
Alan Barrett
673 posts

Alan Barrett
@apb_barrett
I do not speak on behalf of anybody (unless I explicitly say so). Follow/retweet/like is not endorsement. Also @[email protected]
















We did a study of active commercial pilots in a flight simulator and we forced scenarios like this (single engine flameout on takeoff). We changed the air quality in the cockpit without them knowing. —> They were more likely to FAIL tests when CO2 was high pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30089876/

My bench test results for the AirFanta Wear wearable air purifier are complete. I tested and mapped the 0.3 micron filtration at 90 different distances, in 1 cm increments with an AeroTrak optical particle counter. I tested both fan speeds. Fan speed 1 worked best and is shown here. The Wear is very effective if you are very close to it and on center, which is possible to do because it is positionable. But it is very directional, so much so that you may need to decide whether to point it at your nose or mouth, because that small distance between the two matters. The Wear is a potentially useful tool that can give significant protection if it is well positioned and you are careful to keep your head in the right position when breathing. This can be a challenge because the Wear is body worn, not head-worn, and does not move with your head to maintain the distance and orientation required for best protection. It has a 5cm diameter clean air zone at the face that gives respirator-grade protection but past that, 1cm can make the difference between 35x cleaner air and 4x cleaner air as turbulence mixes the filtered air at the edges of the purifier's air stream with unfiltered ambient air. How much filtration you need is a bit subjective depending on your application. If you want to reduce allergy symptoms, any amount may be useful, with more being even better. And using the Wear in situations where you previously weren't going to take any precautions is all upside. But you need to be careful about risk compensation, which is when you take on more risk than is warranted by the protection you are getting. Such as deciding to not use the N95 you were going to wear to visit a relative sick with flu other airborne disease and use the Wear instead. The Wear isn't meant to be a 1:1 substitute for respirator grade masks. Another thing to consider is that N95s help you keep your own germs to yourself The Wear and other personal air purifiers do not. So if your goal is to also protect others from getting sick, then it's better to use an N95 or other high quality source control respirator. I'll post the "as worn" PortaCount N95 mode testing and more details soon, with tests of the Wear in different orientations and distances, including with head and body motion. You can check out the heatmap spreadsheet here: #gid=22114007&range=A11" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
(h/t to @RolandSB13 for suggesting N95 mode PortaCount testing for the as worn tests that I'll be posting.)





Here's what's probably going to happen: 1. Multiple countries other than the UK will demand age verification to access "adult content" 2. VPN usage will spike 3. Those countries will then outlaw VPNs claiming they are doing so "to protect the children and fight terrorism" 4. They will then create voluntary uniform and centralized online IDs to make age verification easier 5. Then the IDs will become required and the government will run AI on all of your internet activity which they can link to you personally 6. Eventually this data will be made available to private companies who will use it to judge your credit worthiness, the prices you pay, etc. 7. Then, the government will begin using the data to "proactively fight crime" Decentralization of money and infrastructure matters if you value privacy and freedom.

The global online safety regulators network's (GOSRN) 3-Year Strategic Plan for 2025-2027: ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/res…








