On 11/03/2018 10:36, Huge wrote:
On 2018-03-10, Jon Parker wrote:
So. I'm fed up with scale everywhere. I'm thinking water softener.

I don't want to faff about filling it with salt every 5 minutes.

Where "5 minutes" equals "every 2 weeks".

It's there an idiots guide somewhere which explains the different systems?

Oh, it's really simple. The only systems which work are the salt-based
ion exchange ones. All the others are snake-oil woo.


More rubbish RO systems work.

On Saturday, 10 March 2018 22:08:44 UTC, Jon Parker wrote:
So. I'm fed up with scale everywhere. I'm thinking water softener.

I don't want to faff about filling it with salt every 5 minutes.

It's there an idiots guide somewhere which explains the different systems?

This one for example seems to good to be true. Which probably means it's total ********...

https://www.easyh2o.co.uk/product/4-...em-rrp-239-105

Can anyone with a system installed comment please?

Correct. It's ********.
The only ones that work use salt. (Ion exchange)
In soluble calcium carbonate is changed to soluble sodium carbonate.

In article ,
Davey wrote:
On 11 Mar 2018 13:54:03 GMT
David wrote:

We now have a salt based water softener which does a proper job.

We have one which takes salt tablets, which involves buggering about
with a bag of tablets every few weeks.

The ones which take blocks of salt are a bit more expensive but they
are so much easier to keep topped up with salt.

Agreed. The location of our softener means that block salt is the only
way to go. There had been a pellet-type one there before, and it had
been neglected and abandoned, and had turned into a solid block of salt.
That came out when we moved in, and a twin-tower water-powered block
salt unit put in its place. It's great.

but, they don't last forever. Our first one of these ran for about 10
years. We're on No2 now.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Sunday, 11 March 2018 10:23:19 UTC, GB wrote:
On 11/03/2018 10:17, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 11 March 2018 10:11:12 UTC, GB wrote:
On 11/03/2018 09:26, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 11 March 2018 08:48:02 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:

I can remember getting a lot of interference at a house. it was traced to a
so called water softener in a cupboard around a pipe. This seemed to consist
of some kind of electro magnet around a pipe fed from a naff circuit plugged
into the mains. Needless to say it did nothing but cause the limescale to
bunch together near the device, probably eventually building up inside it
and bunging up the system. There was still lime scale on all the taps,
though not as much according to the home owner.
Its not really a softener, its just a half baked idea that seldom works in
real situations.
Brian

they do work in real situations, and are cheap to make, hence their promotion. But they do not work in domestic installs, hence their complete valuelessness. To be effective - IIRC - the water needs to recirculate through the magnetic field endlessly.


How does that alter the chemistry in any way? It doesn't remove the
calcium ions or the bicarbonate, which react together when heated to
form insoluble calcium carbonate.

I don't know why it stops it depositing & adhering. GIYF.


I don't doubt that google will bring up anecdotal accounts from people
who have spent money on these systems and convinced themselves.

ok, you can stay completely ignorant.


NT

On 11/03/2018 21:52, wrote:
On Sunday, 11 March 2018 10:23:19 UTC, GB wrote:
On 11/03/2018 10:17, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 11 March 2018 10:11:12 UTC, GB wrote:
On 11/03/2018 09:26, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 11 March 2018 08:48:02 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:

I can remember getting a lot of interference at a house. it was traced to a
so called water softener in a cupboard around a pipe. This seemed to consist
of some kind of electro magnet around a pipe fed from a naff circuit plugged
into the mains. Needless to say it did nothing but cause the limescale to
bunch together near the device, probably eventually building up inside it
and bunging up the system. There was still lime scale on all the taps,
though not as much according to the home owner.
Its not really a softener, its just a half baked idea that seldom works in
real situations.
Brian

they do work in real situations, and are cheap to make, hence their promotion. But they do not work in domestic installs, hence their complete valuelessness. To be effective - IIRC - the water needs to recirculate through the magnetic field endlessly.


How does that alter the chemistry in any way? It doesn't remove the
calcium ions or the bicarbonate, which react together when heated to
form insoluble calcium carbonate.

I don't know why it stops it depositing & adhering. GIYF.


I don't doubt that google will bring up anecdotal accounts from people
who have spent money on these systems and convinced themselves.

ok, you can stay completely ignorant.


I love that approach. You assert something which is wildly unlikely and
then say that other people are ignorant because they don't rush to find
evidence to support you.







NT

On 11/03/2018 08:56, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes, most houses, including mine, around here have some lead piping and from
what I've heard from tests, there is very little lead in the water at all,
probably since its been here all that time its coated in some lime scale
anyway!

Ah the old "limescale stops lead" myth.

Just had multiple tests in the shop which has about 15m lead from meter
to tap.

First draw of the day was around 17 things and maximum limit is 10.
Flushed pipe was very low but subsequent test of flushed line then 30
minutes standing time before further sample gave around 12.
We're hard water but leaving water in lead pipe for only 30 minutes was
long enough to take lead content above maximum recommended level.

On 12/03/2018 11:01, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:
On 11/03/2018 08:56, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes, most houses, including mine, around here have some lead piping and from
what I've heard from tests, there is very little lead in the water at all,
probably since its been here all that time its coated in some lime scale
anyway!

Ah the old "limescale stops lead" myth.

Just had multiple tests in the shop which has about 15m lead from meter
to tap.

First draw of the day was around 17 things and maximum limit is 10.
Flushed pipe was very low but subsequent test of flushed line then 30
minutes standing time before further sample gave around 12.
We're hard water but leaving water in lead pipe for only 30 minutes was
long enough to take lead content above maximum recommended level.




Do you drink that water?

www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:

On 11/03/2018 08:56, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes, most houses, including mine, around here have some lead piping and from
what I've heard from tests, there is very little lead in the water at all,
probably since its been here all that time its coated in some lime scale
anyway!

Ah the old "limescale stops lead" myth.

Just had multiple tests in the shop which has about 15m lead from meter
to tap.

First draw of the day was around 17 things and maximum limit is 10.
Flushed pipe was very low but subsequent test of flushed line then 30
minutes standing time before further sample gave around 12.
We're hard water but leaving water in lead pipe for only 30 minutes was
long enough to take lead content above maximum recommended level.

The story I heard was that lead dissolves faster in soft water. It may
possibly be a pH thing, as I think soft water is generally more acid. It
may be equally untrue, but it is different from the limescale
hypothesis.

--

Roger Hayter

On 12/03/2018 11:25, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2018 11:01, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:

We're hard water but leaving water in lead pipe for only 30 minutes was
long enough to take lead content above maximum recommended level.

Do you drink that water?

Does it show?

On 11/03/2018 17:13, dennis@home wrote:

Particle filter to take out any solids
Carbon filter to take out the chlorine (needed to stop the membrane
being damaged).
Another carbon filter to take out chloroamines
Membrane
12l Tank
post tank carbon filter
something to re-mineralize it (not being used)
UV sterilizer (not being used)

All for about £117.

Was thinking about getting R.O. filter for drinking water at work due to
lead pipes.

www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:

On 12/03/2018 11:25, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2018 11:01, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:

We're hard water but leaving water in lead pipe for only 30 minutes was
long enough to take lead content above maximum recommended level.

Do you drink that water?

Does it show?


When I had a lead service pipe, we used to run off a few gallons in the
morning, and perhaps again if it had stood for a long time. For
obvious public policy reasons, the water boards do not give this advice.

--

Roger Hayter

On 12/03/2018 11:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:

On 12/03/2018 11:25, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2018 11:01, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:

We're hard water but leaving water in lead pipe for only 30 minutes was
long enough to take lead content above maximum recommended level.

Do you drink that water?

Does it show?


When I had a lead service pipe, we used to run off a few gallons in the
morning, and perhaps again if it had stood for a long time. For
obvious public policy reasons, the water boards do not give this advice.

The waterboard checked the water not long after we moved into the
property in 1999 (business & living in the flat above)
I queried lead pipes with them at the time and they advised drawing off
water first thing. I think at that time the lead on their test was 11
not 10 so still a fail but I think it was tested during the day rather
than first draw. Always made a habit of running off the water before
using it for human consumption though.

On Monday, 12 March 2018 09:56:08 UTC, GB wrote:
On 11/03/2018 21:52, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 11 March 2018 10:23:19 UTC, GB wrote:
On 11/03/2018 10:17, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 11 March 2018 10:11:12 UTC, GB wrote:
On 11/03/2018 09:26, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 11 March 2018 08:48:02 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:

I can remember getting a lot of interference at a house. it was traced to a
so called water softener in a cupboard around a pipe. This seemed to consist
of some kind of electro magnet around a pipe fed from a naff circuit plugged
into the mains. Needless to say it did nothing but cause the limescale to
bunch together near the device, probably eventually building up inside it
and bunging up the system. There was still lime scale on all the taps,
though not as much according to the home owner.
Its not really a softener, its just a half baked idea that seldom works in
real situations.
Brian

they do work in real situations, and are cheap to make, hence their promotion. But they do not work in domestic installs, hence their complete valuelessness. To be effective - IIRC - the water needs to recirculate through the magnetic field endlessly.


How does that alter the chemistry in any way? It doesn't remove the
calcium ions or the bicarbonate, which react together when heated to
form insoluble calcium carbonate.

I don't know why it stops it depositing & adhering. GIYF.


I don't doubt that google will bring up anecdotal accounts from people
who have spent money on these systems and convinced themselves.

ok, you can stay completely ignorant.


I love that approach. You assert something which is wildly unlikely and
then say that other people are ignorant because they don't rush to find
evidence to support you.

If you can't be bothered to google the origin of these water treating systems then no, I'm not going to sit here & spoon feed you.


NT

On 12/03/2018 15:55, wrote:
On Monday, 12 March 2018 09:56:08 UTC, GB wrote:
On 11/03/2018 21:52, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 11 March 2018 10:23:19 UTC, GB wrote:
On 11/03/2018 10:17, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 11 March 2018 10:11:12 UTC, GB wrote:
On 11/03/2018 09:26, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 11 March 2018 08:48:02 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:

I can remember getting a lot of interference at a house. it was traced to a
so called water softener in a cupboard around a pipe. This seemed to consist
of some kind of electro magnet around a pipe fed from a naff circuit plugged
into the mains. Needless to say it did nothing but cause the limescale to
bunch together near the device, probably eventually building up inside it
and bunging up the system. There was still lime scale on all the taps,
though not as much according to the home owner.
Its not really a softener, its just a half baked idea that seldom works in
real situations.
Brian

they do work in real situations, and are cheap to make, hence their promotion. But they do not work in domestic installs, hence their complete valuelessness. To be effective - IIRC - the water needs to recirculate through the magnetic field endlessly.


How does that alter the chemistry in any way? It doesn't remove the
calcium ions or the bicarbonate, which react together when heated to
form insoluble calcium carbonate.

I don't know why it stops it depositing & adhering. GIYF.


I don't doubt that google will bring up anecdotal accounts from people
who have spent money on these systems and convinced themselves.

ok, you can stay completely ignorant.


I love that approach. You assert something which is wildly unlikely and
then say that other people are ignorant because they don't rush to find
evidence to support you.

If you can't be bothered to google the origin of these water treating systems then no, I'm not going to sit here & spoon feed you.


Well, if you believe this snake oil works, that's fine, but don't be
surprised that others are not being suckered in.





NT

On Monday, 12 March 2018 18:09:39 UTC, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2018 15:55, tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 12 March 2018 09:56:08 UTC, GB wrote:
On 11/03/2018 21:52, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 11 March 2018 10:23:19 UTC, GB wrote:
On 11/03/2018 10:17, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 11 March 2018 10:11:12 UTC, GB wrote:
On 11/03/2018 09:26, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 11 March 2018 08:48:02 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:

I can remember getting a lot of interference at a house. it was traced to a
so called water softener in a cupboard around a pipe. This seemed to consist
of some kind of electro magnet around a pipe fed from a naff circuit plugged
into the mains. Needless to say it did nothing but cause the limescale to
bunch together near the device, probably eventually building up inside it
and bunging up the system. There was still lime scale on all the taps,
though not as much according to the home owner.
Its not really a softener, its just a half baked idea that seldom works in
real situations.
Brian

they do work in real situations, and are cheap to make, hence their promotion. But they do not work in domestic installs, hence their complete valuelessness. To be effective - IIRC - the water needs to recirculate through the magnetic field endlessly.


How does that alter the chemistry in any way? It doesn't remove the
calcium ions or the bicarbonate, which react together when heated to
form insoluble calcium carbonate.

I don't know why it stops it depositing & adhering. GIYF.


I don't doubt that google will bring up anecdotal accounts from people
who have spent money on these systems and convinced themselves.

ok, you can stay completely ignorant.


I love that approach. You assert something which is wildly unlikely and
then say that other people are ignorant because they don't rush to find
evidence to support you.

If you can't be bothered to google the origin of these water treating systems then no, I'm not going to sit here & spoon feed you.


Well, if you believe this snake oil works, that's fine, but don't be
surprised that others are not being suckered in.

I'm pretty sure I said they don't work in a domestic setting. Why not get back to us when you have some info.


NT

On 12/03/2018 18:35, wrote:

I'm pretty sure I said they don't work in a domestic setting.

Yes, I know, but that doesn't mean that they work in other situations.

Why not get back to us when you have some info.

I have. It's snake oil, but you don't like that information.

On 12/03/2018 18:54, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:35, wrote:

I'm pretty sure I said they don't work in a domestic setting.

Yes, I know, but that doesn't mean that they work in other situations.

Why not get back to us when you have some info.

I have. It's snake oil, but you don't like that information.

Books about imaginary entities have less basis on science than magnetic
effect on water and the precipitation of carbonates.

I don't expect you like being told that either.

This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication from a
University, there are loads of others.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god doesn't
exist; where beliefs of the existence that father christmas, and the
like, are akin to snake oil too?

On 12/03/2018 19:56, Fredxx wrote:

This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication from a
University, there are loads of others.
Â* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Bloody hell. Looks like I'll have to eat my hat, with a humble pie
topping. Apologies to Tabbypurr.




Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god doesn't
exist;

I am absolutely open to that. I would describe myself as an atheist. It
doesn't stop me wanting to be polite and respect the sensibilities of
people who do believe.

On Monday, 12 March 2018 18:54:34 UTC, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:35, tabbypurr wrote:

I'm pretty sure I said they don't work in a domestic setting.

Yes, I know, but that doesn't mean that they work in other situations.

Well done. Good that you've worked that out.


Why not get back to us when you have some info.

I have. It's snake oil, but you don't like that information.

Once again you ascribe things to me that I've never claimed. So I don't think I'll waste any further time.


NT

On 12/03/2018 21:58, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2018 19:56, Fredxx wrote:

This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication from
a University, there are loads of others.
Â*Â* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Bloody hell. Looks like I'll have to eat my hat, with a humble pie
topping. Apologies to Tabbypurr.

That doesn't make it true, but I feel I need to keep an open mind so
unwilling to dismiss it out of hand. I've seen other articles with
similar results.

Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god doesn't
exist;

I am absolutely open to that. I would describe myself as an atheist.Â* It
doesn't stop me wanting to be polite and respect the sensibilities of
people who do believe.

Perhaps I was a little unkind.

On 12/03/18 19:56, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:54, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:35, wrote:

I'm pretty sure I said they don't work in a domestic setting.

Yes, I know, but that doesn't mean that they work in other situations.

Why not get back to us when you have some info.

I have. It's snake oil, but you don't like that information.

Books about imaginary entities have less basis on science than magnetic
effect on water and the precipitation of carbonates.

I don't expect you like being told that either.

This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication from a
University, there are loads of others.
Â* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god doesn't
exist; where beliefs of the existence that father christmas, and the
like, are akin to snake oil too?

Thes days when I hear 'peer reviewed publication' and I find in it the
words 'alternative eco-friendly' I just switch off. Whatever happened to
actual real investigative science?



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 13/03/2018 02:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/03/18 19:56, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:54, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:35, wrote:

I'm pretty sure I said they don't work in a domestic setting.

Yes, I know, but that doesn't mean that they work in other situations.

Why not get back to us when you have some info.

I have. It's snake oil, but you don't like that information.

Books about imaginary entities have less basis on science than
magnetic effect on water and the precipitation of carbonates.

I don't expect you like being told that either.

This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication from
a University, there are loads of others.
Â*Â* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god doesn't
exist; where beliefs of the existence that father christmas, and the
like, are akin to snake oil too?

Thes days when I hearÂ* 'peer reviewed publication' and I find in it the
words 'alternative eco-friendly' I just switch off. Whatever happened to
actual real investigative science?

Some mock the concept of a peer reviewed article, others believe they
represent greater credibility than claims made in pubs or even newsgroups.

YMMV

On 13/03/18 04:29, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/03/2018 02:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/03/18 19:56, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:54, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:35, wrote:

I'm pretty sure I said they don't work in a domestic setting.

Yes, I know, but that doesn't mean that they work in other situations.

Why not get back to us when you have some info.

I have. It's snake oil, but you don't like that information.

Books about imaginary entities have less basis on science than
magnetic effect on water and the precipitation of carbonates.

I don't expect you like being told that either.

This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication
from a University, there are loads of others.
Â*Â* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god doesn't
exist; where beliefs of the existence that father christmas, and the
like, are akin to snake oil too?

Thes days when I hearÂ* 'peer reviewed publication' and I find in it
the words 'alternative eco-friendly' I just switch off. Whatever
happened to actual real investigative science?

Some mock the concept of a peer reviewed article, others believe they
represent greater credibility than claims made in pubs or even newsgroups.


Once it did. These days it means a coterie of paid academics are
masturbating each other for money, if te word 'environment' or 'eco' or
'climate change' apperas anywhere in it.

Anyway how many people have DHW systems that operate at 150C - where the
test were carried out?

Ad has been said elsewhere, the application to the domestic water supply
is precisely zero.


YMMV


--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 13/03/2018 06:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/03/18 04:29, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/03/2018 02:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/03/18 19:56, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:54, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:35, wrote:

snip
This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication
from a University, there are loads of others.
Â*Â* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god
doesn't exist; where beliefs of the existence that father christmas,
and the like, are akin to snake oil too?

Thes days when I hearÂ* 'peer reviewed publication' and I find in it
the words 'alternative eco-friendly' I just switch off. Whatever
happened to actual real investigative science?

Some mock the concept of a peer reviewed article, others believe they
represent greater credibility than claims made in pubs or even
newsgroups.


Once it did. These days it means a coterie of paid academics are
masturbating each other for money, if te word 'environment' or 'eco' or
'climate change' apperas anywhere in it.


Surely a better estimate than the Express/Mail etc so many on this NG
rely on?

And to suggest that all peer reviewed research containing those words is
motivated by money is just nonsense.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 13/03/18 07:50, RJH wrote:
On 13/03/2018 06:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/03/18 04:29, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/03/2018 02:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/03/18 19:56, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:54, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:35, wrote:

snip
This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication
from a University, there are loads of others.
Â*Â* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god
doesn't exist; where beliefs of the existence that father
christmas, and the like, are akin to snake oil too?

Thes days when I hearÂ* 'peer reviewed publication' and I find in it
the words 'alternative eco-friendly' I just switch off. Whatever
happened to actual real investigative science?

Some mock the concept of a peer reviewed article, others believe they
represent greater credibility than claims made in pubs or even
newsgroups.


Once it did. These days it means a coterie of paid academics are
masturbating each other for money, if te word 'environment' or 'eco'
or 'climate change' apperas anywhere in it.


Surely a better estimate than the Express/Mail etc so many on this NG
rely on?


Or the Guardian/BBC/New Scientist..

And to suggest that all peer reviewed research containing those words is
motivated by money is just nonsense.


Only about 90%..

I have it from Don's mouths that whatever research you do, if you can
throw in a climate change or envoronment angle you get funding.
Otherwise, you don't.



--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 04:29:46 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/03/2018 02:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/03/18 19:56, Fredxx wrote:

Books about imaginary entities have less basis on science than
magnetic effect on water and the precipitation of carbonates.

I don't expect you like being told that either.

This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication from
a University, there are loads of others.
Â*Â* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god doesn't
exist; where beliefs of the existence that father christmas, and the
like, are akin to snake oil too?

Thes days when I hearÂ* 'peer reviewed publication' and I find in it the
words 'alternative eco-friendly' I just switch off. Whatever happened to
actual real investigative science?

Some mock the concept of a peer reviewed article, others believe they
represent greater credibility than claims made in pubs or even newsgroups..

YMMV

The concept is a goodish one. Unfortunately IRL it doesn't mean a lot, since the peer review process of weeding out the bad research mostly does not work. I wish it did. In practice people seldom criticise even the most outrageous crp because they don't want their research trashed in return. It's about careers/money first, not science first.


NT

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 10:08:44 PM UTC, Jon Parker wrote:
So. I'm fed up with scale everywhere. I'm thinking water softener.

I don't want to faff about filling it with salt every 5 minutes.

It's there an idiots guide somewhere which explains the different systems?

This one for example seems to good to be true. Which probably means it's total ********...

https://www.easyh2o.co.uk/product/4-...em-rrp-239-105

Can anyone with a system installed comment please?

I live in a very hard water area and my salt loaded one cost £600 incl fitting.

On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 1:45:11 PM UTC, wrote:
On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 10:08:44 PM UTC, Jon Parker wrote:
So. I'm fed up with scale everywhere. I'm thinking water softener.

I don't want to faff about filling it with salt every 5 minutes.

It's there an idiots guide somewhere which explains the different systems?

This one for example seems to good to be true. Which probably means it's total ********...

https://www.easyh2o.co.uk/product/4-...em-rrp-239-105

Can anyone with a system installed comment please?

I live in a very hard water area and my salt loaded one cost £600 incl fitting.

Two blocks last 3 weeks.

Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 04:29:46 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/03/2018 02:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/03/18 19:56, Fredxx wrote:

Books about imaginary entities have less basis on science than
magnetic effect on water and the precipitation of carbonates.

I don't expect you like being told that either.

This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication from
a University, there are loads of others.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god doesn't
exist; where beliefs of the existence that father christmas, and the
like, are akin to snake oil too?

Thes days when I hear 'peer reviewed publication' and I find in it the
words 'alternative eco-friendly' I just switch off. Whatever happened to
actual real investigative science?

Some mock the concept of a peer reviewed article, others believe they
represent greater credibility than claims made in pubs or even newsgroups.

YMMV

The concept is a goodish one. Unfortunately IRL it doesn't mean a lot, since
the peer review process of weeding out the bad research mostly does not work.
I wish it did. In practice people seldom criticise even the most outrageous
crp because they don't want their research trashed in return. It's about
careers/money first, not science first.

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

in particular the last para before the References. People are people,
and 100 years ago were no different to today when it came to
confirmation bias.

In my limited, and decades old, experience, peer review was often an
opportunity to take a somewhat severe view of the methods and discussion
used by rival groups. Just this side of totally unfair. But this was
in a field devoid of political interest where many questions were too
open to have acquired dogmatic supporters.




--

Roger Hayter

On 13/03/2018 12:30, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 04:29:46 UTC, FredxxÂ* wrote:
On 13/03/2018 02:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/03/18 19:56, Fredxx wrote:

Books about imaginary entities have less basis on science than
magnetic effect on water and the precipitation of carbonates.

I don't expect you like being told that either.

This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication
from a University, there are loads of others.
Â*Â* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god
doesn't exist; where beliefs of the existence that father
christmas, and the like, are akin to snake oil too?
Thes days when I hearÂ* 'peer reviewed publication' and I find in
it the words 'alternative eco-friendly' I just switch off. Whatever
happened to actual real investigative science?

Some mock the concept of a peer reviewed article, others believe they
represent greater credibility than claims made in pubs or even
newsgroups.

YMMV

The concept is a goodish one. Unfortunately IRL it doesn't mean a lot,
since
the peer review process of weeding out the bad research mostly does
not work.
I wish it did. In practice people seldom criticise even the most
outrageous
crp because they don't want their research trashed in return. It's about
careers/money first, not science first.

See also:

Â*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

in particular the last para before the References. People are people,
and 100 years ago were no different to today when it came to
confirmation bias.

Yeah and Mendel cheated with his pea experiments.

--
Max Demian

On 13/03/2018 06:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/03/18 04:29, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/03/2018 02:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/03/18 19:56, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:54, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:35, wrote:

I'm pretty sure I said they don't work in a domestic setting.

Yes, I know, but that doesn't mean that they work in other situations.

Why not get back to us when you have some info.

I have. It's snake oil, but you don't like that information.

Books about imaginary entities have less basis on science than
magnetic effect on water and the precipitation of carbonates.

I don't expect you like being told that either.

This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication
from a University, there are loads of others.
Â*Â* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god
doesn't exist; where beliefs of the existence that father christmas,
and the like, are akin to snake oil too?

Thes days when I hearÂ* 'peer reviewed publication' and I find in it
the words 'alternative eco-friendly' I just switch off. Whatever
happened to actual real investigative science?

Some mock the concept of a peer reviewed article, others believe they
represent greater credibility than claims made in pubs or even
newsgroups.


Once it did. These days it means a coterie of paid academics are
masturbating each other for money, if te word 'environment' or 'eco' or
'climate change' apperas anywhere in it.

Anyway how many people have DHW systems that operate at 150C - where the
test were carried out?

Ad has been said elsewhere, the application to the domestic water supply
is precisely zero.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Have you have a publication refused?

On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 19:58:18 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/03/2018 06:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/03/18 04:29, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/03/2018 02:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/03/18 19:56, Fredxx wrote:

This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication
from a University, there are loads of others.
Â*Â* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god
doesn't exist; where beliefs of the existence that father christmas,
and the like, are akin to snake oil too?

Thes days when I hearÂ* 'peer reviewed publication' and I find in it
the words 'alternative eco-friendly' I just switch off. Whatever
happened to actual real investigative science?

Some mock the concept of a peer reviewed article, others believe they
represent greater credibility than claims made in pubs or even
newsgroups.


Once it did. These days it means a coterie of paid academics are
masturbating each other for money, if te word 'environment' or 'eco' or
'climate change' apperas anywhere in it.

Anyway how many people have DHW systems that operate at 150C - where the
test were carried out?

Ad has been said elsewhere, the application to the domestic water supply
is precisely zero.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Have you have a publication refused?

maybe you read stuff in a different field to me. TNP is right about some fields at least.


NT

On 13/03/18 19:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/03/2018 06:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/03/18 04:29, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/03/2018 02:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/03/18 19:56, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:54, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:35, wrote:

I'm pretty sure I said they don't work in a domestic setting.

Yes, I know, but that doesn't mean that they work in other
situations.

Why not get back to us when you have some info.

I have. It's snake oil, but you don't like that information.

Books about imaginary entities have less basis on science than
magnetic effect on water and the precipitation of carbonates.

I don't expect you like being told that either.

This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication
from a University, there are loads of others.
Â*Â* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god
doesn't exist; where beliefs of the existence that father
christmas, and the like, are akin to snake oil too?

Thes days when I hearÂ* 'peer reviewed publication' and I find in it
the words 'alternative eco-friendly' I just switch off. Whatever
happened to actual real investigative science?

Some mock the concept of a peer reviewed article, others believe they
represent greater credibility than claims made in pubs or even
newsgroups.


Once it did. These days it means a coterie of paid academics are
masturbating each other for money, if te word 'environment' or 'eco'
or 'climate change' apperas anywhere in it.

Anyway how many people have DHW systems that operate at 150C - where
the test were carried out?

Ad has been said elsewhere, the application to the domestic water
supply is precisely zero.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Have you have a publication refused?

Never.

I dont believe I have ever offered one. I left academia many years ago
and entered the RealWorld „¢

--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 12:50:05 PM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online...t-devices.html

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

and

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/magne...01/powell.html
are worth reading.

Nice one Peter, thank you.

Jon

On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 5:14:53 PM UTC, Davey wrote:
On 11 Mar 2018 13:54:03 GMT
David wrote:
This is in East Anglia, officially a Very Hard Water Area. The concept
of softening all the water supplied in the area boggles the mind, it
would take a softening plant the size of one of our counties.

I too am in East Anglia. We had a new bathroom put in two months ago and the new taps and shower screen are already alive with scale despite regular cleaning!

Jon

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 07:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Jon Parker wrote:

On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 5:14:53 PM UTC, Davey wrote:
On 11 Mar 2018 13:54:03 GMT
David wrote:
This is in East Anglia, officially a Very Hard Water Area. The
concept of softening all the water supplied in the area boggles the
mind, it would take a softening plant the size of one of our
counties.

I too am in East Anglia. We had a new bathroom put in two months ago
and the new taps and shower screen are already alive with scale
despite regular cleaning!

Jon

Presumably you don't (yet) have a softener installed?

--
Davey.

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:16:57 +0000
Davey wrote:

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 07:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Jon Parker wrote:

On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 5:14:53 PM UTC, Davey wrote:
On 11 Mar 2018 13:54:03 GMT
David wrote:
This is in East Anglia, officially a Very Hard Water Area. The
concept of softening all the water supplied in the area boggles
the mind, it would take a softening plant the size of one of our
counties.

I too am in East Anglia. We had a new bathroom put in two months ago
and the new taps and shower screen are already alive with scale
despite regular cleaning!

Jon

Presumably you don't (yet) have a softener installed?


OOps, sorry, I didn't notice that you were the OP.

Apologies.

--
Davey.

Have you ever considering installing a reverse osmosis system. I use RO. I bought this system two years ago: https://ecosoft.com/reverse-osmosis-systems/ . It's perfect for my needs, and works effectively.

On 22/03/2018 09:03, RDss wrote:
Have you ever considering installing a reverse osmosis system. I use
RO. I bought this system two years ago:
https://ecosoft.com/reverse-osmosis-systems/ . It's perfect for my
needs, and works effectively.


I wouldn't fit one they are five times too expensive for what they are.

One of these should do a better job as long as your mains pressure is 4
bar or more..

https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Finerfilt.../dp/B01MXV9O3J

There is noway you are getting more than a trickle of water without the
tank from an under sink system, the membranes just aren't big enough.

I am not 100% sure my experience will be useful for you but still. We have very hard water and we had a unit installed. We ended up using EcoPure Water Softener. So shop around, compare several units, this resource may be useful for you https://iwaterpurification.com/best-...tener-reviews/ . I've been using mine for 5 years and never had a problem with it.