> Espiritu is unconvinced by anecdotes about increased production, he says, because he hasn’t seen any explanation for how an antenna could physically aid a plant’s growth<p>Meta comment. I'm a software dev but consider myself a scientist, at least in part, and I don't like dismissals like this. It's true we need to understand the underlying mechanisms of things, that's what science is about. It is not (in my view) about this, where we say we have no plausible underlying mechanism so we shouldn't be interested. There are times when we need to take that tack such as with likely crankery[1], but the first thing you do is check it out.<p>It's not a scientific attitude to say "I can't see how it works so screw it"<p>> “Does it help it better photosynthesize? Does it help it better uptake nutrients? Does it speed up the cellular metabolism of the plant? No one seems to have that answer,”<p>As someone else has pointed out, it's been suspected for decades that electric fields affect healing (I remember hearing about this in the 1980s where it was provisionally found to help bone growth in broken bones). There seems to be no plausible mechanism and it may turn out to be false – but it may not. You dismiss <i>after</i> you've taken a look, not before.<p>Edit: As mentioned, this is a meta comment. It's not about plant growth, it's about the 'right' attitude.<p>[1] if all perpetual motion machines so far have failed then it's likely the next one isn't going to work either. There is a cost to looking into peculiar things, but a potential benefit as well.