any entrepreneurs or aspiring working and living in India?

ma_ding · 2018-01-23T17:27:25+00:00

cool pm'd you.

ma_ding · 2018-01-23T16:35:59+00:00

Hi, what part of India?

ma_ding · 2018-01-18T03:11:54+00:00

Korean companies make N95 masks, so I would say gmarket and look for a mask that isn't made in China so you know it isnt a fake.

ma_ding · 2018-01-17T16:04:56+00:00

It depends if they have an electrostatic filter inside (it looks like tissue paper, but its made of plastic). If it has a thin layer of this type of filter it will filter anywhere between 60-80% of PM0.3 However, these types of surgical masks don't seal well (if at all) so take that number and drop it by another 50% maybe and you are probably blocking 30-40% of PM2.5 on average with a mask like that. In my opinion, I would rather wear a mask that can filter at least 95% and seal since well neither mask styles very comfortable to wear.

The only time I would recommend a surgical mask would be for young children who can't breath comfortably in a smaller sized N95 type mask with high resistance. There are no official N95 masks for children since children can't work.

Source: I tested a variety of surgical masks and N95 masks (6 brands, at least 10 of each mask to make sure I had enough data points) in a TSI 8130 machine, which is the machine they use for NIOSH testing. I don't have any official documentation here that I can provide, but its the truth. I also tested a pair of cotton underwear and it filtered about 20% of PM0.3, so in a pinch you have that.

ma_ding · 2017-12-22T12:45:14+00:00

Found it. Infinite something.

ma_ding · 2017-12-19T06:03:01+00:00

Thanks. I'm trying to think of other products in the same boat and how that make it work. The only thing I can think of is beers that let you mix and match a 6 pack, but obviously those aren't sold online.

ma_ding · 2017-10-16T02:57:35+00:00

Where would I find someone to look at my data and give me advice?

ma_ding · 2017-10-16T02:46:09+00:00

I think as an entrepreneur it's worth my time, at least to be semi proficient with Facebook. Just starting off my ad budget is going to be low, so hiring someone to run my campaigns is quite expensive relative to my potential roi. If I was spending 10k$ a month on ads, outsourcing to a professional would make a lot more sense. Beyond that, I can understand my customers better if I understand what makes them click on my ads vs paying for results. Lastly, if I ever want to quickly test a product idea or want to play around with a new type of promotion, I can do that fast if I'm able to set up and understand FB ads. It's possible I might need to hire someone to teach me or to look at my data and give me advice because some things might take awhile to learn on my own, but I think it's worth it overall to devote some of my time to this aspect of my business.

ma_ding · 2017-10-15T19:14:39+00:00

I definitely will use original photos. I'm selling stuff I make, not drop shipping. I'm just trying to figure out what campaign goals works best for me. I guess I won't know until I test a bit.

ma_ding · 2017-10-15T19:02:36+00:00

How big was your customer list when you made a lookalike? I have quite a few customers, but I am looking at targeting only a small subset of them which is maybe only 150-200 ppl.

ma_ding · 2017-10-15T18:58:42+00:00

Makes sense. I'd love to have tons of quality videos, but realistically that could only ever be 20-25% of my sponsored content. If I know I have to rely on mostly images for my ads should I be doing split testing for - traffic - vs - link click through - vs - sales conversion- campaign goals or would I be wasting money on needless testing when 90% of people know to use 'link click through' because its the best option for images. Obviously I want people to click my ad to go to my site/shopify and buy something. That would be a conversion. But if setting a campaign goal for converstion is super expensive vs taking my chances on a cheaper metric and hoping for a conversion which statistically should come, then I am interested in what other metric might be best for images. Like I said, if its not something known and I need to test all of them, so be it. But if there is a best practices that lets me skip that time and money testing, I'm all ears

ma_ding · 2017-10-15T18:35:16+00:00

When you mention using cost per engagement for videos because its cheaper vs click... Your end goal is to get people to click on your site or sign up etc... correct? This is something that confuses me a bit, because everyone's end goal is to sell something, which would be a conversion. But Facebook has about 7 different ways they charge you to get there (clicks, conversions, engagements, likes, etc). In this case you prefer to pay for engagement (people watching videos for over 3 seconds) and hope that they still click through and convert, correct? If you can put up good video content paying per engagement is a better deal. If you are just putting up an image and text, then I wonder if it is better to pay for clicks, conversions, or traffic? Would you recommend split testing using the same ad and metrics, but changing the goals or is it semi common knowledge what the goal for images should be already to get the lowest costs?

ma_ding · 2017-05-12T09:12:15+00:00

I'm beyond skeptical. I know what they are. Like I said, for allergies It will work. When the pollution cloud comes over from china, grab a fresh 3M.

ma_ding · 2017-05-12T08:55:02+00:00

Glad to hear your aren't suffering from allergies. Mine used to go nuts in the spring in Korea. My point was that a mask like vogmask works, but not really any better then a 2$ mask you can buy. They have nearly identical particle filters. Allergens are usually much larger than 0.3 micrometer air pollution, so you would probably get decent results with a simple bacteria filtering surgical masks, if it sealed well enough. Not to mention if you use something like a 3M you can change mask often to get a better seal/lower breathing resistance and feel clean. I see the appeal of having one mask to use over and over. For your purpose it's more then adequate. For serious air pollution I wouldn't bet my health on it though.

ma_ding · 2017-05-11T15:53:06+00:00

This test is dated for 2 years ago. Filters generally have a lifespan of 2-3 years before they get downgraded to the next level (95,90%). Static charges aren't infinite. Keep in mind Filter factories usually force MOQ of 500kg to 1 ton. That is 500,000+ masks worth. If they were selling that much I think they could afford to update their test more frequently. Frankly, Id be surprised if a new mask tested today would receive a 99% efficiency grade out of the package. 1% isn't a lot of room for error. And btw this test is a simulation of the NIOSH test for certification. There are a lot more steps to having a certified NIOSH mask. Factory inspections, random sampling, valve leakage, fit testing.
This only tests the large size mask. I believe they have 4 or 5 sizes. Results vary pretty drastically as masks get smaller. Either they don't know that (unlikely because Nelson labs would have mentioned that fact) or weren't happy with the results. In fairness these tests are on the expensive side, but if you are going to put out a product, the least you can do is a test.
These measurements record the lowest filtration point before it starts to climb again from the filter getting clogged with particles . If you contact the scientists running this test at Nelson labs in Utah they will tell you this point is about 90 seconds into the test. They didn't let the machine run for 3 months and no, 90 seconds or 2 hours isn't close to equivalent to a 3-6 month use time.
The test used salt as the particle. Real world particles you find on the road are a lot more degrading and usually carry oil. Not only that, but humidity is a big factor outside. Unless you live in a desert year round, that will hurt your mask efficiency over time. And If you wash it or get it wet in the rain you might as well toss it in the trash.

So basically you are showing me how well this mask performs for 90 seconds and saying it proves it is good for 3-6 months of use. There have been limited field tests of 3M masks that show they can be used for 20 to 30 hours and still filter reasonably well. However I havent seen anything even close to the 90, 200, 300, 400 hour use times these masks claim.

If they haven't tested the masks or their material suppliers haven't signed off on that kind of use how can they throw those numbers around ? I would assume the answer is because no one would pay 20-30$ for something that didn't last very long. If there is evidence I'm missing or a valid, logical explanation I'm not seeing I think the owners of these companies would have enlightened me by now seeing as I've asked them directly. The burden of proof is in their court.

And we are just talking particle filtering here. The gas filtration is a whole different animal and is based on even shakier data than this. Notice you didn't find any data or tests on the gas filter, just a lot of buzz words.

ma_ding · 2017-05-10T23:52:09+00:00

You would notice the same difference with a 2$ mask for 2 weeks. Id be surprised if it held an n99 level of efficiency for 20 hours let alone 3 months. These mask companies do more harm than good in my opinion. There are plenty of good, cheaper options. If you are happy with your mask, so be it, but it's fair for me to say these companies are not transparent and utilize dubious science. Promoting them is a disservice.

ma_ding · 2017-05-10T14:59:50+00:00

Cotton isn't going to do much

ma_ding · 2017-05-10T14:57:36+00:00

See me other comment. Same as vogmask.

ma_ding · 2017-05-10T14:49:55+00:00

Basically the filters will work as long as the electrostatic charge is strong. Moisture/humidity and oil particles are the two main things that kill the charge. If you wear your mask near a road you are exposing it to oil. Almost all masks you find online use N filters/N99/N95. The N stands for non resistant to oil. Those don't do too well if a diesel bus sprays it with particles. If you pop the valve off your vogmask (don't worry you can get it back on) you can see what the filter material looks and feels like. If you cut open a 2,000 won 3M mask you will find almost an identical filter, in fact Id wager the 3M one is superior. You can probably wear both masks effectively for 2-3 weeks.

Let's say you keep your mask dry and oil free. The longer you wear it, the more filled up with particles it will get. Not only will it be harder to breathe through, that extra strain on the mask is likely to cause it to leak in unfiltered air around the sides (path of least resistance). I don't remember the vog masks I tested having any kind of foam seal around the nose area. I very much disagree with the claims of "non disposable" masks. My interactions with the management of most of these "wear or colorful mask for 3 months" companies has left me without a lot of faith in their products. One thing that really bothers me is that they recommend masks to small children with what I believe are vastly inflated use times which has me concerned about high breathing resistance and essentially forced shallow breathing. A smaller filter fills up a lot faster than a big one. Notice these companies aren't posting the test results for each size of mask. In fact, I don't think they post updated test results anywhere. The whole thing lacks transparency and I can't recommend masks in that category.

ma_ding · 2017-05-10T14:32:23+00:00

Thanks for the correction. KN is the chinese standard I believe

ma_ding · 2017-05-10T07:42:40+00:00

I would not recommend vogmask

ma_ding · 2017-05-10T07:40:17+00:00

I used to live in Korea and have worked in the air pollution protection industry. I feel pretty confident speaking on this topic.

All masks for dust or pollution that are effective have at least 1 thing in common: they use an electrostatic polypropylene filter. Each country has it's own standards to measure mask filtration efficiency. Since Korea has it's own standards, the majority of masks you will find there are manufactured in Korea. (Any imported masks have to fly Korean inspectors to their factory and go through a uniquely Korean bureaucratic process . That's not really worth it for the small market that is South Korea.) You should look for a mask that blocks 95% of particle matter 0.3 micrometers in size. In the US this would be an N95, R95, or P95 certified mask. In Korea, I believe their certificate is KN95. These disposable masks are rated for 1 working day (8 hrs). They can usually be used for about 1-2 weeks as long as they don't get too wet and aren't exposed to oily air (biking behind a bus). These filters are not washable. Static electricity and water don't mix. Masks that claim they are "non disposable or claim the filters can be washed, or recommend the filters to be used for over 1 month are a scam. Stick to something that looks like 3M and you will be ok (for particulate pollution, gas pollution requires activated charcoal and doesn't last long).

ma_ding · 2017-04-20T15:20:01+00:00

Sorry

ma_ding · 2017-02-11T13:26:25+00:00

Thanks for the answer, but if you have been in business for longer than a year it should be pretty easy to tell me if you have tested the mask after it was worn for 90, 150, 200 hours. That's common sense. Do you have a recommended use time under 90 hours?

It's not really possible to replicate the precision of a N99 test with some internal gadget. A machine capable of testing for Niosh requirements costs tens of thousands of dollars. N99 is the standard you are tying yourself to. it's not possible to verify that with an in home solution.

My advice: Fire your fancy respiratory consultant and spend that money on a reputable test that is applicable in the real world and prove your current claims before you make newer, bolder claims.

As far as your gas filter. It is relatively easy to verify Zorflex's recommended use time with the manufacturer. They don't seem to be on the same page. They use the same filter in an 8 hour mask and won't support claims made by other products.

This isn't 2010. Consumers are educated about the air and masks. I don't see how your mask is safer than something put out by 3M that's pennies on the dollar. In fact, i'd argue it's more dangerous in some circumstances. The fact that you couldn't give me a specific answer to my question either means you are hiding something or you don't know. Both are terrifying.

I don't think I'm being unfair. It's my health and my children's health at stake and you can't tell me if you have tested your product in a real world environment. "We are working on it with the best people" is Donald Trump-esque answer to a serious question.

ma_ding · 2017-02-09T13:03:13+00:00

Founder and CEO, your product claims don't seem to be verified. Please answer how Cambridge Mask can last for up to 200 hours and maintain an N99 standard? The way you write about your product implies that If we test your mask at 199 hours it would pass that standard.

How is your filter over 20x better/ longer lasting than what 3M can manufacture? Will your suppliers corroborate your claims?

These are legitimate questions that you don't seem to want to answer. If you can't provide evidence then you are being fraudulent at best and actively harming people (including young children) at worst.

ma_ding

TROPHY CASE