Effects of Vi~Aqua on Revival of Wilted Flowers1 · 1 Effects of Vi~Aqua on Revival of Wilted Flowers1 Andrew Holster* ATASA Research, New Zealand Correspondence Email: [email protected]

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

mailto:[email protected]

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


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




4 GRIT_BORE VA_NONE BORE VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 65.2


-24% Average of Time_Diff -14.0

-0.44 0.0000 StdDev of Untreated_Time 32.0

5 GRIT_BORE VA_STEMS





6 GRIT_BORE VA_WATER





7 BORE VA_BOTH BORE VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 48.4




8 BORE VA_WATER BORE VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 74.4




9 RAIN VA_BOTH RAIN VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 39.6




10 SALT_RAIN VA_BOTH

SALT_RAIN VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 37.9




11

Table 6. Effects for the two preliminary experiments.

11 HUTT_WATER VA_BOTH

HUTT_WATER VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 33.3




12 TAKAKA VA_WATER TAKAKA VA_NONE Average of Treated_Time 73.5




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


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.


Dec 2014 Grit Bore Water + VA BOTH

Grit Bore Water: VA None







StDev ALL 39.6

Effect Size:(B – A)/StDevAll 0.41




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


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


Reviv

al

tim

e (

min

s)



Figure 6. Grit Bore Water: VA Both versus VA None, Light-Moderate Wilting.

Table 12. Summary for Experiment 2a.


Dec 2014 Grit Bore Water + VA BOTH






Avg Difference: B – A 8.6


StDev ALL 26.2





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


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


Reviv

al

tim

e (

min

s)



Figure 7. Grit Bore Water: VA Both versus VA None, severe wilting.

Table 13. Summary for Experiment 2b.


Dec-14 Grit Bore Water + VA BOTH








StDev ALL 49.9





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


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


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.


2 Jan 2015 Grit Bore Water + VA BOTH


Two-tailed p-value / one-tailed p-value 0.0707 0.034

Sample Revived: 23 17




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

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/

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

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/

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





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





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.

Documents

Effects of Vi~Aqua on Revival of Wilted Flowers1 · 1 Effects of Vi~Aqua on Revival of Wilted Flowers1 Andrew Holster* ATASA Research, New Zealand Correspondence Email: [email protected]