Handling sea water with a water trap seems to give a better
yield of m-state (better in terms of quantity and density of m-state in
relation to Mg(OH)2) for the wet method to follow (test with two
identical jars with selected and unselected seawater). Working
with the water trap on site gives the advantage of carrying much less
water.
My equipment is :
Water Trap (three stage T-trap)
Boat pump 12V 500lt/h
Old car Battery
Battery Charger(at home)
Of course it is very simple to go and fill a container with seawater
instead of carrying pumps, watertraps, car batteries etc and also have
people looking and wondering what you're doing with this peculiar
equipment. So I practiced the method on two samples of water just to
have an idea if it's worth getting to all that trouble.
But my experiment was not precise. I did not count the drops of lye nor
the difference of the precipitates. I only counted the pH. However I
brought them at the same pH and the precipitate was more at the
watertrap sample. So I decided to have a second (precise)
experiment.
Before going on with the experiment itself, I would like to mention an
experience from the field of electronics:
For about two years of my professional life I performed measurements on
TV transponders. One of those was the measurement of the electronic
noise level.
How did we do it?
We did it indirectly because every unit (our instruments too) add
noise. So how could we separate transponder noise from the other noise
(how can we separate m-state from regular precipitate)?
This is what we do:
We take a "white noise generator", we put it at the transponder input
and start to induce more and more noise (from the generator). At the
same time we watch at the screen of the spectrum analyzer the noise
level (the "grass") to get higher and higher. When it gets double (3db
difference) we stop.
What has happened now? The noise was doubled. This means that the
generator produced the same noise as the transponder did. So if I read
the noise level from the generator panel, this is the measurement that
I was looking for. Because it's the same that the transponder produces.
What does it have to do with Ormus?
Suppose we want to measure the Ormus in the sea precipitate. If we find
a way to double it and measure the difference then this is the amount
that we were looking for.
If we set a watertrap at a ratio 1/2 will the Ormus have doubled?
If this is true then we measure the difference between "normal"
precipitate and "x2" precipitate. This difference will be the answer to
the question: "How much of the precipitate is m-state?"
First we have to find out if we are in the "linear part of the curve".
For this reason I performed the same experiment with the measurements
of precipitate for three different types of water:
"Normal", "x12"
and "x80"
In this way I found that (roughly) "yes we are in the linear part of
the curve".
Since the "x80" setting gave 52% more precipitate, then our quantity is
the 1/80 of it.
The question now is:
"If the quantity of the precipitate shows no difference does this
mean that there is no difference in the quality also?" As an example
lets suppose that we have MgCl with simple Mg or m-Mg. After the
watertrap we may have more MgCl with m-Mg but the concentration of the
total MgCl may have not changed at all. I believe that this mechanism
also works (maybe it's better not to get rid of MgOH after the Wet
Method).
Now the experiment:
At the seashore:
I fill a bottle (1Lt) with seawater just for the experiment. I have
also brought 2 containers (12Lt each) to collect water trough the
watertrap for the Wet Method. As soon as I start pumping I discover
that I have a problem with the watertrap. So I have to reduce the ratio
to 1/12. I fill the containers.
At home:
I fill two jars. The first with "NORMAL" water and the second with "x12"
The height of water is 16.6cm at both of them.
Before I start with the lye I measure the pH and I have the first
surprise:
"NORMAL" 8.5 "x12" 8.4
I repeat the measurement again and again. I bring the second pH meter
(after the "accident" which made me throw the dead sea precipitate I
bought a second meter just to verify that the first meter was correct
and the fault was totally mine).
The measurement is correct.
THE WATERTRAP SEAWATER HAS A pH 0.1 LOWER THAN NORMAL SEAWATER.
Something is different after all.
I start adding the lye solution.
Every 10 drops I measure the pH and write it down.
"NORMAL"
8.5
"x12" 8.4
+10drops
9.9
9.8
+10
9.9
9.9
+...180 (it stays long at 9.9)
10
10
+...40drops
10.1
10.1
+...40drops
10.2
10.2
+...40drops
10.3
10.3
+...20drops
10.7
10.5
+...10drops
10.7
It took 10 drops more for "x12" to reach pH 10.7
In the morning (after more than 6 hours) I measure the height of the
precipitate:
"NORMAL"
4.4cm
"x12" 4.7cm (= 4.4 + 6.8%)
CONCLUSION:
x12 WATERTRAP SEAWATER GAVE 6.8% MORE PRECIPITATE THAN NORMAL
SEAWATER.
We must note that we have much more of total m-state difference because
of two reasons. The first reason is the one I mentioned earlier with
the example of MgCl. Something we can suspect but cannot prove without
an assay.
The second reason however is more certain because it comes through
simple logic: THE 6.8% DIFFERENCE IS 100% m-state (it came because it
reacted to magnets) Of course there is a correction here that we
have to make. Instead of "100% m-state" we should write: "100%
molecules containing at least 1 m-state atom each".
Since m-state is a small portion of the precipitate from normal
seawater, 6.8% makes a great difference:
If we suppose that we have 5% m-state in the precipitate of
normal seawater then an increase of 6.8% gives more than the double.
In my previous effort even though I didn't measure it I have the
impression that the difference was even greater (the selection ratio of
the watertrap was close to 1/100).
Another obvious possibility is that we may find a lot more than 11
kinds of m-state since even undetectable traces will be multiplied by
the watertrap.
The experiment was very simple. Since there are ORMUS products from
seawater it is logical to assume that others have made the experiment
before I did. However I can't find any relative information. I would
appreciate any comments, opinions and of course information. I believe
that the experiment must be verified by others too.
Nikos (Runikos)
[email protected]