Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Contra Wirecutter on the IKEA air purifier

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 723 posts

Re: Contra Wirecutter on the IKEA air purifier

#231

Post by bb010g »

elabajaba wrote: post #186
edgefield wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

rtings.com is very good for certain types of products like TVs, headphones, etc.

I trust their measurements, I just don't like how they score things, and people tend to just use their scores instead of looking at the pros+cons and measurements. (they weight all the different subscores, and add them up, so eg. if there was an excellent monitor except it had a 100:1 contrast ratio, it'd still get great scores despite having such a huge flaw that most people would consider it to be essentially unusa…

Sounds like those basic components should be weighted more heavily, then?

Re: Contra Wirecutter on the IKEA air purifier

#232

Post by ethbr0 »

jorvi wrote: post #158
Night_Thastus wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, minus the headphones. Their headphone reviews are a joke. It's also worth noting some products have a lot of variation due to poor QC (PC monitors) and they may get an unusually good/bad unit from time to time, skewing the review.

For headphones I just use Crinacle. It’s served me well so far. For other stuff, I usually check Wirecutter and cross-reference it with Reddit reviews. I also have noticed that Wirecutter seems.. less qualitative (?) since they got bought by The NY Times.

Also on headphones, head-fi ( https://www.head-fi.org/ ).

Re: Contra Wirecutter on the IKEA air purifier

#233

Post by GloriousKoji »

OrwellianChild wrote: post #175
hypersoar wrote: post #51

The Wirecutter is a highly flawed review site, but at least it's a real one. There are vanishingly few left for general consumer products. There's WC, Consumer Reports, and what else? They've seem to have all been killed off. When I'm researching some category of product, I feel lucky if I find any professional reviews written by people who have actually touched the thing they're reviewing. I know we've all had the e…

Just going to throw out https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/ as a solid option for the climbing, hiking, and outdoor sport equipment they review. Most reviews involve real-world subjective testing, which is really what you need when you're trying to figure out whether a jacket is warm or a rain shell keeps you dry, etc.

I haven't trusted them for years, their testing is too subjective and the "objective" tests aren't considering the right things.

For example I bought hiking boots based on their recommendation. They were the most comfortable hiking boots I've ever worn but their terrible traction literally nearly got me killed despite their claims of having excellent traction. I angrily returned those boots.

I also bought a backpack based on their recommendation. They have this volume test filling a backpack with pingpong balls. It sounded like a great objective test in theory and my new pack had a higher volume than my old pack but I couldn't fit everything into it as the shape changed too much with a sleeping back and bear can in it reducing usable volume.

Finally I gave up on them when I was looking to buy a new headlamp. They ranked a headlamp lower because it's battery life was less than all the other headlamps being tested. But that headlamp max brightness was 3x the lumens of the other, batter life should have been tested at a comparable brightness level.

Re: Contra Wirecutter on the IKEA air purifier

#234

Post by bryanlarsen »

bb010g wrote: post #231
elabajaba wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I trust their measurements, I just don't like how they score things, and people tend to just use their scores instead of looking at the pros+cons and measurements. (they weight all the different subscores, and add them up, so eg. if there was an excellent monitor except it had a 100:1 contrast ratio, it'd still get great scores despite having such a huge flaw that most people would consider it to be essentially unusa…

Sounds like those basic components should be weighted more heavily, then?

Not really. If any single category is "good enough" then the weights are reasonably correct. It's just when a single category is a deal breaker that the simple metric of adding them up doesn't work.

Re: Contra Wirecutter on the IKEA air purifier

#235

Post by aftbit »

breput wrote: post #111

Big Clive made a video and wrote an OpenSCAD script[0] which allows you to 3D print a base and adapter to convert a regular 120mm computer fan into a "true" HEPA air purifier. You might already have a spare 120mm fan laying around - I am using a $8 ARCTIC P12 fan[1] which is very quiet and is designed to work with high static pressure. The generic filters[2] are two for $17, (supposedly) H13 grade, available from a n…

Thanks for sharing this! Can you provide the values of the variables for that exact linked filter and fan? I'd like to print this while I wait for Amazon shipping. I bought ASIN B07GJG285F instead - same fan, but faster shipping for me.

  screwhole=5;     //fan screw hole diameter (5)  
  filterhole=92;     //HEPA filter hole diameter  
  thickness=1.5;  //Thickness of plastic layer (1.5)  
  insert=10;          //Length of insert into filter (10)

Re: Contra Wirecutter on the IKEA air purifier

#236

Post by syntaxing »

jefftk wrote: post #181
syntaxing wrote: post #156

A bit off tangent, but Blueair purifiers was the only brand where the output air was 0 PPM2.5 during wildfire season in the Bay Area (I have the $50 uncalibrated laser PPM sensor that purpleair uses so interpret this as you want). I tried Dyson, Winix, and making a V-shape DIY purifier with a vornado fan. Nothing was able to pull the indoor air below 15 besides Blueair so I recommend it to any of my family and friend…

As the article explains, unless you're using the purifier to filter the air coming into a space, small differences in the purifier output PM2.5 level don't matter. If the output has 99% lower PM2.5 than the input vs 100% lower, that's dwarfed by all the existing particles that the output is about to be mixed back in with.

The output air of 0 vs 15 ug/m^3 is not negligible difference, especially when the air outside is 200+ during wildfires. The reality is, the great output air of Blueair filter + 350 cfm CADR is a pretty big difference. My indoor ambient air was about 10-15 ug/m^3 compared to 30-40 using the other solutions.

Re: Contra Wirecutter on the IKEA air purifier

#237

Post by stjohnswarts »

Saint_Genet wrote: post #3

Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but the IKEA one which they singled out as not recommended to buy is the only one in the article they don't earn a commission on when someone buys it

Do you have proof of that? Otherwise it kind of is conspiracy theorist. I assume Hanlon's razor here rather than malice on the part of NYT/WC.

Re: Contra Wirecutter on the IKEA air purifier

#240

Post by mgdlbp »

dan-robertson wrote: post #180
DeathArrow wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Project Farm is testing a lot of things: https://youtube.com/c/ProjectFarm

I watched a few of these a while ago and I can somewhat see why they’re popular as they have this fast-paced data-dump look-at-all-this-testing format but I didn’t really think they were very good. I thought many of the tests were likely poor metrics for actual quality and that results would therefore be misleading. A stupid example would be trying to measure how much torque a Phillips head screwdriver can apply befo…

Re: Phillips drive, it's actually a common misconception that this was an intentional feature of the design. The original patent for the driver[1] specifically describes resistance to "camming out" (seemingly in the modern sense of the phrase). Omitting some of the verbose context:

> One of the principal objects of the invention is the provision of a recess in the head of a screw which is particularly adapted for firm engagement with a correspondingly shaped driving tool or screw driver, and in such a way that there will be no tendency of the driver to cam out of the recess when united in operative engagement with each other. (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search?q=pn%3DUS20468...)

And the patent for the drive (I don't know why under patent law several consecutive patents mostly saying the same thing had to be filed) uses the word to refer to the ejection of trapped debris instead of the driver:

> This same angular formation of both elements is especially designed to also create what might be termed a camming action during the approach of these angular faces toward one another with respect to any substances which might have become lodged within the recess of the screw. (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search?q=pn%3DUS20468...)

Edit: Wikipedia notes that a later patent acknowledged the tendency to cam out and its effect of preventing damage to screw heads...perhaps meaning that the head would be saved from snapping off--the drive itself surely isn't!

Post reply on HN