The Airing

[EEVblog]

I don't understand why he has connected a 3KV electrophoresis supply to the apparatus under the microscope. Some kind of micromachine that runs on such a high voltage is not very likely.

I don't get that either

[Kean]

Looks like a half H-bridge driver - possibly high-voltage drive based on the electrophoresis supply and transistor packages.

Also seems to have a IC powered from battery (for HV isolation?) - possibly an adjustable frequency oscillator for the driver?

[RadioAct]

That is some high voltage fun you are going to insert up your nostrils. :s

[edy]

And here's what I think was in that giant wooden crate from a message postings back:
...
Looks an aweful lot like this:  http://www.pva.net/products/Benchtop-Coating-Dispensing-System_116.htm

Good work!

Actually, that machine can be seen behind the crate. So crate must have had something else.

[Kean]

Actually, that machine can be seen behind the crate. So crate must have had something else.

Indeed, but still good sleuthing work on finding that machine.

[amspire]

I don't understand why he has connected a 3KV electrophoresis supply to the apparatus under the microscope. Some kind of micromachine that runs on such a high voltage is not very likely.

I don't get that either

Micropumps are often piezo-electric. The Murata ones use about 0.2W at 15V and can do 0.5 L/minute at 1kPa pressure (mid range sleep apnea pressure). Now probably at least 6 L/minute is needed, and that would mean 2W. A tiny lithium battery would be lucky to last an hour.

It could be that they are using a high voltage piezo, or even electrostatic forces to get more efficiency. Electrostatic would mean using in the kVolts region. The mystery wooden box is likely to be a press so they can make custom micropump foil shapes in the lab.

If efficiency savings are not enough, they may be only switching the Airling on when the breathing pattern is interrupted. I have no idea of the number here, but if it was common to have 200 breathing interruptions a night and they had to provide positive pressure for 30 seconds each time, that would be 100 minutes of operation a night.

Better efficiency for a breathing machine - I like that. The current machines are probably very inefficient, and that is a problem for travel, battery backup weight, etc. A machine that only needed 20W a night could be made pretty small and portable. Even if moisture is needed, adding unheated water is often enough to stop dry throats and you probably only need a 20mL a night if it is unheated and high efficiency.

The Airling doesn't add any moisture, so that is another reason to think it must only switch on when there is a breathing event. A constant pressure apnae machine with no moisture can get very uncomfortable. 

The idea that you use a new Airing every night sounds bonkers. And they recycle them. So you will be getting cleaned units that lots of other people have already used.

It is possible the numbers for the Airling may just add up, but it still seems an extremely tough target to reach. The number seem very marginal at best, but it is not necessarily the same level of scientific dodgyness the uBeam, Batteriser and the Triton. If they can get the pump and the HV drive electronics right, it would be a very simple device that could be made cheaply.

Richard

[mtdoc]

The Airling doesn't add any moisture, so that is another reason to think it must only switch on when there is a breathing event. A constant pressure apnae machine with no moisture can get very uncomfortable. 

Pumping non-humidified air through the nose is a non starter - it will quickly lead to cracked, bleeding nasal mucosa.  This is just one more reason why I believe the Airing is just a scam and nothing else.

BTW - it's not possible to treat obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with a device that just switches on with a "breathing event".  The very nature of OSA is that you need a constant positive pressure to keep the airway open at all times in order to effectively treat it. 

IMO, the Airing, just like the Triton, is a con - with just enough techno babble and pseudo techno videos to lure in the unsuspecting - either to attract new "backers" or to string current suckers backers along so they continue to believe they will eventually get something for their money.

[edy]

The number seem very marginal at best, but it is not necessarily the same level of scientific dodgyness the uBeam, Batteriser and the Triton. If they can get the pump and the HV drive electronics right, it would be a very simple device that could be made cheaply.
Richard

They may actually develop something useful (perhaps a cooler for microchips or other applications)... but I am weary of their "shot in the dark" marginal-use approach for the Airing sleep-apnea device. When they decided to make this device, it was on the same level as other "Star Trek" campaigns....  a big leap of faith as to whether they could develop a better microblower, a better battery pack, a better everything, all of which was orders of magnitude better than what exists today.

Not to mention, Marsh himself admitted on the short-comings of their crowd-sourced funding, saying they needed at least 2-3x more money to bring this product to backers (another $7-8 million or more... see previous posts in this thread).

My gut feeling is telling me that this is all a scheme to bring in venture-capitalist rounds of funding down the road... once something more tangible gets made, he can get support or grab a few more patents and sell it off.

He crowd-sourced to get the initial funds to start development, promising a product that would take 2-3x more money to actually deliver to backers (which he has already admitted), with absolutely no prototype of the core unit that is supposed to make it all work.

I highly doubt he would have had the same support if his campaign was "Donate now to start lab development on some new mechanism for a type of micro blower that could possibly be used for sleep apnea devices". No... his campaign was promising to deliver Airings, at very cheap cost, by the thousands, disposable, battery powered, no wires or tubes attached, prescription approved. That's a huge stretch from trying to figure out if some "conceptual" type of micro-blower (electrostatic piezo or whatever) is even able to function and with what efficiency.

I commend Marsh for doing this type of research... don't get me wrong. It's awesome, but I'm not so sure the crowd-funding was the best way to do it. I know crowd-funding has risks and people are supposed to know they are not buying anything, but you try explaining that to the people who funded Airing when they are left wondering what, if anything they are going to get a few years down the road (except a voucher for Airings when they ever become available).

Marsh should have done what he did initially when he was involved in his other failed ventures... with Integrated Fuel Cell Technologies, Inc, Echelon Ventures, L.P., and Encite, LLC. He should have pitched this "Airing"idea to venture capitalists and set up timelines to get to certain milestones and deliver. Having a legal framework, obligations and responsibilities, real risk on Marsh.... and all parties involved that understand the risk and are invested in the project and also stand to gain tremendous payback. 

Perhaps he lost credibility in raising venture capital, and decided to go to crowd-funding as an easy way to raise money with no real responsibility, and with investing parties that are unlikely to sue and also unable to really truly comprehend the real risk of what they are doing, and no legally binding contract.

For those of you not familiar, read this: http://www.potteranderson.com/delawarecase-185.html

Crowd-funding is way way easier, and that is the reason why so many people get taken advantage of and why people who have shoddy or dubious histories can get away with it.

[amspire]

The Airling doesn't add any moisture, so that is another reason to think it must only switch on when there is a breathing event. A constant pressure apnae machine with no moisture can get very uncomfortable. 

Pumping non-humidified air through the nose is a non starter - it will quickly lead to cracked, bleeding nasal mucosa.

I don't think that is always true. There are people who need constant pressure. There are people who don't. Existing machines are at the end of a long hose so they cannot respond as quickly as a device plugged into the nose. I bet there is a large number of people who can benefit by something that provides pressure at the start of a breath to clear the obstruction, and then they can manage the rest of the breath.

If it is not blowing dry air continuously into the nose, it will be no more drying then normal breathing. If you live in a cold climate abd have a heated bedroom, then you have dry air from the start and I bet there are many people who suffer without a breathing machine.

There are a huge number of people who try to use a CPAP machine and give up. I remember speaking to one of the top sleep disorder doctors in Sydney and he said "I couldn't use one of these machines myself". More solutions are desperately needed. Something like this that assists could be a godsend.

The technical problem is that have to design a pump/valve system that doesn't exist yet. They will have to try hundreds or thousand of foil membrane patterns in the hope they can crack it. This could take months, or years, or they might never crack it at all. Since they don't have a pump yet, they don't actually know the size of the device yet.

Is this worth developing? - yes probably. Is crowdfunding the right way to develop this? Not really.

[NF6X]

I have no idea of the number here, but if it was common to have 200 breathing interruptions a night

I can only offer my own data sample: 100 breathing interruptions per hour. And the added humidity is important. If I try to use the unit without refilling the water tank, I'll regret it by morning.

The point of the constant pressure provided by a CPAP is to prevent the breathing interruptions in the first place, not to respond to them after they have already happened.

[mtdoc]

The Airling doesn't add any moisture, so that is another reason to think it must only switch on when there is a breathing event. A constant pressure apnae machine with no moisture can get very uncomfortable. 

Pumping non-humidified air through the nose is a non starter - it will quickly lead to cracked, bleeding nasal mucosa.

I don't think that is always true. There are people who need constant positive pressure. There are people who don't.

If they have OSA they need CPAP as in Continuous Positive Airway Pressure. You need pressure maintained to keep the airway open -  - to prevent the obstruction from occurring in the first place. 

Perhaps you're thinking of BiPAP, which is another form of respiratory support with 2 levels of pressure (Bilevel Positive Airway Presssure) but it still maintains a positive pressure even during the exhale. Generally BiPAP pressure levels are higher than CPAP pressures it is usually not used for OSA. BiPap is used in the hospital all the time for people in acute respiratory failure.

If someone doesn't need constant pressure - they don't have OSA - or it is so mild they don't need anything.

The whole marketing of the Airing is that it is supposed to replace CPAP machines!

Even if you could find a way to treat OSA with only positive pressure delivered at the exact moment needed before the patient began initiating inspiration - how would the device know when that was?  What sort of sensor would it use? What would be the latency be between the event trigger and achieving the necessary positive pressure?  Does the airing propose such a thing?

This is not a trivial problem - and if something like this was possible - and I'm sure the medical device manufacturers have researched this - it would likely already exist and the product would not be something the size of the airing.

If it is not blowing dry air continuously into the nose, it will be no more drying then normal breathing.

Incorrect. Both the air pressure and the volume of air per unit time passing over the nasal mucosa is important.   Only in the most extreme humid environments would the fictitious Airing microblower not dry out the nasal mucosa intolerably.

See NF6X's comments below.  Even with the humidifier used with normal CPAP - some have problems with drying out of the nasal mucosa.

[Kalidor]

I don't understand why he has connected a 3KV electrophoresis supply to the apparatus under the microscope. Some kind of micromachine that runs on such a high voltage is not very likely.

I don't get that either

Lets ask them in the comments, they should do some work for my $1. 
btw it's 3.5KV/100W -> http://www.sci-support.com/items/Pharmacia-Amersham-EPS-3500-Electrophoresis-Power-Supply-1409.htm

[snoopy]

Hey all.  I am new here.  I have some field experience repairing electronic devices.  But a couple of things from scratch to make life easier and what not.  So I am not a total newbie.
 
 But I am scratching my head and wondering if anyone has thoughts on this product.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/airing-the-first-hoseless-maskless-micro-cpap#/story

Airing: the first hoseless, maskless, micro-CPAP

My wife uses a CPAP and i just don't see how you can get the air-flow that a big machine produces in such a tiny package.

It's a total con and can't possibly work !!

It reminds me of the time I tried to blow up an air mattress with a small tire compressor. After two hours it was only half inflated but with a 12 volt vacuum cleaner with air fan blower it did it in a couple of minutes !!

Not only that if it could generate the air pressure required how does it stay in the noise without blowing off ?

[mikerj]

Not only that if it could generate the air pressure required how does it stay in the noise without blowing off ?

Comes with a tube of superglue.  You also have to glue your lips together to stop the air escaping straight out of your mouth.

[edy]

Here's an update from Airing (see attached PDF). They are saying their micro-blowers are moving air. Ok, still a long long long way to go...     Meanwhile, they did not give up another opportunity to promote another perk to raise more money, so the On Demand funding continues. Good job Stephen Marsh!    Looking forward to seeing what a number of microblowers all running in parallel can accomplish.

[EDIT: Updated PDF file]

[edy]

I see some users are finally waking up to the scam and getting cold feet. Well, no refunds for you! See comment screenshot and reply posted by Airing. People should have read the terms of use.

NOTE: From all their updates, I still see nothing, not even proof of a functioning working prototype. Last thing I saw was they built a test-bed to put their prototype in, but I have yet to see any video or close-up photos of the actual microblower being tested, or even any hint that it moves air (at any rate at all). Still no idea of the pressures and flow rate this thing does, not even an approximate order-of-magnitude hint.

18 more months for this debacle to reveal itself for what it truly is....

Here's their refund policy in their FAQ, another part of this scam campaign that the contributor ignored:

To request a refund, please contact the Customer Happiness team, and they will process your request within one business day. Refunds will be issued based on the payment method used to make the contribution, and may take three to five business days to appear on your statement.

Please be advised that contributions to Airing are not refundable beyond the policy stated above (within 10 days of contribution). After this period, Indiegogo takes out their fees, the remaining funds are transferred to us (without your credit card/payment information), and we begin putting those funds to good use.  By making a contribution to this campaign, you acknowledge that you understand that you are contributing to fund the development of the Airing micro-CPAP device and not making a direct purchase. We appreciate your support, and we are hard at work developing the Airing prototype.

[amspire]

18 more months for this debacle to reveal itself for what it truly is....

No need for 18 months. It is a very slick but obvious scam. CPAP requires several orders of magnitude more energy than any known battery that could possibly fit that form factor device mock-up. The powersupply for contemporary CPAP machines is similar in size and capacity to a laptop powersupply of 10 years ago. Could be 50 to 100 Watts for 8 hours.

There is no way the pressure required to hold the airways open could be overcome without a strap to hold the mask in place.

As I understand it, it does not need the same power as a CPAP because it does not work the way as a conventional CPAP. The pump only switches on when there is a CPAP event, and so the power consumed is dependant on how many CPAP events an individual person has and how long the Airling has to boost the pressure for each event. The airflow is less then a conventional CPAP since the conventional CPAP supply a lot of air that goes straight out of the mask vents. The CPAP machine is also still pumping when you are breathing out and the Airling concept does not do that. That is probably a 50% power saving.

This does make it sound like at best, it is a device a doctor could prescribe to particular sufferers that needed a mild CPAP assistance. I would think a chronic sufferer would probably need constant pressure and the Airling concept cannot do that all night.

The problems about the lack of a humidifier have been discussed before - it is probably only usable if you live in a location with a regular high humidity. When the air is dry, you would want to revert to a conventional CPAP with a humidifier.

The fact they made the product from the start something small enough to fit to the nose without a strap does make it an all-or-nothing risky product. They will only find if they can make a useable product when they do the research which is in this case funded by the crowdsourcing campaign. It seems they got the money before:

• they knew they could make a pump small enough that delivered sufficient air
• they had any clinical data on prototype devices to see if the concept is practical
• they had the device checked by independent medical experts
• they knew if they could make these medical grade devices at a $3-a-device price

Add to that the idea that you can obtain and use it without a doctor prescribing the device makes it even worse.

If you put money into the Airling campaign, you are investing in the development of the product along with a voucher that gives you a few months worth of Airling devices IF it becomes available. As long as you get the voucher and they use your money to pay for development - whether successful or not - Ailing have met their obligations. You have got exactly what you asked for.

If they are actually doing research into the Airling concept, I probably wouldn't call it a scam but it is a business that has a very high chance of failure.

You can always frame the voucher and hang it on the wall.

[mtdoc]

18 more months for this debacle to reveal itself for what it truly is....

No need for 18 months. It is a very slick but obvious scam. CPAP requires several orders of magnitude more energy than any known battery that could possibly fit that form factor device mock-up. The powersupply for contemporary CPAP machines is similar in size and capacity to a laptop powersupply of 10 years ago. Could be 50 to 100 Watts for 8 hours.

There is no way the pressure required to hold the airways open could be overcome without a strap to hold the mask in place.

As I understand it, it does not need the same power as a CPAP because it does not work the way as a conventional CPAP. The pump only switches on when there is a CPAP event, and so the power consumed is dependant on how many CPAP events an individual person has and how long the Airling has to boost the pressure for each event. The airflow is less then a conventional CPAP since the conventional CPAP supply a lot of air that goes straight out of the mask vents. The CPAP machine is also still pumping when you are breathing out and the Airling concept does not do that. That is probably a 50% power saving.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here of how CPAP works. CPAP stands for Continuous Positive Airway Pressure. There is good reason for the continuous part - it's  not just an accident or poor engineering.  What you describe would not be CPAP and it would not be effective for obstructive sleep apnea.

This was all discussed previously.

The problems about the lack of a humidifier have been discussed before - it is probably only usable if you live in a location with a regular high humidity. When the air is dry, you would want to revert to a conventional CPAP with a humidifier.

Yes, discussed earlier and debunked. Humidity would need to be close to 100 % - maybe in a rainforest...

[amspire]

Yes, discussed earlier and debunked. Humidity would need to be close to 100 % - maybe in a rainforest...

Well then I will have to debunk the debunkers. I have a CPAP and I was able to use it throughout summer with no humidifier without the slightest problem as long as the air is not heated. I have no airconditioning or heating in the bedroom so the air is at the normal outside humidity. If the bedroom was heated, I would need a humidifier.

When winter came, I did have to go back to the humidifier as I was waking up with a very dry nose and mouth. I live at about 1100 meters elevation and the humidity is typically 40% to 60%. It is almost never 100%.

The concept that a humidifier is always needed - particularly in the case of a device that is only running part time is just total nonsense. I am sure there are some people who do find that they always need a humidifier but there are also plenty of people who do not always need a humidifier.

If it is possible to make an Airling device and it could last the night, it would have a real use. You would have to have a normal CPAP as well for when you cannot use the Airling.

And I do understand that CPAP does mean constant pressure and the Airling is not. Fair enough. CPAP machines are only constant pressure because it is a very simple and very reliable way to achieve a result. It is not because a constant pressure is the only way to achieve the result.

[mtdoc]

Yes, discussed earlier and debunked. Humidity would need to be close to 100 % - maybe in a rainforest...

Well then I will have to debunk the debunkers. I have a CPAP and I was able to use it throughout summer with no humidifier without the slightest problem as long as the air is not heated. I have no airconditioning or heating in the bedroom so the air is at the normal outside humidity. If the bedroom was heated, I would need a humidifier.

When winter came, I did have to go back to the humidifier as I was waking up with a very dry nose and mouth. I live at about 1100 meters elevation and the humidity is typically 40% to 60%. It is almost never 100%.

Well you're unusual then. Anytime I've seen it used without a humidifier for anything other than short periods - a few days -it is not tolerated at all - their nasal mucosa starts getting too dry. . That's in the pacific northwest USA - not a dry climate. But fair enough -I suppose I was being overly dramatic with the 100% figure. But it defies the reality of the physiology of nasal mucosa  that you can run air over it at a significantly lower humidity (and high pressure) without drying it out. I think if you had a "microblower" trying to ramp up pressure quickly with every inspiration it would only be worse.

. Fair enough. CPAP machines are only constant pressure because it is a very simple and very reliable way to achieve a result. It is not because a constant pressure is the only way to achieve the result.

It is not because it is simple - it is because that is what is needed. If you "wait until a CPAP event" by which I suppose you mean wait until the start of an apnea event -  to initiiate positive pressure -  it's already too late. Even if you open the airway very quickly  (doubtful) - it's too late. Sleep architecture will have already been disrupted.  That is just the reality of treating OSA - you simply must keep the airway open and prevent the obstruction BEFORE the brainstem initiates an inspiration and keep it open through exhalation. That can only be done with surgery that changes the anatomy or positive pressure present before the initiation of inspiration and continued through exhalation. The positive pressure can be lower during exhalation (as it is with Bipap) but can't be zero. And even Bipap - doesn't generally adequately treat OSA.

The Airing has marketed itself as a miniature alternative to CPAP. If they think they have invented a way to effectively treat OSA without using CPAP then perhaps they should first demonstrate that with a full sized and traditionally powered device. Only then should they try to miniaturize it with mythical "microblowers' and magic batteries. 

Based on what I've seen so far, the Airing is barely better than the Triton scam.

[trophosphere]

And I do understand that CPAP does mean constant pressure and the Airling is not. Fair enough. CPAP machines are only constant pressure because it is a very simple and very reliable way to achieve a result. It is not because a constant pressure is the only way to achieve the result.

One of the reasons for continuous positive airway pressure in the instance of obstructive sleep apnea is to prevent the obstruction from occurring in the first place as obstruction can occur both in the inspiratory and expiratory phases of the respiratory cycle. Example of obstruction during the expiratory phase is retropalatal narrowing - Starling Resistor.

[amspire]

Well you're unusual then. Anytime I've seen it used without a humidifier for anything other than short periods - a few days -it is not tolerated at all - their nasal mucosa starts getting too dry. . That's in the pacific northwest USA - not a dry climate. But fair enough -I suppose I was being overly dramatic with the 100% figure. But it defies the reality of the physiology of nasal mucosa  that you can run air over it at a significantly lower humidity (and high pressure) without drying it out. I think if you had a "microblower" trying to ramp up pressure quickly with every inspiration it would only be worse.

The "high pressure" is usually 20cmH₂O maximum when atmospheric pressure is about 1000cmH₂O - so we are talking about a 0.3% to 2% pressure increase above atmospheric pressure. It is a slight positive pressure.

Also the air flow is the same as normal breathing - you are breathing normally with a slight positive pressure, but you breath just the same as you would without the CPAP. The moisture content is unchanged - it is the same as the outside air as long as the CPAP is not heating the air.

Now if you sometimes open your mouth while you are asleep, then you get air flowing straight from the nose to the mouth and unless the air is very humid, you do get your nasal mucosa drying out pretty severly. I seem to be able to keep my mouth closed while I am sleeping. Some people have to tape their mouth shut to do  this. This is one of the main reasons that so many people cannot cope with CPAP. After 30 months only 50% of CPAP patients are still using CPAP and that 50% are only averaging 3.6 hours of CPAP a night

Many would regards those numbers as a massive failure and yet this is the solution the doctors keep calling the "gold standard" solution for sleep apnoea.

...

Based on what I've seen so far, the Airing is barely better than the Triton scam.

Triton said they had a working prototype and yet there was never a sign of a working prototype. They made claims like the wordwide LOX distribution network that were impossible. It was a physically impossible product and there was no sign of any development work at all.

Airling say they have an idea and are asking for money to develop the idea. They did not have any working prototype. The idea theoretically is possible, but being theoretically possible and being practically possible are two different things. They seem to have employed engineers and there has been some work. They are entitled to pay themselves and the staff wages so they will profit even if they are unsuccessful.

Airling were not even offering a discount in their campaign. They claim that the Airling will cost 60c after insurance reimbursement when it gets to market in the US. On the campaign they were offering vouchers for Airlings at $1.50 each! If you subscribed the campaign, you get the Airling at 2.5 times the price you would pay if you didn't invest.   

The only reasons for a person with even a slightly working brain would invest is because they decide to trust in the developers even though they may fail and they are prepared to lose their the money on the chance they may help get the device to market.

The Triton campaigns seemed to be all lies. When have the Airling developers lied?

I think we both agree that the chances of anyone being able to use their vouchers for the Airling is extremely remote. As you point out, the technical problems are huge if not unsurmountable, and then they have to convince the doctors and regulators that the device is safe. People will probably get exactly what they invested in, even if it is not what they were hoping to get. They invested in research into an idea. Research into new ideas is always extremely risky and usually looses money.

[NF6X]

As you point out, the technical problems are huge if not unsurmountable, and then they have to convince the doctors and regulators that the device is safe.

In the medical field, it's not enough to convince the doctors and regulators that a device is safe. It must be demonstrated to be safe and effective.

As mtdoc points out, medical ethics strongly suggest that a scheme which involves "[a] pump [which] only switches on when there is a CPAP event [sic]" should be demonstrated to be a medically effective remedy for obstructive sleep apnea before they beg for money to develop the product. The medical research needs to come first; the engineering of a particularly tiny implementation can come later, and representing a nonexistent implementation of an unproven treatment as effective is unethical.

[amspire]

And I do understand that CPAP does mean constant pressure and the Airling is not. Fair enough. CPAP machines are only constant pressure because it is a very simple and very reliable way to achieve a result. It is not because a constant pressure is the only way to achieve the result.

One of the reasons for continuous positive airway pressure in the instance of obstructive sleep apnea is to prevent the obstruction from occurring in the first place as obstruction can occur both in the inspiratory and expiratory phases of the respiratory cycle. Example of obstruction during the expiratory phase is retropalatal narrowing - Starling Resistor.

Yes. There are lots of different apnoea conditions and this is why currently you have to get tested in a sleep study before being offered a sleep apnoea solution.

A device like the Airling would still need a fortune spent in research after they have a working device to formalise exactly when it can and cannot be used. All the Indiegogo campaign money can achieve at best is to develop the device to a point at which a rich medical company is prepared to put in the massive investment to do the needed clinical trials and research.

As I mentioned in my last post, the current apnoea solutions overall would rate as a failure - they don't work for most people. If the Airling was able to just provide a 20% improvement for some of the people who cannot use the current machines, it would still be a worthwhile device. 20% is much better then nothing, and nothing is what over half the current diagnosed apnoea sufferers are getting in the long term.

I do not know the number of the diagnosed apnoea sufferers who are getting a 100% solution from the current CPAP machines but is may be something like 5%. It is pretty bad.

[amspire]

The medical research needs to come first; the engineering of a particularly tiny implementation can come later, and representing a nonexistent implementation of an unproven treatment as effective is unethical.

A lot of truth in that. Airling may argue that they need to make the device first before research can be done using their device, but they did not make the point that even if they successfully make the device using the campaign money, it does not mean it will actually be possible to sell it to anyone.

Even if they are ultimately successful - by that stage, the product will probably be owned by another bigger company and the product will have different name, a different cost and will have nothing to do with the useless vouchers you have kept for the last 10 years.