Talk:Air ioniser

message: http://www.webmd.com/content/article/65/72756.htm?lastselectedguid=%7B5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348%7D  This article espouses the claim made in this article that negative ions like those after thunderstorms and beneath waterfalls increases well-being according to research.
Are there really two different kinds?  I think "creating air ions" is exactly the same thing as "creating ozone", since the ionic oxygen quickly recombines with oxygen molecules to produce ozone.  Then again, I don't really remember my chemistry. - Omegatron July 2, 2005 20:39 (UTC)
:Some of this is left over from what was clearly an advertisement for a particular ioniser that claimed it emitted a special kind of ions. This article could use a careful review by an editor knowledgeable in chemistry. -Willmcw July 2, 2005 21:42 (UTC)
There are indeed two types of ions: Cations, which have a positive charge, and anions, which have a negative charge. But there are more than two types of marketing nonsense...
I used to work on negative ioniser designs years ago, with a bias towards the medical applications of same, and though a lot of people would show an improvement in wound healing rate or reduction in wound scarring, some users would see no benefit, and some users would report a worsening of symptoms. For the latter group a limited degree of success was sometimes to be had by the trusty sci-fi standby of "reversing the polarity" to produce positive ions. This is fairly simple to do with the standard ioniser design that utilises a Cockcroft-Walton ladder to produce the required high voltages. -Midgemagnet Dec 6, 2005, 17:22 (GMT)
To correct Midgemagnet, it is Cations, which have a negative charge, and anions that have the positive charge -Guest Jun 2, 2006, 18:58 (GMT)
Not true. Midgemagnet's statement was alright: cations are positively charged and anions are negatively charged. These two are sometimes confused by people due to the fact that anions are attracted by anode, which is positively charged and cations are attracted to cathode, which is negatively charged.
Natrij 20:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of ions

message: Kronos Advanced Technologies supposedly makes fan replacements that work on this principle:
July 19, 2005
Electrostatic fluid accelerator for and method of controlling a fluid flow
May 3, 2005
Electrostatic fluid accelerator 
April 27, 2004
Electrostatic fluid accelerator for and a method of controlling fluid flow
January 7, 2003
Electrostatic fluid accelerator
Others:
Sharper Image Corporation
June 28, 2005
Electro-kinetic air transporter and conditioner device with enhanced housing configuration and enhanced anti-microorganism capability 
June 21, 2005
Electrode self-cleaning mechanism for air conditioner devices 
May 24, 2005
Personal electro-kinetic air transporter-conditioner
March 30, 2004
Electro-kinetic air transporter-conditioner
March 23, 2004
Electrode self-cleaning mechanism for electro-kinetic air transporter conditioner devices
Zenion Industries, Inc.
May 24, 2005
Method and apparatus to reduce ozone production in ion wind device
And the exact opposite device, a generator charged by wind:
June 3, 1980
Charged aerosol generator with uni-electrode source
:Patents don’t prove that something works. They’re just a form of protection for designs for inventions. It is even possible to patent the impossible. — NRen2k5 20:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patents 

message: Hakusa - Wiki addict: 08:31, September 10, 2005 (UTC) I was thinking of adding them, but thought I would check it in the discusion page first. I went to my school library and borrowed a Consumer's Report May 05. In it I read an artical about how ionizing air filters are hazzardous to your health. How while having one in a spacious house was better, but putting it close to a chair or social area like suggested could be very bad. Appereantly ions are toxic: somthing I remember from Bio I. Now I won't quote things from the entire magazine, and if you really care you can go and read the artical yourself. I did however notice that the article mentions the consumer's Report being unfavorable, but it doesn't mention what they said, or anything I just said. Why?
:I believe they create ozone, which is poisonous and kills bacteria, but is also poisonous and kills people.  :-)  It does say this in the article, but the article needs work.  If you could add some information from the CR artice that would be great. — Omegatron 14:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
:: Hakusa - Wiki addict: 20:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually read the paper copy of the report.  The beef was "unacceptably" high levels of ozone from a vast majority of the ionizers.  They also only marked two as decent filtration units out of however many they tested; I can't remember which specific models. Really good units have a ion collector behind the particle collection grid to pick up any stray charged particles. -- Toastydeath 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangers of Ionisers not mentioned. 

message: From chemistry lessons, it has been taught that ions are identified as those pesky 2-letter names with the 2+ and 3+ superscripted next to the metal name: Fe2+ with the 2+ superscripted to show iron ions, Cl- with the - superscripted to show chlorine ion. 
Ozone on the other hand is a molecule, created by a combination of 3 oxygen atoms (O3 with the 3 subscripted). Ozone is likely to generate radicals which have tendencies to be oxidizing agents or in other words be corrosive in manner. A short read up on the ozone layer in school textboks will give you a general understanding of what ozone is, how it is formed naturally and why the ozone layer is thinning out at areas above the polar caps. 
Whereas most air purifier companies use mechanical filtration, some air purifier companies believe that filtering the air inside the room is not enough. Instead, they manufacture air purifiers which generate negative ions to interact with the positive ions in the air. Someone must have figured out that pollutants in the air, including tobacco smoke and even dust, naturally has positive ion charges. Thus, the generation of negative ions to cancel out these hazardous pollutants, making them falling to the ground and out of the air we breathe in, is the right way ( at least to them ) to purify the air. 
Regarding ozone generators, the idea is that ozone is produced from a TiO2 plate by ultraviolet light. These ozone molecules have the oxidising power to kill off airborne pathogens which is good news for us and bad news for the microorganisms. However, since ozone has that effect on bacteria and viruses which are living organisms, wouldn't they have the same effect on humans as well? Is it safe for us humans to be exposed to these ozone molecules every single day for long hours every single time? Some of these air purifier users stated that they smell the bleached smell which they themselves identify as ozone, whilst others testify that all they smell is fresh air.
Hope this information helps. Sylee 06:15, October 16, 2005 (UTC)
Hakusa - Wiki addict: 04:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ionic vs ozone 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_ionizer <<see plz Ionizing Ionize
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Ionizer
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Ionaser  =RETURNS INVALID
Main Entry: ion�ize
Variant:  or chiefly British ion�ise /'I-&-"nIz/ (probably brits editing?)
Results 1 - 9 of about 10 for ionaser. Google
Results 1 - 35 of about 293 for ionazer. Google
0 results for Iionasers Google
Results 1 - 100 of about 434,000 for ionizers Google
The name is Ionizer not "Ioniser",
and the article whould either point out that benefits of ionizing is zero,or there is some effect(like the bacteria case,they just end up on surface near ionizer)and if its better then air filters which clear the dust and not make it 
precipiate on surface.
This need some category on Junk science devices/paranormal effect devices/deus ex machina or something.I'd better buy a air filter( a purifier,hopefully HEPA compliant)
:"Ioniser" is the British spelling.  We use both spellings here, depending on the subject of an article and who contributed to it first. — Omegatron 15:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct word is "affects" in this context.  You might want to look at the usage note for "affect" in the American Heritage Dictionary. — Omegatron 15:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I replied on your talk page. — Omegatron 18:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Since you're new, you should know that in general it's better to just ignore people like this.  :-) — Omegatron 15:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  name wrong 

message: Despite dubious marketing claims to the contrary, ionic wind plays no part in the process, as may be evidenced by the tiny breeze near the ioniser emitter.
: How is the presence of wind evidence against ionic wind?? — Omegatron 18:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I don't get that either. However, we're talking about magnetic forces on the level of static on a CRT TV screen. It's not going to make wind. Jeremy RBC 03:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But "ionic wind" just means a movement of air caused by electrostatic forces.  Breeze or gust or whatever, if the air is moving, it is an ionic wind. — Omegatron 15:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking from experience with several of the products, most of these definitely do move air. That XJ2000 is a closed plastic shell, and moves so little air it could be considered negligible, however the Sharper Image one, and others that have an open design can kick out airflow in CFM comparable to a 200mA 12V computer fan. My only beef is the reports of NOx being produced. If that's even true, it is in such small amounts that it's not detectable through smell, which would lead me to believe it's below the cutoff level for a safe amount. Kel - Ex-web.god 10:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: I have a feeling this may come back later, so I want to go on the record here in Talk and clear up some terms regarding this recent wording change.  Ions are not necessarily single, lonely atoms - there are monatomic ions and polyatomic ions (ionized molecules such as SO4). However, molecules ARE particles.  They're just not fundamental particles, but they are particles nonetheless.  Just as hadrons (protons, neutrons) are particles, even though they are themselves comprised of yet other fermions and bosons.  Despite this, inserting "particle" was the accidental right thing to do, even if it was inserted for the wrong reasons.  - Toastydeath 09:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this context, "particle" means "dust or smoke particle", though.  Using particle again in that sentence is misleading. — Omegatron 18:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit: "air molecule" to "particle" 

message: I'm looking at my mother-in-law's Edenpure G-7 purifier manual and it has an O3 generator for purification and an additional "Anion" feature that turns off the "activated oxygen" generator and turns on the "negative" generator.  It just doesn't say what the negative generator is good for or when to use it.  The germicidal UV lamp is for sanitizing.  If my Father-in-law has compromised lungs, looks like they need to keep the O3 (ozone) generator turned off?76.213.174.119 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't use any ionic air purifier for someone with compromised lungs.  I would use a HEPA filter. -Toastydeath 15:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't quote me on it, but it sounds like something to neutralize stray O3 particles. You absolutely don't want to pump ozone into the room – it's toxic, and would only irritate your father-in-law's lungs further. Some companies will try to convince customers that ozone has benefits to your health...this is demonstrably false, and is rejected by all credible health organizations. Not that ozone is necessarily useless for the cleaning process (that's a separate debate), you just have to be 100% sure that none of it escapes the machine. Why risk it, though? HEPA works very well, is endorsed by ASHRAE and other governance boards, and is the best bet for cleaner air. Jeremy RBC 16:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home use application 

message: I was going to tag this with one of the cleanup tags, but decided to let someone more exper. do so. The section titled Ionic Air Purifiers starts with criticism in the 2nd sentence. Then there is a section titled Criticism which is a bulleted list. Would it not be more encyclopedic to either place all the criticism under the appropriate heading and re-write as a paragraph? Alternatively, both sections are rather sparse and could be combined into a coherent  discussion of the documented merits and criticisms. Additionally, the large(ish) section distinguishing air ionizers from ozone generators seems irrelevant. Is this a common error I'm totally unaware of? I've seen many an ionic air purifier, and I've yet to see or hear of an ozone generator. At most, I suggest a single sentence up top in the intro with a link to the ozone generator article. Superbeecat 19:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because that's like saying nerve gas is not generally toxic unless inhaled.  The sanitizing power of ozone is very well known and documented, and that is not under debate.  Ozone does not dissipate quickly enough to be used in an occupied space, and that is the issue.  It's also why lawsuits have been successful against companies marketing ozone-generating products to the public. - Toastydeath (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: The ionizer vs. ioniser issue lowers the quality of both the article and wikipedia.  You have a water ionizer article but an air ioniser article.  "Ioniser" is used 5 times in the article versus 9 times for "ionizer".
If the policies are preventing us from improving the quality of wikipedia then they should be ignored.
Perhaps there should be a british wikipedia version and an american english version.  One of them would be automatically derived.  Like en.wikipedia.org sites would be american english pages, and br-en.wikipedia.org pages would substitute british spellings except where not appropriate.
I feel changing everything to "ionizer" would improve the quality of wikipedia, and I will act (strongly) on this assumption before 2010 ends if I remain unconvinced otherwise.  Is there anything else I should be considering?
75.31.69.72 (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have standardised the spellings to British ones to match the article title. We shouldn't mix varieties of English in one article. JonCTalk 11:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ioniser 

message: Is it possible to say that Ion Generators like the Sharp Plasmacluster are not like ionisers, because they generate positive and negative ions. The product
This is a different technology which does not claim a negative ion benefit, but which claims to kill harmful airborn bacteria etc. and was developed to fight against bird flu.
Maybe this should have its own page.
--Wool Bridge (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Better than a you-tube video would be a WP:reliable source discussing the concept. Vsmith (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ion Generators 

message: What are the actual ions generated by these devices?  "Air ion" does not really have a meaning.  Is it hydride, oxide, nitride, ...?  Without naming the actual ion(s) created leads me to be very skeptical, especially since all of the literature I could find seemed to be more marketing than science and I did not find anything to even allude to what is really created.  I also started looking at the authors once I started getting skeptical and did not find any chemists.  --Jbaylor (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Air ion (afaik) means that the air molecule has gained or lost an electron. For instance, N2+ or O2- would be considered air ions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that a negative ion is an element or molecule with one or more electrons than protons, but air is a mixture of gasses, not an element or molecule.  It is 78.1% N2, 20.9% O2, 0.9 Ar, etc. (from Atmosphere_of_Earth).  That is why it is confusing for me to see "air ion".  Are you saying that the ions produced are the nitrogen and oxygen ions? I apologize if I am being dense, I am just trying to understand the concept beyond the marketing hype. Thanks --Jbaylor (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual Ions Generated 

message: Is it possible to make a reference to C A 'Coppy' Laws inventor of Ioniser? I want to link it to this article: Cecil Alfred 'Coppy' Laws
:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wool Bridge (talk • contribs) 17:07, 4 July 2013‎
:Quite possible. However, you should perhaps work on that article first as it currently has multiple problems. Vsmith (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know about all that, the major problem is the lack of WP:reliable sources. I've removed one ref to a commercial website as non-WP:RS and the google books ref is rather a problem - need a more specific ref to the book in question with page numbers. The Elanra website you mention above is a commercial website and we aren't here to promote their stuff. Laws seems like an interesting and quite likely notable guy, but better sources are required and we don't need a bio article used to promote a specific commercial product. Vsmith (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  C A 'Coppy' Laws inventor of Ioniser 

message: I read this in wisegeek and have seen it elsewhere. Not sure where the academic references will be.  http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-ionized-air.htm  
The idea behind using ionization to purify the air is generally credited to Alexander Chizhevsky, a 20th century Russian scientist who founded a field of study known as aero-ionization to research the effects of ionized air on living things. 
--Wool Bridge (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander Chizhevsky 

message: it is an unlucky choice of words to speak about air molecules as opposed to molecules of air (air is not a chemical name, since it is not a homogenous substance that could be descibed as a bunch of similar "air molecules", instead it is a mixture of different materials, each with their different molecules - or atoms in the case of argon and the other noble gas elements in the same column of the periodic table), just as there is no "beer atom" or "beer molecule". it would be more correct to speak about the (different) molecules that can be found in the mixture commonly called air. since i had no better idea how to reword it, i did not change the sentence, but added the hyperlink to the word "air" leading to the wiki article atmosphere where the reader can find out, what is the composition of air.
176.63.176.112 (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "air" molecules 

message: Out of curiosity, and because of its relevance to coronavirus, I did a Google search for ionizers in hospitals. Found a 2015 article. First below is the citation they recommended. Followed by the reference generated by DOI Wikipedia reference generator.
*Hagbom, M. et al. Ionizing air affects influenza virus infectivity and prevents airborne-transmission. Scientific Reports 5, 11431; doi: 10.1038/srep11431 (2015).
*
This interested me since I have allergies and sinus problems, and so I don't want ozone: "Moreover, this device does not produce detectable levels of ozone and can thus be safely used in all environments."
And of interest now with the COVID-19 pandemic: "Most importantly, we demonstrate that this technology can be used to prevent airborne-transmitted influenza virus infections."
This article is from 2015 and is more recent than any other reference currently used in the Wikipedia article. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ionizers in hospitals 

message: California Air Resources Board has this page listing air cleaners meeting their ozone limit of 0.050 parts per million:
*California Certified Air Cleaning Devices. From the article: 
All portable indoor air cleaning devices sold in California must be certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). To be certified, air cleaners must be tested for electrical safety and ozone emissions, and meet an ozone emission concentration limit of 0.050 parts per million. For more information about the regulation, visit the air cleaner regulation.
--Timeshifter (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  California Air Resources Board. Certified air cleaners meeting ozone limit 

message: Older style ionisers ran direct off the mains. A newer style ioniser, with an external power supply plug, or a low voltage power supply, is isolated, and may have a collection plate. The collection plate is positive and the emitter arrangement (needles) is negative, and neither side is earthed. These devices may have a slightly different naming style such as ionic air cleaner.
Older style ionisers often used a voltage multiplier system, built directly on the live side of the mains, connected to the ion emitter system. The return was connected to neutral (which is earthed by the mains wiring at the substation). This makes any earthed objects in the room the ion collectors - walls, floors, light fittings and so on. This I suppose caused the familiar shadowing effect on walls. In addition anyone standing in the room, earthed via his or her feet, was an ion collector, and experienced the negative ions in person. However this type of circuit seems to be no longer available in a newly purchased device. Finally the very oldest mechanical electrostatic ionisers were also earthed as well, via the body of the machine standing on the ground.
It seems to me that this apparently purely electrical difference is very material, for example to medical research.
By the way a newer device can be converted to work like an older one by earthing its collector plate. Conversely an older device can be converted to work like a newer device by running it off a 1:1 mains isolating transformer (as in an old style shaver socket for example). Also note that a USB powered ioniser is odd. If it is plugged into a laptop or mains USB power plug it will be isolated, but if it is plugged into a desktop PC or a car USB power socket it will be earthed! 
I have no direct sources for this discussion. I had to take devices apart or make connectivity measurements to understand this, but it is a standard electrical analysis.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisw1 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older earthed versus modern isolated Ionisers