Hydrocare HC38 Thoughts???

Users who are viewing this thread

Gary Slusser

That's all folks!
Messages
6,921
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Wherever I park the motorhome.
Website
www.qualitywaterassociates.com
Look, i don't want to get into an argument with anyone here but for gods sake people, do me a favor and at least take a look at the following site.

http://www.chem1.com/CQ/magscams.html

The guy has a ton of links to university studies and independent testing labs, pretty much you name it. And all of them dismiss these claims.
Science doesn't know a lot of things, and why and how PWT does what it does is one of them.

And as you see in the link Terry posted, science still can't fully understand why or how some irregular, abnormal, or you could say bizarre, landslides occur. A long runout landslide would have gone out across the valley floor and possibly to the opposite side of the valley.

Proof;
".... but its cause remains a mystery. "I've been around for 25 years, and this is definitely one of the biggest," said Tom Badger, geotechnical engineer for the Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT).
Unlike the slides that pop up across Western Washington during rainstorms, the slide on the east side of the Cascades occurred on a clear morning. There was no earthquake in the vicinity, and DOT officials say they don't believe a local rock quarry destabilized the slope.
"To be honest, right now we're just trying to get our arms around this," Badger said."

That isn't a true long run out landslide. Here is a bunch of links that explains them.

http://www.google.com/search?q="lon...ent-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-22,GGGL:en

As to universities saying whatever about PWT, if you look at what is said long enough, you'll realize they simply repeat what another university said some time before. They do that with most things concerning water treatment of any kind.
 

NHmaster

Master Plumber
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
S. Maine
I can guarantee that it will lighten your wallet but your water quality will not be anywhere as good as softened water from a water softener.

This was your first post of the thread and one that I totally agree with. Are you reversing your decision? It's very confusing.
 

Terrydbhm

New Member
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Birmingham
Look, i don't want to get into an argument with anyone here but for gods sake people, do me a favor and at least take a look at the following site.

http://www.chem1.com/CQ/magscams.html

The guy has a ton of links to university studies and independent testing labs, pretty much you name it. And all of them dismiss these claims..

Peter, I have seen and read this link before and this "guy" solely addresses the use of magnetic and magnetic fields (MWT) for treating hard water. Once again please under stand and read my posting above in this forum, the Hydropath technology used in Hydrocare DOES NOT USE MAGNETS OR MAGNETIC FIELDS. Most of the links and independent testing labs He references date back to the 1980's which was way before the Hydropath technology was invented and patented worldwide. Why are there no references to any studies in the last 5 years or so? We all know scientific studies and theories change all the time as new discoveries are made. As short as 30 years before we landed a man on the moon many scientists thought it was impossible for a maned space craft to escape the gravitational pull of the earth and visit the moon. There were also people who thought the first horseless carriages would never replace the horse and buggy and some so called scientists thought a man could not travel faster than 30 miles per hour and live!!

I can't help but feel bad for those that have bought into this bunk. You have been scammed by smooth talking salesmen with very convincing pseudo-science into believing that these products will do things that are for the most part contrary to the laws of physics and chemistry. Worse yet, nobody likes to throw money away. ..
What about the flim flam salesmen who sell traditional water softeners? There is a dealer in my market who sells one of the major national lines of whole house water softeners that averages over $5000. He has numerous unanswered complaints with the local BBB and there are several blogs of customers he has scammed with his salesmen's sales pitches. One of them is a neighbor of mine who was scared to death when the salesman precipitated a bunch of white goo from our city tap water, which is nothing more than an old high school science lab experiment. He was quoted $6500 for a whole house system that was a brine water softener, a sediment/carbon pre filter and an under the sink R/O system. The next day this same salesman called my neighbor and told him to stop drinking his city tap water as a test he had done showed it full of e coli bacteria. Fortunately my neighbor asked me my opinion and I told him to buy a good water softener from Sears, Lowes or Home Depot (before I knew about Hydrocare) and that I could install an under sink R/O system and his total investment would be under $1200 for evrything.

Please, do yourself a favor and read through the above site. Follow the links and read them. The guy who's site it is, is a scientist, he has no stake in the subject either way and he openly links to many many other guys that have either tested or had experiences good and bad with these sorts of products. .

I seriously doubt he has no stake in the water treatment industry but lets assume he wrote and posted this paper from the goodness of his heart, but again he only addresses magnetics which has nothing to do with the Hydropath technology. If Hydropath is the scam that you desire to make it answer this one question if you can. Why does British Gas, the largest gas utility in the UK, endorse Hydropath as the only product to treat and prevent hard water scale in appliances, water heaters and boilers? The endorsement can be found on the BG web site and installation of a Hydropath unit is required for all maintenance contracts covered for appliances sold and installed by British Gas. Do you really think British Gas is scamming thousands of their customers in the UK?
 

Sjsmithjr

In the Trades
Messages
314
Reaction score
1
Points
16
Location
Knoxville, Tennessee
If Hydropath is the scam that you desire to make it answer this one question if you can. Why does British Gas, the largest gas utility in the UK, endorse Hydropath as the only product to treat and prevent hard water scale in appliances, water heaters and boilers? The endorsement can be found on the BG web site and installation of a Hydropath unit is required for all maintenance contracts covered for appliances sold and installed by British Gas. Do you really think British Gas is scamming thousands of their customers in the UK?

Again, that is anecdotal evidence not really relevant to the discussion as to whether or not the product in question works as intended. For example, a well known big box store at one time required that all workers wear back braces/harnesses/support belts at work. The devices were also sold by the big box store and were marketed as preventing back injuries.

That the big box store required them certainly helped them to sell more of them. My father and one of my brother's purchased the belts for their own use from the big box store. I specifically recall my father purchasing his based on the premise that if the big box store required their workers to wear them they must work as advertised.

As it turns out, the use of these belts proved to be ineffective and in some instances potentially harmful. Does that mean that the big box store set out to scam their employees and customers? That’s one hypothesis. Another would be that the big box store bought into a well constructed sales pitch. The same can easily be said with respect to British Gas.

I should have my review of the OnSpex Evaluation wrapped up later today. In the mean time y'all try to play nice.
 

Terrydbhm

New Member
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Birmingham
Again, that is anecdotal evidence not really relevant to the discussion as to whether or not the product in question works as intended. .

Anecdotal?? It is total relevant to this discussion as to whether the product works as intended and marketed. British Gas was instrumental in the development and TESTING of the Hydropath technology 14 years ago and concluded from their testing that it did work and have been endorsing it ever since and have thousands of very satisfied customers in the UK. Your amusing story about back braces is what has no relevance to this discussion.

Your comments have finally tipped your hand to your true agenda, you are not interested in any testing by anyone or group that proves that this technology works. In your closed mind you will never accept this product no matter who tests or endorses its merits. My guess is you are a plant sent to this discussion by some traditional water softener trade group to debunk this technology no matter what. I would bet money that if in the future if some group like the WQA, NSF, WCP, FDA, API etc. were to test the product and certify the technology you will still be screaming SCAM!!:p
 
Last edited:

Sjsmithjr

In the Trades
Messages
314
Reaction score
1
Points
16
Location
Knoxville, Tennessee
The following are my comments based on a quick and informal review of a report titled: Evaluation of Induction Water Conditioning Products by Comparision to a Control Device dated March 6, 2008. The report was prepared by OnSpeX, Cleveland, Ohio for R.S. Jackson, RS Resources Inc. The comments that follow reflect my personal opinions. I am not being compensated for my review, nor am I performing this review at the behest of any party other than myself. I have been a member of this forum since December of 2005.

As a reviewer, the question at hand is whether or not the evaluation "overwhelmingly confirmed that the Hydropath technology prevented lime scale build up in the heat exchanger vs no treatment at all." If I had commissioned the evaluation, the following (at a minimum) would have been addressed by OnSpeX before the check left my hand.

General Comment 1: The report never describes the objectives of the test.
General Comment 2: The report never establishes the relevance of the selected test end-point.
General Comment 3: The report never establishes that the test conditions accurately simulate typical conditions found in a residential water distribution system.
General Comment 4: The tests were performed at different times, on different systems, under different conditions making comparative analysis impossible.
General Comment 5: The report fails to reference any recognized standards under which the tests were performed.
General Comment 6: The report fails to document whether or not the equipment used in the tests, such as the tankless water heaters, test instruments, etc., were installed and/or used in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. The condition of the test equipment at the beginning of the test(s) is not provided.
General Comment 7: On page 2 of 9 it is indicated that no revisions have been made while pages 4 of 9 through 9 of 9 are indicated as Revision 1.
General Comment 8: Overall, the report is poorly written.

Comment 1 (page 4 of 9). Reference table "Samples". The manufacturer and address of the device under evaluation is not provided under the table header "Manufacturer". This information is not provided by the report. This information should be provided.
Comment 2 (page 4 of 9). Reference table "Samples". The model number and/or SKU of the device under evaluation is not provided under the table header "Model/SKU". This information is not provided in the report. Additionally, HydroFLOW is misspelled.
Comment 3 (page 4 of 9). Reference "Test conditions". The text describes 200 feet of copper pipe and eighteen (18) 90 degree elbows. The "typical setup" in the photo appears to have greater than 18 elbows. No explanation is given for the deviation or why the actual setups are not shown. Additionally, HydroFLOW is misspelled.
Comment 4 (page 4 of 9). Reference "Test conditions". The text states that a Rinnai model RTG74PWN was used during testing the product under evaluation. Rinnai does not manufacture a model RTG74PWN. The photo is of a Rheem. Rheem does manufacture a model RTG74PWN. A photo of Unit #1 is not provided. Serial numbers should be provided for the units.
Comment 5 (page 4 of 9). Reference "Comments". The text in states that a diagram of the mechanical installation is attached at the end of this report. The referenced diagram is not provided.
Comment 6 (page 5 of 9). The provided graph clearly illustrates that test conditions were not met during the time window represented. No explanation is given for the deviations. No flow data is provided. Hardness data are not provided.
Comment 7 (page 6 of 9). The provided graph clearly illustrates that test conditions were not met during the time window represented. No explanation is given. No flow data is provided. Temperature units are not given. The conditions illustrated are not the same as those illustrated on page 5 of 9. No explanation is given for the deviations. Inlet temperatures fluctuations are not explained. No flow data is provided. Hardness data are not provided.
Comment 8 (page 7 of 9). Reference "End of Test Parameters". Starting water flow and average water flow are not usefull to evaluating the claim that the no appreciable decrease in flow occured on the system fitted with the device under evaluation.
Comment 9 (page 7 of 9). Reference "End of Test Parameters". Average Water Hardness, Starting Water Flow, and Average Water Flow are not provided for the control system.
Comment 10 (page 7 of 9). Reference "End of Test Parameters". No description of the condition(s) or cause(s) for "flow below the test (sic)" is given.
Comment 11 (page 7 of 9). Reference "End of Test Parameters". (0.9 PPM) should read (0.9 GPM).
Comment 12 (page 7 of 9). Reference "End of Test Parameters". HydroFLOW is misspelled twice in this table.
Comment 13 (page 7 of 9). Reference "End of Test Results". A photo of the filter for the control unit is not provided for comparison.
Comment 14 (page 7 of 9). Reference "End of Test Results". A photo of the solenoid valve, inlet, outlet, and drain from the unit fitted with the device under evaluation are not provided for comparison.
Comment 15 (page 8 of 9). Reference "End of Test Results". A photo of the drain valve from the control unit is not provided for comparision. The photo provided indicates the drain valve is from the RS Resources Heater. This is the first reference to this unit.
Comment 16 (page 8 of 9). Reference "End of Test Results". A photo of an outlet adapter is shown without reference to test unit. No other photos are provided for comparison.
Comment 17 (page 8 of 9). Reference "End of Test Results". A photo of a ball valve outlet is shown without reference to test unit. No other photos are provided for comparison.
Comment 18 (page 8 of 9). Reference "End of Test Results". A photo of heater tubes is shown without reference to test unit. As written, the condition illustrated applies to any water system whether it is fitted with the device under evaluation or not.
Comment 19 (page 8 of 9). Reference "End of Test Results". A photo of a heat exchanger from RS Resources is shown. The condition is described as typical. As written, the condition illustrated applies to any water system whether it is fitted with the device under evaluation or not.

Conclusion. The data in the report do not support the claim that it "overwhelmingly confirmed that the Hydropath technology prevented lime scale build up in the heat exchanger vs no treatment at all".

Recommendation. A more rigorous evaluation of the test product is required to confirm or deny the effectiveness of this technology in a residential setting.
 
Last edited:

NHmaster

Master Plumber
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
S. Maine
Thank you SJS great find. Here's another one

www.prochemtech.com/Literature/Technical/ncd.html

Unfortunately though, I believe you and I are swimming upstream on this one. When someone has something that firm in their mind, all the evidence in the world is not going to change it. There are plenty of studies and experts that have weighed in on these products, all with about the same conclusions. Still the debate rages on. You can throw all the science in the world at the subject and as I said before, it's like arguing Roswell aliens with the true believers. Everything you say is nothing more than a conspiracy theory to them. So out of boredom and the sure knowledge that no matter what gets printed here, nobody is likely to change their minds, I therefore retire from this tedious conversation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Terrydbhm

New Member
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Birmingham
Thank you SJS great find. Here's another one

www.prochemtech.com/literature/technical/ncd.html

Unfortunately though, I believe you and I are swimming upstream on this one. When someone has something that firm in their mind, all the evidence in the world is not going to change it. There are plenty of studies and experts that have weighed in on these products, all with about the same conclusions. Still the debate rages on. You can throw all the science in the world at the subject and as I said before, it's like arguing Roswell aliens with the true believers. Everything you say is nothing more than a conspiracy theory to them. So out of boredom and the sure knowledge that no matter what gets printed here, nobody is likely to change their minds, I therefore retire from this tedious conversation.

(The above link does not work)

Peter, you still have not addressed the point that Hydropath, Hydroflow and Hydrocare are not magnetic based water treatment technologies. All of these web sites that debunk magnetic MWT treatments have no relevance to the Hydropath technology. While there has not been an overwhelming amount of certification and testing in North America, there has been in many other places in the world. When you find some web site that debunks the Hydropath technology as not working as claimed by its manufacturer please come back and report to this forum. However I will not be surprised if we never hear from you because you will not find any such evidence.:p:p:p:p
 
Last edited:

NHmaster

Master Plumber
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
S. Maine
Try this one and it does address electric current and radio waves so by the way does the first link, you just did'nt read enough. Looking at hydro's web site and reading their technical explanation all I have to say is what they are proposing that is occurring is contrary to the laws of physics but why let little things like that stop you.


www.prochemtech.com

Then go to the literature tab and then to non chemical devices 30 years of myth busting
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bob999

Reporter
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Pennsylvania
The following claims are made for Hydrocare:

"HydroCare is a revolutionary breakthrough in the treatment of hard water. One patented unit transmits a unique radio frequency signal that effectively breaks up existing limescale that clogs in pipes, showers and appliances. It will prevent any future buildup protecting the entire plumbing system and increasing efficiency. The electric field is generated through the entire plumbing system and all water appliances.

A Green and Efficient Water Treatment Solution!
Costs a fraction of a water softener!
No Maintenance! No Bags of Salt!
No Filters!
Energy Savings – up to 30% increased efficiencies in heating water
Unclogs pipes and saves thousands of gallons of water
Extends the life of your entire plumbing system and appliances
Environmentally friendly and healthy!
Uses less than 2 watts!"

There are no claims that the unit softens the water--only that it "breaks up existing lime scale"...and "prevent any future build up".

Can we all agree that it is not a softener and should not be compared to a softener?

It does seem to me that the claims made should be supported with documentation--particularly claims like "30% increased efficiencies in heating water" and "saves thousands of gallons of water", and "extends the life of your entire plumbing system and appliances"

I would also like to see documentation for the statement that it costs a fraction of a water softener. If it can be purchased for $600 I can point to a water softener that can be purchased for $450--and that "fraction" is 1 and 1/3 or 1.33 times MORE than a water softener.
 

Gary Slusser

That's all folks!
Messages
6,921
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Wherever I park the motorhome.
Website
www.qualitywaterassociates.com
This was your first post of the thread and one that I totally agree with. Are you reversing your decision? It's very confusing.
Yes I said that and meant it. And no, I would not sell the stuff (PWT), or the Softsorb mineral type "no salt" softeners. They are all a waste of money.

I also have said I have seen two electronic anti-scale devices 'work' because they caused a white powder to form on all surfaces the water was allowed to dry on.

I have also said that science doesn't know everything, including why magnets and electronic PWT things do what they do to make SOME waters less able to scale and how they descale pipes, fixtures and water heaters. SOME do do that.

You and others do not believe they do that and go on'n on about them not doing anything because there is no test you can do to prove they do anything (because you insist on using a hardness test), you're wrong in some cases.

Now you seem to be unable to understand what I said and what I meant and want to go on about it, I don't, so reread what I've said until you understand it to mean what I've said.

As to the PM you sent me. Don't send me anymore Get Off the Pot type PMs.

You have something to say, clean it up by getting rid of any disrespect or personal attack/harassment/attitude stuff as if you are in a discussion and post it in the appropriate thread.

An FYI and a heads up (I see you have asked about them) the last few guys that faked their ability to understand what I say and argued constantly, sent me smart ass PMs and email, harassed me etc. in posts and threatened to get me banned, have been banned themselves and their posts deleted. So say what you want in a polite respectful discussion type format in a thread or you might find yourself gone too.
 

NHmaster

Master Plumber
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
S. Maine
Now just hold on a minute. The PM I sent you was just a friendly prod because maybe I didn't read your replies here carefully enough but it seemed to me like you were defending this pseudo science water conditioning stuff. I am by no means disrespecting you or trying to get into any kind of argument either. In fact 99% of the time your posts are right on the money when it comes to treatment equipment. It just seemed to me that you were waffling a bit here and I could not understand why a guy like you that sells quality equipment and understands quality equipment and water treatment would even begin to entertain the notion that this quack science stuff has any validity to it at all and apparently you don't think that it does so I apologize for any confusion. Nobody is trying to get anybody else banned here.

Quote I've seen a couple anti-scale/descaling devices leave a whitish powdery substance on surfaces where the water was allowed to dry. The ladies hated that but to me it said they did as claimed.

But most do not work.

Neither do the mineral based "no salt" softeners, I know because I bought one to test to see if I wanted to sell them; it makes my Irish Spring suds better somewhat and doesn't allow as much white water marks but the water is nowhere like softened water.

And what some people call a slimy feel of softened water, that is moisturizing the skin and cuts down on skin creams and dry itchy flaky skin etc..
__________________

Yes, I did miss this one, my bad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jadnashua

Retired Defense Industry Engineer xxx
Messages
32,771
Reaction score
1,191
Points
113
Location
New England
FWIW, RF does generate EMF, or electro-magnetic fields...but, at the higher frequency, doesn't show the typical reaction you'd get with a traditional bar or horseshoe magnet. So, while you can market it any way you want, it is still a fancy magnet. Whether it works or not is not my point.
 

Sjsmithjr

In the Trades
Messages
314
Reaction score
1
Points
16
Location
Knoxville, Tennessee
I would bet money that if in the future if some group like the WQA, NSF, WCP, FDA, API etc. were to test the product and certify the technology you will still be screaming SCAM!!:p

To the best of my knowledge: the FDA does not certify technology; the API, on the consumer level, certifies the ratings of motor oil; the WCP is the international equivalent of the WQA; the WQA has declined to certify the Hydrocare HC38 (the presumption among some being that they are biased towards innovative technologies); and the NSF at this time has a copy of the OnSpeX report but has taken no action.

I have been unable to find any documentation re British Gas being involved in the development or testing of the technology under discussion or products based on this technology. I would appreciate any documentation re their participation that the participants in this discussion can provide.

If anyone has questions with respect to my employment I would encourage you to PM me and I can provide you with the essential information. I do find it amusing that, during my participation on this forum, I have twice been accused of being a "plant". In both instances the accusations were made by salesmen. Water conditioner salesmen at that. I have no hidden agenda. I simply despise junk science.

My mind is open. At no time have I directly or indirectly suggested that the device in question is a scam. I did point out that the hard evidence offered as to the device's effectiveness is deficient. I remain prepared to defend that statement (reference my earlier post recommending a more rigorous study).

Considering the profits to made by such a device if its effectiveness could be documented, I would choose an electron scanning microscope as the instrument by which I would observe the purported abilities of the device; not hardness; not anecdotal evidence.
 
Last edited:

Sjsmithjr

In the Trades
Messages
314
Reaction score
1
Points
16
Location
Knoxville, Tennessee
Anecdotal?? It is total relevant to this discussion as to whether the product works as intended and marketed. British Gas was instrumental in the development and TESTING of the Hydropath technology 14 years ago and concluded from their testing that it did work and have been endorsing it ever since and have thousands of very satisfied customers in the UK. Your amusing story about back braces is what has no relevance to this discussion.

it is relevant. Here's why: Your hypothesis can be stated as "If a large company such as BG endorses and sells the product then it must work as advertised".

So, as a scientist I set out to prove your hypothesis. If I document an instance where a large corporation has endorsed and sold a product that did not work as advertised, then the hypothesis is disproved. Case in point, a big box store sold and endorsed back belts as preventing back injuries. The back braces did not prevent back injuries as advertised. Your hypothesis disproved.
 

Terrydbhm

New Member
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Birmingham
Try this one and it does address electric current and radio waves so by the way does the first link, you just did'nt read enough. Looking at hydro's web site and reading their technical explanation all I have to say is what they are proposing that is occurring is contrary to the laws of physics but why let little things like that stop you.


www.prochemtech.com

Then go to the literature tab and then to non chemical devices 30 years of myth busting

I have read this paper published by a company who sells chemical treatments for scale control in cooling towers whos purpose is intended to debunk technologies they perceive as possible competitors to their products. That would be the same as Culligan or any other salt brine water softener manufacturer publishing the same paper, which provides very little credibility. However unless I missed something this paper did not address the Hydropath technology or radio waves, but it did address many others in the following direct quote:

NCD Theory of Operation
Looking at the mode of operation claimed by NCD suppliers, we can generally place them into one of the following types;
Mode Typical Supplier Unit Name(s)
Magnetic "Bon Aqua" "Aqua Flo" "TowerMate"
Electromagnetic "Linear Kinetic Cell" "Dolphin"
Electrostatic "Progressive Electronic" "ChemFree" "Zeta Rod"
Catalytic "Fre Flow"
Mechanical "Moltek" "Chesterton VRTX"


Looking at either the supplier literature, or actual devices in the field, we have observed the following general construction of these five basic types of NCD.

Magnetic: Devices of this type generally employ one, or more, permanent magnet(s) mounted either on the outside, or inside, of the pipe containing the water to be treated. No other equipment, or input power, is supplied, and the magnets are stated to be "permanent".

Electromagnetic: These devices commonly have a low power, low voltage (step down transformer) based power supply providing alternating, or in some cases DC, current to one, or more, coils wound around the outside of the pipe through which the water to be treated flows.

Electrostatic: These units generally consist of a low amperage, high voltage DC power supply and a capacitor like cell where the water to be treated flows between two insulated plates, which are typically charged to between 10,000 and 30,000 vdc. Operating like a capacitor, there is very low power usage.

Catalytic: These devices appear to be nothing more than sealed metal cylinders filled with "powdered metal", or metal shapes of varied composition, inserted into either a tank, or a pipe, in the water system to be treated. The chemical composition of the "catalyst" is reported to vary widely, but is often claimed to include transition and precious metals.

Mechanical: The mechanical devices being marketed appear to be modified centrifugal pumps that provide for recirculation
of the pressurized water.
 
Last edited:

Gary Slusser

That's all folks!
Messages
6,921
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Wherever I park the motorhome.
Website
www.qualitywaterassociates.com
To the best of my knowledge: the WQA has declined to certify the Hydrocare HC38 (the presumption among some being that they are biased towards innovative technologies); and the NSF at this time has a copy of the OnSpeX report but has taken no action.
The WQA and NSF only test and certify performance of water treatment equipment submitted for testing by the manufacturer that wants to use the certification in their marketing after the testing is paid for.

The testing is very expensive and that is why most manufacturers' equipment is not 'certified'. Also, if any materials or components are changed in any way, that voids the certification and retesting must be purchased; so the certification is for each size etc..
 

Gary Slusser

That's all folks!
Messages
6,921
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Wherever I park the motorhome.
Website
www.qualitywaterassociates.com
Terrydbhm, If PWT or 'no salt' softeners worked, it wouldn't matter what type it was, I and everyone else selling ion exchange softeners, and most selling water treatment chemicals, would be selling the stuff.

Frankly most of us are as honest as the day is long but you guys act as if we are all liars and crooks etc. raping the environment.
 

NHmaster

Master Plumber
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
S. Maine
I think that the best thing about this entire thread is that there has been enough discourse that anyone reading it, that has considering purchasing any of the alternative treatment methods will hopefully do some deep research and make an informed decision rather that taking anyone's word for it.

P.T. Barnum said this many moons ago "there's a sucker born every minute"

Caviet emptor - buyer beware
 
Top
Hey, wait a minute.

This is awkward, but...

It looks like you're using an ad blocker. We get it, but (1) terrylove.com can't live without ads, and (2) ad blockers can cause issues with videos and comments. If you'd like to support the site, please allow ads.

If any particular ad is your REASON for blocking ads, please let us know. We might be able to do something about it. Thanks.
I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks