Contact Us
Want to advertise here? Contact us today to begin

Sea-Crop/Ormus

Discussion in 'Nutrients and Fertilizers' started by gumby420, Feb 22, 2013.

  1. Anyone heard of this stuff Sea-Crop before? It was recommended by a friend of a friend, i went to the hydro shop and there was a dude in front of me buying some, and the two dudes at the shop were going on and on about it. Ive been reading about Ormus and how it is made and seems to be a lot of benefits. But, i have not found to much use in cannabis and would like to hear some opinions before i give it a try. Thanks
    heres a link if you would like to take a look. http://www.sea-crop.com/
     
    pugliese63 likes this.
  2. I can tell you that it works amazing on plants! It is not hard to make the ormus yourself and save TONS of money. All you need is pure sea salts, water and Lye, and a cheap PH meter.

    Himalayan Sea Salt works VERY well.....

    You basically saturate the water with the sea salt until no more will dissolve. Then you slowly raise the PH levels to 10.8.....very slowly by adding a little lye at a time while keeping a constant stir on the solution.

    At or near 10.8 you will start to see the water solution begin to turn white......the magnesium and calcium that is said to carry the "ORMES" will sink to the bottom of your glass container......and the clear water will form a layer on top......

    You then begin to wash out all the lye by adding distilled water , letting the white layer separate and layer to the bottom, then suck the clear water carefully from the top layer, then repeat about 6 times total, and your solution should be lye free.

    The concentrated forms of magnesium and calcium is enough ALONE to supercharge any grow op.......the ORME material doesnt hurt either I suspect....

    This is not only for plants, but for people and pets as well. There are MANY studies and reports of people claiming amazing health benefits...one guy was 65 years old and after taking it for a few months, his grey hair on his beard and head turned back red like when he was young.....another guy had a tooth grow back that was pulled 20 years earlier.....there is a claim of a cats tail growing back after years had passed from the accident that cut the tail off......there are hundreds and thousands of reports spanning over a 100 years time...

    Some think this ormus is what Moses made in the bible called "Manna" that kept people alive in the desert for YEARS where there was no food or water.....

    ORMUS has many other names and has been shown to be in use even back in ancient Egyptian times before the pyramids were built....

    It is said to heal the body on a "molecular" level.....

    It has been long known that elements like gold could be stripped down of all there molecules except for one......hence the name "mono-atomic gold" and similar.....meaning it is gold but with only one molecule.....this has shown to have "strange" properties to say the least....

    MANY element metals are known to have amazing and strange properties that we really do not fully understand yet......Mercury for example is a "liquid" metal and only 1 proton away from being gold (Margarine for example is VERY close to "plastic"....yikes!!).

    They have studies done in universities where mercury is put into a nuclear reactor for 24 hours, which forces the release of the proton and when they pull it out, it has turned to gold.

    More recent studies are showing amazing properties by types of bacteria that can live in the bottom of a reactor for example.....they are called "extremophiles" in most cases and if you think regular bacteria and fungi is powerful to plants and is bad ass....think of what these "extreme" type bacteria that live in the harshest environments possible can do?????

    I have done study/research/experiments on this material for over 10 years now and have LOTS of data on it if anyone is interested. I do not know if it is "Manna" or not....but there IS merit to the claims, I have seen this first hand myself.

    Be Well
    HR
     
  3. Seamaiden

    Seamaiden Living dead girl

    23,629
    32,619
    638
    I have just been having a discussion on another canna-forum about Seacrop/ORMUS (?) vs Sea-90, are they corollaries, or what? I must get a hold of some Seacrop and get some learn on. In fact, the way you describe the process, HR... it reminds me of what reefkeepers do to tweak certain water parameters, such as available Ca, total alkalinity, yadda yadda la dee da!
     
    FreeRadical and gumby420 like this.
  4. A few things here:

    Monatomic gold simply refers to the neutral state of the element gold (not a molecule). Which is to suggest that it is monatomic form (one atom). This is in contrast to a molecule like oxygen, which is diatomic in its natural state ( O2 ). In O2, there are two oxygen atoms--but this is still considered an element and not a molecule because this is the neutral "elemental" state of the substance (much as with iodine [I2] or bromine [Br2]).

    It's not really proper to discuss mercury as being "one proton" away from being gold. This is true under a basic conceptualization of the chemistry at play--but the reality is that "one proton" makes a huge god damn difference in the physical world. Ask hydrogen and helium if you don't believe me.

    This is even more true for the comparison of margarine to plastic which is totally unscientific and unrealistic. Water is almost hydrogen peroxide (only one atom away, much closer than margarine is to plastic), but it doesn't really make sense to compare the two substances this way--because those tiny differences (one atom here, another atom there) make an ENORMOUS difference with regard to reactivity and physical properties. Try drinking 100% hydrogen peroxide and see how that feels (you will begin to die and agonize before it makes it even halfway down your esophagus).

    It is possible to generate gold from mercury because we understand the physics governing this atom very well, but there is no information to be gleaned from this understanding that informs a better understanding of the usefulness of this method/material. The two concepts have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.

    Now, with those corrections in place let's move on to the meat.

    ORMEs refers to "Orbitally Rearranged Monatomic Elements". This is a fictional class of elements which was hypothesized incorrectly through misapplication of concepts having to do with "deformed" or "altered" nuclei.

    What the originators of this hypothesis failed to realize is that these nuclear phenomena are only observed in particle accelerators and nuclear reactors at EXTREMELY SHORT timescales. This is not an effect which can be stabilized or taken advantage of.

    Now, it would require some chemistry knowledge to fully explain the following list of chemical properties/contradictions which would be expected based on the prevailing hypothesis of ORMEs--so instead of fully explaining them I will briefly outline them for laymen below.

    1. Gold would be diatomic in its neutral state, possessing an ionic bond between the two gold molecules. The result would be that gold would dissolve in water.

    2. The patent application by the originator of this idea suggests that the IR spectra he provided demonstrate the "electron pairing" in his new substance. Unfortunately IR spectrometry is incapable of determining this, because the electron interactions would only respond to radiation in the UV range. This demonstrates the researcher lacks understanding of chemical bonding and the nature of radiation. IR spec depends on the vibration of chemical bonds caused by IR radiation--while bonds represent a sharing of electrons, the researcher here has misidentified these interactions as having to do with "electron pairing" which is a totally different concept.

    3. His patent application is riddled with spelling and nomenclature errors, demonstrating his lack of expertise yet again. Cis-platin becomes "sys-platinum", unfortunately cis has a very specific meaning within chemical nomenclature and sys means nothing at all.

    4. He repeatedly uses units which are incompatible with one another. At one point suggesting there are 10^18 ergs per gauss. Unfortunately ergs are an energy unit equal to ~100 nanojoules and gauss is a unit of magnetic flux (not energy) equal to 100 microteslas. He even mentions that the magnetic field of Earth is "several gauss" when in fact it is less than 1.

    5. He claims that superconductors are in your body now, while a superconducting quantum interference device (which would certainly detect these) has never been able to substantiate this claim.

    6. He appears, repeatedly, to make the claim that somehow HAu is different from AuH. This, for lack of a better way to say it, takes a fat shit on the face of chemical science. It makes absolutely zero sense. It's like saying HOH is different from H2O. If the atoms are connected the same way, it's the same stuff. The only reason chemists flip these around sometimes is to properly show which atom is connected to which--a convention which the researcher here appears to have assumed had a meaning that it does not.

    In the end we should be very happy that, in fact, his claims are not substantiated--because soluble forms of precious metals happen to be very toxic. I can assure you with 1 million percent certainty that you would be dead within 24 hours if you ingested any appreciable amount of them.

    As for the manna comparison, God created/dropped manna for the Israelites to consume. There is no reference to Moses having "made" it, ever.


    What this all stems from is a guy who had what was likely absolutely zero chemical training who believed himself qualified to make determinations which would require SIGNIFICANT knowledge of chemistry. To make the discoveries he claims to have, one would need to possess at least 5x the chemical knowledge which I myself can claim--and through reading the patent here I have convinced the living hell out of myself that there is no way this guy has such expertise.

    Now, could the resultant slurry here be of use to plants? Certainly, it contains magnesium and calcium hydroxides.

    The process here is nothing more than a day one Chemistry 101 laboratory exercise having to do with solubility of group I and II metals. I performed this exact reaction in my first ever general chemistry laboratory course.

    I'm not suggesting that this recipe isn't helpful to plants, or that it might not be a great thing to try--hell I'm considering giving it a go, as I much prefer the freedom to apply calcium and magnesium separately (which is possible after some further separation here).

    However, I would be remiss if I had not called into question the rest of the claims of ORMEs. The name says it all, from the perspective of an actual chemist.

    "Orbitally rearranged" is a non-sensical statement given the procedure outlined by the researcher here for several reasons:

    1. Orbitals are EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND AND DISCUSS. This probably represents the most difficult concept in all of chemistry (and may even rival much of what physics does, as physics is also involved here). And Hudson has made it very clear that he simply doesn't have the expertise required.

    2. Even if he did understand orbitals, it would be very clear that "rearrangement" of them is not possible if chemical bonds are kept constant. IE, you can't end up with "orbitally rearranged" water. Water is water, and when the atoms are hooked up as they are in water--the orbitals will also be arranged in a particular way. I likely can't give you sufficient proof here unless you understand orbitals, but suffice it to say that orbitals are hybridized through bonding.

    The shape they take on is absolute and the geometry of molecules is a direct result of the orbital hybridization. In short, if there is truth to this guy's statement--then virtually everything we know about chemistry is wrong. This does not seem reasonable considering the highly predictive nature of chemistry. You give me 3 atoms bonded together, and I can tell you the bond angles (to within 0.005% error) and lengths based on molecular orbital theory. Show me two substances and I'll tell you if they'll react. 90% of all reactions ever performed would never have happened or been discovered without a discrete understanding of orbitals--an understanding which Hudson attempted to undermine or misrepresent here.

    TLDR: Try it for your plants, because it makes sense it would be helpful--but in terms of the science claims: Sense makes none. The guy tried REALLY HARD, and frankly I've never seen someone go so far with so little actual knowledge.

    This is a dude who is REALLY GREAT at sounding like he knows what he's talking about--but to a professional he appears very clearly as what he is, a hack and a liar. It is impossible to both fail so miserably to make a cogent chemical point AND to at the same time possess any appreciable chemical education/knowledge.

    It is my opinion that this guy is pretending to know stuff that he does not by doing some reading and learning some fancy terminology and that he very clearly knows that is what he is doing.

    Totally reprehensible and useless imvho.
     
  5. Ladyv

    Ladyv

    316
    601
    93
    Damn it Squiggly, you are priceless here on the Farm!!
     
  6. I try, and I want to be clear that I'm not trying to alienate or undermine HydroRocks here.

    His beliefs are what they are, and I imagine they won't change very much--and that is fine.

    There is dispute only about the facts, I don't think HR is attempting to be devious in any way by posting all of this--and in fact I thank him, and anyone, for offering material to the farm in any polite and well-intentioned manner.

    So this isn't about me vs. him. It's about science vs.David Hudson. Or science vs. pseudo-science, as it were.

    Beliefs are untouchable by science, but facts are.
     
  7. Thank you Squiggly and Seamaiden. Very interesting. After researching about this, i was kind of already calling bullshit on the crazy science claims. I was more interested in the basic fact that theres so many minerals in there because of the sea water. Im at week 5 in flower on an 11 week plant after a big flush and need some micronutrients and thought this might be a good option. Would you suggest trying this product? Thanks for everyones help
     
  8. I would try it sparingly on something I didn't mind losing--but that's just the scientist and pragmatist in me. There is every reason to believe this could be beneficial to a plant (for the exact reason that you state).

    I wouldn't even necessarily immediately debunk all health benefits or anything of that nature.

    All I sought to point out is that the scientific justifications for this "technology" were erroneous and not well founded. Their conclusions were in fact assumptions, and often very clearly incorrect ones.

    So as far as everything else, until it's well tested there no use in denying/approving it from any angle.

    I feel like people sometimes think that we as scientists, chemists especially, just keep mixing shit together until something works. On the contrary, we meticulously note every single step and observation of every single run of every single experiment. This is the mark of a good chemist and it is the only quality that will net you a discovery or get you published.

    What must be remembered is that finding out what doesn't work is as much of a discovery as anything. SO MUCH of what chemistry has found is what kind of stuff doesn't happen. So much of our chemical knowledge can be surmised by saying, "what happens when you do that?"

    "Nothing."

    "What about this?"

    "A useless chemical soup results."

    Failures lead to conclusions as easily as do successes--and they also inform further research and tell you where not to look. Science can many times be described as an extremely careful and tedious process of elimination.

    We know some stuff that does happen, but in the end we often rule out much more than we confirm (and this is true for most sciences). A negative result is not a failure in science, it is just more science like the rest. The truth is that negative results/failures compose the majority of scientific work as a whole.

    The claims this guy made were just flatly untrue and every speck of chemical evidence over the last few hundred year suggests he's basically a quack. But you never know--he may have stumbled on to something great here. He is just quite terrible at explaining the chemistry at play or understanding pretty much anything on that level.

    If I start saying its snake oil or it doesn't work than I'm as bad a scientist as he. I don't have that info, I haven't done the tests. I won't make the same mistake and claim expertise or experience where I have none.

    What I can say is David Hudson is a dickface and he was probably just trying to hoodwink people with this, thank god the patent expired.
     
    Kygiacomo, Prestige and pugliese63 like this.
  9. My beliefs, are based on experiments conducted in a lab. I did misuse terms as I was trying to keep things basic and in laymen terms but thanks as always squiggly for being a "Johnny on the spot" and for being right there to correct and try to discredit my posting.....lol!! ....this is becoming habit for you I see. I am not here to impress you or anyone else with my scientific knowledge, or post others people's work copied from a google search as squiggly has become so excellent at, what I post comes FROM MY EXPERIENCE IN A LAB.

    I have seen the effects first hand that simply CAN NOT be explained by "standard" science and physics as squiggly so desperately wants you to believe, and even chemistry can NOT explain the effects produced time and time again in a lab. Chemistry is coming full circle back to Alchemy....lots do not believe that either.

    I also have 100's of pictures, documented evidence, and about 10 years of experiments and research study trying to find a answer to the MANY questions and effects that simply are not explained away by VERY BASIC CHEMICAL OPERATIONS LIKE COVALENT BONDS, once again that squiggly would have you believe!! I do more than just google searches for information. And I am also not alone as I collaborate with several other scientist, some of which work at MIT in Boston.....they do not seem to agree with squiggles either....ROFL!!

    David Hudson was a farmer who accidentally discovered strange properties after dumping a bunch of acid on his soil farmland. He is guilty as well of trying to find out "what" it was he discovered. He has MANY patents.......

    The truth of the matter is that science is having to LEARN the basics.....all over again with very NEW and deep understandings.....

    People like squiggly like to think we already have things sorted out....WE DO NOT!

    We do not even know what TIME is......we do not even understand WATER!!

    We do not understand the basics of life even.......

    The good news is that people like squiggly will NEVER get in the way or stop new learning and new understanding no matter how much OLD DATA he post that we now know is NOT accurate at all!! The world was flat once......do not ever forget that!!

    In fact it has the opposite effect, as it makes people want to work even harder to prove that there is MORE going on than we think or even understand. Posting the OLD OUTDATED DATA just makes it even easier to disprove as FALSE IMVHO.

    On the cutting edge of science and research today, there is literally a ENDLESS amount of data being brought to the front and center for ALL TO SEE that WANT TO SEE!!

    In time even folks like squiggly will understand one day just how wrong we really were and how LITTLE we really know and understand, that I can assure you of....it happens to us ALL if you live long enough.....you think you have a GOOD understanding and grasp of things...then something happens.....and you one day awake and realize just how clueless you really are.....the EGO is a terrible thing!!!

    When people meditate for example which SCIENCE now knows is REAL, your mind goes to a place where EGO is separated from the human element....and that my friend is a WONDERFUL place to visit!!

    Even PRAYER is now a scientific study and is able to be "measured" by scientific hardware in a lab that has been SO POWERFUL, that doctors of today now encourage it to there patients!! Placebo accounts for 1/3 of ALL medical cases!! If Placebo has the POWER TO HEAL, what do you think "NON PLACEBO" does or accounts for????

    See if google can answer that one squiggles!! LOL!!

    There have been MANY people in history that came along and shook things up......most known about was when the SCIENCE world was SURE that the earth was in the middle and all evolved around it.....can you imagine the ridicule that this first poor bastard endured to get this information he KNEW WAS TRUE out to the world...to SCIENCE???? Can you imagine or have ANY IDEA how many people called "BS"?????

    Aristarchus of Samos, a greek philosopher and astronomer (310BC-230BC) first presented the theory that the Sun was at the centre of the solar system (heliocentrism) but his ideas were rejected in favour of the theories of Ptolemy and Aristotle that the Earth was at the centre (geocentrism).

    Copernicus (1473-1543) re-raised, developed and published the heliocentric theory in the 16th Century (nearly 1800 years after Aristarchus). It was a contentious issue, and the heliocentric theory was supported by Galileo (1564-1642) but he was persecuted (tried by the Roman Church's inquisition and found guilty of heresy) till he died.

    When Quantum Mechanics was first discovered oh about a 100 years ago now....it BROKE every physics law in EXISTENCE!! And this continues to this day!!

    Be Well.......
     
  10. nuttso

    nuttso

    448
    209
    43
    I second that. We don't know shit. Basically we are working with models that try to discribe reality. They are not reality.
     
    HydroRocks likes this.
  11. nuttso

    nuttso

    448
    209
    43
    what do you think is faster than light?
     
  12. Excellent point! One of the current and popular theories with MUCH merit is that the universe has 12 sides basically, and what we can "see" is in the middle. Ever see the multiple mirror effect that makes the reflected object look like it goes on forever and there are many of them when in reality it is just the reflection of ONE object repeated???

    What we "see" that makes the universe look like it goes on forever in all directions is most likely just a type of "hologram" reflection of light that is distorted by "cosmic" distances. If you were to look at your reflection in the mirror up close, you do not look distorted....but the further away you move the mirror from you the further the light has to travel to back, and the more distorted your image will look. Now add cosmic type distances and you can imagine the distortion level would be very high.......

    What if the universe is VERY finite in "reality" and what we see in all directions is just the distorted reflection of our OWN Milky Way galaxy that is marred by light years of distances that the light has to travel to be "reflected".....the ONLY galaxy in the universe........
     
  13. LOTS of things go faster than light.....

    In quantum mechanics for example, you can "entangle" two objects. Once this is done, you can separate the two objects by ANY distance you want, and no matter how far apart the two objects are from each other, whatever you do to one of them, INSTANTLY happens to the other and NO TIME passes at all.

    As the technology advances, we are slowly able to even apply these concepts to the macro world.....the "split slit experiment" for example is now being done on a scale visible with the naked eye.

    We first thought these crazy things that defies all known laws of physics ONLY happens to the micro world of the very smallest particles......but we are finding on a daily basis now that that is NOT true at all.

    Another test that is done over and over is with regular people who sit in front of a computer monitor and wear a headset that measures the brain activity and alpha waves. These people are randomly shown very nice images, and mixed in there are very horrible and graphic images showing death.

    What they find ALWAYS time and time again is that ALL the test subject's brain reacted to the horrible image up to 8 seconds BEFORE the image was shown!!This means that we can "see" at least 8 seconds into the future???

    There are already primitive forms of quantum computers in operation today. These computers have the ability for example to deal with a 0 being a 1 so to speak all at the same time. Just as electrons and atoms are able to occupy more than one place in time and space all at the same time and literally pop in and out of existence before our very eyes!

    The more you know about the speed of these very small particles, the less you can know about there position and vice verse...but we can NEVER at ANY time tell you the exact location .....ever.

    Our human brain is a very powerful quantum computer with LIMITLESS power! We have just yet to learn this.......to understand the true potential of our own abilities. We are programed from birth to be "powerless" and under "control" and people like squiggly are trying to keep you in the dark with these utterly OUTDATED AND OLD ASS INFORMATION THAT IS NONSENSE!! DO NOT LET THEM! ALL WHO SEARCH FOR THESE ANSWERS COME TO THE VERY SAME INESCAPABLE CONCLUSIONS!!

    Testing being done today shows a time line with 2 channels, meaning what happens in the FUTURE affects the PRESENT! HUH???? Squiggly will hate that one Im sure...LOL!!

    The test to support this theory was this.....they took 10 samples, and took measurements daily at the same time every day which was at 2PM, but then they took a additional measurement but only to a couple of the 10 samples at a later time, like at 3PM.

    After the testing was complete, they were shocked to find that the measurements they took at 3PM was directly affecting/changing the measurements took at 2PM???? How can that be???
     
    lex0415 and nuttso like this.
  14. Seamaiden

    Seamaiden Living dead girl

    23,629
    32,619
    638
    I have cleaned this up after discussion with the other moderators. It is imperative that ad hominem NOT be used as a debating method, ok? There's a lot to learn here with regard to sea salts, etc.

    I'm going to *start* by posting up the Italian seawater study that first intrigued me last year, and was the reason for my trying out the Sea-90 (which stopped blossom end rot on all my suffering tomatoes and squashes after TWO applications).

    http://www.livescience.com/7194-healthier-tomatoes-grown-seawater.html

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428092116.htm

    http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/02/18/seawater-greenhouses-produce-tomatoes-in-the-desert/

    PDF of the Italian seawater study.
     
    nuttso likes this.
  15. nuttso

    nuttso

    448
    209
    43
    HydroRocks thx for the info. Don't forget that people sometimes spend their whole life learning something. Telling people that, what they learned may not be true, is sometimes hard for them to understand. They think you diss them on a personal level. They don't get that you are refering to the source of their so called knownledge. Squiggly, you have alot of knwonledge to share. I'm sure. But never forget that we only talk about ideas OTHER people have. No matter if it is empiric or not.
     
    Seamaiden likes this.
  16. nuttso

    nuttso

    448
    209
    43
    and yes it's true. There is something faster than light. I asked because i though u would say neutrinos. But this was incorrect measurment. Sry for my english folks.
     
  17. I appreciate that. I am fine with talking about ideas--but I won't be berated for sharing mine. That isn't fair. Most of what HydroRocks had to say was directed squarely at ME. He didn't address my evidence, my claims--he was just making snide remarks toward/about me for the greater part of 3 unanswered posts.

    It's been dealt with at this point and if HR wants to contribute in the future, he is more than welcome to.

    As SeaMaiden said: Ad Hominem attacks are not an acceptable debate strategy on THCFarmer.

    That said, as I originally suggested--I intend to give this process a go and see if it doesn't do some good for my ladies. I think its perfectly reasonable to think there's all types of goodies in seawater.
     
  18. answer from thread I started

    I dtw coco, water once a day. I mix 1-2ml gallon with my nutes. I would use more but I don't want chloride build up. Each ml/gallon of seacrop is around 19ppm of cholride. MJ tolerates I think around 100-150ppm choride

    anyways this the important information about seacrop
    http://www.getseacrop.com/assay/

    what I like about Seacrop vs Sea-90
    sea-90 has 35% sodium seacrop is 0.8%
    I am also pretty sure seacrop has archaea bacteria in it along with fulvic and other goodies

    Oh yeah don't follow seacrops hydroponics directions. There studies are based on dirt. Which I bet was depleted of trace elements.
     
    Seamaiden likes this.
  19. Seamaiden

    Seamaiden Living dead girl

    23,629
    32,619
    638
    Thanks so much for sharing, Donkdbz. How long have you been using it, and what brought you to try it out?

    This could turn out very interesting, especially for any who have had any experience with marine animals & reefkeeping.

    I can say unequivocally that the Sea-90 left a distinctly salty flavor on the tomatoes that I snacked on after using it. I didn't really notice a residue, though. I will have to get some Seacrop ordered up and see about some side-by-sides. Sodium in and of itself isn't a bad thing, it just needs to be judicious. Someone on another site said he put a bit of Seacrop on an agar plate and it came alive, so that's fascinating to me right there.

    Not to digress, but I have also been using milk, organic, raw if I can get it. 10%.
     
  20. I used it on my last run. I also had quite a few friends who use it, they said it added flavor and smell. A couple tired the hydro instructions of 10-15ml a gallon and burnt the hell out of there plants.

    I wanted all the trace element but without the cytokinnins. Some strains just don't like em in flower. I noticed some strains will foxtail others will take a extra week to ripen and so on.

    I did a bunch of reading on chloride and sodium levels in plants but that was a few months back. And checked Mulders charts and such to determine how much seacrop I wanted to use.
     
    Topofthecrop, Seamaiden and nuttso like this.