
Implausible and overfunded CPAP machine on Indiegogo - alkimie2
My son (a physics student) wrote to me to point me to a crowdsource project for a CPAP machine.<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.indiegogo.com&#x2F;projects&#x2F;airing-the-first-hoseless-maskless-micro-cpap#&#x2F;story<p>My immediate thought upon seeing the mock up was: balony, with a capital &#x27;B&#x27;.<p>It is a tiny thing looking a little like a plastic moustache.  I do not see how such a small package could store enough power to run a CPAP device.  It is a simple question of moving mass.  People breath about 5 liters of air per minute at a low activity level. That’s 2400 liters in an-8 hour period.  Air weighs about 1.2 gm&#x2F;l = 2.88 KG moved in an an 8 hour period.  And that illustration did not seem to have much space for a battery.  Not to mention space for the magical flapping air pumps derived from CPU coolers!<p>And they claim a price of $3 per device…  And it’s disposable.<p>They also say they are using a zinc air battery, which has energy density of 470 Wh&#x2F;kg or .47 Wh&#x2F;gm. Let’s generously say that they have 10 gm of battery—that’s 5 watt hours.  Lets even more generously say that they have 8 watt hours.  That’s 1 watt continuously for a night of sleep.<p>They are saying they can operate a CPAP machine on 1 watt, have it be the sized of a junor tootsie bar, and sell it for $3 per device.<p>The question I’m asking here is what should we do as engineers?  Ethically, I mean.  I really hate to see people taken in by such an obvious scam.
======
amluto
Let's try the math for real.

The site claims that the device can provide 20 cm H₂O (which is ~1961 Pa).
Apparently some hypothetical normal man breathes at a rate of 6 liters (i.e.
0.006 cubic meters) per minute at rest [1]. If you pump a volume V of fluid
across a pressure difference of ΔP, you've done work V·ΔP, which is 11.76
Joules per minute or 0.1961 Watts. Keep in mind that this is the work done,
not the power consumed, but let's be generous and assume a 100% efficient
blower. We'll also assume that no power is harvested during exhalation.

In eight hours, that's 1.56 Watt hours.

Duracell's zinc-air chemistry claims up to 442 Watt hours / kg [2]. That's
about 3.5 grams of zinc-air goo per night, ignoring packaging, blower loss,
etc.

This seems entirely plausible to me.

[1] [http://www.normalbreathing.com](http://www.normalbreathing.com)

[2] [http://media.ww2.duracell.com/media/en-
US/pdf/gtcl/Technical...](http://media.ww2.duracell.com/media/en-
US/pdf/gtcl/Technical_Bulletins/Zinc%20Air%20Tech%20Bulletin.pdf)

Edit: In the interest of precision, I should add that the analysis is accurate
for an incompressible flow. Air is definitely compressible, so, if you pump
air, more volume is going into the pump than is coming out, and you're heating
up the air (adiabatically if your pump is any good). So, with a compressible
fluid, you have to consider not on the work done moving the fluid across a
pressure difference but also the energy you've stored in the fluid by
pressurizing it. The pressure difference for CAP is tiny here, though, so this
would be a miniscule correction to the math above.

~~~
Alkim
Well now I guess I have to do the math:

W = P(b)V(b) ln(P(a)/P(b))

([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage))

CPAP requires roughly 10 cm of water pressure = 0.01 Bar Sea level atmospheric
pressure is roughly 1 bar So the device has to pressurize to 1.01 Bar Now I’ve
looked it up, and a typical CPAP machine moves 20 to 60 liters per minute
Let’s say 30 liters per minute = 1800 liters per hour

W = (1.007) _(1.8)_ ln(1/1.007) = (1.81)*(-00698) = 0.0127 MJ = 3.53 Watt Hour

So assuming perfect efficiency you would still need 28.64 watt hours of
battery, just to do the compression.

470 Wh/kg for Zinc-air battery implies this device requires a 60gm battery (2
oz to those of us of a certain age)

I looked up CPU fan efficiency (what they say they derived it from) and PEAK
fan efficiency only approaches 25%

[http://www.nmbtc.com/fans/white-
papers/fan_efficiency_import...](http://www.nmbtc.com/fans/white-
papers/fan_efficiency_important_selection_criteria/)

So, you’d really need an 8 oz battery hanging from your nose to make this
work, not counting what you need to run the electronics, etc.

~~~
amluto
Where does that 30 liters per minute go? I'm reasonably sure it's not going
into the user's nose or mouth.

Part of the claimed innovation here is that the thing sticks directly into the
user's nose. If it seals well, it's plausible that there's very little wasted
air, which would account for the factor of roughly five.

(Also, you used the formula for isothermal compression, I think. A tiny little
device like they showed would probably move air quickly enough through its fan
that it would be closer to adiabatic. This doesn't matter much for the small
pressure change involved.)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Part of the claimed innovation here is that the thing sticks directly into
> the user's nose.

Putting the whole machine in the nose is novel, but I don't see how that is
innovative in terms of changing required functionality compared to nose-only
masks, which are already a thing.

~~~
amluto
It shouldn't have anything to do with the required technology. It might allow
a considerable reduction in leakage, though.

------
amykhar
I work in the sleep industry, and noted that the company making this device
did not attend Sleep 2015 in Seattle. The fact that they were not present at
the largest gathering of sleep professionals in the country this year made me
really doubt their credibility.

~~~
PuffinBlue
Noting whether a company has been to their industries largest gathering of
professionals doesn't seem like a particularly robust metric upon which to
judge future success.

------
jerf
"People breath about 5 liters of air per minute at a low activity level.
That’s 2400 liters in an-8 hour period. Air weighs about 1.2 gm/l = 2.88 KG
moved in an an 8 hour period."

I'm not sure if this device is plausible, but I know this calculation is not
useful. You're calculating the mass of air moved, which, first of all, does
not itself say much about the energy required to do so; for instance,
horizontal motion doesn't require any net energy (though any real device doing
so will of course need to do something to accelerate and decelerate, there's
nothing to say it can't be very, very cheap). Second you appear to be
discussing it as if there isn't a pair of lungs right there providing motive
power. I do that much moving of the air every day (plus a bit, probably, I'm a
tall guy) with no batteries at all.

This thing is not responsible for "moving all that air"... it's responsible
for a _pressure increase_ of the air, which is at least somewhat equivalent to
saying it's responsible for "moving air" but only a fraction of the value you
computed. They say it is supposed to do from 1 to 20 "centimeters of water".
According to the Great and Mighty Internet, 20 cmH20 is 0.02 atmospheres, just
to give some perspective. I do not have the math to calculate the energy
requirement that represents when the air is in motion itself; my physics would
only be sufficient to calculate the energy implied in pressurizing a closed
container from 1 to 1.02 atmospheres, which is useless in this case. Perhaps
someone else can pop up for that.

(Bear in mind I took a full standard College physics-for-non-majors course
set, using full calculus, and what I know from that is that what I know is
inadequate... if that also describes your experience, your education is
inadequate too. We're going to need to hear from someone with more specialized
education.)

My suspicion is that yes, this device _is_ plausible, but the final version is
going to be larger than the versions shown. Whether it crosses over the
invisible line where people become unwilling to wear it is anybody's guess,
but... sleep apnea _sucks_ and those masks do suck too, so there's some room
for these guys to work in. I'd classify this as a "considered risk" rather
than "two orders of magnitude impossible". I reserve the right to change this
assessment as more data comes in, especially a (good!) physics analysis of the
real energy required to do this.

~~~
TylerE
20 centimeters of air is a LOT more than it sounds like. I personally run a
pressure of 14 cmH20 and the airflow needed to maintain this is a LOT higher
than that needed for breathing. I run a full face mask and my machine averages
flow of around 30 liters a minute. The air needs to be "turned over"
constantly since you don't want to be re-breathing stale air.

(As a side note to GP: Reducing/stopping pressure on the exhale is problematic
also... for some of us many of our problems are actually on the exhale.

~~~
amluto
I know basically nothing about how CPAP devices work, but why does it need to
move so much air? There are snorkels on the market with little check valves so
your exhaled air goes out a different pipe than your inhaled air. They cost
maybe $20. I can't imagine that a super-expensive CPAP machine doesn't have a
similar pair of valves.

~~~
TylerE
Basically, because you're sleeping, and even a good mask seal will leak a fair
bit, and there is also a lot of intentional leakage around the valves because
you don't want stale air hanging around, or condensation building up, and you
have to make sure that the person can breathe sort-of normally if the power
fails or something like that.

~~~
amluto
As a guess: with a plugged-in device, the manufacturer doesn't care about
power consumption, and the thing already needs to be be able to supply enough
air for the peak flow while you're inhaling, so it doesn't really matter if it
leaks.

If they cared about power consumption, they could presumably make it less
leaky and use check valves to prevent issues with stale air or inability to
breathe if the fan stops working.

I've used snorkels with separate in and out tubes and check valves to route
the air correctly. It solves stale air problems (which are irrelevant for
snorkling because the total air volume is much less than the amount of air you
breathe in per breath) and causes serious suckage (because you really want
your exhaled air to displace water that comes in the intake, and check valves
prevent that), but for CPAP it might make sense.

------
smitec
When you look at the math (as you have) it seems almost certain to be a scam.
ResMed has a Technical note [0] on powering one of their devices form a
battery, while product efficiencies can vary they are recommending ~30 Amp
hour batteries for the 20 cmH20 this device is claiming to provide. It amazes
me that indigogo doesn't do something to stop this sort of thing when it gets
to be such a well funded project (I'm sure other platforms are guilty of it
too).

[0] [http://www.rpc.com.au/pdf/battery-powering-products-
usa.pdf](http://www.rpc.com.au/pdf/battery-powering-products-usa.pdf)

------
twistedpair
_Is the Airing device FDA approved? No, not yet. However, we do believe the
process of getting FDA clearance may be abbreviated._

Ha. I work at a company that makes medical devices. It's just so damn easy,
you know! Seems like a pretty blunt case of handwaving away this critical
step. This is an electric device that controls if you can breath. This thing
has a non-trivial risk of hurting someone through electrocution (it's plugged
into your conductive mucus) or asphyxiation (though hopefully you'll wake).

So yeah, they'll clearly just POST to the FDA certification API and get a
response within a minute.

------
alvarop
Everything seems to be worded just right in case they don't deliver. From the
FAQ: "As a contributor to this Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign, you are
supporting Airing’s intent to develop the world's first micro-CPAP device."

Also, all physical perks have the disclaimer: "Subject to FDA clearance and
doctor’s prescription in the US and local regulation abroad."

From a financial perspective, I can't imagine getting the device certified in
multiple countries is going to be cheap. Would they also be expected to check
doctors prescriptions in various languages somehow before delivering?

------
ChuckMcM

       > what should we do as engineers?
    

Well you can warn people off, but you can't make people disbelieve what they
want to believe. In similar situations I've suggested that folks wait until
they can be ordered and the crowd funded units have shipped. Then they will
have a good idea of what they are getting. If the crowd funding fails or they
are poor quality, they will have saved themselves aggravation and money, if it
works then they will be available as a product.

------
anonu
If anything, this underscores the importance of this field. Sleep is an under-
studied phenomenon. Sleep apnea is even more so... Consider the current field
of options, none of which may be any better than the one proposed on
Indiegogo. All you need to do is flip on some infomercials or flip through a
SkyMall magazine to see that there are dozen of gizmos and gadgets that don't
work: chin straps, sprays, OTC mandibular advancement, etc.. etc.. The
surgical options are not pleasant either. Look up "UPPP".

One promising technology is a small pace-maker-like device that is implanted
in the chest and stimulates the hypoglossal nerve while you sleep:
[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834474](http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834474)

~~~
jwynia
I believe my neurologist was one of those who helped develop that device
(Cornelius). Can't log in to see, but sounds like the same thing. But, he
keeps me on an adjustable CPAP machine instead because of how my sleep apnea
works.

------
chrisBob
It looks like the found a good gullible market with lots of money, and it will
be _years_ before anyone complains. They have an earliest delivery date of
2017 depending on how things go with the FDA.

When I see something like that my first question is if the doctors involved
are real or not.

~~~
Alkim
The doctors looked suspiciously like models. I tried google image searching
them but I think the oval surrounds threw it off. I'd bet they are fake as
well.

~~~
BuildTheRobots
There isn't a Doctor Jeffrey Bass working at Brigham and Women's Hospital [0].
There isn't an obvious email address either, so I can't just ask them if he
previously worked there or if the picture matches.

[0]
[http://physiciandirectory.brighamandwomens.org/?Index=10&Las...](http://physiciandirectory.brighamandwomens.org/?Index=10&LastName=bass)

~~~
kohanz
If you Google Jeff Bass and Brigham, enough hits come up to make you think
that he had some sort of association with that hospital [0]. This picture here
(far left) [1] looks like the same person.

[http://health.usnews.com/doctors/jeffrey-
bass-342891](http://health.usnews.com/doctors/jeffrey-bass-342891) [0]

[http://www.personalmds.com/doctors/bios](http://www.personalmds.com/doctors/bios)
[1]

~~~
BuildTheRobots
Interesting. Your google-foo is obviously better than mine. I googled the name
but the only photo I got was the one from the CPAP page :)

------
zamalek
_I 'm no engineer and my knowledge of CPAP extends to the amount of Googling I
did since I saw this post._

Their constraints do seem very tight but I can conceive at least one way in
that you could shrink the device down. There would be multiple actions in such
a device:

1\. During the inhale increase pressure. As noted by the image[1] this is
achieved in the device with "blowers."

2\. During the exhale present a restriction to airflow, but don't cut it off
entirely. You could use something similar to an aperture to restrict airflow
here.

3\. Between the exhale and inhale maintain pressure. If you use an aperture-
like-device you can simply close the aperture completely.

This means that the device becomes _partially_ passive, reducing power
requirements. I'm no expert but let's assume that you are only inhaling 50% of
the time - this cuts down the amount of time the "blowers" need to run by 50%
(or can double their power consumption or something in-between). My uneducated
opinion is therefore: remotely plausible.

[http://res.cloudinary.com/indiegogo-media-prod-
cld/image/upl...](http://res.cloudinary.com/indiegogo-media-prod-
cld/image/upload/c_limit,w_620/v1434341774/oszvr8ppyhnqsmj56jip.png)

~~~
Alkim
I don't follow your logic at all.

And you do not escape the fact that the device has got to move almost 3 kg of
mass with about 1 watt.

~~~
zamalek
> I don't follow your logic at all.

I have another try at communicating the idea.

It _sounds_ like the main problem with sleep apnea is that the air passages
are collapsed when it comes time to start inhaling - preventing the process
from occurring. Therefore the core of the solution is having "inflated" air
passages at the point when inhalation starts.

The idea is to kick-start the next inhalation with the current exhalation.
When you exhale you increase the pressure in your air passages which is work
("wattage") that completely goes to waste - it all goes out your nose/mouth.
The device would gradually restrict the passage of air out of the nose (as the
exhalation process completes), eventually cutting it off completely. This
means that once you have completely exhaled your air passages would still be
"inflated." This is what (2) and (3) do. In this situation conventional CPAP
would be providing pressure (even though it's not needed) and would hence be
wasting work.

That is the special sauce: relying on the human to do work that they _don 't_
have problems with. This will reduce the amount of work you need to do to
assist with their medical condition: possibly down to 1 watt, or at least way
less than you'd need with conventional CPAP.

> 1 watt

The problem is collapsed airways and not dysfunctional lungs, there's still
plenty of wattage there: all you need to do is keep the air passages open
using (1).

As I said: a long-shot, remotely plausible. Most importantly: if the above is
a plausible idea there is no guarantee that it's the same as theirs or that
they even have one. Show me the patents.

At the same time it's better to ask questions before initiating a witch-hunt.
I think the first plan of action would be for them to prove that they have a
working device instead of the seemingly common "warning off people"
suggestion. A better suggestion to people is encourage them to ask for proof.

------
Smushman
Background on Airing, LLC, located in Burlington, MA.

I looked up Stephen A. Marsh (see
[http://www.fundairing.com/](http://www.fundairing.com/) under 'inventor').

Interesting guy - a strange history. He also is CEO of Encite LLC (also
located in Burlington, MA). He does have many patents in fuel cells, etc.

Previous to Encite LLC he was CEO of a now-defunct technology startup
Integrated Fuel Cell Technologies, Inc. (IFCTI)

Encite LLC was formed from IFCTI, through some obtuse legal machinations.

[http://www.potteranderson.com/delawarecase-185.html](http://www.potteranderson.com/delawarecase-185.html)

I am no expert in law, but it sounds like he basically ran IFCTI into the
ground as CEO, then bought it and its resources back at a large discount via
Encite LLC. The previous board members tried to sue him but lost due to some
ambiguities in the laws.

Maybe someone else has more?

BTW having used a CPAP I know it is not possible to generate the volume and
pressure (particularly the pressure) needed by something this size without a
quantum leap in current technology.

I can't devise a method to prove and explain my conclusion. Perhaps someone
more versed in the area can.

------
userbinator
_The question I’m asking here is what should we do as engineers?_

Talk about it and spread the word to others that this is impossible to do.

There's also some interesting discussion here, mostly to the tune of "it won't
work":

[http://www.eevblog.com/forum/crowd-funded-projects/the-
airin...](http://www.eevblog.com/forum/crowd-funded-projects/the-airing/)

~~~
Alkim
Thank you for pointing that out. It was interesting reading.

I was hoping that someone in this community would know someone in indegogo
responsible enough to say wait a minute, this is not plausible. I took a look
at indegogo's terms of service and found only this:

"If the Campaign is claiming to do the impossible or it's just plain phony,
don't post it. "

Which is pretty weak.

But I suppose the old saw that 'a fool and his money are soon parted' still
applies in the crowdfunding world...

And here's a -real- battery powered CPAP machine, taking a laptop-type lithium
ion battery:

[http://www.cpap.com/productpage/Hoffman-Laboratories-
Breathe...](http://www.cpap.com/productpage/Hoffman-Laboratories-BreatheX-
CPAP-Viasys.html#specs-tab)

------
brock_r
You are forgetting that it is your _lungs_ that must move the 2.88KG in an 8
hour period.

The machine just has to maintain a positive pressure during certain portions
of the breathing cycle.

What I see here is a possibly overly-ambitious design, but no obvious scam.

BTW, here is a video of Airing's Chairman:
[https://vimeo.com/130685879](https://vimeo.com/130685879)

~~~
TylerE
This is a much harder problem than you give it credit for. The pressure has to
be maintained over widely and rapidly changing conditions. For instance, if
the patient suddenly takes a deep, fast breath, the pressure needs to be
maintained.

------
Mz
I don't think there is an ethical obligation to do anything. I hope people
contributing can afford to lose whatever funds they are pledging. They will
have to seek FDA approval. If they don't get it, no one is going to be buying
some overhyped piece of plastic that doesn't actually work.

One of the challenges we have currently is that the medical field is over
regulated and there are excessive barriers to entry. Perhaps you can make your
peace with the fact that it isn't your money and if people want to hope
against hope for something better and pledge a few dollars, that is their
choice. Then the developers might get their shot at developing something new.
Maybe it won't meet every criteria they listed. Maybe it somehow will. Maybe
it will be a complete flop. (Shrug)

Innovation only happens when there is some leeway for some of it to fail.
$100k is a drop in the bucket for medical research. Why do you feel such a
strong need to not even let them try? I suggest you let it go.

------
OopsCriticality
> The question I’m asking here is what should we do as engineers? Ethically, I
> mean. I really hate to see people taken in by such an obvious scam.

Skepticism is certainly warranted based solely on the timeline presented and
my experience in medical devices.

As to the rest, you're operating on incomplete information. According to the
NSPE, "Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon
knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter." You say, "what
should _we_ do as engineers", so I'll make the implicit assumption that you're
an unlicensed "software engineer" like many on HN. If so, consider that you
may be operating outside your area of expertise without complete knowledge of
the device. I would make careful public statements: I, for example, wouldn't
say "I performed a first-principles analysis and, as an engineer, I find the
device claims are impossible."

~~~
Alkim
Well I never took the PE exam, and it is a couple of decades since my
undergrad and graduate engineering degrees that included a couple of courses
in thermo, so things are a little rusty, but prodded by a few of these posts
I've just dusted off the math and made a go of it. BEST case, requires an 8 oz
zinc-air battery. And they are going to sell that, and the device itself for
$3..?!

Part of my reaction is that I am a patent attorney, and every patent attorney
gets 'inventions' that come through the door from well-meaning but essentially
clueless people. After a while you get to develop a bullsh*t detector. This
one just rang my gong. I suffer from sleep apnea and I know what a real thing
it is, and the idea of these guys just walking away with $$ from desperate
people, just, again, rang my gong.

I will say that it has been fun seeing these posts--thank you!

------
skilesare
There is breathing going on here so is there any chance that the breathing out
could help recharge the battery in a similar way that a hybrid car charges
your battery when you brake?

I also don't think it is 'disposable'. I think it is recyclable and from what
I've seen the $3 is dependent on recycling them.

~~~
TylerE
No. To be effective CPAP has to be continous, even during the exhale.

~~~
jwynia
Most of the machines sold now are continuous, but not at constant pressure.
Mine's set to detect apnea events and adjust between 5-15 for pressure and to
adjust that further based on exhalation.

~~~
TylerE
Yea, for sure.

Mine can do all that, but I actually have it all turned off...I find I have a
much easier time getting and staying comfortable that way...every time the
pressure changes my mask would shift...at a constant pressure I can get it
"just right" and it doesn't leak at all and I find it easier to fall asleep as
the pressure points don't shift around.

------
gooseyard
I believe the Airing thing is expected to use these things:

[http://www.murata-ps.com/emena/2012-05-22.html](http://www.murata-
ps.com/emena/2012-05-22.html)

I was also skeptical of the Airing claim, although after reading about the
Murata piezo blower things, they're amazing, whether Airing is able to make a
CPAP out of them or not.

Frankly, as an old, fat, CPAP using guy, I'd rather eat mouldy cheese than use
a nasal pillow CPAP device. Plus, the Airing thing would have to be strapped
to my face anyway; at my Rx pressure it'd blow out of my nose within an hour.
The hose on my traditional BiPap turbine machine doesn't bother me at all.

I'd be delighted to have a smaller BiPap machine made out of these Murata
things, if it meant a less bulky power supply and a smaller base unit.

~~~
Smushman
That was a really impressive find!

Armed with this, I took interest in your response and checked out the math.

Interestingly, this device seems to produce the pressure!

Using their specifications of the piezoelectric pump on the page you sent.

Piezoelectric pump produces 1.5kPa. This converts to 15.3 cm WC (centimeters
of water column) or cmH2O. 4-20 cmH2O is the range of a cpap!!

But, the airflow needed at that pressure is a critical issue as long as you
want to breathe freely. The piezoelectric pump produces 0.8 liters per minute.

At [http://www.sleepdex.org/cpap.htm](http://www.sleepdex.org/cpap.htm) it
says a cpap produces 20 to 60 liters of air per minute (lpm).

To reach the lowest end you need 20 lpm. Calculate 20 / .8 = 25

So you need 25 of these piezoelectric pumps to reach the lowest possible; 75
of them to reach the high end. This is literally almost an order of magnitude.

And in case you thought so; piezoelectrics can't scale. They are very limited
in size, by the physics of the vibrations.

So still not even close. It would require a quantum leap in technology over
what we have available.

------
rebootthesystem
Buy the right to post comments by pledging the smallest amount possible?
Contact indigogo with the concern? Write a blog post and get help having it
widely linked? Alert the authorities?

On the other hand, it might br hard to convince a lot of people that this
isn't real. After all, most of humanity believes some version of supernatural
nonsense which includes such things as people flying, resurrecting, partin
seas, singing bushes, talking snakes, 6,000 year old earth, rapture, being
chosen, paradise, etc. in other words, there's plenty of empirical evidence to
show science and reason don't stand a chance. Yet.

------
semiazas
Call Indiegogo to task. They're developing a reputation for shady practices.
Considering they get their cut whether the startup is real or not begs the
question are they honestly diligent in vetting a project? Given their history
it seems to me they're more interested in their piece of the pie and believe
those foolish enough to buy in get what they deserve. You won't see them
refunding their portion of a fund when it becomes apparent it was a scam. They
carefully pretend nothing bad happened and go on down the road to the bank.

------
Rooster61
I'm fairly skeptical myself, but if they do put their money where their mouth
is, this will be a fantastic product. I use a cpap, and I can tell you flying
international lugging a machine around is a regular pain in the ass.

That said, my dollars are staying snugly in my pocket for this campaign. It's
pretty farfetched, and I don't like the metric they used to illustrate the
actual pushing power. It doesn't add up.

------
feld
Maybe the doctors are being scammed as well? Gilmartin specializes in sleep
medicine

[http://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_Geoffrey_Gilmartin/profile](http://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_Geoffrey_Gilmartin/profile)

~~~
yock
I can't speak to Dr. Gilmartin himself, but being a doctor doesn't make you an
engineer capable of evaluating a complex medical device. My pulmonogolist is a
good doctor and understands how to best configure my own CPAP for my health.
He really has little idea how the thing actually works.

~~~
onion2k
Gilmartin doesn't need to know the engineering principles involved, just that
it provides the claimed the medicinal benefits. As a doctor that's _exactly_
what he's qualified to assess. Besides, he's a doctor _at Havard_ , there'll
be some very qualified engineers around to assess that side of things.

------
nugga
You really don't need to read the page further after seeing 'flexible funding'
with a target of 100k. Sadly indiegogo is a scamsta's paradise for allowing
flexible funding for non-charity drives.

------
mcphage
The fact that their anticipated price is $3/day is absurd. I can't see
insurance companies rushing to cover this.

~~~
narwally
"The costs of untreated sleep apnea reach further than just health issues. It
is estimated that in the U.S. the average untreated sleep apnea patient's
annual health care costs $1,336 more than an individual without sleep apnea.
This may cause $3.4 billion/year in additional medical costs. Whether medical
cost savings occur with treatment of sleep apnea remains to be determined."[1]

So if it turns out that this treatment of sleep apnea can offset those
increased healthcare costs, I could definitely see insurance companies being
interested.

[1] Kapur V, Blough DK, Sandblom RE, Hert R, de Maine JB, Sullivan SD, Psaty
BM (September 1999). "The medical cost of undiagnosed sleep apnea". Sleep 22
(6): 749–55. PMID 10505820

~~~
jwynia
CPAP treatment (and no other substantial changes in my life) brought my blood
pressure down from 160/110 down to 118/78\. Previous doctors had tried,
without success, to lower it with massive beta blockers and other medication.
I just needed some damned sleep.

------
moron4hire
I don't know enough about this particular hardware to know. I know when I was
tested for sleep apnea, the CPAP machine they suggested for me was set on a
very low flow rate. A number of factors contribute to the airway obstruction
in sleep apnea. One is muscle tone in the airway: too flimsy of muscle will
collapse more easily. One is body fat: too much and it squeezes everything
closer. One is airflow itself: if the airway is constricted just enough to
create a thin slit, the airflow through it will reduce the air pressure and
close it the rest of the way. Snoring is thus essentially the same phenomenon
as how reed instruments produce sound. So, the idea with a CPAP machine is not
to force air into your longs, it's to create enough positive pressure inside
the airway to open it again and let your own lungs do the bulk of the work
thereafter.

But they are _extremely_ intrusive to sleep, especially if you have a partner.
A better CPAP machine _is_ needed. But I won't give them pre-order money, more
because I've seen way too many bad crowd-sourcing projects than out of
specific concerns towards this project.

For $3 I'll buy it on a whim and try it out. I'd try a larger one that was
significantly smaller than a standard CPAP for $20, maybe even $50.

But whether or not the project is legit is kind of beside the point to me
right now. Having done a lot of prototyping of my own, in both software _and_
hardware, it bothers me to see people jump directly to crowdfunding before
they've even built a hot-glue-and-wires version of a prototype. Prove the
concept. It's not that freaking hard.

All they say they've done is built the shell of the noseplug. They haven't any
idea how to get the electronics on the inside. Their FAQ page makes it sound
like their understanding of cutting edge electronics comes from Popular
Mechanics, or Boing Boing.

People act like hardware is so extra-special hard. It's not. It's no more or
less difficult than hacking on software in your free time. The actual, core
functionality of your project, whether it's hardware or software, should be
possible to validate in less than a month. The rest of what it takes to turn
any project into a real product will far eclipse the proof-of-concept work in
the level of effort necessary. There's no such thing as "if you build it, they
will come".

Okay, no, Elon Musk's Hyperloop can't be validated in a month. A brand-new,
hyper-secure, microkernel operating system written in Rust wouldn't be,
either. I'm not saying _all_ ideas are possible in a month, I'm just saying
the stuff people typically do in the given spaces as garage inventors _are_ on
the short-scale for validation.

It just takes up a little to a lot more space. But if you're dedicated, most
people can find the space. I'm sure a few adults like supposedly involved in
this project can rent out a small warehouse on their pocket cash together. I
don't even work full-time, I live in one of the worst areas of the country for
real estate prices right now, and even _I_ could scrap together the money for
a small warehouse, if I had to.

It's going to be hard if you don't have any experience in hardware. Yeah, but
even making a simple CRUD app is going to be hard if you don't have any
experience in software. We live in a golden age of hardware development.
Nearly everyone and their neighbor in the US has a garage full of tools that
could bootstrap a small industrial renaissance in a 3rd world country.

Or you don't even have to buy anything, design a flat-pack vector layout in
Inkscape, email it to any of the thousands of laser-cutting services in the
country, tell them you're fine buying scrap material, wait a couple of days,
and you can make anything the size of a breadbox for about $50.

Need more complexity? Make a 3D model in blender, send it off to any of the
dozens of (and growing) 3D printing services, wait a couple of days, and you
can make anything the size of an old Walkman for about $50. Seriously, don't
buy your own 3D printer unless you want to get into the business of
maintaining 3D printers. Outsource that malarky.

But come on, if you don't believe in your project enough to put your own time
and money into it, how do you expect us to believe in it? (though, I know that
isn't really stopping anyone).

~~~
Splendor
Exactly, I think the success of this crowdfunding campaign speaks more to the
opportunity present in improving the durable medical equipment marketplace
than it does to the promise of this particular device.

------
awinter-py
You guys are awesome for doing this, but are enabling a dangerous kind of
startup: 1\. post bullshit to indiegogo 2\. hackernews designs it for you 3\.
profit

