So-o-o; You use your engine to drive a large squirrel cage blower (centrifugal fan); which is more efficient than an axial flow fan (propeller); and then you feed that to a large Dyson ring; which then provides 15 times the thrust you could get from your prop.  Why, this could make the turbofan jet obsoleteJ.

 

Al

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ed Anderson
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:15 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: off subject - dyson fan defies physics

 

Well, I must confess to being skeptical about such claims and when there appears to be a clear attempt to mislead, it heightens my doubts even more.

 

Here is what I found, first, it DOES have a motor and Fan Blade – so why the claim it is “bladeless” .  They appear to channel air up to the ring and with air flowing from the slits (air motion caused by the fan blades in the base of the unit) causes external air to be channeled along with the fan induced flow.  A Bunsen burner does the same thing in principle the hot exhausting air pulls in fresh air at the base.  Now the real question is how this fan induced flow  is capable of inducting a 15 time greater flow of air.  The principal would appear to be the same as exhaust augmentation with a lot less energy.  So don’t see any deifying of the laws of physics so far.

 

 But,  if it works for the dyson fan, then why not get 15 times {:>) your current cooling air flow sitting on the ground with your engine running?: