effects of vi~aqua on revival of wilted flowers1 · 1 effects of vi~aqua on revival of wilted...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Effects of Vi~Aqua on Revival of Wilted Flowers1
Andrew Holster*
ATASA Research, New Zealand
Correspondence Email: [email protected]
Correspondence Address: 93 Omaru Rd., RD3, Te Kuiti, New Zealand.
Key Words: RF water treatment, EM water treatment, Vi Aqua, flower wilting,
magnetic water memory
Draft: 8 Feb 2015, Te Kuiti, New Zealand.
Introduction.
There are a number of commercial devices available, designed to apply
electromagnetic radiation (EM) at distinct radio frequencies (RF) into water, with
claims of beneficial effects on growth and health of plants using the water2. However
there is scepticism in scientific circles that such RF treatments can affect properties of
water at all. While the treatment method has been known for about twenty years
(Morse 1997)3, there is still no scientific consensus about whether it works, or how it
works. Some scientists have supported the concept4, but others claim the effects are
impossible, and dismiss the products as a fraud5.
This paper reports a series of experiments conducted specifically to test whether such
a treatment can be observed to affect properties of water, through a direct effect on a
plant metabolism. The method was to test EM treated water against untreated water
for effects on the revival from wilting of catsear dandelions (Hypochoeris radicata).
Revival requires turgor pressure to build within cells and return rigidity to the wilted
stems. The RF treatment was applied using a product called the ‘Vi~Aqua PlantMate’
(Web Ref 1). This apparently applies an EM radio wave of approximately 27.5 MH
into a body of water. This choice of product was purely for convenience and
equivalent products are commercially available (E.g. Web ref. 3).
The immediate scientific interest lies in whether this kind of electromagnetic
treatment of water can affect long-lasting properties of water relevant to metabolic
functions of plants at all, rather than in testing a specific product, or in testing broader
product claims about growth enhancement. The experiment was developed as a
simple repeatable method of establishing an effect of the EM treatment on water
properties, by isolating a direct effect on an organic process using the water.
The experiments reported here provide strong evidence of effects on water containing
impurities. There is also evidence of effects on stems alone. It is concluded that the
EM treatment affects properties of the water (including water contained in immersed
stems), and this affects metabolic processes in wilted stems as they re-hydrate and
revive. The mechanisms may variously affect osmosis, capillary action, energy
transfer, and mineral or particle reactions.
Practical interest lies in claims that this water treatment can have benefits for farming
irrigation in horticulture and agriculture. The treated water is claimed to enhance
growth and quality of a range of crops, improve plant health, and reduce fertiliser
needs. Claims of production increases of 10%-30% are made for its application in
various contexts in agriculture and horticulture. Since this would represent large
2
economic benefits, these claims are worth testing from a decision theoretic standpoint,
if a realistic epistemic chance of beneficial effects is supported.6
I stress that this experiment does not establish productivity gains, or beneficial effects
on growth, as claimed by product vendors. Such claims must be tested by different
types of experiments, or field trials. But it shows that the EM treated water has a
direct impact on plant metabolism, and appears beneficial to recovery of stressed
dehydrated plant cells. The experiment supports scientists taking such water
treatments seriously as a topic of fundamental research. Different research is needed
to quantify effects on plant growth, health, nutrition, fertilisation, etc, and beneficial
effects may be verified without an understanding of fundamental mechanisms.
On this note, the experiment is offered in a controversial context. Debunkers have
dismissed the technology as a fraud (Web ref. 9-12), and hold that it is impossible for
RF treatment to have significant effects, or for water to retain structure or properties
or ‘memory’. But review of the literature shows no positive scientific disproof of the
method. Rather complaints are made that manufacturers offer no ‘scientific evidence’,
or the treatment has no ‘scientific credentials’, but this is wrong too. There are a
number of serious published experiments and field trials over the last twenty years.
These range from micro-physical studies showing distinct effects on electromagnetic
properties of water, to long-term effects on plant growth, field trials, and testimonials
by managers about performance in real-life contexts.
Some experiments have been complex and contentious, and water science has been
mired in past controversies7. But the present experiment is conceptually simple, and
shows direct effects of the water treatment on a simple, macroscopic organic system,
occurring on the time scale of an hour. This experiment can be easily reproduced
without complex equipment. It falls between the micro-physical experiments in
physical chemistry that show effects of RF radiation on micro-properties of water, and
macroscopic experiments on plants that look at complex organic growth processes.
Previous studies provide some support for conclusions reached here. RF treatment has
been investigated in multiple studies for its potential to alter electromagnetic
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 theoretical
explanation of effects, and certainly no scientific consensus. There are at least two
basic difficulties in explaining the effects.
One is that water is traditionally 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
EM radiation in question 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 is given by: E = hf, and this is small compared to energies in
chemical bonds, or in visible light. The energy of visible light is about 100 million
times the RF energy. Hence initial scepticism that RF radiation could cause long-
lasting changes in properties of water is natural.
However research raises questions about the conventional micro-theory in many other
areas too. One is research into ‘magnetic memory’ of water and similar phenomenon
(Colic and Morse 1998; Leahy 2000), which led directly to the technology application
itself (Morse Patent 1997).
3
“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 (15). 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 and originators, 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 EM treatment (e.g. in terms of altering zeta
potentials), published in a cluster of scientific papers. There are a couple of dozen
experimental studies on the topic, published mainly in the 1990’s. But this line of
research seems to have faltered after a flurry of work in the 1990’s, without clear
resolution.
Another tradition epitomised by (Pollack 2013), references a number of independent
theories about water structure. Pollack proposes a more radical theory of ‘EZ water’,
heralded explicitly as a revolutionary scientific paradigm shift. Pollack attempts to
integrate a century-old ‘alternative’ tradition of water research with his own novel
theory of ‘EZ water’, in which effects of electrical charge and EM radiation on water
structure play the central role. His (2013) book surveys material of the greatest
interest and pertinence, including theories of osmosis and capillary action. However
Pollack does not explain the specific EM water treatment studied here, or refer to the
cluster of experimental papers referred to above. The understanding of this
phenomenon remains open.
Both these traditions show phenomenon that are appear inexplicable in terms of
conventional theory, and propose concepts that may prove of the greatest relevance.
The present experiment tries to establish macroscopic phenomenon, and to isolate
some of the macroscopic causal conditions responsible for the phenomenon to occur,
not to explain the causes at a fundamental level. It is hoped this data may help in the
physical explanation. The fundamental aim of the experiments however is simply to
address this basic primary question:
Does the radio frequency EM treatment have an effect on properties of water,
lasting a significant period of time, and affecting organic processes?
Method.
The effects of various treatments were measured by the time taken for samples of
wilted flowers to revive.8 The flower chosen for the experiments is the catsear
dandelion (Hypochoeris radicata), which is very similar to the true dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale).9 Catsear was chosen for practical reasons. Blossoms are
available in large numbers growing wild on NZ roadside verges and pastures.
Samples can be selected with long straight wiry stems that are easy to monitor for
recovery from wilting. Stems wilt and revive readily when placed in water, and are
4
quite robust. Preliminary trials, along with some other common NZ flowers, indicated
good promise of effects. This choice was the key to obtaining successful results.
Around 1,500 matched pairs were wilted and revived in the series of experiments
reported here. Up to 74 pairs could be processed each day, in two batches of 37 pairs
each, taken from a single sample of 180-200 stems picked in the morning. There were
variations on this, e.g. to test effects of longer wilting times (up to 2 days between
picking and revival). Effect sizes for stronger effects mean that even a daily
experiment of about this size shows evidence of patterns with moderate statistical
significance. Repetitions of such daily experiments were combined to achieve
statistical confidence, replicate experiments and show more subtle effects.
Effects were found to be dependant on primary factors as follows.
Type of water. The type of water is the critical factor. Six different types of water or
water preparations were studied. Experiments were done on six types of water.
(i) Takaka Water (Takaka household water)
(ii) Hutt Water (Lower Hutt household water)
(iii) Rain Water (Te Kuiti cottage supply for household)
(iv) Bore Water (Te Kuiti farm supply for household and animals)
(v) Grit Bore Water (Te Kuiti bore water with 50 mls of grit added to 9 litres
of water)10
(vi) Salt Rain Water (Te Kuiti rain water with 50 mls of rock salt added to 9
litres of water)
The addition of grit or salt to purer waters (Te Kuiti Rain and Bore) was critical to
produce effects. It was subsequently wondered whether impurities are the active
agent, affected by the EM treatment, and affecting the organic processes in turn, and
whether the water is a neutral agent or carries the properties. Experiments were done
to try to isolate this factor.
VA treatment target. The target of the application of the VA treatment is critical.
Three main VA treatments were used, along with no treatment. The VA was applied
for 30 seconds in all cases.
(i) VA Water only: treating a volume of water with VA, and subsequently
immersing wilted stems to revive.
(ii) VA Stems only: treating the stems with VA in a separate volume of water,
and subsequently immersing them in untreated water to revive.
(iii) VA Both: treating the stems immersed in a volume of water with VA, and
leaving them to revive together.
(iv) VA None: no VA treatment.
These variations help isolate whether the effect is transmitted through the water alone,
or through an effect on the stems alone, or through both in conjunction. E.g. if effects
had been evident with VA treatment of stems, but not with VA treatment of water
alone, one might infer that the effect is not carried through the bulk water, but instead
directly affects the plant cells themselves.
Wilting time and severity. Variations in wilting are important. Individual stems wilt
at different rates, may be wilted for different periods of time, and subsequently revive
at different rates. These are referred to as individual wilting speed, wilting time, and
5
revival time. These variables are related through wilting severity. The more severe the
stage of wilting, the longer the revival time. The faster the stem wilts, the more
quickly its severe wilting stage advances. Hence revival time, the primary
measurement variable, is sensitive to wilting speed and wilting time together. Effects
are also related to specific time periods in the revival process. E.g. effects of treatment
generally do not appear in the first 20 minutes of revival. Most important, flowers that
wilt slowest revive fastest, generally speaking. Flowers that wilt fastest are wilted
more severely in a short time.
The range of wilting severity was controlled by selecting the first 148 early wilters
from picked batches of 180 – 200. The first 74 (37 pairs) of fastest wilters is selected
for the first batch of trials after about 4-6 hours, then the next 74 for the second batch
of trials about 3-5 hours later, using 148 of the total sample of 180 – 200 stems picked
in the batch. Around 30 stems will not wilt suitably, or not have pairs, so 180 stems is
just enough, while 200 stems is a good number to comfortably find 150 pairs of
stems, without using many severely wilted stems in the second batch. (Some
experiments were done on severely wilted stems, and long-term recovery rates). This
means the samples are defined by the picked sample, and ¾’s to 5/6th’s are used from
each picked sample. Pairing off the samples helps reduce measurement error or
systematic bias from picking ‘randomised’ samples.
Stem trimming. Trimming stems immediately before immersion substantially
reduces revival times. All the main experiments use trimmed stems. Stem-trimming
is 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. (Bubbles being thought to slow
capillary action, e.g. Elgimabi and O.K. Ahmed, 2009). However it also seems like
trimming removes a seal that forms at the end of the stem when it is cut. It is
perceived that without trimming, such ‘seals’ have to soften or dissolve before water
can pass freely up the stem.
Other factors that varied between experiments, but not between treatment groups
within experiments, include temperature and sunlight during wilting and revival, and
rainfall prior to picking the flowers. These may have minor effects, but were not
important factors for differentiating the treatment effect. Experimental variations were
not undertaken to test these specifically. Experiments were done on fine days, in the
NZ summer, with water temperatures generally 18-25 C.
Other Factors. Other factors that vary between individual flowers within a single
experiment include stem size, condition and growth-stage of individual flowers. These
are important sources of individual variation: e.g. larger stems often survive and
revive better, and flowers that appear in better condition after wilting (less
dehydrated; more colour in the flowers) generally revive better. These factors were
not themselves the subject of special experimental variation. Rather, flowers were
revived in matched pairs to control for this natural variation between treatments
(reducing measurement error, compared to two simple random selections from the
picked sample). The correlation is roughly r ≈ 0.4 between the paired revival times
across all the experiments collected here. A range of sizes and conditions was used,
but individual variations among flowers is reduced by choosing mainly medium-sized
flowers with long straight stems.
6
Procedure.
Catsear dandelion stems with healthy flowers were cut, and allowed to wilt for
varying periods ranging from about three hours to two days, then revived by
immersion of stems in buckets of water, and revival times recorded. Stems were
paired according to similarity in appearance (degree of wilting, etc), and in each
individual trial, one stem from each pair was subjected to one treatment, and another
to the alternative treatment.
Stems were wilted until they drooped to an angle of 100 – 180 degrees and became
rubbery. Stems were wilted vertically in simple holders, consisting of lengths of wood
with rows of small holes drilled to hold the stems standing upright. Stems were
revived in special holders, placed over buckets of water, with treated samples (A) in
one set of buckets, and untreated samples (B) in the second set. ‘Untreated’ here just
means an alternative treatment, not necessarily a lack of VA treatment.
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 at a standardised angle, and enable accurate judgement of revival up to
a standard angle. Stems were held at a 20 degree slant from vertical. Four pairs of
identical holders were colour-coded red, yellow, blue and green, and held seven stems
each, numbered 1-7. An additional pair were white, and held nine stems each,
numbered 1-9. These had transparent plastic backing sheets, to keep stems vertical,
and trim to a common length.
Each comparison of two stems is referred to as a single trial. A single experiment is a
set of trials, performed simultaneously, with a common treatment, and using a
common source of stems. Such single experiments were ideally conducted on 37 pairs
of stems at a time, using all five pairs of holders. Two such single experiments could
be conducted in a day, and combined to give one experiment with a range of wilting
times, and using the full range of the picked sample.
Treatments were always tested pair-wise. There is no effective concept of an average
time for revival relative to a given treatment, since revival times depend on wilting
time and severity, stem sizes, temperature, etc, which are not controllable.
This means that all treatment comparisons are mutually independent, i.e. data from
one comparison is not reused in another comparison.
After picking a larger number of stems (180-200), stems were paired according to
likeness (wilting degree, wilted stem angle, stem size, flower appearance), and one of
each pair placed randomly in the paired stem holders. Long straight stems were
picked above the first branching node, and cut to a common length for wilting. Stems
were trimmed by at least 2 cm to the common 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).11
After immersion, all stems were timed until they straightened to a horizontal position,
which is approximately half-way between the fully wilted state, and the fully upright
state. In time, practically all moderately wilted stems recover to a vertical state. 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
7
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 then 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.
Data and Analysis.
Data was recorded on the following.
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.
9. First or second wilting
Other Environmental Factors:
10. Air temperature
11. Water temperature
12. General weather conditions.
Data was initially recorded in a notebook and transcribed to an Excel spreadsheet.
When data was occasionally written in the wrong place in the record sheets, it was
8
always obvious as the experiment proceeded, and all transcription mistakes of this
kind were 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 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.
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. Moderately wilted stems in ordinary water almost all 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 may take 3-6 hours. A few will
not recover at all. Some trials were followed through 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
much flatter, a 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. Note that the significance results are usually
conservative, since the tails removed from the data generally strengthen the effects.
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. The Te
Kuiti experiments provided strong evidence of effects, and allowed anomalies to be
related to variations in treatments. Twelve main treatment variations were tested.
Table 1. List of Experimental Treatments.
Experiment TREATMENT A TREATMENT B
1 Bore Trimmed Bore Untrimmed
2 GRIT_BORE VA_BOTH GRIT_BORE VA_NONE
3 GRIT_BORE VA_BOTH GRIT_BORE VA_WATER
4 GRIT_BORE VA_NONE BORE VA_NONE
5 GRIT_BORE VA_STEMS GRIT_BORE VA_NONE
6 GRIT_BORE VA_WATER GRIT_BORE VA_NONE
9
7 BORE VA_BOTH BORE VA_NONE
8 BORE VA_WATER BORE VA_NONE
9 RAIN VA_BOTH RAIN VA_NONE
10 SALT_RAIN VA_BOTH SALT_RAIN VA_NONE
11 HUTT_WATER VA_BOTH HUTT_WATER VA_NONE
12 TAKAKA VA_WATER TAKAKA VA_NONE
Trial counts are as follows.
Table 2. Main Experiment Trial Counts: Bore and Grit Bore, Te Kuiti.
COUNTS TREATMENT B
TREATMENT A BORE VA_NONE
GRIT_BORE VA_NONE
GRIT_BORE VA_WATER Grand Total
BORE VA_BOTH 37 37
BORE VA_WATER 74 74
GRIT_BORE VA_BOTH 258 100 358
GRIT_BORE VA_NONE 259 259
GRIT_BORE VA_STEMS 93 93
GRIT_BORE VA_WATER 135 135
Grand Total 370 486 100 956
Table 3. Secondary Experiments Trial Counts: Rain and Salt Rain, Te Kuiti.
COUNTS TREATMENT B
TREATMENT A RAIN VA_NONE
SALT_RAIN VA_NONE
RAIN VA_BOTH 130
SALT_RAIN VA_BOTH 148
Table 4. Preliminary Experiments Trial Counts: Trimming, Hutt and Takaka.
COUNTS TREATMENT B
TREATMENT A Bore Untrimmed
HUTT VA_NONE
TAKAKA VA_NONE
Bore Trimmed 21
HUTT VA_BOTH 35
TAKAKA VA_STEMS 137
The key factors are the type of water used and the type of VA treatment used. Only the
first experiment has a different type of treatment (trimming), which has a strong
positive effect. 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. Grit Bore water showed strong
effects of VA treatment, whereas clean Rain and Bore water showed no significant
effects. Additional analysis breaks out wilting degree as a factor.
Experiment 2a. Grit Bore + VA Both versus Grit Bore, with Moderate Wilting
Experiment 2b. Grit Bore + VA Both versus Grit Bore, with Severe Wilting
Experiment 2c. Grit Bore + VA Both versus Grit Bore, with Very Severe Wilting
Severely wilted stems take longer to revive, and a greater proportion fail to revive.
VA treatment has an effect not only on improving revival times but on improving
revival rates.
10
Results.
Table 5. Effects for ten experiments at Te Kuiti.12
Experiment TREATMENT A (Effect sizes)
TREATMENT B (p values) Data Total
1 Bore Trimmed Bore Untrimmed Average of Treated_Time 33.8
Average of Untreated_Time 91.2
t/Avg(t) = 92% Average of Time_Diff 57.4
t/StDev(t) = 0.97 p-value = 0.0008 StdDev of Untreated_Time 59.5
2 GRIT_BORE VA_BOTH
GRIT_BORE VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 51.0
Average of Untreated_Time 66.3
26% Average of Time_Diff 15.3
0.33 0.0001 StdDev of Untreated_Time 46.5
3 GRIT_BORE VA_BOTH
GRIT_BORE VA_WATER Average of Treated_Time 40.0
Average of Untreated_Time 45.5
13% Average of Time_Diff 5.5
0.14 0.0001 StdDev of Untreated_Time 40.7
4 GRIT_BORE VA_NONE BORE VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 65.2
Average of Untreated_Time 51.3
-24% Average of Time_Diff -14.0
-0.44 0.0000 StdDev of Untreated_Time 32.0
5 GRIT_BORE VA_STEMS
GRIT_BORE VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 69.8
Average of Untreated_Time 69.9
0% Average of Time_Diff 0.1
0.00 0.4961 StdDev of Untreated_Time 49.8
6 GRIT_BORE VA_WATER
GRIT_BORE VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 59.0
Average of Untreated_Time 54.8
-7% Average of Time_Diff -4.2
-0.07 0.2731 StdDev of Untreated_Time 58.1
7 BORE VA_BOTH BORE VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 48.4
Average of Untreated_Time 49.6
2% Average of Time_Diff 1.1
0.03 0.4482 StdDev of Untreated_Time 36.7
8 BORE VA_WATER BORE VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 74.4
Average of Untreated_Time 72.4
-3% Average of Time_Diff -2.0
-0.05 0.3989 StdDev of Untreated_Time 44.4
9 RAIN VA_BOTH RAIN VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 39.6
Average of Untreated_Time 35.2
-12% Average of Time_Diff -4.3
-0.20 0.0831 StdDev of Untreated_Time 21.6
10 SALT_RAIN VA_BOTH
SALT_RAIN VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 37.9
Average of Untreated_Time 43.8
14% Average of Time_Diff 5.8
0.18 0.0532 StdDev of Untreated_Time 31.6
11
Table 6. Effects for the two preliminary experiments.
11 HUTT_WATER VA_BOTH
HUTT_WATER VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 33.3
Average of Untreated_Time 42.7
25% Average of Time_Diff 9.4
0.47 0.0320 StdDev of Untreated_Time 19.8
12 TAKAKA VA_WATER TAKAKA VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 73.5
Average of Untreated_Time 59.1
-22% Average of Time_Diff -14.4
-0.36 0.0179 StdDev of Untreated_Time 40.0
Results Experiments 1-4.
0
50
100
150
200
1 3 5 7 9
11
13
15
17
19
21
1. minsBore TrimmedBore Untrimmed
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1
25
49
73
97
121
145
169
193
217
241
2. minsGRIT_BORE VA_BOTHGRIT_BORE VA_NONE
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1
10
19
28
37
46
55
64
73
82
91
100
3. minsGRIT_BORE VA_BOTHGRIT_BORE VA_WATER
0
50
100
150
200
250
1
25
49
73
97
121
145
169
193
217
241
4. minsGRIT_BORE VA_NONEBORE VA_NONE
Figure 1. Experiments 1 – 4. The first four experiments have strong-medium effects.
Experiment 2 shows the strong effect of VA Both treatment used with grit, a 26%
average improvement, with 15 min decrease in times.
Experiment 3 shows the VA Both treatment still outperforms VA Water treatment by
13% average, about 6 mins decrease in times. I.e. VA Both has a greater effect than
using VA Water only.
Experiment 4 shows the negative effect of the grit when used with the bore water. It
slows revival by 24% average, about 14 minutes per stem.
Experiment 2 might first be thought to nullify the effect of the grit. But the EM
treatment of the grit water alone (in Experiment 3 and 6) does not have the same
12
effect. Other experiments below also show no clear advantage to the VA Water
treatment alone, or to the VA Stems treatment alone.
Results Experiments 5-8.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1 5 9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
8. minsBORE VA_BOTHBORE VA_NONE
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 8
15
22
29
36
43
50
57
64
71
7. minsBORE VA_WATERBORE VA_NONE
0
50
100
150
200
250
1
10
19
28
37
46
55
64
73
82
91
5. mins GRIT_BORE VA_STEMSGRIT_BORE VA_NONE
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1
14
27
40
53
66
79
92
105
118
131
6. minsGRIT_BORE VA_WATERGRIT_BORE VA_NONE
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.
13
Results Experiments 9–12.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 5 9
13
17
21
25
29
33
11. minsHUTT_WATER VA_BOTHHUTT_WATER VA_NONE
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1
13
25
37
49
61
73
85
97
109
121
9. mins
RAIN VA_BOTHRAIN VA_NONE
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1
15
29
43
57
71
85
99
113
127
141
10. minsSALT_RAIN VA_NONESALT_RAIN VA_BOTH
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1
14
27
40
53
66
79
92
105
118
131
12. minsTAKAKA VA_WATERTAKAKA VA_NONE
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 clear negative effect of VA Water, 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.
14
Experiment 1 Detail. Stems Trimmed versus Untrimmed
Bore Water: Trimmed versus Untrimmed Stems
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Individual stems, ordered by revival time
Reviv
al
tim
e (
min
s)
A Treated Time: Trimmed
B Untreated Time: Untrimmed
Figure 4. Experiment 1. Trimmed versus Untrimmed Stems.
Table 7. Summary for Experiment 1.
Summary statistics for revival times A Treated B Untreated
Dec 2014 Bore Water, Stems Trimmed
Bore Water, Stems Untrimmed
Two-tailed p-values: T-test and empirical estimate 0.0013 0.0013
Sample Count Used: 14 14
Full Sample Count: 21 21
Average (mins) 33.8 91.2
Avg Difference: B - A 57.4
Standard Deviation 14.9 59.5
StDev ALL 51.6
Effect Size:(B - A)/StDevAll 1.11
Avg Effect: (B - A)/Avg All 92%
Null Tail Counts: 1 7
Null Tail % of Sample 5% 33%
Null tails Tails removed from sample:
Tail A Tail B
1 56
2 57
3 75
4 115
5 134
6 157
7
This is shown in detail 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 because the general effect is well known. To illustrate the tails,
the full data in this case is as follows:
15
Table 8. Full data set for Experiment 1 with tails.
A_Treated_Time_Trimmed B_Untreated_Time_Untrimmed
11 23
14 31
15 35
24 39
25 45
27 53
35 68
38 70
39 101
40 125
44 167
50 170
55 170
56 180
Tail A Tail B
56
57
75
115
134
157
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 as
well.
16
Experiment 2 Detail. Grit Bore VA Both
Grit Bore Water: VA Both versus No VA
Light, Medium and Severe Wilting
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 9
17
25
33
41
49
57
65
73
81
89
97
105
113
121
129
137
145
153
161
169
Individual stems, ordered by revival time
Reviv
al
tim
e (
min
s)
A Treated Time: Grit Bore + VA BOTH
B Untreated Time: Grit Bore, No VA
Figure 5. Grit Bore Water with VA Both versus VA None.
Table 9. Summary for Experiment 2.
Summary statistics for revival times A Treated B Untreated
Dec 2014 Grit Bore Water + VA BOTH
Grit Bore Water: VA None
Two-tailed p-values: T-test and empirical estimate 0.0001 0.0000
Sample Count Used: 169 169
Full Sample Count: 221 221
Average (mins) 49.0 65.2
Avg Difference: B - A 16.2
Standard Deviation 29.4 46.4
StDev ALL 39.6
Effect Size:(B – A)/StDevAll 0.41
Avg Effect: (B - A)/Avg All 28%
Null Tail Counts: 35 52
Null Tail % of Sample 16% 24%
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 Te Kuiti grit bore water. Daily experiments consistently showed a
similar pattern. Using the grit bore 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
17
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 times, because some of the experiments used severely wilted flowers.
This is the main positive result. It first became evident in the Lower Hutt trials, Dec
2014, but that data is not combined here as the water type was different.
Wilting Times.
We now consider the variation in the pattern between using light-moderately wilted
stems, severely wilted stems, and severely wilted stems, for the previous experiment.
The range of wilting times for the experimental treatment is shown below.
Table 10. Wilting times for trials of VA Both against VA None in Grit Bore.
Wilting Time (Mins) Hours Count of Trials Severity
135 2 7 Light wilting: 2 - 6 hours
240 4 7
243 4 7
255 4 14
258 4 28
310 5 7
325 5 7 77
423 7 7 Medium wilting: 6 - 18 hours
450 8 14
705 12 7
720 12 9
972 16 14 51
1130 19 16 Severe wilting: 18 - 30 hours
1190 20 21
1193 20 28
1625 27 28 93
2690 45 37 Very Severe wilting: > 30 hours
37
Total Count: 258 258
The influence of wilting time on revival time appears in the following correlations.
This also shows the correlations of revival times of individual paired stems.
Table 11. Correlations with wilting times for trials of VA Both against VA None.
R Wilting Time Revival Time A Revival Time B
Wilting Time 1 0.57 0.50
Revival Time A 1 0.37
Revival Time B 1
The variations are broken down in the next three sections, showing results separately
for light-moderately wilting, severe wilting, and very severe wilting.
18
Experiment 2a. Light-Moderate Wilting: VA Both versus VA None
Grit Bore Water: VA Both versus No VA
Light - Medium Wilting
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1401 6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
101
106
Individual stems, ordered by revival time
Reviv
al
tim
e (
min
s)
A Treated Time: Grit Bore + VA BOTH
B Untreated Time: Grit Bore, No VA
Figure 6. Grit Bore Water: VA Both versus VA None, Light-Moderate Wilting.
Table 12. Summary for Experiment 2a.
Summary statistics for revival times A Treated B Untreated
Dec 2014 Grit Bore Water + VA BOTH
Grit Bore Water: VA None
Two-tailed p-values: T-test and empirical estimate 0.0146 0.0150
Sample Count Used: 109 109
Full Sample Count: 128 128
Average (mins) 42.3 50.9
Avg Difference: B – A 8.6
Standard Deviation 22.2 29.2
StDev ALL 26.2
Effect Size:(B - A)/StDevAll 0.33
Avg Effect: (B - A)/Avg All 19%
Null Tail Counts: 14 19
Null Tail % of Sample 11% 15%
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.
19
Experiment 2b. Severe Wilting: VA Both versus VA None
Grit Bore Water: VA Both versus No VA
Severe Wilting
0
50
100
150
200
2501 5 9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
Individual stems, ordered by revival time
Reviv
al
tim
e (
min
s)
A Treated Time: Grit Bore + VA BOTH
B Untreated Time: Grit Bore, No VA
Figure 7. Grit Bore Water: VA Both versus VA None, severe wilting.
Table 13. Summary for Experiment 2b.
Summary statistics for revival times A Treated B Untreated
Dec-14 Grit Bore Water + VA BOTH
Grit Bore Water: VA None
Two-tailed p-values: T-test and empirical estimate 0.0030 0.0020
Sample Count Used: 72 72
Full Sample Count: 107 107
Average (mins) 63.0 87.1
Avg Difference: B - A 24.1
Standard Deviation 39.5 56.3
StDev ALL 49.9
Effect Size:(B - A)/StDevAll 0.48
Avg Effect: (B - A)/Avg All 32%
Null Tail Counts: 24 35
Null Tail % of Sample 22% 33%
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%).
20
Experiment 2c. Very Severe Wilting: VA Both versus VA None
Grit Bore Water: VA Both versus No VA
Very Severe Wilting
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
8001 3 5 7 9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
Individual stems, ordered by revival time
Reviv
al
tim
e (
min
s)
A Treated Time: Grit Bore +
VA BOTH
B Untreated Time: Grit Bore,
No VA
Figure 8. Grit Bore Water: VA Both versus VA None, severe wilting.
Table 14. Summary for Experiment 2c.
Summary statistics for revival times A Treated B Untreated
2 Jan 2015 Grit Bore Water + VA BOTH
Grit Bore Water: VA None
Two-tailed p-value / one-tailed p-value 0.0707 0.034
Sample Revived: 23 17
Full Sample Count: 37 37
Null Tail Counts: 14 20
Null Tail % of Sample 33% 54%
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.
21
Very Severely Wilted Sample:
counts of revivals versus failures
0
5
10
15
20
25
Final Revival State
Co
un
t o
f ste
ms
A Treated: VA BOTH
B Untreated: No VA
A Treated: VA BOTH 23 6 8
B Untreated: No VA 17 4 16
Revived Started Failed
Figure 9. VA Both versus VA None for very severely wilted sample.
1
4
7 10 1
3 16 1
9 22 2
5 28 3
1 34 3
7
A Treated Time VA
B Untreated Time No VA
010020030040050060070080090010001100120013001400150016001700180019002000
Treated versus Untreated Times for Severely Wilted Stems.
times <720 are measured revival times where stems fully revived
1000 represents stems that failed to revive but started recovery after 12 hours
2000 represents no sign of recovery after 12 hours
A Treated Time VA
A Started
A Unrecovered
B Untreated Time No VA
B Started
B Unrecovered
Figure 10. VA Both versus VA None for very severely wilted sample.
This indicates an effect on plant metabolism. The VA treatment apparently helps
severely stressed cells recover osmotic function faster to build turgor pressure.
22
Interpretation.
The VA treatment is found to speed the revival of wilted flowers when the treated
water has impurities added (50 ml grit or salt to 10 lt water or 0.5% by vol), and when
the VA treatment is applied to stems and water together. It appears that impurities are
necessary for the EM treatment to have a strong and immediate effect on water.
Dissolved minerals (salt) alone produced a significant effect (14%; 6 minute average
difference), but impurities provided by the grit produced a much larger effect (25-
35%; 15+ minute difference). The cell water in the stems is presumed to be rich in
salts and minerals, and VA treatment is assumed to have an effect on stem water. The
effects are seen after about 20-30 minutes. The basic interpretation is therefore that
the successful treatment involves both the bulk water and the stem water being treated
together, and taking on some common property, that allows the water to transport
around the cells easier. It probably enhances osmosis in the cell membrane, as this is a
critical process in creating turgor pressure. It may also enhance capillary action, or
provide useful energy, or alter chemical composition.
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 require hours to equilibrate. Certain RF and
magnetic signals also produce reactive oxygen and hydrogen species
(superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, hydrogen, atomic hydrogen) . The perturbed
gas/liquid interface modifies the hydrogen 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 that EM treatment depends upon the presence of micro-bubbles.
“[Colic and Morse] realized that outgassing 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).
This research shows that EM radiation has effects. However the idea that the VA
treatment works simply by modifying chemical properties of the bulk water is not
verified. E.g. it might be thought the treatment works simply by removing the
(negative) effect of the grit itself, but this does not hold because the treatment does
not work when applied only to the water. Similarly it does not work when applied
only to the stems. In fact combining the VA and non-VA water appears to slow the
process, as if they do not easily mix. However this might be temporary, and over a
longer time the treated water might have a positive effect.
Here we see that two different kinds of theory are possible. A conventional type of
theory proposes changes to the ‘chemical composition’ of the water, but seems
23
incomplete. An alternative type of theory proposes changes to the structural
organisation of the water, induced by the RF radiation. The latter is ‘holistic’, in that
the treatment affects the entire system of water-plus-stems for its optimal effect.
Note the Vi~Aqua site (Appendix 1) explains increased water transportation in plants
as a result of breaking up ‘water clusters’ into smaller clusters, reiterating the Morse
patent (Morse 1997). However this has the same problem as proposing a simple
chemical change: why doesn’t VA help when applied to the water alone? The
phenomenon indicates that it is the water and stems in conjunction that take on the
water structure, and the water needs to flow between them, so their interface is
important.
No conventional theory I am aware of appears capable of explaining this behaviour.
Pollack’s (2013) theory of ‘EZ’ water is the most suggestive alternative theory. On
this theory, the VA treatment may be assumed to create or enhance zones of EZ
water, e.g. by helping re-distribute electric charges.13 The VA somehow creates an
ordered structure in the water molecules based on charge arrangements. EZ water is
proposed to use electrical energy for enhanced osmosis and capillary action (Pollack
2013, Ch. 6, 11). This needs a supply of EZ water to continue to mix freely. It also
does not require micro-bubbles: any hydrophilic surfaces or suspended particles might
be effective. The theory also means that EZ water does not mix well with bulk water.
This may explain the retardation effect of treating only stems of water separately.
These results represents a question-mark over claims of Vi~Aqua and similar
products used to treat irrigation water, insofar as the present results do not indicate an
effect unless the water contains impurities. There may be an effect on clean water, but
it was not observed here. However this may be a matter of timing. The general notion
that VA treatment enhances water transport (and osmosis) is otherwise consistent with
product claims. However the explanations given by Darragh (2014) and on the
Vi~Aqua site are not satisfying in the present experiment. If the EZ phenomenon is
true, they certainly only provide partial answers.
After 20 years of controversy, science has done little to resolve the nature of RF water
treatment. The commercial benefits remain unknown to the wider community, and
under suspicion, while the fundamental physics remains unexplained. The present
experiment confirms that VA treatment has a significant effect, but the causes remain
mysterious. The fact that such a simple experiment can contradict wide-spread views
of ‘debunkers’ and other scientific experts shows a science in disarray.
24
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.”
Darragh, A. (2014) The Facts of Light. p. 52-53. zzz
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.”
Morse, D., et al., U.S. Patent 5,606,273 (1997).
M.N. Elgimabi 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)”.
Pollack, G. (2013) The Fourth Phase of Water. Ebner and Sons. Seattle.
Web References
1. http://www.viaqua.com/
2. http://www.viaqua.com/how-it-works/
3. http://espwaterproducts.com/
4. https://austindarragh.wordpress.com/viaqua-com-technology-description/
5. https://austindarragh.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/introducing-the-fourth-state-
of-plasma-in-water/
6. http://www.viaqua.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Askin-full-report.pdf
7. http://www.viaqua.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Full-Scientific-Doc-
Proof.pdf
8. http://www.chem1.com/CQ/gallery.html
9. http://www.chem1.com/CQ/aquacrack.html#VIAQ
10. http://sciencefocus.com/forum/water-energising-technology-t702.html
11. http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2013/09/vi-aqua-turning-water-into-snake-oil/
12. http://www.skeptical-science.com/science/daft-claim-viaqua-device-water-
wetter-increases-output-vegetables-fruits-30-cent/
13. http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/wave-goodbye-to-global-warming-
gm-and-pesticides-29525621.html
14. http://www.rexresearch.com/darraghviaqua/darragh.htm
25
15. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fse
arch-
bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F697456
1 (Thomason patent 2001/2005 6,974,561).
16. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fse
arch-
bool.html&r=24&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6,974,561&OS=6,97
4,561&RS=6,974,561 (Alternative patent 2001/2007 7,291,314).
17. http://identifythatplant.com/dandelion-and-cats-ear/
26
Appendix 1. Vi~Aqua Marketing Site Material.
The following claims and illustrations appear on the Vi~Aqua marketing site (Web
ref. 1. Jan, 2015), and on the “How It Works” page of the site (Web ref. 2).
“Vi-Aqua is an extraordinary innovative technology designed to provide water with electromagnetic energy. This facilitates the metabolism of organisms improving the uptake of nutrients and the chemical interactions that normally occur in nature. The system stimulates the electrochemical activity of molecules, prevents the formation of limescale, while dissolving the minerals normally contained in water, allowing them to be absorbed more easily. Vi-Aqua is a patented technology, scientifically proven to produce results in all sectors of agriculture, particularly in the production of fruit, vegetables and livestock. In plants it increases the natural immune system enhancing the root activity and stimulating the process of photosynthesis, therefore increasing the absorption of CO2 from the air. In animals it sanitizes the immune system enhancing metabolism efficiency, consequently controlling the intestinal fermentation and reducing the production of methane and ammonia. Viaqua has been successfully tested for both agricultural and breeding purposes. For human consumption, however, water treated electronically may increase the effectiveness of certain active ingredients as medicines. Persons who have pacemakers fitted should seek medical advice before operating this device. AT A GLANCE Benefits • Increases the solubility of nutrients in the water • Improves the quality of the plant and its lush appearance • Reduces the use of fertilizers • Increases the body’s resistance against plant and animal diseases and funguses • Improves roots development • Optimizes the use of water by increasing its efficiency • Significant de-scaling effect in pipes and nozzles • Low cost of ownership Features • No chemicals, totally organic and biological • Thoroughly tested safe for the environment • Easy to install, no special tools and skills required • Remote supervision and control in real time. • Stimulates the natural metabolism of plants and animals. The company currently offers 3 different products. (The Plantmate product tested here is illustrated below).
27
Vi~Aqua PLANTMATE Manual apparatus, ideal for indoor use in houses, small gardens and farms. It increases the life of cut flowers. How It Works The Vi-Aqua Technology uses a series of special micro and mega radio waves, with frequencies up to about 27 MHz. In this way introduces electromagnetic encoded energy into the water, allowing an improvement in the performance of organisms and the uptake of their nutrients. This is totally safe for the environment. Stimulates photosynthesis by converting the essential nutrients into energy. Vi-Aqua also modifies the configuration of hydrogen and oxygen in water, thereby influencing its micro fundamental structure and increasing the availability of oxides and peroxides and Super Oxides. In addition to these processes Vi-Aqua reduces the surface tension of water producing a more available solute, reducing the formation of limestone and allowing an easier absorption of the nutrients.
28
Footnotes.
1 Thanks go to Bob Greer, Michael Richards and Vera and Ken Scott for helpful
discussions and materials. Thanks to Pete and Monica Rudolf of Takaka, and Bev and
Gary Thompson of Te Kuiti, for support and accommodation during the trials.
2 Among other claimed uses, notably pipe or tank de-scaling, as well as benefits for
animal water and anti-pathogen treatments.
3 See Web ref. 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, including antimicrobial cleaning of worktable, floor, wall, knife,
transport and other surfaces, for example, in meat processing facilities and
hospitals.”
4 E.g. Morse 1997, Colic and Morse 1998, Leahy 2000, Darraugh 2013.
5 Lower tells us in a broad generalisation 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 evidence 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).
6 The key point being that from a decision theoretic perspective, it may be worth
testing even if it turns out that it doesn’t work. In the process of discovery we must try
out ideas that fail.
29
7 E.g. the Derjaguin ‘polywater’ incident in the 1960’s and the Benveniste ‘water
memory’ incident in the 1990’s left the science of water in disarray according to
Pollack (2013, Ch.2).
8 This was prompted by a discussion with Vera Scott, of Scott Biotechnology Ltd,
North Canterbury, NZ, who observed that Vi~Aqua is claimed to help revive wilted
flowers, notably English bluebells. 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).
9 Bluebells were not available in sufficient numbers to test. Catsears have more wiry
stems than true dandelions, as well as branching stems, hairy leaves, and grow much
more prolifically in pasture. Catsears are often referred to as false dandelions, and
popularly confused with dandelions. See Web ref. 17 to distinguish the two species.
10 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. The grit bore water was tested in a larger
concentration (200 ml per bucket). This slowed revival more severely, and was not
used.
11 Most stems were tested only once. Some pairs were wilted and revived twice, to
test the effects of repeated treatments, but these are not reported here.
12 Cells show average difference in revival time (t/Avg(t)), effect size (t/StDev(t)),
and p value (1-tailed t-test). Analysis is for data with tails removed. Tails are shown
in graphs.
13 For a non-relativistic particle: E = hf ≈ ½ mv2 so: v = √(2hf/m) ≈ 5 m/s, as the
velocity increment for a stationary proton absorbing the energy of a 27.5 MHz
photon. RF radiation may nudge charged particles around in weak potentials, and if
EZ water is produced by VA, it may help separate charges.