Date: 06/15/1999
From: Jim Geary
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Re: Air ionizers (was Re: $2 Rake Horseshoe 10-20 holdem)
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Tom Weideman wrote: > I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I'm afraid I have to confess that I > don't know exactly how/if these things work (I figured you'd prefer this > response to my faking it). I can say a few things that I'm fairy sure are > correct. These things may satisfy you, but they probably shouldn't. :-) > 1. I don't think the smoke is "oxidized". To me, this word means there is > some chemical reaction taking place with some bonds breaking and others > forming, obviously with oxygen involved (something that is on fire is > oxidizing, which probably explains Abdul's fears). The oxidation process > took place to create the smoke in the first place. Once again Tom Weideman spoutz off with his academic voodoo mumbojumbo shit. I've been breathing oxygen for 32 years now, and I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Therefor, you're wrong. > 2. Ionized gas (in this case O2) makes the most sense. The attraction > between the ions and the larger particles in the air (like dust and smoke) > definitely is NOT mediated by a magnetic attraction. It very well could be > a static-electric attraction, however. It would work in a manner similar to > that which causes freshly-rubbed balloons to stick to walls: The charged > particles (oxygen ions) come into proximity with the neutral ones (smoke, > dust), and polarize them (force the charges on each particle to separate > within the particle). Then the negatively-charge ions are attracted to the > (nearer) positive side of the particles. O2, what the hell does that mean? We're talking about AIR here brother and you can't even string consecutive letters together to make a word. > 3. Once the oxygen ions are attached, I'm not sure what the effect would be. > Certainly the more mass a particle has, the lower elevation the "average" > particle will have in the solution (in this case the air). That is, heavier > particles precipitate more (assuming equal kinetic... uh... temperature). I > really have no idea how big the particles in question are, or whether adding > 2 oxygen atoms will significantly affect this, though. I don't know what > these devices do, but if they contain an anode (a positively-charged plate), > they can draw in the negatively-charged particles (that have been "doped" > with the negative ions) via electrical attraction. This may lead to small > sparking and/or faint crackling noises as the particles reach the plate and > de-ionize (and maybe even a faint ozone smell if the sparking and nearby > oxygen molecules form O3 molecules). How can you say dust and smoke are larger particles than air. If smoke is so damn big, how come it floats? > That's my best guess. Take it or leave it. I asked some of my friends who are 3-6 air breathers what they think and they're with me on this 100%. When will the science guys learn that there is no substitute for human experience? Bottom line? Bring a ton of anodes.
Last Modified 2/9/00