Welcome to Apnea Board !
As a guest, you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use.
To post a message, you must create a free account using a valid email address.
Login or Create an Account
Yes, that is the type of stuff, and the 10 mm thickness is about right (11 would be better).
However, I would hold out for "FDA approved" foam.
I don't know the difference between silicone foam made for industrial purposes and the FDA approved versions. Perhaps a foam supplier might explain the difference.
If you find out, then please post it in this thread!
(08-01-2021, 09:43 PM)RayBee Wrote: I made the suggestion several weeks ago on using a thin food-grade silicone sheet for lining cookie pans. Flexible and resilient and about $10. Just another material that may work.
No, I am NOT considering the preceding work-around at the moment, but I would like to mention a caution.
There are at least TWO types of these silicone sheets.
1) 100% silicone, and thus usually white, thin, and very flexible. I assume these are the type that RayBee is referring to. Once you cut them, they tear easily, however. (I use these, unmodified, in my food dehydrator.)
2) A silicone "sandwich" with a fiberglass mesh in the middle (any surfboard makers out there?). I sometimes use this type of sheet for traditional baking. If you cut this type of sheet, you WILL expose fiberglass, pieces, particles, etc. Definitely NOT recommended (by me, someone with ZERO medical credentials, etc., a sometime DYI guy and sometime cook -- when I'm really hungry). ;-)
To underscore what pyatrus wrote, the FDA-approved silicone sponge I have in mind is approved for food contact. Although the respiratory tract has defenses, the defenses of the digestive tract are arguably more robust. The approval for food contact is a good sign, but it does not make this a riskless idea.
The pictures I've seen have a closed cell inner structure sandwiched between thin "skins". The colors I've seen are gray and red. The color is integral to the silicone. The tendency to crumble isn't a concern because the foam will not be subjected to abrasion. I would vacuum the cut edges to make sure there are no tiny bits.
The exterior skin means it won't function effectively as a sound muffler, but that isn't a big concern. We just need an effective seal against the blower housing so that the blower draws all of its air through the washable foam filter. That filtration in turn keeps the System One's interior clean, assuming one is reasonably diligent about maintaining the washable foam filter.
"Foam I just took out of a PR System One machine I used form 2010-2020, gonna be using it again. No signs of degredation."
I hope you mean that you'll use the foamless System One again instead of your DS1, which is a very good decision.
I hope you don't mean that you'll use the foam again.
My foam looks like your foam, as good as new. Yet while the foam was inside I kept on getting black spots on my mask diffuser. This occurred inside a heated and cooled environment in North Carolina where the evening indoor PM 2.5 particle measure usually is below 5.
The difference could be hygeine. I've never wash the hose except on the ends. I've changed the diffuser maybe 6 times in 19,600+ hours. I don't wash the foam intake filter anywhere near as often as specified, which could result in the blower motor running hotter. Bad, bad me.
Or the difference could be in the exhaust port design of the mask.
Anyway, the particle problem is driven by hydrolysis. When a molecule of water (from indoor relative humidity) bumps into the foam, the reaction happens. Heat makes the reaction happen faster because molecules are moving faster and therefore more bumping happens. Higher humidity increases the count of water molecules at risk of bumping into the foam.
The great majority of particles are too small to be seen with the naked eye. The smaller the particle, the deeper into the lungs it can travel and the more opportunity it has to cause problems severe enough for the FDA to classify the recall at the most critical level.
Your lungs, heart and kidneys thank you for removing the foam permanently.
This is a question for those of you who have removed foam from the DS1.
If someone were to engineer a version of the plastic housing in the same shape and size, but designed to be opened and shut with some sort of latch, how difficult would it be for a reasonably competent electronics repair type to slice open a DS1 plastic housing, open up the openable housing, transfer over the motor, all electronics and sensors, etc. (but no foam, of course!) and then close up the housing, latch it shut, and install it back into the DS1?
That plastic housing ought to much simpler and cheaper than all of the other components, and redesigning it so that it can take a "transplant" of all of the innards should be conceptually simpler.
Unless any of that stuff is attached in some complicated impossible-to-remove-without-destroying-it sort of way.
I'm not sure I grasp the latch idea. There's a video online where you can see that all of the System One innards can be removed in a nondestructive way. Here is a post that embeds the video: http://www.apneaboard.com/forums/Thread-...#pid406553
Like most devices, the System One was designed for easy and accurate assembly. Ease of accessing internal parts for servicing was a secondary consideration.
Removing the foam looks much easier for System One owners than it is for DS1 owners. For DS1 owners the only nondestructive foam removal method involves a lot of fiddling with a wire.
System One owners remain in the dark about what Philips intends to do. A number of DS1 owners who registered have received emails with confirmation numbers. I haven't heard about any System One owners who have received such an email. I assume Philips will make replacement foam out of a safer material such as polyether urethane or silicone.
I posted in the recall thread, but the I saw the post above regarding System One confirmation letters. I received the confirmation letter for my System One this morning. Interestingly, I had registered my Dreamstation Go a day earlier and have not received that confirmation yet.
