Dyson Bladeless Fan

The key to keeping the motor clean is to clean it frequently like once per week rather once per month or year. I prefer to use good vacum cleaner, with special attachment that can get into tight spot, over using soap and water. Water might get into electrical part.

I hope my input might help.

I don’t have pets so I can’t give you a direct answer. However, i can tell you that the holes on the grille are very small so I don’t see how pet hairs can be pulled in. The biggest problem is grease and grime, but a good vacuuming and wiping with a mild detergent works for me. In fact, I’ve only used a vacuum once. If you’re very worried about airs getting in, put a mesh, i.e. stretched panty hose, over the grille. That should catch most large particles without impeding airflow too much.

If you still want to use your Vornado, try buying a Bonnet-style filter for it. It’s basically a round bonnet made of mesh with elastic on the perimeter. You then wrap it on the back of your fan. I’ve seen them for a few dollars in mail order catalogs although you can probably also find them in home improvement stores. See link below. Or you can make your own. See YouTube video. You can also make such a filter for this Dyson. Simply wrap a rectagular strip of the filter material around the Dyson’s grille – a 1 min project!

Permatron Bonnet-style filters.

[youtube=Zhm2hXGnvr8][/youtube]

BTW, the internal blades are so short (about 0.5") and so plentiful (more than 20) that it looks more like a centrifugal fan than your normal axial fan. And on a centrifigal fan, the blades are known as “fins,” not blades. While the Dyson is mecahnically still an axial fan, the blades seem more like the fins of a centrifugal fan. So calling this “bladeless” isn’t that misleading.

It would do fine with both tasks, although a cheap $25 fan would probably do just as well. The major advantage of these Dysons is comfort, energy efficiency, aesthetics, safety and versatility – none of which are too important when drying carpets or exhausting air.

For drying carpets, a Vornado “air ciirculator” is probably best since it is optimized to move air at high velocity. The goal in drying is to move the water molecules away from the object through evaoporation, and the Vornados excel at that.

WHile my 10" Dyson would be great drying a carpet, no pedestal fan – including this one – would be too good. That’s because the head is too high and aiming the air down at the ground is difficult. You’d want something like a floor fan, or my 10" Dyson table model, which allow you to place the head directly on, or near, the carpet.

  1. Window fans and box fans are made for exhausting air out a window, but any fan can do so as well. You’d want the fan to be large enough to prevent any air from coming back in by covering the window. While this Dyson will work, as would any fan, I’d recommend somethign cheaper and larger. Even if you want to use a smaller fan, get a desktop model that you can place on the window sill.

In summary, Dysons are fantastic for cooling people, but for your tasks, a Vornado may be best.

As the owner of a Dyson, and a skeptical Medical Research Analyst (where my job is to design and critique studies), let me make a few points.

  1. “the AM03 takes in 9 gallons per second of air…[the fan on Amazon moves] 24 times more airflow.”

You jumped to conclusions. Read your own words. Yes, the Dyson TAKES IN 9 gallons per second. But that says nothing about how much it outputs or how much air is moved. You’ve ignored the claimed multiplier effect without cause. If true, then you need to multiply your result by 18.

And by the way, Dyson is a British company so it likely uses the British gallon, which is larger than a US gallon. So the actual result is 86 cfm, not 72. As I tell my students, these details matter and forgetting them shows sloppiness and laziness. And I remind them of how the $125 million Mars orbiter crashed because some engineer forgot to use metrics instead of English units.

Assuming the multiplier effect is real, the Dyson actually moves 18 x 86 = 1548 cfm. That’s hardly 1/24th the result of that other fan.

Read my review and the post from HowStuffWorks to learn more about the multiplier effect. It’s real.

  1. Perhaps even more egregious is your failure to take energy usage into account. As I pointed out, on the lowest setting, my 10" Dyson only uses 8-10 watts according to Kill-a-Watt. On its highest, it went into the mid 30’s I believe. What family size axial fan uses that little electricity? In contrast, my Lasko desktop fan and Vornado use about 30 watts on low. I think they went into the 70-90 watt range on high.

You seem amazed by the claimed CFM rating of the other fan, but it really isn’t so amazing if it uses much more elctricity, is it? Guess what, I can find you an industrial fan that moves even more air using even more electricity! So what?

And here’s the thing … you seem to accept the Amazon fan’s ratings without question, yet you are skeptical about the Dyson. That’s hardly objective, no?

  1. You complain that there is no airflow in the middle of Dyson’s multiplier ring. So what? That’s why this isn’t a traditional AXIAL fan. It uses aerodynamic effcts to drag air along the inside and outside of the ring’s surface – and that’s the point of air multiplication. In contrast, the Vornados blow a tight vortex where there is a lot of air movement along the axis. But even its maker admits its not really made for blowing directly at people, where wider dispersion is preferred. And that’s why I love the Dyson – it blows a diffuse stream, mimicking a natural breeze. In other words, the lack of of a powerful central air stream says nothing about the total air moved. I can verify that peripheral airflow on the Dyson is better than most conventional axial fans - while using less electricity! And it’s more comfortable, especially if you want to cool a lot of people.

While I can’t prove that the airflow is multiplied 15-18x, I can say that your reasoning is invalid because you jumped to too many conclusions and your calculations were sloppy. Among these unwarranted conclusions is that the Amazon fan’s ratings are accurate, while Dyson’s multiplication claims are false.

I bought one of the table top models from here last year. As others have said i was quite surprised on how well it worked. It circulated an cooled he air without blowing things all over the room. I googled this model and saw that QVC is selling it for close to $500.00. I think i will buy this one.

I don’t own a Dyson. I have experimented with them in stores.

Let me put it this way. The “air multiplier” claim simply violates the conservation of energy. You might move some air around the turbulence directly created by the fan’s output, but the total energy imparted to the air around the fan is not going to exceed the energy delivered via the initial, tiny little blower in the base of the Dyson.

Period.

Go to a store display and experience the air movement that results from a real fan and the air movement that results from a Dyson. Dyson claims that their air movement is just so smooth you don’t feel it as much. Hogwash. They just don’t move that much air.

Be glad yours shows only obvious wear. Mine arrived today and is so chipped and dinged it’s unusable. Refurbished? No. Second hand from a frat house? Probably.

Yup. Received mine today. It was dirty and all dinged up. Also missing the remote…

Sorry for the problem and condition. Your best bet is to contact Dyson. I’ve heard nothing but good things from customers that have contacted them. You can also contact support@woot.com as well of course.

Works as expected… came without remote (Dyson contacted)… also was obviously used (don’t expect even a refurb to be -filthy- from use around power switch). Unit was scuffed up in several place (a bit more expected from a refurb). Whistling noises (vs. normal white noise) stopped when base/stem was properly seated. Kind of neat, kind of … Meh.

hrm. we certainly want you to have a better experience than that.

if you’re worried that it’s going to be un-usable, please email Support@Woot.com. maybe send some pics, too.

By far the worst item I got on Woot…Bought it twice just to make its just a mistake the 1st time…NOPE its was just as bad the 2nd time…DO NOT BY DYSON REFURBISHED ITEMS THEY HAVE NO QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS AT ALL

I’m sorry for the problem. Most of our customers are quite happy with the Dyson refurbished products. Feel free to contact Dyson or Woot customer service.