I'm afraid there's already a matress that does this. It's from exped, I own one and it's awesome, and better implemented than this because you're only inflating a small pump sack, and can use it to build pressure in the mattress.
It is more expensive but only because it has an R value of 8.0 (the Kickstarter one has an R value of 1.0, which means it's not going to give you any protection from the cold ground whatsoever - even a self-inflating pad gives you more protection than that). You'd be amazed how much difference higher R values make on the quality of rest you get while camping.
Is it slower? Maybe, but I inflate mine in two or three inflations of the bag, and that takes me around 60 seconds - it's really not a long time in the big scheme of things - it takes a lot longer to get the tent erected (although that's down to about 5 minutes now). The problem is you can't inflate a high R-value pad without pressure - the reason his inflates so fast is there is no insulation, no down, no pockets, so the air can just go right in. But then so does the cold.
Anyway all I was saying is this isn't a new technique - there's a mattress you can buy today from any MEC/REI that uses this technique.
Whereas your first comment came off as a bit pithy, this was a really informative one. Thank you for the lesson on r-value and its importance. Not an avid camper, but I sometimes do overnights in the cold and today I learned something important about air pad insulation. Thanks again.
Per REI's page on the topic, here's what they have to say about R-value: "Insulation is measured according to its capacity to resist (that's the "R") heat flow. The higher a pad's R-value, the better you can expect it to insulate you from cold surfaces. The R-values shown on REI.com product pages are provided by the manufacturers and range from 1.0 (minimally insulated) to 9.5 (well insulated). Thicker pads generally offer higher R-values."
Thanks. As much as I hate to be "that guy", I think it's also important that people don't invest in a product on kickstarter that isn't going to match expectations, or isn't the "brand new innovation" that they say it is.
Just for further info: I camp a fair bit in Ontario. In September when the days are still hitting the high 20's (80's in Fahrenheit), the ground can still be cold enough that I had to trade up from an R-value 3 sleeping pad to this product. It's much comfier, very light and compact, and inflates really quickly. If you want to get into camping, being comfy at night is so important, I urge you not to skimp on your sleeping pad.
I'll toss out another warning to those thinking of using this for back packing. I've seen baffles come apart on MEC sleeping pads with a similar design - it's a big enough problem that they acknowledged on their website for their first gen pads. I'd be leery of trusting a brand-new product from a team with limited experience in producing camping gear. It's not as simple as finding a factory in China to produce gear.
An additional constraint is that you don't want any moisture from your breath to get inside an exped down pad as it will reduce the insulation ... their system works really well but it is targeted at winter/high mountain use.
I wish you had shared this sooner before I made my purchase :)
I noticed the R value of the kickstarter pad. But at 3+ inches it has to be above R:1. My guess is they haven't tested it so just to be safe they have put an R value of 1. Just look at other bags or pad at similar thickness and their R value should at least be in 3-4 range.
You need a lot of interior baffling or insulating material stuffed inside an air mattress to get the R value up to 3 or 4. In a big open tube you get convection, which speeds up heat transfer.
Note that the original NeoAir, which is about the same thickness, is only R 2.5, but that's with a lot more interior baffles plus reflective coating on the inside. The exped mats are filled with down or synthetic insulation.
I agree that the exped is better as an insulated ultralight camping pad. The Windcatcher is better for the context of "pad I keep in my backpack around town." The inflation method is simpler and faster, though not by much. It doesn't take much to take you out of the realm of "instant" however.
This would be great for airports, conferences, and maybe even coworking. Not every work/meeting space is civilized enough to recognize the utility of siestas.
These guys have taken the same physical phenomena used in the newish Dyson fans and hand dryers and found a radically different way to use it.
This looks as simple as a paper clip and I think in years to come many people will wonder why they didn't think of it first. True genius
EDIT: I stand corrected by HN. There are number of bags that use similar techniques and apparently airplane evacuation slides inflate using that physical phenomena as well.
Speaking of which, I wonder if they'll need to deal with patents. From what I understand Dyson has that technology wrapped up tight.
PS - Dyson's fans are also terrible. Great concept, poorly executed. They wanted them to be sleek, so they used tiny motors which are LOUD making Dyson's Air Multiplier far louder than other fans WITH blades.
I haven't (and will not) invest any time doing the numbers but, a quick think about the Dyson fans leads me to conclude the whole thing is a big marketing scam. Kudos for pulling it off, but the thing ain't magic.
For starters, it has blades. It definitely has blades. They are simply concealed. It's like saying my computer has no fans when the fans are not visible from the outside. Nonsense.
Second, it takes a certain amount of power to accelerate a mass of air to a given speed. That does not change magically because the thing has a Dyson sticker on it. The most efficient way to accelerate a mass of air is, wait for it, a properly designed fan. It am pretty certain the Dyson contraption is actually much less efficient than a properly designed plain fan which produces the same airflow. It absolutely could not be more efficient, no way. Nowhere in conventional physics do you get more --of anything-- than you are entitled to.
In fact, the larger the fan the more efficiently it can accelerate a mass of air. Because the Dyson fans are constrained by the small space of the base they have to use screaming little fans to push against the back-pressure produced by the path the air has to follow.
Maybe not as sexy, but a really well designed fan with optimized airfoils and balanced rotor IS magical in the sense that it can be so much better than the stamped metal contraptions one usually finds at the store. I have seen fans like that come-up here and there but they are rare.
I did a project many years ago where we had to design and optimize an efficient cooling system for a 1500 Watt LED array. We ultimately ended-up going with a hybrid fluid/air system. However, for the bulk of the project we tried to make an air-only approach work because it was deemed simpler and easier to manufacture. I learned a lot from running tons and tons of FEA fluid and thermal simulations as making a number of prototypes. There is no free lunch (AKA: Conservation of Energy).
I haven't seen any checks on this, but I suspect the Dyson can probably move more air than a regular fan. It probably isn't more raw energy-efficient, but it can be more comfort energy-efficient (more comfort for the same energy), because their principle makes sense -- if you use a regular fan, you air speed is going to be dictated by the blade speed, while the amount of air depends on the area. With the dyson, they can get a much greater area, which dictates confort, with the same air speed, because they've distributed the stream along this circle, and it picks up more air as it goes (and loses speed).
My point is, it may be poorly executed, but in principle it sounds nice, not even taking into account you don't actually have an exposed blade to worry about. It's not a scam.
If a ring of air magically propels a lot more air around it, do you think a fan of the same diameter might just compel the same air molecules to follow suit?
> if you use a regular fan, you air speed is going to be dictated by the blade speed
On the Dyson air speed IS dictated by blade speed. They have a damn fan at the base pushing air through the system and they use that air to accelerate some more air around it. Again, I am not going to waste my time doing any math. My educated guess is that the efficiency, when compared to a properly designed fan of the same diameter is atrocious.
One other point, air speed coming out of a fan is not solely dependent on blade speed. Blade shape, diameter, angle of attack, duct length and even airfoil come into play.
You also have centrifugal, fans which operate under slightly different principles and can deliver airflow at greater pressure than axial fans.
More importantly, if you are trying to cool something air speed isn't always the most important criteria. The volume of air moved per unit time is extremely important. It has to be matched to the thermodynamics of the heat exchange that will happen with whatever it is you want to cool Delivering air faster and with greater volume than necessary is a waste of energy.
I'm planning to buy a Dyson Air Multiplier heater/fan very soon so this comment intrigued me. I'll be sure to go to a store to check them out in advance. I didn't really like the video you linked as I find it to be a bit of a red flag when someone calls something "overpriced", especially when they go on to be very negative about it - it almost feels like jealousy.
Still, I'll look into it before I buy. I don't suppose you know of any other fans/heaters that you would recommend?
I've played with Dyson's Air Multipliers in a department store and they really are that loud when you turn them up to mid-high setting. "Too loud."
I wish I could recommend you a high quality fan, I've looked, and frankly it is pretty slim pickings out there. Currently I have an unbranded Chinese-made one.
I'd kill for an ultra-quiet nighttime one, and pay good $$$ for it too.
That is because they are much bigger. In general, a larger fan can achieve the same CFM as a smaller fan, but at a lower RPM. Slower spin, quieter operation.
A lot of ceiling fans can easily be installed on to an existing light fixture by anyone who knows how to connect a few electrical wires together. I'd say the bigger downside is that it's fixed in one location.
I managed to install mine, and if I can do it anyone can :)
The fact that it's fixed in one location often isn't that much of a problem, given that ceiling lights are traditionally mounted in the center of the room, which is just where you want the fan.
(Traditionally: if you have recessed LED or halogen lighting that would of course be a different matter.)
One warning: if you don't use it all winter, make sure you clean it before you switch it on the first time in spring...
You don't have to kill for one. I've had a Lasko tower fan for about three years now. It's almost entirely silent, moves a lot of air, and comes with a remote. I did have to take it apart to regrease the bearings once, but other than that, it's been a great fan. Also comes with a remote.
Yeah, it's a fairly straightforward process. The top bearing isn't actually a bearing at all, but a simple piece of flat steel that basically just holds the top spindle of the blower in place. When you take the fan apart, you'll see what I mean. It's lubricated by some cotton infused with some pretty thin lubricant, and over time, that lubricant/cotton combo loses its lubricity. Mine was starting to make noise, so I took it apart and slathered wheel bearing grease on that contact point, and it's been going for six months now with no problems.
Example of the the baader-meinhof phenomenon? I learnt about this it a few days ago, as its the same phenomena used by Brain Brushwood in this weeks scam school - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at0xRBacJF8
where he attributes it to the 'bernoulli effect'.
He did mean Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (recency illusion). The Wikipedia editors deleted the old entry and made it a straight redirect to the "cognitive biases" page for some bizarre reason. I'd link to an explanation of what it is, but I'm sure you'll find a reference to it again in the next few days.
I think amvp saw it a few days ago and then again now, hence the reference to the Baader-Meinhof frequency illusion. I hadn't heard about that until 5 minutes ago but I grew up in Stuttgart so the real Baader Meinhof guys are some bad memories from my youth. No doubt I'll be seeing random references to Baader Meinhof in the next few days.
"A difference in pressure across a surface then implies a difference in force, which can result in an acceleration" [..] "The resulting force is always directed from the region of higher-pressure to the region of lower-pressure"
The lower pressure is the fast-moving hot wind from your mouth. The higher pressure is all the air around it. So it's like a reverse vacuum. Kinda.
The Kickstarter itself says: "You're supporting an entirely new type of technology that has the potential to inspire new ideas and future innovative products."
There are also entirely passive self-inflating mattresses out there. They're filled with (solid-gas) foam that expands when you open the valve. Close the valve and it's ready to go. You store the energy for pumping when you deflate the mattress by rolling it back up. It's much easier to provide energy by sitting on something than by blowing into it :)
I don't know the brand name, only that they were old and worn by the time I was using them as a kid. They must have been commercially available around 1990.
We have a couple of those, I think we bought them at Decathlon[1] a few years ago. But they're fairly "thin", and not particularly confortable.
My favorite method is still the "foot pump"; some camping matteresses have them integrated, so you just need to open the valve and press down with your foot.
> The Kickstarter itself says: "You're supporting an entirely new type of technology
> No, you are not. Exploiting the pressure difference like this for inflation is not new by a long shot.
Did you watch the REI video? It's certainly not giving the same impression. The REI video is cumbersome and tedious. You're basically netting air, then sealing it into a large bag, then smushing the bag to push the air into the mattress. By contrast, the new process feels like a single elegant action.
Watching the two videos, the process feels utterly different: sealing and squashing a pillow vs inflating with a breath into a funnel.
I've got one of the schnozzle bags with a compatible mat. It is categorically not cumbersome, not tedious, weighs the same and is filled with down so it has an R-value[1] of 5.9 instead of 1 which is what really matters when you're using a sleeping mat in a tent on a cold night.
[1] The R-value is a measure of how insulating a mat is, higher is better.
However, I have the feeling you can inflate the REI one more because the pressure is higher. If I plan on sleeping on that thing overnight, I don't care about the added inconvenience, if it means it will be more comfortable.
I agree that for a nap in the park, the OP one is better and you look like less of a dork inflating it.
When a new technology is introduced, more than one person may implement said technology, and in different ways. Just because someone else has used physics before doesn't mean this is not new.
I agree, but this is not new by a long shot and it's not even new in the domain where it is being applied. So I stand by my statement that the claim being made in the Kickstarter is untrue.
Prove it. Paste a link to an inflatable with an integrated high-speed air filler that doesn't require anything but your mouth to operate.
edit: I will add that this invention is clearly new compared to the pumpbag because it is a single device taking advantage of pressure gradient. The pumpbag only uses pressure gradient to fill the pump; force from your body after the fact provides the pumping action. The OP's invention avoids this necessity, making it both new and improved.
Personally, I'm not terribly concerned about mattress air pressure once it reaches a certain point. I'm more concerned about the mattresses ability to maintain a certain level of air pressure. My use case would probably be camping/hiking and if the windcatcher can provide enough pressure for my body to stay suspended off of the ground, then I'm fine, personally. I do realize that's not necessarily everyone's criteria, though.
I'll also say that I really dig the way the schnozzle works and I'd probably prefer that, mostly because of the dual use as a stuff sack, and that it gives me more options when it comes to mattress selection.
I just like that there are people trying different ideas out, and I get to recline in my chair and see what sticks.
Besides being able to achieve higher pressure (which I agree isn't terribly important), the Expeds need extra force to inflate because they're filled with down or synthetic insulation, which dramatically increases their insulating value. A R value of 1.0 isn't useful as a sleeping pad for hiking except in really warm climates. 2.5 is a realistic minimum for a three-season pad.
I think it is extremely misleading to summarize this technology as just "exploiting pressure differences for inflation". Technically isn't it impossible to inflate something without exploiting pressure differences?
Back to the OP -- this technology looks like a legitimate advance compared to all the valve technologies I have used previusly for camping. Inflating a mattress is a pretty small part of setting up a campsite, however, and I am not sure inflating a mattress is annoying enough to warrant a new purchase, for me at least.
I am really curious to see where they apply this technology in the future.
Thanks for the schnozzel link! Just last night I pulled out my exped pad and thought "huh, that's going to be annoying to fill up". Problem solved thanks to your good offices.
Seems pretty new to me. The Schnozzel is not remotely the same product. I don't think they are claiming that effect they are exploiting is a new technology, rather integrating that directly into the nosel of an inflatable.
It may not be the first implementation of this kind of technology, but if it does it better and we haven't heard of the others, then it doesn't matter.
The valve is based on the Venturi effect. The fluid flow through a constriction lowers the pressure at the constriction point. An inlet at the low pressure point will allow addition fluid at atmospheric pressure to enter through the inlet in the constriction thus adding to the total fluid through the outlet. Pretty clever use of fluid dynamics!
In one of my first year physics course they showed a great demo based on this principle. A student was challenged to inflate a huge bag as much as possible. They always did miserably, only filling the bag to about 1/8th. The lecturer then used this technique to fill the entire bag in one hit. A great demo that I'll never forget.
This is a great demo - it's often done at kids' science museums as well, if they have an instructional area. Particularly with kids' tiny lungs, they can only fill a fraction of the bag, then when they do it this way, they fill a bag bigger than themselves. It's definitely memorable.
I love software innovation, but somehow it always impresses me more to see real world mechanical innovation like this, true old-school inventor entrepreneurship. Seems like a legitimately great idea.
For all the talk of "changing the world" that comes in the software start-up scene, it's the physical inventions[1] that have more obvious & immediate impact on the world - and by "world", I really mean developing countries instead of our first-world problems(annoyances really). These fast-inflating/deflating mattresses would be very helpful in those countries.
The opposite is actually true. I sleep a month a year on a camping pad, and it's well known among avid backpackers that air pads like that shown in the OP are most comfortable when under inflated enough to keep your hips just above the ground.
you'd be surprised how little you need to inflate these types of things to be comfortable. Often times you only fill it 60% or so so it has some give when you lay on it.
Yeah, I was wondering the same. We have some nice fluff about air pressure and moving large volumes of air, but no indication of how any sort of pressure is achieved.
Ok, i'll play devil's advocate : Windcatcher works as same principle as evacuation slides on planes and even if it's about physics i think it's somehow ( design ? ) patented.
So, what about patents ? Is there any patent that product violate and may cause later any problem ?
Say it's the exact same mechanism as evacuation slides.
Patents in the U.S. since 1995 have had a term of 20 years, prior to 1995 it was a term of 17 years.
The slides were initially patented in 1956. In 1956 the U.S. patent term was 17 years; those patents expired in 1973.
But, let's suppose some advances were made and the specific valving mechanism was patented later. It would have had to have been invented and patented some time after 1995 to still be covered by a patent.
If it were patented any earlier, its term will have expired and the idea is now in the public domain, which means anyone can use the idea without paying anything.
They should really add some info about patents and prior art on kickstarter page. And i hope , just to be sure , they applied for a patent their design.
Even if they did, applying for a patent doesn't indicate that you have a valid patent, nor does it provide any protection whatsoever for patents that came before.
As others have pointed out in this thread, existing products already use this mechanism. It would be very difficult to patent something that was very obviously invented already.
It always makes me sad when a new product arrives and people start worrying about patents. I can't believe there are people who still believe that patents encourage innovation.
Or with actual wind. Scale it up, use it for rapid construction of emergency housing? An inflatable former can be covered with concrete quickly and then deflated.
The stuff about inflating with your mouth is a bit of a straw man. If you inflate say a Thermarest NeoAir or a Packraft you're more likely to use something like an Instaflator now:
The backpacking mattresses are still inflated by mouth - I’m certainly not carrying another 2 oz on my back for a week just to save a minute on inflating. And neither are any of the folk I go into the backcountry with.
But this mattress is not aimed at us either - it weighs in at 24 oz with an R value of 1!
So perhaps the Thermarests owned by people who’d buy this are currently being inflated by Instaflators...
I did say 'like' an Instaflater - it's the mechanism I meant. The thermarest pump sack doubles as a stuff sack, so it's not dead weight like the Instaflater.
I'm a bike tourer, not a backpacker, so I tend to shave weight when I can drop a pound not an ounce - carrying that isn't a big deal.
Do you have a good source for the state of the art in backpacking mattresses? I last bought one back in the 1990s, and I guess now I'm interested to see a comparison table of maybe weight, R-value, and price for reasonable choices.
I don't bother with anything but the mouth inflator for my NeoAir. It takes me a total of 15 seconds max. I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about.
I don't get all the negative, visceral reactions to this product.
Who cares if the physics/technology is "breakthrough"?
It's clear that this is being positioned as a suitable alternative to the battery operated pumped up mattress. The ones sold in Walmart, Target, etc.
I own one of those, and they are a pain to deal with. This looks awesome.
Who cares if there are others out there already - that proves that the market exists and the technology is feasible. My concern with this is, given that I don't understand the technology behind it, and I have never seen it before - is that it is too fanciful to work. i.e. is this another "Kickstarter fraud"?
The presence of existing products on the market that use similar technology is surprisingly re-assuring.
If I were an avid camper, I would definitely buy this.
Scroll down the Kickstarter page for a very readable explanation:
"The secret behind the Windcatcher's amazing speed of inflation is its ability to leverage the awesome properties of air. Simply put, the two most important properties are:
- Fast moving air has lower air pressure than slow moving air
- Air with higher pressure will be drawn to areas of lower pressure
When you blow into the Windcatcher you create a stream of fast moving, low pressure air. Because it has a higher air pressure, the surrounding air is sucked into the low pressure air stream. As a result, the air entering the Windcatcher is at least 10 to 15 times greater than the air you expelled from your lungs."
I guess the final sentence is missing a "volume of", i.e. it should be something like "As a result, *the volume of air entering the Windcatcher [...]", right? I double-checked and this error is on the Kickstarter page, it's not your quote.
Just mentioning it in case the project owners drop by. Cool project, by the way!
Oh. I must be here to tell you that things that are inflated can do only one thing next.. I spend half my life outdoors and even though 75D ripstop is more than most, I fear entropy will eventually have its way. Btw I use a corrugated egg box kind of thing.
I'm more interested in this "one-way valve" they're talking about. While they seem to talk mostly about blowing, the valve seems to be the actual invention.
Here's a video: http://www.exped.com/exped/web/exped_homepage_na.nsf/b43popu...