Does a Hairdryer blow harder with heat

  • Thread starter Jedi_Sawyer
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Heat
In summary, a hair dryer blows harder with heat on than it does with heat off because the hot blown air will not be as dense as cold blown air.
  • #36
sophiecentaur said:
Except that the load / speed characteristic of the motor would affect the actual change in mass flow of the air.
You have two engines involved. The Fan drives the air and then the heater is a further energy source so you have a heat engine - it's like a very feeble jet engine in more or less every respect.

I think that the hair dryer result they got is only a special case and it 'just happens' that there was no detectable difference. That could be confusing the wider issue.

A feeble jet engine is what I was tying to point out in post #6.
I expected there to be some extra thrust, but perhaps the compression of the air from the fan is just not enough, since only the friction from the interior walls and parts would be responsible for any back pressure.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #37
Jedi_Sawyer said:
klimatos- I think you are wrong. That is the basic definition of temperature, a measure of energy? When it comes to gases, the kinetic energy, 3/2 MV^2, is all the sensible heat you can measure, so for a unit volume if the air feels warmer it means the kinetic energy is higher, period.

Air temperatures are a measure of the mean kinetic energy of translation per molecule. The kinetic energy per molecule is higher, as I said in my post. However, the total kinetic energy per unit of volume is not.

At 25°C, one cubic meter of dry air will have 2.43 x 1025 molecules and the mean molecular kinetic energy along those molecules true paths will be 6.17 x 10-21 joules. This give a total kinetic energy of translation per cubic meter of 149 kilojoules. AT 65°C, one cubic meter of dry air will have 2.14 x 1025 molecules and the mean molecular kinetic energy along those molecules true paths will be 7.00 x 10-21 joules. This gives a total kinetic energy of translation per cubic meter of 149 kilojoules. There is no significant change per unit of volume.

However, the original one cubic meter now occupies 1.13 cubic meters after heating. The total kinetic energy of translation along those molecules' true paths is now 170 kilojoules. This is the same mass, but a greater volume. Hence, the mean kinetic energy per unit of mass increases, but the mean kinetic energy per unit volume stays the same.

Not really intuitive, but true nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
klimatos said:
Air temperatures are a measure of the mean kinetic energy of translation per molecule. The kinetic energy per molecule is higher, as I said in my post. However, the total kinetic energy per unit of volume is not.

I think the word 'random' needs to be in there, to avoid the possibility of confusing internal energy with bulk translational energy. The KE of a moving mass of gas (or anything) is nothing to do with its temperature.
Imo, this is an example of a problem where introducing molecules only serves to complicate matters without resolving anything. The gas laws work very well without people needing to hop in and out of the microscopic world so answer questions.
 
  • #39
sophiecentaur said:
I think the word 'random' needs to be in there, to avoid the possibility of confusing internal energy with bulk translational energy. The KE of a moving mass of gas (or anything) is nothing to do with its temperature.
Imo, this is an example of a problem where introducing molecules only serves to complicate matters without resolving anything. The gas laws work very well without people needing to hop in and out of the microscopic world so answer questions.

Since I am not a physicist, your comment sent me hopping to my bookshelves to make sure I had not committed some grievous error in my statement. The first book I grabbed put my mind at ease. On page 344 of Haliday and Resnick’s (1970) Fundamentals of Physics is the statement: “Similarly, the temperature of a gas may be related to the average kinetic energy of translation of the molecules.”

A few lines earlier, the authors state: “For any system, the macroscopic and the microscopic quantities must be related because they are simply different ways of describing the same situation. In particular, we should be able to express the former in terms of the latter.”

I admit to being not a little disappointed in your final comment, since I am a great admirer of your posts in the various PFs. Are you suggesting that kinetic gas theory and statistical mechanics are intrinsically less desirable scientific perspectives for the study of gases than classical physics? Or, that they should not be used to answer PF questions or describe relevant phenomena? It certainly seems that way to me. I hope I am mistaken.
 
  • #40
Klimatos and to a lesser extent Sophiecentaur I think that you guys are both wrong.

Klimatos, Go back to the books and find out thattemperature for a fixed volume and mass of gas is proportional to pressure, which by the kinetic theory of gas, pressure is proportional to the average kinetic energy of the gas molecules. Then deduce that a higher temperature means more kinetic energy.

Sophiecentaur, when you talk about internal energy of atoms, (the vibrational, rotational, and translational) having nothing to do with bulk translational energy, at least for gas, you are wrong. Basically a moving fan blade is a variation of a rocket, you are deflecting air molecules more in the through direction than in other directions, that is having the effect of giving the gas molecules a preferred direction for in, due to suction, and out sides of the fan. For a hotter incoming gas they will be less dense, so fewer collisions with the blades, more gas with the wrong directional orientation will get through, net effect is less suction and blowing.
 
  • #41
Jedi_Sawyer said:
Klimatos and to a lesser extent Sophiecentaur I think that you guys are both wrong.

Klimatos, Go back to the books and find out thattemperature for a fixed volume and mass of gas is proportional to pressure, which by the kinetic theory of gas, pressure is proportional to the average kinetic energy of the gas molecules. Then deduce that a higher temperature means more kinetic energy.

Sophiecentaur, when you talk about internal energy of atoms, (the vibrational, rotational, and translational) having nothing to do with bulk translational energy, at least for gas, you are wrong. Basically a moving fan blade is a variation of a rocket, you are deflecting air molecules more in the through direction than in other directions, that is having the effect of giving the gas molecules a preferred direction for in, due to suction, and out sides of the fan. For a hotter incoming gas they will be less dense, so fewer collisions with the blades, more gas with the wrong directional orientation will get through, net effect is less suction and blowing.

If you take that to an extreme, you are implying that a capsule of gas, traveling at 1000m/2 is 'hotter' than when it is 'stationary'. In this question, we are considering the bulk movement of gas as well as its temperature. That was my point.

So what keeps the the volume constant in this experiment? It isn't in a sealed cylinder - far from it. You need PV=nRT for this one.
Also, the fan comes before the heater so what is that supposed to mean?
 
  • #42
klimatos said:
I admit to being not a little disappointed in your final comment, since I am a great admirer of your posts in the various PFs. Are you suggesting that kinetic gas theory and statistical mechanics are intrinsically less desirable scientific perspectives for the study of gases than classical physics? Or, that they should not be used to answer PF questions or describe relevant phenomena? It certainly seems that way to me. I hope I am mistaken.

All I meant was that, having gone to the trouble of deriving valid gas laws, using microscopic considerations, those laws are well suited to a problem like this. I have similar views on problems involving Young's Modulus and Electrical Circuits. Why is there a need to go 'back down the chain', here?
 
  • #43
This thread, (originally), is all about adding internal energy, or heat, and it's effect on kinetic energy, or pressure of airflow from a hairdryer. I thought you had already agreed that the heat of air, internal energy, did make a difference to the air flow from a fan, so why change your mind about that now.

Also Sophiecentaur why are you not agreeing with me? Kilmatos definitely said that a higher temperature did not make any change in kinetic energy for a fixed volume of the higher temperature gas and that is plain wrong, It seems from reading the posts , that you are reluctant to tell him why and how he was wrong like I did.
 
  • #44
Jedi_Sawyer said:
Klimatos and to a lesser extent Sophiecentaur I think that you guys are both wrong.

Klimatos, Go back to the books and find out thattemperature for a fixed volume and mass of gas is proportional to pressure, which by the kinetic theory of gas, pressure is proportional to the average kinetic energy of the gas molecules. Then deduce that a higher temperature means more kinetic energy.

I find your post condescending. You say, “go back to the books”. As I said in my post (did you read it?), I did go back to the books. Haliday and Resnick’s “Fundamentals of Physics” was the source of my quotes. Is it your opinion that these two physicists were wrong in their understanding of temperature?

You go on to say that “pressure is proportional to the average kinetic energy of the gas molecules”. This is true as far as it goes, but it is woefully short of going far enough! Pressure is also proportional to the mean molecular number density (n), as in P= nkBT.

You continue with the statement that “higher temperature means more kinetic energy”. Again, your understanding is incomplete. This is only true on a per molecule basis. It is perfectly possible for a mass of less dense air to have both a lower (or higher) temperature and a higher (or lower) total kinetic energy of translation. The total kinetic energy of translation per unit volume is a product of the mean molecular number density and the mean molecular kinetic energy of translation.

If I add a bucket of cold water to a tub full of warm water, I will have more kinetic energy in the tub, but the water will have a lower temperature. The total kinetic energy (as its name implies) of a mass of air or a mass of anything else is a total, its temperature is a mean. You seem to be confusing totals with means.

I don’t see the relevance of your reference to a “fixed volume and mass of gas”. My work has dealt primarily with the free atmosphere (unconstrained by laboratory containers or any sort of barrier to natural processes). There, we commonly deal with parcels of air with indefinite volumes and masses. This doesn't stop us from taking their temperatures.
 
  • #45
sophiecentaur said:
All I meant was that, having gone to the trouble of deriving valid gas laws, using microscopic considerations, those laws are well suited to a problem like this. I have similar views on problems involving Young's Modulus and Electrical Circuits. Why is there a need to go 'back down the chain', here?

Okay. As a simple statement of personal preference, I can't fault you. I have to say, however, that in teaching atmospheric sciences to college students (most of whom had had no college-level physics courses) I found that the kinetic gas/statistical mechanics approach was far easier for them to understand than the fluid mechanics and classical thermodynamics approach.

This was especially true for phenomenological descriptions of common atmospheric parameters. Using molecules made more sense to them than using compressible fluids. (Most of them had no real math background, either.) Of course, this could be my fault. It made more sense to me, as well.

Keep in mind that no gas law that requires conditions of equilibrium to exist to be valid is of much use in dealing with non-equilibrium weather phenomena.
 
  • #46
All through this thread, people are ignoring the difference between the KE of internal energy and the KE of bulk movement. Calling on what the textbooks say is pointless because they do not consider , at that level, flowing air; they are just defining temperature in a simple case. Does anyone disagree with the following paragraph? Stick with the steps and point out where you disagree, if you do.

Forget the fan. Take a cylinder, closed at one end, with a heating element in it; make it a well distributed element so that it is intimately in contact with a lot of the air and the effect will be more noticeable. When the element is turned on, the temperature will rise (internal energy), the pressure will rise and air will move out of the end - the volume will increase. That moving air has bulk KE. If you want molecules the I can say that more will be moving out of than into the cylinder You do not have constant pressure and you do not have constant volume, in the early stages. Work is done on the ambient air and in accelerating the air that leaves the cylinder so the temperature of the air will not increase as much as in a sealed cylinder (important point). At some stage, the pressure in the cylinder will balance AP and the air will no longer expand. But work will have been done on the air in the atmosphere and the exiting air will have had bulk KE. Now repeat the experiment but admit a steady stream of air into the closed end - you will need higher than AP and work will need to be done by a pump. We can then reach a steady state, in which the bulk KE of the exiting air has contributions due to the Work done by the input pump and the behaviour of the air, according to the gas laws as it is heated by the element.

The only experimental evidence that's been quoted is that hairdryer video. I question whether it is measuring what we actually want to know. What do we mean by 'harder'? Surely that refers to the feeling on your head, hair and face, which have a much smaller area than the banner.
I have been motivated to do an experiment of my own., using a fan heater and a light, fabric bag suspended in front by two strings. The fan heater has a tangential fan, which doesn't change note when the elements are switched in. The 'sound' is different, with a more 'rushing' sound when the air is being heated.
These are the results:

Mean deflection from rest position with fan alone: 50mm
Mean deflection from rest position with fan + 1kW element: 60mm
Mean deflection from rest position with fan + 2kW element: 70mm

The bag is about 120mm X 60mm and held held horizontally on two light strings, about 400mm long, 140mm from the centre of the fan
There is a fair amount of turbulence and the bag would move within about 10mm limits but the trend is quite conclusive: more than 30% increase in deflection with the heater on full power!
Two different experiments with two different outcomes. I think that my experiment goes along with my theoretical scenario, which applies to the situation near the nozzle. The 'banner' experiment is dealing with a different, more complex situation and involves the circulation of air, surrounding the heater and the pressure over a much larger area. Also, the air speeds and exit temperatures are very different in the two experiments. You could say that the banner experiment was not sensitive enough to show the effect.I suggest you all go away and try it with anything you can lay your hands on. It took literally 10 minutes for me to gather the 'equipment', to tie the string to the bag and to hang it from a kitchen chair. Along with the measurements, just 'feel' the effect. It's hard to deny its existence - it's literally In Your Face!
 
  • #47
Brayton cycle

This picture is the ideal cycle for a gas turbine:
th090104p.gif


and a representation of the closed cycle.
th090103p.gif


The hair blower dryer would use only the compressor and the heat input.

1-2 is an isentropic compression (constant entropy), where the air is compressed to a higher pressure and higher temperature.

2-3 is a constant pressure heat addition, with a rise in remperature.

for 1-2,compression, h = enthalpy, rate flow
------------------------------------------
- W(in) = h(out)-h(in)
or,
-W(in) = Cp( Tout-Tin ) = Cp( T2 - T1 )

for 2-3, heat addition
--------------------
Qin = h(out) - h(in)
or
Q(in) = Cp( Tout - Tin ) = Cp( T3 - T2 )

We do not have a turbine, nor a heat rejection reservoir( heat is rejected to ambient) so both of these processes can be neglected.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is usually neglected in the ideal Brayton cycle is other forms of energy input and transfers such as potential, kinetic, chemical.

For a container control volume, with air moving in(state 1) and out(state 2) and having heat or work added to it,

From the first Law,
dE = ∂Q -∂W

and do not neglect the change in kinetic energy of the fluid due to its velocity,
we end up with,
q[itex]_{1-2}[/itex] - W[itex]_{1-2}[/itex] = u[itex]_{2}[/itex] - u[itex]_{1}[/itex] + ΔKE

If we separate the flow work from shaft work,
( ie flow work is PV of the fluid and we have it at the entrance and the exit )
q[itex]_{1-2}[/itex] - W[itex]_{shaft,1-2}[/itex] = h[itex]_{2}[/itex] - h[itex]_{1}[/itex] + ΔKE

or,
q[itex]_{1-2}[/itex] - W[itex]_{shaft,1-2}[/itex] = C[itex]_{p}[/itex]( T[itex]_{2}[/itex] - T[itex]_{2}[/itex] ) + ΔKE

Obviously shaft work = 0 for the heating container.

The change in kinetic energy of the gas,
ΔKE = c[itex]_{2}[/itex] [itex]^{2}[/itex]/2 - c[itex]_{1}[/itex] [itex]^{2}[/itex]/2

If anyone wishes to find out the mass flow rate for an hair dryer and plug in some numbers...
 
  • #49
klimatos said:
I find your post condescending. You say, “go back to the books”. As I said in my post (did you read it?), I did go back to the books. Haliday and Resnick’s “Fundamentals of Physics” was the source of my quotes. Is it your opinion that these two physicists were wrong in their understanding of temperature?

I won't judge whether or not they are correct, but that definition is certainly oversimplified. Temperature for a flowing gas is based on the so-called "thermal velocity" or "thermal motion" of the gas particles, which is defined as the remaining velocity after the bulk flow is subtracted from the velocity of each particle. The bulk flow does not contribute to the temperature of the gas, though it does add to its overall energy content.
 
  • #50
Jedi_Sawyer said:
Great stuff. You tried it.
That's amazingly different from my result, which repeatably showed a real difference in the deflection of my suspended bag. The only practical difference between my method and yours was that I used a very light weight sensor (just a few grams), covering only a small portion of the heater outlet, and the suspension was deflected by about 7° and 10°, with heater off and on, respectively.

This is much more complicated than it seemed at first, I think. My measuring device was very much a 'probe', not altering the total air flow much. The previous 'banner' experiment involved intercepting the whole of the air flow and your method was an intermediate condition. Did you actually measure the deflection from vertical and the length of the suspension? Your system was much more stable than mine, which was very twitchy, in general - although there was no doubt about the proportional trend for the two cases. I will try it with a heavier load on the string and I could suggest you try it with a lighter one.
I have an anemometer on my boat and will bring it back with me next time I go over there and actually measure the air speeds. That should give a definitive measurement.
Meanwhile, people can be arguing further about the theory.
 
  • #51
@256bits
Bottom line; after that burst of turbine theory. What is you conclusion and what should we expect to see? So far, Jedi and I have had different results - at least, we can say that I detected a difference and he didn't. I guess you'll say "it depends" (?)
 
  • #52
sophiecentaur said:
@256bits
Bottom line; after that burst of turbine theory. What is you conclusion and what should we expect to see? So far, Jedi and I have had different results - at least, we can say that I detected a difference and he didn't. I guess you'll say "it depends" (?)

Originally, I was thinking that with the same mass flowrate with or without heat, an addition of heat, since energy is being added to the system, would have more produced more deflection, as the output velocity would have had to increase, due to PV=nRT expansion.

Seeing the first video, leads me to question whether either the mass flow does remain the same, or the experiment is not a perfect representation of achieving stagnation pressure.

The simplest things...are confounding!
Who says physics isn't fun.

Your anemometer will be a good touch.
 
  • #53
256bits said:
Originally, I was thinking that with the same mass flowrate with or without heat, an addition of heat, since energy is being added to the system, would have more produced more deflection, as the output velocity would have had to increase, due to PV=nRT expansion.

Seeing the first video, leads me to question whether either the mass flow does remain the same, or the experiment is not a perfect representation of achieving stagnation pressure.

The simplest things...are confounding!
Who says physics isn't fun.

Your anemometer will be a good touch.

Something that hasn't yet been discussed is the turbulence from the fan. My heater has a 'hamster wheel' style fan, which pushes air out along a letterbox slot. This may produce a less turbulent flow than a propellor type of fan, which could have a significant effect on what happens to the air on either side of the heater - stirring it up and messing up the ideal conditions.

I shall do my best to remember the anemometer, next week end. I have set an alarm on my iPhone but you can never be sure that my brain will actually respond properly. haha "Stagnation pressure" could apply there as well.
 
  • #54
It seems all agree that the heater increases the tempearature and hence its volume which directly means it needs to go faster to exit the dryer nozzle.
The pressure drop created by an increase in velocity will be both from friction losses and exit losses from the nozzle.

To counter the increase in pressure drop across the outlet of the dryer the fan either needs to work harder to maintain the same mass flow rate or it will follow its fan curve and lower its mass throughput. As it has a nominal constant input power it will move on its fan curve.

So the curve is the next problem - axial type fan, squirrel cage - both forward or backward leaning blades, centrifugal style again with forward or backward leaning blades.

Each of these have a very different fan curve and some may be designed to sit on one side or the other of a maximum in the curve so pressure changes on the outlet have very different consequences on the fan speed and flowrate.

Just the fan characteristics complicate any test as no two apperatus are the same.

So where to now.
To do a nice study we need to stabilise on a 'type' of dryer.
Then we need to model the inlet characteristics for flowrate changes, the fan curve and power consumption changes due to flow/pressure changes, the outlet pressure drops - friction and exit losses. Thats a lot of code but could be done.

The key point here is the fan curve. It can easily explain the vacuum cleaner test as they normally have forward curved centrifugal compreesors which are quite different from a dryer.
 
  • #55
246ohms said:
It seems all agree that the heater increases the tempearature and hence its volume which directly means it needs to go faster to exit the dryer nozzle.
The pressure drop created by an increase in velocity will be both from friction losses and exit losses from the nozzle.
QUOTE]

And an increase in viscosity of the air with the higher temperature!
Less missing pieces of the puzzle.!
 
  • #56
My present hairdrier has, in addition to the usual pair of multiposition slide switches, a press-and-hold button located at the trigger position. Depressing this cuts power to the heating element without any change in the set speed, and I observe no discernible change in the motor's tone or throughput.

However, watching in the mirror as I depressed the trigger, it was unequivocal that the hair was being significantly more strongly parted (i.e., pushed aside) when this trigger button was depressed, meaning when no heating was occurring.

This is a surprise finding.

The hairdrier is rated 1600W, and I never use it on its hottest setting. The emergent air bast at that setting is more suited to paint stripping.
 
  • #57
Curiouser and curiouser. You'll all have to go to the boat chandler's and buy yourselves an explorer wind meter (only about £35). We are clearly dealing with several extra variables here and the air speed right across the output and input apertures must be relevant. Now where did I put my smoke machine?
 
  • #58
Involved in all of this is conservation of energy/momentum which is what I was originally experimenting for. I think I know what is going on in all of this, adding heat is expanding gas in all directions so its net effect is zero for adding momentum. I am in the process of building the next generation model and hopefully will have more to talk about in a week or two.

Nascent, I have a similar hair dryer and I do notice a change in pitch and a corresponding brightening of bath room lights when I push the button to turn heat off. Can not say that I noticed any change in hair blowing but with hair like mine I probably would not have noticed.

Go Seahawks, even though I wish Sherman was a Bronco, as he has tempted Karma, maybe other guys Karma will cancel that out, sort of like heat added to airflow.
 
  • #59
256bits said:
And an increase in viscosity of the air with the higher temperature!
Less missing pieces of the puzzle.!

True, the density, viscosity and temperature will change so the Reynolds Number will follow and the friction factor will also change. Probably could be solved in a CFD program as they allow an input section to be assigned a mass flow then any section can be a fan followed by heating and a ambient far field exhaust. That would really give a nice set of results!
 
  • #60
Jedi_Sawyer said:
Involved in all of this is conservation of energy/momentum which is what I was originally experimenting for. I think I know what is going on in all of this, adding heat is expanding gas in all directions so its net effect is zero for adding momentum. I am in the process of building the next generation model and hopefully will have more to talk about in a week or two.

Nascent, I have a similar hair dryer and I do notice a change in pitch and a corresponding brightening of bath room lights when I push the button to turn heat off. Can not say that I noticed any change in hair blowing but with hair like mine I probably would not have noticed.

Go Seahawks, even though I wish Sherman was a Bronco, as he has tempted Karma, maybe other guys Karma will cancel that out, sort of like heat added to airflow.

That is clearly wrong or a gun cartridge wouldn't work, would it? Momentum conservation doesn't rule out an imbalanced flow of air if the fan stops it flowing backwards. Conservation laws must be invoked carefully if you want to get a valid conclusion.

If you are doing experiments with a supply that actually changes volts with a tiny 1.5kW load then I suggest you need to move to somewhere with a better supply - like a good old UK ring main system. There are enough unknowns in this issue without introducing additional cable resistances.
 
<h2>1. How does heat affect the air flow of a hairdryer?</h2><p>Heat affects the air flow of a hairdryer by causing the air molecules to move faster and spread out, creating a lower density of air. This lower density air is then able to flow more easily and with greater force through the hairdryer's nozzle.</p><h2>2. Does using the hot setting on a hairdryer make it blow harder?</h2><p>Yes, using the hot setting on a hairdryer does make it blow harder. As mentioned before, the heat causes the air molecules to move faster and spread out, resulting in a stronger air flow from the hairdryer.</p><h2>3. Is it better to use the hot or cold setting for faster drying?</h2><p>It is generally better to use the hot setting for faster drying. The hot setting not only helps to evaporate the water from your hair more quickly, but it also creates a stronger air flow which can help to dry your hair faster.</p><h2>4. Will using the cool shot button on a hairdryer decrease the air flow?</h2><p>Yes, using the cool shot button on a hairdryer will decrease the air flow. The cool shot button releases a burst of cool air which causes the air molecules to slow down and become more tightly packed, resulting in a decrease in air flow.</p><h2>5. Can the temperature of a hairdryer affect its overall performance?</h2><p>Yes, the temperature of a hairdryer can affect its overall performance. A hairdryer that is too hot or too cold may not blow air as effectively, resulting in a weaker air flow and slower drying time. It is important to use the appropriate temperature setting for optimal performance.</p>

1. How does heat affect the air flow of a hairdryer?

Heat affects the air flow of a hairdryer by causing the air molecules to move faster and spread out, creating a lower density of air. This lower density air is then able to flow more easily and with greater force through the hairdryer's nozzle.

2. Does using the hot setting on a hairdryer make it blow harder?

Yes, using the hot setting on a hairdryer does make it blow harder. As mentioned before, the heat causes the air molecules to move faster and spread out, resulting in a stronger air flow from the hairdryer.

3. Is it better to use the hot or cold setting for faster drying?

It is generally better to use the hot setting for faster drying. The hot setting not only helps to evaporate the water from your hair more quickly, but it also creates a stronger air flow which can help to dry your hair faster.

4. Will using the cool shot button on a hairdryer decrease the air flow?

Yes, using the cool shot button on a hairdryer will decrease the air flow. The cool shot button releases a burst of cool air which causes the air molecules to slow down and become more tightly packed, resulting in a decrease in air flow.

5. Can the temperature of a hairdryer affect its overall performance?

Yes, the temperature of a hairdryer can affect its overall performance. A hairdryer that is too hot or too cold may not blow air as effectively, resulting in a weaker air flow and slower drying time. It is important to use the appropriate temperature setting for optimal performance.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
514
Replies
8
Views
868
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
642
  • Thermodynamics
Replies
20
Views
9K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
3
Views
882
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top