0
0

[–] pyres ago 

Depends on how long it will last before needing cleaning/filter replacement, which is probably the razor blade part of the device.

0
0

[–] PM_me_your_mitts [S] ago 

I was out a bar and ended up chatting with a guy who was working on the project. I argued that there were elements in water that might show up on the device as "negative" but aren't actually bad for those drinking it.

Thinking about it logically before we starting using really strict filtration systems there was really no such thing as absolutely "pure" water.

So I could see how the data could be helpful and useful but at the same time I was curious if this would cause a change in what minerals and elements that are usually found in water.

0
1

[–] chrisrichter 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Good morning, I'm Chris, one of the founders of the project. I'm guessing you were speaking with Edgar. My background is from water treatment and I would have immediately concurred that a portion of conductivity that are not detrimental.

Just narrowly related to the device and it's accuracy, we're running well inside of a percent when measuring known solutions.

On our standard box with the one sensor, what we're really watching for is change. That can be massive fluctuations on your water supply whether that's a private well or municipal source. The device isn't designed to replace a lab. But it is very effective at highlighting when something is weird. If my TDS doubled, I'd be looking at lab work.

In an urban setting, it gets pretty powerful with multiple devices. Milwaukee is sitting on a distribution network of 2,000 miles of pipe with an average age that leaves them being installed in the Great Depression. I have seen, acknowledging this is anecdotal (for now), large swings within areas receiving the same supply. There is going to be some love/hate with the municipal water side of this. They should love the data. They're going to hate it.

Absolutely pure water with zero ions in it is aggressive, I completely agree. However, for folks with a drinking system, they're not seeking deionized water. What they have is a thin film membrane that is responsible for removing the contaminants. After that membrane does its job, the water goes into a storage tank.

So I have a drinking system that removes 99.3% of arsenic to choose one example. The membrane is certified to remove not less than 94% of total dissolved solids. It usually removes closer to 97-98%. With that Plus model, what we do is measure the percentage of rejection. So if a membrane breaks down, we might see only 90%, 80%, 70%, etc. rejection. At that point, it's not removing 99.3% of arsenic. That's a pretty specific point of failure that previously had no real time monitoring whatsoever.

I hope that makes sense.

All the best, Chris

0
0

[–] ChaoticNeutral ago 

I work on ion selective electrodes and bio-fluid sensors. I just skimmed the page. It looks like they are using standard water probes. If they use high quality ones it could be pretty accurate. If they are correcting for temperature and pH, know their cross selectivity, etc. They could be pretty could for yes/no testing. A really high quality tool that is good for quantitative measurements usually carries a matching price tag.