I know permanent magnetic conditioners work on diesel bugs, but that is a bacteria, or asphaline, and the results are scientifically repeatable.

Reading the responses here there are too many variables to convince me to rush out and buy one.

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.

Read the results yourself , but i guess there will always be sceptics :-)

http://www.waterking.co.uk/PDFs/Softerwater.pdf

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.

” 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.

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.