▲ 333 ▼ Fan-less cooling solution for laptops up to 40W launched (www.tomshardware.com) submitted 2 years ago by avieshek@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 83 comments fedilink hide all child comments Device uses movement of ions to generate airflow without any moving parts like in iPads and MacBook Air.
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -1 points 2 years ago (12 children) Citation needed permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] splinter@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (11 children) You made a claim first, so you should provide your citation first as well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -3 points 2 years ago (10 children) https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/home/dyson-bladeless-fan.htm Air surrounding the edges of the fan will also begin to flow in the direction of the breeze. This process is called entrainment. Through inducement and entrainment, Dyson claims its fans increase the output of airflow by 15 times the amount it takes in through the pedestal's motor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] splinter@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (7 children) Advertising for a product isn’t a citation. That article literally just repeats Dyson’s own claims. Do you have anything that actually tests that claim? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago (4 children) I don't think you two are even contradicting each other. The airflow going through the base can be 15x smaller than the total result, but also require more energy than just using a regular fan that moves that amount of air. Total airflow and efficiency are two independent things. Disclaimer: I have no real data on how Dyson fans work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) Of course, it is a purifier, it is hard to get high volumes of air through the HEPA filter permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) As demonstraded by the ActionLab video someone else posted, "bladeless" fans in general are less efficient. The one he tested was not a Dyson and didn't have a HEPA filter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Defining efficiency by air speed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago It was also moving more volume of air, not just airspeed. Sure I would have loved to see a fully shrouded experiment, but their experiment did show a regular fan moved air faster over a wider area, which would mean it is also moving a higher volume of air. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are the one trying to disprove it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] splinter@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago You made an assertion. If you are unable to provide supporting evidence, we can assume that your assertion is incorrect without needing to prove anything. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) They're "bladeless" fans are just regular fans with more steps. Those added steps introduce inefficiencies. Simple as that. If you wanted to make a fan more efficient, you could add a shroud close to the blades, but the energy cost of electric fans are already low enough that it really doesn't matter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago Their permalink fedilink source parent
[–] splinter@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (11 children) You made a claim first, so you should provide your citation first as well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -3 points 2 years ago (10 children) https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/home/dyson-bladeless-fan.htm Air surrounding the edges of the fan will also begin to flow in the direction of the breeze. This process is called entrainment. Through inducement and entrainment, Dyson claims its fans increase the output of airflow by 15 times the amount it takes in through the pedestal's motor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] splinter@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (7 children) Advertising for a product isn’t a citation. That article literally just repeats Dyson’s own claims. Do you have anything that actually tests that claim? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago (4 children) I don't think you two are even contradicting each other. The airflow going through the base can be 15x smaller than the total result, but also require more energy than just using a regular fan that moves that amount of air. Total airflow and efficiency are two independent things. Disclaimer: I have no real data on how Dyson fans work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) Of course, it is a purifier, it is hard to get high volumes of air through the HEPA filter permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) As demonstraded by the ActionLab video someone else posted, "bladeless" fans in general are less efficient. The one he tested was not a Dyson and didn't have a HEPA filter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Defining efficiency by air speed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago It was also moving more volume of air, not just airspeed. Sure I would have loved to see a fully shrouded experiment, but their experiment did show a regular fan moved air faster over a wider area, which would mean it is also moving a higher volume of air. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are the one trying to disprove it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] splinter@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago You made an assertion. If you are unable to provide supporting evidence, we can assume that your assertion is incorrect without needing to prove anything. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) They're "bladeless" fans are just regular fans with more steps. Those added steps introduce inefficiencies. Simple as that. If you wanted to make a fan more efficient, you could add a shroud close to the blades, but the energy cost of electric fans are already low enough that it really doesn't matter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago Their permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -3 points 2 years ago (10 children) https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/home/dyson-bladeless-fan.htm Air surrounding the edges of the fan will also begin to flow in the direction of the breeze. This process is called entrainment. Through inducement and entrainment, Dyson claims its fans increase the output of airflow by 15 times the amount it takes in through the pedestal's motor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] splinter@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (7 children) Advertising for a product isn’t a citation. That article literally just repeats Dyson’s own claims. Do you have anything that actually tests that claim? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago (4 children) I don't think you two are even contradicting each other. The airflow going through the base can be 15x smaller than the total result, but also require more energy than just using a regular fan that moves that amount of air. Total airflow and efficiency are two independent things. Disclaimer: I have no real data on how Dyson fans work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) Of course, it is a purifier, it is hard to get high volumes of air through the HEPA filter permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) As demonstraded by the ActionLab video someone else posted, "bladeless" fans in general are less efficient. The one he tested was not a Dyson and didn't have a HEPA filter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Defining efficiency by air speed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago It was also moving more volume of air, not just airspeed. Sure I would have loved to see a fully shrouded experiment, but their experiment did show a regular fan moved air faster over a wider area, which would mean it is also moving a higher volume of air. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are the one trying to disprove it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] splinter@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago You made an assertion. If you are unable to provide supporting evidence, we can assume that your assertion is incorrect without needing to prove anything. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) They're "bladeless" fans are just regular fans with more steps. Those added steps introduce inefficiencies. Simple as that. If you wanted to make a fan more efficient, you could add a shroud close to the blades, but the energy cost of electric fans are already low enough that it really doesn't matter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago Their permalink fedilink source parent
[–] splinter@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (7 children) Advertising for a product isn’t a citation. That article literally just repeats Dyson’s own claims. Do you have anything that actually tests that claim? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago (4 children) I don't think you two are even contradicting each other. The airflow going through the base can be 15x smaller than the total result, but also require more energy than just using a regular fan that moves that amount of air. Total airflow and efficiency are two independent things. Disclaimer: I have no real data on how Dyson fans work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) Of course, it is a purifier, it is hard to get high volumes of air through the HEPA filter permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) As demonstraded by the ActionLab video someone else posted, "bladeless" fans in general are less efficient. The one he tested was not a Dyson and didn't have a HEPA filter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Defining efficiency by air speed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago It was also moving more volume of air, not just airspeed. Sure I would have loved to see a fully shrouded experiment, but their experiment did show a regular fan moved air faster over a wider area, which would mean it is also moving a higher volume of air. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are the one trying to disprove it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] splinter@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago You made an assertion. If you are unable to provide supporting evidence, we can assume that your assertion is incorrect without needing to prove anything. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago (4 children) I don't think you two are even contradicting each other. The airflow going through the base can be 15x smaller than the total result, but also require more energy than just using a regular fan that moves that amount of air. Total airflow and efficiency are two independent things. Disclaimer: I have no real data on how Dyson fans work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) Of course, it is a purifier, it is hard to get high volumes of air through the HEPA filter permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) As demonstraded by the ActionLab video someone else posted, "bladeless" fans in general are less efficient. The one he tested was not a Dyson and didn't have a HEPA filter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Defining efficiency by air speed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago It was also moving more volume of air, not just airspeed. Sure I would have loved to see a fully shrouded experiment, but their experiment did show a regular fan moved air faster over a wider area, which would mean it is also moving a higher volume of air. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) Of course, it is a purifier, it is hard to get high volumes of air through the HEPA filter permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) As demonstraded by the ActionLab video someone else posted, "bladeless" fans in general are less efficient. The one he tested was not a Dyson and didn't have a HEPA filter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Defining efficiency by air speed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago It was also moving more volume of air, not just airspeed. Sure I would have loved to see a fully shrouded experiment, but their experiment did show a regular fan moved air faster over a wider area, which would mean it is also moving a higher volume of air. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) As demonstraded by the ActionLab video someone else posted, "bladeless" fans in general are less efficient. The one he tested was not a Dyson and didn't have a HEPA filter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Defining efficiency by air speed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago It was also moving more volume of air, not just airspeed. Sure I would have loved to see a fully shrouded experiment, but their experiment did show a regular fan moved air faster over a wider area, which would mean it is also moving a higher volume of air. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Defining efficiency by air speed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago It was also moving more volume of air, not just airspeed. Sure I would have loved to see a fully shrouded experiment, but their experiment did show a regular fan moved air faster over a wider area, which would mean it is also moving a higher volume of air. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 2 years ago It was also moving more volume of air, not just airspeed. Sure I would have loved to see a fully shrouded experiment, but their experiment did show a regular fan moved air faster over a wider area, which would mean it is also moving a higher volume of air. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are the one trying to disprove it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] splinter@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago You made an assertion. If you are unable to provide supporting evidence, we can assume that your assertion is incorrect without needing to prove anything. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] splinter@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago You made an assertion. If you are unable to provide supporting evidence, we can assume that your assertion is incorrect without needing to prove anything. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) They're "bladeless" fans are just regular fans with more steps. Those added steps introduce inefficiencies. Simple as that. If you wanted to make a fan more efficient, you could add a shroud close to the blades, but the energy cost of electric fans are already low enough that it really doesn't matter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago Their permalink fedilink source parent