Posted on

QEnergySpa, BEFE – Conversion of a Sceptic

Conversion of a Sceptic

I have always been a sceptic. I’ve found it to be a useful trait in this ‘New Age’, in particular when it comes to health and healing.  As a Natural Health Practitioner I have also learnt to keep an open mind, which is just as well of I might otherwise have passes by the Gizmo (QEnergySpa, BEFE), and so missed the most astounding health tool I have ever encountered.

I first saw it bubbling unobtrusively away in a bucket of scummy looking water at one of the mini Health and Harmony expos that’s held at the Raptis Plaza in Surfers every second Friday of the month.  The front of the brochure read BIO-ELECTRIC FIELD ENHANCEMENT UNIT, BEFE. O.K…. “But what does it do? I asked “it’s used in the bathtub to re-balance and amplify the bio-electric signature of your body” explained the man behind the Q-Tech Laboratories desk. “That’s nice” I smiles, trying to look suitably impressed, “but what does it actually DO?” Realising that he was talking to a less than technical being, he started explaining the health benefits of the Gizmo – otherwise know as the BEFE Unit. How it did everything from purify the water to increasing vitality and relieving pain.

I examined the little round plastic and metal unit more closely. It didn’t look all that impressive. “Prove it! Lend me a unit, I’ll use it on a variety of people and test hem to see if it makes any difference.” – As I use Kinesiology as my diagnostic tool, it would be a simple enough matter to establish whether or not it actually did what he said it could do and I am always interested in anything that might benefit my clients.

A few days later I stood looking down at the Gizmo (QEnergySpa, BEFE) in my bathtub, peering anxiously along the cords that went from the unit to the transformer and then into the electricity socket in the wall. “Are you SURE there is no chance of it electrocuting me?” “Absolutely none!” I did one final muscle test to make sure it was safe, turned the power on, and climbed into the bath.

It was a good time to try it out, my body had been retracing and I’d been having a few joint problems. My right elbow had just got to the point of being so sore and swollen that I couldn’t reach to do up my bra – not a good image for a healer!  After a few minutes I decided to lie back and mediate, I’d know soon enough whether or not it worked, and I was O.K. so far. 35 minutes later the timer went off and I opened my eyes… and freaked! The bath water had turned murky, muddy brown with BITS floating in it and the ring around the bath was a couple of inches wide! YUK!! I leapt out, turned it off and examined the water I had been lying in.

When the Q-Tech people had told me that it first filters the water to clear it of impurities, and then proceeds to eliminate toxins from the body, I hadn’t given it much though. Now faced with the mucky evidence I was amazed – and very glad that the icky looking substance around the edge of the bath was no longer in my body! I ran some tests and the results were extremely impressive. Organs, glands, even emotions balanced and enhanced. None the less, I didn’t feels all that different and my elbow was still very sore.

I put judgement on hold and went to bed. The next morning I woke up and my elbow was back to normal! No swelling, no pain, completely mobile! It was time to try it on someone else. MY mother had a variety of health problems. “What will it do?” she asked “Not sure Mum, I’ve only just starting testing it, but I can guarantee it won’t hurt you, and look what it did for me after only one bath!” I happily twirled my new elbow under her nose. She got in the bath without further argument.  45 minutes later I knew two things for sure. I would have to buy some really heavy duty bath cleaner and there was DEFINITELY more to this Gizmo (QEnergySpa, BEFE) thing than met the eye. “Mum, its testing up that it’s taken your bladder function from 55% to 90% and that incontinence has been reduced by 90%!” We looked at each other in disbelief.  16 years ago my Mum had a badly botched operation that resulted in constant severe incontinence. The quality of her life had been greatly affected because of it. How could half and hour in the bath with a Gizmo (QEnergySpa, BEFE) possibly have fixed such a massive long term problem like that?  For the first time in years I actually doubted my testing but the body doesn’t lie and the proof would be in the pudding so to speak. It tested that another bath would take the problem down to 3%, meantime I followed my poor Mum around waiting for her to cough or sneeze. I even frightened her to see if that would have an effect!  NOTHING HAPPENED!!! Time after time she’d cough, I’d make her go off and check, she’d come back to report a completely dry pad.
It took weeks before she could really believe that the problem had gone and that she could live a normal life again. I still find it hard to wrap my mind around!  My research continues with more ‘miracles’ everyday across an astonishingly wide range of ailments. The Gizmo (QEnergySpa, BEFE) works better on some people than on others. Some clients need a full course of 14 baths over a 28 day period to find their way back to wellness; others need only one or two. It depends on the problem and the person.

One thing’s for sure though, I’m no longer a sceptic – as far as the BEFE Unit is concerned anyway. I’ve not only bought one,  I’m now selling them! I still don’t completely understand exactly how they work, (for that you’ll have to ring the technical people at Q – Tech) I don’t even feel the need to know anymore, I’m just happy and grateful that the technology is
available. It’s changed our lives, and the lives of my clients, for ever.

Samantha Joy practices ‘Ultimate Kinesiology’ from her Gold Coast base.  She specialising in relieving pain, stress, illness and negative patterns, and actually guarantees positive results.

Posted on

QEnergySpa Egg Plant Life Span Extension

QEnergySpa, BEFE Egg Plant Life Span Extension

QEnergySpa/B.E.F.E. Egg Plant Longetivity Trial

Intro

Objective
To conduct a longevity experiment in order to show the effects of supplying additional Bio‑Energy to an Egg Plant.  This will be done using the patented QEnergySpa, BEFE from Q the Experience.

Hypothesis
It is theorised that increasing the Bio-Energy content in an Egg Plant will have the effect of prolonging the life span (use by date).

Materials
1 x 4105 QEnergySpa, BEFE
2 x Egg Plant
1 x containers to charge water and fruit
2 x trays or plates (Dated & ID Charged , Uncharged)

Procedure
One Egg Plants will be placed into a container of water with an Orb connected to a 4105 QEnergySpa, BEFE and charged for a period of 35 minutes. After the charging session the Egg Plant will be placed on a plate.
The second Egg Plant will have no treatment.
No further treatment of the Egg Plant will occurred and as little handling as possible will be maintained.

The Egg Plants are to be photographed each day and have any observations recorded.

If possible the trials will be left long enough to harvest the seeds so they can be used to research the effect or changes to the next generation in a future trial.

Expectations
It is expected that the Egg Plant that has been charged with Bio-energy using a 4105 QEnergySpa will have a longer shelf life compared to the Egg Plant that has not been charged.

 

Trial

 Trial commenced 19th April 2004

Charging Egg Plant


20th April 2004


21st April 2004
The skin on the uncharged Egg Plant is beginning to wither


22nd April 2004


23rd April 2004
The uncharged Egg Plant is beginning to soften whilst the charged Egg Plant is still firm.


27th April 2004
The uncharged Egg Plant is showing signs of deterioration; the surface of the fruit is withering and the Egg Plant is becoming visibly smaller. The charged fruit does not appear to have changed.


28th April 2004


29th April 2004


30th April 2004


4th May 2004
The uncharged Egg Plant has deteriorated further whilst the charged Egg Plant appears to remain the same


5 May 2004


6th May 2004


7th May 2004


11th May 2004
The uncharged Egg Plant has deteriorated to the point that fungi has set in and the rate of decomposition is accelerating. The charged Egg Plant is still edible and is showing no signs of deterioration.


14th May 2004


17th May 2004
The charged Egg Plant is still firm but is showing slight signs of withering on the surface.


18th May 2004

At the conclusion of the trial the charged Egg Plant was cut open and was found to be in very good condition. The photo above shows a brown colour on the flesh which began after the fruit was opened to the air.
Whilst cutting the charged fruit it was found to still be very firm and a moderate amount of moisture was present.The uncharged Egg Plant started to show the first signs of deterioration on the 27th April 2004 and the charged Egg Plant remained viable for a further 21 days.The expectations of this experiment was to extend the longevity of an Egg Plant by providing it with extra bio-energy using a QEnergySpa, BEFE. From the photos above it appears it has been achieved.It should also be pointed out that no refrigeration or any other treatment was used on the Egg Plants over the duration of the experiment.Further experiments should be conducted to confirm the above preliminary findings. These experiments should be conducted in a controlled environment for consistency on both fruit in the experiment.

 

Posted on

QEnergySpa, BEFE Tomato Life Span Extension

QEnergySpa, BEFE vs. Attempted Copy Tomato Trial

 

The QEnergySpa, BEFE is the original Bio-Electric Field Enhancement (B.E.F.E.) device developed in 1996, the very first to appear on the market worldwide and is the unit upon which all other copies are based.

The concept behind the QEnergySpa, B.E.F.E. is very simple as are the most profound things. Water being the most essential substance necessary for life (containing electrical patterns and memory); with contact of the bio-energized water, one can expect realignment, balance and vitalisation of the cells of all living things.

Illustrated below is the Tomato Trial performed and written by Paul Cohen, Harvest Haven Health and reproduced here with permission. This was executed to determine if there was indeed a life enhancing effect from the QEnergySpa, BEFE as anticipated. The test was carried out with the QEnergySpa, BEFE, a control and one of the ‘better’ attempted copies whose name has been obscured for legal reasons. It would be fair to assume that other copies would fare worse, than seen in this experiment.

QEnergySpa, B.E.F.E. vs. Attempted Copies

Written by Paul Cohen

In this climate of muddied waters, both literally and symbolically, it is hoped that a simple experiment could show whether there is, in reality, the life-enhancing effect the inventor intended with the QEnergySpa, BEFE and if the attempted copies were also achieving the same effect..

With this goal in mind, on September 13, 2007, we tested our QEnergySpa, BEFE against an attempted copy using two sets of tomatoes, one conventionally grown and the other organic, all store bought, of similar ripeness and size. (Conventional means grown with the use of artificial fertilizers and chemical pesticides and herbicides, as opposed to organic which prohibits the use of these and depending on the standards applied, engages more holistic methods of soil management.)

We proceeded to treat one tomato of each kind (conventional and organic) on the respective machines in identical quantities of water from the same source, for the standard treatment session of 35 minutes, with a control tomato that was simply placed in a different container of water for the same amount of time. We took certain precautions, such as adequate separation of test units, to ensure the results would be untainted. We then took the tomatoes home and put them in a place where they would remain undisturbed, taking pictures at intervals to record progression (or regression, depending on how you look at it).

CONTENTS

The purposes of this test were to:

  1. See how the different devices affected the condition and longevity of the tomatoes.
  2. See if there was a difference between conventional and organic in storability and onset of decay.
  3. Determine for the practitioner if it was worth investing in another attempted copy or if she should switch to the original invention, the QEnergySpa, BEFE.

Now that the stage has been set, may we have a drum roll as we present the results?

Day 2:

You can see all the tomatoes look good, although with minor blemishes on most of them.

Tomato Trial, Day 2

Conventional Tomatoes-Attempted Copy: 

Conventional Tomatoes-Control:

Conventional Tomatoes-QEnergySpa, BEFE:


Organic Tomatoes-Attempted Copy:

Organic Tomatoes-Control:

Organic Tomatoes-QEnergySpa, BEFE: 

Day 18:

It is interesting to note, how the minor blemishes are areas of weakness that spread deterioration. The conventional AC is beginning to look pretty beat up. The conventional control is not nearly so bad, and the conventional Q has a bad spot. The organics are beginning to shrivel, with the organic AC looking the most weathered.

Conventional Tomatoes-Attempted Copy: 

Conventional Tomatoes-Control:

Conventional Tomatoes-QEnergySpa, BEFE:


Organic Tomatoes-Attempted Copy:

Organic Tomatoes-Control:

Organic Tomatoes-QEnergySpa, BEFE: 

Day 26:

Trends continue.

Conventional Tomatoes-Attempted Copy: 

Conventional Tomatoes-Control:

Conventional Tomatoes-QEnergySpa, BEFE:


Organic Tomatoes-Attempted Copy:

Organic Tomatoes-Control:

Organic Tomatoes-QEnergySpa, BEFE: 

Day 39:

Of the conventional tomatoes, the control still looks best on the outside. The conventional AC is losing shape on several fronts, with blackening and obvious signs of decay, whereas the conventional Q has one major blemish that continues to shrivel, and darken the tomato. The organic AC is now collapsing on one side, whereas the other two are holding shape, with the control showing more wrinkling.

Conventional Tomatoes-Attempted Copy: 

Conventional Tomatoes-Control:

Conventional Tomatoes-QEnergySpa, BEFE:


Organic Tomatoes-Attempted Copy:

Organic Tomatoes-Control:

Organic Tomatoes-QEnergySpa, BEFE: 

Day 51:

While the conventional tomatoes are worse overall than the organic, the control is still standing tall. The conventional Attempted Copy is collapsing, as is the organic Attempted Copy, whereas the other two organic are standing with no signs of doing otherwise. The conventional Q, though deteriorating, is standing tall. It is also interesting how the blemish on the organic Q, visible from day 2, has not spread and the weakness there seems to be isolated.

Conventional Tomatoes-Attempted Copy: 

Conventional Tomatoes-Control:

Conventional Tomatoes-QEnergySpa, BEFE:


Organic Tomatoes-Attempted Copy:

Organic Tomatoes-Control:

Organic Tomatoes-QEnergySpa, BEFE: 

Day 58:

Now it is obvious that all the conventional tomatoes are collapsing, though the conventional Q is not collapsing so much as disappearing while it shrivels. The organics are hanging in there, except for the AC, which looks terrible.

Conventional Tomatoes-Attempted Copy: 

Conventional Tomatoes-Control:

Conventional Tomatoes-QEnergySpa, BEFE:


Organic Tomatoes-Attempted Copy:

Organic Tomatoes-Control:

Organic Tomatoes-QEnergySpa, BEFE: 

Day 65 (Final Day):

While all the conventional tomatoes have deteriorated well beyond a usable condition, there are some peculiar differences. For example, the control has the largest volume, and the Q the smallest. Yet as you shall see when we describe what was found inside these tomatoes, there is no correlation between a larger volume and health as there is in the organic tomatoes, which, except for the organic AC, are still intact and even fit for use.

Conventional Tomatoes-Attempted Copy: 

Conventional Tomatoes-Control:

Conventional Tomatoes-QEnergySpa, BEFE:


Organic Tomatoes-Attempted Copy:

Organic Tomatoes-Control:

Organic Tomatoes-QEnergySpa, BEFE: 

Day 65 Cutting Results:

Conventional Attempted Copy:

The inside was all blackened, interspersed with some white specks and areas of mold.

Conventional Control:

Spores puffed out as I cut the tomato in half. This one was full of mold with some blackened parts.

Conventional QEnergySpa, BEFE:

The inside was uniformly black and spongy, like a mushroom. There was no mold and seeds were clearly visible unlike the others.

 

Organic Attempted Copy:

The core was hard and blackened, with the surrounding area putrefying.

Organic Control:

Small amount of mold on the exterior stem area, easily excised. The interior shows signs of losing firmness and fulness, but it is, otherwise, still fresh and usable. It goes into tomato sauce.

Organic QEnergySpa, BEFE:

The exterior blemished area has no mold, and shows no influence on the interior pristine condition, which is plump and beautiful. Into the sauce it goes!

Conclusion:

The results confirm something we have firmly believed because, firstly, we have so much personal evidence proving it is factual: The very first thing one should do is eat organically as much as possible. Without question the organic control tomato fared way better than the conventional control in this test, showing that, without any other influence, organic is superior in life-force to conventionally grown produce.

A clue about why this is so, which we did not appreciate at first but recorded, because it seemed noteworthy, was that the conventional tomatoes all floated when placed into the tubs of water, whereas only one of the organic ones did. Floating is a sign that there is a higher proportion of water in the tomato compared to nutrients. Sinking is a sign, therefore, of nutrient density. The conventional tomatoes were grown in such a way to attain volume with a higher proportion of water to nutrients.

This was demonstrated by the more rapid and complete deterioration of the non-organic, conventional tomatoes, regardless of treatment. Such deterioration is an indicator of lower nutrient density. It is a simple matter why this is so: Conventional agriculture generally puts back into the soil only three or four nutrients, though over 90 nutrients are depleted with the production of a crop. Organic agriculture, if practiced properly, strives to restore all 90+ nutrients back to the soil in a balanced fashion. The resultant nutritional density is the key to non-chemical aided storability.

Fruit with ideal nutritional balance and density will not rot but rather simply shrivel up and dry around the seeds. This ideal was beautifully demonstrated in the organic control and organic QEnergySpa, BEFE tomatoes. If this is not reason enough to eat organic, it must also be considered that organic food does not have literally dozens of different pesticides applied to it, many of which are widely established carcinogens. Organics are also non-genetically modified. Few people realize it, but a very large percentage of conventional tomatoes are genetically modified.

It just makes sense that injecting wholly unrelated genes and putting chemicals on the food you eat, while treating the soil with isolated elements rather than the full complement God made for the sustenance of life, is short sighted and foolish. Look at the pictures and ask yourself, “Would I rather my body was an organic or conventionally grown tomato?” Going conventional, the outside may look good for a while, but so what if death is spreading from within and overtaking all goodness in short order?

While all three conventional tomatoes deteriorated, the manner in which they deteriorated and the end results leave us with an interesting thought. It appears that the QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment, while not adequate to forestall the collapse of the conventional tomato, provided energy sufficient to be used in the preservation of its seed as you can see below. The purpose of fruit is to provide a means of propagating the plant, and, in this sense, the QEnergySpa, BEFE was successful, because it appears to have best preserved the seed of all three conventional tomatoes. Of these tomatoes, only the one treated by the QEnergySpa, BEFE had no mold and the seeds appeared healthy. Were we to duplicate this experiment we would spend more time evaluating this aspect.

The principle of life-conserving energies operates with any kind of health treatment. An effective device like the QEnergySpa, BEFE will not perform a miracle beyond the laws of nature. It will assist the natural health processes, which are geared to maintain life. If one is lacking essential nutrients and struggling with the impact of toxic chemicals (as a result of conventionally-farmed products), the living systems become weaker and more vulnerable. The first order of business is to restore what is naturally needed and supportive of life.

The organic tomato, having more nutrients (depending on how organically it was grown, the condition of the soil, and the variety) and less stress from a relative absence of toxic chemicals, was able to utilize the energy from the QEnergySpa, BEFE to maintain a more healthful condition. (It is interesting to note that the organic tomato treated by the Q had the lowest nutrient density of the three, yet fared the best, telling us that the effect of the treatment may have added more benefit than even what is seen in the side by side comparison.)

What this means is that effective therapies or treatments will enable superior health only if you are doing the right things for your health in the first place, supplying your body with what it needs and not stressing it with what it doesn’t. Otherwise, you can get benefits, but sooner or later the laws of nature and physical realities will catch up with you.

As for why the organic Attempted Copy tomato rotted while the control did not, it is our thought, based on other observations with people using these devices, that imitation machines create energy waves that cause the body, or tomato, to dump valuable minerals, particularly calcium. Calcium is needed to retain vitality and favourable storage properties in fruit and vegetables, not to mention being important in human health. We had one woman using another device, the Bio-Cleanse (formerly Ion Cleanse), who had the sudden appearance of varicose veins after using it. Upon calling the company, they told her to stay off the machine for six months and to beef up her mineral intake.

The QEnergySpa, BEFE does not have this harmful effect on the body, but rather helps it retain what is needful and lose what is not, thereby enabling it to maintain itself at a higher level. We all should do likewise.

Paul Cohen

Posted on

QEnergySpa Cucumber Life Span Extension

QEnergySpa/Befe – Cucumber Longevity (Shelf Life) Trial

Introduction

Objective

To conduct a longevity experiment in order to show the effects of supplying additional Bio Energy to a cucumber. This will be done using the patented QEnergySpa, BEFE from Q the Experience.

Hypothesis

It is theorised that increasing the Bio-Energy content in a cucumber will have the effect of prolonging the life span (use by date) and reduce attacks by fungus and fruit flies.

Commencement Date: 14 January 2004

Materials

1 x 3100 QEnergySpa, BEFE
2 x cucumbers
2 x containers to charge water and fruit
2 x trays or plates

 

Procedure

Two cucumbers of the same size, weight and age were placed into a bucket of water, one cucumber in each bucket. One of these buckets was then charged for 35mins the other left to be used for comparative purposes only. The cucumbers were then taken out of the water and placed onto 2 paper plates appropriately marked and dated.

No further treatment of the cucumbers occurred and as little handling as possible was maintained.

The cucumbers to be photographed each day and have any observations recorded.

Discussion

On the following pages a selection of photos from this experiment is shown. These photos show the daily progression of the life of the cucumber. However as you can see on the initial photos the experiment started with five different fruits. These other fruits will be discussed in documentation elsewhere due to the fact that the outcome of the charging of the fruit may be different.

Studying the photos we find a gradual degradation of the uncharged cucumber but not really until day 7 is it noticeable, where the skin appears to start to break. It is hard to see due to the marks already on the cucumber. On day 7 and 8 it looks like a slight wrinkling on the tip of the cucumber end facing the charged cucumber. However if you look carefully on the photo from day 5, this appears to be a flaw in the cucumber which have been there from the beginning. Lets go to day 13 where we can see an additional shrinkage in the middle of the cucumber, it almost looks like a knife cut. We still have no change in the charged cucumber. On day 14 the cucumber is starting to change colour and on day 15 this is quite evident as well as some additional shrinkage. From day 16 onwards the uncharged cucumber just dwindles back to nothing. On day 20 the charged starts to change colour slightly. But by day 26 the uncharged cucumber just appears to be dried out, nothing left compared to the charged cucumber which is still more that edible. It does not appear to have dried out or shrunk at all.

The cucumber was then cut open and as shown in that last photo, there is no degradation at all inside.

 

The Trial

 

Cucumber Longevity Trial

 

Day 1: All the fruit was purchased at the same shop and at the same time. Each piece of fruit was treated identically except one group was charged with the QEnergySpa and the other group wasn’t charged.

Charged Group

Uncharged Group

Day 5

Day 7

Day 8

Day 9

Day 12

Day 13

Day 14

Day 15

Day 16

Day 19

Day 20

Day 21

Day 26
Charged cucumber was cut open and found to be still quite firm and edible

 

Conclusion

From the photos it is quite evident that subjecting a cucumber to Bio-Energetically rich water has the effect of prolonging the life of the cucumber by up to 2 weeks and possibly longer. It has also been shown that fungus and fruit flies have not been a problem with the charged cucumber, but that may have become an issue over the week following had the experiment continued. We will determine that in the next experiment. Hence further testing is being conducted.

Posted on

QEnergySpa, BEFE Cucumber Yield Increase

Increasing Yield of Cucumber Crops by Energising using the QEnergySpa, BEFE Technology.

Cucumber Growth and Yield Trial

By Ivan Krell Serensen  B.Eng. A.D.Eng. A.D.M.C.  BTP.

Since 2012:- Q Biotechnologies Pty Ltd Australia.

Agriculture 98, Hydroponics QEnergySpa, BEFE Treatment Trial

   

Abstract

Studying the data presented throughout this document, it is evident that the Q-Tech trading as Q the Experience proprietary designed QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment as applied in a commercial cucumber production facility has had the following effects, noted through observations, measurements and counts

  • Improved plant health. Observed healthier greener colors

  • Improved resistance or tolerance to disease. While untreated plants wilted away while under the attack from unknown disease, the treated plants remained healthier.

  • Improved tolerance to weather conditions. Where the untreated plants received tip burns from excessive temperature, none of the treated plants showed any signs of weakening.

  • Increased growth rate. Noticed, not just from the fact that the treated plants outgrew the untreated, but also from the fact that when the treated plants received less water than that required, they still looked fine, but the growth rate was not as high as that of the untreated. This was then corrected where after the treated plants quickly caught up and then exceed the growth of the untreated and yet, the treated plants still received less water and nutrients than did the untreated; about 60ml less on average throughout the trial.

  • Increased number of Nodes. An increase in the number of points from which a fruit would grow was noticed and hence counted. It was found that the treated plants had between 19% & 20% more nodes.

  • Increased Yield and Hence Profit. Treated Rows 2 & 3 represents 23.3% (less than a quarter) of the overall plants in the shade-house. The remainder 76.7% of the plants were not treated, yet the treated rows produced 30.9% (Close to a third) of the total production in the shade-house. Add to this, the fact that the yield rejection remained mostly the same, decreasing the rejection ratio from 41.4% to 31.6%. On average, the treated plants could produce 9.97 Cucumbers per plants, compared to between 6 and 7 cucumbers per plant using current methods. For a Financial Projection, see Financial Projection. As an increase in Yield is proportional to an increase in profit, we can only conclude that the Q-Tech proprietary designed QEnergySpa, BEFE unit performs as expected. We have to note here that these results were obtained with a device which was not functioning correctly 100% of the time. The treatment was first applied when the plants had reached about 130mm and not from the time of seeding. The plants contracted a disease and were sprayed. This spraying however seemed to harm the untreated plants much more than the treated plants. Please note that no scientific testing has been done on the plant’s ability to withstand or tolerate extreme weather conditions or disease. The grower has made these observations through experience.

 

Contents

Index

Index of Figures

Index of Tables

Introduction to Agriculture 98.

The future of magnetics in agriculture is now set to become a major issue in 1998.  The introduction of new field technologies developed by Q-Tech Laboratories trading as Q the Experience has the prospect of advancing agriculture well into the next century. Agriculture 98 is this year’s push to implement the new technology with the shortest possible lead-time.

The major trial programs to be undertaken this year will be centered on the smaller horticultural enterprises including hydroponics applications. Other trials expand into broad-acre farming in areas relating to chemical usage with the prospect of using less chemicals and including the possibility of entirely replacing ionic surfactants with a the QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment.

The QEnergySpa, BEFE units used in these trials are simple, cost effective and easily adapted to suit the trials and other applications.

The major trials conducted by Q-Tech trading as Q the Experience are divided into three groups, based upon method of nutrient delivery and include the effects of the QEnergySpa, BEFE unit on the nutrients, however the major interest is the effects on growth and yield.

Nursery

These trials are designed to study both the QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment delivery system and its effect on growth, conducted for nurseries and small horticultural crops, where the nutrients required are obtained from the soil, also the use of folio nutrients using the same process.

Other trials conducted include seed germination, in which growth rates of seeds, treated with the QEnergySpa, BEFE unit are studied.

These trials require a low volume, water storage facility, where the water is delivered directly via sprinkler or drip irrigation.

Hydroponics

These trials are designed to study both the QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment application process and its effect on growth of varying commercial crops, conducted for hydroponics applications, where the medium used to grow the plants contain no nutrients.

These trials also require a low volume, water storage facility, where the nutrient enriched water is delivered via reticulation to the roots.

Broad-acre

The broad-acre trials to be conducted in this field involve both herbicides and pesticides. The QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment in this case reflects all the preliminary results related to the property changes recorded in treated water. The main focus is on the potential elimination of the need for ionic surfactant  A study of the activity changes in various herbicides and pesticides is foremost. Trials using lower rates of chemicals will also be conducted. Standard commercial spraying apparatus will be used in these trials.

 

Introduction to the Hydroponics Trial

This document deals with trials related to the QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment process of water used in the growth of cucumber plants grown in a shade house by hydroponic means.

The trial was setup to test the efficiency of the current agricultural QEnergySpa, BEFE unit under commercial conditions and to establish the difference in growth rates and yield, between the treated crop and the current growing method.

Throughout the trial, quantities such as fruit yield & abortion were counted from entire rows, whereas some results, such as the growth rates, water measurements, node counts, were based upon a selection of plants taken from each row.

Where a selection was used, ten plants were selected from each row. These plants were selected, not at random, but evenly spaced throughout the rows. That is, the first plant in each row and then one plant in every 6, leaving about 10 plants at the end.

 

Hydroponics Trial Setup

Layout

The hydroponics trial was conducted in Helidon, 19 Km East of Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia, at facilities owned by Mr. & Mrs. Grorud. The Trial was commenced on the 6th of February 1998.

The shade-house utilized for this trial was a steel-framed construction and was covered with clear plastic over two thirds of the surface. The remaining area was covered with a shade cloth on the lower parts of both sides. A Clear plastic cover could also be rolled down over the shade cloth in extreme weather conditions.

The plants grew in 8 rows within the shade house, where each row had been designated a number by the grower as is shown in Figure 1 below. The two trial rows being irrigated with the charged water were in the center of the shade-house with the control row one row across to the right. The plants in the trial row No. 2 grew in sawdust and the plants in row No. 3 grew in coal ash. The control row designated as row No. 1 grew in sawdust. Each row contained a set number of plants as outlined in Table 1 below.

Figure 1, Shade-house layout and water delivery system

 

Number of plants in each row
Row 8 7 6 3 2 1 4 5
Plants 89 71 72 70 71 71 71 89
Table 1, Number of plants in each row
Note that rows 5 and 8 have an additional 19 plants.


  

Water Delivery System

The water delivery system already connected to the shade-house was set to pump 80 Litres per minute for a set amount of time, which delivered a controlled quantity of water to the entire shade-house, each time it was watered. Rows 2 & 3 contained 141 Plants of a total of 604 plants, which means that by proportion, rows 2 & 3 should require 23.3% of the total amount of water. However Q-Tech Laboratories P/L trading as Q the Experience predicted that it should require less water and hence the volume was set at a lower value for the trial rows.

It should be noted that the shade-house or any nursery is not a laboratory, with exact water flow control on every dripper. The commercial reality is that you may supply the entire shade-house with a quantity of water, but no two plants in the shade-house will get the same amount of water. It becomes an approximation. It is up to the grower to adjust the delivery system to make sure that every plant gets at least the average water required and also to adjust the system to deliver more or less according to the weather.

The delivery system setup required a charging tank, in which the treatment was to be applied. This tank was tapped directly from the existing delivery line. See Figure 2. Hence, any variance in water or nutrient rates to the shade-house would automatically be applied to the trial rows, unless changed by the grower.

The control tap, determined the amount of water received by the trial unit, which was preset before the commencement of the trial, so that each plant in the trial would receive equal amounts of water and nutrients as the water being treated already contained the nutrients, added by the grower.

Figure 2, Charging tank and control
Figure 3, Actual charge tank

At the output stage of the Charging Tank, the Control Tap, reduced the flow rate to the trial rows. The solenoid is there to maintain the water in the charging tank for the specified length of time. The filter at the end is there to catch any sediment, which may be produced as a result of the QEnergySpa, BEFE unit’s interaction with the water or nutrients.

The treatment process by the QEnergySpa, BEFE unit then took approximately 20 minutes, after which the water was pumped, to the trial rows.

This process was independently controlled, should the need arise to adjust the water charge rates, due to the change of the chemical properties in the water, induced by the QEnergySpa, BEFE unit.

The actual charge tank as seen here, Figure 3, is a 200 Litre drum cut in half and turned, the pump is located underneath. The top section is the charging-tank, where the QEnergySpa, BEFE unit is immersed into, See Figure 4. Once the QEnergySpa, BEFE unit was connected to the power supply, and the charge tank filled with nutrient enriched water, the treatment was commenced. This process was fully controlled by an additional irrigation controller which was synchronized to the existing controller, to ensure the 20-minute treatment process.

Figure 4, QEnergySpa unit & tank

*

Figure 5, The QEnergySpa, BEFE unit

The QEnergySpa, BEFE early model unit as seen  here  (Then  named Bio-Electric Field Enhancement  or  B.E.F.E.),  Figure 5, is the prototype charging  unit,  which was  placed into the charge tank and  connected  to the  power supply as mentioned above.

The QEnergySpa, BEFE unit is a proprietary design.  Invented and Designed and Manufactured by Q-Tech  Laboratories P/L trading as Q the Experience.

This QEnergySpa, BEFE unit as seen here may not  be  the  commercial model released. 

 

General Observations

The following observations made throughout the trial were in most cases observed by the grower, but in all cases, the observational differences between the treated plants and the remaining shade-house were quite noticeable. These observations are based upon the experience of the grower.

The plants used for this trial were all seeded on the 27th of January 1998 and planted in the shade-house on the 4th of February 1998. At this time the plants were about 100mm high.

Tip Burns

On the 25th of February 1998, less than half of the plants in the shade-house developed a tip burn. That is, the tip of these plants suffered some form of damage  The degree of damage varied widely from one plant to the next, but the interesting part was that this damage occurred throughout the shade-house, except the treated rows. None of the plants in the treated rows suffered any damage.

Dead Plants

During the trial, a number of plant deaths occurred throughout the shade-house. By the end of the trial, 30 plants of the total of 463 untreated plants in shade-house died  Compare that to one death towards the end of the season, from a total of 141 treated plants. That is a death rate of 6.5% compared to 0.7% respectively.

Wilting of Plants 

During periods of high temperature, the plants had a tendency to wilt dramatically. It was however noticed that the treated plants remained firmer for considerably longer, but did eventually also wilt.

Bottom Leaves

An observation made throughout the trial, concerning the bottom leaves on the plants, was that the lower leaves on the treated plants remained greener and healthier long after the lower leaves on the untreated plants had died. This trend continued late into the growing season, until spraying to control high levels of disease in the shade-house commenced 

It should also be noted here that in the presence of the disease, the treated plants remained greener and healthier and generally appeared to be more tolerant.

Healthier Greener Colour

Comparing the health of the treated and untreated plants throughout the shade-house and during the entire trial, it was clear that the treated plants remained greener, healthier and firmer than the untreated plants.

Drainage

The drainage left in the sump of the treated plants was consistently observed as having less water than the drainage left from the untreated plants. However we also knew that the treated plants were getting less water, even after the irrigation was corrected. With less irrigation, the treated plants still showed some drainage. This can only mean that the treated plants utilized the water more efficiently. For further information see Plant Growth & Irrigation.

White Spots

While the plants were relatively small, tiny white spots appeared on leaves throughout the shade-house, except on the treated plants. This may mean that the treated plants were a little more tolerant, although the cause of the white spots was not known.

Leaves

The leaves of the treated plants, although difficult to quantify or qualify, were visibly smaller, with more body. It was also noted that the texture and surface of the leaves was different.

Supporting Stems

The lateral stems on the treated plants had on average, a greater positive incline supporting the leaves. This made the treated plant appear stronger and healthier.

Inter-Node Spacing

One of the more interesting observations made, was that the inter-node spacing on the treated plants appeared to be closer. This effect was so visual that it was decided to count the nodes present on the plants. The information obtained from this count is detailed under Nodes.

Fruit Abortions

As you will see on page 13, during the trial, a number of fruit throughout the shade-house aborted, meaning that the fruit withered away after short time  It was noted that this occurred during a particular period of extreme hot weather. The treated plants seemed to abort more fruit than any untreated plants. However as this report shows, the treated plants have more nodes to grow fruit from. Overall the treated plants still produced more fruit.

Plant Growth

Initially, the growth of the treated plants was lagging behind. Q-Tech Laboratories Pty Ltd trading as Q the Experience expected better results, hence upon inspecting the crop, it was found that the treated plants were not getting the required water. After this was corrected, the treated plants out grew the remainder of the shade-house. For further information see below – Plant Growth & Irrigation.

Shade-House Yield

This report clearly demonstrates the increase in yield caused by the QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment. This however was not an obvious observation and was not noticed until the picking of the fruit.

 

Test Results

Plant Growth & Irrigation

During the trial, the heights of the plants were measured at regular intervals, to obtain a comparison of growth rates between the QEnergySpa, BEFE treated and the untreated plants. The actual records of these readings are presented in the Cumulative Plant Growth, Appendix A.

Appendix B contains the actual growth of the plants over the time between two sets of readings, where the interval is listed at the top of the table.

For example, for plant number five in row two.

When the trial was started, the plant was already 150mm high, 3 days later the plant had grown 30mm, 3 days later again it had grown 40mm and was now 220mm high.

This plant had grown an average of 52mm per day over the entire trial period.

Appendix C contains the average daily growth rates. This table is identical to that presented in Appendix B, except that the figure shown is the average per day over the interval between readings, whereas Appendix B was the total over that period.

Each of these tables contains the minimum, maximum and average reading from each row of 10 selected plants.

Comparing the average growth of the three rows in the trial as shown in Figure 6, it becomes evident that the two trial rows were actually lagging behind in growth, up until after the 26/2/1998. This date is important, in that this is the date when the water delivery was corrected. It was found that the treated rows were not receiving sufficient amount of nutrient enriched water.

The treated rows were purposely given less nutrient enriched water, as it was suspected that the treated plants required less water and/or nutrients. However, as it was noticed that the medium used to grow the treated plants were not as moist and had no run off. It was decided to increase the nutrient enriched water to the treated row.

 

Figure 6, Average plant growth

Increasing the nutrient enriched water delivery to the treated rows produced the desired results as seen in the chart, Figure 6 by the increase in growth rate. This increase is also evident Figure 7 Figure 8, which compares the cumulative growth for each row. Each bar in Figure 7 is broken up into the minimum, average and maximum growth from the 10 selected plants. From this it also becomes evident that the minimum plant growth in the untreated row (1), exceeded the average growth of both the treated rows, up until the 26/2/1998. From this date, the chart also shows that the maximum plant growth occurs in the treated rows. Row 3 more so than row 2. From these charts, Figure 6 and Figure 8 we can with certainty say that the treated rows outgrew the untreated row.

Studying the table “Water Delivery Records” in Appendix D, it is however obvious that even though the supply of nutrient enriched water to the treated rows were increased after the 26/02/1998, the treated plants still received on average almost 60ml less. This table contains three sets of water measurements, which were measured twice after the water delivery was corrected. The last water reading, on the 9/03/1998, showed that the nozzle to plant 7 in Row 2 was blocked, which had the effect of bringing the average delivery of row 2 down. The data in Table 2 below, extracted from Appendix D, also shows that, for this reading, the treated plants, row 3, on average received more water than did the untreated row, although one plant in the untreated row received 400ml, 10ml and 20ml more than rows 2 and 3 respectively. The three watering measurements are inconclusive on their own since no further water measurements were taken after this point. Hence, we cannot, with these measurements alone say that the increase in growth was due to variable water rate.

 

Water Delivery per plant per watering 09/03/1998 (mL)
Row Minimum Average Maximum
1-Untreated 200 259 400
2-Treated 0 231 390
3-Treated 150 272 380
Table 2, Water delivery extract

However, we can with some degree of accuracy estimate the total amount of nutrient enriched water supplied to the treated rows.

The shade-house water delivery system was pumped through at a rate of 80 litres per minute as measured by the flow meter attached to the delivery line. This was always kept constant. This rate of water was delivered for a period of 2minutes and 45 seconds, although varied by the grower as necessary.

Lets assume for the moment that this water delivery stays constant at 2minutes and 45 seconds. This will give a total of 2.75 times 80 litres or 220 litres of water for the entire shade house. The mark left by the nutrient enriched water in the charge tank used for the treatment was at a height of 165mm and the tank had a diameter of 560mm. Since the 40.6 litres were drained from the supply to the shade-house, that means that the remaining shade-house received 220 – 40.6 litres totaling 179.4 litres. When the grower changed the watering amounts, only the length of time would change, hence the division of water usage to the treated and untreated rows would vary proportionally.

The treated rows contained 141 plants of a total of 604 plants. This means that the treated plants would receive on average 288ml of nutrient enriched water per plant and the untreated plants would receive 387ml of nutrient enriched water per plant. If some plants received less than this quota, then other plants would receive more due to the delivery method used.

Hence, on average the untreated plants received 34.4% more nutrient enriched water, the normal amount of water given, yet the treated plants outgrew them.

On growth, the treated plants grew taller by about 4% on average, but the interesting part is not that the treated plants grew taller, but that they initially grew slower and then accelerated and passed the untreated plants, provided that the nutrient and water supply was sufficient. This is evident in Figure 7 and Figure 8 below.

 

Figure 7, Cumulative growth – Rows 1, 2 & 3

Figure 8, Cumulative growth & water consumption


 

Nodes

While studying and comparing the plants from separate rows, the grower noticed that the number of nodes from whence a fruit would grow were different between rows 1 (Untreated), 2 (Treated-Sawdust) and 3 (Treated-Coal Ash). Ten evenly spaced plants where then chosen from each row and the number of nodes were counted, as tabled in Table 3.

Nodes Plant
Row 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Min Avg Max
1 20 22 22 24 20 25 21 19 19 19 19 21.1 25
2 25 25 26 24 25 27 26 25 24 27 24 25.4 27
3 24 25 24 24 25 28 24 25 27 26 24 25.2 28
Table 3, Number of nodes

 

When comparing these numbers it becomes quite evident that the treated plants produce on average an increased number of nodes, with an increase of about 20%, See Table 4. A greater increase was found on some of the treated plants, with an up to 32% increase.

Perhaps more interesting is that the minimum number of nodes in the treated rows is only just less than the maximum number of nodes in the untreated row. This may be better demonstrated in the graph, Figure 9 below.

Figure 9, Node comparison

Percentage Increase in Nodes compared to control
Row Avg. %
1 21.1 NA
2 25.4 20.38%
3 25.2 19.43%
Table 4, Percentage node comparison

 

With an increase in the number of nodes on each plant by about 20%, the potential of the plant to produce more fruit is increased. If we assumed that all the nodes were to bear fruit, then that would mean an increase in production of 20%.

 Fruit Abortions

During the trial, a number of fruit throughout the shade-house aborted, meaning that the cucumber withered away after short time. It was noted that during a particular period of extreme weather the plants aborted more fruit than usual and as a matter of interest for comparison, the number of fruit aborted were counted, as tabled in Table 5 below.

Fruit Aborted

Row

Row 1, Untreated

Row 2, Treated Saw Dust

Row 3, Treated Coal Ash

Fruit Aborted 220 239 277
Table 5, Fruit abortion


It was suggested that the cause of this abortion was due to excessive temperatures, during the summer period. When comparing the number of aborted fruit from each row, it was noted that the treated rows actually aborted more fruit than did the untreated row. Where rows 2 and 3 aborted 8.6% and 25.9% more fruit, respectively.

Comparing this increase in fruit abortion to the increased number of nodes as shown previously.

Should we hypothetically assume that all the nodes on every plant would bear fruit, then as shown in Table 6, we would have produced 1498, 1803 & 1764 cucumbers in Rows 1, 2 & 3 respectively.   The amount of cucumbers aborted would be 220, 239 & 277 in rows 1, 2 & 3 respectively. With the remaining fruit being 1278, 1564 & 1487 respectively.    

Fruit Abortion & Node Comparison
Row Average Nodes No. of Plants Total Fruit Aborted Fruit Remaining Fruit
1 21.1 71 1498 220 1278
2 25.4 71 1803 239 1564
3 25.2 70 1764 277 1487
Table 6, Fruit Abortion & Node Comparison

 

Figure 10, Fruit abortion & node comparison

In the graph, Figure 10, each complete bar represents the hypothetical total number of fruit which rows 1, 2 & 3 would produce.  The top area of each bar represents the aborted number of fruit.  Hence the bottom section of each bar represents the remaining fruit.

Studying these, it becomes evident that even though the treated rows lost more fruit, these rows would still be well ahead in fruit production.  This is clearly demonstrated in Table 6 and Figure 10.

As a percentage of each row’s production, the plants aborted 14.7%, 13.3% & 15.7% fruit for rows 1, 2 & 3 respectively.  This percentage seems to be closely related.

Yield  

Picking Record for Row 1 (Control Row)
     Cumulative
Date Market Rejects Market Rejects
10/03/1998 46 22 46 22
11/03/1998 20 1 66 23
13/03/1998 45 2 111 25
15/03/1998 56 0 167 25
17/03/1998 29 1 198 26
19/03/1998 14 18 210 44
21/03/1998 7 10 217 54
23/03/1998 15 26 232 80
25/03/1998 17 19 249 99
27/03/1998 22 22 271 121
29/03/1998 20 23 291 144
31/03/1998 16 20 307 164
02/04/1998 18 12 325 176
04/04/1998 11 4 336 180
06/04/1998 12 11 348 191
08/04/1998 10 11 358 202
10/04/1998 6 11 364 213
13/04/1998 15 21 379 234
15/04/1998 10 6 389 240
17/04/1998 5 13 394 253
20/04/1998 11 9 405 262
22/04/1998 1 8 406 270
24/04/1998 7 8 413 278
27/04/1998 4 20 417 298
30/04/1998 11 7 428 305
03/05/1998 3 0 431 305
Plants 71
Average 6.07 4.3 Per Plant
Table 7, Picking Records, Row 1

The yield in this trial is the final measure of the success of the QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment. As such, every cucumber picked from the plants on all rows in the shade-house were recorded. The table of complete picking records is listed in the Crop Yield Records, Appendix E.

 

 

 

 

Table 7, Table 8, Table 9 and are extracted from the table in Appendix E, which contain the picking records for the trial rows 1, 2 & 3 respectively, but also includes the cucumbers, which grew to a marketable size but were rejected by the grower for reasons of suitability.

In Table 7, we find that the row, which was picked to be the row for comparison (Row 1), produced only 431 marketable cucumbers, with 305 rejected cucumbers.

Compared to Table 8, which is the picking records for row 2, treated and growing in sawdust and producing 617 marketable cucumbers and 319 rejected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Picking Record for Row 2 (Treated Row)   Picking Record for Row 3 (Treated Row)
    Cumulative       Cumulative
Date Market Rejects Market Rejects   Date Market Rejects Market Rejects
10/03/1998 12 8 12 8   10/03/1998 16 7 16 7
11/03/1998 15 6 27 14   11/03/1998 24 2 40 9
13/03/1998 67 6 94 20   13/03/1998 76 5 116 14
15/03/1998 64 7 158 27   15/03/1998 82 6 198 20
17/03/1998 41 1 199 28   17/03/1998 39 0 237 20
19/03/1998 25 14 224 42   19/03/1998 16 14 253 34
21/03/1998 5 6 229 48   21/03/1998 6 5 259 39
23/03/1998 25 28 254 76   23/03/1998 14 40 273 79
25/03/1998 22 23 276 99   25/03/1998 42 22 315 101
27/03/1998 38 22 314 121   27/03/1998 41 13 356 114
29/03/1998 40 20 354 141   29/03/1998 34 23 390 137
31/03/1998 36 20 390 161   31/03/1998 50 16 440 153
2/04/1998 23 22 413 183   2/04/1998 29 20 469 173
4/04/1998 19 2 432 185   4/04/1998 24 10 493 183
6/04/1998 17 12 449 197   6/04/1998 12 4 505 187
8/04/1998 8 9 457 206   8/04/1998 8 20 513 207
10/04/1998 25 12 482 218   10/04/1998 15 17 528 224
13/04/1998 25 26 507 244   13/04/1998 28 26 556 250
15/04/1998 19 12 526 256   15/04/1998 27 17 583 267
17/04/1998 17 14 543 270   17/04/1998 22 4 605 271
20/04/1998 14 12 557 282   20/04/1998 27 15 632 286
22/04/1998 15 20 572 302   22/04/1998 11 7 643 293
24/04/1998 11 8 583 310   24/04/1998 12 13 655 306
27/04/1998 9 4 592 314   27/04/1998 9 9 664 315
30/04/1998 16 5 608 319   30/04/1998 16 7 680 322
3/05/1998 9 0 617 319   3/05/1998 18 0 698 322
Plants 71       Plants 70    
Average 8.69 4.49 Per Plant   Average 9.97 4.6 Per Plant
Table 8, Picking Records, Row 2   Table 9, Picking Records, Row 3

 

Table 9, which is the picking records of row 2, treated and growing in coal ash, producing 698 marketable cucumbers and 322 rejected cucumbers.

These numbers would seem to indicate that the QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment has increased the number of marketable cucumbers, without increasing the number of rejects proportionally, which may have been expected. This is clearly demonstrated in Figure 12 where the increase in cucumbers from row 1 to row 2 is 186 cucumbers with only 14 additional rejects and compared to row 3 with an increase of 267 cucumbers and only 17 additional rejects.

In terms of percentages, Figure 11, 41.4% is currently rejected from every plant. After the QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment, this is reduced to 34.1% in row 2 and 31.6% in row 3.

To get an idea of the total yield, that is the Marketable plus the rejected cucumbers, refer to Figure 13, which shows a comparison of rows 1, 2 & 3, the trial rows.

The bottom part of each bar in this chart indicates the marketable cucumbers and the top part the rejected. This clearly indicates that initially the untreated row 1 produced a better yield, however after the 15/3/1998, the treated rows outperformed the untreated row used for comparison.

This chart also shows that row 3, produced a yield of 1020 cucumbers, row 2 with 936 cucumbers and row 1, the untreated only 736 cucumbers, that is ignoring the rejects, from which no financial gain could be achieved. However the plant still produced the fruit.

If we study only the marketable cucumbers, as shown in Figure 13, which is just the top of the bottom section of each bar. Eliminating all other information we have Figure 14, which shows the marketable cucumbers throughout the trial. Again it is quite clear that the treated rows performs exceeding well.

Due to the fact that the row picked for comparison turned out to be the worst row, let’s include each of the other rows in the shade-house.

Rows 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 produced a yield of 505, 520, 515, 488 and 481 cucumbers respectively.

Figure 11, Marketed & Rejected Yield Comparison

Figure 12, Season End Marketed & Rejected Yield

 

Figure 13, Cumulative Cucumber Yield

Figure 14, Cumulative Marketable Cucumber Yield

Examining Figure 15 below, it becomes quite evident how bad the row chosen for comparison (row 1) actually was compared to the rest of the shade-house. However, this does not even take into consideration that each row has a different number of plants.

Taking that into consideration, we get an average number of cucumbers per plant, however, this affects only rows 5 and 8, which have an additional 18 plants in each row.

Figure 15, Total Yield

This actually makes rows 5 and 8 worse than our control row, picked for comparison, with and average of 5.84 and 5.4 cucumbers per plant respectively compared to 6.07 per plant in row 1.

Figure 16, Average Yield per Plant

Let us compare the average of the treated rows to the entire shade-house, Figure 17 below. Here we notice that on average the treated rows outperformed the entire shade-house by up to 3.6 cucumbers per plant and if sawdust was used instead of coal ash, 2.34 cucumbers per plant. Even if we were to include the two best rows in the shade-house, rows 4 and 6, with and average of 7.11 or 7.15 cucumbers per plant respectively. The treated rows are still ahead by 2.82 cucumbers per plant.

Figure 17, Average Yield Compared to Entire Shade-house

Comparing each row average as a part of the entire shade-house, we notice that the treated row 2, makes up for 15% of the entire yield and row 3, 18% of the entire yield. The nearest competitive row is row 6 with 13%.

Figure 18, Row Average Comparison

Rows 5 and 8 are as expected the worst at 9% and 10% respectively. This is due to the additional 18 plants in those rows.

Studying the picking records as presented in Appendix E. We find that apart from the first picking on the 10/3/1998. The treated rows consistently produced a higher yield throughout the entire trial. This is perhaps more evident in Figure 13.

Summary and Conclusion  

Note : Wherever the word treatment is used, QEnergySpa, BEFE is implied.

This trial has dealt with the application of the Q-Tech proprietary (QTheExperience) designed QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment to that of a commercial crop of cucumbers. This treatment has involved a pre-charge of the nutrient enriched water, before delivery to the crop. The crop involved 8 rows of cucumber plants placed in a shade-house, where only two rows were treated using the above mentioned device and one other row chosen for comparison, although a comparison with the remaining shade-house has also been performed.  

This document has compared observations of health, resistance or tolerance to disease and growth rates, but in particular, the number of nodes present on the plants resulting in increased yield and therefore increased profits. These observations were made, based upon the experience of grower.

In terms of health, the treated plants were observed to be greener and generally healthier than the untreated plants. This is based upon observations made in regards to supporting stems, tip burns, leaves wilting, dead plants and color.

Resistance or tolerance to disease was based upon the attack on the plants by a fungal leaf disease, where the QEnergySpa, BEFE treated plants were observed to cope more efficiently and remain greener and healthier for longer, even after the shade-house was sprayed.

Looking at the fruit abortions, it has been made clear that all plants aborted fruit, and that the treated plants aborted more fruit compared to the remainder of the shade-house, when counted during a particular period of extreme temperature. However the treated plants also had more fruit to loose, as judged by the increased number of nodes. The treated plants actually produced up to 20% more nodes from whence a fruit would grow, at the time the nodes were counted. Throughout the trial, all plants randomly aborted fruit, however, no further attention was given to this.

The QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment had the effect of increasing the growth rate of the plants. This was particularly noticed due to the initial lack of nutrient enriched water, which when corrected produced a significant growth in the treated plants. Regardless of the fact that on average they were still supplied with about 60ml less nutrient enriched water that did the untreated plants. Also interesting is that the treated plants were on average about 80mm taller.

Finally, the reason for the trial, the increase in yield and hence profit. The QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment has increased the yield from an average of 6 to 7 marketable cucumbers per plant to and average of nearly 10 cucumbers per plant, which is an increase of about 57%.

While the rejected cucumbers remained about the same across the rows, treated and untreated, this had the effect of reducing the fruit rejection from 41.4% to 31.6%.

Please note that this trial has been conducted in an actual commercial environment, where the judgement of the grower has been relied upon to vary conditions as necessary. This means that the plants were subjected to weather conditions and diseases as any commercial crop would and hence give a more accurate picture of the improvements provided by the QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment.

Please also note that while the QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment has indeed increased the final yield, the QEnergySpa, BEFE treatment was not functioning at its optimal capacity throughout the trial. Through one period of about 4 to 5 days, the unit was not functioning at all. The reason for this is that the unit has been used in an application requiring a greater capacity than it was designed for. The commercial edition of this device has been modified to cope. What this means, is that the yield improvements shown in this document may just be a small sample of what the commercial device may be able to provide.

 

Growers Statement

B & M Grorud Lot 2 Warrego Highway Helidon 4344B & M GrorudOn the 8/3/98 I began picking continental cucumbers from one of our hot houses. I was participating in an experiment conducted by Q-Tech Laboratories. There were three rows of plants, Number one being the control row, number two being a row growing in a sawdust medium treated by magnetized water and number three being a row of coal ash medium also treated by magnetized water. During the growth stage of the plants I did notice the plants in the two magnetized rows seemed to be stronger and had a greener color to them as compared to the control row. Also the inter-node spacing was much closer on rows two and three. I did not have any deaths of plants in either of these rows as compared to the control row, which had quite a few. On picking I recorded all fruit I’d picked off all the rows. I found that row three had by far the most marketable amount of fruit with row two next in productivity and the control row with the weakest amounts.Row 3 – Produced 698 pieces of fruit;Row 2 – Produced 617 pieces of fruit, and;Row 1 – Produced 431 pieces of fruit.It appears to me by this first experiment that the magnetized water treatment did have an influence on the performance of the plants and their productivity.

M. Grorud

 

Yearly Yield Projection

As this trial successfully shows, the proprietary treatment applied to the production of cucumbers has increased the growth rate and yield. The effect of which, if applied to an entire farm and not just a few rows is quite significant.

If we use the production figures as shown in Appendix E for the entire shade-house, excluding the treated rows, we would produce an average of 6.35 cucumbers per plant, compared to the 8.69 and 9.97 cucumbers per plant for the treated rows. In effect this means that if a hydroponic grower were to plant the crops in sawdust and treat the crop with the Q-Tech proprietary (QTheExperience) designed QEnergySpa, BEFE unit, the grower could expect in excess of 30% increase in yield. Should the grower utilize coal ash instead, then the increase in yield could exceed 50%. In terms of actual number cucumbers, see Table 10 or Figure 19 below.

 

Yearly Yield Projection
Treatment Avg. Cucumbers per Plant Number of Plants
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Untreated 6.35 31749 63499 95248 126998 158747 190497 222246 253996
Treated – Sawdust 8.69 43451 86901 130352 173803 217254 260704 304155 347606
Treated – Coal Ash 9.97 49857 99714 149571 199429 249286 299143 349000 398857
Table 10, Yearly Yield Projection

Say a grower’s capacity is 20,000 plants per year. In this year, the grower can currently expect to collect around 126,998 cucumbers. If the entire yearly crop were grown in sawdust and treated then the grower could expect to collect 173,803 cucumbers, but should the grower utilize coal ash and subject the plants to the QEnergySpa unit’s treatment, then the grower could expect to collect around 199,429 cucumbers. That is, an additional 72,431 cucumbers.

Figure 19, Yearly Yield Projection

*


Financial Projection  

To continue the example set out in the Yearly Yield Projection above, an additional 72,431 cucumbers per year at $0.60 each could produce (the word ‘could’ is emphasized here) an extra $43,458 per year to the grower of 20,000 plants. For farms of other capacities, please see Table 11 and Figure 20 below.

Please note that this projection assumes no unforeseen effects from other factors such as extreme weather conditions or disease, which may or may not be mentioned in this report. It is merely a projection based upon the data collected during this trial.

Full Year Financial Projection
Treatment Avg. Cucumbers Per Plant Number of Plants
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Untreated 6.35 $19,050 $38,099 $57,149 $76,199 $95,248 $114,298 $133,348 $152,397
Treated – Sawdust 8.69 $26,070 $52,141 $78,211 $104,282 $130,352 $156,423 $182,493 $208,563
Treated – Coal Ash 9.97 $29,914 $59,829 $89,743 $119,657 $149,571 $179,486 $209,400 $239,314
Table 11, Financial Yearly Projection

Assuming that this projection is attractive, the next question will most likely be “What will it cost the grower to implement the treatment on an entire farm?”.

Like most new installations, there is an initial setup cost. In this case the QEnergySpa, BEFE unit, capable of treating up to 10,000 gallons of water at a time, is the only additional expense. Ongoing expenses are minimal with just the weekly replacing of cost effective consumables. Based on the above projections any installations will have paid for themselves within a very short period of time.

Figure 20, Financial Yearly Projection

Appendix

Click on tables to enlarge  

APPENDIX A, Growth Records – Cumulative


 

APPENDIX B, Average Growth


   

APPENDIX C, Average Daily Growth

 

APPENDIX D, Water Delivery Records

 

APPENDIX E, Crop Yield Records

Posted on

QEnergySpa, BEFE Pumpkin Trial

QEnergySpa, BEFE Pumpkin Trial

Meringandan Pumpkin Trial

Jap Pumpkin Trial

 

Jap Pumpkin Trial Log (Meringandan)

Day 1

 

The trial commenced on the 23rd October 2003 at Freda Garret’s property at Meringandan in Queensland, Australia.

A fenced area was provided to conduct the trial. The preparation of the seed mounds required the ground to be dug and potting mix applied and mixed in with the soil of each mound.

Prior to the charging session a pH and conductivity test was done on the bore water.

Readings

pH

7.3

Conductivity

1.8mS/cm

8 Jap Pumpkin seeds were placed in a 10 litre container and covered with water.

A 3050 QEnergySpa, BEFE and Orb were used to charge the water for a period of 35 minutes on low setting due to the high conductivity of the bore water.

After the charging session the seed was planted into the mounds with 4 seeds per mound and planted at a depth of 40 mm. After planting, each mound was identified according to the type of water treatment it was to receive.

Each mound was watered with 20 litres of water according to its water rating.

                                    Figure 1 – Fenced area for the trial
                                    Figure 2 – Four (4) mounds prepared for planting
                                    Figure 3 –  Taking pH and Conductivity Readings
                                    Figure 4 – Charging the pumpkin seeds
                                   Figure 5 – Planting out the trial. Latex gloves were                                                                                                     worn to  prevent contact with the seeds.

 

 

 

31st October 2003

Trial pumpkins monitored and it was observed that seeds in the groups had emerged.

Only one seed had struck in the uncharged seed and charged water group.

Each group was watered according to its treatment.

Readings of pH 7.8 and Conductivity of 1.8 mS/cm were recorded after the water had been charged.

 

Uncharged seed, charged water

1 seed germinated

Charged seed, charged water

3 seeds germinated

 

Charged seed, uncharged water

3 seeds germinated

Uncharged seed, uncharged water (control)

3 seeds germinated

 

 18th December 2003

Uncharged seed, charged water Charged seed, charged water

 

Charged seed, uncharged water Uncharged seed, uncharged water

 

27th February 2004

 

Charged Seed Charged Water

7 fruit in the first fruiting, average 2 1/2kg

Largest area covered by plant

A lot of fruit in second fruiting being formed

 

Uncharged Seed Charged Water

First to form Fruit

1 fruit in first fruiting 3kg

Second fruiting already evident 1kg

 

Charged Seed Uncharged Water

Slow to form pumpkins

3 fruit in first fruiting 2kg

Second fruiting just evident

 

Uncharged seed Uncharged Water

Very late to form fruit

First fruiting 3 pumpkins

Second fruiting 2 pumpkins

Not much time between fruiting

 

5th March 2004

(A)     Uncharged seed and uncharged water.

Brix leaf reading   2

Weight   # 1 – already picked

               # 2 – 1.5 kgs

               # 3 – 2.7 kgs

               # 4 – 2.6 kgs

Measurement (diameter)   # 1 – already picked

# 2 – 190 mm

                                         # 3 –  200 mm

                                          # 4 – 200 mm

 

#1

#2

#3

#4

 

(B)     Uncharged water charged seed

Brix leaf reading   3.4

Weight   # 1 – 4.2 kgs

               # 2 –  3.4 kgs

               # 3 – 3.9 kgs

Measurement (diameter)     # 1 – 245 mm

                                                        # 2 – 220 mm

                                                        # 3 – 235 mm

 

Left # 1   Right # 3

 

#2

 

(C)    Uncharged seed charged water

Brix leaf reading  4

Weight    # 1 – 4.8 kgs

               # 2 – 3.2 kgs

               # 3 – 2.5 kgs

Measurement (diameter)  # 1 – 245 mm

                                                    #  2 – 210 mm

                                                   # 3 –  220 mm

 

 

#1

 

#2

 

#3

 

(D)     Charged seed charged water

Brix leaf reading  4.4

Weight    # 1 – 4 kgs

               # 2 – 3.2 kgs

               # 3 – already picked

               # 4 – 2.1 kgs

               # 5 – already picked

               # 6 – 2.3 kgs

Measurement (diameter)       # 1 – 230 mm

                                                # 2 – 230 mm

                                                # 3 – already picked

                                                # 4 – 190 mm

                                                # 5 – already picked

                                                # 6 – 210mm

 

#1

 

#2

 

#4

 

#6

 

 

19.03.2004 – Brix test readings and conductivity

Group A – uncharged seed, uncharged water 6.8 flesh sap 16.5 9.4 mS/cm
Group B – charged seed, uncharged water 5 flesh sap 10.3 8.1 mS/cm
Group C – uncharged seed, charged water 5.6 flesh sap 8 6.9 mS/cm
Group D – charged seed, charged water 6.8 flesh sap 13 6.8 mS/cm
Comparing each of the pumpkins, the riper the pumpkin the darker the colour of the flesh and the higher the brix level.

 

 

 

 

19.03.04

A Sample from each of the trial pumpkins was taken, cooked and mashed for a taste test.

Each taster was asked to rank the pumpkins in order of sweetness and texture.

The following is the majority preference (1 being the most preferred).

(A) Uncharged seed, Uncharged water 3
(B) Charged seed, Uncharged water 5
(C) Uncharged seed, Charged water 4
(C2) Uncharged seed, Charged water 2
(D) Charged seed, Charged water 1
Pumpkins B, C & A were not quite mature.
Pumpkins C2 & D were ripe.

Pumpkin C2 was extra to the trial.

 

Note the colour difference between the pumpkins

Posted on

Cellular Detoxification

Detoxification


Water Colors & Smells: The bio-electric field effect and or energy quality from the use of the QEnergySpa, BEFE is derived from the interaction of the complex resonant field created within the water by the water module, the ORB. All ionic or electrolysis processes ONLY results in discoloration and precipitation within the water and although interesting and a point of discussion, it is irrelevant to the process and effect. There are far too many parameters that affect the colors and smells of the water after use of the QEnergySpa, BEFE (or any other similar kind of technology) and although every person’s outcome in the water is different (you affect the outcome, but it does not come from you), please remember that you cannot and should NEVER diagnose or rely on the water colors and or smells in any way.

Point is: That all colors, dirt and smells are irrelevant. Ignore them

Disclaimer: Please note. Q the Experience, Future Life Science and QBiotechnologies Pty Ltd has no medical staff. All articles written and all texts published, unless otherwise stated are purely from an engineering perspective with 20 years experience with the technology and online related research. All medical facts and statements should be independently verified.

Disclaimer: Please note that the QEnergySpa, BEFE Technology  is not offered, nor intended to diagnose, cure, mitigate, prevent or treat any disease or health condition and is not a medical device. Use only as directed and consult your primary health care provider if you have any medical concerns and/or if symptoms persists.

Disclaimer: All information relative to the product on this website is intended for educational purposes ONLY.

Disclaimer: The QEnergySpa, BEFE was listed with the TGA Australia (FDA equivalent) for many years as a water treatment device/technology. [break]This original technology is still the same as when test and listed and has expanded and evolved significantly since.

This product in it’s current evolved form, has not been evaluated by the FDA/TGA as a medical device

Posted on

The QEnergySpa, BEFE and what to Expect

What can I expect to feel after a QEnergySpa, BEFE session?

 

There are many different responses to the bio-energy boost and it is unpredictable as to how you are going to feel after a session with this technology or even how your body is going to respond after a series of sessions. The first cycle is a series of one session every 2nd day, for 35 minutes for 14 sessions.

From experience, it has been noticed that some people become highly energised while others may become very tired and find that they need to rest more to enhance their improvements which the QEnergySpa, BEFE will give them.

So why is that?

 

Basically, experience have told us that the people who become tired after a session, usually get the extra boost of bio-energy the following day. It is as if the body’s intelligence is telling the body to rest, so that it can go to work and spend that extra bio-energy that it has just given.

In the graph shown below, the red line represents people gaining and feeling an instant boost of bio-energy. The blue, purple and orange lines represent people who become very tired after a session. Each individual person will have a response somewhere between these two extremes.

 

What am I supposed to feel, while my feet are in the water, with the QEnergySpa, BEFE?

Every person has a different level of sensitivity where one person can feel the bioenergy travel up through their legs, others may feel nothing. While in the session, some people may feel various sensations like tingling, heat or discomfort it is possible people who have had injuries may feel much more but do not necessarly need to feel anything to be getting the benefit of this technology.

What benefits can I expect to see after a session?

Many people while in pain, primarily focus upon the pain and when it goes away, it never was. For this reason, we recommend that you keep a diary of your health concerns so that you can track it. Because this technology is such a gentle gradual process most people don’t even notice those little things that have already improved. For example, jumping out of your car where you previously could not, sleeping better, simply just feeling better and more focussed or being better able to play with your kids or grand kids, without lasting effects.

Many more people start to feel better, forget about the pain and stop the QEnergySpa, BEFE sessions prematurely, before their body has sufficiently repaired the injury, etc. This technology is not just about repairing injuries or healing, it is also about long term benefits and prevention and if you view this technology as a form of bio-energetic maintenance, you could potentially achieve an energetic form of anti-aging. Refer to the document “The QEnergySpa: Anti-Aging Charging Cycle”, for more information.

Posted on

QEnergySpa, BEFE Bio-Energy Response

Bio-Electric Field Enhancement, BEFE Bio-Energy Response

Based upon experience over 20 years and the anecdotal response from post sessions.

 


Water Colors & Smells: The bio-electric field effect and or energy quality from the use of the QEnergySpa, BEFE is derived from the interaction of the complex resonant field created within the water by the water module, the ORB. All ionic or electrolysis processes ONLY results in discoloration and precipitation within the water and although interesting and a point of discussion, it is irrelevant to the process and effect. There are far too many parameters that affect the colors and smells of the water after use of the QEnergySpa, BEFE (or any other similar kind of technology) and although every person’s outcome in the water is different (you affect the outcome, but it does not come from you), please remember that you cannot and should NEVER diagnose or rely on the water colors and or smells in any way.

Point is: That all colors, dirt and smells are irrelevant. Ignore them

Disclaimer: Please note. Q the Experience, Future Life Science and QBiotechnologies Pty Ltd has no medical staff. All articles written and all texts published, unless otherwise stated are purely from an engineering perspective with 20 years experience with the technology and online related research. All medical facts and statements should be independently verified.

Disclaimer: Please note that the QEnergySpa, BEFE Technology  is not offered, nor intended to diagnose, cure, mitigate, prevent or treat any disease or health condition and is not a medical device. Use only as directed and consult your primary health care provider if you have any medical concerns and/or if symptoms persists.

Disclaimer: All information relative to the product on this website is intended for educational purposes ONLY.

Disclaimer: The QEnergySpa, BEFE was listed with the TGA Australia (FDA equivalent) for many years as a water treatment device/technology. [break]This original technology is still the same as when test and listed and has expanded and evolved significantly since.

This product in it’s current evolved form, has not been evaluated by the FDA/TGA as a medical device

Posted on

QEnergySpa, BEFE Dilution Factor

QEnergySpa, Bio-Electric Field Enhancement, BEFE Dilution Factor

This article contains specific theoretical information on the energy dilution effect and optimal amount of water requirement when using the QEnergySpa, BEFE in order to obtain the maximum possible benefit from the water. (Any references in this document to the body, refers to the organic mass in the water, whether it be plants, animals, seeds or people)

QEnergySpa, BEFE Bio-Energy Dilution Effect.

QEnergySpa, BEFE Dilution Factor per body volume
Figure 1.

Bio-Energy Dilution is the term associated with the dilution of the bio-energy present within the water as it extends to the extremities of the body away from the water module.
The Dilution factor is determined by how much of the body is immersed into the water, how much water is being used and the total body weight.

Please note..
Although there are optimal levels in the correct use of the QEnergySpa, BEFE in this regard, we recommend for the use of as much or as little water as you feel comfortable with, at the temperature that you prefer as the differences between that and the optimal levels are small and in some cases inconvenient as well as the fact that the body will still equalise for some time after the session to the point where the entire body will have received the boost in energy. In other words, even if only a very small body part was immersed, the energy will fully traverse the entire body and the whole body will therefore benefit regardless.
Any part of the body which is not submersed into the water, will be energised through the part which is submersed, much like a domino effect from cell to cell throughout the body and hence the furthest point away from the water is energised to a lesser extend during the session.
During the following 40 hours afterwards and until the next session, all bio energies absorbed by the body will equalise throughout the body as the body adjusts and utilises the energy in its normal day to day function. Hence, the entire body will benefit greatly from the overall bio-energy transference, no matter how much or little is directly immerse into the water with the QEnergySpa, BEFE at any one time.
Where the dilution factor or effect become significant, would be in such instances where you wish to assist the body to cope with an injury, whether new or old. In this instance, you should immerse that particular body part into the water for maximum benefit and it should be done a soon as possible after the injury as in within the next 20 minutes.
Figure 1, shows how the dilution effect decreases with the more body weight immerse into the water with the QEnergySpa, BEFE. Immersing your whole body gives you no dilution or a ratio of 1:1. Inserting ½ your body will give a ratio of 1:2 or ½ diluted at the extremities. however, should you only insert your hands, then the dilution would become 1:83 at your body extremities.
In short, in order to increase efficiency and charge rate, we recommend that you maximise the percentage of your body mass in the water and or minimise the amount of water for your body weight as demonstrated in Figure 2.

Efficiency and its dependence upon volume of water

Volume of Water Required.

The higher the dilution factor as shown above, the less the efficiency of the QEnergySpa. However, the water volume also affects the efficiency.

Figure 2.

The ideal volume of water to body weight ratio is 3.5 litres of water per kilogram of body weight. Once this volume is exceeded, the efficiency will decrease. Simply multiply the body weight by 3.5 and that should be the number of litres of water used for that body. Use figure 2, below for a quick estimate of the water usage for any particular body weight and obviously if the use of partial body immersion is used, then the water volume is even smaller, but the same ratio applies, you may have to estimate the weight of the body part you submerse in the water. If you only submerse half the body into the water, you should only need to use half the volume of water than you would for a full body immersion.

The use of less water.

Due to the shape and sizes of various bath tubs or containers that you may use, your estimate of water volume may be less than the optimum water volume as indicated above. This is generally not a problem as the effect of lessening the volume of water in relation to the body weight, increases the charge rate to the body. Normally this is quite acceptable and will only serve to increase the bio-energy absorption by the body.  However, it may not necessarily be acceptable to everyone and in that event, the tables above should be more strictly adhered to.

The use of too much water.

What happens if the water volume per body weight exceeds the ratio of 3.5:1 ?

Say you were to double the water and you would now be using a ratio of 7 litres per kg of body weight. In this case we have just reduced the effectiveness of the QEnergySpa by 50% as shown in Figure 3.

If for example you were to immerse one foot in 7 litres of water and your foot weighed, say 2kg and your total body weight was 60kg, the dilution factor would be 1:30. That means that the Bio-Energy efficiency would be one 30th less at the extremities of your body compared to the body part immersed and if you weighed 120kg the dilution factor would be 1:60.  If however you were to immerse both your feet into the water, weighing, 4kg and you were using 7 litres of water, because your weight is 60kg you would only have a dilution factor of 1:15.

Figure 3.

An extreme example of the dilution factor would be if you only put your little finger, weighing 30 grams, into the water. If your weight is 60 kg, the dilution factor would be 1:2000. A dilution factor of 1:2000 may seem extremely small, however, if any part of your body is immersed, your whole body will still benefit.  You cannot say that your body is only getting 1/2000th of the benefit, because that is not the case. It will equalise.

The Bio-Energy enhancement efficiency in the water is diluted when increasing the water volume in excess of your body weight as per the above figures.  When the volume of 33.1 litres of water per kilogram is exceeded the efficiency of the QEnergySpa is effectively equal to zero as indicated in Figure 3.

 


Water Colors & Smells: The bio-electric field effect and or energy quality from the use of the QEnergySpa, BEFE is derived from the interaction of the complex resonant field created within the water by the water module, the ORB. All ionic or electrolysis processes ONLY results in discoloration and precipitation within the water and although interesting and a point of discussion, it is irrelevant to the process and effect. There are far too many parameters that affect the colors and smells of the water after use of the QEnergySpa, BEFE (or any other similar kind of technology) and although every person’s outcome in the water is different (you affect the outcome, but it does not come from you), please remember that you cannot and should NEVER diagnose or rely on the water colors and or smells in any way.

Point is: That all colors, dirt and smells are irrelevant. Ignore them

Disclaimer: Please note. Q the Experience, Future Life Science and QBiotechnologies Pty Ltd has no medical staff. All articles written and all texts published, unless otherwise stated are purely from an engineering perspective with 20 years experience with the technology and online related research. All medical facts and statements should be independently verified.

Disclaimer: Please note that the QEnergySpa, BEFE Technology  is not offered, nor intended to diagnose, cure, mitigate, prevent or treat any disease or health condition and is not a medical device. Use only as directed and consult your primary health care provider if you have any medical concerns and/or if symptoms persists.

Disclaimer: All information relative to the product on this website is intended for educational purposes ONLY.

Disclaimer: The QEnergySpa, BEFE was listed with the TGA Australia (FDA equivalent) for many years as a water treatment device/technology. [break]This original technology is still the same as when test and listed and has expanded and evolved significantly since.

This product in it’s current evolved form, has not been evaluated by the FDA/TGA as a medical device