Even the "Skeptics" Acknowledge
Magnetic Treatment Works

Regarding the article below, we quote from the literature review section, but not from the conclusion section, as the author's bias against the magnetic effect is so profound, that he does not accept the positive evidences discovered from his own research!  The posting web site is from CSICOP, a group which attacks nearly any idea that strays from the most rigid of orthodox academic dogma, which by theory demands that the magnetic effect "cannot exist".  They surely would have attacked the airplane and rocket, if those inventions were only being tested out today -- and history shows, both the Wright brothers, and Goddard's rocketry, were viciously attacked by the "skeptics" of their day.   In spite of this problem, the evidence supplied below, directly from the "skeptics" own website, is quite positive on the subject of the magnetic effect.
James DeMeo, Ph.D.

Magnetic Water and Fuel
Treatment: Myth, Magic, or
Mainstream Science?

Mike R. Powell

Liburkin et al. (1986) found that magnetic treatment affected the structure of gypsum (calcium sulfate).
Gypsum particles formed in magnetically treated water were found to be larger and "more regularly
oriented" than those formed in ordinary water. Similarly, Kronenberg (1985) reported that magnetic
treatment changed the mode of calcium carbonate precipitation such that circular disc-shaped particles are
formed rather than the dendritic (branching or tree-like) particles observed in nontreated water. Others
(e.g., Chechel and Annenkova 1972; Martynova et al. 1967) also have found that magnetic treatment
affects the structure of subsequently precipitated solids. Because scale formation involves precipitation
and crystallization, these studies imply that magnetic water treatment is likely to have an effect on the
formation of scale.

Some researchers hypothesize that magnetic treatment affects the nature of hydrogen bonds between
water molecules. They report changes in water properties such as light absorbance, surface tension, and
pH (e.g., Joshi and Kamat 1966; Bruns et al. 1966; Klassen 1981). However, these effects have not
always been found by later investigators (Mirumyants et al. 1972). Further, the characteristic relaxation
time of hydrogen bonds between water molecules is estimated to be much too fast and the applied
magnetic field strengths much too small for any such lasting effects, so it is unlikely that magnetic water
treatment affects water molecules (Lipus et al. 1994).

Duffy (1977) provides experimental evidence that scale suppression in magnetic water treatment devices
is due not to magnetic effects on the fluid, but to the dissolution of small amounts of iron from the
magnet or surrounding pipe into the fluid. Iron ions can suppress the rate of scale formation and
encourage the growth of a softer scale deposit. Busch et al. (1986) measured the voltages produced by
fluids flowing through a commercial magnetic treatment device. Their data support the hypothesis that a
chemical reaction driven by the induced electrical currents may be responsible for generating the iron
ions shown by Duffy to affect scale formation.

Among those who report some type of direct magnetic-water-treatment effect, a consensus seems to be
emerging that the effect results from the interaction of the applied magnetic field with surface charges of
suspended particles (Donaldson 1988; Lipus et al. 1994). Krylov et al. (1985) found that the electrical
charges on calcium carbonate particles are significantly affected by the application of a magnetic field.
Further, the magnitude of the change in particle charge increased as the strength of the applied magnetic
field increased.

Gehr et al. (1995) found that magnetic treatment affects the quantity of suspended and dissolved calcium
sulfate. A very strong magnetic field (47,500 gauss) generated by a nuclear magnetic resonance
spectrometer was used to test identical calcium sulfate suspensions with very high hardness (1,700 ppm
on a CaCO3 basis). Two minutes of magnetic treatment decreased the dissolved calcium concentration
by about 10 percent. The magnetic field also decreased the average particle charge by about 23 percent.
These results, along with those of many others (e.g., Parsons et al. 1997; Higashitani and Oshitani
1997), imply that application of a magnetic field can affect the dissolution and crystallization of at least
some compounds.

Whether or not some magnetic water treatment effect actually exists, the further question, and the most
important for consumers, is whether the magnetic water treatment devices perform as advertised.

Numerous anecdotal accounts of the successes and failures of magnetic water treatment devices can be
found in the literature (Lin and Yotvat 1989; Raisen 1984; Wilkes and Baum 1979; Welder and Partridge
1954). However, because of the varied conditions under which these field trials are conducted it is
unclear whether the positive reports are due solely to magnetic treatment or to other conditions that were
not controlled during the trial.

Some commercial devices have been subjected to tests under controlled conditions. Unfortunately, the
results are mixed. Duffy (1977) tested a commercial device with an internal magnet and found that it had
no significant effect on the precipitation of calcium carbonate scale in a heat exchanger. According to
Lipus et al. (1994), however, the scale prevention capability of their ELMAG device is proven, although
they do not supply much supporting test data.

Busch et al. (1997) measured the scale formed by the distillation of hard water with and without
magnetic treatment. Using laboratory-prepared hard water, a 22 percent reduction in scale formation was
observed when the magnetic treatment device was used instead of a straight pipe section. However, a 17
percent reduction in scaling was found when an unmagnetized, but otherwise identical, device was
installed. Busch et al. (1997) speculate that fluid turbulence inside the device may be the cause of the 17
percent reduction, with the magnetic field effect responsible for the additional 5 percent. River water was
subjected to similar tests, but no difference in scale formation was found with and without the magnetic
treatment device installed. An explanation for this negative result was not found.

Another study of a commercial magnetic water treatment device was conducted by Hasson and Bramson
(1985). Under the technical supervision of the device supplier, they tested the device to determine its
ability to prevent the accumulation of calcium carbonate scale in a pipe. Very hard water (300 to 340
ppm) was pumped through a cast-iron pipe, and the rate of scale accumulation inside the pipe was
determined by periodically inspecting the pipe's interior. Magnetic exposure was found to have no effect
on either the rate of scale accumulation or on the adhesive nature of the scale deposits.

Consumer Reports magazine (Denver 1996) tested a $535 magnetic water treatment device from
Descal-A-Matic Corporation. Two electric water heaters were installed in the home of one of the
Consumer Reports staffers. The hard water (200 ppm) entering one of the heaters was first passed
through the magnetic treatment device. The second water heater received untreated water. The water
heaters were cut open after more than two years and after more than 10,000 gallons of water were heated
by each heater. The tanks were found to contain the same quantity and texture of scale. Consumer
Reports concluded that the Descal-A-Matic unit was ineffective.

Much of the available laboratory test data imply that magnetic water treatment devices are largely
ineffective, yet reports of positive results in industrial settings persist (e.g., Spear 1992; Donaldson
1988). The contradictory reports imply that if a magnetic water treatment effect for scale prevention
exists, then it only is effective under some of the conditions encountered in industry. At present, there
does not seem to be a defensible guideline for determining when the desired effect can be expected and
when it cannot.

One of the claims made for residential magnetic treatment devices is that less soap and detergent will be
required for washing. Compared to the claim to suppress scale formation, this claim has received little
direct attention in the literature. To decrease soap and detergent consumption, the concentration of
dissolved hardness minerals must be decreased. The tests by Gehr et al. (1995), described earlier,
demonstrated a decrease in dissolved mineral concentration of about 10 percent.  ...

A literature search for magnetic fuel treatment studies revealed that such studies are practically
nonexistent. I found a total of three references. Two of these (Daly 1995; McNeely 1994) were anecdotal
accounts describing the use of a magnetic treatment device to kill microorganisms in diesel fuel, a fuel
treatment application not usually mentioned by magnetic fuel treatment vendors.

The third reference (Tretyakov et al. 1985) describes tests conducted in which the electrical resistance
and dielectric properties of a hydrocarbon fuel were found to change in response to an applied magnetic
field. This report does not address whether the observed physical property changes might affect fuel
performance in an engine, but it references two research reports that may contain performance data
(Skripka et al. 1975; Tretyakov et al. 1975). Unfortunately, I could obtain neither report, and both are
written in Russian.

* Bruns, S. A., V. I. Klassen, and A. K. Konshina. 1966. Change in the extinction of light by
water after treatment in a magnetic field. Kolloidn. Zh. 28: 153-155.

*  Busch, K. W., M. A. Busch, D. H. Parker, R. E. Darling, and J. L. McAtee, Jr. 1986. Studies
of a water treatment device that uses magnetic fields. Corrosion 42 (4): 211-221.

*  Busch, K. W., M. A. Busch, R. E. Darling, S. Maggard, and S. W. Kubala. 1997. Design of
a test loop for the evaluation of magnetic water treatment devices. Process Safety and
Environmental Protection. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 75 (Part B):

* Chechel, P. S., and G. V. Annenkova. 1972. Influence of magnetic treatment on solubility of
calcium sulphate. Coke Chem. USSR. 8: 60-61.

*  Daly, J. 1995. Miracle cure. Motor Boating and Sailing. October, p. 36.

* Denver, E., executive ed. 1996. Magnets that don't do much to soften water. Consumer
Reports. February, p. 8.

* Donaldson, J. D. 1988. Magnetic treatment of fluids -- preventing scale." Finishing. 12: 22-32.

*  Duffy, E. A. 1977. Investigation of Magnetic Water Treatment Devices. Ph.D. dissertation,
Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.

* Gehr, R., Z. A. Zhai, J. A. Finch, and S. R. Rao. 1995. Reduction of soluble mineral
concentrations in CaSO4 saturated water using a magnetic field. Wat. Res. 29 (3): 933-940.

*  Hasson, D., and D. Bramson. 1985. Effectiveness of magnetic water treatment in suppressing
CaCO3 scale deposition. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 24: 588-592.

*  Higashitani, K., and J. Oshitani. 1997. Measurements of magnetic effects on electrolyte
solutions by atomic force microscope. Process Safety and Environmental Protection.
Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 75 (Part B): 115-119.

*  Joshi, K. M., and P. V. Kamat. 1966. Effect of magnetic field on the physical properties of
water. J. Ind. Chem. Soc. 43: 620-622.

*  Klassen, V. I. 1981. Magnetic treatment of water in mineral processing. In Developments in
Mineral Processing, Part B, Mineral Processing. Elsevier, N.Y., pp. 1077-1097.

*  Kronenberg, K. J. 1985. Experimental evidence for effects of magnetic fields on moving water.
IEEE Trans. on Magnetics, vol. Mag-21, no. 5: 2059-2061.

*   Krylov, O. T., I. K. Vikulova, V. V. Eletskii, N. A. Rozno, and V. I. Klassen. 1985.
Influence of magnetic treatment on the electro-kinetic potential of a suspension of CaCO3.
Colloid J. USSR 47: 820-824.

* Liburkin, V. G., B. S. Kondratev, and T. S. Pavlyukova. 1986. Action of magnetic treatment
of water on the structure formation of gypsum. Glass and Ceramics (English translation of
Steklo I Keramika) 1: 101-105.

*  Lin, I., and Y. Yotvat. 1989. Electro-magnetic treatment of drinking and irrigation water. Water
and Irrigation Rev. 8:16-18.

*   Lipus, L., J. Krope, and L. Garbai. 1994. Magnetic water treatment for scale prevention.
Hungarian J. Ind. Chem. 22: 239-242.

* Martynova, O. I., E. F. Tebenekhin, and B. T. Gusev. 1967. Conditions and mechanism of
deposition of the solid calcium carbonate phase from aqeuous [sic] solutions under the influence
of a magnetic field. Colloid J. USSR 29: 512-514.

*  McNeely, M. 1994. Magnetic fuel treatment system designed to attack fuel-borne microbes.
Diesel Progress Engines and Drives. November, p. 16.

* Mirumyants, S. O., E. A. Vandyukov, and R. S. Tukhvatullin. 1972. The effect of a constant
magnetic field on the infrared absorption spectrum of liquid water. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 46:

*  Parsons, S. A., S. J. Judd, T. Stephenson, S. Udol, and B.-L. Wang. 1997. Magnetically
augmented water treatment. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. Transactions of the
Institution of Chemical Engineers 75 (Part B): 98-104.

*  Raisen, E. 1984. The control of scale and corrosion in water systems using magnetic fields.
Corrosion 84. Conference proceedings, Nat. Assoc. of Corrosion Engineers, Houston, paper
no. 117.

*  Skripka, N. I., A. A. Litvinov, and I. G. Tretyakov. 1975. Influence of operational factors on
oxidizability of liquid hydrocarbons. Operational Properties of Fuels, Lubricants and Technical
Liquids Used in Civil Aviation [Kiev] 1: 11-14. [In Russian.]

* Spear, M. 1992. The growing attraction of magnetic treatment. Process Engineering. May, p.

* Tretyakov, I. G., M. A., Rybak, and E. Yu. Stepanenko. 1985. Method of monitoring the
effectiveness of magnetic treatment for liquid hydrocarbons. Sov. Surf. Eng. Appl.
Electrochem. 6: 80-83.

*  Tretyakov, I. G., E. S. Denisov, and A. N. Solovev. 1975. Effects of magnetic field treatment
on electrophysical properties of aviation fuels. Operational Properties of Fuels, Lubricants and
Technical Liquids Used in Civil Aviation [Kiev] 1: 41-42. [In Russian.]

*  Welder, B. Q., and E. P. Partridge. 1954. Practical performance of water-conditioning gadgets.
Ind. Eng. Chem. 46: 954-960.

*   Wilkes, J. F., and R. Baum. 1979. Water conditioning devices -- an update. Int. Water Conf.:
40th Annual Meeting, paper no. IWC-79-20.

When finished reading, close this window and return to main window.

Additional Articles and Materials:

* Click here to review and/or purchase books by James DeMeo.

* The Orgone Biophysical Research Lab: James DeMeo's Research Website.

* The Saharasia web page.

* The Complete OBRL / Natural Energy Works On-line Bookstore and Product Shop

Click here for more information on SAHARASIA             Click here for our Online Books & Products Page
    saharasia.org                           naturalenergyworks.net

If you enjoyed and benefited from these materials, please consider to
purchase our publications on similar topics, or to
make a donation to the OBRL research fund.
Thank you!

Orgone Biophysical Research Laboratory, Inc.
A Non-Profit Science Research and Educational Foundation, Since 1978
Greensprings Center, PO Box 1148
Ashland, Oregon 97520 USA
Phone/Fax: (541) 552-0118
E-mail to: info(at)orgonelab.org
(Click or copy into your email program and insert the "@" symbol)

Return to Home Page

Visitor Count:

web analytics