http://www.dysonairblade.co.uk/?WT.srch=1


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...
http://www.dysonairblade.co.uk/?WT.srch=1

I was amused the other day at the dump (household recyling site) where no
less than six of his upright vacuum cleaners were lined up.

I thought that more of a testomony to his products than anything else.

Roger -R

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:16:41 -0000, "Roger R"
wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
o.uk...
http://www.dysonairblade.co.uk/?WT.srch=1

I was amused the other day at the dump (household recyling site) where no
less than six of his upright vacuum cleaners were lined up.

I thought that more of a testomony to his products than anything else.

It's the same at my local tip....Dyson's Corner, it's know as...

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

In message , The
Medway Handyman wrote
http://www.dysonairblade.co.uk/?WT.srch=1



But can the B&Q wind turbine produce enough power to drive it, and at
£650 will it pay for itself before it self disrupts.?
--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

Dyson Airblade £549 + VAT
http://www.dysonairblade.co.uk/how_t...navtype=inpage

Screwfix Automatic Hand Drier £89.99 inc VAT
http://www.screwfix.com/app/sfd/cat/...45312&id=20123

Normally I'm a great fan of innovative, high quality products (I bought
a miele washing machine and love it), but I'd have thought by now most
people would've figured Dyson products lack durability considering
their very much premium pricing. Every single Dyson vacuum cleaner
owner I've asked, has commented on how the little bits break quickly
and how it's generally too flimsy for its job.

In message .com,
" writes
Dyson Airblade £549 + VAT
http://www.dysonairblade.co.uk/how_t...navtype=inpage

Screwfix Automatic Hand Drier £89.99 inc VAT
http://www.screwfix.com/app/sfd/cat/...45312&id=20123
Not quite the same thing really but there are similar devices already
out there for much less than the Dyson gadget, one I encountered this
year in Devon dried my hands in under 20 seconds, the skin on my hands
looked like it was being subjected to 9G acceleration force!!

Normally I'm a great fan of innovative, high quality products (I bought
a miele washing machine and love it), but I'd have thought by now most
people would've figured Dyson products lack durability considering
their very much premium pricing. Every single Dyson vacuum cleaner
owner I've asked, has commented on how the little bits break quickly
and how it's generally too flimsy for its job.

Umm, not me.... Mine's had over the 8 or so years;

1 Replacement hose, supplied free under warranty
1 Replacement Wand because I managed to destroy the handle (can't
believe any other vac would have survived it either)
1 new motor July this year.
1 new set of brushes, general wear and tear

Total parts cost just under £70 for eight years of at least three times
a week use, pretty good in my book and it's still working just fine.

I am lead to believe the newer models are more flimsy but given that
most consumer grade vacs last around 2 years I'd have no problem trying
a Dyson again when this one finally gives up the ghost.

--
Clint Sharp

Umm, not me....

Nor me - ours did have a belt changed once though, after we'd jammed
someting in the brushes...

Colin Wilson wrote:
Umm, not me....

Nor me - ours did have a belt changed once though, after we'd jammed
someting in the brushes...

'Real' uprights have a clutch to prevent that :-)


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Stephen Howard wrote:
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:16:41 -0000, "Roger R"
wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message .uk...
http://www.dysonairblade.co.uk/?WT.srch=1

I was amused the other day at the dump (household recyling site)
where no less than six of his upright vacuum cleaners were lined up.

I thought that more of a testomony to his products than anything
else.

It's the same at my local tip....Dyson's Corner, it's know as...

You wanna see the back room in a domestic appliance repair shop!


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

The message k
from "The Medway Handyman" contains
these words:

Nor me - ours did have a belt changed once though, after we'd jammed
someting in the brushes...

'Real' uprights have a clutch to prevent that :-)

So do Dysons. At least, mine has.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

I have issues with the cleanliness of the unit.

The fact that you have to lower your hands into the unit the chance of
touching the upper/lower/both sides seems highly likely.
If the previous user(s) have not been particularly thorough in washing hands
in the first place the probability of cross contamination seems rather
high - negating all the other claimed plus points of the dryer.

Which is all a bit pointless anyway because of the amount of filth that
lurks on the bog door handle that you have to pull with your nice clean
hands on the way out!

Slurp

Slurp wrote:

Which is all a bit pointless anyway because of the amount of filth that
lurks on the bog door handle that you have to pull with your nice clean
hands on the way out!


I've often wondered if there's anyone else bothered by this. I'm not
'Howard Hughes crazy' bothered by it, to the extent of wrapping the
handle in tissues or anything, but it always bothers me a little.


--
Grunff

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:42:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:16:41 -0000, "Roger R"
wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message .uk...
http://www.dysonairblade.co.uk/?WT.srch=1

I was amused the other day at the dump (household recyling site)
where no less than six of his upright vacuum cleaners were lined up.

I thought that more of a testomony to his products than anything
else.

It's the same at my local tip....Dyson's Corner, it's know as...

You wanna see the back room in a domestic appliance repair shop!

I think that's why the tip puts the Dyson's to one side...some geezer
buys 'em all for spares.

Me, I buy the Panasonics and Hoovers etc. for a fiver that people
who've bought Dysons chuck away.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

In article .com,
" writes:
Dyson Airblade =A3549 + VAT
http://www.dysonairblade.co.uk/how_t...vtype=3Dinpage

Screwfix Automatic Hand Drier =A389.99 inc VAT
http://www.screwfix.com/app/sfd/cat/...D45312&id=3D2=
0123

Normally I'm a great fan of innovative, high quality products (I bought
a miele washing machine and love it), but I'd have thought by now most
people would've figured Dyson products lack durability considering
their very much premium pricing. Every single Dyson vacuum cleaner
owner I've asked, has commented on how the little bits break quickly
and how it's generally too flimsy for its job.

Not the experience of any of the ones in my family.
I originally bought a DC04 for the house, but it got stolen
for clearing up building rubble as it worked so much better
than anything else. The most punishing dust load, a plaster
chaser's exhaust, which a Henry doesn't come close to dealing
with, is handled by the Dyson brilliantly, and continuously.

The house now has a DC07, and as does my parents' house and
my brother's, having seen how brilliant it is. None have
broken, and continue to work extremely well.

I agree about the price. I've bought 4 of them for myself
and others, but have never paid even half the normal price.
If you aren't in a hurry, keep an eye out for special offers,
either in closing down sales, or when a newer model is coming
out.

I wish someone produced a cyclone cleaner as rebust as a
Henry, but it's pretty much impossible for anyone other than
Dyson to produce a cyclone vacuum cleaner. He owns all the
patents related to getting cyclones working efficiently in
the small size of a portable vacuum cleaner, with the result
that other manufacturer's cyclone cleaners are remarkably
useless in comparison.

--
Andrew Gabriel

On Nov 11, 1:44 pm, Grunff wrote:
Slurp wrote:
Which is all a bit pointless anyway because of the amount of filth that
lurks on the bog door handle that you have to pull with your nice clean
hands on the way out!I've often wondered if there's anyone else bothered by this. I'm not
'Howard Hughes crazy' bothered by it, to the extent of wrapping the
handle in tissues or anything, but it always bothers me a little.

Me too. That's the point of the automatic taps & hand dryers with IR
sensors
School bogs are guaranteed infested with threadworm eggs, hospitals
with MRSA and similar.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I wish someone produced a cyclone cleaner as rebust as a
Henry, but it's pretty much impossible for anyone other than
Dyson to produce a cyclone vacuum cleaner.

Industrial/commercial vacs have used the cyclone principle for 40+ years.
That's the reason almost all are circular and have inlet spigots that point
to one side instead of being straight or pointing downwards.

The motor produces a vortex of air spinning in the same direction as the
fan, the inlet points sideways in that same direction causing heavier dust
particles to drop to the bottom of the bin thus keeping the filter cleaner
for lomger.

Have a look at this superb American machine developed years ago
http://www.nss.com/literature_sheets.htm click on BP RANGER.

He owns all the
patents related to getting cyclones working efficiently in
the small size of a portable vacuum cleaner, with the result
that other manufacturer's cyclone cleaners are remarkably
useless in comparison.

To Mr Dysons credit, he has sold the concept to the public brilliantly, but
the 'no loss of suction' argument is not valid.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

In article ,
"The Medway Handyman" writes:
Colin Wilson wrote:
Umm, not me....

Nor me - ours did have a belt changed once though, after we'd jammed
someting in the brushes...

'Real' uprights have a clutch to prevent that :-)

Dysons do, with an audiable alarm so you know it's happened.

--
Andrew Gabriel

In message , Grunff
wrote
Slurp wrote:

Which is all a bit pointless anyway because of the amount of filth
that lurks on the bog door handle that you have to pull with your
nice clean hands on the way out!


I've often wondered if there's anyone else bothered by this. I'm not
'Howard Hughes crazy' bothered by it, to the extent of wrapping the
handle in tissues or anything, but it always bothers me a little.


Even when the toilets are regularly serviced on a 'professional' basis
I bet the door handle never gets cleaned.

At work a few years back, there was a cleaner who took his duties
seriously. Everything shone like a new pin. The only problem was that
he used the same cloth to wipe down the urinals, the pans, the sinks
and the taps.

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:51:00 +0000, Alan
wrote:


Even when the toilets are regularly serviced on a 'professional' basis
I bet the door handle never gets cleaned.

At work a few years back, there was a cleaner who took his duties
seriously. Everything shone like a new pin. The only problem was that
he used the same cloth to wipe down the urinals, the pans, the sinks
and the taps.

I don't wish to know that ! :-(

More seriously I've started carrying this stuff around and using it.

http://www.ciao.co.uk/Reviews/No_Ger...tiser__6560728

Benzethonium Chloride based, whatever that is.

DG

Clint Sharp wrote:
In message .com,
" writes

their very much premium pricing. Every single Dyson vacuum cleaner
owner I've asked, has commented on how the little bits break quickly
and how it's generally too flimsy for its job.

Umm, not me.... Mine's had over the 8 or so years;

1 Replacement hose, supplied free under warranty
1 Replacement Wand because I managed to destroy the handle (can't
believe any other vac would have survived it either)
1 new motor July this year.
1 new set of brushes, general wear and tear

Total parts cost just under £70 for eight years of at least three times
a week use, pretty good in my book and it's still working just fine.

I am lead to believe the newer models are more flimsy but given that
most consumer grade vacs last around 2 years I'd have no problem trying
a Dyson again when this one finally gives up the ghost.

Christ, I'd have dumped that years ago. I've had my older one since the
80s and it has needed a total of zero spare parts. And quite likely it
hasnt had any parts since it was made decades earlier. The modern
cyclone hoover otoh...


NT

Derek ^ wrote:
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:51:00 +0000, Alan
wrote:

Even when the toilets are regularly serviced on a 'professional' basis
I bet the door handle never gets cleaned.

At work a few years back, there was a cleaner who took his duties
seriously. Everything shone like a new pin. The only problem was that
he used the same cloth to wipe down the urinals, the pans, the sinks
and the taps.

I don't wish to know that ! :-(

More seriously I've started carrying this stuff around and using it.

http://www.ciao.co.uk/Reviews/No_Ger...tiser__6560728

Benzethonium Chloride based, whatever that is.

DG

Like most antibacterials, it kills some bugs and leaves all the others
to multiply to greater numbers. This is one reason why antibacterial
handwashes arent the answer.


NT

The Medway Handyman wrote:

To Mr Dysons credit, he has sold the concept to the public brilliantly, but
the 'no loss of suction' argument is not valid.

Whys it not valid?


NT

Huge wrote:
On 2006-11-11, The Medway Handyman wrote:
http://www.dysonairblade.co.uk/?WT.srch=1

"It" being selling over-priced imported tat, presumably?

Back to hand driers. Many moons ago I used to visit a company that
supplied roller towels. They did a hygiene survey, hand driers simply
blew all the "nasties" into the air, just the job for other users to
breathe in, so much for them being better than linen or paper towels.

In article . com,
writes:
Like most antibacterials, it kills some bugs and leaves all the others
to multiply to greater numbers. This is one reason why antibacterial
handwashes arent the answer.

I make a point of not using antibacterial products.
I have an immune system, which relies on being exposed
to bacteria in order to learn what to protect me from,
which is exactly what I want it to continue doing.
The only time I use antibacterial handwash is when I'm
preparing food for friends, or visiting people in
hospital, and in both cases that's to protect others
who may have given up using their own immune systems
(or whose immune systems may be impared), not to
protect me.

--
Andrew Gabriel

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
writes:
Like most antibacterials, it kills some bugs and leaves all the others
to multiply to greater numbers. This is one reason why antibacterial
handwashes arent the answer.

I make a point of not using antibacterial products.
I have an immune system, which relies on being exposed
to bacteria in order to learn what to protect me from,
which is exactly what I want it to continue doing.
The only time I use antibacterial handwash is when I'm
preparing food for friends, or visiting people in
hospital, and in both cases that's to protect others
who may have given up using their own immune systems
(or whose immune systems may be impared), not to
protect me.


My missus buys 'anti bacterial' stuff, to my way of thinking ordinary soap
is 'anti bacterial'.
Surely it's all a con to make us buy overpriced stuff that we dont really
need.

These are installed in some of the M1 service stations. I used one just this
week while travelling up to Leicester. I thought it worked damn well
actually. You just put your hands in, it automatically senses them and
blasts air at them. 'Blasts' is definitely the word though. Much quicker and
effective than using a standard hand dryer.

Dave




"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...
http://www.dysonairblade.co.uk/?WT.srch=1


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Grunff wrote:
Slurp wrote:

Which is all a bit pointless anyway because of the amount of filth
that lurks on the bog door handle that you have to pull with your nice
clean hands on the way out!


I've often wondered if there's anyone else bothered by this. I'm not
'Howard Hughes crazy' bothered by it, to the extent of wrapping the
handle in tissues or anything, but it always bothers me a little.

Same here. I've often thought toilet doors should open outwards so you
can push them with your foot.....

Alan

--
Warning! - This newsgroup may contain nuts....
None of us have anything better to do, otherwise we'd be doing it....
Mail sent to this address is nuked unread using mail2web....

The message
from Alan Vann contains these words:

Same here. I've often thought toilet doors should open outwards so you
can push them with your foot.....

Funnily enough I was only thinking this as I say on the bog in Asda
yesterday. Their doors open outwards, which apart from being easier to
open without picking up more bugs means you don't have to squeeze
between the pan and the door to close the door.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:06:20 GMT Guy King wrote :
Funnily enough I was only thinking this as I say on the bog in Asda
yesterday. Their doors open outwards, which apart from being easier to
open without picking up more bugs means you don't have to squeeze
between the pan and the door to close the door.

A practical point is that if someone collapses in a cubicle you can open
the door.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On 11 Nov 2006 18:30:42 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Like most antibacterials, it kills some bugs and leaves all the others
to multiply to greater numbers. This is one reason why antibacterial
handwashes arent the answer.

I make a point of not using antibacterial products. I have an immune
system, which relies on being exposed to bacteria in order to learn
what to protect me from, which is exactly what I want it to continue
doing.

Hear, hear. Excessive use of antibiotics is why we now have things like
MRSA.

The only time I use antibacterial handwash is when I'm preparing food
for friends,

Don't go that far, just normal hand washing before food preparation.

or visiting people in hospital, and in both cases that's to protect
others who may have given up using their own immune systems (or whose
immune systems may be impared), not to protect me.

Aye, I'll use the hospital supplied wash as required for a given area,
entering, leaving or both. But again that is primarily to protect others
rather than me.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Guy King wrote:
The message
from Alan Vann contains these words:

Same here. I've often thought toilet doors should open outwards so you
can push them with your foot.....

Funnily enough I was only thinking this as I say on the bog in Asda
yesterday. Their doors open outwards, which apart from being easier to
open without picking up more bugs means you don't have to squeeze
between the pan and the door to close the door.


Indeed. There's a pub near me where it's almost impossible to walk in
and close the door behind you, but I was thinking more of the main
doors. How many times have you stood there washing your hands, watching
the guy that was standing next to you/sitting in trap 1 leave without
washing his? ...and you think, "I've got to touch that handle after you
you abstrad....".

Still, I suppose that's what we have an immune system for and, as
somebody said earlier, it pays to exercise it....

Alan

--
Warning! - This newsgroup may contain nuts....
None of us have anything better to do, otherwise we'd be doing it....
Mail sent to this address is nuked unread using mail2web....

In article ,
"Scabbydug" writes:

My missus buys 'anti bacterial' stuff, to my way of thinking ordinary soap
is 'anti bacterial'.
Surely it's all a con to make us buy overpriced stuff that we dont really
need.

It's worse than "we dont really need". Antibiotics encourage bacteria
to evolve which are resistant to them. Then when you do really need
them, they don't work anymore. The double whammy is you're more likely
to really need them some day if you stop training your body to deal
with bacteria itself.

The anti-bacterial products marketing is all pandering to an irrational
fear of bacteria, but ironically it's a fear which may become justified
if people keep going down that path of dumming down their own immune
systems whilst at the same time making the bacteria more robust...

--
Andrew Gabriel

wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

To Mr Dysons credit, he has sold the concept to the public
brilliantly, but the 'no loss of suction' argument is not valid.

Whys it not valid?

Because whilt it is true, it's misleading. A Dyson 08 is quoted as having a
performance of 300 air-watts [1] maximum. The 5.7" 2 stage motor in
something like a Henry will develop around 550 air-watts.

This 550 air-watts will drop as the filter starts to clog with dust
particles it's true, but it could drop by 45% and still give equal
performance to a Dyson. In practice the bag would be full long before this
happened.

So, it's true - no loss of suction - but it doesn't relate that to how much
suction was there in the first place.

I've used various Dysons in customers premises and IME the performance has
always been poor.

[1] Air - watts is a measure of airflow and suction at the most efficient
final aperture.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

In article ,
"The Medway Handyman" writes:
wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

To Mr Dysons credit, he has sold the concept to the public
brilliantly, but the 'no loss of suction' argument is not valid.

Whys it not valid?

Because whilt it is true, it's misleading. A Dyson 08 is quoted as having a
performance of 300 air-watts [1] maximum. The 5.7" 2 stage motor in
something like a Henry will develop around 550 air-watts.

This 550 air-watts will drop as the filter starts to clog with dust
particles it's true, but it could drop by 45% and still give equal
performance to a Dyson. In practice the bag would be full long before this
happened.

Not true. Try a Henry with a plaster chaser. It works for less than
10 seconds before it can't suck anymore (or if you take the bag out,
it makes a brilliant fog machine, just like not coupling any vacuum
up to the chaser). A Dyson will collect bin full after bin full,
and still keep up with the chaser's dust production without any
noticable drop in suction. Also, you end up with no staining
whatsoever of the Dyson's post-motor filter, so no dust is making
it to the exhaust.

What would be nice would be a small commercial cleaner which came
even slightly close to the Dyson's performance. It's just not
possible to make a cyclone separator that small and efficient
without using Dyson's patents. (Large cyclone separators have
existed for decades, but they aren't portable.)

A cyclone separator is exactly the right type of filtration to
use for building dust, and a bag or cloth filter is exactly the
wrong type because if it catches the dust, it's clogged the air
path, and if it doesn't clog the air path, it's not being trapped.

So, it's true - no loss of suction - but it doesn't relate that to how much
suction was there in the first place.

Doesn't matter if that suction only lasts a few seconds.

--
Andrew Gabriel

In article ,
"The Medway Handyman" writes:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I wish someone produced a cyclone cleaner as rebust as a
Henry, but it's pretty much impossible for anyone other than
Dyson to produce a cyclone vacuum cleaner.

Industrial/commercial vacs have used the cyclone principle for 40+ years.
That's the reason almost all are circular and have inlet spigots that point
to one side instead of being straight or pointing downwards.

You snipped the important part -- it's easy to make a large
effective cylone cleaner and they've been around for decades.
The difficult part is making a cyclonic separation cleaner
which works acceptably for domestic cleaning in the size of
a portable vacuum cleaner. That is what Dyson managed to do
and no one else did.

The motor produces a vortex of air spinning in the same direction as the
fan, the inlet points sideways in that same direction causing heavier dust
particles to drop to the bottom of the bin thus keeping the filter cleaner
for lomger.

That's not cyclonic separation.

Have a look at this superb American machine developed years ago
http://www.nss.com/literature_sheets.htm click on BP RANGER.

It's not a cylone -- it separates by dropping heavy dirt out
in a low velocity chamber (opposite to cyclone) and filtering
light dirt. It's also 3 times the size of a Dyson, so it's
not a domestic cleaner. In spite of that, it would still be
rather too small to be an effective cyclone, without resorting
to some of Dyson's patented features.

He owns all the
patents related to getting cyclones working efficiently in
the small size of a portable vacuum cleaner, with the result
that other manufacturer's cyclone cleaners are remarkably
useless in comparison.

To Mr Dysons credit, he has sold the concept to the public brilliantly, but
the 'no loss of suction' argument is not valid.

Works for me. I can fill the tank with plaster dust without any
loss of suction. A Henry lasted less than 10 seconds before it
was clogged and couldn't take the dust from a plaster chaser.
We then tried it without the filter and it did a superb imitation
of a fog machine. Completely useless.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"The Medway Handyman" writes:
wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

To Mr Dysons credit, he has sold the concept to the public
brilliantly, but the 'no loss of suction' argument is not valid.

Whys it not valid?

Because whilt it is true, it's misleading. A Dyson 08 is quoted as
having a performance of 300 air-watts [1] maximum. The 5.7" 2 stage
motor in something like a Henry will develop around 550 air-watts.

This 550 air-watts will drop as the filter starts to clog with dust
particles it's true, but it could drop by 45% and still give equal
performance to a Dyson. In practice the bag would be full long
before this happened.

Not true. Try a Henry with a plaster chaser. It works for less than
10 seconds before it can't suck anymore (or if you take the bag out,
it makes a brilliant fog machine, just like not coupling any vacuum
up to the chaser). A Dyson will collect bin full after bin full,
and still keep up with the chaser's dust production without any
noticable drop in suction. Also, you end up with no staining
whatsoever of the Dyson's post-motor filter, so no dust is making
it to the exhaust.

Thats probably true but it doesn't alter my arguement. Perhaps I should
have added the disclaimer "In normal use". Neither machine is designed for
that task, they are both essentially carpet vacuums.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"The Medway Handyman" writes:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

You snipped the important part -- it's easy to make a large
effective cylone cleaner and they've been around for decades.
The difficult part is making a cyclonic separation cleaner
which works acceptably for domestic cleaning in the size of
a portable vacuum cleaner. That is what Dyson managed to do
and no one else did.

The motor produces a vortex of air spinning in the same direction as
the fan, the inlet points sideways in that same direction causing
heavier dust particles to drop to the bottom of the bin thus keeping
the filter cleaner for lomger.

That's not cyclonic separation.

Isn't it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclonic_separation

To Mr Dysons credit, he has sold the concept to the public
brilliantly, but the 'no loss of suction' argument is not valid.

Works for me. I can fill the tank with plaster dust without any
loss of suction. A Henry lasted less than 10 seconds before it
was clogged and couldn't take the dust from a plaster chaser.
We then tried it without the filter and it did a superb imitation
of a fog machine. Completely useless.

I'm not saying the Dyson doesn't run with 'no loss of suction', whay I'm
saying is;

When used for the purpose intended i.e. vacuuming floors, it's better to
have nearly twice the suction nearly all of the time.

Why don't you ask Mr Dyson to build DIY dust extractor? I'm sure there is a
market for it? You might get a reward!


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Clint Sharp wrote:

In message .com,
" writes
Dyson Airblade £549 + VAT
http://www.dysonairblade.co.uk/how_t...navtype=inpage

Screwfix Automatic Hand Drier £89.99 inc VAT
http://www.screwfix.com/app/sfd/cat/...45312&id=20123
Not quite the same thing really but there are similar devices already
out there for much less than the Dyson gadget, one I encountered this
year in Devon dried my hands in under 20 seconds, the skin on my hands
looked like it was being subjected to 9G acceleration force!!

Normally I'm a great fan of innovative, high quality products (I bought
a miele washing machine and love it), but I'd have thought by now most
people would've figured Dyson products lack durability considering
their very much premium pricing. Every single Dyson vacuum cleaner
owner I've asked, has commented on how the little bits break quickly
and how it's generally too flimsy for its job.

Umm, not me.... Mine's had over the 8 or so years;

1 Replacement hose, supplied free under warranty
1 Replacement Wand because I managed to destroy the handle (can't
believe any other vac would have survived it either)
1 new motor July this year.
1 new set of brushes, general wear and tear

Total parts cost just under £70 for eight years of at least three times
a week use, pretty good in my book and it's still working just fine.

I am lead to believe the newer models are more flimsy but given that
most consumer grade vacs last around 2 years I'd have no problem trying
a Dyson again when this one finally gives up the ghost.

--
Clint Sharp

In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
Colin Wilson wrote:
Umm, not me....

Nor me - ours did have a belt changed once though, after we'd jammed
someting in the brushes...

'Real' uprights have a clutch to prevent that :-)


As does my Dyson.
--
Clint Sharp

Grunff wrote:
Slurp wrote:

Which is all a bit pointless anyway because of the amount of filth
that lurks on the bog door handle that you have to pull with your nice
clean hands on the way out!


I've often wondered if there's anyone else bothered by this. I'm not
'Howard Hughes crazy' bothered by it, to the extent of wrapping the
handle in tissues or anything, but it always bothers me a little.



I always push the automatic door closer's hinge at the top of the door,
figuring that hardly anyone ever touches that. It pushes the door open
nicely!