> 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?