A Solution in Search of a Problem.

Skeptic Ginger said:
His second marketing ploy is to claim the bagless version "doesn't lose suction". Modern vacuums don't lose suction until the bag is full.
Click to expand...
This is not strictly true. Any fibre-based filter, which is all a bag is, is going to reduce airflow, and therefore suction, as it becomes clogged with particulates. The fuller the bag is, the more particulates are building up, reducing suction even more. The only issue is how much reduction is going to happen before the bag is changed.

I don't know much about how the Dyson works, so I don't know how it prevents particulates from entering the airstream and clogging mechanism.

The only vacuum cleaner I know of that doesn't lose suction is the Rainbow; because it doesn't rely on a fibre type filter. But since it's water-based, it has its own share of technical issues (including being about twice as loud as any other).
 
Last edited:
This will be a good product for the people who buy a $9,000 Viking range to boil the water for their Ramen.
 
It's a clever design. He's using a smaller volume of air at higher pressure to move a larger volume of air at lower pressure. That could fairly be called "air multiplication".
The design doesn't much care what the source of the higher pressure air is. In an industrial situation where you already had compressed air available, you could probably design one to use that. In an airliner, you could probably use bleed air from the engines. (though I imagine SG would pounce on the jet engine being called a "turbofan" to prove her point).

I wonder how well they're selling in Korea? Will a bladeless fan cause fan death?
 
WildCat said:
This will be a good product for the people who buy a $9,000 Viking range to boil the water for their Ramen.
Click to expand...

As I've mentioned before on this forum:

Ramen can be eaten "raw". Its the totally cool, low carbon footprint way of consuming Ramen.

Snort the flavor packet; choke down 2 cups of water...you're in there. Part way to a nutritious lunch.
 
Ziggurat said:
Well, you can dust the outside easily. But the impeller is internal. Won't that collect dust? And won't that be harder to clean than external fan blades? In fact, it looks like it might even do what the Dyson vacuum is supposed to be famous for not doing: losing performance as dust builds up.
Click to expand...


Bingo.

This is what I like about JREF.
Smart people show up.

In the non-disposable era, stuff was built to last (Designed for maintenance) until maintenance became more expensive then production, at which point the utterly outrageous concept of "Maintenance Free " popped up.

Good engineering, imho, doesn't get involved in denial...it admits its weaknesses and provides the easiest means of keeping it runnning...as if it was a sure thing that such and such (2nd law) would happen.

Funny,
My little rant sounds almost Luddite.
But if it is, we'll need Luddites to make it to Mars.
 


Output air force is equal in this demonstration to a comparable size fan.

I'm looking at the air amplifying claim a bit more. The fan does create negative pressure behind the ring as evidenced in a couple other YT videos showing a balloon and a handkerchief will be sucked in through the ring.

If it really "amplifies the air", however, one might expect it to out perform the small fan in the demonstration. After all, my table fan "amplifies the air" when it creates a breeze.

I haven't had time to review all the posts but I will later tonight.
 
quadraginta said:
Did you catch my reference to dead elephants? Do you consider Edison to be a fraud?
Click to expand...
I do. He attempted to show DC was superior to AC through the use of appeal to emotion, when AC was and is actually the superior method. How is that not fraudulent?

How about explaining why the Dyson vacuum cleaner is a scam, instead of blathering on about Ionic Breezes, trying to manage some sort of guilt by contamination.
Click to expand...
How about reading the Consumer Reports article on the Dyson that shows the price increase does not have a proportionate performance increase, instead of being a complete Dyson apologist.

Dyson marketed his vacuums by claiming that they didn't suffer from the gradually reduced function which affects a vacuum cleaner with a bag, since there was no filtering effect clogging the pores of the bag. The design created an air motion within the canister which kept the vacuumed debris out of the primary airflow path. They did indeed do exactly that. If you have a Consumer Reports study which demonstrates otherwise please link to it.
Click to expand...
Please purchase my new invention: the bagless trash can. No need to change those pesky bags. Just empty it into the large pickup bin by your curb and put it back under the kitchen sink or by the refrigerator. It holds 15% more than those bagged trash cans, meaning fewer trips to the curb. :rolleyes:

When you dump the receptacle of a bagless vacuum, it's full of hair, dirt, dust mites and their feces, bugs and their feces and their decomposing corpses, dead skin cells, etc. It all depends on how you measure performance. Since the idea is to remove foreign objects from carpet, and occasionally drapes and furniture, so you don't have to breathe it or walk on it, then the bagged vacuum would seem to do a superior job.

Consider also the high probability that someone who paid $500 for a vacuum cleaner might be more reluctant to report something wrong with it than someone who paid $100. No one likes to look stupid or feel taken.
 
rwguinn said:
for someone who understands "the basics of pressure dynamics.", the term "Negative pressure" is very curious...
Click to expand...


Language is funny like that. Terms which can be seemingly imprecise or technically inconsistent can still serve to communicate an idea when taken in context. Playing 'gotcha' semantic games rarely serves to move the discussion forward.

Many large buildings have, as part of their mechanical systems, tanks which maintain extremely low air pressures. (Car brakes use a similar concept.) These are often referred to as "vacuum reservoirs". I once teased an undeserving young plumber's helper who was working on such a device by asking him what, exactly, was being stored in the tank. "Vacuum." he replied with a puzzled expression. "But what is "vacuum?", I then asked. "Isn't it the absence of anything?". "Well, ... :confused:". "So what you've got there is a tank full of nothing." Which it was, of course. Sort of.

Yeah. I was being a smart-ass. :blush:

I understood what Scrut meant. I'm pretty sure you did too. :)
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm looking at the air amplifying claim a bit more. The fan does create negative pressure behind the ring as evidenced in a couple other YT videos showing a balloon and a handkerchief will be sucked in through the ring.
Click to expand...
SG:

Any fan works as you or I expect a fan to work because it creates, through well known physical principles, a pressure differential. You'd not get airflow without it. Same principle on why the wind blows ... pressure differential causes air flow.

Do you understand why you are being teased, even mocked, in this conversation?
If it really "amplifies the air", however, one might expect it to out perform the small fan in the demonstration. After all, my table fan "amplifies the air" when it creates a breeze.
Click to expand...
I hope you understand what sound amplification in air is: (sound traveling through a fluid medium.) You add energy to sound to get the sound to travel, or reach the receiver, with greater energy (volume, perhaps ...).

A fan does something similar to still air. It adds energy to it to get the air to arrive in the target area with greater kinetic energy.

While I find the term "air amplifier" to be silly, I understand that when marketing a very mundane device, one uses a novel means to catch the eye and / or ear of the spending audience.

Milk is a mundane product. "Got Milk" was an effective way to get people's attention on milk.

Light beer is a mundane product. "Real Men of Genius" ads were an effective way to market a mundane product.

DR
 
Dorian Gray said:
quadraginta said:
Did you catch my reference to dead elephants? Do you consider Edison to be a fraud?
Click to expand...
I do. He attempted to show DC was superior to AC through the use of appeal to emotion, when AC was and is actually the superior method. How is that not fraudulent?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it wasn't. My point, in fact, was that it is. So we can now dismiss Edison as a "fraud". I'm cool with that. By those standards, though, the application of the word "fraud" becomes somewhat diluted, don't you think?

How about explaining why the Dyson vacuum cleaner is a scam, instead of blathering on about Ionic Breezes, trying to manage some sort of guilt by contamination.
Click to expand...
How about reading the Consumer Reports article on the Dyson that shows the price increase does not have a proportionate performance increase, instead of being a complete Dyson apologist.
Click to expand...

I'm not apologizing for anyone. I made it clear from my very first post that I thought the prices were way out of line. That doesn't make him a "fraud" by my definition.

I think Gucci handbags are ridiculously overpriced. I question the judgment of people who are willing to pay those prices. Gucci isn't selling a "fraud", though.

That does not mean that the technology he developed isn't innovative or an improvement. Major manufacturers haven't been stealing or buying his ideas because they want to run their own Ionic Breeze ads on late night TV.

Dyson marketed his vacuums by claiming that they didn't suffer from the gradually reduced function which affects a vacuum cleaner with a bag, since there was no filtering effect clogging the pores of the bag. The design created an air motion within the canister which kept the vacuumed debris out of the primary airflow path. They did indeed do exactly that. If you have a Consumer Reports study which demonstrates otherwise please link to it.
Click to expand...
Please purchase my new invention: the bagless trash can. No need to change those pesky bags. Just empty it into the large pickup bin by your curb and put it back under the kitchen sink or by the refrigerator. It holds 15% more than those bagged trash cans, meaning fewer trips to the curb. :rolleyes:

When you dump the receptacle of a bagless vacuum, it's full of hair, dirt, dust mites and their feces, bugs and their feces and their decomposing corpses, dead skin cells, etc. It all depends on how you measure performance. Since the idea is to remove foreign objects from carpet, and occasionally drapes and furniture, so you don't have to breathe it or walk on it, then the bagged vacuum would seem to do a superior job.
Click to expand...


Sure, if you go around dumping the contents of your bagless machine back on the floor.

As I pointed out to SG this seemingly insurmountable quandary appears to have been overcome somehow by many people. This is why so many people are using them that the once ubiquitous vacuum cleaner bag, which they used to have in the supermarkets next to the mops and brooms, are becoming increasingly more difficult to find and purchase. For many models the only place you'll find replacement bags is somewhere that sells the machine itself, and that can't always be counted on.

Forbes somehow got the impression that Dyson couldn't market his machine in the UK initially because of manufacturers' concerns about selling disposable bags.

After four and a half years and 5,127 prototypes, the Dyson was born. He launched it first in Japan, not his native Britain, because many manufacturers wouldn't invest in a product that would disrupt the vacuum bag market.
Click to expand...

Their concerns seem to have been justified.

Consider also the high probability that someone who paid $500 for a vacuum cleaner might be more reluctant to report something wrong with it than someone who paid $100. No one likes to look stupid or feel taken.
Click to expand...


Did we change the subject to Apple computers?

I don't disagree with that. And I keep trying to say that I'm not defending the prices. I'm disagreeing with the application of the term "fraud" being used in this context. I felt that the marketing for the iPad was misleading and erroneous in a number of ways, but I stopped short of hollering "fraud".

It's really as simple as that.
 
quadraginta said:
Language is funny like that. Terms which can be seemingly imprecise or technically inconsistent can still serve to communicate an idea when taken in context. Playing 'gotcha' semantic games rarely serves to move the discussion forward.

Many large buildings have, as part of their mechanical systems, tanks which maintain extremely low air pressures. (Car brakes use a similar concept.) These are often referred to as "vacuum reservoirs". I once teased an undeserving young plumber's helper who was working on such a device by asking him what, exactly, was being stored in the tank. "Vacuum." he replied with a puzzled expression. "But what is "vacuum?", I then asked. "Isn't it the absence of anything?". "Well, ... :confused:". "So what you've got there is a tank full of nothing." Which it was, of course. Sort of.

Yeah. I was being a smart-ass. :blush:

I understood what Scrut meant. I'm pretty sure you did too. :)
Click to expand...
Whoosh!
Skeptic Ginger claimed expertise in Pressure Dynamics.
Then used the term "negative Pressure."
Anyone with the claimed expertise would use different terms, or maybe add the word "differential" after the phrase.
claimed expertise is not in evidence...
 
rwguinn said:
Whoosh!
Skeptic Ginger claimed expertise in Pressure Dynamics.
Then used the term "negative Pressure."
Anyone with the claimed expertise would use different terms, or maybe add the word "differential" after the phrase.
claimed expertise is not in evidence...
Click to expand...


My bad.

For some reason I had it in my mind that you were responding to a Scrut comment.

I have absolutely no idea why. Senility, perhaps, or something very much like it.

Sorry.

:blush:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom