Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    22 Feb '10 03:20
    https://intellectualventureslab.com/?page_id=563

    They beat me to the punch. I thought about that years ago but didn't have the bucks to pursue it. It looks like they settled on blue or violet laser but don't know the power. It is supposed to be able to sense the dif between butterfly's, mosquito's and bumblebees and to tell male from female, important for malaria control.
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    22 Feb '10 11:03
    I want to comment but I can't think of anything to say. It's neat!

    I'm trying to figure out under what circumstances someone will get zapped in the nostril hairs or something.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    22 Feb '10 14:27
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I want to comment but I can't think of anything to say. It's neat!

    I'm trying to figure out under what circumstances someone will get zapped in the nostril hairs or something.
    I don't think you could, it reacts too fast. For instance, if you got in the way of the beam just as it was striking, the IR sensor laser would see that and cut off power to the kill laser. I would like to know the power of that kill laser though. It has to be fairly significant, you can see in the images it vaporizes part of the beast.
  4. 23 Feb '10 20:58
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123680870885500701.html
  5. 02 Mar '10 16:48
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    https://intellectualventureslab.com/?page_id=563

    They beat me to the punch. I thought about that years ago but didn't have the bucks to pursue it. It looks like they settled on blue or violet laser but don't know the power. It is supposed to be able to sense the dif between butterfly's, mosquito's and bumblebees and to tell male from female, important for malaria control.
    totally amazing! if it could work on the Scottish midge, wow. There is nothing more annoying that sitting out is summer and being eaten alive. At present one must use cream, but this is just awesome. i was wondering, would you need like a spectrum of light as one gets on a motion sensor.
  6. 03 Mar '10 12:00
    I can think of at least one commercial use of such a device. One could put up a number of them in an orchard or crop field and program them to zap any insect pests going past. They would be so much better for the environment than the current practice of using insecticides.
    If they could identify specific insects it would be even better as general insecticides kill just about everything - and go into the soil and rivers etc.

    We also need a slightly higher powered one for large pests such as rats or the Australian cane toad.
  7. 03 Mar '10 12:41
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    We also need a slightly higher powered one for large pests such as rats or the Australian cane toad.
    And small children.
  8. 03 Mar '10 23:30
    Originally posted by mtthw
    And small children.
    booo, hissss

    one for grumpy grown ups, soon as they grumble, a quick zap to bring them back to their senses!
  9. 04 Mar '10 05:55
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    https://intellectualventureslab.com/?page_id=563

    They beat me to the punch. I thought about that years ago but didn't have the bucks to pursue it. It looks like they settled on blue or violet laser but don't know the power. It is supposed to be able to sense the dif between butterfly's, mosquito's and bumblebees and to tell male from female, important for malaria control.
    yeah like this will ever get to the poorest parts of the world.
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    04 Mar '10 06:29
    Originally posted by trev33
    yeah like this will ever get to the poorest parts of the world.
    It depends on if it can be made cheap.
  11. 04 Mar '10 08:26
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    It depends on if it can be made cheap.
    I am not convinced that it is significantly better than the treated mosquito net - which has been enormously successful.
    The main down sides of the mosquito net are:
    1. You've got to get one.
    2. You have to have enough for all the possible uses ie one for fishing, one for carrying maize in, one for sleeping under, etc.
    3. You've got to remember to treat it regularly. People are naturally lazy you know.
    4. You should continue to use it even when you aren't suffering from malaria or know someone who is. Generally once the incidence of malaria drops so does net usage.
    5. Its not particularly pleasant to sleep under a mosquito net - especially in hot areas as it reduces the movement of air.

    Now which of the above does the lazer zapper avoid?

    I am still convinced that if it could be made cheaply enough, the first buyers would be farmers - probably in first world countries. A little solar powered unit every 10m around the orchard to keep out any unwanted flying insect pests would be wonderful and worth quite a lot more than a mosquito net.
  12. 04 Mar '10 09:47
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    It depends on if it can be made cheap.
    the original report mentioned how 1 million people are dying each year from malaria... this invention won't change that. malaria is a totally preventable and curable disease, it's not about nifty little gadgets that can kill mosquitoes it's about getting the proper machine and equipment to the poorest regions and teaching them how to avoid contracting the virus. but they never will.. it's not cost effective to save poor peoples lives!!
  13. 04 Mar '10 14:45
    Originally posted by trev33
    it's not cost effective to save poor peoples lives!!
    It is cost effective - very much so.
    In Zambia malaria takes an enormous toll. Nobody benefits from that loss. Employers loose an enormous amount. Parents suffer and are held back economically etc. Medicines and hospital costs are enormous.
    The arrival of treated mosquito nets has made a massive difference to the incidence of malaria and this has resulted in massive economic benefits to all.
    If one would expect an average of say 5 sick days per employee per year as a result of malaria, I don't have actual figures but I would guess that by giving mosquito nets to employees they would have bring that down to less than 1 per year. That is worth significantly more than the cost of the mosquito net. And yes, employers do recognize the benefits and have been actively involved in the drive to get mosquito nets to their employees.
    In some cases such as my sisters farm workers it not only results in fewer days lost to sickness but also fewer deaths of children - which makes a massive difference to the moral of the workers as well as reducing lost work days due to funerals etc.

    There are also long term benefits world wide to helping poor people, but most businesses are too short sighted to factor that in.
  14. 04 Mar '10 14:50
    Originally posted by trev33
    it's not cost effective to save poor peoples lives!!
    I just looked it up:
    http://www.malaria.org/itmn1.html

    "The disease is associated with considerable economic burden, including direct cost to governments and patients for hospital admissions and outpatient consultations, cost to households for treatment sought outside the official system, and cost due to absenteeism from productive work, or education."
  15. 04 Mar '10 16:06
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It is cost effective - very much so.
    In Zambia malaria takes an enormous toll. Nobody benefits from that loss. Employers loose an enormous amount. Parents suffer and are held back economically etc. Medicines and hospital costs are enormous.
    The arrival of treated mosquito nets has made a massive difference to the incidence of malaria and this has result ...[text shortened]... world wide to helping poor people, but most businesses are too short sighted to factor that in.
    annually the death toll from malaria has been consistently around one million since 1960 (that's the furthest back records i could find) with nigeria topping the list. there's no doubt that money has been pumped into trying to deal with malaria but with zero results if you look at it.

    http://www.unicef.org/newsline/pr29.htm

    unicef in 97 lunches campaign against maleria

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080411150852.htm

    2008 they wonder why the death toll remains constant despite around $220 million apparently being put into preventing the spread of malaria.

    i'm sure you knew the country with the highest malaria death toll in the world is nigeria... i don't know about you but when you mention nigeria i think corrupt government. do you think these two are coincidences? i don't think so.

    'third world' governments are generally useless at helping their people when given aid. would also add that richer nations are good at promising aid but no were near as good at delivering.

    If one would expect an average of say 5 sick days per employee per year as a result of malaria, I don't have actual figures but I would guess that by giving mosquito nets to employees they would have bring that down to less than 1 per year.


    don't make up numbers. you have no idea how many days are lost at work because of malaria... plus mosquito nets are mostly used in bed, yes? what happens the rest of the time? ... but the main concerns has to be the number of infant fatalities.

    it's cost effective to look after your workers yes... but it it really cost effective to prevent the vast majority of malaria cases? (which is totally possible) is it cost effective to eradicate world poverty? again possible but it will never happen... the larger richer nations would prefer to look after themselves you know and turn their back on the major sufferings around the world. as long as the elite is stocked up on caviar and foie gras everything is golden.