Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Faceshield

support.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 663 posts

Re: Apple Faceshield

#441

Post by mdorazio »

woah wrote: post #436
leipert wrote: post #195

The Czech 3D Printer company Prusa has been on it for a while: https://www.prusa3d.com/covid19/ and they have been open-sourcing the design. You can print it on a 3D printer. Based on that design (and others) makers in Germany have started organizing, so that people can either request shields or supply shields. Organized on Slack and into local distribution hubs. We hace started sharing supplies and even got discount…

This design seems pretty odd to me. You already have to have a machine that cuts thin sheet plastic to make the transparent shield part, right? The actual headband is then just another small piece of plastic sheet in Apple's (and others) designs. Seems to me that adding in a 3d printer can only slow things down, since it would be much faster to simply cut the headband with the same equipment that is cutting the shiel…

I've been making these for a couple weeks now. The clear plastic part is generally sourced using the thick binder/presentation covers that come in 8.75x11.25 inch sheets, precut. The only requirement is a hole punch. Headbands can be any elastic material (I've been using button hole elastic for easy adjustment).

Re: Apple Faceshield

#442

Post by ImprovedSilence »

rumanator wrote: post #425
roenxi wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that is pretty much what I'm imagining. If someone tried to smoke behind a facemask it seems pretty likely that most of the smoke will be caught behind the mask then drift out behind them like a comet trail, or move up/down. Only small wisps would end up traveling forward to where I'd be standing for conversation. The doses of virus would be diluted very rapidly which is helpful. Ideal scenario would be most of…

> it seems pretty likely that most of the smoke will be caught If your plan is to only block most of the virus then perhaps you should rethink it. It's like stating that a hole in the hull is not a problem because the rest of the ship keeps most of the water out.

Actually initial viral load seems to be a factor in how severe the disease gets. So keeping any percentage more out of you that you can helps..

Re: Apple Faceshield

#443

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #300
uxp wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what, though? And I'm 100% being honest here, what is the specific situation you are envisioning that requires a face shield in your home? In a medical setting, shields are typically used in conjunction with eye goggles and respirators when performing procedures that have a tendency to cause or be around splashing body fluids. Outside of someone sneezing or spitting on you directly, I can't think of an analogous…

It's the same mentality as people buying guns. What situation that could conceivably arise from a pandemic requires an automatic rifle? It's a generalised sense of "bad things are happening, I need to be prepared for bad things to happen to me".

> "What situation that could conceivably arise from a pandemic requires an automatic rifle?"

Good thing that automatic rifles aren't available for sale to the civilian market[1] then, I suppose.

[1] Yes, the pedants will point out that it's theoretically possible with special licensing but it's very uncommon.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#444

Post by ALittleLight »

seventytwo wrote: post #260
ALittleLight wrote: post #139

This is awesome and I'm glad companies are doing things like this. It made me interested if face shields are something I should add to my own PPE collection. Very interesting summary of the effectiveness of face shields [1] "Utilizing a cough aerosol simulator loaded with influenza virus (aerosol volume mean diameter of 8.5 μm) and a breathing simulator, Lindsley et al.[16] reported 96% and 92% reductions in the risk…

There are things called PAPRs which are an enclosed version of what you’re taking about.

I was imagining more of a face shield with a filtered blower at the top blowing air onto the shield. I imagine this would reduce the amount of air coming around the edges of the shield and hopefully increase the effectiveness of the shield. The PAPR definitely looks interesting, and surely more effective, but it has the drawback of probably being less comfortable.

I find masks uncomfortable. My face or nose itches. My glasses fog up. I feel like a face shield might be more comfortable.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#445

Post by hydrox24 »

gambler wrote: post #256
leipert wrote: post #195

The Czech 3D Printer company Prusa has been on it for a while: https://www.prusa3d.com/covid19/ and they have been open-sourcing the design. You can print it on a 3D printer. Based on that design (and others) makers in Germany have started organizing, so that people can either request shields or supply shields. Organized on Slack and into local distribution hubs. We hace started sharing supplies and even got discount…

What is the point of 3d printing something that clearly needs to be mass-produced in great quantities? Maybe it "feels good", but it's just too slow. I'm honestly not sure why people don't just use plastic food wrap as a cheap improvised alternative for face shields. It's lightweight, readily available, disposable, fits over any attire and does not restrict visibility.

> Maybe it "feels good", but it's just too slow.

The speed of product delivery is a combination of how quickly you can make it, but also how quickly you can deliver it.

3D printing loses on production speed, but wins on delivery because it can be made a few minutes' drive away from the hospital.

Ping matters as much as bandwidth.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#446

Post by FireBeyond »

jjallen wrote: post #307
ogre_codes wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the post above “These pack flat, one hundred per box..." it's clear they are packaged for large organizations. They almost certainly have zero interest in developing individual packaging for consumers. Didn't vote him down, but it is a bit silly. Apple isn't becoming a medical supply company, they are producing a product to fill an urgent medical need. They don't have the distribution network to supply these to…

You don't think Apple has literally one of the best distribution networks in the world? What percent of the country is within a few miles of an Apple store that already receives shipments a few times a week?

A lot less than you think. Huge swathes of the country don't have Apple stores. Even living in the Puget Sound region, my nearest Apple store is 25 miles from me.

By and large Apple distribution is "UPS". Both to wholesale and retail.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#447

Post by FireBeyond »

csours wrote: post #89
Loughla wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And while we're here, let's go ahead and get these others out for people to read: Bleach+vinegar = chlorine gas, Bleach+ammonia = chloramine, Bleach+rubbing alcohol = chloroform Just don't mix bleach with anything. And while we're at it, don't mix hydrogen peroxide and vinegar, either.

And before anyone gets big ideas about the chloroform, it is not pure chloroform; it is generally contaminated by phosgene, which is truly terrible stuff.

Even with chloroform, it is not like the movies, "here, does this rag smell like chloroform?".

It's probably five minutes of steady inhalation while your mouth and nose are covered by a rag (not held above your face).

Not particularly practical.

Source: my EMT class on poisons and ODs, thank you very much.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#448

Post by lancesells »

chrischen wrote: post #391
roenxi wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone is facing me and a stream of airborne particles hits a plastic shield instead of streaming out to me, it seems pretty likely that I will be protected. I'm certainly open to the idea that fluid mechanics are complicated and somehow air currents are going to do unhelpful things, but until I find someone with a paper on the topic I'd much rather be talking to someone wearing a face shield than not. Plus obvio…

Go light a cigarette or incense and and see if a face shield prevents you from inhaling any smoke.

Light a cigarette and see if you can smell it from six feet away.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#450

Post by ogre_codes »

jjallen wrote: post #307
ogre_codes wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the post above “These pack flat, one hundred per box..." it's clear they are packaged for large organizations. They almost certainly have zero interest in developing individual packaging for consumers. Didn't vote him down, but it is a bit silly. Apple isn't becoming a medical supply company, they are producing a product to fill an urgent medical need. They don't have the distribution network to supply these to…

You don't think Apple has literally one of the best distribution networks in the world? What percent of the country is within a few miles of an Apple store that already receives shipments a few times a week?

Apple stores aren't getting any shipments right now. Even if they were, those stores are closed and Apple isn't going to open them to sell a few face masks to consumers. By the time Apple stores open, even fewer people will want face masks. (And Apple won't want them on their shelves regardless)

Apple's distribution network is built around selling consumer electronics, not medical supplies.

This isn't remotely the sort of product Apple would manufacture and sell. It's not worth the time and effort to design retail packaging for it.

Post reply on HN