Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
Bruh... Fine!
BrandSpark Canadian Trust Study of Vacuum Cleaners
- Thread starter Vacuum Facts
- Start date
Help Support VacuumLand:
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
I knew it! This whole forum is an echo chamber of ignorance!
royalfan103
Well-known member
Absolute Rainbow: Joined August 8, 2025.
Suspcious…
Dear Vacuum Facts, you’re not a goddamn college professor.
https://vacuumland.org/threads/the-most-frustrating-vacuum-video-on-youtube.38196/page-5
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
I mean, what was the point of that? Totally off topic and an unnecessary attack. Contribute positively or not at all please.
kirbyman65
Well-known member
I’ve taken the liberty of analyzing your so-called “scientific methodology,” and frankly, it collapses faster than a Hoover bag under hyper-compression flux dynamics. You keep tossing around the term science, but what you’ve produced isn’t science — it’s a garage experiment contaminated by subjective particle misalignment bias.
Let’s begin with airflow. You haven’t accounted for oscillatory vortex transduction within the cyclonic paraboloid chamber. Every legitimate airflow study must first normalize the pneumatically inverted suction coefficient against the translaminar whirlpool index, otherwise your cubic-foot-per-minute values are nothing more than decorative numerology. Did you stabilize the gravimetric oscillation nodes with a flowfield enthalpy compensator? No? Then your airflow data is nothing more than CFM cosplay.
As for suction, you’re treating it like some kind of binary “on/off” phenomenon, completely ignoring inverted hyper-pressure lamination. True suction analysis requires at least a triple-axis megabarometric suction harmonizer, cross-referenced against a vectorized suck-phase topology matrix. Without a properly tuned vacuo-resonant impedance diode, your so-called “measurements” are literally indistinguishable from holding your hand over a shop vac and guessing.
Agitation? Don’t make me laugh. You can’t just say “good agitation” without calculating the oscillatory bristle-chatter harmonics through a full-spectrum nap-friction coefficient cascade. Did you even attempt a micro-vibratory rug-nap entrainment resonance test? Did you quantify the bristle torsional flexion against the substrate’s pile-density inversion factor? Of course you didn’t. You’re operating at the level of caveman carpet scrubbing while pretending you’ve mapped the quantum bristle continuum.
And then there’s repeatability. Every legitimate vacuum study must be triangulated through a minimum of three hyper-calibrated dust-load oscillographs, preferably synchronized with a vacuum-phase chrono-spatial stabilizer. Did you even once attempt a gravito-static dust entrainment simulation using artificial ISO crumb particulates? No — instead you used “videos” as evidence, which is the intellectual equivalent of citing Bigfoot sightings in a doctoral thesis.
In closing, your “research” doesn’t even reach the threshold of pseudo-science — it’s sub-science, a crude parody of methodology that wouldn’t pass muster in a kindergarten sandpit. Until you can provide results supported by at least a fourth-order hyper-suction fluxogram and a validated bristle-pile harmonics displacement map, your conclusions aren’t scientific. They’re just noise — static dressed up in the costume of empiricism.
Let’s begin with airflow. You haven’t accounted for oscillatory vortex transduction within the cyclonic paraboloid chamber. Every legitimate airflow study must first normalize the pneumatically inverted suction coefficient against the translaminar whirlpool index, otherwise your cubic-foot-per-minute values are nothing more than decorative numerology. Did you stabilize the gravimetric oscillation nodes with a flowfield enthalpy compensator? No? Then your airflow data is nothing more than CFM cosplay.
As for suction, you’re treating it like some kind of binary “on/off” phenomenon, completely ignoring inverted hyper-pressure lamination. True suction analysis requires at least a triple-axis megabarometric suction harmonizer, cross-referenced against a vectorized suck-phase topology matrix. Without a properly tuned vacuo-resonant impedance diode, your so-called “measurements” are literally indistinguishable from holding your hand over a shop vac and guessing.
Agitation? Don’t make me laugh. You can’t just say “good agitation” without calculating the oscillatory bristle-chatter harmonics through a full-spectrum nap-friction coefficient cascade. Did you even attempt a micro-vibratory rug-nap entrainment resonance test? Did you quantify the bristle torsional flexion against the substrate’s pile-density inversion factor? Of course you didn’t. You’re operating at the level of caveman carpet scrubbing while pretending you’ve mapped the quantum bristle continuum.
And then there’s repeatability. Every legitimate vacuum study must be triangulated through a minimum of three hyper-calibrated dust-load oscillographs, preferably synchronized with a vacuum-phase chrono-spatial stabilizer. Did you even once attempt a gravito-static dust entrainment simulation using artificial ISO crumb particulates? No — instead you used “videos” as evidence, which is the intellectual equivalent of citing Bigfoot sightings in a doctoral thesis.
In closing, your “research” doesn’t even reach the threshold of pseudo-science — it’s sub-science, a crude parody of methodology that wouldn’t pass muster in a kindergarten sandpit. Until you can provide results supported by at least a fourth-order hyper-suction fluxogram and a validated bristle-pile harmonics displacement map, your conclusions aren’t scientific. They’re just noise — static dressed up in the costume of empiricism.
kirbyman65
Well-known member
Who agrees with me? Just some basic vacuum science.
cheesewonton
Well-known member
You have no hands on with a high quality vacuum. Instead of arguing and basically proving your lack of experience this is your opportunity to learn. My challenge to us is to buy a true high quality upright vacuum from Sebo, Lindhaus, Aerus, Cirrus, Titan, Carpet Pro, CleanMax, Tornado, PowrFlite, ProTeam, Perfect, heck even a Hoover Hushtone. Use one for six months and then tell us about it. Collectively we all have these in our collections and know them well.
Also spend some time with a Kenmore 600 Series with the Pop-N-Go feature. They usually sell for under $350, less than most Diesoons go for. Use it on the grodiest piece of carpet you can find and then see if you still feel like a battery powered anything outcleans these machines.
You are telling people who have been around vacuums for decades that everything we know is wrong, yet you have no hands on with a quality vacuum to make the claims you make. Get some experience first and then we can have a rational discussion.
cheesewonton
Well-known member
Agitation? Don’t make me laugh. You can’t just say “good agitation” without calculating the oscillatory bristle-chatter harmonics through a full-spectrum nap-friction coefficient cascade.
Lol. What a load. I can push the vacuum around on my carpets and it if leaves the pet hair it's useless to me.
Lol. What a load. I can push the vacuum around on my carpets and it if leaves the pet hair it's useless to me.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
I mean, petty and childish. At least my contributions, that you clearly don't understand, can be fact checked by those that do...
Many said the exact same thing about the Sebo Felix, the Kirby, the Vorwerk, and all the others I tested. My reviews of their strengths and weaknesses are available where I do exactly what you ask. This just shows you simply don't bother to look, which is all the more stunning after you accused me earlier of not reading what you wrote.
Even if it did, the hassle of using the cumbersome old fashioned machine and the wastage that specific machine will no doubt employ will be sources of criticism.
I'm saying, all the claims people make are subjective and I've no reason to believe any of them. The onus isn't on me to try everything ever made, it's on you to make a stronger case of their virtues. None of you lot ever provide a dot of evidence to support anything you say. When I fact check some of it myself, I find the claims are wrong. Worse, there's a track record of wilful deception either by the fans of those machines, or the manufacturers. Evidence is king, and there is just nothing reputable, which puts the 'decades' of experience various community members have very suspect and unbelievable. If you want a rational discussion, get some real evidence and look at that already provided for you. The 'vacuum enthusiast community' are anti science fact deniers from what I've seen (in general) and intolerant to anything evidenced to be true that conflicts with their wonky worldview they'd prefer to be true.
Let's not forget to mention that Dysons are clearly knock-offs, although I shan't name the original here. The Dyson Dupes could never live up to the original machines, which had a base-plate of prefabulated aluminite, surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two main spurving bearings were in a direct line with the pentametric fan. The latter consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzlevanes, so fitted to the ambifacient lunar waneshaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus-o-delta type placed in panendermic semi-boloid slots in the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a non-reversible tremie pipe to the differential girdlespring on the "up" end of the grammeters...
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
o_0 I mean, you're just being petty now. But keep it coming, so we can all judge what we're dealing with here.
kirbyman65
Well-known member
Exactly!
It must be emphasized that all Dyson-type apparatuses lack the stabilizing influence of the retro-cycloidal suction harmonizer, thereby rendering their performance erratic at best. Proper machines, of course, employ a bifurcated torsional impeller shroud, carefully aligned to the supralateral bristle displacement angle (θᵦ), ensuring particle entrainment remains within the acceptable resonant flux window.
The governing equation is well known:
ΔΨ = √((μCFM² ÷ ρπ) + (Ω³ – λ²))
Where:
- ΔΨ represents the suction-phase destabilization index,
- μCFM is the pseudo-coefficient of cubic flux migration,
- ρ is the rug-nap density modulus,
- Ω is the oscillatory brushroll precession rate,
- and λ is the bristle torsional elasticity constant.
Naturally, failure to maintain ΔΨ below 1.7 leads directly to catastrophic bristle-pile implosion (BPI), an event from which no domestic vacuum has ever recovered.
Furthermore, repeated studies (see Appendix 19.4, Journal of Hyper-Vacuo Studies) have demonstrated that the hydrocoptic marzlevane assembly must always be cross-indexed against the logarithmic waneshaft resonance curve:
ΣF = κ(∂Φ/∂t) – ∇²Ξ
Where κ is the hyper-suction flux constant, Φ is the particle-entrainment potential, and Ξ is, of course, the general annoyance factor.
In short, to claim that Dyson “science” holds up under such rigorous vacuological scrutiny is laughable. Without tremie-pipe stabilization and girdlespring differential calibration, their so-called cyclonic efficiency is nothing more than decorative airflow twaddle.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
It is interesting that this is how you see what I provide. I should probably have a bit more sympathy if it's inaccessible. I forget at times I've sacrificed much of my life to developing to a stage where I can understand this stuff. It is all fact-checkably true though.
cheesewonton
Well-known member
Like I said before, spend some time using quality bagged upright and canister vacuums from the brands I mentioned, then we can have a rational discussion. Without some hands on with high quality vacuums you are talking out your exhaust port and have no credibility here. I am basically challenging you to use a Sebo G4 or similar for a month and then come back and try to tell us something else is better. Go ahead. Use the best for a while before spouting off again.
Vacuum Facts
Well-known member
I may just do that at some point. But I can tell you now, if I have to plug it in, if it's heavy and mains upright formfactor, if it requires more than a couple of hundred Watts for nominal cleaning, if it has continuous power level and not dynamic based on dust loading, if it has anciliaries and running costs, if it's noisy, if it doesn't have anti hair wrap fully solved, if above floor and stairs cleaning is a pain and not instant, if it uses belts, if it doesn't highlight dust on hard floors, if it doesn't work automatically across all floors without any user intervention, if it has fiddly dials to adjust head height, if it has two fixed wheels that impair manoeuvrability, if it doesn't show me how full the dust receptacle is, if it doesn't sweep hard floors of fine dust, if suction reduces as a function of dust loading, if I can't just buy it online direct from the manufacturer in my local region and get next day delivery, if I don't have a 35 day return without condition, if it snowploughs, and if it only can manage 99.97% filtration of particles greater than 0.3 µm, then this is not good enough for today's technology and it will be heavily criticised, since we've moved on and solved all this. YOU need to try better technology, understand, and appreciate it at a deeper level before passing judgements about those that write off old crap that may still clean well at a price.
People that thought they knew better said the exact same thing for the sebo felix. It was totally insufficient. It cleaned great, but talk about consequences that I've no time for in a better world.
People that thought they knew better said the exact same thing for the sebo felix. It was totally insufficient. It cleaned great, but talk about consequences that I've no time for in a better world.
Last edited:
kirbylux77
Well-known member
Vacuum Facts - you do realize you just wrote off 99% of the vacuums in today's marketplace right?! Talk about not even being remotely open minded!
Also, for someone who's sooo dismissive of anything not Dyson, and who spouts all these scientific facts, test results, testing methods, etc.....where is your college or university degree to PROVE you ACTUALLY KNOW what you're talking about? So far, you have done NOTHING to show or prove that your opinions are backed by a educational background that actually knows what research methods and testing mean!
Also, for someone who's sooo dismissive of anything not Dyson, and who spouts all these scientific facts, test results, testing methods, etc.....where is your college or university degree to PROVE you ACTUALLY KNOW what you're talking about? So far, you have done NOTHING to show or prove that your opinions are backed by a educational background that actually knows what research methods and testing mean!
royalfan103
Well-known member
If he’s doing that to 99% of the vacuums in today’s market, does he even know what today’s technology or standards are for that matter?
Absolute Rainbow
Well-known member
He do know the technology and standards. He know the main-equivalent (or what I would call anti-corded) handsticks are the way to go. Only Dyson's ones (particularly the V10 onwards) and the absolute best of the dupes are the true proper examples of these handsticks - all others are just that, actual duds.
And then there are R&D and tech design behind the proper main-equivalents...
