Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Amazing technology [magnets again]



This came over another list I'm on, and I recall this thread also appearing
on this list as well.

Larry


Resent-from: Larry.Smith@snow.edu
Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 12:05:36 +0500
To: eyring-l@netcom.com
From: James Picht <jpicht@barents.info.bishkek.su>

I recall a thread of a few months ago regarding the use of magnets to soften
water. The list consensus was "nonsense", and there it ended.

Yesterday I was going through some old "Economist" magazines I found in our
office, and this caught my eye:

"Magic realism"

"... Even so, some apparently magical ideas survive even when there is no
decent scientific explanation for them. One is that applying a magnetic
field to a water pipe can soften the water flowing through it and so prevent
the pipe from scaling up. Devices based on this idea crop up regularly in
the classified advertisements, alongside improved potato-peelers and better
mousetraps. Domestic versions cost around ($300); industrial ones up to
($30,000). Physicists, unable to explain how such machines could work, have
dismissed them for years. Physicists, it appears, are wrong.

The evidence comes from Simon Parsons and his team at Cranfield University
in Britain. They put the tale to the test and found that it is not as tall
as it seems. Indeed, given the right combination of magnetism, temperature,
acidity and water flow, they found that the rate of scaling could be halved.
This is potentially impressive....

The fourth theory is that the field distorts the electrical charge that is
carried by small particles of calcium carbonate that have already formed in
the water. This, in turn, affect the way they stick together to form large
particles.

For Dr. Parsons's money, the fourth explanation is the most likely. It is
the only one that fits with the observation that the magnets work only on
flowing water..." ("The Economist", pp. 74-75, March 2-8, 1996)

Not as sexy as coherent matter beams, but given my tendency to dismiss out
of hand things that don't fit in with the prevailing scientific orthodoxy of
the day, I enjoy being brought up short by something like this. I won't hold
my breath on similar reversals on homeopathy and a global flood, but I'll
probably be a little less doctrinaire for a week or two.

Jim