4 ms·

HÖMDRY the first hand dryer for your home – insane design and features

3 points by HOMDRY 10y ago

WalterSear 10y ago
Totally insane. https://www.google.com/search?q=hand+dryers+bacteria&oq=hand+dryers+bacteria https://www.google.com/search?q=hand+dryers+bacteria&oq=hand...
- HOMDRY 10y ago
  lol thats why you don't buy expensive dysons - HÖMDRY has a blue UV light that kills germs - No other hand dryer else has this
  - dalke 10y ago
    (To other HN readers, the direct page is https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/homdry-the-perfect-home-hand-dryer-environment-technology#/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/homdry-the-perfect-home-h... ). To account "HOMDRY", germicidal UV sources are usually at 254 nm. What is the frequency of your light source? Typically germicidal lamps should be treated with extreme caution, and not be exposed to skin. Your Indigogo page says "Blue UV Light is safe on skin and proven to kill bacteria soap can miss." Is this because your Blue UV lamp is a UVA lamp? This certainly does kill germs, but it's not as effective. Your Indigogo page says "Blue UV Light for the last 8 seconds of each session". How effective is this as a germicide? What percentage of germs are killed in 8 seconds? Why does the Indigogo page not describe its germicidal effectiveness? If the Blue UV light for 8 seconds is not an effective germicidal source, and since HÖMDRY is primarily an air dryer, why does it not suffer from the same issues that WalterSear pointed out? And what does "Blue UV light" mean? Scientifically there is blue light, and there is ultraviolet light, but "blue UV" is about as much sense as "blue red light." Is this meant as a marketing term? Your method uses a patented process. I was unable to find a USPTO match for HÖMDRY, nor did I have success searching with the principals' names. Could you tell me the patent number?
    - HOMDRY 10y ago
      http://gizmodo.com/5690839/researchers-have-created-a-uv-light-that-kills-bacteria-without-harming-humans http://gizmodo.com/5690839/researchers-have-created-a-uv-lig... We work exclusively with them and have a license to their patent- why are you hating so hard on our product that we worked so hard on?
      - dalke 10y ago
        I'll note the level of hating you have towards a Dyson product to point out that you don't believe that hard work alone is enough of a justification to avoid criticism. As you certainly know by now, the home-UV-for-germicidal-purposes field has a lot of scammers who target germophobes using scientifically ineffective methods. They are "effective" more at reducing anxiety, as the baseline risk is much lower than the consumer believes. My questions were to challenge your comment about germicidal effectiveness. Thank you for the new information. Why is none of it on the Indigogo page? Would it not make the pitch more persuasive? Is the patent International Patent WO 2007/012875? This is from the Strathclyde researchers you mentioned. It uses light at around 405 nm. I did not know about the recent work around this frequency, so thank you. That patent figures show that germicidal response requires at least 10 minutes. One of their publications, at http://femsle.oxfordjournals.org/content/285/2/227 http://femsle.oxfordjournals.org/content/285/2/227 , concurs. However, this is for bacteria in suspension, which isn't the same as bacterial on surfaces. The press release you linked to refers to a hospital light source that can be used to continuously disinfect wards and isolation rooms. One study ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22103991/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22103991/ ) shows that a 'High-Intensity Narrow-Spectrum light Environmental Decontamination System' "demonstrated a 61% efficacy in the reduction of bacterial contamination on surfaces ... over and above that achieved by standard cleaning and infection control measures in both inpatient and outpatient settings in the burn unit." I think that was after 8 hours of continuous use. It is not an 8 second application, and it's under very different conditions than your product. Could you point to any research which supports your statement that 8 seconds is enough to be an effective germicide for home use in your use case? The closest I found was http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586062/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586062/ , which uses a more effective 285 nm UV source against biofilms on needleless connectors. In that study, a ~50 second exposure was needed to be an effective germicide, and the connectors needed to be closer than 2.5 cm for effective clearance. This strongly implies to me that a 405 nm source in the configuration shown on the Indigogo page will have very little germicidal effect on hands after only 8 seconds, making it, like the Dyson product, an air dryer. Do you have anything which more rigorously shows the germicidal effectiveness of your product?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

3 points by HOMDRY 10y ago

Totally insane. https://www.google.com/search?q=hand+dryers+bacteria&oq=hand+dryers+bacteria https://www.google.com/search?q=hand+dryers+bacteria&oq=hand...

HOMDRY 10y ago
lol thats why you don't buy expensive dysons - HÖMDRY has a blue UV light that kills germs - No other hand dryer else has this
- dalke 10y ago
  (To other HN readers, the direct page is https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/homdry-the-perfect-home-hand-dryer-environment-technology#/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/homdry-the-perfect-home-h... ). To account "HOMDRY", germicidal UV sources are usually at 254 nm. What is the frequency of your light source? Typically germicidal lamps should be treated with extreme caution, and not be exposed to skin. Your Indigogo page says "Blue UV Light is safe on skin and proven to kill bacteria soap can miss." Is this because your Blue UV lamp is a UVA lamp? This certainly does kill germs, but it's not as effective. Your Indigogo page says "Blue UV Light for the last 8 seconds of each session". How effective is this as a germicide? What percentage of germs are killed in 8 seconds? Why does the Indigogo page not describe its germicidal effectiveness? If the Blue UV light for 8 seconds is not an effective germicidal source, and since HÖMDRY is primarily an air dryer, why does it not suffer from the same issues that WalterSear pointed out? And what does "Blue UV light" mean? Scientifically there is blue light, and there is ultraviolet light, but "blue UV" is about as much sense as "blue red light." Is this meant as a marketing term? Your method uses a patented process. I was unable to find a USPTO match for HÖMDRY, nor did I have success searching with the principals' names. Could you tell me the patent number?
  - HOMDRY 10y ago
    http://gizmodo.com/5690839/researchers-have-created-a-uv-light-that-kills-bacteria-without-harming-humans http://gizmodo.com/5690839/researchers-have-created-a-uv-lig... We work exclusively with them and have a license to their patent- why are you hating so hard on our product that we worked so hard on?
    - dalke 10y ago
      I'll note the level of hating you have towards a Dyson product to point out that you don't believe that hard work alone is enough of a justification to avoid criticism. As you certainly know by now, the home-UV-for-germicidal-purposes field has a lot of scammers who target germophobes using scientifically ineffective methods. They are "effective" more at reducing anxiety, as the baseline risk is much lower than the consumer believes. My questions were to challenge your comment about germicidal effectiveness. Thank you for the new information. Why is none of it on the Indigogo page? Would it not make the pitch more persuasive? Is the patent International Patent WO 2007/012875? This is from the Strathclyde researchers you mentioned. It uses light at around 405 nm. I did not know about the recent work around this frequency, so thank you. That patent figures show that germicidal response requires at least 10 minutes. One of their publications, at http://femsle.oxfordjournals.org/content/285/2/227 http://femsle.oxfordjournals.org/content/285/2/227 , concurs. However, this is for bacteria in suspension, which isn't the same as bacterial on surfaces. The press release you linked to refers to a hospital light source that can be used to continuously disinfect wards and isolation rooms. One study ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22103991/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22103991/ ) shows that a 'High-Intensity Narrow-Spectrum light Environmental Decontamination System' "demonstrated a 61% efficacy in the reduction of bacterial contamination on surfaces ... over and above that achieved by standard cleaning and infection control measures in both inpatient and outpatient settings in the burn unit." I think that was after 8 hours of continuous use. It is not an 8 second application, and it's under very different conditions than your product. Could you point to any research which supports your statement that 8 seconds is enough to be an effective germicide for home use in your use case? The closest I found was http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586062/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586062/ , which uses a more effective 285 nm UV source against biofilms on needleless connectors. In that study, a ~50 second exposure was needed to be an effective germicide, and the connectors needed to be closer than 2.5 cm for effective clearance. This strongly implies to me that a 405 nm source in the configuration shown on the Indigogo page will have very little germicidal effect on hands after only 8 seconds, making it, like the Dyson product, an air dryer. Do you have anything which more rigorously shows the germicidal effectiveness of your product?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]