Reply to Thread

Sent you an email.
Same stuff that should have been left with the equipment.
Pay attention to the date codes.

Stamas, can you share with me your understanding of the proper way to clean the corona field charger in the Trane Clean Effects? I'm getting lots of conflicting information.

Originally Posted by wptski

I have a Honeywell F50A EAC which was installed in 1981 but replaced the power supply 5 or 6 years ago. The new power supply has a high/low jumper for ozone. After reading about all the ozone stuff, I doubled checked the jumper and it was set to low. I still got a ozone sensor which shows no increase in ozone while the EAC is operating.

I've mentioned how low my particle counts are here before with little response because most are anti-EAC! The particle counter doesn't care and it doesn't lie.

For those who maintain their equipment and use a basic filter upstream of the EAC to remove large particles (pre-filters manufacturers provide don't do a good job), electronic filters are fine.

In many applications, EACs aren't maintained and the dust passes right through.

They may be very good for tiny particles, but the primary purpose of a filter is to keep the equipment clean. The best way to keep the air clean is to stop polluting it and ventilate when necessary.

t825
5 ppb tested how?

I hope you are not basing this on the Environmental Health and Engineering study where they mentioned a low number like this where:

"Ozone levels were monitored continuously (in the test home) over two days on September 21 and 22, 2005 while Trane CleanEffects and air handler fan cycled on and off in accordance with the 70 degrees Fahrenheit set point."

The tests were conducted in Boston. How often do you think the system was running at that time of year? 10% perhaps.

So we can calculate a CADR on continuous operation but we can only calculate ozone levels with intermittent operation in a temperate climate in September.

The fact is the ozone levels from the CleanEffects are irritating to some people. (If you tested them like you would test a standalone air purifier my guess is that they would be somewhere in the 20-40 ppb range.) Just a few minutes on this Board will convince you of that. Trane would be far better served by acknowledging this fact and instructing their dealers in an up front way about this so that they can make sure the customers have the right product at the right setting.

Ozone is a known trigger for asthma. If an asthmatic has this trigger, the CleanEffects would not be "great for them." It could actually lead to an asthma episode with serious consequences.

I have a CE in my home. Most, if not all of the CE's we have installed were at the customer's request. We generally use Media types-F-200 or AA 2200 or 5000 line. I had some good response from customers that had CE, as well as the media types but felt that I should try the CE since we sold them. This is less than 5 months so I can't say yet how it does overall, but I did just get over the flu, so....
We have 5 animals too.
The CE was installed so it was very accessible but the door is a pain. A common complaint from my customers, my tech's and the installers. I just attended a Trane meeting and it was a common complaint there too.

The Trane Clean Effects contributes 5 parts per billion of ozone. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends indoor ozone concentrations should not exceed 50 parts per billion. If your that worried about it, it has a setting to lower it to 3 parts per billion. Ozone should be the least of anyone's worries. There are many other things that put off Ozone inside a house also.

Originally Posted by jmcgreevey

i totally agree. a healthy climate merv 16 filter and a sanuvox air purifier do a killer job at removing allergens, vocs, and germs. furthermore, you just throw the filter away after about a year and the sanuvox lamp lasts three before you have to replace it. no more digging through the van to find a chunk of styrofoam to clean the stupid needles on the clean effects.

something else nobody mentioned in regards to the original thread is that eac's produce ozone. ozone is a lung irritant. can somebody tell me what's the point of putting something in your house to make the air better for your lungs that produces air free from dust but with chemical irritants in it? sounds counter-productive to me.

I have a Honeywell F50A EAC which was installed in 1981 but replaced the power supply 5 or 6 years ago. The new power supply has a high/low jumper for ozone. After reading about all the ozone stuff, I doubled checked the jumper and it was set to low. I still got a ozone sensor which shows no increase in ozone while the EAC is operating.

I've mentioned how low my particle counts are here before with little response because most are anti-EAC! The particle counter doesn't care and it doesn't lie.

Originally Posted by bullmoose

I prefer a media filter and a UV light. I can't stand the CleanEffects. Piece of crap and a pain in the a$$ to clean... Worst ever!

i totally agree. a healthy climate merv 16 filter and a sanuvox air purifier do a killer job at removing allergens, vocs, and germs. furthermore, you just throw the filter away after about a year and the sanuvox lamp lasts three before you have to replace it. no more digging through the van to find a chunk of styrofoam to clean the stupid needles on the clean effects.

something else nobody mentioned in regards to the original thread is that eac's produce ozone. ozone is a lung irritant. can somebody tell me what's the point of putting something in your house to make the air better for your lungs that produces air free from dust but with chemical irritants in it? sounds counter-productive to me.

Originally Posted by breathe easy

Here is something interesting that I found in the search for the EHAH paper.
It lays out the PR campaign done for the CleanEffects by Trane and their PR consultant.

http://www.instituteforpr.org/files/...ig_Apple_Award.

This makes me wonder how many of the participants in the CleanEffects marathon thread we had several years ago were company or PR consultant shills. Naw, noboby would do that.

Thanks for sharing....

Here is something interesting that I found in the search for the EHAH paper.
It lays out the PR campaign done for the CleanEffects by Trane and their PR consultant.

http://www.instituteforpr.org/files/...ig_Apple_Award.

This makes me wonder how many of the participants in the CleanEffects marathon thread we had several years ago were company or PR consultant shills. Naw, noboby would do that.

Originally Posted by breathe easy

Here is the "white Paper" of the "study." It is done by Environmental Health and Engineering - a consulting firm owned by a Harvard Professor. The study was not done at Harvard.

http://www.trane.com/Residential/Dow...%208.01.08.pdf

This is a great example of how correct, but unrelated, information can be used to confuse a point. The "study" does not show that the Cleaneffects is "great for asthma." It does two things:
1. It shows a Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR) for a product that does not have one. The CADR is for stand-alone air cleaners. The high CADR claimed for the CleanEffects is based on an installed unit running with a blower producing 1200 CFM. In actual fact the CleanEffects tested according to the CADR protocol has a 0 CADR.

2. The "study" proves nothing about the effectiveness of the CleanEFfects for an asthmatic. It references other studies that show high outdoor (and indoor) particle counts can lead to increases in asthma symptoms. Then it makes the assumption that decreasing particle counts with an air cleaner would lead to improved symptoms for asthmatics. There have been a number of studies done that disprove that assumption.

Making unsubstantiated health claims for indoor air products is bad for the industry. (it is also illegal and is regulated by the FDA and FTC)

I agree with you 100% breat easy....thanks for the White Paper...it is very informational and a valuable reference.

Here is the "white Paper" of the "study." It is done by Environmental Health and Engineering - a consulting firm owned by a Harvard Professor. The study was not done at Harvard.

http://www.trane.com/Residential/Dow...%208.01.08.pdf

This is a great example of how correct, but unrelated, information can be used to confuse a point. The "study" does not show that the Cleaneffects is "great for asthma." It does two things:
1. It shows a Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR) for a product that does not have one. The CADR is for stand-alone air cleaners. The high CADR claimed for the CleanEffects is based on an installed unit running with a blower producing 1200 CFM. In actual fact the CleanEffects tested according to the CADR protocol has a 0 CADR.

2. The "study" proves nothing about the effectiveness of the CleanEFfects for an asthmatic. It references other studies that show high outdoor (and indoor) particle counts can lead to increases in asthma symptoms. Then it makes the assumption that decreasing particle counts with an air cleaner would lead to improved symptoms for asthmatics. There have been a number of studies done that disprove that assumption.

Making unsubstantiated health claims for indoor air products is bad for the industry. (it is also illegal and is regulated by the FDA and FTC)

Originally Posted by wisconsinapp

Sssooo, studies done by Harvard arent credible enough? What else could you possibly want? Harvard DID do a study on the Clean effects and everything he mentioned, was proven in that study.

Would be very helpful (forgive our ignorance of the website or reference) if the studies done( by Harvard or any medical group )can be seen in any URL link..
Thanks to all,

I prefer a media filter and a UV light. I can't stand the CleanEffects. Piece of crap and a pain in the a$$ to clean... Worst ever!

Originally Posted by breathe easy

What an outrageous statement. You have no proof whatsoever that the CleanEffects provides any protection from the common flu virus and the H1N1 virus. What is particularly offensive to me is your comment that the CleanEffects is "great on asthma." You are claiming a health benefit that is not substantiated in any study in the hopes that homeowners with asthmatic individuals will purchase this product.

Sssooo, studies done by Harvard arent credible enough? What else could you possibly want? Harvard DID do a study on the Clean effects and everything he mentioned, was proven in that study.

Keeping a Clean Effects clean is like cleaning an EAC. After a while it will become a hassle. Air purifiers with throwaway filters ensures that after you change the filter you have a new, clean filter. Clean Effect air purifiers are like the electrostatic permanent filters which never get as clean as the day they were installed no matter how good you try to clean them. Besides cleaning the permanent part of a Clean Effects can make a new mess that you have to clean up.

Originally Posted by trane825

The Clean Effects is the best whole house air cleaner on the market. The Trane Cleaneffcts collects dust, pet dander, mold spores, and particulates down to .1 mircon which include the common flu virus and the H1N1 virus. Also it is great on Asthma.

What an outrageous statement. You have no proof whatsoever that the CleanEffects provides any protection from the common flu virus and the H1N1 virus. What is particularly offensive to me is your comment that the CleanEffects is "great on asthma." You are claiming a health benefit that is not substantiated in any study in the hopes that homeowners with asthmatic individuals will purchase this product.

All electronic air cleaners are silly gimmicks which don't work properly half the time. (they need a lot of maintenance)

Get a basic media filter; the best way to keep the air clean is to stop polluting it.

Originally Posted by doctordarnell

Is the trane clean effects REALLY the best air cleaner on the market? I am fond of the old POPPING EAC.

The Clean Effects is the best whole house air cleaner on the market. The Trane Cleaneffcts collects dust, pet dander, mold spores, and particulates down to .1 mircon which include the common flu virus and the H1N1 virus. Also it is great on Asthma.

My old Honeywell F50A EAC installed in 1981 but had a new power supply a few years back makes a dramatic effect on particle count when run a very short time. They can't be all that bad!