Vacuum cleaners to be further enfeebled from Sept 2017

Norman_Castle

LutonGirl wrote: »

Enfeebled - what a great word. Not heard it in ages. Will try to use it in more sentences today.

If you fail to use it more people will consider you enfeebled.

stator

Oh god, can we speed up Brexit to prevent this nightmare?

d0nkeyk0ng

coffeehound wrote: »

But in use the filters will progressively block, the hoses will constrict, seals will leak, the fan's aerodynamic efficiency will reduce, and there will be no power in reserve to keep it running acceptably..

I think this is what James Dyson was arguing - his bagless vacuum cleaners were being compared to bagged vacuum cleaners fresh out of the box. He said that his cleaners would maintain suction whilst bagged ones over the course of use (of that bag I think) would drop.

Cisco001

Judi wrote: »

Yes but is it good at getting up dog hairs off carpet? Mines on its last legs but isnt dead yet and i'm hoping it will last a bit longer.

Check out Shark NV680UKT

martinsurrey

coffeehound wrote: »

and there will be no power in reserve to keep it running acceptably.

I dont think you understand how hoovers work...

the large 1600W hoover isnt sitting there balancing its motor power and giving it extra welly when it needs it...

its blasting out heat and noise at full power all the time, they use the most inefficient motors and filters you can imagine, a well designed efficient 1600W hoover would be able to lift your carpet off the floor.

The ONLY thing lost in swapping from a 1600W hoover to a 900W hoover is energy bills.

Some manufacturers are against this because they've made a fortune with badly designed, inefficient hoovers with big numbers on the box, that people stupidly equate with cleaning ability.

coffeehound

martinsurrey wrote: »

I dont think you understand how hoovers work...

the large 1600W hoover isnt sitting there balancing its motor power and giving it extra welly when it needs it...

its blasting out heat and noise at full power all the time, they use the most inefficient motors and filters you can imagine, a well designed efficient 1600W hoover would be able to lift your carpet off the floor.

The ONLY thing lost in swapping from a 1600W hoover to a 900W hoover is energy bills.

As I understand it, current draw is directly related to loading and speed, with the additional thermal inefficiency on top?

lstar337

d0nkeyk0ng wrote: »

I think this is what James Dyson was arguing - his bagless vacuum cleaners were being compared to bagged vacuum cleaners fresh out of the box. He said that his cleaners would maintain suction whilst bagged ones over the course of use (of that bag I think) would drop.

Dysons seem to be mostly hype in my experience.

The fundamental issue is emptying the damn thing because it doesn't have a bag! This is the feature they are claiming is so brilliant?

Forgive me if I fail to see the brilliance of dust puffing up everywhere if I can't make an airtight seal between the Dyson and the kitchen dustbin, or having to use some kind of long implement to get the remaining dust/hair clumps of the internal filter, or having the dust blow up in my face by the wind if I dare to save my kitchen by trying to empty it into the wheelie bin in the garden.

With the Henry I just pop out the bag which self seals as it comes out, and throw it in the bin.

Owning both, I regularly choose to use the Henry over the Dyson. More complicated doesn't mean better, and the Henry is the simplest beast you can imagine!

Jackmydad

coffeehound wrote: »

As I understand it, current draw is directly related to loading and speed, with the additional thermal inefficiency on top?

It's more complicated than that. It depends on other things too, including the hysteresis characteristics of the "iron" or laminations (that's how well the material magnetises and demagnetises)
It's also effected by how efficiently the magnetic parts attract and repel a poorly designed motor suffers from excessive "slip" between the rotor and stator, and "windage" which is the power lost by the motor rotating in the air.
So an inefficient big Wattage motor could be much less output power than a smaller efficient one. A significant amount. Design of the fan(s) that produce the vacuum will also make a big difference.

martinsurrey

coffeehound wrote: »

As I understand it, current draw is directly related to loading and speed, with the additional thermal inefficiency on top?

and a 1600W hoover is mainly generating heat (through inefficient motor, inefficient fan design, inefficient filter system, inefficient air intake design) , a small percentage of its power is actually becoming suction.

Norman_Castle

I expect some vacuums have oversized motors so they can be sold as 2000 watts of POWER to people who believe higher electrical consumption equals a better vacuum. Its notable that the manufacturers of the most popular vacuums, Numatic, Miele, Dyson don't feel the need to exaggerate the ability of their vacuums with oversize motors.