Imagine that, the mysterious unwritten unverifiable "industry standard" defense with a little bit of "trying to skew the definition of a word" thrown in, who would of "thunk it".
 
Let's try in laymen terms for consumers.  The claim you are touting is for:  a brand new never used before machine, suction from the attachment hose in a labratory setting and certainly not if you are trying to actually clean a carpet, only covering the life of the machine for "up to" 10 oz of dirt (or a partially full soda can of dirt).  Furthermore even at this level of claim, CR still rates it at "not recommended" because of an unnacceptable amount of this "up to" 10 oz of dirt was only taken into the machine to be sent out into the rooms air.
 
You can actually help me with why a company would want to talk to its consumers using this as an example or your unwritten industry standard.

Quote from JimB   on 02/22/06 at 1:58pm:

 
Jim B,
 
I believe the 10oz originated with Dyson's original claim.  
Hoover used the same 10oz to standardize to the Dyson test.  Surely you are familiar with that test and the accompanying chart.  All other vacuums were supposed to completely lose suction after inhaling only 10oz of dirt.  Hoover used the same 10oz to disprove Dyson's statement.    
 
I'm glad to hear that you are quoting from Consumer Reports.  I'm kind of surprised that you would be allowed to acknowledge Consumer Reports.
 
Now Dyson is resorting to the dust mite campaign (see Dyson web page) used in the past by sleazy door-to-door brands.  First of all, I don't see the point in demonizing dust mites.  They provide a very important function in devouring dead skin cells.  Where is the proof that using a Dyson will have any effect at all on dust mite population in the home?  This ad is more misleading than anything David Oreck has ever done.  With a bagless vacuum like the Dyson, just how many dust mites are released every time the bin is emptied?  
 
By the way, the term "industry standard" is appropriate for describing ASTM tests.  That is the whole point of having a standard.  These standards are not static either.  Methodologies are improved as technology advances.  
 
CR was right to warn consumers about potential problems with the Hoover Fusion; however, it is not clear whether the problem is widespread.  It very well may be, or it could just be a problem with a batch of products.  I would recommend that Walmart consumers purchase bagged vacuums to avoid the leakage problems associated with bagless vacuums.  Bagless vacuums are just plain filthy to empty.  If I had to own a bagless vacuum, it would be the Rainbow, because at least the dirt would be dissolved in water and relatively easy to empty.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Quote from RAT   on 02/22/06 at 2:38pm:

 
The Dyson claim is that others loose suction after as little as 10 oz.  The Hoover claim is that the Hoover Fusion will maintain constant suction for "up to" 10 oz.  Clever marketing and careful wording but notice how carefully Hoover worded it to not to in actuality dispute the Dyson claim.  Perhaps we can call it the "Carmine" standard.

Quote from Carmine_Difazio   on 02/22/06 at 2:53pm:

 
I believe the first common written use of this "new" definition for "infer" was by Thomas More more than a few centuries ago.  Now that seems like a solid standard.  

Quote from JimB   on 02/22/06 at 3:11pm:

 
 
Did he have any More new definitions for English words?
 
BTW, his name is Thomas Moore.  
 
Carmine D.