 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It doesn't have blades; it uses an impeller. And although I can't recall
> the name for it now, I've seen a device similar to this that passively
> accelerates airflow.
I don't have much doubt that the shape of the ring actually amplifies
airflow. And airflow is probably not as chopped up.
However, I think that there is small functional difference between a
fan-blade and what is used in the impeller. It all boils down to rotating
structures pusing air molecules forward. I expected something >new<.
And I really doubt that cleaning the impeller is easier than cleaning a fan.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Put my hand through one in the store.
Sure - but the impeller (hidden in the base) is still based on rotating
mechanical objects. Or am I wrong here? Did I miss something? If so - my
apologies.
I see small difference (in priciple) between it and a fan. Nothing really
new, apart from the ring-geometry used to amplify airflow.
And I really doubt that the impeller is more easy to clean than a
conventional fan. What if enough dust is sucked inside the impeller? >Can<
you even clean it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Invisible
Subject: Re: Fan without blades: should we ROTFL or weep?
Date: 4 Jun 2010 08:26:18
Message: <4c08f0ea@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC wrote:
> However, I think that there is small functional difference between a
> fan-blade and what is used in the impeller. It all boils down to rotating
> structures pusing air molecules forward. I expected something >new<.
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.)
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.
> And I really doubt that cleaning the impeller is easier than cleaning a fan.
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.
Still, at the end of the day, if you don't like it, don't buy one. :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/4/2010 8:26 AM, Invisible wrote:
> TC wrote:
>
>> However, I think that there is small functional difference between a
>> fan-blade and what is used in the impeller. It all boils down to
>> rotating structures pusing air molecules forward. I expected something
>> >new<.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
>> And I really doubt that cleaning the impeller is easier than cleaning
>> a fan.
>
> 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.
>
> Still, at the end of the day, if you don't like it, don't buy one. :-)
The reverse sides of the fan blades get dusty too, even when the fan is
in use.
--
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Don't know about how you'd clean the fan I saw, if anything it's a greater
mildew risk for the mechanics trapped inside.
But the device was bladeless in the sense that I couldn't imagine a 3 year old
hurting himself with it unless they bit on the power cord.
"TC" <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
> > It doesn't have blades; it uses an impeller. And although I can't recall
> > the name for it now, I've seen a device similar to this that passively
> > accelerates airflow.
>
> I don't have much doubt that the shape of the ring actually amplifies
> airflow. And airflow is probably not as chopped up.
>
> However, I think that there is small functional difference between a
> fan-blade and what is used in the impeller. It all boils down to rotating
> structures pusing air molecules forward. I expected something >new<.
>
> And I really doubt that cleaning the impeller is easier than cleaning a fan.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> It doesn't have blades; it uses an impeller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pump_Impellers-1.jpg
Looks like blades to me. I'm not really sure what the difference between
"blades" and "impeller" is, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2010-06-04 08:17, TC wrote:
> I see small difference (in priciple) between it and a fan. Nothing really
> new, apart from the ring-geometry used to amplify airflow.
There is nothing new, only modifications and improvements upon existing
things and concepts.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoo com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:web.4c0917b8fc7ba212a00085090@news.povray.org...
> Don't know about how you'd clean the fan I saw, if anything it's a greater
> mildew risk for the mechanics trapped inside.
>
> But the device was bladeless in the sense that I couldn't imagine a 3 year
> old
> hurting himself with it unless they bit on the power cord.
Granted. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Looks like blades to me. I'm not really sure what the difference between
> "blades" and "impeller" is, tho.
To my untutored eye it is the same, shaped a bit differently, maybe.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
