Far be it from me to judge either position - I am clueless when it Comes to math. I just wanted to leave this information here as a counterweight

https://phasetransitionstudies.com/indres/building-a-quantitative-verification-tool-for-the-bengston-method/#post-45

I have since started to built a test environment that should allow very precise calibration (I hope). The test only works with programmed water.

Each sample size is 1 liter or 1000cc. It gets split into 5 individual samples of 200cc. To this a pre-defined amount of pulverized sugar is added (5g) and a pre defined amount of yeast. The sugar is added to the water, the dry yeast is pre-hydrated in water and a defined amount is added to the 200ml test water/sugar solution. 5 identical preparations are made with un-programmed water from the same source (Vedica mineral water) as controls.

My setup allows for 3 or these 5-part samples to be tested against the controls at the same time. 

All samples are pre-heated to 35C in a water bath (digitally thermo regulated to +-1C) for optimal yeast reaction.

The sample bottles are air tight with a pressure sensor on top which starts recording as soon as the pressure rises above the air pressure.

A Raspberry Pi Pico takes the 20 input streams and sends them via USB to a Linux notebook where they are converted to a graphical representation of the pressure increase vs time elapsed. 

There is no telling how and if Bengston water will react to Yeast chemistry but there is a good chance it might. The entire shebang is not cheap but one has to have a hobby, right?

I will continue to report on my progress here - if it works for the water I prepare I will invite others to supply me with one liter of their programmed water to get some baselines (and it may be good to evaluate daily fluctuations in input quality, the effect of "transferring" the information to base water, the time factor - how much is too much and how much is ineffective - and a few other questions.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc3JOoiB6Ec

Second experiment, part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fxI2nK_6hg

Second experiment, part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo-1Mm4Hn_4

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.