_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
(HTM) Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
(HTM) Freeing a Xiaomi humidifier from the cloud
skeledrew wrote 21 hours 5 min ago:
This got me thinking about how my AC is somewhat ticking me off. A
couple years ago I bought a smart AC, and when I got around to wanting
to use the smart feature (via the app), I learned that I need to create
a Tuya account and connect via that. Today I'm still manually pushing
the buttons, as I wasn't having any of that, and the community Tuya
tools I found out there are dependent on an account.
A couple weeks ago I took a preliminary look jailbreaking it. Main
thing holding me back is a fear of bricking it and being left with an
expensive, oversized paperweight, as the electricity here tends to chip
at random times and could do so just at a critical point of the
process. It also bugs me that I can find 0 information about the
device; it's like the "Bluesonik" brand doesn't have an internet
presence. But perhaps one day I'll just throw caution to the wind and
attempt a Tasmota flash (without even knowing if the board is
supported) and hope for the best, similar to when I rooted and flashed
my first Android phone for the first time 15 years ago.
aeve890 wrote 1 day ago:
A whole ass esp32 module in the board? Never seen something like that.
I mean I've seen esp32 iot devices but with chips directly in the
board, not as a separated module. It looks like hobbyist job.
roger_ wrote 1 day ago:
Pretty shocked that Xiaomi publishes the protocol:
(HTM) [1]: https://iot.mi.com/new/doc/accesses/direct-access/embedded-dev...
rokoss21 wrote 1 day ago:
Great project! This resonates with me - been using ESPHome for a year
now and it's solid. One tip: if you're concerned about reliability,
pair it with a PoE switch for your ESP devices. Makes recovery much
easier if something goes wrong.
Also curious about your power consumption - did you measure watts
before/after switching from Xiaomi's cloud solution?
hs586 wrote 1 day ago:
Tangential rant: Itâs becoming hard to buy dumb appliances.
I was looking at robot vacuums, and most need internet connection at
least for setup - by which point itâs already uploaded your floor
plan and who knows what to the cloud.
einsteinx2 wrote 1 day ago:
Not sure thatâs a great example when you can easily buy a regular
vacuum. Robot vacuums are sort of by definition already the âsmart
applianceâ version of the âdumb appliance regular vacuumâ.
hs586 wrote 1 day ago:
I understand what you mean, but I disagree. The technology allows
for robot vacuums to exist and I donât see the cloud connection
as a mandatory need for it. Similarly, I want my car to have say
lane assist but we donât expect to have cloud connection with it.
gloxkiqcza wrote 1 day ago:
[1] The project was recently discussed on HN as well. It has its
issues but it works.
(HTM) [1]: https://valetudo.cloud/
airstrike wrote 1 day ago:
Can you do HP printers next
kjkjadksj wrote 21 hours 42 min ago:
I have an hp envy 5030. It has done nothing dystopian so far. Just
acts as a dumb wlan printer it seems.
CoastalCoder wrote 1 day ago:
Yup! Step 1: fill your printer with two liters of distilled water.
N_Lens wrote 1 day ago:
A humidifier needs network capability incase someone discovers a new
version of water, or for the manufacturer to be able to patch remote
exploits.
(HTM) [1]: https://xkcd.com/3109/
piskov wrote 16 hours 38 min ago:
âSmartâ is useful in many ways:
â you get notification on a phone when water is low;
â you can set automations for stuff like lower speed (noise) at
night;
â make it turn off once the desired humidity is reached based on
the other sensor (internal one is always off by 8-10% compared to a
reading even 1m away).
DocTomoe wrote 1 day ago:
I'm all for KISS.
But in a rare instance, xkcd is missing the point here. People do not
live in their rooms 24/7, but they do want to be able to, e.g., turn
stuff on or off remotely, or based on environmental conditions (turn
on/off based on outside sensors or the current electricity price...)
or to get status alerts ("tank empty, refill").
Now, I do that via Home Assistant and keep anything "smart" on a
highly-restricted vnet ... but not everyone is a geek. While the
standard implementation (some cloud service) comes with a bouquet of
problems, it basically acts as a simplified Home Assistant, and
ultimately as a necessary crutch. Preferably we'd be in IPv6-land,
where ISPs would not NAT everything to death and we could talk to our
devices remotely without an intermediary ... but well ... it cannot
be helped.
"You're not going to need it" and "In my time, we just flipped a dumb
switch" is paternalistic hogwash, not clever social commentary. Back
in my days, we also didn't need satnav (just read a paper map), or
cell phones (write them a note, leave it on the fridge, nothing is so
important to demand imminence), or dishwashers (just do your dishes
by hand)
somehnguy wrote 1 day ago:
I still think the value prop is dubious for a device like this.
> turn stuff on or off remotely
Why? Nearly all modern humidifiers have a sensor to measure
humidity and will cycle on and off based on the setpoint. Getting
to the setpoint also takes time so I don't see any reason someone
would want to turn it on and off based on presence.
> (turn on/off based on outside sensors or the current electricity
price...)
Not sure why the outside sensors would matter, it's concerned with
the inside humidity which again it has a sensor to read. The amount
of electricity these take to run isn't worth even mentioning.
> get status alerts ("tank empty, refill")
So you can refill it remotely? You have to be present to fill it
anyway - just look at the thing and you'll know its water level
I say all this as someone who also run Home Assistant and automates
various things.
mcsniff wrote 2 hours 35 min ago:
It's a good thing personal choice exists and you don't make the
rules for everyone.
> I don't see any reason someone would want to turn it on and off
based on presence.
Maybe someone doesn't want the noise when they are present? Some
people like white noise, some don't.
> The amount of electricity these take to run isn't worth even
mentioning.
Not everyone lives where you do and pays the electricity rates
you do. What about people who generate their own electricity,
live off a grid, or just plain want to conserve energy for a
myriad a reasons? Turning off specific loads based on XYZ is
useful.
> So you can refill it remotely? You have to be present to fill
it anyway - just look at the thing and you'll know its water
level
Maybe the humidifier is in a low visible or less-trafficked area,
and getting a reminder to fill it up would be useful.
What a terrible take you have on people's use case not exactly
matching yours.
DocTomoe wrote 12 hours 19 min ago:
Hm, I have the opposite setup - I operate a dehumidifier. The
building I live in gets humid quickly, and that causes mould
quickly. My tank fills. When the tank is full (and, depending on
outside conditions and number of humans present, that happens
anytime between 16 and 40 hours), the device stops dehumidifying
to prevent tank overflow.
Yes, I do still need to be present to empty the tank. But
automated warnings when the tank is full (in combination with
more intense 'room's LED lightbulb flashing red' when BOTH the
tank is full AND humidity rises above 60%) are nice - otherwise,
I'd have more mental load to check a little tiny LED on the
device itself every two days or so, which, surprise, I would keep
forgetting.
Why are outside sensors relevant in my use-case? Because running
the dehumidifier is pointless when the window is open AND outside
humidity exceeds inside humidity (and electricity is expensive
where I live).
Secondary use-case: mould and 'rentee did not air out the
humidity correctly' are some of the more common points of
conflict between landlords and rentees over here. With my smart
dehumidifier (and a few more sensors placed around the apartment
and outside), I have a paper trail should this ever come in front
of a judge that yes, in fact, I correctly fought humidity.
Is my use-case everyone's use-case? No. Am I probably
over-engineering this? Sure, it's possible. Is it nice and kind
to make broad paternalistic assumptions and snarky jokes on what
and what not "anyone" really needs? Doubtful.
You're arguing from device capability. Iâm arguing from human
cognitive load and failure modes.
The question isn't "can the (de)humidifier regulate humidity on
its own?", but "how many low-level checks and mental reminders
does it eliminate over months of use?".
For people who forget, get distracted, or simply want fewer
things to keep in mind, that's not dubious value - it's the
entire point.
mrweasel wrote 1 day ago:
Obviously all these smart appliance are about remote management,
but I have to question how much usage it's getting in real life. My
parents got a few smart devices for their holiday home, as my dad
didn't want to drive 45 minutes both ways to check up on things
during the winter. I think he probably ended up spending more time
managing the IoT stuff that he ever did driving.
It create to have the option to manage something remote, but when
remote become the only option, the usability takes a dive. When I
have to go find my phone, unlock it, find the app, possible update
the app, find the right setting or menu, stare at "Failure to
connect to device", and whatever else might go wrong, it's quicker
and easier to just manage the device directly. We got rid of our
robot vacuum clear, because it's literally quicker and better to go
get our 20 year old regular vacuum, and the floor is done in 3
minutes, not the 20+ the Roomba needs (and I needed to clear the
room for it). When we used the Roomba, 99% of the time I pushed the
"Start" button on the device, because it's way quicker than using
the app.
There's a place for smart devices, but they need to be much better
and have local controls.
techsystems wrote 1 day ago:
Hah! How exact
nrhrjrjrjtntbt wrote 1 day ago:
Xkcd for everything as always
alephnerd wrote 1 day ago:
It's becuase Xiaomi integrated it just like all of it's other smart
home products with Mijia - Xiaomi's smart home mesh [0].
In Asia (but arguably the same in the West given the proliferation of
Ring and smart home hubs), consumers have less of an aversion to
smart home and connected products in general.
Keeping IoT devices on a separate segmented network with strict
DMZing, turning off unused features, and not sharing passwords would
provide enough security for most home users. I recommend reading
James Micken's essay "The World is Ours" [1] on the diminishing
returns of certain security features at the expense of user
experience. I also agree with it as someone who used to do edgy stuff
with SHODAN as a teenager.
HNers tend to be the minority amongst consumers, which is assuming
the opposite of the HN herd mentality tends to be a fairly successful
strategy.
[0] - [1] -
(HTM) [1]: https://www.mi.com/global/smart-home/
(HTM) [2]: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1401_08-12_mickens.pdf
piskov wrote 1 day ago:
On a tangent note: donât use ultrasonic humidifiers. Unless distilled
water is used, they create a shit-ton of pm2.5 particles.
Use evaporative humidifiers (just disks with myriads of small notches
for water to cling on and a fan):
(HTM) [1]: https://us.smartmiglobal.com/pages/smartmi-evaporative-humidif...
kjkjadksj wrote 21 hours 52 min ago:
Drying clothes indoors is also effective. When I set up my laundry
rack rh can surge by 30%. I imagine setting up a tray of water under
a ceiling fan might be similarly effective.
numpad0 wrote 22 hours 29 min ago:
Don't use evaporative humidifiers(the motorized wet towel). I don't
know if it actually cause legionellosis, but it's not very sanitary,
and the sanitizing additives for those are known to be actually
harmful.
Use boiling type humidifiers (basically just electric tea kettles).
piskov wrote 18 hours 42 min ago:
Water evaporates alomost completely and is changed daily (I rinse
both container and disks in the tub with high-pressure mode from
showerhead), so I donât think any contamination is likely.
Been doing this for years.
marcinpieczka wrote 1 day ago:
Are pm2.5 particles a problem if they are water soluble? After
entering the body they will just dissolve.
citrin_ru wrote 8 hours 25 min ago:
Hard water often contains hard to dissolve minerals. An evaporative
humidifier over the time accumulates limescale and itâs very
difficult to remove it, you cannot just dissolve it. With
ultrasound humidifier all this limescale will be in the air.
Admittedly not in all regions the water is hard but if it is then
ultrasound humidifier will be a bad choice.
piskov wrote 18 hours 51 min ago:
Depends whether you want that stuff in kidneys and what have you.
Bigger particles are known to irritate the lungs and even cause
asthma (google or ask gpt)
wnevets wrote 1 day ago:
> On a tangent note: donât use ultrasonic humidifiers. Unless
distilled water is used, they create a shit-ton of pm2.5 particles.
Not according to my uHoo air quality monitor. I have had one running
a few feet from the monitor for over a week and there hasn't been any
notable increase in PM2.5 particles.
kjkjadksj wrote 21 hours 47 min ago:
The ones I had for a bit basically fogged out the apartment
immediately and left white (iâm guessing salt) deposits all over
everything. I know you are supposed to use distilled but itâs
cost prohibitive at the rate these blow through water unless you
also have a home distillery.
piskov wrote 1 day ago:
Last time I checked (brought my sensor to the office to one room
with ultrasonic) it showed 101/105 ug/m3 for pm2.5/pm10
In the next room (where there were none) it was 6.
Depends on the water, I guess.
wnevets wrote 1 day ago:
How large is the space with the humidifier? My space is wide open
and that might be the biggest reason for my lack of increased
PM2.5 readings.
klatchex_too wrote 22 hours 26 min ago:
I think the parent poster is correct that it depends on the
water.
I have a couple ultrasonic humidifiers, if tap water is put in
them it immediately sends the AQI on my air quality monitor
into the "Dangerous" level. I have the monitor upstairs and it
detected it when my girlfriend put tap water in the humidifier
downstairs.
Purified or distilled water works fine. I bought a counter top
water distiller because it was a pain lugging 15 gallons of
water into the house every week all winter. You can see the
residue of whatever was in the tap water at the bottom of the
distiller after it runs and it doesn't look like anything I
would want to be breathing.
Elucalidavah wrote 1 day ago:
> any notable increase in PM2.5 particles
What's your PM2.5 baseline, and did you measure TDS in the water?
wintermutestwin wrote 1 day ago:
Thanks to this post, I checked my ultrasonic filled with tap
water. With it running all night in a bedroom with an open door,
morning pm2.5 readings are ~30 and the meter is in the kitchen.
wnevets wrote 1 day ago:
Since Nov it's been fluctuating between 5-7 ug/mg, with a few
spikes hitting 9 and 10. At this moment its a 6.
I haven't checked the TDS but when I used a water test strip for
an aquarium early this year it was in the hard water range.
dheera wrote 1 day ago:
I found this too. I wonder why they don't just accept a PUR water
filter on the input side.
I also wonder why mini-split heating systems drip and pool water
outdoors instead of pumping that distilled water back indoors for
humidification.
throwawaysoxjje wrote 1 day ago:
Youâd need a reverse osmosis system, not just he charcoal filters
like that
And the condensate water from an AC evaporator coil is not anything
like distilled water, dust/bacteria are also in it.
Ekaros wrote 1 day ago:
During summer dehumidification is needed in most areas.
And it is really not distilled water. It gathers dust and so on
from air. Distilling in more so closed circuit, where as those are
very much open.
ErroneousBosh wrote 1 day ago:
> I also wonder why mini-split heating systems drip and pool water
outdoors instead of pumping that distilled water back indoors for
humidification.
Do you want Legionnaire's Disease? Because that's how you get
Legionnaire's Disease.
(HTM) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Philadelphia_Legionnair...
somat wrote 1 day ago:
It's funny in an ironic way because the original purpose of air
conditioners was to remove humidity from the air, the mechanism
used was to cool the air down thus forcing some of the moisture
out. The general public quickly caught on that having cool air was
nice in it's own right and that is the main purpose these days.
however the dehumidifying function is still sometimes used, people
are surprised when their air conditioner turns on at the same time
as the heater (why are they fighting each other?) but that is
because the system is trying to remove moisture from the air before
it is heated. Mainly seen in cars so the windows don't fog up.
Probably something wrong with me but I just find it humorous trying
to add moisture to a system designed to remove it. Really a
reasonable request however, depending on where you live the air can
get quite dry.
dangus wrote 1 day ago:
This is pretty crappy one-size-fits-all advice in itself.
If youâre willing to use distilled water, ultrasonic humidifiers
have their own advantages over evaporative.
Iâm personally willing to buy distilled water. Itâs a dollar per
gallon, and we only need the humidifier during a short few months.
You can even buy a small countertop water distiller for under $60.
bsder wrote 1 day ago:
> If youâre willing to use distilled water, ultrasonic
humidifiers have their own advantages over evaporative.
Unless you are anally retentive about cleaning it, ultrasonic
humidifiers vaporize microbes into the air. There have been loads
of studies about this.
The only real way to avoid this is to use the humidifiers that are
boiling the water.
dangus wrote 21 hours 30 min ago:
The real pro tip is to get a whole home humidifier. They arenât
even that expensive. But I havenât taken the plunge yet.
They avoid all these issues and require way less maintenance than
any other solution.
piskov wrote 16 hours 44 min ago:
Canât do that in the city :-)
dangus wrote 1 hour 16 min ago:
I've seen multi-unit condos with the ability to modify your
own HVAC, but I get where you're coming from.
butvacuum wrote 1 day ago:
I'm thoroughly unconvinced.
Doing some basic research... hard water is overwhelmingly various
carbonate and bicarbonates of magnesium, calcium, sulfur, iron,
maganese, and aluminum. All of which are essential nutrients and
readily soluable in water.
The other proposed problem was pathogen aerosols- however I was
unable to access anything but an abstract. So, I don't know if they
survived being aerosolized, produced more and/or worse pathogen
count than evaporative humidifiers, Nor the size of the pathogens.
It seems to me the known risk is mostly mechanical (Asthma,
exacerbated COPD, etc) and nonpersistent (particles dissolve and
are used or excreted via the same pathways as when consumed). With
an unknown risk on the pathogen side.
mytailorisrich wrote 1 day ago:
How did we survive the last 3.5 billion years?
wpm wrote 1 day ago:
Quite poorly in fact
gpm wrote 1 day ago:
We didn't have access to modern technology... like ultrasonic
speakers?
Also we died at a young age. Everyone dying at 40 isn't
incompatible with the species surviving but it's what advice like
that is usually trying to avoid (and even less extreme outcomes).
ErroneousBosh wrote 1 day ago:
So up until about two or three years ago when everyone suddenly
became terrified of "particulates", people died at 40?
The Victorians called, they want their Night Air Panic back.
SauntSolaire wrote 1 day ago:
The concept of everyone dying at 40 is a myth/misunderstanding
anyways - the reality was a lot more bimodal than that.
gpm wrote 1 day ago:
Eh, here it's more of a simplification than a myth as used in
my comment. There are two effects:
1. We've reduced infant (and childhood) mortality. My comment
isn't talking about this effect but it did drag down average
life expectancy substantially. Including this effect life
expectancy at birth in the stone age might have been as low as
20... but as you say the bimodality means this is a deceptive
statistic when used this way.
2. We've made it so you on average live longer even if you
survive childhood, my comment is really just about this part of
the effect. It's still a simplification because saying "on
average if you survive childhood you die at 40" isn't the same
as "everyone dies at 40" but closer to "adults die at all ages
in a reasonable smooth monotonic curve and 40 is about the
average age they live to but some get lucky and live to 80 or
whatever". But then "don't use ultrasonic dehumidifiers" is
like this too, using one won't kill you at some specific age,
it will just slightly increase your chance of death every year
for the rest of your life however long that ends up being.
The number 40 was picked out of a hat, too. It should be right
for some areas at some times just by coincidence though and
since I was non-specific that makes me right ;)
somenameforme wrote 1 day ago:
The age 40 includes childhood mortality! It's difficult to
get records from prehistoric humans for obvious reasons, but
as early as Ancient Greece you had the upper class living
about as long as we do now a days. A study of men of the time
found the average life expectancy to be 71.3 years. [1] And
while the Bible includes plentiful mythological components,
it also includes many historical and contemporary accounts.
And this verse is certainly of the latter: "The length of our
days is generally seventy years, or eighty years if one is
strong, yet even the best of these years are filled with toil
and sorrow, for they pass quickly and we fly away." That is
part of the Old Testament (Psalms 90:10) that is believed to
have been written somewhere from 1400-1200BC.
If you want more contemporary stuff that's completely
indisputable you can also take random selections of people of
renown. For instance the main Founding Fathers are a great
example because they all were relatively young when their
names become inexorably etched into history, yet their final
life expectancy is again well into the 70s. The youngest
major founding father to die was Hamilton, in a duel - at 49.
Then Hancock died at 56 - likely of gout which can be caused
by things like excessive indulgence. Next up was Washington
who died at 67, probably more of the cure than the disease -
he was leeched to the point of being pale as a ghost on his
death bed. Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Sam Adams, John Jay
all lived to their 80s. John Adams made it to his 90s.
---
I am not trying to claim these samples are representative.
These were wealthy individuals who would be relatively immune
to famine, war, and other such factors that could have a
catastrophic effect on lower classes. But when speaking of
life expectancy, I think we are implicitly asking the
question 'how long could somebody reasonably expect to live
xxxx years ago without access to modern medicine and
technology.' And that's what this sampling of people answers.
[1] -
(HTM) [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18359748/
Cpoll wrote 1 day ago:
> The length of our days is generally seventy years, or
eighty years if one is strong
Which translation is that? Or are you paraphrasing?
Most translations don't include "generally," and therefore
read more as an upper bound "if one is strong" than an
average.
somenameforme wrote 1 day ago:
Just a poor memory translation. Yeah, generally is
incorrect - though I think the correct phrasing also
implies an average age of natural death, rather than an
upper bound. There were certainly plenty of people living
past 80. In the aforementioned study of Ancient Greeks,
there were at least 3 centurions - Aristarchos,
Democritos, and Gorgias. Granted 1400BC is a thousand
years yet prior to that already ancient time, but life
peaks seem to be relatively unmoving for humans, and so I
don't see any major reason to think there would have been
a major difference between 400BC and 1400BC.
HappyJoy wrote 1 day ago:
A lot of us didn't
SauntSolaire wrote 1 day ago:
Glad to know that's solved now
nvch wrote 1 day ago:
The best solution I've found a few years ago is one Venta LW 45 for
every 30 m² of space. That's enough to run them on the lowest speed
while maintaining acceptable humidity and COâ levels.
Higher speeds are too noisy. Smaller machines evaporate less.
For sub-zero outside temperatures, it's necessary to add at least 5 g
of water to each cubic metre of air coming from outside.
The recommended ventilation rate of 30 m³/h per person requires to
evaporate 4 liters of water per day.
piskov wrote 17 hours 9 min ago:
Chinese Iâve mentioned blew Ventra out of the water. Iâve been
using humidifiers for the last 15 years and switched to smartme
around 5 or something like that (liked the idea of auto speed and
was tired of aged squickness after many years of its predecessor).
Havenât used the first generation. Had a couple of the second
(they notoriously had water level sensor issue that could be fixed
just enabling âdrying modeâ that always ran for 8h after the
sensor thought there were no water).
Third gen is the charm.
Cheap, effective (pump, double-bottom for rounded instead of flat
tank â uses evry last drop), quiter, 5L tank, less creak after a
few years.
tldr; I only wish it lasted whole 24 hours when it is -5C and lower
outside, but I guess that requires 7-8L.
Also, having a few helps with the noise (I have total of three in
my apartment).
dalyons wrote 1 day ago:
Thatâs a lot of refilling. You might want to look into a whole
house humidifier, I added an aprilaire 700 evaporative to my hvac
ducts, it costs a few hundred $. Plumbed in, automatic. So much
less screwing around
gessha wrote 1 day ago:
What sort of maintenance do you have to do on it?
dalyons wrote 20 hours 23 min ago:
Once a season / 6 mo of running you replace the evaporator
panel, which is ~$50 for branded or $10 for amazon copies.
noitpmeder wrote 1 day ago:
Which venta are you referencing here?
mercnet wrote 1 day ago:
They are referencing [1] I also have one and love how easy it is
to clean.
(HTM) [1]: https://www.venta-air.com/en_us/product/lw45-original-hu...
SauntSolaire wrote 1 day ago:
For $500 it better clean itself
InsideOutSanta wrote 1 day ago:
I bought two Ventas well over a decade ago, and they still
work as well as the day I bought them. They're an expensive
initial investment, but IMO worth it over the long run.
They are also mechanically simple, so I trust that if they
ever break, I will be able to repair them.
esaym wrote 1 day ago:
> Use evaporative humidifiers
You don't have to buy one either. A suspended wet towel with a fan
blowing on it will work very well. If you want to get fancy, have the
last inch or two of the towel sitting in a tray of water.
piskov wrote 17 hours 0 min ago:
Iâm not sure that has a performance of 0.3L per hour (needed when
itâs real cold outside).
But any thing beats nothing, I guess. Kudos to you
abraae wrote 1 day ago:
My brother's house in Perth, Australia has an antique air
conditioning system in the roof space that works in exactly this
principle. 4 blankets that wick up water and have air drawn through
them and into the house by a fan. It's in disuse now but I
understand they were common and quite effective in the day.
jgalt212 wrote 1 day ago:
That's a permanent bachelor design aesthetic.
Etheryte wrote 1 day ago:
Turns out young me was on to something, I wasn't just leaving wet
towels laying around, I was fixing the air humidity problem.
loloquwowndueo wrote 1 day ago:
But then I have to buy the towel and the fan, the tray, something
to suspend the towel at the right height â¦
dependency_2x wrote 1 day ago:
This is cheaper, and the towel and fan can be repurposed. Just
buy a 3D printer for making the the suspension part (/jest)
kccqzy wrote 1 day ago:
Distilled water isnât strictly necessary. I use mine with purified
water with a reverse osmosis purifier. I periodically test the TDS of
the water to confirm it is low. Itâs fine.
piskov wrote 1 day ago:
Iâve run dyson ultrasonic humidifiers for a few years. The whole
appartment was in white dust.
Especially evident on some black leather bags in the wardrobe.
kccqzy wrote 19 hours 53 min ago:
You can buy a cheap tester for TDS (total dissolved solids) for
<$20. Test the water before pouring it into any ultrasonic
humidifier.
piskov wrote 18 hours 49 min ago:
I just switched to evaporative ones like smartmi Iâve
mentioned.
neilv wrote 1 day ago:
That Smartmi model seems to have toxic IoT in it.
I'm currently using the Vornado EV100 non-IoT evaporative humidifier,
and my only complaints are relatively minor, as humidifiers go
(consumable wick, fan noise, insanely bright blue LEDs).
(HTM) [1]: https://www.vornado.com/shop/humidifiers/evaporative/ev100-e...
piskov wrote 1 day ago:
You donât need to connect it â works completely offline.
Also no consumable parts there: just plastic disks which you clean
with couple of spoons of citric acid dissolved in water from time
to time.
NewJazz wrote 1 day ago:
Couldn't you just use vinegar?
jborichevskiy wrote 1 day ago:
Alec from Technology Connections also has a great video comparing
humidifiers here
(HTM) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHeehYYgl28
(DIR) <- back to front page