The bottleneck might be the air in the room

Post by Gigachad » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 10:04 AM UTC

microtonal wrote: post #111

nok22kon wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you just want to know if CO2 is too much, 300ppm precision is fine. I dont need to know the exact level, just give me a green/yellow/red LED and make it cheap so I can have a sensor in every room

No, it's not. You generally want to ventilate an office when you reach 1000ppm, but then the IKEA will often warn you already at 700ppm. 700ppm is fine.

Post by summm » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 10:08 AM UTC

microtonal wrote: post #116

Gigachad wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Within 300 ppm is more than good enough. Realistically 1000 ppm is not that bad. The average meeting room is multiples of that. Also in my experience it’s much more accurate than that.

I notice that thinking becomes less clear when going above 1000ppm, so I let HA send a notification at 1000ppm. With ALPSTUGA it would send already at 700ppm. By the way, above 1000 the divergences become even larger due to the inaccuracy also being 10% of the ambient CO2 concentration (in optimal circumstances, probably larger IRL). So, suppose you want to be notified at 2000 ppm, the IKEA sensor might already do so…

Post by Gigachad » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 10:09 AM UTC

zeafoamrun wrote: post #94

gpt5 wrote: post #6

I really wish a Apple or another major OEM would integrate CO2 monitor into watches or smartphones. Suddenly, everybody would be aware of the CO2 level in the room, get alerts, etc. and the problem will just solve itself. There are so many rooms, classrooms, movie theaters and other places with poor ventilation where you just feel dizzy, or fall asleep, not knowing it was just due to lower oxygen levels in your blood…

I was looking at CO2 sensor module boards this week and the sensors themselves are quite large and the floor price is $15ish.

Post by Gigachad » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 10:12 AM UTC

bjackman wrote: post #112

deanc wrote: post #13

I’m not saying this isn’t a legitimate concern but this really seems to have exploded amongst the tech community as the next obsession. I see this pop up on X every few weeks. Is the concern about this really based on actual science? Is there empirical data proving people are less productive or are damaging themselves as a result of heightened CO2 levels? And I don’t mean observational epidemiology studies.

IMO it's something where an intervention is often cheap enough that it's worth it even without great evidence. But also bear in mind that regardless of "are we operating at max effectiveness", OSHA sets a legal limit of 5000ppm in a workplace, and that's about _safety_. This article is talking about keeping levels below 1000 which is a very high standard IMO (still arguably justified given the studies mentioned). But…

Post by TonyAlicea10 » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 10:15 AM UTC