Guide to Designing Low Cost Ventilators for COVID-19

  • Context: COVID 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom.G
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Covid-19 Designing
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the design and effectiveness of low-cost ventilators for COVID-19, exploring various approaches and technologies related to ventilatory support. Participants examine the limitations of inexpensive ventilators, historical devices like the iron lung, and alternative technologies such as ECMO.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight that low-cost ventilators, such as those priced at $50, may lack essential features necessary for effective ventilation in severely ill patients.
  • Concerns are raised about the irresponsibility of certain ventilator designs, with some participants describing them as useless or creepy.
  • Questions are posed regarding the historical use of the iron lung and its potential advantages, such as reducing risk to alveoli through negative pressure ventilation.
  • One participant mentions the existence of ECMO technology, which can oxygenate and de-carbonate blood, suggesting it as an advancement over traditional ventilators.
  • Another participant references a Wikipedia article discussing the obsolescence of iron lungs in modern medicine, while noting renewed interest due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the effectiveness and safety of low-cost ventilators, with some advocating for the potential of historical devices like the iron lung and others questioning the viability of current designs. The discussion remains unresolved on many points, particularly concerning the practicality of alternative technologies.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about the effectiveness of low-cost ventilators and the historical context of the iron lung depend on specific definitions and assumptions that are not fully explored in the discussion. There are also unresolved questions about the ethical implications of using animals in ventilatory support.

Tom.G
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,661
Reaction score
4,507
It's a 15 minute video showing and explaining some of the non-obvious reasons that the $50 ventilators don't work.

For some of the low-cost designs see:
https://makerfaire.com/maker/entry/71747/

Cheers,
Tom
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 256bits, berkeman and BillTre
Biology news on Phys.org
Tom.G said:
non-obvious reasons that the $50 ventilators don't work.
Oh my, that's brutal. As they say in the video, these folks are well-meaning, but so many important features can't be implemented with simple BVM-based ventillation, especially with such sick lungs. Thanks for the video.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters, BillTre and 256bits
Whoa. Some of those "designs" are just totally irresponsible, useless, and creepy.

Questions:
1. What ever happened to the iron lung. Wasn't that using negative pressure.
2. We don't yet have an artificial lung to pass the blood through to oxygenate and de-carbonate. Based on fuel cell technology that has become more mature - ie transfer of ions through a membrane, although here we would be dealing with concentration of molecules.
3. What if had another animal "breath" for the patient, passing the blood through their system. Problems with that no doubt, besides the ethical questions arising.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: atyy and BillTre
256bits said:
What ever happened to the iron lung.
Yeah, I had the same thought. It looks like there would still be problems, but at least the alveoli are less at risk when negative pressure is used. Probably the large size is one drawback...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre and 256bits
Interesting Wikipedia article...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_lung

The use of iron lungs is largely obsolete in modern medicine, as superior breathing therapies have been developed[citation needed], and due to the eradication of polio in most of the world.[5] However, in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic revived some interest in the device as a cheap, readily-producible substitute for positive-ventilation ventilators, which were feared to be outnumbered by potential victims temporarily needing artificially assisted respiration.[6][7][8][9]
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 256bits
256bits said:
2. We don't yet have an artificial lung to pass the blood through to oxygenate and de-carbonate.
Ahh! But we do.
It's called "ExtraCorporeal Membrane Oxygenation" or ECMO.

I presume its the same technology used in Heart-Lung machines used during open-heart surgery.

https://www.google.com/search?&q=extracorporeal+membrane+oxygenation

(ain't technology great?)

Cheers,
Tom
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: atyy and 256bits

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K