Electric leaf blowers are already far quieter than their gas-powered peers, but they still aren’t the kind of thing you’d like to hear first-thing on a Saturday morning. Looking to impr…
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
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
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……
They are almost certainly restricting the amount of information they release under the advice of the legal team at the University, in preparation for the impending commercialization. I agree, it’d be great to have the details and to live in a world where all information is free and open. However, we don’t on both counts. The assumption that they could only be attempting to mislead people when this isn’t even a product for sale yet, is at best naïve and at worst willfully obtuse.
So they can talk about the relevant commercialization technical bits (the db) and they can’t talk about the part that’s not…? Uhh… what…?
Is that your argument? Does that make any sense to you…? The part that should be restricted is being talked about freely… and the part that shouldn’t be restricted is…? You’re defending the system that’s backwards. And you want to call me naive and obtuse… okay, defend marketing fluff that you ate up like they were expecting….
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.
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.
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
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.
You seem really worked up about these undergrads’ project
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?
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
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……
They are almost certainly restricting the amount of information they release under the advice of the legal team at the University, in preparation for the impending commercialization. I agree, it’d be great to have the details and to live in a world where all information is free and open. However, we don’t on both counts. The assumption that they could only be attempting to mislead people when this isn’t even a product for sale yet, is at best naïve and at worst willfully obtuse.
So they can talk about the relevant commercialization technical bits (the db) and they can’t talk about the part that’s not…? Uhh… what…?
Is that your argument? Does that make any sense to you…? The part that should be restricted is being talked about freely… and the part that shouldn’t be restricted is…? You’re defending the system that’s backwards. And you want to call me naive and obtuse… okay, defend marketing fluff that you ate up like they were expecting….
They wont release anything because the design is being sold to black&decker, yay
As soon as it’s out to market someone will clone it and have an STL available
it literally doesn’t matter because most people don’t 3D print
Ok?
no.
see my comment above.
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.