Activeion, new cleaning method, or homeopathy for dirt?

In summary: I've never heard of anything like this before.... which causes them to lyse ( rupture ). This is how disinfectants work.This sounds like some sort of homeopathic nonsense to me. Nothing about it makes sense.
  • #1
NeoDevin
334
2
http://www.activeion.com/"

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.

How It (Supposedly) Works said:
The Science Inside the ionator.
The ionator HOM™ and ionator EXP™ are virtually the only cleaning products in the world without chemical-related health warning labels. The technology driving the ionator products has been used for decades in food processing plants, four-star restaurants, and large hotels. We've simply taken this technology, miniaturized it, and made it affordable for everyday use.


1. Charging
A water cell applies a slight electrical charge to the tap water.


2. Transforming
The charged water passes through an ion exchange membrane, creating an oxygen-rich mixture of positive and negative nano-bubbles.


3. Cleaning
The ionized water now attracts dirt like a magnet and lifts it from the surface, enabling it to be easily wiped away.

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:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
Water does dissolve pretty much everything in small quantities...
 
  • #6
Evo said:
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.

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.
 
  • #7
Found this... http://skepticblog.org/2010/04/22/bill-nye-selling-out-to-the-man/
The cheapest version is $169.00 per bottle, and the fanciest version is $329.00 per bottle.

Bill Nye's response to questions about his involvement...
http://www.billnye.com/for-the-nanobubble-skeptics/ [Broken]
... I too was quite skeptical of the existence of what we now call nanobubbles. After all, one cannot easily photograph them with visible light. They are smaller than the lower limit of optical wavelengths.

Nevertheless, compelling calculations show that one in about 250 water molecules can be replaced with an oxygen molecule carrying an electric charge, and a nanobubble will persist for a substantial fraction of a minute. ...
He goes on to explain his own testing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
The cheapest version is $169.00 per bottle, and the fanciest version is $329.00 per bottle.
LOL, this sounds like legit stuff.


Disrupting the cell walls of bacteria... No, this looks very, very dubious to me.
 
  • #9
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.
 
  • #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.Search:

Oxidative Water

Electrolyzed Water

Sharaton Delfina Santa Monica, CABelieve 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?
 
  • #11
DeDrum said:
The science is real.
Excellent! Then all you have to do is post a citation to the peer-reviewed literature supporting this claim.
 
  • #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...
like...
'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)
 
  • #13
DeDrum said:
"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.
Perhaps some should have done, people making positive factual claims should provide references.
DeDrum said:
You may have heard of google, try it.
'oxidative water peer review'
there maaaaay be some other search terms you could try too...
like...
'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)
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 haven't 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.
 
  • #14
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:
  • #15
No, I realize I'm all wrong. No nano info anywhere. Problem gone.
Standards are back to the way they are.
 
  • #16
DeDrum said:
Systems are being installed in movie theaters from Sanyo Corp.
Commercial diary and food/beverage production systems.
Hotels, and more.

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.
 
  • #17
DeDrum said:
No, I realize I'm all wrong. No nano info anywhere. Problem gone.
Standards are back to the way they are.

So we're all in agreement? The product claims are bogus?
 
  • #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:
  • #19
If you have peer-reviewed evidence Dedrum for this product feel free to post it.
 
  • #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?
 
  • #21
DeDrum said:
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?
So why don't you think standards apply to everyone else :rolleyes: Also you have been warned about your attitude and being insulting. I've given you fair chance to join in in a civil manner.
 
  • #22
Ryan_m_b: "If you have peer-reviewed evidence Dedrum for this product feel free to post it."

Ryan, what is the specific science to which you refer?
 
  • #23
DeDrum said:
Ryan_m_b: "If you have peer-reviewed evidence Dedrum for this product feel free to post it."

Ryan, what is the specific science to which you refer?
The research you have alluded to
DeDrum said:
The science is real. This really does work. It is actually true.

...

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
 
  • #24
DeDrum said:
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?

That's because the burden of proof is on those making the claim that it is better than plain tap water and soap. Why should anyone else investigate the marketing claims of any particular company? As far as I'm aware they haven't published anything in a peer-reviewed journal, so the claims aren't supported by any evidence.
 
  • #25
Ryan_m_b:

My post to Vagn was in NO way an insult. Your suggestion is silly.
You have resorted to character assassination mode, which is an easy out.

You raised issues of refutation of some sort of science as based upon claims from Activeon. What is this science and why (the basis) have you refuted it?
 
  • #26
DeDrum said:
Ryan_m_b:

My post to Vagn was in NO way an insult. Your suggestion is silly.
You have resorted to character assassination mode, which is an easy out.
No, simply pointing out that you have posted insults.
DeDrum said:
You raised issues of refutation of some sort of science as based upon claims from Activeon. What is this science and why (the basis) have you refuted it?
Where did I refute the product exactly? All I have done is ask for evidence from you as you claimed that it was there. I really am baffled, you said that the science is real and that you had evidence for it. I asked to see it and you didn't provide it and now you are again objecting to something I haven't said and not providing anything.
 
  • #27
Trolling is not allowed. Troll gone.
 

1. What is Activeion and how does it work?

Activeion is a cleaning method that uses electrically charged water to remove dirt and bacteria from surfaces. The charge of the water helps to break down the dirt particles, making it easier to wipe them away. This method is considered more environmentally friendly than traditional cleaning products as it does not require the use of chemicals.

2. Is Activeion as effective as traditional cleaning methods?

Activeion has been shown to be just as effective as traditional cleaning methods in removing dirt and bacteria from surfaces. However, it may not be as effective for heavy-duty cleaning tasks or for removing stubborn stains.

3. How does homeopathy for dirt work?

Homeopathy for dirt is a practice that involves using highly diluted substances to clean surfaces. The theory behind it is that the diluted substance will have a memory of the original substance and will be able to remove the dirt or bacteria from the surface. However, there is no scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of homeopathy for cleaning purposes.

4. Is homeopathy for dirt safe to use?

There is no evidence to suggest that homeopathy for dirt is unsafe. However, since the substances used are highly diluted, they may not be effective in removing dirt and bacteria from surfaces. It is always best to use proven and tested cleaning methods for optimal results.

5. Can Activeion or homeopathy for dirt replace traditional cleaning methods?

While Activeion and homeopathy for dirt may be effective in removing dirt and bacteria from surfaces, they may not be able to replace traditional cleaning methods completely. It is best to use a combination of methods for the most thorough and effective cleaning results.

Similar threads

  • Chemistry
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
27K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • Earth Sciences
6
Replies
186
Views
74K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
8K
Replies
4
Views
30K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
25K
Replies
2
Views
11K
Back
Top