Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote:
Yard Guy wrote:
...

What's the verdict on these things? Are they effective?
I've seen no independent testing results that indicated they're more
effective than alternatives tested--which is pretty much why they're
not particularly widespread; it appears that most of the glowing
testimonials are either sponsored "research" (read advertising hype)
or self-justification of the $$ spent to avoid admitting have been
suckered.
It's been a while since I looked but google found several studies a
while back from various land-grant universities, etc., that concluded
they're of minimal help if any...

That can only be because some werent that well designed.

Its been known for a long time now what attracts mosquitos.

May be so; as noted the testing results I remember seeing didn't
demonstrate significantly higher preferential capture rates for the
devices. Particularly, they weren't effective for anything even
remotely approaching the acreage coverage claims iirc...

There are likely newer studies available; others are welcome to pursue
it. Seems like it was LSU extension maybe(???) that had some of the
most extensive that I saw previously but I'm not certain of that any
longer....

--

dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Yard Guy wrote

What's the verdict on these things? Are they effective?

I've seen no independent testing results that indicated they're more
effective than alternatives tested--which is pretty much why they're
not particularly widespread; it appears that most of the glowing
testimonials are either sponsored "research" (read advertising hype)
or self-justification of the $$ spent to avoid admitting have been suckered.

It's been a while since I looked but google found several studies a
while back from various land-grant universities, etc., that
concluded they're of minimal help if any...

That can only be because some werent that well designed.

Its been known for a long time now what attracts mosquitos.

May be so;

No maybe about it.

as noted the testing results I remember seeing didn't demonstrate significantly higher preferential capture rates for
the devices.

Higher than what ? If they capture anything,
they must be working better than no device at all.

Particularly, they weren't effective for anything even
remotely approaching the acreage coverage claims iirc...

Different matter entirely.

There are likely newer studies available; others are welcome to pursue
it. Seems like it was LSU extension maybe(???) that had some of the
most extensive that I saw previously but I'm not certain of that any longer....

Sounds like you are comprehensively garbling what they actually said.

Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Yard Guy wrote

....

May be so;

No maybe about it.

You're taking that away from the rest of the sentence it was modifying
to infer a totally different meaning from what I said...

Certainly it's know what attracts skeeters to live critters; what's not
so clear is that the artificially-generated attempts are effective.

....
Higher than what ? If they capture anything,
they must be working better than no device at all.

Than the other devices in the test, obviously...

Particularly, they weren't effective for anything even
remotely approaching the acreage coverage claims iirc...

Different matter entirely.

But still a portion of the test and how effective they are for practical
use. So what if even if they were 100% effective in a small radius--you
going to limit your position into that area? The devices are typically
advertised as covering sizable fractions of an acre.

There are likely newer studies available; others are welcome to pursue
it. Seems like it was LSU extension maybe(???) that had some of the
most extensive that I saw previously but I'm not certain of that any longer....

Sounds like you are comprehensively garbling what they actually said.

No; the conclusions were they were no more effective than other traps
tested w/o the CO2 attractants...

As they say, "you can look it up"...

--

dpb wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Yard Guy wrote

What's the verdict on these things? Are they effective?

I've seen no independent testing results that indicated they're more
effective than alternatives tested--which is pretty much why they're
not particularly widespread; it appears that most of the glowing
testimonials are either sponsored "research" (read advertising hype)
or self-justification of the $$ spent to avoid admitting have been suckered.

It's been a while since I looked but google found several studies a
while back from various land-grant universities, etc., that
concluded they're of minimal help if any...

That can only be because some werent that well designed.

Its been known for a long time now what attracts mosquitos.

May be so;

No maybe about it.

You're taking that away from the rest of the sentence it was modifying to infer a totally different meaning from what
I said...

You're lying.

Certainly it's know what attracts skeeters to live critters; what's
not so clear is that the artificially-generated attempts are effective.

Corse its perfectly possible to provide the CO2, heat and
odours etc that are the same as what live humans produce.

as noted the testing results I remember seeing didn't demonstrate significantly higher preferential capture rates
for the devices.

Higher than what ? If they capture anything,
they must be working better than no device at all.

Than the other devices in the test, obviously...

That means that those other devices are perfectly viable mosquito traps, stupid.

Particularly, they weren't effective for anything even
remotely approaching the acreage coverage claims iirc...

Different matter entirely.

But still a portion of the test and how effective they are for practical use.

Wrong on that last.

So what if even if they were 100% effective in a small radius--you going to limit your position into that area?

You havent established that they only work over a small area.

The devices are typically advertised as covering sizable fractions of an acre.

Irrelevant if you dont need as much as that.

There are likely newer studies available; others are welcome to pursue it. Seems like it was LSU extension
maybe(???) that had some of the
most extensive that I saw previously but I'm not certain of that any longer....

Sounds like you are comprehensively garbling what they actually said.

No;

Yep.

the conclusions were they were no more effective than other traps tested w/o the CO2 attractants...

Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.

As they say, "you can look it up"...

As they say,

YOU made that claim about what they purportedly said.

YOU get to demonstrate that any actually said what you claim they said.

THATS how it works.

Rod Speed wrote:
....

You're lying.

FOAD, dickhead...

Certainly it's know what attracts skeeters to live critters; what's
not so clear is that the artificially-generated attempts are effective.

Corse its perfectly possible to provide the CO2, heat and
odours etc that are the same as what live humans produce.

Not w/o the same generating mechanism, no...there's more than just CO2
and the odors aren't all that simple to generate.

....

That means that those other devices are perfectly viable mosquito traps, stupid.

But it also means the CO2-baited traps ain't worth the extra expense
which I presumed anybody w/ the least amount of intelligence would
realize is all that was said....

....

Field trials for commercially available and experimental mosquito
traps variously baited with light, carbon dioxide, octenol, or
combinations of these were evaluated ...The total number of
mosquitoes and number of each species captured during the test were
compared using 8 × 8 and 5 x 5 Latin square designs based on trap
location. ... Traps baited with octenol captured significantly fewer
Cx. pipiens than those not baited with octenol. Likewise, no Cx.
orientalis were captured in octenol-baited traps. Host-seeking
activity showed a similar bimodal pattern for all species captured.
... Significantly greater numbers of mosquitoes were captured with
mosquito traps using counterflow technology when compared to standard
light and carbon dioxide-baited traps.

IOW, just a fan to suck the critters in and trap 'em was more effective
than the expensive, fancy traps.

--

dpb wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
...

You're lying.

FOAD, dickhead...

Go and **** yourself, ****wit child.

Certainly it's know what attracts skeeters to live critters; what's
not so clear is that the artificially-generated attempts are effective.

Corse its perfectly possible to provide the CO2, heat and
odours etc that are the same as what live humans produce.

Not w/o the same generating mechanism, no...

Wrong, as always.

there's more than just CO2

It is however the primary thing that attracts mosquitos.

and the odors aren't all that simple to generate.

They aint that hard either.

...

That means that those other devices are perfectly viable mosquito traps, stupid.

But it also means the CO2-baited traps ain't worth the extra expense

Nothing like your previous claim.

which I presumed anybody w/ the least amount of intelligence would realize is all that was said....

Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

Field trials for commercially available and experimental mosquito
traps variously baited with light, carbon dioxide, octenol, or
combinations of these were evaluated ...The total number of
mosquitoes and number of each species captured during the test were
compared using 8 × 8 and 5 x 5 Latin square designs based on trap
location. ... Traps baited with octenol captured significantly fewer
Cx. pipiens than those not baited with octenol. Likewise, no Cx.
orientalis were captured in octenol-baited traps.

Pity we happened to be discussing PROPANE POWERED traps.

Host-seeking activity showed a similar bimodal pattern for all species captured. ... Significantly greater numbers of
mosquitoes were captured with mosquito traps using counterflow technology when compared to standard light and carbon
dioxide-baited traps.

No reason why the propane powered traps cant have counterflow as well, ****wit child.

IOW, just a fan to suck the critters in and trap 'em was more effective than the expensive, fancy traps.

That is nothing even remotely resembling anything like what they actually concluded, ****wit child.

AND that particular study didnt even use the sort of mosquito traps that are used
in a domestic environment ANYWAY, they were SCIENTIFIC mosquito traps.

Try again.

Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
...

You're lying.

FOAD, dickhead...

Go and **** yourself, ****wit child.

Certainly it's know what attracts skeeters to live critters; what's
not so clear is that the artificially-generated attempts are
effective.

Corse its perfectly possible to provide the CO2, heat and
odours etc that are the same as what live humans produce.

Not w/o the same generating mechanism, no...

Wrong, as always.

there's more than just CO2

It is however the primary thing that attracts mosquitos.

and the odors aren't all that simple to generate.

They aint that hard either.

...

That means that those other devices are perfectly viable mosquito
traps, stupid.

But it also means the CO2-baited traps ain't worth the extra expense

Nothing like your previous claim.

which I presumed anybody w/ the least amount of intelligence would
realize is all that was said....

Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

Field trials for commercially available and experimental mosquito
traps variously baited with light, carbon dioxide, octenol, or
combinations of these were evaluated ...The total number of
mosquitoes and number of each species captured during the test were
compared using 8 × 8 and 5 x 5 Latin square designs based on trap
location. ... Traps baited with octenol captured significantly fewer
Cx. pipiens than those not baited with octenol. Likewise, no Cx.
orientalis were captured in octenol-baited traps.

Pity we happened to be discussing PROPANE POWERED traps.

Host-seeking activity showed a similar bimodal pattern for all
species captured. ... Significantly greater numbers of mosquitoes
were captured with mosquito traps using counterflow technology when
compared to standard light and carbon dioxide-baited traps.

No reason why the propane powered traps cant have counterflow as
well, ****wit child.

IOW, just a fan to suck the critters in and trap 'em was more
effective than the expensive, fancy traps.

That is nothing even remotely resembling anything like what they actually concluded, ****wit child.

They ACTUALLY said that its the traps that have counterflow IN ADDITION
TO chemical and CO2 luring that work the best, which is hardly surprising.
http://apt.allenpress.com/perlserv/?....3.CO%3B2&ct=1

Try again.

On Aug 16, 12:34*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
dpb wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Yard Guy wrote
What's the verdict on these things? *Are they effective?
I've seen no independent testing results that indicated they're more
effective than alternatives tested--which is pretty much why they're
not particularly widespread; it appears that most of the glowing
testimonials are either sponsored "research" (read advertising hype)
or self-justification of the $$ spent to avoid admitting have been suckered.
It's been a while since I looked but google found several studies a
while back from various land-grant universities, etc., that
concluded they're of minimal help if any...
That can only be because some werent that well designed.
Its been known for a long time now what attracts mosquitos.
May be so;
No maybe about it.
You're taking that away from the rest of the sentence it was modifying to infer a totally different meaning from what
I said...

You're lying.

Certainly it's know what attracts skeeters to live critters; what's
not so clear is that the artificially-generated attempts are effective.

Corse its perfectly possible to provide the CO2, heat and
odours etc that are the same as what live humans produce.

as noted the testing results I remember seeing didn't demonstrate significantly higher preferential capture rates
for the devices.
Higher than what ? *If they capture anything,
they must be working better than no device at all.
Than the other devices in the test, obviously...

That means that those other devices are perfectly viable mosquito traps, stupid.

Particularly, they weren't effective for anything even
remotely approaching the acreage coverage claims iirc...
Different matter entirely.
But still a portion of the test and how effective they are for practical use.

Wrong on that last.

So what if even if they were 100% effective in a small radius--you going to limit your position into that area?

You havent established that they only work over a small area.

The devices are typically advertised as covering sizable fractions of an acre.

Irrelevant if you dont need as much as that.

There are likely newer studies available; others are welcome to pursue it. *Seems like it was LSU extension
maybe(???) that had some of the
most extensive that I saw previously but I'm not certain of that any longer....
Sounds like you are comprehensively garbling what they actually said.
No;

Yep.

the conclusions were they were no more effective than other traps tested w/o the CO2 attractants...

Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.

As they say, "you can look it up"...

As they say,

YOU made that claim about what they purportedly said.

YOU get to demonstrate that any actually said what you claim they said.

THATS how it works.

That's how the ignorant think it works. More knowledgeable persons
simply refute, then may or may not chastise.

Any device may kill tons of mosquitoes. Whether those kills provide
adequate relief is another story entirely.

Gas/smoke/heat emitting devices are obviously dependent on the speed
and direction of the wind, a severe limitation of effectiveness.

As a former PCO who lives in the woods with a SO who is outdoors
morning to usually late night I recommend materials that both kill and
repel. I use Tempo Ultra WP (available on eBay at nearly PCO $)
applied at a 0.10 concentration with a Birchmeier 2-1/2 gallon sprayer
(the Cadillac of sprayers).
http://www.birchmeier.com/English/Ab...8/Default.aspx
http://www.itbcompany.com/

The big downside is that pyrethrin insecticides, while safe for
mammals, aren't selective; they kill pretty much everything.

They are also quickly degraded by UV light (@48 hrs direct sunlight)
and while they will stick pretty good during a heavy rain, two rains
and they're in the dirt (it's been a tough year here in this regard,
it's rained twice every 3-4 days).

Another consideration is swimming pools. Get much in one by spray or
tracking) and you'll have algae growing like you've never seen before.

I spray everything in the vicinity; trees, grass, bushes, walls, deck
railing, being careful of overspray drift in the pool.

SWMBO sits out in her bikini unmolested by anything but me.

No "electronic" pest repellent/killer has been demonstrated to have
much effectiveness outdoors.

(I once met a client at a pet store and we put his new $50 electronic
rodent device in an aquarium full of mice. They immediately crawled
all over it.)
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
On Aug 16, 12:34 am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
dpb wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
(snip)
No "electronic" pest repellent/killer has been demonstrated to have
much effectiveness outdoors.

Now if somebody could just come up with an electronic repellent for Rod
Speed...
(talk about futile battles...)

aemeijers wrote:
Now if somebody could just come up with an electronic repellent for
Rod Speed...
(talk about futile battles...)

If it weren't for people QUOTING HIM, people like me would have forgotten
about him a long time ago.

Jon

On Aug 16, 12:34*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:

You're lying.

Still working on those "people skills", I see.