magnet experiment

[BullDogUK]

I doubt the water being magnetized has anything to, or what many people consider to be water structures in groups. Water molecules are normally carried one molecule or mol at a time by different highly controlled enzymes. The way that they are structured as a group would not play a role since most molecules in a cell are highly controlled by enzymes specific for one molecule at a time. The limiting reagent in most photosynthetic complexes is the free electron. If anything magnetic field actually constrains water molecules by making them bind to each other more tightly. that might be why your yields are lower for the magnetic group. See this link for a study done of magetic field on water.

Reading this study, it actually seems that Fever has a point.

"It has been reported that the
dissolution rate into water of some materials, e.g., oxygen
and copper sulfate, is significantly accelerated by the presence
of a magnetic field."

As you will know, plants do not actively take in oxygen (rather they do it via diffusion or production during photosynthesis) so I can see how this would be a benefit.

"The effect of the magnetic field in enhancing
the hydrogen bonding was confirmed by Inaba et al."

"Specifically, as the strength of the magnetic field
increases from 1 to 10 T, the number of hydrogen bonds increases
by approximately 0.34%. This slight increase in the
number of hydrogen bonds indicates that the magnetic field
enhances the water networking ability."

Again this supports Fever's idea, increased hydrogen bonding is going to make the water more able to form solutions with hydrophillic molecules/ hold more in solution. This *could* mean greater input of nutrients.

The negative electrons going directly to photosystem I and II which start the chain enzyme reaction to split H20 to provide the H+ molecule which then increases the voltage gradient. So I believe by adding electrons through current you are supplementing the electrons which are usually acquired by photosynthesis, which could have some really interesting effects on the expression of certain genes.

Woah woah step back a bit. First off, Photosystem I simply carries the electron to ferredoxin to complete the reduction of NADP+ to NADPH. Photosystem II splits 2 water molecules into an O2 molecule, 4 free electrons (which pass down the photosystem until they reach photosystem I to reduce NADP+) and 4 H+ ions (protons) which are then used to drive ATP synthase via the [chemical] voltage gradient. A magnet wouldn't 'add' electrons so much as potentially alter their energy level or movements, which could affect the whole system. You're describing what would happen if Trich was feeding an electrical current into his plants. This wouldn't [I don't think anyway, hardly an expert on plant genetics] affect genetic expression directly except perhaps by some kind of absent signal or by affecting other proteins as I previously described.

Trich: Interesting results mate! I did a quick stats test (t-test), you have a significance of p=0.17. Typically p<0.05 is a significant result but p<0.25 is pretty decent given the sample sizes! This is such an interesting project

 

[Lifer]

I'm using this inline magnetic filter; http://www.moreplant.com/products/

The 1" model is installed right after the Tall Boy water filter. Haven't done any side-by-side tests, but the plants look more hydrated since switching over and don't droop very hard even when their media becomes super dry.

Keep up the testing and unlock the 5lbs per light golden ticket!

 

[PetFlora]

Lifer thanks for the link

Got me thinking that most of us have premixed nutes in our rezes, will running them through a magnet cause them to disassociate or break down in some way?

My magnets are donuts with holes large enough to run my feed tubing through. Thoughts?

Currently have 3 magnets in repulse as close as they can be resting on the lip of my net pot lid

 

[DrFever]

Thank you BullDogUK i only use magnetic water now instead of vegging 5 - 6 weeks i flip @ 4 weeks here 12 plants in big totes ...
Guaranteed 7 pounds plus from 12 plants hahaha thats what its all about grow less make more
My overall expense has dropped my yields are better then ever my savings less ppm then i normally run so less food costs i max at 850 ppm plants appear to use up all the food so no SALT BUILD UP AND PH ISSUES which you will find many growers getting into issues 3 week in bloom
plants are healthier thru out veg and flower <---- that's 80 percent of yield issues for most growers
126 hrs x 3 cause 3000 watts being used ...... less electricity costs and overall bulb life span its a fcking win win

 

[DrFever]

OH HELL Day 19 picture 12 plants

 

[dontexist]

Reading this study, it actually seems that Fever has a point.

"It has been reported that the
dissolution rate into water of some materials, e.g., oxygen
and copper sulfate, is significantly accelerated by the presence
of a magnetic field."

As you will know, plants do not actively take in oxygen (rather they do it via diffusion or production during photosynthesis) so I can see how this would be a benefit.

"The effect of the magnetic field in enhancing
the hydrogen bonding was confirmed by Inaba et al."

"Specifically, as the strength of the magnetic field
increases from 1 to 10 T, the number of hydrogen bonds increases
by approximately 0.34%. This slight increase in the
number of hydrogen bonds indicates that the magnetic field
enhances the water networking ability."

Again this supports Fever's idea, increased hydrogen bonding is going to make the water more able to form solutions with hydrophillic molecules/ hold more in solution. This *could* mean greater input of nutrients.




Woah woah step back a bit. First off, Photosystem I simply carries the electron to ferredoxin to complete the reduction of NADP+ to NADPH. Photosystem II splits 2 water molecules into an O2 molecule, 4 free electrons (which pass down the photosystem until they reach photosystem I to reduce NADP+) and 4 H+ ions (protons) which are then used to drive ATP synthase via the [chemical] voltage gradient. A magnet wouldn't 'add' electrons so much as potentially alter their energy level or movements, which could affect the whole system. You're describing what would happen if Trich was feeding an electrical current into his plants. This wouldn't [I don't think anyway, hardly an expert on plant genetics] affect genetic expression directly except perhaps by some kind of absent signal or by affecting other proteins as I previously described.

Trich: Interesting results mate! I did a quick stats test (t-test), you have a significance of p=0.17. Typically p<0.05 is a significant result but p<0.25 is pretty decent given the sample sizes! This is such an interesting project

You missed my point when I specified that water does not react with the photosystem II protein as a group of molecules but one molecule at a time. For 1 water to be separated from a cluster of water molecules the enzyme must use energy to break that hydrogen bond. So it stands to reason that if you increase a magnetic field which increases the bonding energy of water to other water molecules, more energy must be used to break the multiple hydrogen bonds till the enzyme, photosystem II is able to take the one molecule of water which is needed for the reaction. You gave me the stoichiometric equation for the the reaction, yet that only tell part of the story. When the reaction occurs within a cell it does so one water molecule and one electron at a time. So it stands to reason if you increase the energy ie hydrogen bond, which is required to break a cluster of water molecules you are also increasing the time it will take for the reactions to occur, since the enzyme must expend more time removing the water molecule from the cluster of water molecules.

I maybe should not have said added electrons more so increased the electron density around the plant when you add magnets. Magnetic fields are just that the movement of electrons or the spin of electrons. So yes you can use the same rational as putting a direct current to the plant since you are still increasing the amount of electrons the plant has access to. There have been experiments which plants have been put in Faraday cages, those plants grew much slower and had a lower chlorophyll content then the controls. This reduction in chlorophyll is the same reduction which occurs when you put a plant in the shade, it responded to the reduced solar energy by reducing the content of chlorophyll in its leaves. Or how trees in some climates stop producing chlorophyll in the winter.

I don't really support the dissollution theory because even if you increase the rate in which molecules dissolve in water it still has to travel into the plant cell through a variety of methods active and passive transport. All which are governed by conserved process dictated by how much energy, mostly ATP, is available to the cell.

It is far more likely that the magnetic field acts upon the cell by increasing the electrons available for a cell to start the photosythic reactions. Which is the only set of reactions which I think could have any considerable effect by magnetic fields. From the test done with a faraday cage plants are able to absorb gaseous air ions, which could be increased with the use of magnets. Why the experiment might not have worked, I would like to see what strength the magnets the OP used in the experiment, and what would happen if yo increased the gauss of the magnet.

 

[dontexist]

I would like to clarify that I don't believe the dissolution theory because water doesn't dissolve minerals, because it does. But mainly because for those minerals and nutrients to even be useful they must have energy, ATP. Which electrons are needed to produce, mostly from the sun, but also from gaseous ions. Also I don't know if Fever grows organically but it has been shown that increased electron density which magnetic water would have plays a crucial role in increasing beneficial microorganism in the soil. This could be another explanation for his more efficient growth.

 

[DrFever]

Dissolved Mineral Salts

The principal ions found in water are calcium, magnesium, sodium, bicarbonate, sulfate, chloride and nitrate. A few parts per million of iron or manganese may sometimes be present and there may be traces of potassium salts, whose behavior is very similar to that of sodium salts. From the corrosion point of view the small quantities of other acid radicals present, e.g. nitrite, phosphate, iodide, bromide and fluoride generally have little significance. Larger concentrations of some of these ions, notably nitrite and phosphate, may act as corrosion inhibitors, but the small quantities present in natural waters will usually have little effect.

Chlorides have probably received the most study in relation to their effect on corrosion. Like other ions, they increase the electrical conductivity of the water so that the flow of corrosion currents will be facilitated. They also reduce the effectiveness of natural protective films, which may be permeable to small ions.

Nitrate is very similar in its effects to chloride but is usually present in much smaller concentrations. Sulfate in general appears to behave very similarly, at least on carbon steel materials. In practice, high sulfate waters may attack concrete, and the performance of some inhibitors appears to be adversely affected by the presence of sulfate. Sulfates have also a special role in bacterial corrosion under anaerobic conditions.

Another mineral constituent of water is silica, present both as a colloidal suspension and dissolved in the form of silicates. The concentration varies very widely and, as silicates are sometimes applied as corrosion inhibitors, it might be thought that the silica content would affect the corrosive properties of a water. In general, the effect appears to be trivial; the fact that silicate inhibitors are used in waters with a high initial silica content suggests that the form in which silica is present is important

 

[BullDogUK]

You missed my point when I specified that water does not react with the photosystem II protein as a group of molecules but one molecule at a time. For 1 water to be separated from a cluster of water molecules the enzyme must use energy to break that hydrogen bond. So it stands to reason that if you increase a magnetic field which increases the bonding energy of water to other water molecules, more energy must be used to break the multiple hydrogen bonds till the enzyme, photosystem II is able to take the one molecule of water which is needed for the reaction. You gave me the stoichiometric equation for the the reaction, yet that only tell part of the story. When the reaction occurs within a cell it does so one water molecule and one electron at a time. So it stands to reason if you increase the energy ie hydrogen bond, which is required to break a cluster of water molecules you are also increasing the time it will take for the reactions to occur, since the enzyme must expend more time removing the water molecule from the cluster of water molecules.

No I get your point, I just think you're forgetting that all these proteins are surrounded by water constantly. Hydrogen bonds break and form all the time, they are not a true bond so much as an electrostatic attraction. No electrons are shared and thus they are incredibly easy to break and form. The result of this is that the photosystems are not having to do anything to grab a water molecule, they will just naturally enter the oxygen evolution region of the protein. There is a whole field of anhydrous protein studies which I haven't looked into it much, but suffice to say that you need water to be everywhere all the time for many proteins to retain their shape.

To quickly quote the wiki article on this action: "The mechanism of water oxidation is still not fully elucidated, but we know many details about this process. The oxidation of water to molecular oxygen requires extraction of four electrons and four protons from two molecules of water. The experimental evidence that oxygen is released through cyclic reaction of oxygen evolving complex (OEC) within one PSII was provided by Pierre Joliot et al. They have shown that, if dark-adapted photosynthetic material (higher plants, algae, and cyanobacteria) is exposed to a series of single turnover flashes, oxygen evolution is detected with typical period-four damped oscillation with maxima on the third and the seventh flash and with minima on the first and the fifth flash. Based on this experiment, Bessel Kok and co-workers introduced a cycle of five flash-induced transitions of the so-called S-states, describing the four redox states of OEC: When four oxidizing equivalents have been stored (at the S4-state), OEC returns to its basic and in the dark stable S0-state. Finally, the intermediate S-states were proposed by Jablonsky and Lazar as a regulatory mechanism and link between S-states and tyrosine Z."

So basically, no one knows how the hell it works really.

I don't really support the dissollution theory because even if you increase the rate in which molecules dissolve in water it still has to travel into the plant cell through a variety of methods active and passive transport. All which are governed by conserved process dictated by how much energy, mostly ATP, is available to the cell.

Well again, there's an issue here in that ATP must be constantly available for any organism to survive. Fun fact: the reason cyanide is so deadly is because it prevents the synthesis of ATP. Our cells store/retain in them about 8 seconds worth of ATP. There's good reason for this, ATP is nontransferable from cell to cell and is fairly unstable, rapidly decaying into ADP and Pi or AMP and 2xPi. You are right, active transport of ions does not involve water (although it is needed on both sides, it obviously does not pass through the membrane), however many nutrients are taken up passively, which is largely a product of diffusion and transpiration.

Now, what is transpiration? It is the effect of water tension (these tenuous hydrogen bonds between water molecules) combined with water falling out of a plant's leaves and thus dragging in more water through the roots and up the stems. One can only imagine a strengthened hydrogen bonding would increase this affect and again serve to draw in more nutrients.

You do have a point though, I'm still not entirely convinced these magnets should be strong enough to have this effect. I'd love to see a comparison of different strength magnets if that would be at all possible

@ DrFever What is that microphone hanging above your plants?

edit:

Good reference.

 

[Lifer]

Lifer thanks for the link

Got me thinking that most of us have premixed nutes in our rezes, will running them through a magnet cause them to disassociate or break down in some way?

My magnets are donuts with holes large enough to run my feed tubing through. Thoughts?

Currently have 3 magnets in repulse as close as they can be resting on the lip of my net pot lid

I ran the magnetic water in DWC and coco, no mineral issues with the Cultured Solutions nutrient lineup.

Can also vouch for reduced salt buildup using magnetic water. Harvesting plants with 0 tip burn is a beautiful thing.

 

[PetFlora]

FYI, too early to draw conclusions, but....

I am in late flower. 2 plants, each in their own buckets, each has ~ 2g of nutes

Fresh nutes Thursday. As is typical at this stage, pH drops considerably in 2-3 days.

This morning the plant with magnets is stable at 5.7

the non-mag plant dropped to 5.1

 

[PetFlora]

Observation #2

this ob is by no means tightly controlled, so take it for what it's worth

The clone in the magnetic side is much fuller than the other one

Neither had many calyxes, although both have excellent tric production under the 3000K leds. Thinking they need more < 3000K ie 640-650, and some 660= ~ 2400-2700K

On 7/27 I added my ufo 90 to the non-mag side. No discernible increase in trics or swelling of existing trics

It 'seems' there are more trics on the mag side

 

[PetFlora]

Couple of notes

I am using 3 powerful donut shape iron mags, one half again as big as the other 2, so it is in the middle.

Mags are placed in repulse, as close as I can get them. This creates a powerful energy vortex. The clone on the right has had them around the base for several weeks. It is easily 2xs as full, so I am beginning to believe

Coming down the home stretch (~ 10 days) to harvest

Changed nutes, lowered ppm to ~ 510 will cut that in half in 5 days


View attachment 231731 View attachment 231732 View attachment 231734

View attachment 231733 View attachment 231735

 

[PetFlora]

Based on presumed results using 3 really large magnets on clone #2, I went to the hobby store in search of Alnico magnets. No luck, but they had a 6 pack of 1" donut iron magnets, which are now surrounding the base of clone #1.

They are not very powerful, so no idea what to expect, especially this late in the grow

I moved them closer to the main stem in expectation of creating an energy vortex


View attachment 231895

 

[PetFlora]

Poor Photo Upload Software/coding Forces 2nd Post

Poor Photo Upload Software/coding Forces 2nd Post

Photo upload needs tweaking. I am unable to load more photos once the first batch (in this case onlly ONE) has been uploaded. I can do this on other grow sites, so I know it can b resolved


7/16, 5 days before adding magnets. Note similarity of size/volume

 

[PetFlora]

I changed nutes Thursday pH was ~ 6.1 for both clones

Today #1 pH (the one that had been without mags was dropping 4-5 points) but now with magnets, the pH was 5.9

It sure seems like the mags are destabilizing pH swings, somehow neutralizing the waste entering the rez

 

[PetFlora]

Scratch the idea of stabilizing pH

Just corrected pH after 2 days, both plants were 5.1-2