Buy a 4000x Zoom Microscope Like DAVID SCHWEITZER's

[WarrickF]

Hi,

I'm interested in purchasing a microscope that can view water at a level similar to what DAVID SCHWEITZER has detailed here. The article says that the microscope does 4000x zoom, but I don't seem to be able to find anything like it on the internet.

http://www.neilos.org/pdf/Research%20Report%20-%20Photos%20of%20energised%20&%20non-energised%20wate.pdf

This may not be the best place to ask, but I figured the biology boys and girls may have some ideas :)

Thanks
Warrick

 

[pattylou]

Hi,

I'm interested in purchasing a microscope that can view water at a level similar to what DAVID SCHWEITZER has detailed here. The article says that the microscope does 4000x zoom, but I don't seem to be able to find anything like it on the internet.

http://www.neilos.org/pdf/Research%20Report%20-%20Photos%20of%20energised%20&%20non-energised%20wate.pdf

This may not be the best place to ask, but I figured the biology boys and girls may have some ideas :)

Thanks
Warrick

So I went, and then I googled on this chap, and the whole thing looks like complete baloney.

But to answer your question, you won't find a light microscope that can magnify 4000X - or rather, the limit of resolution on a light microscope (even with the best lenses available) is such that anything over 1000X becomes "empty magnification." The resolution is the limiting factor after about 1000X. It's a property of the wavelength of light - so greater magnification through lensing won't give you any more clarity.

This might clue you into one reason why the claims by Schweitzer are suspect.

(But now I am curious how many people here think "What the Bleep do We Know" is a good movie. I'll go ask in the general forum. Or maybe search for an old thread.)

 

[gerben]

He talks about an "4000X computer enhancement" so I guess the images are "magnified" by the computer, i.e. some algorithm has was used to interpolate extra pixels. A light microscope can only magnify 1000X-2000X under ideal conditions.

 

[WarrickF]

We’ll baloney it may be, but I’ve done quite a bit of research on it and it’s quite an interesting argument. The memory of water and the vortex theory is everywhere and I must admit that the reason for me wanting to purchase this microscope is so that I can examine the results myself.

The bottom line being that this device and it’s imploded water does have an effect on water that it comes in contact with – there is still a before and after effect that science does not seem to be able to explain … the fact that these guys think it will fix \ energize etc. does not make much difference to me.

Does anyone know what the best way to visualize the structure of water is?

 

[WarrickF]

RE: What the bleep – I though it was a little mystical but I don’t mind to much for one simple reason. If you look at how the PC ( personal computer ) changed the world we would all agree that it had a positive impact .. this was because things like the spreadsheet were put in the hands of every day human beings.

What the bleep, as radical as it may be, puts quantum physics in the language and laps of every day human beings, and until the general population feels comfortable with the random behavior and problems of these obvious problems, I don’t think we’ll see any major progress. I feel, more awareness the better ..

 

[Evo]

Your "doctor" and the neilos website appear to be a "New Age" crackpot site selling "water revitilization" products among others such as the

"personal harmonizer" - These products adopt the approach of counteracting damaging electromagnetic fields and radiations by strengthening beneficial energy within us.

the "vortex energiser" - What can be done to improve the energetic qualities of mains water, before we drink it? (this is the "device" he used, it's not a microscope)

His website - http://www.alivewater.net/schweitzer.htm

The Neilos site you linked to "We are Australian retailers for products from the UK based Centre for Implosion Research, the Russian Wands of Horus and other life energy enhancing products."

The "What the bleep" movie is considered garbage.

 

[WarrickF]

Yes point taken - but like I said, there is a before and after effect -can you explain it?

 

[Evo]

Yes point taken - but like I said, there is a before and after effect -can you explain it?

pseudoscientific snake oil, a hoax.

"The Vortex Energiser ... is a spiraling copper device. It contains highly energized water, which has been prepared using an innovative new process called Implosion. ... Because of the special water it contains, and its form, the Vortex Energiser acts as a cosmic antenna and amplifier which takes its energy directly from the Quantum Sea of Energy or Ether, a subtle form of energy which is all around us."

"This site (above paragraph) hawks a goofy spiral device that is supposed to spin the water through a "vortex". Notice the meaningless, pseudoscientific terms used to impress the suckers. Of course they offer no evidence for the efficacy of this; you are supposed to have Faith!"

see this site http://www.chem1.com/CQ/EnergizedWater.html

http://www.chem1.com/CQ/wonkywater.html#VIB

 

[Moonbear]

I haven't gone to the site in question because the other posts here already indicate it's not worth reading. If you're still curious about microscopes, pattylou is right that on a light microscope, best magnification we can usually get is about 1000X. Beyond that, you can attach a digital camera that can then do a digital zoom, but you're not magnifying your image, just enlarging it. To actually get good quality resolution at those types of magnifications, we're talking in the ballpark of $50,000 for a microscope and another $25,000 for the digital camera attachment, plus the computer to connect it to.

To get better resolution than that, and getting out of the realm of light microscopy and into confocal, 2-photon, or electron microscopy, you're looking at set-ups in the half million dollar range. Not exactly a toy to play with at home.

You can get cheaper microscopes that won't give you great resolution, but are good for learning and basic histology for around $2000, but those are just the types of microscopes you'll find in your general biology classroom that have no place to attach cameras, and even if they did, have too poor of resolution to make it feasible to attempt a digital zoom of any images obtained from them. Usually those only get up to about 400X magnification, at best.

 

[WarrickF]

Wow, that’s some serious $$ - Evo, thanks for the link, I was looking for something like that. Although I must admit, my little stroke of curiosity did make me realize how bad my sense of scale is.

I took a look at this site http://www.funsci.com/fun3_en/microw/microw.htm, which has some nice photo’s of what you’d see through a microscope at different magnifications. The part that now intrigues me is that even if this guy is using digital magnification, unless he’s using some for of fractal software you’d struggle to get such a drastic before and after effect.

I’m not sure if this is appropriate, but I think it’s only fair that we offer the vendor, and David Schweitzer (the guy who took these photo’s) the opportunity to explain in a lot more scientific detail how they ran these tests. As you’re article says Evo, the article is impressive, but not very scientific. They are trying to appeal to the general public ( non scientists like me ), not scientists in the article so that makes sense.

Does anyone have any objection to me sending them a link and asking them to respond?

 

[Evo]

Wow, that’s some serious $$ - Evo, thanks for the link, I was looking for something like that. Although I must admit, my little stroke of curiosity did make me realize how bad my sense of scale is.

I took a look at this site http://www.funsci.com/fun3_en/microw/microw.htm, which has some nice photo’s of what you’d see through a microscope at different magnifications. The part that now intrigues me is that even if this guy is using digital magnification, unless he’s using some for of fractal software you’d struggle to get such a drastic before and after effect.

I’m not sure if this is appropriate, but I think it’s only fair that we offer the vendor, and David Schweitzer (the guy who took these photo’s) the opportunity to explain in a lot more scientific detail how they ran these tests. As you’re article says Evo, the article is impressive, but not very scientific. They are trying to appeal to the general public ( non scientists like me ), not scientists in the article so that makes sense.

Does anyone have any objection to me sending them a link and asking them to respond?

This site is not for people peddling products, so no, this is not a scientific discussion. This also doesn't belong in biology, I'm moving this to Skepticism and debunking.

""In 1996, Dr David Schweitzer succeeded in photographing, for the first
time, thoughts impregnated in water; demonstrating that water can act as a liquid memory system capable of storing information. This discovery now makes it possible to photograph the stored frequencies of homeopathic
remedies, as well as research the impact of positive and negative thoughts
on the fluids of the body."

http://www.carondevita.com/waterarticle.html

 

[WarrickF]

ok thanks Evo -

 

[Evo]

ok thanks Evo -

A millionaire friend of a friend of mine has one of those $50,000 microscopes. I wish I had one.

 

[Monique]

Thanks for the move Evo.

Purchasing a microscope to look at water? So what are the structures that are depicted in the picture and how were they visualized? I don't believe the whole story, if you really want to research this you would be best off by contacting a university lab and ask whether you can run some experiments with their microscope by ready to make a very strong case for yourself though

 

[WarrickF]

Take a look at http://www.neilos.org/pdf/Research%20Report%20-%20Photos%20of%20energised%20&%20non-energised%20wate.pdf[/URL]

It's a PDF with the images in it half way down.

RE: Purchasing a microscope to look at water? Why not? I don't know what water at that magnification looks like, but I sure would love to know though. I'm not $50,000 curious though :)

I like your idea of making friends with a university lab :) -- Which department would hold the keys to such a fun device?

Anyway, the reason I posted my initial question was becasue I was hoping someone DID know what water at this magnification looked like, and would be able to tell me if this was something interesting or not. Turns out I got a lesson on microscopes while I was on it :) I really don't mind that though.

It turns out after some reading that there was noise about this topic a while back:

[URL]http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041011/pf/431729b_pf.html[/URL]

I'm not saying I believe it, but I am saying I don't have enough evidence to disregard it.

 

[WarrickF]

Google "Molecular Memory Part 1" and "Molecular Memory Part 2" on google groups ... interesting perspective.

 

[Monique]

Take a look at http://www.neilos.org/pdf/Research%20Report%20-%20Photos%20of%20energised%20&%20non-energised%20wate.pdf

It's a PDF with the images in it half way down.

I know, so what are those structures?

RE: Purchasing a microscope to look at water? Why not? I don't know what water at that magnification looks like, but I sure would love to know though.

You can't see water, you can only see things that float around in the water.

I like your idea of making friends with a university lab :) -- Which department would hold the keys to such a fun device?

The cytology department would, but it would be hard as someone without experience to be allowed to work with such expensive devices, especially if you just want to look at water.

Anyway, the reason I posted my initial question was becasue I was hoping someone DID know what water at this magnification looked like, and would be able to tell me if this was something interesting or not.

It would be far more interesting to take a sample of water from your garden and look at what floats around in there.

 

[Moonbear]

You can't see water, you can only see things that float around in the water.

Yep, looks like whatever they did added a lot of crud to the water. Algae or dust perhaps?

 

[Evo]

It turns out after some reading that there was noise about this topic a while back:

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041011/pf/431729b_pf.html

I'm not saying I believe it, but I am saying I don't have enough evidence to disregard it.

This guy lost his job, position, funding and respect after being scientifically debunked.

There is NO scientific evidence backing up this crackpot idea.

Here is an answer from the Ask A Scientist© website at the US Department of Energy.

http://www.Newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99502.htm

"Frankly, he sounds more
like a mystic, or a salesman (trying to sell natural water systems?) than
like a scientist. IMHO, the theory is hogwash."


Richard E. Barrans Jr.
CHM/200/M019
Argonne National Laboratory