Talk:Bladeless fan

How does the wing work?

could somebody tell me please how does the airplane shaped wing work? Mehran ghasemian (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bladeless fan. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.switched.com/2009/10/12/james-dyson-explains-how-new-bladeless-air-multiplier-fan-work/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Botched Grammar

The paragraph "Air Multiplier Fan" uses rather poor phrasing. The grammar should be revised. Spades (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Beyond grammar issues, the word choice in general is poor and at times nonsensical. It is pretty clear the author of that section is not fluent in English at a native level. If someone who possesses both a solid understanding of the content needed for this section and fluency in English, it would be great if they could decide this part of the article. Rs180216 (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Redundant information

This entry should really be completely rewritten or removed. I believe if it is to remain a separate topic then it should only contain information on why the term is technically inaccurate since it is a misnomer(https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Misnomer). Any fan that uses blades in any form such as the Dyson should be labeled or clarified as such. The definition of a fan requires it to have a blade/vane to move the air. Where blade is the more encompassing of the two terms and vane is more restricted. Since blades are used in many other devices that do not move air, it use terms that would limit the definition of the term blade, otherwise, it becomes a misnomer and thus not meriting a separate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.3.129 (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Bladeless

The system is not really bladeless at all. The blades are connected to an internal motor that forces air in and out of the system. Basically, it's a turbine inside a tube, which forces air into the channel between the two rims of the structure at the top of the 'fan'. KorgBoy (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Bias

The product of dyson should not be an advertisement. It says at the end it isn’t a good design, it’s only for rich people and aesthetics. “Air multiplier” is an advertising gimmick 68.63.78.109 (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The term might have been coined by a marketing team to start, but it's still a fairly accurate description of the phenomenon. Amomchilov (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. As most common name. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Air multiplier → Bladeless fan – My understanding is that "Air multiplier" is a trademarked marketing term for a particular brand's products. Google Advanced Search shows "Bladeless fan" being about eight times more common, and Google Ngram confirms that it is also more common in book sources. Google Scholar also confirms that it is a more common term in scholarly works. Although this type of fan is not really bladeless, they are commonly referred to as such, since they have no visible (or touchable) fan blades. The blades are hidden inside the chassis. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 18:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Correct name for a tower fan?

I notice that at least one company is marketing a tower fan (sort of like this one) as a "bladeless fan". It has a long shaft that spins and has an airflow output that is perpendicular to the shaft and an intake that is in line with the output. Most companies don't call it a bladeless fan, but Dreo apparently does, and this type of fan is included in some of the web search results for "bladeless fan". Does anyone know what is really the proper name for that type of fan? I see an article about centrifugal fans, but those have seem to have a very different type of airflow intake than these tower fans. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I found it. It's called a cross-flow fan. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

"How it works" is needlessly confusing.

There's a few quirks with it:

1. The introduction summary doesn't stand well on its own, and requires the point-by-point explanation, which then duplicates a lot of the info.
2. Some of the wording is needless complex ("vane" instead of "fan blade", "toroid" instead of "ring", etc.)
3. "Inducement" isn't clear in-context, and doesn't have its own Wikipedia page.
4. The explanation for how buffeting is reduces is rather poor. "This is due to the way air is drawn in and amplified without the need for visible blades." It's not at all obvious how this air amplification leads to a more consistent stream. And obviously, hiding fan blades has nothing to do with making airflow consistent or not.
5. "more energy-efficient" citation required.
6. "more visually appealing fan" subjective.

I've tried my best to write it in a more clear and simple manner. I've left out two details that I don't understand myself:

1. The physics of the airfoil cross section and its contribution to the system
2. "Vicious shearing" (?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8he8afjQyd8&t=127

Feedback appreciated! Amomchilov (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)