Xavier6162 — Well said!

skywagon — There is no separate fuse for the Plasmacluster — see earlier in this thread. Pulling the A/C#2 fuse disables the whole heating/cooling system.

Stan

 

Stan,

I did go talk to my dealer. He's actually being very nice about it. His techs didn't know what to do and Toyota didn't know what to do, but I explained our situation and he is taking the time to see if his dealership can help us. I've held off purchasing another car until we really know his conclusion. Like you, he said it looked complicated, but he also thinks there has to be a solution. I'm not very techy, so the whole diabling issue is beyond me.

 

Marianne - best of luck! :-)

 

Marianne,

Xavier6162's post seems to have completely resolved this.

 

Marianne, The word plasmacluster seems to short out your thought processes. What quote? You did not post a quote from the study. There are no such statements to be found in it. In case you don't know, quote means "a transcription of speech or text." I will post the "real" quote below.

"Because influenza is primarily acquired by large droplets and direct and indirect contact with an infectious person, any in-room air cleaner will have little benefit in controlling and preventing its spread (Personal communication, clinical infection control expert, August, 2005). Therefore, there is no role for the Plasmacluster ion air purifier or any other in-room air cleaner in the control of the spread of influenza."

What the paper dropped was a whole class of air cleaners, including those with HEPA filters, without prejudice. I believe that paragraph is posted in three separate places within the paper. It's clear from the quote that this class of air cleaners (in-room) do not interact sufficiently well with the vectors for influenza. There is no harsh condemnation, that's all in your mind.

You say the "study stinks," yet earlier in the paragraph you cite the study as evidence that the Plasmacluster is useless. There was one peer reviewed paper, but I guess you keep saying that there were none to reinforce your position. Without having been a member of the committee, your claims of why it was tested are pure speculation, and more than a little paranoid. There are a lot of other possible reasons. One, it is the only consumer bi-polar generator that I know of, although they are used in the semiconductor industry to neutralize static charge. Two, it is the only ion generator that claims to kill airborne pathogens, which has directly related to the purpose of the study. It was the only ion generator in the study because of first reason (p.17), i.e., unipolar generators were out, possibly for the same reasons you object to them.

Sorry to disappoint you, but they are the same device. The Camry filters all air through a HEPA filter before passing it through the Plasmacluster.

I posted the Health Canada report in response to your saying that there were no authoritative tests of the Plasmacluster for ozone, and your comment that you had great respect for them. I then noticed that you put the worst spin you could on the number, claiming "less than" to be "equal to," and used that to insinuate that Sharp was pulling a fast one. Your rant about the report is uncalled for. I have been writing and reading technical reports for my whole career and I see nothing seriously wrong with it. Why don't you show me examples of what you think is bad. Real quotes, i.e., cut and paste, rather than your interpretation.

Before I forget, Consumer Reports, October 2005, gave the Plasmacluster a pass for ozone.

I enjoy having informed discussions with people, not religious arguments. If your mind is set, then there is no use for me to continue with this discussion.

 

Since somehow you managed to miss the quote I posted from page 22 of the study I shall repost it below.



For your reference this was in post #47 on this thread. I didn't quote all of the information to make is succint and the punctuation of "..." is used in journalism to indicate words have been left OUT from the original text. Please learn the proper use of basic punctuation so that in the future you don't falsely accuse someone of being misleading.

And YES this study stinks to high heaven. At any point do you question why the Sharp Plasmacluster is mentioned by its trademarked name, but the other products are refered to by their technology. Isn't this even a little odd to you? How often do you see that odd peculiarity in a government study. You say you've been reading reports for years - and this didn't seem odd to you?

And where did you get the idea it is the "only" ion generator that claims to kill airborne pathogens? I'm sorry but that is a standard fraudulent marketing claim made by almost every ionizer on the market. Have you taken the time to research this at all? As a matter of fact the depth and breadth of fraudulent air cleaning products that claim to be able to kill airborne pathogens even goes beyond the ionizer market. There are identical claims for UV, EMF, electrostatic-precipitators, and even ULPA and HEPA devices.

And you are incorrect that the Plasmacluster reviewed in the study is the device in the Camry's AC. This isn't even worth debating. The Camry AC has a cabin ionizer air filter. The study used a standard portable Sharp Plasmacluster. You could not even begin to fit a standard Plasmacluster in that tiny vent.

And when you say Consumer Reports gave the Plasmacluster a "pass" on ozone - please explain to me what that means. Passing UL 867 Section 37 means a product actually produces less than 100 parts per million of ozone with the number cut in half. A large number of incident reports have been filed with people experiencing asthmatic arrest on MUCH lower levels being introduced into their room air. Does Consumer Reports "passing" the Plasmacluster mean that the ozone the Plasmacluster produces is now safe and healthy? Or does it mean that Consumer Reports rather oddly lets "some" ozone be produced by machines while saying that other machines that produce similar amounts are not acceptable?

 

[quote=Marianne;115879]Since somehow you managed to miss the quote I posted from page 22 of the study I shall repost it below.

No, I think I've got it right, you're being a little disingenuous. The omitted text "is" misleading, maybe it shouldn't have been to me, but the intent appears to have been to slant the evaluation for others reading the post, and your posts all along have shown that. Why didn't you mention that a whole class of air cleaners were dropped from the survey, and just single out the Plasmacluster? Where is the so called "harsh criticism" can you show me that? Especially since all of the air cleaners were dropped from the survey without prejudice. And if you're going to be a stickler, then where are the quotation marks customarily used to mark a quote?

Again, show me examples. Cut and paste please with no omissions. It's not unusual to write a paper in general, and mention one or two devices by name if they're outstanding examples of the type.

I'd like to see proof of that. Links please. I have a Honeywell precipitator and they've never claimed that. That goes for Trion too. The closest thing to claiming that is that they trap pathogens in the filter, which I wouldn't have problems with.

It's the same type of device. Again you're being disingenuous. They do come in all sizes. I have an FP-NX60, the largest unit. It's over 90% empty space. All taken up by filters and squirrel cage motor and ducting. And then there is FP-N25, which is maybe a fifth the size. The plasma cell is unlikely to be in the vent, and from what other people have said, it sits further back. I worked on a project that used plasmas to catalyze exhaust gases in diesels. We used a commercial ozone generator to generate the plasma and the reaction cell fit into the exhaust pipe, and the electronics package was the size of a book. This unit could make enough ozone to kill everyone in the lab in less than a minute, if we had run air through it. This was far more powerful than a Plasmacluster, but it's still small enough to have been put behind the dash.

I don't have the full report anymore, but I think it's now established that it's between 1 and 10 ppb.

Again that's disingenuous, since I'm sure you already know which ones flunked and why.

 

You don't find any claims of other air purifiers saying they are effective against airborne pathogens?

Try Googling "air purifier" with the terms "kills" "viruses" or "kills" "bacteria." I got a couple hundred thousand examples just off those search terms. Average text reads like the quotes below.

I'm not sure why I can find these and you can't.

 

Sarcasm becomes you. Interestingly enough the Biozone works on the same principle as the Plasmacluster, except it's done in two stages, UV light is used to generate ozone along with the ions. It's implied that the ozone is mostly internal, and that a plasma is ejected to kill other pathogens. The ozone alone would have disqualified it in Canada. I'll check a few others when I have the time.

I'm still waiting to see your proof of "harsh criticism" from the survey.

One of your posts seems to have disappeared. The answer to that is, no, I don't work for Sharp, and I don't sell Plasmacluster units. I'm an engineer and I've worked on particle accelerators for most of my life. I'm presently upgrading a radio-frequency accelerator, and I provide technical support for an induction accelerator. The only things that I can be accused of selling are old SF and pulp magazines.

 

SciFi, I said harsh criticism because you were lauding the Plasmacluster as being truly special because it was the "only" ionizer deemed worthy to be included in Health Canada's study - implying that it was somehow a great device. I pointed out that Health Canada stated starkly that it ws a useless device for teh studied purpose. Somehow you've conveniently forgotten that.

Secondarily, you stated no other air purifiers made these claims. When I post the claims and state how easy they are to find, you ignore the fact that they exist and become facsinated that you feel the technology is similar to the plasmacluster. You said it didn't exist. Were you wrong?

All other things aside, I'm quizical why you put so much effort into singing the praises of the Plasmacluster. As a room air purifier it is a lousy device by any standards, one of the most ineffective air purifiers on the market. The device in teheCamry Hybrid is NOT the same machine, and your comment that it is similar is partly corrct but mostly ignorant. The room device is a hybrid air purifier. The cabin device is only an ionizer. I'm sure your advanced engineering degrees taught you that ozone breaks down when it passes a HEPA filter. Since there is NO HEPA filter after the ionizer, that would indicate there is nothing to reduce the ozone, so this makes your comments that the plasmacluster only produces between 1-10 parts per billion of ozone absurd as these were measurements claimed for a hybrid room model - NOT measurements takes from the cabin device in the Hybrid camry.