No, I don't work for or have any financial interest in a water treatment company... and that's a pretty lame attack.

Again - it's clear you have no idea whatsoever about water chemistry or physics. Point me to some peer reviewed study that shows this works. You can't - because it's not out there. I've looked, I've looked for years. It's still not out there - 7 years from this original post there's still no legit documentation.

Dude, if this was something that actually had some science behind it there would be studies, tests, peer reviewed journals, etc. We would see charts showing effectiveness given various variables such as hardness levels, temperature, iron levels, flow rates, etc. There's none of that.

If this worked this wouldn't be some crank product - this would be mainstream. Indeed, facts are facts - and the facts are that this is snake oil and always has been.

Meanwhile - Wikipedia has it right

"Magnetic water treatment is regarded as unproven and unscientific.

There is a lack of peer-reviewed laboratory data, mechanistic explanations, and documented field studies to support its effectiveness. Erroneous conclusions about their efficacy are based on applications with uncontrolled variables. "

Here you go:

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/magnetic_electric_effects.html

I guess you earn a lot from Selling Traditional Water softners.

As I said the first time - it was a lame attack and it just sounded more desperate the second time you said it.

Did you even bother to scan the rubbish you linked to? It says something very similar to what Wikipedia said.

Why are you so hostile and agressive. We are just two individuals having a discussion...

Hopefully we can both learn and grow from this interaction.

Why am I so "hostile and aggressive" because rather than actually putting up any proof, you tried to discredit me, that's why.

Look, this same conversation has happened numerous times on here over a period of more than a decade. You can search for it. These don't work and there's never been any solid evidence to the contrary.

And if you had bothered to do a little homework before you tried to discredit me, you would know I tell people to buy their softeners on Amazon - great deals on decent hardware for about $500 - $600 - no snake oil required.

There are Yale & Harvard etc. studies on water treatment using PWT . Try the book called the fourth phase of water. Long list of accolades from all over the world and dept. heads at places like MIT, UCLA etc. This peer reviewed book is on the molecular / neutron level written by a physicist reviewed by the same.

I'm not going on a snipe hunt - please provide the link.

Again, if this is what you claim - after almost a decade of this nonsense there would be reams of information on the internet with very specific and practical application data. There would be specific product tests. There would be manufacturer's data sheets, etc. None of that exists. And it doesn't exist for a reason.

Now compare that to ion exchange water softeners (which actually do what they say). There are 10's thousands of pages of information from no-bs scientific explanations to resin manufacturer's data sheets.

I've used this product for about 3 years now and the thing I like about it is after a shower I no longer had the disgusting smell of chlorine that made me sick every time I showered. Also you can now drink the tap water. Reputable business recommended it and I tried it. Works good for us.

Seriously?!? it removes chlorine now also? And makes water that was undrinkable now drinkable?? How does that work? This is the placebo effect at work.

This is easily measured. Please get a chlorine test kit and post the results of treated and untreated water.

Jake, I'm with you on the chlorine issue. However, the "plumbers choice" does sell a GAC system hat does remove chlorine. She may be confused about which component does what.

Hi, I am a resident in Mckinney, TX and installed flow tech system 5 months back. It sounded great that it doesn’t need maintenance like traditional water softeners. However I constantly see spots on my faucets. When I checked with my plumber who installed this system, he suggested spots are common and it can be removed by wiping off. And that this system ensures those spots don’t build up into scales. I understand that, but am not liking it. I came to an understanding that this system can never be a true alternative to traditional water softeners.

It depends on how hard the water is, how much difference you will see and how easy it wipes off. You are correct, Flow Tech is not softening, and does decrease the percipitation, (scaling hard attachment fo surfaces). Salt systems have down sides too. Truly soft water is a regional thing and rare, the only place I think it exists is the very north east NY and above.

I have seen people use auto wax, chrome polish, etc. to protect faucet finishes just like they protect cars. As well wiping off faucets almost daily. There is no "app" so to speak to make water or plumbing pretty and maintenance free. Some municipalities do not allow salt softeners, some people do not keep the softeners they have serviced correctly and damage follows. "Rob Peter, pay Paul" thing, and if you neglect one the other wins....

The dealer should have told you a money back policy exists and if you can find a better choice, go that way. Choices matter as do details. I do not know the dynamaic details of your system, it could be putting out a weak signal has it been tested for signal? Grounding is very tricky, if not grounded well, the system will not work. Details matter...

Oh good lord... There IS NO SALT FREE WATER SOFTENER! They will be stringing you along about wiping things down, grounding, weak signals, bad karma, past lifes of the water (I'm not kidding) until you are completely confused.

If they are offering money back - take it and get a water softener.

For Jakes sake, don't mix esoterics into science, and if you do not understand science, your comment is an opinion based on feeling . While feelings are fine, as well a refund is fine, and salt softeners are fine, so are PWT systems if applied correctly and they are effective to the point they are. Flow Tech is an AM radio signal, if one is listening to a radio station, and it is poor signal, that does not negate the content on the radio. I agree though, they say things on the radio and other media that are false, but it is not the radios fault.

Get grounded..

Thank You Jackson,

These non salt systems are NOT, softeners, as Jake "feels", Non salt systems are defined as PWT's (Physical Water Treatment' systems). American Scociety of Plumbing Engineers, (ASPE), had a cover story in the "Official" publication about "PWT's". I repeat, for Jakes sake, the T in PWT is treatment, NOT sofTener. So, please know, Jake has his point, "for Jakes sake". However, PWT is science, not snake oil, "for Snakes sake". As well, I hope my comments are read as they are meant, and not taken as sracasm, for science is no joke... Science matters..

Do not try to discredit me - it won't work.

The science behind ion exchange water softening is proven, repeatable, and measurable. Not only is the concept - in general- proven, I can measure the output of any ion exchange softener and prove it's working. No guesswork, no rationalizing why it's not performing.

There is no such support for using electromagnetic fields for water treatment in residential water systems. There is some limited support for electromagnetic scale prevention in industrial settings where variables like flow rate, etc. can be controlled.

What's more, there is no such support that a particular product using electromagnetic fields is doing what it claims. In other words, even in the very limited "scale prevention in industrial settings" application - you can't prove that a particular device is doing its job.

No one yet has produced such documentation - ever. No one has produced a test for measuring the supposed scale prevention effect that is being claimed either.

Indeed, science matters.

Not trying to discredit you, it is you that were trying to discredit others. As for softeners, as having been a contractor over 45 yrs. I can assure you many softeners were not working well and they needed service and repair and users needed explaining to as to the reasons for things like corrosion of water heater tanks. Cloudy water, leaks in the system, bridging in brine tanks, effluent discharge lines failing on and on. The science of PWT has been published, if you were not in a confirmation bias point of view you would have read any of the studies. Do you know who the ASPE is? Also the UCSD campus uses PWT on millions of gallons of water every month. Jeffery Eisert the campus grounds engineer has saved countles dollars in water, and chemicals... I recognise that means nada if a PWT is applied wrong, or defective, or the consumer just wants a due refund, but the issues need to remain seperate. A hammer is not the only tool, and salt is not the only water treatment. Coauglation is used at most municipal water treatment plants, "magic" and invisible things like static electricity cause particle attraction. PWT can cause attraction, making hard particles to adhear to each other, not the pipe walls. No, PWT is not softening, as a matter of fact the state of Ca. prohibits system sellers form saying that PWT softens. So, you are right, PWT does not soften water. This is however a binary issue.

It's certainly possible that failure to maintain an ion exchange water softener will result in water that isn't softened. I caution everyone who considers water treatment of any kind (carbon filter, water softener, RO, etc.) that maintenance is an issue.

I have looked - repeatedly and over many years - for any scientific support for magnetic fields to treat residential water. I have found none. I have challenged others to supply the documentation - it's never materialized. We should all note that you haven't supplied any such documentation either. It's not confirmation bias, it's not out there.

What's more, residential users are typically looking for soft water and then being sold "scale reduction" - in quotes because it can't be shown to actually work. Only after the fact do they understand that they didn't get what they think they purchased. I've seen plenty of these bogus electro-magnetic "scale reducers" in residential settings and I'm there because the shower heads, aerators. water heaters, etc. are clogged with hard water deposits.

You are trying to cloud the issue by mixing in other forms of water treatment by talking about coagulation and PWT in general. You are also referring to industrial processes. None of that is relevant for treating residential hard water.

Search the ASPE cover story on PWT's I threw away all the reference I aquired for decades when I retired a couple months ago. I'm 65 now. In your 3rd. paragraph, your speaking for others in your words "didnt get what they think they got". As well I suppose all the happy people are just fools in your assumptions. As well you speak for me when you say aerators are cloged with hard water deposits and that is not my experience, my former home had no such deposits for almost 10 yrs. As well water is water maters not quagulation is not only for industrial treatment. But, since you do not want to find the ASPE article, you wont, that is the bias I refered to.

As I mentioned a year ago on this thread, I've searched for the info for 10 years. I've dug through lots of marketing crap but never found any serious peer reviewed document - which is pretty astonishing. You would think if it was serious technology we would see lots of test results, application notes, white papers, technical documents, etc. all over the internet.

Nope. It's not there. I'm done with the snipe hunt.

By contrast, if you search for ion exchange water softening you find mountains of actual data.

So if you would be so kind as to provide the links that supports your claims that would be great.

The last person who tried linked to a document that said it was unproven - he didn't even bother to read the document.

Again - this isn't just my opinion: It's exactly the opinion on Wikipedia. "Magnetic water treatment is regarded as unproven and unscientific."

They quote the lack of any qualitative detail, well-controlled studies or measurement of post-treatment water.

They note that there isn't an agreed upon mechanism. They point to the study in 1996 by Lawrence Livermore National Lab that found no difference in preferred crystal structure of scale deposited in magnetic water treatment systems.

You mentioned "Science" in your previous post... There isn't any science supporting magnetic residential water treatment.

FlowTech product agrees with part of your comments, I too agree with some, there are seemingly endless marketing claims. One can look online and find "news " about a fire or something, and the date of the event is years old. Anything is online.

Flowtech PWT uses an AM radio signal in a specific pulse speed. That is not a Permanant magnet. The whole piping system is affected by the flowtech product. This I'm sure beause I have used a signal tester in close proximity to the distant end of the piping from the signal generator, I found strong signal. With the other PWT systems, all water flows thru and past the signal generator, (magnet or coil), and then the water looses the effective charge. Or so is the claim by Flowtech Mfgr. To this point, I have directly seen absense of percipitation on many systems using flowtech, where grounding is good, and Flowtech installed as per design.

Rest assured, most marketing is a stretch, some outright lies, in most any industry. I as well have directly seen different system installs that were "less than Jake" as the pun goes, as well I agree many refunds may have been issued, or should be issued where even Flow tech fails to "deliver". But, there are success applications, I do not know the ratio, but I will hold my grounds on some systems effective enough to support recognizing the term, PWT.

I have a request in at ASPE for a copy of the cover story I referenced. As well I have found a lengthly article on studies with references of over 100 universities and engineers studies. I did not copy it for here since the article puts even me to a test! very detailed very techy and even longer.

I am not an engineer, I failed the exam by a few points, been a licensed contractor over 45 yrs. been told many lies and fewer truths, facts and science matter. So does direct experience. I am retired, so not selling anything and not affilliated with Flowtech. I respect your "hardline" view as common and even respectable, but time will tell and hopefully I will get the ASPE data and post it.

@greg chick:

You have been offering up the same BS for years on this thread. You have never posted any documentation. That tells everyone exactly what they need to know.

Jake. This was done in 2009. Your googling skills must really suck. There are others as well. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/977129-pkkkvl/ApplicationofPulsedElectricalFieldsforAdvancedCoolingandWaterRecoveryinCoal-FiredPowerPlant.pdf

If you wanna keep using Wikipedia read this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed-power_water_treatment

Jake, I wonder if the dog will read the link to the facts in this thread. Jake please reply, even if you deny the report, just to let me know you have helped the social media share info. It was you that motovated this posting...

Thank you Jake.

@HU-603445976, God Bless you, truth is my saviour, facts are my Bible.

No, my googling skills work just fine... Thanks. How's your reading comprehension?

These reference the same info: A conceptual paper of "Application of pulsed electrical fields for advanced cooling and water recovery in coal-fired power plant". Specifically they are testing a spark to see if it would dislodge particles on a screen. "The momentum transfer from the shock wave produced enough force to dislodge the deposited particles from the filter surface. The dislodged particles were pushed away from the filter by a tangential flow..."

It was done in a lab - in 2009 for the DOE.

I used to maintain commercial evaporative cooling towers (not for a coal fired power plant) - I have a decent working knowledge of the problem they were trying to solve - but this isn't a serious contender.

Seriously guys, this is really pathetic.

Did you even bother to read the material you linked to - or did you just grab the first technical looking document you could find. It's been almost 9 years and you still have nothing.

Hey great point there. I misunderstood.

Looked into this a bit further...

Standard magnetic treatment systems are different from Pulsed-electromagnetic field systems (PEMF).

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-critical-review-of-the-application-of-fields-for-Lin-Jiang/f12aa8cac8e1e87fa88f0266c408e4da65cb1b1e

"According to the more recent and acceptable results from the peer-reviewed scientific works collected in this review, it can be concluded that EMF facilitates bulk precipitation of crystals rather than adhesion to the wall of pipes and vessels. This conclusion is true for majority of the studies at laboratory-, pilot-, and full-scale experiments. However, some studies observed EMF resulted in no difference or negative impacts, probably attributing to the use of non-standardized methods, pipe materials, variations in water chemistry or differences in the course of the treatment."

"For future application, EMF with high intensity and less homogeneous waveform is recommended as a pretreatment for water systems. Longer exposure time and higher flow rate can enhance bulk precipitation. To reduce adherent scaling on the reactor surface, smooth surface and low leachate pipe materials such as glass and metal are recommended. Besides, moderate water recovery (<80%) for RO operation can avoid block of concentrate flow channel. Conventional RO spacer is an obstruct for success of EMF, a new open channel spacer will be advantageous to wash out bulk precipitates and enhance EMF efficiency. The EMF improvement was quantified and compared based on available literature data.."

https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/ew/c7ew00060j#!divAbstract

"is apparent that exposure of the parent solutions to the PEMF from one of these devices, but not the other, can influence both the profile of calcium carbonate precipitation and the morphology of the resulting microcrystals, consistent with enhanced particle coagulation."

The Army Core of engineers study (which is one of the few I could find that discredit the claimed results). One of the models they tested (Descal-A-Matic) "consists of cylindrical permanent magnets with like magnetic poles forced together into copper tubes". And the Aqua Magnetic descaler they used appears to be similar:

https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/ARMYCOE/PWTB/pwtb_420_49_34.pdf

Another study discrediting Magnetic treatment (note not PEMF) used the same Descal-A-Matic and found similar results:

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/567404

It seems that Descal-A-Matic doesn't work.

http://www.ecaa.ntu.edu.tw/weifang/water/Magnetic%20water%20treatment.pdf

"In conclusion, we have established that a magnetic field exists. Passing water through a magnetic field subsequently favours formation of aragonite rather then calcite in our experiments, and the infuence of the treatment persists for more than two hundred hours."

2 of the studies note that while the effect can be seen more research should be done. (As it always should). If you can find any other studies that directly state that PEMF is ineffective please provide them.

This is not, permenant magnet system discussed here. I only know of one system using this process. May very well be more than I know off, but to my knowledge this process described is Flow Tech. I actually care not who's it is, what my point is , is that PWT is proven technology. The future is here...

Correct. Sorry for the confusion, I was noting that Flow Tech is PEMF and not just magnetic

Flow Tech is not a pass thru process, the entire piping system for a given distance is charged 24/7. The pulse signal can be measured over 75" away. So the system does not have the decaying eficacy of other PWT systems . I recognize there are diminishing effects depending on the water TDS, the strength of the signal, and the results are limited to some degree by these limits..

In my experience the water deposits on aerators etc. wipe off easily and do not damage the pot metal surfaces. The shower glass wipes off instead of attaching to a point of decaying the aluminium frame. Vinegar not needed, even high TDS water .

It seems a salt system adjusted perfect and effluent ethically disposed of works better, but salt sucks, and managing the systems is a losing battle unless a professional actively manages the system. Salt systems cost more as well.

Again, @Ramona's Plumber LEED AP ARCSA AP.

It's been 9 years on this post and no support for your claims - specifically to support using magnetic fields to treat hard water in residential applications. What you are claiming is unmeasurable by any standardized field test that would validate the results. And the results that you claim - hard water deposits don't solidly bind to surfaces - is hardly what most folks are looking for in residential water treatment.

Modern water softeners - with usage based regeneration and competent setup - are effective, long lasting, and can be reasonably priced if consumers don't get taken by snake oil salesmen. My softener, with an industry standard Fleck digital control valve, cost $600. The resin should last about 15 years - so about 15 years without significant maintenance.

It would be great if there was an effective technology to replace a residential water softener that didn't require salt, regeneration, etc. -- but there isn't.

I received a recommendation to have a FlowTech system installed by a plumber on a tankless water heater, which is flushed and descaled annually. The total cost estimate is $2676 which seems high since an electrical outlet exists next to the tankless heater and installation doesn't seem like it requires extraordinary skills. After a brief search, my conclusion is that there is no clear, unbaised benefit to the installation of a FlowTech system. It may work for some but not all and thiose it works for are few and far between.

My question for any and all willing to answer is: if this technology is such a superior alternative to existing water softening/treatment technologies, why is it not more widely accepted and used? I expect when true improvements to an existing technology becomes available, especially if a financial benefit is realized, it will sell well and take a significant position in the market.

I do know this fact: marketing operates on instilling fear, uncertainty and doubt in the consumer. My instincts tell me FlowTech is a marketing strategy and not a technology. Am I wrong? (Yes, I am cynical and and suspicious).

@Earl Dozier

How hard is your water - in grains per gallon?

If you don't know, buy aHach test model 5-B from Amazon

Then buy a water softener from Amazon for about $700.

You will be set with something that actually works -- and you can measure it working with your test kit. No snake oil needed.

A Flow-Tech is an easy install if the power outlet is fully grounded. If such, it's a 30 min. job, but, a min. service call. As for marketing, yes, there is plenty, and if scare tactics are used, not good in my opinion. As for price, I never sold them near that price. Now for efficacy of treatment for scaling, heavy TDS will still precipitate even if a Flow-Tech is present. These "PWT" devices do not replace a softener in my experience. They are an option that does not require back wash of effluent containing salt. Some places are not able to capacitate the salt discharge, and or the water waste. I have seen good results for tankless scale reduction using a Flow-Tech, where moderate TDS is present. That coupled with avoidance of salt system and its downside, the Flow Tech is an option. Flow-Tech is not "Snake oil", it is an option.

I would not suggest installing a tankless water heater without the optional flush valves in any case, so with that a flushing system of a pump and bucket and couple hoses and an hour to do it yearly, is also an option. One issue is what does salt cost, water cost, and more importantly, do you have room for a softener install in a smart location? A cheap softener not installed and or maintained correctly is worse than snake oil, it's a flood, or a violation of local restrictions, etc. Your question is not a binary question. There are water heater factory options of water treatment canisters for the water inlet to the tankless that could require as little as every other year canister swap-out. (Easier than a lightbulb in a high ceiling). Such is doable in couple min. by most anyone.

I'm not wanting to recite a novel on the issue, but Plumbing and more so water is a complex issue. I am fully retired, but can be contacted directly at gregchick0@gmail if you have more details that are of question.

Greg

@greg chick Are you serious?

So, 9 years and no (as in zero) reputable studies on how this "conditioner" works in residential water treatment.

In 9 years, no (as in zero) ways of measuring the actual effectiveness of the "conditioner" in a residential setting -- you know... something that would actually indicate it's doing what you paid money for. If you pay for a water heater, you can measure the temperature. If you pay for a water softener, you can measure the hardness level. If you pay for a carbon filter, you can measure the amount of chlorine before and after. If you pay for disinfectant, you can measure the presence of bacteria. If you pay for a lead filter, nitrate filter, sulfur filter, etc... you can measure those things before and after and you know your treatment is effective. Snake oil... not so much.

And yet you still promote the nonsense.

The truth is that a water softening is a commodity process. It's proven, inexpensive, and very reliable. It's also very measurable. Yes, it does require salt, and backwashing, to remove the calcium and magnesium. You don't have to use the inexpensive softeners from Amazon - they aren't for people who want "full service" water softening... but they do provide a reference point for what the hardware alone should cost to do a very reputable and reliable job of removing water hardness. The Fleck control valve is one of the most common and reliable control valves available - mine is doing great after 6 years. And if I ever have a question about its effectiveness, (for example, does the resin need to be replaced after 15 years or so) I can measure the hardness level of my water with my Hach test kit.

Snake oil not included.

For thos interested, I tripped over this paper: Effcets of Radio Frequency Water Treatment on Revival of Wilted Flowers, https://waterjournal.org/archives/holster/

I have not completed reading this paper but it appears to present some ideas worth digesting. And it has references!

Cheers!

WHAT?!?

A paper on wilted flowers... really?

Earl, Google "water softener ion exchange process" and skip past the ads

You won't have to hunt for rational explanations of how it works - or read about a single study that doesn't even tangentially match what you are looking for.

Earl,

So, my vocabulary is not up to the required professional level for an opinion of the white paper, but I get that there are some points there that recognize that water can accept energy fields/RF, magnetic energy. As well that effect is not permanent, but can cause measurable exterior effects.

As well, if water has salts/hardness, that enables such effects.

My observation of noticeable absence of hard water buildup in a tankless water heater having a RF product operating 24/7365, for over 5 yrs. shows me, something stopped the precipitation. I say this because after 5 yrs. of hardwater exposure then I did a vinegar flush for an Hr. in a bucket having 1.5 Gal 2% vinegar, and the PH remained very acidic The test strips showed same as uncirculated vinegar.

I have flushed many tankless units and after 30 Min. of circulating vinegar, in a tankless unit with 2 Yr. period of same hardwater exposure, the vinegar is naturalized. The vinegar fizzes, bubbles, foams, visually the vinegar reacts to the closed loop of the tankless heat exchanger.

With hard water, the tankless water heaters normally stop working, after a couple yrs. they show an error code saying flushing is needed if no treated water has been supplied. Be it soft by salt, or cartridge or even RF. That is my experience.

Very hard well water having high iron etc. is another issue, that has required as much as $6,000. complex systems from water labs. There are regular softeners that foul on such well water, like I said, that is another level of water problems.

Greg,

Thanks so much for your input. Your real-life experience helps.

Jake,

I have found in life that many seemingly unrelated experiences can cross boundaries unexpectedly and provide an insight that would have been otherwise dismissed.

The paper i mentioned describes the effects of radio frequency water treatment on wilted flowers. It is very specific because scientific papers are written to apply to a highly defined subject. It does not mean there is no information to be gleaned. It also confesses aspects that are not completely understood or explainable but evidence is observable.

I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is where it gets fun!

A note on "wilted flowers", we used electricity on a light bulb, before we powered computers with it. We test medicine on other than human life before on humans because of "cross boundaries" efficacy. People once said "photos robbed peoples souls" and some said electricity was the devil, and carriages powered by motors would kill Americas Livery industry and such. Resistance to new technologies has always caused closed minds to not see future possibilities.. The book, "The Fourth Phase of Water" , beyond, solid, liquid, vapor, by Gerald H Pollack is 350 pgs. of peer reviewed scientific and scholastic documentation. An award winning international book. Back cover is full of accolades by university professors of science from all over the world.

Read it and weep is your glossary for physics is up to it.

Jake the Wonderdog, I appreciated your remarks upthread. Your link to the Wikipedia entry about magnetic water treatment was more informative than the endless industry bumph I otherwise found online.

It does appear however that there are peer-reviewed studies supporting magnetic water treatment. This 2020 meta-analysis, for example, looked at 48 studies published after the year 2000, and suggested that the method can be effective for reducing scale build-up.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-020-0071-9

From the summary:

"If we consider the bulk precipitation enhancement as effective EMF treatment, the percentage of effective EMF cases can reach 95% for the discussed 48 studies, 5% of the studies observed negligible improvement with EMF treatment, none of them has negative results. Negligible improvement with EMF was observed due to feed water chemistry or high water recovery, more details were discussed in section “RO System Operation & Water Chemistry”. It is also worth noting that many studies fail to report negative results, thereby the percentage of successful cases could be lower in reality."

I'm inclined to take this study as evidence that magnetic water treatment is not snake oil and has some science behind it, at least when it comes to scaling. Is there something that I'm missing?

Update on my past comments.

I moved to a new house, I installed a new Flowtech PWT Electro Magnet pulsing product. The water here is hard, I did not install the full whole house system with the other GAC canisters etc. I had poor results with the system that I did put in. When I put it in it tested positive for signal. I wanted a better reduction of mineral build up, I installed a salt type softener, that did a complete job of softening the water for zero build up.

I do not know why the results are different, the previous system had very little buildup. The house now uses the Ca. canal water and that water is harder than the other water.

So, I restate my post to say details matter and water changes make a difference. As well to what degree do you want to improve the water and from what TDS or PPM level are you working with.

There are several things you are missing:

1. There are industrial and lab situations where EMF treatment has shown some promise, but none were in residential applications where variables can't be controlled.

2. The treatment varied, including using solenoid coils, permanent magnets and in conjunction with other treatment (pre-treatment).

3. While EMF shows some promise in lab and industrial applications for scale reduction, it's a very big leap to say that any of these units marketed to the public do anything at all. There's no proof that they are applying EMF in a way that is beneficial, or are the correct treatment given the water chemistry in the particular residential setting.

So, yes... snake oil.

Keep in mind, this is for "Scale Reduction". That's a pretty limited sub-set of benefits that residential consumers typically think of when they have hard water.

"Although there are demonstrated beneficial effects of EMF on scale control, the scientific basis for its purported effectiveness is not clear in the available literature, especially lack of quantitative assessment and systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of EMF technologies."

Well, Wonderdog, you stick to science and nomenclature and third party testing labs Etc. but then digress into slang, Snake Oil". I will agree, third party testing labs are the base of the facts when the products that have paid for that have that. I agree if a listing exists, then I will agree a fact exists. But, I will not agree that the only facts that exist are the ones paid for by anyone and stated by an accredited lab. My direct experience was that mineral buildup was so little after the FloTech was installed in prior home that I did not want or need a softener. As well admit inferior results in the current home. I share your respect for the Labs, as well the intent of the Labs to at least attempt to quantify the efficacy of products and applications of products. I think in this case we have the need for the future to developed and consensus to be formed. I will yield to the future.

Thanks for your comment, Jake the Wonderdog.

The reason I posted my original comment was because I got the impression from your earlier remarks that there were few if any peer-reviewed studies documenting any kind of effectiveness for EMF:

Point me to some peer reviewed study that shows this works. You can't - because it's not out there. I've looked, I've looked for years. It's still not out there - 7 years from this original post there's still no legit documentation.

Dude, if this was something that actually had some science behind it there would be studies, tests, peer reviewed journals, etc. We would see charts showing effectiveness given various variables such as hardness levels, temperature, iron levels, flow rates, etc. There's none of that.

The meta-analysis I linked to suggests there have been many studies documenting some kind of effectiveness: "Over 4,000 studies have reported EMF associated anti-scaling and ani-fouling work from last century, and the quantity of publications increased exponentially during this century." I think it is not quite right to suggest that these studied are "still not out there."

Regarding your latest points:

1. The study I linked to was a meta-analysis that did control for variables. Figure five, for example, documents effectiveness given variables of pH levels, pipe material, water temperature and flow rate. If the issue is variable control, then it is not clear why the lack of a study in a residence should matter.

2. Treatment variation is addressed in the meta-analysis: "EMF device configuration is not a primary factor for EMF efficiency."

3. Given that the meta-analysis controls for water chemistry and other variables, it is not clear why it is a leap to say that industrial and lab applications might also support domestic effectiveness. For example, I have copper pipes, and if I test my water for pH &c. I should presumably be able to see whether EMF will work in my house.

Note that scale reduction is *all* I care about. I need to protect my old pipes. If EMF can do that, it will be a very big deal for me.

The passage you quote from the meta-analysis is from the introduction: it is not a conclusion. As the next sentence states, "This review aims to elucidate the factors pertaining to EMF water treatment and their anti-scaling effects." The meta-analysis's conclusion regarding effectiveness is positive, as noted in the passage from the summary quoted in my first comment.

Given that your criticisms are addressed in the meta-analysis, I'm inclined to think that it provides evidence for the effectiveness of EMF in at least some domestic contexts. Someone thinking about using it though should test their water first and then cross-check the results in the meta-analysis to see if it is likely to work.

I've known that there have been some results regarding scale reduction in labs and in industrial settings. That's very far from saying that any specific product that uses magnets is going to provide any real-world benefits in a residential setting. They don't know the mechanism by which it works, what the relevant factors are, and they have no way to test it - all which I've said repeatedly.

Compare the dearth of studies, documentation, and field notes (actual actionable information) for EMF vs ion exchange and you quickly understand that there is an issue.

I've removed more electromagnet "conditioners" that weren't accomplishing anything than I can count.

One issue is softeners have the same problem, I have removed countless ones. But, the reason for failure are different. Incorrect settings and lack of maintenance kill softeners. As well after 20 years many things die. In the case of the many Magnets, or PWT products, the reason is most do not work for a couple reasons. One reason is like you say, "they do not work". But all products are not the same, as well all products are not installed in same application nor same location. I have removed countless PWT products as well. Categorically, salt softeners are proven and if directions followed, they work. As for PWT products, the application is often in water that is too hard, or improper installation, or the product itself is at best, hype at half the price. I have seen non salt PWT products installed in systems that have results, but that is like the saying, even a broken watch can be right twice a day. The 4th. phase of water study is based on science, peer reviewed, and yet still beyond conclusion. More understanding of water is needed, the questions of why and how are not known on too many things about water.

I just want to commend you that your assessment 11 years ago was very rational and fair. Even took the time to note it was hard to learn of any problems. Thank you for such a thought provoking post.