• SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    There’s no way this won’t affect the final CFM or Velocity of the air.

    This would be no different than running it at a little less than 100% power, but wastes that energy instead.

    Why else would they not provide any technical detail, even a wind velocity test would be huge FFS.

    • protist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t know, it sounds like it slightly redirects only the air at the margins that contacts the blower tube, which reduces turbulence. The noise reduction is due to the decreased turbulence, not a reduction in airflow. If I had to guess, the actual reduction in airflow is probably negligible, and they don’t describe it in more detail because they’re trying to commercialize it

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        So they could provide the testing data to prove it. Even the numbers, don’t need a full detailed video.

        The lack of proof to their claims is concerning.

        They’ve made a claim they should have known would need to be verified, eventually…… its bush league for that on its own.

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            I thought having a conversation about the validity of their claims would be an okay thing to do in this community?

            Or are you saying this place is for something else?

            • protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              You demanding more evidence right now and saying these students’ project “is concerning” is not having a conversation about the validity of their claims, it’s just being petulant. Saying, “I’ll be interested to see the specs” or “I’ll keep an eye out for testing data before I believe this” would convey the same thing without coming off like an asshole

              • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                It’s data they should have had to begin with, they made the claim. Of course it’s going to be questioned, they could have been upfront with the data.

                What other reason would they omit it? Other than to mislead if it wasn’t actually 100%.

                It’s funny how I am “demanding” something that would be just basic decency to include along with their claim, they provided the data for the sound after all……

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I’ve read the article attached, the article linked in that, and the video linked as well.

        Not one talks about anything technical other than it doesn’t decrease the power, so where’s the stats to prove it? You can’t silence or muffle something without a tradeoff, we ignoring basic physics here?

        So what is it do your think your non-informational comment is proving? Theres no test information to support the non power diminishing claim, and I call bullshit from basic physic principles.