Sorry, forgot to add a link to the unit I was looking at:
Its on the far right of that list.
I was pretty much ready to go with the C150 water filter kit, but I was reluctant to drill another hole in the bench or sink for the gooseneck.* I then stumbled across the Everpure SPA400 which seems to be a "mains pressure" filter and therefore I could just hook it up to the cold water of my mixed tap.* I cant seem to find too many reviews or advice on this filter (sorry if there is already a thread on this unit, I tried searching the forums and couldnt find any).* It appears to tick all the right boxes on first glance but the lime scale reduction/inhibition seems different in principle to that of the C150.* Replacement cartridge costs seem about the same between the 2 units (C150/SPA400) so not a big difference there.
Thanks for any advice.
Sorry, forgot to add a link to the unit I was looking at:
Its on the far right of that list.
Why not give Bombora a call? They handle both brands....Originally Posted by 684456505144250 link=1337726109/0#0 date=1337726109
Thanks for that Chris, I didnt realise that they also stocked and sold the Everpure range.
The Everpure SPA-400 specs dont say anything about reducing Calcium or Magnesium ... so you should confirm that it really is a solution for softening water for your coffee machine.
The Brita C150 kits are our preference for coffee machine water filtration and softening and we put together a kit that plumbs straight to your cold water tap as well as the full kit with extra tap (and requires the extra hole). But note that if you go to your cold water tap, every litre you take out of your tap will "use up" the resin in the C150 cartridge so the cut down version is not a great solution if you use your tap lots for other purposes - eg washing up. In that scenario, bite the bullet and get the kit with extra tap.
Where are you based?
Water quality varies enormously around Australia.
In QLD we support a local supplier based on the GC who is not a site sponsor unfortunately, but has extensive* knowledge in this field. On the Gold Coast and for Brisbane, the water is pretty good, and you only need a basic two filter system. One is the sediment filter, and the next is a carbon filter. For scale reduction it is recommended to use an inline magnetic filter. I have this setup and it works great. Filter costs for both cartridges are under $30. For WA and SA seek advice from Bombora, as those states have very hard water. This filter system can be connected to your current sytem, without the need for another tap.
Either way, I would recommend an inline magnet as well to help reduce scale, regardless of your setup.
Magnetic carbonates and sulfates eh? Next thing Ill need a magnetic pillow..:-?Originally Posted by 595E4B44492A0 link=1337726109/5#5 date=1337763686
Here we go again, the typical cynicism that your infamous for.
To those interested, check out Gundrill Trading. All the proof is on their website.
You can save heaps and do not need to buy expensive solutions from site sponsors.
Charming...  Heres an apostrophe for you. Ill let you buy a consonant and a vowel as well.Originally Posted by 7770656A67040 link=1337726109/7#7 date=1337767104
I also dont believe in snake oil ::)
Ill say it too. I think youve been standing too close to that magnet. The site you mention doesnt have any hard evidence, unless of course youre referring to the bit about cattle drinking more water and crops producing a better yield.Originally Posted by 5156434C41220 link=1337726109/9#9 date=1337768598
In this case, that would be you. ;)Originally Posted by 5156434C41220 link=1337726109/9#9 date=1337768598
Not coffee related guys but this stock on the ASX will make me plenty of coin in drug delivery..... Research OBJ and their magnetic technology!!
I wonder if I made a hair net out of magnets if my hair would be pulled up from under my scalp where its been hiding for a number of years? ;DOriginally Posted by 6F4A4B515C250 link=1337726109/11#11 date=1337773301
Not side tracking here Dennis but why would GlaxoSmithKline and the worlds largest consumer healthcare company - Proctor and Gamble sign up for joint development ventures...... Both companies are not stupid!! Forrest from the trees or a paradigm shift!Originally Posted by 17363D3D3A20530 link=1337726109/12#12 date=1337775252
On a filtration note, Ill stick within exchange, carbon and particulate filtration for my coffee machine - bombora.
Im with you there Jonty.
I think the drug companies are talking a different level of sophistication when it comes to targeted delivery of medications. Its plausible.
As for water filtration for espresso machines, I too will stick to proven solutions rather than what appears to be quackery with no scientific proof whatsoever. Until Im convinced otherwise with real, hard data to support the claims rather than propaganda, sorry but nope. Nothing whatsoever from the extensive water chemistry component of my degree makes me inclined to think otherwise. Perhaps a couple of really powerful ones might work to pull your leg though (or to extend the wedding tackle).
IMHO, this sorta stuff wont give you 20% economy gains in your car and sorry Dennis, but you will most likely live out the rest of your life as a chrome dome. I believe that this stuff is simply designed to hook gullible*Joes with little or no scientific understanding. Youd be better off to buy one of Brockys polarisers. ::)
Originally Posted by 735C4D7B55585A527A585F5C390 link=1337726109/4#4 date=1337759746
Correct, what I was a little concerned about was that it mentioned lime scale prevention with an additive on this link:
I suspect the additive is a polyphosphate and im not sure if this will affect my machine at all.
Hi Jonty, Im sure drug companies invest in all sorts of ideas, and Im glad that they do. Theres no doubt that sometimes these investments will benefit us as well as turn to gold for these businesses. In fact, I dont think they can afford not to invest in ventures for fear they might be left behind.
Id love to believe that a magnet surrounding a water pipe will act as a blockade to nasties, but until someone cuts open a cross section of a pipe and posts a pic or two, Ill probably remain a sceptic.
Dennis, rubbing chook manure into the scalp helps to grow hair, but not good for keeping friends close.* *Originally Posted by 47666D6D6A70030 link=1337726109/12#12 date=1337775252
Iím also sceptical about magnetism for scale prevention. I was trained in agricultural science and worked in that field for over 30 years. Part of my work included giving advice on the design and construction of rural water supplies including pumps, pipes tanks and dams.
Where I worked sometimes there was excess sodium salts, and bore water was often hard.
Never in my training or work did I come across the use of magnets to treat water.
Now that I am retired, other than the many hidden magnets in my home electronics, including my coffee equipment and my hybrid car, I also have plenty of magnets visible on my fridge door.
While the terra rossa (red soil) of Coonawarra, on the Limestone Coast of South Australia, produces some of the best red wines anywhere in the world (I will drink to that), the limestone deposits of SA also produces very hard water and scale in the coffee machines of Adelaide.
I believe that this requires chemical treatment, not magnets.
Back on topic...
You can get IX filters in a standard 10" form factor which suits a lot of the filter housings about the place, I was looking at getting a bench-top 10" filter and attaching that to my cold water tap (which already has a small sediment/carbon filter attached) and using that to feed the Silvia, Id prefer a proper plumbed line but thatll have to wait as Im in a rental at the moment and the water pipes under the sink arent accessible. The kit I was looking at is one of those which screws into the end of your water tap and has a bypass so you dont have to feed ALL the water through the IX.
I believe that IX, or ion exchange, that you mention has a better chance of preventing scale in a coffee machine than any number of magnets.
The water filter jug I have, uses both activated carbon and ion exchange water treatment.
My Breville Double Boiler has a filter in the water tank to reduce scale. I think it may use ion exchange.
You are correct, IX = ion exchange.
Yes, your BDB will most likely have an IX filter for scale reduction, mind they dont work forever, they either need to be reconditioned or replaced periodically.
Never seen a jug filter with IX in it, mind telling me what brand/model?
Our Site Sponsors Bombora sells some Brita water jugs etc.
My jug is a Brita Maxtra.
Cool, didnt realise Brita did an IX jug filter, might be worth looking into until I get a proper filter system sorted.
From an Adelaide water filter company. What is in the water?
frightening isn't it Corov. I remember some years back, Brisbane and Sydney were warned by authorities to boil all their water due to Giardia and Cryptosporidium in the town water supply. This hasn't happened in Perth But my whole house has filtration and a seperate RO system in the kitchen for cooking, Coffee Machine, Drinking etc. Cant trust those wombles to do anything right.
Since filtering my whole house, I have noticed a massive improvement, no nasty chlorines being absorbed, fluorides, benzines, pesticides, no skin problems, etc etc.
Also filtering the house helps your dishwasher, hotwater system, washing machine last alot longer too. Most of these have heating elements onboard now and this will help them last alot longer.
Everpure is actually handled by Water Filters Australia (they host the Everpure Australia website) - not Bombora
You're best bet would be with a product similar to the SPA400 called the HiFlow (check out their website) It too connects straight to your existing mixer giving you mains water pressure and removes limescale which is essential.
So just so I understand it correctly,
for my HX machine (Bezzera) I can use a Brita Maxtra jug instead of the big countertop systems? I am currently in a rental.
Also, if I were to take the machine to a friends place, would it be better to use bottled water for that time where there is no filter?
Last edited by thebookfreak58; 3rd October 2012 at 03:11 PM.
I've just been working my way through the water filtration maze and the accurate (but probably unhelpful - sorry) answer to your question is ... maybe, it depends what you want to achieve.
If you just want to avoid damage to your machine due to premature scale buildup, then you really need to know what the Total Hardness (TH) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) of your feed water is. Its best to measure it directly, although I rang the council here in Toowoomba and they gave me the data. Then you need to look at the specs of the filter you're looking at and decide if it will produce water with TH about 70 mg/L or less and TDS less than about 200 mg/L. (My research shows these numbers vary a bit depending on who you're talking to. You should check the machine manual too.) If you can't work it out from the water filter specs because of lack of info, then I would look for a different filter.
Hope this helps, I can provide more info if you want!! The water things is quite amazing once you start looking into it!
Or, you can look at this which is specifically designed for espresso machine use:
...where in your rental house, you could connect it up to an external garden tap (or in the laundry, with a T piece where the tap feeds the washing machine....the sky is the limit in terms of a location), and when you want water to top up your tanked espresso machine, you simply turn on the tap and collect water flowing out of the softener into a jug, and tip it into your machine. You can also use it for drinking water or cooking or whatever, to your hearts content, and when you move house, you can take it with you....
Edit: oh I see, down the bottom. So what would I need to connect that to the laundry tap? (Pluming is not my forte!!)
And is there a source of those rock salts? And does does the filter do any sediment filtering or anything? Or is it simply an ion exchange?
Think I might pop out and get one of these contraptions...even if I store it til I have time to hook it up.
yes it's also a particle filter....water softener and particle filter
Sorry to hijack, just bought a filter for drinking water. Don't suppose I can use it for the machine because of the alkalizing filter right? eBay link removed per the http://coffeesnobs.com.au/general-ne...icy-rules.html
Last edited by Javaphile; 13th March 2013 at 07:43 AM. Reason: eBay link removed
Sorry- but the sceptic in me can't see how a remineralising 5 stage RO filter can be produced to retail at $80. I suspect you will find that you receive far less than what you paid for.
Last edited by TC; 13th March 2013 at 08:34 AM.
I've been using reverse osmosis for about 15 years - when I could smell the stuff coming out of the tap I stopped drinking it. Up till now I've had an on-tap portable system but recently bought an undersink version with carbon and solids filter - it came with a remineraliser but I haven't got it set up yet so not sure if that does much. The portable is about $295 and the under sink one was a special deal at $390.
That stuff they want you to drink is so poisonous it kills goldfish. In aquaculture goldfish are almost bulletproof - things that will kill other fish leave GF's happily swimming around. I added about 100L of tap water into about 500L of Aquaponics fish tank and my 2 16cm long GF's were dead in an hour. The Bendigo Council decided to 'clean' the pond at the Chinese Museum here and killed 200 GF's, including some that were 10 years old.
That's the stuff they expect us to drink.
I went for RO systems because the others don't remove fluoride - the evidence for fluoride at all is, I think, suspect (they don't do a control for just brushing teeth, just no brushing against brushing with fluoride) but the evidence for DRINKING the stuff is all bad. You should not be ingesting that stuff at all - it is a known carcinogen and there is zero evidence it has any effect on teeth if you drink it and lots that putting it in your body has many nasty side effects.
So... my coffee, even instant, has always brought comments about how nice it tastes because it is always made with pure water. RO seems expensive but really it is very cheap, particularly when you look at the list of symptoms you can get from drinking the stuff they provide in the taps - with a 12,000L recommended changeover for my new system, the cost per litre is about 3c/L.
Not sure I want to pay RO prices to run through my dish washer though... *grins*
Oh, and while some of the claims for magnets and other things might be 'out there' sceptic doesn't mean we reject all claims. Some have a validity not easily found simply because of how Science works - the peer review process is often corrupted to ensure the 'consensus' is maintained - partly this is normal and to be expected but in many cases these days, it is because there are big bucks to be had and rocking the good ship Consensus threatens those funds.
For example, how many people know that not only was the effect (which got dubbed Cold Fusion but wasn't called that by the originators) found by Pons and Fleischmann not faked or wrong, but MIT, the loudest critics of the effect were proved to have faked their results and goofed their research that was supposed to prove P & F wrong? Strangely THAT didn't make the headlines. That anomalous effect stood to threaten the billions of dollars MIT has received for hot fusion - something they still have not produced in any usable form.
So it is good to be a Sceptic; I am proudly one myself, but it is a fine line, easily stepped across, into Cynic. There are some very odd effects being found using magnetics, including the God-helmet, and there are many effects of electricity that are being actively suppressed. It pays to look carefully but with an open mind at some of these possibilities - just because SciAm or Nature doesn't publish something it doesn't mean there is nothing there. It often is just an indication the orthodox world 'believes' they have all the answers.
I wonít go into detail as there is plenty of discussion earlier in this string here about how to do it.
Any water supply and water treatment must foremost reduce scale formation from calcium and magnesium deposits, which can effect your machines operation and require descaling to keep it running well and producing delicious coffee.
It would be really interesting to have an accurate account of all the additives that currently go into our drinking water. This is a summary from some time back -
WATER DISTILLERS AUSTRALIA - Fluoridation and Chemicals In Your Water.
I worked for the Board of Works in the eighties around the time when fluoridation was introduced. From memory they spent around 2 million back then on each dosing plant at a number of the supply reservoirs. One holding reservoir which received fluoridated water from a larger storage reservoir even had its own Fluoridation plant for water from a different source. What wasn't commonly known is that they had massive issues controlling the dosing rates of Fluoride due to the way the dosing was conducted. The Fluoride was delivered in powder form and mixed into a slurry in these dosing plants which were forever clogging up and causing all sorts of headaches with maintaining correct dosing. The slurry was also extremely corrosive in this form. Dosing varied from no fluoride to many times the recommended levels. Don't know if they perservered with these plants for awhile because of the politics due to their enormous cost but eventually they went to a liquid form called Fluorosilicic Acid (look that up!). The dosing equipment for this was cheap to install and maintain and easier to achieve accurate dosing. Not sure what is used these days.
I wonder if anyone has doone a study on pre v post Fluorodation cancer rates and the types?
An interesting rumour I heard back then was that some of the water quality testing chemists that analyised the Melbourne Water supply always boiled their water before using it for drinking! This was even though the water was chlorinated. Maybe that said something about the effectiveness of Chlorination in our water supply too!
Sorry, but there is clear evidence of the benefits of fluoridation (20-40% reduction in cavities in children) and scant scientific evidence of harm at the recommended doses.
While there is certainly valid discussion about the levels of fluoride received by individuals, and also about the ethics of mass-medicinals, simply stating "fluoride is bad for your health" has been proven incorrect many, many times.
It is likely that developed countries with good dental health programs are less likely to see significant benefits in fluoridation. That said, there is still a benefit to the poor & those maintaining poor personal dental hygiene.
Of course that is not discounting the benefits of a good filtration system at all. Naturally cleaner water is better for your coffee machine and will probably taste better too. The ongoing FUD regarding fluoridation really gets my goat up though. It's akin to the anti-vaccine nutjobs.
And to answer CafeLotta's question yes they have studied post-fluoridation cancer rates (Aussie study) and found no clear association for specific fluoride-related cancer (bone, osteosarcoma) or for general cancers.
The study is titled "A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation" by the NHMRC if you want to read it.
Fluoride has nothing to do with making great coffee. However as a balance to other statements, here is the result of some recent scientific research that claims to prove that it is of benefit to adults for reducing tooth decay.
Study proves fluoride helps adult teeth - ABC South Australia - Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)
I treat the water going into my coffee machine to reduce scale but drink tap water untreated.
Um... that's not research, that's statistics. There isn't enough information in that clip to decide if it is GOOD statistics but \biological research tends to disagree with her...To put it plainly, she is 'proving' something with statistics that biology says cannot be true. (Bolding by me)Systemic fluoride strengthens teeth. Fluoride has a strong affinity for calcium, the material from which bones and teeth are made. Systemic fluoride, that is fluoride ingested in food or water, is absorbed, mainly through the stomach and intestine, into the bloodstream where it is attracted to bones, teeth and any other calcium in the body. In young children whose milk teeth or, later, permanent teeth are growing, the fluoride is carried to developing tooth buds. Here the interaction with the developing crystals initiates the replacement of the tooth enamel's normal crystalline composition ( hydroxyapatite ) with a related crystal which incorporates fluoride ( fluorapatite ) while they are growing. As fluorapatite is believed to be stronger and more resistant to decay than is the more normal hydroxyapatite, the claim is that teeth of children who drink fluoridated water or are given fluoride supplements are less likely to develop caries. It should be borne in mind, however that, once fully formed, tooth enamel is static — unlike bone, it doesn"t undergo metabolic changes. Thus systemic fluoride can only be incorporated into teeth during the growing period. That is up to about the age of twelve. Water fluoridation will not strengthen older teeth.
But not my concern - people can make their own choices as to whether ingesting a virulent poison is a good thing.
I would point out one other thing - even in her talk it is clear there is much debate going on about fluoride, and as soon as one starts looking it is very clear there is very strong opinion among scientists on both sides of the question - now ask yourself, how is it we have Councils and Govt bodies MANDATING the use of a substance for which the evidence is at best, equivocal?
And we do this for tooth cavities, but lung cancer we just raise taxes on cigarettes? We have laws about labelling substances in foods and ban certain ones because of their side effects but we force millions to drink one of the deadliest substances around, based on flawed studies, so they don't get tooth decay?
Think of it from a risk analysis view: if they are right we have a few less cavities - mind you other evidence suggests we get exactly that when people brush regularly, but if they are wrong we are poisoning people in such a wide variety of areas it is hard to see how such use cannot be considered criminal acts. For those wanting to know more, take a read of DAMAGING EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE or for real world evidence that fluoride is perhaps NOT the cure for tooth decay as claimed? - look up Montreal and Toronto comparisons. Montreal has a number of factors supposedly related to fluridation where things are better than in Toronto - but Montreal has never gone into fluoridation.
So, in a subject of filtering water, that is why I mention fluoride. If one is going to filter water it seems to me to be a logical step to filter out poisons as well as less toxic minerals, so to me, RO is a qualitatively better solution than a carbon filter or other cheap filtering solution.Christine Moody quoted from a Nov. 15, 2011 letter by Dr. Hardy Limeback, professor and head of preventive dentistry at the University of Toronto.
The letter read, in part, that Limeback has “personally conducted years of funded research at the University of Toronto on the topic of fluorosis (fluoride poisoning) and bone effects of fluoride intake. A bone study, for which we received national funding, comparing hip bones of people who live in Toronto (fluoridated since 1963) to the bones of people from Montreal (Montreal has never been fluoridated) suggests disturbing negative changes in the bone quality of Torontonians. This is not good.”
Limebeck’s letter also stated that fluoride has not been shown to be safe and effective and that the pendulum is shifting to where fluoride is being considered “not safe, and no longer effective.”
And it makes GOOD coffee. *grins*
And beware statisticians - they can make anything seem right just by which questions they ask. As an example, in the ABC talk linked above, there is no attempt made to correlate the incidence of brushing at all against brushing with fluoride, just places with fluoride versus places without. It is VERY possible the whole 'adding fluoride to the water' brought greater awareness of tooth decay issues into a given community and people began to brush more. Unless a study corrects for this possibility the end conclusions are flawed.
I don't agree with any of his other hair-brained statements. The scientific consensus is clear in this case, and that is that benefit outweighs the risks. This isn't a 50-50 thing here: just like climate change, 99% of the scientists and associated research points to man-made climate change, and yet somehow we get a 50-50 discussion in the media as though we need to "balance" the argument.
I'm not going to argue against blogs, opinions and unproven "research" done by Bob in his backyard. If you can provide a credible source (eg, peer-reviewed study with independently verified findings) I'll eat my hat. So far I've only seen tin-foil hat theories.
OK, this is now way beyond the topic. But those who ask for citations should be able to provide such for their own claims. Many of the original studies have been invalidated, some by their authors. It isn't difficult to find citations for what I say - click on that link I gave and them click on the blue links in the article - they link out to sources. Far from being "blogs, opinions and unproven "research" done by Bob in his backyard" there are many reputable and even peer-reviewed sources to be found.
Such subjects tend to get heated so if I can find an area on site suitable to post on it I might do so.
Oh... so it wasn't enough I get called hair-brained and compared to 'tin foil hat' types, you want to get me in trouble with the officialdom by having me talk about Govt? I refuse to say, "bring back assassination as a form of voting" or other such revolutionary ideas...
Well I did provide a citation for my statement, and after reading your link and associated sub-links I was unable to find any real science at all, just conclusions drawn from unrelated data. Certainly not any peer-reviewed material. It's also worth noting that entire article is talking about fluoridation in the US, which has little to no relevance here (indeed, that very page notes the much lower fluoride use in the UK and suggests that it is equally effective).
Link for the lazy: