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.
