Laser for control of mosquitos, weeds and pests(github.com)
github.com
Laser for control of mosquitos, weeds and pests
https://github.com/Ildaron/Laser_control
163 comments
More details on this style of setup: https://youtu.be/6BhV-o77RqQ
That is really clever. I never thought to use an animal to attract the mosquitoes. Not sure what I think about spraying alcohol into the fan, at least my old fan. Maybe he's using 70%.
I the video he said 2 parts water to 1 part rubbing alcohol.
I wonder how it compares with something like Thermacell ? (haven't used it, but heard good things)
I think Thermacell is ok to keep mosquitos away but it don't think it really kills them, at least in masses. You can't really have it running for 24/7 because the pad that contains the poison/repellent that it diffuses will run out in 4-12 hours.
Also there are some comments on that the poison they use is really harmful for marine life, so you shouldn't use it near water. Also personally not sure I like to have poison diffuser next me all time.
Also there are some comments on that the poison they use is really harmful for marine life, so you shouldn't use it near water. Also personally not sure I like to have poison diffuser next me all time.
Thank you. Yeah, I realize it has a different purpose, but I guess I'm more concerned about not getting bitten than about killing mosquitos en masse :)
The point about harmful poison is very valid though. Definitely good to know and to avoid extended use. I'm less keen on buying it now, even though the protection from bites sounds promising.
The point about harmful poison is very valid though. Definitely good to know and to avoid extended use. I'm less keen on buying it now, even though the protection from bites sounds promising.
That isn't a mosquito trap, that's flying insect genocide
It might catch a few mosquitos But the majority is going to be small flying insects. But more so the “bait” is likely completely in effective
Yeah it’s a simple, effective trap for small flying insects, but any CO2 from the seltzer is clearly going to be sucked through the fan and dispersed.
Yeah I would be concerned about butterflies, moths, bees, etc. it’s also got to use a lot of energy.
Greenpowerscience is a great channel, was hoping their video would get linked here :D
Interesting method. I knew they were attracted to CO2, but I thought the CO2 had to be warmer & wetter to attract them for some reason.
Mosquitos use different mechanisms depending on the distance to their target.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/28/7068387...
At a distance, its CO2 (30 feet away). Closer in, its the sweat. Even closer to target, its body heat.
The CO2 itself doesn't need to be warm or sweaty. Just when the mosquito is close to a target, it switches from the general vicinity (CO2) approach to one that will give it a better lock on.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/28/7068387...
At a distance, its CO2 (30 feet away). Closer in, its the sweat. Even closer to target, its body heat.
The CO2 itself doesn't need to be warm or sweaty. Just when the mosquito is close to a target, it switches from the general vicinity (CO2) approach to one that will give it a better lock on.
How long does the the bottle of carbonated water last?
Do you just open it and leave it there?
Do you just open it and leave it there?
A little more than an hour. Long enough to pull in a swarm. A 2 litter would last longer but I just get the flavored sparkling water. I open it just to the point I can begin to hear a sound.
For a longer lasting and potentially cheaper source of CO2 just add sugar and yeast to water.
I use a CO2 tank to re-carbonate my soda stream cannisters, I imagine at a slow leak rate my 10lb tank would last a long time and it's only $20 I think to refill it.
I've found a number of systems on Amazon intended for adding CO2 to aquariums but never got around to buying any of those.
Anyone tried using those for mosquitoes?
Anyone tried using those for mosquitoes?
Just curious: do you notice a difference in the population over time, or is it one of those things that mostly just works while it's running?
It could be my imagination but it seems like there are less of them overall. For sure when I use the disposable fly traps there are less flies overall. I can't stand seeing horses eyes covered in flies. If I were a horse that would drive me insane.
I think in addition - depending on where you live - controlling surface water would be a factor. Don't leave water to go stale in puddles or containers, and if you have something like a pond, either treat the water with something or get plenty of mosquito-egg-eating fish.
What fishes eat the mosquito eggs?
you'd be hard pressed to find a fish that wouldn't like a tasty larvae
Just a bottle behind a screen behind a fan? Or does it blow into the screen?
About 20 feet in front of it. The gasses get pulled into the fan along with the mosquitoes. It works without carbonated drinks too, just slower. And that only helps if there is a swarm of them i.e. near a standing body of water. In standing water you can also use "mosquito donuts" that release a bacterium which is toxic to all species of mosquito larvae. A common brand is called "Mosquito Dunks"
Please only do this in artificial bodies of water. There’s an entire food chain of insects and birds and fish which rely on the larvae and adults.
I've been interested in this question for a while. The Bill Gates-funded science to try and eradicate all mosquitoes always appears founded on the premise that it would cause a ripple effect in the ecosystem. Anyone know if that's justified?
Where I live, we used to have tons of frogs. The city actually built a freeway bypass to prevent too many flat frogs. Didn't work. Anyway, the frogs quickly vanished around the same time we started spraying to reduce the spread of West Nile. Don't know if it was the food source or if the spray killed the tadpoles, but unintended consequences are a thing. A knock-on to that is we now have a growing roach problem.
Many biocides have negative effects on amphibians that go far beyond food supply.
It's never "all mosquitos" it's "all of these 2-3 types (Anopheles) of mosquitoes that are vectors for human pathogens".
The ecosystem impact is still super important to understand, but it's reasonable to think that other mosquitos, or similar insects, could fill the niche left behind.
The ecosystem impact is still super important to understand, but it's reasonable to think that other mosquitos, or similar insects, could fill the niche left behind.
I'm for eliminating all mosquitos. They are the single most annoying thing about the best time of the year, summer, around here. I want to enjoy it without being harrassed about sucking my blood. The ecosystem will adapt.
> The ecosystem will adapt.
Sure, but as with climate change, you may not like the result. I guess there's a fair chance that it won't be "just like now, but no mosquito bites". Mosquito larvae are a big source of food for others, and extensively prey on larvae of other species, keeping those in check. Adult mosquitos are important pollinators, too, and as we're currently discovering with bees, taking out an important pollinator has big consequences and while the ecosystems will adapt, it may well end up shedding very desirable species entirely, ecosystems take a long time to bounce back, and may be a lot less appealing to us afterwards.
Frogs and fish might suffer, too, they'll have to make do with a lot less food when you take mosquitos out, and what takes their niche may not be as palatable. You push these below a sustainable population size in an area, you probably lose them entirely, and their function of keeping insect larvae and adult insects in check. Since we'd like to enjoy mosquito-free summers ourselves, and soon, the time scales we'd typically do such interventions on is way too short for much adaptation in vertebrates to take place, generation times even of frogs and small fish are too long for that. You may end up with ponds that are way emptier and more silent, and with lots more creepy crawlies and possibly a long-term balance that has, say, way more rats, roaches, etc.
Sure, but as with climate change, you may not like the result. I guess there's a fair chance that it won't be "just like now, but no mosquito bites". Mosquito larvae are a big source of food for others, and extensively prey on larvae of other species, keeping those in check. Adult mosquitos are important pollinators, too, and as we're currently discovering with bees, taking out an important pollinator has big consequences and while the ecosystems will adapt, it may well end up shedding very desirable species entirely, ecosystems take a long time to bounce back, and may be a lot less appealing to us afterwards.
Frogs and fish might suffer, too, they'll have to make do with a lot less food when you take mosquitos out, and what takes their niche may not be as palatable. You push these below a sustainable population size in an area, you probably lose them entirely, and their function of keeping insect larvae and adult insects in check. Since we'd like to enjoy mosquito-free summers ourselves, and soon, the time scales we'd typically do such interventions on is way too short for much adaptation in vertebrates to take place, generation times even of frogs and small fish are too long for that. You may end up with ponds that are way emptier and more silent, and with lots more creepy crawlies and possibly a long-term balance that has, say, way more rats, roaches, etc.
I’ve been plagued by mosquitoes ever since I quit smoking, I’ve found that heating a spoon with boiling water and pressing it against the bites for as long as you can stand the pain will swiftly deal with the itching. You have to be careful not to burn yourself though!
Or just buy a device with the same principle: https://www.beurer.com/web/gb/products/medical/insect-bite-h...
Sounds expensive compared to boiling a kettle. I actually looked this up, boiling a litre of water in a kettle costs about two pence and I’d only boil around half a pint (~280 ml) for this costing me 0.56p per go. That device retails for about £30 where I live so I’d need to be bitten badly enough for it to be a problem about 5,350 times before it’d be worthwhile.
I guess it depends on whether the device is durable enough to last that long, and whether or not you’re careful enough to avoid burns with the spoon method!
I guess it depends on whether the device is durable enough to last that long, and whether or not you’re careful enough to avoid burns with the spoon method!
The main advantage is that it is quick and delivers a quantity of heat that matches what is needed to inactivate the mosquito's venom.
Assuming your leisure time is worth 20p per minute, the cost is quickly amortized.
Assuming your leisure time is worth 20p per minute, the cost is quickly amortized.
I get the feeling but the point is that most mosquitoes do not suck your blood. And the blood sucking ones are just the female mosquitoes of a certain mosquito type and your blood is only meant to help their reproduction. #NotAllMosquitoes
An excellent comment on this topic last time eliminating mosquitos were discussed:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26837319
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26837319
On the one hand, yes, an excellent comment with some impressive background and credentials.
On the other hand, I'm put off by this rejection of differing viewpoints:
"While contrarianism is a valuable american (and human) trait, in this situation it is misplaced, mis-informed, and dangerous. An educated man's anti-vaxx, if you will."
... which employs a fairly lazy pejorative to dismiss (people that think perhaps we shouldn't eliminate mosquitos).
I believe I quote Will Durant: "The mosquito is the enemy of civilization" and I am intrigued, generally, by the idea of eliminating mosquitos ... but I also adhere to the precautionary principal.
Maybe save a breeding stock and frozen eggs, etc., in case there is some hidden consequence we didn't think of ?
On the other hand, I'm put off by this rejection of differing viewpoints:
"While contrarianism is a valuable american (and human) trait, in this situation it is misplaced, mis-informed, and dangerous. An educated man's anti-vaxx, if you will."
... which employs a fairly lazy pejorative to dismiss (people that think perhaps we shouldn't eliminate mosquitos).
I believe I quote Will Durant: "The mosquito is the enemy of civilization" and I am intrigued, generally, by the idea of eliminating mosquitos ... but I also adhere to the precautionary principal.
Maybe save a breeding stock and frozen eggs, etc., in case there is some hidden consequence we didn't think of ?
The bacteria probably attack more than just the species that feed on humans, but putting that aside, there's only a handful of species that focus on humans, so disrupting those doesn't necessarily mean disrupting all mosquitoes.
I've only ever done this in places with a high diversity of insects for birds and bats to eat.
Do you know this for sure?
The screen is 20 feet in front of the fan?
Wonderful! Thanks.
Also hijacking the general mosquito control discussion:
What's wrong with UV light traps? Got one from amazon and the soothing placebo? effect is great.
Tried one. It increased my mosquito bites and killed 1-2 per week. Needless to say I wasn't using it for very long.
Great against insects that are attracted by UV light, like mayflies, but not mosquitoes.
Some mayflies may look like mosquitoes, but they don't bite and are mostly harmless. It doesn't mean they are not annoying, especially when there are lots of them, and if that's a problem, UV light traps work great.
Some mayflies may look like mosquitoes, but they don't bite and are mostly harmless. It doesn't mean they are not annoying, especially when there are lots of them, and if that's a problem, UV light traps work great.
UV doesn't attract mosquitoes
Oh, are German mosquitoes different or is it really just placebo?
Thinking about it:
If I leave the window open with the light on in summer there will be hundreds of mosquitoes in the room (together with ~50% other critters). Even if no one was inside.
Window open without light: a dozen mosquitoes at max (as counted by suddenly switching the light on).
Whatever is known about other species is not correct about our breed.
Thinking about it:
If I leave the window open with the light on in summer there will be hundreds of mosquitoes in the room (together with ~50% other critters). Even if no one was inside.
Window open without light: a dozen mosquitoes at max (as counted by suddenly switching the light on).
Whatever is known about other species is not correct about our breed.
Interesting thought. I wonder if its because of the swarm mind of mosquitoes "knows" that where there's artificial light, there are people. Or evolution has favored mosquitoes which get attracted to light at night.
That's not UV light
fair comment. the "UV" trap lights are not pure UV either though.
I think your method would be much better for the indoor use case, but the laser method could clear your whole backyard in theory!
I wonder if you could just use something sticky, sort of like fly strips? Fertilizer becomes untenable, but perhaps you could put the energy savings toward a more efficient fertilizer approach?
Can you elaborate a bit on this? Does it work by the fan blowing them against a screen and they stay stuck on it?
mattjaynes linked a video that explains this better than I did and looks like its a better way to do it.
What kind of fan are you using? Would a box fan work?
24 inch drum fan. Box fans might work. The drum fans have higher air flow so I guess its up to the specs of the fan. Try it and see if they stick to the screen.
Thanks
> their carcasses can be used in plant fertilizer
Or fish food.
Or fish food.
this device can be used also for weed and insect)
Have you found a tractor company or robotics company to mount your laser and zap weeds? I've seen a few prototypes on youtube but I have no idea how popular they are yet. If not I hope you find one.
this while the prototype is still needed. I've seen a few videos that do this - but the working conditions are too ideal there.
Dear colleagues, I periodically receive questions about the status of my project to neutralize mosquitoes with a laser. I wanted to say that I post all the new information on the open source github - https://github.com/Ildaron/Laser_control
I continue this direction but I do it very slowly. But at the same time, I received very important comments from you.
I continue this direction but I do it very slowly. But at the same time, I received very important comments from you.
I've been meaning to write up an 'Ask HN' style question around using something similar to combat a common beekeeping pest called the Small Hive Beetle (SHB).
This is a small (5mm) black beetle that comes into beehives, usually around dusk, and causes massive havoc, can easily wipe out colonies quite quickly.
It arrived in Australia about 15 years ago, but is common almost everywhere else in the world now. There's lots of control mechanisms, but they're all incomplete (traps, nematodes in soil around the hive, mesh layers they can be pushed / fall through but bees can't fit through, etc).
A laser unit sitting in front of a hive, perhaps with an extended landing pad, seems like an excellent use case for an approach like yours.
So, if you're bored, and want to save the (beekpeeing) world ... ? : )
This is a small (5mm) black beetle that comes into beehives, usually around dusk, and causes massive havoc, can easily wipe out colonies quite quickly.
It arrived in Australia about 15 years ago, but is common almost everywhere else in the world now. There's lots of control mechanisms, but they're all incomplete (traps, nematodes in soil around the hive, mesh layers they can be pushed / fall through but bees can't fit through, etc).
A laser unit sitting in front of a hive, perhaps with an extended landing pad, seems like an excellent use case for an approach like yours.
So, if you're bored, and want to save the (beekpeeing) world ... ? : )
I was doing some reading up on beehives and it looks like there's generally a single entrance to a hive? This could simplify things since if there's a reduced area to guard its possible to control/protect that area to prevent stray lasers.
I discovered a product called the guardian https://guardianbhe.com/ which is mounted by the entrance to a hive and uses red light to obscure that entrance. Wouldn't a similar configuration work, except instead of red light it would incinerate any intruders?
I guess it mainly just comes down to rapid recognition of the beetle. With that kind of info one could hook up any number of deterrents.
Alternatively, if not rapid recognition of the beetle, rapid recognition of bees and just zap anything else.
With a doorway-guard system it could maybe even be done with a tesla-coil-esque thing
I discovered a product called the guardian https://guardianbhe.com/ which is mounted by the entrance to a hive and uses red light to obscure that entrance. Wouldn't a similar configuration work, except instead of red light it would incinerate any intruders?
I guess it mainly just comes down to rapid recognition of the beetle. With that kind of info one could hook up any number of deterrents.
Alternatively, if not rapid recognition of the beetle, rapid recognition of bees and just zap anything else.
With a doorway-guard system it could maybe even be done with a tesla-coil-esque thing
Yup, almost always a single entrance, wide (~30cm) though lots of people put in reducers as that's way more space than almost any colony needs, and narrow (about 1cm high). There's usually a small strip pad there to land on, though bees can hover, and don't really need that pad - it's typically 2-5cm deep.
A good candidate for an active defence system as the bees usually take at least a second from landing to getting inside, and a camera / laser could be mounted immediately above and restricted to a straight-down view (so quite safe for humans).
The guardian tool looks similar to something I recently bought, but have not attached to my hive yet[1]. It relies more on the physical mesh (being small enough beetles fall or can be pushed through) than the red colour, I think. The floor inside of my hives are also mesh, similarly sized, but made of metal -- beneath that is a shallow tray of cooking oil.
Personally I don't yet have a baseline for how much of this pest I'm going to have to deal with, but am adopting a 'whatever I can do' approach from the beginning, as their numbers, once inside the hive, can grow very rapidly.
Within my hives I have also have small oil-based traps sitting up higher in the boxes, again that bees can't fit through, but beetles can. Because bees will typically chase the beetles - they can't remove or sting them - and the beetles will try to find safety in crevices, which is the basis of most of these trap types.
[1] https://hornsby-beekeeping.com/beetle-off-entrance-hive-beet...
A good candidate for an active defence system as the bees usually take at least a second from landing to getting inside, and a camera / laser could be mounted immediately above and restricted to a straight-down view (so quite safe for humans).
The guardian tool looks similar to something I recently bought, but have not attached to my hive yet[1]. It relies more on the physical mesh (being small enough beetles fall or can be pushed through) than the red colour, I think. The floor inside of my hives are also mesh, similarly sized, but made of metal -- beneath that is a shallow tray of cooking oil.
Personally I don't yet have a baseline for how much of this pest I'm going to have to deal with, but am adopting a 'whatever I can do' approach from the beginning, as their numbers, once inside the hive, can grow very rapidly.
Within my hives I have also have small oil-based traps sitting up higher in the boxes, again that bees can't fit through, but beetles can. Because bees will typically chase the beetles - they can't remove or sting them - and the beetles will try to find safety in crevices, which is the basis of most of these trap types.
[1] https://hornsby-beekeeping.com/beetle-off-entrance-hive-beet...
thank that provide details
yes, exactly. I considered it. It is very easy to do.
I approve your optimism, while doubting it would be at all easy for me to try to do.
You would have no shortage of beta testers, and in the hobby / home space I would expect the market to be significant. Commercial hive operators, I'm less sure about how the economics would play out there.
There's at least one other pest that's large enough to be a good candidate for this approach - the wax moth.
There's plenty of other pests, but they're typically small and hitch a ride on bees, (eg varroa mite) so terminator gene really is our most hopeful solution for many of those.
You would have no shortage of beta testers, and in the hobby / home space I would expect the market to be significant. Commercial hive operators, I'm less sure about how the economics would play out there.
There's at least one other pest that's large enough to be a good candidate for this approach - the wax moth.
There's plenty of other pests, but they're typically small and hitch a ride on bees, (eg varroa mite) so terminator gene really is our most hopeful solution for many of those.
your right
for Asian Hornet)
>> My strong recommendation - don't use the power laser! I recommend making a device that will track an object using a safe laser pointer.
I always wondered if you can’t use several low power lasers and then cross the beams on the target?
I always wondered if you can’t use several low power lasers and then cross the beams on the target?
Just a thought: I would love to have/start with a device which would track and show me were the mosquito is. This would make it much saver and still very helpful.
In the long term, I think that many mosquito species will be driven to extinction within the next 30 years.
As gene drive modifications become more accessible, preventing this becomes impossible.
The ones that carry malaria will almost certainly be wiped out.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/07/28/1020932...
As gene drive modifications become more accessible, preventing this becomes impossible.
The ones that carry malaria will almost certainly be wiped out.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/07/28/1020932...
Well if one of the above-linked articles on how mosquitos target humans is correct
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/28/7068387...
"genetically altered mosquitoes to block the activity of a specific olfactory receptor called Ir8a. The result was that female mosquitoes — which are the ones that suck blood — were no longer attracted to lactic acid, an important component of human sweat."
So if we could refine this just a little bit more, we could engineer mosquitos which don't bite humans. And put that into a gene drive.
Still scary as fuck to mess this deeply with nature (note: post-doc work on viral evolution), but this is a less severe change than sterility.
"genetically altered mosquitoes to block the activity of a specific olfactory receptor called Ir8a. The result was that female mosquitoes — which are the ones that suck blood — were no longer attracted to lactic acid, an important component of human sweat."
So if we could refine this just a little bit more, we could engineer mosquitos which don't bite humans. And put that into a gene drive.
Still scary as fuck to mess this deeply with nature (note: post-doc work on viral evolution), but this is a less severe change than sterility.
"The ones that carry malaria will almost certainly be wiped out."
This is always discussed in terms of the mosquitos and the population(s) of mosquitos.
Should we think, at all, of the population of malaria, globally ?
Is it possible that we could exert this tremendous pressure - an evolutionary chokepoint - on malaria and it escapes in some unexpected manner ?
This is not an area I have any background in so I hope someone can comment on this idea:
If we back an organism like malaria in a corner might heretofore out-competed mutations ascend and suddenly malaria comes at us from a new direction ?
This is always discussed in terms of the mosquitos and the population(s) of mosquitos.
Should we think, at all, of the population of malaria, globally ?
Is it possible that we could exert this tremendous pressure - an evolutionary chokepoint - on malaria and it escapes in some unexpected manner ?
This is not an area I have any background in so I hope someone can comment on this idea:
If we back an organism like malaria in a corner might heretofore out-competed mutations ascend and suddenly malaria comes at us from a new direction ?
I have some limited background in this though it's not my main area of expertise.
The vast majority of non-bacterial species that are subjected to severe evolutionary pressure go extinct. The main reason this happens is they cannot adapt rapidly enough to respond to evolutionary pressure.
Malaria is a very complex parasitic disease which depends on a whole series of things going right across multiple hosts. If it's disrupted in either the mammal host or the insect host it's unable to reproduce. There's a number of disruptive events that can happen (such as blood cells being the wrong shape, preventing infection from the parasite). There's no variants of malaria that can infect sickle-shaped blood cells even though sickle-cell anemia is very common in malaria regions.
Unlike viruses and bacteria, there's no easy mechanism for a new variant of a parasite to spread its mutation laterally. The replication mechanism for parasites occurs much less frequently and produces much fewer copies than bacteria or viruses do. RNA-based viruses have very high mutation rates in general, due to the defects in RNA replication. The viral life cycle happens anew with every cell infection. Bacteria are even more adaptive - they can actually exchange genetic material even between replications, and of course replicate exponentially without depending on host cells. This is why viruses and especially bacteria can rapidly respond to evolutionary pressure. Other species are not so lucky. For a malaria parasite to respond to evolutionary pressure, it would have to go through its entire multi-host song and dance on every replication cycle. This already massively slows down mutations, as the number of mutations depends on the number of replications and the probability of mistranscription in each replication. But the important thing is that we are already using heavy interventions to prevent the spread of malaria - if we can drop the base rate of spread by some tens of percent and keep those measures, malaria will go extinct. If we remove the index host species (the particular susceptible mosquitoes) it's going to take a very long time for the parasite to successfully infect another species, as the number of replications drops massively and there's no replication reservoir where a new variant can develop. As the individual parasite's lifecycle is short, extinction is much more likely than adaptation.
The vast majority of non-bacterial species that are subjected to severe evolutionary pressure go extinct. The main reason this happens is they cannot adapt rapidly enough to respond to evolutionary pressure.
Malaria is a very complex parasitic disease which depends on a whole series of things going right across multiple hosts. If it's disrupted in either the mammal host or the insect host it's unable to reproduce. There's a number of disruptive events that can happen (such as blood cells being the wrong shape, preventing infection from the parasite). There's no variants of malaria that can infect sickle-shaped blood cells even though sickle-cell anemia is very common in malaria regions.
Unlike viruses and bacteria, there's no easy mechanism for a new variant of a parasite to spread its mutation laterally. The replication mechanism for parasites occurs much less frequently and produces much fewer copies than bacteria or viruses do. RNA-based viruses have very high mutation rates in general, due to the defects in RNA replication. The viral life cycle happens anew with every cell infection. Bacteria are even more adaptive - they can actually exchange genetic material even between replications, and of course replicate exponentially without depending on host cells. This is why viruses and especially bacteria can rapidly respond to evolutionary pressure. Other species are not so lucky. For a malaria parasite to respond to evolutionary pressure, it would have to go through its entire multi-host song and dance on every replication cycle. This already massively slows down mutations, as the number of mutations depends on the number of replications and the probability of mistranscription in each replication. But the important thing is that we are already using heavy interventions to prevent the spread of malaria - if we can drop the base rate of spread by some tens of percent and keep those measures, malaria will go extinct. If we remove the index host species (the particular susceptible mosquitoes) it's going to take a very long time for the parasite to successfully infect another species, as the number of replications drops massively and there's no replication reservoir where a new variant can develop. As the individual parasite's lifecycle is short, extinction is much more likely than adaptation.
"Unlike viruses and bacteria, there's no easy mechanism for a new variant of a parasite to spread its mutation laterally."
I was not aware until just now that malaria is neither virus nor bacterium.
Thanks - appreciate your response.
I was not aware until just now that malaria is neither virus nor bacterium.
Thanks - appreciate your response.
yes, of course. I do not declare that the need uses a laser for neutralizing mosquitoes. But except mosquitoes, we have many other harmful insects and pests.
> In the long term, I think that many mosquito species will be driven to extinction within the next 30 years.
I honestly don't know: will this affect the ecosystems? I think (at least) dragonflies eat mosquitoes. No idea how much the depend on them for food.
I honestly don't know: will this affect the ecosystems? I think (at least) dragonflies eat mosquitoes. No idea how much the depend on them for food.
There was a study somewhere claiming that it wouldn't. Only a small fraction of mosquito species bite humans, and according to the study, none were particularly important to their ecosystems.
This is always such an astonishing question to me. What happened to "the ecosystems" when we went from millions of humans to billions in the ecological timescale of the blink of an eye?
One mention of "gene" and you attract all the conspiracy theory evolution deniers that suspect the upcoming zombie apocalypse behind the most mundane technology, all the while combusted dinosaurs takes them to their job.
Don't worry, "the ecosystems" are perfectly fine with things appearing and disappearing constantly for the most random reasons.
One mention of "gene" and you attract all the conspiracy theory evolution deniers that suspect the upcoming zombie apocalypse behind the most mundane technology, all the while combusted dinosaurs takes them to their job.
Don't worry, "the ecosystems" are perfectly fine with things appearing and disappearing constantly for the most random reasons.
I'm not sure if you're being serious here.
What happened to "the ecosystems" when we went from millions of humans to billions is the extinction of many species, and disappearance of biodiversity in general :
> In absolute terms, the planet has lost 58% of its biodiversity since 1970 according to a 2016 study by the World Wildlife Fund. [0]
The ecosystems are definitely not 'perfectly fine' if we keep messing with them [1]
If you want something less dry than pure numbers, you can check the docuserie "Our Planet" on Netflix
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Threats [1]https://www.science.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.345.6195....
What happened to "the ecosystems" when we went from millions of humans to billions is the extinction of many species, and disappearance of biodiversity in general :
> In absolute terms, the planet has lost 58% of its biodiversity since 1970 according to a 2016 study by the World Wildlife Fund. [0]
The ecosystems are definitely not 'perfectly fine' if we keep messing with them [1]
If you want something less dry than pure numbers, you can check the docuserie "Our Planet" on Netflix
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Threats [1]https://www.science.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.345.6195....
>What happened to "the ecosystems" when we went from millions of humans to billions in the ecological timescale of the blink of an eye?
Well, its called "the sixth mass extinction", so I'd guess it isn't good.
Well, its called "the sixth mass extinction", so I'd guess it isn't good.
bats eat mosquitoes, frogs, fish eat larvae..
Since humans only care about cute animals, you should probably add hummingbirds to your list.
I'm sad to say there is a good chance Intellectual Ventures patented similar tech:
https://www.mic.com/articles/180851/the-world-needs-this-sma...
https://www.mic.com/articles/180851/the-world-needs-this-sma...
We need regulation to stop patents that aren't actually being used by the filer in a patent. Or if the filer hasn't tried to take it to market.
Couldnt u just use somebody elses patent. Then they can sue. Then they win. Then damages will be calcilated for the patent holder, which should be negligible.
And I still can't buy it for love or money. Screw 'em.
In Australia a patent holder can be forced to assign the rights to manufacture (for renumeration) to someone who wishes to make use of it if the owner is not utlilising the patent
Indeed, discussed on HN (in 2009!): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=829344
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8705017B2/ (Photonic fence)
I read their paper. But not sure that this is a similar method.
Roughly similar, at least in one iteration. They used a high speed camera and a retroreflective backstop to image everything between the two posts, then wing beat frequency to identify valid targets. After that injure with a laser same as yours. They used to have it running with a visible laser and box of captive mosquitoes in the lobby.
maybe, I am not a big specialist in patent field
I think I'd be happy with a 5mW version which merely highlights the insects so I can kill or trap them myself.
How many times have you gone to swat a fly only to have it go out of view?
How many times have you gone to swat a fly only to have it go out of view?
Or lying awake from a mosquito you can just hear, but not see.
I thought about the laser approach so many times already, incredible that some people actually implemented it.
I thought about the laser approach so many times already, incredible that some people actually implemented it.
interesting application
Rather than use a depth map, it might be more robust (though probably a bit more expensive) to just use a beam splitter (dielectric, at the laser wavelength) and have the camera share the bore-sight with the laser.
Ah, someone finally implemented this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSIWpFPkYrk
How does it do against other 'annoying elements in your surroundings'? ;-)
How does it do against other 'annoying elements in your surroundings'? ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxjTgiEXh7g I try to catch a cockroach with laser pointer
Sorry, not good quality of the video
I have tried killing mosquitoes with laser. It just does not work. Multiple seconds of those powerful green laser ray does no lasting damage to the critter.
I want an umbrella that uses lasers to vaporize the raindrops that would fall on me.
Tesla obtained a patent for something similar for use on their windshields: https://electrek.co/2021/09/08/tesla-patent-laser-windshield...
https://anonweblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/untitled-cyberpunk-w...
“ Carrying an Ultra Laser Umbrella, he walked out of the garage the car humming as it polished, into the dark rain outside in the alley. A cloud of mist covered the man, as his umbrella tracked every raindrop that would make contact with the man and instantly evaporated them before they could get the man wet.”
Published 14 years ago
“ Carrying an Ultra Laser Umbrella, he walked out of the garage the car humming as it polished, into the dark rain outside in the alley. A cloud of mist covered the man, as his umbrella tracked every raindrop that would make contact with the man and instantly evaporated them before they could get the man wet.”
Published 14 years ago
I feel like this discussion is missing a bit about auditory detection. Maybe that is just my naive conclusion, but mosquitos (at least around here) make a very distinct buzzing sound. Picking that up with some sensitive microphones, isolating the buzz and triangulating in on the mosquito seems possible to me.
This has been done, so it is definitely possible
Given just how dangerous these lasers are to vision I really hope people to start using this setup … seems way to risky very cool but too risky. Maybe there is another tool besides lasers like a sound wave that could be used to knock the mosquitoes out of the air into a fatal collision with the ground?
I've thought a lot about mosquitos lately. I almost think our desire to escape them has been a driving factor in our advancement as a species.
I think one of the biggest advantages of moving to the moon or mars is never having to deal with mosquitos or rodents or cockroaches again.
I think one of the biggest advantages of moving to the moon or mars is never having to deal with mosquitos or rodents or cockroaches again.
Thoughts on danger to eyes? Ie lasers capable of killing a mosquito may not be eye safe. (?)
absolutely not safe for eyes
in my GitHub the next information
"The main limiting factor in the development of this technology is the danger of the laser may damage the eyes. The laser can enter a blood vessel and clog it, it can get into a blind spot where nerves from all over the eye go to the brain, you can burn out a line of "pixels" And then the damaged retina can begin to flake off, and this is the path to complete and irreversible loss of vision. This is dangerous because a person may not notice at the beginning of damage from a laser hit: there are no pain receptors there, the brain completes objects in damaged areas (remapping of dead pixels), and only when the damaged area becomes large enough person starts to notice that some objects not visible. We can develop additional security systems, such as human detection, audio sensors, etc. But in any case, we are not able to make the installation 100% safe, since even a laser can be reflected and damage the eye of a person who is not in the field of view of the device and at a distant distance. Therefore, this technology should not be used at home. My strong recommendation - don't use the power laser! I recommend making a device that will track an object using a safe laser pointer."
Could you use a laser at a frequency that the cornea is opaque to?
Then you injure the cornea. That's why they use UV lasers for laser surgery, because the cornea absorbs it.
Edit: I recently had a small corneal erosion from my eye drying out over night (eyelid was pulled open by sleeping in a weird posture) and I had 30% vision for 2 days on that eye. The cornea contributes about 40% (iirc could be more) to the total refractive power in the eye. If you have a UV-spot that melts moskitos dancing around on that for half a second...
Edit: I recently had a small corneal erosion from my eye drying out over night (eyelid was pulled open by sleeping in a weird posture) and I had 30% vision for 2 days on that eye. The cornea contributes about 40% (iirc could be more) to the total refractive power in the eye. If you have a UV-spot that melts moskitos dancing around on that for half a second...
What about an infrared laser? Something where a microburst would melt delicate insect wings, but a direct hit on a human eye would just warm it up a tiny bit. Possible?
You basically can't make laser pulses safe and melt things at the same time, because by nature of having the energy in a short pulse created heat doesn't have time to distribute, so it doesn't matter if you hit a tiny thing or a tiny spot on a larger object, the damage done locally is the same.
I’m confused, are you saying that the minimum amount of energy in an infrared pulse sufficient to melt a fly’s wings (< 1mm) would necessarily also damage a human eye?
I have to believe there is a threshold value of safety, particularly with IR. You can tell me I’m wrong, but please provide a bit of physics to justify it.
I have to believe there is a threshold value of safety, particularly with IR. You can tell me I’m wrong, but please provide a bit of physics to justify it.
Use an array of eye safe lasers that converge on the target.
That is (almost*) the same as focusing a laser on the target with a very large lens - a highly divergent beam is only dangerous near the focus. Some laser processing machine developers make their machines eye-safe that way, if you're half a meter from the focus, the remaining radiance is low enough to not be caught by the laser safety norms anymore (there is a very low limit to which radiance is still considered class 1, after that it's not considered a laser according to the norm). But to make a highly divergent beam, you need large aperture optics.
* you'd need to have very good optics and optomechanics on each laser to make the spot small enough - the smaller optics on each smaller laser would make the spot worse than one created with a single large lens, unless the single lasers are actually from a single coherent source
* you'd need to have very good optics and optomechanics on each laser to make the spot small enough - the smaller optics on each smaller laser would make the spot worse than one created with a single large lens, unless the single lasers are actually from a single coherent source
To fry a mosquito, you don't need an awful lot of energy. That means you don't need awfully big lenses to keep it human safe away from the focus.
That would depend on the distance you want to fry moskitos at, if you want to burn them at meters, you need a larger aperture to get a similar divergence angle as with cm.
it is not easy
it is not a toy, not for home application
I'd rather have mosquitoes than be blinded. The box fan idea is much more attractive.
I don't want to see any more mosquitoes, one way or another!
This is awesome. I am not an engineer and am wondering if this tech can be applied to killing field mice. I once read this is a multi billion dollar problem in Australia. Much better to do this than dump poisonous bait everywhere.
I don't think in this application a laser would be practical. To kill a mouse you're going to need a really big laser, that would give you 3rd degree burns if you were exposed. I'm not sure you can buy those things if you're not the military and power consumption might be horrendous too.
Shawn Woods on YouTube has a passion for mouse traps. The most effective one is a bucket with a plank, he can catch about 20 mice a night with just one bucket.
Shawn Woods on YouTube has a passion for mouse traps. The most effective one is a bucket with a plank, he can catch about 20 mice a night with just one bucket.
Just fyi this is not a new idea (not to detract from the creator)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_laser
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_laser
of course, not new. But it is the first time when an idea was realized in low-cost segment. And is open-source)
There is also a really slick website for capturing sweet VC bucks: https://photonicsentry.com/
Real. Soon. Now.
Real. Soon. Now.
So how does it do the killing aspect? I guess I would have previously assumed that you need to heat up/ burn the mosquito to kill them. What wavelength of laser is suitable for killing mosquitos?
There's some available literature on the subject of required laser wavelength/energy for an in-flight thermal mosquito kill: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-71824-y.pdf
For a thermal kill you have to deliver some number of Joules of energy into the target. You can use a lower powered laser over a longer period of time, up to a point. You have roughly 25 milliseconds of thermal confinement time before the mosquito starts to cool off. Longer exposures can work, but the total energy dose needed goes up. Longer exposures also require keeping the laser aimed at the target for a longer time.
Power needed also depends on how closely you can track the target. If you make the spot small enough that the target catches all of it then you minimize power requirements, but that increases the complexity of the optics. If you use a spot size larger than the target then the optical and tracking complexity go down, but you're no longer sending all of your Joules into the target.
For a thermal kill you have to deliver some number of Joules of energy into the target. You can use a lower powered laser over a longer period of time, up to a point. You have roughly 25 milliseconds of thermal confinement time before the mosquito starts to cool off. Longer exposures can work, but the total energy dose needed goes up. Longer exposures also require keeping the laser aimed at the target for a longer time.
Power needed also depends on how closely you can track the target. If you make the spot small enough that the target catches all of it then you minimize power requirements, but that increases the complexity of the optics. If you use a spot size larger than the target then the optical and tracking complexity go down, but you're no longer sending all of your Joules into the target.
We chose the laser based on the power since the task is to heat up. Used 1 W, but for burn wing don't need so power.
Using bio systems is also a way. Libella nymphs feed on mosquito larvae, so populating them to local surface waters reduces wild outbreaks
Nathan Myhrvold was going to make a company of mosquito laser
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/laser-shooting-mosqu...
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/laser-shooting-mosqu...
I spent weeks on hospital because of two kids got dengue. so,I don't think this is an overkill solution.
I want one that controls a table tennis bat to intercept rocks headed for my windscreen
All I could think of when seeing this was the Star Wars Mosquito Defense System parody from 2007.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSIWpFPkYrk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSIWpFPkYrk
I would like to build something this but using a salt gun instead of a laser.
yes, it will be a little easy, because don't need high accuracy, only be dirty
I'd like something like this but for houseflies instead of mosquitoes. Although, I suppose a simpler solution would be to install a cat door rather than propping the back door open.
[deleted]
Iron Dome meets Starwars meets Bug-a-Salt.. It'll be interesting to see how open source extends in this field.
I've often thought a laser like this might be a perfect solution to slugs and snails in vegetable gardens.
Why not laser control of people? You could setup a dazzler which blinds, say, someone pulling out a gun in a public place. You could couple it with an alarm system to have a limited 'area denial' system?
I'm sure by "dazzler" you mean something causing temporary blindness rather than intentionally afflicting a permanent life-altering injury, but sadly that's not how lasers work.
Are you saying there is no safe exposure limit to a laser? That doesn't sound right. There are already dazzlers available for non lethal defense. You could use a poorly collimated laser to temporarily degrade vision just like any bright light causes temporary pupil constriction. I'm not suggesting causing actual eye damage.
What if I told you law enforcement requirements for less-than-lethal weapons don't actually require the inability to cause permanent disabilities? A lot of people have literally had their eyes shot out with less-than-lethal ammunition last year and tear gas and pepper spray are both known to cause health problems if used "incorrectly".
That something is considered somewhat safe under very specific usage restrictions doesn't mean that's how it will be used. Rubber bullets are rated only for indirect fire by bouncing off the ground from a safe distance, yet no law enforcement officer faced any consequence over almost exclusively firing them directly at protestors, often at too short a range even for indirect use.
The damage in lasers is not caused by brightness but by literally heating up and burning parts of the eye because you're shooting an already dense beam at a lens. A flashlight is much safer and doesn't require fancy AI to aim.
That said, I hope you're not seriously proposing putting literal sentry guns in public places to deal with shootings. I thought I wouldn't have to explain why you can't fix the result of socioeconomic problems with technology.
That something is considered somewhat safe under very specific usage restrictions doesn't mean that's how it will be used. Rubber bullets are rated only for indirect fire by bouncing off the ground from a safe distance, yet no law enforcement officer faced any consequence over almost exclusively firing them directly at protestors, often at too short a range even for indirect use.
The damage in lasers is not caused by brightness but by literally heating up and burning parts of the eye because you're shooting an already dense beam at a lens. A flashlight is much safer and doesn't require fancy AI to aim.
That said, I hope you're not seriously proposing putting literal sentry guns in public places to deal with shootings. I thought I wouldn't have to explain why you can't fix the result of socioeconomic problems with technology.
Hey, great idea! We could also expand this to, say, blind anyone trying to say something bad about the president - NLU gets better every day!
sound dangerous
In many jurisdictions in the US, interfering with criminals in any way is itself a crime, even if it’s with cool LTL tech. If you’re fortune enough not to live in one of those places, firearms are a solution that have worked for the last few centuries.
>In many jurisdictions in the US, interfering with criminals in any way is itself a crime
What do you mean by this? In what jurisdictions is it a crime to “interfere” with someone that pulls a gun?
What do you mean by this? In what jurisdictions is it a crime to “interfere” with someone that pulls a gun?
appears to be very far from reality... and there is so many mosquitos around here that I would not want lasers handling them (there are better ways, nowadays)
[Edit] Apologies to the parent poster. I did not mean to derail the laser discussion.