Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Radio wave-treated water could change agriculture as we know it.
25 August 2013
A groundbreaking new Irish technology which could be the greatest breakthrough in agriculture since the plough is set to change the face of modern farming forever.
The technology – radio wave energised water – massively increases the output of vegetables and fruits by up to 30 per cent. Not only are the plants much bigger but they are largely disease-resistant.
Not only are the plants much bigger but they are largely disease-resistant, meaning huge savings in expensive fertilisers and harmful pesticides.
Developed by Professor Austin Darragh and Dr JJ Leahy of Limerick University's Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science, the hardy eco-friendly technology uses nothing but the natural elements of sunlight, water, carbon dioxide in the air and the minerals in the soil.
The compact biscuit-tin-sized technology, which is called Vi-Aqua – meaning 'life water' – converts 24 volts of electricity into a radio signal, which charges up the water via an antennae. Once the device is attached to a hose, thousands of gallons of water can be charged up in less than 10 minutes at a cost of pennies.
azoria,
That doesn't sound as if it is for real.
Nothing can stop global warming. We have already
passed the point of no return. We can only slow it down now.
I hope it is for real, but I don't know...hard to believe.
Oh, by the way, it really won't matter anyway, all of the bees
are dying, and without bees, we won't have much food anyway.
Somehow it seems possible that electricity+water could have some magic, after all look at the kind of super greenness that occurs right after big thunderstorm when everything gets all perked up.
The extra "greenness after a good rain could be because the plants are getting water without city chemicals. If you water from a municipal source.
No, the extra greenness after a good rain, usually a thunderstorm, comes from the electrical storm releasing atmospheric nitrogen for plants to take up. It's the only time plants take up nitrogen from the air.
And another possibility that intrigues me is that rainwater pH (acid rain) in many parts of the US is beneficial. So much of the country struggles with soil alkalinity, and rainwater has a far lower pH than tap water from our limestone soils. One of our master gardeners did an experiment with this a couple years ago, and the pH difference between pure rainwater and her outside tap water was a full 3 points, with "acid" rain obviously being lower. Over time, that can have a good effect on the soil.
In any case, I had a hard time making sense of the science as it was described in the article, but it sure was intriguing. Wouldn't it be nice...
After reading and rereading it, the article had no science worth trying to wrap ones head around it. The media does not understand how science works, how things have to be reproducible, and go off half cocked when someone declares a "eureka" moment. The amount of nitrogen from thunderstorms is pretty miniscule when it is measured and this doesn't look like it does anything more. Lots of websites, that have no real science background, have declared that lightening makes lots of nitrogen but the few real researchers who have set up ways to measure it have come away with less than astronomical numbers. It was a cool "what if" but there is a reason the main science oriented reviewers and journals didn't want to touch this and why it was so quickly trashed by the reddit crowd (they are much faster than snopes in getting to the bottom of myths).
Azoria it was still a nice try, and far better to be hopeful than hopeless. Thanks for bringing the subject up. I didn't want to sound critical but often junk science gets media attention, gets debunked in a few years and then people feel confused as to what is true and what is tinfoil hat time. We tend to believe the media releases because most people believe science is what Hollywood serves up; the lone wolf scientist in his lab coat who understands (in depth no less) multiple disciplines of science, can read multiple line equations at a single glance and intuitively knows some wonderful secret that changes the world. Sadly that is not how the real science world works.
I don't have the same negative feeling about preventing and staving off global warming as some people seem to, but then again I have been working in some form or another in conservation and environmental management for a long time. Maybe that takes a sunnier disposition rather than the doom and gloom we might as well give up or maybe it is because I strongly believe there are real scientists who are working on real ways to change the progression of climate changes. We haven't reached the proverbial tipping point yet, in spite of what the hucksters selling carbon credits say.
"Not only are the plants much bigger but they are largely disease-resistant, meaning huge savings in expensive fertilisers and harmful pesticides."
How would disease resistant plants save any fertilizer or pesticides. It seems to me that fertilizer is nutrition to help plants grow and pesticides are used to control pests, largely insects. Neither one has anything or very little to do with disease.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
