Roger
Please forgive my lack of attention on this.
I have looked thru the archive and can not find the post that you outlined
what you have done and what you achieved.
As a researcher in this field, we have done several trials of 501 as a weed
control as early as 1990.
I would be most interested in the details of what you are claiming to ''
own'.
regards
Glen A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 11:57 AM
Subject: BD501 as a Weed Control was Re: BD501 as Herbicide
> Sorry Allan but it is NOT a herbicide in any shape or form and although
> I've used the term 'Weed Control' above, in reality I think what I have
> here is a growth management tool with wide-ranging uses.
>
> First I want to say that 'the little wizard' in this case is myself. I
> came up with this procedure over a year ago but the opportunity to test
> it did not arise until December last. Though the results have been
> spectacular I would not describe the test as particularly scientific. My
> reason for putting it on the list was to see what reactions it would
> draw and given the argy-bargy that goes on here a lot I was not
> surprised when it hardly aroused a flicker of interest.
>
> Insofar as anyone can 'own' a plant growth procedure, I claim ownership
> of this one. I say this here and now not so much for commercial reasons
> but because the list's archives are out in the public domain. For the
> time being, until further tests have been carried out under organised
> trial conditions (something I am working on now) and the results are
> apparent, I would prefer not to see anything in print. Or tried out
> without my knowledge. A reason for this is that should someone on or off
> the list try using 501 in this way and get negative or unwanted results,
> it could put them and a lot more people off using BD at all. Another is
> that the December test result could have been an aberration, something
> we can only determine by doing it again and again.
>
> Yes, Liz, I will take the photos to Albury. I will also make them
> available on CD to anyone on this list for a reasonable processing
> charge plus post & packing, along with selected photos of the trial site
> taken on a continuous basis since November 2001. These include
> vegetation and terrain, vortex flowforms in operation, spraying
> operations, and striking images of the phenomenal grass growth happening
> now (during intense drought) along the groundwater lines and lakes I
> have dowsed over several months. Please contact me off-list about this.
>
> Now to turn to what Liz said:
>
> >Why 501? The way Roger explained the affect was that the grass was
burnt
> >quickly. Did this draw in more light, creating more heat and intensity?
> >Which would also be reasoning for applying it in the heat of the day?
Would
> >it work any other time of day? If so would it be as quick as the heat of
> >the day? Somehow I don't think it would be as intense, but then again I
> >know nothing...
> >
> >I'd love to hear the reasoning behind your choice of 501, it can only
help
> >me to better understand the preps.
> >
> Without going far into what I said and didn't say ('burnt' was not in my
> message and is now not in my vocabulary at all), what I think happened
> is that the mixture used, in combination with energy from the sun,
> accelerated the growth of the plants beyond the point of seed viability.
> (Which is not the same as killing them; I'll come back to this in a
> moment.) The how and why of that and whether it could be done at other
> times of day can only be found out through doing more trials.
>
> Why I chose 501? It wasn't exactly choice. Initially it was a third eye
> experience then I talked to the devas at Dalgety about it, they put the
> query up 'through channels' and the answer came 'down' that it was
> feasible and acceptable. This last is important, I feel. Personally I am
> not in the business of killing; in this house spiders and cockroaches
> and even large ants get put outside, not trodden on. Kill a plant with
> herbicide, forget the ads that say there's no residues, when it breaks
> down and goes into the soil it takes poison with it which can have
> adverse effects for a long time. Destroy a plant by fire and most of its
> energy is dissipated to the four winds, only a small proportion becomes
> re-usable ash.
>
> Herbicide is a negative. The intent in using it is a negative. The
> holistic result after using it is a negative. Zero x zero x zero = zero.
>
> Fire is ambivalent. In controlled situations it is a positive.
> Uncontrolled fire is a negative.
>
> 501 is a positive. The intent in using it is a positive. The sun is a
> positive. The beneficial effects go on and on and on. 2 x 2 x 2 = 8
>
> One month after the event, the plants individually treated with 501
> under this procedure appear to have reached their autumnal stage 3-4
> months ahead of schedule. That is, the seed-bearing stems are yellowing
> to the creamy colour usual just before winter. The seeds have an
> appearance of insubstantiality. (Two independent tests are being
> conducted on seed germination.) The plants are still whole, however,
> and if they were to be slashed and incorporated into the soil they would
> carry with them 501 energy residues which would begin to release
> nutrients bound up in the soil . . .
>
> . . . My God, it stands out like dogs' balls when you begin to think
> about it!!
>
> Ahem - Pardon me
>
> roger
>
>
>
> Allan Balliett wrote:
>
> > Do it like this, ok folks? -AB
> >
> >>
> >> Why 501?
> >
>
>
