101–110 of 217 posts
Back in high school lab I remember we were told not to put our hands into ultrasonic cleaners because it messes with your bones or joints or something like that. Was that just bullshit?
Which probably aren't documented for the ultrasonic cleaners.
Plus "if you don't know, play it safe".
The future of the past looked so much more interesting. Not practical, but certainly interesting. I'm curious why the author of this piece decided to use the gender neutral pronoun for the women who modelled this odd machine. They wrote: > The demonstration model would climb into the six-foot-tall machine via ladder, then enter the chamber, with their head sticking out of the top. They'd set the water temperature, th…
I don't know if all the models were women, perhaps they had some guys as well? (Or the author just doesn't want to commit, because they don't know?)
We see some pictures of models, but we don't know if those are all the models they had.
Before I clicked, I thought it was going to be a washing machine with a three position knob that says “hot wash, cold wash, off”. modern washing machine UI is terrible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that a problem though? The other day I got a whole lecture on HN, complete with math, proving that keeping the water running entire time while showering isn't meaningfully wasteful... I still can't believe it on an emotional level, but the math checks out...
What's meaningfully wasteful depends entirely where and when you are, and how plentiful water is locally at the moment.
This mentality is what brought us to today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, even if the city doesn't re-use the water, it doesn't just disappear.
Yeah, but getting rid of chemicals and returning it to a non-poisonous state for the nature is a big plus. You can't dump everything to the soil and say "that's your problem now, nature. Cope!".
As opposed to eg 'wasting petrol', where the petrol really is gone afterwards. At least it has been chemically transformed.
> After five minutes of that, the machine would then fill the chamber with hot water for a three-minute ultrasonic bath. This was followed by a two-minute hot rinse cycle. Next, the chamber would drain and the user was blasted with warm air to dry off. They were additionally exposed to both infrared and ultraviolet light to kill germs. All in all, it was a 15-minute cycle. It's apparently also a tanning booth. 15 min…
You are right that for able bodied people it's at best a gimmick. But it might be useful for people with limited mobility, who don't want to depend on other people washing them.
But the article's final photo is of completely different model - far more accessible, far safer, and for "the health care sector".
> After five minutes of that, the machine would then fill the chamber with hot water for a three-minute ultrasonic bath. This was followed by a two-minute hot rinse cycle. Next, the chamber would drain and the user was blasted with warm air to dry off. They were additionally exposed to both infrared and ultraviolet light to kill germs. All in all, it was a 15-minute cycle. It's apparently also a tanning booth. 15 min…
I suppose, one advantage would be that you can use it while almost asleep, while you need a minimum of mental presence for a shower. So if you wanted, you could: wake up; slump into the bathroom and into this thing; press the button; snooze another 15 minutes while part of your morning routine is being done for (or to) you. Whether this is something you should do is another question... (Also, it might be possible to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's meaningfully wasteful depends entirely where and when you are, and how plentiful water is locally at the moment.
I don't think so. Just because you're not in a water-stressed place doesn't make you eligible to keep taps open 24/7. This mentality is what brought us to today.
In most places I've been to, you just pay your water bill, and then you can leave your taps running.
It's about as productive as buying bread just to toss it in the trash, of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right that for able bodied people it's at best a gimmick. But it might be useful for people with limited mobility, who don't want to depend on other people washing them.
Safely getting into and out of it looks very challenging for people with limited mobility. But the article's final photo is of completely different model - far more accessible, far safer, and for "the health care sector".