• NullPointer@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    seems like snake oil. whe using my electric leaf blower all the noise sounds to be coming from the big fan at the top of the device and not the nozzle

    • Lemonparty@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      Now pretend your electric blower is actually a super loud and inefficient two stroke motor.

      The movement of air isn’t noisy, the motor is.

  • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    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.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        28 days ago

        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.

    • protist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      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

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        28 days ago

        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.

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            28 days ago

            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?

            • protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              28 days ago

              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

              • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                28 days ago

                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……

  • A_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    was posted 3 days ago in /c/Technology, here :
    https://lemmy.world/post/15468260
    what they did :

    “Our product takes in a full blow of air and separates it,” said team member Leen Alfaoury. “Some of that air comes out as it is, and part of it comes out shifted. The combination of these two sections of the air makes the blower less noisy.”

    … “It ultimately dampens the sound as it leaves, but it keeps all that force, which is the beauty of it.”

    Their design cuts the most shrill and annoying frequencies by about 12 decibels, which all but removes them, making them 94% quieter.

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      Just saying it doesn’t decrease the power is a norm claim without providing anything technical to support it.

      I’ve read multiple articles and videos and yet this very crucial information is intentionally not included.

      The claims are false, you can’t suppress or mute something with a tradeoff, unless they have somehow magically figured out physics anomalies.

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        28 days ago

        Are you saying novel mechanical engineering designs are impossible? That the mechanism of a leaf blower is so near perfection, that a well funded team of 4 mechanical engineering students could not, without VIOLATING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, have simply found a better mechanism?

        I agree with your “show me the numbers” critique, but I find your complete disregard of what may be a better answer without any data at all to be equally foolhardy.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          28 days ago

          I am saying every single one of these claims have never wound up being actually true since they go against the very nature of physics. Yet people perpetuate the claims and defend them without the supporting data.

          So to not provide the data for one claim, while providing the data for another is only done to mislead from the truth.

          Sorry for not accepting what they say at face value since it goes against multiple things.

          • KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            28 days ago

            You’re right to be sceptical until more data is presented, but saying no claim of progress is ever true is quite obviously a gross misrepresentation of our current reality. You are doing this on digital devices interconnected with millions of users ar staggering speed and latency. Every part of which are scientific claims.

          • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            28 days ago

            never wound up being actually true since they go against the very nature of physics.

            This is an incredibly wild statement when you have no data on the device’s construction or operation.

            Youre complaining about a lack of data then making wild assumptions about it with no data.

            Not exactly a good scientific method here, mate.

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          28 days ago

          He has a point though… OVERALL noise was only suppressed 2db. It’s only 12db in a specific frequency. EVERY article has more or less ONLY stated the 12db value. It seems more and more these days that you just have to assume that the article headline is at best mostly false, or obscenely misleading.

          2db overall… is kind of fucking pointless. I mean… as someone afflicted with hearing problems I know that every db matters. But all this hubbub for something that should just be found, then implemented without all this fanfare… the general public will not care about this, yet I’ve seen 3 articles on it for some reason.

          And most normal people don’t understand the logarithmic nature of the db scale anyway. Every 3 db is technically a doubling in power. But it takes 10db for our perception to halve/double.

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      about 12 decibels, which all but removes them, making them 94% quieter.

      This “conversion” from decibel to per cent is more than ridiculous.

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        28 days ago

        Why? dB is logarithmic so it’s difficult for people to picture how loud something is, if that’s the only number given.

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          28 days ago

          And so are our ears. That’s why we use db. So 12db is not perceived by us to be 94% quieter.

      • tty5@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        28 days ago

        Decibel scale is logarithmic, which means 10db change is reducing perceived volume by half.

      • morbidcactus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        28 days ago

        12 dB is a pretty decent reduction if your goal is hearing protection, 100->88 is also bringing it to something that absolutely needs hearing protection to something that’s borderline acceptable for an 8 hour shift depending on your local laws, mine say 4 hours but still, way more comfortable to use.

      • gdog05@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        28 days ago

        Eh, I’ll take it though. I live in a fairly quiet part of town but the street has gotten pretty busy in the last could of years. And visually, I guess the street seems to open up making drivers get… spicy now and then. The fucking motorcycles, man. These noisy fucking middle-aged infants making 130 decibels while only going 15mph make me see red. I’d gladly take the lawn equipment noise.

      • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        28 days ago

        Decibels are a logarithmic scale, so it scales exponentially. Because of this, reducing by just ten is actually very significant and would reduce the perceived volume by half, and would reduce the actual sound pressure even more than half.