The Next Bigly Thing: Elec­tro­cul­ture

Trillions - - Contents - By Robert A. Nel­son

Pub­lisher's Note: We and oth­ers have been re­search­ing the ef­fects of mag­netic fields and elec­trons on seeds and plants for some time. It is cer­tainly true that plants can be made more heat, cold and drought re­sis­tant and ger­mi­na­tion rates, growth rates and crop yields can be dra­mat­i­cally in­creased by the ap­pli­ca­tion of cer­tain types of nat­u­ral elec­tro­mag­netic en­ergy while other, un-nat­u­ral types, such as mi­crowaves, can harm plants.

This is an im­mensely im­por­tant and ne­glected field of study. Fol­low­ing is some of what the agro-chem­i­cal in­dus­try doesn't want you to know.

Plant growth can be ac­cel­er­ated by hun­dreds of per­cent by the smart ap­pli­ca­tion of en­ergy in the forms of static elec­tric­ity, DC/AC ra­dio fre­quen­cies, mag­netism, and monochrome and in­ter­mit­tent light­ing, and sound. Crop yields and qual­ity are im­proved to the same de­gree. The en­er­gies are ap­plied to the seeds, plants, soil or the wa­ter and nu­tri­ents. And thus tons of food can be cul­ti­vated in a quar­ter acre or less, in gar­dens, on bal­conies, rooftops, in flow­er­pots or hy­dro­pon­ics or per­ma­cul­ture.

That trans­lates into vastly in­creased prof­its for a wide range of agri­cul­tural prod­ucts. Hy­dro­ponic sys­tems are ide­ally suited for elec­tro­cul­ture.

And there’s more -- much, much more, as the Rus­sian re­searchers B.R. Lazarenko and I.B. Gor­ba­tovoskaya re­ported:

“Re­ports that the char­ac­ter­is­tics ac­quired by the plants in elec­tri­cally treated soils are trans­mit­ted by in­her­i­tance to the third gen­er­a­tion are par­tic­u­larly in­ter­est­ing.

“Un­der the in­flu­ence of the elec­tri­cal cur­rent, the nu­mer­i­cal pro­por­tions be­tween hemp plants of dif­fer­ent sexes was changed by com­par­i­son with the con­trol to give an in­creased num­ber of fe­male plants by 20-25%, in con­nec­tion with a re­duc­tion in the in­ten­sity of the ox­ida­tive pro­cesses in the plant tis­sues.” (J. Ap­plied Elec­tri­cal Phe­nom­ena #6, March-april 1966)

It is very easy to try your thumb at elec­tro­cul­ture. The in­no­va­tive Ion-a-gro So­lar Plant Ion­izer can in­crease plant growth by more than 30%! Just hang the wid­get above the lucky veg­etable and watch closely...

Ze­nion In­dus­tries, the man­u­fac­turer of Ion-a-gro, claims:

“Tech­nol­ogy helps plants grow faster, stronger... Dra­mat­i­cally boosts fruit and veg­etable yield... In­creases the num­ber of grow­ing cy­cles in a

sea­son... Helps to mit­i­gate in­fes­ta­tion by un­wanted her­bi­vores such as aphids and spi­der mite...”

In­ven­tor Jim Lee ex­plains it geekly in his US Patent Ap­pli­ca­tion US2015070812:

“Neg­a­tively charged car­bon diox­ide mol­e­cules are more read­ily ab­sorbed by plants dur­ing pho­to­syn­the­sis thus in­creas­ing the pho­toin­duced charge sep­a­ra­tion process which shut­tles elec­trons through an elec­tron trans­port chain within the or­gan­ism. The re­sult is faster growth, more abun­dant flora or fruit, and a health­ier plant... At­mo­spheric ions are then avail­able to com­pli­ment the pho­to­syn­the­sis process as well as plant res­pi­ra­tion and ab­sorp­tion of wa­ter and min­er­als in the soil... The high volt­age ion source also helps to mit­i­gate in­fes­ta­tion by un­wanted her­bi­vores.”

Mas­ter cul­ti­va­tor Asa Sha­ef­fer, Emer­ald Cup win­ner and CEO of Sonoma County Col­lec­tive, states en­thu­si­as­ti­cally:

“This is the eas­i­est thing you will ever do for your grow room! You will not be dis­ap­pointed!”

Mike Nel­son (Se­nior Vice Pres­i­dent, Pal­li­at­ech, Inc.) also at­tests to the ef­fec­tive­ness of Ion-a-gro:

“While test­ing the Ion-a-gro units for sev­eral cy­cles our yields have been sig­nif­i­cantly in­creased. As well, we have no­ticed that while mites ex­isted in our fa­cil­ity, they ap­peared to be sig­nif­i­cantly re­duced in the grow rooms that were utiliz­ing Ion-a-gro units. So far there is rea­son to be­lieve that the units are of pro­found in­ter­est to any grower, hob­by­ist or com­mer­cial en­ter­prise.”

An­other equally easy, sim­ple, in­ex­pen­sive way to tit­il­late plants with elec­tric­ity is to poke an Agro­volt unit into the soil near the roots. Agro­volt uses a few mil­li­volts of elec­tric­ity gen­er­ated by a so­lar cell to in­crease the ab­sorp­tion of nu­tri­ents into the root sys­tem. It is as­sured to pro­duce from 60% up to 150% in­creases in weight, in half the usual time, while re­duc­ing or elim­i­nat­ing in­fes­ta­tions.

In­ven­tor Scott Fried­man’s Indiegogo project says:

“There’s no need for fer­til­izer or pes­ti­cides with the Agro­volt. Root sys­tems grow larger, seeds pro­duce greater amounts of fe­male plants in half the time, fruits, veg­eta­bles and herbs grow more ro­bust in fla­vor and leaves grow thicker and greener. It’s truly amaz­ing. This truly is the most af­ford­able tech­nol­ogy on the mar­ket. Be­tween not hav­ing to buy fer­til­izer and pes­ti­cides to plants that dou­ble in size, it’s just an un­sur­passed tool for mak­ing a gar­den even more gor­geous and fruit­ful.

“We are cur­rently work­ing on a ver­sion that in­cor­po­rates Blue­tooth tech­nol­ogy which will be ca­pa­ble of pre­sent­ing real time data to a smart­phone or com­puter on the health and ef­fi­ciency of the plants be­ing grown. We’re very ex­cited to roll that prod­uct out as well.”

Justin Christofleau

The ben­e­fits of elec­tro­cul­ture can be gained by com­pletely nat­u­ral means, sim­ply by erect­ing an­ten­nas to col­lect at­mo­spheric elec­tric­ity.

The French sci­en­tist Justin Christofleau at­tracted con­sid­er­able at­ten­tion thereby in 1925, when he grew crops of enor­mous veg­eta­bles. Clover, tre­foil, and oats treated by his method grew to 7 feet. Po­tato plant grew as high, and pro­duced up to 3 dozen tu­bers of ex­cep­tional qual­ity, weigh­ing up to 2 pounds. Vine­yards that were at­tacked by Phy­lox­era were cured and re­ju­ve­nated. Car­rots and beets grew to 19 inches length, and other veg­eta­bles gave sim­i­lar yields, as il­lus­trated:

Christofleau pre­sented the re­sults in a book ti­tled “Elec­tro­cul­ture”, which he in­tro­duced thus:

“Ap­peal to Agri­cul­tur­ists, Viti­cul­tur­ists and Hor­ti­cul­tur­ists of the World: La­bo­ri­ous pha­lanx, to whom I have the hon­our to be­long by my birth, I come now to­wards you to raise my voice in favour of a great in­ven­tion which will be, if you un­der­stand me, one of the great fac­tors in the res­ur­rec­tion and pros­per­ity of the whole world, as it means the in­ten­si­fy­ing of the pro­duc­tion of the earth, the in­creas­ing of crops in con­sid­er­able pro­por­tions, and min­i­miz­ing as much as pos­si­ble the man­ual labour ap­per­tain­ing to cul­ture and the economis­ing of the im­mense sums of money which are be­ing

spent an­nu­ally for fer­til­iz­ers and re­plac­ing them by this new ap­pa­ra­tus wherein are con­densed all the forces of na­ture. That is to say: The land mag­netism, tel­luric cur­rents, the elec­tric­ity of the float­ing air and that car­ried by the clouds, the sun, the wind, the rain, and even by the frost, forces which are cap­tured and trans­formed into en­er­getic elec­tric­ity by this ap­pa­ra­tus which car­ries them to the soil in a FEE­BLE AND CON­TIN­U­OUS MAN­NER, and which ren­ders it free from the mi­crobes which at­tack the Seeds and Plants...”

M. Christofleau also noted the re­sults ob­tained by ear­lier ex­per­i­menters, e.g.:

“A Rus­sian sci­en­tist, Spech­noff, per­fected the Elec­tro-veg­e­tome­tre, in­vented by Abbe Bertholon [1783], and noted an over-pro­duc­tion of 62% for oats, 56% for wheat, 34% for lin­seed. M. Spech­noff, fur­ther­more, has found that the com­po­si­tion of the soil is mod­i­fied by the ac­tion of the cur­rents...”

Christofleau’s ap­pa­ra­tus con­sisted of a 25-ft wooden pole capped with a metal pointer aligned north-south, and an an­tenna. Cop­per and zinc strips were sol­dered to­gether to gen­er­ate elec­tric­ity. Sev­eral of the poles were set about 10 ft apart, and the wires lead­ing from them ex­tended about 1000 yards at a depth of about a foot. Pi­o­neers of Elec­tro­cul­ture

Ex­per­i­men­tal study of the ef­fects of elec­tric­ity on plant growth be­gan in 1746, when Dr. Maim­bray of Ed­in­burg treated myr­tle plants with the out­put of an elec­tro­static gen­er­a­tor, thereby en­hanc­ing their growth and flow­er­ing. Two years later, the French ab­bot Jean No­let found that plants re­spond with ac­cel­er­ated rates of ger­mi­na­tion and over­all growth when cul­ti­vated un­der charged elec­trodes.

Begin­ning in 1885, the Fin­nish sci­en­tist Selim Laem­strom ex­per­i­mented with an aerial sys­tem pow­ered by a Wimshurst gen­er­a­tor and Ley­den jars. He found that the elec­tri­cal dis­charge from wire points stim­u­lated the growth of crops such as pota­toes, car­rots, and cel­ery for an aver­age in­crease of about 40% (up to 70%) within 8 weeks. Green­house-grown straw­berry plants pro­duced ripe fruit in half the usual time. The yield of rasp­ber­ries was in­creased by 95%, and the yield of car­rots was in­creased by 125%. Crops of cab­bage, turnips, and flax, how­ever, grew bet­ter with­out elec­tri­fi­ca­tion than with it. The Laem­strom sys­tem com­prised a hor­i­zon­tal an­tenna sus­pended high enough to per­mit plow­ing, weed­ing and ir­ri­ga­tion. The volt­age ap­plied to the an­tenna varies from 2 to 70 KV, de­pend­ing on the height of the an­tenna. The cur­rent was about 11 amps.

In 1909, the Swiss priest J.J. Gas­ner ob­tained sim­i­lar re­sults with his repli­ca­tion of Laem­strom’s work. Also that year, Prof. G. Stone showed that a few sparks of static elec­tric­ity dis­charged into the soil each day in­creased soil bac­te­ria up to 600%.

In the 1920s, V.H. Black­man re­ported his ex­per­i­ments with an aerial sys­tem sim­i­lar to that of Laem­strom. He ap­plied 60 volts DC/1 mil­liamp through 3 steel wires each 32 ft long and sus­pended 6 ft apart and 7 ft high on poles. The ar­range­ment in­creased yields about 50% for sev­eral plant types. (6)

Wet soil im­proves cur­rent flow. Elec­tro­cul­tured plants re­quire about 10% more wa­ter than con­trol plants be­cause the charged wa­ter is per­spired more rapidly than un­der nor­mal con­di­tions.

A lengthy ar­ti­cle by Dr. Charles Mercier ap­peared in Sci­en­tific Amer­i­can mag­a­zine in Fe­bru­ary 1919, pre­sent­ing “The Elec­tri­fi­ca­tion of Seeds -- A Revo­lu­tion in Agri­cul­ture”:

“[T]o pro­duce a large in­crease in the yield of corn and other crops, and at the same time a ma­te­rial im­prove­ment in qual­ity, and to do this with­out any in­crease in the farmer’s ex­pense, with­out re­quir­ing any ad­di­tional im­ple­ment on the farm, or any new

ac­quire­ment of skill, or any ad­di­tional ex­pen­di­ture of time, on the part of the farmer -- this is noth­ing short of a revo­lu­tion in agri­cul­ture...”

Dr Mercier neatly sum­ma­rized the pros and cons of other meth­ods of elec­tro­cul­ture:

“Elec­tric­ity has long been ap­plied to grow­ing crops, and has had a de­cided ef­fect upon them in pro­duc­ing more rapid and lux­u­ri­ant growth; but to sub­ject a plant to elec­tric­ity, ei­ther con­tin­u­ously or at in­ter­vals dur­ing the whole pe­riod of its growth, re­quires a con­sid­er­able sup­ply of elec­tric­ity and more or less con­tin­u­ous at­ten­tion; to ap­ply it over large ar­eas of many acres must nec­es­sar­ily be costly, and to ap­ply it over hun­dreds and thou­sands of acres is scarcely prac­ti­ca­ble, es­pe­cially as the in­stal­la­tion of wires, etc., must nec­es­sar­ily in­ter­fere with the op­er­a­tions of agri­cul­ture. For hor­ti­cul­ture it is no doubt prac­ti­ca­ble, and may be found use­ful and even prof­itable, but the dif­fi­culty of ap­ply­ing it on a large scale to agri­cul­ture is ev­i­dently con­sid­er­able... The elec­tri­fi­ca­tion of seed... is open to none of these draw­backs.”

At the time of writ­ing in 1919, there were 2000 acres planted with elec­tri­fied seeds. The co­op­er­a­tive of 150 farm­ers gained up to 30% in­crease in yield of oats and bar­ley, and sev­eral pounds of in­creased weight per bushel. Elec­tri­fied seed also throws up more straw, as Dr. Mercier pointed out:

“Be­sides the in­crease in the bulk of the yield and the in­crease in the weight per bushel, there is an in­crease in the straw that may be very im­por­tant. In the first place, the elec­tri­fied seed throws up more straws from each seed than the un­elec­tri­fied. In one field of oats the in­crease was char­ac­ter­ized as “as­tound­ing” for whereas the bulk of the un­elec­tri­fied seed had thrown up only two straws per seed, the elec­tri­fied seed had thrown up five. In the sec­ond place, the straw grow­ing from the elec­tri­fied is longer than that which grows from the un­elec­tri­fied. The straw is in some cases only one or two inches, in other cases as much as eight inches, longer; but in ev­ery case the length is in­creased... In the third place, and this is most im­por­tant, the stout­ness and the strength of the straw are in­creased. From this it re­sults that the crop is less li­able to be laid by storms... The process is pro­tec­tive against smut, bunt, rust, and other fun­gus dis­eases.”

The grain is steeped in a so­lu­tion of min­er­als and sub­jected to a weak cur­rent. The el­e­men­tal ions and wa­ter are trans­ported deep into the seeds, which are then dried. The se­lec­tion of min­eral salts is de­ter­mined by the type of seed, their nu­tri­ent re­quire­ments, and the type of soil in which they are to be grown. The length of treat­ment, volt­age and am­per­age are unique in each case. Bar­ley, for ex­am­ple, takes twice as long as wheat or oats to ab­sorb the op­ti­mal amount of min­er­als. Fi­nally, the per­cent­age of dry­ing must be con­trolled, as ev­ery farmer knows.

The process is sim­ple, easy to per­form, can­not harm the seeds, and its draw­backs are not se­ri­ous, though the re­sults may be dis­ap­point­ing if the treat­ment is not per­formed prop­erly, and the ef­fect lasts only about a month. There­fore they must be sown promptly. Dr Mercier also noted:

“The ad­van­tage ac­cru­ing from the process is not uni­form. The process al­ways re­sults in an in­crease in the yield of the seed; but whether the in­crease will be mainly in the grain or mainly in the straw, and what per­cent­age of in­crease it will ef­fect, are un­pre­dictable...”

In the 1970s, Andrew Zaderej and Claude Cor­son re­ceived formed In­tertec, Inc., to de­velop and mar­ket their “Elec­tro­genic Seed Treat­ment” (US Patent US4302670). The In­tertec sys­tem sim­u­lates a va­ri­ety of at­mo­spheric con­di­tions are known to ben­e­fit plant devel­op­ment. The seeds are con­di­tioned and re­ju­ve­nated, re­sult­ing in more rapid ger­mi­na­tion and in­creased yields.

Seeds such as corn, soy, or rice are sprayed with a so­lu­tion of min­er­als and en­zymes that is im­planted into the seed coat by elec­trophore­sis. This ac­cel­er­ates chro­mo­somic ac­tiv­ity. A sec­ond ex­po­sure to high volt­age neg­a­tive ions in­creases the im­plan­ta­tion. Then the seeds are ex­posed to in­frared ra­di­a­tion in or­der to re­duce the hard-seed dor­mancy and in­crease the me­tab­o­lism of ATP.

The next stage uses an elec­tro­static charge to give ca­thodic pro­tec­tion. This re­duces the mor­tal­ity rate of seeds by pro­vid­ing a source of elec­trons to buf­fer the re­ac­tion with free-rad­i­cal nu­tri­ent ions. Seeds must be moist when treated with ca­thodic pro­tec­tion. Dry seeds may be dam­aged by this treat­ment, but dam­aged seeds can be re­paired some­what if they are moist­ened.

Ca­thodic pro­tec­tion in­creases vi­a­bil­ity and ger­mi­na­tion up to 200%. The fi­nal stage of the elec­tro­genic process treats seeds with select ra­dio fre­quen­cies that stress the mem­ory of DNA, charges the mi­to­chon­dria, and in­ten­si­fies other meta­bolic pro­cesses. This treat­ment in­creases the de­gree of wa­ter ab­sorp­tion, elec­tri­cal con­duc­tiv­ity, and oxy­gen up­take. The fre­quen­cies range from 800 KHZ to 1.5 MHZ with a field in­ten­sity

of 3.2 W/sq cm.

The seeds need to be treated at or near where they are to be sown; for some un­known rea­son, the ef­fects of elec­tro­genic treat­ment ap­par­ently do not travel well.

V. H. Black­man con­ducted four years of field ex­per­i­ments on the high volt­age ef­fects on crops of oats, bar­ley, win­ter wheat, and clover in the 1920s, and re­ported:

“The dis­charge was usu­ally given at the rate of 0·5 to 1·0 mil­liamp per acre from thin in­su­lated wires stretched above the crop at a height of about 7 ft. and charged to a volt­age of 40,000 to 80,000 (crest value). The dis­charge was usu­ally given for 6 hours a day in two pe­ri­ods, 3 hours in the morn­ing and 3 hours in the af­ter­noon. The ef­fect of elec­tri­fi­ca­tion in in­creas­ing the yield of spring-grown oats and bar­ley has thus been demon­strated. The mean in­crease in yield for such crops was 22 per cent.”

Post-har­vest elec­tri­cal treat­ment also can im­prove the qual­ity of crops. Den­nis Dan­nehl, et al., for ex­am­ple, re­ported on the im­pres­sive ef­fects of direct elec­tri­cal cur­rent on se­condary com­pounds and an­tiox­i­dant ac­tiv­ity in toma­toes:

“Dif­fer­ent in­ten­si­ties of DC (100–500 ma) with var­ied ap­pli­ca­tion times (15–60 min) were ap­plied dur­ing posthar­vest. Al­most all DC treat­ments sig­nif­i­cantly af­fected the se­condary me­tab­o­lism, re­sult­ing in an ac­cu­mu­la­tion of carotenoids, phe­no­lic com­pounds, and an­tiox­i­dant ac­tiv­ity in toma­toes... Op­ti­mal DC treat­ments were found: after an adap­ta­tion time (AT) of 2 h, the max­i­mum con­tents of ly­copene (122.4%), ß-carotene (140.4%), to­tal phe­nol (120.0%), and an­tiox­i­dant ac­tiv­ity (126.5%) were at­tained with a DC treat­ment of 500 ma for 15 min­utes. There­fore, the ap­pli­ca­tion of DC in har­vested tomato fruits may be ap­pro­pri­ate to im­prove the health-pro­mot­ing prop­er­ties of toma­toes.”

Elec­trolyzed Wa­ter

The ben­e­fits of EEC can be ob­tained sim­ply by elec­trolyz­ing wa­ter and ap­ply­ing it in the usual man­ner. EW units are small, in­ex­pen­sive, and easy to op­er­ate. They have much to rec­om­mend them. Elec­trolyzed Wa­ter (EW) is a safe and very in­ex­pen­sive way to prevent fun­gal in­fec­tion, re­duc­ing or elim­i­nat­ing the need for ex­pen­sive, toxic chem­i­cals. EW has been cer­ti­fied for or­ganic pro­duc­tion. Hiromu Kohno, an or­ganic farmer who de­vel­oped the use Elec­trolyzed Wa­ter (FEW), found that it in­creased milk pro­duc­tion up to 20% and im­proved the heal­ing of wounds with­out side ef­fects, such as can oc­cur with an­tibi­otics. Horses, hogs, and poul­try, etc., also ben­e­fit. Mem­bers of the Tas­ma­nian Farm­ers and Gra­ziers As­so­ci­a­tion (TFGA) and the Tas­ma­nian In­sti­tute of Agri­cul­ture have in­ves­ti­gated the use of EW in the veg­etable in­dus­try, and have found that it re­duces white rot in onion crops by 95%, and elim­i­nates po­tato blight and rice fun­gus.

Deng Lixin, et al., have re­ported that EW im­proves the ger­mi­na­tion of Chi­nese cab­bage seeds:

“The acidic elec­trolyzed wa­ter of ph 3.30 could ac­cel­er­ate seeds ger­mi­nat­ing and raise fresh weight of shoots sig­nif­i­cantly; strong acidic elec­trolyzed wa­ter and al­ka­line elec­trolyzed wa­ter would slow down the speed of seeds ger­mi­na­tion and in­hibit both ger­mi­na­tion rate and fresh weight of shoots; be­sides, neu­tral elec­trolyzed wa­ter have no clear ef­fect on ger­mi­na­tion po­ten­tial, ger­mi­na­tion rate and fresh weight of shoots... the re­sults also showed that 2 hr of soak­ing time was ap­pro­pri­ate; when soak­ing time was too short, the elec­trolyzed wa­ter could not have any ef­fect, and soak­ing too long would have a neg­a­tive ef­fect on the seeds ger­mi­na­tion.”

Ac­cord­ing to Gao Xin­hao, et al., “The op­ti­mum acidic elec­trolyzed wa­ter char­ac­ter­is­tics for cu­cum­ber seed soak­ing should be about: ph 2.40, ORP 1150mv, con­cen­tra­tion of avail­able chlo­rine 25 mg/l.”

Mag­ne­to­cul­ture

“Mag­ne­to­cul­ture”, as the name im­plies, em­ploys mag­netic fields from min­eral mag­netite (FE3O4), per­ma­nent mag­nets, or elec­tro­mag­nets to af­fect plant me­tab­o­lism. Spread mag­netite in a ring around the roots, or in a north-south line. The amor­phous mag­netic field will en­hance the ger­mi­na­tion and sub­se­quent devel­op­ment to var­i­ous de­grees de­pend­ing on the plant, grow­ing con­di­tions, and the type, po­lar­ity, and strength of the mag­netic field.

Agron­o­mist Yan­nick van Doorne has de­vel­oped a “mag­netic an­tenna”, a cylin­der filled with beeswax and mag­nets, wrapped with a coil, and elec­tro­stat­i­cally charged. The wid­gets are placed at the ends of rows plowed north and south, and con­nected with gal­va­nized steel wire. The re­sul­tant crops are nu­tri­tious, and de­li­cious, and three to five times big­ger than usual since the last ten years in the same fields.”

The method in­vented by Pearl Ei­tan (Patent IL31428) calls for the ap­pli­ca­tion of 100 lb of mag­netite/acre with an elec­tro­static charge. The re­sult is “re­sis­tiv­ity to sub­freez­ing tem­per­a­tures & in­sects, in­creased fruit

size, yield, growth rates, and in­creased num­ber of crops/year.”

Pest Con­trol

In­sect pest can be erad­i­cated with­out the use of chem­i­cals when they are zapped with high volt­age and fre­quen­cies. The idea was tested early in the 20th cen­tury and was patented in var­i­ous forms, few of which were com­mer­cial­ized. The “Elec­trova­tor” de­vised by Gil­bert Baker, for ex­am­ple, was fea­tured in Pop­u­lar Sci­ence mag­a­zine in 1946, charged a cop­per rake with 12 KV of low am­per­age cur­rent to burn weeds down to their roots. The machines were dis­trib­uted by the Avco Cor­po­ra­tion (L.A., CA). Sim­i­lar meth­ods ap­ply, e.g., 100-300 kv/m/10-100 mi­crosec­onds (US Patent US623727).

Elec­tro­cul­ture ob­vi­ously holds great prom­ise for the im­prove­ment of agri­cul­ture in all its forms, from flower pot to field. Some forms of elec­tric­ity – al­ter­nat­ing cur­rent in par­tic­u­lar -- pro­duce er­ratic ef­fects, how­ever, and have lit­tle to rec­om­mend them for most po­ten­tial ap­pli­ca­tions.

Some other forms of elec­tro­mag­netism are par­tic­u­larly dam­ag­ing, as was shown by five girls in a 9th grade class at Hjallerup School (North Jut­land, Den­mark); they con­ducted an ex­per­i­ment with cress seeds ex­posed to two wifi routers. After 12 days, the seeds sprouted be­side routers were stunted, mu­tated, or dead. The con­trol seeds, shielded and in a sep­a­rate room, sprouted nor­mally.

Sev­eral videos on Youtube, pro­duced by En­vi­ron­men­tal Ra­di­a­tion LLC, also show the dra­matic neg­a­tive ef­fects of ex­po­sure to mi­crowave tow­ers, “smart” me­ters, and other de­vices and types of non­ion­iz­ing ra­di­a­tion upon plants.

The va­ri­ety of meth­ods pre­sented here are but a few of many proven to im­prove crop yields and qual­ity at lit­tle ex­pense and with­out toxic chem­i­cals. The tech­nol­ogy has vast po­ten­tial that could rev­o­lu­tion­ize agri­cul­ture and re­lated in­dus­tries, with the bless­ings of good nu­tri­tion for all (and more cannabis hemp).

Fur­ther Read­ing: A com­pre­hen­sive col­lec­tion of these tech­niques and re­lated tech­nolo­gies can be found in the Rex Re­search Civ­i­liza­tion Kit.

About the Au­thor: Robert A. Nel­son is a 10th grade dropout with no cre­den­tials. He es­tab­lished Rex Re­search in 1982 to ar­chive in­for­ma­tion about sup­pressed, dor­mant, and emerg­ing tech­nolo­gies. He per­sists...

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.