> 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?