A company in Spain (Arlis Hispania SL) asked a professional laboratory in Germany (Hagalis Laboratory) to conduct a crystallization analysis of two water samples: ordinary (‘neutral’) tap water, and the same type of water run through a Clayton Nolte water structuring device.

The BEFORE / AFTER photos record extraordinary changes ~ structured water (“after”) on the left, neutral water (“before”) on the right:
[ALL PHOTOS ON THIS PAGE BY HAGALIS LABORATORY, GERMANY]

Here are the concluding remarks in the Hagalis Laboratory report (our caps): 

Some highlights from the “Crystallization analysis” on p.4 of the report, accompanied by a selection of photos:

• The ‘neutral’ sample (tap water) shows a lot of 90-degree angle structures. There are none in the CNS Water sample. This means the structuring process has neutralized the toxic substances present in the tap water.

• CNS Water sample shows star-shaped 60-degree angle structures associated with ‘Good to Very Good’ spring water quality.
  

• Crystals in ‘neutral’ sample were heavily compacted, associated (among other things) with deposits of lime and other minerals. CNS Water sample shows hardly any compacted areas, and the small crystals that do appear are “less prone to precipitation”. “Technical equipment operates perfectly using this quality of water,” a major factor for maintenance and durability of any devices using water, including water pipes in the home, coolers, water heaters, kitchen equipment etc.
  

• The surface formation of the crystals in the CNS Water sample has increased sharply, indicating an increase in the availability of the minerals for human absorption.
  

• The CNS Water sample “provides more trace elements and minerals… The general level of vitality has increased considerably… –  high quality biological value.”  (Hagalis Lab Report on Clayton Nolte structured water sample)

OUTLINE OF THE FULL REPORT BY THE HAGALIS LAB
p.1: Analysis was done on chrystallized material from the liquid and solid state of the 2 samples, resulting in chrystallization pictures (see end of the report) that show recognizable characteristics associated with various types of water – for example, spring water, water that is polluted, etc.
p.2: Table showing the results
p.3: Technical description of the analysis: what was analysed and how
p.4: Chrystallization analysis
p.5: Chemical analysis
pp.6-8: Photos, analysis
p.9: Comparative photos, Summary

Thanks to a quirk of Victoria’s garden budget, the almond trees on her property in August 2010 provide an objective way to differentiate how much credit for the tree size and productivity is due to Victoria’s in-depth organic gardening techniques and green thumb (used equally on all the trees) and how much is due to structured water ~ which was introduced directly into the garden in two distinct phases, the first in August 2009 and the second about 8 months later, in the Spring of 2010.

It will be interesting to see next year, in August 2011, whether the smaller trees have caught up with the larger trees after another year on structured water. The trunk size especially is a helpful benchmark in comparing the trees. As can be seen below, there are three types of almond, identified as A1, A2 and A3. In August 2010, all three types of almond trees on non-structured water range from 5″ to 6.5″ trunks; the three types on structured water range from 9″ to 10.5″ trunks. That is a significant difference in growth and rate of maturity, any way you look at it!

Details and photos below.

PHOTO GALLERY   All pictures taken by Victoria White 12-13 August 2010. Click on image to enlarge.

Left column:
Almond trees beyond the 300′ limit
recd structured water from Spring 2010
>> Smaller trunks (less maturity), not so tall, less full
Some fruit (almonds) but less than the bigger trees in right column