Archon wrote:
E Z Peaces wrote:
Archon wrote:


I think not, the principle was developed I believe from watching
industrial silo dust removal. The filter does not work that hard, if
as another poster stated, you use it for garage/plaster/woodwork
sanding clean up with very fine dust, the dust does not get to the
filter, it stays in the washable bin (another Dyson innovation).

A given cyclone design will catch particles down to a certain size
because it's a particle's mass that causes it to stick to the side
instead of exiting with the air. That's why you need the paper
filter. Probably the cyclones in some vacuums won't catch particles
as small as other cyclone vacuums.

I have a cheap vacuum cleaner that uses a filter I can knock clean
when I empty the bin, followed by a paper filter. I've never had to
replace the paper one.

And Yes, American household appliances, from vacuums to kettles to
power tools are dramatically underpowered.

Some UK kettles have 3kW elements, while some US kettles have 1.75kW
elements. So it takes 45 seconds to boil a cup of water in the US
and 26 seconds in the UK.

Standard US outlets are for 15 amps. Most homes use 20-amp wiring.
If enough Americans were impatient, there would be 20-amp kettles,
which could heat the water in 33 seconds.

It appears that the most common size of Dyson vacuum in the UK is 1400
W. Some US vacuums use roughly that much. If US vacuums really
aren't as good, the problem must be something else.
HSN were advertising some lousy vacuum based on its 1400W or wattever
(pun) power, the power it consumes probably totally unrelated to the
work done.

When you say American appliances are dramatically underpowered, is that
totally unrelated to the work done?