• A_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    was posted 3 days ago in /c/Technology, here :
    https://lemmy.world/post/15468260
    what they did :

    “Our product takes in a full blow of air and separates it,” said team member Leen Alfaoury. “Some of that air comes out as it is, and part of it comes out shifted. The combination of these two sections of the air makes the blower less noisy.”

    … “It ultimately dampens the sound as it leaves, but it keeps all that force, which is the beauty of it.”

    Their design cuts the most shrill and annoying frequencies by about 12 decibels, which all but removes them, making them 94% quieter.

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      about 12 decibels, which all but removes them, making them 94% quieter.

      This “conversion” from decibel to per cent is more than ridiculous.

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        56
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Why? dB is logarithmic so it’s difficult for people to picture how loud something is, if that’s the only number given.

      • A_A@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Well, 93.7% to be more exact. Did you recalculate it yourself the same i did ?

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          The team reduced the overall leaf blower noise by about two decibels, making the machine sound 37% quieter.

          You omitted the most important data, it’s 2db overall, not 12db.

          So your own “recalculation” isn’t even in the right ballpark as the correct answer.

          Its people that misinterpret the information and perpetuate it like you are doing here that makes these look far better than they actually are.

        • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Your calculation was about energy. But the calculation of energy is next to useless when you are trying to compare two different noises. You need to care about perception.

          The perception of noise is quite complicated. But as a rule of thumb: when some noise changes by -10dB, then you hear it about “half as loud”.

          Source: I have a university degree in acoustics.

          So for the reduction of -12dB here, it will be perceived as “nearly half as loud”. Very different than the “94%” is suggesting.

          • A_A@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            We agree that the -12dB is what’s important for human hearing … Now, you may agree that the 94% reduction is what counts regarding engineering // fabrication // design.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              We agree that the -12dB is what’s important for human hearing … Now, you may agree that the 94% reduction is what counts regarding engineering // fabrication // design.

              -2db* and 37%*

              Why are you perpetuating the wrong information?

              • hangonasecond@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                The snippet quoted in the original comments and referenced in subsequent comments refers specifically to the decibel reduction of the frequencies being targeted by the invention, not the volume of the overall sound.

                • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Is it? Because the next sentence in the paragraph (and the only sentence missing in the quote) is the overall sound reduction. Which is far more important and far less misleading than saying 12db and 94% quieter.

                  Its intentionally misleading to deceive people, and than the general public incorrectly defends it, this is you.

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      36
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Just saying it doesn’t decrease the power is a bold claim without providing anything technical to support it.

      I’ve read multiple articles and videos and yet this very crucial information is intentionally not included.

      The claims are false, you can’t suppress or mute something with a tradeoff, unless they have somehow magically figured out physics anomalies. Would love to see some proof of this claim it doesn’t decrease power output.

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        61
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Are you saying novel mechanical engineering designs are impossible? That the mechanism of a leaf blower is so near perfection, that a well funded team of 4 mechanical engineering students could not, without VIOLATING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, have simply found a better mechanism?

        I agree with your “show me the numbers” critique, but I find your complete disregard of what may be a better answer without any data at all to be equally foolhardy.

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          He has a point though… OVERALL noise was only suppressed 2db. It’s only 12db in a specific frequency. EVERY article has more or less ONLY stated the 12db value. It seems more and more these days that you just have to assume that the article headline is at best mostly false, or obscenely misleading.

          2db overall… is kind of fucking pointless. I mean… as someone afflicted with hearing problems I know that every db matters. But all this hubbub for something that should just be found, then implemented without all this fanfare… the general public will not care about this, yet I’ve seen 3 articles on it for some reason.

          And most normal people don’t understand the logarithmic nature of the db scale anyway. Every 3 db is technically a doubling in power. But it takes 10db for our perception to halve/double.

          • Hagdos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Taking out the high-pitch whine will make them much more bearable. It’s a student project, they did well. This isn’t groundbreaking Noble-prize stuff, but it doesn’t deserve all the hate it’s getting here either.

            • Juvyn00b@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Agreed. Being in the house and having the shrill component of the blower removed would greatly be appreciated.

            • morbidcactus@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I did a student project for server room HVAC fans being annoying back in uni, targeted reduction in those annoying or peak frequencies was a totally acceptable outcome as to not disturb operators (was for a simulated patient in the attached hospital). I’m not an acoustic engineer, so obviously take what I’m saying with a grain of salt (did do a lot of safety and risk work though), making things less annoying is perfectly valid if they’re not already harmful to your hearing in the first place.

              What’s cool to me is that it’s just printable, so in theory super accessible and anyone could iterate on it if they desired (assuming it gets open sourced)

            • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              but it doesn’t deserve all the hate it’s getting here either.

              I’m not sure I said anything hateful here… I cited facts from the actual paper and described discontent with the articles, specifically the headlines.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              The hate is for making a pretty obviously false claim about no power loss. Increasing or even decreasing the exhaust length will affect performance. So for them to add 8” and claim there is no loss of power is quite frankly an outright lie. So it’s being called out, and yet people are defending the asinine claim, it’s hilarious and very concerning as well.

              People are also focusing on the wrong information, the total db was reduced by a paltry 2db, not 12db like what’s being talked about.

              So they provide sound data that is misleading, and make a claim about power and not provide the data. This just reads marketing piece instead of anything on the actual tech.

          • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            5 months ago

            They also run between 60 and 100dB, so knocking that down to 48 and 88dB respectively is fucking useless

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I am saying every single one of these claims have never wound up being actually true since they go against the very nature of physics. Yet people perpetuate the claims and defend them without the supporting data.

          So to not provide the data for one claim, while providing the data for another is only done to mislead from the truth.

          Sorry for not accepting what they say at face value since it goes against multiple things.

          • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            never wound up being actually true since they go against the very nature of physics.

            This is an incredibly wild statement when you have no data on the device’s construction or operation.

            Youre complaining about a lack of data then making wild assumptions about it with no data.

            Not exactly a good scientific method here, mate.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              It’s a wild statement to claim it doesn’t reduce power when even increasing the length of the discharge tube would affect its performance, and they’ve added a good 8”. Every time like this comes out without the data to back it up, it’s always false, everytime. If it wasn’t the data would be provided now wouldn’t it? Even just showing the CFM data would be enough, but they purposely omit it.

              The fact that they purposely omitted data that they have is extremely concerning, it’s not a bold claim say it’s obviously false. It’s bold to claim something like that that goes against what we already know about physics.

              I am sorry you are eating up this “marketing”, it’s why products like this are even sold, it’s hilarious, the amount of people defending this asinine claim is honestly quite shocking, especially on a community like this.

              Not exactly a good scientific method here, mate.

              Uhh… I’m not the one making claims that goes against common knowledge of aerodynamics and then not providing that data. So sure, wanting someone to prove their claim makes me bad at scientific method…?? Maybe the people defending bullshit claims are the ones you should be calling out, oh wait that you yourself. Give you head a fucking shake lmfao.

          • KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            You’re right to be sceptical until more data is presented, but saying no claim of progress is ever true is quite obviously a gross misrepresentation of our current reality. You are doing this on digital devices interconnected with millions of users ar staggering speed and latency. Every part of which are scientific claims.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Every claim where they omit the actual data to support the claim is never fully true. Provide the CFM testing data they must have to even make that claim.

              There is no valid reason to omit that data unless to mislead.

              • KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Unfortunately I don’t agree.

                Good reasons to omit details include brevity, legibility, pedagogy and scope.

                Showing the supporting evidence for all steps in an evidence chain is simply not feasible, and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary. And much of the challenge is to be precise enough in the things that need precision.

                • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  They provided the DB data so your argument for all of those reasons is invalid. They could have easily spent a single sentence providing the CFM data. So no, not a single one of those reasons is valid to omit 6 words.

                  They made a claim, they didn’t need to mention the power claim, but they did. They should have omitted the claim itself using your logic, instead of the supporting data. The argument is flawed itself.

                  and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary.

                  Like knowing making a discharge tube longer or shorter affects its aerodynamics….? So we know the claim is false already…? Their ambiguity is meant to mislead people with zero working knowledge of the subject… anyone with any experience will see its flaw immediately.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Destructive interference is a thing. The energy of the vibrations doesn’t go away, however you CAN shift that energy into different frequencies and destructive interference done correctly will effectively shift it into so high frequencies that the vibrations are better compared with heat than with sound (what is heat convection anyway if not extremely high frequency sound? :)

        • KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Heat is electromagnetic radiation - photons, sound is mechanical displacement - phonons.

          They mostly propagate the same due to being waves, in most other respects they are very different.

          Heat convection is an entirely separate process where heat radiation is aided by the movement of the surrounding medium. Where it would otherwise heat up it’s environment, convection keeps the environment from heating up. Compare coffee in a thermos (very little convection) to a cup you’re blowing on (significant convection); more air movement - more cooling.

          Also, destructive interference does not at all work like that.

          Maybe a more useful analogy could be that waves have like walking animations, where in part of the animation they go up, and in another part they go down. Destructive interference happens when a wave in its’ “up” phase crosses a wave in it’s “down”, meaning the resulting movement looks like nothing. The waves don’t however interact in any way, and will continue on their way and on their own animation cycles.

          The shifting and heating parts are technically true but require very specific circumstances, enough so that I’m more prone to believe it’s another misunderstanding of the physics behind this. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Even increasing or decreasing the length of the discharge tube will change its power and CFM and they’ve added 8”. There is no way the aerodynamics and the overall performance isn’t affected.

      • tty5@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        61
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Decibel scale is logarithmic, which means 10db change is reducing perceived volume by half.

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          5 months ago

          No. It means the sound energy is dropped by half. Our audio perception is also logarithmic however. It’s why we use db.

          • tty5@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Almost. a 10db change is a 10x difference in power and roughly 2x difference in perceived loudness

      • morbidcactus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        12 dB is a pretty decent reduction if your goal is hearing protection, 100->88 is also bringing it to something that absolutely needs hearing protection to something that’s borderline acceptable for an 8 hour shift depending on your local laws, mine say 4 hours but still, way more comfortable to use.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          The team reduced the overall leaf blower noise by about two decibels, making the machine sound 37% quieter.

          It’s an insignificant 2db, I don’t know why buddy didn’t provide the relevant information.

          • morbidcactus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Reading the article, reducing the shriller frequencies by 12db is still pretty nice, looks like it’s designed for electric blowers which are already way quieter than gasoline powered ones, already generally in the hearing safe range. 2db overall should still be noticeable though, be generally less annoying.

      • gdog05@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Eh, I’ll take it though. I live in a fairly quiet part of town but the street has gotten pretty busy in the last could of years. And visually, I guess the street seems to open up making drivers get… spicy now and then. The fucking motorcycles, man. These noisy fucking middle-aged infants making 130 decibels while only going 15mph make me see red. I’d gladly take the lawn equipment noise.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          The team reduced the overall leaf blower noise by about two decibels, making the machine sound 37% quieter.

          It’s an insignificant 2db, I don’t know why buddy didn’t provide the relevant information.

      • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Decibels are a logarithmic scale, so it scales exponentially. Because of this, reducing by just ten is actually very significant and would reduce the perceived volume by half, and would reduce the actual sound pressure even more than half.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          The team reduced the overall leaf blower noise by about two decibels, making the machine sound 37% quieter.

          It’s an insignificant 2db, I don’t know why buddy didn’t provide the relevant information.

  • jawa21@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    If it were me that designed this, I would license out the design for manufacturers to use in their production models instead of making some kind of attachment that is unlikely to work on all models. That seems much more likely to achieve the goal of reducing noise from leaf blowers long term. Get like 3 manufacturers on board that could even charge a premium, and you have reduced the noise potentially forever while still making a tidy profit.

  • hobovision@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    MAKE GAS LANDSCAPING TOOLS ILLEGAL

    Give away free electric tools if they trade in their gas ones. It’s so bad for health to be huffing 2 stroke fumes all day every day.

    Edit, I realize that this is meant for a electric leaf blower since it would do fuck all for a gas one. Doesn’t change my opinion about landscaping tools tho

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      5 months ago

      “Electric leaf blowers are already far quieter than their gas-powered peers, but they still aren’t the kind of thing you’d like to hear first-thing on a Saturday morning. Looking to improve on the situation, a group of students from Johns Hopkins University have successfully designed a 3D printed add-on that manages to significantly reduce the noise generated by a modern electric leaf blower without compromising the amount of air it’s able to move.”

      First two sentences of the article.

    • ThankYouVeryMuch@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t know mate, I wouldn’t replace my electric tools–drills, grinders, saw… with gas ones. But these outdoors tools are a different kind of beast. I’ve only used an electric chainsaw and it was an absolute crap, maybe there are better ones but it was crappier than the smallest and shittiest gas chainsaws I’ve used, and a cord around you in that setting isn’t great either.

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        The problem with electric gardening tools is they aren’t that feasible for contractors.

        Batteries don’t last long and take a long time to charge, so it’s just not an option when you’re working all day. Corded means at every location, you have to figure out outlets, extension cords, fuss with tangles and obstructions, etc.

        If you’re doing your own lawns, yeah, you can probably get into a workflow that works for you. But a lot of people hire out for landscaping.

        • Longpork3@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Swappable batteries resolve this issue pretty well. The energy density is far from comparable, but if you’re already hauling a van or trailer to the job site, then a dozen spare batteries isn’t an issue.

          • Wrench@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Except being very expensive, wear out after a few years (at best), and being sensitive to being in the hot sun all day every day. All in a profession mostly worked by under privileged people where frugality is a necessity of life.

              • nomous@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I can run a decent small engine for a decade and when it finally breaks I can rebuild it for $50 and get another decade out of it.

                I have battery powered stuff for my home but for commercial use, literally thousands of work-hours, the battery tech isn’t there yet.

        • hobovision@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          Gas being a better energy source than batteries in every way except for the health and environmental issues is a real bitch and why this is such a problem. Cords are a hassle and you will need a lot recharging batteries all the time, so you notice the downsides immediately and acutely. These are solvable problems though. Even running an efficient gas generator would be better for the health of landscaping contractors than being around 2 strokes all day.

        • daltotron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Fuck that shit, all the gas lawn tools should be backwards converted to run on hydrolysis-produced rocket fuel, feasibility and efficiency and safety be damned.

        • brlemworld@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Not true, keep extra batteries and put a solar panel on your rig (vehicle or trailer) to charge the dead ones while you work. Maybe keep a battery generator for cloudy days.

      • Thorndike@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        Look again! I have a dewalt chainsaw, and I love it. I burn about 13 cords of wood each winter as it is our primary heating source. It runs and runs and runs.

        I think the key is to keep the chain sharp. I use the timberline sharpener, and it gets the chain razor sharp, which means less stress on the motor and longer battery life.

    • CarlCook@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      5 months ago

      The gardener in my last apartment replaced all of his powertools (mower, blower, trimmer, …) with electric ones powered by an accu-pack he carries on his back. This is an absolute game-changer! I could actually sit outside again and even do stuff for work, when he was there.

    • Natanael@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      5 months ago

      This thing influence how air moves through it, so it would make electrics more silent too

    • snail_hunter@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      Pretty sure when I saw the original post talking about the design, they said the students were only working with electric leaf blowers. So this was designed to make electric leaf blowers even quieter.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      This was designed for electric leaf blowers, not gas leaf blowers.

      Electric leaf blowers are much much better, but they’re still loud, and that’s what these students were attempting to address.

    • eronth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      I get what you’re saying, but leaf blowers are also commonly used for cleaning up extra grass clippings from the roads, etc.

  • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    So it’s taking some of the air out of the stream, slowing it down, and putting it back in the stream… How does this not affect the performance?

    • Pulptastic@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m sure it has a marginal effect, the drag would have to reduce average velocity somewhat, but maybe it is negligible. Or maybe the overall drag is equal to an unmodified tip due to other changes such as reduced restriction.

    • piecat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Because that isn’t how it works. I’ve been working on this idea in my spare time for a patent, for months. I have the CFD models to prove it. I learned ELMER and perfected the solvers and meshing process.

      It grinds my gears that they stumbled upon it, get all the credit, and apparently don’t know how it actually works.

      Never been scooped before. But man it doesn’t feel good.

      • whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Did you put your information somewhere they could find it before you got the patent? If you have authorship doesn’t that mean you have grounds to sue?

  • NullPointer@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    seems like snake oil. whe using my electric leaf blower all the noise sounds to be coming from the big fan at the top of the device and not the nozzle

    • Lemonparty@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      Now pretend your electric blower is actually a super loud and inefficient two stroke motor.

      The movement of air isn’t noisy, the motor is.

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, I thought this was for those pieces of shit.

        I’m sure electric ones are being used around my city, but that’s not the ones I notice.

  • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    Companies know they can make tools quieter. They didn’t do it because louder sounds more powerful to consumers.

    • MisterD@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      For the stupid maybe.

      Turns out they number around 70 million in the US…

      • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        They do the same thing with vehicle air intakes to eliminate annoying sounds and make the car sound more throaty. Don’t forget about cars that have engine noises come through the stereo. People think they need to “feel the engine” in order to drive. I would rather it be completely silent, not that’s not possible because of tire noise.

        • Soggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Luxury sedans have done a damn good job at shutting out road noise for a long time now, but there are obvious (and less obvious) costs associated with that.

  • feinstruktur@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    Let me help you with the correct wording: ‘Power to noise’-converters. You’re welcome.

  • Philharmonic3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    5 months ago

    Why isn’t there video of this yet? I didn’t care at all what an article says. Show me the video