Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Did anyone notice that the DC11 is back on some of the Dyson websites... Here's one that I thought was gone forever...

retardturtle1 wrote:

Air flow and air watts can be skewed.  There are many variations in the resistance to air flow that should be considered when measuring air flow. Air flow may not be a measure of system performance. In addition to the resistance within the power unit, there is resistance caused by air turbulence in the hose and tubing, restriction where the cleaning nozzle contacts the floor, as well as increased resistance within the filtering system as the unit fills with dirt. High output (air watts) is not the only factor to consider in determining performance.

I would think that sustained air watts is a better indicator of performance than is peak air watts.

Carmine, Mole, Venson, Dusty and many others are much more qualified to answer this than I.  Carmine is just being timid or cantankerous.  I suspect the latter. 

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

I have always maintained that air watts plus proper brush agitation are critical for rug cleaning performance.  Always.  The dyson supporters here, going back to the beginning of dyson's DC07 launch time when I first criticized the sub-par petite non-industry standard brush bar in the DC07, claimed the higher air watts more than compensated for the whimpy brush.  An opinion that I disgreed with.  Put the 2 shortcomings together: Lower air watts and a poor brush roll design and you have a formula for poor performance for cleaning and grooming rugs.

Carmine D. 

CarmineD wrote:

Agreed, a 30% loss is substantial.  However, others and I believe you have contended in the past that Dysons high air watts were useless as factor in determining performance.  I believe that this may have been said because Dyson higher air watts than some favorite brands.  Perhaps the 30% loss will affect performance if the vacuum is designed properly in other ways (which I doubt that it is). 

These rose colors are better than the drab ones you see. 

CarmineD wrote:

Poor suction and a fantastic brush will only cause the dirt to be pushed out of the vacuum path.  Looks like a double edged sword.

Now quit posting until I am finished.  Go to the casino or ride the roller coaster.  Have a good week end too.

HARDSELL wrote:

Not news HS.  The persons you name, including me, have said for years here that both brush roll design/function and air watts are critical to rug cleaning and grooming.  You and your dyson cohorts kow towed and impugned our conclusions.  You are just believing and claiming an epiphany.  See what happens when you take off the rose color dyson glasses.  You agree with us and claim it for yourself.

Carmine D. 

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

It's not a double edged sword.  It's a dual combination [good suction and industry standard brush roll] for a winning vacuum success.  Even dyson now agrees after a number of years and tries.

Don't ride roller coasters.  Already been to the casino today and did very well.  Thank you for asking.  Tomorrow is another day.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I can't recall saying that a good brush was vital.  I would still take straight suction and NO brush as opposed to a great brush and NO suction.  The latter is like the old bissell sweepers or an Oreck.

All carpets do not require the same type brush.

HARDSELL wrote:

thank you H.S  for the info...i thought airwatts was measured at the hose end ,in the brushroll chamber...for a truer reading  and not at the motor....thought thats how the cent vac industry did it....at the end of the hose...for a true reading?

retardturtle1 wrote:

I think that I read that central vacs are measured without a hose.  Length of hose will impact air watts.  No wonder my air watts are low.

retardturtle1 wrote:
This is once again a case of, "If you dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS."

Even machines with the best suction lose something in the translation by the time you get airflowing at the hose end or floor nozzle. Body seals may not always be tight enough, hose connections may also allow for leakage and even friction may diminish suction. (One of the reasons that household vacuums never usually have overly long hoses.) Badly designed wands and attachment locking mechanisms may also attribute to the same.

Not many manufacturer are up to the challenge of honsetly stating what suction measure as at the motor's air inlet and the final percentage of a hundred percent that finally arrives on the floor or at the end of your hose.

If we had vacuums that could deliver a close percentage of hte motors actual draw, we could again use machines that use less power

Venson