.... 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

In article ,
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 ... :-\

15 minutes a week?

It does seem odd, but like all these things forcing makers to increase
efficiency is no bad thing. They won't do it on their own.

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

--
*No I haven't stolen it , I'm just a **** driver*

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

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 ...

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

Arfa


But presumably a less powerful vacuum will take longer to do the same
job? So, fewer watts for a longer time = no 'kin difference.



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

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
... 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 ... :-\

Mine doesn't get 15 mins a month, I use the Jo Brand method; 'how do you
know when it's time to vacuum? - you check your underpants, if there's a
penis, it's not time'

On 22/08/14 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 ...

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


I expect you will find that its being pushed behnid the scenes by a
vacuum cleaner company that has - guess watt - crappy low powered
vacuums in stock that it can't shift.

Arfa




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

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

15 minutes a week?

It does seem odd, but like all these things forcing makers to increase
efficiency is no bad thing. They won't do it on their own.

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

I really don't believe that. We have been making electric motors for 150
years or more and I'm pretty sure - particularly in these days of
'efficiency' - that manufacturers will have striven to get the most power
out of their motors for the least power in. How do you make a motor more
efficient ? Better bearings ? Maybe, a little. Wind it somehow differently ?
But nobody has thought of a way already ? How do you you make the vacuum fan
more efficient and so require less input power ? Again, I'm pretty sure that
the multistage fan design that is universally used in 'conventional' vacuum
cleaners is probably about as efficient as it can get. So in order to
generate a certain amount of suck, a certain amount of input horsepower to
the fan will be needed, and a certain amount of watts into the motor will be
needed. If you put less watts into a motor of the same efficiency, then less
horsepowers will come out, and the fan will not generate the same amount of
vacuum. I don't dispute that with a lot of costly R & D, there probably are
some improvements to be made to motor and fan efficiencies, but I don't
think that it will be anything very significant, and manufacturers aren't
going to pour money into a bottomless pit to try to find those efficiencies.
All that will happen is that vacuum cleaners will pass their current 'golden
age' and decline into a shadow of their former selves.

As to 15 minutes a week, when I was a kid, we had stay-at-home mums - they
called them housewives. Mine used to vacuum the house from top to bottom
most every day. It was what she did. It was her 'job'. She was proud of how
clean she kept her house, and probably had that cleaner running two hours a
day. Now, the whole family dynamic has changed. Most families are out all
day, so not dirtying up the house anyway. People are also fundamentally
lazy, and won't take the vacuum cleaner to rooms that are not used most of
the time. So these days, only the lounge, kitchen and maybe the bedroom get
hoovered, and how long does it take to do that ? 15 minutes maybe ? OK let's
be really generous and say that the dining room gets done as well, and the
hallway. Half an hour. And that's worth buggering up yet another industry
and mature product that works just fine, to save that small amount of power
for that small amount of time ? As I said, Eco-bollox at its most ludicrous.
If the people who come up with this **** had dynamite for brains, they
wouldn't have enough to blow their ears off ...

Arfa



--
*No I haven't stolen it , I'm just a **** driver*

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

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 ...

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

Arfa


Was discussing this last night. It will go down from 1600W to 900W in
2017. I can see a "black" market in older, more powerful vacs. And I
agree, what will the manufacturers be able to do in order to recover the
suction power? Partner points out that this seems entirely inappropriate
given the incredibly wasteful and excessive use of energy that occurs in
so many other areas such as motor vehicles.

Not a Which member but what is readable here has some interest:

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2014/08/...-power-377790/

I do like the idea of quieter vacuum cleaners as mentioned there -
absolutely cannot stand the noise most of them make. Clashes something
rotten with my tinnitus.

--
Rod

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

Not a Which member but what is readable here has some interest:

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2014/08/...acuum-cleaner-
power-377790/

"Despite what is being widely reported by some other media outlets, a
large motor size does not guarantee impressive suction. Our independent
testing has found many Best Buy vacuums under 1600w, proving that clever
engineering and a well-designed floorhead are equally, if not more
important, than a powerful motor."

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.

On 22/08/2014 18:02, polygonum wrote:
Was discussing this last night.

Also came to mind that a whole-house plumbed in vacuum system is almost
certainly unaffected. Always fancied one of them...

--
Rod

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
It's likely a pretty inefficient design that requires two horsepower to
lift some dust.

I really don't believe that. We have been making electric motors for 150
years or more and I'm pretty sure - particularly in these days of
'efficiency' - that manufacturers will have striven to get the most
power out of their motors for the least power in.

Why should they 'strive'? They're not paying for the electricity. But they
are for the motor, so the cheaper, the better.

I'm not convinced the speed the average vacuum cleaner motor/fan runs at
is ideal. More likely just convenient. They certainly make enough noise
and get hot.

--
*Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?

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

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


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

15 minutes a week?

It does seem odd, but like all these things forcing makers to increase
efficiency is no bad thing. They won't do it on their own.

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

I really don't believe that. We have been making electric motors for 150
years or more and I'm pretty sure - particularly in these days of
'efficiency' - that manufacturers will have striven to get the most power
out of their motors for the least power in. How do you make a motor more
efficient ? Better bearings ? Maybe, a little. Wind it somehow differently
? But nobody has thought of a way already ? How do you you make the vacuum
fan more efficient and so require less input power ? Again, I'm pretty
sure that the multistage fan design that is universally used in
'conventional' vacuum cleaners is probably about as efficient as it can
get. So in order to generate a certain amount of suck, a certain amount of
input horsepower to the fan will be needed, and a certain amount of watts
into the motor will be needed. If you put less watts into a motor of the
same efficiency, then less horsepowers will come out, and the fan will not
generate the same amount of vacuum. I don't dispute that with a lot of
costly R & D, there probably are some improvements to be made to motor and
fan efficiencies, but I don't think that it will be anything very
significant, and manufacturers aren't going to pour money into a
bottomless pit to try to find those efficiencies. All that will happen is
that vacuum cleaners will pass their current 'golden age' and decline into
a shadow of their former selves.

As to 15 minutes a week, when I was a kid, we had stay-at-home mums -
they called them housewives. Mine used to vacuum the house from top to
bottom most every day. It was what she did. It was her 'job'. She was
proud of how clean she kept her house, and probably had that cleaner
running two hours a day. Now, the whole family dynamic has changed. Most
families are out all day, so not dirtying up the house anyway. People are
also fundamentally lazy, and won't take the vacuum cleaner to rooms that
are not used most of the time. So these days, only the lounge, kitchen and
maybe the bedroom get hoovered, and how long does it take to do that ? 15
minutes maybe ? OK let's be really generous and say that the dining room
gets done as well, and the hallway. Half an hour. And that's worth
buggering up yet another industry and mature product that works just fine,
to save that small amount of power for that small amount of time ? As I
said, Eco-bollox at its most ludicrous. If the people who come up with
this **** had dynamite for brains, they wouldn't have enough to blow their
ears off ...

Arfa

Our bungalow gets vacuumed every day in every room.
This takes 10 minutes per day.

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!

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
... 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 ... :-\


Just goes to prove that Eco-bollox sucks..............



--
Adam

"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!

That is always such a mindless statement.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


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

15 minutes a week?

It does seem odd, but like all these things forcing makers to increase
efficiency is no bad thing. They won't do it on their own.

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

I really don't believe that. We have been making electric motors for 150
years or more and I'm pretty sure - particularly in these days of
'efficiency' - that manufacturers will have striven to get the most power
out of their motors for the least power in. How do you make a motor more
efficient ? Better bearings ? Maybe, a little. Wind it somehow differently
? But nobody has thought of a way already ? How do you you make the vacuum
fan more efficient and so require less input power ? Again, I'm pretty
sure that the multistage fan design that is universally used in
'conventional' vacuum cleaners is probably about as efficient as it can
get. So in order to generate a certain amount of suck, a certain amount of
input horsepower to the fan will be needed, and a certain amount of watts
into the motor will be needed. If you put less watts into a motor of the
same efficiency, then less horsepowers will come out, and the fan will not
generate the same amount of vacuum. I don't dispute that with a lot of
costly R & D, there probably are some improvements to be made to motor and
fan efficiencies, but I don't think that it will be anything very
significant, and manufacturers aren't going to pour money into a
bottomless pit to try to find those efficiencies. All that will happen is
that vacuum cleaners will pass their current 'golden age' and decline into
a shadow of their former selves.

As to 15 minutes a week, when I was a kid, we had stay-at-home mums -
they called them housewives. Mine used to vacuum the house from top to
bottom most every day. It was what she did. It was her 'job'. She was
proud of how clean she kept her house, and probably had that cleaner
running two hours a day. Now, the whole family dynamic has changed. Most
families are out all day, so not dirtying up the house anyway. People are
also fundamentally lazy, and won't take the vacuum cleaner to rooms that
are not used most of the time. So these days, only the lounge, kitchen and
maybe the bedroom get hoovered, and how long does it take to do that ? 15
minutes maybe ? OK let's be really generous and say that the dining room
gets done as well, and the hallway. Half an hour. And that's worth
buggering up yet another industry and mature product that works just fine,
to save that small amount of power for that small amount of time ? As I
said, Eco-bollox at its most ludicrous. If the people who come up with
this **** had dynamite for brains, they wouldn't have enough to blow their
ears off ...

Making a vaccum cleaner more efficient is easy - multi-stage fans.
Most have just the one, if they had say three, the same work could be done
for half the power.
Of course this costs more so unless they are all forced to do it none of
them will.
Everyone would go for the el-cheapo even though it used more power.

"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.

You are not actually dialling up any power. You are just wasting more or
less.

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
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 ...

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

Arfa


Was discussing this last night. It will go down from 1600W to 900W in
2017. I can see a "black" market in older, more powerful vacs. And I
agree, what will the manufacturers be able to do in order to recover the
suction power? Partner points out that this seems entirely inappropriate
given the incredibly wasteful and excessive use of energy that occurs in
so many other areas such as motor vehicles.

Not a Which member but what is readable here has some interest:

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2014/08/...-power-377790/

I do like the idea of quieter vacuum cleaners as mentioned there -
absolutely cannot stand the noise most of them make. Clashes something
rotten with my tinnitus.

They will use less power and do the same job.

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

Not a Which member but what is readable here has some interest:

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2014/08/...acuum-cleaner-
power-377790/

"Despite what is being widely reported by some other media outlets, a
large motor size does not guarantee impressive suction. Our independent
testing has found many Best Buy vacuums under 1600w, proving that clever
engineering and a well-designed floorhead are equally, if not more
important, than a powerful motor."

.. The factor determining efficiency is air flow. of which suction is only
one factor.

In article ,
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've always thought vacuum cleaners must be ridiculously inefficient.
How much power do you think you could get out of the airflow? I'd be
surprised if it's more than a few tens of watts.

-- Richard

On 2014-08-22, ARW wrote:

Just goes to prove that Eco-bollox sucks..............


Maybe Microsoft have been lobbying for a new market...

"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the
day they start making vacuum cleaners"

--
Ian

"Tamahome!!!" - "Miaka!!!"

On 22/08/2014 18:18, Chris Hogg wrote:


AIUI it's not the efficiency of the motor they want to improve, but
the vacuuming efficiency, so that a 1600 watt motor achieves as much
cleaning potential as one with say a 2000 watt motor. What would be
involved, I don't know, but ground clearance would be an obvious thing
to look at, as would the dust-filtering process.

The need for efficiency depends on what you are vacuuming. Most places
in Europe have predominately hard floors, which they vacuum. In the UK
we have predominately carpets- which take more suction/airflow to clean.

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

On 22/08/2014 22:26, The Medway Handyman wrote:
The need for efficiency depends on what you are vacuuming. Most places
in Europe have predominately hard floors, which they vacuum. In the UK
we have predominately carpets- which take more suction/airflow to clean.

Whatever the flooring, we want the greatest possible suction for the
least input of electricity. Efficiency, calculated as how much effective
suction is available for a given input, is something we do want, isn't it?

Have to say the approach of using airflow to turn a brush in the
cleaning head has always seemed questionable. I'd have expected an
electrically powered brush would be more efficient,

--
Rod

On 22/08/14 22:40, polygonum wrote:
On 22/08/2014 22:26, The Medway Handyman wrote:
The need for efficiency depends on what you are vacuuming. Most places
in Europe have predominately hard floors, which they vacuum. In the UK
we have predominately carpets- which take more suction/airflow to clean.

Whatever the flooring, we want the greatest possible suction for the
least input of electricity. Efficiency, calculated as how much effective
suction is available for a given input, is something we do want, isn't it?

Have to say the approach of using airflow to turn a brush in the
cleaning head has always seemed questionable. I'd have expected an
electrically powered brush would be more efficient,


Miele used to have an Electrobrush on one of their cylinder hoovers
(Revolution 4 IIRC, circa 2003). They seem to have dropped that for some
reason in favour of air powered brushes.

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 22/08/2014 18:18, Chris Hogg wrote:


AIUI it's not the efficiency of the motor they want to improve, but
the vacuuming efficiency, so that a 1600 watt motor achieves as much
cleaning potential as one with say a 2000 watt motor. What would be
involved, I don't know, but ground clearance would be an obvious thing
to look at, as would the dust-filtering process.

The need for efficiency depends on what you are vacuuming. Most places
in Europe have predominately hard floors, which they vacuum. In the UK
we have predominately carpets- which take more suction/airflow to clean.

I still don't believe they need a couple of horsepower. That is down to
simply bad design. No need for the makers to improve things until they are
forced to.

BTW, the regs also lower the noise limit too. That can't be bad either.

--
*Why is it that most nudists are people you don't want to see naked?*

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

On 22/08/2014 23:46, Tim Streater wrote:

My portable battery-powered Dyson does just this and is very effective.

Sorry - which way round? It uses airflow or it has an electric motorised
head? I am rather assuming electric head.

--
Rod

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.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
It's likely a pretty inefficient design that requires two horsepower to
lift some dust.

I really don't believe that. We have been making electric motors for 150
years or more and I'm pretty sure - particularly in these days of
'efficiency' - that manufacturers will have striven to get the most
power out of their motors for the least power in.

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 ...



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


They certainly make enough noise
and get hot.

And that's important because ?

Arfa



--
*Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?

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

Our bungalow gets vacuumed every day in every room.
This takes 10 minutes per day.




There you go then. I rest my case. A potential power saving of a gnat's cock
above zilch ...

Arfa

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


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

15 minutes a week?

It does seem odd, but like all these things forcing makers to increase
efficiency is no bad thing. They won't do it on their own.

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

I really don't believe that. We have been making electric motors for 150
years or more and I'm pretty sure - particularly in these days of
'efficiency' - that manufacturers will have striven to get the most power
out of their motors for the least power in. How do you make a motor more
efficient ? Better bearings ? Maybe, a little. Wind it somehow
differently ? But nobody has thought of a way already ? How do you you
make the vacuum fan more efficient and so require less input power ?
Again, I'm pretty sure that the multistage fan design that is universally
used in 'conventional' vacuum cleaners is probably about as efficient as
it can get. So in order to generate a certain amount of suck, a certain
amount of input horsepower to the fan will be needed, and a certain
amount of watts into the motor will be needed. If you put less watts into
a motor of the same efficiency, then less horsepowers will come out, and
the fan will not generate the same amount of vacuum. I don't dispute that
with a lot of costly R & D, there probably are some improvements to be
made to motor and fan efficiencies, but I don't think that it will be
anything very significant, and manufacturers aren't going to pour money
into a bottomless pit to try to find those efficiencies. All that will
happen is that vacuum cleaners will pass their current 'golden age' and
decline into a shadow of their former selves.

As to 15 minutes a week, when I was a kid, we had stay-at-home mums -
they called them housewives. Mine used to vacuum the house from top to
bottom most every day. It was what she did. It was her 'job'. She was
proud of how clean she kept her house, and probably had that cleaner
running two hours a day. Now, the whole family dynamic has changed. Most
families are out all day, so not dirtying up the house anyway. People are
also fundamentally lazy, and won't take the vacuum cleaner to rooms that
are not used most of the time. So these days, only the lounge, kitchen
and maybe the bedroom get hoovered, and how long does it take to do that
? 15 minutes maybe ? OK let's be really generous and say that the dining
room gets done as well, and the hallway. Half an hour. And that's worth
buggering up yet another industry and mature product that works just
fine, to save that small amount of power for that small amount of time ?
As I said, Eco-bollox at its most ludicrous. If the people who come up
with this **** had dynamite for brains, they wouldn't have enough to blow
their ears off ...

Making a vaccum cleaner more efficient is easy - multi-stage fans.
Most have just the one, if they had say three, the same work could be done
for half the power.
Of course this costs more so unless they are all forced to do it none of
them will.
Everyone would go for the el-cheapo even though it used more power.


All the vacuum cleaners that I and my parents have owned that I can remember
working on, have had multistage fans, It's an old and well-established
technology.

Arfa

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"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.

You are not actually dialling up any power. You are just wasting more or
less.

That depends on how the power is being controlled.

Arfa

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


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
It's likely a pretty inefficient design that requires two horsepower to
lift some dust.

I really don't believe that. We have been making electric motors for 150
years or more and I'm pretty sure - particularly in these days of
'efficiency' - that manufacturers will have striven to get the most
power out of their motors for the least power in.

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 ...

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

I guess convenient as in lowest cost motor that will burn the power and
deliver sufficient suction that the average user is content with its
hoovering abilities.

They certainly make enough noise
and get hot.

And that's important because ?

It demonstrates how inefficient they are.

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

"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

"ARW" wrote in message
...
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
... 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 ... :-\


Just goes to prove that Eco-bollox sucks..............

Wot - like an Electrolux ? :-)

Arfa




--
Adam

On 23/08/2014 01:44, Fredxxx wrote:
What I would like to see is a rating structure that represents say
suction and flow vs power input.

Let us hope that whatever scale they come up with doesn't echo the folly
of those appliances where you have to count the pluses - such as
refrigerators.

One of the oddities about the high power motors, at east on some such as
Miele products like ours, is that they include a power control and many
people (us included) tend not to use it at top whack most of the time.
Whether running a 2200W motor using an electronic device to reduce power
is more or less efficient than using a 1600W motor without is left as an
exercise for the reader.

--
Rod

On 23/08/2014 01:02, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
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.

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 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. The worst that I can remember were various Hoovers.

--
Rod

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.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

Granted , but a lot of the power is used by simply filtering out the
microdust. Small holes need more power to push air through, surely?
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
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 ... :-\

15 minutes a week?

It does seem odd, but like all these things forcing makers to increase
efficiency is no bad thing. They won't do it on their own.

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

--
*No I haven't stolen it , I'm just a **** driver*

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

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.

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



--
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

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.