Post #917: Floor-to-chair aid, user focus

This is the final set of refinements for my floor-to-chair aid staircase.  I’ll build a new set of stairs incorporating all the changes when the materials arrive later this week.

The upshot of this posting is that the only configuration you can build out of readily-available parts is a staircase with four 4.5″ steps.  And that it might be a good idea to carpet those steps.

As planned, the entire setup, including carpet and pushup bars, should cost about $55, and should take just over three hours to build.  The footprint of the stairs will now be 48″ x 32″

Details follow.


Continue reading Post #917: Floor-to-chair aid, user focus

Post #916: But wait, what about that huge Canadian post-Thanksgiving surge?

Stop: Before you read any further, take 30 seconds, study the graph above, and identify when Canadian Thanksgiving occurred, based on the huge surge in cases that occurred two weeks afterwards.  Answer given at the end of this posting. Continue reading Post #916: But wait, what about that huge Canadian post-Thanksgiving surge?

Post #915: Still no post-Thanksgiving COVID surge

A few weeks back, it was widely (and reasonably) predicted that Thanksgiving travel and socializing would result in a spike in new COVID-19 cases. 

 

 

You don’t see much talk about that, now.  But you should.  Because that spike ought to be showing up any time now.

It’s not perfectly clear when that spike should occur, due to the lag between getting infected and having that infection counted in the data.  It takes about five days, on average, for symptoms to develop.  After that, it depends.  I’ve used a median value of 12 days total lag, both because that’s seemingly reasonable, and because that seems to be the lag from the Chinese experience in Wuhan, adjusted for more rapid American testing.  But I have seen others offer a vague “two to three weeks”, without offering any data analysis to support that.  I have not seen anyone suggesting a lag greater than three weeks.

We now have data through 12/12/2020, or two weeks and two days after Thanksgiving day.  And while the Thanksgiving holiday definitely scrambled the data reporting, the much-anticipated spike in new cases does not seem to be happening.  Yet.

Bear in mind that everybody looks at a seven-day moving average (I address this graphically at the end of the posting).  So even if a spike had begun, that data-averaging practice would blur it on all the charts you commonly see.   So it’s too early to say that we aren’t going to see that Thanksgiving spike.  Yet.  But every day that it fails to appear increases the odds in favor of no spike.

What should we expect to see if there were a Thanksgiving spike?  The signature of a Thanksgiving spike would be simultaneity.  We should expect to see a sharp upturn in cases, well above existing trends, across all the states, all at the same time.  That’s because Thanksgiving is celebrated in all states, all on the same day.  There would be some variation for the speed with which states report cases.  There would be some variation for the fraction of each state’s population that did or did not travel and meet with larger family groups.  Variation due to all the other diverse things going on in those states.  But in general, we ought to see almost everybody’s new cases departing sharply upward from trend, more-or-less all at the same time.

And I certainly don’t see that.  Yet.  What I see looks mostly like continuation of recent existing trends.  But you can look at the data (below) and see for yourself.  These are data through 12/12/2020, or 16 days after Thanksgiving day.

I note that California’s departure from trend occurred well before Thanksgiving-generated cases would have entered their data.  I casually have attributed that to a very dry November in Southern California.

One problem with all the graphs above is that they are seven-day moving averages.  Everybody does that to even out the large daily transient variations in case counts.  But that comes at the expense of having data that respond sluggishly to changes.  My final data point (12/12/2020) actually represents data with an average age of around 12/8/2020 – 12/9/2020.

Averaging across time is not the only way you can get rid of unwanted daily variation in each state’s reported cases.  You can simply average up different sets of states, day by day.  That will also get rid of some random daily fluctuations in counts, but will let any simultaneous changes be visible.  (For example, the “blip” that Thanksgiving put into the data report should remain visible, because those state-level “blips” all occurred on the same day).

So let’s try it that way, showing the daily count of new cases (not the seven-day moving average), but showing the population-weighted average within six regions.  And because the numbers still jump around from day to day, let me also show a three-day moving average of that.  That gives me some smoothing, and the last data point is, on average, just one day older than the raw daily data.

The regions here match the graphs above:  New England/Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, South Central, Midwest, Mountain, and Pacific.

Across the regions, the only thing that even looks like a spike, with the right timing, is in the South Central region (gray line)– and that turns out to be an artifact of data reporting.  On December 11, it appears that Texas did what North Dakota (Post #912) had some a few days earlier — added probable cases (presumably based on antigen testing) to their case counts.

On Dec. 11, probable case counts were added, and the dashboard was reconfigured to improve performance. For more information about probable cases, ...

Source:  Texas Department of State Health Services COVID-19 dashboard.

Far as I can tell, the Thanksgiving-related spike in COVID-19 cases hasn’t occurred.  Yet.

This does not mean that the advice to avoid Thanksgiving travel and gatherings was bad advice at the time it was given.  It was completely reasonable advice.  And we may yet see that spike in the next few days.  But if we don’t see it, that’s news, and that needs to be widely reported.

Post 914: Fine-tuning the floor-to-chair aid.

Post #913 was a proof-of-concept.  It demonstrated that you can make a sturdy, portable staircase, suitable for use as a floor-to-chair aid, at home, using nothing but readily available materials and a few simple hand tools.  At modest cost.

That initial design has a lot of drawbacks.  It took a lot of time, used a lot of materials, had a lot of unwanted variation in the cut-up size of those materials, wasn’t really the right size, may or may not stand up well under the pressures generated by the pushup bars (used in lieu of grab rails.)

And so on.

So the point of this post is to fix what I can, to make this faster, cheaper, and better.

1:  I’m sticking with using identical new boxes, at least for now.

I’m sticking with the idea of building these up from packages of identical new boxes (via Amazon).  It gives them a reasonably finished look and, practically speaking, it’s the only way I can make up a set of instructions that somebody could readily follow.  Otherwise, I have no idea what the end user is working with.

2:  You can skip reinforcing the lower boxes.

Savings:  Roughly one hour of time, and six fewer cartons required for the 3-step model.

I suspected this was true from the start.  The corrugated cardboard in these cartons is rated to 32 pounds per linear inch in the “edge crush test”.  That gives a roughly 500 pound theoretical load, for these boxes, before they would fail, as long as that 500 pounds were spread evenly across the tops of the box walls.   (That calculation is based on this short Wikipedia article).

So I tested the theory.  I removed the internal supports from a box at the rear bottom of the stairs.  And when I sat on the stairs, nothing happened.  There is no perceptible difference between the side with all boxes reinforced, and the side where one box is not reinforced.

This works in part because the boxes themselves are strong enough.  But also because the first level of boxes — the part you actually sit on — serves to spread out any loads.

There is a risk here, in that the reinforced boxes are more robust to injury.  You could damage the box wall, and still have plenty of corrugated inside, holding up the box.  With unreinforced boxes, there’s just one layer of cardboard.  If it gets seriously damaged, the box could fail.

I considered adding corner reinforcements to the now-empty boxes, but commercial reinforcements are only sold on large lots.  The alternative of gluing up reinforcements, from layers of cardboard, is unappealing.

For the time being, I’m doing nothing.  I think these short boxes are robust enough on their own.  And if a sidewall gets damaged, just cut out the old box and put in a new one.

This has a lot of benefits.

This reduces the burden of cutting and carton assembly roughly in half.  And means that you save six cartons’ worth of cardboard.  It also makes for a neater overall look, as there will no longer be “overstuffed” cartons that bulge, below the top level of cartons.  It lowers the height of the steps because the tops of these boxes no longer bulge.  And it allows me to customize the height of the steps much more easily.

3:  Pay more attention to form factor/box size; customize step height if needed.

The prototype turned out with steps that are too tall.  I naively thought that a 6″ box would yield 6″ steps.  But in fact, a 6″ (interior dimension) box is actually 6.5″ tall.  Add in some “bulge” from over-cut support pieces, and the steps average just under 7″ tall.

Assuming I can eliminate the problem of bulging boxes, and noting that the hardboard only adds to the height of the first step, I now know what my options are, using stock cartons.

I can find 3″, 4″ and 5″ tall cartons whose other dimensions would work for the other dimensions of the staircase.  Each step adds a foot to the length of the staircase.  I’m assuming that 4′ long is the practical limit, but that’s just a guess.  With those constraints, to get the top step near a common wheelchair seat height (18″ to 20″), I only have three options using stock (uncustomized) boxes:

  • steps x rise, total height
  • 4 x 4.5, 18″
  • 3 x 5.5, 16.5″
  • 3 x 6.5, 19.5″

Anything other rise height or total height would require me to cut down the boxes to a custom height.

If I had to redo the current staircase from scratch, I’d just buy shorter boxes.  As it stands, rather than waste the boxes I have, I think I’m going to shorten them.  This will also be a test of whether or not I could conveniently build one to some exact specification for riser height.  It’s not hard to reduce the height of an empty cardboard box.  Tools for doing that are readily available for under $20 (such as this one, from Amazon).

The only difficult part is resizing the very first step, because that one requires resizing both the carton and the reinforcing cardboard in the carton.

Which brings up the next point.

4: Create a cheap jig for making accurate cuts in the cardboard.

The need for perfectly-cut interior supports is a real drawback.  Uneven supports weaken the load-bearing capability and they make the boxes bulge, which makes the final assembly tough and makes the results look slapdash.  In the prototype, I sorted the supports by size.  But what I really need to do is cut them the right size in the first place.

There does not appear to be a commercially-made “knife guide” to meet my needs.  Searching for “knife guide” bring up kitchen appliances and sharpening aids.

But, in a mini-quest, I think I can easily make one.

  • Take a $3.00 piece of metal corner bead, from Home Depot,
  • Hacksaw into three pieces.
  • The finished device, when viewed on end, will look like an L,  followed by a closely-spaced L and backwards L.
  • The factory cardboard edge rides within the first L.
  • The L and backwards L form a knife slot, duct-taped together, spaced by a couple of used utility knife blades.
  • The whole assembly is connected together by strips of cardboard at either end, slit to hold the knife slot at the exact right distance.

In addition to making the cutting more accurate, I think this will also speed it up considerably.

5  Modify the reinforcement in the top boxes, the ones you actually sit on.

I decided against this.  I’m keeping this the same as it is in the prototype.

The top boxes have to distribute fairly intense point loads from the pushup bars.  And they take high transient dynamic loads as the user moves up and down the stairs.  So this is the part of the staircase that needs reinforcement.

I’m not thrilled with my current method of little cardboard “V”s.  But I’m not seeing anything that looks like it’ll work better, for the same or less effort.

I ended up with the “V”s because I tried to do the standard rectangular interlocking grid reinforcement, but that took vastly too much time.   (As a means of reinforcing a box, a grid is more efficient than “V” because the cardboard supports are absolutely evenly distributed.  But it just takes too much time to produce all that grid from raw cardboard.)

I considered non-cardboard materials for the support, but didn’t find any that met all my criteria (cheap, strong, fast, recyclable).

Spray foam would be expensive and of unknown durability.  It would take roughly two cans of Great Stuff spray foam to fill one box.  (Calculated from this source — each can produces about .31 cubic feet of foam). And that would also mean that the boxes could not be recycled.

I may yet try insulating foam board.  That’s lightweight, cheap, and durable, but very tough to cut well with just a utility knife, and even tougher to cut to an exact size with a knife.  That would also require removal before recycling the cardboard.

All things considered, other than cutting the pieces to an accurate 6″ height, I’m sticking with what I have.

6)  Stiffen up the top surface.

The hardboard panels on the prototype serve three purposes.

First, they stop high point loads from puncturing the cardboard.  E.g., think how easy it is to drive a ball-point pen into a cardboard box.  So they prevent accidents like that from trashing the sitting surface.

Second, they provide a slick and wear-resistant surface.  This both helps the user to maneuver, and prevents repeated use from rapidly wearing through the cardboard.  (The tape, on the other hand, is a different matter.)

Third, they help to spread the loads over a larger area.  But they do this poorly, because the hardboard panels are themselves quite flexible.  For example, if you try to walk on this staircase, you get an unacceptable level of deflection of the step surface under your feet.  Your weight is simply not spread out enough for the cardboard to take the load without deforming.

To spread the load, ideally, you’d have a very stiff top surface, one that wouldn’t readily bend.  The stiffer it is, the better it will spread the load.  And that matters greatly, because the entire strength of the steps comes from spreading the load over a large amount of corrugated cardboard.

I used 1/8″ hardboard because I knew I could cut that by scoring it with a utility knife.  I didn’t go with something stiffer (plywood, say) because it’s too hard to cut (or cut well) with simple (non-power) hand tools.  (And it makes a mess when you cut it.)

I’ve looked at options for a stiffer step (1/4″ MDF, gluing multiple sheets of hardboard together, creating foam-core hybrid materials using insulating foam and hardboard, using thin plywood) and they all have drawbacks (that I won’t bother to detail).

Instead, I’m going to take the scraps of leftover hardboard and add a second layer of hardboard on the outside 10″ of each step.  These will be the “landing pads” for the pushup bars.  Those bars will exert considerable point force, with the user’s entire weight resting on the eight small feet of the pushup bars.  With a 200 pound user, I can plausibly expect a static load of 20 PSI and a dynamic load of twice that.  Whereas the user’s rump will generate no such high point loads.  And so, any reinforcement of the surface needs to go on the ends.

7  Try duct tape.

’nuff said.

8 Try a different assembly routine.

It would be nice if all the tape joints were visible from the outside.  That way, if a box got smashed, you could easily cut out just that one box and tape a new one in its place.  It also took quite a long time to assemble all the boxes, and I have to believe there’s a quicker way to do that.

9  Conclusion

I think that’s it.  Those are all the changes that are believe are feasible for me to do.  So the revised instructions would look like this:

  1. Choose your box size/form factor.
  2. Order your pack of boxes from Amazon.
  3. While you wait, make up your knife guide for accurate cuts.
  4. Buy the rest of the materials locally.
  5. For the three-step models:
    1. Assemble 6 empty boxes, two with handles.
    2. Cut up 6 boxes into strips, or cut scrap boxes into strips.
    3. Assemble and pack 6 boxes with internal reinforcement.
    4. Cut up 2 hardboard sheets (several additional small cuts now required).
    5. Assemble the staircase.
  6. For the four-step models (after buying one more sheet of hardboard).
    1. Assemble 12 …
    2. Cut up 12 …
    3. Assemble and pack 8 …
    4. Cut up 3 hardboard sheets …
    5. Assemble the staircase.

I am guessing that with the reduced amount of cutting of supports, the jig to speed the cutting, and so on, that this will now take under three hours.  And require less effort.

I’ll rebuild the existing staircase tomorrow.  And I’ll build the 4-step 4.5″ riser model when the boxes get her via Amazon.

Post #913: A D-I-Y floor-to-chair aid for paraplegic wheelchair users

This post is now superseded by Post #927.  Ignore the post below, and look at #927 for the final plans for this device.

This design works, but it’s really a proof-of-concept.   I’m now looking for easier ways to build it.  As I figure out improvements, I’ll post them separately, and link to them here.

For example, today (12/12/2020) I tested whether or not the lower cartons need to be reinforced.  They don’t.  The empty cartons themselves are sufficient.  That alone shows that there are faster, cheaper ways to build these steps.

See Post #914 for proposed modifications and a somewhat easier way to do this.  I’ll post a revised set of directions when I rebuild this tomorrow.

Post #917 now gives the final changes.  As it turns out, the only set that’s feasible to build and use, using off-the-shelf materials, is set with 4.5″ riser height and four steps.  I’ll document building that set when the materials arrive later this week.

Original post follows.


 

This post is a set of instructions for creating a broad, shallow, portable staircase.  The idea is that a paraplegic wheelchair user could use this staircase,  along with a set of pushup bars, to move from floor to chair level or vice-versa.

That’s a picture of my wife sitting on the finished steps, left.  It’s meant to illustrate how sturdy these steps feel, as she is perfectly comfortable sitting on them.

This is a followup to Post #886: A floor-to-chair/chair-to-floor aid for wheelchair users.  If you want the background on why I’m doing this, and what this is for, read that post. Continue reading Post #913: A D-I-Y floor-to-chair aid for paraplegic wheelchair users

Post #912: COVID-19 trends: No clear Thanksgiving effect yet; ND data anomaly

Yesterday, North Dakota decided to add persons with a positive antigen test to their counts of new positive COVID-19 cases.  Previously, they did what every other state does, and counted PCR tests only.   (See diagnostic test on this FDA webpage for the difference between antigen tests and the standard PCR tests.)

The backlog of those individuals added thousands of new cases to their totals, yesterday, and generated an apparent spike in cases.  For anyone looking for the effect of Thanksgiving travel in the data, that certainly caught the eye.

But if you look net those cases out of the data, to make the current data consistent with the historical data, ND continues on its prior downward trend.  That’s the red line segment added to the ND data line above.

That’s all by way of getting to my main point.  So far, while the trends are in general not good (outside of the states that had high peak rates last month), the trends are no different today than they were a week ago.  Today is exactly 14 days after Thanksgiving.  And, to may eye at least, so far, there’s no evidence of a widespread Thanksgiving-driven increase in the number of new cases. Continue reading Post #912: COVID-19 trends: No clear Thanksgiving effect yet; ND data anomaly

Post #911: COVID trends to 12/7/2020, Hawaii is the only bright spot.

This is just an update of my state-level graphs, showing the seven-day moving average of daily new COVID cases, based on the NY Times Github data repository.  The sharp squiggle near the end of many lines is an artifact of data reporting from the Thanksgiving holiday.

True new cases generated by all the socializing and travel at Thanksgiving should only start arriving in the data this week, at the earliest.  So all the existing upward trend you see to this point, in so many states, is all prior to the impact that Thanksgiving may have on new COVID-19 cases.

The Midwest states that had such extreme peaks two weeks ago generally continue to see declining (albeit high) new case counts.  Or maybe stable (but high) new case counts.

Pretty much everywhere else, other than Hawaii, the trend is toward higher case counts.  Outside of the Midwest/Mountain states, only Rhode Island has exceeded 100 new cases/100,000 population/day.  But many states are headed for that level, and (e.g.) Alaska looks like it will exceed that level in a few days.

California has broken away from the other West Coast states.  Without proof, I’d suggest that an exceptionally dry November in most of California may have contributed to that (Post #894).  With their Santa Ana winds, and zero rainfall, Los Angeles had numerous days where the outdoor relative humidity was in the single digits.  So California isn’t cold, but it’s surely got dry indoor air.  (By contrast, e.g., Both Seattle (WA) and Portland (OR) had significant precipitation, and outdoor relative humidities were typically in the 80%s.  So the Southern California climate was vastly different from the OR and WA climate in November 2020.)  Weather data were summarized from Weather Undergound historical weather data.

National and regional data follow.

 

Post #910: Virginia is a right-to-dry state? (Corrected! Again!)

If you look for graphic images of clotheslines, you inevitably get a page of crap like the image to the left.  Clothes lines are stereotyped as old-fashioned, or hicksville, or as the case of the one at the left, both.  With a side-order of sexism.

 

 

And yet, indoor dryers are such energy hogs that outdoor clothes lines have received legally protected status in nineteen states.  These are the so-called “right to dry” states.  In those states, a homeowners’ association cannot ban the use of clotheslines.  And this pro-outdoor-drying advocacy group gives links to the enabling legislation in all of them.  (Of course there’s an advocacy group for that.) Continue reading Post #910: Virginia is a right-to-dry state? (Corrected! Again!)

Post #909: Thanksgiving data artifact. I think. Now confirmed.

Edit:  One more day of data confirms that this was just a data reporting artifact.   True Thanksgiving-generated cases, if any, should begin showing up in the data next week.

Original post follows

Based on data reported through 12/3/2020, many (but not all) states are showing large upticks in the seven-day moving average of new cases per day.  As shown above, circled in red.

After looking at the details, I think that’s probably an artifact of Thanksgiving data reporting.  That is, I don’t think this is the start of a rapid increase in cases due to Thanksgiving-related travel.  Initially, I thought that all of that would have “washed through” the data reporting systems by Tuesday at the latest.  But here’s why I’ve changed my mind: Continue reading Post #909: Thanksgiving data artifact. I think. Now confirmed.

Post #908: Hebrews 11:1

Post #906 was about things that can harm us even though we can’t see them.   Seemingly clean household air is, in fact, full of particulate matter, much of it not visible to the naked eye.  But even if you didn’t believe that, it’s relatively simple to prove it.  Just run a box fan with a high-end air filter on the back, and note the buildup on the air filter.  Seemingly out of nowhere.

For most people, dealing with things that you can’t directly perceive boils down to matter of belief.  Your average Joe really doesn’t have much grasp of scientific method, or Koch’s postulates, or clinical trials.  Or science in general, for that matter.

And so, ultimately, for most people, taking proper COVID-19 sanitation measures is a matter of belief.  You have to believe that COVID-19 is transmitted by invisible particles passing through the air.  And your faith has to be strong enough that you’ll take the right actions to prevent that.

So when the Governor of Oklahoma decided to have a day of fasting and prayer, instead of a mask mandate, this struck many people as odd.  And I have to count myself among them.  (Despite Post #567).   Apparently the governor has faith that the invisible hand of God will help his people.  And so he called on the citizens of Oklahoma to pray for those who’ve already caught COVID-19.

But at the same time, his faith in the germ theory of disease is not strong enough for him to require people to wear masks, to avoid catching COVID-19 in the first place. Continue reading Post #908: Hebrews 11:1