In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
That's because we haven't been. As I said, my DC01 was bought at the
recommendation of a relly, and the DC35 at the recommendation of
another. And we don't see ads here, SWMBO turns 'em off.

Why would a 'relly' be better than anyone else? Had they tested all the
current competition?

If we'd thought the first Dyson was crap or even just ordinary, unlikely
we'd have bought another.

Again, what experience did you have of the current competition?

--
*What happens when none of your bees wax? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:29:28 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Talking of Dysons, the latest adverts talk about them being
"digital". How the H??? can a vacuum cleaner be digital?

Marketing bollox

http://dyson.co.uk/Vacuumcleaners/DDM.aspx

Bollox after marketing have got at it. Looks as if they are stepper
motors to me.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:24:21 -0700, jgh wrote:

Talking of Dysons, the latest adverts talk about them being "digital".
How the H??? can a vacuum cleaner be digital?

Well, it's either on or off, isn't it? :-)

Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:29:28 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

http://dyson.co.uk/Vacuumcleaners/DDM.aspx

Bollox after marketing have got at it. Looks as if they are stepper
motors to me.

I think you'd need more than 2 poles to guarantee they rotated in one
direction, rather than just vibrate back and forth at 1.7kHz

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:29:28 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Talking of Dysons, the latest adverts talk about them being
"digital". How the H??? can a vacuum cleaner be digital?

Marketing bollox

http://dyson.co.uk/Vacuumcleaners/DDM.aspx

Bollox after marketing have got at it. Looks as if they are stepper
motors to me.

Not just cheap brushless DC motors with a cheap digital controller then?

Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:29:28 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

http://dyson.co.uk/Vacuumcleaners/DDM.aspx

Bollox after marketing have got at it. Looks as if they are stepper
motors to me.

I think you'd need more than 2 poles to guarantee they rotated in one
direction, rather than just vibrate back and forth at 1.7kHz

probably has a sensor on the armature - you energise the pole that will
'kick' the armature in the right direction and then once spinning the
two pole motor will keep going in the right way.

Its the same as model aircraft 'brushless' motors. Although those are
three phase normally.

I liked this

"They are incredibly efficient too €“ due in part to high tolerances. For
example, the impeller spins at over 600mph with only 0.3mm clearance
between the blade tip and the impeller housing"

1/. the "for example" gives absolutely no description of efficiency at
all. In fact...

2/. Things don't spin at 600mph. That's linear velocity and if that
refers to the tip speed of the impeller...

3/. Mach 0.9 for an impeller is not only extraordinarily inefficient its
inefficiency manifests as MASSIVE noise, too. You WILL get transonic
airflow over parts of the blade.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6vWa...eature=related)

Actually the efficiency will be down to having that neodymium magnet and
plenty of copper so the winding resistance is low. Even hand wound
motors can get up to the high 70s or more, and careful choice of
laminations magnets and bearings can net you over 90%. Its not hard.
Just expensive. I doubt Dyson have that sort of efficiency though - its
marginal gains for a lot of expense.

The model aircraft boys are chasing the ultimate power to weight, and
heat is a problem so they do go to extremes. Essentially 90% efficiency
to 95% means double the power for the same heat rise. However that in
itself becomes a useless exercise as battery weight totally dominates
past a certain point.

All of which confirms the suspicion that Dyson are long on bull**** and
short on engineering.

Their technology is not selected to last, be tough, or be efficient: Its
selected for the maximum ability to brand-differentiate from their
rivals and construct an appealing narrative about the product.

Or as we used to say about Microsoft

"Designed to sell, working is a secondary issue"



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:29:28 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Talking of Dysons, the latest adverts talk about them being
"digital". How the H??? can a vacuum cleaner be digital?

Marketing bollox

http://dyson.co.uk/Vacuumcleaners/DDM.aspx

Bollox after marketing have got at it. Looks as if they are stepper
motors to me.

Not just cheap brushless DC motors with a cheap digital controller then?

yes.

Marginally better than a £2.50 Mabuchi motor as in a cordless drill.
They may have spent £5 on it instead.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Aug 31, 9:24*pm, wrote:
Talking of Dysons, the latest adverts talk about them being
"digital". How the H??? can a vacuum cleaner be digital? It's
an electric motor, that's conversion of electical energy into
motion energy, ie /electrical/, *NOT* electronic, and very
definitely not digital electronic.

JGH

Probably just a brushless motor driven by digital (PWM) signals. In
practice the inductance of the motor filters the drive waveform.

More than you probably want to know about motors he
http://focus.ti.com/download/trng/do...dium_2010..pdf

MBQ

En el artículo , Andrew Gabriel
escribió:

The filter only starts collecting dust when the container
overfills and there's no space for a cyclone to operate.

I find they collect the very fine dust that the cyclone doesn't trap
(the same stuff that spews out of bagged cleaners but you can't see it
because it's so fine).

The pre-motor filters have all been washable for years,
even the replacements for the very first non washable one.

indeed, but realistically they only last for a couple of washes, then
seem to clog more quickly. Given that they sell for buttons, it's
easier just to stick new ones in once a year or so.

The DC07 I have now was 20 quid second hand, it looks like new. I
wouldn't pay for a new one. Would still have my original 15+ yr old
DC01 if I had been able to get hold of the shoe plate.

Suppose I'm going to be accused of being a member of the Cult of
Dysonology now.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
The filter only starts collecting dust when the container
overfills and there's no space for a cyclone to operate.

I find they collect the very fine dust that the cyclone doesn't trap
(the same stuff that spews out of bagged cleaners but you can't see it
because it's so fine).

My Panasonic has filters after the bag - same sort of idea. Washable, of
course.

--
*Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:22:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Secondly, most of the problems with Dysons are caused by the user not
emptying it when it needs emptying.

Frequent filter changes are also a very good idea. Dirt cheap off
ebay.

Which somewhat negates the benefit of no bag.

But it's only a filter, not filter and bag. And Dysons have washable
filters, ours is it's orginal and I can't say I've noticed any difference
in it's performance over the years.

They do take a bit of washing mind, it's more than just a quick rinse
under the tap. They need repeated soaking and squeezing out to get the
muck out of the core.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:39:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Because te cult of Dyson will stuff them down your throat in a very
'Royal Nonesuch*' way which leads to a surfeit of dysons and acute
dysonsitis.

Mainly because the haters try to compare a cyclone cleaner with a bagged
one.

If I was in the market for a new vacuum cleaner I'd look at what the
other makers now offer and go for the one that had the features, ease of
use, handling, weight, etc from any maker. It would not be a bagged
cleaner though.

People don't want to admit they were actually conned by smart
advertising into buying something very ordinary,

At the time we bought ours there was no domestic bagless vac.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:36:40 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Indeed. Changing a bag (on a well designed machine) is more like
emptying the canister on a Dyson. Except that the dust stays in the
bag...

The little dust it's managed to capture that is.

I think it says a lot that a bagged vac will take several full goes
around the house to collect the same amount of muck as a cyclone does in
one...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:15:13 -0700 (PDT), Andy Dingley wrote:

Even the Earlex wet 'n dry has more suction than the Henry(*), has a
capacity at least double the Henry and costs half as much and will do
wet if required.

I never use my Earlex wet. The filter rots a week afterwards.

Well if you leave it wet in the cannister what do you expect? Take it out
clean and dry it on top of the boiler no problem. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.

Anyone remember the Charles?
A certain office supply company used to sell them with a face on the front
that looked a little bit like a certain member of the royal family.

Brian

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as
Blind user.
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:15:13 -0700 (PDT), Andy Dingley wrote:

Even the Earlex wet 'n dry has more suction than the Henry(*), has a
capacity at least double the Henry and costs half as much and will do
wet if required.

I never use my Earlex wet. The filter rots a week afterwards.

Well if you leave it wet in the cannister what do you expect? Take it out
clean and dry it on top of the boiler no problem. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
I think it says a lot that a bagged vac will take several full goes
around the house to collect the same amount of muck as a cyclone does in
one...

You need to compare with a decent bag type.

It sounds like you went from a poorly designed and or clapped out one to a
Dyson. Bit like the way new tyres regardless of brand seem better than
worn out ones.

--
*For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:36:40 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Indeed. Changing a bag (on a well designed machine) is more like
emptying the canister on a Dyson. Except that the dust stays in the
bag...

The little dust it's managed to capture that is.

I think it says a lot that a bagged vac will take several full goes
around the house to collect the same amount of muck as a cyclone does in
one...

I thik you believe waht dyson tells you, not on actual evidence.

My cheap crappy panasonic is perfectly capable of doing a better job
than the Dyson.

The bag gets washed every few months to get rid of the clogging.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:37:54 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think it says a lot that a bagged vac will take several full goes
around the house to collect the same amount of muck as a cyclone does
in one...

I thik you believe waht dyson tells you, not on actual evidence.

You think wrong, experience. Being skeptical about the marketing claims
when we got the DC04 we vacuumed the living room with the old bagged vac
(empty bag) then again with the DC04 straight afterwards. The Dyson
picked up a surprising large amount of muck from the supposedly "clean"
carpet.

The bag gets washed every few months to get rid of the clogging.

Even more faff.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 9/3/2012 9:04 AM, Dave Liquorice wrote:

You think wrong, experience. Being skeptical about the marketing claims
when we got the DC04 we vacuumed the living room with the old bagged vac
(empty bag) then again with the DC04 straight afterwards. The Dyson
picked up a surprising large amount of muck from the supposedly "clean"
carpet.

The day my Dyson arrived, I used it on the supposedly clean, previously
vacuumed livingroom carpet. It's not a large room, only app 11'x18' -
but I had to empty the canister 3 times.

S Viemeister wrote:
On 9/3/2012 9:04 AM, Dave Liquorice wrote:

You think wrong, experience. Being skeptical about the marketing claims
when we got the DC04 we vacuumed the living room with the old bagged vac
(empty bag) then again with the DC04 straight afterwards. The Dyson
picked up a surprising large amount of muck from the supposedly "clean"
carpet.

The day my Dyson arrived, I used it on the supposedly clean, previously
vacuumed livingroom carpet. It's not a large room, only app 11'x18' -
but I had to empty the canister 3 times.

I've dine the reveres. Gone round with the cylinder after the dyson.
Same result.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:28:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

S Viemeister wrote:
On 9/3/2012 9:04 AM, Dave Liquorice wrote:

You think wrong, experience. Being skeptical about the marketing
claims when we got the DC04 we vacuumed the living room with the old
bagged vac (empty bag) then again with the DC04 straight afterwards.
The Dyson picked up a surprising large amount of muck from the
supposedly "clean" carpet.

The day my Dyson arrived, I used it on the supposedly clean, previously
vacuumed livingroom carpet. It's not a large room, only app 11'x18' -
but I had to empty the canister 3 times.

I've dine the reveres. Gone round with the cylinder after the dyson.
Same result.

Yes, it's the classic vacuum cleaner sales ploy.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

S Viemeister wrote:

On 9/3/2012 9:04 AM, Dave Liquorice wrote:

when we got the DC04 we vacuumed the living room with the old bagged vac
(empty bag) then again with the DC04 straight afterwards. The Dyson
picked up a surprising large amount of muck from the supposedly "clean"
carpet.

The day my Dyson arrived, I used it on the supposedly clean, previously
vacuumed livingroom carpet. It's not a large room, only app 11'x18' -
but I had to empty the canister 3 times.

Neither the two old vacs being replaced by Dysons were old, or clapped
out, or with full bags I take it?

On 9/3/2012 2:50 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
S Viemeister wrote:

On 9/3/2012 9:04 AM, Dave Liquorice wrote:

when we got the DC04 we vacuumed the living room with the old bagged vac
(empty bag) then again with the DC04 straight afterwards. The Dyson
picked up a surprising large amount of muck from the supposedly "clean"
carpet.

The day my Dyson arrived, I used it on the supposedly clean, previously
vacuumed livingroom carpet. It's not a large room, only app 11'x18' -
but I had to empty the canister 3 times.

Neither the two old vacs being replaced by Dysons were old, or clapped
out, or with full bags I take it?

No.
The stuff sucked up into the Dyson was largely dog hair - the previous
owner was the local gamekeeper. Dysons appear to be particularly good at
removing pet hair.

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:04:39 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:37:54 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think it says a lot that a bagged vac will take several full goes
around the house to collect the same amount of muck as a cyclone does
in one...

I thik you believe waht dyson tells you, not on actual evidence.

You think wrong, experience. Being skeptical about the marketing claims
when we got the DC04 we vacuumed the living room with the old bagged vac
(empty bag) then again with the DC04 straight afterwards. The Dyson
picked up a surprising large amount of muck from the supposedly "clean"
carpet.

It was horrific using the dyson for the 1st time. Like you I'd done
the hall with the old one and then it vacc'd up gallons of dust.
Shocking, amazing and made me quite keen on doing the vaccing for a
very short time.


The bag gets washed every few months to get rid of the clogging.

Even more faff.
--
http://www.voucherfreebies.co.uk

On 06/09/2012 13:37, mogga wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:04:39 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:37:54 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think it says a lot that a bagged vac will take several full goes
around the house to collect the same amount of muck as a cyclone does
in one...

I thik you believe waht dyson tells you, not on actual evidence.

You think wrong, experience. Being skeptical about the marketing claims
when we got the DC04 we vacuumed the living room with the old bagged vac
(empty bag) then again with the DC04 straight afterwards. The Dyson
picked up a surprising large amount of muck from the supposedly "clean"
carpet.

It was horrific using the dyson for the 1st time. Like you I'd done
the hall with the old one and then it vacc'd up gallons of dust.
Shocking, amazing and made me quite keen on doing the vaccing for a
very short time.


The bag gets washed every few months to get rid of the clogging.

Even more faff.
Did you ever try vacuuming twice with the old one (empty bag each time)?

Bit like the electric razor demo.

Phil.

In article ,
Phil wrote:
It was horrific using the dyson for the 1st time. Like you I'd done
the hall with the old one and then it vacc'd up gallons of dust.
Shocking, amazing and made me quite keen on doing the vaccing for a
very short time.


The bag gets washed every few months to get rid of the clogging.

Even more faff.
Did you ever try vacuuming twice with the old one (empty bag each time)?

Bit like the electric razor demo.

Quite. Or just painting the outside of the house after some time with the
very cheapest white gloss. Always looks better than the old. But hardly a
fair comparison.

--
*I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Phil wrote:
On 06/09/2012 13:37, mogga wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:04:39 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:37:54 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think it says a lot that a bagged vac will take several full goes
around the house to collect the same amount of muck as a cyclone does
in one...

I thik you believe waht dyson tells you, not on actual evidence.

You think wrong, experience. Being skeptical about the marketing claims
when we got the DC04 we vacuumed the living room with the old bagged vac
(empty bag) then again with the DC04 straight afterwards. The Dyson
picked up a surprising large amount of muck from the supposedly "clean"
carpet.

It was horrific using the dyson for the 1st time. Like you I'd done
the hall with the old one and then it vacc'd up gallons of dust.
Shocking, amazing and made me quite keen on doing the vaccing for a
very short time.


The bag gets washed every few months to get rid of the clogging.

Even more faff.
Did you ever try vacuuming twice with the old one (empty bag each time)?

Exactly,. Yiu replace an old worn out dust clogged vaccuumcleaner whose
bag you never empty and whose filtesr you have never cleaned or replaced
with a shiny new dyson whose 'bag' gets obviously disgustingly full
and use it.

And then think you are comparing like with like.

The only clever thing Dyson did was to make the 'bag' contents clearly
visible.

So even my wife knows when it needs emptying..

I tried to tell her about te red vacuum guage on the other one, but it
was a step too far.



Bit like the electric razor demo.

Phil.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 06/09/2012 13:37, mogga wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:04:39 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:37:54 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think it says a lot that a bagged vac will take several full goes
around the house to collect the same amount of muck as a cyclone does
in one...

I thik you believe waht dyson tells you, not on actual evidence.

You think wrong, experience. Being skeptical about the marketing claims
when we got the DC04 we vacuumed the living room with the old bagged vac
(empty bag) then again with the DC04 straight afterwards. The Dyson
picked up a surprising large amount of muck from the supposedly "clean"
carpet.

It was horrific using the dyson for the 1st time. Like you I'd done
the hall with the old one and then it vacc'd up gallons of dust.
Shocking, amazing and made me quite keen on doing the vaccing for a
very short time.


That would happen whichever way around you did it. Kirby and Vorverk
used to use the same scam when selling overpriced vacuums to the gullible.



The bag gets washed every few months to get rid of the clogging.

Even more faff.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The bag gets washed every few months to get rid of the clogging.

Even more faff.



....but does washing the bag cause it to become more clogged?

DerbyBorn wrote:
The bag gets washed every few months to get rid of the clogging.
Even more faff.


...but does washing the bag cause it to become more clogged?
no.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.