Live data from Hacker News

Paper Centrifuge

gizmodo.com

11–20 of 133 posts

Re: Paper Centrifuge

#13
post #11

Cool idea but it can't possibly be safe to spin infected blood on a device such as this.

I don't know why it would be any more dangerous than a typical centrifuge. Samples are in a vial, and that vial is what is responsible for containing the sample while you spin the samples. Having been around conventional centrifuges that have been destroyed due to improper balance, I assure you that any way you can imagine infected blood being distributed by the paper model would be 10x worse with a normal centrifuge. At least with this method, the motor has a brain and will stop as soon as things start going south.

A lot of centrifuges are just controlled by a potentiometer. You couldn't pay me enough to to get close enough to turn one of those off while it is self-destructing. The amount of energy involved is enormous. Someone blew up a (rather inexpensive) medical centrifuge at my school when they balanced some non-water liquid with water. It was a huge mess. Centrifuges are basically designed to contain the most dangerous bits when they explode. They don't keep your error from spraying all over the room.

Re: Paper Centrifuge

#14
post #11

Cool idea but it can't possibly be safe to spin infected blood on a device such as this.

Why not? The videos show the devices being operated with one handle fixed against a wall/door. In that situation, nothing flying off the disc will go towards the operator. You could also enclosing it in a box or operate it inside a hole in the ground.

Re: Paper Centrifuge

#15
post #6
post #3

15 mins of human labor per test doesn't sound cheap but I guess you can get the patient to do it themselves. A bit curious, why is a cheap centrifuge hard to build? It seems like a pretty simple device and motors are pretty cheap.

It's not: https://diybio.org/2012/06/11/dremelfuge-classic/ But presumably this could be for regions in which even those materials are difficult to obtain.

I use the dremelfuge. It's not particularly safe, but it does get the job done for very basic spin-downs. You don't have really precise RPM control, as well as many other things.

Re: Paper Centrifuge

#16
post #11

Cool idea but it can't possibly be safe to spin infected blood on a device such as this.

Why not? The videos show the devices being operated with one handle fixed against a wall/door. In that situation, nothing flying off the disc will go towards the operator. You could also enclosing it in a box or operate it inside a hole in the ground.

"nothing flying off the disk will go towards the operator". What about other people? As you say, you can enclose it in a box, but that means making a glovebox, which increases cost significantly.

Re: Paper Centrifuge

#17
post #12

Why is this on the front page?

This is Hacker News, and this seems like an excellent hack.

From http://catb.org/jargon/html/H/hack.html

> Originally, a quick job that produces what is needed, but not well.

See also http://catb.org/jargon/html/meaning-of-hack.html and https://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html

Re: Paper Centrifuge

#19
post #3

15 mins of human labor per test doesn't sound cheap but I guess you can get the patient to do it themselves. A bit curious, why is a cheap centrifuge hard to build? It seems like a pretty simple device and motors are pretty cheap.

think remote villages where it's difficult to bring equipment in, places without electricity, etc.

[edit:] from article:

A centrifuge is an essential tool for hospitals and labs across the world. Trouble is, centrifuges are expensive, bulky, and require electricity. In poor regions where tropical diseases flourish, these instruments can be hard to come by, thus limiting the ability of point-of-care healthcare workers to do their work. [...] The device, dubbed the “paperfuge,” can reach spinning speeds of 125,000 revolutions per minute (RPM), and exert centrifugal forces equivalent to 30,000 g’s. It’s roughly a hundred times faster than previous non-electrical efforts, and it’s considered the fastest rotational speed ever recorded for a human-powered device.

Post reply on HN