An Affordable Air Purifier For Dusty Computer Labs?

Alcimedes writes "Our lab has a serious issue with dust. I've had a number of power supplies stop working because of dust clogging up the fans, and it's getting annoying. So I'm looking into some kind of small (under $500) air filtration system, and was wondering if anyone else out there has already gone down this road. If so, what did you buy and would you buy it again? I'd prefer something where I don't have to keep buying filters, but that may just be a pipe dream." Anyone with cats knows the feeling. Can you suggest a reasonably priced answer to dust-borne failure?

Comments

Re:air purifier should be away from computers

[mdfst13]

The way the ionic air purifiers work, you should move it *away* from the computer to get maximum effect. The way that you are doing it, when the device pulls dust back towards it, some (most?) of the dust will get diverted by the air flow of the fans. In fact, I would suspect that by putting the device *next* to the computer, you are actually increasing the dust flow to the computer.

An ionic air purifier has two parts. One sends out charged ions which collide with particles of dust and impart a charge to them. The other is an area on the unit itself that has the opposite type of charge. I've never used one, so I don't know how effective they are. However, given the way it works, it seems logical to me that the best place for it would be away from the computer. The desired effect of the device is to pull dust into its area. Instead, it might be better to have it so that it pulls dust away from the computer. Besides, I would think that throwing electric charges (which is the basis of the ionic effect) around near a computer would be undesireable.

Re:Doesn't make economic sense

[anubi]

Sometimes we the managers in the business world see things differently than those in the trenches. It's what keeps companies running smoothly and profitably.

One of the managers at a company ( which is no longer ) that I worked it looked at things like this.

I am an engineer. This is how I see it.

You lose a power supply. No big deal - but in the process of losing the power supply, you corrupt your system. Big deal. This could be very costly to recover from.

Now, even if you were lucky and the system suffered no damage from the failing power supply, you have the time to account for to take the system offline, obtain, and replace the supply. Time is expensive. You are now losing on two paths: You can not use the machine, and you are expending time finding parts and fixing the machine.

Personally, I find it much much more expedient to provide the infrastructure for trouble free operation than to let things fail and try to fix them. Yes, the power supply is cheap. So are engine bearings. But saving money by scrimping on oil changes is hardly a way to "keep companies running smoothly and profitably", rather, as an engineer, I see this the quickest way of running a company into the ground with soaring overhead maintenance costs.

Given my own knowledge of the costs involved and failure statistics, I would opt for prevention, but should the company see fit to make me subordinate to someone who sees fit to override my judgement, I would obey, but find somewhere else to work, for the higher-ups are apparently clueless about the mountain of maintainance costs heading their way - and have no idea how much the management skills they hired is really costing them.

I normally would not be so straighforward, truthful, and harsh in my reply, but you did post AC, so I feel you are fair game.