Jump to content

Eco Fan


mrsmelly

Featured Posts

3 minutes ago, mross said:

But do you know that it DOES work?  And you are not ditchcrawler who I was actually addressing.

I know it did work in my particular circumstances. 

True I'm not Ditchcrawler but your post wasn't in the form of a private message so I decided to comment on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

does the proverbial tree in the forest make a noise when it falls and there is no one to hear it?

Yes, of course it does, unless you want to differentiate between a 'sound', which is a physical disturbance of the air molecules, and a 'noise', which is sometimes defined as 'unwanted sound' in which case there can be no noise without somebody to hear it and not want to. I suspect that was not what you meant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Yes, of course it does, unless you want to differentiate between a 'sound', which is a physical disturbance of the air molecules, and a 'noise', which is sometimes defined as 'unwanted sound' in which case there can be no noise without somebody to hear it and not want to. I suspect that was not what you meant!

Yes, sound, well spotted! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Machpoint005 said:

The proverbial tree in a forest does indeed make a sound when it falls. How on earth could it not?

Depends...

If you take the definition of sound to be

vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.

Then if there is no ear to hear there is no sound to be found  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Machpoint005 said:

The proverbial tree in a forest does indeed make a sound when it falls. How on earth could it not?

(You can tell I never studied philosophy, I daresay).

Depends on how you define sound.

Edited by tree monkey
Ahh I see that clever chap Wotever has made the point already
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mark99 said:

Based on the above, my stirling fan definately does not work when I'm not in the boat but out looking for grasshoppers. Cos I can't feel it.

There are some excellent and very interesting articles on google re the Placebo effect which I have read since I started this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mross said:

But do you know that it DOES work?  And you are not ditchcrawler who I was actually addressing.

Yes and Yes, but I am aware of its limitations as I said earlier I would like a fan to move a large bulk of air slowly. I have put a smouldering candle behind it and seen the smoke blowing through. I would love to see a scientific test but it would need to be in a sealed area with no outside influence. just walking through makes the air move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

As for placebo, if you believe Ecofan doesn't work then you will convince yourself it doesn't work whether or not it does actually work. 

Would that be known as the obecalp effect?

  • Happy 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mross said:

It would, but we cynics think it moves too little to make a difference.  The blowers fitted to convection wood stoves in the USA are about 115W.  Yours is 1W.  

I do keep saying I would like a bigger on, I am sure American houses are a bit bigger than 6' 6" wide and 6' 2" high so need to move the air much more. I don't say its perfect but I think it does make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I do keep saying I would like a bigger on, I am sure American houses are a bit bigger than 6' 6" wide and 6' 2" high so need to move the air much more. I don't say its perfect but I think it does make a difference.

The Stirling fan is bigger, have you looked at that?  I got one on eBay.

6 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I do keep saying I would like a bigger on,

did you miss out an 'e' or the word 'hard'?

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/12/2017 at 09:24, mross said:

You could try running your engine with boat secured, pour some food dye into the wake and see how far it moves astern.  I think it will be only a few yards.  Even milk would do.  Obviously, the water would need to be clear.

Please don't use milk its Biochemical Oxygen Demand is approaching 400 times that of raw sewage making it a serious pollutant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

Please don't use milk its Biochemical Oxygen Demand is approaching 400 times that of raw sewage making it a serious pollutant.

Don't be so silly!  A pint of milk, dispersed in a pound is not going to kill all marine life.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mross said:

Don't be so silly!  A pint of milk, dispersed in a pound is not going to kill all marine life.  

Obviously your right but Jerras point is correct about the BOD and personaly I would avoid pouring any quantity of milk into a watercourse just because its unnecessary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Obviously your right but Jerras point is correct about the BOD and personaly I would avoid pouring any quantity of milk into a watercourse just because its unnecessary

Nor am I going to pour raw sewage on my Cornflakes.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, mross said:

Don't be so silly!  A pint of milk, dispersed in a pound is not going to kill all marine life.  

Would you accept somebody tipping 400 pints of raw sewage into the pound?   Milk will remove 400 times more oxygen than a pint of sewage so your happily abandoned pint of milk does as much damage (by removing oxygen) as 400 pints of sewage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

ah, but it's skimmed milk!:) and it would be massively diluted in the prop wash.  One pint of full cream milk would remove 80 grammes of oxygen (2.8 ounces).

Let's consider............

Pond water typically contains at least 8ppm of dissolved oxygen if it supports cold-water fish.  Consider one cubic meter of water.  This is 1,000 litres.  Therefore, it will contain 8 grammes of oxygen.  How much water is in a ten-foot stretch of canal?  If we estimate the width at 40 feet and the average depth at 2 feet we get 800 cubic feet or 22.6 cubic meters.  This could contain a minimum of 180 grammes of oxygen.

So my pint of milk will seriously deplete the oxygen in a ten-foot stretch.

But skimmed milk in my prop wash is probably not quite so harmful.

But I now know more about pollution than I did yesterday!

Edited by mross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.