• protist@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months 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
      10
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months 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
          10
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          6 months 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
            28
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            6 months 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
              8
              arrow-down
              23
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months 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……