99 replies to this topic

[orangeray21]

http://www.google.co...tents/US6602544 Here is patent that uses gemstones as a component to channel the body's electrical pathways.

Just had another guy buy my Quartz spray, he knows a lady who is a PhD, she was surprised to find she was energized by this. After reading some articles about piezoelectricity, I'm going to speculate that the body's electricity tunes the Quartz to certain frequencies, back and forth between the Quartz and the body, thereby creating a modulation effect. I understand that a sort of hyper tuning of Quartz is what is done to get the fast clock speeds of modern computers.

[orangeray21]

http://www.piezoprod...rgy-harvesting/

[orangeray21]

Here is a double blind study: http://www.thesunphire.com/page9.html

[hooter]

The title seems to suggest that you are making an inquiry, but you seem to be extremely sure of your bullshit.

Here is a double blind study: http://www.thesunphire.com/page9.html

Sorry but double-blind doesn't mean that everyone in the experiment is blind to evidence.

Edited by hooter, 15 January 2012 - 01:53 PM.

[Googoltarian]

"Gemstones to help with Immortality?"

Those shiny rock surely help with our cause! You can sell them and use that money to buy something that actually works.

/Thread

[Hip]

Orangeray, you seem quite convinced that your crystal therapies work, so why don't you perform your own double blind test on them? This is very easy to do. I challenge you.

You mention your "quartz spray" many times, and say that it relaxes people within minutes. I am guessing this "quartz spray" is an aerosol spray container filled with water, with some quartz crystals inside.

I am highly skeptical that such a spray can have a relaxing effect. However, it is very straightforward to perform a double blind scientific study to check whether it does work or not.

All you have to do it create two identical versions of your water-filled spray bottle, one bottle which contains the quartz crystals, and another bottle which does not (you could put some pieces of glass in the second bottle — glass pieces which have the same size and shape as the quartz, and sound the same when you shake or move the bottle).

Then, if there were any truth to your assertion that your quartz spray relaxes people, you should get this relaxation effect from the real quartz spray, but not from the spray which has only glass pieces in it.

To do perform such a double blind study, both you (the person conducting the experiment) and the test subjects must not know which bottle is which. This usually requires a third person to label the two bottles A and B, with ONLY that third person knowing which bottle contained the quartz, and which contained just the glass. Throughout the experiment, this third person must keep this information secret, not telling anyone.

There must be no way at all for you to tell which bottle is which: not by sight, weight, smell, color, size, by shaking the bottle, or anything else. If you think you can tell which is which, this invalidates the experiment.. All you can know is the labels: bottle A and bottle B.

Then you should try the spray test on as many test subjects as you can. 10 people would be good; 20 even better.

You randomly assign half your subjects to getting sprayed with bottle A, and the other half with bottle B. You do not have to do this all on the same day. You can run this experiment over weeks, to gather your results.

Ask you subjects NOT to tell you how they feel after they have been sprayed, but instead to write down their feelings on paper, answering a fixed question like "Has this spray made you feel: (1) Less relaxed; (2) same as before; (3) more relaxed (4) very relaxed"

Give this question on a piece of paper to the to subject answer after say exactly 3 minutes from being sprayed. Make sure it is given after the same time interval of 3 minutes for all test subjects.

Get them to put their written answer in an envelope, so that you do not see what they have written, but mark on the envelope whether they had spray A or spray B. If you see what they have written before the end of the whole experiment, this can invalidate the results.

When you have tested your quota of 10 test subjects, then you can open the envelopes and see from their answers which spray, A or B, was the most efficacious in relaxing people.

When you have your answer, only then can you go back to the person who labelled the bottles, and ask him which was bottle which.

If you find that the bottle that relaxed people the most was the quartz spray, then you have got yourself some evidence.

This is applying the correct scientific method to determining the truth.

Edited by Hip, 15 January 2012 - 07:13 PM.

[orangeray21]

"Hip" If I did this official study as you say, and the results were in favor of the Quartz spray, then what? You will all believe there is something to it? Or would this just be hoop #1?
I would rather you fly to Oregon, and you can see for yourself. I will give you a bottle to take home, on me. Jump through!

[hooter]

Among the thousands of things that at least have a negligible effect you somehow managed to pick and become convinced by something that realistically has less chance of doing anything whatsoever than standing on your head and screaming obscenities. Consider me impressed.

Edited by hooter, 16 January 2012 - 11:23 AM.

[Hip]

"Hip" If I did this official study as you say, and the results were in favor of the Quartz spray, then what? You will all believe there is something to it? Or would this just be hoop #1?
I would rather you fly to Oregon, and you can see for yourself. I will give you a bottle to take home, on me. Jump through!

The way science avoids errors and falsity is by having other groups or labs trying to replicate the results of studies. So if you demonstrated that there was an effect, the first thing that other people would want to know is what were you materials and methods, so that they could try to reproduce the same study and effect in their own labs — or kitchens in this case. If they could not reproduce it using the same materials and methods, then this throws doubt on the original results.

It's this system of different groups around the world checking and validating each other's results that makes science robust.

If a phenomenon cannot stand up such straightforward honest scrutiny, it's probably false.

On the other hand, if another group replicates the same positive results, this generates a lot of excitement and scientific interest in a phenomenon, and you often find more and more people start to study it.

Edited by Hip, 16 January 2012 - 12:23 PM.

[Droplet]

Among the thousands of things that at least have a negligible effect you somehow managed to pick and become convinced by something that realistically has less chance of doing anything whatsoever than standing on your head and screaming obscenities. Consider me impressed.

I gave you a vote up for making me laugh!

[orangeray21]

Hip, I appreciate your explanation of the scientific process. I already understand this though. I also know that many scientists, though they did many proofs, are still ostracized by the mainstream. Not until many years later after popularization of the original idea, is the establishment forced to somehow get in line, while also ensuring they profit somehow of course. If you think I am tired of it all, you are correct. Though I love science and read www.sciencedaily.com everyday. Remember all the sh"" Edison gave Tesla regarding AC current. I could list many more shenanigans. I'll let others do the "proving" right now. I have three jobs, that's enough.

I'll leave you all with this, a video from a celebrated scientist, Marcel Vogel, with over a 100 patents to his name from working with IBM. Through doing a study on plants, it eventually led to Quartz crystals and his many discoveries of its uses:

[orangeray21]

I'm going to suggest a book here. http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/9810234279

According to one reviewer: "This really bridges the gap between "hard science" i.e. contemporary physics and what many professional scientists would consider "new age psycho-babble".
It would appear that the qualitative truths of a more ancient world view, which due to their often nebulous and poorly defined nature, have previously defied objective analysis and experimental verification are now getting the solid foundation they need to really make sense.
The ability to quantify these phenomena within a framework of physics that can lead to specific repeatable prediction of results at a basic level will greatly accelerate the discovery of the underlying principles and lead to practical applications, medical and otherwise.
At the same time the quantitative truths of the current scientific world view, which due to their often brittle and rigidly specified nature, have previously defied attempts to reconcile "known facts" about "animate" matter with "known facts" about "inanimate" matter are now getting the infusion of new concepts they need to really deal with the unity of seemingly differing aspects of reality."

I found the above book and quote from this page: http://www.viewzone.com/dnax.html highly interesting in itself, and talks about life being an exchange of photon communication. Again, I point out that Tourmaline gemstone is scientifically proven to emit far infrared light. http://www.scientific.net/AMR.58.77

[hooter]

i will put these in a ring and i wil be a wizard

[Hip]

I didn't think you would rise to the challenge, Orangeray.

In an earlier post, you said:

"I have tested this [quartz spray] product on at least 30 people so far. About 20%, say they are unsure, or disregard any sensation as a fluke. The other 80%, are still skeptical, but then truly amazed. After questioning people's experience these are some of the words I have received, "crazy!" "more alert" "I feel awake!" "wow" are you feeling anything? "oh yeah!" "soothing" "refreshed" "I can't believe I feel that" and so on."

There can be no justification for making such extraordinary claims as you have, and then hiding away, or providing feeble excuses, when it comes to providing proper evidence.

[orangeray21]

Hip I understand your stance. It's a time and money issue. I would like to do even a bigger study than you mentioned. Perhaps 100 people or more. Just to make sure there were enough variations in people chosen. This is quite an undertaking and expense, and from the links I have listed so far, I'm not convinced anyone would be impressed. Besides, I KNOW they work. I have tried hundreds of different things for my health, believe me, they go in the trash or to a friend if they don't work for me. These gem tools aren't cheap, and I am:) Anyway, studies are great, but wouldn't you want to know what they did for you? I can offer some experiments if you'd like to try. Meanwhile, I am content to see what information and can find on the net, kind of like a treasure hunt, because I know one day I will be redeemed, it's just a matter of time...

[orangeray21]

More details from Mr. Vogel from above: http://www.vogelcrys...tm#waterandwine

[Hip]

I would like to do even a bigger study than you mentioned. Perhaps 100 people or more.

Actually, you could perform a very effective study using just ONE person, and it would be valid. So you cannot get easier than that.

All you have to do is prepare say 10 bottles, 5 bottles containing you quartz water, and the other 5 bottles containing ordinary water. Then you randomly label them 1 to 10, but you don't tell the person testing them which is which.

Then ask the tester to use one bottle each day, and to comment as before on the effects. If your quartz water worked, then at the end of the experiment, only the bottles containing quartz water would get positive results.



Though it's very strange that when you speak to people with New Age beliefs, they have no interest in truth; only fantasy.

Also, if they were to test most New Age products, they'd find they don't work, and business sales would plummet. So for business reasons, it's best to avoid a confrontation with the truth.

Edited by Hip, 18 January 2012 - 06:08 PM.

[hooter]

James Randi is offering $1 million. One million dollars for anyone who can prove that, for example, gems exert any effects at all.

Nobody has been able to pass the preliminary test, hmm.

[orangeray21]

Hooter, Here is somebody's response to James Randi"s tests on his forums:

If a claimant possesses the ability claimed, he/she would pass the preliminary test, and then pass the final test, without a problem. Coming close to passing the preliminary test is the same as not coming close, i.e.. no paranormal ability exists.
Really? Lets take a hypothetical example.

On the preliminary test Randi requires 1000-1 odds. Frequently, he gives 10 tests, with 8 out of 10 required to pass.

Lets just say that the applicant only gets 7 out of 10 at 900-1 odds.

Do you really wanna say that a near miss is the same as zero?

This is one way in which Randi's tests are flawed, IMHO, because they don't allow for such a situation. I don't know what the nearest miss is, but I do know that on at least one occasion the test subjects scored well above chance at 100-1 odds, but less than the agreed target score. Maybe some subjects have scored longer odds than that, maybe not.

[orangeray21]

Hip,
I know a guy that is in the 80% as explained above, do you mind if I ask him to be the guinea pig for this 10 bottle test you suggest? And I want to know if he passes it, what are the actions I can expect from you in return? By the way, the water contains nothing but a Quartz sphere, no scent or other ingredients, so no tip off. I would have to cover all 10 bottles up to hide the Sphere. And also Hip, I would say just misting with water is still refreshing, so I wouldn't say there would be zero effect, that isn't possible. But I would say, the effect would be quite different. The Quartz spray has a charging effect. That is my simplest explanation of the effect.

[hooter]

Hip,
I know a guy that is in the 80% as explained above, do you mind if I ask him to be the guinea pig for this 10 bottle test you suggest? And I want to know if he passes it, what are the actions I can expect from you in return? By the way, the water contains nothing but a Quartz sphere, no scent or other ingredients, so no tip off. I would have to cover all 10 bottles up to hide the Sphere. And also Hip, I would say just misting with water is still refreshing, so I wouldn't say there would be zero effect, that isn't possible. But I would say, the effect would be quite different. The Quartz spray has a charging effect. That is my simplest explanation of the effect.

Even if minutely, a quartz sphere would alter the buoyancy, volumetric capacity and weight of the bottle. Make sure testee does not hold the bottle or drink directly from it. Furthermore you say "Quartz spray has a charging effect". This is a presumption. You must absolutely not know which bottles contain the crystals and which don't. A third party is useful here. It's standard double-blind protocol and without it you will just be wasting time.

This is one way in which Randi's tests are flawed, IMHO, because they don't allow for such a situation. I don't know what the nearest miss is, but I do know that on at least one occasion the test subjects scored well above chance at 100-1 odds, but less than the agreed target score. Maybe some subjects have scored longer odds than that, maybe not.

The actual crystal healing tests have had less than 5 out of 10 each time. Even if you somehow had a point, they still failed miserably in all counts. All testing protocols have to be negotiated and mutually agreed upon.

2.1 Protocols must be “mutually agreed upon,” what does that mean?

Neither the Foundation nor the claimant can force a testing procedure without the approval of the other side. The testing procedure is a negotiation, and no one can put their foot down. If at any time it a deadlock is reached, the application process will be terminated, and neither side will be blamed or considered at fault.

"There is no peer reviewed scientific evidence that crystal healing has any effect. It has been called a pseudoscience. It is also a historical belief similar to that of charmstones, rather than one based on modern scientific practices and advances.^[6] Pleasant feelings or seeming successes of crystal healing can be attributed to the placebo effect, or the believers wanting it to be true and seeing only things that back that up; cognitive bias.^[7]"

Here is James Randi debunking crystals in 1991:

There is been no scientific evidence for crystal healing since its invention. There's nothing on pubmed or any medical journal about crystal healing. I see people linking to unrelated articles that they have apparently not even read, about fibers and whatnot. It's only notable supporters are Marcel Vogel (who makes his own crystals $$$) and William A. Tiller who believes that thinking about things really really hard will make them conceivably occur.

---

It's not that there haven't been enough studies on it, it's just that all of them have shown that it is complete quackery. If you're looking for a study to confirm it, you're on the wrong path. Be wary of confirmation bias.

In a 1999 paper presented at the Sixth European Congress of Psychology in Rome, French and Lynn Williams gave a paper entitled "Crystal clear: paranormal powers, placebo, or priming?" In this paper they explored the possibility that the sensations that crystal practitioners report may be due, in part, to "priming"; that is, expecting certain sensations after being told or reading about them in reference books. They used 80 volunteers, half of which were male. The volunteers included customers from a New Age store, as well as undergraduates and non-students.

Participants were given either a natural quartz crystal to hold, or a fake crystal made of glass. They were asked to report sensations such as tingling, heat, relaxation, and mood change. Those who had been "primed" to expect certain sensations reported these sensations more frequently (p = .008) than those who had not been primed. However, there was no difference in effects reported between those who handled the real crystal and those who handled the fake crystal.

French repeated the study with Hayley O'Donnell and Williams in a paper presented to the British Psychological Society Centary Annual Conference in Glasgow in 2001. Part of the motivation for the replication was that the original study was not double-blind, as the experimenter (Wiliams) was aware of which crystals were real and fake. The 2001 study was double-blind. This time, the "priming" did not have a significant effect, but once again, there was no difference in effects reported between real and fake crystals.

The study concludes "...the fact that the same effects were found with both genuine and fake crystals undermines any claims that crystals have the mysterious powers which they are claimed to have. Instead, the power of suggestion, either explicit or implicit, seems to be the not-so-mysterious power that may convince many that crystals have the potential to work miracles".

There are studies, but the results are exclusively in the opposite direction of what you expect. As such no respectable scientist is going to squander his time and reputation with these matters.

I understand it is human nature to not want to admit mistakes. Cognitive dissonance takes precedence over embarrassment. If one proudly sprays themselves head to toe with crystal water, there will be a certain amount of shame associated with the necessary change of perception through admittance.

From your posting in this thread it seems like you desperately want it to work. Why? Have you spent a lot of money and time on this? Would it embarrass at such a deep level to admit fault? Do you absolutely need a belief in magic to live? Why?

Edited by hooter, 19 January 2012 - 10:24 AM.

[Hip]

Hip,
I know a guy that is in the 80% as explained above, do you mind if I ask him to be the guinea pig for this 10 bottle test you suggest? And I want to know if he passes it, what are the actions I can expect from you in return? By the way, the water contains nothing but a Quartz sphere, no scent or other ingredients, so no tip off. I would have to cover all 10 bottles up to hide the Sphere. And also Hip, I would say just misting with water is still refreshing, so I wouldn't say there would be zero effect, that isn't possible. But I would say, the effect would be quite different. The Quartz spray has a charging effect. That is my simplest explanation of the effect.

That's perfectly fine to use a person that you think is more sensitive to the effects, in fact it is a good idea to do this, as to be fair to yourself, you want to give yourself the best chance of proving the effect you are investigating, but of course, still being rigorous, and ensuring no placebo effects are there that might bias the results.

This is why the blinding method is necessary, to make the quartz bottles completely indistinguishable from the control bottles containing just water.

Covering up the bottles might be fine, but be mindful of the fact that the bottles with the quartz sphere inside might have a different weight, or feel different when shaken or moved, due to the water swishing around the sphere. If the sphere is loose inside the bottle, then you are definitely going to feel the sphere inside, as it bangs against the insides of the bottle. One answer to this problem might be to put a glass marble of the same size and weight inside the control bottles.

The misting yourself with water may be refreshing, but you would also get the same refreshment effect from the control bottles; but what we are looking out for is an increased effect from the quartz bottles, over and above the effects from the control bottles.

You can ask your tester to use one bottle each day, starting with bottle 1 on the first day, bottle 2 on the second day, etc.

You might even ask the tester to use the spray from the day's bottle say three times that day, morning, evening and night, and answer the questionnaire on each occasion. This will help get more accurate results.

In terms of which bottle is which, you can use a flip of a coin to randomly allocate the numbers to the bottles before you give your tester the batch of 10 bottles. So for example, flip a coin once, and if it's heads then make bottle 1 a quartz bottle; but if tails, then make bottle 1 a control bottle. Flip the coin ten times in this way for all 10 bottles. That way you will nicely randomize them. Then you just give your tester all ten bottles that you have prepared, and ask him or her to run the test over the next 10 days.

You should not be present when the tester tests the bottles, because you know which bottle is which, so just by unconscious body language, etc you may influence the tester's feelings and response when he tries a particular bottle. Ideally, as hooter says in the above post, you would want a third person to hold the secret of which bottle is which. However, I think it is OK if you know, as long as you are not present when the testing takes place. And don't ask any questions of the tester about how each day went, even by telephone, as again you may inadvertently influence the results, since you know which bottle is used on each day. It's best to have no contact with the tester during the testing period. This is especially true if you are an empathetic or charismatic type of personality — this personality can be very influential on people, so you need to keep well away from the testing.

Also, I suggest that you don't tell your tester that some bottles are real and some are controls. Just tell him say that you are experimenting with different formulas, and want his feedback.

Makes sure your questionnaire relates to the effect or effects you are looking out for. So for example, if you think that the main effects are calmness and relaxation, your questionnaire should ask about this, as in the example question in my above post:

"Has this spray made you feel: (1) Less relaxed; (2) same as before; (3) more relaxed; (4) very relaxed."

But if you think that the main effects are say alertness and concentration, then you would want to ask about this instead. You can of course ask more than one question in the same questionnaire, if you like, to cover different possible effects.

Also, ask them to take the questionnaire after an appropriate time interval from spraying. So for example, if in your experience, the spray takes 3 minutes to fully kick in, then you want to get the tester to answer the questionnaire exactly three minutes after spraying. Or if you think it take 30 minutes to kick in, then you would want to get them to answer the questionnaire 30 minutes after spraying.

You can arrange the experiment and questionnaire as you like, in order to maximize the effects, as long as you do it scientifically, without letting any placebo effect creep in.

Note that I don't feel what hooter said above is correct: there is no shame if this test turns out not show the positive result that you were expecting. Rather the opposite, in fact: you are to be much commended for undertaking such a rigorous test. And also, a negative result does not mean you have to give up either; you can always try other formulations and experiments. The willingness to do accurate testing is what really counts.


Mechanism of action:

I am not sure if quartz has ever been observed to alter the properties of water, but the mineral that you waxed lyrical about earlier in this thread, tourmaline, does have observable effects on water: it can de-cluster water molecules (ie, break apart loose groupings of liquid water molecules), and has been shown to promote growth of microorganisms.

So for tourmaline at least, here is a vague, ballpark idea that might just explain any biological effects this mineral has on water/humans. However, quartz is a different mineral.


Some tourmaline weblinks:

Pyroelectricity of tourmaline:
http://www.slac.stan...ol5/AARD459.pdf

Tourmaline stimulates growth in microorganisms:
http://sky.scnu.edu....nloads/lw20.pdf

Tourmaline promotes activity of bacterial dehydrogenase enzyme:
http://www.sciencedi...359511305003843

The water molecule de-clustering effect of tourmaline apparently makes water more able to dissolve things, thus allowing soap-free washing of clothes:
http://www.classwash.com/en/ball.php
http://www.classwash...ormaline_en.pdf
Though I'd like to see some proper studies on this cleaning of clothes before I believe it.


De-clustering:

Note also that strong magnets (like the neodymium magnets you can buy online) will also de-cluster water, and do so very rapidly if you vigorously shake the water for a minute or so with the water in close proximity to the magnet.

You can buy neodymium magnet coasters that you place under wine bottles, and these are said to improve the taste of the wine, probably by de-clustering the water molecules in the wine, I guess.

I did some experiments with putting a 1 inch diameter neodymium magnet next to a glass of wine, and after several hours, comparing it to the same wine in another glass untouched by the magnet. The difference in taste was quite noticeable, and several people who also tasted the two glasses could notice the difference.

Edited by Hip, 19 January 2012 - 07:45 PM.

[hooter]

Is there any evidence for 'clustering' or that neodydmium magnets de-cluster liquids?

Please note that not even professional wine tasters have passed double-blind studies. Wines at a price range of around $6-$10 were chosen to be the best in such a study. It's hard to distinguish because of the effects of alcohol on the sensory system as well.

I'm just curious about this clustering thing...

[Googoltarian]

I tested one of those devices for making water better in some way and it had some magnets inside. I could distinguish same looking glasses of water (treated or untreated by device) by taste 100% right. This effect is more pronounced with tea, don`t ask me why...

As to health effects I cant say anything.

Last time I checked gems were not magnetic

[Hip]

Is there any evidence for 'clustering' or that neodydmium magnets de-cluster liquids?

Please note that not even professional wine tasters have passed double-blind studies. Wines at a price range of around $6-$10 were chosen to be the best in such a study. It's hard to distinguish because of the effects of alcohol on the sensory system as well.

I'm just curious about this clustering thing...

The best resource I know on water is Dr Martin Chapman's Water Structure and Science web site. This is a very technical site, and does not make easy reading, but it offers a really in-depth understanding of the myriad physical properties of water.

Links to Dr Chapman's pages about water clusters:
Water clusters (Overview)
Water as a network of icosahedral water clusters
Water cluster architecture based on clathrate hydrates

Links to water cluster size changes due to magnetic, electric and electromagnetic fields:
In this page: Magnetic and electric effects on water, Dr Chapman writes:

"Lower, but still powerful, magnetic fields (0.2 T) have been shown, in simulations, to increase the number of monomer water molecules but, rather surprisingly, they increase the tetrahedrality at the same time. Other studies show an increase in cluster size in liquid water is caused by a magnetic field." (Note that the last sentence is in contradiction to what I said above about magnetic fields reducing cluster size.)

"Static magnetic effects have been shown to cause strengthened hydrogen bonding and an increase in the ordered structure of water formed around hydrophobic molecules and colloids."

"Magnetic fields affect the infrared spectrum of water (showing its effect on water clustering) and these effects remain for considerable time after the magnetic field is removed. Surprisingly, even very small magnetic fields may affect the solubility of gasses in seawater (solubility increasing with magnetic field (20-50 µT), probably by their effect on the clathrate stability. This reinforces the view that it is the movement through a magnetic field, and it associated electromagnetic effect, that is important for disrupting the hydrogen bonding."

"Thus, it appears that electric and magnetic fields have opposite effects on water clustering. Unstructured water with fewer hydrogen bonds is a more reactive environment."

"Any factors that reduce hydrogen bonding and hydrogen bond strength, such as electric fields, should encourage reactivity. Water clusters (even with random arrangements) have equal hydrogen bonding in all directions. As such, electric or electromagnetic fields that attempt to reorient the water molecules should necessitate the breakage of some hydrogen bonds; for example, electric fields have been reported to halve the mean water cluster size as measured by ¹⁷O-NMR (see also 'declustered' water) and increase reaction rates, hydration and solubility."

Also worth reading: Polywater, declustered water and other waters

[Hip]

I tested one of those devices for making water better in some way and it had some magnets inside. I could distinguish same looking glasses of water (treated or untreated by device) by taste 100% right. This effect is more pronounced with tea, don`t ask me why...

As to health effects I cant say anything.

Last time I checked gems were not magnetic

I think the effect of treating drinks with strong magnets is definitely noticeable to the taste buds. If anyone wants to try it, you can buy a neodymium magnet here and here. Though be careful with these larger neodymium magnets: if you put your finger between two such magnetics, it can squeeze your finger as if between a pair of pliers. Very painful, as I found out myself!


Tourmaline is not magnetic, but is a pyroelectric crystal. A pyroelectric crystal is composed of billions of microscopic electric dipoles. An electric dipole is just a pair of positive and negative electric charges (much like a magnetic dipole is a pair of north and south poles). It's these microscopic electric dipoles in tourmaline that interact with and alter the water molecules, as I understand it.

Edited by Hip, 20 January 2012 - 03:16 AM.

[orangeray21]

Hey Hip, thanks for all the info. I will put a plan together. Like I said I have three jobs, so this will take a while to complete. I tried to call my potential participant, his mailbox is full. I'll keep trying. I want to pay him to do this, a little incentive to write some good notes. Also I need to buy some more Diamond Reamers I use to make this stuff. As I mount the quartz sphere on the siphon tube, so there is no rolling around. It doesn't weigh much, so I really doubt it could be detected. I'll weigh the bottles, and see if I can tell. One issue, I will need to call my bottle supplier, as I guess some glass is made with sand, and does have quartz in it. I tried spraying myself with plain water, there is a refreshing feeling, but nothing like the Quartz spray....I wonder if I'm getting a small effect from the Quartz in the glass. Also, I have a 2 step proprietary process I use to prepare the water (but it's still just water, nothing added), which I feel allows the Quartz to impress it and I do an energizing process to the Quartz sphere itself. Do you suggest I do this preparation to the plain water control as well? Or would you recommend regular tap water? I have no problem with doing this to the control, other than this is part of what makes it Quartz water, so it seems like the control should be unaltered? I live here in Portland Oregon and the water out of the tap is good, just has a trace of chlorine it it from Bull Run I've been told (the name of the water shed). Or I could use bottled water, or distilled for the control? I understand distilled has zero in it, other than I believe the FDA requires all bottled water to be treated with ozone at the plant. I'm told by a couple of bottling companies, there is no trace of ozone by the time it reaches store shelves. One final thing, I don't really like the idea of not telling him some bottles are a control. I am always truthful, and I don't want to mislead. Like everyone on this board I don't rule out the power of the mind. I think if I don't say anything, he would say something positive about the controls just to be considerate (if I tell them they are new formulas as you suggested), water is life right? I think the more important issue is that he can experience a difference between each set without knowing what he's using, and the results are statistically significant. I wonder if anyone here might like to buy a bottle or two from me to help fund this study at some point? Perhaps after the results? No pressure:)

[hooter]

One final thing, I don't really like the idea of not telling him some bottles are a control. I am always truthful, and I don't want to mislead.

Science isn't about what you like, sorry.

Edited by hooter, 20 January 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[Hip]

Hey Hip, thanks for all the info. I will put a plan together. Like I said I have three jobs, so this will take a while to complete. I tried to call my potential participant, his mailbox is full. I'll keep trying. I want to pay him to do this, a little incentive to write some good notes. Also I need to buy some more Diamond Reamers I use to make this stuff. As I mount the quartz sphere on the siphon tube, so there is no rolling around. It doesn't weigh much, so I really doubt it could be detected. I'll weigh the bottles, and see if I can tell.

One issue, I will need to call my bottle supplier, as I guess some glass is made with sand, and does have quartz in it. I tried spraying myself with plain water, there is a refreshing feeling, but nothing like the Quartz spray....I wonder if I'm getting a small effect from the Quartz in the glass. Also, I have a 2 step proprietary process I use to prepare the water (but it's still just water, nothing added), which I feel allows the Quartz to impress it and I do an energizing process to the Quartz sphere itself. Do you suggest I do this preparation to the plain water control as well?

Or would you recommend regular tap water? I have no problem with doing this to the control, other than this is part of what makes it Quartz water, so it seems like the control should be unaltered? I live here in Portland Oregon and the water out of the tap is good, just has a trace of chlorine it it from Bull Run I've been told (the name of the water shed). Or I could use bottled water, or distilled for the control? I understand distilled has zero in it, other than I believe the FDA requires all bottled water to be treated with ozone at the plant. I'm told by a couple of bottling companies, there is no trace of ozone by the time it reaches store shelves.

Hi Orangeray

You should really use the same type of water in the control bottles as you use in the quartz-containing bottles. So if you use distilled or mineral water for the quartz-containing bottles, then use the same water in the control bottles. If you were to use tap water in the controls, and distilled water in the quartz-containing bottles, then the two types of bottle might be distinguishable by the smell of chlorine in the tap water. So it should be the same water in both bottle types.

Though you should not do the 2 step proprietary process to prepare the water for the control bottles, just in the quartz-containing bottles.

I presume this 2 step proprietary process does not change the smell, color or texture of the water.



The quartz-containing bottles will be slightly heavier, since quartz weights 2.65 grams per cubic centimeter, whereas water weighs 1 gram per cubic centimeter. However, if the crystal is small, this will only amount to a very slight difference in weight, which is probably not going to be noticeable.

About getting an effect from the quartz in the glass of the bottle: in fact both glass and quartz are made from exactly the same molecules: silicon dioxide. But there is no large-scale ordered structure of these silicon dioxide molecules in glass, whereas in quartz, all the silicon dioxide molecules are ordered into a precise large-scale lattice framework. That's what a crystal is, in scientific terms: a large-scale lattice of molecules.

A crystal is like a thousands of soldiers standing in alignment on a military parade; glass is just like a crowd of people standing randomly. The special properties of crystals come from their ordered lattice. So you I don't think you need worry about the glass itself acting like quartz.

Though if this does concern you, you could switch to plastic bottles for both control and quartz-containing bottles.

One final thing, I don't really like the idea of not telling him some bottles are a control. I am always truthful, and I don't want to mislead. Like everyone on this board I don't rule out the power of the mind. I think if I don't say anything, he would say something positive about the controls just to be considerate (if I tell them they are new formulas as you suggested), water is life right? I think the more important issue is that he can experience a difference between each set without knowing what he's using, and the results are statistically significant. I wonder if anyone here might like to buy a bottle or two from me to help fund this study at some point? Perhaps after the results? No pressure:)

You have a valid point there, Orangeray, that your tester might say positive things just to be considerate, even if he thought that some bottles had little effect.

The reason I said to tell your tester that you were testing different formulations is only so that he would not know that half the bottles are quartz-containing, and the other half controls.

If he knows this, then he might scrutinize the bottles more closely, to see if he can identify some differences in appearance, etc. It's only natural to that. I were the tester in this experiment, I would probably be scrutinizing the bottles closely; it's normal curiosity.

But I agree that there would be a danger of your tester giving positive scores just to please you, if he did not know that some bottles were not the real thing.

So I agree with you that you should tell him that some are real, and some are controls, and that therefore you want his honest opinion.

But now as you have told him that some of the bottles are controls, it becomes doubly important to make sure that there is no way at all he can possibly distinguish between the two types of bottles, by any means at all. For example, make sure that when you cover the bottles, you do completely, so that he cannot peer into the bottle from underneath, or from the top, and see the crystal inside. Make sure that he cannot peel off some of the cover, by fixing the cover on with lots of strong Scotch tape. Make sure he cannot hold the bottle up to the light or a light bulb and see through the cover. Assume that he is going to be a bit curious, like any person would be, and so will be examining the bottles a bit. You want to make sure he cannot see anything, no matter how curious.

Make sure that if he shakes the bottles, the quartz-containing bottles do not feel or sound different to the control bottles.

You just have be very careful, and consider in advance any possible way the bottles might be distinguished by a curious person.

Edited by Hip, 20 January 2012 - 04:07 PM.

[orangeray21]

Hey guys,
Almost time to got to work, but just wanted to give a quick reply. Appreciate the time you have put into this. One thing I can do, is definitely not mention that half of the bottles are controls. I can just say that some of the bottles are controls but not give any other indication. I think this adds to the "rigorousness" of the test. That way he won't be mentally calculating which 5 must be "right" and which 5 must be "wrong". I didn't calculate the weight of the sphere yet, but it is 10mm in size and threaded on the siphon tube in the bottle. It can't go anywhere. I found out my bottles are about 73% silica. But I need to use glass for the Quartz water. So I will have to go with it. Plastic has its own issues. I don't think the glass will be an issue either, as you say it has a very different structure. I will enclose all bottles entirely except for the spray top, I may even make secret markings to be able to tell if someone else got curious and opened them. I will do a weight test with my girlfriend, if she guesses too much of the time which are which, I will add some weight to the controls. Please be patient, this could take a month or longer to complete. Have a great day!

Edited by orangeray21, 20 January 2012 - 11:34 PM.