I have been trickling water through a water structuring tube made up of a series of glass marbles for about 2 years now, year-round in Vermont. The water collects in a plastic baby's swimming pool before running over the side and into the soil. The pool is about 3 feet across and 6 inches deep. The first summer I spotted a frog. this summer as many as six frogs can be seen sitting on a board that floats in the water. They appear to have moved in despite its small size. At least the frogs approve of structure water.
The marbles in a tube work very well, many of the water structure units on the market use that exact technology. The micro-vortices are a forced vortex, like water forced over rocks. We utilize that concept at the start of the flow in the BioVortexer, then we created a special chamber so the water self-vortexes implosively. We are planning to get some independent testing done soon on plant growth. Still much to learn. We can learn from the frogs I think :)
Yeah it's a poor man's water structuring device. I hope one day, everyone will have a implosion device installed standard along with the meter and the backflow preventer, to provide halfway decent water.
I bought one of Dan Winters implosion devices. unfortunately it doesn't connect easily to standard pipe fittings. I think it was around $200.
if you could mass produce something, consumer grade, I think it would sell far and wide.
I think the article moves too quickly from observations about water near biological surfaces to claims about treated irrigation water.
The cited xylem study observed particle-exclusion zones around isolated plant vessels. That is interesting, but it did not test whether water passed through a vortex device retains a special structure, enters plant cells more readily, or improves crop yields. Likewise, evidence that aquaporins matter to plant growth does not establish that vortex-treated water passes through them faster.
The proposed icosahedral geometry, reduced cellular energy cost, and improved nutrient delivery are presented as explanations, yet the article acknowledges that the connecting measurements remain to be done. Given that, “We know it works” seems stronger than the evidence supports.
Could you point to an independently replicated, controlled trial of the BioVortexer that measures crop yield and water use, along with evidence that the claimed change in the water persists from the device to the roots? That would give readers a way to assess the practical claim separately from the proposed theory.
Thank you for your intelligent criticism, much appreciated.
I write as a natural philosopher assembling my position from aspects of evidence, and I said so in the piece itself: the individual links are separately established, and the integrated study joining them is yet to be run. I called that the research gap, and it is the moot of the thesis rather than an oversight in presenting it. A position proposed openly, with its seams showing, is a legitimate form of inquiry and has been since Goethe. This is a philosophical Substack piece, not a field trial report.
My "We know it works" does outrun what the article supplies, acknowledged. What I should have written is that I have grounds for the conviction, and that I can lay them out.
My conviction comes from over 40 years of familiarity within this field of endeavor. It began with Viktor Schauberger, and it has been worked through Theodor Schwenk and the flow-form research that followed him at the Institute for Flow Sciences, through the vortex and implosion literature, through the whole spread of commercial structuring units that have come and gone across four decades, and through my own observation of moving water, in the Goethean manner, as a form-maker rather than a solvent. What persuades me first is morphology. Water left to its own motion generates a consistent and lawful family of forms, and living tissue is built to the same family. My thesis is based on that perspective. On the BioVortexer there are no formal trials, noted in the article. We are looking forward to getting some formal independent testing started soon.
Across the Crystal Blue water structure device program in India (reports I was provided in 2019) there is a body of paired field comparisons, borewell water against structured water, recorded side by side at a spread of sites: cotton at the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University farm in Coimbatore, maize at Govindraj Farm in Nadupalayam, sugar cane at Sathya Mangalam, mulberry at an organic farm near Sargur, beans and radish and tomato at the Vijay Foundation farm in Mysore, paddy at Smt. Lakshmi Devamma's. Different states, soils, growers and crops, and the comparison runs the same way each time.
Several carry measurement alongside the image. The paddy ran on a matched half acre, 355 kg from the borewell side and 640 from the structured, with 310 good grains and 50 chaffy per sheath against 180 good and 56 chaffy. The mulberry ran 2,000 plants on an acre each way, 800 kg of leaf against 2.20 tonnes. The radish beds were matched for size, seed, sowing date and compost, returning 3.60 kg against 6.10. The bean beds, matched likewise, gave a first harvest of 0.702 kg against 1.458.
I read those comparisons as a phenomenologist. A photograph tells you nothing about what was held equal beyond the treatment, and whoever assembled the set chose which pairs to include, so I hold both facts in view. What the set does carry is the gross morphology of two stands of one crop, repeated across a dozen independent sites. A single unreplicated strip proves little. A dozen unreplicated observations, made by different growers on different soils and running the same direction, is a different quality of evidence: short of proof, and quite sufficient to justify the properly designed trial that has yet to be run. I'll consider doing a follow-up article with this evidence I have on file.
Behind the photographs sits a completion report from the Water Technology Centre at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, covering two seasons of trials from April 2013 to March 2015 under Dr D. Jayanthi, signed by the Director and stamped by the Director of Research. Cotton returned 36.6 percent above control, tomato 39.55, bhendi (okra) 35.84, tapioca 19.06, sorghum 3.0. Onion came in below control, and I report that because it belongs in the record as much as the rest, and because it tells you what the photographs leave out. One important note in the report: the university found no difference in the chemical properties between structured water and ordinary water. A trial found no chemical explanation, while the plants responded.
A more recent trial ran with controls, and it is the one I cite in the article. At South Regional TAFE in Bunbury, Western Australia, Pamela Patane and Laurie Barnes grew organic tomatoes for fifteen weeks across three raised beds: a filtered-water control, filtered water through a vortex generator, and vortex water carrying an added 432 Hz scalar frequency. Both vortex beds took 18.2 percent less irrigation. The vortex bed on its own yielded 21.15 kg against the control's 17.16, water productivity rising from 0.88 to 1.33 kg of fruit per irrigation hour, with soil microbial biomass beneath it close to doubled and the fungal-to-bacterial ratio moving from 0.3:1 to 1.3:1. The frequency bed went considerably further, to 41.38 kg, which is striking and belongs to another conversation. My interest is the middle bed: geometry alone, against a control, on less water, giving more fruit. One bed per treatment, which confounds treatment with position, and its authors say plainly that replicated trials with standardized irrigation are the next step.
The peer-reviewed literature in this area is modest, and it is mixed in exactly the way an honest reading would expect. A 2020 Polish field trial in the Polish Journal of Environmental Studies reported radish total yield up 12.6 percent and marketable yield up 18.9 percent under structured water, with a companion hydroponic lettuce trial showing marketable yield up 6.7 percent while total yield moved insignificantly, and a blueberry trial in Acta Horticulturae reporting 11.3 percent. Most of those carry manufacturer-affiliated authors, and the radish design leaves a possible microclimate confound in its rain covers. A Swedish vortex-only tomato pilot at SLU found significant differences in height, stem width and internode length while finding nothing in biomass, leaf area or leaf count, and it stopped before fruit.
Hydrogen bonds in water reorganize trillions of times a second. Structuring water implies a turnover within a geometry, which is the whole of my thesis. Water's bonding is tetrahedral at the molecular level; five tetrahedra closing around a shared edge give fivefold symmetry, and twenty give the icosahedron. The pentagonal, φ-based order is what the hydrogen bond network settles into of itself, and Chaplin's hierarchy of 5, 20, 280 and 1,820 molecules maps its ascending scales. Bonds break and reform continuously inside that arrangement, and the arrangement is sustained energetically, where I have thereby proposed linking Del Giudice's QED approach to coherent domains with Chaplin's research. That framework is set out in full in my workshop and related articles.
Thank you for the detailed reply, and especially for acknowledging that “We know it works” went beyond the evidence presented.
The field comparisons you describe are reason enough to run a rigorous trial. I wouldn’t dismiss them. But consistent-looking results from selected, unreplicated sites cannot tell us how much of the difference came from the device rather than soil, bed position, irrigation, or other growing conditions. The three-bed tomato trial has the same problem: with one bed per treatment, there is no way to separate the treatment effect from the location of that bed.
I’d also keep the crop question separate from the geometry question. Even if a replicated trial finds a yield benefit, it would not by itself show that water retains an icosahedral structure, saves the plant metabolic energy, or moves through aquaporins faster. Each of those claims needs its own measurement.
Would you make the full university report and the underlying field data available? The number of replicates, how treatments were assigned, irrigation volumes, and results for every crop including the onion result? It would let readers judge the evidence more fairly. I’d be interested to see an independent trial of the BioVortexer built on that information. Please do not view me as adversarial! The subject of structured water has become fascinating to me and you have put more thought and work into it than anyone Ive encountered.
I've taken your comments and those of others from other social media to mind, and I've extensively re-edited the article. You are correct, the geometry of the water structure and the effects on crops are at present two different questions.
I don't see you as adversarial at all, I appreciate constructive criticism. I put this article out in a rush, from some correspondence notes, because I'm working on a much larger project and I felt I was neglecting my substack audience. But I ended up putting in the time anyway to check references and think through.
We are in discussion with several people interested in running proper trials with the BioVortexer, I'll report when we have something solid.
I'm always excited to read information on the effect of structured water on growth variables. Other websites that provide information on technology that influences growth/health are: the fertilecurrent.com (Chris Winter - fascinating guy; an excellent potential collaborator) and flfe.net doing research on the influence of coherent energy fields. Flfe has research on the impact of their tech on an organic wheat field in Saskatchewan. With a yield assessing app commonly used by farmers, (John Deer), they found the quarters using the FLFE tech showed a stunning 22% greater yield than the control quarters. FLFE stated they will move forward with larger studies. *I study social evolution & have a 23 page document on processes & technologies that support the next octave of human evolution. I will add a link to this article in the water section on the document; I have several links to your site. I also appreciate the comments and your response.
I have been trickling water through a water structuring tube made up of a series of glass marbles for about 2 years now, year-round in Vermont. The water collects in a plastic baby's swimming pool before running over the side and into the soil. The pool is about 3 feet across and 6 inches deep. The first summer I spotted a frog. this summer as many as six frogs can be seen sitting on a board that floats in the water. They appear to have moved in despite its small size. At least the frogs approve of structure water.
🐸
The marbles in a tube work very well, many of the water structure units on the market use that exact technology. The micro-vortices are a forced vortex, like water forced over rocks. We utilize that concept at the start of the flow in the BioVortexer, then we created a special chamber so the water self-vortexes implosively. We are planning to get some independent testing done soon on plant growth. Still much to learn. We can learn from the frogs I think :)
Yeah it's a poor man's water structuring device. I hope one day, everyone will have a implosion device installed standard along with the meter and the backflow preventer, to provide halfway decent water.
I bought one of Dan Winters implosion devices. unfortunately it doesn't connect easily to standard pipe fittings. I think it was around $200.
if you could mass produce something, consumer grade, I think it would sell far and wide.
I think the article moves too quickly from observations about water near biological surfaces to claims about treated irrigation water.
The cited xylem study observed particle-exclusion zones around isolated plant vessels. That is interesting, but it did not test whether water passed through a vortex device retains a special structure, enters plant cells more readily, or improves crop yields. Likewise, evidence that aquaporins matter to plant growth does not establish that vortex-treated water passes through them faster.
The proposed icosahedral geometry, reduced cellular energy cost, and improved nutrient delivery are presented as explanations, yet the article acknowledges that the connecting measurements remain to be done. Given that, “We know it works” seems stronger than the evidence supports.
Could you point to an independently replicated, controlled trial of the BioVortexer that measures crop yield and water use, along with evidence that the claimed change in the water persists from the device to the roots? That would give readers a way to assess the practical claim separately from the proposed theory.
Thank you for your intelligent criticism, much appreciated.
I write as a natural philosopher assembling my position from aspects of evidence, and I said so in the piece itself: the individual links are separately established, and the integrated study joining them is yet to be run. I called that the research gap, and it is the moot of the thesis rather than an oversight in presenting it. A position proposed openly, with its seams showing, is a legitimate form of inquiry and has been since Goethe. This is a philosophical Substack piece, not a field trial report.
My "We know it works" does outrun what the article supplies, acknowledged. What I should have written is that I have grounds for the conviction, and that I can lay them out.
My conviction comes from over 40 years of familiarity within this field of endeavor. It began with Viktor Schauberger, and it has been worked through Theodor Schwenk and the flow-form research that followed him at the Institute for Flow Sciences, through the vortex and implosion literature, through the whole spread of commercial structuring units that have come and gone across four decades, and through my own observation of moving water, in the Goethean manner, as a form-maker rather than a solvent. What persuades me first is morphology. Water left to its own motion generates a consistent and lawful family of forms, and living tissue is built to the same family. My thesis is based on that perspective. On the BioVortexer there are no formal trials, noted in the article. We are looking forward to getting some formal independent testing started soon.
Across the Crystal Blue water structure device program in India (reports I was provided in 2019) there is a body of paired field comparisons, borewell water against structured water, recorded side by side at a spread of sites: cotton at the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University farm in Coimbatore, maize at Govindraj Farm in Nadupalayam, sugar cane at Sathya Mangalam, mulberry at an organic farm near Sargur, beans and radish and tomato at the Vijay Foundation farm in Mysore, paddy at Smt. Lakshmi Devamma's. Different states, soils, growers and crops, and the comparison runs the same way each time.
Several carry measurement alongside the image. The paddy ran on a matched half acre, 355 kg from the borewell side and 640 from the structured, with 310 good grains and 50 chaffy per sheath against 180 good and 56 chaffy. The mulberry ran 2,000 plants on an acre each way, 800 kg of leaf against 2.20 tonnes. The radish beds were matched for size, seed, sowing date and compost, returning 3.60 kg against 6.10. The bean beds, matched likewise, gave a first harvest of 0.702 kg against 1.458.
I read those comparisons as a phenomenologist. A photograph tells you nothing about what was held equal beyond the treatment, and whoever assembled the set chose which pairs to include, so I hold both facts in view. What the set does carry is the gross morphology of two stands of one crop, repeated across a dozen independent sites. A single unreplicated strip proves little. A dozen unreplicated observations, made by different growers on different soils and running the same direction, is a different quality of evidence: short of proof, and quite sufficient to justify the properly designed trial that has yet to be run. I'll consider doing a follow-up article with this evidence I have on file.
Behind the photographs sits a completion report from the Water Technology Centre at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, covering two seasons of trials from April 2013 to March 2015 under Dr D. Jayanthi, signed by the Director and stamped by the Director of Research. Cotton returned 36.6 percent above control, tomato 39.55, bhendi (okra) 35.84, tapioca 19.06, sorghum 3.0. Onion came in below control, and I report that because it belongs in the record as much as the rest, and because it tells you what the photographs leave out. One important note in the report: the university found no difference in the chemical properties between structured water and ordinary water. A trial found no chemical explanation, while the plants responded.
A more recent trial ran with controls, and it is the one I cite in the article. At South Regional TAFE in Bunbury, Western Australia, Pamela Patane and Laurie Barnes grew organic tomatoes for fifteen weeks across three raised beds: a filtered-water control, filtered water through a vortex generator, and vortex water carrying an added 432 Hz scalar frequency. Both vortex beds took 18.2 percent less irrigation. The vortex bed on its own yielded 21.15 kg against the control's 17.16, water productivity rising from 0.88 to 1.33 kg of fruit per irrigation hour, with soil microbial biomass beneath it close to doubled and the fungal-to-bacterial ratio moving from 0.3:1 to 1.3:1. The frequency bed went considerably further, to 41.38 kg, which is striking and belongs to another conversation. My interest is the middle bed: geometry alone, against a control, on less water, giving more fruit. One bed per treatment, which confounds treatment with position, and its authors say plainly that replicated trials with standardized irrigation are the next step.
The peer-reviewed literature in this area is modest, and it is mixed in exactly the way an honest reading would expect. A 2020 Polish field trial in the Polish Journal of Environmental Studies reported radish total yield up 12.6 percent and marketable yield up 18.9 percent under structured water, with a companion hydroponic lettuce trial showing marketable yield up 6.7 percent while total yield moved insignificantly, and a blueberry trial in Acta Horticulturae reporting 11.3 percent. Most of those carry manufacturer-affiliated authors, and the radish design leaves a possible microclimate confound in its rain covers. A Swedish vortex-only tomato pilot at SLU found significant differences in height, stem width and internode length while finding nothing in biomass, leaf area or leaf count, and it stopped before fruit.
Hydrogen bonds in water reorganize trillions of times a second. Structuring water implies a turnover within a geometry, which is the whole of my thesis. Water's bonding is tetrahedral at the molecular level; five tetrahedra closing around a shared edge give fivefold symmetry, and twenty give the icosahedron. The pentagonal, φ-based order is what the hydrogen bond network settles into of itself, and Chaplin's hierarchy of 5, 20, 280 and 1,820 molecules maps its ascending scales. Bonds break and reform continuously inside that arrangement, and the arrangement is sustained energetically, where I have thereby proposed linking Del Giudice's QED approach to coherent domains with Chaplin's research. That framework is set out in full in my workshop and related articles.
Thank you for the detailed reply, and especially for acknowledging that “We know it works” went beyond the evidence presented.
The field comparisons you describe are reason enough to run a rigorous trial. I wouldn’t dismiss them. But consistent-looking results from selected, unreplicated sites cannot tell us how much of the difference came from the device rather than soil, bed position, irrigation, or other growing conditions. The three-bed tomato trial has the same problem: with one bed per treatment, there is no way to separate the treatment effect from the location of that bed.
I’d also keep the crop question separate from the geometry question. Even if a replicated trial finds a yield benefit, it would not by itself show that water retains an icosahedral structure, saves the plant metabolic energy, or moves through aquaporins faster. Each of those claims needs its own measurement.
Would you make the full university report and the underlying field data available? The number of replicates, how treatments were assigned, irrigation volumes, and results for every crop including the onion result? It would let readers judge the evidence more fairly. I’d be interested to see an independent trial of the BioVortexer built on that information. Please do not view me as adversarial! The subject of structured water has become fascinating to me and you have put more thought and work into it than anyone Ive encountered.
I've taken your comments and those of others from other social media to mind, and I've extensively re-edited the article. You are correct, the geometry of the water structure and the effects on crops are at present two different questions.
I don't see you as adversarial at all, I appreciate constructive criticism. I put this article out in a rush, from some correspondence notes, because I'm working on a much larger project and I felt I was neglecting my substack audience. But I ended up putting in the time anyway to check references and think through.
We are in discussion with several people interested in running proper trials with the BioVortexer, I'll report when we have something solid.
Thank you for your input!
I'm always excited to read information on the effect of structured water on growth variables. Other websites that provide information on technology that influences growth/health are: the fertilecurrent.com (Chris Winter - fascinating guy; an excellent potential collaborator) and flfe.net doing research on the influence of coherent energy fields. Flfe has research on the impact of their tech on an organic wheat field in Saskatchewan. With a yield assessing app commonly used by farmers, (John Deer), they found the quarters using the FLFE tech showed a stunning 22% greater yield than the control quarters. FLFE stated they will move forward with larger studies. *I study social evolution & have a 23 page document on processes & technologies that support the next octave of human evolution. I will add a link to this article in the water section on the document; I have several links to your site. I also appreciate the comments and your response.