Talk:Magnetic water treatment

Untitled

I have e-mailed Prof. Parsons (June 2010) (now head of school) asking for more current update Timpo (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

POV

The dispute regarding this article's neutrality appears to surround what may be a very transitory, but possibly real effect. (e.g. Spear, M. 1992. The growing attraction of magnetic treatment. Process Engineering. May, p. 148)

In industry, where water use occurs immediately after being subject a VERY STRONG field, certain chemical processes are reported (albeit unscientifically) as occurring in a different way, e.g. . (edit to fix cite markup - no valid url given 188.220.56.222 (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

Even if these unscientific observations or opinions are indeed true (and we really do not yet know), almost certainly this technique is not very useful in domestic systems, since removing the calcium presumably returns the water to its original (carbonic acid) state without extracting the calcium (which allegedly precipitates as powder, rather than sheets). Therefore any calcium precipitated would soon redissolve, since particle size would be small compared to regular limescale sheets, and surface area correspondingly large. The effect was first reported in the 1930's and provoked a rash of silly quack medicine products, giving this particular dog a bad name. Perhaps it is deserved. But scientifically, the jury is still out, and research continues. Since serious research IS in hand, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for pedaling orthodoxy or private opinions, the neutrality of this article IMHO should really remain disputed......Timpo (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this article but it is obviously very biased. Are there any magnetism advocates out there? If not, perhaps it shouldn't exist at all. There are articles on real water softeners. Robertcornell68 (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

???? I am a plumber and I know so many other plumbers that swear by magnets and regard conventional ion exchange softeners as fallacious and wasteful. I sell water treatment not gimmicks and I am really confused on what to now that conventional water softeners are illegal where I live? The flash water heater manufacturers void warranty if there is no water treatment before the heater and they recommend these magnets as water treatment. The people who sell these claim that the ions in water are pulverized into tiny little pieces then ionized so they cant stick to anything. They sell them for around $600, the same as a conventional softener. Supposedly the oil company's use this technology to lower the oils viscosity therefor pumping it easier? I am very confused, do they work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.185.248.160 (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In short, the answer is no.2.212.243.92 (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Not POV, but NEUTRAL POV!

This debate has been going on for years! The problem is that technical things are reported in the popular press, and quack manufacturers jump on the bandwagon. An effect was reported at high magnetic fields produced in a laboratory. Soon, ineffectual magnetite bangles and magnetized iron beads were sold to artritus sufferers, and seemed to help, probably by the placebo effect - like gold injections and blood-letting - popular, but not exactly proven! I hope my edit helps! Regards, Timpo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpo (talk • contribs) 11:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Ref: Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute Since the evidence for and against this technology is disputed, the uncited "scientifically proven" claim is insupportable. Nothing is ever "proven" in science. This is a highly complex area of physics which deserves a more substantial article. Although laboratory evidence is scant, and the balance of probability suggests the process may be illusory, it is certainly not proven. There is a substantial market for these things for industrial users, so presumably some well-informed people believe they have obtained some benefit.

There must always some doubt, otherwise the claim is not "scientific" but "religious" certainty! Medicine is mostly religious, because medical researchers do not usually refuse speculative treatment to a control group for supposedly ethical (i.e religious) reasons! I suspect the editors who insist it is pseudoscience may convinced by medical orthodoxy. Why? only because Keepcalmandcarryon is an expression widely used by medical staff (because, traditionally anyway, doctors could literally bury any adverse evidence with their dead patients).

Legally (and medically), we need to consider the "harm" aspect. Would using this technology harm the user? Medically, it may have placebo benefit, but is unlikely to damage the user. Medical use of strong magnetic fields (in EMR scanners, for instance) is well researched, widely practiced and appears to have no adverse biological effect on human patients.

In water treatment (which is what this article is supposed to be about) certainly some fairly substantial users seem convinced, whilst others are not. Therefore it is for the reader to decide on the available evidence. An encyclopedia provides evidential resources, not opinions. For that reason, in April, I inserted a section explaining a simple analogous method of verifying if the apparatus proposed would be effective in the intended application.

The point is, calcium will dissolve in water, and (as every plumber must know) can certainly be precipitated by ion exchange and heat. If the precipitated (solid) calcium is not then physically isolated or removed from the 'treated' water, then, over the course of time it will soon re-dissolve, leaving no tangible evidence of any effect. In water-heaters and kettles, there is always a fresh supply of calcium laden water, and an accretion of visible lime-scale accumulates and must be removed periodically (in ion exchange softeners, more salt has occasionally to be added).

I have reviewed all the contributions and will try to rework this article, time permitting. Timpo (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look and the article seems to follow WP:NPOV. You can request further review at WP:NPOVN, or (more on topic) WP:FTN. I'm afraid the screed above about the limits of science isn't wikipedia policy. Interestingly there is a problem with MRI scanners in the EU as recent directives seem to outlaw their use on health and safety grounds! Silly, but there you go. Might be a tabloid story, and is probably resolved by now. Returning on topic, we follow the WP:RS - and we have little RS in support of your position. Verbal chat 12:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted User:Timpo's edits because they appeared to contain synthesis and original research. I also judged the language to be unencyclopaedic, but that was secondary. The tag was reverted because tag addition should be supported by consensus or some sort of cogent link to guidelines. As an example of why I reverted, consider Timpo's sentence, "Klaus Kronenberg PhD appears to be the most quoted authority to support this effect, or at least, tries to offer some rational explanation." What's wrong? We don't use academic degrees in the text (MoS), "most quoted authority" has no RS and appears to be original research, and "at least, tries to offer some rational explanation" is unencyclopaedic editorial opinion. For a second example, the section "Fortunately a simple consumer test is available" is unsourced, POV and goes against what Wikipedia is not: a how-to guide. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall going through this back in January and again in April, but apparently not on this talkpage. The basic issue is that for statements of scientific fact, we require sources reliable to make the statement. It is also better to rely on independent sources inasmuch as possible. In the absence of such independent sources indicating a controversy over this method, it is inappropriate to present the article as though there is one. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Another view: Some capable and curious engineers I know have had clear successes with this technology in buildings and factories. I have also seen (but cannot find, alas) German-language literature on mechanisms, showing convincing photomicrographs of how magnetic treatment causes waters that previously deposited sticky scale to form instead fluffy aragonite that washes away. Having just looked again at the newer literature (but not reviewed in detail the Cranfield symposium), I am confident this article is nowhere near neutral. I agree that there is much nonsense and hucksterism among the vendors, and that the mechanisms of action are controversial and poorly understood, but the article's statements to the effect that the technology doesn't work and that the scientific literature doesn't support its efficacy are clearly outdated and unbalanced. Science Direct, for example, easily turns up many detailed and apparently competent peer-reviewed articles finding the contrary, of which these are a typical but far from exhaustive sample: 1998 -- doi:10.1016/S0043-1354(97)00277-7 2001 -- doi:10.1016/S0304-8853(01)00432-2 2001 -- doi:10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00010-0 2003 -- doi:10:1016/S0927-7757(03)00133-X 2005 -- doi:10.1016/j.watres.2005.11.019 2006 -- doi:10.1016/j.watres.2006.03.013 These all show clear and reproducible effects consistent with reduced or less tenacious scale formation, and go some way towards understanding why. Coloradophysicist (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

My user:timpo revised page and the dispute banner has been removed by user:keepcalmandcarryon without explanation. I replaced the banner and have sought policy advice. the change is here [[1]] Like cold fusion this is a disputed technology. something seems to be happening, and readers deserve both sides of the debate. and a simple test method, which keepcalmandcarryon seems anxious to suppress. It would be nice if s/he would contribute to this talk page (and update theuser:keepcalmandcarryon user profile). Timpo (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

To open a new section on this talk page, please select the "new section" tab at the top. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Timpo, I've had a look at the references in the article and to me they support the assertions made, in particular that the scientific evidence available shows magnetic water treatment to have none of the benefits/effects the proponents claim. In that light it seems appropriate to conclude that this is a psuedoscience. On what basis do you claim this article lacks neutrality? Crafty (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I explained my edits in more detail above. Timpo, WP:RS and WP:NOR are two guidelines that may help you avoid reversions in future. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The dispute appears to surround a very transitory, but possibly real effect. In industry, where water use occurs immediately after being subject a VERY STRONG field, certain chemical processes are reported as occurring in a different way. Even if this is true, almost certainly this technique is not very useful in domestic systems, since removing the calcium presumably returns the water to its original (carbonic acid) state without extracting the calcium (which allegedly precipitates as powder, rather than sheets). Therefore any calcium precipitated would soon redissolve, since particle size would be small compared to regular limescale sheets, and surface area correspondingly large. The effect was first reported in the 1930's and provoked a rash of silly quack medicine products, giving this particular dog a bad name. Perhaps it is deserved. But scientifically, the jury is still out, and research continues. Since serious research IS in hand, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for pedaling orthodoxy or private opinions, the neutrality of this article IMHO should really remain disputed......Timpo (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Timpo do you have reliable secondary sources to hand which would support your assertions? Crafty (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The only content you've provided to present an alternate side to the story comes from either unreliable sources or sources that have nothing to do with magnetic water treatment. Thus, everything you've added is either insignificant or original research. Keep in mind that the neutral point of view is the point of view that can be explicitly supported by reliable sources. The neutral point of view is not about balancing negative information with positive information. Unless you actually present reliable sources to support your claim that "scientifically, the jury is still out," this will continue to look like your personal opinion, and your changes will continue to be reverted with extreme prejudice. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Timpo has had four different opinions but continues to maintain that other editors have not discussed these edits on the talk page. I endorse Crafty's and Someguy's statements above, as well as Verbal's assessment. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Timpo has one opinion on this subject, which is multi-faceted:

• We appear to agree the science is unclear, but disagree with the way this article implies it is more or less proven to be pseudoscience. Maybe it is, but serious engineers use this technique, and believers spend good money on installing such things in industrial applications (but then serious people believe in lots of imaginary things: user:Timpo believes in Gremlins such as the ones raising this issue)
• This is engineering (suck it and see) not science (demonstrate repeatedly)
• It is impossible to prove a negative - if it does not work in labs, maybe there are too many variables?
• There is a difference between 'proof' (belief) and 'proof' (mathematical probability) which lawyers call 'balance of probability' [[Syntax (logic)]
• My version of the article I have placed here User:Timpo/MWT because I hope some user of this technology will comment on this page or on
• # ^ London South Bank University, Prof. Martin Chaplin. "Water Structure and Science". http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/descal.html#212. says:

"There are many devices on the market for the magnetic treatment of water for the removal of such limescale. The sales success of these devices would seem to indicate that some work as promoted, at least under some circumstances. " Maybe London South Bank University is a joke and Prof. Martin Chaplin is a fake academic, but he makes perfect sense to me!

• The European Physical Journal Applied Physics, AA Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kraków, Journal of Physics Universities of Harvard and Wisconsin (US) seemed to be fairly reliable, neither insignificant nor original research. Water treatment means adding something or removing something. those somethings are part of the story, not irrelevanciesTimpo (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As for Mark Chaplin, self-published sources don't suffice when discussing controversial topics, even if the author has the appropriate credentials. And this is because you can find "established experts" supporting any variety of ideas, from the mainstream to the batshit insane. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Original Wildbear seems to have done a good repair! I added some information relating to patents & listed some of them under the references, since these are really the claims at the core of this article Timpo (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made an edit based on my own (skeptical) experience, in what I hope is a neutral POV. I think there are a lot of quack vendors out there and I have tried to research how and why various (typically expensive) devices might work. There doesn't seem to be any scientific reason why passive magnets would do anything. Ditto a single coil wound around a water pipe carrying a pulsating and reversing electric current (hence inducing a pulsating and reversing magnetic field in the water). However, where there are two coil windings in close proximity that generate opposing magnetic fields I can see that some smashing about of limescale crystals, or some other as yet unidentified interaction, could occur. This is, in my view, more likely if there is a high level of iron also present in the water, which is my domestic situation. It would also explain why the results vary across different users. I installed one of the two coil systems in my house without telling my family and then asked them a month later if they had noticed any differences with the water. They had noticed an increase in the shower's hot water pressure (as would be expected if some de-scaling had occurred) and a reduction in the "metallic" taste of the water (for which I can offer no scientific explanation). I await more thorough investigation of this by scientists. I purchased an inexpensive version of the device from a German supplier that, interestingly, had changed it's installation instructions so that the two coils are now installed with windings in the opposite directions - presumably inducing crystal collisions or the like in the water. Hardwaterman (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional References

In regard to recent editors comments, I did a little research. It appears that efficacy of these devices are disputed, however, I found the following at this site. Perhaps they can be used to better the article?

• Bruns, S. A., V. I. Klassen, and A. K. Konshina. 1966. Change in the extinction of light by water after treatment in a magnetic field. Kolloidn. Zh. 28: 153-155.
• Busch, K. W., M. A. Busch, D. H. Parker, R. E. Darling, and J. L. McAtee, Jr. 1986. Studies of a water treatment device that uses magnetic fields. Corrosion 42 (4): 211-221.
• Busch, K. W., M. A. Busch, R. E. Darling, S. Maggard, and S. W. Kubala. 1997. Design of a test loop for the evaluation of magnetic water treatment devices. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 75 (Part B): 105-114.
• Chechel, P. S., and G. V. Annenkova. 1972. Influence of magnetic treatment on solubility of calcium sulphate. Coke Chem. USSR. 8: 60-61.
• Daly, J. 1995. Miracle cure. Motor Boating and Sailing. October, p. 36.
• Denver, E., executive ed. 1996. Magnets that don't do much to soften water. Consumer Reports. February, p. 8.
• Donaldson, J. D. 1988. Magnetic treatment of fluids -- preventing scale.” Finishing. 12: 22-32.
• Duffy, E. A. 1977. Investigation of Magnetic Water Treatment Devices. Ph.D. dissertation, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.
• Gehr, R., Z. A. Zhai, J. A. Finch, and S. R. Rao. 1995. Reduction of soluble mineral concentrations in CaSO4 saturated water using a magnetic field. Wat. Res. 29 (3): 933-940.
• Harrison, J. 1993. WQA Glossary of Terms. Water Quality Association. Lisle, Ill.
• Hasson, D., and D. Bramson. 1985. Effectiveness of magnetic water treatment in suppressing CaCO3 scale deposition. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 24: 588-592.
• Higashitani, K., and J. Oshitani. 1997. Measurements of magnetic effects on electrolyte solutions by atomic force microscope. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 75 (Part B): 115-119.
• Joshi, K. M., and P. V. Kamat. 1966. Effect of magnetic field on the physical properties of water. J. Ind. Chem. Soc. 43: 620-622.
• Klassen, V. I. 1981. Magnetic treatment of water in mineral processing. In Developments in Mineral Processing, Part B, Mineral Processing. Elsevier, N.Y., pp. 1077-1097.
• Kronenberg, K. J. 1985. Experimental evidence for effects of magnetic fields on moving water. IEEE Trans. on Magnetics, vol. Mag-21, no. 5: 2059-2061.
• Krylov, O. T., I. K. Vikulova, V. V. Eletskii, N. A. Rozno, and V. I. Klassen. 1985. Influence of magnetic treatment on the electro-kinetic potential of a suspension of CaCO3. Colloid J. USSR 47: 820-824.
• Liburkin, V. G., B. S. Kondratev, and T. S. Pavlyukova. 1986. Action of magnetic treatment of water on the structure formation of gypsum. Glass and Ceramics (English translation of Steklo I Keramika) 1: 101-105.
• Lin, I., and Y. Yotvat. 1989. Electro-magnetic treatment of drinking and irrigation water. Water and Irrigation Rev. 8:16-18.
• Lipus, L., J. Krope, and L. Garbai. 1994. Magnetic water treatment for scale prevention. Hungarian J. Ind. Chem. 22: 239-242.
• Marshall, S. V,. and G. G. Skitek 1987. Electromagnetic Concepts and Applications. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Martynova, O. I., E. F. Tebenekhin, and B. T. Gusev. 1967. Conditions and mechanism of deposition of the solid calcium carbonate phase from aqeuous [sic] solutions under the influence of a magnetic field. Colloid J. USSR 29: 512-514.
• McNeely, M. 1994. Magnetic fuel treatment system designed to attack fuel-borne microbes. Diesel Progress Engines and Drives. November, p. 16.
• Mirumyants, S. O., E. A. Vandyukov, and R. S. Tukhvatullin. 1972. The effect of a constant magnetic field on the infrared absorption spectrum of liquid water. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 46: 124.
• Parsons, S. A., S. J. Judd, T. Stephenson, S. Udol, and B.-L. Wang. 1997. Magnetically augmented water treatment. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 75 (Part B): 98-104.
• Raisen, E. 1984. The control of scale and corrosion in water systems using magnetic fields. Corrosion 84. Conference proceedings, Nat. Assoc. of Corrosion Engineers, Houston, paper no. 117.
• Singley, J. E. 1984. Municipal water treatment. In Kirk-Othmer Encyl. of Chemical Technology. 3rd ed. Edited by Martin Grayson. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Vol. 24, pp. 385-406.
• Skripka, N. I., A. A. Litvinov, and I. G. Tretyakov. 1975. Influence of operational factors on oxidizability of liquid hydrocarbons. Operational Properties of Fuels, Lubricants and Technical Liquids Used in Civil Aviation [Kiev] 1: 11-14. [In Russian.]
• Spear, M. 1992. The growing attraction of magnetic treatment. Process Engineering. May, p. 143.
• Tretyakov, I. G., M. A., Rybak, and E. Yu. Stepanenko. 1985. Method of monitoring the effectiveness of magnetic treatment for liquid hydrocarbons. Sov. Surf. Eng. Appl. Electrochem. 6: 80-83.
• Tretyakov, I. G., E. S. Denisov, and A. N. Solovev. 1975. Effects of magnetic field treatment on electrophysical properties of aviation fuels. Operational Properties of Fuels, Lubricants and Technical Liquids Used in Civil Aviation [Kiev] 1: 41-42. [In Russian.]
• Welder, B. Q., and E. P. Partridge. 1954. Practical performance of water-conditioning gadgets. Ind. Eng. Chem. 46: 954-960.
• Wilkes, J. F., and R. Baum. 1979. Water conditioning devices -- an update. Int. Water Conf.: 40th Annual Meeting, paper no. IWC-79-20.
• Yarows, S. A., W. E. Fusilier, and A. B. Weder. 1997. Sodium concentration of water from softeners. Arch. Intern. Med. 157: 218-222. Neuromancer (talk 03:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Magnetohydrodynamics

In the "Mechanisms" section, various proposals are cited but not this one:

At least one vendor claims the mechanism is Magnetohydrodynamics (see also their diagram on "How does it work") for a change in crystal shape.

I'm not sure how best to include it, if at all -- unsurprisingly the vendor provides no independent reference for their claims, so I'm left with only their site to cite, which I don't want to do on the main page. Having tried hunting down pages and coming up with the experience-based "it works" and no significant research from the science community that seemed to address what the "it works" people are experiencing, I resorted to Wikipedia only to find it's a bit of a mess... (Even the Magnetohydrodynamics page seems to be some borderline science that's still hotly debated...) 188.220.56.222 (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved for discussion

I have removed the following paragraph because it was not really suitable for the introduction. Because it is without context, it is very unclear what the quoted material is referring to.

However there is some evidence of some effect, for example K. W. Busch, M.A. Busch~Desalination 109 (1997) agree that many reports are "...generally negative [quoted:J.E. Alleman(1985)].Fluid flow in .. systems... [ẁhich are].. slow and intermittent. Other types of once-through testing should also produce negative results [quoted: G.J.C. Limpert and J.L. Raber (1985)]. On the other hand, it should not be surprising that two of the most recent field successes reported for these devices [quoted: J.F. Grutsch and J.W. McClintock (1982) & R.J. Szostak and D.A. Toy(1985)] involved constantly recirculating cooling towers where sufficient linear fluid flow velocity was maintained continually, the solution was repeatedly recirculated through the [Magnetic Treatment Device] MTV, and the solution conductivity was relatively high and increased with increasing cycles of concentration.".

If someone can make sense of this and rewrite it in a way that is meaningful, maybe it can be reincluded. Deli nk (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Review publications

I'm thinking this article would benefit from citations from (peer reviewed) published scientific review paper(s), to try to make sense of the (supposed) claims and counter claims. I'd also like to know who/when first "invented" this. Widefox (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The http://www.awt.org/ would be a good start for reputable refs. Here's one of the first refs you can find there by searching "magnetic" - an independent test done on various methods Nonchemical Scale Control Devices . This and others should be used to clear up the POV check (below) Widefox (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

POV-check

WP:POV-check - is this topic classified as pseudoscience or controversial science? I think this needs establishing as currently the article seems to want it both ways. To me, it appears as pseudoscience, and as such the counter claims need weighting properly as outside scientific views (just like homoeopathy, Magnetic fuel saver, etc). This is my view, but to gain consensus, I have tagged this for a POV check. Widefox (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is pseudo-scientific nonsense used to sell junk devices to gullible individuals and organisations. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Homeopathy?

I cannot see the significance of this mention in the "See also" section. I see no mention of homeopathy in the article and no relevance in the homeopathy article. I propose it be removed. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Next time you find something to fix, you can do it yourself. Be bold! -- Brangifer (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC) -- Brangifer (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

The lead paragraph of this article is a load of baloney. Most of the cited articles actually contradict the statements they are supposed to support. Keister is one author who denies the effectiveness of MTDs, fair enough. But a number of other articles are cited, supposedly to show that there is no scientific support for, or acceptance of, the effectiveness of these devices. In fact, they don't say that.

• Chaplin affirms the process works: "By drawing water through a static magnetic field ... it has been shown that the initial amount of aragonite formed is significantly increased over calcite in samples with and without the presence of dissolved iron, although this aragonite eventually changes to calcite."
• Powell notes that many studies provide evidence in support of the process/mechanism, but says that most domestically-installed devices show no significant effect.
• Busch and Busch found a small but significant effect from MTDs, given a reasonably rapid continuous water flow.
• New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services made no judgement: "As of this writing, DES does not have sufficient independent technical data to judge whether M/E treatment devices for hardness are effective."

I didn't read Szkatula et al., as this is not readily available online, but still, that's the majority of these sources that have been misrepresented.

Furthermore, Keister's article (2008), the only one making a flat denial, states: "To date, all controlled studies of devices claiming this ability have shown that the calcium carbonate continues to crystallize as calcite, not aragonite." Keister is simply wrong in this regard, as Coey and Cass' blind controlled study in 2000 showed a prevalence of aragonite crystals resulting from treatment by MTD. This is just one piece of research, appearing in a reputable journal, that happens to have been cited elsewhere in this wikipedia article. Chaplin's brief article (2012) is a more recent corroboration of the same. It sounds (e.g. from Powell's review of the literature) as though there are several others. I thus find it hard to credit Keister, as he misrepresents the state of the literature and ignores the existence of opposing evidence.

I have not read beyond the lead paragraph, but I think the claims of "pseudoscience" were inserted by someone who prefers to go with gut instinct rather than reading the literature. This is an encyclopedia, and demands proper checking of facts! Fuzzypeg★ 11:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, just checked Szkatula et al., and they too state that the device they tested worked successfully. They propose yet another mechanism for its effect. So that's yet another misrepresented scientific article. We don't want to get a reputation here for being anti-science, do we? Fuzzypeg★ 12:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

How these devices really work.

Theory

In industrial situations they are generally pitched a site managers and similar. These people generally have very good practical knowledge and experience but often relatively low academic qualifications. The 'explanations' are generally aimed at a level of physics and chemistry just above that of the site manager. The explanations are backed up by 'papers' written by non-authoritative sources or which show very small and practically insignificant effects.

The explanations of the benefits are in three parts: the first part is an introduction to the physics and chemistry of electricity, magnetism, electrolytes and the formation of scale. As said above it is pitched just above the head of the site manager. It is generally 100% correct so, if checked in a text book or with a colleague, it will check out. The middle bit is the shortest and will say something like, 'From these facts we can easily see that this device will reduce scale'. This is complete nonsense, of course, but the target is too embarrassed to say that they do not follow. The last part of the explanation covers the effects of scale on boilers and pipes. These are well known and are covered in some detail. The beneficial effects of energy saving and money savings are calculated and a good payback on the device is shown. As with the first section, this information is 100% correct, providing the device works, of course.

Practice

Site managers generally have limited opportunity to make a serious positive impact on the company's profitability. These products provide them with an opportunity to show their true worth to the business.

The price is set not too low; the targets are smart enough to know that anything too good to be true usually is. The price is set so that a good return on capital invested is predicted but the site manager has to present a good case to the board and satisfy the company's accountants. Of course he is greatly helped by the equipment seller's promotional material in this endeavour. The product then becomes his baby, with a large investment in reputation and personal worth..

It is recommended that before fitment, the plant is thoroughly serviced and descaled. This provides a significant and verifiable benefit.

There are also generally a few hard-to-comply-with installation conditions buried in the small print. These are often ignored but provide an escape route if the product is seen not to perform.

In most cases the way performance is ultimately measured is by energy usage. This varies considerably from year to year due to weather and other factors. If the first year shows an increase in energy usage the site manager keeps quiet or explains to the board that it was a cold year. He is obvious reluctant to give the board the impression that he has spent a great deal of their money on something that does not work. If a decrease in energy usage is shown the site manager claims the glory and the pay rise. The benefit is proven and no more data is needed.

The lucky guys who had an early saving write glowing testimonials for the product; the unlucky ones keep their mouths shut. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The proof of the pudding is in the eating! The effect only lasts a short time, and stored water will reabsorb the precipitated calcium - it is an electro-mechanical effect - there is no permanent chemical change, only a solution that temporarily becomes a mixture and (since the chemical mix has not changed) reverts in a day or so. I added Transcranial magnetic stimulation, as the mechanism within the blood chemistry probably helps precipitate placa which is then carried by the blood to be fairly rapidly processed and presumably excreted in urine or excrement, who knows? The time factor may be the key to solving this dispute? Timpo (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Que? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

While this topic raises strong emotions and is probably targeted by interested entities, IMHO the current article looks reasonably fair and balanced. I am not sure what further references would be crucial, so maybe critics would review the article. I am a retired technical engineer who many years ago designed a simple electronic pulse generator for a prospective manufacturer (c. 2006, never commercialised). in 2008 I found the article so controversially negative as to deserve NPOV challenge. Except as stated I have no commercial or academic links to any makers of such products or proponents of this technique.Timpo (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

WP does aim to present a neutral POV but that does not extend to pseudoscience. There is scant evidence of any real effect of these devices and plenty of evidence and well know science to say that they do not. There is no known mechanism by which the can work and most descriptions of how they do are word salads.

It is very easy for commercially interested parties to find obscure publications which suggest various mechanisms that might be relevant but ther is absolutely no clear reproducible independent evidence that the devices do anything at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Pseudo-science presumes confabulation and that there has been no research whatsoever. There is a very large body of scientific papers with confusing conclusions, partly due to the complexity of identifying specific effects against specific test solutions under a variety of magnetic influences. As you say, there are some edits that merely express opinions - one of which I have removed. Do look at the paper that replaces that particular word salad Timpo (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The quoted ref is a general review concluding, 'Manufacturers continue to market these NCWTS devices despite the lack of peer-reviewed laboratory data, mechanistic explanations and documented field studies. Distributors, customers and manufacturers continue to make erroneous conclusions about efficacy based on applications with uncontrolled variables'. This essentially says that people sell them but there is no evidence that they work or known mechanism by which they might do. THis is pretty much what I said above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed much of the recently added material because it does not follow a mainstream scientific viewpoint. As fare as I know there are no reliable sources that show any statistically significant or scientifically demonstrated benefits of these device. I can easily be proved wrong but so fare I have seen nothing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the rest. The problems with the material ranged from general style and formatting to FRINGE and NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do you guys persistently remove actual scientific reference material published by bona-fide researchers in favor of the opinions of persons engaged in commercial enterprises who industrial qualifications are inferior to the quoted academics? Do you have some undeclared interest in concealing that more recent and rigorous work?Timpo (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia articles are weighed to scientific consensus rather than recent research.

What "scientific reference material"? --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Rand Afrikaans University

Apologies if I have missed it, but I can't see any reference to the paper published by [Afrikaans University], which concludes;

"In four of the experiments reproducibility was investigated which was found to be good. In the other six experiments the effect of the permanent magnet was evaluated by commuting it between the two storage tanks. It was found that the permanent magnet was effective in suppressing the mass precipitation of scale in all six these experiments."

This was not published in a peer reviewed journal. There are no details given of the exact experimental procedure nor how the scale was measured nor the actual results. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

New study?

I've always been interested in this because I used laundry discs and magnetic water softening for well over 2 decades due to severe allergies and sensitivities. The advent of the new machines that use next-to-no water has made the laundry discs useless - not enough water in them. I've been always curious because most of the scientific types say they don't work, and while I'm no scientific type, I'm not a dummy when it comes to laundry and bathing so I know they work. There is just no way I could have raised two kids - one of them hyperactive and unco-ordinated - with no laundry detergent if they didn't work. We'd have looked like hobos or something. And my brother the scientist who was on that page took off the magnetic softener I put on his shower when I was staying there because he said that while it was on he couldn't do a thing with his hair. OK, all that aside - I did come across a really good and (relatively) recent study done at a South African Uni where they seem to believe they have found the answer to the how and why of it, and I actually found the reference again: The Effectiveness of a magnetic physical water treatment device on scaling in domestic hot-water storage tanks. C. Smith, P Coetzee and J. Meyers. Water SA 29(3) 2003. Also a Polish study in 2002 which got some good results. Both those seem to show that the results vary according to the mineral composition of the water (I think) I don't want to fight with anyone, but would like information. At least there are unscented laundry products now, but nothing except salt in the mainstream to soften water and stop me from itching and having my hair look like it's been glued down.

24.141.25.146 (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing 'controversial'

Since the scientific consensus demonstrates the claims are not only wrong, but fraudulent, can we remove the word 'controversial' and state the fact that such devices are frauds? Since that is a fact, I see no reason why stating this fact would violate POV neutrality. --Desertphile (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally agree with you that the claims are fraudulent but to put that in WP we would need a very good source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding to article

Magnetic water filtration draws out iron particles because they a ferrous metal. Newer models of magnetic filters now use rare earth magnets or even electrically charged magnets. Your welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.86.21 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Magnetic water treatment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120417131247/http://www.wcponline.com/pdf/0804Keister.pdf to http://www.wcponline.com/pdf/0804Keister.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111215092211/http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ARMYCOE/PWTB/pwtb_420_49_34.pdf to http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ARMYCOE/PWTB/pwtb_420_49_34.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527094356/http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/descal.html to http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/descal.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222171300/http://www.gmxinternational.com/facts/interview/05.htm to http://www.gmxinternational.com/facts/interview/05.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Related devices section

"Magnetic fuel savers ... hydrocarbon fuels have no appreciable electrical resistivity and conductivity"

Since resistivity is the inverse of conductivity, it is impossible for any substance to have both no appreciable resistivity and also no appreciable conductivity. So the statement as it stands currently in the narrative is clearly wrong. Gwideman (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Unproven and unscientific

It appears to be ok in the lede, but a close review might help. Relevant diffs: [2][3] --Hipal (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I am surprised by how ref [2], which is [4]https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2015/ew/c5ew00052a is used in this wikipedia article: this paper from a scientific journal (good or bad, I do not judge) is much more nuanced, with wordings such as "While there are inconsistencies in the results obtained by different researchers, a majority of the reports indicate the ability of MF to modify the precipitate deposited to either aragonite or vaterite, which form soft non-adherent scale". In other words, this reference says that there is the beginning of a scientific explanation, and it also suggests that there is an actual effect, although its extent and thus practical usefulness remains unclear. The wikipedia article seems to reject the technique without much evidence. This is not about flat Earth: scientists did have a look, they did provide information, they did conclude that the technique is not fully proven but may not be silly either, so evidence is needed both ways - to accept and to reject. Uncertainties and lack of knowledge also need to be recognised.

I hope that this article can be improved. Pmarbaix (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Study

Hi.

This Study is quoted on the "Water Softening" article here on Wikipedia. According to it, Magnetic water treatment has been shown to reduce scale formation between 17% and 70%. Even if the mechanism is unknown, there seems to be scientific evidence that this method works.

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/water_recycling/research/ion_exchange_water_softeners.pdf

Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.27.28.34 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. We cannot change the consensus based on a primary study. Give us secondary reviews instead.

And new stuff goes to the bottom. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a secondary review - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-020-0071-9. The current Wikipedia article is biased and uninformative. 216.250.210.90 (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Summary of recent EMF treatment studies

Among a substantial number of literatures, 48 studies with detailed experiment methods and results (published after the year 2000) were selected for in-depth analysis. Tables 1–4 summarize the details of these studies including the feed water solution, EMF devices and treatment, testing conditions (laboratory, pilot, or industrial-scale) and duration, materials and operating conditions, characterization methods, and major results. Although different results were reported regarding the influence of EMF in minerals precipitation, the results support the same hypothesis that EMF induce bulk precipitation of crystals rather than adhesion to the surface of reactors, pipes and vessels (Tables 1–3) or to membrane surface (Table 4). If we consider the bulk precipitation enhancement as effective EMF treatment, the percentage of effective EMF cases can reach 95% for the discussed 48 studies, 5% of the studies observed negligible improvement with EMF treatment, none of them has negative results. Negligible improvement with EMF was observed due to feed water chemistry or high water recovery, more details were discussed in section “RO System Operation & Water Chemistry”. It is also worth noting that many studies fail to report negative results, thereby the percentage of successful cases could be lower in reality. 216.250.210.90 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)