| ▲ | jandrese 13 hours ago |
| > After five minutes of that, the machine would then fill the chamber with hot water for a three-minute ultrasonic bath. This was followed by a two-minute hot rinse cycle. Next, the chamber would drain and the user was blasted with warm air to dry off. They were additionally exposed to both infrared and ultraviolet light to kill germs. All in all, it was a 15-minute cycle. It's apparently also a tanning booth. 15 minutes means it takes about 3 times longer than a shower, and it doesn't seem to do your hair. |
|
| ▲ | ExoticPearTree 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| For a man sure, you can do your hair in 2 minutes. But if you’re a woman it is going to be a multiple of 15 minutes. |
| |
| ▲ | nameequalsmain 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm a man but washing and using conditioner will take a lot longer than 2 minutes. I have very long hair though. | |
| ▲ | ale42 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Depends on how much hair the man still have... some will definitely not do it in 2 minutes. And most women I know don't need 15 minutes to wash their hair. | | |
| ▲ | ExoticPearTree 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Let's see: shampoo, rinse, mask, wait 30-60mins, rinse, conditioner, rinse. | | |
| ▲ | idiomaddict 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you think every woman does this regularly without pay? My entire shower takes 8 minutes as a woman. | | |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | You're faster than me, a man with short hair :). Rinse, gel, shampoo, rinse, shampoo, rinse - but the warm water also cleans the mind and soothes the soul, so I'm not in that big of a hurry to end one of the best ways to relax and unwind I have. It usually adds up to 10 minutes. I have a family member, also male with short hair, who used to take 20-30 minute showers every day, driving others in the house insane - but that was the "I'm a first-year medical student, I just learned how many bugs there are on everything, and how ugly diseases they cause; also, have you heard of SARS?" effect. Other symptoms include going though copious amounts of hand disinfectant. Fortunately that went away over time, as they improved their feeling for actual risks. | |
| ▲ | 4gotunameagain 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Of course there are other factors, including biological ones, but yes I agree not every woman does this regularly. Many do though. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | phinnaeus 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This thing doesn't wash your hair though. |
|
|
| ▲ | xg15 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I suppose, one advantage would be that you can use it while almost asleep, while you need a minimum of mental presence for a shower. So if you wanted, you could: wake up; slump into the bathroom and into this thing; press the button; snooze another 15 minutes while part of your morning routine is being done for (or to) you. Whether this is something you should do is another question... (Also, it might be possible to extend it with hair washing if you mount one of those barber sinks at the top and then somehow automate it. Exercise left for the reader.) |
| |
| ▲ | fecal_henge 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your vision lacks the ultimate destination: This will replace the bed. | | |
| ▲ | xg15 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | That sounds like that one guy a few years ago who wanted to replace all kitchen cupboards with dishwashers. Gonna steer clear of those directions. All things in moderation, etc. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | eru 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You are right that for able bodied people it's at best a gimmick. But it might be useful for people with limited mobility, who don't want to depend on other people washing them. |
| |
| ▲ | eek2121 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Gimmick? Maybe, I’d love to try something like this.It may not save time, but i bet it feels glorious. | |
| ▲ | bell-cot 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Safely getting into and out of it looks very challenging for people with limited mobility. But the article's final photo is of completely different model - far more accessible, far safer, and for "the health care sector". | | |
| ▲ | eru 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, the original prototype is obviously just there to show off the models. I was thinking about more practical and less sexy versions that might actually see production. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | OldSchool 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Ouch, the germicidal UVC is even more hazardous than the UVA and UVB tanning rays! |
|
| ▲ | maronato 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| And uses orders of magnitude more water |
| |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is that a problem though? The other day I got a whole lecture on HN, complete with math, proving that keeping the water running entire time while showering isn't meaningfully wasteful... I still can't believe it on an emotional level, but the math checks out... | | |
| ▲ | bayindirh 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A nominal water aerator limits water around 5L-6L/min levels. For every minute I don't use the water, I spend approximately two full kettles of water. With every 5L of water I can - Cook 4 servings (~400 grams) of pasta.
- Brew 5L of tea/coffee
- Water all the plants at home two times.
- Possibly wash most of my handwash-only dishes in one go.
- etc.
So it's not not meaningfully wasteful. However, I can't turn off the water in the winter, because I feel very cold otherwise. However, this doesn't mean I don't waste any water or happy about what I'm doing. My only (half) relief is this water is somehow processed and reused by city for other needs, at least one more time. | | |
| ▲ | eek2121 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Water is by far the most abundant resource on the planet (70+% of earth is water), and we have methods to remove salt and contaminants from almost all of it. We can even turn urine into drinking water. I wouldn’t worry about wasting it. We’ll die from something else long before water becomes an issue. | |
| ▲ | pantalaimon 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The water is cheap and plentiful, what's wasteful is heating the water and throwing that away. | | |
| ▲ | bayindirh 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | The maps, surveys and projections say otherwise, but of course you're free to believe what you believe. | | |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's the thing, dollars are usually a better indicator, unless something somewhere is burning money to prevent prices from reflecting real scarcity. | | |
| ▲ | bayindirh 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | We're drinking one of the cheapest drinking water in the world, but this doesn't change the reality of sinkholes appearing where we deplete the water in our country. So, the prices might not be rising that quickly for now, but sinkholes are giving us the warning. Prices don't always point correctly, esp. when there are other economic and socioeconomic factors at play. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | eru 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well, even if the city doesn't re-use the water, it doesn't just disappear. | | |
| ▲ | bayindirh 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, but getting rid of chemicals and returning it to a non-poisonous state for the nature is a big plus. You can't dump everything to the soil and say "that's your problem now, nature. Cope!". | | |
| ▲ | shepherdjerred an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > You can't dump everything to the soil and say "that's your problem now, nature. Cope!". Nature couldn't care less. Nature works on much larger timescales than humans. It's the humans that are impacted. Just like climate change, plastic, and all other environmental issues -- humans are paying (or will pay) the price, not nature. | |
| ▲ | eru 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, I mean when you are 'wasting water' you are mostly wasting the effort it takes to clean the water. Not the water itself. As opposed to eg 'wasting petrol', where the petrol really is gone afterwards. At least it has been chemically transformed. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | distances 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Was that about water, or about energy spent on heating the water? My gut feeling is that keeping the water running would roughly double the amount of water, so double the energy. | | | |
| ▲ | eru 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What's meaningfully wasteful depends entirely where and when you are, and how plentiful water is locally at the moment. | | |
| ▲ | bayindirh 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think so. Just because you're not in a water-stressed place doesn't make you eligible to keep taps open 24/7. This mentality is what brought us to today. | | |
| ▲ | eru 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Who is 'us' and what do you mean by 'today'? And what do you mean by 'eligible'? In most places I've been to, you just pay your water bill, and then you can leave your taps running. It's about as productive as buying bread just to toss it in the trash, of course. | | |
| ▲ | bayindirh 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | us: the humanity in general, today: the state of world water stress level [0], [1], eligible: the correctness of the thing you are doing regardless of the legality of the thing you're doing. IOW, "I pay the bill, now get off my lawn" is something you can do. But should you really do it, just because you can do it? [0]: https://www.wri.org/data/water-stress-country (This is decade old, we're worse now) [1]: https://riskfilter.org/water/explore/map If you think you can do whatever you want regardless of the things you're causing, then we're on a completely different page, and continuing this little chat has no point. We can't converge and agree on a point. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | MrDrMcCoy 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Link? |
| |
| ▲ | tobyhinloopen 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It doesn’t use any water. It just makes the water dirtier. | | |
| ▲ | maronato an hour ago | parent [-] | | And it doesn’t use any electricity either. It just moves electrons around. |
|
|
