Anyone hear PM today? A guy who has a vacuum cleaner museum with examples
of pretty well every machine made reckoned the current range of high power
consumption cleaners was just a marketing ploy to appeal to those who
thought the more 'watts' the better. And basically just produced more heat
than extra suction.

--
*Could it be that "I do " is the longest sentence? *

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

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 23:34:22 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Anyone hear PM today? A guy who has a vacuum cleaner museum with
examples of pretty well every machine made reckoned the current range of
high power consumption cleaners was just a marketing ploy to appeal to
those who thought the more 'watts' the better. And basically just
produced more heat than extra suction.

Ah, but the Beeb's just a left-wing pro-EU propaganda machine, so it's
only to be expected...

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anyone hear PM today? A guy who has a vacuum cleaner museum with examples
of pretty well every machine made reckoned the current range of high power
consumption cleaners was just a marketing ploy to appeal to those who
thought the more 'watts' the better. And basically just produced more heat
than extra suction.

and, very importantly, more noise.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 23:34:22 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Anyone hear PM today? A guy who has a vacuum cleaner museum with
examples of pretty well every machine made reckoned the current range
of high power consumption cleaners was just a marketing ploy to appeal
to those who thought the more 'watts' the better. And basically just
produced more heat than extra suction.

Ah, but the Beeb's just a left-wing pro-EU propaganda machine, so it's
only to be expected...

Just as well, given the rest of the meja. ;-)

They did mention that it would be pointless to reduce the power input of a
kettle, though. Not sure if that was in the same item.

--
*According to my calculations, the problem doesn't exist.

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

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anyone hear PM today? A guy who has a vacuum cleaner museum with
examples of pretty well every machine made reckoned the current range
of high power consumption cleaners was just a marketing ploy to appeal
to those who thought the more 'watts' the better. And basically just
produced more heat than extra suction.

and, very importantly, more noise.

Although my 900 watt upright is far too noisy too. Although making noise
doesn't take much power. ;-)

--
*I thought I wanted a career. Turns out I just wanted paychecks.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Anyone hear PM today? A guy who has a vacuum cleaner museum with examples
of pretty well every machine made reckoned the current range of high power
consumption cleaners was just a marketing ploy to appeal to those who
thought the more 'watts' the better. And basically just produced more heat
than extra suction.

Except that it seems rather unlikely that "which" would fall for marketing
claims.

tim

In article ,
tim..... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Anyone hear PM today? A guy who has a vacuum cleaner museum with
examples of pretty well every machine made reckoned the current range
of high power consumption cleaners was just a marketing ploy to appeal
to those who thought the more 'watts' the better. And basically just
produced more heat than extra suction.

Except that it seems rather unlikely that "which" would fall for
marketing claims.

Have they said the greater the wattage the better?

--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times more memory.

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

Just occurred to me seeing all the ads on telly for cordless cleaners that
the makers have found yet another way of getting round the eurocrats
desires for better energy efficiency?

--
*WHY IS IT CALLED TOURIST SEASON IF WE CAN'T SHOOT AT THEM?

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

On Friday, 5 September 2014 13:12:13 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)

wrote:


Just occurred to me seeing all the ads on telly for cordless cleaners that
the makers have found yet another way of getting round the eurocrats
desires for better energy efficiency?

You think that appliance makers have nothing better to do than look for
ways of getting round the eurocrats desires for better energy
efficiency?

It's not the makers that do thatr it's the marketing department.
Do you also think the appliance makers chase around after a fully grown tiger in order to demonstrate that a vacuum cleaner cleans !


The one I got, I bought because having seen it demoed by a relly, we
decided it would be useful.

is that like a demo for cleaning where blue dye goes clear and that's proof that the product can clean.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Anyone hear PM today? A guy who has a vacuum cleaner museum with
examples of pretty well every machine made reckoned the current range
of high power consumption cleaners was just a marketing ploy to appeal
to those who thought the more 'watts' the better. And basically just
produced more heat than extra suction.

Except that it seems rather unlikely that "which" would fall for
marketing claims.

Have they said the greater the wattage the better?

No, but a substantial number of their "best buys" were above the limit.

Bearing in mind that they (usually) take into account cost this is likely to
be on a value for money basis.

So it seems likely that whilst it is possible to give a lower wattage
machine more suction this can only be achieved by engineering changes that
costs more to achieve that adding a higher powered motor and thus, isn't a
marketing ploy at all

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
Except that it seems rather unlikely that "which" would fall for
marketing claims.

Have they said the greater the wattage the better?

No, but a substantial number of their "best buys" were above the limit.

Bearing in mind that they (usually) take into account cost this is
likely to be on a value for money basis.

So it seems likely that whilst it is possible to give a lower wattage
machine more suction this can only be achieved by engineering changes
that costs more to achieve that adding a higher powered motor and thus,
isn't a marketing ploy at all

It hasn't occurred to you that these high powered machines might work
equally well with a smaller but more efficient motor?

Perhaps you don't remember when Which tested mains electric drills. The
largest ones weren't automatically the most powerful.

--
*HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A CIVIL WAR?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
Except that it seems rather unlikely that "which" would fall for
marketing claims.

Have they said the greater the wattage the better?

No, but a substantial number of their "best buys" were above the limit.

Bearing in mind that they (usually) take into account cost this is
likely to be on a value for money basis.

So it seems likely that whilst it is possible to give a lower wattage
machine more suction this can only be achieved by engineering changes
that costs more to achieve that adding a higher powered motor and thus,
isn't a marketing ploy at all

It hasn't occurred to you that these high powered machines might work
equally well with a smaller but more efficient motor?

What I might have considered, has got nothing to do with it.

The which results were based upon tests of actual available equipment.

I haven't seen the test, I am just going from reports of it, which implied
that the test included the comparison of high powered "inefficient" machines
and lower powered, more efficient, ones.

and something like 8 out of 10 of the best buys were the higher powered
machines.

Now, as I said before, Which best buys usually take into account value for
money, so (on the assumption that lower power efficient ones work as well as
the higher power inefficient ones) this suggests that putting in a higher
powered motor is a cheaper way of getting extra performance than
re-engineering a machine with lower power motor, and thus (as before) the
reason for doing this isn't a marketing ploy - it's to achieve extra
performance at the smallest extra cost.

Perhaps you don't remember when Which tested mains electric drills. The
largest ones weren't automatically the most powerful.

No I don't remember because I gave up subscribing 20 years ago.

But there are other reasons (compared with vacuums) for putting smaller,
more efficient, motors into electric drills other than raw costs.

weight of the tool and cooler running being something that is going to be
much more important with a drill than a vacuum

tim

On 03/09/2014 20:29, tim..... wrote:

Except that it seems rather unlikely that "which" would fall for
marketing claims.


Which? fall for all the marketing ploys
They will rate an item with 20 widgets over one with only 10 widgets and
neglect to say that the average person will only ever actually use one
of the widgets.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
Perhaps you don't remember when Which tested mains electric drills. The
largest ones weren't automatically the most powerful.

No I don't remember because I gave up subscribing 20 years ago.

But there are other reasons (compared with vacuums) for putting smaller,
more efficient, motors into electric drills other than raw costs.

Right - so you've admitted it's possible. That's a start.

weight of the tool and cooler running being something that is going to
be much more important with a drill than a vacuum

Maximising the profits of the cleaner maker by using the cheapest s**t
possible might be nearer it.

--
*The statement above is false

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

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 03/09/2014 20:29, tim..... wrote:

Except that it seems rather unlikely that "which" would fall for
marketing claims.


Which? fall for all the marketing ploys
They will rate an item with 20 widgets over one with only 10 widgets and
neglect to say that the average person will only ever actually use one of
the widgets.

That's not falling for all the marketing ploys, that just
different ideas to yours about what makes sense.