Structured Water

ElfoodStampo

Well-Known Member
I Posted this somewhere else, and I realized it deserved its own thread. I stumbled across this video today and it's actively blowing my mind. It's making me think about my interaction with water on a daily basis.
I'm going to put a radio in my grow room and make a cd of classical music. Its an 8 part series, If anyone watches it, I would love to know what you think.

This series of video's contains some shit that sounds absurd. Please watch all of it before commenting.
Are the properties of water described in this video either being proven or dis proven anywhere else. Or does anyone have personal experience.

[video=youtube;taQUrkB0nPQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taQUrkB0nPQ&list=PLC8D68DF184EB4D4A&index= 1&feature=plpp_video[/video]
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I had to stop. The "water has memory" hypothesis has been crushed, and it bothers me to see it still being touted.
I counted three serious untruths before minute 1 was over. cn
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
whaa??

You cant leave me hanging man. Wheres the info?
Water is not the most abundant substance on Earth, (I think it's peridotite.)
We do not have as much water as in the beginning. (The collision with Theia that gave i=us our moon probably dissipated 90+% of primordial water, and thank goodness. We'd be a Waterworld.)
We are not the only planet in the Universe to have liquid water. I cannot prove this, obviously, but it's silly of them to say that. (I was also bothered by the phrase, I don't remember it exactly, but something about "who put the water here?" referring to our planet. Al jmo ... but I worked in a field of natural philosophy before fate caught up with me. cn
 

ElfoodStampo

Well-Known Member
Water is not the most abundant substance on Earth, (I think it's peridotite.)
We do not have as much water as in the beginning. (The collision with Theia that gave i=us our moon probably dissipated 90+% of primordial water, and thank goodness. We'd be a Waterworld.)
We are not the only planet in the Universe to have liquid water. I cannot prove this, obviously, but it's silly of them to say that. (I was also bothered by the phrase, I don't remember it exactly, but something about "who put the water here?" referring to our planet. Al jmo ... but I worked in a field of natural philosophy before fate caught up with me. cn
Sorry for wasting 1 minute of your time man. haha Thanks for the opinion.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Sorry for wasting 1 minute of your time man. haha Thanks for the opinion.
I am not sure if this is genuine or sarcastic.

I do agree that water is amazing stuff. However the vid you posted (until I turned away at about minute 6:30) was insinuating spirit and magic. This is not testable ... and it appeals to a quirk of human psychology. We so very badly want for there to be magic in the real world, and that muddies any proper attempts to inspect either nature or magic. Jmo. cn
 

ElfoodStampo

Well-Known Member
I am not sure if this is genuine or sarcastic.

I do agree that water is amazing stuff. However the vid you posted (until I turned away at about minute 6:30) was insinuating spirit and magic. This is not testable ... and it appeals to a quirk of human psychology. We so very badly want for there to be magic in the real world, and that muddies any proper attempts to inspect either nature or magic. Jmo. cn
It was as genuine as your attempt to watch the video.
I do appreciate your response. At least you looked at it!
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Ok I get it,
I'll stick to talking about weed in here. I guess I've veered a little far from high school science for most.
Awww you don't have to take that attitude. I for one would love to discuss this, but I'd also like to know that if I point out a discrepancy with established theory, I'd get a serious response. Mind you, "serious" does not mean "oh hey i agree with you". Serious can mean "I disagree, and here is why". Ideally with links to text. cn
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Water is not the most abundant substance on Earth, (I think it's peridotite.)
We do not have as much water as in the beginning. (The collision with Theia that gave i=us our moon probably dissipated 90+% of primordial water, and thank goodness. We'd be a Waterworld.)
We are not the only planet in the Universe to have liquid water. I cannot prove this, obviously, but it's silly of them to say that. (I was also bothered by the phrase, I don't remember it exactly, but something about "who put the water here?" referring to our planet. Al jmo ... but I worked in a field of natural philosophy before fate caught up with me. cn
So, to catch up, there are those of us who are a little beneath high school science, and those that are well beyond. IAC, water evidence has been found on the Moon.

That is water ice in those comets. Water ice on those various moons and planetoids we have visited. We see vast clouds in space. Everything from water to frozen CO2 to alcohol. We have not touch directly, liquid water, but, water ice floats on water and insulates it. Perhaps there is plenty of liquid water around Sol.

So, gently speaking, there is science, and there is woo. Woo is for belief. Science is for the skeptics that doubt the current experts.
 
lots of people hating on OP but the video was interesting enough, the scientists in it for the most part seemed to fairly accomplished and despite lots of people saying that the theories are bunk, op is the only person who has actually linked a scientific article on the subject. doesn't mean im gonna pay for electricity to keep a stereo going 24/7 in my grow room, but being able to refute a couple of general claims made in introduction doesn't really discredit the entire video, especially when these claims really have almost nothing to do with the hypothesis these scientists are trying to prove.
 

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
ES, understand that our education system has intentionally dumbed down the populace. Thinking outside their mind controlled box can be flat out scarey. Here's one reason why they keep our minds confused...


Alexander V. Baranov

My name is Alexander Baranov, I'm a scientist of National University of the Nuclear energy and the Industry, being outside the Russian Federation. I develop the alternative "know-how" of energy which are available me data, allow to approve, that there has come the end of an epoch of oil and gas. As a matter of fact, I am the enemy of Russia, successful realization of my theme will essentially reduce receipt to Russia of money from sale of oil and gas.
And as to me is what to tell on the given theme, still and the dangerous enemy.
I perfectly understand, my scientific activity can result in what consequences for economy of Russia. Also I guess, what consequences can come for me personally.
Nevertheless, I have made a decision, and I operate according to this decision. The person has practically destroyed the inhabitancy, but there is not passed yet a point of return, on my belief, it is necessary to accept emergency measures for rescue of biosphere...
Each person has a strength, as well as at metal, and today there was an event which has compelled to operate me as much as possible quickly, and is as much as possible effective.
Water can be used as fuel in automobile internal combustion engines without their essential alteration.
How it to make?
Water in itself is not fuel, and does not burn. But water is an initial component of fuel, by simple transformations it will be transformed that burns, for example, in methane, the chemical formula-CH4, propane, and butane-C2H5. All these gases are hydrocarbons, that is contain two chemical elements - carbon and hydrogen, and turn out from water the chemical formula of -H20. But allow, you will tell, in fact in water there is no carbon? No, but during transformation to water it appears under scheme O = C + D + D, where about - oxygen, with - carbon, D - deuterium (double hydrogen). D, by the way is the most valuable chemical element for the nuclear industry. For allocation of heavy water from usual into which it enters, complex, expensive technologies are used. Here, it turns out without special problems.
That you have read through, it any more chemistry, is NUCLEAR reaction.
How it to carry out?
For this purpose the process externally reminding electrolysis is used, high-frequency resonant transformer ( Tesla Coil ) which impulses of a current transform atom of oxygen so only is used, that it breaks up to three splinters - carbon and two D.
Power balance of reaction of full conformity with the law of conservation of energy k=50.
That is energy of combustion of gaseous products of decomposition of water in 50 times surpasses the energy spent for it....

http://www.rexresearch.com/baranov/baranov.htm
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
I'm glad we have tits. That does make sense. So, don't get mad, but let's discuss this point.
-----------------------------------------
Water in itself is not fuel, and does not burn. But water is an initial component of fuel, by simple transformations it will be transformed that burns, for example, in methane, the chemical formula-CH4, propane, and butane-C2H5. All these gases are hydrocarbons, that is contain two chemical elements - carbon and hydrogen, and turn out from water the chemical formula of -H20. But allow, you will tell, in fact in water there is no carbon? No, but during transformation to water it appears under scheme O = C + D + D, where about - oxygen, with - carbon, D - deuterium (double hydrogen). D, by the way is the most valuable chemical element for the nuclear industry. For allocation of heavy water from usual into which it enters, complex, expensive technologies are used. Here, it turns out without special problems.
--------------------------------

Believe me, I read this kind of stuff for a living. We are always looking for ideas in peer reviewed papers. Sure it is deep going and jargon filled, but the concepts from an abstract are always explained in detail. And yes, we own a crew of scientists in Russia and I have to wade through the translated peer review. Yet, I don't see the basis for this claim that "...during transformation to water it appears under scheme O = C + D + D..."

I can't tell what he means, at all. Shakes up a bit of fuel and water and subjects to Tesla vibrations? To be kind, one must assume a lot, with this pidgin English, Russian humor business. He wants money. That much was clear.

But, if he thinks he can separate deuterium, why bother about hydrocarbon fuel mixed with water? Oxygen8 breaks down to Carbon6 and the fusion occurs with Hydrogen1. So, this is test tube, Cold Fission and Cold Fusion?

And all he says is it improves existing fuels. A dupe! Russian humor.

BTW, there is an actual patent application. But, his name is not on it. And the process is for cracking hydrocarbon fuel by adding deuterium from graphite, etc. It is to produce hydro-fuel. It is not an alternative, "Wonder Fuel." Here's the actual abstract.
-----------------------------------
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1632547.html
The present invention is directed to a method for cracking hydrocarbons whereby the hydrocarbon educt is fed to a reactor in which the educt is provided with deuterium or deuterium compounds or with the disintegration product thereof. The invention further is directed to a reactor for cracking hydrocarbons having an inlet and an outlet as well as a substance which is adapted to release deuterium or deuterium compounds in the heated state when applying electric current pulses. The invention is further directed to an ultrasonic reactor having a spherical reactor wall in which at least two ultrasonic generators are provided at opposite portions of the reactor such that the ultrasonic waves are focused in the centre of the reactor.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
The structure of water has nothing to do with structured water. In other words, so what?
--------------------------------
The current study is the most recent addition to a growing body of evidence for a new theory about the structure of liquid water. In 2004, Nilsson and colleagues sparked controversy with a paper published in Science that suggested the tetrahedral model of water was incorrect. Nilsson agrees that the debate is far from settled and that much work remains before a clear picture of liquid water emerges. "Over the last decade or so we have discovered that materials once considered homogeneous exhibit complex nanoscale order," said Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory director Jo Stöhr. "In my view, the work on water is yet another example of the actual complexity of matter, this time within a simple liquid. Modern X-ray work appears to be triggering a new understanding of liquids and we may have only seen the beginning of a paradigm shift in our understanding."

Citation: Chemical Physics Letters, DOI: 10.1016/j.cplett.2008.04.077; T. Tokushima, Y. Harada, O. Takahashi, Y. Senba, H. Ohashi, L.G.M. Pettersson, A. Nilsson, S. Shin; "High resolution X-ray emission spectroscopy of liquid water: The observation of two structural motifs".

Source: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
This guy is selling a device. And he makes no sense, either.

-------------------------------------
“The Structured Water Unit is a multiple vortex. It makes the water spin in both directions simultaneously at multiple times. That aspect of vortexing has a great attribute to fixing water, fixing pollution. Water is the machine. No moving parts. No chemicals. No magnetics. Nothing in there to interfere with it. Water works upon itself, just like a river.
 
Top