The Second Korotkov Water Experiment, January 18, 2008

Download the PDF of the Full Results

This experiment was set up roughly similar to the first Water Experiment run by Russian physicist Konstantin Korotkov on November 30 — but with two differences. This time, we used a very specific intention with our Experimental Sample of water. We also had a Control Sample; we set up an identical beaker of water with distilled water from the same source, which would not be sent intention.

Inside each beaker Dr. Konstantin Korotkov placed an electrode, attached to his Galvanic Discharge Visualization (GDV) machines.

The GDV machines, which make use of state-of-the-art optics, digitized television matrices and a powerful computer, work first by stirring up the photonic signals from a substance like water so that they will shine millions of times more intensely than normal. The GDV machine then records this faint pulse via photography, measurements of light intensity and computerized pattern recognition.

As with our November experiment, Dr. Korotkov took measurements before we sent intention, during the time we sent intention and afterward.

However, this time, we extended the time when our initial recording was made, so that we took readings several times in the 90-minute period before intention was sent. We also took readings continuously during the 10 minutes of our intention and then for a half hour after our intention.

Here’s how he divided it:

0 – 20 min – Stabilization of the process
20 – 90 min – “Before” data
91 – 101 min – “Intention” data
101 – 133 min – “After” data

Our control beaker of water sat in the same room as the ‘intention’ beaker, two metres away and also underwent identical readings.

Making the Water ‘Glow’
This experiment was different from our first because we’d decided to focus our intention on a specific outcome. In our first Water experiment, we had simply asked our participants to send ‘love’ to the water. This time, we decided to focus on change in the light signal from the water, by asking our participants to send an intention to make the water ‘glow and glow’ — similar to the instructions with our Leaf Experiment. We also asked our participants to visualize the water beaker glowing to aid the process.

In our Experimental Sample, we found a highly significant statistical difference between data in the intention period and the period after the intention, compared with our previous measurements. This difference was highly significant, which Dr. Korotkov demonstrated via several parameters, after examining the area (spread) of light, and then its ‘intensity’.

In the Control Sample of water there was no difference in the area of light, but there was a difference between the intensity before the Intention and then afterward, particularly 10 minutes before and afterward. On the other hand, there was no difference in intensity before or after for the Experimental Sample —only during the time intention was sent. Our water was glowing when we told it to, and no more.

This is a huge confounding of expectations. Dr. Korotkov assumed that since the samples were in such close physical proximity, there would have been a certain amount of intention ‘contamination’. The fact that there wasn’t also represents a highly significant result.

From this evidence, says Korotkov, we can conclude that ‘after the Intention time, readings for the Experimental Sample changed significantly compared with previous data. This may be considered as an effect of intentional remote influence. The absence of such changes in the Control Sample proves that it was not related to variations in environmental or experimental conditions.’

In our Experimental Sample, waves of variation in the readings for the area and intensity of light occurred practically from the very beginning of the stable period (the first 20 minutes).

In the Control Sample, these variations were much smaller. A similar phenomenon was witnessed for the statistics measuring the intensity of light.

As with our First Korotkov Water Experiment, the strongest effects were recorded 10 minutes after the Intention time, as though there was a delay of 10 minutes before the target recorded our effect.

In the graph denoting the measurements of the area of light of Experimental Sample, there is a group of high peaks after 110 min. This amplitude was not noted in the previous recordings during the first 20 minutes. It appears that it took the water some time to accept our influence, but afterward it became more stable than before.

Future Shock to Water?
The most interesting effect is shown if you look at a time-line graph measuring the area of light emissions over the entire experiment. It appears to have two parts: the initial stable part and then a part showing clear variations. Those variations appeared to start 90 minutes before we began our experiment. This could be that our participants were thinking about the upcoming experiment in the hour and half before we began.

Or it could be a precognitive effect, in that people already registered their future shock on the water in some manner.

This variation from clear cause-effect prevents us from stating unequivocally that intention was the cause. We can only make the assumption, from the data, that it was our thoughts that had an effect.

We now have demonstrated twice that sending an intention to water changes its light signal, and that asking water to ‘glow’ increases that light, compared with controls.

This suggests that we have the ability to change the very structure and signaling of water.

Powerful Effects for Small Numbers
Interestingly, although our effect was stronger, we had less than half the number of participants (709) that we had on our first Water Experiment. Three quarters were regular meditators, and nearly two-thirds had read The Intention Experiment. Almost a third were participating for the first time.

In total, our participants hailed from 48 countries. Although half were from America and the UK, and other English speaking countries, we also had a good showing from our Dutch contingency in The Netherlands, many from Germany, Belgium and most European countries. The most farflung were from Malaysia, Japan, Hong Kong, Latvia, India and Latin American countries, such as Peru and Uruguay.

Once again, it appears that the size of group has no bearing on success of intention.