I forgot to mention that when I discovered the Army Corps of Engineers' findings, I provided the link this morning to an EasyWater residential sales manager that I had been e-mailing recently due to a promotion EasyWater has where they take off up to $150 and give you a free 5-year warranty.

His response?

"Thank you, at this point IâÂÂm not interested in competitor information or links. If you want to proceed please contact us, if not, thank you for your inquiry and have a great day."

Since I do not know if providing the sales manager's name or work phone number is a violation of the TOS, I will refrain from doing so. But I can provide that in a future response if someone can validate this.

Erm, what? That Army Corps of Engineers study done 10 years ago did two magnetic devices and one electronic (Ener-Tec). Personally I wouldn't write off every alternative due to this very limited study.

I just posted in another thread that I tried contacting some of EasyWater's commercial customers. The city of Chandler, AZ called me back, confirming great results and that they're still a happy customer. So that's something real I can go on.

You asked about Pelican's systems. I've found info on the web indicating it does work initially, but that it is inferior to Next Filtration's ScaleStop.

The EasyWater rep I was working with was quite professional, willing to listen, work with me, deal with my questions and internet research findings, etc. Sounds like you just got a dud.

But in the end, despite recent independent research showing ScaleStop's effectiveness, due to the cost of its media, I think I'm going to try out a cheaper competitor to EasyWater. If it doesn't work as advertised, I'll try EasyWater. In both cases, I plan to carefully follow the terms so that I can return it if the product fails to behave as they claim.

Keep us updated. It really isn't necessary, however, to post the same information on several different thread - when you do that it looks an awful lot like you are spamming the board and you will be taken less seriously.

Bcoulam,

I would say your point about the study being 10 years old has merit IF the technology like EasyWater's has changed significantly since that review. Otherwise, the age of the study is a non-issue.

That said, I wrote off EasyWater because I was doing a brief e-mail exchange with an EasyWater Residential Manager and provided him the PDF link I provided on this thread due to my concerns. The following is his response verbatim from his e-mail to me:

"Thank you, at this point IâÂÂm not interested in competitor information or links. If you want to proceed please contact us, if not, thank you for your inquiry and have a great day."

You would think a company that knows its products are continually being questioned (due in large part to an enormous lack of objective information outside of calling their customers) would try to be a bit more patient and understanding in their response. Instead, I got the terse response I quoted.

Really?!?!?! They want to sell me a $1k to $2k unit and that was their response when I was concerned about an objective government study? The manager didn't even take your approach in trying to discredit the study due to its age or perhaps discrediting the study due to some potential flaw in the way the study was conducted.

No thank you. That's p1ss poor salesmanship. I ALMOST stuck my neck out and bought an EasyWater unit until I read his response.

Sorry about providing the residential manager's response a 2nd time. It's been a while and I forgot I had provided it in my first follow up post. :)

"The city of Chandler, AZ called me back, confirming great results and that they're still a happy customer."

Do you think a municiap authority would ever say they spent money and it was wasted?

'The emperor has no clothes' comes to mind.