World's First Open Face Mask, UV-C, Air Curtain - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 04, 2020, 10:50:45 am
content: Seeherefor the Indiegogo campaign.First formally there is a problem with the video. He says at 1:15 that it kills 99.99999% and suggesting an endless number of 9s, so basically nearly all, but the campaign text says 99.99%. But he is no scientist, has only abachelor of fine arts, so that explain this inaccuracy. Of course, even 99.99% is very unlikely. WhileUVC light kills viruses, I don't think that the the small battery and the lifetime of 8 hours suggests allows light strong enough to do this. For examplea study shows, that UVC light can kill 99.9% viruses, but it needs 25 minutes exposure time for this percentage, and still 8 minutes for 90%. And I'm sure the light source was much more powerful, but I didn't read the study details.Another problem is the air curtain. Again, I guess it would need to be very powerful to provide such protection, which is unlikely that the device can do it, and additionally I guess the turbulences because of the near irregular face wouldn't allow a good air curtain. And what air do you breath? Sure, the air curtain might not contain viruses, but the air coming in from the sides still have it. There is no way it could shield you 99.99% and at the same time provide enough air to breath.It is not totally BS like the free energy scams and looks plausible if you don't think too deep about it, but I guess it would provide only very low protection, like it kills less than 1% of the viruses you breath in.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2020, 08:54:55 pm
content: Aren't those the same "high efficiency micro blowers" we saw in the airring micro cpap. What are the chances they can actually sustain the full lung capacity of a person breathing normally (7 L/m).Here is your study full text link:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2The 25 minute and 8 minute were referring to maximum safe exposure:QuoteSo in a shielded area, exposurecouldbe higher and times could be reduced, if that were possible power wise (probably is not).QuoteSo the optical power was ~50mW to hit a 4L area?UVC LED efficiency is ~5%, mercury lamps up to 30%.https://iuva.org/resources/2018_IUVA_Americas_Conference/Technical-Proceedings/LEDs%20and%20Other%20UV%20Sources%202/McKain_Molly-UV-C-LED-Devices-and-Systems-Current-and-Future-State.pdfhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135416308697

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2020, 09:29:13 pm
content: Quote from: thm_w on August 04, 2020, 08:54:55 pmNah, probably just centrifugal fans.Simply so you don't breath a hole in the curtain I'm going to guess you'd need a couple hundred litre per minute. So say 10+ CFM. Not outside of the realm of possibilities, but that's quite a bit of fan and quite a bit of air to sterilize.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 12:17:00 am
content: patent pending... i've heard that alot.. how long the battery going to last? there will be a lot of technical explaining to law enforcer in case their decide to stop you from entering premises... how to check body temperature? on the cheek? UV light is hot, be ready to become a suspect if law enforcer (braindead one) insists on forehead... $150? thats worth 100-500 passive and proven not battery limited masks/3-layer/PM2.5 etc that every law enforcer recognize... if the law says its technically inadequate, then $150 is gone.

author: robca
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2020, 06:10:06 pm
content: Campaign is under reviewAnd that's a good thing. There are so many red flags with this, that is clear only someone with no biology and aerodynamics background could have though of it

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 12:32:10 pm
content: A 99.9% removal of viruses or bacteria is pointless. 0,1% of 10 billion are still plenty.(This is also the reason why you should not use household cleaner with claimed removal of bacteria and viruses - you might kill most of the "easy to handle" stuff, while paving the way for the resistant stuff to reproduce even faster.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 08:17:25 pm
content: Quote from: Haenk on November 12, 2020, 12:32:10 pmNot pointless, reduced viral load means less symptoms and less chance of getting sick."A model of African swine flu virus shows a clear dose-response relation between the infecting dose and disease in the animal"https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1728https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/types

author: S. Petrukhin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2020, 06:21:47 pm
content: Masks will kill humanity along with antiseptics and antibiotics.Medicine is negligible in the fight against viruses. Most recently, pneumonia was treated with a dose of penicillin 1000 (!) less. Viruses gain the ability to surpass protection faster. They can only be defeated by their own immunity, which has been destroyed for years by people's means of protection.By protecting ourselves from small doses of infection with a mask, we turn our immune system into an incapable one.The human body is so arranged: what is little used and not needed-atrophies and becomes ineffective.So far, only vaccination has been able to defeat epidemics.Pharmaceutical companies will never make an effective medicine - they do not benefit from people being healthy.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2020, 09:44:16 pm
content: Quote from: S. Petrukhin on November 15, 2020, 06:21:47 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer

author: S. Petrukhin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2020, 11:48:26 pm
content: Quote from: thm_w on November 16, 2020, 09:44:16 pmWhat did you want to say? This company has been around for many years like many others, but you wear a protective mask, isn't it?