Dyson Piston

VacuumLand – Vintage & Modern Vacuum Enthusiasts

Help Support VacuumLand:

Well you can't really get better than no hair tangling when it comes to hair tangling lol. The only significant variable would be in air velocity, but I would just recommend avoiding underpowered machines.
That's pretty unconvincing. If you have any reputable, objective evidence for the kind of use cases the Dyson approach can handle—that has also been independently verified—please send it along. Otherwise, I conclude there's absolutely nothing to go on and I don't believe for a second the machine you refer to is capable of universally achieving hair detangling.
 
That's pretty unconvincing. If you have any reputable, objective evidence for the kind of use cases the Dyson approach can handle—that has also been independently verified—please send it along. Otherwise, I conclude there's absolutely nothing to go on and I don't believe for a second the machine you refer to is capable of universally achieving hair detangling.

Thankfully reality doesn't depend upon you believing me!
 
This has been fully debunked long ago (note the correction in the description). Dyson invented the concept, Panasonic seemingly nicked the idea and patented it where it wasn't covered and released to market first. Their design suffers from the additional problem of massive unswept edges where their motors sit. Poor design.
I respectfully disagree. I have had one of these Japanese Panasonics in my own collection for many years before Diesoon introduced their Fluffy Cone design. It has been on the market in Japan for seven or eight years, which means it was developed in the years preceding introduction. Panasonic is the innovator here. Dyson is a copy cat.
 
Then I leave you to provide sufficient evidence to support that. Let's see how well you do. So far you've just decreed by fiat what you say is true. Really simple: show the machine and the relevant features of its design, its model number, and provide evidence of its manufacturing date. You apparently have this so it should take you no time at all. Then we can cross reference to patent literature associated with using conical brushbars to remove hair.
 
I respectfully disagree. I have had one of these Japanese Panasonics in my own collection for many years before Diesoon introduced their Fluffy Cone design. It has been on the market in Japan for seven or eight years, which means it was developed in the years preceding introduction. Panasonic is the innovator here. Dyson is a copy cat.
You're forgetting here that Dyson released hair screw tool with their V15 in 2021.
 
Then I leave you to provide sufficient evidence to support that. Let's see how well you do. So far you've just decreed by fiat what you say is true. Really simple: show the machine and the relevant features of its design, its model number, and provide evidence of its manufacturing date. You apparently have this so it should take you no time at all. Then we can cross reference to patent literature associated with using conical brushbars to remove hair.
I had the Panasonic nozzle in my collection before the Covid pandemic, so 2019. I bought it soon after they came out in Japan.
 
I had the Panasonic nozzle in my collection before the Covid pandemic, so 2019. I bought it soon after they came out in Japan.
Unfortunately, that's not what was asked for, which was the minimum necessary to support the claim convincingly in a fact-checkable way. Do you think you'll be able to provide the evidence required? To be clear, that's an image of the machine and the relevant features of its design in question (conical brush bars), its model number, and evidence of its manufacture date (or that allows it to be determined).
 
Unfortunately, that's not what was asked for, which was the minimum necessary to support the claim convincingly in a fact-checkable way. Do you think you'll be able to provide the evidence required? To be clear, that's an image of the machine and the relevant features of its design in question (conical brush bars), its model number, and evidence of its manufacture date (or that allows it to be determined).
Love, that's his evidence: He had the Panasonic nozzle in his collection before the Covid pandemic, so 2019. He bought it soon after they came out in Japan.
 
I believe he has it. I'm genuinely interested. Maybe Panasonic did invent it. I'm not convinced and I'm trying to find out. If there's evidence of the product coming out before the first Dyson patents, then that's all I'll need to change my mind. I've often found, though, that getting evidence out of people to support their claims is like getting blood out of a stone. But maybe things will be different for the first time.
 
Love, that's his evidence: He had the Panasonic nozzle in his collection before the Covid pandemic, so 2019. He bought it soon after they came out in Japan.
What do you want? I don't have the packaging from that far back. I have had it in my collection so when I saw this Fluffy Cone thing I just laughed because I had the same idea from Panasonic sitting on shelf for six years or so.
 
What do you want? I don't have the packaging from that far back. I have had it in my collection so when I saw this Fluffy Cone thing I just laughed because I had the same idea from Panasonic sitting on shelf for six years or so.
We're going to need a notarized declaration of facts, as well as images of the original packaging and receipt, plus GPS tracking showing your trip to the store when you purchased it, and a detailed 3D scan of both the interior and exterior. Go ahead and get it MRI'd while you're at it, then we might believe you.
 
What do you want? I don't have the packaging from that far back. I have had it in my collection so when I saw this Fluffy Cone thing I just laughed because I had the same idea from Panasonic sitting on shelf for six years or so.
No, you made a factual claim that's either true or false and on which there's evidence bearing. I've seen no evidence to support your claim that Dyson stole the idea. You've been asked on two occasions (1 and 2) for the evidence that can be fact-checked to support your claim after you claimed you have it in your collection to simply get the evidence from easily and post. Now you ask again what is wanted? It now doesn't look like you can defend your position, which means I'll continue not to believe it and suggest your statement is a falsehood given the evidence to the contrary already available. Did I really need to spell this out again? Do you think you can provide the evidence to support your claim or is this a write-off as predicted and the guy above is going to continue attempt to pettily mock people who simply want to establish what's true in a fact-checkable way? I provide all the evidence for my claims; it's not that hard if the claim is true—because that's how you know to make the claim in the first place. Pulling teeth here...
 
Now the expected deafening silence and plethora of passive aggressive emojis of desperation have revealed all we need to know, let's move on from this cul de sac.

I've been testing the new separator a bit more and have learned where it's better and worse than the original design. I can see why their next revisions of it are the way they are. I also realised you can get quite a lot of power out of the machine under certain situations and they probably reduced its power in all modes deliberately, especially boost. I think this was to prevent premature loss of battery service life seeing as many people out there constantly used boost unnecessarily. Still need to get a lot more experience with this machine before reviewing it so it's not as superficial and pointless as every other review I've seen so far.

I also see their promo vid is being released at 2pm today.
 
I mean, just look at reviews like this. They're so unbelievably cosmetic and don't tell you any of the really important things that have been discovered so far. This cosmetic review comes across as freeby kiss ass. You read lines like this and realise you're dealing with a complete lack of thoroughness "The V16 Piston Animal could well be the best Dyson vacuum based on specs alone." The technology 'experts' apparently.
 
Yes there is a live today! No doubt recorded from yesterday launch.

Nothing mentioned of the self emptying dok for the V16 as yet from leaked pictures. Sure that will come in time.
 
What it did show, is that all the silly rumour idiots were wrong. It doesn't use bags. And it was obvious to a half-wit it wouldn't—because bags are stupid and represent the most ignorant and primitively tribal. It's the first cyclonic docking station. I still think it's a stupid waste of time as there's nothing difficult about emptying dust free in 5 seconds. I guess people can't even manage that successfully...
 
I don't like the idea of self emptying dok really. You're gonna have to clean vacuum and then docking station too.
Bags maybe would be a better as you'd just throw it away but then it's a bit silly, getting bagless vacuum to empty it into bags
 
I guess the logic is you effectively empty openly less frequently, so those that lack the basic IQ to empty in 5 seconds without mess on Dyson products have a 'solution', or that like unnecessary gadgets get one. Really, what has happened is that the dupes and clones of Dyson's inventions produced by the competition are so shit that you can't empty without a dust cloud. So, the regressive capitalist in these companies spotted a 'solution' to exploit even more. Why not consume more materials to make a machine to compensate for that pathetic design weakness, which adds to a false economy, and has running costs for more profit, and then make the customer pay even more for that too after tricking them into thinking it's a great idea! Problem is, since all the competition copied that bad solution, Dyson, who lack it because they don't need it, appear to the same lowest common denominator idiot customers as though they now lack an industry wide technology and so aren't as good. It's so ironic, and people are too stupid to even notice, so they get played. Once enough market share is lost from Dyson for them to get scared, they've no choice but to jump on the bandwagon. Instead of doing things right, they now do things that are popular, just to stay afloat. It's a broken system, and the numerically significant lowest common unthinking denominator are responsible for their own diminishment. You can see Dyson doing the same thing with their new wet robot. It has the rotating side brushes. Dyson for years pointed out and evidenced they flick crap everywhere and into the air—the last place you want it, but they've seemingly done as above, jumped on the bandwagon to not lose market share because people wrongly think it's a good thing because all the copycats have it as a means to compensate for a proper solution. Totally regressive.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top