>>916723

Check the wattage rating.

Fans usually haven't come much of a way in terms of energy conservation as they are primarily just simple motors with some blades attached.

>>916723
By "new fans" do you mean like those dyson "bladeless" fan monstrosities with their ridiculous over 100% efficiency claims? Because they just have a normal bladed fan in the base that blows air up to the channels.

>>916728
>100% efficiency
>fan

So,...it like uses 100% of the electricity is uses to push all the air the blades touch? Electric in and air out, nothing else is produced. How does that company measure that anyway? If it makes any motor noise, vibration, or heat at all then it isn't 100% efficient.

>>916723

I don't think they're particularly inefficient. The big difference is probably just that new fans have plastic blades, because they're cheaper and they won't cut your fingers off.

A modern box fan or ceiling fan uses about 100 watts.

Why would using a inefficient fan make you feel guilty.
Its runs on electricity not on the burning carcasses of little kids.
I doubt it is anymore inefficient than a modern Chinese fan.
Also you sound like a giant pussy op.

>>916730
It ionizes the air and then pushes it away. No blades.
I might be wrong about how it works. It's like that submarine with Hunt for the Red October.

I imagine that the blade geometry has been improved over the years.

I have an older box fan (as in 90's) and it blows significantly faster than the new cheapies I've bought over the years.

>>916751
It works by a small fan in the base pushing air up through tiny pin holes. The flowing air causes more air to move through it via the venturi effect.

>>916754
Oh and they are measuring effeciency by saying the fan in the base can move X CFM of air but the top move Y CFM of air. Where X<Y. They are assuming that X is 100% efficient.

>>916755
Then they are run of the mill bullshitters.

>>916753
All my box fans from the 1990s are better than the new ones. They all cost $10 at the time and are all metal box and frame. The grill and blades are plastic. They blow air better than the new ones all oh which cost a lot more than the older better ones. The new ones are all plastic too.

>>916757
>>916757
I agree as the newer "box fans" are nothing more then over priced Cheap, Shity China plastic. AKA:Garbage. The new one's that are ALL plastic only last two months top's for me. I took 5 back to WalFart this past summer for dieing.

I looked online and found sime old school box fans for sale. They were actually cheaper than the new ones WalFart sells now.

SCORE!

>>916756

They generally are. Their "digital motors" are just brushless motors with digital controls. It's like saying "my car has a digital engine" when everything about the engine is the same except instead of a cable throttle it has drive by wire.

>>916770
Protip: The 90s model ones you found were made in china too.

>>916802
Doesn't matter. This is the exact same fan:

http://www.amazon.com/Lasko-3743-Weather-Shield-Premium-Plus/dp/B006O4SF8A

I have like 5-6 of them I think. $10 each back then.

>>916776
You mean "instead of a distributer it has direct ignition", right?

>>916750
But I make my electricity using steam generators fueled by the carcasses of little kids and puppies

>>916723
It won't make fuckall of a difference in the cost to run.
It will be noisier. That's about all the difference you will experience.