Re: [compost_tea] Re: Water voodoo?

From: David Anderson <squtch_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:25:10 -0800
Okay, let me restate, I am in no way claiming that BD does not work,
nor am I stating that a vortex does not have some sort of beneficial
effect. I am not challenging that part of it.I simply do not have
enough information.

I am also not stating that the vortex cannot generate electrical
current. It can and does. It even does this by several methods.

What I am objecting to is a claim that a vortex of water with
impurities, therefore a good conductor, can achieve a potential of
100kV with another part of iteslf, by stirring with a stick. It is a
permanently shorted out system. You might be able to get 1/100,000 V,
though I suspect that is still high.

I am sure that there are also very good reasons to reverse the
direction that you stir. But it will not change the polarity of the
system by any method of generating the electricity in that system that
I am aware of.

More below

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:07:21 -0800, Ted Peterson <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net> wrote:
> Before I designed my first brewer and after I had beel playing with a Soil
> Soup machine, I started doing research with people who knew how to move
> liquids of different densities: the food processing industry.  The
> requirements for cleanliness in the food industry are far greater than any
> we will encounter brewing tea from compost but there are some similarities.
> Bacteria do grow as part of processing and this growth has to be controlled
> and tested.  The water has to move through pipes and into "brewers" of a
> sort.  The beer industry uses oasts which are kind of like a tea brewer (or
> vice-versa) in that a mixture is processed with water. Then I took a look at
> the waste treatment industry and found a lot of similarities.  Even in
> processing something as simple as water there are factors that are "assumed"
> by this thread.  I would suggest that a healthy look into hydrology may
> answer a lot of questions. 

There are certainly all sorts of factors involved in moving and mixing
liquids and slurries. These would include chemical, mechanical,
biologica and electrical reactions. Hell, the problem of impellers
comes up all the time on this list. And I suspect that you would have
an assortment of different issues if you were to brew your tea in a
new galvanized bucket.

> As far as moving bodies of liquid creating electricity. . . This has been
> observed for some time.  One contract I worked on used this principle to
> create a generator. It was called the dam-atoll.  It basically used a vortex
> to move a wheel.  As the device was built, it was discovered that the whole
> device became electrically charged (or hot) and what was finally discovered
> was that the column of water was actually generating an electrical field by
> the effect of moving through a limited space in a particular form at a
> particular rate.  Yes there was V but extremely low (miniscule) A.  It
> turned out that the energy required to use the V was much higher than the
> value of the V which made it economically impractical.

That actually supports my point about the incredibly low V that you
would be able to generate in a body of impure water. It isn't that
there isn't electricity generated, it is that it disipates before it
could ever reach that level.

Now, run that turbine with dry air through an ungrounded plastic feed
pipe. I suspect that in that case you could find 100kV  between that
wheel and ground.

The water running through the system almost certainly generates more
electricity than the air does, but it is immediately grounded out
through the water itself. You simply cannot build huge voltage
differences in that sort of system.

And the example you are giving is something that I assume is moving a
lot more water at a much higher speed than stirring a bucket with a
stick.

> As far as V in a brewer, we would have to see if large amounts actually
> fried the little critters or changed how they operate in some way.  There
> are currently studies to determine plant growth rates and changes under
> power lines and as much work as has been done in that area, data is still
> inconclusive. 
>  
> So V in water?  I am unsure as to practical value.
>

>  
> Ted Peterson
> EW/SOE
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>

> From: Tom Jaszewski
> To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 7:30 AM
> Subject: [compost_tea] Re: Water voodoo?
>
>
> This thread seems to be taking a confrontational direction, and I'm
> not sure why. The wonderful proponents of BD and Emoto have had and
> continue to have successes based on the energy properties of water.
> I'm not sure anyone really cares to "enlighten" when the tone is
> clearly confrontational.
> Don't believe it? Don't practice those concepts!

All I asked for was the actual experimet that showed 100kV and the
change in polarity. No one is even giving me a chance to believe it.

> Didn't read Emoto's work? Then there is no discussion, just flippant
> quips.

Didn't pay attention in chemistry, physics or your EE classes?

I have read a whole lot of books by people that tell me that what is
being suggested simply does not happen. Those book have actual
reproduceable experiments that I can do myself. And if I am challenged
on them, I have developed an understanding of how it works.

I never challenged the results of BD. I challenged what is appearing
more and more to be an unsupportable claim.

A shaman could tell you to chew on a willow twig and the spirit of the
willow will battle that headache for you. It is good advice because
the willow bark contains aspirin. It is just the explanation that is
broken.

I am just saying that as far Is my understanding of physics is
concerned, the explanation is broken.

By showing me the reproducable experimental data, you can show me that
it is my understanding that is broken. Whether you can believe me or
not on this, I would accept it if someone would just do that. But I am
getting nothing more than getting told that I have no right to
participate in the discussion.

At least Ted is coming back with something.

> Personally I'll use flow forms and continue to find Emoto of value. I
> would never buy or recommend a brewer that doesn't vortex water.

Uh, how can you move a liquid without causing a vortex at the boundary layers?

Every brewer out there creates vortexes, that is how they mix the
fluid. every little bubble flowing up the water column is surrounded
and followed by them.

Even a sealed container of liquid on earth will be in rotation and
will have vortexes.

How much of a vortex are you suggesting is necessary for you to be
willing to purchase it and why? (no, I am not being confrontational. I
really would like to know the answer)

> Science is lacking but so is the data and science on the uses of ACT.
> That doesn't negate our successes.

No, there is quite a lot of data and science available on ACT. And
what is there does not create conflicts with basic physics.

There are certainly some claims floating around ACT that are in the
same category as a claim about 100kV,  and we should get rid of those
too.

Just as the 100kV claim being bogus does not invalidatre the success
of BD, a claim that ACT could be used as a fuel for the next
generation of rocket would not invalidate ACT. But standing behind
either of those claims would make you look foolish unless you had
something to back up that claim.

Accepting claims like that at face value simply does not help your
cause. There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith. But understand
the difference between what you  believe based on faith and what you
believe based on science. Then try not to mix those up when you are
presenting them to others.

Dave

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Get unlimited calls to

U.S./Canada



Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Fri Dec 10 2004 - 19:07:19 EST

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