.png?width=1530&height=510&name=PCW%20Logo%20(3).png)
Independent Technical study
Flow-Tech Wins. Independent research shows exactly why conducted-signal EMF works and where indirect systems fail.
That difference determines whether the signal actually reaches the water.
Two Approaches. Very Different Outcomes.
Indirect EMF: Magnets & Coil Wraps
-
Create a local magnetic field only
-
Field strength collapses once water exits the device
-
Lose over 99% of electrical field in metal piping due to skin-effect shielding
-
Only works when the water is actively flowing through the pipes
Direct EMF: Flow-Tech Home MAX
-
Uses a conducted electrical signal
-
Treats the water and the pipe as the transmission path
-
Signal propagates through the entire loop
-
Continues working on static water
That difference determines whether the signal actually reaches the water.
Flow-Tech
This study looked at physics, not claims.
Researchers evaluated:
-
Electromagnetic field strength using 3D modeling
-
Actual field penetration in piping
-
Scale formation and membrane fouling behavior
The takeaway:
It’s the electric field, not magnetism, that drives the effect. Direct-EMF is the only approach shown to deliver that field into bulk water.
What Flow-Tech Demonstrated
System-Wide Reach
Signal propagates throughout the entire water system
24/7 Protection
Treats flowing and non-flowing water
Biofilm Reduction
Up to 99% reduction in bacterial counts
Disrupts attachment mechanisms
Scale Control
Accelerates crystallization into non-adherent forms
Membrane Performance
Higher flux recovery
Improved water recovery ratios
These effects were observed across calcium carbonate, gypsum, and silica scaling conditions.
Flow-Tech
This Changes How Non-Chemical Treatment Should Be Evaluated
If a system cannot:
-
Deliver an electric field into bulk water
-
Maintain signal strength beyond the device
Then performance claims break down under real operating conditions.