Log in to h4cker, then connect Hacker News to publish comments.
DEdeepsun15 uur geleden
> I live in Europe, where asbestos is a huge and common pain across every country here. That stuff fills walls, and requires people to come at your place to tell you if you have asbestos contaminated materials in your building. If so, you might have been breathing poison since you were a kid.
Asbestos doesn't work like that. If you don't touch it, you're fine. You can live your whole life in asbestos building and be safe. You may even be worse off if you decide to get rid of it and start tearing down walls.
So it's good that it's banned, but if there's no reason to touch it, you're just making a tinfoil hat. There's more harm from the fear of it.
ANAnimats8 uur geleden
Get this guy into YC. He knows how to do it, but not how to sell it.
This needs to join the families of devices that find wooden studs, electrical wiring, and plumbing. This is a general purpose technology. It can be reprogrammed to find other things. It should be in a blister-pack at Home Depot if it can be made cheaply, and in a hard case at Tool Town if it can't.
AMamirhirsch19 uur geleden
Very cool! Six years ago I worked on a mmWave (76-81GHz) imaging radar with a Rotman lens Tx and Rx. Designed as a LiDAR replacement, but we could see pipes in walls, or detect concealed weapons at ~1km.
TItim-tday19 uur geleden
So thankful the author posted this. We often learn more from failure than success. Learning from the failures of others is how we can move forward.
The lessons learned at the bottom of the article are gold.
GHghostly_s17 uur geleden
> however the big question to answer was : is the radar sensitive enough to tell the difference consistently between a material, and it's same counterpart with asbestos shards and at what concentration ?
Unless I missed something, it seems the "POC" device still made no effort to address this, which is the core feature — it just demonstrated classifying some other common materials. If that's true then the conclusions make no sense to me - why would customers be lining up if you still haven't proven the actual concept?
Comments
5 preview comments · loading full threadLog in to h4cker, then connect Hacker News to publish comments.
> I live in Europe, where asbestos is a huge and common pain across every country here. That stuff fills walls, and requires people to come at your place to tell you if you have asbestos contaminated materials in your building. If so, you might have been breathing poison since you were a kid. Asbestos doesn't work like that. If you don't touch it, you're fine. You can live your whole life in asbestos building and be safe. You may even be worse off if you decide to get rid of it and start tearing down walls. So it's good that it's banned, but if there's no reason to touch it, you're just making a tinfoil hat. There's more harm from the fear of it.
Get this guy into YC. He knows how to do it, but not how to sell it. This needs to join the families of devices that find wooden studs, electrical wiring, and plumbing. This is a general purpose technology. It can be reprogrammed to find other things. It should be in a blister-pack at Home Depot if it can be made cheaply, and in a hard case at Tool Town if it can't.
Very cool! Six years ago I worked on a mmWave (76-81GHz) imaging radar with a Rotman lens Tx and Rx. Designed as a LiDAR replacement, but we could see pipes in walls, or detect concealed weapons at ~1km.
So thankful the author posted this. We often learn more from failure than success. Learning from the failures of others is how we can move forward. The lessons learned at the bottom of the article are gold.
> however the big question to answer was : is the radar sensitive enough to tell the difference consistently between a material, and it's same counterpart with asbestos shards and at what concentration ? Unless I missed something, it seems the "POC" device still made no effort to address this, which is the core feature — it just demonstrated classifying some other common materials. If that's true then the conclusions make no sense to me - why would customers be lining up if you still haven't proven the actual concept?