Talk:Johann Grander

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is apparently very important to a great many people and companies in the world!

There are evidently factories making steel, bottling and canning fruit, and doing many other things, which supposedly use the Grander process to treat water used and thereby save greatly on costs of plant and equipment including prevention of corrosion, rusting and limescale buildup in piping and vessels, and other claimed benefits, all put down to the process invented by John Grander. And yet quite what the process is, and how he came to invent it, remain somewhat mysterious. An article about the process would be nice, describing the effect that the process has on water and why it is so beneficial; but that seems little known or documented. How John Grander came to define the process is mysterious; what he says when asked is vague. And yet it is reported to be in use in countries from Europe to Thailand and beyond, as far as we know. I cannot see how there can be any justification to reject coverage of this strange phenomenon even though we are unsure whether it is genuine or, like Homeopathy and Water memory, bogus. But the process is named after the man, seems largely defined in his head, implemented by an organization run by his sons, and generally centred on him as the inventor. Who is claiming that this topic is unworthy of being covered by Wikipedia?? --Iph (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Attempt to tweak the article against scientifically proven results

Some authors try to change this article on "water revitalisation" by claiming scientifically proven effects for this pseudoscience. Nillurcheier (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Both sources for the research are profound research using grander technology. The research is reviewed and published, the researcher affiliates to reputable research organisations (e.g. universities). Strichpunktforpresident (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not. Read: https://blog.gwup.net/2019/12/14/granderwasser-jetzt-bewiesen-oder-eher-doch-nicht/ --Nillurcheier (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess it is interesting to read or skip through the reviewed articles, which have been cited. This research and the following reviewed scientific publications from researchers affiliated to prestigious universities and research organisations are open available and provably used the also cited technical devices from this company. I do not know how relevant the other source is in relation to reviewed field specific publications. Nonetheless, thank you for your acceptance to enter in a dialogue. This is a e step to be held in great esteem, and it is really worth to have a talk and conversation on that with you. Best regards. Strichpunktforpresident (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore,for information, the article probably should be shifted to a new location with the real name of the person. His name was "Johann" and never "John" :-)

Best regards. Strichpunktforpresident (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree to this point.

My point is not debating the quality of the papers nor the authors or publishing orgs. I doubt tha tany of these papers prove the claim of Grander water. And that is exactly the argumentaiton of Aigner's article I linked. If any of the water revitization clains had turned out to be true or proven by science, a tsunami of papers and start-ups had occurred. But nothing has happened since nothing has been proven. Nillurcheier (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear Author,

first of alll I would like to apologize that it needed a bit to come up to you. I assume from the previous communication on that topic that a further dialogue could support a mutual understanding. First of all, I would like to declare why I am approaching you; the reason is that I am scientificly involved in the product research as a consultant. Thus, I would like to ask for the shift to a new page that represents the correct name of the person. Therefore, I would like to start the shift within the next days. Furthermore, I would like to re-establish some amendments, which are necessary, because some of the content is simply wrong; which is easy to explain, which I would like to do. Finally, I would like to invite you to a talk on the existng research results, which has been removed as well. This research represents a new step from the company since the year 2016, with the intention to prove, if effects are happening, and if, to carve out, which effects are happening. As you could have seen, the set up of the research was strictly neutral and professional, peer reviewed and from prestigious research organisation. As far as I know this comply with the rules Wikipedia has established. I would like to come to the result to publish the existing research actions and an abstract of the findings within, with a focus on neutrality and non-bias. If there is a need to further clarifications, I would be glad to deepen the conversation on that topic, since it is also in my interest to make the topic understandible in a fully transparent manner. Please be so kind and support my approach with your kind information for a further progress.

Best regards Salvelinus umbla (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear Author,

I got in contact with you with my first information stated above a couple of weeks ago. My interest for a discussion on an amendment and extension of the information on Johann Grander and his invention in the english Wikipedia still exist. Therefore, I have two more information, which could bring this process to the next level. First, I would like to draw your attention on a document, in which WETSUS research organisation in The Netherlands explicitely confirms that in the research the normal „Off-the-Shelf“ product „Water Core Magnet, Type DZKL” was used. This information seems important as an additional contentual clarification on this studies; nonetheless, it was already visible in the peer-reviewed articles as well.

But, I admit, more information is always better for a proof of truth, and I guess that this information will bring this topic in an altogether new light.

Thus, for your kind information:

1) https://www.grander.com/international/grander-studien-effekte

2) als pdf: https://www.grander.com/component/jdownloads/?task=download.send&id=531&catid=55&m=0&Itemid=467

Additionally, I send you the press release on that for your kind information as well: https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20240523_OTS0119/wetsus-das-europaeische-zentrum-fuer-nachhaltige-wassertechnologie-untersucht-den-einsatz-von-grander-geraeten-in-mehreren-studien-anhaenge

As a question to you: How could we proceed? I would like to enter this provable and evident information on the peer-reviewed scientific articles into the Johann Grander page; as a neutral information, without any bias pro or con. I am only eager to use information in a transparent way, which is available and traceable.

Best regards. Salvelinus umbla (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Salvelinus umbla: I am not quite sure what your point is. You state you would like to enter this provable and evident information on the peer-reviewed scientific articles into the Johann Grander page [sic] and then you link to 3 urls, none of which contain (or link to) any scientific research. Grander pays Wetsus and mr. Fuchs a significant amount of money. I recommend considering the involvement of external scientists who can critically evaluate the company's claims and rigorously test their hypotheses. Make sure to pay those scientists in advance so the results are not influenced by monetary compensation. Perhaps ask Dr. Erich Eder or Dr. Martin Beyer for help. Research conducted by individuals who are not open to falsifying their hypotheses does not align with the principles of scientific inquiry. Hope that helps, Polygnotus (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Regarding: “You state you would like to enter this provable and evident information on the peer-reviewed scientific articles into the Johann Grander page and then you link to 3 urls, none of which contain (or link to) any scientific research.”

· I am unable to understand this claim; all 3 URLs refer to the following peer-reviewed studies:

• Sammer, M., Kamp, C., Paulitsch-Fuchs, A. H., Wexler, A. D., Buisman, C. J. N., & Fuchs, E. C. (2016). Strong Gradients in Weak Magnetic Fields Induce DOLLOP Formation in Tap Water. Water, 8(3), 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8030079

• Paulitsch-Fuchs, A.H., Stanulewicz, N., Pollner, B., Dyer, N., Fuchs, Elmar C. (2021) Strong Gradients in Weak Magnetic Fields Affect the Long-Term Biological Activity of Tap Water, Water (Seattle) 12, 28-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.14294/WATER.2020.5

• Liu, X., Pollner, B., Paulitsch-Fuchs, A. H., Fuchs, E. C., Dyer, N. P., Loiskandl, W., & Lass-Florl, C. (2022). Investigation of the effect of sustainable magnetic treatment on the microbiological communities in drinking water. Environ Res, 213, 113638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113638

2. Regarding: “Grander pays Wetsus a significant amount of money.”

· To the best of current knowledge, the company Grander has never been a partner of Wetsus.

· Dr. Elmar C. Fuchs from Wetsus, the European Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Water technology, confirmed that the devices referred to as water core magnets or WCM (type DZKL) in the three publications listed are commercially available Original GRANDER double cylinders (trade name “GRANDER Double Cylinder Small”) which Wetsus obtained from IPF GmbH, Jochberg, Austria.

· If you have contrary evidence, please present it here in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and the general pursuit of truth.

3. Regarding: “Grander pays Dr. Elmar Fuchs a significant amount of money.”

· Here, I must particularly insist on your source citation, as such accusations could very easily be misinterpreted as defamation of a respected scientist.

4. Regarding: “I recommend considering the involvement of external scientists who can critically evaluate the company's claims and rigorously test their hypotheses.”

· As you can see from the list of authors mentioned in point 1, the involvement of external scientists is adequately provided. Regarding their qualifications, I refer you to https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cees-Buisman.

5. Regarding: “Perhaps ask Dr. Erich Eder or Dr. Martin Beyer for help. Research conducted by individuals who are not open to falsifying their hypotheses does not align with the principles of scientific inquiry.”

· I am familiar with the publications of Dr. Erich Eder and Dr. Martin Beyer. I do not see any thematic connection here. Salvelinus umbla (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

And why did you create a new account? (Strichpunktforpresident => Salvelinus umbla) Polygnotus (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

· No sorry, that is incorrect, and this claim can be falsified at any time by a simple comparison of IP addresses. kind regards. Salvelinus umbla (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Using legal threats is not allowed on Wikipedia. I have reported it.

Please read your WP:TALKPAGE located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Salvelinus_umbla and respond to the messages there

You wrote To the best of current knowledge, the company Grander has never been a partner of Wetsus despite Grander being listed as a company participant on the website of Wetsus, which means that Grander paid Wetsus money.

Wetsus names the sum on their website Company Participants: € 32,900/theme/year

The theme is "Applied Water Physics" and the coordinator for that theme is no other than Elmar C. Fuchs, who has at least since 2016 been writing at least 3 publications in support of Grander.

11 years ago Grander was already posting the work of Fuchs to its YouTube channel (1, 2, 3). So let's not pretend this is an external uninvolved person who just happens to write publications that are used by Grander as justifications for their claims.

Fuchs is listed in all 3 publications, which is why I recommended the involvement of external scientists who can critically evaluate the company's claims and rigorously test their hypotheses.

The claims made by the company are not supported by scientific evidence. Read WP:MEDRS and WP:BMI.

Polygnotus (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat was never intended, I just encouraged to prove expressions, which are, following my knowledge and opinion, are not true. I rather be interested in a discurs with the result to prove that the scientific work done on Grander Technology is a peer reviewed and they are following the good practice rules of scientific work. Again, a legal threat or „off wiki“ threat was never my intention. 2001:871:5F:3EC:A9A3:EC3F:526:DA8D (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that, we have to be very careful with these things on Wikipedia because of the possible chilling effect. Wikipedians don't prove or disprove anything; Wikipedians just report facts. You could email Dr. Erich Eder and Dr. Martin Beyer. If you search their names plus the word "email" in Google you will find their email addresses. They can help with the research design. If you want to make claims about medical benefits the requirements on Wikipedia are pretty strict, see WP:MEDRS for more info. We need reliable, third-party published secondary sources that accurately reflect current knowledge. Please also read WP:FRINGE, specifically WP:FRINGELEVEL and WP:PROFRINGE. It is the stated goal of Wikipedia to mirror the current consensus of mainstream scholarship – in the words of WP:NOT, "accepted knowledge". If, at some point in the future, the scientific consensus is that Grander's theories are correct then Wikipedia will reflect that. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and your confirmation, and furthermore for your additional information. 2001:871:5F:3EC:98EE:F932:D217:362A (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)