You’ve already seen the tests of the Endorfy Corona 120 fans, and now we’re adding results for the “reverse” variants. The aerodynamic design is essentially the same—just… reversed. The emphasis on visual appeal is therefore even stronger. The colorful lighting is complemented by an element intended to make the result even more striking. You won’t see the stator struts interfering with the appearance.
Measuring the intensity (and power consumption) of lighting
Modern fans often include lighting. This is no longer a “cooling” parameter, but for some users the presence of (A)RGB LEDs is important. Therefore, we also measure how intense this lighting is in our tests. These tests are the only ones that take place externally, outside the wind tunnel.
We record the luminosity of the fans in a chamber with reflective walls. This internal arrangement is important to increase the resolution for us to measure anything at all with lower luminosity fans. But also so that the readings do not blend together and it is obvious which fan is emitting more light and which one less.
The illumination intensity is measured in the horizontal position of the fan, above which is the lux meter sensor (UNI-T UT383S). This is centered on the illumination intensity sensing chamber.
The illumination is controlled via an IR controller and the hue is set to RGB level 255, 255, 255 (white). We record the brightness at maximum and minimum intensity. According to this, you can easily see if the brightness is high enough, but conversely also if the lower level is low enough for you.
In addition to the brightness intensity, we also measure the power consumption that it requires. This is again through the shunt, which is between the Gophert CPS-3205 power supply and the (A)RGB LED driver. After this we get a reading of the lighting power consumption. In the graphs we show it separately, but also in sum with the motor power consumption as the total maximum fan power.
Spectrograms of „45 dBA“ without obstacles:
The reverse model is already “acting up” here too (on some obstacles, those tonal peaks are even higher), but the standard variant, in exchange, has more noise distributed across other sound frequencies. 🙂
Could you also note the RPMs alongside the sound normalization tests? That would be helpful so we can determine whether if fans reached the RPMs where vibration increases.
First of all, thank you for the suggestion. Logging fan speeds on obstacles would certainly be useful, but I have to repeat what I mentioned somewhere before: due to capacity constraints, we simply can’t manage it. At this point, it’s beyond our means to further increase the time demands of the testing process. Sorry about that. :/