CPAPtalk.com

Instead of investing in the equipment that is currently available,
those poor fools have "spent" the money on an Indiegogo scam.
There truly is one born every minute!
At some point, Indiegogo will have to answer for their complicity in these shameful actions.
Good luck with that!

chunkyfrog wrote:Instead of investing in the equipment that is currently available,
those poor fools have "spent" the money on an Indiegogo scam.
There truly is one born every minute!
At some point, Indiegogo will have to answer for their complicity in these shameful actions.
Good luck with that!

I used to wonder how people could be so gullible but sadly, I learned that desperation can make one do very unwise things. I feel very sad for the folks who invested in this equipment and hope they can get their lives back on track.

49er

WindCpap wrote:Actually, unless this guy has a new kind of power source to go with his micro-pumps (for which he has never even shown a demonstration), the calculations prove out that it is absolutely impossible. It doesn't take a lot to work out the power required to move 8 lpm (my average tidal volume) at 9 cmH20 for 8 hours, and the 100% efficiency number work out to a battery that is bigger than the device.

But unless you're treating CSA, you don't need to move 8 LPM-- you only need to add enough volume to maintain therapeutic pressure (which in the absence of leaks, won't be a lot).

Concur with above, this would seem to be an electronic Provent that simply fills in gaps and creates comfort by slightly supplementing inhalation.

FDA may not be a big issue if this technology is "based on prior art".

49er wrote:I feel very sad for the folks ...

No you don't. You'll just use any excuse to try to host a Pity Party.

Guest wrote:

49er wrote:I feel very sad for the folks ...

No you don't. You'll just use any excuse to try to host a Pity Party.

n2it wrote:This is how far CPAP has come in such a short time period (the link of course is from this very board):

viewtopic/t90439/Ancient-CPAP-machine.html

Another example that comes to mind, which I failed to mention above is the personal computer. It went from the size of a compact car to a few pounds in just a few years, literally.

I guess we'll all just to have to wait and see how this develops

Those are machines from 40 years ago. They consist of a blower that blows air, connected to a mask that seals over the airway by a hose. The same exact concept as today's machines. Sure, we've cleaned it up. But it's not changed much. In 40 years. Now, progress does happen exponentially, not linearly, but I don't see us making the lead to a tiny, functional, all inclusive device worn on the nose by 2017. I suspect we'll see more in the way of minimally invasive (possibly even external?) nerve stimulators when we're all talking "remember when?"

49er wrote:

Guest wrote:

49er wrote:I feel very sad for the folks ...

No you don't. You'll just use any excuse to try to host a Pity Party.

And you don't even set up a snack table. Jim

Goofproof wrote:They could have a magnet component that would imbed in your tissue and could be positioned to open the airway, by splinting it.

It's already been done (In man's best friend.).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate repelling magnetic implants to treat obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) using a canine model.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Magnetic forces equivalent to effective CPAP were estimated with benchtop studies. An acute canine model was used to simulate pharyngeal collapse. Tolerance, safety, and stability of the implants were evaluated in a chronic series of 10 dogs observed over 6 months.

RESULTS: Equivalence to CPAP (10-12 cm H(2)O) was achieved with low-force (<10 g/cm length), light (approximately 2 gram) implants. Magnetic implants prevented airway collapse in the acute canine. Normal behavior, swallowing, and oral intake were noted in the chronic canine over 6 months. Implant extrusion was 10%. Histology showed fibrous encapsulation without chronic inflammation.

CONCLUSIONS: Repelling magnets successfully maintained a patent airway and were well tolerated in the canine.

SIGNIFICANCE: Repelling magnets could represent an implantable alternative to CPAP if human studies reveal similar findings.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16360520

"Canine model"? OMG, was it a PUG?

chunkyfrog wrote:"Canine model"? OMG, was it a PUG?

I'm close to Pug Ugly, do you think it would work for me. Rather than chance it, I'll stick to XPAP. JIM

Guest wrote:

WindCpap wrote:Actually, unless this guy has a new kind of power source to go with his micro-pumps (for which he has never even shown a demonstration), the calculations prove out that it is absolutely impossible. It doesn't take a lot to work out the power required to move 8 lpm (my average tidal volume) at 9 cmH20 for 8 hours, and the 100% efficiency number work out to a battery that is bigger than the device.

But unless you're treating CSA, you don't need to move 8 LPM-- you only need to add enough volume to maintain therapeutic pressure (which in the absence of leaks, won't be a lot).

Concur with above, this would seem to be an electronic Provent that simply fills in gaps and creates comfort by slightly supplementing inhalation.

FDA may not be a big issue if this technology is "based on prior art".

Actually, you are wrong. This is actually why Provent doesn't work. It holds back a little bit of pressure after exhalation, but the moment a person starts inhaling, the pressure is gone, and the airway is again subject to collapse. A CPAP needs to hold pressure throughout the entire inhalation which means that it needs to deliver air at the inhalation flow rate and required pressure. I am not going to lecture anybody on physics here. If you want to learn it, take a course.

WindCpap wrote:

Guest wrote:

WindCpap wrote:Actually, unless this guy has a new kind of power source to go with his micro-pumps (for which he has never even shown a demonstration), the calculations prove out that it is absolutely impossible. It doesn't take a lot to work out the power required to move 8 lpm (my average tidal volume) at 9 cmH20 for 8 hours, and the 100% efficiency number work out to a battery that is bigger than the device.

But unless you're treating CSA, you don't need to move 8 LPM-- you only need to add enough volume to maintain therapeutic pressure (which in the absence of leaks, won't be a lot).

Concur with above, this would seem to be an electronic Provent that simply fills in gaps and creates comfort by slightly supplementing inhalation.

FDA may not be a big issue if this technology is "based on prior art".

Actually, you are wrong. This is actually why Provent doesn't work. It holds back a little bit of pressure after exhalation, but the moment a person starts inhaling, the pressure is gone, and the airway is again subject to collapse. A CPAP needs to hold pressure throughout the entire inhalation which means that it needs to deliver air at the inhalation flow rate and required pressure. I am not going to lecture anybody on physics here. If you want to learn it, take a course.

Actually, that is not correct. The mechanism for obstruction during is multifactorial so consequently several different treatment approaches may enjoy success. Specifically, the Provent-type approach (expiratory resistance) maintains a positive end-expiratory pressure that increases functional residual capacity and longitudinal traction on the pharynx, rendering it less collapsible; the dilatation of the upper airway carries over until the start of the next inspiration; and mild hypercapnia due to hypoventilation increases respiratory drive to the upper airway (this gives it an advantage over CPAP in that CPAP does not tend to be CO2-friendly).

Further, it looks like Airing is going to provide plenty of flow. The point is that it may not have to provide the CPAP-type flows (>~35 LPM) necessary to purge interfaces of excess CO2.

The Airing would have to provide air flow at the maximum flow rate on your inhale cycle. It would have to provide it at your IPAP pressure. On average, it would have to provide air flow at your minute vent rate.

Mine is about 80 l/m peak flow on inhale, 10 l/m average minute vent, at 17 cmH2O IPAP. The Airing would have to pump all of that.

Note that on the Airing, you basically don't need an intentional leak rate. All exhaled air would simply be vented to the room air with resistance to your EPAP. No rebreathed CO2. (except for a small dead space.)

If you could solve the battery problem, and get a small enough pump, etc. this is a good idea in many ways. I don't see how the can solve the battery problem.

I almost didn't read this as I thought it got taken care of in the first page, but no. Some of the posts here actually have some engineering behind them (thank you for carrying the flag). Others spout things that "sound" logical, but in reality have nothing behind them but blind guesses mixed with some hand waving. This is how some people invest in things like this. They know NOTHING about the subject and think hey that sounds good, it could happen. Well no it can't happen, the math does not work with any current technology OR research.

It's like the project where they think they are going to put solar cells in the pavement and walkways-they took in over a million bucks. ROFL. Even if we ignore the COST of installing the panels, the wiring, the supporting structure. They know NOTHING about solar panels and how they work in real life. You don't just hook a bunch of them together, why you might ask, like batteries right? Well actually no unless you are talking about a random mix of fully charged and total drained batteries along with everything in between. What do you think happens when part of the array is in the shade? Trees, cars, bikes, leaves, snow, dirt... unless you have tons of micro inverters (think $$$$) any that are tied together shut DOWN. Now think of cars on the freeway and each of them is shutting down large sections of panels, on and off, blink-blink-blink-blink.

Just an example of something sounding great as told by people that themselves don't understand how things work, talking to other people that don't understand how things work. Giving them $million dollars to get schooled in what they don't understand.

Of course, batteries are a huge problem all by themselves. NO doubt many smarter folks working on it than this guy (who I doubt is actually working on it).

archangle wrote: If you could solve the battery problem, and get a small enough pump, etc. this is a good idea in many ways. I don't see how the can solve the battery problem.