Has anyone tried or heard of Eco Aqualizer??

[esmithiii]

Ignorant or slow whitted is going overboard a bit. Maybe un-savvy in the field of science would be more appropraite.

Being ignorant means being uninformed, which is basically the same as saying someone is "unsavvy in the field of science." I personally am ignorant about many things; I simply haven't had exposure or education on certain subjects. Calling someone ignorant in a particular field is no insult.

You are probably right that the slow-witted part was a bit much. I think it is fair to say, however, that the slow-witted are more often victims of scams than the quick-witted.

I guess what irks me is when people who are ignorant start spouting off and make claims about things that they obviously cannot explain scientifically. It is incensing when their argument turns into "you should just try it and see" or "you can't disprove that it works." I would be hard to fully disprove that wearing a liver-and-onions turban all day is a cure cancer, but I think most reasonable people will recognize that as bunk!

I'm hoping that by giving the difinition you gave that you are not suggesting that I'm "ignorant or slow-witted" or that the buyers of Eco-Aqualizer products are ignorant or slow-witted. Talk about an insult to those that are really victims of scams.

I am not necessarily insinuating that, but if the shoe fits... I mean I personally wouldn't be telling anyone if I paid $80 on some magnets that supposedly make my water more better and more clearer.

I also wouldn't be criticizing anyone's spelling if I were you- savvy is spelled correctly, but you mispelled "Definition" above.

I read their website and they do a good job of trying to sound scientific but in the end I am convinced that this is basically snake oil.

Just my opinion.

 

[Anonymous]

The questions have been asked before but never answered by you. There seems to be a pattern with the answers you give. All I'm asking is for you to back the claims that you are making. Humor me and post it again.

You seem to think that the information you seek needs to be posted by me for me for you to be satisfied. If you are too lazy to re read the thread and follow the links I am sorry.
I get the feeling you are trolling me. Perhaps I am just a sucker here. In the past in this thread you claimed it was impossible to scientificly show that skimming worked and that different skimmers were more or less effictive than others. When information showing you were wrong was posted by me and others you ignored it. It is getting tough to take you seriously.

Remember we are discussing rather the eco-aqualizer works, just in case you forget between now and the time you post your reply.

And as has been addressed many times in this thread, it is the responsibility of the seller of the product to back up its claims. They have produced no evidence that the thing works. Why aren't you beating their ears for evidence of its working, the same way you are beating mine for evidence of its not working?
And there has been much evidence posted in this thread and linked in this thread. Why do you resist it so?

Why was my statement untrue again?? Maybe I just don't get the witty answer.

That does appear to be the case, as does the idea that you also don't get the posted explaniation.

I think that this debate can be put to rest if someone would just prove that the Eco-Aqualizer doesn't work. If the claims are that outrageous it should be very easy.

And this thread is full of debunking. However, for some reason you are unwilling to take a look at it again.
And again, it is up to the eco people to show that it works. They won't, and they haven't. I would like to see you beating down their door for this info.

 

[Anonymous]

I'd say it probably works, but only if you believe it works.

I didn't want to bring religion into this but I can't help but see a similarity.

{Runs for cover!}

Shhh you fool! Do you want to destroy everything!?!
:mrgreen:

 

[Jime]

I will admit that I'm a bad speller, the only reason I brought it up was because I thought it was funny that I was being called slow "whitted" by someone who couldn't spell the word correctly. You must see the irony in that? Another ironic thing is the lack of comment from LEN on the name calling. Why resort to name calling and why redefine words. One person or goup of people that claim the eco-aqualizer is a scam is the new definition of RETARD. Redifining words is fun. Just my opinion.

I guess what irks me is when people who are ignorant start spouting off and make claims about things that they obviously cannot explain scientifically.

I agree, if you read carefully you will see that I make no claims about this product, I do think that it might do what it says it does, but, as I've said before, I don't know. Righty is making all the claims and I've asked several times for him to back those claims up. He claims he has and keeps dancing around the issue.

claimed it was impossible to scientificly show that skimming worked and that different skimmers were more or less effictive than others. When information showing you were wrong was posted by me and others you ignored it.

I never claimed it was impossible and again my point is that when people come to this message board for advice on products, no one ever asks for scientific evidence to back any review. I don't. I bought a 900 dollar skimmer because several people on this board told me it was great. BTW the review you posted was just that, not a scientific experiment. I didn't ignore the posts, I was wrong using the skimmer as an example, however other then a link to a book it was difficult to get a link to real scientific evidence.

I can't claim to have any clue as to your level of scientific understanding. Are you a scientist? Can you maybe shed some light on how the ECO works? I do not intend to insult you, my friend. Sorry.

That's okay my "slow-whitted" friend (Obviously not an insult). No I'm not a scientist, just a person who gets irked when people who are ignorant start spouting off and making claims about things that they obviously cannot explain scientifically. (ex. it's snake oil)

You seem to think that the information you seek needs to be posted by me for me for you to be satisfied. If you are too lazy to re read the thread and follow the links I am sorry.

I know, "haven't we been over this?"

I see I'm making a lot of new friends

 

[Anonymous]

Righty is making all the claims and I've asked several times for him to back those claims up. He claims he has and keeps dancing around the issue.

No Righty is not making all the claims - several others, at least, have as well. And Righty is not dancing, he is trying to get you to make some effort in understand the things you claim not to understand.
I also claim that I and others have already backed up such claims several times at several requests from you. Its never enough, and you seem to ignore things that don't support your feelings.

I never claimed it was impossible and again my point is that when people come to this message board for advice on products, no one ever asks for scientific evidence to back any review. I don't.

You claimed that no such evidence existed, and that no one asks for it. I posted it and you ignored it.
Just because you don't ask for such evidence doesn't mean 'no one ever does', or that it doesn't exist. In fact, I am amazed at how you could possibly hang out at RDO and make such a claim.

I bought a 900 dollar skimmer because several people on this board told me it was great. BTW the review you posted was just that, not a scientific experiment.

Perhaps you are using a different definition of 'scientific experiment'. Read the link about different skimmers again. It is quite scientific.
What else have you bought simply because several people told you it was great?

I didn't ignore the posts, I was wrong using the skimmer as an example, however other then a link to a book it was difficult to get a link to real scientific evidence.

This speaks volumes about you.
I am sorry it is too difficult for you to pick up a suggested book (or any book on oceanography), but that does not change the fact that the evidence is there. Why don't you bother to do some of your own research? Do you really need everything spoonfed to you?

I am coming to the conclusiong that you really are a troll (at least in regards to this topic), and it may be prudent to treat you as such.

 

[John_Brandt]

Magnetize Your Beverages?

by Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Explorations, of Broomfield, Colorado, markets a large collection of books, videotapes, devices, and other items related to self-help and spirituality. Its products include a magnetic mug, a "Q-Ray Bracelet" alleged to "balance the body's electromagnetic circuits," and magnets claimed to provide pain relief in many parts of the body. The magnetic mug, which costs $45, is said to "magnetize beverages for better hydration." The company's Fall/Winter 1998 mail-order catalog states:

"Between the stainless steel exterior and porcelain interior of this mug lies a material that magnetizes hot or cold liquids. Why? Because magnetizing water, the basis of any liquid, creates space between its molecules, adding alkalinity to water that has become acidic. Alkaline water is more readily absorbed by the body. As your tissues increase their hydration levels, your body flushes out toxins more easily."

What imaginative nonsense! Note:

* Magnetize means "to make magnetic." Only iron and a few other metallic substances can be prmanently magnetized. If an external magnetic field is applied to a water sample, the water will develop a temporary internal magnetic field about 100,000 times weaker than the external field. The internal field is in opposite direction to the external field and tends to cancel a tiny part of the external field. Even this tiny effect goes away as soon as the external magnetic field is removed. Therefore, assuming that the mug exerts a minuscule effect on its liquid contents, this effect would disappear as soon as the liquid leaves the mug.

* The mug cannot influence the space between water molecules. In liquids, water molecules are touching. To exert even a tiny temporary effect on the density of water, a huge magnetic force would be required.

* Even if the space between water molecules could be influenced, that would not make the water more alkaline. The pH (degree of acidity or alkalinity) of a liquid is determined by its concentration of hydrogen ions.

* The pH of water does not influence its rate of absorption into the body. The pH of the fluid within the stomach and intestines is determined mainly by secretions of the cells lining the stomach and small intestine.

* Even if exposure to a magnet could change the rate of water into the body, the speed of absorption of a small amount of water would have no effect on how the body functions.

* Assuming that someone is not dehydrated to begin with, drinking more water would have no significant effect on cellular hydration. Whatever was absorbed that the body didn't need would be quickly excreted by the kidneys.
_________________________

This analysis was prepared with help from John W. Farley, Ph.D., Professor of Physics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

 

[esmithiii]

Hehehe...

The mug is no more outrageous than the ECO aqualizer.

Ernie

 

[Jime]

The mug is no more outrageous than the ECO aqualizer.

Or religion or anything else people choose to believe, or not to believe.

Good try at spinning the topic Righty. You made claims all I have done is ask you to back up the words that spew from your mouth. Nothing more nothing less. I have only been on the board for a short while and I have yet to see anyong ask for scientific evidence (BTW I'm using your definition) to back anyones recommendation on any product. Call me what ever you would like but the fact remains you have NOT backed your claim and it looks like you never will.

What else have you bought simply because several people told you it was great?

Books, DVD's, pumps to name a few, and I see nothing wrong with that.

This speaks volumes about you.

It does, unlike you, I can admit when I'm wrong.

I am sorry it is too difficult for you to pick up a suggested book (or any book on oceanography), but that does not change the fact that the evidence is there.

I don't need the book, I believe the evidence is there. WAKE UP!! I was using the skimmer as an example of how difficult it can be to produce scientific evidence on a product. It was a bad example but never the less no links where posted to that evidence other then the book. And you accuse me of being to lazy to reread the thread. I have a new word, dogmatic, look it up or let esmithiii make up a definition for you.

 

[esmithiii]

The mug is no more outrageous than the ECO aqualizer.

Or religion or anything else people choose to believe, or not to believe.

Faith in deity and in a product touted by car-salesman tactics are two different things entirely.

 

[Jime]

Faith in deity and in a product touted by car-salesman tactics are two different things entirely.

To you maybe, but not everyone shares your opinion. By your response I assume that you are a religious man, may I ask what religion? I ask because different religions claim different things. Take Mormonism for example most Christians dismiss them as a cult. They make some rather over the top claims (gold tablets, Moroni..etc.) but yet their church continues to grow. Are Mormons a victim of a scam. Are they all slow witted people? I don't think so. I think they have chosen what they want to believe is true and they run with it. This issue of the product is the same, people have taken sides, going to be late so I have to cut it short. [/quote]

 

[endomorphious]

to many people like to hear themselves argue

 

[Bone]

There are beliefs and then there are scientific understandings. Everyone knows that a donut placed on an aquarium will do nothing to bring about improvement, we all possess that level of understanding. But not everyone understands enough to prove or disprove the claimed effects of magnetic cure-all products. With good marketing and carfully worded literature one can market magnets to most any application. (Except health care purposes, that is now against the law.) Perhaps the fellows selling the eco truely believe they work. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Good try at spinning the topic Righty. You made claims all I have done is ask you to back up the words that spew from your mouth. Nothing more nothing less.

OK. What claims do you want backed up? I will do your work for you.

I have only been on the board for a short while and I have yet to see anyong ask for scientific evidence (BTW I'm using your definition) to back anyones recommendation on any product.

What is my definition of scientific evidence?

Call me what ever you would like but the fact remains you have NOT backed your claim and it looks like you never will.

Ok again. List the claims you want backed up and I will back them up.

Books, DVD's, pumps to name a few, and I see nothing wrong with that.

Fair enough. Would you by a car seat for a child based soley on advise of others? Why or why not?

This speaks volumes about you.

It does, unlike you, I can admit when I'm wrong.[/quote]

I am sorry. I was incomplete. Great work at admitting you were wrong.
What I was referring to was that it speaks volumes about you that you found it too difficult to look something up in a book.

I don't need the book, I believe the evidence is there. WAKE UP!! I was using the skimmer as an example of how difficult it can be to produce scientific evidence on a product. It was a bad example but never the less no links where posted to that evidence other then the book.

Incorrect. You were also referred to any text on oceanography. The world does not begin and end with links.

And you accuse me of being to lazy to reread the thread.

Sorry. I should have accused you of failing to comprehend the content of the thread.

 

[Anonymous]

Are Mormons a victim of a scam. Are they all slow witted people? I don't think so. I think they have chosen what they want to believe is true and they run with it. This issue of the product is the same, people have taken sides, going to be late so I have to cut it short.

It isnt really the same with the product. If there was any evidence of this product being able to do what it says it can do, a lot of minds would begin to change. None of us are dug in on the conclusions we have come to.

 

[esmithiii]

As a devote Mormon, I do not think I am slow-witted, nor taken by a scam. My religious beliefs come after ferverent study, prayer and enlightening personal spiritual experiences that I will not share here. Comparing faith in deity gained through the devices I mentioned to blindly accepting someone's claims about a product is ludicrous and incensing.

 

[Jime]

As a devote Mormon, I do not think I am slow-witted, nor taken by a scam. My religious beliefs come after ferverent study, prayer and enlightening personal spiritual experiences that I will not share here. Comparing faith in deity gained through the devices I mentioned to blindly accepting someone's claims about a product is ludicrous and incensing.

But again many, many, many people will disagree with you and your religious beliefs regardless of how you came by them. And by accepting your faith aren't you blindly accepting the claims of Joseph Smith? BTW I use to be a Mormon as well, served a mission in London. My Grandparents just returned from a mission on the east coast and 2 of my 6 uncles are currently Bishops and my business partner is mormon, so I know a little about Mormonism. I have to admit that I'm surprised that you would resort to name calling considering your current state of enlightenment. Not very Christianly.

It isnt really the same with the product. If there was any evidence of this product being able to do what it says it can do, a lot of minds would begin to change. None of us are dug in on the conclusions we have come to.

I have read several positive testimonies from people using the ECO and have no reason to doubt the results they claim, in the same way I have no reason to doubt esmithiii's faith in his religion and God. Let's face it there isn't a lot of evidence that there is a God. I think the main difference is that it would be very easy to disprove the eco if it doesn't actually work. Which brings me to the next question;

OK. What claims do you want backed up? I will do your work for you.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, please back up your claim that the eco doesn't work. An answer to this question back on page one would have ended this thread long ago. BTW it's not my work, you made the claim, you should be willing to answer why and how you came to this conclusion and you tell us how you define "scientific evidence". I think that's pretty direct and maybe only the 9th time I've asked. So have at it Righty.

Sorry. I should have accused you of failing to comprehend the content of the thread.

Sticks and stones

 

[Jime]

Would you buy a car seat for a child based soley on advice of others? Why or why not?

Whoops, overlooked this question, Yes I would. I have bought two car seats for my children based on recommendations from friends, and no I didn't ask them for scientific evidence. I trust my friends and I trust their advice.[/quote]

 

[esmithiii]

Jime

You are cleverly deviating from the real issue, possibly because you know your stance is weak.

My bottom line: Knowing what I know about physics and chemistry, there is no way that I can believe that a magnet and some infrared light are going to magically make my water clearer, nor my tank healthier.

My religion is my business. Being Christian does not preclude me from calling things as I see them.

Ernie

 

[Anonymous]

"BTW I would love to see the link to the scientific evidence of HOW a protein skimmer works because like others on this thread I won't believe it unless I see the PROOF! "

OK, I started reading this thread assuring myself that I would not post to it, but this I can't ignore. Scientific evidence and proof are not the same things. Science/scientific method does not prove anything, it uses experiments (replicated) to test a hypothesis formed on observations.

For fractionation, the observation would be that amines/proteins have a hydrophobic end that would bind them to an air/water interface, the hypothesis would be that increasing using a great air to water interface surface area will cause a large amount of these compounds to be stripped effectively, and the experimental test of this hypothesis involves examining water fractionated for organic compounds for delta values of organic compound, which hobbyists have been doing for as long as skimmers have been around.

And actually, in the case of fractionation, the experiment would be a moot point. Simply the observation of such an interaction by hydrophobic "pole" with an air water interface is enough to tell you that they adhere to air. The more bubbles you get, the greater air to water interface surface area ratio you achieve, this means that the odds of any organic compounds in the water coming in contact with and and adhering to the organic compounds is very very high. The greater the amount of air, and the smaller the bubbles, the higher these odds are.

Not that I expect you to listen to me, as you apparently ignore recommendations to read engineering and scientific texts on organic compound structure and the physics of fractionation, I just wanted to vent.

 

[Anonymous]

It isnt really the same with the product. If there was any evidence of this product being able to do what it says it can do, a lot of minds would begin to change. None of us are dug in on the conclusions we have come to.

I have read several positive testimonies from people using the ECO and have no reason to doubt the results they claim, in the same way I have no reason to doubt esmithiii's faith in his religion and God. Let's face it there isn't a lot of evidence that there is a God. I think the main difference is that it would be very easy to disprove the eco if it doesn't actually work.

I think you still have it backwards. It would be very easy to show evidence of the ECOs claims if it actually worked, and it would be very easy to show evidence of the existence of God if there were actually a God. However, just as there is not evidence to support the proof of the existence of God, there is none to support the claims of the workings of the ECO. Now, I have no reason to doubt their 'faith' in their claim about the ECOs working, nor do I have any reason to doubt their 'faith' in their claims about God. But this does not amount to actual evidence of either. However this is a discussion for the sump. And again, there has been much evidence posted to this thread showing why the Eco can't work.

I have much reason to doubt the positive claims made by people using the Eco. Simply, the device can't work the way it is calimed to work because, at the very least, the magnet is simply not big enough to have an effect on the water. You say "I have read several positive testimonies from people using the ECO and have no reason to doubt the results they claim". Have you not read positive results from people who claim psychic surgery works? Would you have no reason to doubt the results they claim?

Which brings me to the next question;

OK. What claims do you want backed up? I will do your work for you.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, please back up your claim that the eco doesn't work. An answer to this question back on page one would have ended this thread long ago. BTW it's not my work, you made the claim, you should be willing to answer why and how you came to this conclusion and you tell us how you define "scientific evidence". I think that's pretty direct and maybe only the 9th time I've asked. So have at it Righty.

Wait a sec, I asked you to define 'scientific evidence', as you are the one that keeps throwing the term around. I need to know what you think it is if you want me to satisfy your criteria. Until then I am just guessing as to what will satsify you.

Remember, my claim is that in my opinion the Eco doesn't work. It was at your behest this was clarified.

This will be the 7th time I have answered it your question.

Here is the first post on page 2, in response to you, quoted again here so you don't have to click the '2' at the bottom of this page. In it I discuss "why and how you came to this conclusion". Again, this was clear back on page 2 in direct response to your question on page 1.

Sure a friendly disagreement! This is quick as I am running out the door.

Toshika Yamazaki only shows up on a quick google search on the Aquequalizer page.

The support for 'far infrared ceramic' seems to all come from Japanese research that is suspect.

'Magnetic' therapies tend to be bs, unless at extremely high levels, and even then then effect is minimal. Most magnetic healing aids tend not to be magnetic. I would be curious to see if holding metal to the AE would show it is magnetic or not.

Also, if this product is so useful, why is it not being used in medical applications, sanatization applications and the like?
I find it too convienient that users of the product seem to be overseas.
The 'science' on their website is far too similar to other magnetic and infrared scams.

The scary thing about products like this is their ability to seem practical and real.

This link is helpful as to why I think it is bs:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-06/rs/index.htm

As in Carl Sagans 'Demon haunted world".

I am unclear as to how this doesn't answer your questions.

Just for fun:
In my next post I question your statement that magentic healing aids and the 'real science' behind the effects of magnitism on water. You have not cleard this up, nor have you cleared up this statement: ' I have read about the effects of magnets on water molecules and I think we all agree that the effects are real.'

Sorry. I should have accused you of failing to comprehend the content of the thread.

Sticks and stones

I have called you no names, and truly believe that you have a difficulty comprehending the content of this thread. This should be no more offensive than telling somone in a wheelchair that they have difficulty going up stairs.