Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

The Achilles heel in every vacuum since the dawn of electricity has been the dirt removal/filtration dichotomy. Increase one, decrase the other, with a few notable exceptions-water filtration machines (with a separator and an electric power head) the Airway and Electrolux multi-layer bags, and now the 3M filtrete bags. No, they are not perfect, but they are a vast improvement over any other cloth/paper filtration system. More dust trapped with higher airflow over a longer period of time, that is the goal.

Dyson and Rainbow (Hyla-et al) are beating a dead horse. They keep comparing their filtration systems to the most popular, (not always the best) competition AT THE TIME OF THEIR INVENTION.

Over sixty years ago Electrolux and Airway figured out that multiple-layer bags gave better cleaning and filtration over longer periods of time, and  3M filtrete is the next logical step in the advancement of that technology. Older cloth bag vacuums leaked, but in light of the quality of air with coal burning factories, tanneries, meat packing and rendering plants, the vacuum was a quantuum jump in cleanliness. But today, bagless hepa is an oxymoron, like 'military intelligence'. If you need the standard of hepa filtration to avoid going to the ER with an asthma attack, what are you doing with wall2wall carpet in your home anyway? The person who is thus afflicted should not be vacuuming, EXCEPT with a central vac, or a Miele canister, or something like a Rainbow. Alas, Airway is no longer with us.

Once the filtration is determined to be satisfactory, issues of nozzle design, user friendliness, type and quantity of soil to be removed all come into play. Filtration is one of the primary considerations, but, if a vacuum cannot pick up the dirt, it cannot filter it. A 100.00 bagged Big Box vac with proper and frequent enough use and maintenance will do a respectable job of removing a buildup of dirt and keeping it at bay. Every vacuum needs maintenance. A 100.00 Dirt Devil and a 2000.00 Kirby both need bag and belt changes and the roller brushes cleaned to perform at optimum efficiency. This is how and why the purchaser of an expensive vacuum (name your brand) can be sold another of the same, or a different, brand just a few years later: infrequent use, improper use, and neglect of the three B's (bag,belt,brush). Allergy symptoms will be drastically reduced with any vacuum provided the buildup of dirt in the home is removed and kept from accumulating. Less dirt = reduced symptoms. I have seen the customer's vacuum emerge victorious, not often, but often enough to prove the point that frequent use, proper use, and appropriate maintenance are more important that the brand of vacuum one owns, cheap big box bagless units notwithstanding.

CarmineD wrote:

I made a comment with no inuendos.  You didn't.

HS:

It ws an ID10 T comment, which now has no innuendo.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt by saying your comments are deliberately stupid.  Else the alternative is true.

Carmine D.

Technically, Hardsell is correct about Dyson's filtration system.  If you follow the directions, you should be able to maintain constant suction with a Dyson.  As CR says, the suction may not be as good as some bagged vacuums.  It is a clever system that is way better than most other bagless dirt collection systems.  It certainly is a shame that the brush roll and nozzle aren't quite as well developed.  And Carmine is also right that even with the advantages of constant suction, the Dyson does not clean as well as some bagged vacuums.

I can remember vividly my sister's Hoover Foldaway vacuum - a first generation hoover pleated filter bagless design.   It was a terrible design - she would have been much better off with a bagged model.  She wondered why it didn't pick up.  She had no idea that it had a nasty filter that had to be banged against the garbage can after almost every use.  She just thought bagless meant no bags to buy with no price to pay in filter maintenance.  I cleaned the filter and despised that vacuum.  Dyson provided the ideal as far as bagless was concerned - very little maintenance and constant suction.  I think people enjoy seeing the fruits of their labor - at least at first.  As time passes, it becomes less appealing to see the nasty filth in the dirt canister.     

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine;
You showed your real intentions and that you are not paying attention to what I want.

Severus wrote:
Severus Snape,

Technically, is the dust, dirt, human hair and pet hair collected from the average home via the Dyson vacuum’s *unstoppable separation technologies more “filthy” or less “filthy” than the dust, dirt, human hair and pet hair collected by way of enchanted forests, castles, dungeon's and from the floors of other-lands-of-make-believe?


DIB

*If maintained properly.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dustmite,

You tell me. You seem to be confused about who I am. When you put your personal information on your profile, feel free to criticize my arbitrary choice of an anonymous username. Naturally I try to shoot for a name that is unique and easy to remember. Severus is also the name of a Roman ruler. Sorry but I don't act out fantasies or dress up like characters, I live a full and productive happy life as myself.

I would disagree with you about Dyson having unstoppable technologies. The cyclones can be made to fail if the cyclones are overloaded. Dirt and sand have been shown to load the premotor filters. I won't even get into the clutch failures. People are accustomed to paying a couple bucks for a new belt. Consumers don't like having to pay $100 to replace a clutch. The early flat brush rolls were another source of failure due to the accumulation of pet hair. The tiny brush rolls had greater odds of accumulating pet hair than those vacuums using industry standard size brush rolls. The complicated air flow in the Dyson does limit air flow. A short direct path is much more efficient for air flow. That is why many bagged vacuums have considerably greater suction than the Dyson. Dyson uprights are poorly designed for going under furniture. Carmine has described the problem his DC07 failing miserably on carpet in his home - and the screetchy clutch noise that scared his pets. For people without a staircase, the long Dyson hose is more of a liability than a feature. The strangest thing to me about Dysons is that with each successive model and increase in price, there is a decrease in airwatts.

It is certainly less filthy to remove a bag from a vacuum and drop it into the garbage, than to empty a plastic bin. As I stated previously, the Dyson dirt collection system is fairly good as far as bagless goes. If you want to look at the nasty dirt, dust mites and their feces, and human hair, by all means get bagless. If you take good care of it, a Dyson can be a good household vacuum. I have owned both bagged and bagless, and I will likely never buy another bagless vacuum. As Trebor has said, bags have come a long way.

Mike_W wrote:

Gee Mike, I never had a course in college on mind reading, so I can't read poster's printed words and know their real intentions like you.   Can you suggest a course that would endow me with psychic reading abilites like you?  The closest I've seen to date here, save you of course, is dyson DIB.  Surely he failed since his is psychotic reading.

Carmine D.