Thank you again Chris and you are correct its not the most proper word to use but the words that you have used I agree with but the end result in the meanings are all the same. The pathogens are microbial are not able to infect, hens the term killed. Or are you a sick little boy that wants to play with de-activated, neutralised, atomised, vaporised etc.,pathogens and microbial. Because most people that I know would just want to be sure that they were unable to infect - Killed - Dead and useless to them. So the word can be used. You might want to be careful of the statements that you make about fraudulent nature.
I was being polite, up to the part where you just called me an idiot. You might want to rethink that and see if you little brain can understand what I typed.
Don't need a putri dish to calculate the effective irradiation.
As for labs, I have use of two local university bio level 3 labs, 1 level IIIb lab. Yes, and a whole host of lovely viri and bacteria to play with. Not to mention the supply of soft flurry animals to inject with toxic agents lol.
30 day no obligation account? Why I can purchase more types of UV-C tubes that you can imagine, all straight from the manufactures lol. Can beat ANY price you quote lol.
Tell you what, just out of interest, how much for a 380,000 mWatt/sec at 320 f/s unit? I built one myself, let's compare prices lol
You don't understand the technology well enough, a little knowledge is dangerous lol.
When you have done classified work on pathogen control, please tell me. Until then, you are the Organ Grinders Monkey trying to pedal stuff you don't understand lol
The Philips PPL lamps produced in Chain have a lower UV-C output.
The NACL coating is cheaper, hence the Chinese PLL-9's only have a relative output of 5.5 watts UV-C at 253.0 - 254.5 nm unlike there older made in Holland tubes which were at 7.2 watts.
I expect you think a Philips 9 watt UV-C PLL 9 actually has an output of 9 watts of UV-C????????
Why not Chris, if I can get it to you cheaper. How many would you be interested in? For the UV intensity, I said I would supply a chart that would show every inch of the coil and the amount of UV exposure.
No, your an idiot. That's not my job, I give the necessary data to our R&D where the products are tested by a team of trained professionals make the final determination as to how much UV and where it is applied. I do know about the technology enough to keep a conversation with you. You might want to recheck your credentials or go back to school if you read some of the statements that you have made. Imagine your going to develop a product that is going to be available to the general public, scary! I never said I was an engineer, etc. ever.
But you are the equivalent of a snake oil salesman.
I'm one of those people on our Standards committee for microbial control and I also lecture on microbial control and management methods.
We have seen many products claim to be the great hope for sterilisation and this includes: passing condenser water through an intense magnetic field, flow over UV, iodine with ozone regeneration and combinations of all of these.
Not one of these has been effective!
Most of the promoters of these products soon disappear from the scene, with many of their company directors loosing everything they have to compensate their customers for the failure of the systems. I would think it would be in your best interests to get at least $20M Professional Indemnity before you try and sell anything - saying that, it would be better if you didn't as the impact of your claims would probably still elevate my premiums.
Not one sterilisation alternative has been able to be justified economically - they cost too much initially and the operational costs are too high if the system is sized properly (in comparison to conventional chemical water treatment with automated dual-biocide dosing, which can be further enhanced by appropriate* side stream filtration and eductors in the CT basin).
appropriate* - NOT a pool sand filter which has "ant tracks" soon developing through the media and when left out in the sun makes a great microbiological incubator.
Saying all that the UV sterilisation can kill a great number of microbial contaminants in the airstream and does have a place in high risk areas such as hospital contagious infection wards (where they can do with all the help they can get and operational costs are not a consideration). As for the rest of us, I'll stick with my SP60 pleat filters treated with a biocide coating for my office AHU.
Don't need, since I don't sell. Pure research. The purpose was a joint venture with a local university to provide; Low cost, low tech, posative and negative forced air pressure systems for 3rd world medical services which they could construct locally from readily available components, to be assembeled and installed by local (3rd world tradesmen).
- saying that, it would be better if you didn't as the
WHich claims are you refereing to, I will have a lawyer look at the claims you have claimed I have made which you state are effecting you fincially.
I dissagree. If you look at most airborn pathogens, IN PATICULAR viri resonsible for infulensia, e.g. othoyviridea, filtration ALONE, is difficult hence a combination of UV-C + filtration, or filtraton and chemical sterilisation will be the most effective.
It is interesting as to the accelerated decline in key components. As for cost effective, well, let's see for high risk controlled areas the cost is relative to the country and respective guidlines. In Asia, many health authorities are quite happy to look at O2 mixing rates. Chemical filtration and sterilisation has in the past been the most cost effevtive, but with the boom in applications for UV-C and mass production a simple comparison would be between say 1990's med and high pressure mecruy tubes which could retail for several hundred US each, to the present day mass produced in China low and medium pressure PPL's at several dollars each.
microbiological
Filtation for the most part, unless we were to look at chemical filtration, let's say a nano silver filtrate won't reduce any pathogens ability to replicate. Noone which an IQ over 6 would suggest otherwise. Back to the poitn on the most cost effective combinations of filtration and sterilisation to meet the requirments for the job.
The requirments and considerations are many and varied, installation, ease of maintence, cost of training, and on for ever and half.
UV can actually achive upto 99.9 ^9 place 1st pass rates, subject to the design and inplimentation.
As for the rest
Me, I have a 5 stage filtration system with UV-C for my home. What-ever suits your needs. Personally, I don't like filtration alone.
But what-ever floats your boat.
Please feel free to reply with the highlights of what you claim I misrepresented and I will happily reply in detail with references.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.