Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case of "if
you advertize it, they will buy" ?

Forget the dyson, get the purple kenmore, go out to a *really* nice dinner
for the price difference.
http://www.sears.com/shc/s/ProductDi...0090505x00001a

no affiliation, just happy with the vac. It really sucks (just had to throw
that in there)

jc

"Sum Guy" wrote in message ...
Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case of "if
you advertize it, they will buy" ?

Sum Guy wrote:
Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case of
"if you advertize it, they will buy" ?

There is a little missleading information in their commercials in saying
that they do not loose suction. Their claim is based on the use of cyclone
centrifugal dust separation. Not the first to use them. They are used in
industrial applications and have been used in many vacuums. However,
cyclones work best with large dirt, fine dust and even lighter bacterial and
viruses rarely get separated because they don't weigh enough to be affected
by the centrifugal force. Dysons sometimes mention they use a Hepa final
filter to clean the air. Hepa is not a standard and can mean many things,
but, to add any filter at the end of the exhaust can result in the filter
becoming plugged and reducing the amount of air that leaves the vacuum,
thereby loosing suction, which is what they advertise that it does not do.

I prefer central vacuums, with the exhaust blowing to the outside so that
fine particulate and other unwanted items are discharged to the outdoors,
not back into my house.

"EXT" wrote in message
anews.com...
Sum Guy wrote:
Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case of
"if you advertize it, they will buy" ?

There is a little missleading information in their commercials in saying
that they do not loose suction. Their claim is based on the use of cyclone
centrifugal dust separation. Not the first to use them. They are used in
industrial applications and have been used in many vacuums. However,
cyclones work best with large dirt, fine dust and even lighter bacterial
and viruses rarely get separated because they don't weigh enough to be
affected by the centrifugal force. Dysons sometimes mention they use a
Hepa final filter to clean the air. Hepa is not a standard and can mean
many things, but, to add any filter at the end of the exhaust can result
in the filter becoming plugged and reducing the amount of air that leaves
the vacuum, thereby loosing suction, which is what they advertise that it
does not do.

I prefer central vacuums, with the exhaust blowing to the outside so that
fine particulate and other unwanted items are discharged to the outdoors,
not back into my house.

Consumer Reports October 2009: Dyson Animal DC28 rated 10th out of 40
Uprights (but not Check Rated). Cost $600. There were better performing
Check Rated models for as little as $120.
--
Peace,
BobJ

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:58:29 -0400, "EXT"
wrote:

Dysons sometimes mention they use a Hepa final
filter to clean the air. Hepa is not a standard and can mean many things,

When you wrote Hepa, if you meant HEPA, there is a HEPA standard:
they are able to trap at least 99.97 percent of particles of .3
microns.

"LDC" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:58:29 -0400, "EXT"
wrote:

Dysons sometimes mention they use a Hepa final
filter to clean the air. Hepa is not a standard and can mean many things,

When you wrote Hepa, if you meant HEPA, there is a HEPA standard:
they are able to trap at least 99.97 percent of particles of .3
microns.

Is the mis-capitalization really that much of a stretch?

on 10/17/2009 7:54 PM (ET) Joe wrote the following:
"LDC" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:58:29 -0400, "EXT"
wrote:


Dysons sometimes mention they use a Hepa final
filter to clean the air. Hepa is not a standard and can mean many things,

When you wrote Hepa, if you meant HEPA, there is a HEPA standard:
they are able to trap at least 99.97 percent of particles of .3
microns.


Is the mis-capitalization really that much of a stretch?

As long as it isn't Hep-A that you are talking about. :-)

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

"willshak" wrote in message
...
on 10/17/2009 7:54 PM (ET) Joe wrote the following:
"LDC" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:58:29 -0400, "EXT"
wrote:


Dysons sometimes mention they use a Hepa final
filter to clean the air. Hepa is not a standard and can mean many
things,

When you wrote Hepa, if you meant HEPA, there is a HEPA standard:
they are able to trap at least 99.97 percent of particles of .3
microns.


Is the mis-capitalization really that much of a stretch?

As long as it isn't Hep-A that you are talking about. :-)


Clever. Nice one! ;-)


Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

"LDC" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:58:29 -0400, "EXT"
wrote:

Dysons sometimes mention they use a Hepa final
filter to clean the air. Hepa is not a standard and can mean many things,

When you wrote Hepa, if you meant HEPA, there is a HEPA standard:
they are able to trap at least 99.97 percent of particles of .3
microns.

OMIGAWD! I totally understood that he meant HEPA when he typed Hepa. What
is wrong with me, and what should I be doing about it?

Steve

on 10/17/2009 11:58 AM (ET) EXT wrote the following:
Sum Guy wrote:
Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case of
"if you advertize it, they will buy" ?

There is a little missleading information in their commercials in
saying that they do not loose suction. Their claim is based on the use
of cyclone centrifugal dust separation. Not the first to use them.
They are used in industrial applications and have been used in many
vacuums. However, cyclones work best with large dirt, fine dust and
even lighter bacterial and viruses rarely get separated because they
don't weigh enough to be affected by the centrifugal force. Dysons
sometimes mention they use a Hepa final filter to clean the air. Hepa
is not a standard and can mean many things, but, to add any filter at
the end of the exhaust can result in the filter becoming plugged and
reducing the amount of air that leaves the vacuum, thereby loosing
suction, which is what they advertise that it does not do.

I prefer central vacuums, with the exhaust blowing to the outside so
that fine particulate and other unwanted items are discharged to the
outdoors, not back into my house.

I have a central vacuum, but sometimes you just need to pick up some
local debris and don't want to drag 30' of hose out and snake it to
wherever you need it.. My other vac is a Bissell combo upright/canister
vac that I bought in WalMart when I wasn't shopping for a vac. I spotted
that candy apple red machine on the shelf and had to have it. I think it
was about $150 USD
http://www.acohardware.biz/713.html

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:34:47 -0400, Sum Guy wrote Re
What's the deal with the heavily-advertized Dyson vacuum cleaners?:

Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

No.

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time?

Yes, since Dyson pays for it. Anybody that pays for time is worthy of
that time.

Or is this a case of "if
you advertize it, they will buy" ?

Bingo!
--
I filter all messages from google groups.

Sum Guy wrote:
Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case of "if
you advertize it, they will buy" ?

One of my relatives has a Dyson and is happy with it (or was a few years
ago the last time the subject came up). Said it was good for dog hair.

I have a lot of dog hair, but didn't want to part with that much money.
I bought a Bissell vacuum a few years ago on sale at Target. It's
theoretically designed for homes with pets, although I suspect that
might be an advertising gimmick. However it does a great job and pulls
out dirt and hair I never knew were there. They have a new one out now
that is "multi-cyclonic". I'd like that but only because it sounds more
high tech... no idea if it works any better. If I won the lottery, I
might try a Dyson, but for now I'm happy with the Bissell.

Lee B wrote:
Sum Guy wrote:
Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case of
"if you advertize it, they will buy" ?

One of my relatives has a Dyson and is happy with it (or was a few
years ago the last time the subject came up). Said it was good for
dog hair.
I have a lot of dog hair, but didn't want to part with that much
money. I bought a Bissell vacuum a few years ago on sale at Target.
It's theoretically designed for homes with pets, although I suspect
that might be an advertising gimmick. However it does a great job and
pulls out dirt and hair I never knew were there. They have a new one
out now that is "multi-cyclonic". I'd like that but only because it
sounds more high tech... no idea if it works any better. If I won the
lottery, I might try a Dyson, but for now I'm happy with the Bissell.

Th "multi-cyclonic" only describes how it stores the dirt, not how well it gets
it from the carpet.

"Lee B" wrote in message
...

Sum Guy wrote:
Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case of "if
you advertize it, they will buy" ?

One of my relatives has a Dyson and is happy with it (or was a few years
ago the last time the subject came up). Said it was good for dog hair.

I have a lot of dog hair, but didn't want to part with that much money. I
bought a Bissell vacuum a few years ago on sale at Target. It's
theoretically designed for homes with pets, although I suspect that might
be an advertising gimmick. However it does a great job and pulls out dirt
and hair I never knew were there. They have a new one out now that is
"multi-cyclonic". I'd like that but only because it sounds more high
tech... no idea if it works any better. If I won the lottery, I might try
a Dyson, but for now I'm happy with the Bissell.

If I hit the lotto, I don't think I'd have a new vacuum on the list of
priorities. I think all that overbuying is why a lot of lottery winners end
up poor again. Have to have the latest greatest most expensive of
everything, when a cheap one will do just as well.

Steve

SteveB wrote:
"Lee B" wrote in message
...
Sum Guy wrote:
Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case of "if
you advertize it, they will buy" ?
One of my relatives has a Dyson and is happy with it (or was a few years
ago the last time the subject came up). Said it was good for dog hair.

I have a lot of dog hair, but didn't want to part with that much money. I
bought a Bissell vacuum a few years ago on sale at Target. It's
theoretically designed for homes with pets, although I suspect that might
be an advertising gimmick. However it does a great job and pulls out dirt
and hair I never knew were there. They have a new one out now that is
"multi-cyclonic". I'd like that but only because it sounds more high
tech... no idea if it works any better. If I won the lottery, I might try
a Dyson, but for now I'm happy with the Bissell.

If I hit the lotto, I don't think I'd have a new vacuum on the list of
priorities. I think all that overbuying is why a lot of lottery winners end
up poor again. Have to have the latest greatest most expensive of
everything, when a cheap one will do just as well.

Steve


You're right. I'll just use my winnings to hire a maid instead VBG.

"Lee B" wrote

You're right. I'll just use my winnings to hire a maid instead VBG.

Or TWO!

GMTA

Steve

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:10:43 -0400, Lee B
wrote:


SteveB wrote:
"Lee B" wrote in message
...
Sum Guy wrote:
Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case of "if
you advertize it, they will buy" ?
One of my relatives has a Dyson and is happy with it (or was a few years
ago the last time the subject came up). Said it was good for dog hair.

I have a lot of dog hair, but didn't want to part with that much money. I
bought a Bissell vacuum a few years ago on sale at Target. It's
theoretically designed for homes with pets, although I suspect that might
be an advertising gimmick. However it does a great job and pulls out dirt
and hair I never knew were there. They have a new one out now that is
"multi-cyclonic". I'd like that but only because it sounds more high
tech... no idea if it works any better. If I won the lottery, I might try
a Dyson, but for now I'm happy with the Bissell.

If I hit the lotto, I don't think I'd have a new vacuum on the list of
priorities. I think all that overbuying is why a lot of lottery winners end
up poor again. Have to have the latest greatest most expensive of
everything, when a cheap one will do just as well.

Steve


You're right. I'll just use my winnings to hire a maid instead VBG.

The maid is still going to need a vacuum cleaner.

On Oct 17, 9:34*am, Sum Guy wrote:
Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? *Or is this a case of "if
you advertize it, they will buy" ?

Consumer Reports says they are so-so. They sure do look high tech.
However, SWMBO bought a Hoover $89.95 on sale a while back and claims
it is the best of many to pass through our portals in the the last 36
years. Since the cleanup involves 3 cats, 1 dog and carpets her
opinion has merit.

Joe

Sum Guy wrote:
Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case of "if
you advertize it, they will buy" ?

Avoid it at all costs. In a recent vacuum cleaner test it was rated 11th.

What you want to do is to buy a commercial vacuum cleaner. If you have a
Costco Business Center near you, they carry them. They are not
exceptionally expensive, they last a long time, and they suck.

Dyson is for the same people that buy the Bose Wave Radio!

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:52:34 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Sum Guy wrote:
Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case of "if
you advertize it, they will buy" ?

Avoid it at all costs. In a recent vacuum cleaner test it was rated 11th.

What you want to do is to buy a commercial vacuum cleaner. If you have a
Costco Business Center near you, they carry them. They are not
exceptionally expensive, they last a long time, and they suck.

Dyson is for the same people that buy the Bose Wave Radio!

We have a five-year-old Dyson. Before that SWMBO would go through a
Hoover, Eureka, or whatever, every six to nine months. They would
either lose suction (sucks to lose impeller blades) or would blow out
the side of the case. Yes, they aren't designed to suck up pennies,
but the fact is they do. The Dyson may not work any better but it
*is* built better than the $100 vacuums out there.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:34:47 -0400, Sum Guy wrote:

Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Which? They make quite a few different models, and you don't say where you
are...

We had a DC05 at one point - the filters would block up quickly, part of
the hose assembly broke after a while (and they only wanted to sell me a
whole new hose assembly at great expense rather than just the fitting
that had broken), and the whole rotating brush part which was supposed
to run via the airflow was just a joke and next to useless (I'd end up
stripping the whole brush assembly apart at least a couple of times a
month, which gets old fast).

Never tried one of those Dysons with the ball, if that's what you're
talking about.

"Sum Guy" wrote in message ...
Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case of "if
you advertize it, they will buy" ?

If you have a really good product, people know about it, and you don't have
to spend a lot on advertising. If you don't, you advertise the hell out of
it. They have to sell a lot of vacuums to just break even on the
advertising. Like Geico. Tons of TV ads. Nascar cars. Drag racers @
$40,000 a run. If they want to drop the cost of their insurance, simply cut
the ad costs. Allstate is beating them up pretty good now by just
advertising prices, and not going with all the hoopla. I'm just sick of
seeing the cavemen.

Steve