3 ms·
Nifty idea, but I'm not sure I agree with the technique used to prove effectiveness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH5APw_SLUU https://www.youtube.com/watch?
by apo 8y ago
Nifty idea, but I'm not sure I agree with the technique used to prove effectiveness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH5APw_SLUU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH5APw_SLUU
The narrator puts a particle counter in front of the fan and notes the 90% reduction. So far so good.
The problem is extrapolating this result to the entire room. Yes, maybe you'd get close to 90% if the device were allowed to run a few days.
On the other hand, it could leave the situation worse (by blowing existing particulates around) or unimproved (by failing to filter room air efficiently enough.
Either way, I'd like to see see a controlled study. Two identical rooms with identical usage. One gets a homemade filter. The other gets just a fan of the same make and model, maybe with a dummy filter to baffle airflow.
What's the average particle count in both rooms after, say one week?
- tfha 8y agoWith pre-registration, while we're at it
- gnopgnip 8y agoThis DIY version does not have the same pre filter as commercially available ones, and would need to have the filter changed more often at a minimum. There are studies showing the success such as this one. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9192919 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9192919
- CompelTechnic 8y agoIf you check out Matthias wandel's YouTube channel, he does some experiments with hours-long recording of room particle counts. This is in a woodshop (sawdust) setting with a similar diy filter setup.