Applicant claims the benefit of the provisional application Ser. No. 62/600,166 filed on Feb. 15, 2017.
The present invention relates to nectar type bird feeder(s) and feeder accessory devices having an incorporated short wavelength ultraviolet light source for disinfecting the sugar water nectar contents of the feeder.
The sugar water nectar used in nectar type bird feeders has a limited life, typically spoiling within a few days, particularly in warmer weather conditions. This spoilage is due to the growth of yeasts, molds and bacteria in the nutrient rich sugar water. It is not unusual in very warm conditions for the nectar to become contaminated in just 3 to 4 days. Typically, the nectar used in these feeders will remain fresh for 3 to 5 days depending on the outdoor temperature. Ornithologists usually recommend that to keep the feeding birds safe, the nectar should be replaced every 3 to 4 days. This routine nectar replacement can be expensive and is inconvenient for many bird-feeding consumers. For this reason, there are a number of commercial products available for extending the life or freshness of the sugar water nectar used in nectar type hummingbird, oriole and butterfly feeders. These products use preservatives or disinfecting agents (sodium benzoate, copper sulfate, etc.) added directly to the nectar or prepackaged nectar preparations. Many Ornithologists have warned consumers against using these nectar-extending products, advising that these chemical additives may cause long term health problems by disrupting the microbiota that live symbiotically with the birds. There is then, a real need for a non-chemical means to extend the service life of the sugar-water used in these nectar type bird feeders.
The instant invention solves the particular problem of nectar spoilage with these nectar feeders by using an incorporated short wavelength ultraviolet light source to sterilize and thereby extend the service life the nectar. This sterilization is achieved using the short wavelength, ultraviolet light source, specifically adapted to illuminate the nectar and nectar feeder interior.
The following drawings are intended to demonstrate a number of the features and configurations of the ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT DISINFECTING—NECTAR TYPE BIRD FEEDER(S) might have. They are not intended to show all of the device features or design embodiments.
The instant invention combines a simple sterilizing wavelength ultraviolet light source adapted to “shine” on the nectar contents of a nectar type bird feeder. The “sterilizing” ultraviolet light source may be powered using a battery or outlet, or an incorporated solar cell/battery system, very similar in operation to the widely available, low cost, solar powered landscape lighting devices. The
The use of shorter wave ultraviolet light to sterilize instruments, surfaces and even water is well known in the art. Typically these devices use a high intensity, short wavelength ultraviolet light in the UV C (200 nm-280 nm) and UV B (280 nm-315 nm) wavelengths. These high-energy devices are very effective in their disruption of the DNA of micro-organisms. This disruption prevents these micro-organisms (bacteria, molds and fungus) from multiplying (reproducing). Of course, there is nothing preventing the use of UV-C or UV-B to be used to sterilize the nectar, but it may turn out to be more economical and in some ways preferable to consumers to use a longer term UV-A (“blacklight” 315 nm-400 nm) exposure. Typically, UV-A is not used for sterilization, but it has been shown to have significant sterilization effects up to wavelengths as high as 385 nm (reference the study at the internet link: https://www.google.com/search?q=365+nm+for+sterilization&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8). The UV-A ultraviolet light takes longer to sterilize, but this is not a problem as the exposure can extend through an entire night. Some further experimentation and consumer preference surveys will be required to optimize the ultraviolet light source(s), electrical power and exposure time/schedule for the instant invention. Since the nectar starts out sterile or nearly sterile, the ultraviolet light only needs to inhibit microbial growth. Most feeder consumers would be very happy with a product that reliably extends the nectar freshness in their feeders by 2×-3× or up to one week or 10 days. Testing has shown the ultraviolet light exposed nectar can remain “fresh” for up to two weeks.
The
The
Referring to
Referring to
Referring to
It should be noted that there are a wide variety of nectar feeders and feeder designs that are commercially available. Although not shown in the patent figures, many of these feeders are of a bowl type configuration. These bowl type feeders do not rely on vacuum to hold their nectar contents. Because of this, the UV light source may be located on the top, or integrally incorporated into the top of these feeders without any concern for maintaining a vacuum seal. This bowl feeder configuration allows for the direct transmission of the ultraviolet light source directly onto the nectar contents without any concern for light transmission losses. Since the shorter wavelength UV-C and UV-B light does not penetrate most glass or most clear plastics, it will be reflected within the interior of the feeder, thus minimizing any exposure risk to the consumer or the feeding birds.
The invention embodiments shown in the patent figures are designed to directly expose the feeder contents (nectar) and feeder interior to the disinfecting UV light source. It is technically feasible to add a small pump element to a feeder wherein the nectar is periodically cycled through an ultraviolet illuminated chamber where it is exposed to a more localized source of disinfecting UV light. A feeder constructed with these additional elements may well keep the nectar fresh for an extended period, but this type of configuration would be more expensive to manufacture and would require a more involved cleaning procedure when the nectar is to be replaced.
Also, while the ultraviolet light source is intended to inhibit the growth, development and reproduction of (nectar spoiling) microbes and thereby to extend the limited life of the sugar water nectar, there is an opportunity to enhance the feeder esthetics by decorating the feeder using fluorescing type pigments. The UV-A light source is essentially similar in wavelength to the “black” lights that are widely used to make fluorescent pigments appear to glow. It is possible then to decorate the feeder and feeder ports (exterior or interior) using fluorescing pigments that will appear to “glow” when exposed to the ultraviolet light. Since the “sterilizing” UV light may not always be in the visible range, it will be easy for the consumer to detect the operation of the UV light source using a fluorescing pigment colored or molded indicator.
Finally, it has been discovered that hummingbirds are adapted to see some wavelengths (approximately 300 nm to 400 nm) of UV light that are not visible to humans. Since many flowers reflect UV light, this is likely to be an adaptation that helps the birds to locate nectar sources. If the ultraviolet light source is cycled on during the day, the nectar feeders employing this UV sterilizing technology may be made conspicuously visible and thereby more attractive to the feeding birds.
I have now described my invention in considerable detail, however others skilled in the art can devise and develop alternate and equivalent constructions. Hence, I desire my protection not to be limited by the constructions illustrated and described, but only by the proper scope of the appended claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3540145 | McEwen | Nov 1970 | A |
5229053 | Steinberg | Jul 1993 | A |
5413069 | Currie | May 1995 | A |
6340824 | Komoto | Jan 2002 | B1 |
7162975 | Nauert | Jan 2007 | B1 |
9192148 | Hill | Nov 2015 | B1 |
9694094 | Wedding | Jul 2017 | B1 |
20030173525 | Seville | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20050034677 | Blake | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20060118055 | Kuelbs | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060271340 | Levine | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070221133 | Richmond | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070277742 | Venezia | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080029035 | Gou | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080316732 | Blake | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090031962 | Webber | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090293341 | Fleming | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20110011345 | LoRocco | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20140224182 | Blake | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20150059228 | Holmes | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20160058035 | McWilliams | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160305622 | Baker, Jr. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160349433 | Donahue | Dec 2016 | A1 |