My personal experience in the lab is that the absorbance of CO2 , agitation, prior state of the electrodes, etc. have an overwhelming effect. [I have never done PSI experiments, just prep'ing HPLC eluents, curious to see what raw water looked like.] Just counting on diffusion to get a measure of the bulk pH is rather meager science. And the list goes on and on.

Hope you can find real evidence of PSI, I think it is out there. Good Luck!

I really would like to be convinced but until this moment I am not. Next time it would be helpful if the graphs presented were shown larger in order to allow me to read the numbers properly which right now is not the case. I notice fluctuations but cannot even check the size of these fluctuations.

I was expecting the results for a while… Even though, I can see different data for the two beakers, the difference in the initial period looks bigger than the changes during the experiment.

I’m convinced about sending intentions for needed people, but I don’t think we can measure the changes as in a lab experiment. Anyway, I’ll continue sending my best intentions to all.

What is the error range in your pH electrode.
Often these are not really accurate to ±0.1 pH units, and yet in the active experiment, the y-axis looks to have increments of ±0.0? pH units.

Have you repeated multiples times?
Can you provide the raw data?

You state that even if there was only a 0.02 change in pH then this is a miracle and a “preposterous violation of orthodox science”. I disagree.

First, the reading depends on the accuracy of the pH meter. Usually pH is recorded only to one decimal place, as many pH meters are not sensitive to smaller changes (even though they may show two decimal places). So the meter itself will show constant little variations in pH just by chance. Perhaps you would be so kind as to report the make and model of pH meter used so we can verify the accuracy?

Second, I’m not sure you understand statistical significance. When you sample something such as pH, you will always get a slightly different reading each time you sample it (due to chance fluctuations in the thing being measured, or the measurement instrument itself). A statistical test tells you whether an observed change in the measurement is simply due to chance fluctuations, or whether this reading would be very unlikely to happen due to chance, in which case it’s said to be significant.

Unfortunately it’s probably difficult to do any statistical tests on these results, because as others have pointed out, the measurement period was very short, there were only two beakers, and the “control” condition was run at a different time. Also, if we assume intention has very subtle effects, any effect of intention may be hidden because of other fluctuations in pH caused by uncontrolled variables such as differences in water composition, atmospheric conditions, temperature, etc etc.

Third, you say that this experiment is only a “baby step”. Considering the effort you went to recruiting people for the experiment, setting up the live video streams etc it would have been a comparatively small effort to improve the experimental design and thus improve your chances of demonstrating a solid result. Or why now make the improvements and repeat the experiment? This is the normal process of science – incrementally building on previous results, positive or negative.

Finally, you are often critical of science, yet you are attempting to use science to support the power of intention. I’ve noticed that if the experiments provide a positive result, then you shout from the rooftops that you have scientific support (though you are yet to publish any results in a respectable scientific journal). However, if your experiment produces a null result (as in this one), then you are quick to point out that orthodox science has many limitations. You can’t have it both ways.