How do Water Crystals Grow?

[GoldenEagles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S1ZiNCz6CA

 

The people at Hado.Net have explained, IN THIS VIDEO, the approach taken to get photographs of the beautiful water crystals that Masaru Emoto uses in his books, "Hidden Messages in Water" and other publications. In this video, the chief researcher is shown collecting a water sample from a very beautiful location in Japan. He takes it back to the lab, and divides the sample into 50 petri dishes. The amount of water in each petri dish is 1 ml. He then freezes the lot for 3 hours at (minus) -25 deg. C (-13 deg. F). He then takes out one of the fifty petri dishes at a time, and places it under a microscope. The microscope lab is kept at -5 deg C (23 deg. F). It is my understanding that the temperature differential is calculated to induce water crystal formation, like you see in snowflakes, which form as they fall from colder temperature regions, into (comparatively) warmer temperature regions. This video shows water crystal growth as it happens (under the microscope).

 

I would like to know by what mechanism do these water crystals grow? For starters, where does the material come from, that makes up the growing crystal? It is derived from the ice block below? Or are water molecules in the air attaching themselves, in a very orderly manner, to create this pattern? In other words, does the crystal actually grow out of the hexagonal point? Or does the crystal gather its water molecule substance from the surrounding air? Or perhaps by another mechanism? Would someone be so kind as to explain this to me? Thank you.

[stereologist]

Water crystals have a generic name - ice. These are small objects (in the video) if they have to use a microscope. Snowflake Bentley did his work using much large objects showing all of the complexities water can take when frozen.

 

There is a lot in this video that doesn't make sense. You forgot to mention the tapping to "activate the water". Then there are all of the other numbers that are given no reasoning: 50 petri dishes, -25C, -5C, 1ml.

 

The large crystal in the middle appears to be a seed for the dendritic growths. The new dendritic growths are seeded at points along the edges of the larger ice crystal.

 

Here is a snowflake with the same crystal habit:

http://snowflakebentley.com/00011.htm

This was shot by Snowflake Bentley.

[GoldenEagles]

Thank you for the information and links to Snowflake Bentley. That is a very interesting body of work that he produced.

 

Now, I don't know what is going on there, in terms of tapping the bottle to activate the water. I would like to hear an explanation of that myself.

 

The lab procedure outlined, overall, has to do with showing how a particular sample of water has been affected by the force of human conciousness impressed upon it. That is the reason for the 50 petri dishes. They need to do that many individual tests to get a trend from a particular sample of water.

 

For example, and stating this in the simplest terms, they have established empirically, that bad thoughts projected at a particular sample of water never produce beautiful crystals. On the other hand, good thoughts projected at a particular water sample will always produce beautiful crystals.

 

The temperature framework is established to facilitate the growth of the frozen water crystals. The 1 milli-liter test volume, I suppose, is what they established to be the most practical test size. Large enough to produce the cone that can produce a crystal under these circumstances, and small enough at the same time so the petri dishes can be moved into the freezer without the water flowing over to one side or the other of the petri dish.

 

I am interested in learning what it is that makes these crystals grow with the idea of being able to better evaluate their general thesis, in terms of what their water crystal photography is purported to be showing (See Emoto's Hidden Messages in Water.)

[stereologist]

I find the claim that good and bad thoughts affecting crystal growth to be well ... not believable. I figured it was something paranormal when there was mention of a 'sparkle' at the end of the film clip.

 

There are plenty of places studying crystal growth, dozens in fact. Ice formation is important in understanding the dynamics of storms, avalanches, sea ice, global warming, glaciers, and clouds. It is also of economic interest due to recreational uses of ice (snow).

 

Ice comes in 9 different forms. One is known in nature and 8 have been made in labs. Some of these exotic ice forms may exist on other bodies in our solar system.

 

Here are lecture notes on ice. You might want to take a look to see how much there is to know in basic course on ice:

 

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ftp/truffer/icephysics/icephysics.pdf

 

With all of this research on ice going on it seems unreasonable to me that no one else is reporting on a paranormal property that can be empirical validated.

 

If you want to see an interesting lecture on water check this out:

 

http://www.researchchannel.org/mov/uw_fac_welife_1300k_qt.mov

[GoldenEagles]

I find the claim that good and bad thoughts affecting crystal growth to be well ... not believable.

 

There are several reported experiments done by Mr. Emoto and his collegues that give us some reason to believe that there might be something there worth looking at. That is the reason I am trying to understand the mechanism of water crystal formation. This is where the purported impact of human thoughts and feelings is supposedly showing up. One cannot confirm or deny their claims until one has objectively analyzed the phenomena presented.

 

I will give you one example of an experiment that caught my eye.

 

In Love Thyself - Messages from Water III, Mr. Emoto reports that Tokyo Tap Water never produces any crystals under the laboratory conditions, and with analysis methodology he is using, as depicted in the referenced video. This consistent retrograde behavior of Tokyo tap water was a benchmark for him, from which he designed and implemented an experiment that would further confirm his theories, or cast doubt upon them. He put some Tokyo Tap Water in a test bottle on his desk in his Tokyo office. Took a photo of that to be shared with his collegues. He gathered 200 of his collegues in Galilee, Israel, some 6,000 miles away. At an apointed time, he showed his collegues the photo of the large vial of water sitting on his desk 6,000 miles away. He asked them to visualize this vial of water, and to say in unison, "Water we love you, water we respect you, water we thank you." Immediately thereafter, his chief researcher, back in Tokyo, laid out his 50 petri dishes, and distributed the water in the vial into these petri dishes, and put them in the -25C freezer for three hours. He then went through the procedure outlined in the video, and found that this vial of Tokyo tap water was now producing beautiful crystals. This is a scan of the photos he provided in the referenced book:

 

 

 

The importance of this experiment is really founded on Mr. Emoto's years of experience, which shows that Tokyo Tap Water NEVER produces water crystals. He had a bottle of water on his desk that was from a known source that NEVER produces water crystals. But after the prayer experiment as outlined above, this water all of sudden produces beautiful water crystals. The factor that has changed the equation, was the prayer session of his 200 collegues in Galilee, Israel.

 

This sounds fairly straightforward to me, that there is some kind of energy being released through the consciousness of those 200 people, at 6,000 miles, which restored the natural crystal producing behavior of the water. Before the prayer session, there was something supressing the natural crystal producing behavior of the water. After the prayer session, the natural cyrstal producing behavior of the water was restored.

 

And so, the most reasonable thing to do, as far as I can see, is to try to understand what is this crystal producing mechanism that apparently can be impacted by human thoughts and feelings. I have diagramed the rudimentary issues as follows:

 

[John Cuthber]

I have seen some bull in my time, but I think that may be a record breaker.

[Sisyphus]

If you believed such an extraordinary claim was at all plausible, why wouldn't you test it yourself? Surely that wouldn't be difficult?

[GoldenEagles]

I have seen some bull in my time, but I think that may be a record breaker.

 

I imagine that many people expressed much the same sentiment when Galileo tried to make the case for a round earth.

 

I hope you will further refine your objections to fit more comfortably within the framework of a reasonable discussion.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If you believed such an extraordinary claim was at all plausible, why wouldn't you test it yourself? Surely that wouldn't be difficult?

 

This effort, in asking questions, with the goal of trying to understand the rudiments of water crystal growth, is my first step in that direction.

[stereologist]

1) Water crystals are ice.

2) Both frozen water samples show ice and ice is crystalline

 

This claim comes from 1 place. Suspicious.

I tried to show earlier than hundreds of places study ice and its properties. There are huge books on the subject.

 

The notion of the effects of people wishing for a result even from distant locations is a common claim in the paranormal. A journal on human fertility was even taken in by one of these claims of a successful experiment. There was a book claiming that emotions affected plants at a distance.

 

Now its ice. A prayer from Galilee. For crying out loud is this a scam or what. Why wasn't it a prayer from the US or Brazil or China? It had to be a place where people could be more likely to get sucked into this claim.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If you want to get the answer to the question "What is the mechanism that produces crystals?" I'd go to the library and get a book that includes crystal growing experiments. Try making crystals of salts or sugar. It's fun and a great learning experience.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

In case you want to read more about the impact of distant thoughts or even nearby thoughts on events try reading this page:

 

http://www.improvingmedicalstatistics.com/Columbia%20Miracle%20Study.htm

[GoldenEagles]

If you want to see an interesting lecture on water check this out:

 

http://www.researchchannel.org/mov/uw_fac_welife_1300k_qt.mov

 

I would like to say that this was a very interesting lecture. However, the URL as shown did not work on my computer (Windows Home XP) but the underlying URL did work. The .mov file linked to is a text file that points to a streaming video URL, as follows - This is the URL that worked. I would definitely recommend this lecture. It certainly gives us a more focused sense of comprehension when dealing with the principle of "surface tension". And the two applications that the professor talks about at the end are very interesting. Water based solar cells indeed, that work on the basis of the principles of photosynthesis, a very high efficiency process, should have conventional solar cell manufacturers shaking in their boots.

 

But more to the point, how do you think this information applies to the formation of ice crystals?

 

And concerning your last comments, and the others directly above, I would propose that the overall context, in terms of what Mr. Emoto is trying to prove, really has nothing to do with the effort to try to understand how water crystals form. Other than the possibility that a deeper understanding might lead to the developpment of more targeted experiments which can either validate, or repudidate the "paranormal" dimensions of the above experiment.

Edited April 11, 2009 by GoldenEagles

[cameron marical]

mmm. an experiment is an experiment, and as long as its done scientifically, then i think that it should be regarded as usefull. no matter what its on. besides, i agree. galileo was ridiculed and now we know he was right.

 

lets not be the close minded scientists who ridicule any new idea, no matter how offlandish they seem.

[John Cuthber]

"I imagine that many people expressed much the same sentiment when Galileo tried to make the case for a round earth.

 

I hope you will further refine your objections to fit more comfortably within the framework of a reasonable discussion."

An appeal to authority like that is a logical fallacy. It doesn't fit within the framework of a reasonable discussion.

 

Anyway, I find both sets of crystals (from the tap water) beautiful, so there's no case to answer.

 

There is also the assertion that the water will "never form crystals".

Never is a long time; it is not reasonable to extrapolate infinitely into the future on the basis of a very limited set of results (ie one dodgy result).

Do pipes freeze and burst in Tokyo?

If they do then that proves the assertion to be false.

Also, do you have the xray and neutron diffraction patterns from the two frozen samples. If you compare them and find them to be significantly different then you may have a valid point; until then you have baseless speculation.

[stereologist]

What I am trying to say is that water is an interesting material both as water and ice. There are interesting things to learn without introducing faked material.

 

Yes, I believe that Emoto's work is faked. It is similar to other faked work that has been shown to faked: plant attached to lie detectors that react to thoughts of being burned, women that became pregnant due to thoughts.

 

The ice (water crystals) shown by Emoto are not elegant crystals. They are not symmetrical. Bentley and other since then have brought the beauty of the ice world to people's attention. Here is another interesting ice(water crystal) observation:

 

JANUARY 28, 1887, FORT KEOGH, MONTANTA - According to the Guinness Book of World Records, in a snow storm in Fort Keogh, Montana, the world’s largest snowflakes fell. They measured 15 inches wide and 8 inches thick.

[Sisyphus]

mmm. an experiment is an experiment, and as long as its done scientifically, then i think that it should be regarded as usefull. no matter what its on. besides, i agree. galileo was ridiculed and now we know he was right.

 

lets not be the close minded scientists who ridicule any new idea, no matter how offlandish they seem.

 

The experiments were not performed scientifically, and this is not a new idea. It's an old scam. Emoto himself has been offered large sums of money if to perform the same experiment with an outsider watching, and he simply ignores them. Because it's bullshit. A repeatable experiment is very, very basic to the scientific method.

 

Seriously, I'm not kidding, if you think there's anything at all to it, perform the experiment yourself. It's a very easy way to settle this nonsense once and for all. It doesn't work.

[GoldenEagles]

The experiments were not performed scientifically, and this is not a new idea. It's an old scam. Emoto himself has been offered large sums of money if to perform the same experiment with an outsider watching, and he simply ignores them. Because it's bullshit. A repeatable experiment is very, very basic to the scientific method.

 

Seriously, I'm not kidding, if you think there's anything at all to it, perform the experiment yourself. It's a very easy way to settle this nonsense once and for all. It doesn't work.

 

If you are going to make a statement like that, in terms of Mr. Emoto being offered large sums of money and so forth, and ignoring the offers, I would like to see you back that up with some evidence. Please provide a reference to your information source on that point.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

While you are looking for a (probably non-existant) reference to your afformentioned allegations ... You might want to study this reference from, Explore - The Journal of Science and Healing, which contradicts your, and others, "non-scientific", characterization of Mr. Emoto's work.

 

Double-Blind Test of the Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation

 

The results of this double blind test tended to confirm Mr. Emoto's stated theories.

[Kyrisch]

If you are going to make a statement like that, in terms of Mr. Emoto being offered large sums of money and so forth, and ignoring the offers, I would like to see you back that up with some evidence. Please provide a reference to your information source on that point.

 

Have you tried to run the experiment yourself?

 

And the references you asked for:

 

Let's spend a moment to wonder about how such a view can be brought about. Dr. Emoto might very well believe that he's doing science. But he's not. He does no double-blind procedures, for one thing, which dooms these amateur efforts, right from the beginning. If he were to be blind to which words were being used to influence the water crystals, his search through the results looking for confirmation, would be inconclusive. I'll risk the JREF million-dollar prize on that statement. If Dr. Emoto wants to win the prize, let him agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion, and I predict he'll get fuzzy results that prove nothing.

 

Excerpt from a public newsletter 23 May 2003

Edited April 12, 2009 by Kyrisch

[GoldenEagles]

I think it would behoove all scientists who have an interest in this subject area, to realize that Mr. Emoto has raised a high and bright banner in the midst of the raging battle between two contending world views, on the one hand, the world view which desires to reach beyond outer appearances, into the domain of spiritual causation, to find real answers and solutions to the pressing problems of the human race, and on the other, that world view which militantly denies the existence of anything beyond physical appearances, and its readily identifiable material components, holding fast, with its own form of religious fanaticism, to the ideology which proclaims that material progress alone will solve the problems of the human race.

 

Much of the intense emotional energy thrown in the direction of Mr. Emoto, has as its object, simply the desire to tear his bright and colorful banner down, and to trample it into the ground, these proponents of the materialist world view having as much potency of fanaticism in their ideology as any Islamic Fundamentalist.

 

Any search of material on the web gives us a good picture of what is true. The character of Mr. Emoto is impeccable, he is a good and sincere person, a true believer in the theories he advocates. And he is doing his best to advance his theories in the most accurate and honest manner possible. And there are many who can sense that he is onto something. There is some important truth shining through his activities. Yet, this is also true, that it does not shine forth clearly, and perfectly.

 

I would say, that if one resides in dark prison cell of ignorance, which describes every person on earth, with only reason to point your attention in the direction of the long-sealed doorway to knowledge, it would be wise to follow the line of reason, because only thereby, will your attention be properly directed to that section of the apparently dark and featureless wall, even to that section of the wall where the long-sealed door way has always existed. Reason alone, which throws light upon the veracity of ideas and principles, and not darkness upon another's character, has the ability to properly position our attention upon the appropriate section of what appears at first glance, to be, as I said, a dark and featureless wall, in order to catch the remnants of light that might still be glowing therefrom, and is still glowing therefrom, perhaps just around the edges of that door, perhaps a few photons at a time. With this light so dim, our attention must be focused firmly and persistently in the right direction, to discern its outline, and still it would only be an outline. To have in one’s possession the key that would open it, would be another matter entirely. Yet, Mr. Emoto has his inner eye on that very dim outline. And as we follow his work, we can find that very dim outline ourselves, and perhaps we can find more, that is, if our discipline in the rigors of reason can be perfected.

 

And so, we see, that all of these attempts at character assassination are simply a device of distraction, by those forces who do not want the Children of God to find that door. They kick up a big cloud of dust, even on the very threshold --- it is the dust of falsehood --- which makes the darkened room, even darker.

 

Kicking up dust clouds of intellectual obfuscation is not the role of the scientist.

 

True scientists are interested in truth, and should not allow themselves to be an instrument of this anti-spiritual warfare.

 

If there is truth to be found, let us allow reason alone to point the way.

[cameron marical]

i agree with we in the scientific community should be open minded to everything until proven fraudulent. and i am, but i still have yet to see any real evidence or proof of any paranormal or spiritual existence. if someone proved it, or even tried to scientifically explain it, id give it more of a chance, but for now, its not even psuedoscience. its trash.

 

i went to emoto's website. it does lack evidence. its more like a spiritual cult based scheme than science. and has no real reports on their "experiments", other than,"look at my pictures and belive what i say, and ill be right."

 

we should be open minded, but not willing to except crap without data, info, or evidence.

leave that to philosophy.

[Bignose]

If there is truth to be found, let us allow reason alone to point the way.

 

Reason is not enough for science, though. That's the whole dang point of science!

 

Look, for a long time it was very reasonable and logical to know that the Earth was flat. For a long time, it was very reasonable and logical to know that the earth sat on the back of a giant tortoise. For a long time, it was very reasonable and logical to know that the moon was made of cheese. For a long time, it was very reasonable and logical to know that heat energy took the form of a fluid known as phlogiston.

 

Reason and logic is not enough. Once science started demanding evidence, all the above were utterly demolished.

 

So, that's all that is being asked by science. To not just believe things that sound reasonable and logical, but to bring things that are supported by objective impartial evidence. Is that really too much to ask? If the claimed phenomena were true, why can't it muster up some objective impartial evidence with ease? Why the hesitancy to be put to the test? So long as that hesitancy exists, science is completely 100% justifiably skeptical.

 

That's the way it is so that only ideas supported by evidence are accepted by science. Those are the rules of the game. If you want to be part of the game, you have to play by the rules. If you don't play by the rules, then it isn't science. And the rules demand objective impartial evidence, not just "reason". If you don't follow those rules, then it isn't science.

 

Sure, reason and logic plays its part -- in the forming of an idea or hypothesis. But, the next step that is the science part comes in and tests that idea or hypothesis. The next step searches for the objective and impartial evidence that supports the idea or hypothesis. This is the step that so many get hung up on. They think that just because they have an idea -- an idea that sounds logical and reasonable -- that they are done. But, that isn't science. Science is the next step of testing and looking for supporting evidence, and testing that evidence under fair and impartial and objective conditions, and continually testing until the case for or against the hypothesis is very strong.

 

So, any chance that what is being claimed will subject itself to actual science? It has that first step down -- there is an idea. But, will that idea ever actually be tested scientifically, or will it ever remain just an idea? Or, maybe more the point, will there be objective impartial evidence presented in this thread on a science forum? Or should the thread be closed because there is nothing scientific to discuss? If you want to keep discussing the idea, then many a philosophy or new age forum would be better -- but here on a science forum we are going to demand objective unbiased impartial evidence -- because that's what science does!

 

---------

 

Finally, persecution claims are an old, old trick and really a diversion from the topic at hand and don't chance the discussion at all. Firstly, it is nothing personal at all -- science demands objective impartial evidence from every single idea, not just the ones it "doesn't like". Secondly, the persecution claims are a strawman at best -- because they don't actually address the questions asked. Namely, can some objective impartial evidence be presented? Thirdly, science rightfully does reject any idea that doesn't have support impartial objective evidence, because then the idea isn't scientific. This isn't persecution -- this is reality. If an idea is unsupported, it is is unscientific. Nothing more, nothing less. It isn't personal, it isn't a "desire to tear his bright and colorful banner down", it is just a statement of fact that an idea unsupported by unbiased objective impartial evidence is unscientific. It didn't survive the crucible of scientific inquiry.

 

This is my own personal opinion, but this is where the true believers and the whiners are separated. The true believers in the idea or hypothesis take their lumps, learn from the experience, and try harder next time to meet the scientific criteria. They learn what constitutes impartial and objective evidence, and hold their next tests to that standard. They try to do the best they can to step up to the standard make their case stronger for the next time. On the other hand, the whiners hand their head in their hands and cry "why is it do unfair?" "You bullies are just trying to ruin my pretty idea" "you guys are just jealous" "you guys just hate anything that isn't in the status quo" etc. etc. The whiners just claim persecution. It's easier. It makes scientist look like "the bad guys". It's easier because there isn't any extra work involved to trying to live up to the objective, unbiased, and impartial standards. And maybe, that's simply because you don't want to do the fair test, because you are afraid your idea will fail. So, you sit in your corner and pout.

 

So, the question I have for you, then, is are you a whiner or a true believer? In that, are you going to sit there are cry about how unfair the standard is, how all we want to do is destroy something beautiful, or are you going to stand up and present some actual scientific evidence and beef up the idea with some science? It's your call. But on a science forum, only choice will gain you any traction at all.

Edited April 12, 2009 by Bignose

[GoldenEagles]

With that kind of attitude, Columbus would never have started on his voyage to discover the new world. He had evidence of his theory only after a very long voyage.

[Bignose]

With that kind of attitude, Columbus would never have started on his voyage to discover the new world. He had evidence of his theory only after a very long voyage.

 

No, you are grossly misinterpreting what I wrote. Doing the experiment is exactly what I am advocating for, I wrote nothing about staying put and not doing the experiment.

 

In the terminology of my opinion at the end of my last post, Columbus was a true believer and went out and found the evidence, he wasn't a whiner and didn't sit at home and pout that no one believed him.

 

I am advocating doing the testing to see whether the idea is right or not. That is science. Science is not waiting until all the information is in, science is the process of generating the information, and making sure to generate the info in an unbiased, objective, and impartial way, at least as much as possible. Tests aren't always clearly impartial, and often results can be interpreted many different ways. What science then says is to do different experiments, where more objectivity and impartiality can be achieved. Or design better experiments that are better are discriminating between competing ideas.

 

So.... again, the question is: why the reluctance to further scientific inquiry here? Why can't the experiments be repeated? The evidence presented to date is very biased, very nonobjective, very partial. All science is asking for is more impartiality so that it can be made much clearer whether the idea is right or not. Nothing more, nothing less. Is that really too much to ask?

[stereologist]

GoldenEagles, you misunderstand Columbus as well. Columbus already had evidence and plenty of it. His voyage in fact showed that some of his evidence was wrong! Columbus thought the world was smaller than it is. He shipped out with way too few supplies for a world as it is. His supplies were based on what he believed the world to be. Columbus found evidence contrary to his 'theory' as you put it.

 

Emoto is not the only one studying ice. As I have pointed out hundreds of places study ice. His ice (water crystals) are crude and uninteresting. Labs make all sorts of interesting ice. They have made 8 polymorphs!

 

Instead of Emoto, who is an obvious charlatan, try reading Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle. It has a ficticious form of ice in it called Ice-9.

[GoldenEagles]

Indeed, we can imagine some of Queen Isabella's "scientific" advisors of the day, sincerely arguing, as you are doing, "no, don't waste your time, or spend a penny on this wild idea, until we have tangible evidence that there is something out there." The pursuit of truth begins inside of the heart and mind. Just as the voyage of Christopher Columbus demonstrates.

[Kyrisch]

Indeed, we can imagine some of Queen Isabella's "scientific" advisors of the day, sincerely arguing, as you are doing, "no, don't waste your time, or spend a penny on this wild idea, until we have tangible evidence that there is something out there." The pursuit of truth begins inside of the heart and mind. Just as the voyage of Christopher Columbus demonstrates.

 

THEN DO THE EXPERIMENT. Have you done the experiment? No. You and Columbus are so far off that you might as well be on opposite sides of the world (pun intended).

[iNow]

The pursuit of truth begins inside of the heart and mind. Just as the voyage of Christopher Columbus demonstrates.

 

That's all well and good, but the obtaining of proof begins inside the experiment or the math.