 |
|
| UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Also, you can see the dust being lifted by a Dyson. Not so with a bag type. So you'd need to weigh the amount for a true test. In some ways I think that the see through bin was a master stoke of design/marketing, all the other makers thought it was a silly idea and counter productive, but it does cause the "wow, yuck!" response that makes neighbours etc rush out to buy one. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
S Viemeister wrote:
When our DC01 arrived 7 years ago, I used it on the apparently clean living room carpet. The tank filled up before I got a third of the way across the room. Mostly dog hair, none of which had been visible on the surface. We don't have dogs, but the previous residents did. Compelling as a story, but not what my children even at primary school learnt to call "a fair test". I hypothesise (but would be happy to be proved wrong by actual experiment) that as your Dyson's now 7 years old, if you were to repeat the trial with a brand-new "bagged" cleaner - if the DC-01 is an upright, then a fair comparison for a cylinder includes a motorised bruch - you'd find the brand-new one similarly able to produce plenty of gunge used just after a go with the now-aging Dyson. Over time, cleaners do get less effective: parts which are closely-fitting and almost airtight when new become looser and leakier with age, filters clog, post-filter air passages get dirty and so slightly narrowed; hence my belief - backed up by only one household's experience - that the newness of a vac affects its effectiveness quite markedly... Stefek |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Brian Sharrock wrote: The lounge carpet had been vacuumed with the Hoover and seemed clean but we switched the DC01 on 'just to try it'. Thankfully, there were only immediate members of the family in the room - the amount of dust that the DC01 discovered in that carpet was embarrassing! This is a common statement. But was the old Hoover in top condition - new brushes, drive belt, bag etc? If not, it was hardly a fair test against a new product. My comments were anecdotal not scientific or more correctly an engineered test. The 'old' Hoover was maintianed by me with scrupulous emptying/changing of bags and frequent changes of belt ... even a beater-brush bar. I just got plain-tired of the device choking-up. Funny that so many people report the quite astonishing amount of muck these devices suck up from previously vacumm-swept carpets ... must be something in the device? Also, you can see the dust being lifted by a Dyson. Not so with a bag type. So you'd need to weigh the amount for a true test. Any user will comment on the sheer volume of muck that gets sucked by a Dyson, newly introduced into a house. And it's not just the first-try of the Dyson that needs to be compared with a Hoover (other brands are available) in 'top condition' but the tenth, twentieth and hundredth test to judge whether the test is 'fair'. I'm not saying it still wouldn't be better. Just that it's best to be a bit scientific about things. Mot of us (alright I meen _me_) don't get scientific about cleaning the floors in the home. We just get out the device from its hidey-hole and waggle away. My family unscientifically just prefers the Dyson. {Incidentally, we had vague ideas about leaving the Hoover upstaris to avoid the fag [nuLabor Warning *** EuroParliament *** language usage violation] ^W chore of carrying a machine up to the Landing /Bedrooms. That idea lasted for less thatn one use of a Dyson DC01. The Hoover was off to the tip ... pronto. After all, a brand new Hoover might well have done the same against a worn out Dyson. Not a cat-in-hell's chance -IMHO ! -- Brian |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Brian Sharrock wrote: After all, a brand new Hoover might well have done the same against a worn out Dyson. Not a cat-in-hell's chance -IMHO ! How can you possibly know unless you tried it? -- *To err is human. To forgive is against company policy. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Mary Fisher" writes: "Dave Liquorice" wrote in message Curious that this thread seems to be generally positive, previous ones have been pretty negative. Yes, that was my memory, which is why I asked! I like them but I haven't waded all through this thread (done too many before;-). I've used a DC01 (I think, or whatever the early non-upright one was called), and I own a DC04 and DC07. One thing which is very obvious is a program of continuous improvement -- when I've found niggly things which could be done better, they have been fixed on later models. Also, the suck is much stronger as you move through to later models. Actually, the DC07 is probably at the limit, in that it's difficult to extend the hose against the suck and the beater noticably tries to suck the carpet into it. My DC04 has been used for building work all its life. It wasn't bought for that purpose, but it works very well. I am careful not to bash or drop it as people report it is fragile, but it works particularly well with brick and plaster dust. It can keep up with the dust output from a plaster chaser, which a bagged cleaner just can't touch (if the bag works, it clogs in a few seconds, and if it doesn't clog, it just chucks the dust out of the exhaust). Beware that the handle on the dust container wasn't intended to take the weight of a container full of brick dust though -- I haven't broken it but it would probably be easy to do when emptying the container. -- Andrew Gabriel |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message ... "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Brian Sharrock wrote: The lounge carpet had been vacuumed with the Hoover and seemed clean but we switched the DC01 on 'just to try it'. Thankfully, there were only immediate members of the family in the room - the amount of dust that the DC01 discovered in that carpet was embarrassing! This is a common statement. But was the old Hoover in top condition - new brushes, drive belt, bag etc? If not, it was hardly a fair test against a new product. My comments were anecdotal not scientific or more correctly an engineered test. The 'old' Hoover was maintianed by me with scrupulous emptying/changing of bags and frequent changes of belt ... even a beater-brush bar. I just got plain-tired of the device choking-up. Funny that so many people report the quite astonishing amount of muck these devices suck up from previously vacumm-swept carpets ... must be something in the device? Also, you can see the dust being lifted by a Dyson. Not so with a bag type. So you'd need to weigh the amount for a true test. Any user will comment on the sheer volume of muck that gets sucked by a Dyson, newly introduced into a house. And it's not just the first-try of the Dyson that needs to be compared with a Hoover (other brands are available) in 'top condition' but the tenth, twentieth and hundredth test to judge whether the test is 'fair'. I'm not saying it still wouldn't be better. Just that it's best to be a bit scientific about things. Mot of us (alright I meen _me_) don't get scientific about cleaning the floors in the home. We just get out the device from its hidey-hole and waggle away. My family unscientifically just prefers the Dyson. {Incidentally, we had vague ideas about leaving the Hoover upstaris to avoid the fag [nuLabor Warning *** EuroParliament *** language usage violation] ^W chore of carrying a machine up to the Landing /Bedrooms. That idea lasted for less thatn one use of a Dyson DC01. The Hoover was off to the tip ... pronto. After all, a brand new Hoover might well have done the same against a worn out Dyson. Not a cat-in-hell's chance -IMHO ! -- Brian Just had these same results, but vice versa! Just replaced our Dyson (about 5 years old and regularly serviced) with a new, top spec Bissel. The bissel needed emptying after doing our small (freshly Dysoned) living room! It even brushed out marks that we thought would need a specialist cleaner. And as a bonus the center section simply lifts out to make a powerful hand held cylinder for doing the stairs. much better than the stretch the hose Dyson falls over pick up Dyson repeat ad infinitum shenanigans! It also cleans up to the skirtings, something our Dyson was rubbish at. The Dyson also seemed to blow any (relatively) larger items in front of it's self, leading to games of chase the piece of paper (also used to blow birthday cards of the telly!) As already mentioned ... personal opinion. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 25/10/2004 |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Rick Dipper writes: I got this (below) from dyson today. From: Darran Crook To: '" Subject: Dipper 31299 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:34:09 +0100 Dear Mr Dipper Thank you for your e-mail. Our vacuum cleaners are designed and tested for domestic usage only. We would not recommend picking up quantities of plaster dust or soot as this will cause the filters to clog prematurely and may cause further problems with your cleaner. Please be aware that vacuuming large quantities of fine dust such as plaster dust or soot may require you to wash the filters more often than the recommended 3 months. Actually, as I wrote in another posting, they work better for plaster dust than any other cleaner I've tried. The washable filter will need rinsing out after perhaps 4 or 5 bin fulls of plaster -- it's easy to see when that's required and trivial to do. I keep two so I can use the second whilst the first dries out. There's no plaster dust in the exhaust, and after some ~4 years, the original post motor filter (non-washable) is looking brand new. Soot is a different story. Soot particles are extremely fine and sticky. They will wreck any vacuum cleaner, and there's a small possibility they can catch fire or explode when going through the fan motor. The best thing for soot is an old bagged cleaner with a bag full of dust -- the soot will stick to the dust in the bag for a while. When it gets to the bag material itself, it will either instantly clog it, or pass straight through, depending on the size of the pores in the bag. It will also stick to the insides of everything, hose, attachments, etc. Ideally, use a bagged cleaner which can take an outlet hose too, and have it exhaust outdoors so you aren't just recirculating the soot particles in the house. I have an old Hoover Constellation I use for this, and two hoses. -- Andrew Gabriel |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rick Dipper wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:17:32 +0100, "Mary Fisher" wrote: I think it's been discussed before but I can't remember the details. What are opinions on Dyson vacuum cleaners, please? Mary A few days ago I wrote to Dyson via the "comments" section of there website, regarding the "no loss of suction" claim, which is untrue. No reply as of yet. I will write to trading standards / advertising standars if I do not get a staifatory reply. They block if you hover up soot (open fire) or plaster dust (you are in the building trade) Yes. Amen to that. Just washed and cleaned the filter in Her Dyson. She has two at least. I've lost count. On fluf they are great. OIn fine dust, they are worse than any other make bar none. Rick |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Beware that the handle on the dust container wasn't intended to take the weight of a container full of brick dust though -- I haven't broken it but it would probably be easy to do when emptying the container. I thought the clear bin was made from polycarbonate? Hence one of the tougher bits of the thing. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
wrote: John (IMM) has got one, do you need to know any more? mind you for the price he could have bought 3 cheapo ones and thrown them away as they broke, a "suck, suck, suck" solution Would it work for removing coffee from the monitor? -- *If God dropped acid, would he see people? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
John Rumm writes: Andrew Gabriel wrote: Beware that the handle on the dust container wasn't intended to take the weight of a container full of brick dust though -- I haven't broken it but it would probably be easy to do when emptying the container. I thought the clear bin was made from polycarbonate? Hence one of the tougher bits of the thing. Well, like I said, I haven't broken it, but the handle is a long largely unsupported/unstrengthened piece. If you'll forgive me, I'll resist the temptation to see how much force it actually requires to break ;-) Incidently, the dust container is sandblasted to a pearl finish on the inside first time you fill it with brick dust. -- Andrew Gabriel |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mary
Fisher wrote: I think it's been discussed before but I can't remember the details. What are opinions on Dyson vacuum cleaners, please? To add my two pennyworth for what it's worth (or not), we bought a DC08 animal about 18 months ago. It's too soon to say anything about reliability but it seems quite sturdy, despite being made of plasticy bits, and it hasn't suffered despite tumbling halfway down the stairs a few times before being arrested by the hose. We're well pleased by the performance. It tackles anything we throw at it, including brick dust and plaster dust, but we don't expect miracles and shovel up the thick of the plaster and brick dust first. The suction is much better than our old Electrolux upright, as would be expected considering the age and decrepit state it was in. I was fitting some new doors at my son's house recently where they have a fairly new Panasonic upright which was nothing like as effective as our DC08 would have been. It would pick up the sawdust as it was pushed forward then promptly disgorge some of it as it was pulled back. I appreciate others have praised Panasonics in this thread, I'm not disputing that, just passing on my limited short term experience with one sample. Apart from the initial novelty of being able to see all the gunge whirling round in the canister there is the useful aspect of being visually reminded when it needs emptying. The bag in the old one was invariably overdue for emptying by the time we got round to it. I've just washed the HEPA filter for the second time in 18 months (should have been every 6 months but there was a delivery problem with the tuits), although it was well covered with dust there'd only been a very slight drop in suction. There's no doubt that the HEPA filter is very effective, the air outlet on the old vac used to rapidly get coated with fine tenacious black dust, after 18 months the outlet of the Dyson is still spotless. I'm not sure how the non-HEPA Dysons fare in this respect, I'd be a bit concerned if they didn't have some form of filter between the dust canister and the fan. I don't pretend to understand the theory of cyclone extractors, the air appears to be sucked up the cones _after_ passing through the dust canister and presumably dust also falls down out of the cones, but it's certainly effective. When we were choosing the new vac I got the impression that many of the bagless competitors just swirled the air round a bit as it got sucked into the canister and relied on a (usually small) filter to stop the dust going any further. I imagine these filters would need much more frequent cleaning (or even replacement) than the huge Dyson filter. As others have commented, the abundance of spares in the shops does suggest a reliability problem but some of these are attachments that I don't think were supplied as standard with all models so really fall into the accessories category rather than replacement parts. The existence of replacement "lifetime" filters does suggest that the life might not be as long as implied, OTOH some users might have become so addicted to their vacuuming that they need to keep a spare filter so as not to be deprived of a day's pleasure while they wait for the filter to dry after washing it :-). Or perhaps today's throwaway society means there are lots of people who would rather spend 12 quid on a new filter instead of spending a few minutes swilling the dirty one out under the tap. A posting elsewhere in this thread mentions a tendency for the earlier DC02s to topple over when pulled along. Fortunately the DC08 doesn't suffer from this, the hose attaches very low down and the vac obediently follows wherever you go, conveniently dispensing more mains lead as required. So despite it being ugly, noisy and expensive we're happy with our Dyson. -- Mike Clarke |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:56:10 +0100, Rob Morley
wrote: People are more vociferous when they're annoyed than when they're content. Maybe the happy owners are getting annoyed at the disproportionate amount of slagging off that Dysons seem to receive. Until recently my other half worked for 13-14 years in an independent TV/Electrical shop. They sold a lot of Dysons. The shop was independent. People came to the shop because they were prepared to pay for service from an independent retailer. The majority of their customers were middle aged and affluent elderly people. If there was ever a problem with an appliance, then the customer would be straight back to the shop. The shop would liaise with the manufacture to resolve the problem. My other half says that Dysons are very reliable. They had very few problems and very few complaints. They are superb machines. Both my partner and I suffer from mild dust alergies. The problem has gone since we got the Dyson. Graham |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Philip" wrote
| Why on earth would ones todger be anywhere near a rotating fan | blade not too far back, or anywhere else for that matter? | The mind boggles! It's that "no loss of suction" that some men seek. Owain |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mary Fisher" wrote
| Since my friend has five large dogs (but no cream carpet | that I know of) Maybe she has a cream carpet but doesn't know it yet ... I once had a cooker which I always thought was brown until I Mr Muscle'd it and it came up blue. Owain |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Clarke wrote:
I don't pretend to understand the theory of cyclone extractors Well, I do (pretend, that is); the air circulation route is shaped so that it swirls round circularwise in (I think) an increasingly tight spiral. Being light, air can do this; being denser, even dust can't manage to turn the corners fast enough, so the suspended solid stuff gets thrown out to the edges of the cylinder, which it hits and (now away from the strongest circulation) falls to the bottom. James Dyson observed this principle in use in an industrial application (cyclone extraction's been used there for decades, AIUI), and thought it'd work OK scaled down to domestic-vac proportions. Whether that counts as brilliant innovation or bleedin' obvious is a matter of opinion - though by the bizarrely trivial standards of patents, it counted as 'novel' enough for Dyson to patent the idea in the domestic-vac application... Stefek |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Mike Clarke writes: I've just washed the HEPA filter for the second time in 18 months (should have been every 6 months but there was a delivery problem with the tuits), although it was well covered with dust there'd only been a very slight drop in suction. There's no doubt that the HEPA filter is very effective, the air outlet on the old vac used to rapidly get coated with fine tenacious black dust, after 18 months the outlet of the Dyson is still spotless. I'm not sure how the non-HEPA Dysons fare in this respect, I'd be a bit concerned if they didn't have some form of filter between the dust canister and the fan. My Dysons are both non-HEPA and have the washable pre-motor filter and a non-washable (I think, never needed to wash it) post-motor filter. I thought the HEPA filter was an extra non-washable one in addition to these? And no, there's no dust build-up or even slight discolouration of the post-motor filters after 4 years of sucking up rubble, brickdust and plasterdust in the case of the older one (or the newer one come to that). I don't pretend to understand the theory of cyclone extractors, the air appears to be sucked up the cones _after_ passing through the dust canister and presumably dust also falls down out of the cones, but it's certainly effective. When we were choosing the new vac I got the impression that many of the bagless competitors just swirled the air round a bit as it got sucked into the canister and relied on a (usually small) filter to stop the dust going any further. I imagine these filters would need much more frequent cleaning (or even replacement) than the huge Dyson filter. I believe Dyson has a patent on multiple cyclone filters. Cyclone filters themselves have been around for years, and any original patent on them would have long ago expired. The clever bit is making them work in something as small as a domestic vacuum cleaner, as they are more effective the bigger diameter they are. Prior to Dyson, I suspect the smallest anyone would have envisioned they would be be effective would be dustbin sized, and they go up to things the size of a large room (or probably a whole house if you look hard enough). -- Andrew Gabriel |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Owain" wrote in message ... "Mary Fisher" wrote | Since my friend has five large dogs (but no cream carpet | that I know of) Maybe she has a cream carpet but doesn't know it yet ... I'll ask. I once had a cooker which I always thought was brown until I Mr Muscle'd it and it came up blue. Our new cooker has a black top, which I hate. It still shows every spill. There's no answer to it - except not to spill or splash and no matter how careful I am I do those things. Even plain water boiled over leaves a mark when it evaporates - and we don't live in a hard water area. Perhaps I should be like Spouse and think it doesn't matter. Mry Owain |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:29:19 UTC, Stefek Zaba
wrote: James Dyson observed this principle in use in an industrial application AFAIR, it was in the paint plant he had for the BallBarrow. -- The information contained in this post is copyright (C) RD Eager, 2004, and may not be published in, or used by http://www.diyprojects.info, who are FORBIDDEN from copying it. |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Andrew Gabriel
wrote: My Dysons are both non-HEPA and have the washable pre-motor filter and a non-washable (I think, never needed to wash it) post-motor filter. I thought the HEPA filter was an extra non-washable one in addition to these? I think the HEPA filter is fitted in place of your pre-motor filter, at the top behind the dust canister. It's a big round yellow plastic ring with the filter element bonded into the base and a big fat disk of blue foam sitting inside the ring on top of the filter. We weren't particularly bothered about getting the HEPA version but it was on offer at a lower price than the non-HEPA one which had fewer attachments so we went for it. And no, there's no dust build-up or even slight discolouration of the post-motor filters after 4 years of sucking up rubble, brickdust and plasterdust in the case of the older one (or the newer one come to that). I assume the post-motor filter is in the base below the canister. There's what looks like a spring clip holding a cover there but it doesn't seem very keen to open so I leave it alone. There's no dust collecting in any of the hollows in the bottom of the pre-motor filter so I don't expect dust in the post-motor one will ever be a problem. -- Mike Clarke |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Stefek Zaba
wrote: Mike Clarke wrote: I don't pretend to understand the theory of cyclone extractors Well, I do (pretend, that is); the air circulation route is shaped so that it swirls round circularwise in (I think) an increasingly tight spiral. Being light, air can do this; being denser, even dust can't manage to turn the corners fast enough, so the suspended solid stuff gets thrown out to the edges of the cylinder, which it hits and (now away from the strongest circulation) falls to the bottom. I get the idea of the spinning action removing the dust, it's the dynamics of the air flow that I can't get my head round. The animation on the Dyson website http://www.dyson.co.uk/tech/dysoncyclone/how/difference.asp shows the dusty air being blown into the top of the cones via the grey swirly bits, then it spirals down inside the cone (depositing the dust as it goes) and then goes back up the cone to leave via the straight tube in the middle of the swirly bit. It's the idea of air moving in both directions up and down inside the cone that I find hard to grasp. -- Mike Clarke |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote
| Incidently, the dust container is sandblasted to a pearl | finish on the inside first time you fill it with brick dust. A useful warning to anyone planning on borrowing the Mrs.' while she was out and hoping she wouldn't notice. Owain |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article , Mike Clarke writes: I've just washed the HEPA filter for the second time in 18 months (should have been every 6 months but there was a delivery problem with the tuits), although it was well covered with dust there'd only been a very slight drop in suction. There's no doubt that the HEPA filter is very effective, the air outlet on the old vac used to rapidly get coated with fine tenacious black dust, after 18 months the outlet of the Dyson is still spotless. I'm not sure how the non-HEPA Dysons fare in this respect, I'd be a bit concerned if they didn't have some form of filter between the dust canister and the fan. My Dysons are both non-HEPA and have the washable pre-motor filter and a non-washable (I think, never needed to wash it) post-motor filter. I thought the HEPA filter was an extra non-washable one in addition to these? And no, there's no dust build-up or even slight discolouration of the post-motor filters after 4 years of sucking up rubble, brickdust and plasterdust in the case of the older one (or the newer one come to that). I don't pretend to understand the theory of cyclone extractors, the air appears to be sucked up the cones _after_ passing through the dust canister and presumably dust also falls down out of the cones, but it's certainly effective. When we were choosing the new vac I got the impression that many of the bagless competitors just swirled the air round a bit as it got sucked into the canister and relied on a (usually small) filter to stop the dust going any further. I imagine these filters would need much more frequent cleaning (or even replacement) than the huge Dyson filter. I believe Dyson has a patent on multiple cyclone filters. Cyclone filters themselves have been around for years, and any original patent on them would have long ago expired. The clever bit is making them work in something as small as a domestic vacuum cleaner, as they are more effective the bigger diameter they are. Prior to Dyson, I suspect the smallest anyone would have envisioned they would be be effective would be dustbin sized, and they go up to things the size of a large room (or probably a whole house if you look hard enough). Probably it will be discovered that a small dyson is ideal for separating uranium ores and that wll be the end of them on general sale :-) |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Probably it will be discovered that a small dyson is ideal for separating uranium ores and that wll be the end of them on general sale :-) Ah no, that would just make it Dual-Use technology; not withdrawn from general sale (unless it fell definitely into the Highly Sensitive category), but subject to tighter export controls. (OK, OK, it's sad; but export categorisations are like that - once you've wrapped your head around them, you discover it's they that have wrapped themselves around your head. Blame too many weeks spent in Vienna...) Stefek |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Mike Clarke writes: In article , Andrew Gabriel wrote: My Dysons are both non-HEPA and have the washable pre-motor filter and a non-washable (I think, never needed to wash it) post-motor filter. I thought the HEPA filter was an extra non-washable one in addition to these? Just found my DC07 is HEPA. Like you, I didn't want that but it was on offer at over £100 off, which made it much cheaper than the non-HEPA version. Had forgotten about that. I think the HEPA filter is fitted in place of your pre-motor filter, at the top behind the dust canister. It's a big round yellow plastic ring with the filter element bonded into the base and a big fat disk of blue foam sitting inside the ring on top of the filter. We weren't Well, you're describing my non-HEPA filter perfectly ;-) particularly bothered about getting the HEPA version but it was on offer at a lower price than the non-HEPA one which had fewer attachments so we went for it. And no, there's no dust build-up or even slight discolouration of the post-motor filters after 4 years of sucking up rubble, brickdust and plasterdust in the case of the older one (or the newer one come to that). I assume the post-motor filter is in the base below the canister. Yes. There's what looks like a spring clip holding a cover there but it doesn't seem very keen to open so I leave it alone. There's no dust Same on my DC07. However, curiosity just got the better of me, and I levered the cover off. This reveals it is the post-motor filter which is the HEPA filter on my DC07 -- it says so all over it;-) It is stained darker on the filter surface where the main airflow goes into it. This stain comes off on fingers, and I suspect it is material worn off the motor brushes -- looks like that. There are three filter components inside the HEPA filter, and the middle and outlet ones are still bright white. In my DC04 (definately non-HEPA), the post motor filter is much simpler. -- Andrew Gabriel |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Andrew Gabriel
wrote: In article , Mike Clarke writes: [Snip] I think the HEPA filter is fitted in place of your pre-motor filter, at the top behind the dust canister. It's a big round yellow plastic ring with the filter element bonded into the base and a big fat disk of blue foam sitting inside the ring on top of the filter. We weren't Well, you're describing my non-HEPA filter perfectly ;-) Oops I stand corrected. [Snip] I assume the post-motor filter is in the base below the canister. Yes. There's what looks like a spring clip holding a cover there but it doesn't seem very keen to open so I leave it alone. There's no dust Same on my DC07. However, curiosity just got the better of me, and I levered the cover off. This reveals it is the post-motor filter which is the HEPA filter on my DC07 -- it says so all over it;-) Thanks for pointing out my error. In the absence of any other obviously conspicuous filter I'd just jumped to the conclusion that the great big yellow thing was the HEPA filter that they boasted about in the brochures. Since the HEPA filter wasn't a major issue for us I'd not bothered to confirm this. With hindsight I don't imagine you could get HEPA quality filtering from the single layer element under the foam. I've since come across an illustration of the HEPA filter on Dyson's site and it's certainly looks much more like the business. -- Mike Clarke |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Clarke" wrote in message ... snip lots Thanks for pointing out my error. In the absence of any other obviously conspicuous filter I'd just jumped to the conclusion that the great big yellow thing was the HEPA filter that they boasted about in the brochures. Since the HEPA filter wasn't a major issue for us I'd not bothered to confirm this. With hindsight I don't imagine you could get HEPA quality filtering from the single layer element under the foam. I've since come across an illustration of the HEPA filter on Dyson's site and it's certainly looks much more like the business. Q: what does HEPA mean? Mary -- Mike Clarke |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:00:59 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote: "Mike Clarke" wrote in message ... snip lots Thanks for pointing out my error. In the absence of any other obviously conspicuous filter I'd just jumped to the conclusion that the great big yellow thing was the HEPA filter that they boasted about in the brochures. Since the HEPA filter wasn't a major issue for us I'd not bothered to confirm this. With hindsight I don't imagine you could get HEPA quality filtering from the single layer element under the foam. I've since come across an illustration of the HEPA filter on Dyson's site and it's certainly looks much more like the business. Q: what does HEPA mean? High Efficiency Particulate Air filter More than you ever wanted to know at http://www.eh.doe.gov/hepa/ -- ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:00:59 +0100, "Mary Fisher" wrote: "Mike Clarke" wrote in message ... snip lots Thanks for pointing out my error. In the absence of any other obviously conspicuous filter I'd just jumped to the conclusion that the great big yellow thing was the HEPA filter that they boasted about in the brochures. Since the HEPA filter wasn't a major issue for us I'd not bothered to confirm this. With hindsight I don't imagine you could get HEPA quality filtering from the single layer element under the foam. I've since come across an illustration of the HEPA filter on Dyson's site and it's certainly looks much more like the business. Q: what does HEPA mean? High Efficiency Particulate Air filter More than you ever wanted to know at Ah, thanks. Mary http://www.eh.doe.gov/hepa/ -- .andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Mary Fisher" writes: Q: what does HEPA mean? High Efficiency Particulate Air [filter]. Years ago, they were used on the non-sealed disk drives we used to use, which relied on positive air pressure through HEPA filters to keep dust out. The HEPA filters had to be changed every 6 months, and they were treated as a low level biohazard because they trapped bacteria, and hence used ones had a rather high concentration of bacteria inside them. Like I said in an earlier post, I would not have bought that feature except it was very much cheaper by virtue of a special offer. I'm very much a believer in the modern obsession with hygine being responsible for increase in various diseases, and that the immune system needs to be exposed to a wide variety of things to keep it working properly. The only dirt which seems to have got trapped in mine is that generated in the vacuum cleaner itself after the cyclone and washable filter, i.e. dust from the motor brushes, which considering how much it's been used and how little there was, was really quite insignificant. (Actually, the HEPA filter is designed to filter out dust far too small to see, so it might be that it is being more effective than is visible by eye.) -- Andrew Gabriel |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:29:19 +0100, Stefek Zaba
wrote: James Dyson observed this principle in use in an industrial application (cyclone extraction's been used there for decades, AIUI), and thought it'd work OK scaled down to domestic-vac proportions. Whether that counts as brilliant innovation or bleedin' obvious is a matter of opinion - though by the bizarrely trivial standards of patents, it counted as 'novel' enough for Dyson to patent the idea in the domestic-vac application... I think the story goes like this... James Dyson invented a new type of wheel barrow called the ballbarrow. The manufacturing plant used to spray the ballbarrows with paint. They found it necessary to use a cloth filter attached to an extractor fan to remove paint and vapour in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, the cloth filter would become blocked with paint. Every so often they would have to stop work and clean the cloth. Dyson looked around for an alternative solution. It was suggested that they use a cyclone unit. Dyson climbed over the fence into a wood yard and saw that a cyclone device was being used to separate out the saw dust from the clean air. Whilst cleaning the house with his vac one day, he thought that the idea of a cyclone could be used to make a bagless cleaner. I think he has made something like 5,000 prototypes. I read his autobiography a few years ago. I think the problem he had was finding a way to trap certain types of large dirt (like fluff) that might normally pass through the cyclone and into the filter. Dyson successfully sued Hoover and other manufacturers for copying his idea. Graham |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
(snippage) I have an old Hoover Constellation I use for this, and two hoses. A couple of people have mentiond Constellations[1] recently which reminded me: Did anyone see the news article a couple of weeks back? - The one about the guy who'd just spent 8 years inventing a vacuum cleaner that hovers on a cushion of air...... Alan [1] An aunt had one in the sixties. Used to fascinate me when I was a kid) |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:08:25 UTC, "Alan Vann"
wrote: Andrew Gabriel wrote: I have an old Hoover Constellation I use for this, and two hoses. A couple of people have mentiond Constellations[1] recently which reminded me: Did anyone see the news article a couple of weeks back? - The one about the guy who'd just spent 8 years inventing a vacuum cleaner that hovers on a cushion of air...... Do you have a reference? BTW, there's a Constellation in the Science Museum... -- The information contained in this post is copyright (C) RD Eager, 2004, and may not be published in, or used by http://www.diyprojects.info, who are FORBIDDEN from copying it. |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Bob Eager" writes: On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:08:25 UTC, "Alan Vann" wrote: Andrew Gabriel wrote: I have an old Hoover Constellation I use for this, and two hoses. A couple of people have mentiond Constellations[1] recently which reminded me: Did anyone see the news article a couple of weeks back? - The one about the guy who'd just spent 8 years inventing a vacuum cleaner that hovers on a cushion of air...... Do you have a reference? BTW, there's a Constellation in the Science Museum... I went to an exhibition in the V&A some years back, and they had a living room setup for each decade through the century (this was last century;-). The 1960's room had a constellation in it. I remember thinking what poor shape it was in -- mine which was still in use as the main vacuum cleaner then was in much better condition. They come up on ebay sometimes. Hoover also produced some gimmicks after the same style -- there's a Hoover constellation expanding tape measure which is functional and looks like a minature version of the vacuum cleaner. (Never had one, but seen them a couple of times.) Oh and yes, I learnt about hovercraft as a child pushing the thing up and down my parents' hallway. I also have a young childhood memory of sitting counting the number of consertina sections in the hose, and each time I got to the end of a decade, having to ask "what comes after 49?", "what comes after 59?", etc. (I recall the total was 115 -- I could check if I was right, except the hose got shortened a few times over the years when it wore through at the ends.) So this machine clearly played quite an educational role in my early life. I expect today's 3 and 4 year olds all know the principles of cyclone filtration instead ;-0 -- Andrew Gabriel |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:08:25 UTC, "Alan Vann" wrote: Andrew Gabriel wrote: I have an old Hoover Constellation I use for this, and two hoses. A couple of people have mentiond Constellations[1] recently which reminded me: Did anyone see the news article a couple of weeks back? - The one about the guy who'd just spent 8 years inventing a vacuum cleaner that hovers on a cushion of air...... Do you have a reference? It was an article in the Daily Express, probably during the recent Inventor's show in London. The recycling wagon's been, so I don't have it anymore and the Express don't have old news on their site (that I can find) but this is the same story: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews...name_page.html The Express had a picture, but bunging airrider into Google gets this: http://www.airridersystems.co.uk/ I wonder if anyone's told him yet?  )Alan |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:00:58 UTC, "Alan Vann"
wrote: Do you have a reference? It was an article in the Daily Express, probably during the recent Inventor's show in London. The recycling wagon's been, so I don't have it anymore and the Express don't have old news on their site (that I can find) but this is the same story: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews...name_page.html The Express had a picture, but bunging airrider into Google gets this: http://www.airridersystems.co.uk/ Thanks...didn't realise it had got as far as a marketed product! Surely they must know...! -- The information contained in this post is copyright (C) RD Eager, 2004, and may not be published in, or used by http://www.diyprojects.info, who are FORBIDDEN from copying it. |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Natural Philosopher wrote in message ...
Mary Fisher wrote: I think it's been discussed before but I can't remember the details. What are opinions on Dyson vacuum cleaners, please? Designed to sell, but not to work. Mary The biggest problem is people not cleaning filters regularly. That applies to any bag-free vacuum. IME they have to be cleaned far more often than stated by the manufacturers. Yes, you save on bags but you have to monitor your use and spend time next to the sink. Still, at least you don't have to try and discretely remove the dust from a used bag with your fingers over the refuse bin when you've run out of new ones! |
Linear Mode
