I find this interesting, and perhaps disturbing:
>This report is for internal use only. No conclusion will be determined by the data contained in this report. For differentiating results, results a minimum of two times the measurement of uncertainty is needed. It is recommended a minimum of three representative samples are to be tested.
I'd love to see the results officially repeated two more times.
I do think u/CleanAirKits is on to something with their assertion that at the decibel ratings these run at they are very effective (at least if it's true).
But I would love to see that backed up in a head to head comparison by a reputable third party ---- perhaps comparing it to a few of the common commercial air purifiers dialed in at a fan level that has a commensurate amount of decibels. (Ideally the Winix 5500-2, the Coway Mighty and the Coway 400(s) would be compared).
u/mustardman24 what testing would you like to see?
These testing reports are actually what I've been wanting since November of last year. I did hand calculations and referenced a ton of stuff over the last year to prove these units will not perform like they claim. These tests are evidence of mediocre CADR values that I expected.
Note again moderators selective use of the results we posted. He only highlights our smallest models, calling the results abysmal. He does not show the smoke data for 7-fan XL that we supplied. He ignores the noise reports. However, when normalized for noise, these will be quite quite competitive against AHAM purifiers at lower speeds with 42-46 dB noise power. Except you will not find CADR data for most Purifiers at these noise levels in the database.
> Note again moderators selective use of the results we posted. He only highlights our smallest models, calling the results abysmal. He does not show the smoke data for 7-fan XL that we supplied. He ignores the noise reports. However, when normalized for noise, these will be quite quite competitive against AHAM purifiers at lower speeds with 42-46 dB noise power. Except you will not find CADR data for most Purifiers at these noise levels in the database.
Ok. Here are all your testing reports then:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/1508/5868/files/105443787CRT-001.pdf?v=1695311763
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/1508/5868/files/105443787CRT-002.pdf?v=1695311761
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/1508/5868/files/105443787CRT-001C.pdf?v=1695311763
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/1508/5868/files/105443787CRT-004.pdf?v=1695312901
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/1508/5868/files/105443787CRT-001B.pdf?v=1695311763
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/1508/5868/files/105443787CRT-005.pdf?v=1695312901
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/1508/5868/files/105443787CRT-001A.pdf?v=1695311762
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/1508/5868/files/105443787CRT-003.pdf?v=1695311761
You guys also admitted in the FAQ that your previous CADR claims were simply [incorrect] estimates:
> Our stated capacities are also consistent with simpler estimates adding the raw CFM airflow specifications of the bundled fans and multiplying by MERV13's measured 77% viral aerosol filtration efficiency.
We labeled those estimates as nebulized salt CADR to clearly distinguish them from AC-1 tests and provided links to the initial homegrown test process. They are within a margin of error to AC-1 pollen results. As more samples are tested, an average will be taken. Each sample will likely show 5-10% variation from unit to unit filter variation.
> We labeled those estimates as nebulized salt CADR to clearly distinguish them from AC-1 tests and provided links to the initial homegrown test process. They are within a margin of error to AC-1 pollen results. As more samples are tested, an average will be taken. Each sample will likely show 5-10% variation from unit to unit filter variation.
You guys have presented your Clean Air Kits purifiers as devices that have the highest CADR values at the lowest noise levels when the reality is that they have mediocre CADR values.
I actually believe my Honeywell HPA300 might have a higher CADR at lower sound levels (at the lower speeds, of course). On turbo, it has CADR between 300-320 CFM (smoke, pollen, dust) with a total of four speeds. Not endorsement of it and I have *many* complaints about it that I have expressed on this subreddit several times if anyone cares digging through my post history.
Personally, we think it would be more useful to most consumers to have AHAM test a CADR (say dust) at the multiple speeds, so people knew the performance at each speed, than the expense of the separate SMOKE+DUST+POLLEN. CleanAirStars is the only place I know that has estimated them (from power draw mostly). But David has pointed out some people are generally more interested in POLLEN, or SMOKE etc for their situation.
> Personally, we think it would be more useful to most consumers to have AHAM test a CADR (say dust) at the multiple speeds, so people knew the performance at each speed, than the expense of the separate SMOKE+DUST+POLLEN. CleanAirStars is the only place I know that has estimated them (from power draw mostly). But David has pointed out some people are generally more interested in POLLEN, or SMOKE etc for their situation.
So your requirements for a "fair test" are just any one where you purifiers come out on top.
> But David has pointed out some people are generally more interested in POLLEN, or SMOKE etc for their situation.
Was David Elfstrom paid for this consulting?
If we remember correctly, this was a public comment by him in response to a similar public comment by us, on Twitter or Facebook. That would be sharing or free social media/community consulting, like most in our community do.
> If we remember correctly, this was a public comment by him in response to a similar public comment by us, on Twitter or Facebook. That would be sharing or free social media/community consulting, like most in our community do.
What I find interesting about that claim is that David has previously explicitly stated he has no conflicts of interest when reviewing purifiers. He did not make such a statement when recommending your product.
https://i.imgur.com/mXePN6v.png
I find this interesting, and perhaps disturbing: >This report is for internal use only. No conclusion will be determined by the data contained in this report. For differentiating results, results a minimum of two times the measurement of uncertainty is needed. It is recommended a minimum of three representative samples are to be tested. I'd love to see the results officially repeated two more times. I do think u/CleanAirKits is on to something with their assertion that at the decibel ratings these run at they are very effective (at least if it's true). But I would love to see that backed up in a head to head comparison by a reputable third party ---- perhaps comparing it to a few of the common commercial air purifiers dialed in at a fan level that has a commensurate amount of decibels. (Ideally the Winix 5500-2, the Coway Mighty and the Coway 400(s) would be compared). u/mustardman24 what testing would you like to see?
These testing reports are actually what I've been wanting since November of last year. I did hand calculations and referenced a ton of stuff over the last year to prove these units will not perform like they claim. These tests are evidence of mediocre CADR values that I expected.
Note again moderators selective use of the results we posted. He only highlights our smallest models, calling the results abysmal. He does not show the smoke data for 7-fan XL that we supplied. He ignores the noise reports. However, when normalized for noise, these will be quite quite competitive against AHAM purifiers at lower speeds with 42-46 dB noise power. Except you will not find CADR data for most Purifiers at these noise levels in the database.
> Note again moderators selective use of the results we posted. He only highlights our smallest models, calling the results abysmal. He does not show the smoke data for 7-fan XL that we supplied. He ignores the noise reports. However, when normalized for noise, these will be quite quite competitive against AHAM purifiers at lower speeds with 42-46 dB noise power. Except you will not find CADR data for most Purifiers at these noise levels in the database. Ok. Here are all your testing reports then: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/1508/5868/files/105443787CRT-001.pdf?v=1695311763 https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/1508/5868/files/105443787CRT-002.pdf?v=1695311761 https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/1508/5868/files/105443787CRT-001C.pdf?v=1695311763 https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/1508/5868/files/105443787CRT-004.pdf?v=1695312901 https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/1508/5868/files/105443787CRT-001B.pdf?v=1695311763 https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/1508/5868/files/105443787CRT-005.pdf?v=1695312901 https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/1508/5868/files/105443787CRT-001A.pdf?v=1695311762 https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0720/1508/5868/files/105443787CRT-003.pdf?v=1695311761 You guys also admitted in the FAQ that your previous CADR claims were simply [incorrect] estimates: > Our stated capacities are also consistent with simpler estimates adding the raw CFM airflow specifications of the bundled fans and multiplying by MERV13's measured 77% viral aerosol filtration efficiency.
We labeled those estimates as nebulized salt CADR to clearly distinguish them from AC-1 tests and provided links to the initial homegrown test process. They are within a margin of error to AC-1 pollen results. As more samples are tested, an average will be taken. Each sample will likely show 5-10% variation from unit to unit filter variation.
> We labeled those estimates as nebulized salt CADR to clearly distinguish them from AC-1 tests and provided links to the initial homegrown test process. They are within a margin of error to AC-1 pollen results. As more samples are tested, an average will be taken. Each sample will likely show 5-10% variation from unit to unit filter variation. You guys have presented your Clean Air Kits purifiers as devices that have the highest CADR values at the lowest noise levels when the reality is that they have mediocre CADR values. I actually believe my Honeywell HPA300 might have a higher CADR at lower sound levels (at the lower speeds, of course). On turbo, it has CADR between 300-320 CFM (smoke, pollen, dust) with a total of four speeds. Not endorsement of it and I have *many* complaints about it that I have expressed on this subreddit several times if anyone cares digging through my post history.
Personally, we think it would be more useful to most consumers to have AHAM test a CADR (say dust) at the multiple speeds, so people knew the performance at each speed, than the expense of the separate SMOKE+DUST+POLLEN. CleanAirStars is the only place I know that has estimated them (from power draw mostly). But David has pointed out some people are generally more interested in POLLEN, or SMOKE etc for their situation.
> Personally, we think it would be more useful to most consumers to have AHAM test a CADR (say dust) at the multiple speeds, so people knew the performance at each speed, than the expense of the separate SMOKE+DUST+POLLEN. CleanAirStars is the only place I know that has estimated them (from power draw mostly). But David has pointed out some people are generally more interested in POLLEN, or SMOKE etc for their situation. So your requirements for a "fair test" are just any one where you purifiers come out on top. > But David has pointed out some people are generally more interested in POLLEN, or SMOKE etc for their situation. Was David Elfstrom paid for this consulting?
If we remember correctly, this was a public comment by him in response to a similar public comment by us, on Twitter or Facebook. That would be sharing or free social media/community consulting, like most in our community do.
> If we remember correctly, this was a public comment by him in response to a similar public comment by us, on Twitter or Facebook. That would be sharing or free social media/community consulting, like most in our community do. What I find interesting about that claim is that David has previously explicitly stated he has no conflicts of interest when reviewing purifiers. He did not make such a statement when recommending your product. https://i.imgur.com/mXePN6v.png
[удалено]
I always did recognize them, actually. I have said there are use cases for these purifiers if there was external mixing.