Re: Re: Atomizing is followed by droplet evaporation is elaborated.

[Guest guest]

At 09:05 PM 9/9/2009, you wrote:

>I will see about finding the chemicl composition of the essential oil blend,

Oh, it's a real complex blend (I removed that part). Any molecule that can

remain airborne

is typically light, and small. However, that is not always the case. Some very

heavy

molecules defy logic. It can depend on how flat they are. Like a piece of

paper,

and it can be blown around like a feather. Like a stone shape, and it drops,

but can take a long time still to hit bottom, particularly if it is not a sticky

molecule. It can bounce for a long time. And even reach the ceiling again.

Ethanol, C2H6O, is a good example of a medium large airborne molecule that is

medium in weight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol

TTO that I mentioned is distilled from one leaf, and has 50 active ingredients,

and all do evaporate. Some are heavy. Point is, your mileage may vary.

That there are many extracts in this oil, can make for 100's of molecule types.

>It would seem to me that the size disparity is probably much greater in reality

than what the manufacturer specifications state they are.

Droplet size is typically measured in a Gaussian curve, where the medium size is

the single numerical value stated.

Sometimes it's the mean, or median, or mode.

http://math.about.com/library/weekly/aa020502a.htm

Actually, the exact curve is rarely a true Gaussian.

In this case, the droplet does evaporate, or some or most of it, and the

resulting, many molecule types

will have a wide range of molecular sizes, and it will not likely be Gaussian

shaped, but

multiple humps, not just two or three, but tens, even hundreds.

>I will state that if 200 picometers is the size of one individual atom

Atoms range in size from 25 pm (H) to 260 (Cs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius

Airborne molecules range in size from H2 (75 pm) to many 100's of pm.

Droplets, rain droplet size distribution had a scientific study published last

month,

contradicting common knowledge, that rain drops that hit the ground are formed

by smaller drops merging together. The study showed large drops will flatten

and break apart, to create smaller drops. Both mechanisms are at work.

For atomization, droplet size is going to be very difficult. And not just

due to the above rain drop effect. More below.

>then based on my knowledge of how these essential oils are created this claim

that the diffuser would atomize to the specifications stated seems somewhat

outlandish.

Unless they were including the fact it was not inside an industrial machine

(gasoline combustion motor, like fuel injection),

and due to this fact, they felt they could include evaporation, and so stated

the final particle size after the droplet

evaporated into individual molecules, some remaining airborne, others settling

slowly down, etc.

But that is not the full picture, by far. New thoughts are below.

Some droplets will not fully evaporate and will land and stick. It is this

" coverage " of surfaces

that must be determined.

And if the airborne, evaporated, molecules do not play an active part

in covering surfaces, and killing mold, then to claim a droplet size

the same as these smallest molecules, would be inaccurate, a

disservice to all involved parties. But that is not entirely true, either.

One would want the final droplet size that is coating the surfaces where mold is

killed.

An issue comes up with releasing enough oil to cover all the surfaces with

droplets,

including the droplet spread pattern, that is do droplets overlap, which they

will have

to, to get full surface coverage, will the droplets pancake, and spread flatter,

and

flatter, what surface tension and wetting angles are working to prevent this

spread,

or encourage it. Highly technical stuff.

>I would hazard a guess that the molecular size of the Thieves oil in its

composition would be something like 2-15nm or larger in size, but that's only a

guess.

Given the great number of types of molecules, any guess is likely a good one.

>Also you stated that it would be faster if warmed up, and in response to Carl

about the thermal fogger. It is my understanding that while heating the

essential oil up would potentially make this process faster and smaller, it

would also damage the constituent that help make the oil more effective.

You would not heat it up that much. Even 10 degrees above room temperature

would help.

However, now that I have read Dr Thrasher's comments, I realize it's surface

coverage, not

just seeping into cracks. Thus, any evaporate would reduce droplet size, a good

thing for

getting into cracks, but it means less oil to cover surfaces.

CLOSER TO THE FINAL STUFF:

So, for my original burnt " sulphur oxide " going deeper via smaller cracks,

that is true for the droplets oil, that must contact mold on surfaces to kill

it.

The vapor components of the oil, aroma molecules, might still be activate

against airborne mold, though it might be the oils themselves that remove

the spores from the air, by being " sticky " droplets, and when the spore gets

stuck, the two together, are too heavy to stay suspended in the air, and

will settle to the bottom. The vapor components would also be active

against the spores on surfaces. I might not have listed all mechanisms above.

There are many mechanisms at work, and at a physical size that is hard to

collect

samples, or observe the processes themselves. Very costly to do so.

I can see some post grad student earning his PhD. Several post grads.

I now see the points Carl is making, and driving towards.

I can see Carl is hoping to fit this process into an overall protocol that has

to date

overlooked this possible remediation step. I can see he is looking to see where

it fits. It would be quite a feather in his professional cap if federal, state

and

insurance companies could cheaply decide/test when such an oil treatment

could be used, to protect remediators, protect residents, or whatever step

or steps it fits into.

For it to fit though, Carl needs to present to other standards making members

the real physics involved, like in medicine, proof is needed, before any

standards

making person would put his reputation on the line, at the international level,

to it include in this year's, or next year's protocol updates.

Carl is very right to ask for published studies. He needs them to move forward.

And it will not be simple. It will not be quick. It might be years. But worth

it, imho.

My expounding the many ways would have been fully flushed out, itemized,

before the many active physical mechanisms at work could be understood,

each individually, enough to present to members of protocol making body.

I'm thinking there is still another study or two that needs to be published.

However, it's not medicine (it's close, but remediation is not medical

treatment),

so the level of proof might already exist in current studies. An itemization

might not be needed, just enough studies and their validity and how the

Thieves oil might fit in, when it would be recommended, and when not.

Like for me, I have cinnamon sensitivity, so for me it would be contraindicated.

That burning sulphur is a well known 'cure' for moldy rooms, gives this oil

method credence, but even sulphur burning is not in the protocols. And

for an obvious reason. Remediation is currently thought to be a removal

of mold and it's components. The protocol developers likely do not have

the expertise in the science fields needed to evaluate either the oil or

sulphur method. It might even be outside their charter. It might be

a different group, the insurance companies, who pave the way for

these methods, as they could be cheaper alternatives in some cases.

No matter what, it's going to be an uphill road to get this method out there.

While I do not like experimenting on individuals, experimenting on the public,

seems to be the norm for last several thousand years, SOP for governments.

The buying public is certainly one way to " prove " the method, voting with

dollars.

Interesting. I'll leave the rest up to Carl.

>deemed the active ingredient

I tend to avoid single active ingredients due to their side effects.

The purification step for synthetic manufacturing is not 100%.

The impurities also can get me. Look at chinese made Vitamin C.

Unfortunately, with cinnamon in the oil, I can not use Thieves Oil, as I react

poorly to cinnamon.

>and can therefore be synthesized and has a fixed chemical composition. If

however you take the entire chemical composition of the plant which would

include the constituents, and as a side note increase the size of the molecules,

that would be the difference between chemicals and essential oils.

Yes, but I think this bush is almost beaten dead now. ;-)