 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
From: Paul Fuller
Subject: Re: Fan without blades: should we ROTFL or weep?
Date: 6 Jun 2010 10:30:13
Message: <4c0bb0f5@news.povray.org>
|
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
On 6/06/2010 11:55 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Paul Fuller wrote:
>
>> Ok. I admit I did buy a fridge for its cool factor alone.
>
> Oh. So it wasn't just because you needed the storage space for all the
> bodies? ;-)
>
That is what gazebos are for.
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
From: SharkD
Subject: Re: Fan without blades: should we ROTFL or weep?
Date: 6 Jun 2010 10:52:54
Message: <4c0bb646@news.povray.org>
|
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
On 6/5/2010 3:58 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> True. Then again, the entire inside of my PC is carpeted in dust; why
> not the fans? I guess somebody more qualified than me can explain why
> fans get dusty...
The fans and heatsink tend to be the dirtiest parts of my computer. They
always get clogged with dirt first.
--
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: Fan without blades: should we ROTFL or weep?
Date: 6 Jun 2010 11:26:14
Message: <4c0bbe16$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
SharkD wrote:
> On 6/5/2010 3:58 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> True. Then again, the entire inside of my PC is carpeted in dust; why
>> not the fans? I guess somebody more qualified than me can explain why
>> fans get dusty...
>
> The fans and heatsink tend to be the dirtiest parts of my computer. They
> always get clogged with dirt first.
The heatsink I can understand. It's a small, confined space that
constantly has dust being blown into it. Not quite so sure why the fan
clogs up.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
From: Sabrina Kilian
Subject: Re: Fan without blades: should we ROTFL or weep?
Date: 6 Jun 2010 13:29:46
Message: <4c0bdb0a$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
Paul Fuller wrote:
> On 6/06/2010 12:58 PM, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>
>> Jump to new topic: Dyson's patents may have run out, but I haven't seen
>> any bagged or bag-less vac that beats the old Rainbows. Similar concept,
>> impel the air into a cyclone; only the rainbows used a cyclone of water.
>>
>
> I have seen but not used water based vacs. More tagged as 'carpet
> cleaning'. You could hire them from shops at one point. Maybe they
> were the 'Rainbow' mode that you mentioned?
>
The ones I have seen at shops, or more specifically adverts for cleaning
shops, are ones that push water onto the carpet and then pull it back
off again. Used with water, they are called carpet shampooers around
here. The vac I used worked like a normal vacuum, but instead of a bag
or bin it just funneled the air into a container of water. Absolutely
disgusting to watch water turn from clear to filled with the stuff one
house could hold on the floor in a week. Worked better than HEPA
filters, though.
>> Back to topic: I saw one of the Dyson fans at a big store, I was
>> impressed by the design. It does hit "Oh, shiny" quite well. But I will
>> still wait for the cheap knock-offs, I can't afford $300 for
>> mass-produced art.
>
> Same here. Doesn't seem like a big enough problem to warrant the
> expense (assuming that they are indeed better). I've never bought
> things for cool factor alone.
Oh, I would and have. Just not pop-art.
> Plus I would almost never buy V1 of something radically new. Even the
> original Dyson vac looks relatively primitive and lacks a lot of the
> refinements of the newer generations.
Also a good reason. However, I can not see many directions to take the
fan concept. Higher speeds, maybe, or floor stands.
Now, if they made a humidifier version, and added blue LEDs inside the
turbine to make the mist glow, then I might get one.
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
From: Paul Fuller
Subject: Re: Fan without blades: should we ROTFL or weep?
Date: 6 Jun 2010 19:34:10
Message: <4c0c3072@news.povray.org>
|
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
On 7/06/2010 3:29 AM, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>
> Oh, I would and have. Just not pop-art.
>
Examples please.
>
> Now, if they made a humidifier version, and added blue LEDs inside the
> turbine to make the mist glow, then I might get one.
Sounds like a DIY project.
I was thinking about trying it with a polystyrene ball. Point the fan
upwards. Throw the ball up into the ring. The air flow carries it
through. Then would it be trapped in the stream above the ring by the
Bernoulli effect ?
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
Paul Fuller wrote:
> Then would it be trapped in the stream above the ring by the
> Bernoulli effect ?
Yes. Dyson made a video where they routed balloons thru many dozen of these
things in a big loop.
--
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
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Fan without blades: should we ROTFL or weep?
Date: 7 Jun 2010 00:32:10
Message: <4c0c764a$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:34:08 +1000, Paul Fuller wrote:
> I was thinking about trying it with a polystyrene ball. Point the fan
> upwards. Throw the ball up into the ring. The air flow carries it
> through. Then would it be trapped in the stream above the ring by the
> Bernoulli effect ?
I imagine it would, much like a toy I had when I was a kid.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
On 7/06/2010 12:39 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Paul Fuller wrote:
>> Then would it be trapped in the stream above the ring by the Bernoulli
>> effect ?
>
> Yes. Dyson made a video where they routed balloons thru many dozen of
> these things in a big loop.
>
Here it is - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WNcjkZ6d0w
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
From: Sabrina Kilian
Subject: Re: Fan without blades: should we ROTFL or weep?
Date: 7 Jun 2010 14:05:24
Message: <4c0d34e4$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
Paul Fuller wrote:
> On 7/06/2010 3:29 AM, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>
>> Oh, I would and have. Just not pop-art.
>>
>
> Examples please.
>
I suppose the definition of 'cool' would be the trick. To me, hand made
jewelery is cool, even if it is just driveway gravel wrapped in plastic
electrical wire. Cheap old cameras are cool, more so if I can make them
work again. Bow-ties are cool. Non-functional? The doll that happened to
match my desk so well that she has sat on it for years without being
noticed often. Some old networking hubs that will look nice in the 19U
racks that serve as storage cabinets. An old brick car phone.
All cheap, but all purchased because of that 'oh, cool, I don't need
that but I want it' factor.
If you were scoping to see what was worth stealing, not a whole lot. ;-)
>>
>> Now, if they made a humidifier version, and added blue LEDs inside the
>> turbine to make the mist glow, then I might get one.
>
> Sounds like a DIY project.
>
Right, for the cheap knock offs. That way, when the liquid fries one of
the motors, I am only out a few dollars.
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
On 07/06/2010 7:05 PM, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Oh, I would and have. Just not pop-art.
>>> >>
>> >
>> > Examples please.
>> >
> I suppose the definition of 'cool' would be the trick. To me, hand made
> jewelery is cool, even if it is just driveway gravel wrapped in plastic
> electrical wire. Cheap old cameras are cool, more so if I can make them
> work again. Bow-ties are cool...
Good job I did not reply in High Dudgeon. ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |