Dyson vaccum with laser technology

Jonnycat99

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
221
I have never purchased an apple product for that reason.
Say what you will about apple products, but their latest push for consumer privacy (vis-a-vis app opt-in policies) had me seriously considering jumping ship into one of their phones (especially considering that you can get Blockada on the app store).

In the tablet world the app selection for certain things (such as music creation) positively dwarfs anything available on any other platform.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,722
Actually the physics is the only interesting thing, and it does not say no. Yes, pumping a high velocity stream of water through a ring in a swiming pool will induce a current through the centre of that ring. Dyson makes some weird shit, and its super expensive. I own no Dyson things. But the engineering is cool.
It's called an eductor, and yeah it essentially works via the venturi effect (yes even if your primary fluid movement is air it pulls in more air). Now whether or not the Dyson fans use this effect I don't know, but if they're claiming stuff like "air multiplier" or something then I'd be willing to bet a dollar to a donut (man this saying certainly hasn't aged well!) that is what they've done, a thin channel for the air to come out suggests higher pressure which is what makes it work
 
  • Like
Reactions: travm
like this

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
318
Actually the physics is the only interesting thing, and it does not say no. Yes, pumping a high velocity stream of water through a ring in a swiming pool will induce a current through the centre of that ring. Dyson makes some weird shit, and its super expensive. I own no Dyson things. But the engineering is cool.
Entrainment and Bernoulli's are pretty much used in daily engineering life. Key word to read in my post was "more". There are limits to the total amount you can move through these types of engineering tricks.
The point made was that with an equal aperture bladed fan you will not see any performance gains in air moving per minute. Due to needing a high RPM impeller you will also not see any reduction in sound levels over a properly designed fan. Hell dyson had to make a relatively complex asymmetric design just to reach parity in noise levels. Those same tricks applied to a traditional fan would make it a no contest debate.
The only thing functionally different between a traditional fan and a dyson is that there is no buffet as you are effectively wasting work to smooth out the impeller flow before it has a chance to interact with the air in the room. It's very commonly used to produce slurries or in certain marine applications. The actual amount of air moved for a fan is going to be functionally identical or less. The shape of these things is very specific for a reason btw.

Again they look nice. They are not reinvention of the wheel though and they most certainly are nothing new.
 

travm

Gawd
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
863
Entrainment and Bernoulli's are pretty much used in daily engineering life. Key word to read in my post was "more". There are limits to the total amount you can move through these types of engineering tricks.
It does move more air, just like your incorrect swimming pool analogy. Mixing small truths into a rambling patently false argument doesn't help.
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
318
It does move more air, just like your incorrect swimming pool analogy. Mixing small truths into a rambling patently false argument doesn't help.
Ok. Why do multiple 12 inch fans move more liters per hour than a dyson of the exact same diameter at equal or less noise levels?

Seriously this is a basic thrust equation. A passive venturi effect is never going to have the thrust of a motor driven fan. You will get chocked flow with the dyson method long before you will ever hit it with a traditional fan. This holds on to reality with the fact that just about any quality fan of equal diameter out performs a comparable dyson in cfm.

/edit Why do I keep referencing equal noise levels? Because if you DGAF about noise and just took these technologies to their absolute limit industrial fans make it a laughingly simple discussion. Though to be fair an industrial unit will cost closer to the dyson for a high end model.
 

travm

Gawd
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
863
Ok. Why do multiple 12 inch fans move more liters per hour than a dyson of the exact same diameter at equal or less noise levels?

Seriously this is a basic thrust equation. A passive venturi effect is never going to have the thrust of a motor driven fan. You will get chocked flow with the dyson method long before you will ever hit it with a traditional fan. This holds on to reality with the fact that just about any quality fan of equal diameter out performs a comparable dyson in cfm.

/edit Why do I keep referencing equal noise levels? Because if you DGAF about noise and just took these technologies to their absolute limit industrial fans make it a laughingly simple discussion. Though to be fair an industrial unit will cost closer to the dyson for a high end model.
I never said they were better fans. Can you stick your tongue through the centre of those 12" fans? You can with the Dyson.
I never said anything about efficiency. Just that the engineering is cool.
It's not a passive Venturi effect either, it's clearly an active system.
Do you even engineer bro?
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,760
Maybe. I have a Dyson V11 Animal. Wonderful little thing, just wish 'boost' didn't suck up so much battery. You will be surprised how much shit comes out of the carpets in boost mode.
I'm constantly surprised by how much it pulls out of the carpet with normal suction. But yes, boost drains it super fast. The cost is high, but it gets the job done. If you're looking to save money, then the Shark seems like a compelling alternative. From waht I can tell, it's not quite as good as a dyson, but it's around half the price, so the trade off is probably acceptable for many, if not most people.
 
Top