DIY新的设计更安全,更方便,提高CADR 15%

我制作第一台DIY净化器之后,一个设计杂志给我打电话采访我。我跟记者说,“你知道这个净化器没有设计的成分吧?只是一个风扇和一个滤网。”我现在终于对它进行了设计改进!我叫它DIY 1.1。

问题

测试说明DIY 1.0减少家里的颗粒污染(1, 2),不过并不完美。如果把手放在侧面,能感觉到有一部分风撞上HEPA然后从侧面出来。

所以我们很好奇,如果在侧面装上一个盖子挡板,会不会效果更好?如果盖子让更多的空气穿过滤网而不侧漏,应该会提高效果。因为要发扬我们的DIY精神,所以我们用了DIY精神来做几个DIY挡板:

初步测试结果很好,所以我们设计了一个“高级版”塑料后罩:

 

关键是:效果更好吗?为了测试这个问题,我们做了真实居住房间测试和第三方CADR测试。

间测试

我们用了跟以前的同样的房间和方法来测试DIY 1.1。这些测试用真实的空气污染,在一个普通的公寓里来看这个净化器能减少多少空气污染。这个测试用净化器最常用的情况时间段—晚上睡觉的时候。

跟之前在同样的房间做的DIY1.0的测试,DIY1.1效果比DIY1.0好一点:

测试方法更多细节和原始数据都是公开的。

CADR测试

我喜欢房间测试的一个原因是因为实验条件更贴近现实情况—正像我们用净化器的情况一样。所以房间测试包括很多真实生活的条件,比如窗户漏风和主人在房间里走动。

常见的CADR测试没有那么贴近真实的条件。在CADR测试,研究者在一个用塑料完全封闭的空间烧(或喷)颗粒物,而不用“天然”的PM2.5。不过,CADR的重要的好处是能够控制测试的条件。所以CADR测试能够更精确地比较两种机器之间的细微差别。

CADR结果

CADR的结果可以是立方英尺/分钟或立方米/小时两种单位。很容易弄乱两种单位,尤其是因为很多地方不标注单位。下面的数据所用的单位是立方米/小时。CADR的结果如下:

DIY1.1的新的设计提高了CADR 15%。光系上一个塑料盖子就得到这个效果不错!CADR 101立方米/小时等于Blueair S1的CADR(以美国第三方AHAM的CADR测试)。

对一个喜欢数据的书呆子来说,这些效果数据最重要,但是DIY1.1还有两个地方的提升。

更安全

我们在扇叶前面加了一个金属的网。这样能保证孩子的手指和狗们的爪子不会碰到扇叶。这是我们在之前都比较担心的问题,而DIY1.1能够完美的保证在儿童房使用时的安全性!

更方便

DIY本来就简单。是一个风扇系上一个滤网。但是DIY1.1的后罩有地方固定带子。有些人在使用我们的DIY1.0的时候,会发现固定住绑带和HEPA滤网的位置有点困难,绑带和滤网都很容易下滑,对于我这样头脑简单的人来说,这样弄固定带省事!也避免了绑带和滤网因为手滑而脱落。

看到数据之后,我决定开始在Smart Air和淘宝提供DIY1.1,价格为228元。

公开数据

跟之前一样,为了其他书呆子同胞,我在这发表了测试方法更多细节和原始数据。

Thomas Talhelm

芝加哥大学行为科学系的助理教授; Smart Air创始书呆子。

在 “DIY新的设计更安全,更方便,提高CADR 15%” 上有 5 条评论

  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.

  2. Forgive me if this has already been answered on your site, but why is the filter placed after the fan rather than before the fan (from the air movement’s point of view). Most other filters in commercial models are placed before the fan. Thanks!

    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).

  3. 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?

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注