This photo shows the black very thin plastic type filter that sits facing
the fan on a household Hitachi CV-SF8 vacuum cleaner.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=11rxdm0&s=4

Immediately behind this sits a plastic frame with a nylon fine mesh filter
and sitting in this frame is a black high density sponge filter. (doing a
search on this sponge filter, it's called a Mesh-Urethane filter).

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6gv5tl&s=4

This Mesh-Urethane filter is on the *right* side of this photo, the black
one on the left is the reverse of the very thin plastic type filter referred
to above.

This Mesh-Urethane filter really restricts the air flow. Its a bit better
when I wash it out under the tap with soap and water but soon seems to clog
up again. I find it works quite well if I relace it entirely with a piece of
soft tissue toilet paper, and keep changing the paper and all the debris
that builds up behind it.

Now the question here is what exactly is this very thin plastic type filter
(if indeed it is actually a filter) doing? It's the one on the left in the
second photo. It seems to have microscopic slits in its surface, but when I
wash it, it wont pass water through it, which surely it would if its some
kind of filter? It's a thin flexible piece of plastic sheet, and seems
really strong. Almost like a sheet of carbon fibre.

On Oct 24, 11:51 am, "john d hamilton" wrote:
This photo shows the black very thin plastic type filter that sits facing
the fan on a household Hitachi CV-SF8 vacuum cleaner.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=11rxdm0&s=4

Immediately behind this sits a plastic frame with a nylon fine mesh filter
and sitting in this frame is a black high density sponge filter. (doing a
search on this sponge filter, it's called a Mesh-Urethane filter).

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6gv5tl&s=4

This Mesh-Urethane filter is on the *right* side of this photo, the black
one on the left is the reverse of the very thin plastic type filter referred
to above.

This Mesh-Urethane filter really restricts the air flow. Its a bit better
when I wash it out under the tap with soap and water but soon seems to clog
up again. I find it works quite well if I relace it entirely with a piece of
soft tissue toilet paper, and keep changing the paper and all the debris
that builds up behind it.

Now the question here is what exactly is this very thin plastic type filter
(if indeed it is actually a filter) doing? It's the one on the left in the
second photo. It seems to have microscopic slits in its surface, but when I
wash it, it wont pass water through it, which surely it would if its some
kind of filter? It's a thin flexible piece of plastic sheet, and seems
really strong. Almost like a sheet of carbon fibre.

New vacuum designs come along like new car models. They keep changing
things in the hope of generating marketing appeal. A vacuum still has
the basic purpose of picking up dirt. The bagless vacs use a great
deal of extra air processing designs to catch more dirt. They
include heppa filters, dog hair filters, and bacteriacide filters.
That black filter looks like carbon to treat pathogens. The white one
is like a pre-filter to catch higher micron debris. Neither one is
designed to process much air volume. Don't be fooled by the fact that
a filter won't pass water. This is not a wet vac. There are times when
you can modify a machine to suit your needs better, but first assume
that Hitachi paid a staff to design this thing without using Charmin
as the filter media.
The bottom line is that if it picks up your dirt better with that
restriction removed, go ahead and use it that way.

"Al Bundy" wrote in message
...
On Oct 24, 11:51 am, "john d hamilton" wrote:
This photo shows the black very thin plastic type filter that sits
facing
the fan on a household Hitachi CV-SF8 vacuum cleaner.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=11rxdm0&s=4

Immediately behind this sits a plastic frame with a nylon fine mesh
filter
and sitting in this frame is a black high density sponge filter. (doing
a
search on this sponge filter, it's called a Mesh-Urethane filter).

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6gv5tl&s=4

This Mesh-Urethane filter is on the *right* side of this photo, the
black
one on the left is the reverse of the very thin plastic type filter
referred
to above.

This Mesh-Urethane filter really restricts the air flow. Its a bit
better
when I wash it out under the tap with soap and water but soon seems to
clog
up again. I find it works quite well if I relace it entirely with a
piece of
soft tissue toilet paper, and keep changing the paper and all the debris
that builds up behind it.

Now the question here is what exactly is this very thin plastic type
filter
(if indeed it is actually a filter) doing? It's the one on the left in
the
second photo. It seems to have microscopic slits in its surface, but
when I
wash it, it wont pass water through it, which surely it would if its
some
kind of filter? It's a thin flexible piece of plastic sheet, and seems
really strong. Almost like a sheet of carbon fibre.

New vacuum designs come along like new car models. They keep changing
things in the hope of generating marketing appeal. A vacuum still has
the basic purpose of picking up dirt. The bagless vacs use a great
deal of extra air processing designs to catch more dirt. They
include heppa filters, dog hair filters, and bacteriacide filters.
That black filter looks like carbon to treat pathogens. The white one
is like a pre-filter to catch higher micron debris. Neither one is
designed to process much air volume. Don't be fooled by the fact that
a filter won't pass water. This is not a wet vac. There are times when
you can modify a machine to suit your needs better, but first assume
that Hitachi paid a staff to design this thing without using Charmin
as the filter media.
The bottom line is that if it picks up your dirt better with that
restriction removed, go ahead and use it that way.


Hear Hear !!!

As the man from Hoover told me, "All Vacuum Cleaners Suck".

Remember the old Hoover Advert Jiggle.

"All that muck. All that grit. All those little bits of sh..........fluff.
Hoover beats as it sweeps, as it cleans."

I'll get me coat. :-) But I do agree with Al.

In article ,
"BigWallop" writes:

As the man from Hoover told me, "All Vacuum Cleaners Suck".

Remember the old Hoover Advert Jiggle.

"All that muck. All that grit. All those little bits of sh..........fluff.
Hoover beats as it sweeps, as it cleans."

I'll get me coat. :-) But I do agree with Al.

"Nothing sucks like an Electrolux"

(which was later plaguerised in the computing industry as
"Nothing sucks like a Vax", the name of a range of minicomputers).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"BigWallop" writes:

As the man from Hoover told me, "All Vacuum Cleaners Suck".

Remember the old Hoover Advert Jiggle.

"All that muck. All that grit. All those little bits of
sh..........fluff.
Hoover beats as it sweeps, as it cleans."

I'll get me coat. :-) But I do agree with Al.

"Nothing sucks like an Electrolux"

(which was later plaguerised in the computing industry as
"Nothing sucks like a Vax", the name of a range of minicomputers).



Now my old dad used to complain, with a twinkle in his eye, that his vacuum
cleaner "Had no sucking force".
--
Keith W
Sunbury on Thames
(If you can't laugh at life, it ain't worth living)

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
"BigWallop" writes:


As the man from Hoover told me, "All Vacuum Cleaners Suck".

Remember the old Hoover Advert Jiggle.

"All that muck. All that grit. All those little bits of sh..........fluff.
Hoover beats as it sweeps, as it cleans."

I'll get me coat. :-) But I do agree with Al.



"Nothing sucks like an Electrolux"


My ?40 y/o Electrolux is still going strong, just like my 40 y/o Singer
sewing machine.
The Singer spent about 10 years in a damp basement ) Just a clean-up
at the old
local Singer shop (NOT A BIG BOX STORE) and she hums right along.

(which was later plaguerised in the computing industry as
"Nothing sucks like a Vax", the name of a range of minicomputers).

On Oct 25, 5:01 am, Norminn wrote:


"Nothing sucks like an Electrolux"

My ?40 y/o Electrolux is still going strong, just like my 40 y/o Singer
sewing machine.

There's a punchline in there somewhere. How about the wife?

john d hamilton wrote:
This photo shows the black very thin plastic type filter that sits facing
the fan on a household Hitachi CV-SF8 vacuum cleaner.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=11rxdm0&s=4

Immediately behind this sits a plastic frame with a nylon fine mesh filter
and sitting in this frame is a black high density sponge filter. (doing a
search on this sponge filter, it's called a Mesh-Urethane filter).

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6gv5tl&s=4

This Mesh-Urethane filter is on the *right* side of this photo, the black
one on the left is the reverse of the very thin plastic type filter referred
to above.

This Mesh-Urethane filter really restricts the air flow. Its a bit better
when I wash it out under the tap with soap and water but soon seems to clog
up again. I find it works quite well if I relace it entirely with a piece of
soft tissue toilet paper, and keep changing the paper and all the debris
that builds up behind it.

Now the question here is what exactly is this very thin plastic type filter
(if indeed it is actually a filter) doing? It's the one on the left in the
second photo. It seems to have microscopic slits in its surface, but when I
wash it, it wont pass water through it, which surely it would if its some
kind of filter? It's a thin flexible piece of plastic sheet, and seems
really strong. Almost like a sheet of carbon fibre.




The first stage is supposed to get rid of almost all the dust by
centrifugal force. If the air then clogs a filter frequently, I wonder
if something is wrong with the first stage.

In article ,
E Z Peaces writes:
john d hamilton wrote:
This photo shows the black very thin plastic type filter that sits facing
the fan on a household Hitachi CV-SF8 vacuum cleaner.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=11rxdm0&s=4

Immediately behind this sits a plastic frame with a nylon fine mesh filter
and sitting in this frame is a black high density sponge filter. (doing a
search on this sponge filter, it's called a Mesh-Urethane filter).

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6gv5tl&s=4

This Mesh-Urethane filter is on the *right* side of this photo, the black
one on the left is the reverse of the very thin plastic type filter referred
to above.

This Mesh-Urethane filter really restricts the air flow. Its a bit better
when I wash it out under the tap with soap and water but soon seems to clog
up again. I find it works quite well if I relace it entirely with a piece of
soft tissue toilet paper, and keep changing the paper and all the debris
that builds up behind it.

Now the question here is what exactly is this very thin plastic type filter
(if indeed it is actually a filter) doing? It's the one on the left in the
second photo. It seems to have microscopic slits in its surface, but when I
wash it, it wont pass water through it, which surely it would if its some
kind of filter? It's a thin flexible piece of plastic sheet, and seems
really strong. Almost like a sheet of carbon fibre.

The first stage is supposed to get rid of almost all the dust by
centrifugal force. If the air then clogs a filter frequently, I wonder
if something is wrong with the first stage.

If you want a cyclone cleaner that works, you're really going
to struggle with anything other that a Dyson. Dyson have a stack
of patents relating to designing cyclones small enough to be part
of a vacuum cleaner which actually work, that's it's pretty
impossible for other manufacturers to come close. His original
dual cyclone patent expired which is why you now see other
manufacturers doing those, but they're stuck with following all
his advances 25 years behind.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
E Z Peaces writes:
john d hamilton wrote:
This photo shows the black very thin plastic type filter that sits facing
the fan on a household Hitachi CV-SF8 vacuum cleaner.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=11rxdm0&s=4

Immediately behind this sits a plastic frame with a nylon fine mesh filter
and sitting in this frame is a black high density sponge filter. (doing a
search on this sponge filter, it's called a Mesh-Urethane filter).

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6gv5tl&s=4

This Mesh-Urethane filter is on the *right* side of this photo, the black
one on the left is the reverse of the very thin plastic type filter
referred
to above.

This Mesh-Urethane filter really restricts the air flow. Its a bit better
when I wash it out under the tap with soap and water but soon seems to
clog
up again. I find it works quite well if I relace it entirely with a piece
of
soft tissue toilet paper, and keep changing the paper and all the debris
that builds up behind it.

Now the question here is what exactly is this very thin plastic type
filter
(if indeed it is actually a filter) doing? It's the one on the left in
the
second photo. It seems to have microscopic slits in its surface, but when
I
wash it, it wont pass water through it, which surely it would if its some
kind of filter? It's a thin flexible piece of plastic sheet, and seems
really strong. Almost like a sheet of carbon fibre.

The first stage is supposed to get rid of almost all the dust by
centrifugal force. If the air then clogs a filter frequently, I wonder
if something is wrong with the first stage.

If you want a cyclone cleaner that works, you're really going
to struggle with anything other that a Dyson. Dyson have a stack
of patents relating to designing cyclones small enough to be part
of a vacuum cleaner which actually work, that's it's pretty
impossible for other manufacturers to come close. His original
dual cyclone patent expired which is why you now see other
manufacturers doing those, but they're stuck with following all
his advances 25 years behind.

horse ****. utter horse****. Dyson's vacuums are devoid of any genuine
innovation whatsoever. His patents are as meritous as AOL's attempt to
patent the smiley face emoticon. He adapted the cyclone filter to a
carpet sucker. whoopie. wow!!! His innovation has a great more to do
with the advances made in material science making available to him the
possibility of doing something different. . A Dyson-style vacuum made
in 1950 would have been beyond the means of 75% of consumers.

His brushless air jet models are polycarbonate frauds.

People should AVOID Dyson vacuums unless they like ****ing their money
away. They work no better than any other cyclone vacuum available at
Walmart or Target. No difference. No Advances. Simple 19th century
soot collection.

They are, however, have the unique benefit of being possessed of superb
design, and are, as such works of functional art worthy of buying simply
for that reason. But a frugal person would avoid Dysons as if it were a
plague carrier. We won't mention the abominable ergonomics of some of
his designs, as they are self-evident and glaring. Dyson = Hype.

Save money-- buy a Hoover or a Bissel or a Snorch.

..max

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

max wrote:
In article ,
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
E Z Peaces writes:
john d hamilton wrote:
This photo shows the black very thin plastic type filter that sits facing
the fan on a household Hitachi CV-SF8 vacuum cleaner.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=11rxdm0&s=4

Immediately behind this sits a plastic frame with a nylon fine mesh filter
and sitting in this frame is a black high density sponge filter. (doing a
search on this sponge filter, it's called a Mesh-Urethane filter).

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6gv5tl&s=4

This Mesh-Urethane filter is on the *right* side of this photo, the black
one on the left is the reverse of the very thin plastic type filter
referred
to above.

This Mesh-Urethane filter really restricts the air flow. Its a bit better
when I wash it out under the tap with soap and water but soon seems to
clog
up again. I find it works quite well if I relace it entirely with a piece
of
soft tissue toilet paper, and keep changing the paper and all the debris
that builds up behind it.

Now the question here is what exactly is this very thin plastic type
filter
(if indeed it is actually a filter) doing? It's the one on the left in
the
second photo. It seems to have microscopic slits in its surface, but when
I
wash it, it wont pass water through it, which surely it would if its some
kind of filter? It's a thin flexible piece of plastic sheet, and seems
really strong. Almost like a sheet of carbon fibre.
The first stage is supposed to get rid of almost all the dust by
centrifugal force. If the air then clogs a filter frequently, I wonder
if something is wrong with the first stage.
If you want a cyclone cleaner that works, you're really going
to struggle with anything other that a Dyson. Dyson have a stack
of patents relating to designing cyclones small enough to be part
of a vacuum cleaner which actually work, that's it's pretty
impossible for other manufacturers to come close. His original
dual cyclone patent expired which is why you now see other
manufacturers doing those, but they're stuck with following all
his advances 25 years behind.

horse ****. utter horse****. Dyson's vacuums are devoid of any genuine
innovation whatsoever. His patents are as meritous as AOL's attempt to
patent the smiley face emoticon. He adapted the cyclone filter to a
carpet sucker. whoopie. wow!!! His innovation has a great more to do
with the advances made in material science making available to him the
possibility of doing something different. . A Dyson-style vacuum made
in 1950 would have been beyond the means of 75% of consumers.

His brushless air jet models are polycarbonate frauds.

People should AVOID Dyson vacuums unless they like ****ing their money
away. They work no better than any other cyclone vacuum available at
Walmart or Target. No difference. No Advances. Simple 19th century
soot collection.

They are, however, have the unique benefit of being possessed of superb
design, and are, as such works of functional art worthy of buying simply
for that reason. But a frugal person would avoid Dysons as if it were a
plague carrier. We won't mention the abominable ergonomics of some of
his designs, as they are self-evident and glaring. Dyson = Hype.

Save money-- buy a Hoover or a Bissel or a Snorch.

.max

Horse**** yerself,

If it wasn't for Dyson we would still be getting ripped off for hundreds
of dollars of bags and filters a year and putting up with poorly
designed crap that blows most of the dust back into the air along with
the mould and crap that grows inside the non replaceable filter paths
inside. Look how much effort the American vacuum manufacturers put into
killing the cyclone vacuum market in America only to have their market
share destroyed once people found out how good they are and how long
they last.

If you think a Dyson is so bad , Hoover your carpets with the best vac
you can find, then go over it again with a Dyson, you will be surprised
how much extra crap they will pick up. I expect you think that piece of
crap Oreck sells is a good deal.

Norminn wrote:
clipped



If you think a Dyson is so bad , Hoover your carpets with the best vac
you can find, then go over it again with a Dyson, you will be
surprised how much extra crap they will pick up. I expect you think
that piece of crap Oreck sells is a good deal.

We had a vacuum salesman call a couple of years ago, and hubby set up
appt. for demo. Don't recall the brand, but it was very expensive.
Salesman did the filter paper trick to show how dirty the carpet was.
When he finished his talk, I asked him for a clean piece of filter
paper. I put the clean filter paper over the nozzle of my OLD
Electrolux; got the same result as his fancy new machine.
My argument still applies, Dyson broke the bag/filter ripoff no matter
what you say.

Bags were awful, they ripped, blocked, smelled bad and the phony ripoff
copies were everywhere.

I bought a Dyson DC01 back in early 90's in the UK, brought it over to
the States in 2001, run it off my 240v supply, never broke down, cleans
as good as new, only thing I've ever replaced was the brush bar.

I went through 2 Hoovers, a Panasonic, (that lasted about 3 months
before the bearings on the brush bar burned out with wrapped hair in the
3 years previous to buying the Dyson.

clipped



If you think a Dyson is so bad , Hoover your carpets with the best vac
you can find, then go over it again with a Dyson, you will be
surprised how much extra crap they will pick up. I expect you think
that piece of crap Oreck sells is a good deal.

We had a vacuum salesman call a couple of years ago, and hubby set up
appt. for demo. Don't recall the brand, but it was very expensive.
Salesman did the filter paper trick to show how dirty the carpet was.
When he finished his talk, I asked him for a clean piece of filter
paper. I put the clean filter paper over the nozzle of my OLD
Electrolux; got the same result as his fancy new machine.

"Archon" wrote in message
news
Norminn wrote:
clipped

snipped

So, it's true then. All vacuum cleaners suck?

hee hee :-)

In article ,
Archon writes:
My argument still applies, Dyson broke the bag/filter ripoff no matter
what you say.

It came to light (in the patent trial I think) that Hoover did
consider buying the patent in the early days, but that was to
prevent cyclone technology coming to the vacuum cleaner industry
because they were concerned at loss of revenue from consumables
(bags, filters).

Bags were awful, they ripped, blocked, smelled bad and the phony ripoff
copies were everywhere.

The most obvious problem with them is that they can only work
if they block. If they don't block, that's because they aren't
trapping the dust (and that happens too). A cyclone removes
the dust from the air-path.

I bought a Dyson DC01 back in early 90's in the UK, brought it over to
the States in 2001, run it off my 240v supply, never broke down, cleans
as good as new, only thing I've ever replaced was the brush bar.

I bought one 8 years ago. I think it got used once to do the house,
and having found how powerful it was, it's been used for my DIY
activities ever since. I've never found another cleaner that
can come close to absorbing the full plaster dust output of a
wall plaster chaser. Bagged cleaners work for about 10 seconds.
The Dyson has done the equivalent of about 2 whole house rewires
with the plaster chaser without flinching. That's in addition to
vacuuming up bucket loads of plaster dust from replastering and
demolishing walls. I know it's fragile (not a construction site
tool), so it treat it carefully, and it's still going strong.

Since this thread is cross-posted between UK and US newsgroups,
it should be mentioned that some US Dysons have to be slightly
lower power because of the rather limited power available from
a standard US socket outlet compared with much of the rest of
the world. That's probably the same with other manufacturers'
vacuum cleaner products too. It might mean the relative
performance differences between manufactures is different too.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Archon writes:
My argument still applies, Dyson broke the bag/filter ripoff no matter
what you say.

It came to light (in the patent trial I think) that Hoover did
consider buying the patent in the early days, but that was to
prevent cyclone technology coming to the vacuum cleaner industry
because they were concerned at loss of revenue from consumables
(bags, filters).

Bags were awful, they ripped, blocked, smelled bad and the phony ripoff
copies were everywhere.

The most obvious problem with them is that they can only work
if they block. If they don't block, that's because they aren't
trapping the dust (and that happens too). A cyclone removes
the dust from the air-path.


The cyclone action only moves air in a circular motion inside a chamber.
The dust and other small particles are actually caught by the replaceable
filter traps in the path of the air flow. The cyclone does not drop its
dirt payload on its way round the vacuum cleaner. The dirt falls off the
filter when it reaches a weight heavy enough to allow it to fall off, or you
take the filter out and clean it before it reaches that stage.

How the cyclone action works is very simple. You make a vacuum cleaner as
normal, with a lower pressure atmosphere action at the head unit (the bit on
the carpet that picks the dirt up). You draw the air / dirt mixture into a
chamber that contains a tapered tube. The top of the taper is four times
the diameter of the bottom. When air is blown across the top of the tapered
tube (commonly called the wide end), it causes the air in the tube to spin.

When the air begins to spin, it creates areas of high and low pressure in
the chamber surrounding the tube. The dirty air being sucked in is at high
pressure near the top of the cyclone chamber. Once the spin motion starts,
the air lower down in the cyclone chamber goes to a lower pressure, where
the dirt is to heavy to be lifted back out by the air motion (commonly known
as the narrow end of the tube). So the dirt stays in the chamber. Well,
most of the heavier bits do. The tiny particles are caught by replaceable
filters that you have to buy seperately, just like the old style bags.

The filters need to be replaced just as often, if not more frequently, as
would have replaced a bag in any other vacuum cleaner. But the big bits of
crap getting caught in that chamber, really looks impressive, don'it. Where
it's all actually a load of ballox.

It's not rocket science.

snipped

In article ,
"BigWallop" writes:

The cyclone action only moves air in a circular motion inside a chamber.
The dust and other small particles are actually caught by the replaceable
filter traps in the path of the air flow. The cyclone does not drop its
dirt payload on its way round the vacuum cleaner. The dirt falls off the
filter when it reaches a weight heavy enough to allow it to fall off, or you
take the filter out and clean it before it reaches that stage.

snip

You are describing a (non-cylone) canister vacuum cleaner (such as
a Henry or a Vax in the UK), or something that might have been
marketed to make you think it was a cyclone, but doesn't actually
use cyclonic separation (of which there are a number of non-Dyson
products made to look a bit like Dysons).

It's not rocket science.

No it's not, but you might want to go and read up on cyclonic
separation, so you understand the difference between that and what
you posted.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

BigWallop wrote:


The cyclone action only moves air in a circular motion inside a chamber.
The dust and other small particles are actually caught by the replaceable
filter traps in the path of the air flow. The cyclone does not drop its
dirt payload on its way round the vacuum cleaner. The dirt falls off the
filter when it reaches a weight heavy enough to allow it to fall off, or you
take the filter out and clean it before it reaches that stage.

How the cyclone action works is very simple. You make a vacuum cleaner as
normal, with a lower pressure atmosphere action at the head unit (the bit on
the carpet that picks the dirt up). You draw the air / dirt mixture into a
chamber that contains a tapered tube. The top of the taper is four times
the diameter of the bottom. When air is blown across the top of the tapered
tube (commonly called the wide end), it causes the air in the tube to spin.

When the air begins to spin, it creates areas of high and low pressure in
the chamber surrounding the tube. The dirty air being sucked in is at high
pressure near the top of the cyclone chamber. Once the spin motion starts,
the air lower down in the cyclone chamber goes to a lower pressure, where
the dirt is to heavy to be lifted back out by the air motion (commonly known
as the narrow end of the tube). So the dirt stays in the chamber. Well,
most of the heavier bits do. The tiny particles are caught by replaceable
filters that you have to buy seperately, just like the old style bags.

The filters need to be replaced just as often, if not more frequently, as
would have replaced a bag in any other vacuum cleaner. But the big bits of
crap getting caught in that chamber, really looks impressive, don'it. Where
it's all actually a load of ballox.

It's not rocket science.

snipped

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).

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

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"BigWallop" writes:

snipped
It's not rocket science.

No it's not, but you might want to go and read up on cyclonic
separation, so you understand the difference between that and what
you posted.

Andrew Gabriel


Here's a link to the Wiki Pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclonic_separation that describes how a
cyclone works. I think it is as close to what I explained as nought in it.
And, honestly, I wrote all my rant from memory.

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.

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.

"BigWallop" wrote in message
om...

"Archon" wrote in message
news
Norminn wrote:
clipped

snipped

So, it's true then. All vacuum cleaners suck?

hee hee :-)


Yep - but some are better sucking suckers than others.

Let's hear it for Sebo....

Our 1995 Sebo is still going strong. All the tools "on board", mega-easy to
change bags (and they're cheap enough on ebay), mega-long mains cable,
quickly dismantleable (though not necessary), and no dust containers to wash
out.

The only maintenance it needs? Every couple years or so, we unclip the
roller-brush and remove the long threads.

Yep - Sebo every time....


--
Martin

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?

E Z Peaces wrote:
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?
IMHO 120Vac sucks, (This was a thread about vacuums...sorry)

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:52:03 +0000, Archon wrote
(in article ):

E Z Peaces wrote:

ausgesnipt
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.

A friend o'mine bought a super-dooper HD Whirlpool washing machine to handle
the load from her incontinent, disabled kid. A long time researching and
taking sales advice.
The machine was HUGE, seemed built like a tank. It was heavy and gawdawful
expensive and could take a king-size heavy-tog quilt with room to add,
probably, a sofa and the family dog. It had great, industrial type styling
and we had a celebration party 'cos we were all so impressed. (yes, really.
loads of people watching a washing machine with glasses of bubbly... sad but
true.) Everyone thought it was a 20yr investment.

The trouble was that NOTHING came out clean. The KS quilt, clothes,
underwear, ordinary shirts... everything. Had an engineer out to check it. It
was up to spec. No faults anywhere - except in the design for performance.
She tried every recommended combination of detergent, heat, agitation, voodoo
incantations, payload size... No matter what, everything was dirty and
covered with felt-ish fluff. The manual even referred to this as a known
"feature" of this type of machine and called it something like "nubbing" or
"bobbling" or whatever, saying it may be an initial problem with some fabrics
and could be cut down by using their speciall no-nubbiing, anti-bobbling
zero-beading chaff-stopping detergent. Very expensive special detergent, that
is. The very expensive special detergent was duly bought, and used. No
improvement in the bobble-chaffing nub beading at all, and the clothes were
still stained, dirty.. and covered in all this raised pile stuff.

The machine was great at accelerating wear in its payload but lousy at
cleaning.

She got her money back as the machine was argued not to be of merchantable
quality - i.e. it didn't (couldn't) perform its intended task of being a
washing machine.
This, apparently was America's Finest - at least as far as those of us in the
export slipstream are aware.

This begs all sorts of questions..

er.. Do you guys in the USA who have carpet cleaners that don't clean, and
washing machines that don't either... er, ahem... well. what I mean is....
I hope that showers work O.K. at least.. :-)

Maybe the domestic machines are different.

Personally, I love USA engineering. I prefer over-robust materials - cast
iron, milled alluminum (!) bolted together with proper fasteners - to the
oriental approach, which is to work to incredibly fine tolerances but to
specify very thin cheese as the construction material. I love the apparent
non-obsolescence of the USA paradigm which implies that in a post apocalyptic
world we can all get by, fixing stuff with a hammer and baling wire, making
spares as needed with the help of the local blacksnith. It's just got a
better feeling that knowing you'll need a dedicated computer with constanly
updated firmware to make the most basic adjustments to your hedgetrimmer,
toaster, motorcycle, router and yes indeed, _washing machine_... It's the
sort of thing that drives us to working with wood, isn't it?

The rub comes when the tank-like build quality is not matched by _functional_
quality, either through crap design (Whirlpool washing machines, so it
seems), lousy tolerances in manufacturing (AMC Harley Davidson) or
anally-retentive tolerance specifications (M16 carbines ??)

When USA conservative engineering is combined with marketing honesty, you
guys turn out gear that rocks. It doesn't happen all the time, however, and
that needs a little consumer honesty to point out. Just 'cos something is
marked "Made in the USA" doesn't mean it's going to trump the competition,
regardless. Often it does, but there's no sense in getting all fierce and
patriotic to try and flog a dead horse - at any price.When it works, it
works. SnapOn tools, etc.. The process is not automatic, though. Badging a
thing "American" does not confer quality. Neither does "Made in Japan." It
can often be an indicator that something has a high probability of being
superior, but it's only a probability marker. The quality comes from
something else, but hey, it feels good to support the home team, and there's
nothing wrong with that - just let's not get confused about the issues.

Hear Hear !!!

As the man from Hoover told me, "All Vacuum Cleaners Suck".

He was wrong. Vacuum cleaners don't suck. They can only
reduce the atmospheric pressure.

Bored Borg wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:52:03 +0000, Archon wrote
(in article ):

E Z Peaces wrote:

ausgesnipt
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.

A friend o'mine bought a super-dooper HD Whirlpool washing machine to handle
the load from her incontinent, disabled kid. A long time researching and
taking sales advice.
The machine was HUGE, seemed built like a tank. It was heavy and gawdawful
expensive and could take a king-size heavy-tog quilt with room to add,
probably, a sofa and the family dog. It had great, industrial type styling
and we had a celebration party 'cos we were all so impressed. (yes, really.
loads of people watching a washing machine with glasses of bubbly... sad but
true.) Everyone thought it was a 20yr investment.

The trouble was that NOTHING came out clean. The KS quilt, clothes,
underwear, ordinary shirts... everything. Had an engineer out to check it. It
was up to spec. No faults anywhere - except in the design for performance.
She tried every recommended combination of detergent, heat, agitation, voodoo
incantations, payload size... No matter what, everything was dirty and
covered with felt-ish fluff. The manual even referred to this as a known
"feature" of this type of machine and called it something like "nubbing" or
"bobbling" or whatever, saying it may be an initial problem with some fabrics
and could be cut down by using their speciall no-nubbiing, anti-bobbling
zero-beading chaff-stopping detergent. Very expensive special detergent, that
is. The very expensive special detergent was duly bought, and used. No
improvement in the bobble-chaffing nub beading at all, and the clothes were
still stained, dirty.. and covered in all this raised pile stuff.

The machine was great at accelerating wear in its payload but lousy at
cleaning.

She got her money back as the machine was argued not to be of merchantable
quality - i.e. it didn't (couldn't) perform its intended task of being a
washing machine.
This, apparently was America's Finest - at least as far as those of us in the
export slipstream are aware.

This begs all sorts of questions..

er.. Do you guys in the USA who have carpet cleaners that don't clean, and
washing machines that don't either... er, ahem... well. what I mean is....
I hope that showers work O.K. at least.. :-)

Maybe the domestic machines are different.

Personally, I love USA engineering. I prefer over-robust materials - cast
iron, milled alluminum (!) bolted together with proper fasteners - to the
oriental approach, which is to work to incredibly fine tolerances but to
specify very thin cheese as the construction material. I love the apparent
non-obsolescence of the USA paradigm which implies that in a post apocalyptic
world we can all get by, fixing stuff with a hammer and baling wire, making
spares as needed with the help of the local blacksnith. It's just got a
better feeling that knowing you'll need a dedicated computer with constanly
updated firmware to make the most basic adjustments to your hedgetrimmer,
toaster, motorcycle, router and yes indeed, _washing machine_... It's the
sort of thing that drives us to working with wood, isn't it?

The rub comes when the tank-like build quality is not matched by _functional_
quality, either through crap design (Whirlpool washing machines, so it
seems), lousy tolerances in manufacturing (AMC Harley Davidson) or
anally-retentive tolerance specifications (M16 carbines ??)

When USA conservative engineering is combined with marketing honesty, you
guys turn out gear that rocks. It doesn't happen all the time, however, and
that needs a little consumer honesty to point out. Just 'cos something is
marked "Made in the USA" doesn't mean it's going to trump the competition,
regardless. Often it does, but there's no sense in getting all fierce and
patriotic to try and flog a dead horse - at any price.When it works, it
works. SnapOn tools, etc.. The process is not automatic, though. Badging a
thing "American" does not confer quality. Neither does "Made in Japan." It
can often be an indicator that something has a high probability of being
superior, but it's only a probability marker. The quality comes from
something else, but hey, it feels good to support the home team, and there's
nothing wrong with that - just let's not get confused about the issues.


Back to the 120Vac problem here, American washing machines run off
120Vac so there's not enough juice to put a heater in, they run off
domestic hot water which of course is not always hot because the
dishwasher empties out the hot tank each time. We have the fabulously
expensive Maytag Neptune, 12 months of use and it stank like a septic
tank, as did the clothes. This is due to the fact it fills with luke
warm water to wash, no boil cycle here or even over 60C to kill the goop
living in the drum. Of course top loaders are king here because they
don't have that problem. The Neptune is a front loader, I really can't
stand 1950's top loader technology (do they have mangles still?).
Solution was to not close the door when not in use, bit inconvenient but
simple enough. Showers rock over here, or at least they did until the
enviroidiots put a flow regulator in them, they are usually mains
pressure hot tank fed, no chance of a piddling UK electric shower, the
8Kw heater would black out our local town.

"Archon" wrote in message
.. .
max wrote:
In article ,
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
E Z Peaces writes:
john d hamilton wrote:
This photo shows the black very thin plastic type filter that sits
facing the fan on a household Hitachi CV-SF8 vacuum cleaner.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=11rxdm0&s=4

Immediately behind this sits a plastic frame with a nylon fine mesh
filter and sitting in this frame is a black high density sponge
filter. (doing a search on this sponge filter, it's called a
Mesh-Urethane filter).

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6gv5tl&s=4

This Mesh-Urethane filter is on the *right* side of this photo, the
black one on the left is the reverse of the very thin plastic type
filter referred to above.

This Mesh-Urethane filter really restricts the air flow. Its a bit
better when I wash it out under the tap with soap and water but soon
seems to clog up again. I find it works quite well if I relace it
entirely with a piece of soft tissue toilet paper, and keep changing
the paper and all the debris that builds up behind it.

Now the question here is what exactly is this very thin plastic type
filter (if indeed it is actually a filter) doing? It's the one on the
left in the second photo. It seems to have microscopic slits in its
surface, but when I wash it, it wont pass water through it, which
surely it would if its some kind of filter? It's a thin flexible
piece of plastic sheet, and seems really strong. Almost like a sheet
of carbon fibre.
The first stage is supposed to get rid of almost all the dust by
centrifugal force. If the air then clogs a filter frequently, I wonder
if something is wrong with the first stage.
If you want a cyclone cleaner that works, you're really going
to struggle with anything other that a Dyson. Dyson have a stack
of patents relating to designing cyclones small enough to be part
of a vacuum cleaner which actually work, that's it's pretty
impossible for other manufacturers to come close. His original
dual cyclone patent expired which is why you now see other
manufacturers doing those, but they're stuck with following all
his advances 25 years behind.

horse ****. utter horse****. Dyson's vacuums are devoid of any genuine
innovation whatsoever. His patents are as meritous as AOL's attempt to
patent the smiley face emoticon. He adapted the cyclone filter to a
carpet sucker. whoopie. wow!!! His innovation has a great more to do
with the advances made in material science making available to him the
possibility of doing something different. . A Dyson-style vacuum made in
1950 would have been beyond the means of 75% of consumers. His brushless
air jet models are polycarbonate frauds. People should AVOID Dyson
vacuums unless they like ****ing their money away. They work no better
than any other cyclone vacuum available at Walmart or Target. No
difference. No Advances. Simple 19th century soot collection.

They are, however, have the unique benefit of being possessed of superb
design, and are, as such works of functional art worthy of buying simply
for that reason. But a frugal person would avoid Dysons as if it were a
plague carrier. We won't mention the abominable ergonomics of some of
his designs, as they are self-evident and glaring. Dyson = Hype.

Save money-- buy a Hoover or a Bissel or a Snorch.

.max

Horse**** yerself,

If it wasn't for Dyson we would still be getting ripped off for hundreds
of dollars of bags and filters a year.....


Hundreds of dollars on bags per year? Do you vacuum 24 hours a day?

"Bored Borg" wrote in message
.com...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:52:03 +0000, Archon wrote
(in article ):

E Z Peaces wrote:

ausgesnipt
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.

A friend o'mine bought a super-dooper HD Whirlpool washing machine to
handle
the load from her incontinent, disabled kid. A long time researching and
taking sales advice.
The machine was HUGE, seemed built like a tank. It was heavy and gawdawful
expensive and could take a king-size heavy-tog quilt with room to add,
probably, a sofa and the family dog. It had great, industrial type styling
and we had a celebration party 'cos we were all so impressed. (yes,
really.
loads of people watching a washing machine with glasses of bubbly... sad
but
true.) Everyone thought it was a 20yr investment.

The trouble was that NOTHING came out clean. The KS quilt, clothes,
underwear, ordinary shirts... everything. Had an engineer out to check it.
It
was up to spec. No faults anywhere - except in the design for performance.
She tried every recommended combination of detergent, heat, agitation,
voodoo
incantations, payload size... No matter what, everything was dirty and
covered with felt-ish fluff. The manual even referred to this as a known
"feature" of this type of machine and called it something like "nubbing"
or
"bobbling" or whatever, saying it may be an initial problem with some
fabrics
and could be cut down by using their speciall no-nubbiing, anti-bobbling
zero-beading chaff-stopping detergent. Very expensive special detergent,
that
is. The very expensive special detergent was duly bought, and used. No
improvement in the bobble-chaffing nub beading at all, and the clothes
were
still stained, dirty.. and covered in all this raised pile stuff.

The machine was great at accelerating wear in its payload but lousy at
cleaning.

She got her money back as the machine was argued not to be of merchantable
quality - i.e. it didn't (couldn't) perform its intended task of being a
washing machine.
This, apparently was America's Finest - at least as far as those of us in
the
export slipstream are aware.

This begs all sorts of questions..

er.. Do you guys in the USA who have carpet cleaners that don't clean, and
washing machines that don't either... er, ahem... well. what I mean
is....
I hope that showers work O.K. at least.. :-)

Maybe the domestic machines are different.

Personally, I love USA engineering. I prefer over-robust materials - cast
iron, milled alluminum (!) bolted together with proper fasteners - to the
oriental approach, which is to work to incredibly fine tolerances but to
specify very thin cheese as the construction material. I love the apparent
non-obsolescence of the USA paradigm which implies that in a post
apocalyptic
world we can all get by, fixing stuff with a hammer and baling wire,
making
spares as needed with the help of the local blacksnith. It's just got a
better feeling that knowing you'll need a dedicated computer with
constanly
updated firmware to make the most basic adjustments to your hedgetrimmer,
toaster, motorcycle, router and yes indeed, _washing machine_... It's the
sort of thing that drives us to working with wood, isn't it?

The rub comes when the tank-like build quality is not matched by
_functional_
quality, either through crap design (Whirlpool washing machines, so it
seems), lousy tolerances in manufacturing (AMC Harley Davidson) or
anally-retentive tolerance specifications (M16 carbines ??)

When USA conservative engineering is combined with marketing honesty, you
guys turn out gear that rocks. It doesn't happen all the time, however,
and
that needs a little consumer honesty to point out. Just 'cos something is
marked "Made in the USA" doesn't mean it's going to trump the competition,
regardless. Often it does, but there's no sense in getting all fierce and
patriotic to try and flog a dead horse - at any price.When it works, it
works. SnapOn tools, etc.. The process is not automatic, though. Badging a
thing "American" does not confer quality. Neither does "Made in Japan." It
can often be an indicator that something has a high probability of being
superior, but it's only a probability marker. The quality comes from
something else, but hey, it feels good to support the home team, and
there's
nothing wrong with that - just let's not get confused about the issues.



If the super duper HD Whirlpool machine was a front loader, it was probably
manufactured in Germany, not the U.S. Kind of kills your whole argument.

"Archon" wrote in message
m...
Bored Borg wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:52:03 +0000, Archon wrote
(in article ):

E Z Peaces wrote:

ausgesnipt
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.

A friend o'mine bought a super-dooper HD Whirlpool washing machine to
handle the load from her incontinent, disabled kid. A long time
researching and taking sales advice.
The machine was HUGE, seemed built like a tank. It was heavy and
gawdawful expensive and could take a king-size heavy-tog quilt with room
to add, probably, a sofa and the family dog. It had great, industrial
type styling and we had a celebration party 'cos we were all so
impressed. (yes, really. loads of people watching a washing machine with
glasses of bubbly... sad but true.) Everyone thought it was a 20yr
investment.

The trouble was that NOTHING came out clean. The KS quilt, clothes,
underwear, ordinary shirts... everything. Had an engineer out to check
it. It was up to spec. No faults anywhere - except in the design for
performance. She tried every recommended combination of detergent, heat,
agitation, voodoo incantations, payload size... No matter what,
everything was dirty and covered with felt-ish fluff. The manual even
referred to this as a known "feature" of this type of machine and called
it something like "nubbing" or "bobbling" or whatever, saying it may be
an initial problem with some fabrics and could be cut down by using their
speciall no-nubbiing, anti-bobbling zero-beading chaff-stopping
detergent. Very expensive special detergent, that is. The very expensive
special detergent was duly bought, and used. No improvement in the
bobble-chaffing nub beading at all, and the clothes were still stained,
dirty.. and covered in all this raised pile stuff.

The machine was great at accelerating wear in its payload but lousy at
cleaning. She got her money back as the machine was argued not to be of
merchantable quality - i.e. it didn't (couldn't) perform its intended
task of being a washing machine.
This, apparently was America's Finest - at least as far as those of us in
the export slipstream are aware.

This begs all sorts of questions..

er.. Do you guys in the USA who have carpet cleaners that don't clean,
and washing machines that don't either... er, ahem... well. what I mean
is.... I hope that showers work O.K. at least.. :-)

Maybe the domestic machines are different.

Personally, I love USA engineering. I prefer over-robust materials - cast
iron, milled alluminum (!) bolted together with proper fasteners - to the
oriental approach, which is to work to incredibly fine tolerances but to
specify very thin cheese as the construction material. I love the
apparent non-obsolescence of the USA paradigm which implies that in a
post apocalyptic world we can all get by, fixing stuff with a hammer and
baling wire, making spares as needed with the help of the local
blacksnith. It's just got a better feeling that knowing you'll need a
dedicated computer with constanly updated firmware to make the most basic
adjustments to your hedgetrimmer, toaster, motorcycle, router and yes
indeed, _washing machine_... It's the sort of thing that drives us to
working with wood, isn't it?

The rub comes when the tank-like build quality is not matched by
_functional_ quality, either through crap design (Whirlpool washing
machines, so it seems), lousy tolerances in manufacturing (AMC Harley
Davidson) or anally-retentive tolerance specifications (M16 carbines ??)

When USA conservative engineering is combined with marketing honesty, you
guys turn out gear that rocks. It doesn't happen all the time, however,
and that needs a little consumer honesty to point out. Just 'cos
something is marked "Made in the USA" doesn't mean it's going to trump
the competition, regardless. Often it does, but there's no sense in
getting all fierce and patriotic to try and flog a dead horse - at any
price.When it works, it works. SnapOn tools, etc.. The process is not
automatic, though. Badging a thing "American" does not confer quality.
Neither does "Made in Japan." It can often be an indicator that something
has a high probability of being superior, but it's only a probability
marker. The quality comes from something else, but hey, it feels good to
support the home team, and there's nothing wrong with that - just let's
not get confused about the issues.


Back to the 120Vac problem here, American washing machines run off 120Vac
so there's not enough juice to put a heater in, they run off domestic hot
water which of course is not always hot because the dishwasher empties out
the hot tank each time. We have the fabulously expensive Maytag Neptune,
12 months of use and it stank like a septic tank, as did the clothes. This
is due to the fact it fills with luke warm water to wash, no boil cycle
here or even over 60C to kill the goop living in the drum. Of course top
loaders are king here because they don't have that problem. The Neptune is
a front loader, I really can't stand 1950's top loader technology (do they
have mangles still?). Solution was to not close the door when not in use,
bit inconvenient but simple enough. Showers rock over here, or at least
they did until the enviroidiots put a flow regulator in them, they are
usually mains pressure hot tank fed, no chance of a piddling UK electric
shower, the 8Kw heater would black out our local town.

There are many front loaders in the U.S, with built in water heaters now. I
own one made by Whirlpool for Sears. The Maytag Neptune problem had nothing
to do with water temperature. They included a light that lit up when you
left the door open so everyone closed the door. Try that on most machines
and it will start smelling from mildew. The fix was a free upgrade to a
ventilated door and mildew resistant tub. My parent's upgraded Neptune is
10 years old and smells great inside.

Archon wrote:



Back to the 120Vac problem here, American washing machines run off
120Vac so there's not enough juice to put a heater in,

As has been pointed out, 120VAC has enough juice to heat water in a
machine to wash laundry or dishes.

If a child (or adult) contacts a live conductor, 240VAC will be a worse
problem than 120. American households can supply appliances with 240V
using conductors that are only 120VAC from ground.

In article ,
Archon wrote:

Save money-- buy a Hoover or a Bissel or a Snorch.

.max

Horse**** yerself,

If it wasn't for Dyson we would still be getting ripped off for hundreds
of dollars of bags and filters a year and putting up with poorly
designed crap that blows most of the dust back into the air along with
the mould and crap that grows inside the non replaceable filter paths
inside. Look how much effort the American vacuum manufacturers put into
killing the cyclone vacuum market in America only to have their market
share destroyed once people found out how good they are and how long
they last.

that's nice, and it's not particularly relevant.

A machine of similar design and identical, or better, performance, can
be had for a great deal less money.

..max

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

I kinda wondered about that statement myself. I use 2 bags a year.
hmmmmm.... That's a dollar i guess.

s


"Art" wrote in message
news


Hundreds of dollars on bags per year? Do you vacuum 24 hours a day?

wrote in message
...


Hear Hear !!!

As the man from Hoover told me, "All Vacuum Cleaners Suck".

He was wrong. Vacuum cleaners don't suck. They can only
reduce the atmospheric pressure.


Nah. They suck. :-)

On Oct 27, 9:55*pm, Archon wrote:


Back to the 120Vac problem here, American washing machines run off
120Vac so there's not enough juice to put a heater in, they run off
domestic hot water which of course is not always hot because the
dishwasher empties out the hot tank each time.

BS.

The average Energy Star dishwasher uses 4 gallons of water, where the
average non-Energy Star dishwasher uses 6 gallons.

On 10/25/08 03:26 am Andrew Gabriel wrote:

"Nothing sucks like an Electrolux"

(which was later plaguerised in the computing industry as
"Nothing sucks like a Vax", the name of a range of minicomputers).

And if Microsoft ever built a vacuum cleaner, it would be their first
product that didn't suck.

Perce

On 10/27/08 06:05 am max wrote:

If you want a cyclone cleaner that works, you're really going
to struggle with anything other that a Dyson. Dyson have a stack
of patents relating to designing cyclones small enough to be part
of a vacuum cleaner which actually work, that's it's pretty
impossible for other manufacturers to come close. His original
dual cyclone patent expired which is why you now see other
manufacturers doing those, but they're stuck with following all
his advances 25 years behind.

horse ****. utter horse****. Dyson's vacuums are devoid of any genuine
innovation whatsoever. His patents are as meritous as AOL's attempt to
patent the smiley face emoticon. He adapted the cyclone filter to a
carpet sucker. whoopie. wow!!! His innovation has a great more to do
with the advances made in material science making available to him the
possibility of doing something different. . A Dyson-style vacuum made
in 1950 would have been beyond the means of 75% of consumers.

His brushless air jet models are polycarbonate frauds.

Hoover and the rest denigrated Dyson's ideas at first but then copied
them. I happened to be in the UK when the court found Hoover guilty of
infringing Dyson's patents.

We love our Dyson.

Perce

On Oct 28, 2:04*pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 10/27/08 06:05 am max wrote:





If you want a cyclone cleaner that works, you're really going
to struggle with anything other that a Dyson. Dyson have a stack
of patents relating to designing cyclones small enough to be part
of a vacuum cleaner which actually work, that's it's pretty
impossible for other manufacturers to come close. His original
dual cyclone patent expired which is why you now see other
manufacturers doing those, but they're stuck with following all
his advances 25 years behind.

horse ****. *utter horse****. *Dyson's vacuums are devoid of any genuine
innovation whatsoever. * His patents are as meritous as AOL's attempt to
patent the smiley face emoticon. * * He adapted the cyclone filter to a
carpet sucker. whoopie. *wow!!! *His innovation has a great more to do
with the advances made in material science making available to him the
possibility of doing something different. . *A Dyson-style vacuum made
in 1950 would have been beyond the means of 75% of consumers.

His brushless air jet models are polycarbonate frauds.

Hoover and the rest denigrated Dyson's ideas at first but then copied
them. I happened to be in the UK when the court found Hoover guilty of
infringing Dyson's patents.

We love our Dyson.

A Dyson doesn't lose suction because it doesn't have any to start with.