Slashdot Mirror


Grad Student Rigs Cheap Alternative To $1,000 Air Purifiers In Smoggy China

An anonymous reader writes "University of Virginia grad student Thomas Talhelm was living in Beijing on a Fulbright Scholarship during the winter of 2012-13, when air pollution was so bad scientists likened it to a nuclear winter. Those who could afford it were resorting to an expensive solution: air filters costing up to $1,000. Talhem built his own on the cheap, getting comparable particulate count results, and has started a company that both markets the product to middle class Chinese and shows others how to DIY."

182 comments

  1. Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    He straps a filter on to a fan and this is noteworthy? Ok then.

    1. Re:Very original by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He straps a filter on to a fan and this is noteworthy? Ok then.

      He got similar results to a $1000 product, and told everybody how to do it.

      That is newsworthy.

      I suspect there are a lot of people in places with a lot of air pollution who would really like to have this.

      Kudos to this guy.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re: Very original by smaddox · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Effective at reducing particle count, but not at removing harmful chemicals from the air. Still, much better than nothing.

    3. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like people were overpaying by thousands of dollars because until now none of them had the simple idea to duct tape a filter over a fan.

    4. Re:Very original by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

      More like people were overpaying by thousands of dollars because until now none of them had the simple idea to duct tape a filter over a fan.

      Well, he went as far as confirming he was getting the same particle counts.

      His solution was remarkably simple and really cheap. He strapped a HEPA filter to a fan and quickly began to enjoy clean air. A particle counter he purchased confirmed the filter was effective.

      He's not saying "I just invented something revolutionary", he's just sticking it to the people selling over prices kit.

      And in my book, that gets applause.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Very original by Manfre · · Score: 1

      It's odd that people needed instructions on how to tape a filter to a fan?

    6. Re:Very original by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      How very un-American! He could have sold it for 800 bucks, and instead he hands it out for free!

      He's been living in Commieland for too long!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Very original by tomhath · · Score: 0

      Well, he went as far as confirming he was getting the same particle counts.

      He confirmed that the homemade filter reduced particle counts. But I don't see that he compared its effectiveness to filters costing "up to $1000".

    8. Re:Very original by Albanach · · Score: 1

      More like people were overpaying by thousands of dollars because until now none of them had the simple idea to duct tape a filter over a fan.

      As you say, none of them had the idea. In a country of 1.4 billion people.

      A great many things seem obvious with 20/20 hindsight.

    9. Re:Very original by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hermes Conrad: I order you to dispose of that toxic waste properly, or bribe me. Either way, it'll cost you $500.

      Bender: 500 real dollars? That's an outrage! Professor, I can take care of that waste for only $499 and one hundred cents.

      Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth: Hmm, I know that's a rip, but I'll pay for the convenience.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:Very original by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In China? Not really. If you're being conditioned that following the rules is good while thinking for yourself is bad and can even get you in trouble, you eventually end up with a mindset like that.

      But don't worry, they're already exporting that success model. We're getting there. And, frankly, when I look around me, how people pay for "services" that hardly qualify as a service because they're too closed minded to even fathom how they could do it themselves for free and at little if any expense and effort, I dare say we're already there.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Very original by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

      He managed to attach a square filter to a round duct; that's NASA-level ingenuity right there.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    12. Re:Very original by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      It's odd that people needed instructions on how to tape a filter to a fan?

      Well, there was a market for a $1000 product ... apparently nobody else thought of it.

      Yes, this is the low-tech solution, but if it works just as well as the expensive one ... it's a damned fine solution.

      How have you made the world a better place this week?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    13. Re: Very original by mspohr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Probably could combine a HEPA filter with a charcoal filter to get both particles and volatile chemicals.

      Like this:
      http://www.instructables.com/i...
      Or:
      http://www.amazon.com/Rabbit-A...
      Lots more here:
      http://www.grainger.com/catego...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    14. Re:Very original by mark-t · · Score: 4, Informative
      Right there in the summary:

      ...getting comparable particulate count results

    15. Re:Very original by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Oftentimes, life gets in the way.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    16. Re:Very original by sls1j · · Score: 2

      What un-American??? Seems like he took a leaf out of Benjamin Franklin's book. When Mr. Franklin discovered a more efficient wood burning stove he didn't patent it for the purpose of making sure it would be widely accepted. His design is still being used.

    17. Re:Very original by sjames · · Score: 2

      I'm sure people knew how to do that. What they didn't know was that by doing that they could match the results of a $1000 solution. They're no doubt thinking "It can't be that simple, there must be a trick to it". So they sell a pre-made unit at low cost.

    18. Re:Very original by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      So Franklin was against the American way of life too?

      Won't somebody please think of the Founding Fathers?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not news worthy because people have already done this for years. I have been doing it for years. Just google box fan + furnace filter. Everyone knows this is a cheap trick.

    20. Re:Very original by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      It's because he is a grad student, be nice to the mentally challenged. grad students are people too.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    21. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you didn't patent it. He is ;).

    22. Re:Very original by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Comparable particle counts HOW? right up against the filter? What about over time? Zero details except you MUST go to his workshop for $33 to find out... Fishy...

      I have a rock that keeps tigers away, My most recent tiger count shows zero so it's as good as a $10,000 tiger cage.

      Need real data, full information on how the test was done and for how long. Anything else is made up BS or misinformation.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    23. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's newsworthy because it took a grad student to figure it out. Literally everyone with an IQ above room temperature has figured this one out in the presence of a box fan and an air filter, and reports on how it meets or beats filters hundreds of times more expensive have been floating around for decades. This is akin to a Ph.D. "discovering" that life in the desert is dramatically improved by copious amounts of bottled water.

    24. Re: Very original by Lumpy · · Score: 0

      Not with a fan that size. and I highly doubt that a HEPA filter and a fan works. you need significant air pressure behind the fan to get any real filtering volume.

      Honestly people buying cheap pleated paper furnace filters and doubling them up over their windows will be more effective. when it can filter 50CFM then I'll be impressed. and that will be for a very small one that can barely keep up with air leakage of a tiny apartment.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    25. Re:Very original by pla · · Score: 1

      He got similar results to a $1000 product, and told everybody how to do it.

      I think the problem we have here comes from the comparison to a $1000 product as little more than a red herring.

      He strapped a (replacement) HEPA cartridge - A well-proven technology for removing particulates from the air - To a fan. He basically made a "ghetto" HEPA filter. I have little reason to doubt it would work.

      I would, however, question how well that $1000 filter performs compared to a sub-$50 Holmes/LG/Honeywell/etc filter. If Talhelm managed to get the same performance from just a replacement filter for one of those strapped to a fan, I would expect "not at all" as the answer.

      So we should certainly credit him for his real "discovery" here - That expensive consumer-targetted air filters don't do any better than the Wallyworld special. Anything beyond that amounts to marketing for his new company manufacturing something even crappier than those Wallyworld specials.

    26. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      What low IQ dipshit modded this down? Lumpy is right. there is ZERO information backing up the claims.

      The internet if full of better designs that use cheaper filters, and some actually have real data.

    27. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you take a look at his site, it has all the data, comparisons with commercial purifiers, timeframes, and all the other details you are saying are missing. http://smartairfilters.com/index.html#data

    28. Re:Very original by duranaki · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not like they provide NO information. You can check out their website for FREE and see that the reduction test was done in a fixed size room over fixed time and plots the particulates over time. http://smartairfilters.com/ind.... I won't kid you, it's marketing material, but their graphs are totally better than the ones I've seen on your Tiger-Rock. They also mentioned in TFA that the $33 is for parts costs. Probably just another trick from these shysters.

    29. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's newsworthy to me is that people spend $1000 for a similar product. holy s**t!

    30. Re: Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're telling me he's one of those scumbags? I hate him already. Patenting with prior art available...

    31. Re:Very original by geekoid · · Score: 2

      He's using the same rated filer and pushing air through it, so it would be expected to have the same count.
      Also, the info is on his site.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    32. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How have you made the world a better place this week?

      By having a terrific ass.

    33. Re:Very original by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "That expensive consumer-targetted air filters don't do any better than the Wallyworld special. "

      It's not the filter, it's the mechanism for pushing air through it that doesn't matter. Same rate of flow through the same filter produce nearly the same results.
      A crap filter will still have crap results.
      I don't shop and wally world, so I won't comment on their specific filter.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    34. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name one of the services you're talking about. Any single one.

    35. Re: Very original by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Not with a fan that size. and I highly doubt that a HEPA filter and a fan works. you need significant air pressure behind the fan to get any real filtering volume."
      That sentence makes no sense.
      IT's literally nonsense.
      Are you unfamiliar with fans? HEPA filters?
      Did you spend 1000 dollar on an air filter and are now angry you were a fool to do so?
      Have you ever taken apart an air purifier? those fans aren't exactly the most powerful thing on the planet.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    36. Re: Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the guy that added absolutely nothing to the conversation. From your remarks I am certain you know absolutely nothing at all about the subject.

      Lumpy is right. In addition, filters are designed to have air PULLED through not pushed. This "miracle" is built backwards making lumpy's skepticism even more legitimate.

      honestly it's hype, the whole thing that is impressive is some kid is making money on seminars teaching people how to do something that a 3rd grade student could figure out.

    37. Re:Very original by oldmac31310 · · Score: 2

      Just guessing now, but maybe he is talking about basic skills everyone should have like, simple plumbing, carpentry, cooking, gardening etc.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    38. Re:Very original by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      "How have you made the world a better place this week?"

      By having a terrific ass.

      LOL ... Well, carry on then.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    39. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparable particle counts HOW? right up against the filter? What about over time? Zero details except you MUST go to his workshop for $33 to find out... Fishy...

      I have a rock that keeps tigers away, My most recent tiger count shows zero so it's as good as a $10,000 tiger cage.

      Need real data, full information on how the test was done and for how long. Anything else is made up BS or misinformation.

      If you would stop talking out of your ass for a minute and actually look at the data on his website, you would see that you have no idea what you are talking about. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant...

    40. Re: Very original by Lothsahn · · Score: 1

      ...and that's precisely what the "overly expensive" Phillips filter does, that he compares himself to.

      --
      -=Lothsahn=-
    41. Re:Very original by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      So duct tape it to the back of the fan instead.

    42. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making croutons. Making your own pasta sauce. Cooking your own bacon (yes, we now have pre-cooked bacon). These are truly simple things anyone can do, but yet the pre-prepared food industry in the US is HUGE.

    43. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about as newsworthy as suicide at Foxconn.
      Because there are no suicides here in the west.

      Talhelm PhD duct taped a fan to a HEPA filter.
      And there are nobody in China that could invent something like that.

      BTW, Talhelm is wasting his talents pursuing a career in social psychology.
      If only we had talents like him onboard during the Apollo 13 crisis, Lovell, Haise, and Swigert would not have needed NASA instructions to hack carbon dioxide scrubbers.

      Kudos to every Chinese is a suicidal idiot news update.

    44. Re:Very original by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, quick somebody do a new Slashdot article with AC's idea!

    45. Re:Very original by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Why pay for sexual services? I got two fully functional hands right here!

    46. Re:Very original by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Oh stop being a paranoid dipshit. HEPA filters are well understood, aren't made by this guy, and have been being tested by hospitals for fourty years.

      "OMFG he claims a hepa filter does what hepa filters do??!!?!? WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE IT"

      Because it's pretty obviously a sensible claim. Duh. Go to Target, spend the $20 it would take to try it yourself, and please grow up a little bit.

      I mean seriously, what kind of person thinks putting an air filter in front of a fan doesn't actually filter air? Seriously.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    47. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not news worthy because people have already done this for years. I have been doing it for years. Just google box fan + furnace filter. Everyone knows this is a cheap trick.

      You'd be amazed how many people see my setup in the basement (of the amazingly filthy 80 year old rental home i live in) to clean the air with 2 20" box fans and 20x20 high-MERV filters and are just beside themselves. I put a low-scent dry Febreeze canister in front for extra effect. Simple solutions are often only obvious after you think of them, and not everyone has a knack for that.

    48. Re:Very original by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Curiously enough, my home air purifier consists of an HEPA filter strapped in front of a fan. In a box.

    49. Re:Very original by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Traditionally, having someone else do stuff for you was an indicator of how wealthy you were.

      All very well to have the manor, but without a proper set of servants, where are you?

      Shine one's own shoes and show up at the Opera with bootblack on one's hands? How terribly low-class!

    50. Re:Very original by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      The first thing that came to mind was "Won't eddy currents bypass the filter and reduce its effectiveness?

      Then I saw the pictures.

      They cheated and used fans with flat/concave shrouds. Most of the cheap chinese fans around here are more lens-shaped (convex).

    51. Re:Very original by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Just one? Ok: Cell phone ring tones.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    52. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously haven't spent any time living in China. People here don't follow the rules. Most often they find clever ways around them.

    53. Re:Very original by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Once it was a hallmark of wealth to be fat. Today, it's kinda the opposite. Times change.

      And while letting a professional handle a job you could only do worse may be a wise decision, I happen to have met a lot of "professionals" who only meet the "I do it for money" definition thereof...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    54. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: pressure differential is pressure differential. The filter can't tell whether you're pushing from one side or pulling from the other.

    55. Re: Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not with a fan that size. and I highly doubt that a HEPA filter and a fan works. you need significant air pressure behind the fan to get any real filtering volume.

      Most HEPA filters work just fine with pressure differentials in the 0.5 inch of water or 1 mmHg range. You're not likely to consider that a noticeable breeze. Airflow really only matters to how quickly you clear a given volume of air. If you've got a well sealed 10x10 room, you only need 150 CFM to clear it pretty well in an hour. That's two good CPU fans. If you're just trying to maintain the cleanliness against leaks, you need even less than that.

    56. Re:Very original by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "He straps a filter on to a fan and this is noteworthy? Ok then."

      Wait until the shit hits the fan, and you'll be glad it had a filter.

    57. Re:Very original by unrtst · · Score: 1

      Well, he went as far as confirming he was getting the same particle counts.

      He confirmed that the homemade filter reduced particle counts. But I don't see that he compared its effectiveness to filters costing "up to $1000".

      http://particlecounting.tumblr...

      Compares Blue Air 203/270E (3,600 RMB) and a Philips AC4072 (3, 000 RMB) to both of his setups. Those are only about $550 filters, but I think that is sufficient to cover the "up to" in "up to $1000". If you want to donate a $1000 one to him, it looks like he'd be happy to test it.

    58. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so Benjamin F. was a commie too?

    59. Re:Very original by StrangeBrew · · Score: 2

      I don't know much about HEPA filters, but you, Sir, have just sold me on your tiger repellent rock. Where can I order one?

    60. Re:Very original by mypalmike · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm sure nobody in all of China already has an inexpensive HEPA air purifier.

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    61. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because in China where many people are poor, they don't figure out how to do plumbing, cooking, gardening, etc. They just pay the help to do it.

    62. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talhelm might want to rethink his price point considering plenty of Chinese $40 competition.

    63. Re:Very original by praxis · · Score: 2

      Yes, I'm sure nobody in all of China already has an inexpensive HEPA air purifier.

      I'm sure someone in China does have an inexpensive HEPA air purifier. I am not sure what your US Google search has to do with what people have in China though.

    64. Re:Very original by praxis · · Score: 1

      Name one of the services you're talking about. Any single one.

      Cooking. Someone who puts a little effort into feeding themselves can make a good dinner for a family in ten minutes but instead many people re-heat terrible-for-you processed food at much higher costs (which does not even end up saving them much time/effort anyhow).

    65. Re:Very original by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      You jest, but me being very cynical, suspect that the $1,000 filter probably cost $10 to make. Marketing ("How much would you pay for clean air?" "You can't put a price on your health, but $1,000 sounds about right") does the rest.

      The original price might have been set by an American in the first place.

    66. Re:Very original by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Once it was a hallmark of wealth to be fat. Today, it's kinda the opposite. Times change.

      Yeah. You hire a personal trainer.

    67. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.
      I lived most of my life in a small town. Takes about an hour to walk from one end to another. Yet, people take the bus or cab or drive daily. The number of cars skyrocketed in the past two decades.
      After living in the capital for a few years, I really begun to understand what distance really is, and transport as a service how important or useless it can be.
      These days, unless there's some really bad weather or my destination is all the way across town, I prefer to walk.

    68. Re:Very original by ruir · · Score: 1

      Have you heard about specialisation? I can cook myself, but for plumbing or complicated electrical works I will call a specialist.

    69. Re:Very original by skids · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much it. Or they think the $1000 is buying them some special features like running quieter.

      The prices in this market are downright crazy, probably because it's a quasi-medical application. Yes there are some that offer things like UV sterilizers and engineer the air flow such that it goes through the UV sterilizer at a rate that actually allows it to work, but even the ones with features that actually work are completely overpriced, and that doesn't change as long as it's a small percentage of desperate people that need it. It's no surprise to me that once the need for the product becomes mainstream, gouging the hell out of the consumer gets harder, and no it has nothing to do with mass production, just exploitation of the sick.

       

    70. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Franklin was against the American way of life too?

      Won't somebody please think of the Founding Fathers?

      Time to remove him from history. Anyone carrying a piece of paper with Franklin's face on it hand it to me, I'll take them to the Cayman islands and make it disappear.

    71. Re:Very original by sjames · · Score: 1

      There is a lot to that. It's amazing how overpriced anything medical is, often inflated by orders of magnitude.

    72. Re:Very original by Rick+in+China · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is not a new idea. Also, SmartAir has been around for a while - and he has done some events in various cities of China showing the whole DIY thing, and it's absolutely a reasonable and cheap solution for some people. I would argue, however, about the whole "thousands of dollars" nonsense - people pay premiums for high quality products all the time. What does my Philips air purifier do?

      1) It has a much larger filtration and fan system, and a well fitting seal between the filter and the fan.
      2) I can control the airflow much better than with far cheaper fans.
      3) The front panel and filtration system is better than simply strapping an air filter to a fan - especially for people like me, with pets.
      4) It looks *way* nicer as something sitting in my house.
      5) It advertises a larger amount of airflow - hence cleaning - than the smaller fans.
      6) It doesn't cost 'thousands' of dollars, although it's fun to grab the gold plated diamond crusted type nonsensical sell-1-a-month products for comparison, you can buy.. in China.. a mid-level Philips or Panasonic air filtration unit for a couple hundred USD. Entry level ones, about a hundred bucks. This canon unit is cheaper mind you, but the filters/etc are all smaller so obviously cheaper to buy as well, and at a $70 difference - I'd rather go with a unit that looks good and has a few 'convenience' features to go with it, as well as not having to literally strap two things together with a band and figure out where I can hide it in my house.

    73. Re:Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's definitely better than all the nitpicking fat geeks here who dont move out of their rooms and just add more methane to the atmosphere with their french fry and pizza powered farts :)

    74. Re:Very original by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      How about over-specialization? Being good at just one thing is not really something to applaud, is it? I'm not going to call a plumber because my toilet won't flush properly. I'll fix it myself if I can. I'll unblock my own sink if it becomes blocked. I'll assemble shelves etc. Basic stuff that anyone should be able to do.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    75. Re: Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your a moron.

    76. Re: Very original by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Google "box fan shop filter"

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    77. Re: Very original by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      China? People obeying the rules? Yeah, that's why Chinese manufactured products are known for their highest quality.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    78. Re: Very original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watching tv, instead of just taking drugs and hallucinating.

    79. Re: Very original by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Ooh, I like donkeys! What's his/her name?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    80. Re:Very original by Sciath · · Score: 1

      Not only that, he's riding the capitalistic wave of the "tyranny of ideas". Fifty years ago a different guy would've told all his friends and family. They in turn would tell their friends and family. Maybe someone would go on radio or TV news and show everyone this very basic idea of helping themselves. No profit motive. Just showing other people how simple it could be (and perhaps how stupid they are). Take a farmer for example. He shows a neighboring farmer a cheaper method of feeding his cows. The first farmer doesn't expect to get rich on the idea. They help each other out just for the sake of helping a neighbor out. The cheaper method isn't something earth shattering and especially innovative. In fact other people have done it in different states or regions for years. They just passed the idea on from one farmer to another when they saw a need. But now... everyone wants to be a millionaire even if it means capitalizing on something as unchallenging as putting a filter on a fan. It also demonstrates (to some extent) just how limited the Chinese mind can be and perhaps that is a result of living under communist conformity. Either way, this guy should call on his local clergy to seek forgiveness from the Christ for his self centeredness.

      --
      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
    81. Re:Very original by ThomasTalhelm · · Score: 1

      Thomas here. I'm happy to see the word getting out that clean air doesn't have to cost $1,000. So far I've relied entirely on kind souls spreading the word because I don't want to make people pay for advertisements when they buy my filters, so I haven't paid for any advertising. I totally understand the commenters who are saying "this isn't an invention!" Some of the news articles have gone too far. One even called me a "genius." I really see this effort as less Thomas Edison and more Johnny Appleseed. I didn't really invent anything. I just "re-discovered" the simple fact that HEPAs cut particulate pollution, did systematic tests to demonstrate it, and tried to tell as many people as I could. My main motivation was the fact that so many people in China (myself included!) thought that reducing particulate pollution in the home has to cost $500 or $1,000. All of my tests and methods are on my Tumblr, Particle Counting: 1. Minute and hourly tests: http://particlecounting.tumblr... 2. Comparison tests with the expensive brands in the same room, same particle counter: http://particlecounting.tumblr... 3. Live test of the air coming out of the filter: http://particlecounting.tumblr... 4. Instructions for how to make your own: http://particlecounting.tumblr... Breathe safe!

    82. Re:Very original by ThomasTalhelm · · Score: 1

      Yup! All the tests and methods are on smartairfilters and my Tumblr, Particle Counting: http://particlecounting.tumblr... The direct comparison tests with the big brands are here: http://particlecounting.tumblr...

  2. Put your name on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Make sure everybody knows who created this idea.

    Otherwise, as with all governments, the Chinese government will just commandeer production and distribution, and take all the credit for bettering the world.

    1. Re:Put your name on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Talhelm says the goal is not to make money and the cost of the workshops only covers materials, which cost about $33 per purifier. “I’m not putting money in my pockets – I’m paying employees,” six of whom work at Smart Air. “It’s like a social enterprise.” he said."

      I think Talhelm would approve...

    2. Re:Put your name on it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's ... that's ... .that's COMMUNISM!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Put your name on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talhelm would approve of the government using his work for propaganda?

      Where does your parent comment mention money?

    4. Re:Put your name on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even go to propaganda school? Governments love local heroes. If by sheer luck the government doesn't need to invent a backstory for them, even better.

    5. Re:Put your name on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is not communism.

      Appropriating your own capital the way you see fit is capitalism.

    6. Re:Put your name on it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Everyone by his abilities to everyone by his needs, that's commie talk!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    before I even clicked the link I thought to myself "what did he do, hook a filter up to a fan?"

  4. What the hell? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    How is anybody supposed to make money like that? Won't someone think of the shareholders?

    But, seriously, that's pretty awesome and surprisingly simple.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:What the hell? by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Almost all air purifiers are nothing more than a fan blowing through a filter. Thanks to fans and filters being commodity items, there are many retail HEPA air purifiers on sale for close to this guy's price. The article is little more than a cherry picking fallacy.

      Next up: Man rigs cheap alternative to $500 Denon patch cable.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:What the hell? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Sure, but where can I get 1 billion hepa filters today?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:What the hell? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      You could just leave your vacuum cleaner running I guess... (even Shop Vacs have HEPA filters available, and they move a lot of air!)

      But it makes more sense to filter the air at the inlet if you can, or at least as it recirculates through the HVAC system already built into your home. Check your air filter once in a while, people!

    4. Re:What the hell? by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      China.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:What the hell? by RealGene · · Score: 1

      Try sleeping next to a running Shop Vac.

      --
      Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
    6. Re:What the hell? by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Just don't try sleeping WITH it.

  5. assholes everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be simpler to strap the air filter to the smokestacks where the pollution is emitted? Nah, that'd never work.

    1. Re:assholes everywhere by mandginguero · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wouldn't it be simpler to strap the air filter to the smokestacks where the pollution is emitted? Nah, that'd never work.

      part of the problem is that many homes burn coal for heat, so it isn't just industrial pollution, nor from automobiles, the latter two are present during most of the year, with the former being a problem concentrated in winter.

      --
      i don't know karate, but i know ca-razy
    2. Re:assholes everywhere by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      part of the problem is that many homes burn coal for heat, so it isn't just industrial pollution, nor from automobiles, the latter two are present during most of the year, with the former being a problem concentrated in winter.

      Strapping a filter over the individual smokestacks would help reduce emissions significantly in that case too, especially over time.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    3. Re:assholes everywhere by Necron69 · · Score: 1

      If you'd ever sat in a Beijing traffic jam next to their monstrous, smoke belching diesel trucks, you'd know that factories and power plants are only a part of the problem.

      I've been there and air filters or not, I could not live in Beijing with my asthma. One can only imagine the future lung disease/cancer rates we are going to see.

      - Necron69

    4. Re:assholes everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be simpler to strap the air filter to the smokestacks where the pollution is emitted? Nah, that'd never work.

      That would never work because then the corporations would have to pay for them. /s

    5. Re:assholes everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not that simple, but that's basically one way we control emissions in the west. the pressure drop is a bitch though.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghouse

    6. Re:assholes everywhere by slew · · Score: 1

      In Central Beijing (a very large city), most people live in large apartment buildings which have central heating. Although historically coal was used for these central boilers, most have been transitioned to coal gas. In smaller buildings, coal burning ovens have been transitioned to electric heat (where the coal is merely burned somewhere else)...

      However, the biggest change is that has been made recently was to require new homes to be metered. Historically, residents simply paid heating bills relative to the size of their apartments (~20rmb/m^2) which gave little incentive for any efficiency (power company losses were generally subsidized by the government), but with metering and improved insulation upgrades, coupled with the natural gas and electric conversions, things in Beijing are looking up...

      In the suburbs and surrounding cities... well, let's just say air pollution is usually not a local thing and the average pollution level hasn't seemed to have changed too much...

      On the other hand, you can't really dismiss the whole idea of centralization being a potential solution to part of this problem. The infrastructure in China (esp Beijing) is quite centralized and the Chinese are generally quite good at getting things done when they have an incentive to do so...

    7. Re:assholes everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      part of the problem is that many homes burn coal for heat, so it isn't just industrial pollution, nor from automobiles, the latter two are present during most of the year, with the former being a problem concentrated in winter.

      Strapping a filter over the individual smokestacks would help reduce emissions significantly in that case too, especially over time.

      And also increase the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning due to incomplete combustion with reduced airflow due to the filter. It's not like they have a suction pump sucking out the exhaust through your proposed filter.

      Do fireplace in American homes have filters?

    8. Re:assholes everywhere by klui · · Score: 1

      How quickly would those filters clog up when bombarded with concentrated pollutants and probably high heat?

  6. Meh by Sqweegee · · Score: 1

    He strapped a filter to a fan and managed to filter air... slow news day?

    1. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we should get this guy to strap a filter to Slashdot.

  7. It would be cheaper for everyone.... by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would be cheaper for everyone to just fix the pollution problem by putting heavy restrictions on emissions. Seriously, $1000 dollar air purifiers to remove the debris put in the air to save $0.05 on scrubbers is stupidity of the highest order. In a lot of cases the scrubbers are already on the factories because Chinese law requires them, just doesn't require that they be in operation. In about a year China could dramatically reduce this pollution to western world levels with simple installing or activating scrubbers on smoke stacks.

    This continues to show China is a pay for play game, in that you are well connected enough in the communist party and laws and environmental rules just don't apply and it doesn't matter if it kills the little people.

    1. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This! It's nice that this guy is sharing his design, but weakening the incentive for middle-class-and-up Chinese to push for better environmental policy might make the world worse off.

    2. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This continues to show China is a pay for play game, in that you are well connected enough in the communist party and laws and environmental rules just don't apply and it doesn't matter if it kills the little people.

      Lol, yea, they make great capitalists, don't they?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is different from the US how? Oh yeah, here we have the laws changed for you if you are well connected and rich enough.

    4. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It would be cheaper for everyone to just fix the pollution problem by putting heavy restrictions on emissions

      This implies that they have the capability. Grease the palms of the inspectors, local officials, etc and the government will never know that you are polluting. I could be wrong, but it is also completely possible that the government would need to fix corruption before they can actually attack pollution.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by mandginguero · · Score: 2

      This is not a simple solution. There are many sources of pollution, which are amplified in winter by homes burning coal for heat. Automobiles are a large source of airborne particulates, and with many small sources it will take awhile to fix, but at least we've seen it can work in cities like Los Angeles.

      --
      i don't know karate, but i know ca-razy
    6. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      It would be cheaper for everyone to just fix the pollution problem by putting heavy restrictions on emissions.

      - take a look at what you wrote. This sentence is self-contradictory and at best you just didn't understand it.

      It would be 'cheaper for everyone' to 'fix pollution' by putting 'heavy restrictions'.

      Ok, who is 'everyone', what does it mean to 'fix pollution' and how much do 'heavy restrictions' cost to everyone?

      This guy put together a 'low cost solution for everyone' who wants to 'fix pollution' and he didn't force any 'heavy restrictions' on anybody either. So anybody who is actually worried about the pollution can now pay for it to be fixed for themselves.

      Now, of-course this doesn't fix overall pollution, but it is a distributed method of fixing pollution locally on a voluntary basis that is provided by free market capitalism (private property ownership and operation without government interference).

      As a society progresses from pre-industrial (China before 1970s) to industrial (the last 40 years) its residents become wealthier and more affluent and as they become wealthier and more affluent they can now afford to start thinking about their environment and the best way to fix environment is to allow free market enterprise to market the fixes straight to the public, which then will decide whether it wants to pay anything at all (or more or less) for any such fixes, be it fixes on large scale or small distributed local fixes like this one.

      To put 'heavy restrictions on emissions' means to restrict wealth generation in the country that was able to move 350,000,000 people out of poverty over the last 40 years (while the rest of the globe has been moving hundreds of millions into poverty by destroying individual freedom and thus destroying capitalism, destroying the free market).

      China will be fine, it will fix its environmental problems and it will do so without advice from the economic failures that scold it here.

    7. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and it doesn't matter if it kills the little people.

      You overgrown western racist bastard. I bet now that I've called you on it, you'll claim you actually like Chinese

    8. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Ok, who is 'everyone',

      All people, I would imagine.

        what does it mean to 'fix pollution'
      continue reducing pollution in the air.

        and how much do 'heavy restrictions' cost to everyone?

      Less then the medical cost, and loss of habitat costs.

      Why should polluter be allowed to force their pollution on others for free?
      China's pollution is ultimately everyone's pollution.

      Ironically, China is moving to greener solutions faster the the US is.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was clear his statement was meant to be evaluated in the aggregate or per-capita sense.

      It would be less of a total economic burden for the scrubbers to be installed/turned-on at the source than it is for each individual to buy a filters and masks. And that even ignores other additional costs incurred by particulate soot depositing on surfaces/machines/plants/etc.

    10. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Not as simple as saying that 'everyone' is all people. What is 'all people'? All Chinese residents? All people on this planet? All people that are paying taxes and who will actually be force to pay for this, or is it maybe all consumers of the goods that will have higher prices on them (and likely fewer choices of products) due to these 'heavy restrictions'?

      Does 'everyone' include those, who are still in poverty in China (plenty more people are still very poor) and who want to move up in class but who will be prevented if prices for everything go up due to all the new regulations, licensing, taxes and generally growth of government that 'heavy restrictions' assumes?

      It's not as simple as saying 'continue reducing pollution in the air'. In the USA when Lyndon Johnson came out with the 'Great Society' crap the level of poverty was very low and falling, then the government stepped in and reversed that trend categorically. The free market was working towards reducing poverty, there was no need for anything called 'Great Society' (and as always, there is no truth in advertising that comes from government, less truth in government advertising than in any other).

      Free market capitalism works towards improving the standard of living of the market participants, but a poor economy cannot fix pollution, only a wealthy economy can and you do not make an economy into a wealthy one with 'heavy restrictions'.

      Poor economies do not let people even to get their heads up, never mind thinking about such rich problems as not burning coal but instead going nuclear. Interestingly enough, while China is burning plenty of coal (so does USA) but China is building up nuclear power plant capacity and USA is not.

      China will fix its pollution by following free market capitalist principles of searching for cheaper sources of energy and nuclear will be the cheapest source.

      "Less then the medical cost, and loss of habitat costs." - how living a life of poverty, does not count as a cost to a society? I say it does. A life of poverty doesn't help you with medical costs and habitat costs either.

      Why should polluter be allowed to force their pollution on others for free?

      - nothing is free, people are paying for the energy, food, water and all other products that they consume and the prices that they pay reflect the economy they are in. By adding 'heavy restrictions' to the economy you are not helping to fix anything, you are ensuring that the economy will be poorer than it could otherwise and thus preventing the fixes, not promoting them.

      Ironically, China is moving to greener solutions faster the the US is.

      - it is not ironic at all, USA is destroying its economy with all the government and destruction of individual freedoms and China allows individual freedoms and mostly free market capitalism to work its way towards prosperity, which is crucial to having pollution free environment.

    11. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by m3000 · · Score: 1

      This continues to show China is a pay for play game, in that you are well connected enough in the communist party and laws and environmental rules just don't apply and it doesn't matter if it kills the little people.

      The same could be said about the US too.....
      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07...

    12. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by Gryle · · Score: 1

      In the USA when Lyndon Johnson came out with the 'Great Society' crap the level of poverty was very low and falling, then the government stepped in and reversed that trend categorically. The free market was working towards reducing poverty, there was no need for anything called 'Great Society' (and as always, there is no truth in advertising that comes from government, less truth in government advertising than in any other).

      Could you provide some stats for that? I've never heard this before and you've piqued my interest.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    13. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      It is incredibly simple and relatively cheap given the costs the pollution imposes. China's mix of pollution sources is little different than the rest of the world.

      Non point sources are about 40% of the emissions mix and composed mostly of vehicle emissions in the summer with some heating emissions from wood and coal in the winter. The cars they are buying for the most part have the same systems in them as they do in the US, the problem is the fuel used is incredibly dirty. This could be fixed in less than a year by requiring the same fuel standards as western countries use. The non-point winter emissions can be addressed through a combination of regulations on wood/coal burning appliances and providing better sources such as natural gas and electric heating.

      The remaining 60% of emissions are all point source and can be addressed through regulation of smoke stack emissions. Almost everything seriously harmful can be scrubbed at the stack. Some emissions like nitric and sulfuric acids are harder to scrub but we have the technology today to remove the majority. The worst of the worst, PM 2.5 and other particulates are trivial to scrub, this technology has been around since the 70's. The Chinese government could mandate the installation of these systems and finance the retrofits, not only could it be done relatively quickly they could cause a massive boom in internal industries to handle this.

      This isn't hard. The US, Europe and Japan have done this exact thing already. In the 60's the US had air as bad as China have now, it's what triggered our entire environmental movement, the laws and all the technology to clean it up. This is easy precisely because all the research on how to fix it has already been done and all the systems are already developed and tested. The Chinese would just need to copy the regulations and requirements the US/Europe/Japan put on their industry. It's just a matter of money, and they have plenty of money to fix this AND an authoritarian government to force it's implementation.

      It's beyond silly to say this is hard. It couldn't be easier.

    14. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the USA when Lyndon Johnson came out with the 'Great Society' crap the level of poverty was very low and falling, then the government stepped in and reversed that trend categorically. The free market was working towards reducing poverty, there was no need for anything called 'Great Society' (and as always, there is no truth in advertising that comes from government, less truth in government advertising than in any other).

      Could you provide some stats for that? I've never heard this before and you've piqued my interest.

      Don't bother. This is just a continuation of the "History Wars" which has been raging since the 80's. Everything becomes clearer to these people when history is changed to match their ideology...

    15. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is incredibly simple and relatively cheap given the costs the pollution imposes.

      Yeah, why not have cake, right? You just solved the starvation problem in Africa! Just ask them to eat cake.

      Relatively cheap? Relative to the average American household income, maybe.

      You do realize that when people in China burns coal for heating, it's because they can't afford to have electrical heating, right? Now, how do you propose for those people, who can't afford an electric heater and the associated running cost of electricity, to afford the infrastructure to scrub their emission?

      It's beyond silly to say this is hard. It couldn't be easier.

      Yeah, if you forget to think about who pays, every problem in the world is easy.

    16. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      The gold dollar was about to put a check on Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' crapola, but Nixon defaulted on the gold dollar, crossed the words 'I owe you' from 'I owe you X dollars' from the bank notes and called the little paper previously known as the 'Federal reserve note' into 'dollars'. This is what allowed the government to perpetuate its growth to the gargantuan size it is today and it is what killed USA economy reversing the economic growth in USA and eventually wiping out the economy completely.

      As to statistics, some people compile this data, of-course unemployment rate shows some of this but the details of unemployment are much more important than the compiled averages, the poorer segment of society, the black Americans have suffered higher unemployment rate since the programs against poverty started, than ever before. Actually before the minimum wage was introduced in the 1938, unemployment among blacks youth (16-25, formative work years) was lower than among whites by 15%. Actually each 10% increase in minimum wage mandate had a disproportionate decrease in employment upon the minorities, which is counterproductive if the goal is to decrease poverty, of-course it was not, the goal was to turn people into dependants, voting for bigger and bigger government, while growing the said government.

      The gold dollar was not allowing the government to carry with that goal and Nixon chose to default on the actual dollar than to abandon big government ideology.

    17. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >government
      >fixing corruption
      You make me laugh.

    18. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I guess I deserve that. What I mean is that the national government will have to crack down on local government corruption if they want to keep the local governments in line. They probably will eventually do this, as it was done in the US. Unfortunately, there is no government level above that to rein in corruption at the national level. You can see this at work in the US.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    19. Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are giving a typical liberal pansy reaction there
      chinas polution is chinas pollution
      tibet didn't create it
      china created it
      china should be held accountable
      period.

  8. Maybe by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Maybe China should try reducing the pollution at the source

    1. Re:Maybe by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They would. But we're not willing to pay 10% more on the cheap crap they produce for us.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Maybe by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That 10% more would probably just go into the pockets of their rich. It's not like they don't have them there, too. They infest everything.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. The story here isn't that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a guy put a filter on a fan. The story is that China, the most populated place on earth, has 1.3 billion people who couldn't come up with something as simple as a fan in front of a filter. Let that sink in.

  10. Lots of people criticize this for its obviousness by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... but I don't see anybody else saying that *they* actually thought of it before this guy did as a means of solving the problem of China's air pollution.

    A lot of ideas are obvious once somebody announces what the idea actually is. Honestly, I think that people who would criticize the inventor simply because of the idea's apparent simplicity or obviousness are being rather snobbish, if you ask me.

    But hey.... some might find it comforting to think that such values, which might otherwise seem outdated in today's word, are still alive and thriving in our society.

  11. I wish they would ship to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a Blue Air filter, new $300-400 US , something in that price range. Replacement filters $50-60 for HEPA. Dang.

  12. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    I've already done the same thing. I had an air purifier where the proprietary filter was dirty and clogged. I couldn't find a replacement, so I just used a 3M Filtrete furnace filter trimmed to size. I suppose if you have central air on all the time, just having a good furnace filter would suffice.

  13. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    A lot of ideas are obvious once somebody announces what the idea actually is.

    In this case it's just plain obvious. Try doing a google image search for air filter fan.

  14. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by Ardyvee · · Score: 1

    Yet, nobody else thought of selling it for cheaper to Chinese countries. Heh.

    --
    I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
  15. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't something that becomes obvious in retrospect. I think -many- of us know how air filtration systems worked, I certainly did.
    Maybe if I lived in China I'd try to be selling the systems cheaply, too :)

  16. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by suutar · · Score: 1

    If he's never seen one before, it's ingenious. I've seen one (years ago) so it seems obvious to me. *shrug*

  17. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by mark-t · · Score: 1

    That you know how it works doesn't change the fact that you didn't actually implement it as a solution for China's air pollution before he did.

  18. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by mark-t · · Score: 1

    If it was so obvious to you, then why didn't you suggest it before he did?

  19. assholes everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah they're called scrubbers, a well known and often legally mandated invention.

  20. Youtube of this same idea by JoshRosenbaum · · Score: 1

    Box Fan + Filter. Posted 6 years ago
    Box Fan + Filter. Posted 3 years ago from a university

    Not sure if these are the same thing. If it is, then it's sad this knowledge isn't more common place to help people out.

    1. Re:Youtube of this same idea by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      I have one of these running in my apartment and it is mediocre at best. I have radiator heat and window AC, so I figured it would be nice to have the kind of air circulation and filtration that a furnace blower provides.

      Some filters are better than others, but standard box fans are not designed to have to blow air *through* anything. They don't push the air hard enough to force it through the filter, so airflow really drops down. Perhaps the hepa filters this guy is using are better (furnace filters and hepa filters are different), and that cannon fan looks like it might push air harder.

      I can put one of those spun fiberglasss filters on the box fan and it gets decent airflow...but it doesn't really pick up anything smaller than cat fur. The only other filter I have found to have decent airflow is the red 3m filtrete filter (and home depot no longer carries filtrete). Stepping to a lower MIRV rating actually got me less airflow than the filtrete...the medium was much more like a piece of paper than a piece of cloth...I could run it for month and it wouldn't even look like it was getting dirty (as opposed to the filtrete which at least was moving enough air that it could pick up visible particles).

      So I don't know how much I trust these tests. Of course a particle counter on the exhaust side will show a reduction...but if you have a large room, you are going to need a lot of air flow. Sounds like the guy in this article at least did room-based tests rather than just holding a particle counter in front of the fan.

      --
      Bottles.
    2. Re:Youtube of this same idea by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, same thing but he uses a fancy looking fan instead of a cheap old (in the US) box fan. He even uses a particle counter to measure the result just like the MD in your second link "from a university" (the University of Michigan) did. I'm posting the UoM link below; it contains a link to the Youtube video you posted.

      "Build a do-it-yourself air purifier for about $25"

      http://www.uofmhealth.org/news/sinus-hepa-0630

      The difference in this case so far as I can tell is that instead of showing people how to make an air purifier for the price of a box fan and a furnace filter, he's trying to start a company to manufacture and sell the things.

      I have a couple of these at home and yes, they work great.

    3. Re:Youtube of this same idea by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 2

      Replying to myself just to add:

      1. Instead of taping the filter onto the outflow side of the box fan, tape it onto the inflow side so that the filter protects also the fan itself from the dust in the incoming air.

      2. I first used Filtrete "Elite Allergen" but then switched to the cheaper "Ultimate Allergen Blue" for better air flow. Both work well though.

  21. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    That you know how it works doesn't change the fact that you didn't actually implement it as a solution for China's air pollution before he did.

    Of course I didn't. I don't live in China. I live in a country that enforces air purity laws. It's a blindingly obvious solution to a problem I don't have.

  22. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Go on AliExpress, there are loads of cheap air purifiers with HEPA filters. TFA says "up to $1000", and actually even high end Japanese models are usually much less than that. Chinese manufacturers sell many models that are basically the same as what this guy invented - a HEPA filter strapped to a fan - for $30-40.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  23. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by MattskEE · · Score: 1

    Are you sure about that? Other than this one article what makes you think that all or most Chinese citizens with air filtering fans were paying $1000 for them?

  24. Don't fix the problem, treat the symptom by joocemann · · Score: 1

    ... that way we can pretend nothing is really happening. And the industry to make the filters? Produces pollution to do so... A cycle of foolishness.

    1. Re:Don't fix the problem, treat the symptom by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      And coal burned to produce power for the fans themselves...

      How does the power efficiency on compare vs. a designed for purpose fan? does the extra resistance overheat the motor, increasing fire hazard?

    2. Re:Don't fix the problem, treat the symptom by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be nice to let engineers run society by design, balanced by laws implemented by philosophers? We'd be moving forward much more slowly and carefully because money wouldn't be part of human existence, and we can fully say that how far we've come has given us enough fruits to improve us and support us while we make smartly calculated steps forward.

  25. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by suutar · · Score: 1

    because I was unaware that the going rate for filter units in China was $1000, and therefore didn't realize that there was a problem that this was a solution for.

  26. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by MattskEE · · Score: 1

    Probably because he doesn't live in China.

    This is China we're talking about, with 1.3 billion people. I'm sure that people have already strapped filters onto fans, this one guy just happens to be getting some feel-good-DIY publicity because he's marketing his product. Kudos to him because it seems like a good thing that he's doing this, but I would be amazed if this is actually considered novel in China.

  27. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by nblender · · Score: 1

    I've been doing this for years when I paint in my garage ... I'm not saying I'm brilliant but not everyone thinks of things as being this easy so some people need to be told.

    I was refilling the refrigerant in my truck A/C with Propane last night... My neighbor came out with an "ummm, what are you doing?" look...

  28. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by mark-t · · Score: 1
    So the fact that you don't live in China was preventing you from seeing this as an obvious solution to the problem in China.

    Which is my point.

    Somebody had to think of the idea first... cut the guy some slack.

  29. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by cnaumann · · Score: 1

    Go to Amazon and look for HEAP air fliters for home use. You will find models from $50 to $250.
    Yeah, A LOT of people have had this idea and brought products to market.

  30. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but I don't see anybody else saying that *they* actually thought of it before this guy did as a means of solving the problem of China's air pollution......

    The product described does not solve the problem of air pollution in China but provides a possibly cheaper way to get clean air in a closed room. There is a slight difference between these two issues.

  31. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by dietsip · · Score: 1

    ... but I don't see anybody else saying that *they* actually thought of it before this guy did as a means of solving the problem of China's air pollution.

    A lot of ideas are obvious once somebody announces what the idea actually is. Honestly, I think that people who would criticize the inventor simply because of the idea's apparent simplicity or obviousness are being rather snobbish, if you ask me.

    But hey.... some might find it comforting to think that such values, which might otherwise seem outdated in today's word, are still alive and thriving in our society.

    Reminds me of a conversation I had with my boss the other day.

    Boss: Why did it take 2 days to write about 100 lines of code? That should have taken an hour or so.

    Me: The same reason it took you 3 months to write a 10 page grant proposal and not the 30 minutes I could retype it in.

  32. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Fair point... more accurately, it would be a means of coping with China's air pollution than an actual solution to the underlying problem.

  33. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by mark-t · · Score: 1

    I somehow would think that being ignorant of what the underlying problem might be would generally preclude a solution being particularly obvious to them, except in retrospect.

  34. Informative to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Part of what makes this informative to me, as a sensitive breather, is that he used a Dylos Air Quality Monitor to detect particle pollution. It only costs $200 for the base model and it was the key to his measured success. That's news to me since last I checked these sensors cost on the order of thousands of dollars. The sensor cost has been reduced by 10X. As a sensitive breather it helps to quantify and measure why you are being so affected. I have actually bought one due to this story and look forward to hopefully measuring the air in places where I have trouble breathing and seeing a correlation.

    I know it does not detect chemicals, does anyone have suggestions for a approx. $200 sensor that does?

    I have been to the doctor and the doctor simply tells me to avoid the areas where I have breathing problems. Being able to measure this and show others instead of just saying that I am short of breath would be nice on many levels. If this monitor's readings correlate with my breathing problems then I may as well try using the cheaper filter design as well, perhaps using the higher-end IQ Air Replacement filters.

    Thank you!

  35. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by suutar · · Score: 1

    My point was that the obviousness of a solution depends heavily on whether the observer has seen the solution before or is making it up from scratch. It seems to me that the visible characteristic of an 'obvious' solution is that when you tell someone the problem ("this air filter costs $1000") they come up with the answer immediately, without much thought ("why not just take a box fan and stick a filter on it?"). Not knowing a problem exists does not necessarily make the solution non-obvious, just irrelevant. For example: suppose you don't know the sink is overflowing. "turn off the water flow" isn't relevant to you because there's no point, but is it any less of an obvious solution to the actual problem?

  36. Been there done that by tombeard · · Score: 1

    Living is a basement apartment in Boston I had problems with particulates from the street. I removed the window screen, installed a filter in its place, and mounted a window fan on the inside. Whole house air filter and didn't even need the box. 15 years ago, I claim prior art if he patents it.

    --
    The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
  37. Very original +420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I breathe all the clean air through my bong :)

  38. Do note these things weren't made for China by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    There are reasons to want to own an air purifier even if you live in a place that doesn't have tons of pollution.

    The most common would be allergies. If you get a decent one, it can nab pollen out of the air no problem. This can make living in a place where you have allergies to something much more tolerable.

    They also help with dust accumulation. I live in the desert so we get lots of particles in the air, humans or no humans. An air filter can help clean that up. Makes it easier to keep the house clean.

    Also the real good ones can get bacteria, even viruses, they filter things so small. So it can help limit the spread of disease in your house. Not a silver bullet by any means, but it can help keep the could a kid brought some from spreading.

    Not saying China doesn't need to clean up their act, but these things weren't made because of their problems. The big names in it are western anyhow. IQAir (Switzerland) and Austin Air (US) are probably the two best known for high end, small units. In particular if you are talking a $1000 unit, that's IQAir. Their filtration is clean-room levels of good.

  39. SlashDot Journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You idiots. These filters you're talking about cost 1000RMB, not 1000USD! 1000RMB is about $150. I know, because I live in Beijing and use them. Now, is that easily affordable for most people here? No. But check your facts first for fuck's sake.

  40. Umm except they did by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    You can see it right in the Slashdot thread where people link to Youtube videos of this being done a long time ago. The idea of "stick a filter on a fan" isn't new because that's PRECISELY what air filters are. They don't make any bones about it.

    So, why doesn't everyone do it? Well because it turns out DIY isn't much cheaper if you want it to work well. When I first heard of the idea, on Youtube, I said "let's try that!" Went and got out one of my box fans, bought a filter at Home Depot, and taped it all together. Well I quickly discovered two flaws with this system:

    1) Furnace filters aren't near as good as HEPA filters, particularly not the multi-stage system good units have. It did reduce particle count, but not a ton. I could buy better filters, for sure, but then the cost goes up. Buying a filter with a large surface area like good units have gets quite expensive, much like the filters they have themselves.

    2) A regular fan is not well suited to the static pressure you get trying to push through a filter. It had very little airflow. Better sealing would have helped some of that, but of course that's more money and effort, but part of it is you just need a good fan. That is again one of the things that the high end units have. They have a fan particularly made to deal with high static pressure, and a case made force lots of air through the filters.

    So easier, and not really any more expensive in the long run, to just buy a filter unit. On the cheaper end of things, there's Austin Air units. Basically you pay $250 for a metal box with a powerful fan in it, and another $250 for a huge filter. Every 5 years or so, you pay another $250 for a new filter. Not the world's best filtration stats, but pretty good, better than furnace filters, and cheaper when you look at how long it lasts. At the high end that's IQAir. $1000 for a unit, but the unit and filters last a long time. I particular their HEPA filter can last a decade or more, provided you replace the prefilters when it tells you to.

    That's the thing here: This is NOT a new idea, people were talking about it online a minimum of 6 years ago, and it is also not a hard idea since it is literally doing what the filters do. They are simple devices, they have diagrams of how they work on their websites. The cost is in a good fan, and good filters.

    Finally, with regards to particle count, you need to be careful that you specify what size and have a counter that can deal with it. One of the reason IQAir units cost so much is they filter extremely tiny particles, like clean room level, viruses and so on. That is much harder to do than larger stuff. Now maybe you don't care, ok fair enough, but don't try and act like it is the same level of performance. You can very well get cheaper air filters that don't filter as well, or as small a particles.

    1. Re:Umm except they did by mark-t · · Score: 1

      So, pray tell, if it was really so obvious, why didn't anyone do it before this as a means of coping with the Chinese air pollution problem?

      Even though the implementation is obvious, the application may be not as obvious as people seem to think.

    2. Re:Umm except they did by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      They have. They just haven't bragged about it and tried to start a business.

    3. Re:Umm except they did by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I hardly think starting workshops that only charge for materials is a particularly smart way to run a business.

      If other people thought of it, they kept it to themselves. What this guy did was he shared that info... which may be the particularly ingenious thing to do.

  41. Can't really point the finger by dbIII · · Score: 1

    But don't worry, they're already exporting that success model. We're getting there. And, frankly, when I look around me, how people pay for "services" that hardly qualify as a service because they're too closed minded to even fathom how they could do it themselves for free and at little if any expense and effort, I dare say we're already there.

    I don't see how we can point the finger when most of us don't personally change the oil and oil filters in our cars.

    1. Re: Can't really point the finger by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Cars have oil filters? Wait, does that mean that cars have oil?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  42. Re:Lots of people criticize this for its obviousne by Ardyvee · · Score: 1

    You mean the gigantic[citation needed] on the summary/headline?

    So, I did a cursory search on Google and what I've found was that the lowest priced filter was around 1500 RMB*. Now, according to that table, it is easy to see that the pricier ones perform better and can handle larger amounts of air. There seems to be an issue with formaldehyde (HCHO), which the pricier ones seem to remove more than the cheaper ones. Wikipedia seems to think that HCHO is harmful to human health, but I'm no expert and we all know how reliable wikipedia is for facts (it suffices, though).

    So, no. Not all air purifiers are 1000$. However, the ones that provide around 96% (which seems consistent with what would be a HEPA filter) and also filteer for that formaldehyde at a similar rate are the more expensive ones.

    What this does show is that the summary is lacking information and we are being fed an apple to oranges comparison. Smart Air's website seems more sensible than the summary (what was I thinking, this is slashdot), at least mentioning that the filter is an alternative only if your only concern is particle pollution.

    Also, I need to stop taking the summary at face value.

    * other articles found in the search suggest that those values are not false

    --
    I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
  43. Instead of a pat on the back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a punch in the mouth?

    All you so quick to laud the democratization of breath forget the law of unintended consequences.

    By facilitating breathing in a super-polluted hellscape like that, he's reducing the impetus they might have had to CLEAN THEIR SHIT UP! Great job. Now people who can afford his device will be able to breathe, not just the rich, but the poor, the ones who can't even afford rice, how do they afford this thing? So they can continue to live in a veritable sea of garbage, and instead of getting better, it maybe gets worse, and by the way, there's no great wall around the pollution choked areas, which means that airborne garbage will slowly filter (no pun intended) out of there and help poison other people around the world.

    Of course, I am typing this on a computer that was made in China... so maybe I too am part of the problem. :(

  44. now fix central air conditioning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awesome! Now he needs to be encouraged to fix central air conditioning - yet another overly priced commodity that should be simple and widely available for 1/10 of what is being charged.

  45. Ionizer by Gliscameria · · Score: 1

    I've done something similar, but I also tossed in a cheap 5kV ion generator and a grounding screen. You put the filter on the pull side, the generator in the middle and the grounding mesh on the push side and it does a decent job of filtering out particles and making the air smell fresh. You can get everything you need at Home Depot, except for the 5kV circuit, which is like $5 online.

    --
    X