User:Timpo/MWT

Water treatment by the application of a changing Magnetic flux is a proposed method of water softening The flux change may be deliberately caused by anelectromagnet or the result of water flowing near a permanent magnet, usually in a pipe surrounded by the magnetic water treatment transducer device.

A Disputed Technique
Manufacturers of water treatment devices have claimed that powerful magnetic fields can affect the structure of water molecules or the properties of solutes passing through the magnetic field, thus eliminating the need for chemical softening agents. Many scientific studies do not support these claims and suggest magnetic water treatment may be ineffective and pseudoscientific.

Klaus Kronenberg hypothesised that the shapes of molecules in hard water are sufficiently modified by strong magnetic fields to precipitate dissolved calcium (also known as lime) as spherical or round crystals in suspension rather than as the familiar sheets or platelets of hard crystals known as limescale. A more rational explanation about deliberately precipitating aqueous silica network particles capable of wetting hydrophobic surfaces appears in a 2003 [| US patent Nº 6607648.] Sellers of magnetic fluid flow technology also claim that treatment of water with magnets can increase the strength of concrete, stimulate blood circulation, facilitate the repair of broken limbs, and prevent tooth decay.

Over-sold, Misunderstood or Fraudulent Devices?
Vendors frequently use pictures and testimonials to support their claims, but scientific studies are few, and generally refute the effectiveness of applying magnetic fields to water. Consumer Reports carried out a two-year experiment with two water heaters; the end result showed no evidence of any benefit. Many magnetic water treatment claims may be exaggerated of false, especially regarding magnetic therapy which may rely on the placebo effect.

It is probable that in discontinuous flow processes or interruptible supplies such as domestic households where water is likely to remain in sealed pipes and open tanks for some time before being used, then the systematic removal of any resulting carbon dioxide CO2 gas is not practical. In that case, the trapped water and gassed CO2 would quickly recombine to become carbonic acid as in rainwater. Any precipitated solids would then be reabsorbed by the slightly acidic water, resulting in no actual or detectable difference in water quality.

[|Industrial systems] often use electromagnets powered by specific frequency drivers or wide band square wave generators  which produce harmonic effects which are believed to enhance precipitation. Other designs us permanent ceramic magnets with high magnetic field strength. Industrial magnetic water treatment is usually applied near the point of use, and the effectiveness of such treatment may be subjective.

A practical consumer test
This is a Functional analogue approximation [|test] proposed by some suppliers of water softeners which may indicate if a particular device is effective in any particular application, regardless of the technology. This is NOT a reliable quantitative test but only a rough and ready technique, borrowed from the 19th Century dying industry, where it was known as:

Magnetic fuel saver

The Brown Bowl Lather Test

Purpose: to approximately determine if a hard-water softener method is effective in a specific instance (it is applicable to any chemical or other treatment)

Method: Obtain three identical sample-containers of about one liter capacity, which have watertight lids and have been freshly flushed clean.
 * First, half-fill one of the sample-containers with unmineralized or distilled water as a 'control' sample, against which to compare the others.
 * Then draw a similar sample untreated water from the hard-water source (by switching off or removing the device), into another sample-container and then
 * Finally obtain a similar measured sample of water drawn from the same supply but treated exactly according to the manufacturer's instructions for the third container.
 * Add to all three samples a very small but equal quantity of any common household detergent which contains a foaming agent.

Observation:
 * Agitate the samples and measure the quantity foam production in each sample.
 * Flush and clean the containers thoroughly and repeat the test with soap, or detergent with a different type of foaming agent to confirm or falsify the results

Conclusion: If the calcium has precipitated, the treated water should produce more foam than the untreated sample, since most foaming agents chemically bind to dissolved calcium.

The distilled water 'control' should produce most foam (it may be necessary to adjust the quantity of detergent if there is too much or insufficient foam for comparison)

 Note: Although foaming agents are mainly cosmetic, manufacturers of detergents can use foam analogues as visual guide to roughly indicate to the user the appropriate amount of a product for a particular hard- or soft-water situation. This test is not definitive.