are absorbed by water in the atmosphere, but there are MW bands at
the Earth’s surface. Finding a consistent source is an important consideration,
as the RF treatment appears consistent, e.g. in sunlight or shade, in which IR
radiation levels vary widely. In any case, there are many EM wavebands from
microwave to infrared that are not already absorbed naturally by water or
atmosphere, and represent significant energy sources.

The hypothesis is that the RF radiation prepares the water solution to absorb
energy from some such more energetic IR or MW radiation source – in wavebands
that are not otherwise naturally prone to absorption. The question is how
absorption could be enhanced by the RF radiation, and how the additional energy
could then be stored in the water. I assume it must be stored without raising
the temperature significantly, or it would be re-radiated or conducted from the
water, returning it to the equilibrium temperature. The effects in question are
not explained by increased temperature, i.e. by adding energy as heat. The
phenomena are not produced just by heating, and the RF treated water temperature
does not differ noticeably from non-treated water. The persisting storage of the
energy in the water is also not by a chemical reaction. While there are some
subtle chemical effects indicated (such as a small increase in peroxides, and
increased solubility of certain compounds), there is no indication that the RF
effects are driven by a chemical process. The only immediate plausibility seems
to be that energy is transferred and stored as electrical potential energy, i.e.
the water becomes statically “charged,” like a battery. This means the absorbed
radiation energy is stored through charge separation. If this is sufficiently
energetic, it can lead to ionization effects.

We must now consider the second part of the explanation: how does the RF water
treatment enhance water transport in the plant? The theory of EZ water
(exclusion zone water), as proposed by (Pollack 2013), has a striking coherence
with the phenomenon being considered here. The EZ theory holds that liquid water
can take on an ordered structure, resembling a crystalline lattice, with H2O
molecules organized in a specific arrangement of hexagonally tiled layers. A key
feature is that water so organized can act as a battery, supporting layers of
separated charges over macroscopic distances. Pollack specifically proposes this
structure to explain storage of energy in water, and believes the energy is
absorbed from the IR spectrum. He argues that this energy plays a critical role
in many common processes, including osmosis and capillary action. Pollack’s
theory is a new synthesis, but as he emphasizes, many of the phenomena and ideas
underpinning it have a much longer history. There is not just strong but
conclusive independent evidence for various supporting phenomena, such as EZ
structures (macroscopic zones that exclude other particles), the capacity of
water to sustain charge separation and act as a battery, existence of complex
large-scale water clusters, and many other phenomena.

For those sceptical of accepting such a heterodox theory as an explanatory
framework, I would emphasize two major strengths of Pollack’s theory. One is its
powerful unification, explaining diverse phenomenon under one common framework.
Many of these phenomena have gone unrecognized in orthodox water science,
precisely because they defy conventional explanations, or contradict an orthodox
paradigm that sees liquid water as incapable of sustaining complex structures.
This orthodox paradigm now seems unsustainable. Direct observations of complex
water structures, and of various anomalous phenomena, are now too widespread to
be denied. This includes the RF treatment phenomenon investigated here. As far
as I can judge, Pollack’s EZ theory is the only explanatory framework that
allows us to make sense of these phenomena.

A second strength is the micro-theory of the molecular arrangement responsible
for creating and sustaining the EZ structure – a concept proposed decades ago by
(Lippincott et alia, 1969) as the structure of “polywater.” This provides a
foundational concept of how EZ states are physically constituted. It turns the
explanatory inference of the role of EZ states into a fully-fledged
micro-theory. The molecular arrangement is the lattice of hexagonally tiled
sheets, offset with each other, as illustrated in (Pollack 2013, Ch. 4). This
simultaneously explains net charge imbalance, regularity of the structure,
extrusion of impurities, and other features. There is direct evidence of such
structures (Pollack 2013, p.57), and this is a fundamental concept that gives
the EZ theory real power and plausibility.

Pollack’s EZ theory provides an ideal framework to make sense of the RF
phenomenon, if we can identify a mechanism for the RF treatment to energize the
water in the first place. I suggest the following kind of mechanism. The RF
treatment produces a preliminary ordering of the H2O molecules into coherent
alignments, that are then able to absorb incidental IR or MW radiation, and
begin to store energy by developing into full EZ structures, accumulating energy
through charge separation. The RF radiation does not have the energy to produce
any significant charge separation itself. But it has sufficient energy to rotate
the water molecules (or larger water clusters, which also act as dipoles; e.g.
(Ho, 2014)), and maintain them in some coherent alignment. Dipoles will rotate
to align with the weak EM field of the RF photons. Rotation of molecules takes
very little energy, compared with that required for charge separation. A slight
tension is induced in the inter-molecular structure, which has weak H-bonding
between molecules. This tensed structure forms planar latices, due to the common
rotation of molecules, over significant distances involving thousands of water
molecules. As the structure assembles, it becomes capable of resonating with
higher-energy IR or MW radiation. The energy of these interactions would
normally be dispersed, but the presence of electrically active particles or ions
or micro-bubbles somehow allows the structures to stabilize as meta-stable
states, and begin development of the persisting EZ structures. It appears that
once such structures begin to crystallize they become self-assembling. Thus the
RF treatment is a catalyst for the reaction.

The general scale of the RF radiation energies and wavelengths, compared to
rotational energies and molecular lattices, appears consistent with this
hypothesis. The RF radiation has a wavelength of about 10 meters. This means
that the electric field of the wave has a consistent direction across the whole
body of water (about 0.1 meter radius) at once, and the EM field lasts for a
significant time as each RF wave passes (10M/c = 3.3 x 10-8 secs), some 1,000 –
1,000,000 times the interaction time with MW or IR light. The rotational energy
of a single water molecule rotating in a polarized EM field with a period of
around 10-8 secs is much less than the energy of RF photons, by a factor of
1,000 or more. It can thus be expected to induce coherent motions, and align
molecules into structures that presumably higher-energy IR photons can interact
with through charge separation. Thus the RF radiation creates micro-structures
the prefigure the EZ structures, and “catalyzes” the water to interact with IR
or MW radiation that it is otherwise transparent to, or has only weak random
thermal interactions with.

Of course this is a speculative hypothesis. Nonetheless I think it is indicated
by the phenomena for the simple reasons that: (i) IR or MW radiation appears as
the only viable candidate for an energy source, and (ii) storage of energy in an
EZ-type structure appears as the only viable candidate to explain subsequent
effects. I should add that such a mechanism does not contradict laws of
thermodynamics, or energy conservation. Energy is being drawn from background EM
radiation. Its conversion from heat into electrical energy stored in the water
is merely being catalysed by the RF radiation. Conversion of radiation into
stored electro-chemical energy is of course achieved by other means, such as
photosynthesis, solar panels, etc. There is no a priori reason, from
thermodynamics or physics, to think radiation energy could not be converted and
stored in inter-molecular electrical energy in a “crystallization” process,
which is what Pollack’s theory essentially proposes.

APPENDIX

Appendix 1 -Measurement Procedure Details

Testing equipment consisted of identical 9.6 litre buckets to immerse the stems,
and 10 specially constructed holders, made from wooden slats with holes drilled
to loosely hold the stems 20 degrees from vertical, and enable accurate
judgement of revival. The holders had plastic backing sheets, to help keep stems
upright in the water, and trim them to a common length. Stems measured 9.5 cm
from the point they entered the top of the holders to the bottom of the backing
sheet. Their complete length additionally includes a curved section (the “hook”)
above the holder, which depends on the point where they bend when wilting. This
varied from about 1-4 cm, and was equivalent for each pair.

After picking a larger number of stems (180-200), they were paired off according
to likeness (wilting degree, wilted stem angle, stem diameter, flower size and
appearance), and one of each pair placed randomly in paired stem-holders.
Pairing the stems and randomising the choice from pairs helps reduce measurement
error or systematic bias. Long straight stems were selected and cut above the
first branching node, and then cut to a common length for wilting. Stems were
trimmed by at least 2 cm, to the uniform length of the plastic backing sheets,
immediately before being placed in water for revival (except in particular
experiments to test the effect of stem trimming itself).

After immersion, all stems were timed until they had straightened to a
horizontal position, which is approximately halfway between the fully wilted
state, and the fully upright state. In time, practically all moderately wilted
stems recover to a vertical position. There is experimental error in judging
when the stem is horizontal, but with some care and practice, and use of plastic
backing sheets to maintain positions, it is possible to judge this quite
accurately enough. The critical factor is that both pairs are judged as revived
by the same criteria.

The criteria used here was that the start of the stems at the flower heads have
to distinctly reach horizontal. This means the face of the flower appears
vertical. Note that this is at a sensitive point where the mechanical leverage
of the head downwards (due to gravity) is greatest. The stem requires
substantial internal cell pressure to raise the weight through this horizontal
stage. Many stems begin to revive, but “stall” for a period of time, at an angle
a little lower than horizontal. The time taken for revival is dependant on the
rate of movement through this stage. This measurement needs to be done carefully
and consistently: stems that “stall” below horizontal must be left until they
re-start movement, and reach true horizontal.

Times were recorded to the closest minute. For most stems (reviving within about
5-60 minutes) this can be judged consistently within 1-2 minutes, as most stems
make a clear transition through the horizontal in a time period of 1-2 minutes.
The resulting standard errors in average times are then expected to be much less
than 1 minute. This gives good measurement reliability, as effects of interest
are in the range of 10+ minute differences in time averages between treatments.
For stems that take a longer time to revive (>100 minutes), measurement
uncertainty increases, to perhaps to 3-5 minutes, and may become 5-10 minutes
for very slow revivers (e.g. >200 minutes).

The domain of slow revivers is more of a concern for measurement reliability,
and of interest for the long-term effects. Data from very slow revivers (forming
the tails of the distributions) is truncated in the analysis of averages. The
experiment is stopped and remaining stems marked as not revived when the
majority have revived, and those remaining show no sign of revival. This
truncates the samples, generally at 150-180 minutes. Some experiments on
severely wilted stems recorded very long times.

Appendix 2 – Data Set Illustrating Tails

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 15. Data set for Experiment 1 with tails.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only one trimmed stem failed to recover in 3 hours, while 7 untrimmed stems
failed, creating tails. The tails are removed starting from the first row of the
first column that has stems that fail to recover (pink cells). We see that not
only is the average time of recovery for trimmed stems much smaller, there are
multiple stems from the untrimmed sample that fail to recover in the allowed
time whereas only one trimmed stem failed to recover. Hence the effect is
stronger than the data with tails removed indicates. This was generally the case
with all positive effects using VA treatment.

Appendix 3 – Energy and Velocity Scales

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 16. Frequencies, wavelengths and energies for typical EM radiation. This
illustrates typical energies of EM radiation in various bands, for comparison
with the RF radiation in the experiment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES

Chibowski, E., and Holysz, L., Colloids Surf. A 101, 99 (1995). “Effect of a
radiofrequency electric field on the zeta potential of some oxides.”

Colic, M. and Morse, D., Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 200, 265–272
(1998). ARTICLE NO. CS975367. “Effects of Amplitude of the Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic Radiation on Aqueous Suspensions and Solutions.”

Cosgrove, D.J. (1993). Int. J. Plant Sci. 154(1):10-21. “Water uptake by growing
cells. An assessment of the controlling roles of water relaxation, solute uptake
and hydraulic conductance.”

Darragh, A. (2009) The Facts of Light. p. 52-53. Booklink

De Ninno A., Del Giudice E., Gamberale L., Congiu Castellano A. (2014) Water
Journal. Vol 6. “The Structure of Liquid Water Emerging from the Vibrational
Spectroscopy: Interpretation with QED Theory.”

Elgimabi, M.N. and O.K. Ahmed, Botany Research International 2 (3): 164-168,
(2009). “Effects of Bactericides and Sucrose-Pulsing on Vase Life of Rose Cut
Flowers (Rosa hybirida)”.

Ellingsrud, S. and Johnsson, A. (1993). Bioelectromagnetics 14:275-271.
“Perturbations; of plant leaflet rhythms caused by electromagnetic
radiofrequency radiation.”

Ho, M-W. (2014). Water Journal. Vol 6. “Large Supramolecular Water Clusters
Caught on Camera – A Review.” http://www.waterjournal.org/volume-6/ho

Higashitani1, K. and Oshitani, J., Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 204,
363–368 (1998) ARTICLE NO. CS985590 “Magnetic Effects on Thickness of Adsorbed
Layer in Aqueous Solutions Evaluated Directly by Atomic Force Microscope.”

Leahy, J.J., Macken, C. and Ryan, M., Journal of Colloid and Interface Science
225, 209-213 (2000). “The Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on
the Adhesion Behavior of Aqueous Suspensions.”

Lippincott, E.R., Stromberg, R.R., Grant, W.H. Cessac, G.L. (1969). “Polywater.”
Science 164: 1482-1487.

Krizaj, D. and Valencic. V. (1989). J. Bioelectricity 8(2): 159-165. “The effect
of ELF magnetic fields and temperature on differential plant growth.”

McQueen M. S. & Cosgrove, D.J. (1994). Proc. Natl. Acad Sci. USA. 91:6574-6578.
“Disruption of hydrogen bonding between plant cell polymers by proteins that
induce wall extension.”

Morse, D., et al., U.S. Patent 5,606,273 (1997).

O’Kiely, P and O’Riordan, E., “Qualitative and Quantitative effects of Vi-Aqua
activated water on the germination and growth of Lolium Perenne”. (1998).
Reproduced in Web Ref. 6, pp. 14-40.

Onsager, L., Phys.Rev. 37: 405 (1931).

Phitke, P. S., Kubde, A. B. and Umbarkar, S. P. (1996). Seed Sci. & Technol.
24:375-392. “The influence of magnetic fields on plant growth.”

Pollack, G. (2013) The Fourth Phase of Water. Ebner and Sons. Seattle.

Prigogine, I. And Stengers, I. (1984). Order Out of Chaos. William Heinmann Ltd.
London.

Roy, R., Rao, M. L. and Kanzius, J. (2008). “Observations of polarised RF
radiation catalysis of dissociation of H2O–NaCl solutions.” Materials Research
Innovations. VOL 12 NO 1.

WEB REFERENCES

http://www.viaqua.com/

http://www.viaqua.com/how-it-works/

http://espwaterproducts.com/

https://austindarragh.wordpress.com/viaqua-com-technology-description/

https://austindarragh.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/introducing-the-fourth-state-of-plasma-in-water/

http://www.viaqua.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Askin-full-report.pdf

http://www.viaqua.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Full-Scientific-Doc-Proof.pdf

http://www.chem1.com/CQ/gallery.html

http://www.chem1.com/CQ/aquacrack.html#VIAQ

http://sciencefocus.com/forum/water-energising-technology-t702.html

http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2013/09/vi-aqua-turning-water-into-snake-oil/

http://www.skeptical-science.com/science/daft-claim-viaqua-device-water-wetter-increases-output-vegetables-fruits-30-cent/

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/wave-goodbye-to-global-warming-gm-and-pesticides-29525621.html

http://www.rexresearch.com/darraghviaqua/darragh.htm

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6974561
(Thomason patent 2001/2005 6,974,561).

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=24&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6,974,561&OS=6,974,561&RS=6,974,561
(Alternative patent 2001/20077,291,314).

http://identifythatplant.com/dandelion-and-cats-ear/

http://www.viaqua.com/testimonials/

FOOTNOTES

1. Thanks go to two referees for WATER journal who made valuable suggestions.
Thanks go to Vera Scott for discussions suggesting this experiment. Thanks to
Peter and Monica Rudolf and Bev and Gary Thompson for support and accommodation
during various trials.

2. See Web Refs 14, 15, 16 for other patents. The Morse patent (2007) claims
that: “An apparatus subjects water to waves from an RF plasma. This allows
continuous production of ‘activated water’ characterized by cluster sizes below
about 4 molecules per cluster, water having pH below 4 or above 10, or water
having ORP of less than -350 mV or more than +800 mV. The basic frequency of the
plasma is preferably between 0.44 MHz and 40.68 MHz, and the plasma is
preferably modulated at a frequency between 10 kHz and 34 kHz. Flow rates
typically range from 20 l/hr to about 2000 l/hr. Activated water can be used for
many purposes …”

3. E.g. Morse 1997, Colic and Morse 1998, Leahy 2000, Darraugh 2013.

4. Lower tells us in a broad generalization covering numerous unrelated
products: “In these cases [specifically including ViAqua] there is no reason,
based on present scientific knowledge, to believe that they even can work… the
way they claim to work is not supported by or consistent with the known laws of
chemistry and physics.” (Web Ref 13).

In (Web Ref 9):

“As usual, no credible supporting evi-dence is offered for the benefits of this
‘proven’ device, said to have been developed in Ireland by two Limerick
University professors, but more likely by a troupe of leprechauns. For more of
this malarky, see this ‘news’ article ‘Wave goodbuy to global warming, GM, and
pesticides.’ (Web Ref 13).

5. The experiment was prompted by a discussion with Vera Scott, of Scott
Biotechnology Ltd, North Canterbury, NZ, who observed that Vi~Aqua helps revive
wilted flowers, notably English bluebells. Bluebells were not available for the
experiment. The Vi~Aqua web-site claims that Vi~Aqua “increases the life of cut
flowers.” For a reference to flower wilting science, see (Elgimabi and O.K.
Ahmed 2009). The choice of catsear was important to the success of the
experiment. Catsear is similar to the “true dandelion” (Taraxacum officinale),
but has longer straighter wiry stems, ideal to monitor for wilting, and grows in
large numbers in pasture. Catsears have more wiry stems than true dandelions, as
well as branching stems, hairy leaves, and grow much more prolifically. Catsears
are often referred to as false dandelions, and often confused with dandelions.
See Web Ref 17 to distinguish the two species.

6. The rain water and bore water are good quality drinking water, clear of
significant impurities. The grit is a fine whitish sandy earth found on the
farm, used to fill holes in the farm roads. The exact composition is yet to be
determined. Mixed with water it initially generates a soapy looking froth, which
disappears with settling. The settled water loses all appearance of cloudiness,
and a majority of the grit settles no the bottom after about 4 hours. The BORE +
GRIT water was tested in a larger concentrations (200 ml per bucket). This
slowed revival so severely it was not used.

7. These appear unrelated to the pheno-menon, and were controlled as follows.
Air temperature was 16-28 C, water temperature 18-26 C, weather was fine and
warm, experiments were at least 1 day after rain, in ambient light on a porch or
room with large windows.

8. Colic and Morse (1997) claim that micro-bubbles are the receptor for EM
effects: “In this work, we present evidence that the primary ‘‘receptor’’ of the
electromagnetic radiation is a gas / liquid interface. Gas can be either already
present in water or produced by the effects of electromagnetic fields. Perturbed
gas / liquid interfaces re-quire hours to equilibrate. Certain RF and magnetic
signals also produce reactive oxygen and hydrogen species (superoxide, hydrogen
peroxide, hydro-gen, atomic hydrogen). The perturbed gas/liquid interface
modifies the hydro-gen bonding networks in water and also the hydration of ions
and interfaces. Careful outgassing removes all of the effects of the
electromagnetic fields, including the magnetic memory effect.”

They claim the RF treatment depends upon the presence of micro-bubbles.

“[Colic and Morse] realized that out-gassing the water after EMF treatment
completely removed any effects of the treatment. When working with RF and
microwave fields, it was also concluded that preliminary outgassing of water
prevented the EMF effects on the behavior of suspensions and solutions. Detailed
studies of the gas/liquid interface (18) revealed that it is the primary target
of the EMF action and the memory effect. Gas/liquid interfaces seem to relax
much more slowly than pure water when perturbed.” (Colic and Morse, 1997, p.
266).

waterjournal.org Open in urlscan Pro 192.185.48.142 Public Scan

Form analysis 5 forms found in the DOM

GET https://waterjournal.org/

GET https://waterjournal.org/

GET https://waterjournal.org/

GET https://waterjournal.org/

GET https://waterjournal.org/

Text Content

waterjournal.org Open in urlscan Pro
192.185.48.142 Public Scan

Form analysis
5 forms found in the DOM