New DIY Purifier Design Increases CADR 15%

ओह! यह पोस्ट हिन्दी में उपलब्ध नही हैं।अंग्रेजी संस्करण के हेतु यहाँ क्लिक करे l

Thomas Talhelm

Thomas is an Associate Professor of Behavior Science at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and the founder of Smart Air, a social enterprise to help people in China breathe clean air without shelling out thousands of dollars for expensive purifiers.

5 thoughts on “New DIY Purifier Design Increases CADR 15%

  1. With the Cannon model, have you thought about introducing a simple plastic part to go on the output end to convert the shape from circular to square, something like this shape?

    http://i.imgur.com/4Pu78u7.png

    It would fit your filters better, perhaps removing the need to strap them on, and more importantly I would expect it to improve performance/longevity of the filters. Judging by the images of your used filters, according to my maths the Cannon isn’t using 21.5% of the available filter area.

    1. Hi Sam,

      Yes, we’ve definitely thought of this! Using more of the HEPA area would increase the efficiency, but in fact more of the HEPA is actually being used than you think.
      We’re yet to come out with a modification, because the downside is that creating a simple plastic part like that would cost us thousands of USD to create the machine mould. Paying up front for this would mean we’d need to inflate the price of the Cannon. Since the Cannon is aimed as a low cost DIY air purifier this is not something we want to do right now – keeping it as affordable as possible is our main aim.

    1. Hey Josh, good question! The main reason for doing this is because it’s the front of the fan that’s flat. The back of the DIY1.1 isn’t flat which means there wouldn’t be a good seal if we placed the filter there.
      The main advantage of putting the filter on the back is that it means clean air passes over the fan, which means the fan won’t get dirty. It shouldn’t affect airflow, and we’ve actually done tests on the Cannon proving that airflow is worse with the filter on the back (for the Cannon, it does have a flat back).

  2. On another page on this website, it says that the DIY 1.1 was tested in a room size of 15 sqm with 92-95.5% effectiveness. The description for the Cannon says “From our testing, we’ve seen that the Cannon is 96 – 97% effective against PM2.5 in a room size of 15sqm. So the Cannon works in a room about twice as large as the Original DIY.”

    So does this mean, that with the new improvements, now the DIY 1.1 can be used in a room of 15 sqm just like the Cannon? Can the DIY 1.1 be used for a room that size, whereas the Original DIY couldn’t be used for a room that size?

प्रातिक्रिया दे

आपका ईमेल पता प्रकाशित नहीं किया जाएगा. आवश्यक फ़ील्ड चिह्नित हैं *