BrandSpark Canadian Trust Study of Vacuum Cleaners

VacuumLand – Vintage & Modern Vacuum Enthusiasts

Help Support VacuumLand:

Hatsuwr said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hatsuwr said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Vacuum Facts said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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!
 
kirbylux77 said:
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!
Click to expand...
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?
 
royalfan103 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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...
Vacuum Facts said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
kirbylux77 said:
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!
Click to expand...
This exposes faulty thinking. Technology moves on and improves in performance per Watt, in ease of use, and in environmental impact. Not recognising this is wilful regression. We know it's possible and we know it's better, so anything that doesn't should be judged accordingly. By analogy, if you write off machines which are not electrical powered (REAL vintage machines), then you're guilty of the same apparent lack of open mindedness. What about all the brooms, which predate the vacuum cleaner format? Are you open minded to those as well? Or do you recognise them as inferior and that we've moved on. The lack of open mindedness and experience is simply displayed by yourselves. You have no experience with the latest technology, you don't understand it, and you can't appreciate it. So you demonise it instead. It comes across poorly. I have tried many older machines and my reviews evidence my conclusions.
kirbylux77 said:
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!
Click to expand...
I suggest you understand how to measure cleaning performance then go watch my videos evidencing the relative performance of different machines I've tested. You've also clearly got no experience in usability of a wider and more diverse range of machines beyond ancient dinosaur vintage machines. All this shouldn't even be contested; the data is crystal clear about where market trends are shifting. Almost as many people use the DC35 stick vac clones than mains cleaners now, globally. In the future, most people will use DC35 stick vacs. I assume you won't try to deny reality. Convenience wins out, and you write it off. The Dyson stick vacs clean as well as mains cleaners, at a fraction of the cost to the environment, and make it incredibly easy to do so compared to technologies of the past. You are clearly closed minded, unaware, and inexperienced with modern technology.
 
kirbyman65 said:
Listen,
I don't care if you LOVE Dyson... but don't go around bashing other brands we like!
Click to expand...
The wonderful irony is, I don't actually bash them. I just tell the rest of the full truth that the rabid vacuum enthusiasts deliberately hide, and it's all fact checkable. That you interpret the full truth, in all its warty glory, as someone 'bashing' them reveals to the rest of us that they are in fact flawed and inferior devices, as the evidence shows. You've shown to be your own worst enemy on that front.

I don't love Dyson, I love technological advancement. Only Dyson seem to be responsible whilst the rest copy, so it appears to those with limited thinking that I love them. It's amazing how many of the 'vacuum enthusiasts' are incapable of making that very simple distinction, but it makes complete sense if they don't notice, understand, and therefore appreciate technological advancement. It's easier to just demonise it and those that recognise it and can tell the full truth. As long as it's exposed in the way you've just helped, the rest of us can make judgements for ourselves about that community and the products they peddle.

Oh, and the idea that you think you can just dictate what people can and can't reasonably say freely only compounds the poor image already made. Lumber this response with passive aggressive emojis and prove my point.
 
Last edited:
kirbyman65 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Holy crap, that was Star Trek level technobabble. Kudos!
 
Vacuum Facts said:
You're going to offend all the rabid Sebo Felix fans that bit my head off when I revealed the full truth.
Click to expand...
I think everyone here knows I am not a big fan of the Dart / Felix thing. As much as the Felix just doesn't work for me ( top heavy, falls over, meh "filtration", cheesy hose, blows hot air on the user ) it is an order of magnitude better than a Diesoon. At least it's not the cheap shiny squeaky brittle miserable plastic and, complex to repair ( or not ) balls and clog-o-matic "filters" ( that washing never cleans adequately ) and cyclones found on Diesoons. You can get any part you need to repair any Sebo for comparatively little money in the US and they are designed from the outset to be repaired. It is a 20 year vacuum.

Here is my challenge. Go use a Sebo G4 or a WIndsor Versamatic 14 ( how the Sebo 360 is sold in the US ) for a few months and then lets see if you are still wetting yourself over Diesoons.
 
cheesewonton said:
it is an order of magnitude better than a Diesoon. At least it's not the cheap shiny squeaky brittle miserable plastic and, complex to repair ( or not ) balls and clog-o-matic "filters" ( that washing never cleans adequately ) and cyclones found on Diesoons.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you've been using ...or how... but the similar machines I've used show none of these issues.

cheesewonton said:
You can get any part you need to repair any Sebo for comparatively little money in the US and they are designed from the outset to be repaired. It is a 20 year vacuum.

Here is my challenge. Go use a Sebo G4 or a WIndsor Versamatic 14 ( how the Sebo 360 is sold in the US ) for a few months and then lets see if you are still wetting yourself over Diesoons.
Click to expand...
I've seen the machines you've talked about. The fundamental problems in the Felix are also there, so I've already effectively done this. The machine is a good performer, but terrible to use. Likewise, I challenge you to use a Gen5 and show how to reproduce any of your alleged problems with normal, responsible use. I have the best performing upright on the market and I wouldn't ever use it now after a stickvac which performs just as well but without the hassle.
 
vacuumdevil said:
This is guy is nothing but a Troll. Get him out of here!
Click to expand...
These are my conclusions based on observations. You can watch my review yourself. If you have any evidence, distinct from an irrelevant opinion on the factual matters associated with how I drew my conclusion, you're welcome to positively contribute. Otherwise, kindly keep the petty name calling and lynching calls for the playground. It's only the bullies that shouldn't be welcome here. A dose of facts on this vacuum fiction land has been long overdue.
 
vacuumdevil said:
This is guy is nothing but a Troll. Get him out of here!
Click to expand...
No, @Vacuum Facts is right. He observed, tested and based his conclusions with facts and data. If you guys still try to dismiss him, then you're ignorant as heck (sorry for the censor). Dyson and most dupes are better than old and corded machines, and Dyson's latest and greatest (both Gen5 and V16, at the moment) are the best in market at the end of the day. This is objective, not subjective. I watched his video and appreciated his objective observations, something that's all too rare enough to make you guys... well, let's just say secretly angering him. I knew vacuumland.org is an echo chamber of ignorance. Bruh!
 
Absolute Rainbow said:
No, @Vacuum Facts is right. He observed, tested and based his conclusions with facts and data. If you guys still try to dismiss him, then you're ignorant as heck (sorry for the censor). Dyson and most dupes are better than old and corded machines, and Dyson's latest and greatest (both Gen5 and V16, at the moment) are the best in market at the end of the day. This is objective, not subjective. I watched his video and appreciated his objective observations, something that's all too rare enough to make you guys... well, let's just say secretly angering him. I knew vacuumland.org is an echo chamber of ignorance. Bruh!
Click to expand...
Keep kissing that a$$ dude
 
Vacuum Facts said:
I'm not aware of a cordless dupe that's as good as a mains cleaner (in default mode).
Click to expand...
That's for the modern ones. But the ancient machines are way worse. You already experienced it with the Kirby.

It means Dyson is the only cordless family that consistently match the performance of a modern corded mains in the former's default mode, and has been the case since the V10 back in 2018.
 
Vacuum Facts said:
These are my conclusions based on observations. You can watch my review yourself. If you have any evidence, distinct from an irrelevant opinion on the factual matters associated with how I drew my conclusion, you're welcome to positively contribute. Otherwise, kindly keep the petty name calling and lynching calls for the playground. It's only the bullies that shouldn't be welcome here. A dose of facts on this vacuum fiction land has been long overdue.
Click to expand...

You are partially responsible for the death of Matthew Lock. Get out of here!
 
vacuumdevil said:
You are partially responsible for the death of Matthew Lock. Get out of here!
Click to expand...
That's in an innappropriate low blow and I have written evidence directly from him archived confirming this to be false. I know exactly what upset him in this area of his life because he told me. And you won't like the truth. The primary cause of his death was associated with a mental health disorder and you insult his memory by hypocritically weaponising his death to attack others in such a repugnant way. You really showed a wholly new low side to the community you represent.
 
Vacuum Facts said:
That's in an innappropriate low blow and I have written evidence directly from him archived confirming this to be false. I know exactly what upset him in this area of his life because he told me. And you won't like the truth. The primary cause of his death was associated with a mental health disorder and you insult his memory by hypocritically weaponising his death to attack others in such a repugnant way. You really showed a wholly new low side to the community you represent.
Click to expand...
I have recently reported @vacuumdevil for that disrespectful comment. THEY are the one needed to be banned.

Also, good job, @Vacuum Facts
 

Similar threads

Vacuum Facts
Thoughts on the Sebo Balance A1 Cordless Vacuum Cleaner?
Replies
3
Views
704
Absolute Rainbow
A
turbo500
Which? artcile - "Should you trust the new vacuum cleaner energy labels"?
2
Replies
53
Views
524
marcusprit
M
dys0nb0y
Which? Should you trust new vacuum cleaner energy labels?
Replies
1
Views
91
dys0nb0y
dys0nb0y

Latest posts

Back
Top