Natural Science Forum / Physics / Research / January 2008

Resisting the attitude of being sarcastic,
how can we possibly find an answer to that question?

Get a water hardness test kit

http://www.thesciencefair.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=LM5879

Start the washing machine without soap fill, and without any textiles.

a.) do an empty wash without the magnet

b.) do the same with magnet.

And both times stop the machine just before it drains the water,
take a probe and do the hardness test. Repeat the complete
procedure 3 times to make sure we did everything right.

That's the science way to handle things like that.

w.

100% fraud.

On Nov 29, 2:35 pm, Bossavit <bossa...@lgep.supelec.removethis.fr>
wrote:

Real water softeners do improve the laundry process.
Iron is mentioned in this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_softener

So if iron is the primary contaminant in your water
it seems plausible some magnetic system might
offer an improvement.

Sue...

Here is a review by a chemist of these water treatment devices.
http://www.chem1.com/CQ/magscams.html
The results are not favorable or not defined.

But within this context,
to say that a magnetic field has no effect on a moving ionic charge in aqueous
solution relative to a magnetic field
is like saying that a there is no physical theoretical principle
supporting the cathode ray tube (CRT).

Perhaps someone will have the resources to do
a controlled laboratory experiment (no commercial devices):

1. well defined supersaturated carbonate ion solution
   CaCO3(solid), Ca++, HCO3-, CO3=, H+, OH-, H2O
2. well defined magnetic field > 10 tesla
3. well engineered reaction volume within the magnetic field
   with ion supporting fluid (H2O) moving at velocities 1 - 100 meter/sec
   and pressure drops several hundred (thousand?) psi.

All in order to test the hypothesis:

Energy = charge (velocity x magnetic field)*distance
         traveled (+or-) by (+or-) ions
         (with subsequent quantified supersaturated ion concentration gradients)
       = RT ln K(S=0)  - RT ln K(S=S)

where K(S=0) is the CaCO3 solubility constant for large particles
and   K(S=S) is the CaCO3 solubility constant for small particles
                with large surface area (S)

Fluid (H2O) exiting from the engineered reaction volume
would be observed by particle imaging sizing instrumentation
on a real time basis under quantified and varied
reactor conditions 1, 2, 3
with a control baseline defined
by a reactor without magnetic field and/or fluid (H20) velocity.

Currently available strong magnetic (superconductor?) fields
and (laser) particle size instrumentation technology
may provide data not previously available.

Such a measured quantitative effect may have application in many commercial
areas (and other chemical conditions) where particle size is important in
product performance such as cosmetics, paint, paper whiteness  ....
and nanotechnology in general
and most importantly,
a well engineered system (significant investment)
could contribute to the bottom line.

The commercially available 'gadgets' do not operate
near the conditions specified in 2 and 3
and if the hypothesis is correct,
would have no effect on water hardness.

Richard

http://www.chem1.com/CQ/magscams.html
together with the links in it seems to cover this fairly exhaustively.

the only work they do is in separating you from your money.

Remember that water is a polar.

When water run in long strait tubes the water molecules form long chains
and large structures.

When water run through a magnetic field at rotating electric field is
formed which organize the polar water molecules in small circular
structures.

This is what I think happens.

Paul Danaher wrote:

100% fraud.  One need merely calculate degenerate energy level
splitting in the impressed field.  Nuclear alignment is ridiculous -
about 15/million protons are aligned in a 14,092 gauss field (NMR) at
ambient temp - energy splitting difference of 60 MHz.  Electron level
splitting (EPR) is 1836 times larger... and then promptly scrambles
having passed from the field.  Convert RT into MHz for comparison.

Earth's magnetic field is ~0.4 gauss.  Good cheap magnets are maybe
500 gauss.  Dipole fields decay 1/r^3 not as monopole 1/r^2.

How many MRIs are done daily?  Nobody suffers from acute hypercalcemia
and osteoporosis after 5-15 minutes in a 1.5 tesla field.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/AllaReyfman.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_resonance_imaging

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/crap.htm
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/religion.htm
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/horse.htm

They work like this:

My involvement with these devices is with the larger
and more expensive units fitted to industrial boilers.
Such boilers are likely to be controlled by a site
manager, often someone with much practical
experience and limited academic education.  These
people usually have a low profile within the company
compared with people like sales managers and they
welcome any way to show what they can do.  (Note
that nothing that I write is intended to be derogatory
in any way to site managers.)

Anyway, along comes a salesman with a glossy and
well-written brochure for a magnetic water descaler.
The brochures are written in three parts; the first part
is normally a brief outline of  magnetism.  It is written
just above the technical level of the site manager, but
should he decide to do his homework and check it
out he will find that it is 100% correct.

The middle, very short, part is what I call the 'vital
non-sequitur' and it says something along the lines of,
'From the above we can easily see that the magnets will
prevent scale formation'.  Having checked out the first
part, the site manager assumes that this must be right too
but that he is not quite smart enough to see why.

The last part of the brochure contains well presented
technical information on the harm caused by scale,
usually complete with pictures and graphs.  Like the
first part, it is 100% correct.

So our site manager, full of enthusiasm, takes the
literature to his bosses and explains how he can save
a large fraction of the company's energy bill by fitting
the magnetic devices.  To his delight, the board agree
to give the site manager the chance to prove his worth.

Now the installation instructions are an important part
of the process as well.  Firstly, they will strongly suggest
doing things that will undoubtedly improve the situation,
such as descaling and servicing the system.  Secondly,
they contain a few subtle and easily overlooked  get-outs
such as requiring the unit to be fitted vertically and away
from electrical equipment.

A year later one of two things will have happened
but neither of them produces any bad news for the
equipment suppliers.

If it was a good year and the servicing of the equipment
produced a measurable improvement in efficiency then
the site manager will go triumphantly to the board to
collect his pay rise and will also write a glowing
testimonial to the equipment suppliers.  Everybody is
happy.

If no improvement is evident then what the site manager
is not going to do is say, 'You know that large sum of the
company's money that you agreed I could spend?  Well
it was a complete waste, we were completely taken in
by a bunch of fraudsters'.  He will say something along
the lines of, 'We have no conclusive results yet but that
may be because this year was colder than usual.  I will
keep you informed but it looks promising'.  No pay rise,
but at least he does not get fired.  And  there is no bad
news for the system manufacturers either.

The scam has been running for decades.

--
Martin Hogbin