Faissner, K. (2000): Physical and physico-chemical data using vitalized and non vitalized water, and the use of Grander water vitalization in companies. Master thesis (Social und business sciences, Studium irregulare), Technical University Graz, 115 pp.
Summary:
"There were significant differences between vitalised and non vitalised water in surface tension"
Faissner mainly examined two aspects:
Source: Master thesis Faißner.
Focus of this study were laboratory experiments: the only result of Mr. Faissner was a significant difference of the water surface tension: Vitalized water constantly showed a surface tension of 10 to 17% lower than non vitalized water. An unexpected result - even though lower surface tension is not necessarily "biologically valuable" (one drop of dishwasher also reduces the surface tension).
Examination of the results:
Usually, true scientists are not much interested to test such "original" studies, even if the results seem highly unprobably as in this case.
Luckily, in this case, two highly qualified scientists decided to test these results, at the Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interface in Golm / Potsdam, Germany. They found no physical effects of the Grander water vitalizer at all. But what about the results of Klaus Faissner? Cheat? Or is it a "draw" result between two studies? None of the two: The chapter "material and methods" of Faissner's thesis clearly shows that he took the vitalised water from a GARDENA™ plastic hose, but the normal water directly from the tap. The examinations at the Max Planck Institute showed that plastic hoses contain active substances reducing the water's surface tension. The sensational result of this master thesis comes from a
methodical error and is false.
Further experiments by Klaus Faissner (conductivity, density, pH, ionic concentration, phases) do not show any effects of Grannder water vitalisation. Together with the Potsdam study, this master thesis is a proof of the physico-chemical inefficacy of Grander water vitalization.
Source: Heckel & Heinig (2003)
Evaluation:
Diploma theses do not always fulfill all scientific standards. However, Mr. Faissner did a neat and well documented work, as far as one can tell. Regretably, the student made a severe methodical error (to excuse him, he did not study natural sciences, but a studium irregulare of social and business sciences), leading to a false result. In the meanwhile, the statement, Grander water vitalisation would reduce surface tension, was falsified in several studies (see Heckel & Heinig, 2003; Hammer, 2004; Leuenberger et al., 2005; Kitzmüller, 2006).
Close window
You found this subpage using a search engine? Visit the main page!