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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Yes but they generate more airflow than the fan alone can
They do not. For a given power input they produce less airflow at lower velocity than a regular fan. They’re a complete scam.
Citation needed
You made a claim first, so you should provide your citation first as well.
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.
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.
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?
You are the one trying to disprove it
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.
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.
Of course, it is a purifier, it is hard to get high volumes of air through the HEPA filter
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.
I think you are talking about the Coandă effect.
Also:
BOLTR: DYSON HAIR DRYER. Is is WORTH the MONEY?
I believe it’s called entrainment which is different?
I recently watched some YouTube video that debunked that claim. They are basically pointless.
Not a dyson
Not a proper test, air volume not measured - only speed. The point is to not have fast air so this only confirms the concept works
Are you a Dyson salesman? Watch the video.
I sat through the whole ass thing
They literally generate as much as that small fan in the case can generate.
With the aerodynamics of the case it’s just a matter of converting higher pressure into lower pressure with higher (& a bit more laminated) airflow.