Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 73 replies
  • Subscribers 16 subscribers
  • Views 11393 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Covid-19: Meeting the challenges through Engineering

Jeremy D Watson
I was president of the IET for 2016-17, and have been asked by government to gather practical and innovative ideas from our Engineering communities. So, please enter any ideas you might have in this thread that might help address and mitigate the Covid-19 crisis. Ideas might include digital tracking / monitoring through therapy equipment and beyond. Even ideas outside your usual expertise domain will be welcome. Now’s the time for Engineering to show we can change the world!
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I have to admit I'm surprised that the Diving equipment manufacturers don't appear to be approached or included in the procurement of Ventilators. There are at several UK manufacturers of diving equipment - one for the military/professional market and at least 2 for the sport diving community. Of those one is a world leader in Closed Circuit Rebreather technology which reduces the amount of O2 consumed in the breathing cycle, the replenishment of which is under well proven electronic control. It can also allow for and maintain elevated O2 levels in the breathing 'loop'.
  • 0
    Hello, thanks for the feedback.

    Mark N - If you go to the board - rather than reply - then that's where I see the PDF I attached just under the post. . This shouldn't be an issue at the speeds we'd be discussing on commonly used equipment. Although 100% O2 could be provided, it would probably work better at lower flows e.g. people recovering / early stages. It would free up capacity on the hospital supply for the ventilators. I hope you can see the PDF, if not I'd be happy to send it privately - thanks for your information too - I will look into it and pass on any people with an interest.

    John P - thanks, we've seen the snorkelling mask - but this suggestion is not about adapting masks such as was done in Italy - that idea has been shared. This is about augmenting the supply of oxygen using SCUBA tanks and WELDING tanks.

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Hi all,

    before we go too headlong in this please take a look at this short video. I have made a home made version for my own use when going out to protect myself. This will protect health workers and can be used by the general public too.

     

    https://twitter.com/YahooFinance/status/1246593896605315072?s=20


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Susan - thanks for the update - I can’t see the pdf attachment you mention? One of the issues faced by rapid draw-off from pressurised gas cylinders is reduced flow, dependent on ambient temperature. Best illustrated by the frosting that is often seen on gas bottles when used for patio heaters. My company manufacture flexible heating jackets that have solved this problem for many years in industrial and ATEX(potentially explosive) atmospheres. I’ve read about Health Service now having some similar issues, due to capacity constraints, but haven’t been able to get back to the originators of the stories to offer help. If you (or anyone else) knows of health service staff with this problem, please contact me - mark@drumheating.com. Www.lmkthermosafe.co.uk. Would be very pleased to help.
  • 0
    Since I first uploaded the idea for an alternative oxygen source (remote locations / field hospitals etc.) using SCUBA tanks, industry and volunteered kit. 

    We have created a prototype to allow connection of medical masks to SCUBA tanks and now also welding tanks. Please see attached PDF.


    A number of disciplines have reviewed - in UK we hope we would never need it - there are logistical needs with it - that we'd hope the dive industry would help with. The Israeli Defence Forces have shared on social media that they are doing similar, to reduce drain on the main sources of oxygen.


    In other countries with less medical infrastructure and bigger dive tourism / welding it could be a vital support.




     

    Susan Jones:
    Concept - Portable respiratory support for emergency situations – Can SCUBA diving kit be easily adapted to provide it?

    This is an idea we've been looking at with and Engineer / Scuba Diver. I appreciate that it may not be the first port of call but we see it is as a possible solution should care and mass recovery be moved to non-hospital situations, possibly without impacting existing supply chains.


    Dear Colleague,
    I am looking to see if you, or someone you know may have any ideas, feedback, or support on the attached idea for emergency respiratory support systems.
    Covid-19 is causing unprecedented need for ventilation, even with increased manufacture will demand be met?  If hospitals are at capacity improvised sites may need to be used, without plumbed oxygen. While we may not be at the point to need to think quite this laterally –we may yet reach it. There are 3 levels of respiratory support solution discussed, and while they may not currently be suitable for a hospital, they may be ideas which could prove useful in extreme or mass recovery situations (e.g. use of Stadiums to house patients). It should also not impact existing supply lines. If not for this virus - then the next where solutions that could call in civilian equipment & hold a library of designs for manufacture could prove vital.
    Please take a moment to review the attached summary and supporting information, and respond with your thoughts. Please feel free to share it, as the aim here is to think of possible solutions, and work out if they could feasibly work, then develop them - which is why it’s being shared at such an early thought stage. In the hope that it may be useful to develop – or may trigger some ideas in others which it can help.
    Thank you for your time, and please stay safe.

    Kind Regards,
    Susan Jones MEng CEng MIET MWES




     

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member


    Hi all,

    Just for info on UV. I have worked with this wavelength for many years although in the military domain. If you are in the deep uv area ~265 nm this is ideal for Sterilisation. See charts below. Advancements in LED manufacture means you can now get UV LEDs at this wavelength which means you could conceivably manufacture small portable sterilisation units. Of course any virus which hides in the shadows will not be hit. Also this wavelength is not good for humans so protective clothing must be worn.   


    Best regards



    John Parsons




    Im not sure how effective these are but they retail at about $16!



  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Just a moment.

    You're aiming for rapid sterilisation so there's no time to unload the van. My memory of ambulances is somewhat sketchy (I do remember a speed check of 93mph!) but IIRC the sides are covered in drawers full of medical kitm and there will be a defibrillator, etc.

    What effect will high levels of ozone have on the stock of drug packages and pre-packed disposable equipment, and the diagnostic electronics and furnishings, to say nothing of the vehicle and its own electronics?

    Quick rain-check!
  • 0
    I sense we are mostly in the same place, that Ozone immersion and / or UV exposure would probably sterilize C-19. There seems reasonable evidence that this could work. Whether the method could in the end achieve a useful cost / benefit is TBD - need more expert evaluation to get to specifics. I - we can offer more engineering support, what is needed now ( as already pointed out) is the virology specialism to look at the ideas and make some adjudication. 


    We have in this forum discussed applications in the re-use of PPE, for cleaning of ambulances. Maybe there could be more widespread use of the methods - perhaps in the future post-pandemic there has to be a greater use to reduce virus propagation?


    I feel - and this has been mentioned - we need to engage the specialist virology practitioners, prefrerably within the domain of the main target users - NHS, who can give the methods due consideration and take forward - or not - as appropriate.


    Who / how to contact?


    I have written an email to the Chief Nursing Officer. england.chiefnursingofficer@nhs.net   Who else to contact?


    Regards,



  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Jeremy, just having thoughts on this nightmare situation we are all in .Many years ago as a railway apprentice and working in one of the large electrical repair/manufacturing shops, on one section we used to assemble uv sterilisers that were used for the African and Indian railway water supplies on coaching stock. They consisted of a large glass tube that the contaminated water passed through , this tube was surrounded by high intensity uv tubes and later mercury vapour .They evidently killed all known bacteria/virus e-coli etc and made the water safe to drink . I seem to remember from our days at the south bank university that mercury vapour lights emit light at about 253 nano metres and max bactericidal efficacy is in the region of 260 nm so should be ideal for the job. 

    I am surprised that we are not investigating if this virus is susceptible to uv and if it is developing a hand held version of these devices or similar to eradicate this virus on all surfaces etc , (may be preferable  than using  chemicals).I seem to remember the parameters for safety Utilising uv is that any wavelength less than 320 nm could cause skin or eye irritation so protective gear might be needed. If a very low level of uv proved effective could this be used medically . 


    Just a thought 


    Trevor






    Sent from my iPad
  • 0

    Kenneth Hattersley:

    ...
    The process should be safe for use by the operator because there is no handling of the sterilant, no toxic emissions, no residue to aerate, and low operating temperature means there is no danger of an accidental burn. 




    Keneth. I would have my doubts about this reference. Ozone is potentially harmful to the operator, because it is very irritant to human eyes, skin and airways. There is no net pollution because O3 naturally decomposes to O2 in about 24hr ... but opening a cabinet full of O3 would constitute a toxic emission at that point. O3 can be neutralised by a corona-discharge of the opposite polarity (yes a certain irony here !), and the machines that generate high levels of ozone, have a neutralisation phase to make the atmosphere safe. Ozone is a more powerful oxidant than oxygen, and oxygen itself is difficult to handle because it can cause spontaneous explosive combustion of oils ... So Ozone in levels greater than 10% are an explosive risk. Most applications will not get near to this level, but it needs to be considered when designing a system. Ian

Community Rules & Guidelines