Does anybody understand Can-Filters retarded specs?

[greenhead]

I have had to use both systems and a system that is based on ten is much easier to use. IMHO everyone should be on the metric system.

It doesn't seem like their m3h system is working out all that great, since not one single person can explain how they calculated the figure of 94 CFMs.

For fans, screw that metric shit, CFM's is the easiest way, and most manufacturers and people seem to agree.

This isn't a debate about which system is better, we're talking about fans and filters only, and I have to say that CFM makes a lot more sense than that screwed up m3h crap which Can-Filter is using.

And I'd also like to say that I'm equally comfortable with both systems, since I've lived in various countries that have used both. There's no doubt in my mind that m3h blows, when it comes to fans and filters.

 

[pHaroaH]

This isn't a debate about which system is better, we're talking about fans and filters only, and I have to say that CFM makes a lot more sense than that screwed up m3h crap which Can-Filter is using.

Actually there has been a lot of debate about the metric system in this thread. Just because you are comfortable with CFM or even that it is used widely in the US, does not mean it should be the defacto standard. I do agree with you though that they should list CFM for marketing purposes in the US.

 

[greenhead]

Just because you are comfortable with CFM or even that it is used widely in the US, does not mean it should be the defacto standard.

Actually, I believe that is. It's widely used worldwide, something I've already pointed out a few times. Even when I go to European sites and look for computer fans, almost all that stuff is in CFM. Japan (which is a metric country) makes a shitload of fans, what do they seem to use? CFM