I just did read an add for a "bladeless fan", a so called air-multiplier 
made by Dyson.

When I read the add I clicked on to find out more. Dyson would surely not 
lie to us - so I was really interested in how they build a wonder like this.

Any electric fan, easy to clean, no blades? How is it done? Electromagnetic 
fields? I simply had to see...

Now take a look at this thing and tell me - should I ROTFL or start to weep 
for the poor fools who buy this?

http://www.dyson.com/technology/airmultiplier.asp

Besides: do US laws allow for blatant lies in ads? Bladeless - my ass! And 
easy to clean? I doubt you can clean the real fan-parts at all.

Post a reply to this message

TC wrote:

> Now take a look at this thing and tell me - should I ROTFL or start to weep 
> for the poor fools who buy this?
> 
> http://www.dyson.com/technology/airmultiplier.asp
> 
> Besides: do US laws allow for blatant lies in ads? Bladeless - my ass! And 
> easy to clean? I doubt you can clean the real fan-parts at all. 

What makes you think it's a lie?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Multiplier#Dyson_Air_Multiplier

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.

They had a rocket motor blow into a bag, and it did inflate, but quite 
slowly. Then they added this compression ring, and when the rocket motor 
starts blowing, the ring causes air from the surroundings to be sucked 
in as well, causing the bag to fill much more rapidly.

Post a reply to this message

"TC" <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
> I just did read an add for a "bladeless fan", a so called air-multiplier
> made by Dyson.
>

Put my hand through one in the store.

Post a reply to this message

> 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

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] yahoocom> 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

On 4/06/2010 8:14 PM, TC wrote:
> I just did read an add for a "bladeless fan", a so called air-multiplier
> made by Dyson.
>
> When I read the add I clicked on to find out more. Dyson would surely not
> lie to us - so I was really interested in how they build a wonder like this.
>
> Any electric fan, easy to clean, no blades? How is it done? Electromagnetic
> fields? I simply had to see...
>
> Now take a look at this thing and tell me - should I ROTFL or start to weep
> for the poor fools who buy this?
>
> http://www.dyson.com/technology/airmultiplier.asp
>
> Besides: do US laws allow for blatant lies in ads? Bladeless - my ass! And
> easy to clean? I doubt you can clean the real fan-parts at all.
>
>
>

There are a couple of points that make it quite nice.

The air flow is created by a really neat impeller and high power 
electric motor.  I believe it was adapted from the Dyson 'airblade' hand 
dryer.  If you have not seen and used one of those you are in for a 
surprise!  Wow that thing is good.

In regard to dust being accumulated in the impeller, consider that it is 
a lot smaller than the blades of a conventional fan but generates a lot 
higher speed airflow.  Dust simply doesn't have a chance to build up on 
the working part.  How concerned are you about dust building up on the 
impeller of a turbo-charger in a car engine?

Then you might appreciate that the air that goes through the impeller is 
filtered.  This is used to entrain a larger air mass that doesn't pass 
through the impeller.  So whatever the final volume of air that is 
moved, less goes through the critical part of the Dyson than passes 
through the blades of a conventional fan - by more than an order of 
magnitude.

Dyson after all does know a bit about air flow and dust.

I guess that dust and fluff would build up on the leading edge of the 
annulus.  This would however be much easier to clean than on a 
conventional fan.  Just wipe it.  My current desk fan has a wire cage 
around the blade.  That collects dust and you have to remove the front 
part and take the blade out to properly clean it.

The other 'air multiplier' benefits are the quiet operation and steady 
airflow.

If they weren't so expensive I'd get one.  Still will if I see one on 
sale.  I do have a Dyson vacuum cleaner and it is so much better than 
any other type I have used.  A great alternative concept to how the 
whole thing should be done, brilliant design, brilliantly engineered 
with quality materials.  Absolutely the best and not one fault with it 
that I can see.

Post a reply to this message

this is it!  I name it the "WTF thread of the day" of yesterday.

And it is a fan and will get dirty, except you quite likely won't be able to
clean it except by getting it to maintenance.  Lesson to be learned here:
underneath all shiny and neato things there's always a lot of dirt. :P

Post a reply to this message

On 5/06/2010 3:39 PM, nemesis wrote:
> this is it!  I name it the "WTF thread of the day" of yesterday.
>
> And it is a fan and will get dirty, except you quite likely won't be able to
> clean it except by getting it to maintenance.  Lesson to be learned here:
> underneath all shiny and neato things there's always a lot of dirt. :P
>
>

I take that 'WTF' as disagreeing with me.

Your only point that seems specific is that fans get dirty and you imply 
that this will be a problem that can only be fixed by maintenance? 
Correct me if that isn't what you were saying.

So lets see.  I have a Dyson vacuum cleaner.  It is used pretty much 
once a week to clean a 4 bedroom house with carpets everywhere except 
the wet floor areas.  I've had it for about 6.5 years.

By its nature there is a large amount of dusty and dirty air being 
passed through the device.  Number of trips to maintenance thus far is 
zero.  Apparent loss of functionality due to the inevitable (you say) 
buildup of dirt is zero.

We bought it on the recommendation of commercial carpet cleaners who use 
uprated models of the same thing.  I specifically asked about 
reliability and they said they had never had a problem and never had to 
do any maintenance on them.  That was based on heavy duty use and many 
units in the same company.

A traditional fan has large slow moving blades that all of the air that 
they move passes through.  Around that they have a wire cage covering 
both the in and out sides.  They are pretty good at collecting dust and 
fluff.  Very poor at shedding it.  In fact the dust that they collect 
seems to help collect more.

You shouldn't generalise from there to all fans in all devices. 
Especially when they are substantially different and designed by people 
who specialise in the field.

Now I can't say that the Dyson fan is equally as good as the model of 
Dyson vacuum cleaner that we have.  Seems like there isn't the same sort 
of problem to justify such an expensive solution.  I haven't tried one 
to see if it is indeed quieter or better in any way.

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?

A fan works by having blades with a uniform cross-section, but angled to 
accelerate air parallel to the plane of rotation. If you spin the blades 
one way, it blows forwards. If you spin them the other way, it blows 
backwards.

An impeller uses centrifugal forces to blow air *outwards* (i.e., away 
from the center of rotation - usually meaning that air is sucked into 
the impeller through a port near the center and exits the impeller from 
the edges). If you spin the impeller the other way, the air still flows 
in the same direction.

>> 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. ;-)

I can understand that. ;-)

>> 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.

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...

>> 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. ;-)

Ouch! o_O

OK, definitely don't buy one...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Paul Fuller wrote:

> The air flow is created by a really neat impeller and high power 
> electric motor.  I believe it was adapted from the Dyson 'airblade' hand 
> dryer.  If you have not seen and used one of those you are in for a 
> surprise!  Wow that thing is good.

We have a Dyson Airblade at work. It is THE most useless thing I've ever 
encountered!

When I was a child, it never ceased to amaze me that hand driers 
actually work. I mean, sure, it blows hot air on your hands. The 
principle makes sense. But surely you're going to have to wait a hell of 
a long time before your hands become *dry*, right?

But no, without fail it always manages to dry your hands in seconds. I 
mean, *really* dry!

...and then we come to the Dyson Airblade. Now I don't know if this 
particular one is just faulty (wouldn't surprise me; everything else in 
this building is!), but it is *hopeless*. The air it blows at you is 
utterly freezing on your wet hands. It blows so hard that you can 
actually see it flobbling your flesh around. And it's deafeningly loud.

I'm not even kidding. I took a sound meter in there and measured the 
sound level. The reading came back as 98 dB (A-weighted) or 93 dB 
(C-weighted). Apparently that's in the range that's supposed to cause 
temporary hearing damage.

And, quite apart from making your hands extremely cold and mashing your 
skin around quite unconforably, IT DOESN'T DRY YOUR HANDS! Which, given 
that this is the entire purpose for which the device exists, qualifies 
it as an unmitigated failure IMHO.

> Dyson after all does know a bit about air flow and dust.

What they definitely know how to do is design products that look 
"innovative" and "sciency". Fair play; I couldn't do that.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 5/06/2010 6:07 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> We have a Dyson Airblade at work. It is THE most useless thing I've ever
> encountered!
>

Strange how our experience can be so different.  I was surprised how 
fast it was and would say it was the best I've used.  No wait to heat 
up.  No failure to register that my hands were in position.  Done in 
about 10 seconds.  Didn't notice that it was loud although it may well 
have been.

>
> What they definitely know how to do is design products that look
> "innovative" and "sciency". Fair play; I couldn't do that.
>

Yes they do that.  He should be designing spacecraft for SF book covers 
and movies.  Still I find (based on the vac) that it is very well made 
and works extremely well.

I understand that some of the original patents protecting the Dyson 
vacuum cleaner have expired.  Now there are lots of cheap knock offs on 
the market that emulate the 'bagless' aspect.  The couple I've seen up 
close looked cheap and frail plus lacked a lot of the nice secondary 
features.

Post a reply to this message

On 05/06/2010 9:07 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> We have a Dyson Airblade at work. It is THE most useless thing I've ever
> encountered!

My experience is the opposite. Traditional hot air hand driers “time 
out” long before my hands are dried and even multiple goes leave my 
hands still wet. On the other hand <groan> the air blades are warm and 
efficient. They are noisy, I’ll give you that.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Paul Fuller wrote:

> Strange how our experience can be so different.

Indeed.

> I was surprised how 
> fast it was and would say it was the best I've used.

I was surprised too. Usually even cheap hand driers work surprisingly 
well. I guess there's just not much to get wrong.

> No failure to register that my hands were in position.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that part... This air blade is sometimes quite 
awkward about that. Usually it works, but somethings it point-blank 
fails to register that your hands are there (to the point that you have 
to just leave with wet hands). And sometimes it stops before you've 
removed your hands, and nothing you do will make it start again.

As for the sound... sound meters don't lie. 93 dB isn't quiet. (Gives me 
tinnitus every time!)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> particular one is just faulty (wouldn't surprise me; everything else in 
> this building is!), but it is *hopeless*. 

I think it's just yours. Or you're doing it wrong, either way.

-- 
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 Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:28:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> particular one is just faulty (wouldn't surprise me; everything else in
>> this building is!), but it is *hopeless*.
> 
> I think it's just yours. Or you're doing it wrong, either way.

I've found them to be pretty effective - they installed those things in 
the restrooms at the local CostCo.  I'd never seen one before, but it got 
the job done (at least well enough). :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Paul Fuller <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote:
> On 5/06/2010 3:39 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > this is it!  I name it the "WTF thread of the day" of yesterday.
> >
> > And it is a fan and will get dirty, except you quite likely won't be able to
> > clean it except by getting it to maintenance.  Lesson to be learned here:
> > underneath all shiny and neato things there's always a lot of dirt. :P
> >
> >
>
> I take that 'WTF' as disagreeing with me.

nope, sorry.  About the whole thread.  Only replied to your by sheer lazyness.
:P

> By its nature there is a large amount of dusty and dirty air being
> passed through the device.  Number of trips to maintenance thus far is
> zero.  Apparent loss of functionality due to the inevitable (you say)
> buildup of dirt is zero.

Isn't a vacuum cleaner designed to be cleaned and have the dirt properly
"captured" and packaged?  I don't think that's the point of this device, which
is to just get the blades out of sight (and, possibly, cleaning maintenance)...

Post a reply to this message

On 6/06/2010 6:27 AM, nemesis wrote:
>>
>> I take that 'WTF' as disagreeing with me.
>
> nope, sorry.  About the whole thread.  Only replied to your by sheer lazyness.
> :P
>

Sorry if I was snarky.  There are 3 or 4 products / brands that I've 
found to be close to perfect.  When some Internet know-it-all (not you) 
starts mouthing off about one with no more basis than what he or she 
'thinks' based on 15 seconds looking at a web site and maybe reading the 
opinion of other equally un-informed people - well you've got to take a 
stand at some point :)

>> By its nature there is a large amount of dusty and dirty air being
>> passed through the device.  Number of trips to maintenance thus far is
>> zero.  Apparent loss of functionality due to the inevitable (you say)
>> buildup of dirt is zero.
>
> Isn't a vacuum cleaner designed to be cleaned and have the dirt properly
> "captured" and packaged?  I don't think that's the point of this device, which
> is to just get the blades out of sight (and, possibly, cleaning maintenance)...
>
>

Yes.  But two points - First, as far as I can see the Dyson vacs are 
designed and engineered such that you don't have to clean the internal 
components.  The whole air path through the system which must include 
the fan / impeller seems not to allow any build-up.  There is a final 
stage 'HEPA' filter that they recommend rinsing out and drying once a 
year (I recall).  Again the design is such that it snaps out and back in 
as easily as you can imagine it could be done.  However so little dust 
gets to that stage that it does not seem to need any attention.  The 
'turbo head' does get long strands of hair wrapped around it over time. 
  Easily cleaned and I can't see how that can be avoided.

Second, to the extent that dust could be a problem in their fan, I'm 
willing to venture that the Dyson people have given just as much 
attention to the problem.  That is their strong suit.

Post a reply to this message

Paul Fuller wrote:
> I understand that some of the original patents protecting the Dyson
> vacuum cleaner have expired.  Now there are lots of cheap knock offs on
> the market that emulate the 'bagless' aspect.  The couple I've seen up
> close looked cheap and frail plus lacked a lot of the nice secondary
> features.

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.

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.

Post a reply to this message

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?

> 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.

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.

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

Cool factor? Fan? I see what you did there. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 6/06/2010 10:41 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Cool factor? Fan? I see what you did there. ;-)
>

Ok.  I admit I did buy a fridge for its cool factor alone.

Post a reply to this message

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? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. ;-)
I thought you wrote “Just not op-art”.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8/06/2010 4:05 AM, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>
> If you were scoping to see what was worth stealing, not a whole lot. ;-)
>

Drat.  Not worth the airfare.

>
> Right, for the cheap knock offs. That way, when the liquid fries one of
> the motors, I am only out a few dollars.

A tank of propane may have some possibilities with one of these although 
they probably are not powerful enough.

Once upon a time I worked as a sysprog for a bank.  There was an 
incident when water condensation built up in the air conditioning units 
on Level 3.  The outlet pipe had become blocked and water spilled over 
the collection pan, found a crack in the slab, trickled into a light 
fitting and collected until it broke the fitting and dumped out. 
Estimated to be about 10 litres of water.

Then the real drama began.  Level 2 was the main computer room.  The 
light fitting was the one sitting above the disk system housing amongst 
other things the volumes for the mainframe running the production online 
system.  Water + Electronics = Failure.

Much mayhem ensued.

The link is that one of the IBM engineers had the idea to get some 
industrial gas heaters in to help dry things out.  These were large 
blowers with gas burning in the air stream.  Crank up the speed and 
amount of gas and they were quite impressive.  Somewhere less than a 
rocket motor but still a *lot* better than a hand electric hair dryer.

Quite an interesting day.  I had a spare system image on another disk 
unit on the other side of the computer room.  We got the system back up 
in the evening and got through batch in time for the next day.  The 
affected unit was rebuilt.  It needed some new controller boards but the 
physical drives were fine.  No data lost.

Good blokes those IBM engineers.

Not so good is the idea of putting the air con plant directly above the 
computer room.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 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. ;-)
> I thought you wrote “Just not op-art”.
> 

In the land of checkered planes and mirrored spheres, how could I not
like op-art?

Should have said pop-art and minimalism. I still wonder how a black
square on a white canvas was influential so long after the invention of
both black ink and white canvas. But that is an off-topic art rant.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2010 2:18 AM, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

>> Good job I did not reply in High Dudgeon. ;-)
>> I thought you wrote “Just not op-art”.
>>
>
> In the land of checkered planes and mirrored spheres, how could I not
> like op-art?
>

That’s what confused me. But it gives me an idea so Bridget Riley eat 
your heart out.

> Should have said pop-art and minimalism. I still wonder how a black
> square on a white canvas was influential so long after the invention of
> both black ink and white canvas. But that is an off-topic art rant.

Some minimalism is OK (IMO) but I think it can be over done. (Is that an 
oxymoron?)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download '4spheresandaplane.jpg' (104 KB)

Preview of image '4spheresandaplane.jpg'