Device Produces Ionic Wind To Create Virus Free Safe Space

"When social distancing isn't an option."

They quote a bunch of summaries about health effects of contaminated air from the pertinent scientific articles, implying they may be talking about this product. Looks phony.

https://www.resprself.com/

Almost 160 simoleons.

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 10:01:33 AM UTC-7, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

"When social distancing isn't an option."

They quote a bunch of summaries about health effects of contaminated air from the pertinent scientific articles, implying they may be talking about this product. Looks phony.

https://www.resprself.com/

Almost 160 simoleons.

Well, it might work. There were air-handler solutions to some old smoke-filled
taverns that actually DID remove the aroma rather effectively, so particles in
airborne form can be removed by that kind of tech.

It's better, though, if you construct entire rooms like a fume hood, and keep a steady
airflow through your filters. And maybe every day ramp up the temperature to
170 F (which destroys COVID-19 in a matter of minutes). That way, no human
contact is necessary with the viable virus during surface cleaning.

 

[Corvid]

On 04/19/2020 10:01 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

"When social distancing isn't an option."

They quote a bunch of summaries about health effects of contaminated
air from the pertinent scientific articles, implying they may be
talking about this product. Looks phony.

https://www.resprself.com/

Almost 160 simoleons.

As a sucker who once owned an Ionic Breeze
(Just for a few days! And it wasn't my fault!),
soon as I saw Ionic Wind I thought "Uh-oh, it's Baack!"

See the models, any of them, wearing their R95 Respirators in the pics?
There's no protective 5 cubic foot bubble around their heads. The ions
apparently work with the electret component of the R95.

https://www.resprself.com/pages/research
And I see the same author, S. A. Grinshpun, listed on most of the studies.

Study: How To Increase The Protection Factor
*Provided By Existing Facepiece Respirators*

"The emission of unipolar electric ions *in the vicinity of the mask*
was found to decrease the particle penetration *through the filter* ..."

The study by Indoor Air used a "breathing zone of a human manikin, which
was placed in a relatively small (2.6 m3) walk-in chamber" and concluded
that the pieces of junk were particularly efficient
"inside confined spaces with a relatively high surface-to-volume ratio."
Hmm, so surface area plays a role. That could explain the unhappy Ionic
Breeze reviews I saw that mentioned airborne grime deposited onto
drapes, walls, furniture.

Look at this funny sentence from International Journal of Molecular
Sciences:
"The system may be used to freshen indoor air and reduce PM
concentration in addition to enriching oxygen content and indoor
decoration at home, school, hospital, airport, and other indoor areas."
Really, enriching indoor decoration!
Their whole Abstract was written by a dolt.

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 2:07:46 AM UTC-4, Corvid wrote:

On 04/19/2020 10:01 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
"When social distancing isn't an option."

They quote a bunch of summaries about health effects of contaminated
air from the pertinent scientific articles, implying they may be
talking about this product. Looks phony.

https://www.resprself.com/

Almost 160 simoleons.

As a sucker who once owned an Ionic Breeze
(Just for a few days! And it wasn't my fault!),
soon as I saw Ionic Wind I thought "Uh-oh, it's Baack!"

See the models, any of them, wearing their R95 Respirators in the pics?
There's no protective 5 cubic foot bubble around their heads. The ions
apparently work with the electret component of the R95.

https://www.resprself.com/pages/research
And I see the same author, S. A. Grinshpun, listed on most of the studies..

Study: How To Increase The Protection Factor
*Provided By Existing Facepiece Respirators*

"The emission of unipolar electric ions *in the vicinity of the mask*
was found to decrease the particle penetration *through the filter* ..."

What that will do is to reduce the life of the electret as the ions come into contact with the mask.

The study by Indoor Air used a "breathing zone of a human manikin, which
was placed in a relatively small (2.6 m3) walk-in chamber" and concluded
that the pieces of junk were particularly efficient
"inside confined spaces with a relatively high surface-to-volume ratio."
Hmm, so surface area plays a role. That could explain the unhappy Ionic
Breeze reviews I saw that mentioned airborne grime deposited onto
drapes, walls, furniture.

A high surface area to volume just means a small space.

Yes, charge particles are attracted to anything. But the device can't generate "unipolar charged ions" without something taking the opposite charge. Is that you? Does this device run all day building up a humongous static charge which is discharged when you turn it off... through YOU? Maybe it has a thin ground strap that runs down to your shoes and you have to walk on a conductive floor like in electronic assembly?

Look at this funny sentence from International Journal of Molecular
Sciences:
"The system may be used to freshen indoor air and reduce PM
concentration in addition to enriching oxygen content and indoor
decoration at home, school, hospital, airport, and other indoor areas."
Really, enriching indoor decoration!
Their whole Abstract was written by a dolt.

Yes, but it was intended to be read by other dolts.

Reading this thing is like listening to Trump at a pandemic press conference. Or Larkin talk about... well, most things. Pure BS.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky C]

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 1:01:33 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

"When social distancing isn't an option."

They quote a bunch of summaries about health effects of contaminated air from the pertinent scientific articles, implying they may be talking about this product. Looks phony.

https://www.resprself.com/

Almost 160 simoleons.

Are you joking? How the hell could this prevent contact with pathogens? It might be effective when used in conjunction with the cone of silence.

What they don't mention is the device is almost certain to produce low levels of ozone which is a known mutagen and a suspected carcinogen and is very likely to exacerbate any respiratory problems you or anyone near you might have.

I'm pretty certain they won't allow them to be used in any medical facility. They should be banned.

The devices used to remove smoke from bars draw massive amounts of air over charged plates which attract the smoke particles due to electrostatic attraction. They do not create ions and do not create ozone. Totally different operation.

The tiny device is spewing more crap that you don't need and is ineffective at warding off any disease. Notice the disclaimers they provide about not preventing any disease. That is the one thing they aren't lying about.

"The SeLF generates a powerful ionic wind, creating an indoor 5 cubic foot shield of more than 7 million unipolar charged ions that prevents particles from entering your breathing space."

This claim of preventing "particles from entering your breathing space" might be actionable. Of course they don't say "all" particles. So I guess if it prevents two "particles from entering your breathing space" it is an accurate claim.

There's a wind alright. It is being blown out somebody's ass.

Why would any intelligent person give this the time of day?

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Corvid]

On 04/20/2020 12:10 AM, Ricky C wrote:

> A high surface area to volume just means a small space.

And/Or far-from-spherical space.

Yes, charge particles are attracted to anything. But the device
can't generate "unipolar charged ions" without something taking the
opposite charge. Is that you? Does this device run all day building
up a humongous static charge which is discharged when you turn it
off... through YOU? Maybe it has a thin ground strap that runs down
to your shoes and you have to walk on a conductive floor like in
electronic assembly?

That sounds like Skybuck 2000's place.
He gets shocks, and his appliances get fried, all the time.
He got new plastic shoes + new sofa = ZAP!!

> Or Larkin talk about... well, most things. Pure BS.

He seems like a competent guy who's messed up by a rosy "faith" in
everything. I remember my Marine Biology teacher talking about large
Sunfish. Oblivious, always a dumb smile on their face. Hit one with your
boat and it bobs around smiling at you.

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 1:16:29 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 12:10:56 AM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:

Yes, charge particles are attracted to anything. But the device can't generate "unipolar charged ions" without something taking the opposite charge.

It's easy to make long-lived (+) ions but (-) ions are less stable. The ions are attracted to
dust/droplets/viruses and stick them to nearby surfaces. So are loose electrons, but
they drift faster and colllide/collect less. The 'unipolar' makes some sense.

Attraction means the collected particles are sticky, so there ought to be a filter present to
take advantage of that. That's why you need airflow. And you want to dispose of (or
at least disinfect) the filters often. The airflow in a room-sized space is the
most important missing element in the scheme. There's just not a lot of breeze
in an ionic breeze.

Could you explain to me how a negative ion can be less stable? Both polarities are attracted to dust by induced electrostatic polarization of the dust. But that doesn't eliminate the charge.

The point is the device can't create either ion without collecting the opposite charge somewhere. Where does that charge go? If this were a stationary generator (mains powered) the charge would go to ground. In a battery operated device there's no place for it to go and it would build up a huge static voltage over time. Potentially this could be a dangerous amount of charge. Either that or the device would just stop generating ions.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 12:10:56 AM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:

> Yes, charge particles are attracted to anything. But the device can't generate "unipolar charged ions" without something taking the opposite charge.

It's easy to make long-lived (+) ions but (-) ions are less stable. The ions are attracted to
dust/droplets/viruses and stick them to nearby surfaces. So are loose electrons, but
they drift faster and colllide/collect less. The 'unipolar' makes some sense.

Attraction means the collected particles are sticky, so there ought to be a filter present to
take advantage of that. That's why you need airflow. And you want to dispose of (or
at least disinfect) the filters often. The airflow in a room-sized space is the
most important missing element in the scheme. There's just not a lot of breeze
in an ionic breeze.

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 10:23:28 AM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:

> Could you explain to me how a negative ion can be less stable? Both polarities are attracted to dust by induced electrostatic polarization of the dust. But that doesn't eliminate the charge.

It's proportional-counter action; there's a heavy ion, and a light electron, created,
and the electrons move faster so discharges to the ground quicker. There's a two-decays
exponential current seen.

The point is the device can't create either ion without collecting the opposite charge somewhere.

Charges are attracted to metal (the polarization of metals makes an equal and opposite
'image charge' in effect). So the fast-moving negative charges the metal plate (or any
similar collector) rather than continuing to sweep up dusty bits.

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 5:28:45 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 10:23:28 AM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:

Could you explain to me how a negative ion can be less stable? Both polarities are attracted to dust by induced electrostatic polarization of the dust. But that doesn't eliminate the charge.

It's proportional-counter action; there's a heavy ion, and a light electron, created,
and the electrons move faster so discharges to the ground quicker. There's a two-decays
exponential current seen.

Doesn't the electron impact a molecule from the air before reaching "ground"? Would it not combine with an air molecule? Then it is moving at the same speed as positive ions.

Even if the electron doesn't collide and combine with an air molecule, it still results in the same number of ions emitted. The fact that they move faster doesn't mean they are in any way less effective at attaching to the viral carriers. Their smaller size than an air ion is meaningless in the context of intersecting a much larger target.

The point is the device can't create either ion without collecting the opposite charge somewhere.

Charges are attracted to metal (the polarization of metals makes an equal and opposite
'image charge' in effect). So the fast-moving negative charges the metal plate (or any
similar collector) rather than continuing to sweep up dusty bits.

What metal plate? The point is in such a small device if there is no charge drained away it will build up to a point of having such a high static voltage it would no longer be able to emit ions. They would all make U turns and never leave the device.

Think Van de Graaff generator. Or maybe you are familiar with a device called a vacuum tube. Electrostatic fields completely control the current flow and a small voltage on the grid can shut off the current to the plate. At least there the emitting electrode is connected to the rest of the circuit. Cut the wire from the cathode and see how long current flow through the tube. That is this ion emitter.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:52:10 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 5:28:45 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

It's proportional-counter action; there's a heavy ion, and a light electron, created,
and the electrons move faster so discharges to the ground quicker. There's a two-decays
exponential current seen.

Doesn't the electron impact a molecule from the air before reaching "ground"? Would it not combine with an air molecule? Then it is moving at the same speed as positive ions.

No, an 'extra' electron doesn't spontaneously bond to a molecule. The only attractive forces
are weak, and a collision that conserves both energy and momentum is usually a bounce.

> Even if the electron doesn't collide and combine with an air molecule, it still results in the same number of ions emitted.

The lifetime of the ion, not the birth rate, is the issue.

The fact that they move faster doesn't mean they are in any way less effective at attaching

Yes, of course it does; the key element of collecting particles from the air is dumping them
in a safe place, and the electron can get to that collector site quickly, not wandering in
random thermal motions. Slow ions do more work hours.

Charges are attracted to metal (the polarization of metals makes an equal and opposite
'image charge' in effect). So the fast-moving negative charges the metal plate (or any
similar collector) rather than continuing to sweep up dusty bits.

What metal plate? The point is in such a small device if there is no charge drained away it will build up to a point of having such a high static voltage...

The point of the exercise is to put the virus particles somewhere safe; I'd use a metal collector
because it's cheap, takes sterilization temperatures, and attracts charges.
If you don't provide a collector, ion generation causes odd wall stains.

> Think Van de Graaff generator. Or maybe you are familiar with a device called a vacuum tube. Electrostatic fields completely control the current flow...

Wrong model; the very small particles suspended in air are in brownian motion, the 'current flow'
is a slow drift inside a larger dilute gas of mainly non-charged particles.

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 11:05:34 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:52:10 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:
On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 5:28:45 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

It's proportional-counter action; there's a heavy ion, and a light electron, created,
and the electrons move faster so discharges to the ground quicker. There's a two-decays
exponential current seen.

Doesn't the electron impact a molecule from the air before reaching "ground"? Would it not combine with an air molecule? Then it is moving at the same speed as positive ions.

No, an 'extra' electron doesn't spontaneously bond to a molecule. The only attractive forces
are weak, and a collision that conserves both energy and momentum is usually a bounce.

How do you know this?

Even if the electron doesn't collide and combine with an air molecule, it still results in the same number of ions emitted.

The lifetime of the ion, not the birth rate, is the issue.

I don't agree. Consider rain. What matters is how many drops there are total crossing your outline, not how fast they do it.

The fact that they move faster doesn't mean they are in any way less effective at attaching

Yes, of course it does; the key element of collecting particles from the air is dumping them
in a safe place, and the electron can get to that collector site quickly, not wandering in
random thermal motions. Slow ions do more work hours.

You aren't making sense now. What collector site??? Once the ions leave the devices nothing they contact will be affected by the microscopic field from the device. If anything, they will be pushed away from the device toward the user's face.

Where is the collector site?

Charges are attracted to metal (the polarization of metals makes an equal and opposite
'image charge' in effect). So the fast-moving negative charges the metal plate (or any
similar collector) rather than continuing to sweep up dusty bits.

What metal plate? The point is in such a small device if there is no charge drained away it will build up to a point of having such a high static voltage...

The point of the exercise is to put the virus particles somewhere safe; I'd use a metal collector
because it's cheap, takes sterilization temperatures, and attracts charges.
If you don't provide a collector, ion generation causes odd wall stains.

I don't have any idea what you are talking about. We were discussing the Ionic Wind device. You seem to be making your own. Where would you put this collector?

You do realize this is a worn device, right? The collector would have to be in the device drawing the virus particles to the person!

Think Van de Graaff generator. Or maybe you are familiar with a device called a vacuum tube. Electrostatic fields completely control the current flow...

Wrong model; the very small particles suspended in air are in brownian motion, the 'current flow'
is a slow drift inside a larger dilute gas of mainly non-charged particles.

You still are not making sense. The brownian motion is irrelevant and vastly overpowered by the air currents and motion of the people. There is no current flow because there is only a cathode and no plate. This device is junk.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 9:51:54 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 11:05:34 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:52:10 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:

No, an 'extra' electron doesn't spontaneously bond to a molecule. The only attractive forces
are weak, and a collision that conserves both energy and momentum is usually a bounce.

How do you know this?

From ion sources used for accelerators. It's easy to knock an electron off,
hard to make one stick.

Even if the electron doesn't collide and combine with an air molecule, it still results in the same number of ions emitted.

The lifetime of the ion, not the birth rate, is the issue.

I don't agree. Consider rain. What matters is how many drops there are total crossing your outline, not how fast they do it.

Raindrops aren't suspended and undergoing random motions in addition to moving
downward. Fast drops take less hits from the side before they hit ground.

Wrong model; the very small particles suspended in air are in brownian motion, the 'current flow'
is a slow drift inside a larger dilute gas of mainly non-charged particles.

You still are not making sense. The brownian motion is irrelevant and vastly overpowered by the air currents and motion of the people.

The streamline flow of air currents doesn't make particles bump. Brownian motion isn't
airflow, it's thermal jostling.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2020-04-24 11:39, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 9:51:54 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:
On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 11:05:34 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:52:10 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:

No, an 'extra' electron doesn't spontaneously bond to a molecule. The only attractive forces
are weak, and a collision that conserves both energy and momentum is usually a bounce.

How do you know this?

From ion sources used for accelerators. It's easy to knock an electron off,
hard to make one stick.

I confirm that. It's an important consideration in accelerator
design. We went through a major upgrade of the PS accelerator
at CERN for that reason in the 1980s. Better vacuum system,
removal of outgassing components and lots of other things.
Even so, partially ionized ions only survive for seconds.
Once they are fully ionized, things get easier.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:39:11 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 9:51:54 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:
On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 11:05:34 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:52:10 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:

No, an 'extra' electron doesn't spontaneously bond to a molecule. The only attractive forces
are weak, and a collision that conserves both energy and momentum is usually a bounce.

How do you know this?

From ion sources used for accelerators. It's easy to knock an electron off,
hard to make one stick.

So you are talking about high energy electrons in a vacuum?

Even if the electron doesn't collide and combine with an air molecule, it still results in the same number of ions emitted.

The lifetime of the ion, not the birth rate, is the issue.

I don't agree. Consider rain. What matters is how many drops there are total crossing your outline, not how fast they do it.

Raindrops aren't suspended and undergoing random motions in addition to moving
downward. Fast drops take less hits from the side before they hit ground.

What are "hits from the side"??? Ions travel very, very short distances before hitting air molecules. As you say, they exhibit Brownian motion. The time it takes for the bullet to travel out of range is not the issue. Each ion will impact the same number of objects on its path away from the user.. So both types of ions have the same chances of impacting a virus containing mucus micro-droplet.

Or are you suggesting the ions are the relatively stationary particle and the mucus droplet is the fast moving bullet?

Wrong model; the very small particles suspended in air are in brownian motion, the 'current flow'
is a slow drift inside a larger dilute gas of mainly non-charged particles.

You still are not making sense. The brownian motion is irrelevant and vastly overpowered by the air currents and motion of the people.

The streamline flow of air currents doesn't make particles bump. Brownian motion isn't
airflow, it's thermal jostling.

Yes, but not relevant to the discussion in differentiating fast and slow ions. They ALL move in zig zag paths impacting air molecules and jetsam very often.

This is getting old. None of it is relevant to the fact that the generator has no way of disposing of the opposite polarity ions that are not emitted.. They would pile up on the unit giving it a very high electrostatic charge like a Van de Graaff generator pulling the emitted ions right back with no effect on the virus.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 10:46:34 AM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:39:11 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

The streamline flow of air currents doesn't make particles bump. Brownian motion isn't
airflow, it's thermal jostling.

Yes, but not relevant to the discussion in differentiating fast and slow ions. They ALL move in zig zag paths impacting air molecules and jetsam very often.

Sure. And because electrons are light, a small E-field accelerates them to drift
toward collection faster between collisions. The same E-field doesn't provide
for (+) ion collection at the same average-drift-velocity. Electrons have
high mobility, positive ions have low mobility. Just like electrons and holes
in a semiconductor.

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 2:29:31 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 10:46:34 AM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:39:11 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

The streamline flow of air currents doesn't make particles bump. Brownian motion isn't
airflow, it's thermal jostling.

Yes, but not relevant to the discussion in differentiating fast and slow ions. They ALL move in zig zag paths impacting air molecules and jetsam very often.

Sure. And because electrons are light, a small E-field accelerates them to drift
toward collection faster between collisions. The same E-field doesn't provide
for (+) ion collection at the same average-drift-velocity. Electrons have
high mobility, positive ions have low mobility. Just like electrons and holes
in a semiconductor.

There is no E-field outside of the device and there is no collector.

I think you don't understand the device we are discussing. It's worn around the neck like an amulet warding off the evil spirits. It has no electrical contact with anything other than possibly the person wearing it which would be a bad thing.

Both ions have the same probability of impacting and affecting a virus laden droplet. I've described the process in detail. You seem to deflect and discuss irrelevant details as if they alone determined the result.

Both types of ions have the same impact which is to draw virus laden micro-droplets slowly, oh so slowly toward the person wearing the device.

Are we done with this?

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 12:01:07 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:

There is no E-field outside of the device and there is no collector.

I think you don't understand the device we are discussing. It's worn around the neck like an amulet warding off the evil spirits. It has no electrical contact with anything other than possibly the person wearing it which would be a bad thing.

I'm sure we're not discussing the same thing; I'm not concerned with A device,
I was describing a class of devices. Electrical fields ARE involved in any ionic
device used as a filter. Trying to use 'ionic breeze' as an air mover was not
what I was addressing.

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 6:42:17 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 12:01:07 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:


There is no E-field outside of the device and there is no collector.

I think you don't understand the device we are discussing. It's worn around the neck like an amulet warding off the evil spirits. It has no electrical contact with anything other than possibly the person wearing it which would be a bad thing.

I'm sure we're not discussing the same thing; I'm not concerned with A device,
I was describing a class of devices. Electrical fields ARE involved in any ionic
device used as a filter. Trying to use 'ionic breeze' as an air mover was not
what I was addressing.

Ok, try looking at the subject and check out the first post to see what I was discussing. Check out the post you first replied to and you will see your discussion was a left turn.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209