Potential Power of the Pyramidal Structure II: Opposite Layer Effects at Apex (Takagi et al. 2020)

Key Findings

• Layer 1 (lower biosensor at apex): psi index = −3.01, statistically significant on negative side (p < 0.01).
• Layer 2 (upper biosensor, 20mm above): psi index = +5.52, statistically significant on positive side (p < 0.01).
• Between-layer difference: p = 4.0 × 10⁻⁷ — the two layers show opposite signs and significantly different magnitudes despite being only 20mm apart vertically.
• Overall average psi (E-CAL)LayerAve ≈ 0: when layers are averaged together, the signal cancels — explaining why the 2019 paper's overall signal was marginal (p=6×10⁻³). Resolving by layer reveals a much stronger underlying effect.
• ANOVA on gas concentration ratio 100ln(GE2/GE1): p = 5.2×10⁻⁶; Tukey's test confirmed GE2 (upper layer at apex) as the anomalous biosensor.
• n = 468 observations (July 2010–September 2017), same dataset as Pyramid Power I.

The second paper in the IRI group’s “Potential Power of the Pyramidal Structure” series analyzes the same n=468 cucumber biosensor dataset (July 2010–September 2017) by separating the response of upper and lower biosensors placed 20mm apart at the pyramid apex, under the strict 20-day human-exclusion protocol.

The surprising result: the two layers show opposite signs. The lower layer (closer to the pyramid apex frame) produced a psi index of −3.01 (suppressed gas emission vs. calibration point), while the upper layer (farther from the frame) produced +5.52 (enhanced gas emission). Both are statistically significant at the 1% level, and the difference between them is p = 4.0 × 10⁻⁷.

This result explains a puzzle from the 2019 paper: the overall average psi index was near zero (Ψ(E-CAL)LayerAve ≈ 0), making the combined signal only marginally significant at p=6×10⁻³. By separating layers, the underlying structure becomes clear: positive and negative effects coexist and cancel in the average. The gas concentration ratio analysis (100ln(GE2/GE1)) confirmed via ANOVA (p=5.2×10⁻⁶) and Tukey’s test that the upper experimental biosensor (GE2) at the apex was behaving anomalously versus all calibration samples.

The authors propose a model where the potential power of the PS has distribution characteristics — it does not produce a uniform field but rather a spatially structured one with different properties at different heights above the apex. This model is qualitative; no physical basis is identified.

Relevance to agricultural research: The opposite-sign layer effect has no direct agricultural application tested. Its relevance is mechanistic: if the pyramid generates a spatially structured biophysical field at the apex (confirmed at p=4.0×10⁻⁷ for the layer difference), this supports the plausibility of field-mediated effects on seeds or microbes placed at or near the apex — as tested in the SVYASA germination and antimicrobial studies. The field structure also predicts that placement height within the pyramid could matter for agricultural outcomes, which has not been tested.

Source: Takagi O, Sakamoto M, Yoichi H, Kawano K, Yamamoto M. Natural Science 12(5) (2020), pp. 248–272. DOI: 10.4236/ns.2020.125022.