|
|
Post by wvengineer on Jan 18, 2015 12:55:03 GMT
Oziris, my concern with that testing method is weighing the water would be inaccurate. You would have to make sure you get all the water, you can't loose any to evaporation, towels, etc. Trying to calculate exactly how much water you loose is going to be a challenge for a professional, let alone a couple guys like Adam and Jamie. Without an accurate number of how much is lost, trying to calculate how much dirt you get is doing to be impossible. Even if you could get it all collected, you have at most a couple grams of dirt in upward of 100 kilograms of water. Scales that are that accurate are most likely out of the shows budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 18, 2015 15:09:13 GMT
Oziris, my concern with that testing method is weighing the water would be inaccurate. You would have to make sure you get all the water, you can't loose any to evaporation, towels, etc. Trying to calculate exactly how much water you loose is going to be a challenge for a professional, let alone a couple guys like Adam and Jamie. Without an accurate number of how much is lost, trying to calculate how much dirt you get is doing to be impossible. Even if you could get it all collected, you have at most a couple grams of dirt in upward of 100 kilograms of water. Scales that are that accurate are most likely out of the shows budget. You might be right there. I was just trying to come up with an alternative to your paint idea, because I don't think paint will be an accurate representative for dirt. I think they're going to run into one of two problems with paint. Depending on the type of paint, it either won't react to soap and water like dirt will and won't come off the same way, or it's going to be so water soluble that it all comes off pretty quickly, whether it's shower or bath and there won't be any noticable difference. I've been thinking that you could just have them roll around in some mud or something before the shower/bath, but again, it's not an accurate representation for how a person gets dirty during a normal day, so the problem I was trying to address was quantifying how dirty someone is and how clean they are in comparison afterwards. I thought weighing the water was a good way to do it, but now that you mention it, it's probably not as straight forward as I first thought. But hey, how much can you expect of an idea that was hatched during a "bathroom break"?  I still think this could be worth testing and I still think we can find a viable way to quantify "dirty" and "clean", which is what I see as the main obstacle at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 18, 2015 15:10:16 GMT
Oziris, my concern with that testing method is weighing the water would be inaccurate. You would have to make sure you get all the water, you can't loose any to evaporation, towels, etc. Trying to calculate exactly how much water you loose is going to be a challenge for a professional, let alone a couple guys like Adam and Jamie. Without an accurate number of how much is lost, trying to calculate how much dirt you get is doing to be impossible. Even if you could get it all collected, you have at most a couple grams of dirt in upward of 100 kilograms of water. Scales that are that accurate are most likely out of the shows budget. the other option, which would be more complex, would be to distill the "dirt" out of the water, and weigh the dried remains - but it might work to just dry and weigh the towel. theoretically, dirt that is not removed in the shower or bath would get wiped off with the towel, so a before and after weight of the towel might give a result. addendum: then you wouldn't have to get them uniformly dirty - although you would want the same type of dirt for each test. or more to the point, the same RANGE of dirt types. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 18, 2015 15:55:17 GMT
Here is an idea... a Reactive "paint".
Pre treat something with a substance that will react with something else, then get it washed.
Then use the other substance to see how mush is left that will react.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 18, 2015 16:02:37 GMT
Here is an idea... a Reactive "paint". Pre treat something with a substance that will react with something else, then get it washed. Then use the other substance to see how mush is left that will react. now you're thinking along the lines I am - that the measure is not in how much is taken off, but in how much is left behind. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 18, 2015 20:44:36 GMT
I get what you're both saying, but will the paint be an accurate representative for dirt on a person? Does it chemically interact the same way with water and soap? If you can find one that does, then it's definitely a good analog. If you can't, then we'll have to come up with something different.
But yes, the general idea of looking at how much is left, rather than how much came off is a good one and also the basis for my idea of the bacterial swab after each test. The original claim was that baths leave you more stinky than showers and it's the bacteria that cause the stink.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 19, 2015 15:02:40 GMT
I get what you're both saying, but will the paint be an accurate representative for dirt on a person? Does it chemically interact the same way with water and soap? If you can find one that does, then it's definitely a good analog. If you can't, then we'll have to come up with something different. But yes, the general idea of looking at how much is left, rather than how much came off is a good one and also the basis for my idea of the bacterial swab after each test. The original claim was that baths leave you more stinky than showers and it's the bacteria that cause the stink. you have a valid point on the characteristics of the paint - and really I think the "dirt" should not be restricted to one type, because very few people only get one type of dirt on them between cleanings. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 19, 2015 18:33:07 GMT
I get what you're both saying, but will the paint be an accurate representative for dirt on a person? Does it chemically interact the same way with water and soap? If you can find one that does, then it's definitely a good analog. If you can't, then we'll have to come up with something different. But yes, the general idea of looking at how much is left, rather than how much came off is a good one and also the basis for my idea of the bacterial swab after each test. The original claim was that baths leave you more stinky than showers and it's the bacteria that cause the stink. you have a valid point on the characteristics of the paint - and really I think the "dirt" should not be restricted to one type, because very few people only get one type of dirt on them between cleanings. Which is why I was thinking physical activity to build up sweat, followed by regular work in a somewhat controlled environment. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Jan 19, 2015 18:37:43 GMT
The paint was a attempt to find a controlled way to "dirty" someone. I am sure there are better methods. Can you paint them with a thin mud? I do think that running the waste water though a filter system would be a more reliable way to measure dirt collected. I also think that Oziris is right that dirt collected is only half of being clean. The other is residual bacteria. you need to measure both.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 19, 2015 19:04:00 GMT
The paint was a attempt to find a controlled way to "dirty" someone. I am sure there are better methods. Can you paint them with a thin mud? I do think that running the waste water though a filter system would be a more reliable way to measure dirt collected. I also think that Oziris is right that dirt collected is only half of being clean. The other is residual bacteria. you need to measure both. residue in general, not just bacteria. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 19, 2015 19:07:46 GMT
The paint was a attempt to find a controlled way to "dirty" someone. I am sure there are better methods. Can you paint them with a thin mud? I do think that running the waste water though a filter system would be a more reliable way to measure dirt collected. I also think that Oziris is right that dirt collected is only half of being clean. The other is residual bacteria. you need to measure both. I understand your idea of the paint, but I just don't think we need to control the amount of dirt as much as we need to control the type of dirt. There's a world of difference between how well soap and water works against a blend of sweat and dust and how well they work against various types of oil, so we need to control what kind of dirt they can come into contact with before their bath/shower in order to have any kind of consistency to the tests. I like the idea of the filter system. My only concern would be finding a filter that can pick up everything, but then again, if we did the bacteria test afterwards, maybe it wouldn't have to pick up everything. Or maybe there's actually no need for it at all...? |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Jan 20, 2015 1:06:41 GMT
Eh, filters are easy. Tons of different options. I would recommend a removable media system to make weighing the accumulated dirt. From there the questions are how efficient do you want it to be and how much do you want it to be. I'm sure there are plenty of specialty companies in the bay area that can provide the required materials. Heck, I could spec out something is i had the time.
Just a quick look, McMaster Carr PN 9308T6 is a 1 micron bag filter that screws onto an NPT pipe thread and costs <$10 USD. Something like that, they could have their tub/shower drain go into the bag filter and the just drain onto the floor of the shop. Weigh the bag before hand. Run your test, put the bad in an oven for a hour or so to bake off any moisture and then weigh again to find out how much was removed during the test.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 20, 2015 21:54:48 GMT
Fair enough. Guess that's not that big of a challenge then  What do we say at this point? Test method all hashed out? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 21, 2015 7:57:27 GMT
Test methods all considered, we have had the ideas, now time for it to be done in real time, to see which works best?...
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 21, 2015 8:29:04 GMT
Just a note, I have experience of wet filters.
I have filters of all types on my Pond....
To try and measure how dirty they get?
That would be extremely difficult, as wet and dry weight of dirt are not easy to measure, unless you have time to let the filters dry.
Completely.
And then, in doing that, how much of the dirt would fall away.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 21, 2015 14:59:03 GMT
Just a note, I have experience of wet filters. I have filters of all types on my Pond.... To try and measure how dirty they get? That would be extremely difficult, as wet and dry weight of dirt are not easy to measure, unless you have time to let the filters dry. Completely. And then, in doing that, how much of the dirt would fall away. the plan was to kiln dry the filters, and they would presumably be on something that would catch any fallout. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 21, 2015 23:13:39 GMT
Someone want to move this to show ideas? I don't think it'll be picked up if we leave it here.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 22, 2015 7:43:22 GMT
Just a note, I have experience of wet filters. I have filters of all types on my Pond.... To try and measure how dirty they get? That would be extremely difficult, as wet and dry weight of dirt are not easy to measure, unless you have time to let the filters dry. Completely. And then, in doing that, how much of the dirt would fall away. the plan was to kiln dry the filters, and they would presumably be on something that would catch any fallout. You wont be doing that with ease?.. depends on the filter medium. Many of todays decent filters are made from plastics, kiln drying would just melt them. If there was something else, I would be using it?... To get down to that micrometer size you need to trap fine ultra fine and just plain cloudy material, you need wadding of fine material, and unless your using cotton, its plastic, as plastic is washable many more times than cotton. And then, some of the dirt you are washing off, is completely water soluble. I get a full post filter "Live" bacterial medium to do the nasty stuff that is dangerous in recycled water. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 22, 2015 7:44:43 GMT
Someone want to move this to show ideas? I don't think it'll be picked up if we leave it here. I can hold with that. I wasnt sure when I started this thread if it would be worthy of making a show idea out of. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Jan 22, 2015 14:30:55 GMT
the plan was to kiln dry the filters, and they would presumably be on something that would catch any fallout. You wont be doing that with ease?.. depends on the filter medium. Many of todays decent filters are made from plastics, kiln drying would just melt them. If there was something else, I would be using it?... To get down to that micrometer size you need to trap fine ultra fine and just plain cloudy material, you need wadding of fine material, and unless your using cotton, its plastic, as plastic is washable many more times than cotton. Kiln drying is overkill. You just need to put in in an oven at 150+F for a while to evaporate off the water. No hotter than a clothes dryer operates. The bag filter I had earlier, the pipe threading is metal and the bag is polypropylene. That melts at ~260 F, so you would want to run your oven at about 200. That will still dry it out well enough, it may just take a bit. They also have Polyester bag filters that can take up to 300F (McMaster Carr PN 98295K611) |
|
