The hack that can save pre-release version of Dyson V16

[herbicide]

They won't, they exist to be trolls.

The funny thing about all of this is I own 3 Dysons and actually think they work pretty good* and their designs are IMO the best** cordless, but I don't pretend they are something(s) they are not. nor (obviously) do I like it when others do.

*I actually just finished using V15 on the upper level on my house because I was too lazy to get the "mains" machine.
**Technically I think the Lindhaus Valzer is probably the cordless king, but never used one or even seen one, and I would say its definitely more obscure.

 

[cheesewonton]

Out of the three, the airflow needs special care. Airflow speed should be prioritized over airflow volume - too much airflow volume is an indication of either leakage or lack of resistance (or a combination thereof).

Be careful. Some vacuums very much rely on massive airflow. A Kirby works by pulling the air up through the carpet and its backing while the brush roll beats the dirt out of of the pile to get it moving into the airflow and into the fan. Kirby's have pretty low suction, only 30-32 inches of water gauge on the hose end but they have huge airflow. The nozzle has to literally latch to the carpet for the machine to work and it pulls the air through the carpet backing combined with agitation to suspend the dirt in the airflow. Sanitaire direct air uprights and old Royals work the same way.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

They won't, they exist to be trolls.

I know. They're already trolls at best.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

Be careful. Some vacuums very much rely on massive airflow. A Kirby works by pulling the air up through the carpet and its backing while the brush roll beats the dirt out of of the pile to get it moving into the airflow and into the fan. Kirby's have pretty low suction, only 30-32 inches of water gauge on the hose end but they have huge airflow. The nozzle has to literally latch to the carpet for the machine to work and it pulls the air through the carpet backing combined with agitation to suspend the dirt in the airflow. Sanitaire direct air uprights and old Royals work the same way.

And that's why they don't perform nearly as well as any remotely modern Dyson vacs. You needs fast airflow and suction, not massive airflow.

 

[centralsweeper63]

Or Electrolux, Hoover, etc machines.

 

[centralsweeper63]

Also, I think Hatsuwr meant that AbsoluteRainbow and VacuumFacts were the trolls. Please correct me if I am wrong though. And I mean Hatsuwr, the person who made the comment, to clarify, not AbsoluteRainbow or VacumFacts.

 

[cheesewonton]

And that's why they don't perform nearly as well as any remotely modern Dyson vacs. You needs fast airflow and suction, not massive airflow.

The speed of the airflow and the size of the opening determines the volume of airflow. Two sides of the same coin. Kirbys rely on high airflow and agitation to clean carpets. However Kirbys produce very little suction. They are not so good using the hose for above floor cleaning because there is less suction than you get with a clean air upright or canister vac.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

The speed of the airflow and the size of the opening determines the volume of airflow. Two sides of the same coin. Kirbys rely on high airflow and agitation to clean carpets. However Kirbys produce very little suction. They are not so good using the hose for above floor cleaning because there is less suction than you get with a clean air upright or canister vac.

Your first sentence is correct albeit through a simple open pipe, but not in the full working system of a vacuum cleaner composed of many other air resistances in real-world use. A common misunderstanding that continually pollutes this forum without ever being recoverable it seems. The rest is simply incorrect and shows absolutely no understanding of fact-checkable science (covered in my lecture, making it worse). Just wanted to provide the correction; carry on.

 

[herbicide]

Your first sentence is correct albeit through a simple open pipe, but not in the full working system of a vacuum cleaner composed of many other air resistances in real-world use. A common misunderstanding that continually pollutes this forum without ever being recoverable it seems. The rest is simply incorrect and shows absolutely no understanding of fact-checkable science (covered in my lecture, making it worse). Just wanted to provide the correction; carry on.

Again, this is incorrect, or are you proposing that physical laws including (vacuum laws) does not apply to vacuum cleaners? What @cheesewonton is describing fits the bill here...

The only thing about vacuum cleaners they are not in a steady state when under use. The speed of airflow varies with:

1. The orifice (size of opening)
2. The pressure differential (atmosphere at one end, motor/fan at the other).

Both the above are not in steady states in vacuum cleaners under use, and the airflow volume and speeds change accordingly.

The system will always seek equilibrium, (ie equal pressure) with one side of the system being atmospheric pressure, and the other side being the pump (fan/motor) at whatever pressure it provides at any given moment. What this means is the air speed and airflow are always changing as the cleaner head sees more or less restriction.

The pump (motor/fan) is also not in a steady state as it responds to the pressure changes within the system. Pumps/fans all have performance curves, where they deliver different flow rates at different pressures. This can be easily demonstrated in real world use with vacuums by those Y pipes with an orifice and a pressure differential gauge, how the pressure differential changes with the orifice size.

https://cjmillervac.com/products/te...cfSpxHUl5Z7jToecM0jES76tpLMrSqenFpzE3scOp8Tn1

If anyone is really interested in a fact filled journey, that is truly science based, explains all the fundamental theories and laws, and can absolutely be 'fact checked' to your hearts desire, check this out from a industrial vacuum pump manufacturer:

https://www.leybold.com/content/dam...ures/Fundamentals_of_Vacuum_Technology_EN.pdf

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Again, this is incorrect, or are you proposing that physical laws including (vacuum laws) does not apply to vacuum cleaners? What @cheesewonton is describing fits the bill here...

The only thing about vacuum cleaners they are not in a steady state when under use. The speed of airflow varies with:

1. The orifice (size of opening)
2. The pressure differential (atmosphere at one end, motor/fan at the other).

Both the above are not in steady states in vacuum cleaners under use, and the airflow volume and speeds change accordingly.

The system will always seek equilibrium, (ie equal pressure) with one side of the system being atmospheric pressure, and the other side being the pump (fan/motor) at whatever pressure it provides at any given moment. What this means is the air speed and airflow are always changing as the cleaner head sees more or less restriction.

The pump (motor/fan) is also not in a steady state as it responds to the pressure changes within the system. Pumps/fans all have performance curves, where they deliver different flow rates at different pressures. This can be easily demonstrated in real world use with vacuums by those Y pipes with an orifice and a pressure differential gauge, how the pressure differential changes with the orifice size.

https://cjmillervac.com/products/te...cfSpxHUl5Z7jToecM0jES76tpLMrSqenFpzE3scOp8Tn1

If anyone is really interested in a fact filled journey, that is truly science based, explains all the fundamental theories and laws, and can absolutely be 'fact checked' to your hearts desire, check this out from a industrial vacuum pump manufacturer:

https://www.leybold.com/content/dam...ures/Fundamentals_of_Vacuum_Technology_EN.pdf

Notice how this guy's misleading, obfuscating response did NOT provide a detailed, clear explanation of how what he thinks is true specifically applies to the specific situation in question, namely:

...Kirbys...are not so good using the hose for above floor cleaning because there is less suction than you get with a clean air upright or canister vac.

So, you know; the hard bit that separates the wheat from the chaff. In contrast, the explanation for this is fully detailed in the sections of my lecture associated with air power and above floor cleaning that correctly explains the observations in question. Readers can contrast the two, perform additional independent fact-checks if they wish, and make up their own minds without further input from any of us. The only way to identify the legit from the professional trolls is to do the fact-checking independently. My lecture is a self-help educational resource; the response above is an 'alternative fact' (i.e. an obfuscating falsehood), but don't take my word for it: you decide for yourself.

 

[Hatsuwr]

Also, I think Hatsuwr meant that AbsoluteRainbow and VacuumFacts were the trolls. Please correct me if I am wrong though. And I mean Hatsuwr, the person who made the comment, to clarify, not AbsoluteRainbow or VacumFacts.

I'm definitely referring to Absolute Rainbow and the ironically named Vacuum Facts.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

I'm definitely referring to Absolute Rainbow and the ironically named Vacuum Facts.

Isn't personally insulting members not allowed?

 

[herbicide]

Isn't personally insulting members not allowed?

Well obviously they are since you’re still posting.

But I digress, calling someone “stupid” amongst all the other monikers is in a different league entirely than questioning someone’s online handle.

 

[herbicide]

Notice how this guy's misleading, obfuscating response did NOT provide a detailed, clear explanation of how what he thinks is true specifically applies to the specific situation in question, namely:

So, you know; the hard bit that separates the wheat from the chaff. In contrast, the explanation for this is fully detailed in the sections of my lecture associated with air power and above floor cleaning that correctly explains the observations in question. Readers can contrast the two, perform additional independent fact-checks if they wish, and make up their own minds without further input from any of us. The only way to identify the legit from the professional trolls is to do the fact-checking independently. My lecture is a self-help educational resource; the response above is an 'alternative fact' (i.e. an obfuscating falsehood), but don't take my word for it: you decide for yourself.

So, back to the question are you now claiming that different vacuum cleaners apply to a different set of physical laws than other vacuum applications? Because you are seeming making that claim in the priorly quoted post.

 

[centralsweeper63]

I have watched your lecture, I had to set off an alarm to wake me up a few times, I am not kidding.

 

[herbicide]

Notice how this guy's misleading, obfuscating response did NOT provide a detailed, clear explanation of how what he thinks is true specifically applies to the specific situation in question, namely:

This wiseguy, you know, the same thing that was quoted in my initial response, do you forget the very things you type? The below statement is patently false, or are you (once again) challenging current laws of physics?

Your first sentence is correct albeit through a simple open pipe, but not in the full working system of a vacuum cleaner

 

[centralsweeper63]

I really couldn't care less if my vacuum is the newest model, or even a nice colour. I just care about reliability, as in that it will turn on and work every day when I need it for 30 or more years. Even if a vacuum only removes a majority of the dirt in the carpet it will eventually, if used every day or two, clean pretty much ALL the dirt from the carpet.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

I have watched your lecture, I had to set off an alarm to wake me up a few times, I am not kidding.

It's unfortunate that self education appears to be such a challenge for you. If you want to get ahead in life, you'd do well to find methods to ensure you remain attentive. Bite-sized viewings with recaps, multiple viewings, going through and reproducing the plots and relationshis from scratch etc. are good practice.

I really couldn't care less if my vacuum is the newest model, or even a nice colour. I just care about reliability, as in that it will turn on and work every day when I need it for 30 or more years. Even if a vacuum only removes a majority of the dirt in the carpet it will eventually, if used every day or two, clean pretty much ALL the dirt from the carpet.

Thanks for sharing the criteria that matter to you—a single, solitary individual amongst hundreds of millions. There are many other criteria that matter to those hundreds of millions of other people and are very relevant to these products. These are treated in my work and responses, which cater for far less narrow interests.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

But I digress, calling someone “stupid” amongst all the other monikers is in a different league entirely than questioning someone’s online handle.

I've never personally called any member stupid etc. Please show a clear example that this statement is true, lest you be deemed someone who spreads falsehoods about other people. This is in contrast to the many examples of directed, personal attacks visible against me that are allowed on this forum.

An insult towards an idea, terminology, or false/misleading statement is not the same as personally insulting the individual that holds/uses it etc. it. An insult towards a sports team isn't the same as an insult to individuals who happen to subscribe to that sports team. Insulting a restaurant's food isn't the same as a personal insult to the chef. And so on. To assume so, often reacting selectively hypersensitively, is faulty logic that identifies the think-challenged who use 'offense taking' as a substitute for a valid position to shut down the other side they don't like. How people choose to interpret things of this nature simple tells us about them and their projections. I do not personally insult members, but I will quite happily ridicule nonsense and flasehoods themselves when they appear. That's basic freedom of speech.

 

[herbicide]

I've never personally called any member stupid etc. Please show a clear example that this statement is true, lest you be deemed someone who spreads falsehoods about other people. This is in contrast to the many examples of directed, personal attacks visible against me that are allowed on this forum.

An insult towards an idea, terminology, or false/misleading statement is not the same as personally insulting the individual that holds/uses it etc. it. An insult towards a sports team isn't the same as an insult to individuals who happen to subscribe to that sports team. Insulting a restaurant's food isn't the same as a personal insult to the chef. And so on. To assume so, often reacting selectively hypersensitively, is faulty logic that identifies the think-challenged who use 'offense taking' as a substitute for a valid position to shut down the other side they don't like. How people choose to interpret things of this nature simple tells us about them and their projections. I do not personally insult members, but I will quite happily ridicule nonsense and flasehoods themselves when they appear. That's basic freedom of speech.

Really? Although we all do sometimes suffer from short term memory loss.

OK, too vague to comment so I'll ignore that one.

a) This is a failure of understanding. The user lacks the knowledge and seemingly the intelligence that with strong suction on high resistance carpets, head pressure drops, increasing clamping force. The solution is to directly reduce suction pressure by lowering the motor power, or to allow in bleed relief air (more airflow) via the gates to reduce suction pressure to nearer normal levels. As explained in the lecture, this also doesn't impair cleaning performance. So this was a demonstration of incredible ignorance more than anything.
b) Again, user stupidity. If you're dumb enough to put so much dirt down that it's clearly visible to the naked eye and then briefly go over it once—even lifting it off the floor surreptitiously on the backwards pull in a dodgy manner you'd only expect the most repulsive charlatans to, it's not surprising it left stuff behind. This was a wonderful example of the kind of BS I criticise out there. Poor testing, deeply flawed, unquantified, doesn't capture trends, easy to trick people, unconvincing to the educated and intelligent.

If this is what you're using to justify I'm in the wrong somehow, then that's wonderful for us all to see, since it clearly exonerates me from a false charge. Thanks for the future reference link at least.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Really? Although we all do sometimes suffer from short term memory loss.

This did not refer to a forum user. It was in reference specifically to an external source cited. There are no rules about discussing external sources. Do keep up. Any other examples?

 

[herbicide]

This did not refer to a forum user. It was in reference specifically to an external source cited. There are no rules about discussing external sources. Do keep up. Any other examples?

Yes they did, you were responding to specific answers “I” provided about “my” issues with “my” use of a V15, on the behalf of “your” specific question regarding “my” specific issues.

Play by play:

1. You asked for the specific issues I had.
2. I provided videos that shows the EXACT issues I have. I state so in the related post.

OK, too vague to comment so I'll ignore that one.

a) This is a failure of understanding. The user lacks the knowledge and seemingly the intelligence that with strong suction on high resistance carpets, head pressure drops, increasing clamping force. The solution is to directly reduce suction pressure by lowering the motor power, or to allow in bleed relief air (more airflow) via the gates to reduce suction pressure to nearer normal levels. As explained in the lecture, this also doesn't impair cleaning performance. So this was a demonstration of incredible ignorance more than anything.
b) Again, user stupidity. If you're dumb enough to put so much dirt down that it's clearly visible to the naked eye and then briefly go over it once—even lifting it off the floor surreptitiously on the backwards pull in a dodgy manner you'd only expect the most repulsive charlatans to, it's not surprising it left stuff behind. This was a wonderful example of the kind of BS I criticise out there. Poor testing, deeply flawed, unquantified, doesn't capture trends, easy to trick people, unconvincing to the educated and intelligent.

If this is what you're using to justify I'm in the wrong somehow, then that's wonderful for us all to see, since it clearly exonerates me from a false charge. Thanks for the future reference link at least.

3. you stated the above now quoted trice (3 times!) including all the aforementioned insults.

*By the way, let the record show these posts were from one (1) day prior to this post.

 

[herbicide]

It's unfortunate that self education appears to be such a challenge for you. If you want to get ahead in life, you'd do well to find methods to ensure you remain attentive. Bite-sized viewings with recaps, multiple viewings, going through and reproducing the plots and relationshis from scratch etc. are good practice.


Thanks for sharing the criteria that matter to you—a single, solitary individual amongst hundreds of millions. There are many other criteria that matter to those hundreds of millions of other people and are very relevant to these products. These are treated in my work and responses, which cater for far less narrow interests.

Here is another example. Do you honestly not believe you are not directly insulting @centralsweeper63 in this post? Specifically in the first two sentences?

 

[cheesewonton]

Your first sentence is correct albeit through a simple open pipe, but not in the full working system of a vacuum cleaner composed of many other air resistances in real-world use. A common misunderstanding that continually pollutes this forum without ever being recoverable it seems. The rest is simply incorrect and shows absolutely no understanding of fact-checkable science (covered in my lecture, making it worse). Just wanted to provide the correction; carry on.

Dude, you don't have the slightest idea how a Kirby works. They are nothing like the vacuums you know. It is a direct air machine. The dirty air goes right through the fan, which is right there at the back of the nozzle, and is blown into the dust bag under considerable pressure. It is a direct air vacuum. It works completely differently than a clean air machine. There is one big hole at the back of the nozzle and the fan is right behind that hole. There is no ductwork or hoses suction air moves through so no losses. None of your graphs or charts or theories are applicable to a Kirby or direct air vacuums from Sanitaire, Powr-Flite, Koblenz and other similar pancake motor uprights. They work on mass airflow and agitation. It is the old fashioned way to clean carpets, how vacuums operated a century or more ago. And it remains relevant for cleaning carpets today.

 

[cheesewonton]

Here is another example. Do you honestly not believe you are not directly insulting @centralsweeper63 in this post? Specifically in the first two sentences?

V-F is arrogant and condescending. Nobody knows anything but him, yet he steadfastly refuses to test anything but cheap bagless crap. I want to see him test something like a Lux D795 or D920, a modern Sebo or Miele or, gasp, a big old honking Kirby or Sanitaire direct air upright. He really cannot claim to know anything unless he has hands on with a wide variety of equipment from a lot of different manufacturers.

 

[centralsweeper63]

He did test a g5, with the dirt meter on. He claimed it did not at all reduce suction. He even made a video to "prove" it. He also made manyerrors in using it.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Dude, you don't have the slightest idea how a Kirby works.

V-F is arrogant and condescending.

People can contrast these two statements with evidence available and then draw their own conclusions about the quality of the source of those claims.

He did test a g5, with the dirt meter on. He claimed it did not at all reduce suction. He even made a video to "prove" it. He also made manyerrors in using it.

And none of those alleged 'errors' were mentioned, conveniently, in your response, or, more importantly, shown to be applicable with convincing, objective evidence—you know, some hard work those worth being heard provide. People can decide for themselves how cheap talk alone is. They can review for themselves the data available.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Here is another example. Do you honestly not believe you are not directly insulting @centralsweeper63 in this post? Specifically in the first two sentences?

I've clarified that post you cited twice was directed at an external source. And RE the first two sentences: no. That was clearly observed and not an insult. That you interpreted a statement of an observation as an insult in fact is highly revealing about the situation. And I agree with you: it doesn't look good when someone mocks and rejects an educational opportunity.

You have failed to provide a single example of a personally directed insult to another member as you claimed. I don't think you understand what an insult is and are showing severe hypersensitivity in lieu of an argument or position, or falling victim to assuming criticism of an idea is the same as criticism of the person who holds the idea. Let me give you some examples of what directed insults of the nature you're struggling to evidence actually look like: 1, 2. I guess you're OK with them, though.

 

[herbicide]

This did not refer to a forum user. It was in reference specifically to an external source cited. There are no rules about discussing external sources. Do keep up. Any other examples?

So if I were to take a video of my V15 clamping to the carpet while in max mode, which shows the exact same issue as I noted, post it here, all those insults would not apply to me? Dance all you like around it but the “facts” are clear and present.

At best you’re attempting to place a transparent veil on your actions.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

So if I were to take a video of my V15 clamping to the carpet while in max mode, which shows the exact same issue as I noted, post it here, all those insults would not apply to me? Dance all you like around it but the “facts” are clear and present.

At best you’re attempting to place a transparent veil on your actions.

You've been asked repeatedly to provide a simple, clear example of your very specific accusation that I have personally insulted members. You have failed, repeatedly. Instead, you've obfuscated, deflected, and given us your interpretation of discussions reflecting only what you wanted to see, which tells us about you, not me. Then you ignored clear examples of personal insults directed towards me here, of a nature that is exactly what you needed to provide, which was very hypocritical. This now looks more like you have falsely accused people of wrongdoing, which is pretty insulting. Nothing else to be said. I encourage you study the examples provided for you so you can increase your understanding of what a personal insult towards a member actually is and improve yourself.