U.S. Solar Mounts De-Icers: Specifications and the Scott Aerator Relationship
U.S. Solar Mounts sells three de-icers: the Slinger, the Dock Mount, and the Floating. The evidence indicates these are Scott Aerator products — U.S. Solar Mounts' own pages carried Scott Aerator brand markup as recently as 2020, and the product copy and specifications trace to Scott's site as far back as 2015. Buyers should not treat the two catalogues as independent options, and where their published figures differ, Scott's are current.
Are U.S. Solar Mounts and Scott Aerator selling the same de-icer?
The available evidence says yes, and it matters commercially: cross-shopping the two as if they were competing designs is comparing a product against itself.
What is documented:
- The product copy originates with Scott. Scott Aerator's own site carried the near-identical product overview and specification list in a September 2020 capture, and the distinguishing comparison block — 400 gallons per minute against "the competitors' 180", American-made stainless steel "even the motor", a five-year unconditional motor warranty against "the competitors, just 2 years" — was already present on Scott's site in 2015 under earlier branding.
- U.S. Solar Mounts published it as a Scott product. A November 2020 capture of the U.S. Solar Mounts Dock Mount De-Icer page carries structured brand markup naming Scott Aerator, with the same brand applied to the Floating De-Icer and Slinger De-Icer. U.S. Solar Mounts' own solar racking and compressors carried the U.S. Solar Mounts brand on the same store.
- The wider catalogue matches. The fountain range sold alongside these de-icers — DA-20 Display Aerator, North Star, Clover, Skyward, Atriarch — is Scott Aerator's proprietary model line.
- Shared-source fingerprints. The same misspelling appears in both companies' copy, and the mounting-option list reproduces Scott's 2020 list in the same order, including a term Scott has since renamed.
None of this reflects poorly on the equipment. Both are American manufacturers and the de-icers are well regarded. It simply means there is one product line here, not two.
Whose specifications should I use?
Scott's, where the two disagree. The pattern across every point of difference is that U.S. Solar Mounts is carrying figures Scott has since revised.
| Specification | U.S. Solar Mounts | Scott Aerator (current) | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1/2 HP input power | 680 W | 670 W | USSM matches Scott's own 2015-2020 figure |
| 1 HP input power | 1,095 W | 1,094 W | A one-watt difference is not independent testing |
| 3/4 HP current | 10.5 A | 10.7 A | Scott's 2020 page also said 10.5 |
| Cord gauge, 115V | 12-gauge on all | 10-gauge on 3/4 and 1 HP | Matters for circuit safety |
| Flow rate | 400 GPM stated flatly | 400 / 450 / 500 GPM by HP | USSM shows the 1/2 HP figure for all sizes |
| Weight, Dock Mount | 55 lbs | 55 to 68 lbs by HP | USSM shows the low end only |
The cord gauge line is the one with a safety dimension. If you are buying a 3/4 or 1 HP 115V unit and planning a long run, size the conductor from Scott's figures, and note that Scott's own two current documents give different maximum cable runs for the same motors. The 2026 sheet is materially more conservative than the 2024 one (75 ft versus 100 ft for the 1 HP on 12 AWG). Use the shorter figure.
Does the 680 W figure reconcile?
Partly. It is a published input-power figure rather than shaft output, but it still does not reconcile cleanly, and we still will not build a running-cost calculator on it.
The arithmetic: 115 V x 10 A is 1,150 VA of apparent power. The rated shaft output of a 1/2 HP motor is about 373 W. The published 670 to 680 W sits between the two, which is consistent with a real input-power measurement at a power factor near 0.58, and inconsistent with it being shaft output.
The reason that is still not enough: neither company states whether the watt figure is input or output, states a power factor, or states a service factor. And U.S. Solar Mounts' own operating-cost calculator computes kWh as volts x amps x hours divided by 1,000, which yields 1,150 W for the same machine its product page rates at 680 W. That is a 69 percent difference in computed running cost, published by one company about one motor.
Who honours the five-year motor warranty?
Worth establishing before you buy, because the documents do not answer it.
All three U.S. Solar Mounts de-icer pages advertise a five-year unconditional motor warranty. But U.S. Solar Mounts' governing Limited Product Warranty document (USSM-LPW-001, effective 4 July 2026) contains no motor category and no de-icer category at all. Its summary covers stainless steel diffusers, compressors, cooling fans, and electronics. That document states it supersedes prior warranty statements and website warranty descriptions, and that it controls in the event of conflict.
Scott Aerator, for its part, markets the motor warranty as unconditional on its product pages, while the printed warranty in the manual qualifies it with "under normal operating conditions", and the Dock Mount assembly instructions make periodic thumb-screw lubrication a condition of validity.
Practical step: get the warranty terms in writing from whoever invoices you, and confirm which company performs the service, before purchase.
Published specifications
| Product | Price | Published specifications |
|---|---|---|
| Slinger De-Icer | $909.00 | 115V, 60 Hz single phase, 10 A, 680 W; 12-gauge 25 ft submersible cord with marine-grade plug; oil-free motor; high-density polyurethane and stainless steel; 5-year motor warranty; GFCI required |
| Dock Mount De-Icer | $1,095.00 | Heavy-duty stainless dock plate, pipe and yoke; 3,450 rpm; 400 GPM at 1/2 HP, 450 at 3/4 HP, 500 at 1 HP; American-made stainless; 5-year motor warranty |
| Floating De-Icer | $1,195.00 | Suspended from a float roughly 2 ft below the surface; adjusts to water level; rated fresh and salt water; 5-year warranty |
Note that the U.S. Solar Mounts de-icer category page also lists NOVAEOS and SD-series solar aerators, which are aerators rather than de-icers.
How do these compare to a Kasco?
Not directly, and this is the honest answer rather than an evasion. Kasco publishes thrust in pounds. Scott and U.S. Solar Mounts publish rpm and gallons per minute. Neither has explained what each predicts about open-water area, and the two are not convertible.
Thrust describes the force imparted to the water column, which relates to how far a plume can be pushed. GPM describes volume moved, which relates to turnover. A unit can look better on one and worse on the other. Any table setting them side by side and declaring a winner is comparing nothing.
What you can compare directly: minimum depth, current draw on the circuit you have, cord length available, warranty terms, and who services it.