Water Filters

[gkbt 8]

Hi Ramster,

Thanks for your reply, below are some points to think about minus pictures of quote.

1) Iodine turning colourless, below is an explaination on how Iodine reacts with OH- in the alkaline water. Similar to the experiments of adding iodine to starch or bleach for colour changes.

What I want to point out is that ORP is greatly affected by pH and not a good indicator. Actual H2 levels should be measured as the antioxidant in alkaline water is H2. ORP is simply a proxy for H2 and it is not a good proxy.

Back to basis on ORP https://www.yokogawa.com/library/resources/white-papers/basics-of-orp/

On the contrary ORP is not just greatly affected by pH it is also affected by oxidization and reducing properties. This is a reason why some companies provide a pH compensated ORP device that measure rH or a.ka. relative hydrogen score. 

2) Microclustering, yes in the past, Alkaway used to advertise microclustering as well, but when Ian learned about microclustering as a myth, he has explained about it on his website here and no longer promote microclustering. In fact, he has been educating consumers on why microclustering is a myth for a while. I am happy to take a look at the studies you are going to show me. However, I hope you can look at the articles explaining why microclustering is a myth below. There are four parts to the article and I have posted the first. http://www.molecularhydrogenfoundation.org/microclustering-the-making-of-a-myth-part-1-facts-claims-and-history/
 

I have indeed gone through the arguments laid out. However that being said, I do not believe because the current science / theory is not sound therefore it is not usable. The fact that water exist in many forms shows its abilities to consistently baffle us. Take for example that a slightly heavier hydrogen atom would change what we deem as normal water to heavy water (think nuclear test.... however some people are saying this could be the elixir of life due to its hydrogen) Under ionization, water is indeed imparted with electrons which normal water do not have. This is already being studied theoretically. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23609128. Therefore the jury is still out as science is always constantly evolving, what we may know works but exactly how it occurs may require some time for evidence to show how it works eventually.    

3) Dissolved hydrogen levels, no worries about that the ppm and ppb, we are all learning more about it here. I haven't got to test out the system you mentioned yet, and may I know which ionizer you are using? You said the same method that Ian uses, can you be more specific about the method as there are a 2 main methods of testing H2 levels.

This was using the same H2 meter that Ian was using. If you go through the thread you would know what water ionizers I'm using, I believe Ian was marketing at one time as well. Drops works as well but meter tend to most of the talking. I believe Ian was using Trustlex, ENH-1000 with Japanese words which is similar.

Regarding the magnesium being used on a daily basis, the Ultrastream uses a slow release magnesium which is designed to last a year. After a year, the replacement cartridge will be replaced where a new media for producing H2 will be present. Thus, at each filter replacement, the machine would be like brand new. In short it might dip over the year but it is replaced annually, but the plates in electronic ionizers are not replaced and can only be cleaned. However, cleaning depends on the user and results may vary.
About the use after a year, the difficulty is that every user is different and to conduct such test will be difficult. I haven't heard of any ionizers that shows its levels of dissolved hydrogen after a year. For my own filter, I still had 0.5ppm when I measured it casually using the H2 drops before I replaced my filter. Note that measuring with H2 drops is a delicate process since H2 escapes very easily and will affect the final result.

I am not sure what kind of slow release magnesium material, maybe if you could enlighten me on this. Generally speaking, leeching of Magnesium is based on the actual amount of magnesium in the filter cartridge - the amount measure when a cup is drawn out (which is the data you would have). Divided it on the volume of water use and you should arrive to your answer abit crudely since we have not factored osmosis / water pressure etc. 

BTW the pictures shows Kangen plates being in a sorry state. However if you (being a Kangen user) have taken it directly from the site, you would know that the pictures tells Kangen users that IF they do not wash their plates after are producing Super oxide water this would result to plate disintegration. Its really not truely calcification perse.  I do however agree that calcification do occur if maintenance is not done correctly. This calcification does not occur overnight or over a year (since you rightly pointed out the Singapore's water low TDS does not give evidence to calcification you so vehemently pointed out) but over a prolong period of time. 

Regarding testing in Singapore vs Australia, I agree that source water may be different. However, both water quality standards in Singapore and Australia is high and we already have a relative high standard of water. The comparison I can find for the two is https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Singapore&city1=Singapore&country2=Australia&city2=Sydney, which shows that our water quality is quite similar. PUB does publish reports on Singapore water quality but I can't find similar reports in Australia. Would appreciate if you can show me that Australia water differs significantly from Singapore.

Unfortunately just a website that states similarity of Singapore vs Sydney water quality. Simply put the water collection process differs greatly between country to country. Furthermore its contaminants differ greatly as well (think lifestocks / Agri farming etc) Since we are staying in Singapore and we have data on Singapore's water, it would be right to ask for data after its been improved via Ultrastream. I do believe Ian should provide you with Australia water data and not just simply lump Singapore and Australia conveniently together.

I would also like to note that the aim of such reports is to show the safety and reliability of the filter at the end of its life, which is something most filters and ionizers did not conduct or publish. Alkaway is already setting up a high standard even if it is only tested in Australia and I do hope all water filters/ionizers can follow as well. Ideally, testing for every country and every substance would be the best, but not very practical especially when most countries are following similar water guidelines set by WHO. Also note that during the testing, highly contaminated water is used and it is still able to be filtered to meet compliant concentrations at the end of the filter life.

Honestly we should not even begin to compare WHO water standards... the standard which was published in 2006 served to provide the MINIMUM quality needed to be passed drinkable. (think 3rd world countries)  Testing done by professional labs would have taken all precautions to ensure those contaminants do not leak out into the water recycling process

Source water usually vary in terms of TDS (Total dissolved solid) or the amount of minerals, salts and metals in the water. Singapore have low TDS or soft water, which is why electrolysis machines works better in US (High TDS hard water) compared to Singapore. This is why I use UltraStream as a natural ionizer does not depend on the source water to produce dissolved hydrogen which electric ionizers depends heavily on it.

Regarding bacteria, there is already chlorine and chloramine in our tap water for it. On top of that, UltraStream uses KDF filter which removes bacteria too. KDF filters can last up to 6 years which is more than sufficient for our 1 year usage.

Chlorine and Chloramine concentration in Singapore water does not kill bateria. If the concentration was that high, you would essentially be drinking swimming pool water and it taste horrible.  It would be good to know if bacteria is truly removed via the KDF filter. 

Therefore though it may sound impractical, but data of new filter as well as end of life filter using Singapore water would be much appreciated to proof beyond just talk that it works. After all we talk scientific studies which are evidence base (or the lack of it) but when it comes to testing on site, it becomes impractical, vague and lets use previous data?

Surely if you intend to market Ultrastream here in Singapore then investment is needed. No?

Cheers

[ramster 0]

Hi gkbt

Thank you for your reply. Let me try to clarify some points as well

 

Back to basis on ORP https://www.yokogawa.com/library/resources/white-papers/basics-of-orp/

On the contrary ORP is not just greatly affected by pH it is also affected by oxidization and reducing properties. This is a reason why some companies provide a pH compensated ORP device that measure rH or a.ka. relative hydrogen score. 

This was using the same H2 meter that Ian was using. If you go through the thread you would know what water ionizers I'm using, I believe Ian was marketing at one time as well. Drops works as well but meter tend to most of the talking. I believe Ian was using Trustlex, ENH-1000 with Japanese words which is similar.

 

I have read the link you posted. I apologize if I did not explain myself clearly. There are a few factors that affect ORP readings. The redox couple and its oxidization and reducing properties and pH. Thus, a normal ORP meter is not very useful unless we know what is the redox couple and adjust it for pH as well. For example, most demo like to compare ORP of tap water and ionized water, but the redox couple in water i likely to be different from the ionized water, the pH would differ as well.

Hence, some meters have attempted to correct for it by using a relative hydrogen score to tweak the formula. More information on rH or rH2 can be found here.
There are limitations to the meters for measuring hydrogen as it measures not just H2 (molecular hydrogen) but also other forms of hydrogen such as hydrogen ions. (Note that molecular hydrogen is the beneficial one)

If we now know that molecular hydrogen is what we want to measure, why should we measure it with other variables and attempt to correct that data to calculate the level of H2? Isn't it better to use a method such as H2 blue drops that directly measure the level of dissolved hydrogen?

Both methods does have its pros and cons. For a meter, it is easy to use, but proper maintenance and calibration must be done prior to use or the results would be affected. The readings are also a guide rather than actual values due to the lack of an accurate formula for conversion. It is also unlikely to be designed for use on ionized water as the manual here clearly stated that it is not suitable for alkaline ionized water.

H2 drops on the other hand, is a titration method to measure the level of dissolved H2. No maintenance nor calibration is required, but it is not as easy to use as proper techniques would be required for accurate readings given that H2 escapes easily and simply stirring the solution will cause H2 to escape. It is also not reusable making it more expensive in the long run. Especially when we are measuring high ppm, such as using hydrogen tablets which can reach above 4ppm.

 

 

I have indeed gone through the arguments laid out. However that being said, I do not believe because the current science / theory is not sound therefore it is not usable. The fact that water exist in many forms shows its abilities to consistently baffle us. Take for example that a slightly heavier hydrogen atom would change what we deem as normal water to heavy water (think nuclear test.... however some people are saying this could be the elixir of life due to its hydrogen) Under ionization, water is indeed imparted with electrons which normal water do not have. This is already being studied theoretically. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23609128. Therefore the jury is still out as science is always constantly evolving, what we may know works but exactly how it occurs may require some time for evidence to show how it works eventually.    

 

That I can agree is a possibility that science have not been able to catch up. I will be observing this for now and focus more on the known facts such as hydrogen level. There are many other forms of water we can discuss if we go into those which science can't proof yet, some of which there is no harm trying out or incorporating it.

The reasons why I mentioned it as a myth is because some wrongly market attributes such as not feeling bloated after drinking to microclustering when it is due to our body allowing the water to flow through the stomach into our intestines as the water is alkaline. It is due to pH of the water rather than microclustering. Another is that if microclustering can't be measured how can one market that it is present when it can't be verified?

 

I am not sure what kind of slow release magnesium material, maybe if you could enlighten me on this. Generally speaking, leeching of Magnesium is based on the actual amount of magnesium in the filter cartridge - the amount measure when a cup is drawn out (which is the data you would have). Divided it on the volume of water use and you should arrive to your answer abit crudely since we have not factored osmosis / water pressure etc. 

 

 

I think it is getting a little too technical on this. I doubt any ionizers or filters publish such details that you are looking into including the one you are using. The main concern should have been the level of dissolved hydrogen after a year or 3000 litres. My own testing was 0.5ppm. We should not be distracted by what we are ultimately trying to achieve which is better dissolved hydrogen levels. Which in my opinion the most consistent  and reliable way is through H2 tablets.

 

BTW the pictures shows Kangen plates being in a sorry state. However if you (being a Kangen user) have taken it directly from the site, you would know that the pictures tells Kangen users that IF they do not wash their plates after are producing Super oxide water this would result to plate disintegration. Its really not truely calcification perse.  I do however agree that calcification do occur if maintenance is not done correctly. This calcification does not occur overnight or over a year (since you rightly pointed out the Singapore's water low TDS does not give evidence to calcification you so vehemently pointed out) but over a prolong period of time. 

 

I have taken it from Kangen as it is pictures they have posted, I do not want to get into trouble for posting unofficial photos of other brands etc. My message is simple, if you own an electric ionizer make sure you do proper maintenance, it is only a matter of time before it becomes calcified.

I left the caption on the photos as it clearly stated that it is due to calcification and over calcification. It certainly does not happen overnight but it does happen eventually without maintenance. Most users would have realized that their containers turn white if they do not wash or only rinse it. This is due to calcification. From there it is an approximation what is going on within the machine if no maintenance is done. I say this because I have met several users whom are not aware of the need for maintenance or does not have the time to do it. As a result, their ionizers no longer produce the beneficial water it used to and the users are not aware of it. Singapore has low TDS but our water still contain calcium which causes calcification, it is probably slower but it is still happening.

 

 

Unfortunately just a website that states similarity of Singapore vs Sydney water quality. Simply put the water collection process differs greatly between country to country. Furthermore its contaminants differ greatly as well (think lifestocks / Agri farming etc) Since we are staying in Singapore and we have data on Singapore's water, it would be right to ask for data after its been improved via Ultrastream. I do believe Ian should provide you with Australia water data and not just simply lump Singapore and Australia conveniently together.

Personally I find the two water to be similar, I have found data here. Probably you can let me know in which way Australia water is different from Singapore and for better or worse. Personally my main concern is fluoride and it seems like Australia has higher fluoride levels than Singapore. If it can perform well in worse conditions certainly it can perform better in better conditions.


Honestly we should not even begin to compare WHO water standards... the standard which was published in 2006 served to provide the MINIMUM quality needed to be passed drinkable. (think 3rd world countries) Testing done by professional labs would have taken all precautions to ensure those contaminants do not leak out into the water recycling process

Those standards provide a guideline for countries to work with, but here in Singapore we do not just meet the requirements and often is much lower than the necessary requirements. You can see the pub water quality report here. Do let me know what are your areas of concern for Singapore water. My main concern is chlorine, chloramine and fluoride.

 

 

Chlorine and Chloramine concentration in Singapore water does not kill bateria. If the concentration was that high, you would essentially be drinking swimming pool water and it taste horrible.  It would be good to know if bacteria is truly removed via the KDF filter. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_chlorination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloramination

I am not an expert on the level that is required, but that is the reason why Chlorine and Chloramine is added to our water. Swimming pool adds a lot more Chlorine as the water is constantly exposed and in contact with people. Tap water on the other hand is enclosed within our tap and if bacteria does breed, it would be at a much slower rate. I do not know about the rates and all, but I believe the bacteria level for Singapore tap water is very low and not much of a concern. Perhaps you can point up to a study or test where bacteria is a matter of concern for Singapore water.

 

Therefore though it may sound impractical, but data of new filter as well as end of life filter using Singapore water would be much appreciated to proof beyond just talk that it works. After all we talk scientific studies which are evidence base (or the lack of it) but when it comes to testing on site, it becomes impractical, vague and lets use previous data?

Surely if you intend to market Ultrastream here in Singapore then investment is needed. No?

 

Indeed in an ideal situation, I would like to have every single data available and every Singapore filter / ionizer tested in the same manner at the same time. However, that is not very practical. Neither would the companies be doing that.

In this case, there needs to be reasonable doubt that Singapore water is worse than Australia water before a test is required.
I would like to ask if the ionizer you used provided such extensive testing whether it is in Singapore or other countries and the link to its testing.

 

[gkbt 8]

Hi Ramster,

Thanks for your reply. 

I would think that Ultrastream is indeed a new boy on the block to be noticed. How it markets would solely be up to the company's direction though it is indeed an uphill battle in an already saturated filter market, but I would consider it when I'm looking for a replacement to my aging water ionizer in the future.

However if you intend to market it here, do use proper channels and not this thread no matter how "great" the product is. 

Best of luck!

Cheers

[marcusseet 0]

Anyone been to the Reno talk show in Jan? There was a water purifier company called Ruhens there, any thoughts about it?

[gkbt 8]

On 4/10/2017 at 11:21 PM, marcusseet said:

Anyone been to the Reno talk show in Jan? There was a water purifier company called Ruhens there, any thoughts about it?

Hi Marcusseet,

Seems to me the system is very much like a water purifier against other market players.

Sediment filter, pre carbon, hollow fiber, post carbon & alkaline filter.

My take is its great for sediment, and microbes removal. Furthermore the removal of chemical are pretty standard while the alkaline filter is quite standard in this range water filters.

Do check on cost of replacements, as the initial price is much cheaper than those of 3M, Hyflux Alkaline series.

Cheers!

 

[Ken Seng 0]

anyone looking for reasonable  hyflux water filter system...please feel free to visit www.renotalk.com

 

 

[dduskk 0]

On 1/14/2015 at 10:53 PM, siaoboy said:

Can share the good deal? I went down the other day and price seem to have increase across the board.

Mavello MX -1888

Kemp Smart I5 -1888

Kemp Smart I7 -2488

I am interested to know what was your good deal too. can share pls?

Kemp is insisting that their promo price is at $2488 only. Installation needs to be paid on top of that.

Edited February 10, 2018 by dduskk