4 ms·

This sounds very similar to that old idea for protecting African families from female Aedes Aegypti mosquitoes[0]. I think the idea never took off, and I’m sti

This sounds very similar to that old idea for protecting African families from female Aedes Aegypti mosquitoes[0]. I think the idea never took off, and I’m still not sure why. [0]: https://youtu.be/hqKafI7Amd8 https://youtu.be/hqKafI7Amd8

the_only_law 5y ago
Everytime this idea comes up, I can’t imagine a laser powerful enough to kill even small insects not running the risk of collateral damage, burning things around it.
- DJBunnies 5y ago
  Like my retinas.
- niccl 5y ago
  IIRC (can't find a reference), the idea was noty to be able to kill teh mosquitoes outright, but to damage their wings so they couldn't fly. _Much_ less power needed. Still an issue, though, but not so bad
- solidsnack9000 5y ago
  Maybe if several low power lasers were fired together, to converge at the predicted position, it would moderate the risk of collateral damage. Even a few millimeters away from the target position, the radiative flux (W/m²) would be much lower, likely at safe levels.
  - zarzavat 5y ago
    What if all of those lasers converge to hit someone's eye? I don't see how a laser can have enough power density to kill a mosquito but still be eye safe.
    - solidsnack9000 5y ago
      We are talking about two different safety issues: (1) Targeting the wrong thing. (2) Even if the targeting is correct, missing by a small amount, or running the laser for slightly too long, and hitting something else by mistake. If the lasers converge for full flux, the risks associated with (2) are better managed, but that doesn't speak to (1).
    - bryondowd 5y ago
      Is there a max angle at which two lasers could pass through the pupil and strike the retina? That's assuming that strikes elsewhere don't pose a blinding risk for the energy level required to kill a mosquito, which I have absolutely no support for. But if that is the case, you could place your lasers and define a kill zone where no two can converge with less than a safe angle. If the assumption isn't correct, you could possibly still place at least two lasers and define a narrow zone between them where the angle would be about 180 degrees. Would be damned tough to hit an eye from two sides at once. But that limits you to half power per laser, which probably isn't enough margin.
- Centmo 5y ago
  Perhaps if the laser light were put through adjustable optics to set the focal point at the target. That way, anything sufficiently closer or further than the target along the laser's path will see non-dangerous intensity. Still don't want the thing accidentally targeting eye balls though.
stubish 5y ago
It never took off because a) Mosquitos are small and hard targets and b) because philanthropists realized they could buy mosquito nets for billions with the funding required to develop it. If it gets developed for mosquitoes, it will be a solution for rich people for decades.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  Do you have a source for that? My understanding was that the technology worked just fine, and that it wasn’t expensive because the system comprised of consumer electronics, like the laser from a Blu-Ray player and the GPU from a PlayStation.
  - stubish 5y ago
    Anything with electronics is going to be orders of magnitude more expensive than insecticide treated nets, which cost cents. https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-016-1419-y https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1... is one of a number of studies measuring the efficacy. To compete in the quest to end malaria it needs to be cheaper per-capita, off-grid, and at least as effective. I think nets, mosquito or parasite eradication and vaccination are the only approaches anyone is seriously pursuing.
- kragen 5y ago
  It never took off because the lab was a PR whitewash for the patent troll firm Intellectual Ventures, which wanted to appear less criminal and parasitic. They never had any intention of bringing it to market as a product. They've never brought any product to market, only extorted money from people who do. IV has not, as far as I know, broken any laws, a fact which deeply undermines the legitimacy of the US legal system.

the_only_law 5y ago

Everytime this idea comes up, I can’t imagine a laser powerful enough to kill even small insects not running the risk of collateral damage, burning things around it.

DJBunnies 5y ago
Like my retinas.
niccl 5y ago
IIRC (can't find a reference), the idea was noty to be able to kill teh mosquitoes outright, but to damage their wings so they couldn't fly. _Much_ less power needed. Still an issue, though, but not so bad
solidsnack9000 5y ago
Maybe if several low power lasers were fired together, to converge at the predicted position, it would moderate the risk of collateral damage. Even a few millimeters away from the target position, the radiative flux (W/m²) would be much lower, likely at safe levels.
- zarzavat 5y ago
  What if all of those lasers converge to hit someone's eye? I don't see how a laser can have enough power density to kill a mosquito but still be eye safe.
  - solidsnack9000 5y ago
    We are talking about two different safety issues: (1) Targeting the wrong thing. (2) Even if the targeting is correct, missing by a small amount, or running the laser for slightly too long, and hitting something else by mistake. If the lasers converge for full flux, the risks associated with (2) are better managed, but that doesn't speak to (1).
  - bryondowd 5y ago
    Is there a max angle at which two lasers could pass through the pupil and strike the retina? That's assuming that strikes elsewhere don't pose a blinding risk for the energy level required to kill a mosquito, which I have absolutely no support for. But if that is the case, you could place your lasers and define a kill zone where no two can converge with less than a safe angle. If the assumption isn't correct, you could possibly still place at least two lasers and define a narrow zone between them where the angle would be about 180 degrees. Would be damned tough to hit an eye from two sides at once. But that limits you to half power per laser, which probably isn't enough margin.
Centmo 5y ago
Perhaps if the laser light were put through adjustable optics to set the focal point at the target. That way, anything sufficiently closer or further than the target along the laser's path will see non-dangerous intensity. Still don't want the thing accidentally targeting eye balls though.

stubish 5y ago

It never took off because a) Mosquitos are small and hard targets and b) because philanthropists realized they could buy mosquito nets for billions with the funding required to develop it. If it gets developed for mosquitoes, it will be a solution for rich people for decades.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
Do you have a source for that? My understanding was that the technology worked just fine, and that it wasn’t expensive because the system comprised of consumer electronics, like the laser from a Blu-Ray player and the GPU from a PlayStation.
- stubish 5y ago
  Anything with electronics is going to be orders of magnitude more expensive than insecticide treated nets, which cost cents. https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-016-1419-y https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1... is one of a number of studies measuring the efficacy. To compete in the quest to end malaria it needs to be cheaper per-capita, off-grid, and at least as effective. I think nets, mosquito or parasite eradication and vaccination are the only approaches anyone is seriously pursuing.
kragen 5y ago
It never took off because the lab was a PR whitewash for the patent troll firm Intellectual Ventures, which wanted to appear less criminal and parasitic. They never had any intention of bringing it to market as a product. They've never brought any product to market, only extorted money from people who do. IV has not, as far as I know, broken any laws, a fact which deeply undermines the legitimacy of the US legal system.