Talk:Gas duster

Health Effects

The description of inhalent abuse is inaccurate. Difluorethane and tetrafluoroethane are CNS intoxicants and highly addictive. Oxygen displacement is not a factor. One survey found that 11% of high school students had used inhalants to get high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwoodard (talk • contribs) 23:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gas duster that doesn't cause static

Does anyone know if it's possible to have a gas duster using air that doesn't cause static? I'm hoping to replace the use of 1,1,1,2 tetrafluoroethane on computers at work because it has high global warming potential. 66.119.188.99 (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is kinda late to answer your question, but dry ice is typically made from waste CO2 from the manufacture process involved with synthesizing ammonia from natural gas, the waste CO2 from the process is often shipped to soda plants and dry ice plants, if dry ice is placed in a suitable pressure vessel with a suitable spray head and release valve, it will work well as a dust removal spray, or a fire extinguisher; also, it's environmentally friendly, in a way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.67.41 (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in this too, and just sent an email to the Dust-Off maker Falcon Safety Products. In the meantime I'll be letting the dust build up in my computer, I suppose. The electric dust blowers are suggested as an alternative in the wiki page, but it's not clear whether they have the same issues that vacuum cleaners have with static (particularly emphasized in this article), and there's some people who say you could blow contaminants into your machine with things like that.

Citation really necessary for reported stores that ID for gas dusters?

I submit that the "citation needed" after the list of stores which ask for identification (18+ y/o) is unnecessary... self-reporting is the best way to report which stores do and which don't, and it seems unlikely that a source exists which verifies this information explicitly. Not that citations aren't awesome, but cmon, google scholar has got nothing to say about this for sure haha. CFITZ (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A news article would be an appropriate source, but I'm skeptical about the accuracy of the claim 207.6.170.138 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction? Citation?

These two sentences appear to contradict each other, unless I am misreading them: "Though not extremely flammable in gaseous form, many dusters use a fluorocarbon which can burn under some conditions, and warn of this on the packaging. The gas is very flammable and can ignite and can cause pulmonary failure, which can be fatal." (Boldface added by me.) --From spoofed IP address 173.161.195.122 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it means that the gas isn't flammable compared to, say, compressed butane, but that it's much more prone to catching fire than other household cleaning chemicals. So it's not an error per se, but it would be good if someone with more area knowledge wanted to clarify the language. Inhumandecency (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air leakage from straw if it's left in?

I'm not so sure of the statement in the introduction that "once the straw has been inserted the compressed air may leak out through the straw." As far as I could tell, the straw mechanism is practically identical to products like WD-40, which can easily be observed not to leak. Since the valve body is mostly inside the can, and the straw doesn't bend 90° and enter the can, I don't see how it could cause leakage. 118.208.126.177 (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor needs to step back

This article is informative, not instructive in nature. Whoever flagged it as a how-to either should re-read for content, or visit instructables.com or make.com and see what a "how to" looks like. It does an suitable job of answering what the product does, why it works, and how the chemicals used perform the desired function. It also provides examples of common uses (and misuses) of the product. This sort of article is why I donate every time Wiki send me a letter asking for money.

The only thing I commonly see in other Wikipedia entries this is lacking is historical background. So it covers What, Why, and How, but is lacking the When and Who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmontford (talk • contribs) 09:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the unencyclopedic section 'Applications' with its how-to, advocacy, POV, and sourcing problems

The article had lots of 'how to':

The can must be held upright during use.
Alternating between two cans (allowing one to warm while the other is being used) is one way to work around this problem during an extensive dusting job.

And plenty more. The 'Applications' section is the biggest problem. It's been sitting, tagged, for three years. It doesn't bear fixing; it just doesn't belong here. I can only see that it needs to be cut, so I have cut it. That's probably enough to remove the tag, but maybe that should wait to make sure.

For the sentence in the intro, that starts with the textbook weasel words "some people believe", it needs a source, to be fixed up right. I had to just tag that for now.

Thanks! Ale And Quail (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tle

duster cleaner 119.93.146.252 (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]