Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Activeion, new cleaning method, or homeopathy for dirt?

  1. May 16, 2010 #1

    There has been some discussion about this product around the internet since Bill Nye began supporting it. Some feel that it's a load of hogwash, and no better than plain tap water. Others feel that the product claims are plausible, and that it should be properly tested against both plain tap water, and the cleaning chemicals it is claimed to replace.

    It sounds dubious to me, but has anyone here heard much about it? Maybe even has one, and would be willing to make a video test doing a proper comparison and post it online?
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 1, 2010 #2
    Sounds utterly absud. Water already auto-protolyzes ([2]H2O <=> H3O+ + OH-) and this equilibrium is as far as I know strongly shifted to the left (that is, only a small percentage of the water is at any given time ionized). I don't see how passing water through an ion exchanger would alter this since all they do is, as the name implies, exchange ions. That is, if you have an anion exchanger, for instance, you can exchange your Cl- for OH- or whatever. I'm sure some of the real chemists here will correct me on some points, but I think I got it mostly down.

    Unless this ion exchanger adds some halogenic or metallic ions to the water (which the text does not imply) it seems scientifically absurd, and mumbo jumbo terminology like "nano-bubbles" only serves to reinforce this point.

    But as always it'd be fun to see a test of it.
  4. Jul 6, 2010 #3
    I don't know about "nano-bubbles", but oxygen certainly does a fine job of cleaning organics. I don't think you're going to so change the composition of water that it becomes a "dirt magnet" without adding surfactants.
  5. Jul 6, 2010 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This reminds me of a case of a company advertising a solvent that can break down and dissolve anything, even stone. Their solvent was nothing but plain water. Their response to the fraud suit was that they never said how long it would take. I never saw the outcome. I would think that erosion would not be considered disolving.

    Anyway, I do most of my cleaning with plain water. The only time I use a cleanser is if I need to cut grease.

    Back to topic.
  6. Jul 6, 2010 #5
    Water does dissolve pretty much everything in small quantities...
  7. Jul 6, 2010 #6
    Well, it seems the key to marketing is having an excellent legal team. I have to find the records of that case, I have a friend with access to Lexis Nexis... I'll bet it caused a bit of anger.

    Water is very effective, if you're willing to apply heat and abrasives as well, which is one reason steam-cleaning is so profoundly effective. Now, if you need to clean an oven, by all means I'll take a double shot of the industrial solvents thanks.
  8. Jul 8, 2010 #7
    Found this... http://skepticblog.org/2010/04/22/bill-nye-selling-out-to-the-man/
    Bill Nye's response to questions about his involvement...
    http://www.billnye.com/for-the-nanobubble-skeptics/ [Broken]
    He goes on to explain his own testing.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  9. Jul 8, 2010 #8
    LOL, this sounds like legit stuff.

    Disrupting the cell walls of bacteria... No, this looks very, very dubious to me.
  10. Jul 8, 2010 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It's not plausible. It's patent nonsense.

    I have postgrad degrees in both chemistry and physics, and I have no idea what they're talking about. (Oh sure I know what most the words mean, I don't see how this is coherent, or would lead to better cleaning). I certainly don't know everything, but when my immediate impression is that something (in physics or chemistry) is 'complete nonsense', I'm seldom wrong.

    There is no way to manipulate water (especially not using electric charges) to make it dissolve fats and oils. You have to add a surfactant, i.e. soap. And their scare-propaganda is of course wrong. Most soap is more or less non-toxic.
  11. May 18, 2012 #10
    Amazing how all posts here are negative and discredit the company and its product. I guess that's why the company has closed shop, also that the price point was too high.

    The science is real. This really does work. It is actually true. Most are just used to being hoodwinked so what is true is not believed and the grand lies are believe as true.


    Oxidative Water

    Electrolyzed Water

    Sharaton Delfina Santa Monica, CA

    Believe people, believe it.
    Systems are being installed in movie theaters from Sanyo Corp.
    Commercial diary and food/beverage production systems.
    Hotels, and more.

    Or it's just easier... to be smug... I guess?
  12. May 18, 2012 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Excellent! Then all you have to do is post a citation to the peer-reviewed literature supporting this claim.
  13. May 18, 2012 #12
    "Excellent! Then all you have to do is post a citation to the peer-reviewed literature supporting this claim. "

    Fair enough, but also:
    Why? No one else did in their refutation.

    You may have heard of google, try it.
    'oxidative water peer review'
    there maaaaay be some other search terms you could try too...
    'electrolyzed water peer review'

    some good reviews and info under these terms
    possibly... some other terms too... though that might... be very difficult... ....
    (give it a shot)

    (I just posted a bunch of links to peer reviews, but this board will not let me post urls until I have posted at least 10 times)
  14. May 18, 2012 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Perhaps some should have done, people making positive factual claims should provide references.
    PM me the list and I will post it for you, it is not really good enough to leave search terms and expect other people to do the work.

    Two more points:
    1) I get the impression that these do not link to the product, do you have any material to support the link between the science you are suggesting and the product?

    2) You have read these paper's havent you? Blindly linking papers that match the search terms of what you want isn't productive.

    I'm not trying to be argumentative here but to establish some standards.
  15. May 18, 2012 #14


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It's amazing what plain tap water will clean. I use it for most of the house. It will dissolve or loosen just about anything. I clean my stove with a sponge and warm water. I clean my bathroom mirrors with a clean sponge and water.

    Also, the onus to prove this cleans any better than plain water is on the person making the claim.
    Last edited: May 18, 2012
  16. May 18, 2012 #15
    No, I realize I'm all wrong. No nano info anywhere. Problem gone.
    Standards are back to the way they are.
  17. May 18, 2012 #16
    Just because some people/companies are using it, doesn't mean it works. Lots of people believe in and use homeopathy, reiki, prayer healing, acupuncture, and other similar nonsense.
  18. May 18, 2012 #17
    So we're all in agreement? The product claims are bogus?
  19. May 22, 2012 #18
    Dedrum what evidence do you have to show that the product is (or was?) better than plain tap water and soap? The person making the claim has the burden of evidence, so until some peer-reviewed evidence is produced, then there is no reason to believe the marketing claims.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 22, 2012
  20. May 22, 2012 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    If you have peer-reviewed evidence Dedrum for this product feel free to post it.
  21. May 22, 2012 #20
    Vagn --

    I have retracted by claims.

    Additionally, previous and original posts here suggested the product and company claims were bogus. These are claims as ORIGINALLY made here.... yet per such claims of 'bogusness' no one here has the felt the need for their burden to show evidence in refutation of Activeon's claims. This post thread was established voluntarily. Yet done so without ANY evidence to support claims which counter what each here have claimed as bogus. Where is the science here to support the claim that the company's science claimed is bogus. Not here, yet standards are demanded. Seems a bit arrogant, and certainly not scientific.

    These forums are more about ego, no?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook