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.