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
I've seen many UV bulbs last longer than two years, but that's not the issue I'm talking about. See, most - if not all - UV bulbs efficacy is minimal at one year but at two years of run time they are ineffective & useless whether they still light up or not.
You quoted it saying it went over 50 ppb when the report stated that it maintained 50 ppb when used continuously. The report also said it removed 90% of bioaerosols in 60 minutes. Everyone needs to just read the report. Ozone breaks down rapidly so it isn't an impossibility to gage the rate of production and the rate of breakdown enough to keep it safe. Plus the RCI actually breaks down the ozone into other oxidisers. A free radical is gone so fast it can't make it to your body. They disappear so fast the can't measure them, only their oxidised tracks. As for the ionization it went at a rate of 25 in 60 minutes to something like 250 withing the next 60...so a measurement 2 hrs later wouldn't show what consistent use would when your atmosphere is saturated with ions. Anyway if I have to look up the Ionization proof from Poland again I am going to hang myself.
Give it up breatheasy. It is a good product and if you read the lab for what it says and not what you were hoping then you would be agreeing with me.
Spec-Ed. You can tell when the RCI isn't working, it will smell different. I will ask about that and get back to you because I don't know. I have the commercial training book and it might be in their but it is pretty big so i'll just ask my MGR tomorrow.
Ed, I asked my manager this morning and he said that the bulb will last far longer than 3 yrs but it only maintains the frequencies needed for 25,000hrs then it starts to lose it's effectiveness. That was probably why RGF says it is a breakthrough in UV technology.
Any of you can call ecoquest and they will put you in touch with a dealer near you and you can get one to evaluate for free. So why not try it before you decide it doesn't work. Like I said before, why would NASA endorse it if it was junk...since they created the technology I would give the benefit of the doubt it isn't! Putting it on an official NASA site and saying it reduces exposure to harmful allergens counts as an endorsement. An unpaid one at that!
Last edited by NHMoldInspector; 03-03-2007 at 09:12 AM.
Good suggestion. Interested parties should read the study themselves. I think they will find the data supports the points that I have made. The 250 you are talking about is not the CADR. Check the math. The CADR for the Fresh Air Ecoquest device in a 10'X11'X8' chamber is less than 25 cfm.
I have never been able to locate the infamous Polish study. Please give us a cite so that I can research this. I suspect the study says that ionization can pull particles out of the air ranging from the very small to larger sizes. No one disputes this. The question is - what is the efficiency of this particle reduction? After all I could put a rock in the middle of a room and it would "capture" particles in all size ranges. It would not be very efficient. But I could make the same statement about my "magic rock" as you make about ionization. Perhaps this example is a bit extreme but it illustrates the point. Prove how efficient this ionization is at reducing particles or don't make the statement.
If this is the same study that makes the claim that it ionization pulls out condensation nuclei down to "one millionth of a micron" I would seriously question its validity. Here's why:
A micron is one millionth of a meter = .000001 meters
A nanometer is = .000000001 This is at the molecular level and where the new field of nanotechnology is working.
An Angstrom is = .0000000001. This is at the atom level. Scientists were excited last year when they were finally able to detect and measure atoms at this level last year.
Your condensation nuclei are = .000000000001. This is two orders of magnitude or 100 times smaller than an Angstrom.
How could someone claim ionization effectiveness on anything of this size?
As long as we reviewing some science let's talk about this argument that the RCI device creates free radicals that then turn into hydrogen peroxide as their primary byproduct. I smile everytime you post this because hydrogen peroxide is what is used to bleach hair. Perhaps your devices could be sold to tanning salons. That way you could have bleach blond hair and a nice tan at the same time. Sorry, the mind works in strange ways at times.
But let's take a look at the chemistry of what you are saying. You are saying that your device produces various free radicals that oxidize the bad stuff in the air like VOC's, bacteria, viruses, etc. Your claim is the main byproduct is hydrogen peroxide H2O2. The major problem is that most of the things you are oxidizing are organic molecules which means they consist of carbon (C), Hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) in various configurations. In your theory what happens to the Carbon atoms? The answer is you don't know. And that is the major problem in my mind of this technology. Insufficient data is available on the byproducts of these reactions. Studies that have been done (see Fisk, et al) have shown that one of the byproducts is formaldehyde (HCHO) a known carcinogen.
I would be much more comfortable if you said the main byproducts were carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). At least this would be theoretically correct since all organics will eventually break down into carbon dioxide and water. Unfortunately to reach this end state of carbon dioxide and water many organic molecules go through numerous chemical reactions. Many of the substances created in these reactions are very stable and long lasting. They include aldehydes, ketones, acids and other substances that could be much more dangerous to human health than what you oxidized to begin with.
I doubt whether any of the above will change your opinion on your products. On the other hand this post is not for you. This post as well as others I have written are for the benefit of others who read this thread and want to know more about this subject. For those who want to do some online confirmation research I would suggest doing searches with the names Nazaroff, Weschler, Corsi. These are all leaders in the field of IAQ and there are plenty of good papers on the Web on this subject. (One of the best is the study done by William Nazaroff for the California Air Resources Board on ozone reactions)
Last edited by breathe easy; 03-03-2007 at 01:43 PM.
If you have the actual study (even in Chinese, I will have it translated), that would be great. You can send it to the "contact" on our website. I will get it. On the other hand if you just have the press release or an article about this, don't bother. Frankly, I would have to see the actual data to believe it.
Formaldehyde is relatively difficult to measure accurately. Usually, someone needs to be set up specifically to measure it. Even though I have seen the claim that ROS's break down formaldehyde, I am very skeptical. I just have never seen any hard data to prove it. On the other hand there have been studies that have shown formaldehyde increases when the ROS have been exposed to various organic compounds. Some of the cases where the studies show increases in formaldehyde include with carpeting (Nazaroff and Morrison) and terpenes (scents) (Mason EPA). There is also data showing an increase in formaldehyde when ROS are exposed to cigarette smoke.
The real issue is that indoor air is a complex mixture of different elements, compounds and particles. When you add ozone or hydroxyl radicals or any of the other ROS to the air, you play Russian Roulette with the chemistry. To assume that you only obtain "good stuff" out of these reactions is wrong and potentially dangerous. The fact is one certainly creates aldehydes, ketones and acids that are often more hazardous than what was in the air originally.
Ya know Breatheasy you don't make it easy. Most testing isn't thrown out on the web, so what I sent you is a release with the test results from Bejing and it was tested on benxene and formaldehyde. Just because it isn't the original doesn't make it less true. I think after the FTC EQ wouldn't be dumb enough to fabricate lab results.
You are right though, I do tend to leave out a lot of that stuff because as I have said before I know very little about HVAC systems...
You do not know anything about HVAC which includes the “entire” system and the envelope, yet you are selling yourself to clients as the experts whereby making them think you are knowledgeable enough to access their environment. If you are incapable of evaluating the equipment that is what “truly” controls the environment of a structure, then you people have NO business in people’s homes giving them advice.
You are qualified to only change a filter and that is “all” when it comes to the total indoor system. There are enough hacks in this trade without the MLM’s stepping into it giving false advice when they are not properly trained on what actually controls the environment.
You had mold growing in your bathroom and you put a band aid on the real problem causing your issue which proves my point.
Or why does EQ have traing days specifically for HVAC techs
The snake oil company is going to "teach" us pros. LMAO
I have seen it all now. LMAO
Originally Posted by NHMoldInspector
EQ is the Largest Healthier living Technology company in the world and they got there in 6 yrs for a reason.
This crap is too funny. Just because you grow fast by having the latest snake oil does not make you a legend with a true solution to problems.
There is a HVAC manufacturer who lies through their advertising claiming they are the second largest fastest growing when the fact is they have been basically stagnant at the same market share for the past 10 years, but they keep “repeatedly’ lying in all their advertising otherwise.
I guess you are following the practice if you say it enough and repeatedly enough, they will believe you, hence your repeated long posts here shoveling this BS at us “pros”.