This one is huge. Even by Peoplenomics standards, today’s report is a monster.
We start with a 20-page math-heavy market paper, then dive into a 38-page ChartPack on 1929/2026 echoes, state-variance extremes, and why shorting is starting to look better.
But the chef’s kiss is the 26-page Focus section: Electroculture: From Soil Charge to Human Spark — low-voltage tomato experiments, Schumann resonance, soil charge, and the possibility that plants respond to more than chemistry.
Markets, math, Fed week, Iran, Europe, and live wires in the garden. All that’s missing is a glass of red wine and a snooze – that’ll come later.
More for Subscribers||| Master Index 2018 to Present ||| Master Index 2001 thru 2017 ||| Missing out? SUBSCRIBE NOW!!! |||
https://x.com/SunWeatherMan/status/2047843591716999406?s=20
Interesting introduction to sparky agriculture in the PN section:
Lots of questions.
is the 14.3 hertz better as an AC signal or as pulsed DC? If DC, is the hot wire + or -?
Are there any suppliers making components, or is this strictly roll yer own?
In using the thunderstorm as the archetype, would only running the electrics around watering time make sense? Automatically cycle irrigation, and run the wire hot while irrigation is on?
Longish but importantish>
Great questions — exactly the kind that move this from curiosity into real experimentation.
On the 14.3 Hz signal, the best starting point is what I’m using now: a symmetric, zero-centered waveform (think square wave swinging equally positive and negative). That behaves more like a signal than a force. It avoids creating a net chemical push in the soil, which can happen with DC. In other words, you’re “tapping” the system rather than pushing ions in one direction over time.
Could pulsed DC work? Possibly — but that’s a second-phase experiment. Once you introduce DC, you’re no longer just dealing with field effects; you’re introducing directional ion movement, local pH changes, and electrochemical effects at the electrodes. That may produce interesting results, but it’s a different mechanism. If someone goes that route, polarity will matter — but not in a simple “+ is better than –” way. It will depend on soil chemistry, moisture, and plant stage. So treat DC and polarity as variables to test, not assumptions to build around.
On equipment, this is still very much a roll-your-own space. There isn’t a mature “electroculture hardware aisle” yet. You’re basically assembling from general-purpose parts: function generators, low-voltage drivers, simple electrodes. That’s part of the appeal — we’re in early experimental territory, not consumer product territory. Over time, if results hold up, I’d expect purpose-built systems to appear. For now, it’s closer to early ham radio bench work than plug-and-play gardening.
Your thunderstorm analogy is a sharp one. Storms bring a combination of moisture, field disturbance, and timing — not just electricity. So the idea of syncing the signal to watering cycles makes good sense. Water increases soil conductivity, roots are actively transporting, and you’re mimicking a transient event rather than a constant background.
That said, there are two competing ideas worth testing:
Event-driven model (your idea): signal only during irrigation or “storm-like” moments
Rhythmic model (what I’m currently doing): signal during the day, off at night to allow recovery
The right answer is likely empirical, not theoretical. The clean way forward is side-by-side testing:
one bed with continuous daytime signal
one bed with signal only during watering
possibly a hybrid (low baseline, stronger during irrigation)
Measure growth, yield, timing, and plant morphology and let the plants vote.
The bigger picture here is that we may not be “adding energy” so much as restoring or reinforcing environmental cues that biology evolved under — weak fields, timing, and coherence signals. If that’s true, then waveform, timing, and context will matter more than raw power.
Bottom line: start simple, keep it symmetric, vary one thing at a time, and let the data lead.
Remember,q if you use DC (or even ac offset from the normal zero axis crossing at ground potential ) you set up ion migration – the stuff that sinks metal boats and corrodes grounding systems. Symmetrical waveforms are easy until we offset to deliberately find if there’s an (offset) ion migratyion involved. But if so, those could be problematic and more a soils issue than ocherence of signals experiment.
George
in re the heavy math:
All looks good and is pretty understandable even to me.
Only Question I have is should the Solar/time calculations be adjusted to NYC/Philly area where the trades take place?
I stated thinking on the adjustment from Dallas to Birmingham coordinates and then stopped with a “Waitaminute!
I send in my trades, George sends in his, we all send these trades to our trading screen and they are all executed Where? NYC.
So for best accuracy should the exponents be calculated in NYC or does this have some physical attachment to the trader and where s/he is standing when they enter the trade?”
Just asking.
What do you think?
Guys in our part of the money spectrum? Big Al buys 200 shares, George sells both of his… The analystic problem is you cloud be in alamaba, I’m in Tejas, but the trade clears in NYC (OR a server farm wherever) – and that really won’t matter too deeply because the effective location is always in motion – forex even worse with whole countries and hemispheric trade ranging…
Besides our trades only account for 2002 shares out of (potentially millions).
I got up a couple of nights thinking about this and finally put it in the same pile with “Where in the IQ central point of America?” I elimianted the East and West Coasts…