"And John E. is a WONDERFUL man. I have personally called and talked with him NUMEROUS times, and he happily answers ANY and ALL questions I have EVER had!!"
"So, if I could just find out how to meet the creator of this website, or the people who have talked CRAP about John E., I would like to beat the hell out of them!!! Because they are just filled with HORSESHIT!!!!!"


yes sir, you you are obviously a great judge of character and a gem of a person yourself.

I too think the machine works, but have not boughten one yet. Tell you friend to freeze it. It makes a stange ice cube.

I have been researching the John E. machine and company, as well as many other water purifering devices, for almost two years. I have examined the messages in this forun both pro and con. I have checked for complaints filed with the better business bureu nationaly. There have been only 10 complaints filed, and only in NY State where the company is located. Only one complaint related to machine quality ( I can only asume it is someone we know from this forum?) The other nine were customer service related for the last 36 months. That is a very low number for the volume shipped in a three year period. Many of the most outspoken against the machine DO NOT OWN ONE. I have come to some conclusions:
1- I do not fully believe all of the claims made for the machine, as with most advertising, there is much hype.
2- I do believe that the machine produces good quality, fine tasting water.
3- At a price of $1,700. it is not priced much higher than other water treatment systems on the market.
4-I have been buying bottled water for several years since my town's water supply became contaminated with gasoline.
5- I place my order yesterday amd am looking forward to seeing what it can do.
I will keep this forum posted with results.

> I can PROVE that this machine REALLY "DOES" work by just getting a damn microscope out and PROVING it in front of ANYONE'S eyes!!! Ok????

Indeed. What kind of microscope would you use? Lab-quality compound light microscopes can resolve objects about as small as bacteria (on the order of several micrometers). However, water molecules are about 3.2 angstroms in diameter (1 angstrom=.1 nanometer, or .0001 micrometer). Thus, I find it rather improbable that you could simply whip out a microscope and see a difference between this "energized" water and regular tap water.

In any case, as a student having taken AP Chemistry, I can say unequivocably that the bond angle of water was, is, and always will be about 104.5 degrees. This is due to VESPR (Valence Electron Shell Pair Repulsion) theory, in which the electron pairs around an atom tend to spread out as much as possible (negatively charged electrons repel each other). For a single atom, like neon for instance, the electron pairs (of which neon has four, in the 2s and 2p orbitals) will spread out in a tetrahedral formation, with each electron pair occuping one corner of an imaginary tetrahedron centered on the nucleus of the atom. In water, two of the electron pairs are shared between the two hydrogen atoms and the central oxygen atom. The presence of the hydrogen atoms tends to shield the shared electron pairs somewhat, decreasing their effective repulsive force. As a result, the lone electron pairs exert a proportionally larger repulsive force on each other and the shared electron pairs, decreasing the H-O-H bond angle from the 109.5 degrees it is in a molecule exhibiting a tetrahedral shape to about 104.5 degrees. Sorry about the length of the explanation, but this is stuff every chemistry student learns...

John E. claims that his machine increases the bond angle to about 114 degrees. If this were the case, it would indicate that either extra electrons were somehow added in the region between the two hydrogen atoms, or electrons were removed from the lone electron pairs. The former case is impossibe: 8 electrons exist in the 2s (holds 2 electrons in one orbital) and 2p (holds 2 electrons in each of 3 orbitals) orbitals in a water molecule. There is no room to add more electrons in the n=2 level. If electrons are added to the n=3 level, they will be quickly lost since the combined attractive force of the oxygen and hydrogen atoms is not enough to hold electrons in that high of an energy level. In the later case, the water molecule would acquire a noticible 1+ or perhaps 2+ charge, immediately attracting any free electrons in the vicinity.

I notice John E. does not post an email address on his web page. Perhaps he doesn't want to make it easy for people to contact him about his pseudoscience?

Well here I am genius.

You sound like a very bitter and uninformed old guy. You want to “beat the hell out of me”. Now why would you want to do that? I am just expressing my experiences. Its good to hear you’re such good friends with Mr. Ellis. It does not surprise me, as you post email just as John speaks to those who are unhappy with his product. Imagine that.
You have a remarkable sniffer and how irrefutable that is. It must be something to be able to “sense” the oxygenation. You are an idiot.
Well old man, if you can crawl through this thread and find me, then you can ”beat the hell” out of me.
Better yet, call your buddy John, he knows exactly who I am and where I am. Its to bad he just won’t return my $$$ and then he would have you BP so high.

Ba Bye Gabriel

Interesting Statement, why so hostile? It would be much easier to end this debate with simple bottom line proof. Why does everyone spend so much time yelling from both sides? Why dosen't some one with an offical John E. E.W.M. that has worked for them, get together with some one that feels they have been ripped off and that there machine has not worked and prove your case in front of the whole world. Cursing and spouting angry stories doesn't prove anything or solve this problem. Any takers? anyone want to walk the walk? It's easy either it works or it doesn't.

> I personally would like to know what type of a person who is so smart to understand that water that is energized and clean (free from chemicals) would not grow algae?
Someone who understands the physics, chemistry, and biology (or rather, lack thereof) behind what this "energized" water claims to be....

> In regards to the dis-believers in regards to the water not having more electrons, removing the memory of diseases, and having more oxygen than regular water, where is anyones proof that the water produced does not indeed pass these qualities? Can anyone prove that the water does not have greater angles between electrons, is not free from disease markers, and has a higher % of oxygen?
-Care to guess what happens when you add electrons to water? The water is actually split into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. This process is known as electrolysis, with the hydrogen gas forming at the cathode, and the oxygen gas forming at the anode (anode and cathode refer to the leads of a power source (like a battery, for instance); anode corresponds to the - terminal and cathode corresponds to the + terminal). In every sample of water, a few molecules of water spontaneously break apart into H+ and OH- ions. The H+ ions are attracted to the cathode, where electrons from the power source reduce them to hydrogen gas, while the OH- ions are attracted to the anode, where they are oxidized to oxygen gas (the H+'s from the OH- go back into solution), supplying the electrons to complete the circuit back to the power source. In other words, there is no net flow of electrons into or out of the water. Thus, "energized" water makes no scientific sense.
-Also, the bond angle between the two hydrogen atoms in a water molecule has been 104.5 degrees for billions of years. Here's why: atoms in a molecule arrange themselves according to Valence-Shell Electron-Pair Repulsion (VSEPR) theory. Basically, the 4 electron pairs around an atom mutually repel each other and tend to spread out as far as possible. In an atom like argon, VSEPR causes the angle between any two electron pairs to be exactly 109.5 degrees; the electron pairs are directed towards the corners of an imaginary tetrahedron centered on the argon nucleus. Similarly, in a molecule like carbon tetrachloride, the bond angle between any two chlorine atoms is 109.5. However, lone electron pairs (i.e. those not bonded to an atom) tend to repel more than those actually bonded to an atom. Thus the H-O-H bond angle of water is less than 109.5 degrees (it is exactly 104.5 degrees), since the 2 lone electron pairs around the oxygen atom repel the 2 bonded electron pairs more than if the lone electron pairs were bonded to another atom.
-Water is naturally able to dissolve a certain quantity of oxygen molecules; however, there is a saturation point for the solubility of oxygen molecules in water, and once that is reached, no more oxygen can be added successfully to the water (if you tried to bubble more oxygen in, it would just go to the top of the container, without the water absorbing much at all). In any case, water holds a lot less oxygen gas in solution than does the atmosphere per unit volume, so the amount of oxygen fully saturated water delivers is insignificant next to the amount of oxygen your body takes in every time you take a breathe.
-The point you make about removing the "memory" of disease is very interesting...but complete scientific nonsense. A water molecule has no more "memory" than any other molecule. I seem to recall a paper on the subject being published which claimed that antigens diluted past the detectable level in water still produced an antibody reaction in test subjects. This paper was later withdrawn after several other scientific groups failed to substantiate its claims...

I appologize for the rather lengthy chemistry lesson above, but it is necessary to understand why "energized" water is nothing more than a smoke-and-mirrors trick to part you from your hard-earned money. I ask you, are there any scientific papers that support the claims you make about "energized" water? If not, shouldn't that indicate something about the validity of those statements?