These modifications are said to be induced by devices filled with "information water", which are either built into the water pipe or dipped directly into the water. This information water is also the basis of all the other product applications involving Grander Technology. According to the vendor company U.V.O., already thousands of users are committed to the "revitalised" water.

While Johann Grander is referred to in German-speaking countries as a simple "student of nature", some English websites call him a "scientist and naturalist". However, first doubts arise when checking the international scientific database ISI, where all scientists publishing in approved journals worldwide are registered – no trace of the name of Grander!

How water is revitalised can be read at the website www.grander.com: "The process of Grander Water revitalization is a process of the transmission of information (transmission of the highest level of natural information). Nothing is added to the water and nothing is taken from it."

A picture illustrates the functioning of the Grander devices: tap water passes a stainless steel container with welded-in Grander Water without coming into contact with it. This shall transmit the beneficial physical, microbiological, and medical effects of the miracle water to the tap water. If the illustration is to be believed, the water molecules are arranged in a perfect hexagonal structure after this contact. As generally acknowledged, exclusively frozen water has such a structure, i.e. ice!

"Proofs" of effects

According to the brochures and websites of the U.V.O. GmbH and Energisch GmbH (Grander PR company) scientific proof does exist for the effect of the Grander Technology: Russian scientists have proven that the Grander Technology permanently alters the structure of water (website of the Energisch PR-Agentur GmbH, as of October 2004).

Unfortunately, neither the scientists Rachmanin and Kontratow mentioned in this context, nor articles on this topic can be found in the ISI scientific database. This is not surprising, since such a statement is massively contradicted by the latest works in physics, which thoroughly investigate into the molecular structure of liquid water by means of X-ray absorption spectroscopy/XAS (Wernet et al., Science 304, 2004).

A very good summary on the properties of water also provides the website of Prof. Martin Chaplin of the London South Bank University (http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/ water). Accordingly, liquid water forms clusters of the size of only three to four molecules, which completely re-assemble within a billionth of a second. A "permanent structure" can therefore not be attributed to liquid water – otherwise it would not be a liquid!

Surface tension

In 2000, when Klaus Faißner published in his thesis at the Graz University of Technology that Grander devices could lower the surface tension of piped-through water by about twenty percent, this rather looked like a spectacular rebuttal of all sceptics. Faißner was in fact no physicist (he finished irregular studies of social sciences with this thesis), but he seemed to have done a good work.

A lower surface tension would explain the assertion that Grander Water had higher dissolving powers and saved washing agents. However, when the surface tension of a liquid is altered, its energy potential changes, too. Are Grander’s revitalisation devices therefore a kind of Perpetuum mobile, since no energy is added?

Two physicists interested in the subject repeated the trials at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kolloid- und Grenzflächenforschung in Golm/Potsdam (Fig. 1) in 2003. However, in contrast to Faißner, they could not find any difference in surface tension. Where was the mistake hidden? The student had taken the Grander Water from a standard Gardena®-garden hosepipe, but not the normal tap water.

In these hosepipes, there are surface-active substances for production purposes, which reduce the surface tension of water. The sensational result in Faißner’s thesis is thus based on a methodological mistake and is simply wrong! Later trials, too, showed the same result: "As has been showed, energy enhancement in water has no effect on surface tension" (Hammer, 2004).

Although the U.V.O. should be aware of this fact since August 2003 at the latest, the assertion that Grander Water has a higher dissolving power is still found on its website and in its brochures. In sales conversations, too, the truth is not always what is being said.

A salesperson of the U.V.O. company wrote in his e-mail of 23 April 2004 to a potential customer: "From a scientific point of view we know that surface tension is demonstrably reduced," and "the above mentioned observations of many users about savings on chemicals confirm our own laboratory tests."

Self-cleaning – microbiology

And how about the alleged scientifically verifiably "Improvement of the quality of water by alteration and reactivation of the microbiological life in water"? Looking for this proof, one is referred to the work of the court-certified expert Dr. Horst F. In the Austrian petty patent AT 141 U1 (or rather in EP 0712807, family member), F. is listed together with Grander as "inventor".

A certain collision of interests can thus hardly be denied. In a colourful brochure, F. attests the Grander technology a lasting and verifiable microbiological effect. However, his statements are "void of any scientific basis", as a renowned Vienna university professor for microbiology writes in a lapidary answer to my query: "They are a mere speculative opinion of the author. The implied assumption that an increased occurrence of the ‘pin points’ (= punctiform bacteria colonies, the editor) is a positive criterion for water quality is imaginary. It is contradictory to publications discussing pin points in connection with an increased pathogenesis of bacteria" (Schweyen, 2004).

Hammer, too, states (2004): "The examination of the autochthonal bacteria flora did not show any signs of a longer shelf life of energised drinking water. An immediate disinfecting or microbicidal effect was not traceable. P. aeruginosa und E. faecalis did not show any decrease in their concentration. When observed over a longer period of time, no significant changes were identified."

Since 1993, it has already been known that with regard to self-cleaning or decontamination "no differences regarding an eco-toxic effect" have been observed. According to the expertise of the Bundesanstalt für Wassergüte (Fig. 2) on the effect of the device "Wasserbelebung 380" (Grander/U.V.O.) of 25 June 1993, "the device does not have a verifiable influence on the effect of water samples".

In spite of these results, a Grander consultant writes in a letter of 1 December 2003 to a hospital (!) in Vienna that water would be able to develop the following properties by Grander: "a stronger self-cleaning capacity, reduced surface tension and altered microbiological behaviour". His offer to the hospital for the building-in of a Grander device amounted to e 4.760 (excl. 20 percent VAT) and was written on official stationery and stamped by the U.V.O. company.

Lawsuit

The vendor company of Grander Water (U.V.O.) has filed two separate lawsuits with the Commercial Court Vienna against the author of the present article. An action for a provisional injunction has recently been dismissed at first instance; the ruling of the next instance is pending.

In another proceeding, there has been no court decision yet, since an expert opinion has been ordered. This shall answer the question, whether the statement "The effects of the Grander Technology are scientifically proven" can be referred to as correct – a question, which the present article has tried to answer.

In a further lawsuit filed with the Munich County Court 1 by the Munich "Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft e.V." the court has already clearly decided. Thus, the U.V.O was enjoined on 3 October 2003 from using the following statements in business activities regarding Grander Water and Grander Technologies (shortened): "Grander Water supports wound healing and/or removes, and/or alleviates infections, and/or skin diseases, and/or neurodermatitis, and/or skin problems, and/or arthrosis, and/or metabolic diseases, and/or gout, and/or eczema and/or diabetes. This includes the quotation of case histories or references to them – if this happens as in the magazine Grander Journal II."

Comment: api also asked Johann Grander for a statement. Dr. Kronberger (Energisch PR) answered for him, saying that "wide sections of Eder’s article were misleading". Dr. Eder has been sued for defamatory statements regarding the Grander®-Technologie. api will print Kronberger’s entire comment in the next issue!
(Source: aqua press Int. 4/2004, Dr. Erich Eder)