Could Better Fertilizer Save The Sound?

David Jones is a 1971 Staples High School graduate. He writes:

Sitting at my post as a Compo Beach lifeguard 50 years ago, water pollution — or anything to do with climate change — was not on my radar. All I thought about was what time do I get off my shift, and when can I get to Ye Olde Bridge Grille?

I spent hours looking at Long Island Sound as a job, never realizing how beautiful it was.

Half a century later, I am all about protecting Mother Earth.

David Jones

A while ago, I was approached with an idea: What if we got rid of traditional granular fertilizer that is filled with chemicals and salts, and has the capacity to blow up half of Beirut (which it did)?

It was an interesting concept. I am now on the advisory board of NTP Technologies. We can save our planet.

Our machine injects pure nitrogen into tap water, creating a fertilizer with no “icky” stuff,

I got a D- in chemistry at Staples. But I realize that no fertilizer runoff in your water tables, aquifers and of course Long Island Sound is a very good thing.

Right now we have a patent and orders on the books. But we need investors, to build out our manufacturing and scalability.

My neighbor Paul Newman used to say, “you only go around once. Do the right thing.” Let’s do this right, Westport!

(To learn more, email, or call David Jones: 401-500-3256.)


15 responses to “Could Better Fertilizer Save The Sound?

  1. Shawn O'Sullivan

    The problem is, that it is the nitrogen that makes the Sound unhealthy? Check this out and think before you post.

    • Thank you for the UCONN study. This study was done in 2019 and our technology was not operating at the time. To use your phase….think before you post.

    • Shawn

      Hi Shawn, I am one of the founders of NTP and I completely agree that nitrogen is a large part of the issue, and a great deal is from the runoff of overfertilization in the agricultural market. This includes farms as well as residential. The big difference that was not conveyed is how our fertilizer differs from current synthetic fertilizer created with the Haber Bosch method. Haber Bosch is high heat and high pressure and puts out 250 million metric tons of GHG and methane yearly. Ours is close to a zero carbon footprint. Our machines plug into a standard 120v outlet with no natural gas or oil usage, our technology is green and sustainable. I also think agriculture is more complex than people realize, however simply put, fertilizer is not fully absorbed by the plants we are feeding. This is due to the ability for the soil (and all its inhabitants) to convert synthetic fertilizer to the ionic nitrogen needed by the plants. Our system does not generate a salt fertilizer, but a liquid that contains the nitrogen in its ionic form (nitrates and nitrites) thus the amount of fertilizer needed is reduced while still feeding the crops and soil we rely on to feed the people, or feed our pristine lawns. It is not perfect, but if we can reduce the amount of synthetic fertilizer needed (and overused) then we can reduce the amount of nitrogen (in its harmful form) that is flowing into our waterways and oceans. I would be happy to discuss this more if you are interested.

      The other great contributor is wastewater from treatment plants and septic systems. Our system does not address this issue. The article you included should be read by more people to understand this issue and its complexity.

  2. Juliana Sloane Fulbright

    I was a 1970 graduate from Staples but did not know Dave Jones. I still live in Westport but don’t have lots of money to invest and I would have to do a lot of research. Juliana Sloane Fulbright

  3. To Dan & others:

    I would recommend you avoid these kinds of endorsements.
    I realize you are a strong Staples advocate for good reasons but this involves money and investment and that complicates matters.
    Fertilizer chemistry and use is complex and needs more expert understanding.
    My best wishes to David Jones in his endevors, but I just don’t think this is the proper venue for his investment funds rIsing efforts.

    • Ray thank you for the endorsement of helping avoid fundraising and investments. This technology is very sophisticated and new. I remember when Bill Gates went up to Armonk NY to IBM and said ” i have an idea for a new operating system, it’s called WINDOWS. The IBM engineers said we are all set……..ouch.

  4. Nathalie Fonteyne

    THE EXCESS nitrogen is what causes the issues in the first place. The question is why we need to add extra nitrogen, to the tap water!!!! For a greener lawn? For gardening purposes, plant natives, they are resilient and dont need all the extra stuff.
    From the EPA:,faster%20than%20ecosystems%20can%20handle.&text=Large%20growths%20of%20algae%20are,of%20large%20numbers%20of%20fish.

    • Thank you for your interest in NTP. The EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers has been very generous with grant money. Again our technology replaces granular Nitrogen and Salts.

    • Hi Natalie, I completely agree with you, nitrogen in excess causes the issue in the first place. This is why we are trying to substitute the current over use of fertilizer with our product. We are not infusing nitrogen into tap water. We are creating a 100% organic ionized nitrogen-based fertilizer that has uptake numbers in the 80%+ range (versus 20% range of synthetic fertilizers) to reduce the amount of fertilizer needed and to eliminate the amount of salt-based fertilizer runoff into our waterways from agriculture and lawn fertilization. This is not the only solution. We also believe in regenerative agriculture and being better stewards of our own space (like planting native ground cover). Our fertilizer has no salt component, is green and sustainable, and will not degrade your local soil. And our technology can help reduce and hopefully eliminate the need for synthetic fertilizer, which not only pollutes our waterways due to runoff and overuse but is also responsible for 250 million metric tons of greenhouse gas and methane emissions in the world.

  5. I wrote to David at the email posted with the article, and am eagerly awaiting the reply. I do not that his email following the article and the one in his response to Juliana above are slightly different.

  6. If these guys have actually achieved scalable synthesis of ammonia by non-thermal plasma (NTP) which is what they seem to be claiming, they are burying the lede by focusing on the uptake ratio. What they are claiming is to have achieved the product of the Haber-Bosch reaction without the high energy and high pressure required for that process i.e. even cheaper – perhaps radically cheaper – synthetic nitrogen fertilizers than we have ever seen.

    It does not help clarify what is really going on here that Paul and David do not together have a coherent message. First David states quite plainly that they are infusing ordinary water with pure nitrogen, without the “icky stuff”, which is chemically implausible. Pure nitorgen in an aqueous solution make s nice frothy Guiness, but is about as far from plant nutrient as you can get: it is chemically inert and not available to plants.

    Then Paul jumps in and says just as plainly that they are NOT infusing water with nitrogen but with nitrite and nitrate ions, which of course make chemical sense but have the drawback that they are EXACTLY the icky stuff that, in excess, pollutes our rivers and streams and a good chunk of the Gulf of Mexico.

    Paul’s explanation is that their nitrate ion (NO-3) is 80% taken up by plants whereas Fritz Haber’s nitrate ion (also NO-3) is only taken up at 20%. I’d like to see the paper on that, especially how HTP no-3 differs from Haber-Bosch NO-3.

    When plants are fed these nutrient ions directly, the many thousands of soil organsisms that produce these nutrients in natural soil are bypassed, cut out of the process. The natural process of nutrient uptake by healthy plants involves trillions of molecular exchanges between the plant and the microbe. The plant root exhudes a carbohydrate, say, or a protein, that the micrrobe needs, and the microbe trades the molecular building blocks – notably nitrogen – to the plant. But when the plant finds all this synthetic nitrogen fertilizer floating about in the sil moisture, it takes it for free, and doesn’t need to give up the goodies to the microbe in exchange. So what does the plant do? It stops producing the goodies. No more sugars, no more proteins, no more food value. The nutrient value of the plant drops and the soil microbiome starves to death, taking the quality of the soil with it. THis by the way, is why hydroponic tomatoes are possible, and why hydroponic tomatoes taste like crap.

    This is the fundamental crisis in modern agriculture. It is what all the fuss is about. Don’t take my word for it. Ask your favorite grower -organic, beyond organic, real organic, biodynamic, bio-intensive, sustainable, holisitc, regenerative, whatever – at the next Farmers’Market you attend, and be sure she reads Paul’s post to Shawn above, describing the delivery of ionic nutrients to the plant in the form that the microbiome would normally produce. To NTP, that seems to be the main feature; to those of us who love the soil, its a big fat potato bug.

  7. PS: I have given up trying to reach David Jones. He posted three different versions of his email address, at least two of which must be incorrect.