Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Dyson is in the news frequently and so a dedicated thread.

.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Mr. DIB

Absolutely, I'm all ears and eyes.  If that's what it takes for you to come clean and tell us what you know about the compromised dyson filtration on the DC24/25 and when, then so be it.  I'm never too old and/or too smart to learn. 

 Still afraid Mr. DIB?  Do the right thing!  Tell the truth.  The truth will set you free.

Carmine D.

PS:  A sidebar on your comments about the ORECK-dyson lawsuit:  If Mr. D took the route Mr. O took with the lawsuit, you would call him a maverick.  You would praise Mr. D for his unwillingness to take the easy road and instead take the road less travelled.  ORECK does it and what do you say?  You impugn Dave, his company, and his products.  All of which are irrelevant to the lawsuit against dyson which is about the truth.  Where you stand, depends on where you sit. 

I can't and won't speak for ORECK just myself.  I object to the NAD settlement/resolution.  It doesn't go far enough.  The dyson claim: Never loses suction is a half-truth [read misleading].  Dyson buyers are deceived unless and until the claim includes the printed warning: IF YOU PERFORM THE FILTER CLEANINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.     That's one BIG IF.

When people take an oath in a court of law in the US to tell the truth, they put one hand on the Bible and with the other arm lifted in the air and raised to GOD they say:  I swear to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me GOD.  They don't say anything about half the truth.  It is a criminal offense to take this oath and lie.  It's called perjury and obstruction of justice. 

YOU GO DAVE ORECK!

DysonInventsBig wrote: CarmineD wrote:

Carmine D.

Carmine, I find many of the things James does interesting, I'm not an employee.  After much study and thought did I learn what I know of the Dyson filtration, I do not profess to be expert.  I stated my why’s of not disclosing my "learnings" earlier. 

.

I’d love to chat some more, but I am heading out for vacation.  Talk later.        DIB

 P.S.  I am already free, He paid my bill a long time ago.

DIB:

Enjoy your vacation.  We'll take up where we left off with dyson filtration when you return. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Please go and take Carmine and mole.  

HS:

I'd certainly support ORECK and favor its chances of winning.  Why?  The NAD ruling was clearly against dyson. 

Of concern in the legal proceedings is whether ORECK is allowed to use the DC24/25 as evidence.  Why?  The case filing predates these dyson models.  If dyson wins and continues to use the "NO LOSS OF SUCTION" mantra with the DC24/25, then ORECK would have to file a motion to reopen the case and introduce the DC24/25 as evidence in support of its position.  Then ORECK will IMHO win.  And dyson will have to drop the claim/qualify it with a warning about the filter cleanings. 

Either way, the writing is on the wall for dyson.  DIB will avoid any mention of the compromised dyson filtration for fear of giving ORECK ammunition to use against dyson.  Just as MOLE said.

Carmine D.

Oreck HAS no evidence.  Why?   The plain and simple truth of the matter is on the DC24/25, the diameter of the HEPA exhaust filter (which mostly serves the purpose of catching carbon-brush dust from the motor and not much else) has been reduced in order for the filter to be contained in the Ball assembly and eliminate the ducting to the separate filter compartment as on the DC15.  First of all, DYSON errs on the side of caution and believes that the DC24 or 25 will be used to clean a large house with infrequent emptying (i.e. allowing the bin to go beyond full capacity on each use).  Some of you may be thinking that the DC24 or 25 are lightweight uprights and theoretically for smaller homes, right?  WRONG!  Unlike Oreck, DYSON does not make that generalization and believes that any of its machines, regardless of how large or small they are, will be used for any purpose in any size home.  THAT is the reason for the more frequent filter cleaning intervals.  Not only because of the diameter, but because of the potential for heat to build up in the motor compartment in the Ball if the machine is used in a large home with infrequent emptying and the pre-motor filter (which is mounted in the usual spot above the bin) is left neglected over long periods of time.  If the bin is frequently allowed to get beyond full capacity, no doubt a minute amount of fine dust will make its way to the pre-motor filter a few times; more than would occur if the machine was used properly as it was intended and emptied frequently, of course.  Sure, the cyclone separators are good, but as with anything else, can only do so much.  DYSON is obviously aware of this potential.  As anyone can see that has absolutely NOTHING to do with clogging or losing suction, it is just a heavy use scenario.  Obviously if you are going to use a DC24 to clean a 3000 sq. ft.  house and only expect to empty it once (allowing the dirt to pass the MAX line each time it is used), yes, you WILL have to clean the filters more often, that goes without saying!  The filters have to be cleaned because the machine can clean. 

While we're on the subject of filter cleaning intervals for the DC24/25, you may notice the intervals at which the filters should be removed and washed...3-6 months.  Again, that is DYSON being cautious (realizing the potential for heavy use) and warning the owner as such.  In reality, the filters can be left alone for 6 months to a year (if not longer) with regular, proper use (read: frequent emptying during normal cleaning, and vacuum large amounts of extra-fine substances slowly) and the machine will fare just fine under normal circumstances, holding true to the fact that it never clogs, or loses suction.  The same wonderful fact (no half-truth about it, sorry Carmine and Oreck) which is, always has been, and always will be proudly displayed on both the box and the machine. 

The reason this is the first time we have heard of this is because the DC15, due to the separate compartment (and the ducting running from the Ball to said compartment), uses a large-diameter permanent exhaust filter like the others. 

What does this mean?  Two words: General Maintenance.  Filter washing is done at the same frequency as changing the belt on an Awfulwreck, but not necessarily required (usually under normal use the filter is not that dirty when going by Dyson's 3-to-6-month intervals, and the machine is still delivering the same performance it did when new), and MUCH easier

-MH

Motorhead wrote:

Hello Motor:

Spoken like a true dyson fan with irreverence for the facts.  So, you're pinch hitting for DIB while he's on vacation?  Did DIB sanction you!  

As usual, you are wrong.  The NAD decision ruled that dyson and retailers are not allowed to say the dyson filters don't clog.  Because they do clog and 36 dissatisfied dyson customers along with HOOVER and ORECK took exception to the dyson claim, they protested the claim saying its hype and untrue, and they prevailed.  Dyson lost.  Hence, the revised dyson mantra:  Never loses suction.  All the dyson references to the old claim have been scrubbed and new product lit and cartons reflect dyson/retailers' compliance.  Some, like you, thought dyson can just move on.  Not ORECK.  Hence the court case.

Did you get sanctioned by DIB to post this info about the dyson degradation of filtering?  DIB is the Forum poster who claimed authoritative knowledge of the compromised dyson filtration.  Not you!  DIB has remained conspicuously silent on the matter [probably fearing the ORECK-dyson lawsuit implications].  You're not.  You poured forth like an untapped well of knowledge just waiting to gush!    Pride and ego, the worse of sins.

Do you know when DIB is due back.  Curious to hear his perspective on your post.  If he's still speaking to you.

Carmine D.

Motor:

How well do you remember your fairy tales?  Remember the one where the dog stops to rest and misses catching the rabbit?  If only the dog didn't stop to rest, it would have caught the rabbit.  IF!  Your post reminds me of the fairy tale. Only your post is chuck full of IF-s.

Carmine D. 

CarmineD wrote:

Dyson has been EXPOSED for what they really are,the overpiced hyped doesnt clean your carpets any better than a 39.95 dirt devil, they just cost more to fix,

IT'S soon to be just another big box machine sitting on the shelf,that has to be dusted off every week[,but are pleasing to look at wild colors] The bins can also be used as a bird feeder,Carmine and I told you so ,its just too bad that the public did not catch on sooner,I must say that the DYSON marketing department is one of the best propaganda machines in the industry,Now we and the public know that the gig is up,Is the return center filled up to the max yet?

Whats next another overpriced hand vac with a sr motor that costs 599.00[HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,........

MOLE

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine, speaking of fairy tales, this is yet another example of you repeating your own lies over and over again, and eventually believing it.  Sort of like the statement about the U-bend on the DC07.  When I was at Wal-Mart last week to pick up another new machine (more on that later), I noticed the DC07 Original on the shelf right next to it.  I pulled the display model down, looked it over, and sure enough, the U-bend was exactly the same as all of the other DC07s I had seen in the past 6 years.  No changes whatsoever. 

Just like your claim about Dyson being forced to remove the "filters that don't clog" statement.  In the new DC25 brochure, "no clogging or loss of suction" is mentioned several times throughout.  You had mentioned the removal of this statement before the introduction of the DC24/25, and it's still there on a brand new model.  What happened?

-MH