Dyson Piston

[herbicide]

This is inaccurate again. Like a common AI, your output is fraught with mistakes. My testing is not laboratory grade whatsoever and I've been very clear about this from the start. What it is, though, is free of the more ridiculous flaws seen in amateur testing polluting the internet.

Well this is refreshing, the first part anyway.

Yet we are supposed to ignore others 'amatuer testing' but put full faith in your 'amatuer testing.'

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

This is inaccurate again. Like a common AI, your output is fraught with mistakes. My testing is not laboratory grade whatsoever and I've been very clear about this from the start. What it is, though, is free of the more ridiculous flaws seen in amateur testing polluting the internet.

@Vacuum Facts more misunderstanding again, sorry. This is not like AI, is not really fraught with mistakes. You took my words out of context - fitting for an arrogant guy with all the knowledge but little understanding (no offense though). Lab-like and laboratory-grade are not the same.

I can still agree that your testing procedure is free of the worst flaws of the kind YOU think I champions, when I have watched your videos. Surely, you're thinking that I never watched your videos. I am not an AI and my answers are far better than those generative AI. @Vacuum Facts, you just misunderstood me again, just as you thought I did you.

 

[centralsweeper63]

Vacuumfacts, how is absolute rainbow an AI. I just don't understand.

 

[centralsweeper63]

I am trying to find the thread that vacuumfacts says that all his reviews have the testing procedures. I tried to find what post it was on. Then I looked on vacuum facts account for what post it was on. Then I found out that I am unable to view his account because he restricted my access to it. Anyway, I want to appologise if this is on the wrong thread, there is so many Dyson based threads and I can never remember what one I need to post on. I will watch all your reviews vacuumfacts and tell you all the errors I see in your testing. Evenly spread, how is that specific enough. Brush over twice, what brush and how stiff is it, how hard are you pressing down on it, is the back and forth motion consistent. 0.5 meters per second, how do you measure that. How is Dyson zorb exactly a replacement to real dirt. Dyson zorb has to be slightly damp meaning it is not going to work properly. I notice the nozzle is not being guided perfectly straight, how does this effect results. I could go on and on, however I know that it is not worth it.

 

[centralsweeper63]

Also, I have never, ever seen someone vacuum the same spot 10 times. That is not realistic. Most people don't even vacuum in lines.

 

[cheesewonton]

Also, I have never, ever seen someone vacuum the same spot 10 times. That is not realistic. Most people don't even vacuum in lines.

The ATSM test procedure for removal of embedded dirt in carpet ( F608 ) specifies the kind of dirt to embed in the carpet, the quantity, the area that quantity has to be spread over and how many passes to make. It also specifies four different types of carpet to be tested as dirt removal will vary by carpet type. The procedure also requires the test use three or more examples of the same machine and averaging their results to normalize for the usual production variances among machines. This is why labs like Intertek charge over $1 million per vacuum type to perform these tests. Just obtaining copies of the test standards from ATSM costs a pile of money. What I know about the test procedure comes from several lawsuits between Shark and Dyson. Court records are public and free and the testimony and evidence is included. Lots of good insights into the test procedure from these publicly available documents where adherence to the test procedure was disputed between the litigants.