Talk:Ceiling fan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Umm, damn!

This wiki is EXTREMELY informative. Very, very well done, you guys!!!! :D 68.3.214.66 (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Technical Information

There should be some more additional technical information about a Ceiling Fan, for Example:-

1. How the ceiling fan works? 2. What is the function of Armature and Capacitor in a Fan? 3. What is the difference between a capacitor fan and a non-capacior fan? 4. Why a capacitor is necessary for a capacitor type fan? 5. How a non-capacitor fan works without a capacitor?

Mujeeb Ahmed, Karachi-Pakistan.

  • Seems to me that these items (excepting number 1) are more appropriate in the article on Electric Motor than here. Number 1 should essentially be a link to Electric Motor. -- Jon Wilson 24.162.120.52 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Besides, the article has been totally blanked and re-written in the intervening months. Thanks. Piercetheorganist 03:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Blanking

This talk page has been blanked since the article has been completely rewritten.

Piercetheorganist 12:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Talk pages should not be blanked, they should be archived WP:archive. Wikipedia is an organization that thrives on debate and discussion, the disscussion helps people evaluate what has happened with an article and what needs to be worked on. So even if the article has been completely rewritten, the content in the talk page should remain. If you feel that a question is no longer valid you may add to the record of the discussion explaining why its no longer valid. Pretty much the only time when things get deleted from talk is if they contain personal attacks, or if the are blatant vandalism. Idioma 00:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations need tag

Thank you for taking the time to edit the ceiling fan article.

Upon careful review, it is evident that all statements are properly sourced using The Fan Book (ISBN 0-8359-1855-6).

The tag you added has been removed. Thank you for your interest.

Piercetheorganist 01:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The section I marked has a lack of inline citations. I marked the entire section because it has no inline citations. Without inline citations it is not possible to tell where information came from. Yes there is a references section at the bottom, but unfortunately it is not possible to tell which information came from that resource unless inline citation is used WP:REF. I will go through the article and mark the article with "[citation needed]" at specific points that need citation so you can get a clearer idea of what is needed. I see you have put a lot of good work into this article. Idioma 00:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And once again, I removed them. All the data you cited comes from the source listed--The Fan Book. One resource was used (it happens to be the only book ever written solely about ceiling fans); it is cited at the bottom of the article; and so there is no need to add an in-line citation at the end of every sentence. There is no confusion to be had--all the data comes from one source. If multiple sources were listed, then it would make sense to add citation tags. But that's not the case. If you won't be able to sleep soundly until there are useless idiotic tags in place, feel free to add a tag to the sole source at the end of every sentence in that section. Piercetheorganist 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, your edit wherein you "cleaned up" the language was actually not helpful. The capitalization, punctuation, spelling, grammar, and other mechanics is all technical detail which belongs as-written. And yes, it all comes from the wonderful cited source. Besides, I've got rank on you here--I restore/repair ceiling fans for a living, in addition to the fact that I'm a collector and very well-versed in ceiling fan history. One edit in particular comes to mind, "removing POV" from the picture caption under the Casablanca Delta. Describing a 4-blade GE-vent fan as "generic" is completely accurate and is not a POV statement. That style, which is defined by its long-expired patents, was used nearly unilaterally in all mass-produced contractor/builder ceiling fans in the 1980s. It not being a debate of any nature, there is no POV to be had. The dictionary definition of "generic" completely and unquestionably applies to that defined style. Thanks. Piercetheorganist 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no rank in wikipedia. This is collective editing; anyone can edit wikipedia. Please read WP:REF especially the part about inline citations. Since you are an expert in this you must be especially careful to use inline citations to guard against original research WP:OR. Cleaning up language can include cleaning up style, which is a useful edit. I cannot assume that there is only one source in this article because in order for an article to meet WP:NOTABILITY standards, an article should have multiple independent sources. As people edit this article (it belongs to the collective wikipedia community who are free to edit it) there will be other sources added. Since wikipedia can be edit by anyone, in order for wikipedia to have credibility using the correct inline method of citing sources is essential. People are free to look at any claim in an article and add {{Fact}} unless it already has inline citation. I certainly appreciate the contributions you have made to this article. Idioma 04:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I will be happy to add inline citations to the source, useless as it is. As far as other sources go, there aren't any. "The Fan Book" is the one and only book written solely about ceiling fans; and there are no other books in the Library of Congress database which even have a section on ceiling fan history, evolution, or anything like that. Unfortunately, it's kind of a specialized subject area. So, everything in this article came from The Fan Book, and is verified by common knowledge (or, more accurately, knowledge that's common in the ceiling fan community). Having said that, IF you or anyone else can find another source, PLEASE list it here. I've searched high and low, and even gone so far as to contact PR reps at Emerson, Hunter, and Casablanca, and there is apparently no further information available (other than companies' personal history, which is relevant to an article about that company but is not relevant to ceiling fans in general). Thanks Piercetheorganist 00:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by this statement "The capitalization, punctuation, spelling, grammar, and other mechanics is all technical detail which belongs as-written. And yes, it all comes from the wonderful cited source." It seems to say that the grammar and spelling came directly from another source. Please clarify. Idioma 04:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the grammar/mechanical structure came from an external source (the cited source). For example, you changed "The Diehl Electric Fan" to the Diehl electric fan. It is incorrect the way you've re-written it (so, once again, I reverted that change). Diehl was a brand; they made many electric fans; but that first model was named "The Diehl Electric Fan", capitalized in that way. This comes from the cited source. Since it is a proper model name, it must be formatted in the accurate way. Thanks. Piercetheorganist 00:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Idioma 00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations added. Piercetheorganist 09:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the material in the Ceiling_fan#Safety_concerns_with_installation section sourced from the same book? MrVibrating (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hugger or Snugger fans

A section outlining the advantages and disadvantages of snugger fans would be appropriate. Idioma 00:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • FYI, "Snugger" is a trademark; it's Emerson's name for their hugger-style fan. Personally, I disagree that a separate section needs to be added. Hugger fans are no different from any other ceiling fan in any way, except for the fact that they don't have a downrod--something which is entirely unrelated to the fan's operation. The motor, blades, etc. is no different. Refer to the section "Bases for Comparison", subsection "Height of the fan relative to the ceiling", for more info on huggers if you're interested. That section details their sole disadvantage; it is appropriate for it to be in that section since it is not a problem unique to huggers (though all huggers have it). The sole advantage of a hugger is that it saves space--something which is such blatantly obvious common sense that it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article (any more than the statement "water is wet" belongs in the article on water). Basically my point is that huggers are no different from ordinary fans, and so don't deserve their own section any more than each decor-themed fan at Home Depot deserves its own section. Piercetheorganist 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, good info. There are fans that appear to be different from ordinary fans that are huggers, such as the Concept II among others, it could use a subsection in the style section. Idioma 04:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Minka Aire's "Concept II" model is no different from any ordinary hugger ceiling fan. Same motor, same blades, same mounting method. It deserves its own section no more than fans of different colors deserve their own section. Thanks. Piercetheorganist 00:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does have the same type of motor, but from what I read, the blades are not flat, and it doesn't have a down tube. I think that a good number of people who buy fans would define style as visual rather than technical. While not all hugger fans are visually different they lack the down tube and some lack ceiling medallion. I believe that they are both visually and slightly functionally different, even they use the same motors. Idioma 00:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Again: you're wrong, they are not functionally different. They employ hub-mounted rotating paddles to circulate air, and their motor (which is not unique to them) is already covered comprehensively in the article. The differences between different types of fans are defined by technical aspects, not style; that's a rock-solid fact, not up for debate. This article is written to educate the uneducated about ceiling fans and their history. It's not a comparison of aesthetic styles...and the only difference between a hugger fan and a non-hugger fan is the aesthetic styling. Any other differences (say, some special blade offered on a hugger) are not inherently unique to huggers--so would need to be mentioned in the appropriate place (in that example, the section on blades). Thanks. Piercetheorganist 01:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "BASIS" for comparison? -Superbeecat 08:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha I've been waiting for someone to fall into that trap :-). The plural of "basis" (BAY-sis) is "bases" (BAY-sees). So since we're talking about more than one basis for comparison, it's "bases for comparison" (as opposed to basisis lol). Thanks. Piercetheorganist 09:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perceived Usefulness

In the "perceived usefulness section", in the paragraph about humidity, something doesn't seem right. I can see that perceived usefulness here means the need for a fan, and thus fans are needed more in more humid climates (as explained by ), but I read it to mean the actual usefulness of a single fan: a fan cools one more in a dry climate, thus the fan is perceived as being more useful. Does anyone else see this? ChrisMP1 14:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Again, I disagree. A fan cools one more in a HUMID climate, according to the heat index article.

This is how the section you question currently reads:

"Since a fan creates its cooling effect by speeding the evaporation of moisture on human skin, its perceived usefulness is directly correlated with the amount of humidity (moisture) in the room. In dry environments, such as desert climates, a fan has a lesser perceived usefulness than in humid environments; this is especially notable during cold weather, where a humid environment has a pronounced wind-chill effect which is lacking in dry environments."

The introductory paragraph to the heat index article reads:

"The human body normally cools itself by perspiration, or sweating, in which the water in the sweat evaporates and carries heat away from the body. However, when the relative humidity is high, the evaporation rate of water is reduced. This means heat is removed from the body at a lower rate, causing it to retain more heat than it would in dry air.""

...thus proving that my original statement was correct. In humid climates, heat is naturally removed from the body at a lower rate than in dry climates, causing a person to remain hotter longer than in dry climates. Thus, there is a greater need for a fan than in desert climates--thus it is perceived as being more useful.

I'm originally from the east coast myself, and I lived here my whole life save for two years in Utah--a very distinct desert climate. The lack of humidity out there is actually quite a pleasure. In the summer there, it can be 105 degrees and feel no hotter than 85 here on the east coast--you look at the thermometer there and say "Wow, I didn't realize it's over 100--this isn't that uncomfortable!". I wasn't dying for a fan there, the way I do here. Also, the converse is true--the winters out there are more bearable than they are here. They don't seem as cold, because the humidity is really what adds the "bone-chilling" factor into the mix.

That's my opinion, FWIW Piercetheorganist 18:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing. I'm stating that percieved usefulness is possibly being used in a confusing way. You're basically saying, that a fan that doesn't work as well (because of humidity) is perceived as being more useful because it will be needed more. However, perceived usefulness seems to me to mean that the fan is perceived as being more useful in a dry climate because it works better. IMHO. ChrisMP1 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple--I'm saying a fan is perceived as being more useful in humid climates, because it's harder for humans to naturally cool off in humid climates than in try climates. Piercetheorganist 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand this. However, that's not what it sounds like in the article. Am I the only one who thinks this? Is anyone other than Piercetheorganist reading this talk page? ChrisMP1 01:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, upon re-reading it, I agree with you that my wording in the article is confusing and sounds incorrect. I went and changed it. Thanks for sticking up for your point!! I've always said that it's very important to have bi-partisan debate, by which I mean it's important to be forced to argue your side of an issue against someone with an opposing side--it's what sparks original thought, close examination of comfortable assumptions, et cetera. Had you not stuck up for your point, I never would have looked at my writing, and I wouldn't have seen my mistake, and I wouldn't have learned anything. So thanks for being a conscientious Wikipedian, ChrisMP1! Piercetheorganist 08:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, you contradict yourself. You state that a fan cools one more in a HUMID climate, then go on to say that In humid climates, …, causing a person to remain hotter longer than in dry climates. IM(not-so)HO. ChrisMP1 22:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't contradict myself. You're still not getting it. "...when the relative humidity is high, the evaporation rate of water is reduced. This means heat is removed from the body at a lower rate, causing it to retain more heat than it would in dry air." What that means is that people have a harder time cooling off in humid climates, and so need fans more than people in dry climates (where it's easier to cool off due to the lack of ambient humidity). Piercetheorganist 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I know, but you said that a fan cools one more in a HUMID climate. Now you're contradicting that again by saying that people in humid climates have a greater need for fans, thus the fan itself cools them less. ChrisMP1 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "perceived usefulness" is vague and needs to be defined. The section may need a rewrite depending on how it is defined. Idioma 03:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not vague it all. The term "perceived usefulness" is extremely self-explanatory--it's how useful an observer perceives a fan to be. That subsection details a few different bases on which a fan's perceived usefulness is based...so it belongs exactly where it is: under the section "Bases for Comparison". Piercetheorganist 08:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Question, though, Idioma: what's your motive here? Do you honestly thing that this article is in any way poorly-written, or that is does not give a complete and well-rounded basic-to-intermediate education in ceiling fans, or that it is hard to read/comprehend, or that it is inaccurate, or anything else like that? Or do you just still have your panties in a wad because I shot down your idea about adding a special section for huggers? Personally, I think this article is near flawless; very well-written, complete, highly educational, well thought-out, et cetera. If there's something specific that you think needs to happen, then post a detailed description of it here on the talk page (i.e. rather than saying "The term 'perceived usefulness' is vague and needs to be defined. The section may need a rewrite depending on how it is defined.", say how it's vague, what you think would be better, and what rewrites you would propose were we to adopt a change to that term.)--in other words, don't be vague in your accusation of vagueness. Personally, I don't think that term is vague at all--I think it's night-and-day clearly self-explanatory. So back yourself up here--explain, in clear and convincing detail, why you think it's vague. Thanks. Piercetheorganist 08:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that your panties are in a wad, because somebody doesn't think that your article is perfect. How: it seems to mean the actual usefulness of a single fan - if the fan works better (cools one more), it's more useful. What would be better: include a definition of what "perceived usefulness" means. What rewrites: write said definition. Then it'll be night-and-day clearly self-explanatory, near flawless, very well-written, complete, highly educational, well though-out, et cetera. (Read that list of worship words. Yes, you wrote every single one. Wow, you do think highly of your writing…) Besides, Idioma's response wasn't lacking detail at all. You just got upset because nobody is ready to worship your article just yet. (P.S. No, I'm not Idioma, but here's your answer anyways.) ChrisMP1 12:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Chris. I think that, next time before you speak, you should take a good hard look at the userboxes on your userpage to make sure you're not contradicting yourself. Anyhow, no, I'm not looking for anyone to worship my article. If you'd take the time to look, you'd see that I read over what you said (re: the humidity topic), actually agreed with you, went and changed the article, and then publicly mentioned it here. I'm not looking for worship, or thanks. What I am looking for, however, is people to make points which are (a) valid and meaningful, (b) direct and clear, and (c) detailed and well-substantiated. Like I said to you before, "I've always said that it's very important to have bi-partisan debate, by which I mean it's important to be forced to argue your side of an issue against someone with an opposing side--it's what sparks original thought, close examination of comfortable assumptions, et cetera." This particular comment was directed at Idioma, however, and not you, because this was in response to his point about how "The term 'perceived usefulness' is vague and needs to be defined. The section may need a rewrite depending on how it is defined." I'm still waiting for his response, and I'm waiting for someone to substantiate the claim that "perceived usefulness" is vague, by explaining how it's vague, as I asked before. It's a two-word term; both words are common English; and both are being used in the colloquial definitions. I don't see room for "vague" there. Oh, and I still think my article is near flawless; very well-written, complete, highly educational, well thought-out, et cetera :-). Piercetheorganist 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I guess I got a little hot-headed. My rant was a little bit rude… Actually, the article is very good, and I apologize for not checking it. Also, in response to the userbox comment - I agree. I got very rude here, and I'm not normally like that, so you have my sincerest apologies. ChrisMP1 14:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, dude, it happens to all of us. I've said far worse. But thank you, I appreciate your apology :-). Piercetheorganist 14:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, Pierce please do not use inflammatory language such as "panties in a bunch". Such language does not contribute to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. I am not here to promote my own agenda. I'm here to work together with others to create a resource for the world to use freely. The I think this article is very informative. However it needs work to conform to Wikipedia standards such asWP:NPOV among others that I have already communicated to you. This is partially due to it being authored almost entirely by one person who fights every single edit anyone else makes to it. "Perceived usefulness" is vague because different people find different features to be useful. These seem to be a list of items that you perceive to be useful. The confusion that lead to this discussion is because of this lack of definition. I cannot define useful means in this instance because I don't know what you find useful until after I read the section. Perceived is also a sticky word. Who's perception. Most apparently it is probably yours, or you will attribute it to "The Fan Book". If it is from the fan book, use inline citation (page numbers are always nice). I have repeatedly thanked you for your contributions to this article, I encourage you to continue to work in cooperation with others to improve this article. Instead of getting offended when people make suggestions and changes listen to their concern and see what you can do to improve the article, responding with civility. Kaizen. Idioma 03:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're here to promote your own agenda. We all are. Your agenda is, ostensibly, "to work together with others to create a resource for the world to use freely". So, please, please don't take space here on the talk page to pick apart language. As far as I can tell, no one is grievously offended here--and if they are, they need to handle it in a different forum (i.e. outside of this talk page). And "panties in a wad" is not inflammatory--it's simply a colloquial euphemism for "worked up". Piercetheorganist 02:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This article does not violate NPOV in any way that I can see. And no, you have not communicated any NPOV or other Wikipedia violations to me. So if you think there, seriously, are any--post them here on the talk page and we'll discuss them. The article has no POV--there are no opinions in there, certainly none of mine. It simply states facts. I didn't say that "this brand is better than this brand" or "this style is nicer than this style", or anything like that. So rather than saying that "it needs work to conform to Wikipedia standards such asWP:NPOV", specify what you're actually talking about. What, exactly (quote the article) violates NPOV? If you're going to make accusations of policy violations, either be specific or be quiet--vagueness helps no one. Kaizen. Piercetheorganist 02:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The "perceived usefulness" section looks fine to me. I typed "useful" into Merriam-Webster; it has a very simple definition: it's an adjective meaning "of a valuable or productive kind". If you don't know what 'perceived' means, there are plenty of free dictionary resources available to you online. I'm sorry that you couldn't figure out what "perceived usefulness" means. So, for your benefit and the benefit of anyone else who has trouble figuring out what "perceived usefulness" means, I have updated the article to read "...a fan's perceived usefulness (i.e. how useful an observer perceives a fan to be)". Piercetheorganist 02:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Whose perception? "The closer the fan is to the observer, the more air movement the observer will feel." "...for observers situated directly under the fan, this lowered its perceived usefulness." It is the perception of the observer--the person using (or making use of) the fan. And no, they are not my perceptions. They're not even opinions. The three things in that category are basic physics:
The farther away the fan is from you, the less you'll feel its breeze.
The further the blades are tilted away from where you're sitting/standing, the less you'll feel their breeze.
Fans create their cooling effect by evaporating moisture off the skin. Less moisture = less cooling effect.

That stuff all seems very self-explanatory. Idioma, I think you're out of line here--you're not generating anything usable; the stuff you picked apart is very basic. I'm going to contact you on your talk page, so please be sure to check it. Thanks. Piercetheorganist 02:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not the job of an encyclopedia article to tell readers what they should think is useful. Some may think that usefulness is determined by energy consumption, another by how well it coordinates with the decor, and still another by reliability. Each person has their own idea of what makes something useful. I really don't disagree with your criteria for usefulness. However, it is a POV issue and should be removed from the article. Idioma 07:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
In order to clarify my meaning, I have changed "usefulness" to "efficacy"--because you're right, someone may see a beautiful fan as being more useful to them than a utilitarian fan. Efficacy being defined as "the ability to produce a desired amount of a desired effect", and ceiling fan being defined as "a device suspended from the ceiling of a room, which employs hub-mounted rotating paddles to circulate air in order to produce a cooling effect", the two now match. And no, nothing in that section is POV. Everything there is known scientific fact: you move farther away from the fan you feel it less, you aim the blades away from yourself you feel the breeze less, etc. There's no saying that one fan or model or design is preferable to another--it's simply stating "you do X, you get Y". Thanks for your continued input. Piercetheorganist 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good solution. Idioma 03:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other languages

Is there some fantastic easy Wikipedia way to see whether a page about the same topics has been written in another language? Piercetheorganist 09:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia doesn't know this, as the word for a ceiling fan would be different in another language. Unfortunately, you'd need to figure out the translation for "ceiling fan" in any language that you wanted to include a link to. To get you started: Esperanto - plafona ventumilo, Spanish - ventilador del techo. ChrisMP1 13:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I saw you added Esperanto. I added ventilador de techo (I typed "ventilador del techo" into Google, and the Spanish seem to go with the incorrect[?] grammar of using "de") as the Spanish link, and ventilateur de plafond (again, it should technically be "du", but the French go with "de") as the French link. I also created both those pages on the respective Wikipedias, and added the English-language link, so if anyone every writes those pages they'll automatically be linked in here. Piercetheorganist 14:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I mean to improve on the Esperanto article. Do you mind if I use translated text from this article? I don't know nearly as much as you do about this subject; I couldn't write much more than a stub, which is what I've done. ChrisMP1 14:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to! If there's anything I typed that's too much of a fan-world vernacular to translate, let me know, and I'll define it as best I can. Piercetheorganist 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, your blank article on the Spanish Wikipedia has been deleted, so I removed the link. ChrisMP1 14:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks! Piercetheorganist 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exception to usage

I will be reinstating the following edit in the Uses section:

[edit] Exception

There is an exception to the standard rule of blowing down in the summer and up in the winter. When a ceiling fan is mounted in a room with very high ceilings that are two stories/levels high. The mode of operation is reversed. In this scenario the fan is mounted so high up that there is no significant "wind chill effect". The purpose then becomes to move hot air down in the winter and pull cold air up in the summer. (fundamentally incorrect - use logic and think about that statement Piercetheorganist 02:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

I will cite the following web resources as well : http://www.wonderquest.com/Fans.htm and http://totalsync.com/blog/2005/01/29/ceiling-fan-direction-wheres-my-compass/

Piercetheorganist has reverted this content and we are discussing it in our talk pages. Piercetheorganist states that the information is obvious and redundant to the Height of the fan relative to the observer paragraph within the Bases for comparison section. This is not the point. The fact I am presenting is not that fans mounted higher than normal give no perceived cooling effect, but that they serve instead to more efficiently circulate the air in reversed opperation at a height where they cannot be effective in cooling via the "wind chill" effect. Refer to the cited articles for more information, which was the purpose of adding this information. I feel this is important information for users of ceiling fans to be aware of, hence my addition of content. If anyone feels they can convey this information more clearly I welcome their edits. But I will not stand for blanking. --SB 01:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a source which conflicts your sources, so I have reverted your edit again. In order to prevent this from growing into an edit war, please observe the convention of waiting for consensus on the talk page before re-instating. Piercetheorganist 02:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, to be specific: first off, the two sources you cited are not credible, as they present no scientific data. The first source says "'Some people with higher ceilings, like a stairwell, often do the opposite of this,' Marcus of Lamp Depot says and explains their rationale." What some people choose to do doesn't create fact. Also, customers' personal rationale isn't an acceptable basis of fact. The second source is a person's blog. Personal blogs are also not accepted as scientific fact, unless they present verifiable scientific data. My source, which is a published hardcover book, uses data from ASHRAE, amongst other sources. Yes, that book is the The Fan Book which I cited in the article, and yes I do own it and did scan that myself. Please refer to the diagrams/data on pages 26-29, 57, 59-61, 63, and 92-93. That data deals with fans' air movement, ceiling height, heat/cooling sources and their location(s) relative to the fan(s), winter/summer reversal, etc. If you can find a 'credible conflicting source, please feel free to show it here. Basically, the way it works is that hot air, which is less dense than cool air, naturally rises. If you run a fan in reverse, it sucks cooler air from the floor upwards and sticks it up at the ceiling--where it cannot be felt. The hot air which was previously up there obviously needs to be displaced somewhere--it is forced along the ceiling, and down the walls into the living spaces. That happens to be the desired effect in winter, but never in summer (unless you like to self-bake). That effect is the same regardless of ceiling height, and regardless of where the fan is in relation to the ceiling. Cool air will always naturally sink, and when a fan pulls it up the warm air will always be forced out of place. If you do that in summer, you will always be causing hot air to move downwards to living spaces, end of story. That's basic physics. Again, find a credible source with conflicting scientific data, if you can, and post it here. I personally guarantee you won't find one unless they figure out how to suspend the laws of physics :-). Piercetheorganist 02:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Credibility: I skimmed over your source and did not find anything specific to ceiling fans mounted two stories up, as I stated. The illustrations you mentioned all involve a fan mounted 8 to 10 feet up from the floor, which is still within range of the "wind chill" effect. You do not have a conflicting source, unless you can site the exact page. I did notice the citations that you referenced but they are specific to tables and illustrations. There is no bibliography elevating this book to scientific fact. Also, consider the source. Your book appears published by a company that sells/sold fans, not a scientific authority. The purpose is likely to educate consumers and not necessarily forward scientific fact. There is a profit motive in play, not a pure educational one. Barring a citation in direct contradiction, our sources would stand as equal. Your point about the blog is valid, but it is corroborated with the second source.
The Fan Book doesn't look like a sales brochure to me. It looks like 128 pages of already-established fact--it is the only written about ceiling fans, and it goes into a lot of scientific/technical detail. I consider it to be a very reliable source. I also consider it to be the only one cited thus far. Piercetheorganist 11:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Physics: You are still missing the point, and yes I've taken a year's worth of calculus based physics in college so I under stand the concepts you are extolling both in the article and in this discussion. Think about a fan mounted (blade level not connection to the ceiling point) 16 - 20 feet up in a room. The fan, even at high speed, can no longer move air fast enough to cause the cooling effect. In the winter time, it would be a more efficient (thermodynamic) use of the fan to blow down as well, mixing the room air more forcefully than in reverse operation. However, if you've lived in a cold climate, you know that having a fan blow on you removes the warm cushion of air from your body and makes you colder (exactly the wind chill effect observed outdoors). But, if the fan can't move the air forcefully enough to disturb the warm air cushion around your body; the benefit of mixing the warm air down more efficiently becomes more valuable then trying to avoid the insignificant chance of wind chill. Make sense? The goal in the summer is to experience "wind chill" the goal in the winter is to move the warm air down.
You're still wrong. See below for my explanation. Piercetheorganist 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Copyrights: I think Prentice Hall would differ with your "old and nobody cares" argument on your fans website that you posted scanned images of this book to. According to Copyright#How long copyright lasts the copyright will last quite a bit longer than 24 years. Scanning in a letter of permission from the publisher would be the way to go. By posting their book in it's entirety you are providing their work for free. Regardless if the book is still in active publication. Quoting certain sections you may get away with under fair use with your argument. But complete reproduction, is a cardinal sin. Think Napster.
What I wrote on that forums about my rational for scanning the book is irrelevant to this discussion. Piercetheorganist 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Edit war: I agree we shouldn't get into an edit war. But, until you can convince me that the information I've posted is untrue, you need to concede that it is. I'm reinstating my edit once again, and I challenge you to follow your own advice of building a consensus that what I've posted is incorrect, before modifying the article. If you or others do so, I will happily revert my edit. But the burden is on you, and you have not met it yet.
--SB 05:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the burden is not on me. And I have happily reverted your edit for you, again. You are taking an already-established article, and posting something as fact--something which is disputed, and has no scientific backdrop (evidence, proof). The sources you cite are (1) a blog, and (2) some interview with a fan salesman about his customers' rational for doing something different than what the manufacturer recommends. Again, the fact that certain people choose to do something, and then say "we do this for reason X", does not make reason X correct, valid, true, or proven. Et suppositio nil ponit in esse. Piercetheorganist 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Why your "exception" is incorrect
The reason I am continually reverting your edit is not so much because your sources suck (though they do), but more because the point you are making is illogical.

  • First off -- it is incorrect to say "Think about a fan mounted (blade level not connection to the ceiling point) 16 - 20 feet up in a room. The fan, even at high speed, can no longer move air fast enough to cause the cooling effect." I can name scores of fans which can be felt, quite noticeably, at that height--and even higher, up to 40 or 50 feet. Not all fans move the same amount of air--read the section on 'Bases for Comparison'. Piercetheorganist 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If a fan were up SO high that you could not experience the wind-chill effect, it would be up so high that you would not experience the heat-reclamation effect either--the same amount of air is moved in both directions; basic logic. Piercetheorganist 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Secondly -- it is incorrect to say "In the winter time, it would be a more efficient (thermodynamic) use of the fan to blow down as well, mixing the room air more forcefully than in reverse operation." You saying that it "would be" doesn't make it true--it makes you wrong. Et suppositio nil ponit in esse. The motor spins at the same speed regardless of direction, the blade pitch is the same regardless of direction, the blades' size and length are the same regardless of direction, the number of blades is the same regardless of direction--so, the same amount of air is moved regardless of direction (refer to the Bases for Comparison section). And actually, since the airflow is less restricted while pulling upwards, the amount of air moved is actually greater (again, refer to the Bases for Comparison section). You are just totally wrong here. And, therefore, so is your other statement "But, if the fan can't move the air forcefully enough to disturb the warm air cushion around your body; the benefit of mixing the warm air down more efficiently becomes more valuable then trying to avoid the insignificant chance of wind chill." Who are you to say what becomes more valuable when? That's POV. Piercetheorganist 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • From a personal standpoint, I will say that it has been my experience (and I have lots) that fans DO make the room warmer when in reverse mode, as opposed to when in forward mode--and I've never had it happen the inverse way, not even in a building with 20' ceilings where the fan was mounted 1' from the ceiling. Piercetheorganist 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thirdly -- your statement "... Make sense? The goal in the summer is to experience 'wind chill' the goal in the winter is to move the warm air down." Yes, that does make sense--we all know that; it's already been said here; and it's been already stated in the article. Yes--the goal, in winter, is to move warm air down. A fan does NOT move warm air downwards more effectively running in summer mode (forward), as opposed to running in winter mode (reverse). And so you contradicted yourself entirely. As I already said, the airflow is exactly the same, if not slightly greater (refer to above, and to Bases for Comparison section in the article). And in fact, the movement patterns do move warm air more effectively in reverse--refer to the diagrams on the cited pages of The Fan Book--which is why fans have a winter mode in the first place. Piercetheorganist 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Physics is physics, and things are called laws because they do not change. Heat naturally rises, end of story. There is no debate to be had about that. So, from what I can see, your entire argument is based on the idea that fans on high ceilings move warm air downwards more effectively in forward mode than in reverse mode. And, from what I can see, you base that entire argument on (a) a personal blog, and what some salesman claimed his customers' personal rationalizations to be, and (b) your personal [and incorrect] supposition that a "fan, even at high speed, can no longer move air fast enough to cause the cooling effect" when it is on a high ceiling. So, again, I have reverted your edit to the article. Please DO NOT re-instate it until there is consensus here--and for that, you'll need verifiable, reliable, credible sources citing scientific data which directly proves what I've stated (which I base on logic, experiential proof, and the laws of physics) to be incorrect. Piercetheorganist 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It is correct to say that fans warm a room better in reverse than forwards, and here is the proof: when a fan runs in reverse, it forces warm air along the ceiling, down the walls, and along the floor in an even pattern--which heats the room evenly. When a fan runs forwards, however, it forces air down in a cyclonic pattern, which is concentrated in the area directly underneath the fan, and so the room's temperature is affected unevenly. That's basic logic, basic physics (refer to the first law of thermodynamics, which in turn is based on the conservation of energy), and is backed up by data in The Fan Book, from Vornado, and elsewhere (not that that matters, because logic and the laws of physics trump all save for conflicting and verifiable scientific evidence). Piercetheorganist 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So, SB, my messages to you are:
1. Et suppositio nil ponit in esse. Memorize that, and learn what it means.
2. Don't re-instate your statement of fact unless you can prove that it is, in fact, fact.

Thanks. Piercetheorganist 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


Piercetheorganist has written at length on his/her reasons for reverting SB's edits. I have to say that I don't find The Fan Book compelling, I don't think all of Piercetheorganist's comments are relevant (e.g. mention of the first law of thermodynamics with no context), and on reflection I think that the original statement about an exception by SB is quite plausible. I don't know for certain either way which is right, but I hope other readers will not confuse the length of Piercetheorganist's comments and mention of theoretical concepts in physics with correctness. This point deserves to be debated with hard facts, not rhetoric.
—DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

SB, I think the time is ripe for you to reinstate your edit. Piercetheorganist has been banned from editing WP (see user page/discussion for comments). ...unless we're still waiting for a consensus?!
—DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Industrial ceiling fans

I would like to have some mention of industrial ceiling fans on Wikipedia as industrial users have different needs and tolerances than the average home ceiling fan user. Since I am a new contributor would it be best to add a section to this page or create a new page specific to industrial ceiling fans that is cross referenced here?

As a matter of full disclosure I do work for a company that designs and manufactures industrial ceiling fans. I understand that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote specific businesses. This will guide the information I would like to include about industrial ceiling fans. The material included will be encyclopedic, will follow wiki-style and be fully sourced and cited to the best of my abilities.

Can we sort out the best place to put this information before I add and edit only to have it pulled down?

Thanks,

Bigassfans (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I know your company (love it!). If you can provide a non-biased, sourced cross-section of industrial fan types, go for it. Having it all on this will be fine. The fan types section needs to be cleaned up a bit as well. There are some relevant guidelines to follow, and I don't know if these apply exactly, but you can look over Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:No original research as to what you can and cannot do with regard to incorporating your own information, etc. The important one in this case, I imagine, is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you do not violate this, you will be fine. If your edits are in good faith (I am sure they will be), problems another user finds, if any, can be easily solved on this talk page or your user talk page. Charles 17:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I too know of your company; there were three of those enormous things installed at the newer of the two Super Wal-Marts in Winchester, VA (where I used to live). MAN those things move air, especially given the slow speed at which they turn! Anyhow, to answer your question -- there are no differences between regular (36"-56", 3/4-blade) "industrial" fans and regular (29"-60", 2to6-blade) "residential fans" as described in the article. The fact that the styling is different is irrelevant to method of operation, theory of operation, parts, performance, et cetera. If looking different earned its own section, we'd have to have a different section for every model at Home Depot! HOWEVER -- Big Ass Fans are not regular industrial fans. They very much should be written about here on Wikipedia. I do feel, however, that it should not be a part of this article -- (a) because this article is about "regular" fans, and (b) because this article is fairly lengthy already. I feel that a separate article, about LVHS (low-speed/high-velocity, for those who don't know) ceiling fans (or perhaps just LVHS fans in general?) should be written. While LVHS ceiling fans are related to regular ceiling fans, they are so different in terms of theory of operation and physical set-up that they should be given due treatment separately. There's nothing stopping you from writing such an article yourself -- however, be aware that you may be challenged on the finer points more than you would be if you were just Joe Schmoe. Also, be aware that everything you assert which is not common sense or common knowledge needs to be referenced (cited) from a published source -- i.e. something available to the general public, preferably (though this is certainly not required) online. So private internal company documents don't count. :-) Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)