Opposites do not attract when it comes to debates over the efficacy of magnetic water treatment. Those who say magnets reduce scale or have other water-treatment benefits are firmly opposed (to put it mildly) by those who consider the technology "foo foo dust."
      The root of the conflict seems to be the lack of "scientific" evidence that magnets do or do not do what their proponents say they'll do. Both sides have reams of anecdotal evidence and testimonials, but neither has produced--to the other's satisfaction--findings that can be reproduced in a laboratory. And magnet proponents insist that field evidence is stronger than laboratory results.
      The critics of magnetic water treatment technology seem to point to the proponents' "lack of scientific evidence" more often than the other way around. However, the Water Quality Association--a trade group that primarily represents the mainstream ionic water softening industry--recently lifted its ban against magnetic water treatment devices at its annual trade shows. Before 1995, magnetic water treatment devices could not be displayed at WQA shows. In July 1994, WQA lifted the 4-year-old ban. This decision was motivated partially by the lack of evidence that magnets don't work and also by the association's concerns about singling out one technology.
      WQA's policy change, coupled with debates over magnets within the National Spa and Pool Institutute's technical committees, indicates that more information is desired about this subject. NSPI is working toward providing such information, but the process has been slow. The most recent draft of an Information Bulletin on magnets was released in November 1993 and has been open for comment since that time. Within the past six months, at least three magnetic device manufacturers have submitted their written comments, which NSPI's Chemical Treatement and Process sub-committee is expected to review this month.
      In other parts of the world, magnetic water treatment has been studied and applied more extensively than in the United States.* In fact, the technology has been used for decades in eastern countries where competent, reliable chemical treatments for potable water and irrigation systems were not as accessible as they are here. Hundreds of reports detail situations where magnets were used and scale formation was reduced in Poland, Bulgaria, China, Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union, as well as in Scandinavia, Israel, England, Germany and elsewhere. And earlier this year, the journal of the International Association on Water Quality published results of a laboratory study conducted at McGill University in Montreal that found "magnetic water treatment can induce precipitation of inorganic crystals from solution and could possibly prevent scaling."
      Still, responses to magnetic water treatment theories from chemists, physicists and other observers range from a levelheaded "show me" to accusations that magnets are myth-based products, sold deceptively. If magnets are so wonderful, critics say, why haven't they completely replaced other methods of scale reduction?
      Those in the "show me" camp are more open-minded and willing to consider the theories behind magnetic water treatment. A few states are among them, including Wisconsin, which has reviewed magnetic devices designed for residential potable water treatment. Although it has not yet found the documentation submitted by manufacturers adequate to support performance claims, the state has not ruled out the possibility that the technology could work.

WATER WONDERS

      Magnets have been touted as means to control scale buildup, emulsify oils, buffer pH and lower chlorine (or other sanitizer) amounts required to maintain scale residuals. To understand the magnet proponents' theories, one has to start with the more complex physical properties of liquid water. For example, no other substance is less dense in its crystallized state (ice) than in its liquid form. Second, only water expands as it approaches the freezing point. And third, water is both chemically neutral and a potent solvent. Explanations of these phenomena still elude scientists.
      The physical property of water that is most directly related to explanations of magnetic water treatment is that its molecules entrap other substances. In other words, they cluster around non-water particles, such as minerals, forming conglomerations or complexes. The buildup of these water-mineral complexes results in hard water.
      When liquid water evaporates, the dissolved minerals become over concentrated and must crystallize. Thus, a sediment of those minerals can form on the walls of the container--which may be a pool, spa or its support system (pipes, pumps, filters, heaters, etc.). One of the most common minerals is calcium carbonate, which becomes lime scale when it changes to its crystalline state. In the pool and spa industry, we recognize this as scale.
      So what does this have to do with magnets? Magnets, in theory, cause the dissolved calcium carbonate, or lime scale, to crystallize in the water and not on the surfaces. They create a disturbance in the water that produces crystallizaton centers for the minerals, their proponents explain. Even without magnets, most water contains huge amounts of such centers. However, most of them are entrapped by water-molecule complexes and so cannot act as crystallization centers. Therefore, some of the clusters need to be broken apart so their internal particles are free to act as centers for mineral molecules and form microcrystals. If this can be done, then there will be less calcium carbonate to form hard lime scale on the surfaces.
      But can it be done? Thousands of people say it can. They've seen it happen. And seeing it work, they say, is the best proof that it does. But that doesn't pass muster with people who insist on reproducible laboratory results.
      Proponents offer stores of successful applications (some example follow), but others question what forces are at work. That is, perhaps the installation of the magnet is purely coincidental and some other condition caused the touted result.
      Here are a few illustrations of magnets' effectiveness, provided by magnetic device users and manufacturers:
      The Seaquarium in Miami saw dramatic improvements in the water condition of a 7-foot-deep freshwater tank following the installing of an in-line magnetic device.* The pH of the 50,000-gallon tank was near 9.0 and the green water offered about 6 inches of visibility. After 10 days using the magnetic device, the pH had dropped to 7.3, and the bottom of the tank was clearly visible, Seaquarium officials say.
      The typical life of humidifier boiler units at a computer center in England was 1,000 to 1,500 hours before magnetic devices were installed in an attempt to combat hard water. After five boilers were supplied with water passed through a magnetic unit, they each functioned for an average of 2,400 hours.
      A world-renowned physicist who studies permanent magnets says the chlorine consumption of his 30,000 gallon pool dropped to about one gallon every three or four weeks when he installed a magnetic device on his pool line.
      For every example like these, however, there are many observers in the scientific community who question if or how the magnetic devices brought about the result. Claiming that magnet proponents' claims are based more on hype than fact, they point to reports like this one: To combat scale in a boiler, scale-inhibiting chemicals were replaced by magnetic devices. Within three months, the calcium buildup was so extensive that the boiler tubes had to be replaced at a cost of about $100,000. Opponents also cite many scientific studies in which magnets show no effect on water parameters.
      Historically, reproducing field results in a laboratory has been difficult for three reasons, according to the authors of the McGill study. First water composition varies; second, there are external effects such as geomagnetic field fluctuations; and third, there may be differences in the conditions of treatment and measurement.

COMING ATTRACTIONS

      When asked how magnets work, their proponents suggest that swimming pools are ideal for magnetic water treatment because they are recirculating systems,* so some of the water can be treated each time it passes through the magnetic field.
      As for how magnets may reduce pool chemical requirements, consider that a sanitizer's primary duty is to kill algae. Magnet proponents suggest that a magnetic field can burst algae cell walls, killing the algae. (This idea has been challenged by chemists.) A second theory is that when a magnetic field clusters minerals, the clusters are too large for algae to feed on, so the algae dies of starvation. Third, magnet proponents theorize that reduced surface tension allows chlorine better access through algae's protective shield. None of these theories suggests that magnetic water treatment will totally eliminate the need for other algae control--only that magnetic devices reduce the amount of other water treatment products needed.
      Although those who still want to see scientific evidence are unimpressed with these theories, magnetic device proponents stand by them. In fact, most manufacturers are so sure of the technique that they offer money-back guarantees,* along with hundreds of letters from satisfied believers. They also point out that some of the studies opponents use to refute magnetism's efficacy do not accurately approximate the environments in which magnets have supposedly been effective.
      Yet, with as much empirical evidence as they have, magnetic water treatment proponents have not convinced naysayers that the technology works. The future of magnetism's application in the pool industry, then will likely continue on the same course it's traveled for the past few decades. Those who try magnets and get positive results will continue to promote the technology while others shake their heads and await irrefutable scientific substantiation.

This article was written with help from Roger Erdelae, president, Redak Enterprises, Largo, Fla; Jack Hamilton, president, United Chemical, Piru, California; Peter Helmes, director, Dimack Industries, Rockledge, Fla; Kaus Kronenberg, a physicist specializing in permanent magnets, Claremont, California; Neil Lowry, Lowry & Associates, Newmarket, Ontario, and a member of NSPI's Chemical Treatment & Process Subcommittee; Henry Young, president, Aquq-Nova, Van Nuys, California; and Wisconsin's Bureau of Building Water Systems.

Back to 'Testimonials and Research Statements'

* (italic & bold face emphasis added)