Inside a radical alternative to traditional UVC lights
Added 2024-10-09 03:29:57 +0000 UTCSome good things came out of the pandemic. One of them was the sudden market created for UVC LEDs and the new excimer 222nm light sources.
Naomi Wu has sent me a 222nm excimer light that she has been developing in an attempt to make it more affordable than the high profile medical versions. The result is a well designed 6W unit that puts out a very narrow spike of UVC light centred around 222nm.
This wavelength is long enough to effectively deactivate airborne bacteria and viruses , and also sterilise adjacent surfaces. But it is short enough that it can't penetrate the outer layer of dead skin cells or the film of liquid on your eyes.
That means it's currently considered safe for use in occupied spaces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4a_kJkVUis
Comments
It does sound like an insulation breakdown in the driver. If it was bought fairly recently it may be worth contacting the supplier as they should have the correct replacement parts.
Big Clive
2025-01-22 15:50:49 +0000 UTCIf anyone can help, i have two of these units. One stopped working about a hour after i took it out of the box. what looks like what I would interpret to be a "ballast" or driver seems to have failed /melted and exposed copper wire through epoxy. Anyone know what this ballast is called? part #? place to buy it at?
Tommy Zaharakis
2025-01-22 15:09:00 +0000 UTCNo matter, I'm so glad there's conversation with you. Please tell her we love her and hope she's fab. Should we still send support?
Dave Frederick AKA @amorphuc
2024-10-18 05:41:18 +0000 UTCFucking Cool OMG Big Clive. Thank you. It's so encouraging and wonderful that Naomi Wu is still in conversation with someone and somehow okay. THANK you for this and I'm so glad you are there for her. Not sure the situation nor should I should know. But knowing she's around is really cool. I really hope she's well and have feared for her well being. Wait. Might have gone off there. I think somewhere else you said she's okay? Is she? Naomi has been working on this stuff for a while. Very interesting.
Dave Frederick AKA @amorphuc
2024-10-18 05:25:39 +0000 UTCA useful device. I suppose we'd have to check on whether there are any viruses or bacteria that we don't want to kill. One of the worries that emerged after WWll and the rise of antibiotics was that our immune system needed something to fight to keep it in good condition. I'd guess if we needed them they would already be on or in our bodies.
Jim Hewlett
2024-10-12 10:57:26 +0000 UTCUV damages the DNA itself, bacteria would have to develop a method of blocking out the UV to prevent it from penetrating the nucleus.
Eric Woodley
2024-10-11 02:14:55 +0000 UTCLooking at a manufacturers website suggests a 4000hr lifespan for the emitters.
Big Clive
2024-10-10 19:28:31 +0000 UTCAt this point I don't know the failure mode or lifespan of an excimer lamp.
Big Clive
2024-10-10 19:20:06 +0000 UTCLooks well built , went to the KUKIT web site This model was $154.95 US and they also sell a unit that is smaller called The Torch in a pack of Four was listed $344.75. The question is how many hours of life from the units?
richard ockman
2024-10-10 18:51:57 +0000 UTCThere is that risk. But theoretically the UVC nukes everything.
Big Clive
2024-10-09 23:18:59 +0000 UTCI assumed she had done that through trial and error to arrive at the final product- maybe I mis-interpreted the narrative, but it would be great for her to actually get the patent- then she could license it or mass produce herself. She desreves it after all she has been through.
Mike Hughes
2024-10-09 18:00:44 +0000 UTCAntibiotics exert selection pressure on bacteria promoting "the fittest". Why would widespread UV sterilization not do the same?
Mike Page
2024-10-09 17:51:05 +0000 UTCPatents follow a problem-solution-claims format. If there's a problem with existing designs that this new design solves and the solution isn't obvious, it could feasibly be patented.
Mike Page
2024-10-09 17:45:31 +0000 UTCAnother excellent Viral video BC. Finally a perfect product I will seek out.
Cookie
2024-10-09 17:36:02 +0000 UTCLove the name
Mike Page
2024-10-09 17:14:09 +0000 UTCStill, sterilizing humans... I may be ok with that...
Curtis Hoffmann
2024-10-09 16:16:03 +0000 UTCI've just tried that and there was strong stimulation of the UVC phosphors.
Big Clive
2024-10-09 13:18:15 +0000 UTCHave you tried the light with your UV test papers?
AlfaGuy
2024-10-09 08:08:12 +0000 UTCI didn't realise that, I misunderstood. I thought she had devised a new way of testing with the lamp safely, by designing the construction of the light unit.
Mike Hughes
2024-10-09 07:00:16 +0000 UTCI doubt she could patent the concept. It seems to be an established technology.
Big Clive
2024-10-09 06:43:49 +0000 UTCI hope Naomi has applied for a patent for it as that looks to be a winner. A bit pricey at $344 but with mass production price should be much lower.
Mike Hughes
2024-10-09 06:20:40 +0000 UTCWhen I saw the thumbnail, I was convinced that “NUKIT” was a tongue-in-cheek ‘Clive-ism’! 😂
Kevin Horne
2024-10-09 06:15:53 +0000 UTCI first heard of 222nm UVC during TWiV (this week in Virology) #666 on YouTube 4 years ago (I had to look that up again). In that podcast the virologists learn the science of 222nm from a guy working to get those lights accepted and marketable. I need to rewatch it. They were starting to do tests installing 222nm LEDs (I think) in elevators, a natural since that's where people crown together in a small space. I found the (expensive) Nukit lights at nukit222.com
Bill Kerr
2024-10-09 05:48:42 +0000 UTCIt's a trace level.
Big Clive
2024-10-09 04:28:26 +0000 UTCHow safe is the glass? Chlorine is an exceptionally poisonous gas.
NN Thomas
2024-10-09 03:57:39 +0000 UTCexcellent thanks for sharing
Glenn Achten
2024-10-09 03:37:16 +0000 UTC
