Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1

    Default Interesting item, maybe

    I am very skeptical, to say the least, but if this (https://www.yahoo.com/news/lishtot-a...210701511.html) is for real, it could be useful.
    "It's fun to have fun, but you have to know how." ---Dr. Seuss

  2. #2
    Registered User hikermiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-24-2007
    Location
    Danbury, CT
    Age
    72
    Posts
    80

    Default

    That does look interesting. Imagine pushing a button an finding out whether you should filter the water or not.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    02-01-2016
    Location
    Chattanooga, Tennessee
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Extraordinary claims - extraordinary evidence? Two third-party testing reports "that I have read" (author's words) - yet sources aren't cited in the article.

    Color me skeptical.

  4. #4

    Default

    Good catch on this! While I have some reservations about what is in the article, I likely would not have seen this if Feral Bill not taken the time to post it.

    As with all wiz-bang devices, I too am a bit skeptical when it comes to devices that can impact the health of the user. For example, there is no mention of test results for Giardia or Cryptosporidium, which can be difficult problems to deal with once ingested (and for many is the reason for filtering).

    Where are the controlled testing results to scientifically support the product claim? It would appear unidentified "third party" testing, which could be legitimate scientific method studies (unattributed) or Uncle Bob, also claim the device works. This is followed by the troubling notion this device can be linked with smart-apps that can be whipped up into a data map of "water not needing to be filtered", regardless of land application chemicals used following any testing (no to mention illegal dumping), rain or melting events impacting water sources, or casual contamination from passing wildlife depositing parasites following the internet pronouncement the water is "safe". I doubt if an accurate list can be developed of "safe water" given the variables.

    Have to agree with TZ, extraordinary evidence is needed to match extraordinary claims. Unattributed third party testing are not data.
    Last edited by Traveler; 01-13-2018 at 10:31.

  5. #5
    GSMNP 900 Miler HooKooDooKu's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-25-2007
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Age
    51
    Posts
    3,514
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    5

    Default

    One huge red flag (among the many) is the claim it is 100% accurate test results.

    That simply means they didn't fully test the device.

    There MUST be some level of contamination (even if it's just one germ in a liter of water) where the contamination is too small to make a change in the field for the device to detect.

  6. #6

    Default

    Testing is based on 1/2 plastic cup of water. You have to fill a plastic cup half empty ;-) and then test.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HooKooDooKu View Post
    One huge red flag (among the many) is the claim it is 100% accurate test results.

    That simply means they didn't fully test the device.

    There MUST be some level of contamination (even if it's just one germ in a liter of water) where the contamination is too small to make a change in the field for the device to detect.
    The red flag for me was that it took several attempts to learn how to use it properly. Do you jiggle it, until it shows clean water, or jiggle it until it shows dirty water?

    It seems to me that user error on the trail, is kind of standard. For every time I filtered my water on the trail, I also managed to set my pack down in a way that the bite valve dragged along a shelter picnic table, or the ground, or someplace equally filthy. People eating with their grimy fingers, and just numerous ways to set up cross contamination.

    Do your best, but there's always going to be an element of luck on if you get sick on not.

    Edit: Grammar
    Last edited by Puddlefish; 01-13-2018 at 15:39.

  8. #8

    Default

    If it sounds too good to be true........

  9. #9
    DrL's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-11-2010
    Location
    Berks County, PA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    145
    Images
    1

    Default

    Yeah, way too many red flags. Their US patent was granted though. That just speaks to the quality of US patent examiners these days. Bunch of buffoons.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    12-28-2015
    Location
    Bad Ischl, Austria
    Age
    60
    Posts
    912

    Default

    Remembers me on some famous bomb detectors:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651
    BTW, I've seen those in real use by real Army men who did very serious about it.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrL View Post
    Yeah, way too many red flags. Their US patent was granted though. That just speaks to the quality of US patent examiners these days. Bunch of buffoons.
    *** - a patent has nothing to do with judging the effectiveness of something

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D2maine View Post
    *** - a patent has nothing to do with judging the effectiveness of something
    This, 1000x.

    It may never work, but you can still patent the design, process, and even the idea/algorithm in many cases.

  13. #13
    Registered User BuckeyeBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-18-2012
    Location
    Dark Side of the Moon
    Age
    58
    Posts
    1,343
    Journal Entries
    6

    Default

    All a US patent does is makes sure no one else has come up with the same thing before and if not, they will issue a patent. In addition to the patent, you can mail yourself a complete set of plans you drew up. Seal the envelope in such a way to make it tamper proof and take it to the post office directly to get the postage date on it. Once it arrives, lock it away in a safe, safety deposit box or some other secure location. This is how my attorney told me to handle things with my first patent.
    Blackheart

  14. #14

    Default

    As an aquatic biologist, I can say with near certainty there there is no reasonable way to test, using a single method, for harmful bacteria, viruses, and/or protazoa and tell the difference between the 99% that are harmless and the <1% that can cause problems. And, that's not even starting to address chemical contamination. It is much, much easier to remove and/or kill all contaminants of interest than it is to identify them!!
    I'm not lost. I'm exploring.

++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •