Talk:Centrifugal fan

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chemical and Bio EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringChemical and Bio Engineering articles

Engineering Mid‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Untitled

It is not sufficient to state that a particular blade configuration is good for low or high pressure applications or high or low volume flows. Can the article provide some numbers? What is ment by high-pressure etc.

A straight radial fan blade is not a centrifugal fan blade as this page heading suggests. Veryunstable (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. How is it not? It affects air movement through centrifugal force. I've built fans using radial blades and they work great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.51.41 (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Fan wheel speeds in belt-driven fans are fixed unless the belts slip' Inaccurate, variable speed sheaves or pulley wheels are readily available items allowing for speed control by mechanical means.Veryunstable (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article would benefit from a description of mixed flow fan blades. Veryunstable (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions 'three basic types of fan drives' but only illustrates two. Why? Also, section 1.1.1 appears to be damaged, with a partial sentence forming a line/paragraph by itself, and Figure 2 missing. Err, and why is it within the scope of 'Chemical and Bio Engineering'..? 71.127.181.223 (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The centrifugal fan will displace a constant volume of air in a given system regardless of the air density." If this statement is true then the energy consumed by the fan must change as the mass flow will change, for a fixed motor drive the input energy will be the same, to BALANCE the volume will surely increase as the density falls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.113.74 (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in need of advice and help!

Under what conditions and the following statement be removed from centrifugal compressor? "Cleanup|date=June 2008" centrifugal compressor is currently in a semi-complete state. It has not been proofread and has not been verified to standard that I would like to apply. I would like to ask for everyone's help to please review the article and make comments on the discussion page. I really will attempt to incorporate all of your improvements in a rigorous and consistent fashion. it is important that you are happy the way your issues are addressed. It is currently missing a section on "design methodology" that I would like to research and discuss before I complete. There are significantly different points of view that I would like to try to unify. the section on design methodology is not original work and will be properly referenced. All turbomachinery is unified by fundamental physics in the applied mathematics use in their design and analysis. That is why the term turbomachinery can be used as an umbrella topic. Dozens of academic textbooks attest to the above statement. Other than one other turbomachinery entry I have not been happy with the technical and scientific accuracy of any other encyclopedic entries. Most of these entries have been negatively impact by end-user and application colloquialisms. I will slowly, starting with centrifugal pumps and centrifugal fans try to correct various errors in statements. Unless I am asked I will not make any significant changes to the outlines of these encyclopedic articles. thank you for everyone's help martin koronowski, Mkoronowski (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modifications

This has been written very poorly and I am trying to improve it. The main areas for improvement:

Structure of the article: The article contains headings that do not fit to be a heading. I am trying to reconfigure the structure making sure that the information is not lost during the process.
Information: Considering the extensive use of centrifugal fans, the amount of info given in the article is very thin. Also, the article's first sentence confused fans with blowers which are technically different. I have corrected it though.

OBSERVATION re "Centrifugal fans" vs. "Blowers": It wouldn't surprise me if it is possible to justify this distinction but after reading this article and 30 minutes or so of web browsing directed at trying to find such, including some manufacturer's sites, if any such distinction was being made I missed it. Clearly many industry participants DO use the terms interchangeably. I'd be the last to claim that small but useful distinctions in meaning between words that have an historical basis in the community of people most knowledgeable on the subject matter involved should be abandoned in the face of ignorant popular usage. But given the prevalence of the usage you label as wrong among people professionally involved in the field, and since despite insisting that usage is wrong you offer no hint of alternate definitions you approve of (and my apologies if I missed it), I think the burden of proof is on you to support your claim, at the very least to the extent of making clear the exact definitions you prefer, preferably with some evidence these preferences have an historical basis and aren't merely eccentricity. I'm not claiming the usage of the majority should rule. I'd give preference to usage by people with the greatest expertise in the subject matter and preference to conservation of early usage as opposed to changing definitions to fit new concepts. New concepts generally deserve new words. I'm not trying to be hostile here. If, on reflection, you stand by the distinction you wish to make, I'd appreciate it if you would edit to indicate just what that distinction is. But given widespread usage in documents that presumably were written or at least checked by people with relevant expertise of precisely the usage you object to, just saying "That's wrong. I know what's right, but I ain't tellin'," isn't sufficient. FURTHER OBSERVATION ADDED LATER by the same anon: AJ, it was not my intent to simply undo your remark on nomenclature and my first edit left your idea intact in the main article, while adding my reservations about it. But that edit was objected to and reverted because I attributed your idea to your nic which is verbotten apparently. So I did it again in a simpler way, presenting only the one view, and perhaps that perhaps will stick for a while. If you can justify your distinction, when you reinstate it, in addition to defining it I suggest you start a stub article on "blower" and link to it.

I am trying to gather info from various books in libraries, online publications etc to make the article rich.

Citation: When I started editing the article it had only three sources cited. It is very bad and casual way of writing articles. Wikipedia is considered reliable because it is made sure the info is taken from verified sources. I am making sure that I include citations wherever necessary.

Apart from all this I need help too. Please add good info and sources to the article.If you can't write just post sources(not already listed on the article) on the talk page under the heading Good Sources (create it if not present).
AJ (talk) 15:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between fans and blowers Table 1 pressure heading title

I think there is an error in Table 1 in that the pressure title should be Inches Water Column, not Inches Mercury as stated. 1136 Inches of Mercury would be over 500 PSI, way out of range for a fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.221.18 (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think 2000 inches of water is not a blower and would more than be a compressor. I believe the units for those ranges should be mm of water. 2000 mm of water is 2.84 psi which corresponds to a pressure ratio of 1.25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.88.179 (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the units in the table 1

0.1Atm=101.325mbar=76mmHg=2.9921256inchHg=1033.2275mmH2O=40.678246inchH2O
So the units on table one are mmH2O, not mmHg
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Agepap (talk • contribs) 17:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree and have made the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.88.179 (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Centrifugal fan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124031450/http://www.epa.gov:80/apti/bces/module5/fans/types/types.htm to http://www.epa.gov/apti/bces/module5/fans/types/types.htm#types

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Centrifugal fan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

The link to http://www.retscreen.net/links_eeasia_fans&blowers_chapter.html is now dead. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not the motor that movex

Article says, "Centrifugal fans use the kinetic energy of the impellers to increase the volume of the air stream, which in turn moves them against the resistance . . . ."

Did the editor err in that sentence. The sentence implies:

"Centrifugal fans use the kinetic energy of the impellers to increase the volume of the air stream, and then the air stream moves the impellers against the resistance . . . ."

Are you saying the impellers move the air & the air moves the impellers??? Isn't the truth that 1) the motor moves cage in a circle and thus the impellers with the cage, then 2) the impellers create an air stream moving out of the cage at a tangent to the cage? This air stream may be increased if the speed of the cage's rotation is increased by the motor? (PeacePeace (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The sentence makes sense with "them" removed; it was probably an editing error. 73.202.12.249 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fan change direction of air flow or create non-existent air flow?

Article says, "Centrifugal fans displace air radially, changing the direction (typically by 90°) of the airflow."

But isn't the truth that there is NO air flow until the fan starts rotating. Thus the centrifugal fan pulls air into the cage and expels it in a different direction (e.g. 90 degrees). There is no air flow to change until the fan starts rotating. The purpose of the fan is not to change an air flow, but to create one? (PeacePeace (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Changing the rotation direction converts a backwards inclined fan to forwards inclined, and visa versa. Due to the housing being configured for the reverse direction the efficiency will be lower, and it'll be noisy like hell, but the aiorflow direction is the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.65.104 (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between fan & blower?

Article discusses "Differences between fans and blowers." Isn't a blower one type of fan? (PeacePeace (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Is the Diagram of Air Flow valid only for back-curved blade?

Am I correct that the air-flow diagram (which shows air entering the cage & exiting out the blades at 90 degrees to the right) is valid only for back-curved (or slanted) blades? If you blow air into the cage, a back-curved cage would rotate clockwise and throw air to the right. If you blow air into the cage with front slanted blades, the cage would rotate counter-clock wise? Thus if you had a cage with front-slanted blades, I would think that such a fan would draw air into the cage from the blades and expel it out the center of the cage, instead of drawing it in? (PeacePeace (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Incorrect. A forward curved fan rotated the other way becomes backwards curved. Direction of airflow does not change (center to outside). Imagine a spinning disc. Whichever way it spins, centrifugal force still pushes you towards the edge of the disc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.65.104 (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is a tower fan considered a centrifugal fan?

Is a tower fan – e.g., as shown here considered a centrifugal fan? Its air intake seems to be very different from what is shown in this article. Rather than 90 degrees from the outflow, I believe the intake of these fans is directly in line (zero degrees) with the outflowing air. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found the info in another article. It's called a cross-flow fan. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]