Improving plant growth/health

[KingTim]

Hi all,
One of the claims of Reiki (hands on/off healing for those that don't know) is it's effects on plants. I have seen people claim, although I don't know if it's a common cliam, that reiki will improve the growth of plants. Anyone got any idea what sort of experiment would be acceptable by JREF to prove/disprove this? I did reiki 1 and 2 a while back and am intrigued by it and would like to try some experiments at home.
A more common claim is that it can help sick plants, can anyone devise a rough protocol for this? I'm not quite sure how many quantifiable ways there are of measuring a plant's health. Unless a big batch are given the same disease that has measurable characteristics, any ideas?
Also what sort of margins (roughly) are required to pass the tests, or is there no rough guess; is each application generally different?
Cheers for any information,
Tim

[ChristineR]

The rule of thumb is that your chances should be 1000 to 1 against, for preliminary and final trials for a net chance of 1,000,000 to 1 against.

These sort of plant tests are tricky because there are many ways you could induce plant growth or death. Assuming controls could be set up, I'd say that it would be as simple as getting 10 sets of identical plant pairs (sick or healthy, same species or different) and letting them grow awhile. There might be some question as to what constitutes a "healthy" plant--hopefully you would just measure the height and width of the plant.

If you had ten pairs of plants, the chance that the 10 treated plants would be all be healthier than the ten controls would be 1024 to 1.

[KingTim]

Million to one, how fitting :)

Yea I don't think even in my wildest dreams would I get a million to one odds to actually materialise in a plant study. Think I'll just have to do my own little tests to satisfy my curiosity. Although I suppose that's what a lot of non-skeptics will say they have done with good results, just doesn't cut it for this sort of challenge... :)

I think a repeatable 70 to 80% result would convince me. Anyone got any suggestions of good plants to use in these sort of studies? I guess fast growing ones, although they're probably more susceptible to erratic results it would at least reduce the measuring error. And it would probably help for me not getting bored in the middle of it!

Does anyone know of any similar studies into plant growth/health? Either mainstream science ones or paranormal ones as this site describes it?

[ChristineR]

A 70% to 80% success rate doesn't stop you from beating the million to one odds. The example I gave required you to get 10 out of 10. 18 of 20 is slightly less than 1000 to one against. For 30 plants, its around 25 of 30.

[KingTim]

Guess the answer is just more plants then... :) I think a small study of 12 plants split into two groups could give me an idea of whether it warrants further study. Based on the actual rates or amount of growth rather than a simple yes/no. Say I wanted at least a 70% sway to the reiki'd plants, how would I figure that out from the growth? I presume by averaging the control's growth against the reiki'd plant's growth? Then multiplying the contol's growth by 1.7, or is that logic off?
Too tired to even start figuring out basic maths... :D

Tim

[ChristineR]

The way I was calculating it, you'd match six plants with the closest plant you could find. They start out as equal as you can make them. Then you pick one of each pair to get Reiki and otherwise treat them as much alike as possible. When the test is over, you measure them and declare the tallest one the winner. With six plants, a 70% success rate would mean at least four of the treated plants are winners.

My simple plan doesn't allow for ties, and it doesn't take into account that the tallest plant may not be the healthiest. I guess it would make sense to start with baby plants and try to find plants where tall=healthy.

In any case, the first tests would be somewhat experimental. You could try six different types of plants and see if one type gives more clear results.

[ChristineR]

I think you are saying that the treated plants will be 1.7 times larger than the untreated. The problem with this is that it is hard to calculate odds. My test would be something like: "At least four of the six treated plants will be at least 50% larger than their untreated counterpart."

[Gr8wight]

I think it's important to blind the experiment somehow, which would probably mean you would need a friend to care for the plants to eliminate any possibility that you unconciously tended the experimental group better than the control group.

I suggest you have a friend plant 30-40 tomato seeds. After the seedlings are large enough to be individually potted, have your friend choose the 20 seedlings that are closest to the same size and pot them. Separate them into two groups of ten via a random process (like shuffling and dealing out twenty cards consisting of ten red and ten black for example). set up two small folding tables with the two groups of seedlings on them. Clearly label the tables A and B. Have your friend attempt to tend to each group of seedlings equally. Regularly rotate the two tables so each group of seedlings receive equal time in each location. You will not participate in any way in the general maintenance of the plants. You will not water them. You will not prune them.

Once a day, or whatever frequency of "treatment" you deem necessary, you can visit the plants and apply a "treatment" to one group. Of course, you will always apply the treatment to the same group, and you will not tell your friend which group is receiving the treatment. After a predetermined length of time (probably minimum three to four weeks) measure the height of each plant, and see if there is any difference between the two groups.

This is only a single blind test. Ideally, you would be prevented from looking at the two groups for the duration of the experiment and apply the "treatments" by sticking your hands through a sheet, or other visual barrier, so as to prevent you from having an idea of whether one or the other group is growing better until the end of the experiment.

Can any one else here comment on my test idea?

[Thing]

You also need an objective way to measure the growth, 50% bigger or whatever is hard to define or determine. One way might be to have someone who doesn't know which one has been treated snip them off at ground level and weigh the plants. If you want the test to continue it's going to be a bit harder.

Of course, if one plant is 50% bigger than another it's going to be pretty obvious that it's the bigger of the two. But if your claim depends on that 50% not being, say, 45% you need a way to determine that. And if your claim is that plant A is bigger than plant B at all, then it won't be such a strong claim.

[rjh01]

Got to be careful here. Give one group more sunlight and they will grow better. If that is your group then hey you have 'proved' Reiki. Then there is always the amount of food in the soil. Temperature.

You will be extremely good just to get a good protocol.

[Gr8wight]

Got to be careful here. Give one group more sunlight and they will grow better. If that is your group then hey you have 'proved' Reiki. Then there is always the amount of food in the soil. Temperature.

You will be extremely good just to get a good protocol.

That's why I suggest a regular rotation of the two groups of sedlings, to try and ensure they each receive an equal amount of whatever variables two slightly different locations might afford.

[brettDbass]

Anyone got any suggestions of good plants to use in these sort of studies?
Ooh, I'm sure we can think of something... ;) :D :eek: :boggled: :faint:

[ChristineR]

If the plants need treatment everyday to show results, then that's a problem. There are a lot of ways to help or hurt a plant, so all treatments will have to be done under strict supervision. The plants will also have to live at someone else's house to make sure that you don't secretly mess with them.

But all that is not strictly necessary for your private tests. If you get a positive result using "best judgement" as a measure of plant health then you can worry about whether you are subconsciously underwatering the control plants or how you measure the plants or how you can find someone to tend the plants without playing some sort of mind game on you. It's really up to you how strict you want the preliminary test to be. A strict test now is more work, but a simple positive test now will only spark discussion about how to better control your next series.

You should do as much of the easy stuff, like measuring the water and dirt and rotating the trays as you can.

[opqdan]

As a gardener (who hopes to get some schooling in horticultrue as soon as my computer engineering degree is finished), I run into this type of stuff a lot. There are tons of old wives tales and myths about growing various plants, and most of them have never been successfully tested due to the difficulty in keeping variable under control.

It is really hard to be consistent. Watering, fertilizing, and sunlight would all have to be kept constant between the sets. This will obviously (as mentioned above) need to be done by a "blind" assistant, so as to remove any bias.

All of the potting soil would need to be sterilized and mixed into a single homogenous batch before the plants were potted, and I would reccomend that seeds were selected from the same parent plant to avoid any genetic problems. The more plants you use in the experiment, the less you have to worry about these factors though (the chance of the right set of plants all having the same defect after shuffling would be very small), but these things should be taken into account in any small scale test.

I would also recomend that each plant be labeled individually and those for each set selected at random and put on a list that you and an unbiased 3rd party will keep (somebody different from the plant caretaker). Separating the plants into 2 distinct sets in different locations (as on 2 tables) raises the chances of there being differences in the sets. Disease spreads rapidly between close plants, so if a single plant in the non reiki set gets sick, the rest may follow suit although the reiki set may be too far away. Putting all the plants in a matrix format with a checkerboard pattern seems to fix this problem. for example
A B A B A B
B A B A B A
A B A B A B
B A B A B A
A B A B A B
B A B A B A

Where A means a reiki affected plant and B is a non reiki affected plant.

This way, if reiki-affected plants are less liklely to get sick, you will see a propagation of a disease across the B plants while skipping the B plants with a high prabability. This would also guarantee that the results would not be affected by sunlight etc.

[KingTim]

My initial thoughts for the experiment were:
I'll plant ~25 plants (fast growing, actual type undecided) then discard any that don't sprout. Of the ones that are left I'll randomly pick which ones will go into which groups (actual method undecided).
There will be 18 plants used in total
6 controls (if there are more plants left over I'll put them into this group)
6 hands on reiki
6 distance reiki

All plants will be kept in the same place(a sunroom), again randomly arranged, they'll be inside so the ones at the back will get slightly less sunlight I suppose, this will probably have to be ignored unless, say, the back row has consistently lower growth rates.
The water given to each will be controlled by using the same measure for each pot.

Then I'll aim to give reiki to the hands on ones every day possible (cept when I'm away) I might also tryn get my sister to do the same if she agrees. The distance reiki ones I'll post photos of for anyone who chooses to give them reiki at any time. I'll advertise this on any reiki boards that I can find.

Then I'll measure the growth (height and width) of each plant at set intervals and continue until they either stop growing or I get bored and can't handle it anymore.


I think I can safely rule out anything to do with JREF for a good few years, if ever :) I'm still interested in it though but the main aim for me is to prove/disprove it to myself and I don't have quite as strict requirements.

opqdan:

I like the matrix idea so I'll probably go for that. Watering I'm planning on doing from a fixed measure. I'd use soil from the same grow bag and wouldn't give any other fertiliser or nutrients so it evens it out a little bit. The initial test wouldn't be intentionally to do with disease so hopefully sickness shouldn't be a problem? Or do tomato plants get sick easily?

I like the rotating idea too ChristeneR, it will probably just be me spinning the tray 180 every couple of days or something. I'm planning on giving treatment everyday to the plants so if it ever needed to be validated it would need to be carefully monitored. I don't think I'll actually be touching the plants for any of treatments though so that should help with heat and things like that, although I suppose even carbon dioxide from my breathing would be a contributing factor :)

Well, it started off all exciting but the real world's set in a bit, don't think the million dollar challenge is for me. Unless there are some undeniable results which warrant all the hassle but I'm not really expecting undeniable results. Cheers for all your advice,

:D
Peas,
Tim

[Ririon]

Sounds good, KingTim!

For extra credit:

Blinding: If somebody who doesn't know which plants are the reiki ones does the actual measuring, your data will be more reliable. Maybe you can get your sister to do this instead of reiki.

Randomisation: Use some kind of random process (dice or something) to choose which plants go in which group.

And of course: Try not to cheat, since you will only be cheating yourself.

About the carbon dioxide: That should be about the same for all the plants as long as you don't remove them from the matrix for the treatment, shouldn't it?

Ririon

[chillzero]

Well, it started off all exciting but the real world's set in a bit, don't think the million dollar challenge is for me. Unless there are some undeniable results which warrant all the hassle but I'm not really expecting undeniable results. Cheers for all your advice,

:D
Peas,
Tim

That's how things happened for me when I first came here. My whole perception of life has been changed since then, and I am glad of the knowledge I have gained and the changes that had to be made because of this information.

Embrace it, and welcome.

[Hellbound]

Actually, just one "refinement" I'd make.

Don't plant seeds. There's too many variables that occur during the initial growth, I wouldn't think that's as good a test.

Try going to a nursury (or wherever you can buy live plants) and buy some small plants in a tray. You can buy, for example, tomato plants in a tray of 20 or 30 at a time. Buy all the plants from one tray. This will eliminate some of the initial variables, as all the plants in one tray will have had similar soil, watering, lighting, etc for the first bit of growth.

Then, pair these out by height/width (matching them in pairs that are the most similar). If you have any that are way off (no close match), toss them out. Then do your treatments. I'd keep records for each individual plant, though, instead of an overall aggregate (I assume you planned to do this, but wanted to toss out the suggestion just in case).

I think this might work better than seeds, and will get you started a bit quicker. If you do need to transfer them to pots, buy all similar pots, and buy all the same brand of potting soil, from the same store, and on the same day if possible (to prevent any variation in soil content from varying lot numbers or whatever at the manufacturer, or of course the obvious differences between, say, Miracle-Gro pre-fertilized soil and regular old garden soil).

Oh, and good luck! It's refreshing to see someone who seems honestly interested in testing thier ideas, instead of paying lip service and rolling out the old 'close minded' bit. You seem to have the right attitude about it :) Scepticism isn't about naysaying everything, but about finding out whether it needs to be naysayed :) And most of us would be thrilled to be proven wrong.

[KingTim]

Actually, just one "refinement" I'd make.

Don't plant seeds. There's too many variables that occur during the initial growth, I wouldn't think that's as good a test.

haha, just planted 36 seeds a few hours ago, bad timing.

They're all in the same compost soil and have been given the same amount of water, I even tried to pick similar sized seeds when I was planting them :D

I'm going to wait until they've sprouted before commencing any treatments or splitting them. I'm torn between pairing plants up or just having groups. I think it will depend on the variation of heights when they sprout. I'm certainly not a gardener so that part of it I'll have to learn as I go along I think.

Depending on people's reactions on reiki boards I'll hopefully have 3 sets: control, hands on and distance reiki. If people decide it's probably a better use of time to send reiki to sick people rather than tomato plants then I'll just have the two.

They're planted in 3 plastic seed trays which are 3x4 little pots. The plastic should be able to be cut fairly easily so I can re-arrange them all once the sets have been decided (randomly, not sure how yet) into a matrix.

The watering should then be the only thing that can really be different in my treatment of them, unless they require pruning or sticking up or something. The sunlight will be slightly different for different plants but the matrix should sort that out. I can spin the tray 180 every 3-4 days or something to help a little. The water won't be exactly the same for each but I'm using a measure for each pot so should hopefully rule out any unconscious bias.

About the carbon dioxide: That should be about the same for all the plants as long as you don't remove them from the matrix for the treatment, shouldn't it?

I'm not sure if the reiki should be given when the plants are still in a matrix or not. There's no guidelines for stuff like this because no-one really understands how it works! From my experience anyway.

I'd be happier giving it to a batch of plants all together in case. If it's hands on reiki it may be that the transfer needs to be directly by the hands and isn't about intention. Distance reiki is intended to work from intention alone.
The only currently understandable effects giving reiki would have on the plants would be to increase they're heat and they're carbon dioxide levels, albeit slightly. The heat from my body heat and the co2 from my breath. For the sakes of this I'm just going to ignore them, easy as it will be to use them as reasoning power should any difference emerge.

Any further suggestions from anyone?

Peas,
Tim

[Thing]

You still need to decide how you're going to measure the plants. This is much harder than it seems. Things like height ans volume are all hard to precisely define for something like a plant, and weight (although I suggested it earlier) isn't altogether simple, if they've been watered recently and water might remain on the leaves.

Now if your blinding works perfectly it won't matter so much, and in theory just a judgement call from a properly independent, blinded judge might do. But it's a bad idea to make different parts of your protocol need to depend on each other. So design your measurement protocol as though it weren't blinded, and then blind it anyway.

[TimmyBerry]

Concerning identical plants: try to get a mature kalanchoe plant. ("Mother-of-a-million", http://searchk.chat.ru/gallery/Kalanchoe%20daigremontiana_3.jpg) Those plants develop little genetically-identical offspring/clones on leaf-edges. Unless you start taking the plantlets from different leaves, they should be of a uniform size, too! :)

[KingTim]

You still need to decide how you're going to measure the plants. This is much harder than it seems. Things like height ans volume are all hard to precisely define for something like a plant, and weight (although I suggested it earlier) isn't altogether simple, if they've been watered recently and water might remain on the leaves.

This is true... Depending on how the plants sprout I may split them into groups of three of similar size and then randomly select which one goes to which group, or get someone else to do it. If they are all fairly similar then it will have to be done by measuring really...

Because this has moved away from strict JREF protocol I'm happy for some subjective criteria to be included, for example I'm hoping that they'll be an obviously discernible difference between the plants. I'll also get someone who won't know which group is which to do the measuring of height hopefully. Conclusions can only really be based on the measurements though but photos of the plants should be beneficial too.

Also, seeing as they're tomato plants the fruiting should be fairly easily measurable, at least the quantity is.


Concerning identical plants: try to get a mature kalanchoe plant.


Cheers for the advice, I'll have to bear it in mind depending on whether the results of this warrant further, stricter, investigation.

I'm planning on making a website to follow progress so I'll keep people updated once that's done,

Peas,
Tim

[KingTim]

Don't suppose anyone can help me by suggesting some good websites I can look at to host the details of this experiment? Preferably free! And preferably with the ability to add pictures, short videos and host live webcam.

Cheers for any advice,
:D
Tim

[Thing]

This is true... Depending on how the plants sprout I may split them into groups of three of similar size and then randomly select which one goes to which group, or get someone else to do it.

Definitely get someone else to do it, or your claim of blinding goes out the window which would be a real pity.


If they are all fairly similar then it will have to be done by measuring really...

Measuring what? Height? As long as you're happy to state in advance that it's OK for a tall skinny weedy plant to beat a big round bushy plant that isn't as tall.


Because this has moved away from strict JREF protocol I'm happy for some subjective criteria to be included.
That would be such a shame after you've come this far. The avoidance of subjective judging isn't just a bureaucratic whim of the JREF challenge rules, it makes the test better whoever's running it.


I'll also get someone who won't know which group is which to do the measuring of height hopefully.

OK, height it is. But how do you measure the height of a plant? Really, I'm not being funny. Is it the height above the rim of the pot, or the height above the soil? What if the plant isn't quite growing straight upwards, as heliotropism sometimes causes? If it's drooping over at the top is your measurer allowed to hold it up straight while measuring? Will all the measurements be done at the same time? Each measurement will have some error margin associated with it, can you think of a way to assess it so that you can be sure your positive result (if it occurs) is beyond this margin of error?

I'm not being picky in order to criticise you, I think you're on your way to an interesting experiment, so why not go the whole hog and do it properly? This kind of pickiness is what makes it a real experiment. I'm also concerned that Reiki true-believers can't claim credit for effects that might appear to be demonstrated by your data but aren't really.

Conclusions can only really be based on the measurements though but photos of the plants should be beneficial too.

Actually, photos taken with the pot and the camera in the same alignment each time might be a good way to assess growth. You still need to define a measurement protocol for the photos, of course.

One other thing, it would be good to know the natually occuring variance of 'height' (however defined) in these plants, so you can compare what you get to what you'd expect by chance. That data might be hard to come by, unfortunately. But only then could you be confident you had enough plants.

Don't be deterred, this kind of nitpicking fussiness is what makes it science. Good luck.

[themyst]

I would just like to say 'thank you' to KingTim, It is refreshing to see someone who is willing to look at the beliefs in a skeptical fashion. After dealing with some of the other people on this board I was starting to loose faith in those that believe.

[steenkh]

I am full of admiration for the open mindedness of King Tim in conducting this experiment! This is hardly ever seen.

I would also say that if the plants are chosen randomly or they are rotated around to get equal benefits of light and son on, there is no need at all for blinding anything until at the last when the plants are measured or judged. If the person doing this part has not a clue which plants are treated and which are not (they must be mixed and not be put together in groups), and if King Tim is not present to give involuntary clues, that is all the blinding that is needed.

Since King Tim is doing it for his own sake, there is little risk that he will give some of the plants preferential treatment, but having the two groups mixed would reduce any involuntary bias.

[Hellbound]

For a measurement, I'd measure the height and diameter of the plant (at it's tallest and widest point, respectively), and figure the volume as if it were a cylinder. This isn't exact, but gives a pretty good rough indicator, and should show up any large differences.

Another possibility is to measure the fruit itself, at some predetermined time after planting. This could be done much more accurately. Get a bucket or similar container with volume measurements on it, Fill it halfway with water, and then put in all the fruits in and see how much the water level changes. That'd give you a good figure for the volume of fruit.

Or, you might measure both of these :)

Just a few thoughts.

[Helianthus]

Hi There,
Just from 20 or so years of being a gardening nut and growing professionally the last few, I think you should use cuttings from one plant to produce identical plants for your studies. Rooting plants from cuttings is the only way to get identical plants. Seeds have too many variables. They can all look alike while small and then lose vigor as they get older for no apparent reason other than genetics. Even seeds from the same plant or even the same fruit (i.e. tomato) will have differences show up later. There's lots of info out there on how to root cuttings and it is not really all that hard. If you would like, I can give you a few tips that I learned in the greenhouse about this also. Good luck with your study, sounds interesting and fun to me! Thanks, Helianthus

[meg]

What about taking all the plants to your local master gardeners group for evaluation? Call your county extension service to find out how to contact them. I'm sure you could get some volunteers from them. Don't tell them which plants are which. Just ask them to determine which plants look the healthiest.

edited to add: There are many criteria for evaluating a healthy plant, the least of which is height, really. Proper development, leaf size and turgor, distance between nodules of a stem, etc.

[Beth]

Hi There,
Just from 20 or so years of being a gardening nut and growing professionally the last few, I think you should use cuttings from one plant to produce identical plants for your studies. Rooting plants from cuttings is the only way to get identical plants. Seeds have too many variables. They can all look alike while small and then lose vigor as they get older for no apparent reason other than genetics. Even seeds from the same plant or even the same fruit (i.e. tomato) will have differences show up later. There's lots of info out there on how to root cuttings and it is not really all that hard. If you would like, I can give you a few tips that I learned in the greenhouse about this also. Good luck with your study, sounds interesting and fun to me! Thanks, Helianthus

If you do this, you could also start using your Reiki treatment immediately on the cuttings and use deathrate of the two groups as part of your measurement of the plants. I would also recommend, rather than trying to measure them quantitatively. This is, as many have pointed out already, difficult to decide what's the best way to measure that and in addition, such measurements add a higher level of what I refer to as 'pain in the rear' aspect of the data collection. In general, the easier you make your data collection, the more likely you are to follow through and actually do the measurements. If such a casual subjective approach yields results, then you can consider doing another with a more objective approach to measurement.

Here is my recommendation for you:

With about 10 to 12 similar cuttings, rank them from highest (best growth) to lowest (least growth). You also need to identify each plant individually. I would recommend getting a stack of identical pots (or styromfoam cups would would work) and putting 'A' 'B' 'C' or "Ann" "Bob" "Carol". (I like to anthroporthize my experimental units :) ) Random assign units to treatments. Apply your treatments Then, take data regularly (say weekly or bi-weekly) by ranking the plants from best to worst and recording their relative rankings. Best if you can get some friend who doesn't know which plants are getting which treatment to rank them for you. But you can do it yourself as long are you are honest with yourself about the rankings and don't expect other people to take your observations as proof of your abilities. Or you can do both - have a friend who is blinded to the treatment assignments make the rankings when someone is available and do yourself when you don't have anyone else to do so.

There's an easy statistical test to use on this type of data, the Wilcoxon sign-rank test (I think, that's from memory.) I can look it up for you later if you're interested. or you can just post your data here and I'll be happy to analyze it for you and tell you if the results are statistically significant.

[Pope130]

King Tim,
"Mythbusters" did a test on plant growth response to music. They faced the same problem of judging growth. Their solution was to cut the plants off at ground level, dry them completely, then weigh them. This seemed like a pretty accurate and objective solution.

Robert

[Helianthus]

One other thing, we grow organically and there is a trick we use in the greenhouse to keep plants, especially tomato plants, from growing too tall and leggy in their containers. We brush the tops with our hands or a soft brush on the end of a stick about once a day. This is a common practice in many greenhouses, not just organic, and it works because the plants are triggered to think their tops are touching a barrier, it makes them grow bushier instead of taller. If Reiki is a hands on/hands off method, isn't that what this is? I'm not sure of what to do about this or if maybe this proves just what you are trying to do. That's a puzzle. What do you guys think?

[meg]

Actually, Helianthus, I believe it works the same way as wind or a fan does. As the stems bend back and forth, this actually create tiny breaks which then heal thicker and stronger.

If you're using tomato plants in the experiment, it would be a good idea to blow a fan on them once in a while to create the same effect. Otherwise, yes, you could inadvertantly be sabotaging your experiment, "proving" Reiki, when really you're just proving that shaking the plants up a bit grows stronger seedlings.

Just my $.02 on the measurement thing, here, too. One of the marks of a healthy plant vs a less healthy plant is the size of the root mass. If you cut the plant off at ground level and only measure the top, you could be missing something.

An experienced gardener or extension agent would look also at the root mass if doing a serious evaluation of a plant.

Meg

[Helianthus]

Actually, Helianthus, I believe it works the same way as wind or a fan does. As the stems bend back and forth, this actually create tiny breaks which then heal thicker and stronger.


The wind/fan theory could be partly true about the main stem I think, but the increased amount of stems and leaves are caused by the barrier effect according to everything I've read on this. This brushing is done with an extremley light touch and only to the very top leaf tips, if you are doing it correctly. There are other plants that are not recommended for this technique because of breakage when too strong of a force is accidentally used, like peppers. Tomatoes are actually vines and their stems are malleable to a greater degree.
If you are going to use a fruiting plant, the amount of flower buds produced should be included. Pollination has to occur for fruit to develop and that will be another factor you have to try to control if you use fruit yield in your results.
If you grow these plants outside, you can hand pollinate every flower along with letting the bees do their work to make sure all had the same opportunity to develop. It's gets a little involved, you might want to just count flower buds produced.

[meg]

Helianthus has a point there.

from http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/85/11/1586

Wind-induced MP was primarily in the form of stem and leaf shaking (seismic stimulation). Brushing, on the other hand, not only produced some seismic stimulation as plants were bent and returned to vertical after each brush stroke, but also caused actual touching (thigmic stimulation) to occur as the bamboo rod contacted stem and leaf surfaces with each stroke. Because two short periods of brushing per day induced POD activity to the same degree as two longer periods of wind per day, it is possible that plants are more responsive to thigmic stimulation imposed by brushing than to seismic stimulation alone. A study of the regulation of soybean and eggplant growth by shaking and rubbing or flexing illustrated that these plants were more responsive in such growth parameters as stem length and leaf area to thigmic stimulation than to seismic stimulation (Latimer, Pappas, and Mitchell, 1986).

So, perhaps, to properly control the experiment, and test whether Reiki touching actually affects the plant vs regular old touching affecting the plants, you should have someone (or yourself) do some other kind of touching or brushing of the control plants in an equal amount of time to whatever amount of Reiki touching time your doing to the test plants. Does that make sense?

Meg

[Helianthus]

So, perhaps, to properly control the experiment, and test whether Reiki touching actually affects the plant vs regular old touching affecting the plants, you should have someone (or yourself) do some other kind of touching or brushing of the control plants in an equal amount of time to whatever amount of Reiki touching time your doing to the test plants. Does that make sense?

Meg

I think you hit the right answer for this one on the nose, Meg. I better mention that we grow a few thousand guess what?-tomato plants, for sale each spring and I am extremely interested in the outcome of an experiment like this. We do everything by hand anyway and I may just have to learn some Reiki methods myself if KingTim is onto something here:)

[Zoinked168]

I think it's important to blind the experiment somehow, which would probably mean you would need a friend to care for the plants to eliminate any possibility that you unconciously tended the experimental group better than the control group.

I suggest you have a friend plant 30-40 tomato seeds. After the seedlings are large enough to be individually potted, have your friend choose the 20 seedlings that are closest to the same size and pot them. Separate them into two groups of ten via a random process (like shuffling and dealing out twenty cards consisting of ten red and ten black for example). set up two small folding tables with the two groups of seedlings on them. Clearly label the tables A and B. Have your friend attempt to tend to each group of seedlings equally. Regularly rotate the two tables so each group of seedlings receive equal time in each location. You will not participate in any way in the general maintenance of the plants. You will not water them. You will not prune them.

Once a day, or whatever frequency of "treatment" you deem necessary, you can visit the plants and apply a "treatment" to one group. Of course, you will always apply the treatment to the same group, and you will not tell your friend which group is receiving the treatment. After a predetermined length of time (probably minimum three to four weeks) measure the height of each plant, and see if there is any difference between the two groups.

This is only a single blind test. Ideally, you would be prevented from looking at the two groups for the duration of the experiment and apply the "treatments" by sticking your hands through a sheet, or other visual barrier, so as to prevent you from having an idea of whether one or the other group is growing better until the end of the experiment.

Can any one else here comment on my test idea?

I need a friend lol

I think that this is a cleverly devised plan and would like to test it for myself. Is anyone on this site growing multiple seedlings as we speak? Rather than someone I personally know to care for the plants, wouldn't it be better if I didn't know them at all to minimize the intervention with the experiment and make the results neutral and clear?
All I would require is for someone to follow Gr8wight's plan and show me the batch of A and B occasionally either in photos or via web cam. This test requires a fair bit of trust obviously on my part that the plant will be treated fairly. I do not need to see the plants in person or apply "treatments" directly with them in front of me. I would really like someone to help me prove the theory of ESP and that it does work.

Any takers?

[NiallM]

Wow!

It's great to see someone tackle this in an experimental way.

Some problems, though:

You must ensure that all plants receieve identical physical treatment. This means that if the "terated" plants are touched, so must the control plants.
If plants need to be treated for greenfly or some other infestation, they must *all* be treated - even those that are healthy.
How do you determine the success of treatment? the means so far seem rather subjective: a plant could be very bushy and large because it hasn't produced fruit - the nutrients are used in another way; if amount of fruit is thedeciding factor (and that is the biological target for a plant), do you count quantity, weight, or quality? Do you count the seeds it produces, or the quality of the plant's offspring? How do you ensure that each plant obtains the identical services of any insects needed for cross-pollination? How do ensure that Nature provides the same controlled environment for each plant?

It appears to me that you need either an industrial type setup, or perhaps a lab environment.

Perhaps seeds cultivated in beakers of cotton wadding and nutrients administered very precisely.

Eitherway, good luck with your experiment! I look forward to the results.

And if they'reinconclusive, you can always enjoy a good salad at the end!

[MRC_Hans]

Just a thought: If reiki is supposed to work on sprouting seeds, use it right from seeding. When exactly half the seedlings have come above the surface (I suggest when the seed leaves have opened), count the number of open seedlings in each group. Do this by having someone who don't know which group is which mark each seedling as open/non open. This does away with the problematic "growth assessment", and simply gives you a binary choice. Of course, that requires a bigger number of seedlings for a given confidence level, but each takes up less space and, and the whole experiment should take only about a week, depending on which plant type you choose.

Hans

[Pup]

When exactly half the seedlings have come above the surface (I suggest when the seed leaves have opened), count the number of open seedlings in each group.

I was wondering if something similar would work. Seeds can be tested for viability by putting them in a moistened paper towel and waiting for them to germinate.

Would it work to put, say, 100 seeds (or 1,000 or however many you want) in one moistened paper towel folded over, and the same number in another. The moisture could be determined to be the same by comparing weight. The seeds would need to come from the same source and be randomly divided into the two batches.

Seal both batches in separate airtight plastic bags, set them together in an area with the same temperature and light level, treating one batch and not the other without unsealing the bags.

Could they be treated under those circumstances?

At the end of a pre-determined time, based on the normal germination period for the type of seeds, open them up, and count how many have sprouted.

That would, as Hans says, make the results binary, and would also eliminate a lot of factors such as the fertility of the soil, the exact care of the plants (watering, direction of light, etc.).

The main issue would be whether reiki is even claiming to encourage germination in seeds that are marginally viable, since that's basically what the test would show.

[MRC_Hans]

About the last: If reiki is anything like the rest of the nonsense out there, it will claim to be able to do just about anything, right up to the instant when an objective test fails to supply a positive result. Then, it will be "Of course we never claimed to be able to do that!" :rolleyes:

Hans

[LordoftheLeftHand]

How about this for a protocol:

Before:
Person #1 - picks out 40 good looking seeds and puts each one into a little envelope.
Person #2 - writes a code on the bottom of each pot, records the number on a master list, then plants the seeds
Person #1 - marks 20 random codes on the master list to be the control group and the other 20 to be the test group,

During:
Person #1 - separates the pots based on which group they are in
Person #3 - performs “reiki” on the test group.
Person #1 - recombines the 2 groups of pots in a random order
Person #2 - tends to the plants

After:
Person #2 - decides which 20 plants are the most successful and writes down their codes.
Everyone – compares the list of the 20 most successful plants with the master list to see if they received “reiki”.

[KingTim]

Hi All,
Lots of suggestions for how to have done this better I see :D The first seeds have sprouted today, there are about 10 so far so in the next few days they should be ready to split up and start the experiment.

NiallM has summarised some points so I'll respond to these:


You must ensure that all plants receieve identical physical treatment. This means that if the "terated" plants are touched, so must the control plants.

For giving the reiki I won't be actually touching the plants, I may touch the pots though which could cause the tiny breakages that Meg and Helianthus have been discussing if I get my shake on :) What sort of level of movement are we talking about for this? Also, there won't be any brushing of any of the plants on the top.


If plants need to be treated for greenfly or some other infestation, they must *all* be treated - even those that are healthy.

Ok, I'm hoping that they'll all stay healthy anyway, they're indoors in a sunroom.


How do you determine the success of treatment? the means so far seem rather subjective(...)

This seems to be the biggest problem to decide on. I'm proposing several measurement techniques now. The measuring of height and width will cause some disturbance of the plants and seems quite subjective with the tools I'd be using to measure with and several people have pointed out problems with this.

If the plants work out so that there are 3 similar shoots that can all be put together then I can take photos and ask several people which they think is the healthiest plant out of the three.

Also the fruits will be numbered, as one measure.

The total fruits from each plant can be measured for volume.

And again the total yield from each of the 3 plants from a set can be compared side by side by several people and the best yield decided on. This will be subjective for each person but will include number, size and apparent quality.

Then all plants can be cut off at ground level and dried and weighed.

The culmination of all of these measurements will be analysed and will hopefully point to a conclusion. I should determine this before I start but I don't have the experience to at the moment. People can make their own judgements from the results. Perhaps the forming of a conclusion is the most subjective thing of all.


How do you ensure that each plant obtains the identical services of any insects needed for cross-pollination?

Didn't think of this... I wasn't planning on doing any pollenation. So if I were to plant one tomato seed in a greenhouse it wouldn't give any tomatoes? (spot who's not a gardener) I guess there won't be any fruiting then? How are tomato plants pollenated, is it something that can be hand done in a consistent way?


How do ensure that Nature provides the same controlled environment for each plant?

They were all potted in the same compost and they'll be given no nutrients. They're being watered from a measure but it's not an exact process although there should be no consistent slant dependent on which group the plants are in. If anyone's around and willing to water them I'll try and do that.

I'm planning on spinning them round 180 every 3-4 days or something to try and even out the sunlight but again it won't be exact.
Suppose the short answer is I can't ensure their environment but I'll try.

I'll keep people updated with how it's going, and hopefully get a website up at some point if someone can recommend a good one.


Peas,
:roll:
Tim

[ChristineR]

This seems to be the biggest problem to decide on. I'm proposing several measurement techniques now. The measuring of height and width will cause some disturbance of the plants and seems quite subjective with the tools I'd be using to measure with and several people have pointed out problems with this.


For the million dollar test this probably won't do. Ideally you'll should weigh and measure in every way you can think of and use the measure that shows the greatest improvement for the tests (if you ever get that far).

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I'm proposing several measurement techniques now. The measuring of height and width will cause some disturbance of the plants and seems quite subjective with the tools I'd be using to measure with and several people have pointed out problems with this.

If the plants work out so that there are 3 similar shoots that can all be put together then I can take photos and ask several people which they think is the healthiest plant out of the three.

Also the fruits will be numbered, as one measure.

The total fruits from each plant can be measured for volume.

And again the total yield from each of the 3 plants from a set can be compared side by side by several people and the best yield decided on. This will be subjective for each person but will include number, size and apparent quality.

Then all plants can be cut off at ground level and dried and weighed.

The culmination of all of these measurements will be analysed and will hopefully point to a conclusion. I should determine this before I start but I don't have the experience to at the moment. People can make their own judgements from the results. Perhaps the forming of a conclusion is the most subjective thing of all.

Yes this is a major flaw in your test. You need to decide RIGHT NOW (you should have done this before you started) how you will determine success. If you use enough methods of determining success, eventually one will (either subconsciously or by luck) show your test to be a success.

With your current method your cherries should be ripe for picking soon.

LLH

[meg]

Tomato flowers are perfect, so you do not need an insect or anyone else to do pollination. You will get fruit, if the conditions are right.

Meg

[Pup]

I don't know whether this will make any difference, but something to consider is that the general idea of a positive outcome, varies depending on what we want out of the plant.

For example, a plant grown for its flowers, like a petunia, would be subjectively considered more successful if it were covered with blooms. If the plant is grown for its leaves, like spinach or lettuce, it would be subjectively a failure if it quickly bolted into bloom while producing a minimal number of leaves. A carrot that produces way more leaves than root would be a failure, while a celery plant that produces way more leaves than root would be a success, even though they're both biennials and, from the plants' point of view, are going through the same cycle of gathering nourishment with their leaves and storing it in their roots for the following year.

There are genetic factors, of course, that determine where a plant is going to put most of its energy, all else being equal. No one tries to breed a tomato plant that produces the most leaves, or a spinach plant that produces the most seeds.

But it's still possible to affect how plants grow. Some plants put more energy into producing seeds when they're stressed, as a way of ensuring their reproduction if they die. Plants deprived of light or crowded, put more energy into growing taller. Deprived of water, they send their roots deeper. An overabundance of nitrogen will encourage production of leaves, and so forth.

On the one hand, we all "know" the difference between a plant that's sickly and stressed, and one that's vigorous and healthy, so it's obvious what any treatment that's supposed to improve general plant health should do.

And it's even obvious what a specific, measurable positive outcome might be--for any given kind of plant. The bean plants that produce the most beans, or the radishes that produces the largest roots, are going to be the winners.

But on the other hand, there are subjective factors coming into play that make it not so obvious. The same treatment that encourages a bean plant to be loaded with pods, isn't going to be so good if it also encourages the radish plant to put its energy into producing the most seedpods at the expense of its root.

Conventional ways of treating plants to improve their health overall (giving optimum balanced nutrients, water, temperature, pest control, etc. for that particular breed), allow the plant to do what it's genetically programmed to do best, and if that's how reiki works, then it makes sense to measure plants based on what we've bred them to do--most fruit on a tomato, most leaves on lettuce, most blooms on a pansy, etc.--since that's what most people want.

But other conventional treatments will affect plants in specific ways, and in that case, it makes more sense to measure a specific attribute in every kind of plant, regardless of what the plant is "supposed" to do. If you're testing adding extra nitrogen, for example, and the plant being experimented on is grass, it's going to make the grass grow thick and green, and it would be easy to conclude that the treatment therefore makes plants grow "better," because thick and green is good in grass. Adding extra nitrogen to carrots is going to produce the same objective result if judged on the weight, height and color of the tops, but not the same subjective one, because we don't care whether carrots have lush green tops, but we do mind if the roots are forked or hairy.

[StoatBringer]

I think you're jumping the gun here. Instead of testing the effectiveness of reiki on plants, wouldn't it be better to attempt to determine if reiki actually exists in the first place?

For example, is it possible to detect the reiki energy of another person or organism? If so, you should be able to design an experiment where you determine the presence or absence of another person nearby (e.g. in the same manner as the therapuetic touch experiment done by that young girl, where the claimant has to state whether or not another's hands are close to hers), or detecting the presence of one plant in a set of cardboard boxes.

[ChristineR]

I don't agree with LLH. Say the Reiki plants look a lot healthier, have more tomatoes, darker leaves, bigger roots--but are shorter. The logical thing to do is then to repeat the experiment and use root size as the measure of health. For the first experiment you don't know what you are looking for, so you can force a negative result as well as a positive result.

[meg]

Just a quick question here, KingTim. Are you aware of how big tomato plants get prior to putting on fruit? They will need to be repotted into very large pots for that to happen. I, obviously, don't know what size sunroom, or what kind of resources you have available, but I'm thinking that you should possibly consider ending the test prior to fruiting. A fully grown tomato plant can have vines over 6 ft long.

I'm thinking that if you want to measure a plant through it's entire fruiting period, perhaps a smaller plant should be chosen, that can grow it's entire life in a fairly small pot. Perhaps a marigold, or a radish?

[Mongrel]

Just a quick question here, KingTim. Are you aware of how big tomato plants get prior to putting on fruit? They will need to be repotted into very large pots for that to happen. I, obviously, don't know what size sunroom, or what kind of resources you have available, but I'm thinking that you should possibly consider ending the test prior to fruiting. A fully grown tomato plant can have vines over 6 ft long.

I'm thinking that if you want to measure a plant through it's entire fruiting period, perhaps a smaller plant should be chosen, that can grow it's entire life in a fairly small pot. Perhaps a marigold, or a radish?

I always remember my Grandad using GroBags for tomatoes. A large 50-60 litre bag, laid flat and cut open along the length that was filled with a suitable soil\compost for tomatoes, good for one seasons growth. I don't remember if the bag came with seeds or not but either way it's a you could fit 4 to 6 plants per bag (depending on variety) and the planting medium is very consistent.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I don't agree with LLH. Say the Reiki plants look a lot healthier, have more tomatoes, darker leaves, bigger roots--but are shorter. The logical thing to do is then to repeat the experiment and use root size as the measure of health. For the first experiment you don't know what you are looking for, so you can force a negative result as well as a positive result.

You are right of course, that would be the logical thing to do. Call me a negative Nancy but I do not think that is what will happen though.

So far we have:
An unblinded test
A small sample
Multiple, undefined, subjective criteria to determine success

At this point success is practically guaranteed, and the claims the "reiki" has been proven to work will soon follow.

LLH

[ChristineR]

Based on Tim's comments, I don't think we'll be hearing those claims from him. But you're right, it is almost inevitable that such a claim will show up on the net shortly. And it will probably have Randi's name attached to it. Of course people are already making subjective claims like that ("my tomatoes are healthier and tastier since I started using Reiki on them") already. Even if Tim says "the Reiki failed as the plants were not taller, although they looked healthier" people will still be saying "James Randi proved that Reiki made plants healthier."

So my philosophy is to give Tim the best advice I can, because he seems to be a stand up guy and not, as are so many who make these claims, delusional (although Tim has probably been deluded as to this particular claim).

Ultimately, it's up to Tim, as its his experiment. If he takes my advice, he'll have to repeat the experiment with more careful criteria. If he takes your advice, he'll have to repeat the experiment with different criteria. Or most likely he'll get no clear results, and declare that Reiki doesn't work on plants and thank us all for our patience.

Side note:
This claim also appeared in the Celestine Prophecy. (Despite the fact that that book was written at a second grade level, I was only able to read bits and pieces of it, more because of it's racism than it's slurs against science and generally silly claims, so no more details.)

[KingTim]

Hey all,

Lots of comments I see :) 18 plants have sprouted so far out of the 36. I think another day or two to see if any more fancy the action and then I'll start the experiment.

For the million dollar test this probably won't do. Ideally you'll should weigh and measure in every way you can think of and use the measure that shows the greatest improvement for the tests (if you ever get that far).

Yep, the aim of this is for me to see what happens, it started off with the Randi thing in mind but I soon realised that'd be years and lots of money away from now. I'm just intrigued to see what happens, not to convince other people.

If the results warrant further tests then so be it.

Yes this is a major flaw in your test. You need to decide RIGHT NOW (you should have done this before you started) how you will determine success. If you use enough methods of determining success, eventually one will (either subconsciously or by luck) show your test to be a success.


I've never done any experiments with reiki and plants. When the idea came about I wouldn't have had a clue what to use to measure success, my initial thoughts were size and I assumed there'd be obvious differences by which I could say which is healthier.

Asking a load of people which they think are healthier would be satisfactory for me if it was obvious there was a trend, not if I want the results to hold scientific weight but that isn't the aim of this.

Personally I reckon having lots of criteria is a good way of getting the first idea of whether there is any difference between the groups. My criteria for success will be finishing the experiment and being happy with it. My criteria for proving whether reiki works or not on plant health/growth is for someone with a lab and money to test it, get it reviewed, test it again and all the general **** you have to do for proofs!

You are right of course, that would be the logical thing to do. Call me a negative Nancy but I do not think that is what will happen though.

Negative Nancy


At this point success is practically guaranteed, and the claims the "reiki" has been proven to work will soon follow.


I understand from reading some of the stuff on these boards why you'd assume that. People can make their own conclusions from the results if they want, as long as they're aware of all the problems that have been discussed here.

People will always jump on the wagon and pick and choose results of tests to 'prove' or debunk stuff. From what I've seen there are people on both sides of the skeptics/believers debates that do this. I can't see we can do anything about that. (not my aim though)


So far we have:
An unblinded test
A small sample
Multiple, undefined, subjective criteria to determine success


True. I'm trying but I'm no expert. As many of the suggestions and things that are practical I'm trying to incorporate.

I think you're jumping the gun here. Instead of testing the effectiveness of reiki on plants, wouldn't it be better to attempt to determine if reiki actually exists in the first place?
Yea... personally I don't know how though and this test seemed like something that was easily accesible for me to actually do.


For example, is it possible to detect the reiki energy of another person or organism?

No. Or I suppose the only thing we can say at the moment is not by current scientific methods, as far as I'm aware. To go further, by current scientific understanding there's no way it can exist and do what it claims. Distance reiki goes against our ideas of the way energy travels.

Some people will use some of the stuff that's coming out of Quantum Physics like entaglement to say it's possible. I don't rule it out but personally I wouldn't say there's any justification to use that as an explanation as it just doesn't apply to things like this, on the macro scale.

I'm sure some people could and would claim to be able to feel reiki energy when they received it but if this was blinded I don't think it would hold any water. Ideally, yea this would be good to test, but I'm busy testing tomato plants :D

Just a quick question here, KingTim. Are you aware of how big tomato plants get prior to putting on fruit? They will need to be repotted into very large pots for that to happen. I, obviously, don't know what size sunroom, or what kind of resources you have available, but I'm thinking that you should possibly consider ending the test prior to fruiting. A fully grown tomato plant can have vines over 6 ft long.

Hey meg :)
Yea I've kind of ignored that point :o Re-potting is feasible but it adds another factor that needs to be controlled... supporting them with sticks seems like it could have a big impact on growth depending on how it's done for each plant. I can get someone else to do it, but still it will probably skew results between plants, if not between groups.

Looks like this may be another one of those things I'll have to accept.


So my philosophy is to give Tim the best advice I can, because he seems to be a stand up guy and not, as are so many who make these claims, delusional (although Tim has probably been deluded as to this particular claim).


I'm just a regular dude who did reiki 1 and 2 and wants to do some experiments on it. I've always been an intellectual type thinker rather than trusting my instincts so I figured I could use some of those left brain methods to test things out and see what happens.

The claim on plant health is more anecdotal I think, like people saying talking to their plants helps them grow. What made me think of this though was during my research into whether other people had already done this there were a few sites promoting reiki saying it has been proven by science.

I've only really found summaries of experiments and studies all grouped together in a persuasive style which wasn't what I was looking for. But they seemed to be claiming that reiki would have an effect on plant health/growth.
e.g.
reiki.org/reikinews/reikin24.html
(everyone jump on the wagon and criticise everything in here :))

Congrats if you read through another long response,

I'll keep people updated, someone must know a good free site I can use to put pictures on and stuff?

Take it easy all,
Tim

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Congrats if you read through another long response,

Tim,
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the average user here is not necessarily intimidated by a long posting. I actually enjoyed reading your posting.

Well Tim you seem like a reasonable person who is able to understand our criticism of your testing methods. If you find something interesting try another test with stronger protocols. Good luck!

LLH

[William Smith]

Hey all,

Lots of comments I see :) 18 plants have sprouted so far out of the 36. I think another day or two to see if any more fancy the action and then I'll start the experiment.
...
I'll keep people updated, someone must know a good free site I can use to put pictures on and stuff?

Take it easy all,
Tim

Any news on the reiki front?

[KingTim]

Hi all!

The experiment has begun!
Some pictures of the plants are here:
img99.imageshack.us/img99/7905/10027174zt.jpg
img319.imageshack.us/img319/7564/10027184xi.jpg
img319.imageshack.us/img319/3415/10027192fq.jpg
img319.imageshack.us/img319/2145/10027206ry.jpg
img319.imageshack.us/img319/382/10027219qj.jpg

The groups are done by rows. To try and even out the light I'm going to be rotating each tray around by 90 degrees, probably every three or four days.

Some of the plastic containers have split but none of the splits have gone down into the soil yet, if they do then I may have to transfer the plants.

For information in photo 10027184xi.jpg the hands on reiki are on the left, distance reiki in the middle and the controls on the right.

To decide on groupings I arranged them all into 'health' order and then put them all into groups of three that were about as similar as I could get them and got my sister to check them over. Then used a die to decide which group(and row) each plant would go in. I then promptly forgot which row was which so rolled again for which row would be which group.

I'm planning on getting a website and stuff up soon and doing a bit more detail on what's gone on so far so I'll keep people updated when I get round to it.

If anyone is interested in giving distance reiki then that would be ace, please PM me and we can talk about it.

Take it easy all,
Tim

[KingTim]

Hello all :)

I've finally got round to doing a website: reikix.zoomshare.com

Please have a look and let me know any comments, there are some photos of the plants from today in there too if you'd like to have a look,

Take it easy all,
Tim

[meg]

Good job, KingTim! I'm interested in your experiment and will check back often. Please do keep posting.

I'd be interested in knowing what variety of tomato these are, what the potting mixture is, and how much you're watering daily. As well as when, what kind and how much fertilizer used, etc. Will you be putting that info on there too?

Thanks
Meg

[Thing]

Here's a link to Tim's site: http://reikix.zoomshare.com/

[Zoinked168]

Ok, so hypothetically speaking, we now have the perfect controlled test for growing plants, now what?

Even if you were a grand master in Reiki, wishing one batch of plants to grow faster is not going to work. After some investigation, I realize that the best chance of this experiment working would to firstly understand the biology of a plant and possibly how it may be manipulated to grow. Fundamental basic need of any photoautotroph plant is use of inorganic compounds to produce energy. So back to high school of photosynthesis, what we can physically control is water, light, air. The rest is left up to the plant generally. From what I have gathered, Nicotinamide adenile dinucleotide (NAD) and Flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) are essential to the anabolic metabolism and aerobic respiration. These two types of molecules are found in the carbon reduction equation, if you didn't know that, probably just means you have a life. So theoretically, if you could increase the production of these two, you would have a healthier stronger plant? It would produce more sugars. I think that is the bottom line.

Next question on my mind is 'How'. How can I alter the molecular structure of the two elements? What do they need to thrive and survive?

It's a begining. I've got 80 seedlings planted in my room at the moment. When they germinate, a friend will pick 30 shoots and supervise them according to the conditions suggested. Batch A will have no 'treatment' batch B will have a visit from me every other day, and batch C will have long-distance 'treatment'.

[meg]

Not sure I understand what you are proposing, Zoinked168. KingTim is attempting to affect the growth of plants with reiki. You are attempting to affect the growth of your seedlings how?

And how to you plan to measure success?

Meg

[KingTim]

Hi all :)
The plants have been spun around 90 degrees, the latest photos are available on the reikix.zoomshare site.
I've also changed the watering from being a cap of water to using a pipette as it's a bit more accurate, despite being a hell of a lot slower getting it right.

Hi Meg!
The quick answers:
The compost was standard compost from a local shop, it wasn't potting compost but only one bag was used and was spread out.
The watering was done using a cap but now it's the second line on a pipette, I'll find out what measure this is and post it up. The watering hasn't been done consistently everyday but more when they look dryish, whenever I have watered I've watered all plants the same.
The tomato variety I'm not sure of, they were small ones! I did have the packet as I had some spare seeds left over, if it hasn't been thrown out I'll find that out to.

Take it easy :)
Tim

[meg]

So far they all look pretty good to me :) Thanks for the update!

How's it going with the experiment? Do you feel anything interesting when working on the plants or anything?

Meg

[William Smith]

I just saw this http://reikix.zoomshare.com/3.shtml

Then I read your OP, describing your intent to work towards an application and a protocol to prove "Reiki" works on plants and collect the JREF $1,000,000 Prize.

And now - please forgive me, must be the capsaicin - I can't resist any longer to state: "I don't know if you're a KingTim or a pauper." ;)

[KingTim]

Hey man :)

Where'd you get that from? Wherever it was keep reading :) Obviously I'd happily accept a million dollars but I now have no intent of working towards a protocol for Randi. The aim quickly changed to me being able to use left brain analytical methods for investigating things I can't explain that I experience. And yes I am a pauper.

Experiment's going well by the way. I've been kind of slack on the updates but there's not really that much changes day to day when you're growing plants. :D

Take it easy,

Tim

[William Smith]

Hey man :)

Where'd you get that from? Wherever it was keep reading :) Obviously I'd happily accept a million dollars but I now have no intent of working towards a protocol for Randi. The aim quickly changed to me being able to use left brain analytical methods for investigating things I can't explain that I experience. And yes I am a pauper.

Experiment's going well by the way. I've been kind of slack on the updates but there's not really that much changes day to day when you're growing plants. :D

Take it easy,

Tim

"Now we know that you're a KingTim AND a pauper." I took this (modified) quote from a song by the Red Hot Chili Peppers: "Give It Away."



Could you please explain two things:

1. "The aim quickly changed to me being able to use left brain analytical methods for investigating things I can't explain that I experience." What does this mean?
2. If the experiment goes "well", does that prove "Reiki" works?

[KingTim]

Could you please explain two things:

1. [I]"The aim quickly changed to me being able to use left brain analytical methods for investigating things I can't explain that I experience." What does this mean?
2. If the experiment goes "well", does that prove "Reiki" works?

I'd recommend reading the rest of the thread.
To elaborate on the aim a bit more, I've done reiki 1 and 2 attunements and felt heat sensations on my hands varying a lot on different parts of the body when giving treatments and my whole body being hot or cold over time. The people that I've done the treatments on have experienced sensations like tingling and a sense of a build up and release of physical pressure on their body. I've always been amazed at the power of the mind so was always skeptical that this wasn't anything more than suggestions during the courses and people just feeling the need to say something.
Then I started reading up a bit on proofs/disproofs and everything seemed like people just irrationally arguing the same points over and over, picking parts from studies as their proof or disproof. But one of the experiments I noticed was the effect of prayer on plants and it got me started that it would be a chance to use the logical intellectual part of me to objectively experiment on the things that I (and evidently lots of others)experience subjectively if I were to do an experiment on reiki on plant growth. Then it all went from there really.

2.

No, it doesn't prove anything. But it may silence the critical part of my brain a while so I can stop questioning everything I feel and just go with it, trust my instincts, and see what happens. The results have no scientific purpose for others at all really. Other than possibly sparking some interest for someone to further the research if there were significant results.

Peace :)
Tim

[LordoftheLeftHand]

The people that I've done the treatments on have experienced sensations like tingling and a sense of a build up and release of physical pressure on their body.

Uhhh, I'm not going there.

LLH

[Thing]

Redundant post.

[William Smith]

I'd recommend reading the rest of the thread.
To elaborate on the aim a bit more, I've done reiki 1 and 2 attunements and felt heat sensations on my hands varying a lot on different parts of the body when giving treatments and my whole body being hot or cold over time. The people that I've done the treatments on have experienced sensations like tingling and a sense of a build up and release of physical pressure on their body. I've always been amazed at the power of the mind so was always skeptical that this wasn't anything more than suggestions during the courses and people just feeling the need to say something.
Then I started reading up a bit on proofs/disproofs and everything seemed like people just irrationally arguing the same points over and over, picking parts from studies as their proof or disproof. But one of the experiments I noticed was the effect of prayer on plants and it got me started that it would be a chance to use the logical intellectual part of me to objectively experiment on the things that I (and evidently lots of others)experience subjectively if I were to do an experiment on reiki on plant growth. Then it all went from there really.

2.

No, it doesn't prove anything. But it may silence the critical part of my brain a while so I can stop questioning everything I feel and just go with it, trust my instincts, and see what happens. The results have no scientific purpose for others at all really. Other than possibly sparking some interest for someone to further the research if there were significant results.

Peace :)
Tim

Ok, but to make sure we understand you correctly, please pick a statement from the following which describes your position:

1. Reiki has a measurable or visible effect but I don't apply for the JREF Challenge.

2. Reiki has no measurable or visible effect, therefore I don't apply for the JREF Challenge.

Thanks, KingTim.

[KingTim]

Can't I have
3. I don't know if it has an effect currently measurable or not, hence trying the experiment? If not then:

2. Reiki has no measurable or visible effect, therefore I don't apply for the JREF Challenge.

[KingTim]

Uhhh, I'm not going there.

LLH

:D Sorry man, I'm not asking you to. I've tried to leave all of that stuff out of this forum. But if people want to know why I'm interested enough to warrant doing this experiment I gotta give my reasons.


The people that I've done the treatments on have experienced sensations like tingling and a sense of a build up and release of physical pressure on their body. I've always been amazed at the power of the mind so was always skeptical that this wasn't anything more than suggestions during the courses and people just feeling the need to say something.


Perhaps I should modify that to say 'The people that I've done the treatments on have said they have experienced sensations like tingling and a sense of a build up and release of physical pressure on their body.'

But I doubt whether it's just the need to say something after lying down for an hour with someone 'treating' you.

Peas!
Tim

[William Smith]

Can't I have
3. I don't know if it has an effect currently measurable or not, hence trying the experiment? If not then:

2. Reiki has no measurable or visible effect, therefore I don't apply for the JREF Challenge.

Thanks for your honesty and directness, KingTim.

[dogjones]

I would have thought the best way to control the sunlight is to grow them in a temperature controlled room with UV lighting rather than outside? Might be a little expensive though. Solution - grow some naughty plants and then sell the harvest. Telling the punters that they were Reiki treated could up the price tag, considering how suggestible your client base undoubtedly would be.

[KingTim]

It had crossed my mind.