> A fan pushes air forwards by using flat blades to fan it. An impeller 
> pushes air *outwards* by centrifugal force. That's an entirely different 
> mode of action. (Although of course impellers aren't exactly new either.)

It is the reverse mode of action.

My computer's power-source has what I would call a fan. In fact, everybody I 
knows calls it this. Yet it impells air into the unit. So should it be named 
impeller?

> What _is_ new is that by using clever air currents, you can make the draft 
> much bigger with less effort. And I guess it looks kinda neato.

Yes. That's what caugt my eye. It does look good, and at first glance one 
wonders how it is done. Hence my disappointment when I found out. ;-)

> From what little I've seen, fans tend to get dusty when they're not in 
> use, because they're exposed to the air. An impeller, by definition, is 
> internal. When it's not running, there's very little air to get it dusty.

Look into your computer. If it is older than a year, examine the fans. Now, 
that is what I call dirty. The little impeller sucks in air. It will get as 
dirty, won't it?

> Still, at the end of the day, if you don't like it, don't buy one. :-)

Have you looked at the price? $329.99 - this is surely innovative. ;-)

http://www.dyson.com/store/fans.asp

Post a reply to this message