|
Post by Noah C on Mar 22, 2015 13:00:42 GMT -5
By the way, aside from the light kits, your fan and the alcove II are internally the same fan, with the same airmax 172×15 motor. Since the alcove was discontinued later than your coastal breeze, it received the newer method of testing. This more accurate method claims that the alcove 2 moves about 4,800 CFM on high. The coastal breeze is most likely in that same realm (give or take about 300 CFM). Simply put, you could use either method as neither is wrong, but the latter method has been revised for better accuracy. Just saying
|
|
|
Post by Max C. on Mar 22, 2015 13:05:03 GMT -5
I don't know. The CFM method you are referring to is from the early 00's. CFM testing has gotten more accurate and numbers have decreased, and when Minka aire tested the supra using the CFM calculator (cylindrical structure testing airflow) the fan received 5,608 CFM. Knowing that home depot's CFM estimates can be hit and miss the Raleigh 3's you have are probably doing about 4,600 CFM on high speed. It is not that you are wrong or inept, because I respect your vast experience with fans but the CFM method used when your fans were tested most likely missed some key factors, like the fact some fans could have been tested with different length downrods; maybe the structures themselves were flawed, or maybe it was not taken into account the fact that the cylindrical structure is 8" wider in diameter than the fan diameter itself. So according to the older method, your coastal breeze plus 44" would move 7,680 CFM. According to the more accurate methodology, the fan would move about 4,900 CFM, meaning it is quite powerful for its size. That is why an old hunter manual said the allegro 46" & 52" moved about 11,000 CFM. The more accurate method puts these fans at around 6,400 CFM. And there is no possible way the coastal breeze plus could be more powerful than a 50" panama, which moves 6,228 CFM, according to Casablanca. It is simply a contrast of old and new methodology, that is all I am trying to tell you, no hard feelings Thank you for you input, however I feel this needs to be added...Hunter's specifications for the Coastal Breeze Plus have nothing to do with my fan, as I own the 2XXXX version. Also, Hunter always rigorously tested their fans, even in the early 2000's. Therefore, 7,680 CFM isn't particularly hard to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Noah C on Mar 22, 2015 13:16:12 GMT -5
I don't know. The CFM method you are referring to is from the early 00's. CFM testing has gotten more accurate and numbers have decreased, and when Minka aire tested the supra using the CFM calculator (cylindrical structure testing airflow) the fan received 5,608 CFM. Knowing that home depot's CFM estimates can be hit and miss the Raleigh 3's you have are probably doing about 4,600 CFM on high speed. It is not that you are wrong or inept, because I respect your vast experience with fans but the CFM method used when your fans were tested most likely missed some key factors, like the fact some fans could have been tested with different length downrods; maybe the structures themselves were flawed, or maybe it was not taken into account the fact that the cylindrical structure is 8" wider in diameter than the fan diameter itself. So according to the older method, your coastal breeze plus 44" would move 7,680 CFM. According to the more accurate methodology, the fan would move about 4,900 CFM, meaning it is quite powerful for its size. That is why an old hunter manual said the allegro 46" & 52" moved about 11,000 CFM. The more accurate method puts these fans at around 6,400 CFM. And there is no possible way the coastal breeze plus could be more powerful than a 50" panama, which moves 6,228 CFM, according to Casablanca. It is simply a contrast of old and new methodology, that is all I am trying to tell you, no hard feelings Thank you for you input, however I feel this needs to be added...Hunter's specifications for the Coastal Breeze Plus have nothing to do with my fan, as I own the 2XXXX version. Also, Hunter always rigorously tested their fans, even in the early 2000's. Therefore, 7,680 CFM isn't particularly hard to believe. That is correct, Max. There is no 5xxxx version of the coastal breeze, and hunter did rigorously test their fans. It is not as much the rigor of the testing, but moreso the technology being utilized during the testing being not as accurate as the current technology. Either method could be used, but I simply use the newer method because it is easier to link it to other ceiling fans in my daily environment/newer fans in general. And no, your fan has no relation to specs for the coastal breeze plus, and you are right that 7,680 CFM is easy to believe. The more accurate newer method has an easier linkage, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by Noah C on Mar 22, 2015 13:17:58 GMT -5
Hey Max, did you see the weird 96" fan on the last page?
|
|
|
Post by Jordan U on Mar 22, 2015 13:48:43 GMT -5
both used 153X18 Air Cool motors. Since Hunter used a high quality stator and premium windings, I see no reason why their 172X14 motor can't deliver greater performance. Also, I don't know what's up with the numbers on the Minka Aire Supra. They must have made a mistake on either the CFM rating or RPM, as it should be moving close to 8000 CFM with 14° blade pitch... Yo, can you do math? The Air Cool motors are larger! 153 X 18 motor has a 2,754 mm 2 stator, while a 172 X 14 motor has a 2408 mm 2 stator.. I will agree that the numbers on the Minka Aire in question do seem pretty low for the given specs. Something isn't right there.
|
|
|
Post by Noah C on Mar 22, 2015 13:59:36 GMT -5
The numbers seem low because you guys are using an outdated CFM method where the numbers were higher.
|
|
|
Post by Noah C on Mar 22, 2015 14:22:33 GMT -5
Weird fan #4: Minka air spectre ceiling fan. This is mechanically the same as the Iconic, but even more of an atrocity and even more weird, with the steel colored components looking like oven pans attached to a orange painted exposed motor. It has a small motor for its size (188×15); it is 60" in diameter, and moves only 6,000 CFM maximum. Here it is: Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Jordan U on Mar 22, 2015 14:24:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Noah C on Mar 22, 2015 14:35:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Noah C on Mar 22, 2015 14:37:39 GMT -5
Click on the picture. That fan is an odd atrocity!
|
|
|
Post by Max C. on Mar 22, 2015 14:46:08 GMT -5
Yo, can you do math? The Air Cool motors are larger! 153 X 18 motor has a 2,754 mm 2 stator, while a 172 X 14 motor has a 2408 mm 2 stator.. Yup, I can. However, keep in mind that the Hunter motor uses a higher quality stator and better windings... Weird fan #4: Minka air Ppectre ceiling fan. This is mechanically the same as the Iconic, but even more of an atrocity and even more weird, with the steel colored components looking like oven pans attached to a orange painted exposed motor. It has a small motor for its size (188×15); it is 60" in diameter, and moves only 6,000 CFM maximum. What even? While the concept is there, I think it just ends up looking cheap. The blade brackets are way too small, the blades aren't wide enough and the light kit looks like a shower drain!
|
|
|
Post by Jordan U on Mar 22, 2015 14:51:08 GMT -5
Click on the picture. That fan is an odd atrocity! Wait--is that a real spinner??? I have mixed feelings about this. Sure its ugly as all get out, but what if you bought it, but the blade length in half, painted it another color, and removed that outrageous light? Then it may not look half that bad! Oh, and the blade irons would have to be replaced, and that strange screen thing on top of the motor would also have to go. Okay, maybe there's no hope for it...
|
|
|
Post by Max C. on Mar 22, 2015 14:54:47 GMT -5
Okay, maybe there's no hope for it... Yeah, pretty much
|
|
|
Post by Jordan U on Mar 22, 2015 14:55:02 GMT -5
Weird fan #4: Minka air Ppectre ceiling fan. This is mechanically the same as the Iconic, but even more of an atrocity and even more weird, with the steel colored components looking like oven pans attached to a orange painted exposed motor. It has a small motor for its size (188×15); it is 60" in diameter, and moves only 6,000 CFM maximum. What even? While the concept is there, I think it just ends up looking cheap. The blade brackets are way too small, the blades aren't wide enough and the light kit looks like a shower drain! I don't even see the concept! It does in fact look just like a drain, though that's not the first thing that comes to mind. Yup, I can. However, keep in mind that the Hunter motor uses a higher quality stator and better windings.. Good, glad you can count. Just checking.. That may be so, but the motor size doesn't show that!
|
|
|
Post by Jordan U on Mar 22, 2015 14:56:14 GMT -5
It has a small motor for its size (188×15); it is 60" in diameter, and moves only 6,000 CFM maximum. How many RPMs does it do?
|
|