Talk:John 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)