Tags: Questions, Science
Do electronic limescale inhibitors work?
June 22nd, 2005, by Rich.
Warning: apache_lookup_uri() [function.apache-lookup-uri]: Unable to include '/pics/2005/limescale/kettle' - error finding URI in /home/www/boakes.org/htdocs/mods/plugins/boakes-depicticon.php on line 65
I’ve been intermittently toying with the idea of fitting an Anti-Limescale device to the water supply in our home.
Today, with the delivery of a new phone book, I got a flyer describing a product called ScaleWatcher which reminded me of my occasional curiosity with the subject. It’s a nice convincing-looking flyer, with a money back guarantee, so I’m tempted to give it a go.
We have a nice glass sided kettle so it’ll be really obvious if it actually works.
I may be forced to try a little experiment and take daily pictures of my kettle, so please spare me from the madness and give me some definite answers:
- Has anyone I know actually used a household electric water softener?
- Was the experience worthwhile?
- Are they any better than the magnetic or salt based ones?
March 14th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I installed a Scalewatcher about a year ago, after using a Kinetico salt softener for several years. I let the two run together for a couple of months, until the salt ran out, then left the Scalewatcher on its own. The water reverted to its hard state and remained that way. I made sure that the installation was absolutely correct, but after a total of eight months the water still had that sticky feel. So I went back to using the salt softener and now the soap lathers well and hair washing is a pleasure again.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Update from my last post !!!
Ok after couple of weeks use of my Electronic descaler I have notice the following
1.Water seems softer when being drank, especially Tea
2.The Kettle,s element is still shiny with only very minor discolouring
on small parts , the kettles internal sides are silky smooth still
3.Shower taps still shiny, some areas have what I can only describe as
like a film of dust on the hot pipe only !! it comes off with wipe
easily
4.When I pour cold water from the tap it has small particles in it ,
im thinking this
is existing lime being removed by the device ? or just dirty water?
5.I notice the water in the bottom of the kettle doesnt appear cloudy
now ,but has more visible particles of what must be small clumps of lime ,
it seems to have lost its stickyness i guess ?
So with only a couple of weeks use , there does seem to be a difference
whether this is long lasting effect I dont know.
WIll give another update a few weeks time,
regards
March 26th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I have read dozens of reports very few of which I find persuasive with respect to acquiring an electronic descaler. In particular the US Army field tests, although limited ie they could not test every device on the market; found no measurable benefit.
I have been retired for some years but was employed for a number of years as a design engineer in the field of signal processing. I too live in a hard water area and have a pressing problem with limescale causing very poor thermal transfer in the coil of a heatstore.
I know little about the effects of an electromagnetic field on chemical compounds in suspension, other than a dc field will cause ions to migrate to the positive pole, so perhaps an ac field does have some effect. I have read that a “digital” as distinct from analogue waveform is beneficial (in this context I believe the word digital is misleading), what surely is meant is an analogue square wave. This waveform according to M.Fourier is made of the fundamental frequency and its harmonic frequencie. If the effects in question are based on “resonance” then the ions may be resonated by one or more of the harmonics.
None of this says why the compound becomes “less sticky” and stays in suspension, if that indeed is the case.
Chemist needed!
March 28th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
found this worth a read of customers views , i can certainly relate to
most of their of conclusions myself !!!!!
http://www.eddy.uk.com/index.htm
and here too
http://www.diydoctor.org.uk/projects/dealing_hard_water.htm
March 29th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I have read the various “technical” publication by such as by Eddy, which I regard as no more than advertising.
Until a definitive explanation of how an EM wave can cause the calcium and magnesium salt to remain in suspension, is offered, I remain unconvinced. If these various manufacturers do have a detailed theory of the mechanism then why is it not published?
The limited information offered by the water authorities suggest that no chemical changes take place when EM waves even up to microwave frequencies are used. CaCO3 remains as CACO3 so if nothing chemically changes these is no action!
I tried to have an open minded approach to this but now believe such solutions should be categorised along with homeopathy, reflexology, tarot cards and reading tea leaves.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:16 pm
As a final comment, anyone who is still a “believer” should visit http://www.chem1.com/CQ/magscams.html
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Taken from your link JohnH
” This suggests that electromagnetic water treatment can be effective under the right conditions, but what these conditions might be is still unclear. But comprehensive engineering studies of actual industrial installations of these devices (such as those outlined above) sometimes fail to support their utility.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I really enjoyed John’s link, and it reinforced my opinion these things are likely to be no more than snake oil.
The scientist in me is happy to base judgement only on things that can be observed, and to reserve judgement on what cannot. If I’m reserving judgement, then the case is unproven, so I don’t want to part with any cash.
Surely, if these products are actually doing anything that’s measurably useful, then rather than offering an emotive and irrelevant money back guarantee, the manufacturers need only point to independent, scientific, peer reviewed tests, then sit back and count the money.
The fact that they haven’t, is therefore rather suspect.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Tests carried out independently by Professor Peter Dobson of Oxford University 2006
Read the results yourself , but i guess there will always be sceptics :-)
http://www.waterking.co.uk/PDFs/Softerwater.pdf
April 4th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
I have enjoyed reading the discussion here. I must start by admitting that I don’t own, or intend to own, any electronic softening device.
If these devices do actually work, I would be very interested in learning how.
My observations are,
firstly, with regard to electrical pulses affecting the water in the pipes. A copper pipe should have a similar effect to that of a Faraday cage. This would prevent the electrical field interacting with the water.
Secondly, I am not aware that magnetism will excite electrons or make any persistent changes to atoms. It can alter nuclear spin under very specific circumstances. An MMR machine is designed to do this momentarily. If you are familiar with these devices you can appreciate the size of magnet that is required to do this. Incidentally the technique only effects a very small percentage of the atoms present as the normal isotope of an element is unaffected.
So lets assume that there is something going on that we don’t understand; a pseudo-science of sorts. But this still doesn’t explain why no quantitative experimental data exists.
Hard water effects detergents by replacing the sodium ions in detergent molecules for calcium or magnesium, reducing the solubility of the molecule and precipitating it as scum. This is physical, therefore the mechanism is measureable using analytical chemistry, and quantifiable.
The literature pointed to in Pablo’s post is suspect. I have not been able to locate most of the document’s references - (ie. Neither John Crowther & Sons or TFW Associates are registered companies. If TFW Associates do exist, why a Forensic Engineering firm is carrying out the research beggars belief - such a company would analyse train crashes and bridge failures. Surely a Forensic Chemist would be more appropriate). I find the whole document unduly vague.
Claims that the Water-King gives less dissolved calcium in hot water are misleading. There is less dissolved calcium in hot water anyway. It precipitates in hot water and gives us limescale. This is the problem we are trying to address!
In conclusion, I would be interested in any valid research carried out in this area, but at this time remain very sceptical. I don’t now any scientist who, when asked to carry out research on chemical behaviour, would turn their back on proven analytical techniques capable of identification, quantification and speciation, and opt instead for a kitchen sink and a bottle of fairy. Let alone an Oxford don.