Can I assume that (one of) the last (two) is/are used to validate that the source of the gas is human?
I thought it was clear but perhaps this will be more so-
The text I provided had this parametric order:
Even a fairly simple device is able to discern four elements/factors; CO2 concentration, alcohol concentration, flow rate/pressure and sample temperature.
So the answer to your question is NO.
Flow rate/pressure only ensures adequate sample volume is being supplied for the measurement to be valid.
Sample temperature alone is not sufficient to provide differentiation due to ambient conditions being able to mimic the temperature of human respiratory gases.
However, by measuring CO2 concentration AND sample temperature, it can be more reasonably discerned that the air sample likely came from a human.
Hence my more concise initial reply-
CO2 production and sample temperature range are indications of biological origin...
Your reply is concise in what it contains, but you STILL haven’t answered the question.
Does its algorithm require that these be within the parameters normal to a human origin?
Let me clarify what I’m trying to find out. These systems are required in some states by court order as a device to allow the car to be unlocked when an individual has been convicted of DUI. If the device measures these parameters but does not require them to be within the limits normal to a human, and only requires that the pressure and flow be adequate to sample, then only concerning itself with measurements indicative of alcohol content, than the device could be easily fooled. If it requires these measurements of temperature and carbon dioxide to indicate human origin of the gas being blown in, than it cannot.
OK while I railed against the Acura electronic features here, we took a 400 mile boring drive this weekend and I started pushing buttons. After three years I guess I still don’t know what everything is for. At any rate when I hit the audio button, up pops the radio stations on the display. You can scroll through and select them visually. I guess maybe I’ll have to go through the manual again since it seems most of the stuff I complained about is there under hidden buttons or screens. Still think it could be a little more intuitive though like with a back button instead of a cancel button. The cancel button not always but sometimes taking you back to the previous screen.
Edit: Oh boy, the back button is on the steering wheel along with all the other buttons and evidently the nav system takes voice commands. Haven’t tried that though. 800 pages of instructions?
Your reply is concise in what it contains, but you STILL haven’t answered the question.
Does its algorithm require that these be within the parameters normal to a human origin?
That’s because you haven’t asked that specific question.
The answer is YES.
They want to be sure you’re not gaming the system.
Once you can actually quantify those parameters, it is quite simple to validate that the levels are within what would be considered to be normal for a human. Most healthy humans respire approximately 38 mmHg of CO2 and have a body temperature around 98 degrees.
BTW- it would be no big stretch to include humidity in the equation and that would be nearly impossible for all but the most determined and knowledgeable person to fake it out…
There was a picture of a sitrep (situation report) going around on one of the Navy groups I belong to on Facebook about a sailor in San Diego who wanted to drive after leaving a bar. Due to a past DUI, he had one of those court ordered breathalyzers in his car, so it would not start.
He captured a raccoon that was rummaging through a trash can and forced it to breath into the device and it worked. However he had squeezed the raccoon so hard it passed out. He did not release the raccoon and when it regained consciousness, it attacked him and caused a accident.
I don’t believe it, but it makes for a good tale though.
It does make for a good tale… and a warning about using wild animals to try to fool the device!
Sadly, I have read news articles where an alcoholic has had his young child breath into the tube for him.
I apologize for sounding like a broken record, but I think the only thing that will stop alcoholics from repeating is to impound the car upon failure of a “field test” and confiscate the car upon conviction… no matter who owns it. Granted, it won’t stop 100% of repeats, but if it prevents 80% that’d be an enormous improvement and many thousands of innocent lives every year not ruined.
I agree with you on confiscating the vehicle, but it should be crushed afterwards. That is to keep the bank from repossessing it. That will make it harder for the offender to buy another vehicle. I would only apply this to second offenders and beyond.
First offenders will find it difficult to finance a vehicle as well because the bank knows what the risks are if the first offender decides to be a repeat offender.
I had auctioning it and using the revenues to combat drunk driving in mind, but crushing it works too. The concept I had in mind would include the state confiscating the vehicle, leaving the borrower still on the hook for the loan. That way NOBODY would loan their vehicle to an alcoholic, the risk being that they could lose the vehicle and still be liable for the loan.
Someone convicted of a DUI would then have to get an “unsecured loan” to get another car… or secure it with some other large asset.
I’m also comfortable with making confiscation apply to only second offenders or beyond, as long as some serious penalty is created for first offenders.
Too many lives are ruined by something that we have the power to stop. Unfortunately, alcohol is so ingrained in our culture that we can’t get really serious about stopping it.
When my son was born I quit drinking entirely, feeling that if my kids grew up not seeing me ever have a drink they wouldn’t think of drinking as being a normal part of being an adult. Now they’re both grown, my son with his own daughter, and neither drinks and drives. My son likes a beer with dinner occasionally, and my daughter likes an occasional glass of wine with dinner, but neither will have one if they’re going to be driving. Both get downright angry of they see a drunk driver.
Drunk driving has been tolerated in our society for far too long, and IMHO it’s time we get serious about. The consequences of driving drunk should be serious enough to make it almost impossible for someone convicted of DUI to do it again. My suggestion is only one. There are other suggestions to make the crime as serious as it really is. Unfortunately, they all face uphill battles.
I have the 2 beer limit for driving, and impressed that on my daughter, she is extremely aware of the penalties and dangers, and knows if she is ever over the limit she can call and I will pay for a taxi. She is 23 now, but covered for a ride by me if needed.
Several years ago one of my nephews who has a drinking problem was arrested for DUI. When I was contacted for bail money my answer was NO. I love him too much to enable his drunk driving. I put the protection of lives…his children, his wife, other people at risk from drunk drivers, and he himself…as most important.
One of my cousins, her fiance, and two others were killed in a head-on collision when a drunk driver hit the car they were in. I have zero tolerance for DUI.
