7 ms·

This tiny, wearable patch makes you invisible to mosquitos

100 points by aditya 13y ago

foofdawg 13y ago
So the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation supported them with a grant, but not enough of a grant to do product testing? Something sounds fishy to me....They seem to be all about results-based investing, and I just don't see the foundation providing funds without providing enough to "see it through" the development and testing phase. Am I wrong here?
- th0br0 13y ago
  According to their text, they seem to have received those grants 3 years ago. Still, given the rather low goal, I'd, too, assume that this is simply a marketing strategy to increase visibility. After all, this is a kickstarter and when you back it (even though not receiving any Kites for yourself on the low tiers) you do something good for those poor people in Uganda! Also, I'd guess that the $75k goal barely covers production, shipping & travel costs... and their manufacturing pipeline seems to already be set up.
- pyoung 13y ago
  I can see a few potential flaws that could have caused them to not get follow up funding (although I am in no way suggesting that they didn't get follow up funding) 1. Cost. People in Africa are poor, so unless these can be produced and sold for pennies a piece, it probably won't take off. Using the 'buy one, donate one' method probably doesn't scale enough to solve the malaria problem. 2. Behavior. Condoms are a fairly effective method to practice safe sex, and despite a massive amount of money and education, adoption has been slow, or non-existent in Africa. I can see similar issues with Kite. 3. Effectiveness - While they may work, they may not have been shown to be effective enough to warrant further funding. 4. For-profit? I can't seem to find anything on the companies website, but the gates foundation prefers to give their money to non-profits. If they are a for-profit company, I could see reluctance on the foundations part to continue providing funds. On a personal note, this seems like a cool product that I would use when camping/hiking. But for some of the reasons mentioned above, I would be skeptical to declare this as the solution to malaria in third-world countries, not that I would mind to be proven wrong. I wish them the best of luck.
tinco 13y ago
It sounds very good, but how can I invest in them, if they make such a great effort in their video to avoid explaining what it does exactly? How do you hide a CO2 footprint, when that same footprint could be smelled by a from musquito 100 meters away? Why not just tell us?
- zeteo 13y ago
  > how can I invest in them, if they make such a great effort in their video to avoid explaining what it does exactly? Here you go, there's an article under the video: >If we had to guess, we'd say the FAQ are referring to this study, published by Ray and his team in a June 2011 issue of Nature, in which the researchers identify three groups of chemicals that can which disrupt a mosquito's carbon dioxide receptors And also a helpful comment by "ciller" below the article: >DEET works by blocking the CO2 receptors on mosquitos, this causes the mosquito to be unable to figure out non food sources from usable ones. If this kite patch blocks the CO2 receptors as well as DEET does, then it should be effective. >I work in a laboratory that deals with mosquito related problems quite a bit and we are more then willing to test these things out in a small scale field study. A viable alternative to DEET that you dont have to apply over your entire skin surface area would be rather ideal.
  - eli 13y ago
    It's not a very comforting explanation if it comes from a Pop Science blogger and starts with "If we had to guess..."
- mistercow 13y ago
  >How do you hide a CO2 footprint, when that same footprint could be smelled by a from musquito 100 meters away? If the mosquito can find you from 100 meters away, that doesn't mean it can find you once it gets 1 meter from you and its CO₂ receptors are confused.
the_cat_kittles 13y ago
I hope this comes to fruition, since it would be a huge boon for lots of people, assuming its cost effective. On a slightly more cynical note, I am so sick of the self aggrandizing sappy tone of these videos. I think the music is the culprit in this particular case. Maybe its necessary, but it drives me nuts.
nostromo 13y ago
Just use an oscillating fan. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/science/a-low-tech-mosquito-deterrent.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/science/a-low-tech-mosquit... It's also worth noting that previous attempts at preventing malaria in Africa have failed not because of any technological limitation, but because they view it completely differently than we do in the West. > As medical anthropologists have consistently found, because malaria is so common in much of sub-Saharan Africa, and because the overwhelming majority of cases go away on their own, most rural Africans consider malaria a minor ailment, the way that Westerners might think of the cold or flu. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/02/opinion/la-oe-shah-20100502 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/02/opinion/la-oe-shah-2...
- ams6110 13y ago
  Rather hard to carry an oscillating fan around with you at all times.
  - knowaveragejoe 13y ago
    You could just make your own(very effective) trap with household ingredients: http://www.thriftyfun.com/tf22399231.tip.html http://www.thriftyfun.com/tf22399231.tip.html
    - tzs 13y ago
      That was interesting, except I don't understand why it calls for a candy thermometer when the highest temperature you are asked to measure is 90 F. The first temperature where sugar does something interesting in candy making is 230 F, and so many candy thermometers don't even go down to 90 F.
    - veemjeem 13y ago
      Still, a square piece of plastic is still more portable than carrying around a 2 liter bottle full of fermenting yeast. I'm not about to strap that to my backpack when I go hiking.
- victorology 13y ago
ewams 13y ago
From the linked article it is unclear if the chemicals are absorbed into the body or not. From the horse's mouth: "Kite Patch is designed for clothing, not skin. A few news articles did get it wrong – but our technology is designed to be placed on clothing, baby carriers, backpacks, Camelbacks and other outdoor gear (for outdoor enthusiasts), etc. Kite is NOT a skin patch." Source: http://www.kitepatch.com http://www.kitepatch.com about 5 pages down. Manufacture's website: http://olfactorlabs.com http://olfactorlabs.com
falk 13y ago
Did anyone else pick up on all the chemophobia in this video? Is a clip of people spraying DDT supposed to scare us? Rachel Carson was wrong. DDT is safe. My favorite part is when they say "food grade FDA compounds". That's a lot of words to say chemicals.
- mistercow 13y ago
  >DDT is safe. [citation needed]
  - qohen 13y ago
    From the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2006: WHO gives indoor use of DDT a clean bill of health for controlling malaria http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/ "Extensive research and testing has since demonstrated that well-managed indoor residual spraying programmes using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or to humans"
    - merlincorey 13y ago
      And if you read here: http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_07_02_a_ddt.htm http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_07_02_a_ddt.htm You can find out just how hard it is to have a well managed program. They say it takes a dictator and a fascist to do successfully.
  - falk 13y ago
    Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring is credited with starting the anti-DDT movement. It's been discredited and is full of junk science and needless corporation-bashing. Read the paper Chemicals and Pests which tears apart Carson's book. [1] Checkout the New York Times article from 1962 titled "Fateful Voice of a Generation Still Drowns Out Real Science" [2] A choice quote: "Ms. Carson used dubious statistics and anecdotes (like the improbable story of a woman who instantly developed cancer after spraying her basement with DDT) to warn of a cancer epidemic that never came to pass. She rightly noted threats to some birds, like eagles and other raptors, but she wildly imagined a mass “biocide.” She warned that one of the most common American birds, the robin, was “on the verge of extinction” — an especially odd claim given the large numbers of robins recorded in Audubon bird counts before her book." You may also want to check out the story of Professor Kenneth Mellanby who ate DDT for 40 years. [3] Make sure to take a look at the scientific paper mentioned in this Times article. It concludes "DDT is practically harmless to humans who get it on their skins or breathe it into their lungs." [4] [1] http://www1.umn.edu/ships/pesticides/library/baldwin1962.pdf http://www1.umn.edu/ships/pesticides/library/baldwin1962.pdf [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/science/earth/05tier.html?ei=5124&en=14a418afaa8af640&ex=1338782400&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1181487827-TjMEg9pHGxi9E4cK+bB4rQ&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/science/earth/05tier.html?... [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4264030/DDT-is-safe-just-ask-the-professor-who-ate-it-for-40-years.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4264030/DDT-is-safe-just-... [4] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,812248,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,812248,00.h...
WestCoastJustin 13y ago
They have an indiegogo funding page where you can select your perks [1]. I am wondering why they needed $75k in the first place, if they were funded through Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, wouldn't they just chip in the final chunk to push this into production? [1] http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/kite-patch http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/kite-patch
Wingman4l7 13y ago
I remember in 2011 reading with great interest some research into nootkatone[1] as a mosquito repellent[2] (which has already been shown to be effective against ticks). It is a non-toxic oil found in grapefruit and is already approved by the FDA as a food additive. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything (read: consumer-available products) come of it. Upon a bit of searching, I found a patent[3] for a nootkatone-based insect repellent... filed in 1998! [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootkatone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootkatone [2]: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135468567/repelling-bugs-with-the-essence-of-grapefruit http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135468567/repelling-bugs-with-... [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/EP1033076A1?cl=en http://www.google.com/patents/EP1033076A1?cl=en
teeja 13y ago
As anyone who's ever summered in Minnesota will tell you, (and as one who's been chased out of the woods near a river one evening by a starving swarm of thousands) this is akin to finding the holy grail.
czzarr 13y ago
I don't understand what covering the CO2 in our breath could do to prevent mosquitoes from biting you when they are around your arm like we can see in the video when the guy puts his arm in the experience box. Does our skin emit CO2?
- Sharlin 13y ago
  I don't think the patch helps when you're already surrounded by mosquitoes - the bugs use CO2 to find you in the first place, then find the bare skin using some other means.
  - czzarr 13y ago
    In that case, what the hell is going on with their pictures of the arm in a box full of mosquitoes not moving towards the skin? Looks really really shady to me.
pakitan 13y ago
From their own FAQ: Does Kite provide 100% protection against mosquito bites? Kite provides a steady stream of our patent-pending spatial (airborne) compounds that block mosquitoes’ ability to track us for up to 48 hours, but it does not guarantee mosquitoes will not bite us. It is being designed to be a replacement for spray-on, fan-powered, or lotion applications, but does not take the place of bed nets at night and/or appropriate clothing in mosquito-impacted areas So, they have put some compounds, that have been proven to repel mosquitoes in laboratory conditions, on a patch. The "minor" problem is that this patch can't possibly exude enough of those compounds to protect a human in real life conditions. I'm only refraining from calling this a scam because it seems to be a real company with scientists and all. But I won't be spending any money on this patch, that's for sure. http://xkcd.com/1217/ http://xkcd.com/1217/
luscious 13y ago
Who has told people to stick investor-repellent soundtracks IN EVERY DAMN start-up-beggar campaign? That same bland optimistically beige stuff. This one didn't have the plunky piano and/or guitar bits, but it's like someone ran out and said... The words aren't enough. We need sound reinforcement to lend emotion. Hmmmm... Apple used quirky, plucky, minimal for their quirky, plucky, minimal industrial design product launches... I KNOW! I want people to think I'm a quirky, plucky, minimal start-up that puts stinky color stickers on people!!!
jsemrau 13y ago
Where I am living this is available for such a long time. What is suddenly so new about it?

100 points by aditya 13y ago

So the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation supported them with a grant, but not enough of a grant to do product testing? Something sounds fishy to me....They seem to be all about results-based investing, and I just don't see the foundation providing funds without providing enough to "see it through" the development and testing phase. Am I wrong here?

th0br0 13y ago
According to their text, they seem to have received those grants 3 years ago. Still, given the rather low goal, I'd, too, assume that this is simply a marketing strategy to increase visibility. After all, this is a kickstarter and when you back it (even though not receiving any Kites for yourself on the low tiers) you do something good for those poor people in Uganda! Also, I'd guess that the $75k goal barely covers production, shipping & travel costs... and their manufacturing pipeline seems to already be set up.
pyoung 13y ago
I can see a few potential flaws that could have caused them to not get follow up funding (although I am in no way suggesting that they didn't get follow up funding) 1. Cost. People in Africa are poor, so unless these can be produced and sold for pennies a piece, it probably won't take off. Using the 'buy one, donate one' method probably doesn't scale enough to solve the malaria problem. 2. Behavior. Condoms are a fairly effective method to practice safe sex, and despite a massive amount of money and education, adoption has been slow, or non-existent in Africa. I can see similar issues with Kite. 3. Effectiveness - While they may work, they may not have been shown to be effective enough to warrant further funding. 4. For-profit? I can't seem to find anything on the companies website, but the gates foundation prefers to give their money to non-profits. If they are a for-profit company, I could see reluctance on the foundations part to continue providing funds. On a personal note, this seems like a cool product that I would use when camping/hiking. But for some of the reasons mentioned above, I would be skeptical to declare this as the solution to malaria in third-world countries, not that I would mind to be proven wrong. I wish them the best of luck.

tinco 13y ago

It sounds very good, but how can I invest in them, if they make such a great effort in their video to avoid explaining what it does exactly? How do you hide a CO2 footprint, when that same footprint could be smelled by a from musquito 100 meters away? Why not just tell us?

zeteo 13y ago
> how can I invest in them, if they make such a great effort in their video to avoid explaining what it does exactly? Here you go, there's an article under the video: >If we had to guess, we'd say the FAQ are referring to this study, published by Ray and his team in a June 2011 issue of Nature, in which the researchers identify three groups of chemicals that can which disrupt a mosquito's carbon dioxide receptors And also a helpful comment by "ciller" below the article: >DEET works by blocking the CO2 receptors on mosquitos, this causes the mosquito to be unable to figure out non food sources from usable ones. If this kite patch blocks the CO2 receptors as well as DEET does, then it should be effective. >I work in a laboratory that deals with mosquito related problems quite a bit and we are more then willing to test these things out in a small scale field study. A viable alternative to DEET that you dont have to apply over your entire skin surface area would be rather ideal.
- eli 13y ago
  It's not a very comforting explanation if it comes from a Pop Science blogger and starts with "If we had to guess..."
mistercow 13y ago
>How do you hide a CO2 footprint, when that same footprint could be smelled by a from musquito 100 meters away? If the mosquito can find you from 100 meters away, that doesn't mean it can find you once it gets 1 meter from you and its CO₂ receptors are confused.

the_cat_kittles 13y ago

I hope this comes to fruition, since it would be a huge boon for lots of people, assuming its cost effective. On a slightly more cynical note, I am so sick of the self aggrandizing sappy tone of these videos. I think the music is the culprit in this particular case. Maybe its necessary, but it drives me nuts.

nostromo 13y ago

Just use an oscillating fan. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/science/a-low-tech-mosquito-deterrent.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/science/a-low-tech-mosquit... It's also worth noting that previous attempts at preventing malaria in Africa have failed not because of any technological limitation, but because they view it completely differently than we do in the West. > As medical anthropologists have consistently found, because malaria is so common in much of sub-Saharan Africa, and because the overwhelming majority of cases go away on their own, most rural Africans consider malaria a minor ailment, the way that Westerners might think of the cold or flu. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/02/opinion/la-oe-shah-20100502 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/02/opinion/la-oe-shah-2...

ams6110 13y ago
Rather hard to carry an oscillating fan around with you at all times.
- knowaveragejoe 13y ago
  You could just make your own(very effective) trap with household ingredients: http://www.thriftyfun.com/tf22399231.tip.html http://www.thriftyfun.com/tf22399231.tip.html
  - tzs 13y ago
    That was interesting, except I don't understand why it calls for a candy thermometer when the highest temperature you are asked to measure is 90 F. The first temperature where sugar does something interesting in candy making is 230 F, and so many candy thermometers don't even go down to 90 F.
  - veemjeem 13y ago
    Still, a square piece of plastic is still more portable than carrying around a 2 liter bottle full of fermenting yeast. I'm not about to strap that to my backpack when I go hiking.
victorology 13y ago

ewams 13y ago

From the linked article it is unclear if the chemicals are absorbed into the body or not. From the horse's mouth: "Kite Patch is designed for clothing, not skin. A few news articles did get it wrong – but our technology is designed to be placed on clothing, baby carriers, backpacks, Camelbacks and other outdoor gear (for outdoor enthusiasts), etc. Kite is NOT a skin patch." Source: http://www.kitepatch.com http://www.kitepatch.com about 5 pages down. Manufacture's website: http://olfactorlabs.com http://olfactorlabs.com

falk 13y ago

Did anyone else pick up on all the chemophobia in this video? Is a clip of people spraying DDT supposed to scare us? Rachel Carson was wrong. DDT is safe. My favorite part is when they say "food grade FDA compounds". That's a lot of words to say chemicals.

mistercow 13y ago
>DDT is safe. [citation needed]
- qohen 13y ago
  From the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2006: WHO gives indoor use of DDT a clean bill of health for controlling malaria http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/ "Extensive research and testing has since demonstrated that well-managed indoor residual spraying programmes using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or to humans"
  - merlincorey 13y ago
    And if you read here: http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_07_02_a_ddt.htm http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_07_02_a_ddt.htm You can find out just how hard it is to have a well managed program. They say it takes a dictator and a fascist to do successfully.
- falk 13y ago
  Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring is credited with starting the anti-DDT movement. It's been discredited and is full of junk science and needless corporation-bashing. Read the paper Chemicals and Pests which tears apart Carson's book. [1] Checkout the New York Times article from 1962 titled "Fateful Voice of a Generation Still Drowns Out Real Science" [2] A choice quote: "Ms. Carson used dubious statistics and anecdotes (like the improbable story of a woman who instantly developed cancer after spraying her basement with DDT) to warn of a cancer epidemic that never came to pass. She rightly noted threats to some birds, like eagles and other raptors, but she wildly imagined a mass “biocide.” She warned that one of the most common American birds, the robin, was “on the verge of extinction” — an especially odd claim given the large numbers of robins recorded in Audubon bird counts before her book." You may also want to check out the story of Professor Kenneth Mellanby who ate DDT for 40 years. [3] Make sure to take a look at the scientific paper mentioned in this Times article. It concludes "DDT is practically harmless to humans who get it on their skins or breathe it into their lungs." [4] [1] http://www1.umn.edu/ships/pesticides/library/baldwin1962.pdf http://www1.umn.edu/ships/pesticides/library/baldwin1962.pdf [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/science/earth/05tier.html?ei=5124&en=14a418afaa8af640&ex=1338782400&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1181487827-TjMEg9pHGxi9E4cK+bB4rQ&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/science/earth/05tier.html?... [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4264030/DDT-is-safe-just-ask-the-professor-who-ate-it-for-40-years.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4264030/DDT-is-safe-just-... [4] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,812248,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,812248,00.h...

WestCoastJustin 13y ago

They have an indiegogo funding page where you can select your perks [1]. I am wondering why they needed $75k in the first place, if they were funded through Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, wouldn't they just chip in the final chunk to push this into production? [1] http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/kite-patch http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/kite-patch

Wingman4l7 13y ago

I remember in 2011 reading with great interest some research into nootkatone[1] as a mosquito repellent[2] (which has already been shown to be effective against ticks). It is a non-toxic oil found in grapefruit and is already approved by the FDA as a food additive. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything (read: consumer-available products) come of it. Upon a bit of searching, I found a patent[3] for a nootkatone-based insect repellent... filed in 1998! [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootkatone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootkatone [2]: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135468567/repelling-bugs-with-the-essence-of-grapefruit http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135468567/repelling-bugs-with-... [3]: http://www.google.com/patents/EP1033076A1?cl=en http://www.google.com/patents/EP1033076A1?cl=en

teeja 13y ago

As anyone who's ever summered in Minnesota will tell you, (and as one who's been chased out of the woods near a river one evening by a starving swarm of thousands) this is akin to finding the holy grail.

czzarr 13y ago

I don't understand what covering the CO2 in our breath could do to prevent mosquitoes from biting you when they are around your arm like we can see in the video when the guy puts his arm in the experience box. Does our skin emit CO2?

Sharlin 13y ago
I don't think the patch helps when you're already surrounded by mosquitoes - the bugs use CO2 to find you in the first place, then find the bare skin using some other means.
- czzarr 13y ago
  In that case, what the hell is going on with their pictures of the arm in a box full of mosquitoes not moving towards the skin? Looks really really shady to me.

pakitan 13y ago

From their own FAQ: Does Kite provide 100% protection against mosquito bites? Kite provides a steady stream of our patent-pending spatial (airborne) compounds that block mosquitoes’ ability to track us for up to 48 hours, but it does not guarantee mosquitoes will not bite us. It is being designed to be a replacement for spray-on, fan-powered, or lotion applications, but does not take the place of bed nets at night and/or appropriate clothing in mosquito-impacted areas So, they have put some compounds, that have been proven to repel mosquitoes in laboratory conditions, on a patch. The "minor" problem is that this patch can't possibly exude enough of those compounds to protect a human in real life conditions. I'm only refraining from calling this a scam because it seems to be a real company with scientists and all. But I won't be spending any money on this patch, that's for sure. http://xkcd.com/1217/ http://xkcd.com/1217/

luscious 13y ago

Who has told people to stick investor-repellent soundtracks IN EVERY DAMN start-up-beggar campaign? That same bland optimistically beige stuff. This one didn't have the plunky piano and/or guitar bits, but it's like someone ran out and said... The words aren't enough. We need sound reinforcement to lend emotion. Hmmmm... Apple used quirky, plucky, minimal for their quirky, plucky, minimal industrial design product launches... I KNOW! I want people to think I'm a quirky, plucky, minimal start-up that puts stinky color stickers on people!!!

jsemrau 13y ago

Where I am living this is available for such a long time. What is suddenly so new about it?