Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 168
  1. #27
    I just went back and checked and it is 100-300nm. Germicidal UV is 254nm, 185nm produces ozone, so the way I understand it is that the ozone is produced at 185 and then broken down at 254 into friendly oxidiser. It is supposed to be UVA, UVB, and UVC light they coined it UVX because it falls beteween UV and an Xray but with no penetrating radiation.

    -TiO2 creates hydroxyl radicals and superoxide ions
    -Rhodium converts nitric oxide to nitrogen and oxygen
    -Silver speeds up the tio2 reaction by 3 x
    -Copper does something to do with hydrogen and helps the TiO2 process as well

  2. #28
    Kansas State did actually purchase several units. And I know filters have their purpose as well, the point I made is info found on a filter site that doesn't correspond with the lab report should be shirked off to dirty competition. We are in a couple VA hospitals up here as well and they bought them. I bet we will get Walter Reid Hospital too.

  3. #29
    Special Ed if you go to RGF's website they have info on their bulbs...we still use RGF bulbs with RCI.

    Go here:

    http://www.rgf.com/documents/PHICELL.pdf

  4. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL.
    Posts
    4,313
    Uuuh, I don't know.... 100-300nm? Three year life-expectancy? They're making claims no one else is willing to make.... Especially when there are only a few mfg.'s of UV bulbs in the world & every UV light mfg. essentially uses the same bulbs & technologies.

    Are you sure about this?
    WHY?

  5. #31

    Thumbs up

    I have talked to a couple older dealers and one said the bulb burned out a few months early but it was replaced for free since it is gauranteed for 3 yrs. The matrix has to be changed every 3 as well. It seems like it would be an expensive claim if it wasn't true since they replace em for free and then you get another 3 yr waranty on the new bulb. I have only heard of one Fresh Air dying too and it happened shortly before the three yr mark and the customer claimed he got a totally rebuilt one within about two weeks. Their quality control has come a long way over the last few years. They have already started with a few of the units if they break early they just give you a whole new unit for free. Despite the things you find online about EQ, usually by dealers who failed because they were lazy, I have nothing but positive stuff to say about EQ. So if they say it lasts that long I bet most of the time it does. Every product line has the occaisonal flawed one but that is kind of like a bonus because you get another couple years worth of light for free when they replace it.

  6. #32
    MBarson,
    I appologize for attacking you. I realize you look at me like the snake oil salesman and I gett a little over passionate in my responses when people attck me. I believe everything I post is true, just as I am sure you felt the same way when you posted that article. New technology takes time to break into the market and homeland security has begun testing RCI from what I have been told so I guess only time will tell. I can say from my personal experience it is nice not having my wife snore as much since it was like sleeping next to a grizzly before I got a Fresh Air. Like I said previously this could make a good addition to a filter system, the ionizers clump submicron particles that normally wouldn't be able to be caught by a filter and the germacidal , virusidal and fungusidal capabilities are perfect for every house.
    Along with a mix of outdoor air (just for you TB). I believe in both the company and the products strongly.

  7. #33
    RGF Has a lot more detail on phi here and it is what RCI was developed from...by RGF.

    http://www.rgf.com/documents/PHI_article.pdf

    They talk about standard UV and how it only lasted 8-10,000 hrs so this was a breakthrough.

  8. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    460
    I did a google search on ecoquest and the first two hits were
    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/health/alpine.html

    And

    http://www.ripoffreport.com/results....h!&q5=EcoQuest

    I have to ask, if these things are any good at all why are there no supply houses selling them?
    Oh and you will also find this line in many places
    Ecoquest International, formerly know as Alpine Industries, was founded by William Converse in 1986.
    Ozone generating devices are not a cure for IAQ problems they are the equivalent of throwing a towel over a dogpile and expecting it to vanish.
    The only true cure for IAQ issues is Ventilation and Filtration.

    You will be way further ahead to skip the ozone generators and put in an HRV with a high quality media filter.

    I am not going to post all the links i have found, everybody knows how to use google.
    Here is the actual EPA report on ozone generators. In no place do they recommend or suggest their use in a living environment.
    http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/images/ozone_generator.pdf

  9. #35
    John, You are a little late. Ecoquest was not Alpine. Mike Jackson was the CEO of Alpine, created Ecoquest and bought Alpines Marketing rights. The company isn't what it is in question, Radiant Catalytic Ionization is what the technology debate is. The old ozone and ion stuff is rarely sold with a few exceptions. Now it is RCI based with ozone and ions. The RCI does the majority where the main use of the ozone is for sanitizing in away mode or an added kick for odors. The FTC suit was aginst Alpine but named Ecoquest and we now claim almost everything that got Alpine in trouble. Alpine is still a company and not a part of EQ. We have enough testing to keep up out of court now.

  10. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL.
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by johnl View Post
    Consumer Reports is legit but the Ripoff Report is not. Heck, if you're unhappy with Wal-Mart you could submit a report claiming they're a scam on that site! How ironic that htey claim to uncover scams when they're a scam themselves, lol!
    WHY?

  11. #37
    Thank you Special Ed. That is very true. As is the consumer affairs is not consumer reports and my point was the majority of the units sold are the Fresh Air and other RCI based products. That was written back when the living Air Classic which was just ozone and ions was the main product (an Alpine product). Consumer reports doesn't report on Ecoquest because they don't market in chains or stores. Mike Jackson started with nothing and made a future for himself with Shaklee and Alpine and then created Ecoquest. He does it to show people how to be successful and will never allow it to be sold in outlets.

    You can't blame a company for business owners that had amazing results in their own lives and shared it. We can say everything except it heals you because it doesn't. Obviously if you are sick from something in your environment and you remove it it would make sense for the symptoms to go away. Everything else we are allowed to say, such as, kills mold bacteria and viruses and reduces bioaerosols by more than 90% in 60 min. Destroys smoke and tabacco smoke, removes odors...i might be missing a few but that is what we can say...oh and it cleans the air too. Most of the FTC stuff and those reports were written in 01-02. We have a drastically different line of products now...and a few of the old....and enough prof for the FTC to not think twice about our newer products. A big part of the Alpine suit wasn't that the machines didn't do what they say, but that Alpine had no proof they did. Eventually some of those same products were proven to destroy smoke and odors and the ionizers dropped particles....It took a while. The sad part is it pretty much bankrupted a company that really had decent products. Granted they did have their glitches So i'm sure EQ probably got a deal on Alpines Marketing rights.

    We have been in good standing with the Better Business Bureau since 03.
    Last edited by NHMoldInspector; 03-02-2007 at 08:06 PM.

  12. #38
    It looks like I should provide more details on the article on the RCI product based on the results from the University of Cincinnati Study. For those of you who are interested it has been posted on a site at www.airresourcesbrief.com/cincinnati.htm.

    I am sure the professionals who conducted this research are excellent. It is just that when you produce a study the data is open to interpretation by others. All of the conclusions in the article are based on the data in the study.

    First, it looks to me like the RCI devices generate a significant level of ozone when used in the ionization mode. The quote from the study is that they raised the ozone level from 0 to 50 ppb in a 10'X11'X8' chamber in 35 minutes. The quote from the article is that they raised the level of ozone in the 3'X4'X8' chamber from 0 to 50 ppb in 5 minutes. It looks like the criticism was that we said "over" 50 ppb in the article. It stands to reason that given the steep rise in ozone levels that this is not an unreasonable statement. Should we believe that the ozone levels stopped at this 50 ppb level. A reasonable person knows that the levels would have exceeded the 50 ppb just a few seconds after the last measurement. The real question is what would have happened to the ozone levels in these chambers after 60 minutes. or 120 minutes or if they were operated continuosly. The conclusion was that these devices could reach unsafe levels of ozone in small poorly ventilated rooms. Sounds pretty reasonable to me based on the test data.

    The second conclusion in the article was that the devices were relatively ineffective at removing particles. For example, using NACL as the challenge particle the device removed particles in the 10'X11' chamber at the rate of 40 cubic meters per hour. 40 cubic meters is 40 times 35.2 cubic feet per cubic meter or 1,408 cubic feet per hour. Divide this by 60 minutes and we come up with a cfm of 23.47. The professionals that visit this site know that this is ridiculously low. It does not exceed the average infiltration rates in a home. The conclusions that a standard filter could remove more 2 micron sized particles in an entire home with just 2.5 ach than the RCI device is accurate. The statement that the average stand alone HEPA could remove many times this level is also accurate.

    No one is disputing the fact that ionization has the potential to pull particles from the air. It is just that the data clearly shows that ionization is relatively ineffective. Claims otherwise are inaccurate.

    The final point in the article concerns hydroxyl radicals and other free radicals. The quotes on our website are directly from the study itself. If the statements in the study are correct and the free radicals are actually attacking the cells of the bacteria and viruses, this is a big potential problem. All you have to have is a single free radical enter a human cell and you generate a cascading effect. The free radical contains an unpaired electron. It reacts with other molecules through what you call "oxidation." The problem is it leaves the new molecule that has been oxidized with an unpaired electron. This molecule then becomes a radical and reacts with another molecule and so on sometimes through thousands of molecules before it is finally quenched. This is why free radicals can be so damaging to human health and have been linked to so many diseases.

    No I think the original article should stand as written. There is not anything deceptive in it. On the contrary I am already hearing deceptive conclusions on the product from people selling it. These conclusions are certainly not supported by the data.

  13. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    460
    lol yeah they could very well be, like i said that was just the first two that came up.
    And the comment about Alpine being the original company like i said that statement is made on quite a few different sites so one would assume that it is correct.
    My biggest problems with this equipment are:
    (A) I have never seen a salesman yet that uses actual facts to make the sale (Every one that i have seen has used scare tactics, if you dont have one your wiener will get moldy and fall off)

    (B) If the product actually did half of what they claim, why is it not out of multi level marketing and into mainstream sales? (even the thighmaster is sold at Walmart)

    (C) They do not actually fix poor IAQ, they mask it, read robo's sig line, if you smell that bad wash, ozone is nothing more than a chemical scent with potentially harmful side effects.

    I think they work a lot on the placebo effect, if you tell someone that using product X will make their (insert ailment here) better, 8 out of 10 people are going to say "you know, i think it is a bit better" (Penn&Teller did a show on this topic that was pretty amusing.)
    If you can make a living selling placebos hey more power to you, (duct cleaning is how big a business?)

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event