Thinking of Buying a Water Softener (merged threads)

Volcano

Here you go gromit, these are ones used in an industrial context:

http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/sims/water/magnets/

But I'm with this guy:

http://www.chem1.com/CQ/aquacrack.html#VIBS

I could see how constantly circulating water exposed to it 24 hours a day, might possibly have a chance.

But mains water passing by in a split second? Not a hope.....

kittiwoz

They do work. The company in the link I posted before offers a 190 day money back guaruntee for domestic customers. They cite a study by the University of Bath using their products: http://www.waterimp.co.uk/report.html
My parents installed one. I don't know the make but the difference is certainly noticeable. The visible effect is the reduction of scale on their kettle.

Volcano

The company in the link I posted before offers a 190 day money back guaruntee for domestic customers

I still think gromituk's post stands.

They cite a study by the University of Bath using their products: http://www.waterimp.co.uk/report.html

This 'trial' was supposed to have been carried out on:

simulated domestic hot water / radiator heating system.

so then a circulating system the same as the cranfield link I gave.

Yet the company are using this to convince you it will work on the mains water supply?

Other dubious stuff:

This has been confirmed by analysis of both total dissolved solids and conductivity

These are one and the same thing so you wouldn't test both.

http://www.chem1.com/CQ/aquacrack.html#VIBS

gromituk

kittiwoz, it might work in your case, by reducing the scale in the kettle, but you cannot extrapolote from that it is reducing the amount of scale deposited in, say, the hot water cylinder, nor that it will work for anyone else in their particular situation.

And, as I have already said, a money-back guarantee is no proof at all that something works. It is a claim that the company will give you your money back if you can be bothered to return the product, with an extra get-out that the company can force you to prove that its product doesn't work, should it so desire. If the company is so confident, why does it limit this to 190 days? Does the product stop working over time? Eek - if so, you should be aware of this! I'm afraid you are acting as a prime example of how people can be taken in by these empty promises.

kittiwoz

Look, I don't sell these things & I couldn't install one if I wanted to since I'm not a home owner. I'm not going to do a load of research into how and whether they work because I have better things to do with my time. Nor am I going to ring my dad and ask him to climb up into the loft and go poking about in the water tank to satisfy your curiosity. I just thought it was relevant information that people might like to know and if they are interested in getting one then they can do the research.

I don't personally see why it's so dubious that the amount of dissolved solids in the water should have been tested by two different methods. It seems like a sensible way of confirming the results and guarding against measurement error to me.

As far as the guaruntee goes I think 190 days is ample time for a no-quibble returns policy. Deciding you don't want something after 6 months & demanding your money back is taking the !!!!!! if you ask me. If on the other hand it stops working over time that would come under the 5 year manufacturers guaruntee. Obviously that doesn't prove it works but it takes care of the financial risk.

kittiwoz, it might work in your case, by reducing the scale in the kettle, but you cannot extrapolote from that it is reducing the amount of scale deposited in, say, the hot water cylinder, nor that it will work for anyone else in their particular situation.

I guess I'm just succumbing to the stereotype. You've probably heard this joke before:
An engineer, a physicist and a mathmatician are on a train to Glasgow. They've just arrived in Scotland when out of the window they see an Aberdeen Angus. "Look", says the engineer, "The cows in Scotland are brown." "No," corrects the physicist, "Some of the cows in Scotland are brown." The mathematician corrects them both, "All we can say with any certainty is that there is at least one cow in Scotland and at least one side of it is brown."

Engineers rely on empirical data, they extrapolate and approximate and make assumptions, then whack on a saftey factor and that's how we build bridges and stop planes falling out of the sky. There's no proof that all the extrapolation and aproximation and assumptions are valid but we get around that by using a safety factor and carrying out testing (from which we get more empirical data which we use without necessarily fully understanding the physical mechanisms behind it). Since I can't see any way in which this device could pose a hazard if it didn't work I would personally consider the oportunity to test it without risk which is afforded by the 6 month money back offer to be a sufficient "safety factor". The company doesn't seem to be a fly-by-night and offers the 190 day refund as a "no-quibble" if "dissatisfied... for any reason" so cannot force you to prove it doesn't work.

I am going to continue in my mistaken engineering mindset, relying on empirical data, extrapolating and assuming and since I have a piece of empirical data suggesting electromagnetic water conditioners work and none suggesting they don't I'm inclined to extrapolate this to form the assumption that they work more generaly. Admittedly however I have an extremely limited data set which I wouldn't rely on if I perceived there to be any risk. Therefore if I was homeowner (which I'm not) and I lived in a hardwater area (which I don't) then I would attempt to increase my experience by gathering secondhand empirical data. In other words I would try and find out what other people who had them fitted said about them. Obviously you need to get this from somewhere impartial so I'd ask around rather than rely on testimonials from manufacturers or dealers. If they're the total snake-oil you think they are it should be easy to turn up a bunch of dissatisfied customers. I might also see if I could get a full copy of the Bath Uni report.

I am only volunteering my little bit of empirical data so that anyone who is interested can use it to start building up their own data set: In at least one four bedroomed house in South Bucks a water conditioner fitted to the pipework reduces scale in the kettle and on taps and the shower head.

gromituk

kittiwoz wrote:

In at least one four bedroomed house in South Bucks a water conditioner fitted to the pipework reduces scale in the kettle and on taps and the shower head.

Ah - some more empirical evidence you didn't mention before:D

Signed - an engineer.

kittiwoz

That's the same bit of evidence - I'm describing my parents house. I'm not a chartered engineer. I just have a degree in mechanical engineering so I'm trained to think like an engineer.

Volcano

I don't personally see why it's so dubious that the amount of dissolved solids in the water should have been tested by two different methods. It seems like a sensible way of confirming the results and guarding against measurement error to me.

OK, if I told you I've measured a pipe's diameter several times and I reported it to be exactly 1 inch wide and also 2.54 cm wide, would you think I was being sensible and guarding against measurement error? Or does it sound like I don't know what I'm doing?

If you want some light reading with probably the only modern (10 years ago) paper on the subject:Magnetic amelioration of scale formation, John S. Baker and Simon J. Judd, 1996.

Their research effectively agrees with Cranfield University, circulating systems do (in some applications) benefit, single flow don't. They do stress that there are so many variables that improvements could be down to other factors.

As far as marketing the thing goes: I agree entirely with you when you say people should do their own research; that is, after all why the wesite exists. But it also exists to let people know how devious companies are and the lies they'll tell to extract your cash.

That company lies about how its product works:

has the effect of altering the formation of calcium carbonate crystals (limescale), so that they remain in suspension in small particles

It would be far better if they just said "we don't know how it works it just does!"

They would be nearer to the (subjective) truth and wouldn't be insulting people's intelligence........

Volcano

If anyone wants a copy of that research paper I'll quite happily send it to them.

theonlyrick

Volcano wrote: »

Other dubious stuff:
These are one and the same thing so you wouldn't test both.

How or why are 'total dissolved solids' and 'conductivity' one and the same?

Isn't the first a measure of how much solids are dissolved, and conductivity a measure of, well, conductivity? Aren't those two things different?


Doing some googling, you can easily find a good number of people asserting that there has been a reduction in limescale deposits in their kettles. I found two people that were unhappy - but they didn't specify how long they had used the device for. If they expected results within a week or two, then they were not leaving it long enough.

I would say that measuring limescale buildup in a kettle is a fairly objective measure - it's not like asking someone how tired they are, or if they feel like they've lost weight.

I'm looking at getting one. If I get one, I'll post before and (three month) after pictures of my kettle. Presumably what is happening in my kettle would also be happening in my boiler.

Also, re the returns policy. You shouldn't attach so much negativity from a company having a good returns policy. If having a good returns policy is bad, how bad is it to have a bad returns policy?

R