
HÖMDRY the first hand dryer for your home – insane design and features - HOMDRY
http://1e.fnd.to/homdry
======
WalterSear
Totally insane.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=hand+dryers+bacteria&oq=hand...](https://www.google.com/search?q=hand+dryers+bacteria&oq=hand+dryers+bacteria)

~~~
HOMDRY
lol thats why you don't buy expensive dysons - HÖMDRY has a blue UV light that
kills germs - No other hand dryer else has this

~~~
dalke
(To other HN readers, the direct page is
[https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/homdry-the-perfect-
home-h...](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/homdry-the-perfect-home-hand-
dryer-environment-technology#/) ).

To account "HOMDRY", germicidal UV sources are usually at 254 nm. What is the
frequency of your light source?

Typically germicidal lamps should be treated with extreme caution, and not be
exposed to skin. Your Indigogo page says "Blue UV Light is safe on skin and
proven to kill bacteria soap can miss." Is this because your Blue UV lamp is a
UVA lamp? This certainly does kill germs, but it's not as effective.

Your Indigogo page says "Blue UV Light for the last 8 seconds of each
session". How effective is this as a germicide? What percentage of germs are
killed in 8 seconds?

Why does the Indigogo page _not_ describe its germicidal effectiveness?

If the Blue UV light for 8 seconds is not an effective germicidal source, and
since HÖMDRY is primarily an air dryer, why does it not suffer from the same
issues that WalterSear pointed out?

And what does "Blue UV light" mean? Scientifically there is blue light, and
there is ultraviolet light, but "blue UV" is about as much sense as "blue red
light." Is this meant as a marketing term?

Your method uses a patented process. I was unable to find a USPTO match for
HÖMDRY, nor did I have success searching with the principals' names. Could you
tell me the patent number?

~~~
HOMDRY
[http://gizmodo.com/5690839/researchers-have-created-a-uv-
lig...](http://gizmodo.com/5690839/researchers-have-created-a-uv-light-that-
kills-bacteria-without-harming-humans) We work exclusively with them and have
a license to their patent- why are you hating so hard on our product that we
worked so hard on?

~~~
dalke
I'll note the level of hating you have towards a Dyson product to point out
that you don't believe that hard work alone is enough of a justification to
avoid criticism.

As you certainly know by now, the home-UV-for-germicidal-purposes field has a
lot of scammers who target germophobes using scientifically ineffective
methods. They are "effective" more at reducing anxiety, as the baseline risk
is much lower than the consumer believes.

My questions were to challenge your comment about germicidal effectiveness.

Thank you for the new information. Why is none of it on the Indigogo page?
Would it not make the pitch more persuasive?

Is the patent International Patent WO 2007/012875? This is from the
Strathclyde researchers you mentioned. It uses light at around 405 nm. I did
not know about the recent work around this frequency, so thank you.

That patent figures show that germicidal response requires at least 10
minutes. One of their publications, at
[http://femsle.oxfordjournals.org/content/285/2/227](http://femsle.oxfordjournals.org/content/285/2/227)
, concurs. However, this is for bacteria in suspension, which isn't the same
as bacterial on surfaces.

The press release you linked to refers to a hospital light source that can be
used to continuously disinfect wards and isolation rooms. One study (
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22103991/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22103991/)
) shows that a 'High-Intensity Narrow-Spectrum light Environmental
Decontamination System' "demonstrated a 61% efficacy in the reduction of
bacterial contamination on surfaces ... over and above that achieved by
standard cleaning and infection control measures in both inpatient and
outpatient settings in the burn unit." I think that was after 8 hours of
continuous use.

It is not an 8 second application, and it's under very different conditions
than your product.

Could you point to any research which supports your statement that 8 seconds
is enough to be an effective germicide for home use in your use case?

The closest I found was
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586062/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586062/)
, which uses a more effective 285 nm UV source against biofilms on needleless
connectors. In that study, a ~50 second exposure was needed to be an effective
germicide, and the connectors needed to be closer than 2.5 cm for effective
clearance.

This strongly implies to me that a 405 nm source in the configuration shown on
the Indigogo page will have very little germicidal effect on hands after only
8 seconds, making it, like the Dyson product, an air dryer.

Do you have anything which more rigorously shows the germicidal effectiveness
of your product?

~~~
HOMDRY
Just to be clear, we love dyson products and respect them dearly. There is a
reason they are a multi billion dollar company, they do things the right way.
First of all, our products main selling point is not the UV Blue, this is just
an added feature. Our main selling point is that we have designed a hand dryer
that is built for your home. From a cost point of view to a design basis and
an easy setup with multiple ways to place it. I appreciate your feedback and
questions, its clear you know a ton about this field. Can we connect?? Please
email me Press@Homdry.com - I look forward to speaking!!

~~~
dalke
I just want to know what you mean by the statement "HÖMDRY has a blue UV light
that kills germs".

Is it an effective germicide, or is that added feature there as a marketing
gimmick?

