We moved to an area which requires us to use a water softener.  It's only
been a few months, but I'm now tired of lugging 40lb bags of salt up and
down the stairs.
 
My wife saw a recomendation in "E" magazine about a device called the 
ScaleBan 2000 whi "attaches to your water pipe and treates the water with
an electromagnetic signal".  It goes on to say "this device is not a 
permanent magnet" and it has "special frequencies and harmonics which convert
100$ of the calcite to aragonite".  It also "re-dissolves the built-up
limescale in your pipes and water heater."
 
I've heard magnets are a scam when it comes to "softening" water.  Anybody
have any thoughts about this type of product?  It's made by EcoSoft
Engineering in Wisconsin. (who, they say, are members of the Wisconsin
BBB.)

62 responses total.

I suppose the other reason for considering this would be to stop sending
so much salt down the drains.  But for $400, I'd want some kind of feeling
that this type of product would work.

To my ear, the "special frequencies...re-dissolves..." stuff sounds like
snake oil.  I'd suggest being VERY cautious.

I'd echo i's comments on being very cautious.  I've seen these things too
and often in installations that should be beyond the reach of snake-oil
salesmen.  I wonder, though, if they aren't pushing the capabilities of
these devices.  I have a feeling that I understand the simple chemistry
behind NaCl softeners, but the chemistry behind these electronic devices
eludes me.  Perhaps Rane can shed some light on this?  I wouldn't buy
one unless you are absolutely sure about what it does, how it does it,
how much electricity it costs to run, etc.
 
You may also want to look at your softener and plumbing.  Some softeners
are more efficient than others.  How does yours rate?  Does everything
on the softened side of your softened need to be softened?  Can some
stuff be moved to the non-softened side?  (Hose bibs, etc.)

I happen to be a student of calcite and aragonite (polymorphs of calcium
carbonate crystals - there is also vaterite), and have never heard of any
electromagnetic effect upon the respective processes of crystallization. 
So, I would say, don't spend your money unless they can produce an article
establishing a useful effect, published in a reputable, refereed,
scientific journal. 

Incidentally, aragonite scale sometimes precipitates from hot water
anyway, and it is just as tenacious as calcite scale. 

In addition, there are multiple issues here. A salt water softener removes
both temporary (bicarbonate) and permanent (sulfate) calcium hardness.
Only the former will form scale, but the major hardness problem could be
primarily from the latter. The salt softeners replace the calcium in
solution with sodium, so even that is contraindicated if there are medical
reasons to avoid salt intake. 

There may be other minerals in the water that can cause other problems,
such as iron, which stains sinks and toilets. You should determine the
exact nature of your hardness problem before seeking solutions - and be
*very* sceptical of "magic" solution that have a large capital layout and
low maintenance. 

So, is it your professtional opinion that this couldn't possible work
as claimed?  Here's a bit more from the brochure.  If you think he's BS'ing
this, let me know.  The owner is willing to converse (although fairly
sarcastically) via e-mail about this.
 
How dos it work?

Dissolved calcium is what makes your water hard.  If forms a crystal called
calcite, which has a high molecular surface charge.  think of it as being
(electrically) sticky.  It sticks to soaps, and makes scum.  It sticks to the
inside of your pipes and forms scale.  It sticks to your bathroom fixtures and
gets crusty.  When calcite passes through the ScaleBan's electronic field, it
changes to another crystal called aragonite.  It's still dissolved calcium, but
this form is not "sticky".  So the water is free to do what it does best -- act
as the universal solvent.  The calcium just goes along for the ride.

(and later)

The ScaleBan's electronic signal has special frequencies and harmonics (this 
is the patented part) which convert 100% of the calcite to aragonite,
regardless of the flow rate.

If I remember, I'll bring in the "full set" of documentation about this
which has a "more detailed explanation, with chemical equations and 
everything!"

Oh, and does only *iron* stain sinks and toilets?  Not lime?

The science in #5 is faulty.

The calcium in solution is not in any "crystal structure". It is only when
it precipitates that a crystal structure is adopted. 

Calcite does not occur in solution. It dissolves as separate calcium and
carbonate ions. When precipitated, both calcite and aragonite have surface
charges, though nothing unusual or particularly different between them. The
soap *scum" is due to the fact that most fatty acid soaps of calcium are
insoluble, which is an entirely different reaction than the precipitation
of calcite or aragonite.

"Lime" is soluble, but precipitated calcite or aragonite are both white, so
I don't think of them as "stains". If you wish to, I don't mind :)

The science offered by the ScaleBan's literature is pseudo-science. It uses
words from chemistry and physics, but describes phenomena that do not occur.

I'll try to remembber to bring in the full documentation tomorrow and
see if there's a more detailed description of the technology involved.

To reopen this item:  With the prodding of my wife, we ordered one of these
devices and have had it installed for the past 50 days or so.

In general, the behavior of the water system is pretty much what the
literature described it would be -- the water got "super hard" for a few
days -- about a week, then gradually got better.  Around the 30-day mark,
there seemed to be a significant "improvement" in "latherability" of soap.
 
Are we going to keep this after the 90 day "return for free" policy?  We'll
see at that time.  On a "subjective" basis, I think the soaps could lather
"better", but my wife and the friend who has been staying with us for a
while thinks things are pretty decent now.  And, I'm not lugging around
salt bags any more.
 
Is it really "descaling" my pipes?  To be honest, I have no clue.  Part of
the testing will be how my in-laws react to the shower when they visit this
holiday.  I haven't showered in "soft" or "normal" water myself in 5 months,
so I have no real comparison other than "softened" vs. "ScaleBaned", so
it will be interesting to see what they think.
 
Would it be different if we had this completely *off* (ie, no "ScaleBan",
at all)?  That will be the next test that will really determine whether or
not we keep this.

Just FYI...

Interesting.  I wonder about how effective it is at eliminating scale too.
My hot water heater would cost over a grand to replace.  I would want some
pretty solid facts before I decide not to use a salt based water softener.

That's what makes this difficult to judge.  Because everything is such a
closed system, you have to take it on faith that it's working, I guess,
depending on the behavior of the water.  I've since drained the water tank
after around the 30-day mark and a bunch of crap came out, but that might
have happened anyway.

That's what the vendor depends upon too..that you take it on faith. Why
don't you do a double-blind experiment, and cycle the gadget on and off
*at random* - that is, have someone else entirely come in a turn it on
or off (and of course hide the unit if there is a light or switch that
would indicate whether it is one or off). The water treatment it claims
should take effect as the 'old' water is replaced with the 'new' water.
That takes less than a day in most homes, so resetting the switch
every couple of days - but randomly (i.e., it might remain on - or off -
for a week or more), and getting your opinion of the "hardness" daily,
should divulge any correlation.

Well, certainly, *something* visible *is* happening with this:  There's now
a white "powder residue" in the sinks that wasn't there before and 
dishwashed glasses sometimes are  cloudy (but this may be due to the fact
that we don't know the correct amount of dishwashing detergent to use now.)
 
And, certainly, there was a noticeable difference in the water behavior
between initally installing the unit and today, so, again, I'm left with
the feeling that *something* has happened to the water system over the past
60 days.
 
I'll ask the owner what he thinks I should "see" if I turn the unit off and
see if that happens.  I should be able to report something after another 
week or so...

Sounds like the unit is *causing hardness*. Well, that is just as unlikely
as what it is supposed to do. Are you having your water tested daily? Another
variable is the groundwater itself, which changes composition seasonally 
as well as depending upon water use and other factors.

The product's literature says that as it's "redissolving" the scale, the 
water would get "harder".  Once the unit has done it's job (in theory) to
remove the built-up scale from the pipes, then the water should get better,
right?
 
The owner said:  "Here's the mechanism: natural soaps react
with dissolved calcium, creating scums. Once the water is "treated" the
scums stop ... except that you are putting treated water thru cruddy
piping, thus re-hardening the treated water. Once the pipes are
descaled, the re-hardening stops, AND the same soaps now bubble muuch
better."
 

I've still got a month and plan on doing some further testing before I make
any final decisions on this.  As of today, I'm not completely convinced
that this is a hoax because things are doing what he's said they would (so
far.)

The assertion of the owner is false. Soaps do react with calcium
hardness to form "scum", but no treatment other than chemical will
remove the calcium and prevent "scum". In addition, since the water
is apparently already saturated with hardness, it will not dissolve
any already deposited on the pipes. 

The owners assertation is that the water coming into the system is already
"hard", the device modifies the water, then the "modified" water reacts
with the scale on the pipes and "redissolves" the scale, thus creating 
more "hard" water as it comes out of the pipe.  Once all the scale is
dissolved from the pipes, then the water coming out would only be the
"treated" water.
 
The *concept* seems clear.  Whether or not it's functional is what I'm
trying to determine.
 
However, I've done some tests over the last week to see what my water is
like now.  In retrospect, I should have done these tests prior to installing
the unit, but there you go...
 
With the unit on, I measured a specific amount of water into a jar, added
two drops of Palmolive and shook the jar.  I then did this after having the
unit off for 3 days.  Then I did it again after turning the unit back on
for another 3 days.  Each time, the amount of "suds" was approximately the
same "height" in the jar and appeared to be of the same consistancy.
 
Now, we took this to mean one of two things:  (1) my pipes are descaled or
(2) the unit does nothing.
 
However, what keeps me from firmly saying "this does nothing" is that for
the first 30 days of having this unit on, there *was* a distinct difference
between the behavior of soaps in the bath vs. the behavior today.  And that
the water really was "super hard" for the first 5 days when we first
installed the unit.  
 
Also, the type of "deposits" left behind on the shower stall seem to clean
easier than before.
 
I've still got approximately 30 days to experiment with this.  I'm still
trying to figure out a non-electron-microscope-involving way of determining
either if my pipes are descaled as the owner said they should be after time
or if my pipes are *still* scaled and this unit does nothing.  If only
there was a way to "pop the top" on the water heater...
 
Oh, and the owner *did* provide a list of technical references related to
this with such titles as "Reduction of Soluable Mineral Concentrations in
CaSO4 Saturated Water Using a Magnetic Field" and "Corrostion and Deposit
Control in Alkaline Cooling Water Using Magenetic Water Treatment at
Amoco's Largest Refinery" dated from 1984 through 1995.  If I can remember
how to look up abstracts, I'll do that to see what they say.

List the references and, if it convenient, I'll dig them up. (There
is also a large "literature" on dowsing.....)

Your water comes into the house hard.  When you first installed the unit
the water came out of your faucets super hard.  This suggest to me that
this is a descaler, not a softener.  Part of me also wonders if you are
sacrificing copper pipe, instead of salt, for soft water?
 
The well driller that putin my well dowsed it.  It's a well-fist site
and my neighbor had four dry holes before his well driller gave up.  He
had the driller I hired come in and he found water 6 ft. from one of the
previous holes on his first try.  The well he sunk for me is 50 ft. deep
and does 50 gpm.  Dowsing doesn't work for me so I don't belive in it.
However, if one driller has a better reputation for finding water in a
well-fist site, I'll go with them.  Dry holes aint cheap and I certainly
can not complain about my well!  (I should mount a fire plug on it ;-)

In theory, this shouldn't affect the pipe -- only the scale.  And, yes,
it's only marketed as a "descaler" with the "added benefit" that the
water behaves as if it's softened.  Now, this is supposed to be only 
compared to "untreated" water -- not to truly chemically softened water.
 
Rane, here are the references he gave me.  If you *do* find that these say
something relevent, I'd be interested in hearing about it:

ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL REFERENCES:

"Effects of a Magnetic Field on the Formation of CaCO3 Particles" by Ko
Higashitani, et al, of the Dept. of Applied Chemistry, Kyushu Institute
of Technology, Kitakyushu, Japan published by the Journal of Colloid and
Interface Science,  Academic Press, Inc., 1993
                                                                              
"Reduction of Soluable MIneral Concentrations in CaSO4  Saturated Water
Using a Magnetic Field" by Ronald Gehr, et al, McGill University,
Quebec, Canada published 1995 by Elsevier Science Ltd., Great Britain,
Wat. Res. Vol 29, No. 3, page 933-940
                                                                              
"Corrosion and Deposit Control in Alkaline Cooling      Water Using
Magnetic Water Treatment at Amoco's    Largest Refinery" by James F.
Grutsch, Standard Oil Co., Chicago, IL. published by the National
Association of Corrosion Engineers, April, 1984, Paper #330.

"Experimental Evidence for Effects of Magnetic Fields on Moving Water"
by Dr. Klaus J. Kronenberg, ScD., Physics, Associate Professor,
California State University Pomona, published in IEEE Transactions on
Magnetics Vol. MAG-21, No. 5, September, 1985.

U.S. Department of Energy final report # DE86014306 "Applied Fields for
Energy Conservation, Water Treat- ment, and Industrial Applications"
available from the National Technical Information Service of the U.S.
Dept. of Commerce. 1-800-553-6847

The abstract for the Kronenberg article is at
http://generalenv.com/IEEEExperimentalEvidence.html
The article is chemical in nature (minearls, ions, etc), but published
in IEEE. There is an "order now!" link on the same page. He seems to 
have made his career out of the promotion of magnetic treatment of
water. Obtaining the articles would take some running around UM libraries.
You have the greatest potential "investment" in this, Steve. If you
dug up copies of all the articles, I would review and comment on them.

What with all the pseudo-scientiftic mumbo-jumbo I have seen so far, I
have to class with device with the pills the doctor sold to determine
the sex of one's children - blue pills would make boys, and pink pills
would make girls - and he offered a MONEY BACK GUARANTEE!

So, you think this Physicist is less reliable because of what?  That his
name is associated with another product?  Does that make his research
that much more unreliable?  I'm just curious...

He is in a minor college and promotes himself with allusions to his
early association in Europe with big names in physics and the abstract
for the three page article states one experiment with results that only
he could attribute significance in a field that has a vast and
contradictory literature.......I could go on. These are just all
"smoking guns". Get the article, and I will dig deeper. 

(BTW, the owner appears quite willing to chat via e-mail if you want to take
it to the source.  His e-mail is "ecosoft@execpc.com")
 
He mentioned my "bubble test" was not a valid test because "detergents"
are formulated to bubble in all types of water and that I should try
a "natural" soap to get a more accurate test (something like Johnson's
Baby Shampoo.)   That will be my Christmas break experiment.

I just need the peer-reviewed literature. 

E-mail him about it.  See if he'll give it to you.  I'd be curious if he
ducks you or not.

The following was sent to me by the Water Quality Association (WQA):
http://www.wqa.org/

  Water Quality Association Position Paper on Magnetic Water Conditioners
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WQA has long maintained that all product performance and benefit claims
for all products that purportedly alter the hardness characteristics of
water be based on factual data obtained from tests conducted by
professionally competent personnel following established test procedures.
Such data should be recent, reputable, and verifiable, and should
substantiate all product performance and benefit claims.

WQA knows of no generally recognized scientific or technical evidence
which proves that magnetic, electromagnetic, or catalytic devices sold to
treat water have any measurable physical or chemical effect on water
quality.  In fact, such evidence as WQA is aware of supports the position
that these devices have no measurable physical or chemical effect on water
quality.

WQA represents the water quality improvement industry.  Industry products
are those that either improve the quality of water or are supplied to
those who manufacture or sell water quality improvement products.

WQA is becoming increasingly concerned over the rapidly escalating level
of federal and state law enforcement activity involving water treatment
devices, many of which, these federal and state agencies believe, do not
have any effect on the quality of water, and, therefore, certainly do not
improve it.  Prime examples are various types of catalytic,
electromagnetic, and magnetic devices.

 Published claims that these devices alter the hardness characteristics or
improve the quality of water in other ways have been successfully
challenged by state enforcement officials.  For example, at the request of
the Iowa Attorney General, the Iowa Supreme Court in February 1989
interpreted and applied the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act by ordering the
manufacturer of the device and its officer to pay restoration of monies to
several consumers and permanently enjoined the manufacturer from making
various claims concerning its electromagnetic device(s) or similar
devices.

WQA continues to favor full public disclosure of all facts regarding
catalytic, electromagnetic, and magnetic devices claimed to treat drinking
water including all documentation which would shed light on the accuracy
of the performance or benefit claims being made for them.  WQA cooperates
fully with state and federal regulatory officials, as well as with private
organizations such as Better Business Bureaus, in their efforts to prevent
false and misleading advertising claims by various manufacturers of these
(and other) products.  This means, among other things, that WQA will: 1) 
satisfy requests from government regulatory officials, as well as private
organizations and persons, for published material in its possession; or 2) 
bring to the attention of government regulatory officials, as well as
private organizations and persons concerned with such matters, promotional
material coming to its attention which the published material in WQA's
possession suggests may be either false, misleading, or both. 

In research commissioned and published by WQA, Gruber found that there was
no change in the physical and/or chemical properties of water treated with
permanent magnetic devices, and Alleman found that none of the six
permanent magnetic water conditioners tested were able to uniformly affect
a statistically, verifiable, beneficial change in the assayed physical or
chemical qualities of the applied water, or its related scaling
characteristics.

REFERENCES
        1. Gruber, Carl E., Carda, Dan D., Performance Analysis of Permanent
           Magnet Type Water Treatment Devices--a WQA Research Report, South
           Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, South Dakota,
           July 1981.

        2. Alleman, James E., Quantitative Assessment Effectiveness of
           Permanent Magnetiv Water Conditioning Devices--a WQA Research
           Report, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, November 1985.

ADOPTED:        August 1978
AMENDED:        September 1986
REAFFIRMED:     September 1988
REVISED:        May 1989
                July 1994

Was this response generated in specific regards to the "ScaleBan" product?
Or to devices with magnetic fields (be the permenant or electromagnetic) only?

Besides, isn't the WQA an organization of members that basically sells
water softeners?  Not the most un-biased organization, no?

Yea, but aren't magnetic softeners water softeners?  Why shouldn't they
want part of that pie if it does what it is suppose to?
 
There are a *lot* of snake-oil salesmen out there and a *lot* of people
who will buy their product.  Who is to say their claims are wrong?  They
twist science to prove that their product works or tell the customer that
science hasn't a clue, just look at the proof I have here!
 
$400 electric clocks that get rid of wayward electrons so your audio
system sounds better.  Polyphase generators that generate more power
than they consume, cow magnets that you clip around the fuel line in your
car that will increase your mileage by at least 30% or double your money
back.  All are back by "solid" scientific proof and those selling them are
dead serious about taking your money.  The placebo effect is well known,
even in science.  Illusions are more than optical.

So, I e-mailed the WQA and asked them directly if they had tested this
product.  They said no and they referred me to their "position paper" which
is what I'm assuming you've posted.

Did you directly contact the manufacuturer of the ScaleBan?  I'd be interested
in knowing what he had to say to you (if anything.)
 
And, this isn't a water "softener" -- it's a "descaler".  That's what I'm
still trying to test to see if it works as such.  

I thought the whole point of getting this thing was to soften your water?
At least that is how I read your item 0.  WQA doesn't deal with descalers,
only devices that improve water quality.
 
I also get the feeling that you are going to have a difficult time testing
the descaling ability of this device since you have already installed it
and run it for some time without doing before and after tests.

I agree.  The only thing I can really go by at this point is "did the device
behave as the literature described it would?"  We, actually, think it did.
 
Now, it's more a question of whether or not we are "satisfied" with the
current output of the water.
 

As our 90 days will expire on Friday, we've decided to return the unit
because of one major problem -- we are unable to come up with any solution
for keeping "deposits" off our glasses/silverware in the dishwasher.  We've
tried combinations of temperature, detergent, RinseAid and none have helped
keep the spots from accumulating.
 
As such, we've had to do a full "vinegar rinse" of everything every month
to get rid of the spots.
 
However, now that we are returning it, I can't really say it doesn't work
as advertised -- but that's somewhat my fault.  We went right from a 
working water softener (which I hope still works after being dormant for
90 days) to this product without truly experiencing the "source" hard water
for an extended period of time.  As such, I can't make any claims about this
product other than it did appear to be working "as advertised" in that
certain things did happen as the owner indicated they would.
 
So, it's back to the salt mines now and maybe we can fiddle with it so that
it's not so "slimy".  Any suggestions on the best way to set regeneration
on one of these things so that it's more "comfortable"?  

Describe "slimy" and "comfortable".

The adjectives I'm using are based on my experiences having lived in Ypsi
Township (which got Detroit Water, I believe?) and then moving to an area
with hard water requiring a softener.

"slimy" is the feeling that we have where it feels we haven't actually
washed off the soap.  "comfortable" is the pre-water softener Ypsi water.
"hard" would be the non-softened water which makes me feel overly dry-skinned
upon exiting the shower.
 
Some correct combo of "slimy" and "hard" would be "comfortable", I would
think.  Or "just right" in 3 Bears terminology, I guess...
 
Another way of describing it would be based on the feeling of using bar soap:

"slimy" would be too much lather and it feels like it doesn't come off and
the kitchen sink always seems to have way too many suds in it.

"just right" would be the kind of water you don't even think about (ie, "city
water".)
 
"hard" means very little lather and the dry skin feeling.
 
I'm sure it's a matter of setting the time/duration of the softeners
"regeneration" cycle, but the flimsy manual we have for this 10 year old
softener doesn't help define what settings would make it more "comfortable".

Your "slimy" is the result of very soft water, and a little soap goes a
long way, since it is not precipitated by hardness. It is, actually, the
feeling of *pure* water. Sounds like you want to adjust the hardness
to get a particular sensation. Use less (and harder) soaps, and you will
get less "slimy" and suds - and save money.

As this seems to be a quite old softener, the manual indicates that I could
modify two things:  The number of days between regenerations and the 
length of time of the regeneration cycle.  Unfortunately, they don't include
a "try this setting if the water is too soft".  Any suggestions for
settings?

A softener generally does its job very thoroughly until it is exhausted
and "break through" (of hardness) occurs. The most consistent way to get
partial softening would be to install a bypass, so you get a mix of
softened and hard water. I would suggest putting flow meters in the two
lines in order to adjust the ratio. They would not have to be very accurate
flow meters. Simple rotameters would suffice. 

Don't you get "spotting" of glassware even with a softener that uses salt?
I would expect you would get salt spots in place of calcite spots (though
calcite spots would accumulate and not get washed off in subsequent
washes).

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss