H2 concentration in water
I was wanting to find out if you have done any tests to determine the amount of H2 in the water after going through the filters. It appears that latest research shows that the minerals and H2 in the water have far more benefits over the PH that electric ionizers use. Just trying to figure out how many ppm of H2 your system generates as I'm trying to decide on your system or another manufacturer that lists the tested H2. Overall, the looks of your system is very good.
You are correct, minerals and H2 are more beneficial to health from an alkalization standpoint than the artificial alkalinity created by electronic ionizers. Our system generally produces greater than 100ppb of molecular hydrogen, but it can be much more depending on the properties of the source water.
However, even much more impactful than that on overall health and wellbeing is the structure and stored energy of the water.
If you want to give me the make and model of the other system you are looking at, I can give you the pros and cons of each. I'm happy to help. And, feel free to ask any additional questions you may have. Thank you.Reply
The Alkaway is a much better system than electronic ionizers, as far as not having any side effects with its use. It does create a natural alkalinity. It does create some hydrogen, although in their own report, they admit that the hydrogen doesn't last long (discussion notes at end) and performs better the more acidic the incoming water is. That's true, it's the H+ ion responsible for acidity that interacts with magnesium to create hydrogen. If your incoming water is acidic, you will get more hydrogen. If you have water above pH 7 with a total TDS above 150 ppm, you will get much less.
A lower pH also facilitates the production of hydrogen gas via the magnesium media found in the UltraStream—for the same reasons as given above. In this work it is seen that at normal flow rate the UltraStream produces an initial higher hydrogen gas concentration (68.8% vs. 21.9%) compared to the SD501, but was unable to maintain the concentration for an extended period of time (i.e. more than a few liters).
Where they lose credibility is in statement that their purification is tested "for the life of the filters". That is something regulated here in the U.S. by NSF/ANSI Standards and the fact that this was tested by a "university" is disingenuous.
Removes Heavy Metals, Toxins, Bacteria, Chlorine, Chloramines and Fluoride (tested for the life of the filter)
2.0 Methodology A single ultraStream water treatment system was plumbed into the local domestic water supply and the maximal flow rate was through the system with the supply tap fully open was measured using a volumetric cylinder and a stop watch (2.6 L/min). The ultraStream unit was then removed from the local domestic water supply and 10 L of chemical challenge solution was passed through system at a flow rate of 1.8 L/min using an external pump. Samples were collected before and after treatment for analysis of trace level contaminants in NATA accredited testing faculties. The ultraStream system was then reconnected to the local domestic water supply and water passed through the system continuously for 23 hours at 2.6 L/min until approximately 3600 L had been filtered. The flow rate of the filtered water from the ultraStream was measured again to ensure there was no reduction in flow rate due to filter clogging. A second 10 L of challenge solution was passed through the ultraStream system using the same conditions as the first challenge test and samples taken pre and post treatment for chemical analysis.
If I understand this correctly, their purification claims are based on passing a total of only 20L of contaminated water through the filter. 10L at the beginning of the filter life and another 10L after the filter had run tap water for 3600L.
Real testing is conducted by laboratories who challenge the water filter with contaminants at the legal limit concentrations, based on NSF Standard Protocols. If a water filter does not have a filter life indicator that totals the volume of water that has passed through the filter, the filter must be tested to 120% of its stated lifespan. So, if a company claims a 1000 gallon filter life, the filters are tested for 1200 gallons. Measurements are often taken at the 10 gallon point and then at every 100 gallons. An average reduction is then calculated by taking the total amount of contaminant removed over the 1200 gallons. This process is then repeated two more times for each contaminant. As you can imagine, pumping multiple contaminants at maximum allowable concentrations through a filter for 1200 gallons multiple times is a lengthy and expensive process. Any company who has paid for this test to be conducted displays the results proudly. I do not believe the Alkaway filter would pass an NSF standardized test which is probably why they have not performed it. Or, they did and failed and found some other protocol to use where they only needed 20L of contaminants in lieu of 3600L of contaminants.
Proprietary Fluoride Reduction Media
They claim their filter removes 70% of fluoride with a proprietary reduction media. That statement is actually illegal here in California where reduction claims must be backed by NSF standardized testing, as described above. I have never seen any fluoride reduction media, even if it filled the whole volume of Alkaway filter, that could remove 70% of fluoride for 3600 liters in a standardized test. If that existed, we would put that media in our filters and they would make a lot more money as a company simply selling that media to other manufacturers. What company takes the time to develop a "proprietary fluoride reduction media" and doesn't make it available on the industrial purification market and provide NSF Standards testing data, which is how the performance of purification medias are specified worldwide? Even reverse osmosis only removes fluoride to 88-92% on average. It's really tough to remove for a 3000 liter filter life, but even a Brita will remove it all for 10 gallons at the concentration they used.
The above paragraph in mind, the Alkaway filter has a whole lot of ingredients in the filter that have nothing to do with purification.
Hydrogen is good. It's an antioxidant. We use to sell a product called a Hydrogen Stick. You put it in your glass of water and it drops the ORP to -500mV and sometimes more. It raised the pH to 10 or more. It lasted for six months and we sold them for about $60, if I remember correctly. Our company's founder, the inventor of the AquaLiv process, conducted an experiment with 60 people. 20 used the hydrogen stick with their tap water. 20 used it with AquaLiv Water. And the last 20 just used AquaLiv Water. Everyone completed a health questionnaire before starting the test and again three months later. Everyone's health showed benefits, but the two groups using AquaLiv Water showed much more benefits and without much difference between two groups. It was at that time we decided that structure and energy are more impactful to health that alkalinity, hydrogen, and ORP. We stopped selling the hydrogen sticks as it was mostly our AquaLiv Water customers buying them anyway and we have been refining and tuning our Water Revitalizer ever since. Of course our system still creates alkaline water with some hydrogen, but it does so at levels found in ideal spring water.
Alkaway claims to structure water with crystal, ceramics, and magnets. Frankly, that doesn't work very well. The effect doesn't last and the water doesn't store any energy. It does microcluster the water some, but that is a completely different water than energized structured water which actually stores electrical energy in the structure.
Paired Neodymium magnets positioned to create a stabilising magnetic field.
This statement is my favorite. If they were able to tackle the great challenge of not allowing the magnets to physically move, they have indeed created a stabilized magnetic field as permanent magnets already have a stabilized magnetic field. If permanent magnets had a fluctuating magnetic field, we could just wrap them in copper wire to induce an electrical current in said wire and power the world for free.
Regarding the pricing, it is really expensive for a mixed media filter with some magnets. The other thing that is odd is that the replacement filter is $250, but the system is $700 and the replacement filter is the whole thing. That means the spout, base, tubing and sink faucet diverter valve cost $450. The wholesale cost on those items is about $15.
Our system sells for $489 with a $99 filter cost (one year/1000 gallon filter life). NSF Standards verified purification performance. It really structures the water. Then it energizes it. It's also got hydrogen and alkalization.
I would put our A305 head to head with the Ultastream. The Ultrastream might create more alkalinity and a negative ORP at the beginning, but it won't last for the 3000 liters. It won't beat us on purification, energizing, structuring, flow, health impact, or value.
The Ultrastream isn't a bad system. It is just overpriced for what is really there and what it does.
(I reviewed the system very quickly and typed even faster. I apologize in advanced if I missed anything and/or for grammatical errors and typos).Reply
Hi Tom, I appreciate your time to go over this in detail. I agree their system components and filters seem too expensive. The system should definitely not cost that much if the filter is $250 as the remaining parts are very inexpensive. The only thing I guess that really intrigues me is there seems to be a lot more research coming in on molecular hydrogen benefits and that is the main focus of this companies filtration media. They list a lot of studies being done by
http://www.molecularhydrogenfoundation.org/ . They also do a good job of informing that typical ionizers make high ph water that is not necessarily high alkalinity due to not adding the alkaline minerals. I've used an electrical ionizer for a number of years and while I enjoy the water and taste, have not seen a huge difference in our families health. They are just a pain to maintain and in our area, they clog pretty quickly with calcium deposits and they do not add the magnesium or calcium to the water. I also purchased some reagent to http://www.h2bluetestkit.com/technical.html and found my system produced no very little to no measurable h2 which was disappointing, even after doing a fresh flush on the ionization plates. On the structured water, there seems to be a divided view among experts as some accuse the industry of using false science to sell devices, stating that water quickly returns to its natural state in nanoseconds and micro clustering is not really relevant. Due to a much fairer cost and your openness - I really appreciate your discussion of this topic, I'm really leaning towards the aqualiv system, I just hoped the media infused more molecular hydrogen into it as I agree that hydrogen is probably the greater cause of improved health for individuals over the high PH that is often touted. I believe they mentioned that their system produced up to 1.1 PPM which is quite a bit more than even a good quality electric Ionizer. Is there perhaps an additional filter you know of that we could add inline to the aqualive to further increase H2 output?Reply
It sounds like you have hard water, if your electronic ionizer is fouling. This means the hydrogen production will be reduced with the Alkaway. If you are wanting to try hydrogen, why not try the product at the link below. It will produce more than the Alkaway and allow you to see if hydrogen is what you need:
Regarding structured water, the best science is occurring right now at the University of Washington. And many people, even scientists are not up to date on the peer reviewed research being performed. However, I must point out again, that structured water is not microclustered water and has nothing to do with clusters. I highly recommend the book below if you are interested in the latest science on water:
You can always increase the hydrogen output of any AquaLiv System by adding an additional incline pH/Alkaline/ORP cartridge:Reply
I definitely am interested in your product line. One last thing I wanted to ask about was your dealer program. We used to sell some electronic ionizer's and the price point was always somewhat of an issue. I'd have an interest in looking at offering the Aqualiv product in either our Brick/mortar store or online. If you don't share those details on the forum, do you mind reaching out via email with information about purchase and sales minimums, pricing, etc.Reply
I am a little late to this thread, but it falls in line with some of the questions I had regarding molecular hydrogen. Has anything new come out since this thread came out that adds more molecular hydrogen to the water? Also, have you done any testing with the Trustlex or H2 drops to test the hydrogen levels in your various products in PPM? And finally, Tom mentioned that could could possibly buy a hydrogen rich water stick to enhance the hydrogen levels, however, do you think that would change the water structuring in a bad way if applying that after the structuring process? Thanks!
Caleb McGinn No new ways that are stable to produce enough H- or H2 and we haven't used any drops for testing. They generally never work. The only way to test properly is using a digital meter.
The hydrogen stick, Dr. Hayashi, is one of the best ways to add hydrogen to water and it will not affect the structure too much. It's something you can try out and see if you have any additional benefits. You'll need to use a personal size bottle and keep it closed to contain the hydrogen.Reply