Honda has done what no other car maker is doing, and returned to analogue controls for some functions on the new Honda Jazz.
While most manufacturers are moving to touchscreen controls, identifying smartphone use as their inspiration – most recently seen in Audi’s latest A3 – Honda has decided to reintroduce heating and air conditioning controls via a dial rather than touchscreen, as in the previous-generation Jazz.
Unlike what the introduction states, Honda joins fellow Japanese car maker Mazda in not just blindly using touchscreens for everything inside cars. This is a good move, and definitely takes some guts, since I’ve seen countless car reviewers – including my standout favourite, Doug DeMuro – kind of blindly assuming that any car without 100% touchscreen control is outdated, without questioning the safety consequences.
Good on Honda.
Give me tactile controls, or give me death!
Haha.
Touchscreens might not be as bad, but their UI from a smart phone REQUIRES you to take your eyes off the road. My Ford Sync is the old kind with a VFD and buttons and knobs. I can do everything by pushing the right switch (tactile feedback!) and know where things are without looking. And there are extra switches on my steering wheel.
I really, really did NOT want the super tech.
One thing is a requirement for a reverse camera. So you need some kind of screen. I HATED my Subaru because it had one, but wouldn’t let me adjust brightness (blinding at night when you got out of the city street lights), but you had to read the randomized list of titles on the USB stick – it would require you and let you scroll while going 70MPH for that, but not to quickly dim the screen.
I don’t think Mazda has touch controls at all…they only have the wheel, so your hand only has one place to be.
This is correct Mazda has continued to diligently state that thier research indicates that you can keep better attention on the road with fixed physical controls over using a touchscreen. So none of thier cars have touchscreens as far as I know.
While I like my Honda’s non-touchscreen, tactile controls, I do like my white on blue LCD speedometer. I think the combo of old and new makes it really classy. Wish Honda did more of it.
https://endlessnow.com/images/HondaHybrid2006-Dash.jpeg
Doesn’t blue light interfere with night vision?
All light interferes with night vision… one method of avoiding interference is to use blue-green light that we are very sinsitive to at low levels so you can see it… without it causing your eyes to adjust.
Some solutions are perfect the way they are and don’t need to be adapted to use the latest technology.
Analogue controls FTW, you can use them without looking! I hate the touch screen in my Nissan.
Consider buying a Mazda next time around… they have consistently stuck by their customers with performance, and innovation in IC engines, while most everyone else sits on their hands. Their fit and finish is more in line with what you’d expect from a good JDM car maker like Mazda and Honda etc… rather than Nissan which is at the low end in most aspects.
I love when my touch screen blocks all functions unless I read a message and acknowledge when driving. The message says not to read messages when driving. LUI – Lawyer User Interface.
Having touchscreens in vehicles is not a problem. Irresponsible behavior by the people who driving those vehicles is the problem. But then I don’t see it as much more of an issue than a car with “old tech” where people were still taking their eyes off the road to do plenty of things whether it’s adjusting the heat/ac, finding a radio station, or fumbling around trying to find a cd to put in their stereo, or whatever else.
If we’re going to talk about distracted drivers, we need to start with all the DUMBF**Ks that use their phones while they drive. I practically never see someone fiddling with their cars touchscreen but I ALWAYS see people desperately scrolling social media and texting. It’s not a `kid` problem either. In fact, I see young people doing it the least next to the elderly. By far the biggest offenders that I observe on a daily basis is `soccer moms`. Grown women roughly mid 30’s to mid 40’s. I constantly see people drifting from their lane, going too fast, going too slow, holding up traffic when the light is green, holding up traffic by not turning, turning roundabouts into their own personal pit stop, etc. The degree to which peoples selfishness & idiocy is on display when it comes to phones and driving is infuriating at best and deadly at its worst.
friedchicken,
I don’t think we should deny the differences though. Touchscreens, especially those where you have to navigate through menus, are inherently much more distracting. With dedicated tactile controls you don’t need more than a momentary glance to reach for the control, and sometimes as in the case of steering wheel buttons you don’t even need to look or take your hands off the wheel. You can easily scan through tracks/channels without taking your eyes off the road. A touchscreen is significantly more dangerous because your eyes become the primary mode of feedback.
We build and use touchscreen interfaces because it’s cool, but it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone they are less safe. Obviously some drivers are more prone to dangerous activies, I don’t deny that…but the issue with touchscreens is that it makes you less safe even if you’re otherwise a good driver.
I would agree that a poorly designed UI could increase the risk of an accident depending on the user, but then not all touchscreens are difficult to navigate or counter-intuitive. You shouldn’t have to go menu diving to find the most commonly used settings/options, and in a well-designed UI you don’t have to. Even with tactile controls, you’re likely still looking at a visual aid telling you the temperature you’re adjusting the heat/ac to, the airflow selection, the frequency the radio is tuned to, etc. You don’t see many cars these days that don’t have controls supported by a visual aid.
I’m a lot less inclined to say that touchscreens inherently make good drivers less safe however. Responsible people tend to use them responsibly. There are plenty of good drivers out there who don’t fiddle around with their touchscreens unless they’re at a red light, pulled over, parked, etc. no different than keeping their hands off their phone. Like I mentioned in my previous post, I almost never see someone messing about in their vehicles touchscreen but I can’t go a single block most of the time without seeing some dumbass on their phone. Residential streets, city streets, the freeway… The phone problem is everywhere, always. Between the two there’s no doubt in my mind phones are exponentially more hazardous to use in the car.
At the end of the day I’m a fan of holding people responsible for their behavior. Poorly designed UI, or technology in general, may not be helping things any, but it’s people who make poor choices, no the tech. There’s nothing stopping a person from choosing to use technology only when it’s safe to do so, or asking a passenger to help. I don’t think vehicle makers need to ditch touchscreens in favor of going back to a panel of buttons and knobs. People just need to make better choices about using tech safely.
friedchicken,
I’m not saying they’re counter-intuitive, I’m saying they lack tactile feedback and cannot be operated peripherally.
Of course they provide visual output as well, but with physical knobs and buttons that provide tactile feedback, you don’t need to look at them to set them up or down a notch for example. Another shortcoming of touchscreens is the inability to distinguish between a touch versus a press. With a touchscreen you have to pay attention to where your finger is hovering over the screen, it isn’t practical without significant visual feedback.
This debate has strong parallels to touch typing versus on screen keyboards. Touch screens are sleeker and smoother, meanwhile mobile keyboards have gone the way of the dinosaur. Yet it’s hard to deny that keyboards are technically a more efficient and less distracting mode of input. The same argument is true in the car, but the sleek/cool factor may win the popularity contest over safer tactile controls.
I don’t view typing as comparable or paralleled to using a touchscreen to alter a setting or select an option at all. Touchscreens are primarily used for minimal user input & speed. In cases where a lot of tying is involved, sure a real keyboard (mobile or otherwise) would be the better option but to make a blanket statement that keyboards are more efficient and less distracting than touchscreens entirely ignores the task and what’s required to complete it. Each interface has its own strengths and weaknesses. For example, good luck finding a restaurant where ordering is still done on a keyboard. They’re all touchscreens now because touchscreens are superior for that. If you’re looking to write a novel it would be the reverse.
friedchicken,
You don’t have to view it as comparable, I’m just saying that it is comparable in terms of it’s tactile deficiencies. Whether your at a computer or in a car, the task becomes less efficient due to the lack of touch feedback.
The problem with your example is that you’ve removed the element of danger. When you are ordering at a restaurant there is no negative safety consequence in using your eyes to look at a menu. You are free to devote your all your attention to the menu. Obviously this does not apply to a driver.
Good. I don’t have touchscreen controls in my 2017 Honda, but they are smaller in size that my 2013 Honda. Side by side, prefer my 2013.
I have to say too many people have swallowed the Apple Koolaid. Number one being Apple. I have to say that the Roku remote with tactile buttons is way better than the Apple TV remote with a touchpad. In my old hands, the Roku remote is just so much more useable.
Another place touchscreens suck… having to use one at a store in a pandemic. I had a paper towel I was using to handle everything just in case. Then it came for checkout. Stupid touch screen couldn’t be used with the paper towel over my fingers. If those were tactile buttons, I could have just pressed them fine.
moronikos,
I encountered this as well. We’re supposed to be keeping clean, and the technology forces you to touch surfaces with your fingers along with everyone else. /fail
You can buy nitrile disposable gloves that are touchscreen compatible for slightly more than regular nitrile gloves – which you should be using rather than a paper towel, which isn’t made to stop particulate matter. A covid-19 particle is 125 nanometers in diameter. A paper towel has trouble stopping particles 3x that size – roughly 25% or 33% when doubled-up. You better have a good immune system if you’re depending on paper towels to protect you from covid-19. Don’t let the `better than nothing` mentality give you a false sense of security.
As far as the touchscreens in the grocery store… They’re no more dirty that the tactile buttons on anything used by the public, or a gas pump handle, or door knobs, or food containers for take-out, or anything that anyone else has handled first really.
friedchicken,
You may not appreciate the realities that many of us are in, there simply aren’t enough masks and gloves and even chemical wipes to go around. Many products have been delayed for several weeks and in fact if you go to amazon and try to buy nitrile gloves yourself it says “Prioritized for hospitals and government agencies directly responding to COVID-19 in the U.S.” A paper towel may not be ideal, but it’s readily available and it would certainly protect you more than your bare hands. A barrier, even an imperfect one, does add resistance and it will increase the amount of energy and time needed to pass through it. Moreover if you promptly discard it, much of what gets picked up will be absorbed and stick to it before becoming saturated or passing through.
Moronikos makes a valid point that it would be safer to touch the buttons with a paper towel than having to touch the buttons with your fingers and then wipe them off with said paper towel. Between those two options you cannot pretend the second option is better, it isn’t. It’s great if you have the option of using medical gloves, but the reality is that even medical professionals themselves are being forced to abandon best practices due to the supplies shortage.
With all due respect you’re missing moronikos’ point, none of those things force you to touch them directly.
Yeah, I agree there is a risk with this, however it should be statistically less than communal surfaces where the chances of having been touched by an infected individual are a near certainty.
Surely this is obvious to everyone, but another thing to consider is that gloves themselves can become a contamination vector…
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/04/us/spreading-germs-nurse-trnd/index.html
In theory, germs on the outside of a glove won’t get you, but unless you took exceptional care not to cross contaminate you might actually increase your risk by keeping a dirty glove on while you’re out doing your chores versus using paper towels (ideally would be medicated wipes) and disposing of them immediately. It would be interesting to see a real world study on this.
I didn’t say a paper towel offers zero protection, and I didn’t say Moronikos point was not *technically* valid. I pointed out that the protection is extremely minimal in the case of using a paper towel to protect against covid-19. I didn’t advise people against using a paper towel over nothing, I advised them not to get a false sense of protection. Paper towels are not designed to stop particulates and are very ineffective at doing so. Any percentage greater than 0 is better than 0 but don’t think you’re safe just because you’ve got 0.1% protection. Also, particles, especially on the scale of covid-19 can easily pass through a paper towel. By the time a paper towel will have become `saturated` with covid-19 particles, exponentially more of them will have passed through it. Paper towels are simply not a good form of protection here, let’s not pretend that they are and let’s not give people a false sense of security that they’re being protected in any meaningful way. There are plenty of cheap & readily available disposable materials you’d be far better off using; folded pieces of flannel or cotton, any HEPA filter material, and so on.
Of course I understand certain safety products are in limited supply and being prioritized to medical staff. This pandemic didn’t just happen over night. There was plenty of warning we were headed in this direction and plenty of time to get proper protection. Those who didn’t and are struggling to find items now will just have to make due. Where food is concerned, people should absolutely NOT be going into grocery stores to shop if at all avoidable. People need to be using pick-up or delivery options. Really the same is true for any shopping right now.
friedchicken,
Do you have any citations for your “0.1%” number or did you just make it up on the spot?
Here’s the thing, I respect the scientific method. Can you offer any evidence other than your say so? In the interest of something more scientific, I conducted a little experiment. I lit a candle and held a fire detector about 20cm above it . There was no visible smoke to the eye. The detector set off within ~5 seconds. I repeated the same test with a single layer of dry paper towel wrapped around it. It did not set off the detector after two minutes. Even though a paper towel is not suitable for blocking particulate matter, it *does* add resistance and it takes time and energy to force the particles through it.
Again, a penetrable material is obviously not ideal, but I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as you’ve made it out to be when you say “you’ve got 0.1% protection”. You absolutely need to cite such claims.
Do you have enough gloves to use and dispose of every time you have to leave the house, pump gas, etc?
In the end though, if it’s airborne, it may not even matter that we take precautions against touching surfaces. 🙁
@Alfman
“Do you have any citations for your “0.1%” number or did you just make it up on the spot?”
It’s a quick estimate I made as an example and not an exact calculation because that wasn’t necessary to make the point.
“Here’s the thing, I respect the scientific method. Can you offer any evidence other than your say so?”
Over the last few weeks I’ve done a ton of `homework` on covid-19, viral behaviors, transmission methods, protection against infection, and so on. I haven’t and don’t typically kept lists of every resource I read from on a given subject so I don’t have that to offer. If I’m inclined to go re-research this stuff, I’ll be more than happy to keep track of it all and post a listing here.
Regarding your make-shift paper towel test.. As smoke particles come in a wide range of sizes and distribution rates depending on the exact composition of the material being burned, there’s nothing conclusive you can determine without knowing the exact size of the particles. The smoke particles you generated could be much bigger or much smaller than covid-19, which obviously would give you very different filtration rates. Also, particles smaller than the gaps in porous materials don’t need to be forced through and the smaller the particle, the easier it will pass through.
You don’t think paper towel filtering of covid-19 is nearly as bad as I claimed. Let’s get some real numbers and so some real math. Paper towel pore diameter sizes (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b01160/suppl_file/sc7b01160_si_001.pdf): Scott PT-T 58 microns, Scott PT-P 52 microns, Bounty PT-B 22 microns. Covid-19 particle diameter size (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369385/) is approx. 128 nm (0.128 micron).
Scott PT-T: (.128*100)/58 = 12.8/58 = 0.22%
Scott PT-P: (.128*100)/52 = 12.8/52 = 0.25%
Bounty PT-B: (.128*100)/22 = 12.8/22 = 0.58%
So my 0.1% quick estimate is certainly in the ballpark. Having done the math with real numbers, I’d say yes, paper towels are definitely nearly as bad as I claimed. Nobody should feel any kind of security with those percentages.
“Do you have enough gloves to use and dispose of every time you have to leave the house, pump gas, etc?”
Yes, I do. I always have a 100ct box in the kitchen, at least 1 100ct in a storage closet, and at least a few 100ct boxes in the garage. I’ve got about 8-10 N95 respirators (valved kind) in the garage as well. I’m usually pretty well-stocked on this kind of stuff mainly because I hate to have to run to the store for just a box of gloves or masks or a number of other common use items (ear plugs, safety glasses, tapes, pencils, etc).
friedchicken,
It is fair of me to ask where your numbers come from, you obviously can’t just say “I’ve done my homework” and expect anyone to take it as true. Even if it’s napkin math, you should be able to explain how you arrived at it. If you made it up on the spot as an illustration, well then you should say it was merely hypothetical. Either cite your numbers, or please stop using them. This is not a time to pass off made up information as authoritative.
It was a clean burning fire and I used an ion detector that detects smaller invisible particles. Photoelectric fire detectors are used to detect fires that produce larger smoke particles, but that’s not what I used. The small particles did not make it through, but yes clearly more testing would be better.
I have considered that, but unfortunately you are still ignoring the feedback I gave you earlier. Even when particles fit, it doesn’t negate the fact that it still takes energy and time to permeate through a material. Let’s try another experiment. I’ve taken dye and confirmed that it will in fact permiate through the paper towel.
This is a picture of what happens when a paper towel is folded up on itself and one side dowsed with enough dye to saturate through several layers of the material. All layers were immediately pressed together:
https://imgur.com/UAP6rvi
This confirms A) the dye particles clearly fit through the paper towel. B) Unless it’s saturated, the dye strongly resists going through the paper towel.
I have another image where I dyed my finger and pressed on the paper towel. I didn’t include it as it has my finger print, however it shows a clear imprint on one side of the paper towel and the other side shows no penetration at all. This demonstrates C) particles are not likely to penetrate even though they fit if there isn’t enough of a sample to saturate the material.
Here’s another experiment with a paper towel barrier.
https://imgur.com/vcHapfw
The dye was dropped directly above the paper towel in the water and allowed to spread for a couple minutes with a bit of aggitation. You can see the dye leaked around the paper towel at the bottom, but other than that it stayed on one side. This demonstrates that a paper towel does pose a barrier even for particles that can fit through it. I’ve not denied your point about particle sizes, but I am using these experiments to highlight the flaw in your assumption that just because a particle is small enough to go through that it will do so trivially.
Clearly these are just simple amateur experiments, however they do prove that particle size is not sufficient at predicting permiation the way you are suggesting it does. I beleive that until you factor in resistance, energy and saturation, your model remains incomplete. I understand you may be comfortable with your assumptions because you are erring on the side of satefy, but I hope you’ll concede this doesn’t make it fact.
Wow, that’s atypical, I don’t know where I’d even put that many box. Emergency planning is important, but the thing about it is you don’t always know which emergency is going to hit and when. Especially if you live in an apartment, chances are you’re not going to be able to prepare for all emergencies. Ideally I’d like to have my own property with a fall out shelter even, but it’s a lot of money for an unlikely event. Obviously if the event were to happen, the expense and sacrifice would have been justified, but is it worth putting your family through guaranteed economic hardship for something that probably won’t happen? I don’t know, it’s an interesting question though. What are everyone’s thoughts?
@Alfman
“This is not a time to pass off made up information as authoritative.”
At no point have I tried to `pass off made up information as authoritative` and it’s disingenuous and dishonest that you’re implying otherwise. The ballpark figure I presented *as an example* was based on real information. When you inquired I very clearly stated it was MY ballpark figure and not a calculation using real numbers. And as you know I later in my reply did use *real numbers and do the real calculations*, which were very close to my estimate.
You seem to keep insisting “time and energy” is some kind of significant factor in particles passing through open pores, even when the scale of the particles are >1% the diameter of the pore. This is borderlines on absurd. Let’s scale up using the real world middle calculation of the real world math I presented. A regulation ping pong ball is 40mm in diameter (https://www.dimensions.guide/element/table-tennis-ping-pong-balls). If that 40mm (1.5748 in.) ping pong ball represents a covid-19 particle and is 0.25% the diameter of the pore, then the pore is 16,000mm in diameter, or 52.493438 feet. The area of the ping pong ball is 1.94779134 sq.in. The area of the pore is 2164.2126 sq.ft. You claimed, “Even though a paper towel is not suitable for blocking particulate matter, it *does* add resistance and it takes time and energy to force the particles through it.” Now it’s your turn to do some math… Please calculate how much resistance a 2164.2 sq.ft. hole is going to give a 1.9 sq.in. ping pong ball, and how much energy it would take for the ping pong ball to pass through. A regulation ping pong ball has a mass of 2.7 grams (same source).
Neither the dye-on-a-paper-towel nor dye-in-water tests are comparable. The dye is a liquid made up of molecules much larger than the size of a covid-19 particle, and have different surface tension and cohesive properties. The dye-in-water test is even less comparable. Water is far far denser than air and takes far far greater force to move through. Additionally, the density greatly affects the dispersion rate.
“I understand you may be comfortable with your assumptions because you are erring on the side of satefy, but I hope you’ll concede this doesn’t make it fact.”
I’m not making assumptions, I’m making real calculations using real math and real numbers. The equations result in factual numbers, not opinions or assumptions. You think “resistance, energy and saturation” are important factors in how well a paper towel filters covid-19 particles, yet haven’t done any of the math to that would (dis)prove it. I’d love to see just the math that would prove a paper towels properties could even hold enough covid-19 particles in place to create any significant change in pore size much less stop a covid-19 particle from passing through with no additional force applied.
You also said, “I am using these experiments to highlight the flaw in your assumption that just because a particle is small enough to go through that it will do so trivially”. Aside of the fact your experiments aren’t even comparable, they don’t point to any flaw and again, I’ve done the math. I’m not making assumptions. I have proven the scale and yes, at these ratios particles do pass through trivially. That’s the very reason why people are advised to fold and fold again the material they’re trying to use as a filter – to prevent the particles from so easily passing through. The math proves that even thousands of covid-19 particles grouped together could easily pass through a paper towel. I don’t think you’re grasping the actual scale here, and certainly not considering other important factors of physics.
Regarding my supply of gloves and masks. We always wear gloves when cleaning the kitchen and bathrooms, or anything where a little soap and warm water is used/needed. That’s why there’s always gloves in the kitchen and closet where we keep household supplies. Having a few boxes (and masks) in the garage is handy for me because that’s the area where I use them the most working on all kinds of different tasks & projects. I’m not a fan of trashing my hands with irritants or chemicals, or inhaling stuff from cutting, grinding, mixing, whatever. I probably do/did have more protective gear on hand than the Average Joe but I’m not a Doomsday’er with stockpiles of it.
friedchicken,
Not for nothing, but I actually tested the hypotheses in three different experiments and each time they bore out the fact that the paper towels can in fact resist traversal by particles that are smaller than the holes. I’ve demonstrated that saturation makes a big difference as to whether a particle will cross the barrier. I used the dye to demonstrate there’s more to permiability than particle size, a fact that you’re still overlooking and in any case it wasn’t just the dye, the invisible particles picked up by the smoke detector produced the same results.
You can nitpicking my experiements as you should in science. However you don’t seem to be willing to question yourself or your own hypothesis, and that’s not good science. Science is about setting your hypothosis up for failure. Only after experimental results agree can you make conclusions about the validity of your hypothesis, not before. You have not done this and went strait to assuming the model in your head is right without citing evidence or running tests.
I understand the logic you are using with respect to particle size, but until you test it under the scientific method this only amounts to postulating rather than science. You may be theoretically right in your head, but you can still be physically wrong. I understand the temptation to defend what you believe in even without strong evidence, but that’s putting one’s own ego ahead of science and that’s not a good place to be in. Scientific expirimentation has surprised a lot of people who were more intelligent than either of us.
I strongly recommend you come up with an experiements to provide evidence for your hypothesis. If you are not able to for some reason, it doesn’t mean you are wrong, but then maybe admit that you don’t know for a fact whether that the things you are saying are actually correct.
@Alfman
I applaud that you’re bothering to experiment but you have to understand the difference between experiments with comparable parameters and conditions, and those that are invalid because they fall far outside. What you’re doing is the latter. You can’t simply ignore everything that invalidates your claims. The laws of physics are not in your favor here, they explain very specifically why what you’re doing is not applicable to the subject. But, since you insist that what you’re doing somehow proves *anything* about a paper towels filtration rate of covid-19 particles, let’s see *real* proofs rather than your opinion of the results:
“I actually tested the hypotheses in three different experiments and each time they bore out the fact that the paper towels can in fact resist traversal by particles that are smaller than the holes”
You did not conduct a particle scale test, you conducted a test using vastly larger molecules with vastly different properties, in vastly different test conditions. Please qualify your claim that the above quote is proof of how a paper towel and covid-19 particles interact.
“I’ve demonstrated that saturation makes a big difference as to whether a particle will cross the barrier.”
By “saturation” I assume you’re referring to the surface tension and capillary action between the paper towel and the liquid molecules. Please qualify your claim that covid-19 particles with vastly different properties would show a similarity in interaction *in any way*. This is a part 2 to the previous qualifying request.
“I used the dye to demonstrate there’s more to permiability than particle size, a fact that you’re still overlooking and in any case it wasn’t just the dye, the invisible particles picked up by the smoke detector produced the same results.”
I’m not overlooking that permeability is determined by more than size. In fact, I’m highlighting it every time I mention the difference in properties. What defines the permeability in your tests is exactly what invalidates them as comparable candidates to how paper towels and covid-19 particles interact. You’re comparing apples, oranges, and potatoes. And I have to keep pointing out that you’re comparing apples, oranges, and potatoes.
“You may be theoretically right in your head, but you can still be physically wrong. I understand the temptation to defend what you believe in even without strong evidence, but that’s putting one’s own ego ahead of science and that’s not a good place to be in.”
The calculations I performed didn’t produce theoretical results, they produced results consistent with the laws of physics and real world observation. Particulate filtration is not a new area of study, we’re not starting at square 1 and we aren’t working with unknowns. The math and scale used in the calculations are proven facts. They explain why the recommendation is to double or triple fold homemade filters using fibrous materials, paper towels being exceptionally bad due it the size of its pores. The recommendation not because it’s hard for covid-19 particles the pass through, but because of the ease at which those particles pass through common materials used as homemade filters. That is what the math predicts, what is observed, and what you oddly keep trying to deny.
Far greater scientific minds are doing all the testing necessary using real parameters and conditions. I’m far more interested in their results than coming up with non-comparable experiments and allowing my imagination to speculate what the results mean. Instead of spinning your wheels messing around with dye, water, and smoke, why don’t you design a test that falls within a ballpark range of the real parameters & conditions? Any test where the rubber actually meets the road. I admit that’s probably unreasonable so I’d settle for just the qualifying evidence I requested earlier.
friedchicken,
With all due respect, my experiments are still better yours since you haven’t done any. All you have is arguments that may or may not have validity. This needs to be emphasized because you can argue all day long, but if you refuse to test any of your assertions using the scientific method then you are depriving yourself of a compass to point you in the right direction. I suggested near the outset that you could convince me with the scientific method and I mean it. However your arguments remain unproven and plausibly contested. Your initial hypothesis was nothing more than an argument, your disapproval of my observations are nothing more than an argument. Sure, your arguments make sense to you in your head, but that’s no substitute for more scientific trials and references.
Forget about my opinion for a moment, wouldn’t you be disappointed in your own scientific acumen if you assumed your abstractions were correct without actually testing them to be sure? That’s why I cannot and will not accept your claims at face value. You say you have done your homework but it’s apparent to me that you have not done your homework in any sort of rigorous way. The truth of the matter is none of your arguments deserve to be on the same level as scientific fact…not until they go through the process of the scientific method.
They absolutely are theoretical, at this point your prediction is a hypothesis and NOT a factual conclusion!!!
I don’t actually disagree with that recommendation, however it does disagree with your math. You said a layer of paper towel provides around 0.1% protection, which leaves a 99.9% chance it will get through. But at that rate even 100 layers would only provide ~10% protection. The problem is you won’t allow for the possibility of barrier resistance and your mathematical model treats the barrier as a flat entity with 2d holes in order to calculate permeability when in reality it is a complex three dimensional structure. The illustrate this, trying blowing through a paper towel with your breath, we know the air molecules are much smaller than the pores in the material, yet there’s plenty of resistance. As I keep saying, this requires energy to overcome. You’re willfully ignoring all of that and arguing that it doesn’t matter, but you have not proven that scientifically.
Show some initiative, it’s your theory, not mine…I’m just critiquing it 🙂
@Alfman
“With all due respect, my experiments are still better yours since you haven’t done any. All you have is arguments that may or may not have validity. This needs to be emphasized because you can argue all day long, but if you refuse to test any of your assertions using the scientific method then you are depriving yourself of a compass to point you in the right direction. I suggested near the outset that you could convince me with the scientific method and I mean it.”
Your experiments show nothing and prove nothing because they fall well outside the necessary parameters and test conditions to create any meaningful data relative to the subject. No amount of ducking & dodging that fact is going to change it. My statements are proven by the math, they’re proven by real world observation. I don’t need to conduct experiments of my own as that work has already been done by the professionals. Like I said, particulate filtration is not a new area of study. You refuse to believe the wheel exists unless I reinvent it, present it, and you approve. Come on now.
“Forget about my opinion for a moment, wouldn’t you be disappointed in your own scientific acumen if you assumed your abstractions were correct without actually testing them to be sure? That’s why I cannot and will not accept your claims at face value.”
I haven’t arrived at any theoretical results. I haven’t come up with anything new. Everything I’ve said is based on known information, is predicted by the math, and observed in reality. Your argument isn’t with any speculation, it’s with known science, known variables, and the laws of physics.
“I don’t actually disagree with that recommendation, however it does disagree with your math. You said a layer of paper towel provides around 0.1% protection, which leaves a 99.9% chance it will get through. But at that rate even 100 layers would only provide ~10% protection.”
There’s nothing wrong with `my math` AKA … math, you’re just aren’t using it correctly. In your mind if 1 layer = 0.1% protection then 2 layers = 0.2% protection Very, very wrong. The math is more complex than that. You’re not accounting for the pore density, each layers placement on the underlying layer, and the increased capture rate each layer introduces. You can’t simply ignore the mesh structure and alignment, and how it affects particle rejection & capture rates. It’s perfectly ok to admit you’re out of your depth.
“They absolutely are theoretical, at this point your prediction is a hypothesis and NOT a factual conclusion!!!”
Wrong. Calculations that accurately & consistently predict real world observation are not theoretical. The fact that they do so makes them proofs and not hypothesis. And it’s hard to believe you don’t know that.
It’s clear you’re willing to disregard any evidence or proof supported by the math and/or the numbers that contradict your claims. Or, the degree to which your theories and math are incomplete. Those reasons alone tell me we’ve arrived at a dead end. My advice moving forward is if you’re going to use a paper towel as a covid-19 filter, make sure you double or triple fold it. Science has proven paper towels are horrible covid-19 filters.
friedchicken,
No, they provide plausible doubt to your theory. Your wish is to dispel them using some of the same flawed arguments that have been cast in doubt. You aren’t going to argue your way around this, at some point you need to test in order to verify your assertions otherwise you aren’t going to be able to prove or disprove anything. I know this isn’t what you wanted to hear, but tough because that’s the way science works.
Damn it man, I been asking you to cite your evidence since the top and you keep coming up empty handed. Again, if you want to cite some evidence in your favor, then do it. In the entirety of the discussion you’ve only cited two sources, which I’ll include here. One about the size of the coronavirus, which I accept.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369385/
The other is a short study on paper towel pore sizes. This one was not very thorough, but for lack of better data I’ll accept it anyways.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b01160/suppl_file/sc7b01160_si_001.pdf
However you are not using that data correctly because what they tested was not a particle moving through the material on it’s own, but rather they’re using the material as a filter and pushing particles through with a forced air stream As I’ve been saying all along, you’re going to see particles going through when you add energy to overcome the resistance. The study IS NOT an indicator of how well these particles penetrate the material on their own.
Supposing your argument was that wiping an infected surface with a towel and then placing that towel in a forced air stream is dangerous, I wouldn’t disagree…but it’s not what we’re talking about.
You can’t skip the testing and go strait to making conclusions that everything just works the way you think it does. This is ego over science that I warned you about earlier. That’s not going to convince me, but honestly it shouldn’t convince you either.
This is what I accused you of before, you make claims and then pretending they are authoritatively backed by professionals. I’m sure some information exists, but you haven’t linked to anything other than the two sources above, which don’t prove the case for your arguments beyond the need for you to test them.
You can’t skip the testing and go strait to making conclusions that everything just works the way you think it does. That is what I warned you about earlier. That’s not going to convince me, but honestly it shouldn’t convince you either. What disappoints me isn’t that we may disagree, but that you believe your arguments to be above the need to test. Hubris is the enemy of science.
@Alfman
It has already been established this one-sided “debate” .. your fatally flawed theories vs. proven science & the laws of physics .. has reached a dead end, there’s no point in continuing to throw the same spaghetti at the wall when it didn’t stick in any of your previous attempts. It’s clear you’re out of your scope and again, that’s perfectly ok, just be a man about it. Being oblivious to the fact or in willing denial of it *is* a problem. I suspect the latter and the reason you keep projecting an `ego` issue.
I’ll gladly take this to a science-based forum where there are others educated in the relevant subjects and can freely comment. I’m fully confident my statements will withstand proper review. The physics forum at scienceforums.net is suitable. It’s not my intention to set you up for further failure, I’m just not interested in riding your merry-go-round here. It’s time to turn up the heat if you’re that certain you’re right and I’m not.
friedchicken,
I’m going to call you out on this again: your argument does not stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific method because you haven’t done any testing! Additionally you failed to cite any sources to back your claims despite ample opportunities to do so. You could still do it now even.
I’ve highlighted numerous assumptions in your arguments, shown you that your math doesn’t work, and furthermore provided experimental evidence that shows why you can not simply assume that large pores automatically means particles will permeate the material on their own. We can easily demonstrate the physical effects of resistance even when the particles are small and the pores are large. The appropriate response on your part, if you had given a damn about science, would have been to acknowledge that it needs to be looked into and tested. But instead you immediately went to defend your claims with even more assumptions that the coronavirus particles won’t behave in a similar. Well, you could be right, or you could be wrong, but one thing is for certain: your arguments don’t prove a thing. The way you go about validating your theory by decree rather than through comprehensive scientific tests is just foolish. That is not how science works.
Haha, funny. You’re not kidding anybody but yourself.
friedchicken,
I shouldn’t be so hard on you. I think you needed to hear criticism about your approach especially when it comes to the scientific method, but at some point this got too heated, which really isn’t my aim. So I’d like to try and end this on a more positive tone and encourage you to go to a science forum like you said and getting more opinions there. It could be a good place to get more information and possibly put you in touch with people who have already done detailed experiments of this nature and be able to provide deep insights. That would be ideal.
I like to leave one parting thought: it isn’t just the answer that’s important, but also the process by which you arrive at it.
@Alfman
So all you’ve got is the same tired spaghetti thrown at the same wall, still failing to stick. You’re not up for the challenge of taking it to a real science forum and turning up the heat. Honestly, I wouldn’t either if I were you considering how fragile your ego is. I’ve read far more heated exchanges over there.
I accept your surrender and will leave you with something positive to consider… If in the future we wind up in a discussion where the roles are reversed and I’m the one who doesn’t know what I’m talking about, and you do, I’ll be more than willing to admit it and won’t waste your time insisting a pineapple is a potato because chickens eggs come from chickens. Cheers!
friedchicken,
Your assumptions may not be as accurate as you think they are. Embrace the scientific method!
I’m pretty generous with my time. but don’t expect me to head over there to do your work for you. I offer my own feedback and question your assertions, that is all.
I’m trying to be nice, but don’t confuse this as an acceptance of your still unproven claims. You are making assumptions that haven’t been proven one way or the other and handwaving away a lot of the criticism for it. If that’s enough for you, then fine, end of story. But if you want people like me to take your claims as fact, then you have a ways to go and will have to set the bar higher than that, which is what the scientific method is for. It’s totally up to you if you want to reach a higher level of certainty or not.
Well, it comes up from time to time. I’d like to think that I don’t speak from a position of authority. I prefer not to be right or wrong because of my title, but because of what the data shows. Fortunately in computer science many kinds of assertions are testable and I often try to collect benchmarks & data to highlight my reasoning. Other times things get more subjective, as with strict data types and the language safety concerns…I don’t think that I put my opinions out as fact, but you can call me out if I do 🙂
@Alfman
I see you’re ego is struggling with pride over humility in defeat. There’s no point insisting blue is red anymore now that you’ve accepted losing to the science method, math, physics, and reality. It’s ok to let go of all the untrue commentary you’ve burdened yourself with, or is it a matter of needing to get the last word in to take some of the sting out of the loss?
friedchicken,
What are you talking about? I’m not humiliated, nor am I defeated. Neither are you for that matter. You just failed to apply the scientific method. Nothing was proven one way or the other. Perhaps it wasn’t practical for you, perhaps you didn’t feel like it, or perhaps you didn’t have the resources. Whatever, it doesn’t matter. But rather than admitting your claims fall short of the scientific method, you’re acting very immaturely trying to insult me. Of course that is your prerogative, but why do you even feel this is necessary? Honestly I don’t get your attitude. *Shrug*
@Alfman
All I’ve done is stick closely to the facts. If reality is insulting to you, maybe don’t back yourself into such a corner. All the denial, even in defeat, and the pretending to be the victim are like tactics taken from Trump’s sorry playbook for fragile egos. I’m getting off this merry-go-round. Feel free to stay on and keep spinning though. Have a good one!
friedchicken,
I *wish* you would stick to the facts because it would make this a whole lot easier. I’d actually like to stop the adversarial hole being dug right now, yet I don’t know how. I can’t be a yes-man merely to satisfy your ego. How am I supposed to convince you that you need more testing before making conclusions without your becoming defensive about it?
Think more about “Trump’s sorry playbook for fragile egos”. What would he do when his assumptions are questioned? Does he investigate the science or seek the expertise of others? Or does he attack the person bringing up the questions? You know the answer.