Electric leaf blowers are already far quieter than their gas-powered peers, but they still aren’t the kind of thing you’d like to hear first-thing on a Saturday morning. Looking to impr…
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.
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.
Taking out the high-pitch whine will make them much more bearable. It’s a student project, they did well. This isn’t groundbreaking Noble-prize stuff, but it doesn’t deserve all the hate it’s getting here either.
I did a student project for server room HVAC fans being annoying back in uni, targeted reduction in those annoying or peak frequencies was a totally acceptable outcome as to not disturb operators (was for a simulated patient in the attached hospital). I’m not an acoustic engineer, so obviously take what I’m saying with a grain of salt (did do a lot of safety and risk work though), making things less annoying is perfectly valid if they’re not already harmful to your hearing in the first place.
What’s cool to me is that it’s just printable, so in theory super accessible and anyone could iterate on it if they desired (assuming it gets open sourced)
The hate is for making a pretty obviously false claim about no power loss. Increasing or even decreasing the exhaust length will affect performance. So for them to add 8” and claim there is no loss of power is quite frankly an outright lie. So it’s being called out, and yet people are defending the asinine claim, it’s hilarious and very concerning as well.
People are also focusing on the wrong information, the total db was reduced by a paltry 2db, not 12db like what’s being talked about.
So they provide sound data that is misleading, and make a claim about power and not provide the data. This just reads marketing piece instead of anything on the actual tech.
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.
It’s a wild statement to claim it doesn’t reduce power when even increasing the length of the discharge tube would affect its performance, and they’ve added a good 8”. Every time like this comes out without the data to back it up, it’s always false, everytime. If it wasn’t the data would be provided now wouldn’t it? Even just showing the CFM data would be enough, but they purposely omit it.
The fact that they purposely omitted data that they have is extremely concerning, it’s not a bold claim say it’s obviously false. It’s bold to claim something like that that goes against what we already know about physics.
I am sorry you are eating up this “marketing”, it’s why products like this are even sold, it’s hilarious, the amount of people defending this asinine claim is honestly quite shocking, especially on a community like this.
Not exactly a good scientific method here, mate.
Uhh… I’m not the one making claims that goes against common knowledge of aerodynamics and then not providing that data. So sure, wanting someone to prove their claim makes me bad at scientific method…?? Maybe the people defending bullshit claims are the ones you should be calling out, oh wait that you yourself. Give you head a fucking shake lmfao.
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.
Every claim where they omit the actual data to support the claim is never fully true. Provide the CFM testing data they must have to even make that claim.
There is no valid reason to omit that data unless to mislead.
Good reasons to omit details include brevity, legibility, pedagogy and scope.
Showing the supporting evidence for all steps in an evidence chain is simply not feasible, and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary. And much of the challenge is to be precise enough in the things that need precision.
They provided the DB data so your argument for all of those reasons is invalid. They could have easily spent a single sentence providing the CFM data. So no, not a single one of those reasons is valid to omit 6 words.
They made a claim, they didn’t need to mention the power claim, but they did. They should have omitted the claim itself using your logic, instead of the supporting data. The argument is flawed itself.
and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary.
Like knowing making a discharge tube longer or shorter affects its aerodynamics….? So we know the claim is false already…? Their ambiguity is meant to mislead people with zero working knowledge of the subject… anyone with any experience will see its flaw immediately.
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.
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.
Because leaf blowers are fucking annoying and we need hope
Taking out the high-pitch whine will make them much more bearable. It’s a student project, they did well. This isn’t groundbreaking Noble-prize stuff, but it doesn’t deserve all the hate it’s getting here either.
Agreed. Being in the house and having the shrill component of the blower removed would greatly be appreciated.
I did a student project for server room HVAC fans being annoying back in uni, targeted reduction in those annoying or peak frequencies was a totally acceptable outcome as to not disturb operators (was for a simulated patient in the attached hospital). I’m not an acoustic engineer, so obviously take what I’m saying with a grain of salt (did do a lot of safety and risk work though), making things less annoying is perfectly valid if they’re not already harmful to your hearing in the first place.
What’s cool to me is that it’s just printable, so in theory super accessible and anyone could iterate on it if they desired (assuming it gets open sourced)
I’m not sure I said anything hateful here… I cited facts from the actual paper and described discontent with the articles, specifically the headlines.
The hate is for making a pretty obviously false claim about no power loss. Increasing or even decreasing the exhaust length will affect performance. So for them to add 8” and claim there is no loss of power is quite frankly an outright lie. So it’s being called out, and yet people are defending the asinine claim, it’s hilarious and very concerning as well.
People are also focusing on the wrong information, the total db was reduced by a paltry 2db, not 12db like what’s being talked about.
So they provide sound data that is misleading, and make a claim about power and not provide the data. This just reads marketing piece instead of anything on the actual tech.
They also run between 60 and 100dB, so knocking that down to 48 and 88dB respectively is fucking useless
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.
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.
It’s a wild statement to claim it doesn’t reduce power when even increasing the length of the discharge tube would affect its performance, and they’ve added a good 8”. Every time like this comes out without the data to back it up, it’s always false, everytime. If it wasn’t the data would be provided now wouldn’t it? Even just showing the CFM data would be enough, but they purposely omit it.
The fact that they purposely omitted data that they have is extremely concerning, it’s not a bold claim say it’s obviously false. It’s bold to claim something like that that goes against what we already know about physics.
I am sorry you are eating up this “marketing”, it’s why products like this are even sold, it’s hilarious, the amount of people defending this asinine claim is honestly quite shocking, especially on a community like this.
Uhh… I’m not the one making claims that goes against common knowledge of aerodynamics and then not providing that data. So sure, wanting someone to prove their claim makes me bad at scientific method…?? Maybe the people defending bullshit claims are the ones you should be calling out, oh wait that you yourself. Give you head a fucking shake lmfao.
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.
Every claim where they omit the actual data to support the claim is never fully true. Provide the CFM testing data they must have to even make that claim.
There is no valid reason to omit that data unless to mislead.
Unfortunately I don’t agree.
Good reasons to omit details include brevity, legibility, pedagogy and scope.
Showing the supporting evidence for all steps in an evidence chain is simply not feasible, and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary. And much of the challenge is to be precise enough in the things that need precision.
They provided the DB data so your argument for all of those reasons is invalid. They could have easily spent a single sentence providing the CFM data. So no, not a single one of those reasons is valid to omit 6 words.
They made a claim, they didn’t need to mention the power claim, but they did. They should have omitted the claim itself using your logic, instead of the supporting data. The argument is flawed itself.
Like knowing making a discharge tube longer or shorter affects its aerodynamics….? So we know the claim is false already…? Their ambiguity is meant to mislead people with zero working knowledge of the subject… anyone with any experience will see its flaw immediately.
Yeah, I’m sure you’re right