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

Air-purifying headphones with active noise cancelling

dyson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 111 posts

Re: Air-purifying headphones with active noise cancelling

#101

Post by intellix »

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #84
AlexandrB wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes everyone thoroughly washes their hands, which is unlikely. Dyson hand dryers, specifically, always have a nasty puddle of water at the bottom of their drying "crevice" in busy bathrooms.

Doesn't matter how well you wash your hands, you still have to touch the door handle to get out (they usually open inwards) and some grotty germbags will have poopified that handle 50 times over before you get to touch it.

I was hoping that COVID would trigger a contactless revolution in bathrooms where I don't need to touch a pooped up door handle to get out... But sadly seems not a thing

Re: Air-purifying headphones with active noise cancelling

#102

Post by WithinReason »

jjeaff wrote: post #96
WithinReason wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The breath you see in cold weather is not aerosols but condensed moisture. I don't know how pointing out this trivial fact can be construed as trolling.

Moisture floating out of your mouth is aresolized moisture.

Then why do you only see it in cold weather? This is primary school physics...

Re: Air-purifying headphones with active noise cancelling

#104

Post by radu_floricica »

amluto wrote: post #89
hunglee2 wrote: post #18

A.K.A 'Snot Cannon' I can see this has having the similar type of negative public health impact as the Dyson Blade dryers in public toilets, simply circulating fecal matter further in an enclosed space. Naomi Wu with the critique: https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/150912514143903334...

This seems like a stretch. Barring some rather unexpected effect, this device will not change the amount of aerosolized pathogen emitted by a person. At most it will change the distribution — the aerosols will be presumably be mixed into a larger volume of air. So maybe they will spread somewhat father, but, if so, they’ll be more dilute. [0] To the extent the wearer’s breath is sucked back through the filter, the to…

This comment should NOT be downvoted. We are not comparing this device to somebody wearing a mask. We're comparing two mask-less people - one with, one without this device. In which case the quantity of virus expelled in their breath is equal, but the distribution of air is different. How this affects spread of disease is far from obvious.

It could spread more:

- it reaches more people

- it reaches people faster

It could spread less:

- much more diluted

- will dry droplets faster

- it works as a portable filter which filters part of the volume of air in that space

Re: Air-purifying headphones with active noise cancelling

#105

Post by uranusjr »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #27
dia80 wrote: post #17

A lot of negativity here but I guess the target market is locations where the air pollution is bad enough that the benefits of escaping it outweigh looking like an extra from a sci-fi B-movie. I remember hearing on the radio in London how air pollution was going to be very bad one day approaching 10 on some scale. A scientist was being interviewed and was asked "Where would the pollution in Beijing be on this scale?"…

I'm not sure how this is more compelling to use when Beijing is already comfortable with using masks, and we all suddenly have a giant pile sitting at home that aren't going to get a lot of use.

If I live in Beijing I’d probably wear a mask _with_ this thing on.

Re: Air-purifying headphones with active noise cancelling

#106

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

hunglee2 wrote: post #18

A.K.A 'Snot Cannon' I can see this has having the similar type of negative public health impact as the Dyson Blade dryers in public toilets, simply circulating fecal matter further in an enclosed space. Naomi Wu with the critique: https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/150912514143903334...

Came here for this :-) Naomi is really not happy LOL.

Re: Air-purifying headphones with active noise cancelling

#107

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

Auracle wrote: post #34
maddynator wrote: post #22

They are definitely not what we are use to when we hear the word headphone but I think they have a specific usecase and market they can address. I think they are good for anyone doing woodworking, gardening (have pollens), labs where they are chemicals, and similar outdoor work environment. The problem can be the cost. Dyson are not cheap so and they market that can use is not going to spend that much money. but the…

They’d be perfect for mowing the lawn, and I wouldn’t mind having a pair when flying either.

This is actually the first use case that I can take seriously.

Re: Air-purifying headphones with active noise cancelling

#108

Post by jjeaff »

WithinReason wrote: post #102
jjeaff wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moisture floating out of your mouth is aresolized moisture.

Then why do you only see it in cold weather? This is primary school physics...

Because in cold weather the aerosolized moisture condenses.

Re: Air-purifying headphones with active noise cancelling

#109

Post by WithinReason »

jjeaff wrote: post #108
WithinReason wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why do you only see it in cold weather? This is primary school physics...

Because in cold weather the aerosolized moisture condenses.

That is a completely nonsensical sentence.

Re: Air-purifying headphones with active noise cancelling

#110

Post by amluto »

disabled wrote: post #93
amluto wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a stretch. Barring some rather unexpected effect, this device will not change the amount of aerosolized pathogen emitted by a person. At most it will change the distribution — the aerosols will be presumably be mixed into a larger volume of air. So maybe they will spread somewhat father, but, if so, they’ll be more dilute. [0] To the extent the wearer’s breath is sucked back through the filter, the to…

It is not a stretch. This is why many hospitals require staff to wear an N95 (a hard shell mask—not a surgical mask—in order to prevent as little leakage as possible) underneath a PAPR. PAPRs (with the exception of the CleanSpace Halo if using a special adapter) do not have source control. (I personally use an Optrel e9000x PAPR with an N95 underneath for source control. If not able to use a PAPR such as on an airpla…

> This Dyson device does not have source control, and yes, it is a super-spreader device.

By this standard, my unmasked mouth is a super-spreader device. (Of course it is! Most super spreader events occurred without the assistance of any particular technology except perhaps walls and a ceiling. Sometimes technology is involved. For example, COVID pretty clearly spreads through inadequately filtered HVAC systems, but that seems to be just because it moves air to people that otherwise wouldn’t have gotten there.)

> There is proof that such devices are super spreading tools: hospital administrators wore a blow up costume in to a Kaiser Hospital ER and caused a huge COVID-19 outbreak.

What proof? I see no evidence whatsoever that exactly the same superspreader event wouldn’t have occurred with the same infected person without the suit.

Post reply on HN