"The Magnetic Gadgeteers"
HOW AND WHY THEY FAILED.....
Welcome to our library containing negative and positive reports about the gadgeteer community. If you have copies of reports that you don't see here
or would like copies we have on file please contact us. As our introduction to this
section, the following paper written in 1985 describes an industry that went wrong.-ed.
THE MAGIC WATER TREATMENT
GADGETS AND HOW THEY GREW
Since the l950's electro-magnetic, electro-static, etc. devices have come and gone in the market place. Known as NCD'S (non-chemical devices) they are touted as scaling and corrosion preventing alternatives to chemical treatment. Although there are few reputable companies offering devices that are reasonably effective according to users we surveyed, the NCD industry has attracted hit- and- run vendors who sell their products without any guarantee of performance and little idea of how to apply them. Horror stories of resultant magnetic treatment failures were happily picked up by their chemical competitors and widely circulated even to this day. Many of these reports are from experiments conducted by researchers, e.g., Perdue, MIT,
US Army CERL, which are flawed in their construct and doomed to failure at the outset. In addition, the investigators themselves were guilty of poor scholarship since they referenced flawed work of others.
The main flaws are: (1) static vs. dynamic testing, (2) chemical analysis which is not appropriate for testing the effects of magneto-hydrodynamics; (3) use of obsolete, marginal or ineffective devices for the tests; (4) investigators who display ignorance of fundamental magnetic principles (such as Micheal Faraday's discovery in 1832 that water flowing through a magnetic field produces a measurable voltage in bulk water. Electro-chemists know that weak electrical fields thus generated can alter or upset chemical reactions); (5) tests are in some cases sponsored, then offered for publication to trade magazines by chemical companies as a self serving attempt at restraint of trade.
More recently researchers like Busch, et al of Baylor University and Grutsch, et al of Standard Oil have presented proof of some NCD effectiveness despite the limitations of' the devices tested (copies on request). It is in the inadequate design of these devices and their misapplication that the problem lies. NCD manufacturers continue to make claims of success without "having done the research necessary to prove effectiveness and gain acceptance from sophisticated users. Without conclusive scientific evidence as rebuttal from the gadgeteers, the NCD industry has only itself to blame for the negative public image (inconsistent performance) that it has earned!
Paradoxically, chemical companies will admit that their water treatment service is an art, subject to the same problems (corrosion and scale build-up) users experience in trying to adequately maintain production. Yet, these suppliers will caution users away from NCD's with warnings of catastrophic system collapse, corrosive failure or scale build-up without any substantiation.
HYDROLATOR , a world leader in it's field, does not sell products but is a professional engineering service company, offers the "NEW SCIENCE OF "ELECTRIC WATER TREATMENT", a dramatic and money-saving improvement for process, cooling and boiler systems. The company's track record is impressive:
(1) Cooling systems up to 240,000 GPM
(2) Minimum 10 years of customer data, showing superior performance in corrosion/scale control over chemical treatment.
(3) University study confirming HYDROLATOR effectiveness
(4) EPA interest in HYDROLATOR's corrosion/scale control capability without polluting chemicals which could affect industry discharge standards for Y2K.
For more information, call Ted Light at (410) 352-5524
