Energizing water?

While I was searching for alternative ways to soften my water, I stumbled across an article about a device which uses various radio waves to introduce electro-magnetic energy to water for crops and animal/human consumption. I'm understanding that it basically dissolves all minerals and reduces the surface tension of water, thereby increasing uptake and reducing the need for many fertilizers. I'm sure this would also hydrate the water more, by breaking down hydrogen molecules and increasing the oxides & peroxides, thereby strengthening the plants immune system against pests/disease. Just wondering if anyone's heard of this device or this technology, as I can't really find out much information besides this article and the company's website, because claims of crop increases of 30-40% sound like snake oil to me.

Here's the article:
Wave goodbye to global warming, GM and pesticides

Here%27s the company%27s website, of which I%27ve just requested more info, specifically, pricing:
Vi~Aqua

In biodynamic farming some preparations are stirred back and forth to create a vortex in one direction and then the other This is done for about an hour. The most credible explanation for beneficial effect is that by doing this you are imparting electromagnetic charge to water which creates a colloid. Minerals are suspended within the solution the same way they exist in living cells, plant and animal. This allows for rapid uptake and usage to the minerals in the water more so than if the water and minerals were in suspension as opposed to a colloid suspension.

No. Water itself cannot store electromagnetic energy. At most, you can impart a charge to dissolved ions in the water which some say can effect precipitation rates, but the science behind that is dodgy. As a physicist, I would seriously doubt you could in anyway effect increased water uptake or cause any reduction in the need for fertilizers. And it will not in anyway break down the hydrogen out of the water molecule. That process is called electrolysis and requires far greater energy than can be imparted through radio waves. And even if any of this were possible, it isn't going to happen with any sort of device you can keep in your home. This would require an industrial sized electromagnet.

Tom OHern wrote:No. Water itself cannot store electromagnetic energy. At most, you can impart a charge to dissolved ions in the water which some say can effect precipitation rates, but the science behind that is dodgy. As a physicist, I would seriously doubt you could in anyway effect increased water uptake or cause any reduction in the need for fertilizers. And it will not in anyway break down the hydrogen out of the water molecule. That process is called electrolysis and requires far greater energy than can be imparted through radio waves. And even if any of this were possible, it isn't going to happen with any sort of device you can keep in your home. This would require an industrial sized electromagnet.

Tom, i don't profess to be a science professional but in the book "Secrets of the Soil" the author describes how research was done which found that water is not homozygous in its molecular makeup. In a bucket of water there are regions of greater water density and differing molecular structure when two or more regions move with respect to each other at a different rate a subtle charge is created. This charge creates a colloid solution if minerals are present. Check out the book, there is science to back up the claim that water can be "energized."

I specifically did not address your previous comment because I didn't want to get my comment deleted, as others here have, but since you addressed me directly, I hope that the mods will allow me to respond.

I try really hard not to bash on the biodynamic stuff around here because I know that Paul likes it and I don't want to get my account banned, but I have a really hard time reading books such as the "Secrets of the Soil" because so much of it is not based on repeatable, testable, or documented science. But, if that is your thing, by all means go for it. And in the process please document your efforts so that we can compare them to a control group so that I can be proven wrong! The term "research" is very loosely used by the layperson. Real scientific research documents an experiment so that others can attempt to repeat it and see if they get the same results. None of the biodynamic "research" I have seen does this.

In a bucket of water there are regions of greater water density and differing molecular structure when two or more regions move with respect to each other at a different rate a subtle charge is created.

Hmmm... All fluids will have *very* slight variations in density and those regions will be in a constant state of flux. That is the basis for much of fluid dynamics. If this author is starting out by saying that he needed research to show this, I have some doubts to the rest of his thought process. But dissolved minerals do not create a colloid solution. This might just be a case of you getting the terminology wrong though but, as a scientist, I have seen a lot of pseudo-science that casually uses technical terms to obscure things and attempt to claim justification for more than they should. This book, at first glance, looks to me to be such a case. But, tt seems that my local library has this book, so I will check it out. My guess is though, based on looking at previous claims, that this science is not repeatable and is not testable. If that is the case, it isn't science.

Until the book reaches my library branch, would you be willing to see if any of his cited research has abstracts available on-line? And if so, could you post them here? I cannot find any research online that would point to water being energized.

I haven't seen much about this myself, but I did hear a podcast recently where a gentleman spoke very highly of energizing water in this method, especially in conjunction with compost tea.

The podcast is apparently only available for free for the first 2 weeks after it was posted but for those interested the podcast site is:
http://agriculturalinsights.com/

And the link to that specific episode for those interested:
http://agriculturalinsights.com/how-to-use-compost-tea-vortex-brewer/

Chris' guest was Mr. Evan Folds who spoke from great experience as he works with http://vortexbrewer.com/home/

Even with all of Mr. Folds' experience I am myself a bit skeptical about the idea of imbuing water with energy whether magnetic, mystical or otherwise to improve performance, especially when a specialized product is being recommended to do the deed.

Mr. Folds did point out however that one can test or achieve the same results without the apparatus if one stirs in alternating directions for an hour. So if you wanted to do small plot, greenhouse, or pot based tests you certainly could whether you were doing the stirring by hand or mechanical assist.

I think I'd probably try a drill mixer if I was doing it myself. http://amzn.to/16Rkazj

Has anyone here actually tried using a large brewer and large application of this method?

Glenn, here is a retired Chemistry professor from Simon Fraser University who addreses many of these Energized Water ideas, including the Vi-Aqua you were asking about: http://www.chem1.com/CQ/EnergizedWater.html

It is my experience that the viscosity and texture of water changes significantly through Biodynamic stirring. I do not profess to understand what happens, why, etc. But my personal, anecdotal experience, from stirring hundreds of buckets of Biodynamic fertilizer, is that something absolutely is altered by the process.

Science wants us to play by its rules exclusively, otherwise it wholesale denies the validity of our experiences. I think this is a little self serving. I dont purport to call my experience science, but that does not make it inherently invalid either. Science cannot explain everything, clearly. Isolatable and repeatable experimentation is wonderful when it is appropriate, but there are often more things going on in the universe than can be quantified and controlled. So science has its limitations, just as human experience does as well.

I encourage everyone to use their own infinitely rich senses to experience the wonder of reality. It is an interesting conundrum that the human mind understands the scientific method far better than the scientific method understands the human mind. Maybe our own organs of perception are inexplicably complex and insighful? It is with these wonderous tools of perception that I personally experience the alteration of water through rhythmic stirring, among other phenomena not understood by science.

@Adam

I would assume that since you practice this you've seen positive results from doing so, but I am also curious if you've done a comparison with a control group that did show increased vigor or performance?

Is this a process that you'd say is indispensable because of the results or something that is a more marginal benefit that you might exclude if time issues or other constraints didn't let you apply the time?

Tom OHern wrote:I specifically did not address your previous comment because I didn't want to get my comment deleted, as others here have, but since you addressed me directly, I hope that the mods will allow me to respond.

I try really hard not to bash on the biodynamic stuff around here because I know that Paul likes it and I don't want to get my account banned, but I have a really hard time reading books such as the "Secrets of the Soil" because so much of it is not based on repeatable, testable, or documented science. But, if that is your thing, by all means go for it. And in the process please document your efforts so that we can compare them to a control group so that I can be proven wrong! The term "research" is very loosely used by the layperson. Real scientific research documents an experiment so that others can attempt to repeat it and see if they get the same results. None of the biodynamic "research" I have seen does this.

In a bucket of water there are regions of greater water density and differing molecular structure when two or more regions move with respect to each other at a different rate a subtle charge is created.

Hmmm... All fluids will have *very* slight variations in density and those regions will be in a constant state of flux. That is the basis for much of fluid dynamics. If this author is starting out by saying that he needed research to show this, I have some doubts to the rest of his thought process. But dissolved minerals do not create a colloid solution. This might just be a case of you getting the terminology wrong though but, as a scientist, I have seen a lot of pseudo-science that casually uses technical terms to obscure things and attempt to claim justification for more than they should. This book, at first glance, looks to me to be such a case. But, tt seems that my local library has this book, so I will check it out. My guess is though, based on looking at previous claims, that this science is not repeatable and is not testable. If that is the case, it isn't science.

Until the book reaches my library branch, would you be willing to see if any of his cited research has abstracts available on-line? And if so, could you post them here? I cannot find any research online that would point to water being energized.

Tom, I am not one to jump on the biodynamic bandwagon without some basic evidence. I don't believe in cosmic forces or anything else based in pseudo science. That being said the explanation makes sense. Is it correct? I don't know, but it is logically consistent. It's not as if they stated that water spirits are responsible for the benefit. Correct me if I am wrong but a colloid is a microscopic suspension. Why can this not occur with minerals?

PS: No one stated in the book that slight variations in fluid density were discovered in their research, it was simply stated so that people would understand what was theorized to be occurring to create an electrical charge. I advise you read that section of the book before you past judgement. I should say that there are some sections of the book that I have a hard time believing, so please don't judge this one point on the whole of the book, each chapter is somewhat independent of the others.

Mike-
I wouldnt really go so far as to claim positive results. I am saying that I definitely see a change in the water. It is my intuition, not my scientific observation, that leads me to believe that this change is likely a good thing.

As the quote in your signiture line states, "The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings." I could not agree more. Maybe I like the change in the water, because of the change it promotes within me.

I have no interest in 'controlled' experiments to prove this or that. I dont need any proof to do what I do. If others need proof, I encourage them to be scientists and go find that proof.

I dont think stirring is indispensible. I think most things in life are completely dispensible; it's all just a bunch of choices we make.

The point, I think, is that there IS a change in the water by stirring it. I dont know what this change is, but it is there. Sometimes the mystery is more beautiful than the 'answer'. I love all the aspects of farming that are more magical than logical. That right there is the wonder of life!

Love the response Adam. Thank you.

James Colbert wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but a colloid is a microscopic suspension. Why can this not occur with minerals?

Fertilizers consist of water soluble minerals, so they are not being held in suspension. You can have things like compost tea, which does have suspension of organic material. That could be considered a colloid. But now having spent far more of my workday researching this than my boss would like me to have, I cannot find any credible evidence that any amount of stirring or electro-magnetic exposure through radio waves could impart any significant charge or energization to those particles. And it certainly cannot be imparted into the water itself.

James Colbert wrote:PS: No one stated in the book that slight variations in fluid density were discovered in their research, it was simply stated so that people would understand what was theorized to be occurring to create an electrical charge. I advise you read that section of the book before you past judgement. I should say that there are some sections of the book that I have a hard time believing, so please don't judge this one point on the whole of the book, each chapter is somewhat independent of the others.

The book should be in my hands by the end of the week.

Well, last night I had the pleasure of speaking to my chemist friend, who works at JPL, though most of what he said was over my head. He spoke of ways we can observe hydrogen bond stretching, dissolution of gasses, and just seemed to be really excited about many of the related theories currently being worked on. Of course, he stated that most is still theoretical, due to limited observation issues at such levels, but he obviously didn't think it was quack-science. He, also, told me about someone who used radiowaves to somehow separate hydrogen bonds in sea water, to the point that it lights on fire. Here's what I'm only assuming he was talking about: Burning Salt Water

In searching further, I found another article quite interesting: Effects of Amplitude of the Radiofrequen...

Wife just came across this as well.

Here is a website with the patents:
http://www.rexresearch.com/darraghviaqua/darragh.htm

Probably clearer copies of the patents can be found elsewhere.

The most expedient way to judge whether something has merit is to search out several credible sources who have come out against it. If more than one of those who I deem credible, refute the idea completely, I move on.

I can't possibly do all research myself. It takes 5 minutes to investigate most ideas. My favorite is the Skeptical Inquirer. Many really smart people involved there.