Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
21/09/2026 7:33 am
In the summer of 2026 after a 10 year hiatus from cycling I attempted to get back into the groove. Initially I did some 4 hour 1 liter bottles for a friend with a chronic kidney problem. We did tests before and after and my water had zero effect. Briefly afterwards I handed her 1 liter of tachyonized water (ATT David Wagner) and that seemed to have a positive effect, however the test for that was done much later so its not a 1:1 comparison.
I then continued to program 5 sets of cotton gloves for a friend with arthritis. I know that this is a hard task for Bengston (as of his own admission) but I had been successful in the past so I gave it a shot. Approx 10 hours went into the gloves, the 5 pairs where used for 3 nights each, then discarded, but zero results showed up.
I observed that keeping the cycling going was not a simple task for me anymore - that may be due to age (73 now) or because hypercycling is not like cycling, you cant just pick up where you left off a long time ago.
I decided to try a more scientific approach and the results are shown in the Youtube clips. I have to say I am quite irritated by them. It seems my cycling had the opposite of the expected outcome. It is not neutral - it hindered the CO2 production. In both experiments. I have no idea how and why.
The water I used is from a 1 liter bottle that got 12 x 45 minutes of treatment (the maximum time I can keep it up for now).
While doing the water I had no specific intention towards the outcome although subconsciously I always knew it would be used for this test. But I did not intend it to be "better for yeast" or "healing" or anything in particular. Again, theoretically that should have been a good thing (according to Bengston) - so the results are even more puzzeling.
Now blowing up rubber gloves is not a precise scientific method. But IMO the results still point in the same direction - if I only knew what it meant.
If I had just lost my abilities the results should have been neutral - the same for all 6 bottles. That it has an inhibiting effect puzzles me.
There is no point in watching the entire thing. In experiment 1 you can skip to the middle where you already see the right glove (the control) fully expanded whereas the left is still folded over. This only gets more pronounced towards the end.
In the second experiment the first video shows the setup and the initial condition: the 3 left bottles with programmed water are fully set up first, with a ca. 5 minute lead over the 3 controls. Nevertheless as can be seen in video 2 the control gloves all expand way before the programmed water bottles gloves.
CO2 production is clearly somewhat inhibited. Of course all bottles had the exact same amount of water 200ml, sugar 5g and yeast 2g initially. The ambient temperature was 27 C.
This topic was modified 1 month ago by admin
Topic starter
21/09/2026 7:39 am
Experiment one:
Second experiment, part 1
Second experiment, part 2
Topic starter
22/09/2026 7:11 am
Let's see if mung bean sprouts don't like me either. The left 5 petri dishes have programmed water (same source as with the yeast experiment) and the right 5 are plain water. I didnt have enough glas covers so I used tranparent tape. Its just evaporation shielding. This will take a few days, (5-7 afaik) to show any results.
This post was modified 1 month ago 2 times by admin
Topic starter
22/09/2026 7:51 am
Discussion of the second yeast experiment:
1) the amount of volume to be fill was not uniform because to slip the gloves over the bottle was not a precise method.
2) No. 3 bengston and No 3 plain water filled their gloves at the same time (the plain water glove is filled 5 minutes later because it got prepared later) - why is that?
3) Bottles had to be shaken after the yeast was dropped in to prevent clumping. but this could not be done fully uniform. More shaking can mean more gas develops.
4) The water volume was filled by eye sight. if it looked the same it was good enough.
To overcome the shortcomings of this method and refine the results a few things could be done:
1) use glas containers with volume indication and a air tight top closure
2) attach a digital pressure sensor to the top
3) use a pre-processor (microcontroller) that feeds the data via usb into a notebook
4) use a python script for data display in human readable form (tables and diagrams)
This can be done for appox 500 US$ if done in India, more if done elsewhere (all included, hardware and software and some adjustment work)
the hardest problem is to get the yeast distributed evenly and in the same time in each one of the process bottles. Shaking by hand is too hard to calibrate and lab quality shakers or stirrers are costly.
I will figure something out ... *
*a few hours later: I discussed this with Gemini (the AI I mostly use bc my Jio account gives me free access to their PRO model - but when in doubt I cross check with whatever Claude version is available for free). The result was mixed but doable. My fear was that each of my test glasses would need its own stirrer, and a lab stirrer usually is around 100 bucks. However, thanx to India (a stirrer is low tech) they make one for only 30 bucks and I only need one if I use the method Gemini came up with. So the "equal start condition" problem is pretty much solved.
This is not a Mars probe where millions can be spent on one instrument or factor they want to measure. I guess I can come up with a few hundred to get a grip on this. Still much less than what one single mouse experiment with genetically modified mice would cost. E.g. at Jackson Laboratory (JAX) where Humanized Cancer Models can be up to $400 to $1,500+ per mouse.
Topic starter
29/09/2026 3:43 am
That discussion is continued here