Really?
The people that buy these things have more money than sense.
I bought the 10" model when it was first offered on Woot. I was skeptical when these came out but I actually tried one in a store and was impressed. BUt like most people, I thought it was way too expensive so when Woot had the 10" model for $169, I grabbed it (sadly, Amazon had a one day sale where it was only $129 just a week after!!!).
Well, I’m duly impressed and it actually surpassed my expectations. It has replaced my Vornado as my daily fan. I base this opinion on performance only and not on aesthetics or the Dyson name. Here are some points
-
I never considered “buffeting” a problem but the smooth air transfer of this Dyson really does make a difference. It’s more “natural,” i.e. like the wind.
-
The aerodynamics that Dyson claims are true, and that’s what amazed me most. It really does multiply the air flow – A LOT. If you take off the multiplier ring and just rely on the small-bladed fan in the base, you could hardly feel any air movement about a yard away. Even on high, the thrust is weak. Yet with the ring, I can feel the air about 10’ away. And the dispersion is rather wide.
More proof of the multiplying aerodynamics can be seen simply by putting a strip of paper in back, within the perimeter of the ring. You can see it being pulled forward despite there not being any blades parallel to the air current. That proves that air movement is multiplied beyond what is coming out of the holes in the ring (from the base fan).
Yet more proof can be seen if you put a strip of paper outside the ring. It too will be pulled forward, albeit not as vigorously as the strip inside the ring.
The addition of air movement inside and outside the ring is why Dyson calls this an air multiplier. This is more efficient than normal fans, where the only air movement is what is directly moved by the blades.
-
the above means that this Dyson is more energy efficient than a normal fan
-
The oscillation is very smooth, mostly because it’s so light. Normal oscillating fans use gears to move a very heavy head (where the motor resides). That not only requires a lot of energy (torque) but the gears break easily. Because the Dyson’s motor is on hte base, the only thing it needs to oscillate is the very light hollow ring. That means most of the energy is used for moving air, and very little energy is used for oscillation.
-
It’s extremely light and can be easily moved from room to room. I can lift the 10" model with my pinky. This floor model is obviously heavier.
-
Cleaning is much easier. No need to disassemble grilles and blades. You can simply wipe the ring and base with some mild detergent. I will say that the air holes in the base are getting somewhat grimy and clogged with dust,
-
The ring twists off easily making storage simple. I can easily put the 10" model beneath my bed,
-
Placement is easy. I sometime place it on its side on my bed.
===========
BIGGEST NEGATIVE:
-
It’s noisier than some fans, especially when comparing the lowest speeds. This may be due to the high amount of air moved, and not the motor, which is brushless (thus arguably quieter).
-
You also can’t mount it on a wall.
Oh really? Do you say that after having tried one, or are you just insulting people out of ignorance? As a Medical Research Analyst (where I design and critique studies), I am skeptical by nature and actually did my research before finally taking the plunge. By research, I mean reading as well as actually trying one out at the store. Do you make the same accusation of people who take $1000 vacations? Well, why is this worse than a $1000 vacation? or even a $500 vacation? Huh?
Of all the things I’ve bought on Woot – and I have 150+ Woots – the 10" Dyson fan is the one I use the most. In fact, I use it almost daily. I like having some moving air around me and oscillating at the lowest setting from about 6’ away, it feels like a natural breeze. That’s where the non-buffeting aspect really shines. A normal axial fan never feels quite “natural.” And at the lowest speed, it only use about 8-10 watts, according to my watt meter.
For those who are skeptical that the ring actuaklly multiplies airflow, do what I did. Take off the ring and see how powerful the airflow is without it. You can barely feel the breeze a few feet away. Try putting confetti in front of it and watch the movement. Then put the ring back on. Even on low, where the fan uses less than 10 watts, I can feel the fan about 8-10’ away. Do the confetti test again. Here is a more scientific explanation:
According to a great article at HowSTuffWorks, two effects are at play:
***"It boils down to physics. While it’s true that the atmosphere is gaseous, gases obey the physical laws of fluid dynamics. As air flows through the slits in the tube and out through the front of the fan, air behind the fan is drawn through the tube as well. This is called inducement. The flowing air pushed by the motor induces the air behind the fan to follow.
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 the Air Multiplier increases the output of airflow by 15 times the amount it takes in through the pedestal’s motor."***
[QUOTE=sdc100, post:4, topic:381622]
Oh really? Do you say that after having tried one, or are you just insulting people out of ignorance? As a Research Analyst, I am skeptical by nature and actually did my research before finally taking the plunge. By research, I mean reading as well as actually trying one out at the store. Do you make the same accusation of people who take $1000 vacations? Well, why is this worse than a $1000 vacation? or even a $500 vacation? Huh?
[/quote]
That’s a terrible analogy, and a while extrapolation.
A $1000 vacation presumably can’t be replaced by a $10 fan. errr. I mean vacation.
Seriously, this thing solves a problem that just does not exist.
I have used them, see in stores, as well as experienced when others had them. They’re pointless. Not worth the price.
If you’re willing to pay that much to feel good about yourself, that’s fine. I could never rationalize it.
Also, nice quadruple post.
[QUOTE=youtookmyactualname, post:7, topic:381622]
That’s a terrible analogy, and a while extrapolation.
A $1000 vacation presumably can’t be replaced by a $10 fan. errr. I mean vacation.
Seriously, this thing solves a problem that just does not exist.
I have used them, see in stores, as well as experienced when others had them. They’re pointless. Not worth the price.
If you’re willing to pay that much to feel good about yourself, that’s fine. I could never rationalize it.
Also, nice quadruple post.
[/quote]
Terrible analogy? Where was I trying to give an analogy? I was simply poiting out that different people value different things and it has nothing to do with “sense.” I use my Dyson daily. A $150 investment for somethign I use daily that will last, use less energy and easy to maintain matters to me. Why is that no sense? Huh?
As for solving a problem that doesn’t exist, you can say that about color TV. Stereo TV. LCD TV. HDTV. Ormany future technologies. An improvement upon present technology – which I outlined in detail in my review – is enough to justify a product. I like its low energy usage, comfort level and ease of maintenance. It may not matter to youy, but why do you feel the need to belittle others who don’t share your values. Think about it.
[QUOTE=youtookmyactualname, post:7, topic:381622]
That’s a terrible analogy, and a while extrapolation.
A $1000 vacation presumably can’t be replaced by a $10 fan. errr. I mean vacation.
Seriously, this thing solves a problem that just does not exist.
I have used them, see in stores, as well as experienced when others had them. They’re pointless. Not worth the price.
If you’re willing to pay that much to feel good about yourself, that’s fine. I could never rationalize it.
Also, nice quadruple post.
[/quote]
Dude, your first post was needlessly snarky and has no helpful info at all. Why bother posting at all?
We have this in the office and I loved it so much I got one for home. It’s really easy to clean and store away and doesn’t need the rooom of an ordinary fan. Been runing strong almost daily at work for 3 years with no problems.
What a useless egomaniacal post!
[QUOTE=Bryguyf69, post:9, topic:381622]
Dude, your first post was needlessly snarky and has no helpful info at all. Why bother posting at all?
[/quote]
because it’s a woot off and people have nothing better to do than sit here making stupid comments while they wait to buy some piece of garbage for themselves.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I’m back to missing the Woot-Off Recap posts for the home.woot stories.
>_>
Hey, guess which one I’m thinking of!
sdc100 parrots the same old tired advertisements for this fan, which simply is not what it is presented to be.
The howstuffworks article merely rehashes Dyson promotional material.
If you actually look at the Dyson specification, you’ll see that it takes in about 9 gallons per second. And whether that’s U.S. or imperial gallons, that’s well under 100 cubic feet per minute of air movement, which is pathetic. Comparable size floor fans move 15 to 20 times as much air.
The “air multiplier” effect is a sham. I’ve actually read the patents and some of the industry literature. It’s not what Dyson says it is.
Most importantly to keep in mind, “air multiplication” does not violate the conservation of energy. What it is useful for is turning a very tight stream of air into a more uniform and distributed stream of air. So for example, in industrial applications it is used to turn air from a compressor hose line into a gentle, spread out pattern of air on a production line.
To a limited degree, it works the way Dyson says it does. The air is forced out through the holes in the ring around the circle. This air movement “entraps” a secondary flow or air which is brought along for the ride. However, this entrapment process does NOT violate the conservation of energy. The speed of the primary air flow and of the secondary air flow are both dramatically reduced. How much? Well, by the amount of “air multiplication” of course. Energy is conserved and momentum is conserved.
When you look at the ability of a fan to cool a room, it all comes down to cubic feet per minute of air moved through the fan. And for the Dyson, again that’s under 100cfm, which is comparable to, I kid you not, a tiny little 3.5" bladed fan.
Do not buy this thing if what you want is a room fan. It is a scam. That is the scientific reality.
[QUOTE=sdc100, post:5, topic:381622]
Of all the things I’ve bought on Woot – and I have 150+ Woots – the 10" Dyson fan is the one I use the most. In fact, I use it almost daily. I like having some moving air around me and oscillating at the lowest setting from about 6’ away, it feels like a natural breeze. That’s where the non-buffeting aspect really shines. A normal axial fan never feels quite “natural.” And at the lowest speed, it only use about 8-10 watts, according to my watt meter.
[/quote]
The reason the fan’s breeze is so non-buffeting is that it’s moving so little air.
SO you’re willing to pay over $125 more for this than the Vornado?! The Dyson is a novelty that dollar to dollar is NOT more “energy efficient” than a $20 fan that will move more air in an hour than the Dyson will in a whole day.
[QUOTE=youtookmyactualname, post:7, topic:381622]
That’s a terrible analogy, and a while extrapolation.
A $1000 vacation presumably can’t be replaced by a $10 fan. errr. I mean vacation.
Seriously, this thing solves a problem that just does not exist.
I have used them, see in stores, as well as experienced when others had them. They’re pointless. Not worth the price.
If you’re willing to pay that much to feel good about yourself, that’s fine. I could never rationalize it.
Also, nice quadruple post.
[/quote]
I won this in Church so I have nothing to “rationalize.” IU love it. Instead of psychoanalyzing others, why don’t you ask yourself why you need to insult others who have different priorities? Does it make you feel good?
I actually have 4 Vornados and after using this fan, I’d say the answer is yes. I only use the vonados to circulate air or for concentraated air (the “vortex”). But this is my daily fan at home to create a natural breeze throughout the room. So yes.
btw, the Vornados use >30 watts on low while this uses <10 watts.
Too bad the Vornado also moves over 3X the air so the per watt cost is much less per CFM.Trying to claim this as a “green” energy product is nonsense.
[QUOTE=narquespamley, post:14, topic:381622]
sdc100 parrots the same old tired advertisements for this fan, which simply is not what it is presented to be.
[/quote]
Really? Not. Please give me the link to the “same old tired advertisement” which sdc100 “parrots.” About the only thing he references is the multiplying of air. All the other stuff is more practical, i.e. cleaning, placement, etc. And he (or she) gives personal experiences, like taking off the ring, etc. That’s certainly more helpful than your post for soemone who is actually looking for user experiences.