Combimate water "softener"—opinions?

[Gone West]

The last time I measured ours it was 320mg/l  and zero after the softener.

[vivienz]

It's about 320 out at work, just north of Ringwood in Hampshire.  Very, very hard water there. 

 

At the new place, its 283.

Edited August 11, 2018 by vivienz

[Construction Channel]

320 for me as well according to that link. 

[Cpd]

I have spring water that comes out the top of  my hill ! I tested it for hardness when I got a new coffee machine it did not register on the little test kit provided with the new coffee machine. We have NO limescale at all even after years of using the same kettle. I had a full bunch of tests done by council recently, need to dig them out and read up on it. Very interesting thread. Never a dull moment at Buildhub. 

Edited August 11, 2018 by Cpd

[Ferdinand]

150 here.

[le-cerveau]

Must be lucky ours is 2.73 mg Ca/l

[dpmiller]

40mg/l. Just about zero of a coating on the base of a 15yo kettle.

[newhome]

8 minutes ago, dpmiller said:

40mg/l. Just about zero of a coating on the base of a 15yo kettle.

 

Mine says 45 and is about the same. Never any coating to see anywhere. 

[newhome]

What’s the next steps on this? Have samples been sent to @JSHarris? 

[Polly]

Halcyan is in the process of commissioning a university test on 'before and after' results ourselves. We wholly support the venture if members here would like to pursue one themselves, but please remember that the whole point to the Halcyan system is that mineral content will be the same both before and after conditioning. The system simply stops the Calcium Carbonate content from bonding and forming limescale.

 

And yes Richi I did remove you on Twitter. It is my personal page and unrelated to my role with Halcyan. If you insist on sharing my personal pages on here then I suppose that is the way the internet works. If you must. I just don't really see the relevance to the Halcyan system.

 

If you wish to ask questions on the system, you are most welcome to do so on here.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2018 by Polly

[jack]

5 minutes ago, Polly said:

but please remember that the whole point to the Halcyan system is that mineral content will be the same both before and after conditioning. 

 

But you allege that aragonite is formed. Aragonite is a solid, and hence must reduce the concentration of ions.

 

While one would expect dried solids to be the same upon evaporation, conductivity and pH, for example, should be different.

[Polly]

Yes, you're right Jack. But it won't change the mineral content of the water. Calcium Carbonate will be just as present as before, just in a different molecular form.

 

The conductivity of the water has also been shown to change once treated with a Halcyan. pH does not change at detectable levels, and Halcyan water has been approved as potable by WRAS.

 

Aragonite is present in Halcyan treated water as a colloid suspended in solution. The effect of this lasts for 21 days, when it reverts back to Calcite; but of course by this point the water will have washed out of one's system.

This means that Halcyan also has no wider effects on your water's environment.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Polly

[jack]

9 minutes ago, Polly said:

Yes, you're right Jack. But it won't change the mineral content of the water. Calcium Carbonate will be just as present as before.

 

The way you introduced the topic of mineral content with the phrase "but please remember" sounded to me like you were suggesting the effect somehow wasn't testable. Apologies if that wasn't intended, but as I think the conversation to date has made abundantly clear, several members understand completely what you're alleging happens. Any tests are hardly going to just involve checking for calcium carbonate.

 

17 minutes ago, Polly said:

pH does not change at detectable levels

 

Why not? I'm no chemistry expert, but from my A-levels a few decades ago I seem to recall that pH should change if you precipitate a significant proportion of calcium carbonate ions out of solution to form aragonite. 

[richi]

1 hour ago, Polly said:

If you wish to ask questions on the system, you are most welcome to do so on here.

 

Has the inventor decided how it works yet?

[Jeremy Harris]

In essence, the "magic" somehow claims to transform one polymorph of CaCO₃ to another before it's actually formed.  Somehow, the claim is that the CaCO₃ in solution is changed (there's no clear, peer reviewed, science to explain this alleged change, or what the mechanism is behind it that causes the alleged change whilst the CaCO₃ is still in solution).

 

Somehow, the CaCO₃ in solution "remembers" having been through this device and "remembers" to preferentially crystallise out as aragonite, rather than calcite.  The claim of 20 days is OTT - aragonite invariable reverts to calcite within about 4 days under normal household conditions.

 

I remain wholly unconvinced.  This invention has been around so long the original patent expired 12 years ago, and no one has ever been able to provide solid, peer reviewed, evidence that there is any real effect at all in all those years.  There are lots and lots of claims that the device doesn't do what it claims, and many of those are based on some pretty solid science. 

 

In my view, if a "breakthrough" invention hasn't been proved to work after several decades and there is absolutely no peer reviewed evidence to show it does as claimed, then I think it's only fair and reasonable to be just a bit sceptical.

 

The obvious question has to be "Why didn't the original device manufactured under the Australian patent make the owner an absolute fortune and render all other forms of "water softener" obsolete?".  After all there have been a few decades for the product to prove itself, yet we don't see them in common use in our hard water areas, do we?

[Gone West]

13 hours ago, JSHarris said:

 After all there have been a few decades for the product to prove itself, yet we don't see them in common use in our hard water areas, do we?

Well I wouldn't want one even if they had been proven to work. I want soft water with all it's advantages, not hard water that doesn't 'fur' up the pipes and kettle. Maybe I'm in a minority or maybe it's not a popular concept.

[Polly]

Well, JSHarris, it is proven actually. I've said a few times now on here that we do have independent industry tests and technical information/data. All anybody would need to do is contact us directly and we provide them.

 

It has: 'been proved to work after several decades'. We have reams of client testimonials and online reviews attesting to the fact. You, on the other hand, have no evidence attesting otherwise.

 

And to answer your question of why it hasn't made other forms of 'water softener' obsolete - first of all, forgive me for making the usual clarification that we are a water conditioner.

And the fact is: because no market is ever going to be dominated by one product, no matter how marvellous. Personally, I think a certain brand of tea is horrendous; but other people still drink it.

And then of course we have the market who, such as Peter, just prefer soft water.

 

[jack]

15 hours ago, JSHarris said:

In essence, the "magic" somehow claims to transform one polymorph of CaCO₃ to another before it's actually formed.  Somehow, the claim is that the CaCO₃ in solution is changed (there's no clear, peer reviewed, science to explain this alleged change, or what the mechanism is behind it that causes the alleged change whilst the CaCO₃ is still in solution).

 

Somehow, the CaCO₃ in solution "remembers" having been through this device and "remembers" to preferentially crystallise out as aragonite, rather than calcite.  The claim of 20 days is OTT - aragonite invariable reverts to calcite within about 4 days under normal household conditions.

 

I don't think that's what they're alleging happens Jeremy. I think they're saying that the device causes the CaCO₃ to precipitate out as aragonite as it's treated, not at some later stage. Precipitation should be easy enough to test. Confirming that it's aragonite will be harder.

Based on their own argument, aragonite doesn't bind to itself or anything else. Accordingly, unless a very significant proportion of the CaCO₃ is precipitated as aragonite, I can't think of any mechanism for preventing the remaining CaCO₃ from precipitating as limescale in the usual way. But hey, I don't pretend to be a chemist/physicist, and I'm open to evidence (note: "evidence", not reviews or testimonials).

 

47 minutes ago, Polly said:

Well, JSHarris, it is proven actually. I've said a few times now on here that we do have independent industry tests and technical information/data. All anybody would need to do is contact us directly and we provide them.

 

The "independent industry tests" (which, incidentally, you've mentioned once, not "a few times") intrigue me. They're apparently so commercially sensitive that you won't publish them. If I had tests that proved my product worked in spite of its proposed operating principles violating the known laws of physics, I'd be shouting about them from the rooftops, not forcing people to contact me for them. Can you not see how this looks to the average potential purchaser of your product?

 

Also, if the existing "independent industry test" results are so good, why are you:

 

17 hours ago, Polly said:

in the process of commissioning a university test on 'before and after' results ourselves.

 

Are the existing results not good enough to prove your point?

 

Reviews and testimonials are no sort of proof. They can be faked, cherry picked, and in any event are unreliable because most people see what they want to see.

 

Your own "technical information/data" isn't independent, so is entirely worthless.

 

If what you say is happening is really happening, testing is straightforward. Run some water through your system, filter out the colloidal precipitate, and check whether what you've filtered out is aragonite or calcite. Conductivity should fall due to the reduction in ions, pH should fall due to the reduction in dissolved CaCO₃. I'm sure someone with more than A level chemistry will be able to propose other simple tests too.

 

And as for this:

47 minutes ago, Polly said:

first of all, forgive me for making the usual clarification that we are a water conditioner.

 

From the landing page of your website:

 

 

Are you saying that your product provides "softer water" without softening? Surely that's internally inconsistent?

 

And if your answer is that this phrasing is intended to involve a comparison with actual soft water rather than implying you're doing any softening, then in my opinion this sentence intentionally misleads through the use of "softer" instead of "soft".

 

I don't know what impression you think your posts as a whole will make on people who find them in the future, but at the moment my gut feeling is that they're doing your company more harm than good.

 

Edited to add: still awaiting an answer to my question above about why "pH does not change at detectable levels" if aragonite is being precipitated in any significant amount.

[Polly]

20 minutes ago, jack said:

Are you saying that your product provides "softer water" without softening? Surely that's internally inconsistent?

 

And if your answer is that this phrasing is intended to involve a comparison with actual soft water rather than implying you're doing any softening, then in my opinion this sentence intentionally misleads through the use of "softer" instead of "soft".

 

Yes Jack, I agree, the wording could be clearer. I am but one woman in Product Support. The company is also in the process of changing the website.

 

20 minutes ago, jack said:

Accordingly, unless a very significant proportion of the CaCO₃ is precipitated as aragonite, I can't think of any mechanism for preventing the remaining CaCO₃ from precipitating as limescale in the usual way

 

Yes, when the system is working at optimum performance, every CaCO3 molecule should transform into its Aragonite polymorph, and thus none should bond.

 

20 minutes ago, jack said:

If I had tests that proved my product worked in spite of its proposed operating principles violating the known laws of physics, I'd be shouting about them from the rooftops, not forcing people to contact me for them. Can you not see how this looks to the average potential purchaser of your product?

 

I really only suggest this because they're a few pages long and in a format best attached to an email. I didn't say they're commercially sensitive.

 

As for the pH thing, give me the afternoon and I'll have a bit more of a look into it then.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Polly

[Jeremy Harris]

On 21/08/2018 at 10:04, jack said:

 

I don't think that's what they're alleging happens Jeremy. I think they're saying that the device causes the CaCO₃ to precipitate out as aragonite as it's treated, not at some later stage. Precipitation should be easy enough to test. Confirming that it's aragonite will be harder.

Based on their own argument, aragonite doesn't bind to itself or anything else. Accordingly, unless a very significant proportion of the CaCO₃ is precipitated as aragonite, I can't think of any mechanism for preventing the remaining CaCO₃ from precipitating as limescale in the usual way. But hey, I don't pretend to be a chemist/physicist, and I'm open to evidence (note: "evidence", not reviews or testimonials).

 

 

Precipitation doesn't happen until later, though, long after the water has passed through the device.  Precipitation essentially requires some specific conditions in order for it to occur - for example, keep the temperature of a hot water system above the temperature at which CaCO₃ comes out of solution as precipitate for a given concentration.

 

Therefore, at the point of treatment there is no calcite, aragonite or valerite.  The only thermodynamically stable form of CaCO₃ is calcite, so even if this device could somehow cause the dissolved calcium content of the water to "remember" that when it reaches a precipitation point down stream (be that by any means) then it needs to crystallise out as aragonite the precipitate is not going to want to stay as aragonite for long - it will want to revert to calcite. 

 

The key thing here is that aragonite is thermodynamically unstable, and will revert to calcite, as that's the lowest energy form of CaCO₃, That's interesting because it implies that there should be some energy applied to the system in order to preferentially cause aragonite to form.

 

On 21/08/2018 at 09:18, Polly said:

Well, JSHarris, it is proven actually. I've said a few times now on here that we do have independent industry tests and technical information/data. All anybody would need to do is contact us directly and we provide them.

 

It has: 'been proved to work after several decades'. We have reams of client testimonials and online reviews attesting to the fact. You, on the other hand, have no evidence attesting otherwise.

 

 

 

That's not proof at all.  Proof is having the mechanism of operation peer reviewed and reported in a paper in a recognised journal.  No recognised scientific journal has ever published any such paper, which seem absolutely extraordinary given the claims that have been made over the decades that this device has been on the market.  Take, for example, ion exchange, or phosphate dosing.  Both have lots and lots of peer reviewed literature describing in detail the mechanism of action, and both have been reviewed and independently verified in accredited labs so many times that we can be confident in stating that we understand the science behind them and their mechanism of action, plus their performance has been verified beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Client testimonials are simply the placebo effect working.  We see exactly the same results with client testimonials being used to support all sorts of fake science, not just water treatment.  The reason that it's so damned difficult to prove something by experiment is often because of unconscious bias, it's such a well-known phenomena that several very good peer reviewed papers have been published about the effect and the impact it has.

 

On 21/08/2018 at 09:18, Polly said:

And to answer your question of why it hasn't made other forms of 'water softener' obsolete - first of all, forgive me for making the usual clarification that we are a water conditioner.

And the fact is: because no market is ever going to be dominated by one product, no matter how marvellous. Personally, I think a certain brand of tea is horrendous; but other people still drink it.

And then of course we have the market who, such as Peter, just prefer soft water.

 

 

I'm disturbed to read that your advertising makes mention of water softening.  By definition, "soft water" is water that has had the calcium and magnesium content reduced.  By your own statements your device does not reduce the concentration of calcium or magnesium compounds in the water at all.  I know you keep calling the device a water conditioner, but the test in you adverts makes references to "soft water", which is misleading for consumers, in my view.  The water leaving your conditioner is not in any way softened; it will have exactly the same concentration of calcium and magnesium as when it entered the device.

 

[Cpd]

I have absolutely no interest in this device as I have great water straight out of the ground...... however I am really enjoying following this debate, it’s great that  Polly has put herself in the firing line to stand by the product she promotes and i love  how some of our keen buildhubbers are questioning the company’s claims. It’s all being kept fairly formal and non personal and I think it’s a great debate and offers a good insight into how consumers can see behind the glossy sales pitch. I am curious as to how this thread will end and I don’t care either way..... either it will

1. be proved categorically that this device does what it claims. (Polly gets a badge)

2. Proved that it does not. (Buildhub investigators get a badge) 

3. We will all get tired of non definitive  answers and go back to watching funny cat videos...... 

 

Right back to work ! 

Bravo ! 

 

   

[Polly]

33 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

That's interesting because it implies that there should be some energy applied to the system in order to preferentially cause aragonite to form.

 

There is. The offset fins inside the unit create enough turbulence and pressure to create the reaction. No external source of energy is used.

 

33 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

but the test in you adverts makes references to "soft water"

 

We don't advertise.

If you're referring to the website wording, then yes, like I say, it could do with a tweak. But really, I'm in Product Support. I really can only be questioned on the product. Outside of this is not my bag.

 

33 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

That's not proof at all. 

 

The fact remains that it's still more proof that it does work, than you have presented to say that it doesn't.

[Polly]

I might go and watch some cats CPD

[jack]

58 minutes ago, Polly said:

I really only suggest this because they're a few pages long and in a format best attached to an email. I didn't say they're commercially sensitive.

 

My apologies. I assumed that if a company is so secretive that expired patents that it didn't even own are so commercially sensitive they can't be identified, then test results would be super duper tip top secret.

 

If it can be attached to an email, it can be provided as a PDF on a website. You could also (or alternatively) provide a brief summary, such as what institutions did the work, what they tested and what the results were. Again, if the science is good, none of this should be an issue.

 

And since these results aren't commercially sensitive, can you PM them to me please? I'm really interested in what they say.

 

58 minutes ago, Polly said:

Yes, when the system is working at optimum performance, every CaCO3 molecule should transform into its Aragonite polymorph, and thus none should bond.

 

 

26 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Precipitation doesn't happen until later, though, long after the water has passed through the device.  Precipitation essentially requires some specific conditions in order for it to occur - for example, keep the temperature of a hot water system above the temperature at which CaCO₃ comes out of solution as precipitate for a given concentration.

 

Therefore, at the point of treatment there is no calcite, aragonite or valerite. 

 

The tension between these two statements is the crux, imo.

 

I can't recall whether Halcyan has specifically said when aragonite is formed. Since there is no plausible way that dissolved ions can retain a memory that would allow aragonite crystals to selectively be formed downstream when conditions of heat etc arise, it seems to me that precipitation at the device is the only other alternative.

 

Halcyan's definitive answer on this point would be useful.

 

58 minutes ago, Polly said:

As for the pH thing, give me the afternoon and I'll have a bit more of a look into it then.

 

I very much look forward to your answer, because if all CaCO₃ is precipitated as aragonite, then pH should change measurably.

 

If, on the other hand, you're saying that aragonite is precipitated somewhere downstream rather than at the device, then I think you have considerably more explaining to do.

 

17 minutes ago, Polly said:

The fact remains that it's still more proof that it does work, than you have presented to say that it doesn't.

 

I disagree.

[Jeremy Harris]

25 minutes ago, Polly said:

There is. The offset fins inside the unit create enough turbulence and pressure to create the reaction. No external source of energy is used.

 

So you're saying that the unit takes kinetic energy from the water flowing through it, and uses that kinetic energy to power some form of chemical reaction that alters the dissolved calcium in the water?  That should be relatively easy to measure, then, as it's just a question of simple thermodynamics.  I wonder why no scientific paper has ever been published in the decades since this device was first patented, describing the fundamental principle of using kinetic energy from moving water to drive this sort of chemical reaction and why it hasn't made the pages of respected peer reviewed journals?  Seems exceptionally odd, to me, as scientists, are, by nature, extremely keen to get their work published.

 

25 minutes ago, Polly said:

We don't advertise.

 

If you're referring to the website wording, then yes, like I say, it could do with a tweak. But really, I'm in Product Support. I really can only be questioned on the product. Outside of this is not my bag.

 

Yes you do.  A website constitutes are advertisement for your product, by it's very nature.  You may choose not to advertise in other forms of media, but advertising on a website is absolutely no different in law to advertising on the TV, radio, newspapers, etc, especially when you also take advantage of social media (like this forum) in order to try and promote your product as well.  The law is very clear in the UK about what constitutes publication, and every post on this form, by way of an example, is a publication with the copyright (and legal responsibility for its accuracy) belonging to the person or company representative, that has written it.

 

25 minutes ago, Polly said:

The fact remains that it's still more proof that it does work, than you have presented to say that it doesn't.

 

There's no "proof" at all that it works at all.  There are anecdotal indications that it may have some effect, but that is as far as it goes.  Proof requires independent, peer reviewed testing, and as far as I can see you have no such thing.