Re: [compost_tea] Re: Water voodoo?

From: Anthony Quinlan <boofq_at_wn.com.au>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:12:27 +0800
If you haven't read Steiner's "Agriculture" book it is not worth commenting
on this thread.
Very worthwhile reading it- usually have to read it 5 or 6 times to work out
what he was on about, but he was onto something.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Anderson" <squtch_at_gmail.com>
To: <compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [compost_tea] Re: Water voodoo?


>
> Dennis,
>
> I think you are confusing two different things that I was talking about.
>
> When talking about "structured pure water", I could find nothing
> credible that supports any sort of claim that other than ice, water
> will form any sort of structure other than increibly weak bond that
> last for incredibly short periods of time.
>
> I'm not suggesting that something on a macro scale will not work the
> same as something on a mole scale. A mole is an incredibly huge amount
> of material. I am talking about individual particles. The particles
> that hold a charge are molecule or smaller.
>
> What causes the electron to get ripped away from a molecule? And will
> the direction that the water is spinning cause that water to have an
> electron added instead of pulled away?
>
> Suggesting that stirring the water in different directions will give a
> different charge makes as much sense as suggesting that rubbing a
> glass rod with wool in one direction will give it a positive charge
> and rubbing it in the oposite direction will give it a negative
> charge. It simply does not work that way.
>
> My guess is that someone read something about particle spin, snd
> somehoe extrapolated that into stirring in different directions.
>
> And this is all ignoring the fact that you will never maintain a
> potential of 100kV in a conducting liquid.
>
> While I can accept that some of these actions might have a positive
> effect, the explanation is flawed.
>
> Dave
>
>
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 01:57:52 -0000, dkemnitz2000 <dkemnitz2000_at_yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- Dave , Why assume the macro scale forms independent of the micro
>> (a mole or less) scale ? Dennis
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Fri Dec 10 2004 - 05:46:51 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:38 EST