A Solution in Search of a Problem.

[blobru]

Those poor emperors of yesteryear had to put up with slaves waving palm fronds as a fan. The buffeting must have been intense enough to drive them insane.

That most if not all of the excesses attributed to ancient rulers were the result of the unpleasant buffeting of flouncing palm fronds is hardly disputed among modern pseudo-historians. Aberrant behaviours such as alternately sleeping with and poisoning one's siblings, palace orgies and gladiatorial combats, the campaigns of Caesar and Alexander, can all be traced to the insidious "frond" effect, as Gibbon calls it in his famous tome, The Decline and Fall and Unpleasant Buffeting of the Roman Empire, which in modern editions is usually condensed from its original 27,000 page length to a mere thousand or so, the parts dealing with unpleasant buffeting having been left out, and retitled accordingly.

One of the excised chapters deals with the very brief reign of the Roman Emperor, Dysonius The Impeller, who, it was rumored, was so distracted by said unpleasant buffeting that, using simple processes of imbibing, digestion and expulsion as well-known to the ancients as they are to us, ingeniously devised a method whereby slaves could "fan" him without the need of fronds, a sort of frond-less fanning, if you will. While the innovation was initially well-received, or tolerated at least, by imperial toadies and hangers-on, court historians record that the inventive Dysoniius would meet with an unhappy end, upon a chance visit to his royal chambers by lamp-toting Diogenes, himself in search of an honest man, and a frondless fan.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes it is. But if it was the same as a fan, there would be no need for a separate word, would there?

Of course there can be. English loves many many words for the same meaning. I remember my dad commenting on the issues of language in Vietnam. The Americans complained that the Vietnamese had 8 meanings for every word, while the Vietnamese complained that Americans had 8 words for every meaning.

In this case it is the specificness of each word that is different. A Fan moves air, an impeller moves some fluid either liquid or air by using blades contained with in a housing.

Total Pedantic Fail.

 

[Ziggurat]

OK, so I've done some research, and Dyson is widely credited for inventing the modern cyclonic bagless vac. I hadn't heard of Dyson until recent years, so I had assumed the vacs I have used predated his design, so I'll give him that. Good idea.

Still, they use a filter, and that filter is going to clog. . . .

Actually, if you follow the instructions, that won't happen for a very, very long time. The HEPA filter is washable (and the instructions tell you to wash it periodically), and it picks up VERY little dirt during normal use since the vast majority gets removed before reaching the filter.

 

[Ziggurat]

A four to six inch diameter version might make a good replacement for the "eyeball vent" currently used on jetliners. It could lay flat against the ceiling. Pulling it down an inch or so on a stalk about the diameter of the current vents would allow air into it. Pivoted on the stalk, and allowing the stalk to rotate, you could direct the output over a wider area than the eyeball vent.

Not gonna happen. The whole advantage of the eyeball vent (compared to, say, automobile-style AC outlets) is that it's small. It's also cheap and durable. Replacing that with something large, complex, expensive, and relatively fragile is not a winning proposition for the airlines. At least not in coach.

This Dyson system requires the back end of the fan to be open, to such in that extra air. Without that, it's really not any different from the eyeball vent, just bigger. So to get that on an airplane, you'd need for the fan to hang below the ceiling. But since it would need to be out of the way, it would need to drop down. Meaning complex, expensive, fragile hinges and whatnot. Hell, the FAA might even disallow it as being an obstruction in case of emergency evacuation.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Of course there can be. English loves many many words for the same meaning. I remember my dad commenting on the issues of language in Vietnam. The Americans complained that the Vietnamese had 8 meanings for every word, while the Vietnamese complained that Americans had 8 words for every meaning.

In this case it is the specificness of each word that is different. A Fan moves air, an impeller moves some fluid either liquid or air by using blades contained with in a housing.

Total Pedantic Fail.

You lose.

 

[quarky]

That most if not all of the excesses attributed to ancient rulers were the result of the unpleasant buffeting of flouncing palm fronds is hardly disputed among modern pseudo-historians. Aberrant behaviours such as alternately sleeping with and poisoning one's siblings, palace orgies and gladiatorial combats, the campaigns of Caesar and Alexander, can all be traced to the insidious "frond" effect, as Gibbon calls it in his famous tome, The Decline and Fall and Unpleasant Buffeting of the Roman Empire, which in modern editions is usually condensed from its original 27,000 page length to a mere thousand or so, the parts dealing with unpleasant buffeting having been left out, and retitled accordingly.

One of the excised chapters deals with the very brief reign of the Roman Emperor, Dysonius The Impeller, who, it was rumored, was so distracted by said unpleasant buffeting that, using simple processes of imbibing, digestion and expulsion as well-known to the ancients as they are to us, ingeniously devised a method whereby slaves could "fan" him without the need of fronds, a sort of frond-less fanning, if you will. While the innovation was initially well-received, or tolerated at least, by imperial toadies and hangers-on, court historians record that the inventive Dysoniius would meet with an unhappy end, upon a chance visit to his royal chambers by lamp-toting Diogenes, himself in search of an honest man, and a frondless fan.

I'm thinking about taking you off ignore.
I can't handle the pressure (buffeting) anymore.

 

[Ernie M]

[...]
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. Dyson's vacuum is no different because it has no bag. Regardless, at least one of his models, if he has more than one, has really poor suction.
[...]
What Dyson is good at, just like Ron Popeel, is TV marketing. [...]

Not distasteful, fraudulent.
[...]
Dyson marketed bagless vacuums claiming his design had better function. Regardless of your preference for choking in a cloud of fine dust when you empty the Dyson canister, his design did not produce better suction as claimed according to objective evaluations like Consumer Reports.

Re: the vac.

I don't get it. We've had bagless vacs for decades that use cyclonic airflow. They all still use a filter for fine particles, as does Dyson, and that filter will eventually get clogged and restrict airflow. Yes, it's a nice looking design, but I don't see what's so revolutionary about it.
[...]

OK, so I've done some research, and Dyson is widely credited for inventing the modern cyclonic bagless vac. I hadn't heard of Dyson until recent years, so I had assumed the vacs I have used predated his design, so I'll give him that. Good idea.

Still, they use a filter, and that filter is going to clog. . . .

Dyson vacuum cleaners don't use a filter as its primary means to collect dust.
Depending on the Dyson model vacuum, there can be a pre-motor filter, and post-motor filter. Pre-motor filters are there to protect the motor from damage. Post-motor filters filter the air and collect things like tiny carbon particles from the motor, essentially to help allergy sufferers. A HEPA filter, where employed, filters the air before it is expelled from a Dyson vacuum– but does not serve or function to collect dust/dirt as the primary means.

Read the case ORECK DIRECT LLC v. DYSON INC where Oreck tried to sue Dyson (for a second time) for alleged false advertising about Dyson's "no loss of suction" claim. Dyson was not found guilty of fraud or misrepresentation.

Also read Advertising Standards Authority Adjudication on Dyson Appliances Ltd
about misleading advertising. Yes, unfortunately, the Dyson ad was not supposed to be broadcast again in its original form because the model in question had a pre-motor and post motor filter... so some people might confuse the statement "a Dyson doesn't rely on a filter so there's nothing to clog."

The idea of the Dyson ad was to demonstrate there is no filter (bag) used as the primary means to collect dust and dirt... but some people couldn't grasp the idea. Or, some people just wanted to bring suit to make it look like some people might not understand what was being presented. In my opinion, Sir James Dyson got screwed in that advertising decision.

Here's part of that decision. But keep in mind the Dyson vacuum cleaner referenced did not use a filter as the primary means to collect dust. I don't see Sir James Dyson as a fraud, or someone who intends to mislead or misrepresent. But there are some litigious-happy people out there.

1. Upheld

We understood that neither the pre-motor nor the post-motor filters fitted in a Dyson cleaner were used in the primary separation of dust and dirt from the air. We recognised that Dyson had intended the claim to highlight the difference between the filtration system of Dyson cleaners and that of other cleaners that relied on a filter or bag for the primary separation process; the clogging of that filter or bag would result in an eventual loss of suction.

We considered, however, that viewers were likely to understand the claim ... a Dyson doesnt rely on a filter so theres nothing to clog" to imply Dyson cleaners did not have a filter, which meant they could not become clogged, although we appreciated that this was not the message Dyson had intended to convey.
We noted the post-motor filter collected carbon particles and other emissions to prevent their passing into the atmosphere, but also understood that it did not clog and was designed to last the lifetime of the cleaner. We considered that with reference to this filter, therefore, there was no viewer detriment in the ad's suggestion that that filter did not exist and the phrase "a Dyson doesn't rely on a filter", in isolation, in relation to the post-motor filter only, was unlikely to mislead.

We also noted, however, although it was not involved in the primary separation of dust, and this was the difference that Dyson wanted to point out, the maintenance of the pre-motor filter was essential to ensure it did not become clogged. We considered, therefore, to state, without qualification, ... a Dyson doesnt rely on a filter so theres nothing to clog" was likely to mislead.

Keep in mind that before this happened, Hoover Candy Group was among those who brought up the issue of false advertising. Years earlier, Hoover UK (this article deals mostly about how Amway tried to take advantage of Dyson's work, but last paragraph on the page mentions Hoover UK) was guilty of patent infringement.

 

[Michael Redman]

For many people, trapping fine particles is at least as important as large chunks. Dyson wouldn't be able to claim HEPA filtration without the filter. I understand that the vac uses cyclonic action for most of what it picks up, but it does rely on a filter for a very important part of its job, regardless of its claims.

Yes, I acknowledge that this design eliminated most of the trouble associated with old style bags. It's a very good product. I nevertheless think they're overselling it.

 

[steve s]

But doesn't the impeller have BLADES ?



Kap

I think they're usually called vanes. This Saturday I might stop by a Best Buy to see it. But at that price I won't be buying.

Steve S