Open Letter to Snapmaker re: Air Purifier

Exactly right. I’m very glad that we have the answers even though it’s not what we’d hoped for.

My point is that it needs to be more clearly stated by Snapmaker that it is not safe for completely indoor use despite the numbers presented on their page. I believe that the current state of their marketing/documentation is at the very least confusing if not misleading.

For example, by looking at the graph, it looks all very impressive. That graph alone could lead a person to conclude that because they are using the filter, they are safe and don’t need to vent outside because of the levels being so impressively low.

I don’t assume that users are or can easily be fully informed about this issue. I have tried to do research on the topic and the information is overwhelming. Snapmaker targets their products at home/hobby/maker users who are not scientists, nor should they be expected to be by the manufacturer.

I feel like this issue has gotten conflated with lawsuits and data. This isn’t about that. This is about the manufacturer making it absolutely clear that the user cannot, should not vent the Air “Purifier” indoors despite the fact that the disclosed numbers are low–that Snapmaker makes no representations that it would ever be safe to do so even when using their filter. In other words, I want them to definitively say: “If you are thinking of venting our filter exhaust indoors, don’t because it’s still not safe to do so.”

So I made a small number game. You can check it out here. As I am tired now, no guarantee that the numbers are right. But check it out here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_2qnbw-omSgAA97lKT7Wa9jvk8Dbpugt6vY0vmoKFPc/edit?usp=drivesdk

I tried to make sense of the numbers Snapmaker gives in the graph. I tried to convert it to a common unit, where regulations exist in Germany, where I live.

In Germany it is considered save, when the pollution is lower than 1,25 milligrams per m^3.
Source: https://www.dguv.de/staub-info/rechtsgrundlagen/grenzwerte/asgw/index.jsp

So the polluted air would has a value of around 47 milligrams per m^3. After purification it has 0,11 milligrams per m^3.

So, speaking of Germany, the numbers would be good enough, to use it indoors for the test case Snapmaker has tested, if I have not made any errors. Caveat:The test case is not detailed. So what has been measured.

1 Like

It would be great if Snapmaker could do that work for us. I get that the world is a big place, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t try to produce that kind of information for at least their major markets.

1 Like

Likewise, I question the actual purpose of this air purifier. If it vents to the outside, then the only “purpose” I can suppose is it prevent liability for the USER related to polluting outside air. I have read there have been concerns raise with 3D printing producing polluting discharges to outside. If, in fact the real purpose is to avoid polluting the outside environment, and not the USER’s indoor workspace, then the customer impression of value has to be affected. Do you need to protect from liability for polluting the outdoor environment?

I think the honest truth is - the air purifier exists because it was low hanging fruit that people would spend money on.

The plan before was to have the upgraded linear modules out by now, and offer them for 50% off to existing users because of the problematic nature of the existing ones… this was put on the back burner as a cash grab.

Air purifiers worth their weight would be quick to boast about being able to cover a laundry list of pollutants.

I get the desire to hide behind legalese, but it took an awful lot of drilling to get any kind of straight answer about anything, despite the “ask us anything” post where they answered next to nothing. It just further proves they hoped people would make internal assumptions and purchase it without a second thought.

With that said, I am sure this is a situation where it would do plenty of good, and they are just being careful about their wording so they don’t get in some kinda battle when some lawyer decides to challenge the device and cause problems. Even still, I’d rather have a product that was proud to say it can keep up with the relatively light weight work one could put out on a machine like this.

Mila is a great example of an air purifier that knows what its doing and what its limitations are. I don’t think putting a Mila inside the enclosure is an option though :joy:

I’m an attorney, but have zero experience with federal environmental law work. On the criminal side, my best guess is that it would be extremely difficult for the government to police such a thing. On the civil side, I can say that it is a possibility to be held liable by, for example, your neighbor who develops a lung ailment. However, I think that would be extremely difficult to prove that your Snapmaker caused the ailment.

MJ, I couldn’t have said it better myself. Perfectly captured my sentiment on the topic.

@JonnieCache lets be honest here, it’s been a demand since the machine came out. I don’t think the fruit could’ve gotten any lower.

1 Like

I understand this, however. I would have liked to have a list of materials that are safe to use with the filter venting inside. I understand that you can’t take full responsibility of what users might potentially do. Before you know it some is cutting pvc or trying to tattoo their cat with the laser.

However, I would have expected that something was listed like safe to use on wood without any glue etc.

The report isn’t freely accessible? (I’ve requested access right now)
nice graphs, however, for all I know, the average indoor air is even worse than what comes out of the purifier. I would expect that actually to be the case if you’ve just been cooking.

I’m pretty sure the ISS has one of those… And no I don’t expect it to be of the same quality, however because you claim you haven’t heard of any just means that you haven’t heard of any.

Nobody claimed that was a requirement.

Snapmaker marketing material does.

Anyway, I very much appreciate the open response of @Melitta_Snapmaker. What would make it easier for me to assess is if they could add numbers on “average air” Just like when you look up sound levels of decibel numbers where they are compared to “normal conversation, silent room, vacuum cleaner” etc. So if there would be a similar reference compared to air in plain nature, outdoor air, indoor air, air after cooking, air when you have an open fireplace would be nice.

3 Likes

I must admit I’ve never really understood the American approach where the manufacturer seems to have to take liability for all situations where a product is used, rather than the actual user. The only defence for the manuf. being to try to include a list of what the user shouldn’t do.

If I want to use a 3D printer I don’t assume that the manufacturer will tell me every wrinkle. ( I don’t assume they will conceal things from me either but I take responsibility for how I use a product - if I buy a hammer it’s for nails, not bashing people on the elbow!).

On this specific point, unless I’ve missed something the filter is an optional extra, as is the printer case, so anyone worried about emissions from the printer really shouldn’t be using it in a domestic setting if they have researched what the materials can produce when heated and don’t like that this will be hanging about in their normal breathing space.
The question about the filter is completely moot because if you have installed the printer (with or without case) you have already determined that it’s safe to use in that setting without the filter (as far as you the user is concerned) so what does the filter actually achieve??

The risk is the users. The risk analysis has to be done by the user. Any local legal requirements have to be understood by the user as these vary from territory to territory. Any workarounds or fixes to problems the user finds have to be thought through and implemented by the user (e.g open all the windows and set up fans to produce a through flow of air when lasering sheets that will produce VOCs from the materials the user has purchased)

It’s common sense that it’s the user’s issue and responsibility and frankly if one does’t understand the processes involved in how these units work (or can’t be bothered to research it before one buys them) then probably you shouldn’t be using them and there’s really only one person to blame.

Yes by all means expect the company to respond to questions about what’s the best way to set them up, how to minimise toxic fumes etc., provide a list of potential issues from the different processes with common matyerials - and at least the ones they supply themselves. However they cannot provide a prescriptive list about how to use the products safely. It’s not realistic, nor should a competent user expect them to.

Rant off.

1 Like

That’s simply not true. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion, the whole point of an air filter would be to not have to vent outside, yet they have you do that anyway. Snapmaker is the one that started saying all the dangers about fumes and particles. As for manufacturers having full liability, a machine is a tool and tools get misused, at which point the user then tries to sue manufacturers and in a lot of cases it’s thrown out in court, unless of course the machine itself was a dangerous product to begin with.

That would make the manufacturer liable in other countries as well, even Europe. Say someone lasers PVC, PVC should NEVER be under a laser as it puts out extremely toxic fumes, the user gets sick because of it and then tries to sue the manufacturer, a judge would throw it out in court because the user was a moron and misused the machine. A user of the machine can’t just take a manufacturer to court to make up for their own dumb stupidity, even though they would definitely try to.

This is an oversimplification, but yes. Users have a duty to watch out for themselves. Where the manufacturer liability ends and the user’s liability ends is not always clear. That’s why we have courts to decide those things.

Artezio, unless I’ve misunderstood, you are agreeing with me the user is responsible and should be legally too unless the product is fundamentally dangerous by design.

That was really the point I was making about the filter being an add on product. It isn’t going to make the printer any more dangerous than it might be already.

… and no I don’t think the printer is dangerous. I think it’s a great product - loud! but great

re. my first para I’m not American, but based on all manuals that I read for US manufactured products where it gives you a 20 page list of things you obviously shouldn’t do my limited understanding is that in America if the manufacturer doesn’t tell you you can’t do X then the user may have a case to go and sue if they do X and suffer but that’s there, not where I live so in many respects I don’t care.

Yes, I am, at least partly, there are times when a product is released that training is required, the 737 AMAX is the perfect example of this. The pilots requested training and Boeing refused to provide the materials. I was just merely pointing out that manufacturers aren’t liable for absolutely everything in America, contrary to what was said. As for all the novels of liability protection for American products, aside from safety laws that require that be posted, especially because theres lawmakers that don’t have anything better to do but to cause havoc for no reason, it’s just to protect from liability because America has some pretty big morons, including those that would intentionally do something stupid and get hurt just to try and sue. All countries have those idiots, but America seems to be ripe with them for some reason.

I fully agree with the above statement (and most of the rest of your post)

But not at all with that part. Very few people know how a car, a microwave, mobile phones or just “electricity” works.
You can not expect everyone to always be an expert.

1 Like

For good or for bad, that’s not how the legal system works in the United States. Manufacturers do bear responsibility although the responsibility is not the manufacturer’s alone. Often times, it’s simply a matter of adding warnings in the documentation and labelling. It’s a simple fix, really, and one that is a negligible expense for Snapmaker.

1 Like

I’ve never said that manufacturers are liable for absolutely everything.

1 Like

@JonnieCache that comment had nothing to do with anything you said… I was talking about what someone else was saying lol

1 Like