mstolpner;12796 said:
I find it interesting. This product is based on some theory. The links in this thread represent other theories. An article on their web site
ECO-Aqualizer National Product Review makes more sense to me than Rex Grigg's article. But I guess the question is: did anyone try it and can tell us about their real experience?
Mikhail
My simple question to you is did you read those links I specifically provided or not?
Not Rex's, but the one
I suggested?
Please do yourself a favor, please read both those links completely.
Especially the part about pseudoscience.
Read those carefully, this guy is far more credible at attacking exactly what you are talking about.
I think it's not a secret for our modern science that water is one of the most complex and wonderfull elements and that it will bring a lot of discoveries in the future.
When you use such phrases as "modern science" and suggest it does know yet all the most complex and wonderful elements, science does not devel into relams.
You are talking about belief here.
Not science.
Science has never claimed to be all knowing.
But when the supoposed alternative hypothesis put forth from this product is ever more removed and far fetched, and seemingly untestable, then it's really based much more on belief.
This guy's link is not asking for $$$ for his product, he's asking you to use your head. Rex has his own opinion and they are his.
They claim it changes water characteristics and that it has a good effect on aquatic life.
Any research references to support this claim?
Besides what is on their site?
I've looked for this in the past for some time.
Never found any.
I did find a lot of mismatched references that appeared, to be a smoke screen and used chemical physics and jargon to thwart a common folk's understanding.
My friend who is PhD in chemistry confirmed that this is very possible that water molecules can form structures and that passing through a magnetic field water structures would possibly break or change in some other way.
My friend teaches Physical Chemical at UC says such marketing products that devel into these areas are just marketing scams, but that's him. As does the above web site who's not after your money and clearly has a professional background.
And to directly answer your question: yes, one of my client's did have 4 on several tanks,
we removed it and the tank done much better.
If we use the very same "ruler" you are suggesting we use and the claims of the product, my test shows it's a detriment to aquatic life.
After all, upon removal, the tank does much better, fish are healthier, more vibrant etc.
Now, let me see you punch some holes in my claim for change?
You need to read, then apply the very same logic to my claim.
So yes, I have tried it through some clients.
You haven't.
Their tanks are much better now.
I made my conclusion based of the same logic and support the company makes their claims.
But for the sake of arguement and debate, let's see if you can apply such logic in reverse????
Show why what I said is wrong.
I made the claims based on a hypothetical and incorrect reason(which is for you to figure out), but the observations are fully true based of 4 such tanks with this product. The tanks are now better.
Regards,
Tom Barr
