Dear Glen, What was the qualitative difference between the radionically potentised preparations and the hand succussing? It would be hard to put it up as a valid test if both doses were not derived from the same substance. One batch of preps could vary very markedly from those prepared at a different time. Were the symptom pictures the same at both times? You may be right that your manually potentised preps are better than radionically prepared preps, but somehow it is important to compare apples with apples and that it is the same parameters that are being tested. An agronomist friend of mine claims that before you can visually see a difference in a pasture there would have to be at least 25% difference to be able to see it. I have looked at the problem of chromas as a measurement indicator, however much of the skill with this type of qualitative analysis is in the evaluation. Different viewers will put different interpretations on the chromas. Quality such as that one substance was better than another cannot be ascertained without first setting the parameters that indicate quality. Could we do it by comparison of Brix levels, and would that be an overall comparison of quality? The problems of how to set up an experiment so the results can be considered valid are a biometricians nightmare. A trial could never be considered conclusive if it was based only on one experiment on one plant. Maybe what is needed is the same sort of dedication shown by Lili Kolisko or Maria Thun of trying to test for the effects of substance and forces. that would require the financial support of those who have the most to gain.Would the New Zealand Biodynamic Association be prepared to support you in a long term evaluation project. It may even be better to take your ideas out to conventional farmers who have a need for your expertise. This is the century of the ECO Age as my friend Liz Davis calls it. Companies are looking for solutions to problems. For instance how much would Cotton Australia support research into non toxic weed control. How much would Simplot support you if you could show them how your techniques could stop spoiling on their potatoes, or increase yields? If you can show that your techniques work it could help McDonalds with their new direction of trying to source more clean green food. They have a huge war chest that is there to support the push for a new image for big Mac's. How can the BD industry help them to achieve their goals?It is just not a case of getting people to buy BD food, or to farm biodynamically. You have to be in the right market at the right time. The concept of radionics will be far easier to sell than hand succussed preps because it has an economic advantage and fits more into the culture of the day. We have moved into the era of the air, with electricity, TV, radio and electronics. Radionics is in the right market at the right time. People accept radionics. Just look at how many paying customers turn up for an Arden Andersen, Phillip Wheeler or Hugh Lovel workshop. Try getting those numbers to a BD workshop. After all our experimenting for the next 50 years to try and statistically prove that biodynamic food is qualitively better we would still have lost the opportunity. There has already been 80 years of research into biodynamics without inroads into the mainstream. BD has never been marketed from an emotional perspective. Steve Diver summed up the whole marketing approach for our techniques which is to appeal to the emotions. The opportunity is in the moment NOW. Give the people what they desire most and they will beat a path to your door. Kind regards James ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garuda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:32 PM Subject: Re: Chromas and humus Was Electronic homeopathy for plants.
> > # Glen - When you say potentised preps is that specifically potentised by > > dilution and sucussion? > > Yes prepared physically by hand. > > I can not really help you with radionically applied either by spray or > device, and their effect, as I have not had alot of experience of them. > > The few tests I have done with my physically potentised preps and radionic > versions - via square box- of the same, produced very different results in > me when I have taken them. The radionic preps effect was minimal compared to > the physical pot prep. I need to do more trials on this before I am > convinced Radionic preps and potentised preps are the same thing. > > Can someone provide some picture evidence of the effect on plants re > radionic preps verses control please, ala those on my website / Case > Studies? > > cheers > GA > > > # When I talk of radionically prepared preps I mean things that are > > potentised by instrument but are then applied by spraying out onto a > target > > . I have assumed that both of the above stay where you put them and was > > hoping that your work would support that assumption in both cases. (this > has > > important implications for how we use these) > > #Application of either of the above by radionic broadcast of any type I > > would expect to radiate out to boundaries and be difficult to keep from > > effecting small areas (test plots) within the broader boundary. > > > > Does this make sense? does this agree with your experience or have I > strayed > > somewhere? You have been doing this a lot longer than me and I would > > appreciate your guidance > > Thanks > > Lloyd Charles > > > > > >
