Ionizing Air Purifier
|Posted by: Smerd Dec 11 02, 04:22 PM GMT|
| I'm thinking of buying one of those ionizing air purifiers, like the one Sharper Image sells for $250. (Positive and negative rods attract particles and zap 'em.) I don't want to spend that much, though. I could swear someone here, a Floridian?, said he knew of a place where the same thing was $50. I think he was actually making and selling them.
Anyone recall who/where that is? Thanks.
|Posted by: Fungusmaximus Dec 11 02, 04:41 PM GMT|
|???? I dont know but when you find an Ionizer for 50$ let me know Ill take 4 of em.|
|Posted by: killdannow Dec 11 02, 08:58 PM GMT|
| it can be found at fmrc.com, there are no pics or anything. But the guy says its the best damn ionizer money can buy, supposed to filter to .01 microns, compared to .3 for a hepa. They are actually only forty dollars, and that includes shipping.
I have been wanting one or two of these for a while, and now that its christmas- well lets hope somebody loves me.
|Posted by: jayello Dec 11 02, 11:42 PM GMT|
| so whats the differnce between these higher priced ionizers and the one my $40 holmes hepa filter has in it?
|Posted by: killdannow Dec 12 02, 12:17 AM GMT|
| well its not really higher priced if your hepa/ionizer cost 40$. But its supposed to be a "dual element" type, which not only releases ions, but attracts them to the base , with an opposite charge. Im not sure, but i belive the sharper image ionizers use this, since they collect the dirt. Although for the price of one sharper image one, you could buy 6 of the fmrc ionizers.
If anyone wants to read more, the guy"stephen l peele?" has posted info on them many times at mycotopia.
|Posted by: HapplyDeranged Dec 12 02, 12:22 AM GMT|
|only problem with ionizers is the time it takes to do a whole room. a hepa can do a room 10X to the ionizers 1. not effective if your in for a "quick fix" to make a clean room. but if you want to run one in a smaller area like a closet.....id go ionizer.|
|Posted by: Smerd Dec 12 02, 05:14 PM GMT|
|Thanks. I found it. The URL's actually http://www.mushroomsfmrc.com/ but, as you say, there's no description at all. I found a thread at myco about it. He sells a lot of other interesting items as well. Thanks for getting me there... I knew I'd seen it.|
|Posted by: killdannow Dec 12 02, 07:02 PM GMT|
|woops, its been a while since i went there, but i thought thats what it was. well glad you found it, will you be ordering one?|
|Posted by: Mycota Dec 12 02, 07:22 PM GMT|
| Befor purchasing any ionizer, http://www.air-zone.com/ionsvsozone.html & read it (if you want).
If you want more info, do a google search on ionizers v hepa filters.
I trust a hepa filter to do the job. I don't trust an IONIZER to do the same job.
|Posted by: killdannow Dec 12 02, 07:50 PM GMT|
|i cant believe anyone who is selling such high price products, they have the motivation to say whatever, in whatever terms.|
|Posted by: Mycota Dec 12 02, 09:51 PM GMT|
I 100% agree, one has to adroitly read between the lines.
The point was, what they point out about IONIZERS.
Shit fire, I can point out tons of nasty shit about ozone generators, also.
The facts of the matter are this. Have you ever seen any IONIZER ~~
with a "Clean Air Delivery Rating".
You never will, because ionizers DON'T.
Hepa filters do.
Read on if you wish.
The actual effectiveness of an air purifier depends on a variety of factors including, the amount of air that the air purifier processes, the nature of the pollutant, and the rate at which the pollutant is being introduced into the environment.
Ionization by itself uses high voltage to negatively charge airborne particles. Since pure ionizers capture no particles, charged particles are simply released into the room where they tend to attach to surfaces. This means that ionizers may only have a temporary effect of eliminating particles from the air. The EPA also draws attention to the fact that these charged particles when inhaled may have a higher propensity to get trapped in our lungs and become harmful to our lungs.
This filtration technology uses ionization to charge dust particles and then metal plates or filter media, which carry an opposite charge to collect them. The starting efficiency of these systems tends to lie in the 50-80% range. When the collection surface gets dirty this efficiency drops significantly. Electrostatic precipitators can generate ozone.
1. Theoretical HEPA Efficiency vs. Actual System Efficiency
Due to the high efficiency, reliability and proven track-record, HEPA technology has become the industry standard for particulate filtration in critical environments, such as semi-conductor cleanrooms and hospital operating rooms. Recognizing the great marketing potential of the term "HEPA", many manufacturers are using it to project a high- performance image onto their room air purifiers. What most HEPA-based air purifiers manufacturers conveniently omit to tell the consumer, is that their air purifiers provide nowhere near the performance level of professional HEPA filter systems used in hospitals and cleanrooms.
Often consumers are misled about an air purifier's efficiency in removing pollutants. Statements like "effectively removes 99% of all airborne allergens" or "efficiently scrubs the room free of air pollutants", lead consumers to believe that these air purifiers remove virtually all of the impurities from the air in a normal indoor environment.
Claims about HEPA-based air purifiers often state 99.97% filtration efficiency. In most cases, this is also not true. The actual efficiency, for particles of 0.3 microns or larger, of many HEPA-based air purifiers sold today is below 80%. The "99.97%" refers to, in most cases, the theoretical efficiency rating of the filter paper that is used in the air cleaning device at 0.3 microns or larger.
The performance gap between HEPA-based room air purifiers and professional HEPA filter systems is mainly due to cutting corners in mass-production and profit maximization. There are a number of reasons why most HEPA-based room air purifiers do not achieve actual HEPA performance:
1. HEPA-rated filter media is not used. 2. The HEPA filter media gets damaged during the pleating process (HEPA media breaks easily). 3. There is leakage between the pleated HEPA filter pack and the filter frame. 4. There is leakage between the HEPA filter frame and the air purifier housing.
Only very few manufacturers state the actual overall efficiency of their device, and even fewer guarantee and certify their air purifiers.
2. Overstating Actual Air Delivery Rates Even the most efficient room air purifier in the world would not impact a room's air quality level, if it were not able to pass enough air through its filters. The amount of air that an air purifier is able to process (air flow rate) is usually expressed in cubic feet per minute (cfm). Consumers are often misled by exaggerated or false claims by manufacturers regarding air flow rates.
One common trade practice is to state the free-flow air handling capacity of the fan motor (i.e. without filters installed), rather than the actual air flow rate (i.e. with all filters installed).
Many manufacturers don't even make this vital air purifier statistic available to consumers. Instead, many state a suitable room size, without mentioning how many air changes per hour the air purifier would manage to produce in that size room.
Only very few manufacturers state the actual airflow rate of their device (with all filters installed), and even fewer guarantee and certify their air purifier's air flow rate.
3. ULPA is NOT Better than HEPA In an effort to differentiate air purifiers from the mass of HEPA air purifiers on the market, some manufacturers have introduced air purifiers, which supposedly use ULPA technology. ULPA stands for Ultra Low Penetration Air and is used in modern cleanrooms. The difference between HEPA and ULPA is the efficiency rating of the filter media. Typical HEPA filter media has an efficiency of 99.97% at 0.3 microns, whereas ULPA media has an efficiency rating in excess of 99.999% at 0.12 microns.
Stressing the higher efficiency at smaller particle size, manufacturers of ULPA-based air purifiers claim that these devices are superior to HEPA-based air purifiers. Unfortunately, this is a perfect example where the search for a better sales pitch has resulted in an inferior product, since the reverse tends to be the case. All things being equal, an air purifier that uses ULPA filter media will be less effective in reducing the particle concentration in a typical room, than the same air purifier equipped with HEPA filter media. And as with many HEPA-based air purifiers, many ULPA-based air purifiers come nowhere close to actually delivering 99.999% particle-free air.
While ULPA filter media has the potential to remove more particles than HEPA filter media, that advantage is lost in room air purifiers, due to the reduction of air flow caused by the denser ULPA filter media. ULPA filter media typically allow 20-50% less air to pass than HEPA filter media, resulting in fewer air changes per hour in a given room.
4. Ineffective Gas Phase Filtration In many cases room air purifiers are purchased to deal with gaseous contaminants and odors. So it comes as no surprise that most manufacturers claim to use some technology to reduce gases and odors.
The most common technology adopted by air purifier manufacturers for the removal of gaseous pollutants is activated carbon. While activated carbon in its granular form is unquestionably effective for the removal of many gaseous contaminants, most room air purifiers on the market today use carbon fiber pads, which are only impregnated with activated carbon dust. These filter pads contain only a few ounces of actual activated carbon and as a result, are essentially ineffective for the removal of gases and odors.
Some manufacturers claim that their activated carbon filter eliminates all gaseous pollutants and odors, a feat that is scientifically impossible. Specific gaseous contaminants need specific gas phase filtration technology. Activated carbon does not efficiently adsorb low molecular weight gases. For this reason, special sorbents are needed to effectively deal with pollutants, such as formaldehyde, hydrogen sulfide and ammonia.
Many room air purifiers that use granular activated carbon also use zeolite. Zeolite is a natural mineral, whose pore structure is supposed to be better suited for the removal for gaseous compounds like formaldehyde and ammonia. In fact, there is no reliable scientific evidence to show that zeolite is able to remove any gaseous compound better than specialty impregnated carbons or impregnated alumina. So why is Zeolite used? Zeolite is an inexpensive "filler" that is less expensive than activated carbon. Secondly, the concept of using two different substances to control gases and odors sounds quite promising to the unsuspecting customer.
5. Sacrificing Long-Term Performance While most tests and evaluations of air purifiers assess only air purifier performance during its first few hours of usage, the real test for air cleaning effectiveness is long term performance. Unfortunately, most manufacturers cut costs on features that would enhance long-term performance.
One standard industry practice is the use of ineffective pre- filtration. In HEPA based air purifiers, it causes the HEPA filter to become clogged at a rapid rate. This in turn reduces the air flow rate, thus resulting in fewer air changes per hour in a given room. This is a particularly serious issue, since some manufacturers inform their consumers that their HEPA filters will only need replacing every 3 to 5 years.
Insufficient pre-filtration, also, causes air purifiers with substantial granular activated carbon filters to quickly lose their gas phase adsorption potential. Dust particles - that should be trapped by pre-filtration - clog the miniscule pores of the activated carbon, and destroy its holding capacity to adsorb gases.
Another reason for poor long term performance of air purifiers is that some air cleaning technologies suffer drastic reductions in air cleaning efficiency without regular maintenance or frequent filter change.
Air purifiers with electrostatic precipitator technology experience drastic efficiency reductions as the collector plates become covered with particles. Air purifiers that use electrostatically charged fibers (electrete) also rapidly loose filter efficiency with particulate loading, especially in the presence of tobacco smoke.
6. Frequent and Expensive Filter Replacement While the initial purchase cost for many room air purifiers is relatively low, the cost of replacement filters can be substantial. Here are some reasons why many air cleaners require frequent and expensive filter replacement:
· Lack of effective pre-filters that protect activated carbon and HEPA filters from premature clogging. · Use of small filter cartridges with low holding capacity for pollutants. · Filter replacement instructions that base filter replacement intervals on time passed (e.g. every 6 months) rather than actual usage and degree of air pollution. · Combining several different filter stages in one filter cartridge, thus forcing the user to replace all filters at once, even if only one filter stage is used up.
7. Trying to be All Things to All People While many air purifier manufacturers offer several models, these models often vary only in size, rather than air cleaning technology. And since manufacturers like to have their product appeal to as many potential customers as possible, they sell one and the same unit as the ideal solution for pet allergens, pollen, mold spores, microorganisms, tobacco smoke, odors, traffic fumes and chemicals, etc. In fact, some manufacturers claim that by virtue of using a multitude of filter stages their air purifier is more effective. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of the air purifier suffers, because more filter stages mean higher air resistance and lower air delivery. Air purifiers that only contain filter stages matched to the user's requirements, offer superior filtration efficiency and air flow.,
Conclusion Industry organizations, like AHAM, have set out to establish some reference point for air purifier performance, they have not succeeded to make comparison shopping for air purifiers a simple task. AHAM's testing protocols do not evaluate actual particle retention, gas phase filtration or long-term performance of air purifiers.
So what are the lessons when evaluating air purifiers? Don't believe every claim made by manufacturers. Realize that a $80 air purifier will have serious limitations. Ask manufacturers to substantiate their claims with independent evidence. Check the underlying technology and investigate whether it has been properly implemented. Use tools that allow objective evaluation of air cleaning performance, such as laser particle counters, to check manufacturer's particulate efficiency claims and evaluate actual particle reduction.
Misleading claims regarding air purifiers and air filters have in the past led to decisions and orders of the Federal Trade Commission against manufacturers, and are likely to do so in the future unless manufacturers practice better self-restraint and self-regulation. Participating in sound business practices and making scientifically proven claims will restore lost faith in room air purifiers, allowing consumers to make informed purchase decisions - based not only on price but, also, on actual performance.
|Posted by: killdannow Dec 13 02, 01:24 PM GMT|
| good info, plenty of it.
mycota-- what happened to sharing some of your more basic compost recipes?
|Posted by: Mycota Dec 13 02, 03:16 PM GMT|
I will try to get some posted -- today -- later. Have lots to do & little keyboard time - right now.
I will start a new thread -- entitled "Compost recipes".
|Posted by: Smerd Dec 13 02, 04:23 PM GMT|
|Mycota (and others), thanks for the info. I think the dual ionizer's a no-go. Problem is, after reading everything, now I don't know which Hepa to go with. Sounds like a lot of those aren't that great either. Any recommendations? It's for a 12' x 10' room, mainly just for growing. Thanks.|
|Posted by: killdannow Dec 13 02, 06:21 PM GMT|
| thanks mycota, it was late that night- i thought you just forgot
|Posted by: Mycota Dec 14 02, 05:57 AM GMT|
Go with the highest rated hepa, you can afford. Simple as that.
If it is a matter of budget? Build one, if you are handy with tools.
You can find all sorts of filters at Home Depot and/or a zillion other places. You can also snag other great filter material, around, if you are ingenious. (Hint, look at EasyGardener brand polyspun landscape fabric @ Home depot)
You can get a big old sterio speaker case w/blown speakers -- for a few bucks & any thrift store, or just scrounge one up. They are easy to convert to a hepa filter case.
You can find squirrel cage fans at almost any furnace repair place for cheap.
Just use your ingenuity.
|Posted by: ShroomZilla Dec 14 02, 08:13 AM GMT|
| very nice info
|Posted by: Nanook Dec 14 02, 02:02 PM GMT|
| Ozone has a place in disinfecting large spaces such as grow rooms in between crops. My experience with ozone (see the http://www.nansnook.com/archives/44.html) would not have me recommending it during the grow. But in between crops, if you want to decontam a large area... Put an ozone generator in there and seal it up for awhile... Stay out. After a period of ozone exposure, ventilate with fresh air run through a HEPA
Note this is different than an ionizer
|Posted by: HapplyDeranged Dec 14 02, 03:24 PM GMT|
|i love this board things are way more technical than the others... . god bless the nook|
|Posted by: DirtyWOP Dec 14 02, 03:39 PM GMT|
| "Go with the highest rated hepa, you can afford. Simple as that"
yup. And don't waste your time messing around with the industrial corporate bloodsuckers trying to get a good deal either....pieces of junk usually with particle board frames and shitty effeciency. Go with fungi.com for the highest quality filters actually made for mushroom cultivation. Rated at 99.99%
|Posted by: fmrc Dec 14 02, 09:54 PM GMT|
| As you all seem to be struggling about Ions, and don't really understand
them......the dual element type is the best, and it takes out .001 micron
and does about 1,500 sq ft in a matter of seconds. FMRC sells them for $40.00
.....no other hidden charges.....and now the info....
The Dual Element Ion Generator....The new answer for clean sterile air.
Those of you who have held off buying HEPA filters, large fans, and expensive glove boxes are in luck. Not only do these items cost a lot, they also cost too much just to operate. However, one must have sterile conditions when working with rich agars, spores, and live cultures. Contamination is the number one reason for crop failure.
It is a constant battle against contaminants. Your lab, or growing room, is the battlefield. The enemy is not seen until it is usually too late. The air contains millions of bacteria, molds, and many other members of this enemy. They are all waiting to find somewhere to grow. The agar and grain media you prepare to grow mushrooms on will be most suitable for many of these waiting contaminants. To prove this, all you have to do is remove the lid from a petri dish while in a non-sterile area. After only just a short time, place the lid back. Within just two days, there will be growths on the agar surface. You have met the enemy face to face.
But now there is a new weapon. It is a new dual action air ionizer. It is better than any other because it not only generates (shoots) negative ions, but it also collects the contaminants (enemies) with a second element (positive charge) in it's base.
It shoots billions of negative ions (negatively charged atoms) that attach themselves in a magnet like fashion to any contaminant in the air which in turn attracts them to the closest positive surface. In this case, the positive base of the generator. If they are outside of the shielded area, they fall to the floor. The ones closer in are actually attracted to the special base collector of this new ionizer.
Does it really work? Place a clear glass bowl over the ionizer. Blow plenty of cigarette smoke into the bowl. The instant the ionizer is turned on, the smoke will be gone. It appears to be some kind of trick, but this weapon is for real.
This system is just about the only one which can remove and collect dust, pollen, bacteria, and yes, even smoke molecules! Remember that 90% of air pollution particles are under 5 microns. This special Ion Generator will remove particles as small as .001 micron! This is not a typo. .001 micron is correct. It constantly cleans the air. it has no filters to ever change. The contaminants are just held to the wooden base by magnetic force. You can wrap a piece of white handtowel around the base to see it working. Just discard the handtowel and replace with another to check for trash in your air. It cleans 1,500 cubic feet of room! When it is placed inside your home made glove box, you create the utmost sterile conditions. You actually are using "over kill". The flexible emitter allows you to direct ionization where you want it.
Now available in "220 Volt" For Overseas and European operations. If you are on 220 volt service, please specify the 22o volt generator when ordering.
This unit uses only 1 1/2 watts of electricity. Cost about $1.00 a year to run all the time. UL listed. EPA registered.
THE DUAL ELEMENT ION GENERATOR......$40.00
Overseas and Out of Country $50.00
Send request and payment made out to xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx No other hidden charges.
Only a dual set up "Negative & Positive" Ion Generator works for sterile control. There are many Ion Generators out there that are not "Dual Element"....this is important. Without the Positive charge on the base of the unit, there is no collection of the particles. What happens next is why people like Paul Stamets for many years said they do not work. Without the "Positive" element, the particles, contaminants, pollens and molds just continue to draw to each other. Then when these huge clumps of crap get heavy enough, they just fall down. Instead of getting 1 or 2 mold spores in your work, you get about 10,000 of them along with everything else when one of these clumps gets in on you. Other vendors have come along and scabbed off all of my research, selling the same units and acting like they did all the research. Some even give their own directions which are wrong. When used properly, there is no better way to get sterile air. There is no better price than FMRC's. I have put in over 2 decades researching all this. FMRC uses them in their labs, and we have sold the very same unit for sterile work done at the Environmental Protection Agency. You can spin your wheels all you want to....you can't clean the air any better, and you will spend more than $40.00. That is why I brought the Dual Element Ion Generator into home mushroom growing. I announced the findings about all this in the #06 "THE MUSHROOM CULTURE", The Journal Of Mushroom Cultivation (TMC) July 1985 Issue, and contamination in home growing projects started to disappear. Contamination is the number one reason for crop failure. With this Ion, anyone should be able to grow mushrooms. slp/fmrc
|Posted by: Nanook Dec 15 02, 01:29 AM GMT|
| I am going to leave this stand as an example of spam I do not approve of. It's your first post fmrc, please don't tell me you registered for the purpose of just advertising?
|Posted by: 420M Dec 15 02, 04:19 AM GMT|
|Posted by: killdannow Dec 15 02, 06:11 PM GMT|
| i definitely have to agree, I mean if you were posting over here at random times, or even just to say hi.
But if thats your first post- thats kinda raw.
|Posted by: HapplyDeranged Dec 15 02, 08:29 PM GMT|
|yes and no.......|
|Posted by: fmrc Dec 17 02, 12:58 AM GMT|
| I'm so sorry. I thought I was answering questions you people had. I
also thought you would be interested in saving money.
I did not mean to offend anyone. As I have.......and now feel unwanted,
perhaps it would be best to just let the struggling continue.
I came here because I read a post that I should come here and not listen
the the stupid hippie anymore.
Someone had sent me a private message. I was not able to receive it. Any further contact should be made to [email protected] as I will not return.
|Posted by: Nanook Dec 17 02, 01:14 AM GMT|
|Posted by: Smerd Dec 17 02, 11:56 AM GMT|
|Damn. Wish I hadn't brought it up. Still, I learned what I needed to know.|
|Posted by: bigslick Dec 17 02, 12:43 PM GMT|
| Nanook I think it was very rude the way you just jumped all over FMRC
I do not beleive its spam when its the answer to the topic posters question
|Posted by: Nanook Dec 17 02, 09:14 PM GMT|
| Noted bigslick. I was not being rude, just blunt in making my position clear. That was spam, no if, ands, or buts... And it was rude of him to come charging in here soliciting from us. If he had better sense...
But his response was clear. I have no place for people who push on their end, but run and hide when someone pushes back a little.
No loss here, fmrc would have problems getting along here over time too with this attitude.
|Posted by: OneDiaDem Dec 17 02, 09:52 PM GMT|
|That was a little off. I am glad you made that point Nan. All of the vendors here have posted, got to know the feel of the board. That sorta felt like a door to door salesman. I wish he/she could have understood your post a little better, and posted some more! AT least requested to link to us first at the very least!|
|Posted by: bigslick Dec 18 02, 09:25 AM GMT|
| Well what I believe spam to be IMO, is an unsolicited commercial
If a comercial is solicited, as was done at the start of this thread, then it is simply the fucking free flow of information
If smerd was in cohoots with FMRC then it is truly spam but if not I believe smerd wanted to know the information FMRC gave.
I may be wrong, I usually am
Shroom Glossary : HEPA Filters