On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 01:44:33 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

When was the last time anyone bought a vacuum cleaner based on
efficiency. They are normally bought on power alone

No, they're bought on fashion, brand and perceived technology
(marketing). Nothing else explains Dyson's success...

On 23 Aug 2014 08:24:34 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

I notice that the Henry now comes with a low/high power switch
(600W/1200W).

I wonder how good/bad they are on the lower setting.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On 23/08/2014 09:24, Bob Eager wrote:

snip.


I notice that the Henry now comes with a low/high power switch
(600W/1200W).




How long till somebody finds a "loophole" in the regulations, like say
they only apply to domestic vacuum cleaners and not industrial cleaners
- so we all start buying Industrial cleaners - bit like "Heavy duty -
not for domestic use" light bulbs are now much easier to find than they
ever used to be.



--
Chris

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
Why should they 'strive'? They're not paying for the electricity. But
they are for the motor, so the cheaper, the better.



Because these days, it's seen as expedient for manufacturers to be seen
to be trying to wring every drop of efficiency from their products. You
could use the same argument to ask why the makers of TV sets or fridges
or washing machines or a myriad of other consumer electrical items
would bother to try to make their products more efficient, but they
have ...

Because, like you, many don't consider the power consumption of a vacuum
cleaner important. Because it's not used for long periods. Not that it
stops them fitting low energy lamps to the broom cupboard, though.
And, of course, many will relate the wattage of the motor to the
performance. The very worst vacuum I've tried is a Lidl with a 2000 watt
motor. An attempt to produce a small(ish) bag less type. My most powerful
one? An ancient Rowenta wet or dry with a 900 watt motor.


I'm not convinced the speed the average vacuum cleaner motor/fan runs
at is ideal. More likely just convenient.


Convenient how ? They can design the fan any way that they want and
make the motor run at any speed they want.

Can they? A universal motor is intrinsically high speed. So it's perfectly
possible this compromises the design of the fan. Fitting a gearbox would
add to the cost.

Do you seriously believe
that they would just pick some arbitrary combination and declare
"that'll do then ... " ?

In many cases, yes. Which is why the performance of such things varies so
much. My guess is you've not got much experience of Hoovering. ;-) Some
have the most appalling design gaffs. Like the upright types where you can
remove the hose from the 'beater' box to use say on the stairs. And as
soon as you pull on it the whole lot tips over. Designed by an idiot who
has never used one.


They certainly make enough noise
and get hot.

And that's important because ?

Both heat and noise waste energy. Especially heat.

--
*Be more or less specific *

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

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
When was the last time anyone bought a vacuum cleaner based on
efficiency. They are normally bought on power alone, so motors are
designed to burn as much power as possible without overheating.

I'd say you are right.

--
*If you can read this, thank a teecher

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

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
I haven't voted for any of the people in the EU that come up with all
this **** and then foist it on our government in a way that can't be
refused. Have you ?

Quite. So this rant has nothing to do with vacuum cleaners.

--
*It's this dirty because I washed it with your wife's knickers*

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

On 23/08/2014 01:45, Arfa Daily wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
... if we've now got to start shaving a few watts off the motor of an
appliance that these days is probably used no more than 15 minutes a
week, in order to save power. I refer of course to the new vacuum
cleaner motor power directive from our chums at the EU ...

Eco-bollox at its most ludicrous ... :-\

Arfa



I have no sympathy. The sheeple voted to let them do it. You get the
politicians you vote for!


I haven't voted for any of the people in the EU that come up with all
this **** and then foist it on our government in a way that can't be
refused. Have you ?

Why do you thing UK governments didn't need any prompting?

Perhaps you should have voted?

On 23/08/2014 09:44, news wrote:
On 23/08/2014 09:24, Bob Eager wrote:

snip.


I notice that the Henry now comes with a low/high power switch
(600W/1200W).




How long till somebody finds a "loophole" in the regulations, like say
they only apply to domestic vacuum cleaners and not industrial cleaners
- so we all start buying Industrial cleaners - bit like "Heavy duty -
not for domestic use" light bulbs are now much easier to find than they
ever used to be.

I don't have an issue with that. The number of conventional bulbs are no
longer sold in the quantities they once were, but nevertheless you can
still get them if you're determined. Hasn't the law therefore been
successful?

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 08:31:13 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

An enormous number of years ago, I did a spell cleaning a hospital. We
had a range of vacuum cleaners. Of those, the Nilfisks were
astonishingly good (I think they were 900W).

I liked the way the industrial versions simply plonked two motor heads
on the one casing. No waste of design time there, prettifying it up.

I detested the BVC/Goblins
because they were so noisy whereas the Nilfisks outperformed them at an
incredibly low noise level. I also rather liked the aluminium pot on
wheels design.

I think I'll get an ally pot Nilfisk, as the plastic bottom has a weak
spot near the wheels - gets a bit cracked after two decades of dog's
abuse.

On 22/08/2014 17:19, Arfa Daily wrote:
... if we've now got to start shaving a few watts off the motor of an
appliance that these days is probably used no more than 15 minutes a
week, in order to save power. I refer of course to the new vacuum
cleaner motor power directive from our chums at the EU ...

I would be happy if manufacturers were obliged to publish some agreed
measure of efficiency. Airwatt comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airwatt

Preferably the measurement is made after picking up a few kg of plaster
or other fine dust!

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
No, they're bought on fashion, brand and perceived technology
(marketing). Nothing else explains Dyson's success...

Other than the fact that they work and do the job, you mean?

My next door neighbour has had 3 Dysons to my one Panasonic. All broke in
one way or another. All my Panasonic has had is replacement of the normal
wearing parts like belts. And it's not like she's into replacing consumer
goods for the sake of it - she still has a VHS. ;-)

--
*When I'm not in my right mind, my left mind gets pretty crowded *

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

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:

we've now got to start shaving a few watts off the motor of an
appliance that these days is probably used no more than 15 minutes a
week

It's likely a pretty inefficient design that requires two horsepower to
lift some dust.

You can dial the power up/down as appropriate on mine, for DIY cleanup
it's often on max, if I see the same model going dirt cheap in the final
days before they become "illegal", I'll buy one ... the hoover aisle in
curry's is full of £100 off signs.

I think you (and/or they) misunderstand

I'll be illegal to import or make (within the EU).

It wont become illegal to sell stock that you still have remaining on
change-over date

tim

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 01:45:06 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

I haven't voted for any of the people in the EU that come up with all
this **** and then foist it on our government in a way that can't be
refused. Have you ?

Perhaps you ought to. You missed your chance, back in May, for the next
five years, though.


What ? You think that MEPs have anything to do with the thought processes -
or indeed lack of them - that go into coming up with this bollox ? And that
they have any control over the outcome or its implementation in our country
? If so, then I think that's staggeringly naiive for someone of your normal
contribution level ... The EU is a huge bureaucracy that rumbles on
unstoppably, and we have absolutely no control over its output, and how it
affects us at all, no matter what Cameron would try to have us believe. It
has totally emasculated us as an independent nation, capable of controlling
our own destiny and laws, and all this green crap is a manifest example of
EU meddling at its worst.

I have no problem with saving energy where it's valid, such as with fridges
and freezers that run, off and on, 24/7, or with items that have standby
modes, but vacuum cleaners ? Power saving ? Really ?

I truly despair ...

Arfa

On 23/08/14 13:27, Arfa Daily wrote:


"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 01:45:06 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

I haven't voted for any of the people in the EU that come up with all
this **** and then foist it on our government in a way that can't be
refused. Have you ?

Perhaps you ought to. You missed your chance, back in May, for the next
five years, though.


What ? You think that MEPs have anything to do with the thought
processes - or indeed lack of them - that go into coming up with this
bollox ? And that they have any control over the outcome or its
implementation in our country ? If so, then I think that's staggeringly
naiive for someone of your normal contribution level ... The EU is a
huge bureaucracy that rumbles on unstoppably, and we have absolutely no
control over its output, and how it affects us at all, no matter what
Cameron would try to have us believe. It has totally emasculated us as
an independent nation, capable of controlling our own destiny and laws,
and all this green crap is a manifest example of EU meddling at its worst.

I have no problem with saving energy where it's valid, such as with
fridges and freezers that run, off and on, 24/7, or with items that have
standby modes, but vacuum cleaners ? Power saving ? Really ?

I truly despair ...

Arfa
Correct: MEPS are equivalent to a house of lords. They can block, they
can modify but they cannot throw legislation out - it just comes back,
often packaged in many other directives so that to block one line is to
block the lot/

Policy is initiated by EU paid lobbyists at the behest of European
manufacturers, and framed by bureaucrats who are unelected and unsackable.

It is as democratic as the USSR was.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
My next door neighbour has had 3 Dysons to my one Panasonic. All broke
in one way or another.

How about being more specific "broke".

You'd have to ask her. No longer worked.


My DC01 is 20 years old and
still going strong. I had to redo the mains cable at the entry point to
the machine, and it's had a new wand-hose, but that's all. The DC35 has
turned out to be a very handy device, too.

I'd not expect the average 75 year old widow to be up to fixing a broken
flex. Perhaps buy and fit new hose if they are readily available, (like
from the same place she bought the appliance) and doesn't need tools.

--
*In some places, C:\ is the root of all directories *

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

Arfa Daily wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
... if we've now got to start shaving a few watts off the motor of an
appliance that these days is probably used no more than 15 minutes a
week, in order to save power. I refer of course to the new vacuum
cleaner motor power directive from our chums at the EU ...

Eco-bollox at its most ludicrous ... :-\

Arfa



I have no sympathy. The sheeple voted to let them do it. You get the
politicians you vote for!


I haven't voted for any of the people in the EU that come up with all
this **** and then foist it on our government in a way that can't be
refused. Have you ?

Arfa

I didn't vote for this government, but enough sheeple did to give them
power. A major change in voting habits is necessary if you want change.

Fredxxx wrote:

What I would like to see is a rating structure that represents say
suction and flow vs power input.


If IRC, Machine mart used to quote suction power in inches of vacuum for
the products they sold. Hmm seem to have improved the site and now quote
suction and airflow for some units.

On 23/08/14 17:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Capitol
wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
... if we've now got to start shaving a few watts off the motor of an
appliance that these days is probably used no more than 15 minutes a
week, in order to save power. I refer of course to the new vacuum
cleaner motor power directive from our chums at the EU ...

Eco-bollox at its most ludicrous ... :-\

I have no sympathy. The sheeple voted to let them do it. You get the
politicians you vote for!

I haven't voted for any of the people in the EU that come up with all
this **** and then foist it on our government in a way that can't be
refused. Have you ?

I didn't vote for this government, but enough sheeple did to give
them power. A major change in voting habits is necessary if you want
change.

Nobody voted for this govt. That's the trouble with coalitions: nobody
votes for them [1]. The voters also don't realise that on entering
coalition, the manifestos of the parties involved go into the rubbish
bin. What the govt then does is what results from the coalition
negotiations and subsequent agreement. You'll note that that is
something no-one has voted for or against.

This is why FPTP is best; generally it gives you a working majority so
that the govt can govern. The lesson for the Tories in Scotland and
Wales in '97 was "Must try harder", not, as the LibDems would have it,
to cry and ask for top-up seats.

Of course now with four parties getting something of the poll, that
frays at the edges somewhat. The only thing one can say with much
certainty is that voting UKIP will give you Millibroon.

I wouldn't bet on that either.

If enough people do vote UKIP you are left with a cameron less UKIP-tory
coalition, a tory-labour coalition, or a minority tory government. With
UKIP able to defeat anything they put forward unless Labour support it.

All of which are interesting outcomes.

And none of which are milibroon.






--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 17:14:03 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Nobody voted for this govt. That's the trouble with coalitions: nobody
votes for them [1].

Nobody _ever_ votes for _any_ Government. People vote for their MP. The
party with most MPs form the Government.

On 23/08/2014 17:36, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 17:14:03 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Nobody voted for this govt. That's the trouble with coalitions: nobody
votes for them [1].

Nobody _ever_ votes for _any_ Government. People vote for their MP. The
party with most MPs form the Government.

People generally vote for a party, Who the party rep is in a particular
area, is incidental in most cases (with a few celebrity driven exceptions)

--
Chris

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 17:52:59 +0100, news wrote:

Nobody voted for this govt. That's the trouble with coalitions: nobody
votes for them [1].

Nobody _ever_ votes for _any_ Government. People vote for their MP. The
party with most MPs form the Government.

People generally vote for a party, Who the party rep is in a particular
area, is incidental in most cases (with a few celebrity driven
exceptions)

The reason they choose the candidate to vote for is a separate thing.
Their vote does no more, no less than go towards selecting _their MP_.

On 23/08/2014 18:29, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 17:52:59 +0100, news wrote:

Nobody voted for this govt. That's the trouble with coalitions: nobody
votes for them [1].

Nobody _ever_ votes for _any_ Government. People vote for their MP. The
party with most MPs form the Government.

People generally vote for a party, Who the party rep is in a particular
area, is incidental in most cases (with a few celebrity driven
exceptions)

The reason they choose the candidate to vote for is a separate thing.
Their vote does no more, no less than go towards selecting _their MP_.

Technically I agree with you, but in practice in a lot of
constituencies either party could put up Donald Duck as the candidate
and Donald would get voted in as MP. When Donald gets to parliament he
does exactly as he is told by the party big wigs. In these
constituencies people are effectively voting for (or against) a
government. This applies to the vast majority of constituencies with
only a small proportion making any real difference to the colour of the
government.

--
Chris

On 23/08/2014 17:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

If enough people do vote UKIP you are left with a cameron less UKIP-tory
coalition, a tory-labour coalition, or a minority tory government. With
UKIP able to defeat anything they put forward unless Labour support it.

They weren't stupid enough to vote UKIP for the WM police commissioner,
what makes you think they would do so if it came to a real election.

On 23/08/2014 12:20, Fredxxx wrote:
On 22/08/2014 17:19, Arfa Daily wrote:
... if we've now got to start shaving a few watts off the motor of an
appliance that these days is probably used no more than 15 minutes a
week, in order to save power. I refer of course to the new vacuum
cleaner motor power directive from our chums at the EU ...

I would be happy if manufacturers were obliged to publish some agreed
measure of efficiency. Airwatt comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airwatt

Preferably the measurement is made after picking up a few kg of plaster
or other fine dust!

The new EU regs include energy, filtering and cleaning ratings.
Dyson is challenging them in the courts as he doesn't like the cleaning
rating tests.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
My DC01 is 20 years old and still going strong. I had to redo the
mains cable at the entry point to the machine, and it's had a new
wand-hose, but that's all. The DC35 has turned out to be a very
handy device, too.

I'd not expect the average 75 year old widow to be up to fixing a
broken flex.

Then she can get her DIY son/neighbour to do it.

What makes you think her family are any more into DIY than she is?

What makes you think a
75-year-old widow is the typical customer anyway. Or did you just
choose her to make a point?

I used her to make the point she wasn't simply buying a new one to have
the latest. As plenty do - especially with Dyson.

Perhaps buy and fit new hose if they are readily available, (like
from the same place she bought the appliance) and doesn't need tools.

Got it online from Dyson for about a tenner. Installation was to go
CLICK and that was that.

She doesn't do 'online'.

Oh - I would have looked at them for her. But she didn't ask.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long? *

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

On 23/08/2014 09:44, news wrote:

How long till somebody finds a "loophole" in the regulations, like say
they only apply to domestic vacuum cleaners and not industrial cleaners
- so we all start buying Industrial cleaners - bit like "Heavy duty -
not for domestic use" light bulbs are now much easier to find than they
ever used to be.

'Industrial', and others, are exempt. But it's not all that simple,
definitions he
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...24:0034:EN:PDF

--
F

On 23/08/2014 01:44, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/08/2014 01:31, Arfa Daily wrote:


What I would like to see is a rating structure that represents say
suction and flow vs power input.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airwatt


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

Bob Eager wrote:

I notice that the Henry now comes with a low/high power switch
(600W/1200W).

They've had that for years, though they've recently changed the trad
rocker switch for a non-locking one so it needs pressing every time he's
turned on (as it were ;-) ).

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

On 23/08/14 19:12, Dennis@home wrote:
On 23/08/2014 17:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

If enough people do vote UKIP you are left with a cameron less UKIP-tory
coalition, a tory-labour coalition, or a minority tory government. With
UKIP able to defeat anything they put forward unless Labour support it.

They weren't stupid enough to vote UKIP for the WM police commissioner,
what makes you think they would do so if it came to a real election.


the fact that they did in the European election?

And are doing so in many many local elections

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 08:34:25 +0100, PeterC
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 01:02:31 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:02:21 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

Was discussing this last night. It will go down from 1600W to 900W in
2017.

And yet... 20 years ago I bought a Nilfisk that had 900W of motor
power and it suckethed mightily, so mightily I thought the carpet
would come up. A new motor was fitted after a blocked filter caused
the old one to overheat, and the motor was now 1200W and yea, it
suckethed mightily, but not noticeably more so than the old one.
I'd be happy enough with a good quality 900W motor and it seems to me
there's a lot of **** design out there that's using / wasting power
just to play the numbers game to attract business.

For 20 years I had a 900W George, then bought a 1400W Nilfisk for the 13A
PTO socket. Used on the same job, for comparison, no difference in
performance, Nilfisk just as loud as George, in spite of supposedly being
less so and the Nilfisk's exhaust is a lot warmer than George's.
I reckon I bought a 900W vac. with a 500W heater free with it.

That'll be the model with the after burner feature then.
--
J B Good

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 21:58:14 +0100, Scott M wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:

I notice that the Henry now comes with a low/high power switch
(600W/1200W).

They've had that for years, though they've recently changed the trad
rocker switch for a non-locking one so it needs pressing every time he's
turned on (as it were ;-) ).

Our Henry must be even older than I thought!

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

On 23/08/2014 12:20, Fredxxx wrote:
On 22/08/2014 17:19, Arfa Daily wrote:
... if we've now got to start shaving a few watts off the motor of an
appliance that these days is probably used no more than 15 minutes a
week, in order to save power. I refer of course to the new vacuum
cleaner motor power directive from our chums at the EU ...

I would be happy if manufacturers were obliged to publish some agreed
measure of efficiency. Airwatt comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airwatt

Preferably the measurement is made after picking up a few kg of plaster
or other fine dust!

The new EU regs include energy, filtering and cleaning ratings.
Dyson is challenging them in the courts as he doesn't like the cleaning
rating tests.

The main reason I don't have a Dyson vacuum cleaner is because he seems to
be a whiney git.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
I used her to make the point she wasn't simply buying a new one to have
the latest. As plenty do - especially with Dyson.

A mere assertion on your part.

Methinks you do protest too much.

--
*Procrastinate now

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

On 24/08/2014 09:00, Richard wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

On 23/08/2014 12:20, Fredxxx wrote:
On 22/08/2014 17:19, Arfa Daily wrote:
... if we've now got to start shaving a few watts off the motor of an
appliance that these days is probably used no more than 15 minutes a
week, in order to save power. I refer of course to the new vacuum
cleaner motor power directive from our chums at the EU ...

I would be happy if manufacturers were obliged to publish some agreed
measure of efficiency. Airwatt comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airwatt

Preferably the measurement is made after picking up a few kg of plaster
or other fine dust!

The new EU regs include energy, filtering and cleaning ratings.
Dyson is challenging them in the courts as he doesn't like the
cleaning rating tests.

The main reason I don't have a Dyson vacuum cleaner is because he seems
to be a whiney git.
The idea is to reduce energy use, but how does work if the vacuum
cleaner has to be passed over the same area more often to pick up the
dust? The EU is also on planning to reduce the power of other domestic
devices, including kettles. Now if I wish to boil, say a litre of water
that, is at say 20 degrees C, surely it will take the same amount of
energy whether I do it with a low wattage or high wattage device. Or am
I missing something here?

On 24/08/2014 15:02, Broadback wrote:

The EU is also on planning to reduce the power of other domestic
devices, including kettles. Now if I wish to boil, say a litre of water
that, is at say 20 degrees C, surely it will take the same amount of
energy whether I do it with a low wattage or high wattage device. Or am
I missing something here?

It would indeed be silly to reduce the power of kettles. (Though back in
the days when there was serious spikes in load at the end of eg
Coronation Street it making everybody use eg 2KW kettles rather than 3KW
would have put a big dent in the spike. But back then 2KW or less was
probably normal.)

However I can't find anybody proposing it - can you?

On 24/08/2014 15:02, Broadback wrote:
On 24/08/2014 09:00, Richard wrote:

The main reason I don't have a Dyson vacuum cleaner is because he seems
to be a whiney git.
The idea is to reduce energy use, but how does work if the vacuum
cleaner has to be passed over the same area more often to pick up the
dust? The EU is also on planning to reduce the power of other domestic
devices, including kettles. Now if I wish to boil, say a litre of water
that, is at say 20 degrees C, surely it will take the same amount of
energy whether I do it with a low wattage or high wattage device. Or am
I missing something here?

Yes, you will use *more* energy doing the job with a lower power kettle
due to the increased losses through the skin of the kettle due to it
being hot longer.

I learnt this in Physics lessons in school by playing with an element
and a beaker. Turn the element down far enough, and the water would
never boil, even if you left it running all day. At other settings, it
used less power, but the increased time increased total energy usage.

What the EU rule is relying on is that people will get annoyed if vacuum
cleaning takes longer, so the makers will be forced by market forces to
increase the efficiency of their machinery.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
Broadback wrote:
The EU is also on planning to reduce the power of other domestic
devices, including kettles.

Can you give a link to that information? It makes no sense as a kettle is
near 100% efficient. Unlike most other domestic appliances, like vacuum
cleaners.

--
*Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home.

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

On 24/08/14 15:02, Broadback wrote:

The idea is to reduce energy use,

No. The idea is to make all current vacuum cleaners obsolete and
unsalable and ensure that Bosch who are almost certainly behind the
lobby can outsell better Chinese and Japanese vacuums.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 24/08/2014 15:02, Broadback wrote:
The EU is also on planning to reduce the power of other domestic
devices, including kettles.

So, for example, a kitchen mixer that takes 600W now might, with more
efficient design, reduce that to 400 or 500W. But even that is ludicrous
as a target. The target needs to be total energy input rather than
wattage. After all, a 500W mixer might take 50% longer to do the job.

Targeting input watts only makes any sense with respect to the power
utilities and distribution.

It is also arguable that some devices should have a target of 0W. A
coffee grinder might be a very inefficient approach to the problem - it
could be that buying ground rather than bean coffee is inherently much
more efficient. (No - I don't want this to happen, but we do need to
appreciate that changes in wattage within the kitchen could have effects
elsewhere - such as the great coffee grinding factories.)

--
Rod

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:02:21 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

Was discussing this last night. It will go down from 1600W to 900W in
2017.

And yet... 20 years ago I bought a Nilfisk that had 900W of motor
power and it suckethed mightily, so mightily I thought the carpet
would come up. A new motor was fitted after a blocked filter caused
the old one to overheat, and the motor was now 1200W and yea, it
suckethed mightily, but not noticeably more so than the old one.
I'd be happy enough with a good quality 900W motor and it seems to me
there's a lot of **** design out there that's using / wasting power
just to play the numbers game to attract business.

Nilfisk used to be the queen of vacuum cleaners years ago.
Indestructible virtually.
Cost about four times the competition.