Anyone tried the Laser Egg? Can get it on Ebay for <$100.
Here is a review:
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/...mparison-test/
Seems like it can give readings on >0.3um and >2.5um. Plus temp and humidity and a cute name.
[OP]
Contributor
Anyone tried the Laser Egg? Can get it on Ebay for <$100.
Here is a review:
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/...mparison-test/
Seems like it can give readings on >0.3um and >2.5um. Plus temp and humidity and a cute name.
Member
You can find more evaluation data on that and many others here.
Beranek's Law:
It has been remarked that if one selects his own components, builds his own enclosure, and is convinced he has made a wise choice of design, then his own loudspeaker sounds better to him than does anyone else's loudspeaker. In this case, the frequency response of the loudspeaker seems to play only a minor part in forming a person's opinion.
L.L. Beranek, Acoustics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954), p.208.
[OP]
Contributor
Thanks David.
The Laser Egg has great correlation to $20k+ meters at partical sizes 2.5um and smaller. (R^2 of >0.85). It tends to slightly overestimate the peaks. It's very close to the Dylos 1100. I'd rather have something that slightly overestimates.
The correlation to sizes 10um and larger is not great, it tends to completely miss the peaks. The reviews are average.
I'll probably just try to pick up a used Dylos.
Member
Actually, that's a Dylos 1700 they're comparing. The 1100 doesn't give you PM2.5 and PM10 readings, only particle counts.
Beranek's Law:
It has been remarked that if one selects his own components, builds his own enclosure, and is convinced he has made a wise choice of design, then his own loudspeaker sounds better to him than does anyone else's loudspeaker. In this case, the frequency response of the loudspeaker seems to play only a minor part in forming a person's opinion.
L.L. Beranek, Acoustics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954), p.208.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote