Mosquito Repeller

[Don Klipstein]

In article <10s8rad9v2jdt70@corp.supernews.com>, Watson A.Name - \"Watt
Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote:

"GrayFox" <jayww35@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jayww35-E6DFB0.10350418122004@news.giganews.com...
We began using a Brewer's Yeast tablet once a day in 2000, and I'll
bet
we haven't had more then a dozen mosquito bites total to date. AND,
that includes a summer trip to Alaska!

Man, I started this thread and asked why I'm still able to purchase
these things nearly two years after they were supposed to stop make
these claims. but it says right on t he poackage, "Repels mosquitos
from your personal space." http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/02/lentek.htm

But this thread has been going on and on, without a single bit on the
original topic, which was electronic repellers. Yeah, there were CO2,
yada yada repellers. That's not what I was expecting.

As for brewers yeast, I thought that was rreally heavy with vitamin Bs,
and if you get too much niacin, you turn into 'pink skin'. Andorrians
ought to like that. ;-)

Brewer's yeast happens to be rich in protein that has major bigtime as a
specific amino acid the one known as glutamic acid. This one is the
acid-as-opposed-to-first-sodium-salt-form of monosodium glutamate, widely
complained about for reasons that sodium (a bigtime poison in modern
American society nonetheless) cannot be blamed for.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <eg0xd.55550$yf.38724@fe2.texas.rr.com>, Anthony Fremont wrote:

"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com
wrote in

Man, I started this thread and asked why I'm still able to purchase
these things nearly two years after they were supposed to stop make
these claims. but it says right on t he poackage, "Repels mosquitos
from your personal space." http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/02/lentek.htm

Somebody already said that the restriction was qualified by this clause:
"unless they have competent and reliable scientific evidence to support
the claims". It would appear that Lentek is in posession of such
evidence since their website is currently violating everything in the
restriction.

Most products are not 100% effective, why should Lentek's be required to
be any different?

Do I see someone depending on an adversary having a burden to prove them
being wrong in claiming some exception or higher standard of proof that
they are wrong?

I've never experimented on mosquitos with ultrasound
to see if it "repels" them. It's not entirely unreasonable to think
that the mosquitos may be sensitive to the sound vibrations of a natural
predatory enemy and wish to leave the vicinity, this is the claim that
I've seen others make about it.

Easy enough to show wrong if only a few people make the effort to colect
and present the data.

Perhaps, by subjecting mosquitos to
several hundred dB of ultrasound at the proper frequency, Lentek was
able to demonstrate some effectiveness to their methods. ;-)

Does anyone have any idea what several hundred dB is? I thought the
interior of a jet engine or 1 millimeter from the impact zone of a
jackhammer was less than 200 dB!

There are many forms of snake-oil available these days, just look at the
common audiophool. ;-)

But this thread has been going on and on, without a single bit on the
original topic, which was electronic repellers. Yeah, there were CO2,
yada yada repellers. That's not what I was expecting.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <JD7xd.1886$hc7.890@trnddc06>, Rich Grise wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:tmm3s0t0sjgg48dc3telna459rqin9qhhc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:57:23 -0800, "Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the
Dark Remover\"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote:
[snip]

The problem we have in Arizona... it rained once upon a time and made
a mudhole... and, as is common to the desert, the mudhole sprouted
toads.

Then the DUMBSHIT GREENHEADS got it declared a wetlands by the Clinton
administration, and we now have to keep adding water to the mudhole to
keep it wet.

So we have mosquitos in the desert :-(

I think the cure for mosquitos is to treat DUMBSHIT GREENHEADS with
massive doses of Dioxin ;-)

Well, isn't our duly elected neocon government going to get rid of the
Clinton greenhead asininity? Or isn't that on their agenda?

Heck, the Bushies did not even get rid of some "PC" requirement to not
detain/screen more than 2 per flight apparently/obviously Arab passengers
of airline flights! It has been apparent to me that they did not get rid
of this rule (they can since they have and had for the past 4 years the
White House and both houses of Congress) because they can gain points from
it existing more than they can gain from destroying this rule which they
can!

Oh, and how about "for cause" - screen 2 (or more) flight passengers due
to fitting a profile, and you catch a terrorist before or during falsely
scrutinizing more than 2 that "fit a profile".
Oh, how should heads that have functioning brains prevail! But no,
better screen the most innocent to enhance an already good case against PC
while failing to in an allowed manner scrutinize actual suspects in order
to put political idealogy ahead of getting done what needs to be done!!!

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Tim Williams]

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:mZaxd.57310$yf.10233@fe2.texas.rr.com...

;-) ;-) ;-) It was a joke. I would imagine that several hundred dB
of sound would probably kill. I've heard that those competition grade
super-loud car stereos can literally stop your heart. No joke on that.

Nah, actually the sound drag record is like 176dB or so. You can't really
get much higher without really, really compressing the cabin (think moving
the rear wall forward and back at the chamber's resonant frequency about one
foot in amplitude). I don't remember exactly but a nuke might be 216dB.
Hrm, can't find anything online...

Tim

--
"I've got more trophies than Wayne Gretsky and the Pope combined!"
- Homer Simpson
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

 

[Anthony Fremont]

"Tim Williams" <tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote in message
news:hObxd.23669$Q82.12702@fe05.lga...

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:mZaxd.57310$yf.10233@fe2.texas.rr.com...
;-) ;-) ;-) It was a joke. I would imagine that several hundred
dB
of sound would probably kill. I've heard that those competition
grade
super-loud car stereos can literally stop your heart. No joke on
that.

Nah, actually the sound drag record is like 176dB or so. You can't
really
get much higher without really, really compressing the cabin (think
moving
the rear wall forward and back at the chamber's resonant frequency
about one
foot in amplitude). I don't remember exactly but a nuke might be
216dB.
Hrm, can't find anything online...

You might be interested in this:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010406.html

 

[Chuck Harris]

Don,

I have read your last 4 or 5 posts, and found them largely
incomprehensible. Is that your intention?

-Chuck

Heck, the Bushies did not even get rid of some "PC" requirement to not
detain/screen more than 2 per flight apparently/obviously Arab passengers
of airline flights! It has been apparent to me that they did not get rid
of this rule (they can since they have and had for the past 4 years the
White House and both houses of Congress) because they can gain points from
it existing more than they can gain from destroying this rule which they
can!

Oh, and how about "for cause" - screen 2 (or more) flight passengers due
to fitting a profile, and you catch a terrorist before or during falsely
scrutinizing more than 2 that "fit a profile".
Oh, how should heads that have functioning brains prevail! But no,
better screen the most innocent to enhance an already good case against PC
while failing to in an allowed manner scrutinize actual suspects in order
to put political idealogy ahead of getting done what needs to be done!!!

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote

... $500 knobs that improve my sound clarity ...

He's kidding, right. Google, tell me he's kidding:

http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Cod
e=NOB_C37_C&Category_Code=VOLUME&Product_Count=2

That's does it; Louis was right: "Apres moi, le deluge".

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

 

[Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su]

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:2Jaxd.57308$yf.29963@fe2.texas.rr.com...

"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com
wrote in message news:10s9sd719lpn881@corp.supernews.com...

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message

Most products are not 100% effective, why should Lentek's be
required
to
be any different?

They are not expected to be 100% effective. All they have to do is
demonstrate scientifically that they do have some capability to
repel,
but apparently they couldn't even do that much. My experience was
that
someone gave me a cockroach repeller that they had in their kitchen,
and
I opened it up and found that the roaches had lived inside very
comfortably.
:-( It was made by "Panasony"!

Mystery solved:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_Dec_24/ai_957688

17

This article is dated only a few months after the initial FTC action.
It would appear that Lentek is now in compliance with FTC regulations.

Solved? I read it and it looks like a spin doctor trying to put a good
face on the highly adverse FTC action.

How do we know the entire action wasn't instigated by some well known
maker of a product containing DEET?

The FTC instigated the action, not some independent company. If someone
complained to the FTC that the skeeter repellers didn't work, it's
unknown if they were involved with a competitor. But that didn't
influence the FTC's decision.

I mean, I can still buy magnets
that give me better gas mileage, keep my pipes from rusting and
relieve
my pain.

The FTC came out with an order against the shysters selling those gas
mileage increasing magnets that go on the fuel lines. Supposedly
they're not supposed to do that any more.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/11/fuelsaver.htm

The FTC came down on makers of magnetic medical products and told them
to stop lying. See URl http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/06/magneticana.htm
As you can see from paragaph IV and V, the FTC is usually very thorough
in telling the shysters what they can't do anymore.

Audio patch cables for thousands of dollars, $500 knobs that
improve my sound clarity, snake oil abounds. Why does Lentek upset
you
so much?

Upset me? I'm not upset, I just wanted to know why a company can
continue to sell products they consented by court order not to sell.
The usual punishment for contempt of court is a swift action to put the
violator in jail and/or put the business into receivership.

About the only thing I was upset about is the inability of most other
posters to stick to the topic.

[snip]

 

[Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su]

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:mZaxd.57310$yf.10233@fe2.texas.rr.com...

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrncsact5.l5b.don@manx.misty.com...
In article <eg0xd.55550$yf.38724@fe2.texas.rr.com>, Anthony Fremont
wrote:

"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover""
NOSPAM@dslextreme.com
wrote in

Man, I started this thread and asked why I'm still able to
purchase
these things nearly two years after they were supposed to stop
make
these claims. but it says right on t he poackage, "Repels
mosquitos
from your personal space."
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/02/lentek.htm

Somebody already said that the restriction was qualified by this
clause:
"unless they have competent and reliable scientific evidence to
support
the claims". It would appear that Lentek is in posession of such
evidence since their website is currently violating everything in
the
restriction.

Most products are not 100% effective, why should Lentek's be
required
to
be any different?

Do I see someone depending on an adversary having a burden to
prove
them
being wrong in claiming some exception or higher standard of proof
that
they are wrong?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but if you mean that I think
that the disputor (FTC) has a responsibility to show some evidence of
their claims if they are going to summarily issue an injuction against
Lentek, then yes.

I've never experimented on mosquitos with ultrasound
to see if it "repels" them. It's not entirely unreasonable to
think
that the mosquitos may be sensitive to the sound vibrations of a
natural
predatory enemy and wish to leave the vicinity, this is the claim
that
I've seen others make about it.

Easy enough to show wrong if only a few people make the effort to
colect
and present the data.

How do you know that? How do you know what the outcome would be? I'm
not trying to be argumentative here, but have you done any studies on
the topic? Do you know anyone who has? All I'm getting at is that
until someone can show that Lentek's product doesn't work and Lentek
has
the ability to offer evidence that they do (4 volumes by Lentek's
account, including independant claims), then Lentek is only doing what
any other company is doing in todays advertising world. AFAICT,
research from it's own "labs" has always been good enough for companys
to make claims in advertising, being able to offer independant third
party evidence is just icing on the cake. It seems to be good enough
to
get a drug approved.

I don't think the FTC goes into one of these settlements without some
solid evidence, either from internal or independent authority, that the
advertising is unsubstantiated and dubious.

And they very likely have many complaints from consumers that the
product doesn't live up to the advertising. Read the complaint
submitted to the court - it's also there on the FTC website.

[snip]

 

[Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su]

"Tim Williams" <tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote in message
news:hObxd.23669$Q82.12702@fe05.lga...

"Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:mZaxd.57310$yf.10233@fe2.texas.rr.com...
;-) ;-) ;-) It was a joke. I would imagine that several hundred
dB
of sound would probably kill. I've heard that those competition
grade
super-loud car stereos can literally stop your heart. No joke on
that.

Nah, actually the sound drag record is like 176dB or so. You can't
really
get much higher without really, really compressing the cabin (think
moving
the rear wall forward and back at the chamber's resonant frequency
about one
foot in amplitude). I don't remember exactly but a nuke might be
216dB.
Hrm, can't find anything online...

Tim

Since the dB scale is logarithmic, 216 dB would be 21.6 Bels, which is
10^21,6 power, and you get the picture - that's a very large number,
ezpecially in the physical world.

 

[Tim Williams]

"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote
in message news:10sc56de4pch7b6@corp.supernews.com...

Since the dB scale is logarithmic, 216 dB would be 21.6 Bels, which is
10^21,6 power, and you get the picture - that's a very large number,
ezpecially in the physical world.

Minus 10^-12 (W/m^2) which is the unity (er, zero) value. Still very large
though.

I wonder if 300dB can even be reached - although I would think an ICE
cylinder would be able to do it, between intake and ignition pressures.

Which reminds me, how loud is the space shuttle? They have to discharge
water over the pad, not to cool it but to dampen the sound so it isn't
shattered to bits!

Tim

--
"I've got more trophies than Wayne Gretsky and the Pope combined!"
- Homer Simpson
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

 

[Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su]

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:G_7xd.1891$hc7.19@trnddc06...

"Chuck Harris" <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:YcmdnU9lk8r6kF_cRVn-ow@rcn.net...

DDT is an example of a clusterfob of major order, every bad thing it
was said to have done has been proven to be wrong.

Look at:

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

You might find it interesting.

Well, I'll be!

All it is is dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane! Banning that is like
banning
suntan lotion!

Oh. My. Gawd.

I've been reading the page while leaving this post pending on screen,
and
came up on item 11, under "demagogued out of use":

Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world
population.
In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there
was no
alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to
40
percent
of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an
official of
the
Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than
alive and
riotously reproducing."

So the banning of DDT is a neonazi eugenics program.

Grrrr!

Thanks,
Rich

As was pointed out in this thread earlier, "Do you believe everything
you read?" ;-)

 

In article <10s4aelo8ujem86@corp.supernews.com>,
"Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\""
<NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote:

Then the DUMBSHIT GREENHEADS got it declared a wetlands

Funny you should use the term "greenheads". Once when waiting to
take the ferry over to the outer banks of NC--Ocracoke, to be
precise, I got out of the car to look into horseback riding at
the stable near the ferry, while I waited, and I was attacked by
big flies--they didn't sting, they bit! I ducked into a store of
some sort that was on the opposite side of the road and the first
shelf had insect sting remover of some kind, and there were other
people seeking haven, as well. I asked what the heck they were
(they had gotten me a dozen or so times in the space of seconds),
and I was told they were "greenheads". I have encountered them
in other areas of the country and it seems to me that they were
the same as black flies--they had a metallic colored wing.

The outer banks, however, was the absolute worst. I didn't even
want to walk around--I couldn't wait to get off the island. I'm
going to google now that I've thought of them, but wonder if
anyone has had the same experience.

--
Memory was given to mortals so that they might
have roses in December.
....unknown

 

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

<kati_e@snow.com> wrote in message

horseback riding at the stable near the ferry, while
I waited, and I was attacked by big flies--they didn't
sting, they bit! I was told they were "greenheads".

Normally called 'horseflies'?

I have encountered them in other areas of the country
and it seems to me that they were the same as black flies

Black flies are tiny. And there are more of them. Way more.

The outer banks, however, was the absolute worst.

For comparison there is Asateague National Seashore.

I couldn't wait to get off the island.

On the banks I think it's the people who feed the
horsefly population.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:40:47 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com>
wrote:

[snip]

On the banks I think it's the people who feed the
horsefly population.

My youngest son (who lives in AZ) just loves the Outer Banks,
vacations there virtually every year.

When he shows for Christmas I'll ask about the flies.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

In article
<zkiyd.8987$yK.8677@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote:

kati_e@snow.com> wrote in message

horseback riding at the stable near the ferry, while
I waited, and I was attacked by big flies--they didn't
sting, they bit! I was told they were "greenheads".

Normally called 'horseflies'?

This site indicates you might be right. There, also, were horses
nearby, as I said. The confusing thing is that they were on the
island as well.

http://www.whatsthatbug.com/flies.html

reference made to what I'm assuming I encountered, here, as well

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/vp940911/09
090242.htm

I have encountered them in other areas of the country
and it seems to me that they were the same as black flies

Black flies are tiny. And there are more of them. Way more.

The outer banks, however, was the absolute worst.

For comparison there is Asateague National Seashore.

I couldn't wait to get off the island.

On the banks I think it's the people who feed the
horsefly population.

--
Memory was given to mortals so that they might
have roses in December.
....unknown

 

In article <5scjs0h5hij3g9irbbdo5ri5e8mkslmm4n@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:40:47 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com
wrote:

[snip]

On the banks I think it's the people who feed the
horsefly population.

My youngest son (who lives in AZ) just loves the Outer Banks,
vacations there virtually every year.

When he shows for Christmas I'll ask about the flies.

I went in the warm weather, so he may not encounter them,
depending on the time of year he goes. I know many people who
love the Outer Banks. I just never got back during a different
time of year to enjoy them.

I'd be curious to know what he says, though, Jim. Enjoy your
Christmas with your son.

--
Memory was given to mortals so that they might
have roses in December.
....unknown