Is lower power ever an advantage?

[Sanifan]

My initial thought is no, but I was wondering.

Just as I was getting into vacuums I purchased an unused NIB Clarke Filtrapac backpack vacuum off the Bay for a decent price. Backpacks are useful for the kind of work I do, so it made sense. Being new to vacuums, though, I didn't have a full understanding of how airflow and water lift numbers compared to other units. I later found that by spec it's not the most powerful vac: 94 CFM for airflow and 68" of lift.

It feels okay at the end of the hose, but those numbers strike me as kinda low. So are there any instances where a lower powered vacuum like this offers a cleaning advantage? And if not, why would they even sell a vac with lower power? Asking price online is not cheap, over $500, so I doubt they've designed it for a budget market (the vac is marketed to commercial institutions, anyhow).

I'm very confused as to why a vacuum designed for professional use would have specs that seem low. Is more power always better, or am I missing something?

 

[twocvbloke]

Sometimes, a smaller and less powerful vac can have it's advantages, for example when cleaning out the dust from inside a computer, you don't want something too powerful pulling off the little jumpers cos they're sucking too hard, so something small and low powered while sweeping the dust off with a paintbrush (NEVER the vac's dusting brush!!!) can be useful...

 

[trebor]

RE: discussion from another thread...

about optimum cfm vs H20 lift and the resultant 'sweet' spot for cleaning. A lower powered vacuum with a well designed floor tool may have a much longer optimum sweet spot for dirt removal than a higher powered vacuum. The obsession with increased amps, h20 lift and cfms, and air watts has led all of us, vac aficionados and laymen alike, astray from the real intent and purpose of vacuum cleaners...dirt removal.

An old Hoover with a very low power motor can remove dirt very effectively because its design is very specific for the purpose of removing dirt and sand from rugs. It has a sateen bag that leaks like a sieve, but it does clean rugs quite effectively. Because of it's non-restrictive air flow through the bag, it has a large sweet spot of cleaning.

A Kenmore canister with the old 10" wide power nozzle can be very effective in carpet cleaning. People reject it today because of its narrow width, however, it cleans very deeply because the power is concentrated. Pick up a few ounces of carpet fresh and the sweet spot is gone immediately.

We, and the vacuum buying public who look to us for guidance, forget that dirt removal depends on a variety of interdependent factors, including who uses the vacuum. Lower power does not necessarily mean lower performance if the lower powered vac maintains a longer sweet spot of more effective cleaning.

 

[venson]

Depends on how you look at it . . .

Funny, there's always questions as to power but not many regarding practicality. Nonetheless, if we're speaking of "regular-sized' household vacuums, the issue as to what's better still and will remain up for grabs.

There appear to be two camps. One camp regards no machine of much use unless it's jet-engine powered (kind of a guy thing) and the other doesn't worry over vacuum power as much as getting the job done in an all around good way that allows you to get to the next thing to do in timely fashion. Not seeking miracles, the desirable is decent deep-clean, one- or two-pass surface litter removal on medium pile carpet, quick and reliable bare floor/above-the-floor performance and all achieved without over-effort on the user's part as vacuuming still remains pretty labor intensive no matter what you use.

It's my belief, in past manufacturers were a little more thoughtful as to their machines' overall design -- upright or canister. The better designed machines didn't require landmark power draw or suction to provide good performance because their makers were a bit more sticklers as to brushroll and attachment design.

Before the introduction of power nozzles, American-made canister vacuums -- almost a thing of the past now -- displayed myriad spins on straight-suctions rug tools to sell their worth. The better ideas did well as far as surface cleaning went and the world was a wonderful, happy place without a glut of power. This also applied to upholstery tools (Sunbeam, Filter Queen, Hoover), occasionally dusting tools (AirWay for one) and certainly bare floor tools like Electrolux's which many makers borrowed from.

With outsourcing appearing to have become every product designers' favorite shortcut, speaking current vacuums, we all are generally using the same machine. Quite often, what's to recommend one vacuum from the next when both are merely fans in a can used to power a hose and tools or a revolving brush all come from the same company? All that's left to sell then is power and the perception that MORE power will cure all a household's ills.

Again looking at design, it's probably impossible to run the larger part of the clean-air uprights we have now without high power. Their direct-air counterparts deliver suction to the floor by a relatively short and simple path. No need for a lot of power there, just good seals. However, meaning to show how we may have it all, put a motor with fan in a casing, throw in winding air paths, tubing and hoses with the intention of making the thing "a clever device" and you lose the game without a lot power.

There's a reason vacuum hoses for canister vacs are generally supplied at six-feet or so. Beyond 12 or 14-feet of hose length suction power begins to drop due to friction when you're speaking of the suction production point merely being a fan (and one at that) possibly no more than 5.5 inches in width at work. Even with single-fan motors (currently the usual) working overtime you can't get around physics except by pushing up power and motor speed.

This not to say that power doesn't have its place. If you're a consumer with a house full of active kids and/or pets and entertain often, regular use of a decently designed, well-powered vacuum can be a boon. If you're a single person who doesn't entertain much or a mature married couple with the kids all grown and moved off to California, household requirements for cleaning and cleaning devices are different.

In my household of one I have an inexpensive, 1.25 amp Versa Power stick vac that gets whipped out if the inside and outside mats at my front door miss some of the Florida sand always to be found on my shoes. Its handle can be detached, making it great for whooshing up dry spills, spider webs and strange little black bugs that show no manners by deciding to die on white woodwork. It has no power to speak of but as long as its filter is kept clean it does bare floors here as well as my full-sized 10.7 amp machine. I often use it instead of the bigger machine when I'm preparing to mop. And again -- its all about the design of the thing as well as the task to which it's applied.

The main vacuum's used two to three times a week, mostly at middle-speed with its PN to save fretting over what may get walked into the wall-to-wall that's the predominant flooring in the house.

The living room is no biggie but the bedroom was a problem due to the previous tenant's lack of care. For three weeks or so it felt as though it was just me and the Miele trying to sweep up a sand dune. Though the rug looked quite clean up top, bags kept filling up with heavy, sandy grit. Nonetheless, power wasn't an issue as there was no solution that could render the problem done and gone in just a day. I just vacuumed more (motor full speed to step up the process) until the problem was solved. Now that it is, I do the bedroom rug less and at lower speeds.

 

[danemodsandy]

I Won't Say....

....That lower power is ever an actual advantage, but I do happen to believe that a lot of today's "power" is unnecessary.

If you will think about it, what a vacuum cleaner actually NEEDS to do is to pick up dust and dirt, move it to the bag (or cup if you like those bagless things), and filter the exhaust. That doesn't take a heckuva lot of suction or power, as you can see if you'll put some sand on a hard-surface floor and vacuum it up.

Where the trouble comes in is rugs and carpet, which could not be better designed to trap grit between their tufts and fibers. Once grit is trapped, it does take some extra encouragement to get it back out. There are two main means of doing this. One is a brushroll, standard on uprights since the beginning, and available on canisters for over sixty years. A well-designed brushroll combs and brushes carpet fibers, releasing trapped grit so that the vacuum's airflow can carry it to the bag or cup. There is very little problem with this approach.

The other means of getting at trapped grit is higher suction, which requires a more powerful, higher-revving motor. At an extreme, designers can specify one of those jet-screech, single-stage motors, beating their scrawny chests about how "powerful" the motor is, and how much suction it develops.

Because a single-stage motor is not as robust as a dual-stage motor, the life of the appliance is compromised to gain numerical values that can be used in advertising. For this reason, I favor the older approach, where a good brushroll was used in conjunction with a dual-stage motor for the fan, to get the dust and grit into the bag or cup where it belongs.

So, in a way, it can be said that lower power is something of an advantage if one is looking for long vacuum life; a well-designed vintage vacuum has already lasted far longer than many new ones ever will, and with minor reconditioning (bearings and brushes) can go several more decades. Single-stage motors that are working overtime to force air through nearly impenetrable filtration systems are doomed to early failure in the hands of many consumers, making their "power" a disadvantage.

That's mah story, an' Ah'm stickin' to it....

 

[danemodsandy]

OOPS!

In my previous post, I said that brushrolls have been available on canisters for "over sixty years."

I meant over FIFTY years. Sorry 'bout that!

 

[sebo_fan]

Here, here Trebor et al. I genuinely think its one reason alone to why the Hoover Portapower is so well known and liked - same with the Dirt Devil Handy = the difference with these of course is that they are not back pack vacuums, yet they are low powered enough to still serve a purpose.

The only exception IMHO and preference to "high power" comes down to the canister design and suction only floor heads. Higher power seems to be able to suck out dirt at a stronger rate - naturally. When it comes to uprights, it's lower power all the way. I've vacuumed with high power uprights above 1700 watts and carpet pile can easily be ripped out.

Bear in mind though, that back pack vacuums sometimes either have motors located not necessarily at the bottom - but also at the top or to the sides and depending the bag layout where the dust goes - some backpack vacuums are lower powered because they don't need to be any higher - and also bigger motors also mean, added weight.

 

[Sanifan]

A good discussion...

Good points about the sweet spot and the ultimate goal of removing/picking up dirt. When looked in that light one can see how design and implementation play a big role in effectiveness. Not just raw power.

The reason I got the backpack was for quick and efficient detail and above floor cleaning when tenants move out. I don't know why, but for years we didn't do a preliminary detail vacuum before wiping/washing surfaces. You can imagine what a slow and dirty job it was when cleaning years old accumulated dust, dirt, crumbs, and debris out of crevices and kitchen cabinets. There were multiple wipings and rinsing to get it clean. And the job was almost always disgusting, time consuming, and demoralizing. When I started using a detail vac it was a revelation. Once I vacuumed off the bulk of the dust, dirt, kitchen crumbs, and debris, the wipedown was a quick and relatively clean affair. Hallelujah!

I got the backpack for the job but am only now breaking it out. It's such a novel and cool thing to me that I'm reserving it for use in my home, not work. For work I've been using a red Sanitaire Mighty Mite canister. While not as convenient as the backpack, it's the same idea. Mine gets carried on a shoulder strap around the rental house cleaning stuff off of surfaces, crevices, cabinets and shelves, mouldings, light fixtures, floorboards, etc. before wipe down.

The Sanitaire Mighty Mite is specced at 140 CFM. No figures given for waterlift, but it is an impressively powerful little vacuum. Compared to these numbers, those of the Clarke backpack pale. I guess proof will be in the performance once I put it through its paces.

 

[venson]

My favorite backpack vac . . . .

For backpack vacs Nilfisk's Back-uum was quite good. Because of its design -- motor at the bottom, bag chamber up top and flexible connection between -- it was able to conform if you bent or reached. Though not large, the problem I had with mine was that the bulk on my back made it hard turn about if working in tight confines.

I lucked out on the one I bought as it had a receptacle for a power nozzle.

Unfortunately, I think Nilfisk has taken it of its roster for the U.S. if not elsewhere as well in favor of a cheaper to make model.

 

[Sanifan]

I like that Nilfisk...

The articulation is cool.


Here is what the Clarke looks like...

 

[Sanifan]

Clarke in use...

And here is what it looks like in action.

The Clarke Filtrapac is cool because it also has a port for a PN. You can see the lady using one in the pic. It has an interesting connector. It's not the standard pigtail PN connector, like you find on Tristars, Panasonics, and some older vacs. Rather, it is a two pin connector in an ovoid profile plug with two detents on the sides. Rather like a figure 8 shape. It reminds me of the power plug connector on a Playstation game system.

Apparently, one can get the Filtrapac specced for the voltage they use on commercial aircraft. So it's also marketed to airlines or services that clean airliner cabins between flights.

 

[Sanifan]

The Clarke PN plug...

I was unable to find a pic of the PN plug and no time to find the camera. Here is a pic of a Playstation power cord, however, that has a similar looking plug. On the vacuum, both sides of the plug profile are rounded instead of the one flat side that the Playstation plug has.

Does anyone know what this style connector is called? I'm looking for an extention cord in this type of plug so I can rig up my own PN setup with the backpack. It seems that the Wessel Werks PN that came with my Hyla NST uses the same power connector, so I plan on trying that with the Clarke.

Also, is there an adapter that converts this style of connector to the regular pigtail style cord as found on the Tristar CXL?

 

[venson]

@Sanifan . . .

Hi,

I think its molded that way to assure the electrical connection is polarized. New PN connections have had slight change in the molded plastic the prongs are seated in and their receptacles for the same reason.

I have to admit I don't know how the polarized connection is supposed to help an AC/DC connection.

Thanks for the pics.

 

[vintagerepairer]

Oh so many interesting points! Here in the UK, fittings are often polarised to ensure that any switches are connected to the live wire throughout our wiring system. All our wall sockets and plugs are polarised, and above that, many manufactures of wall sockets make them 'double pole' which means that when the switch on the wall socket is pressed, it breaks both the live and the neutral.

Now, in other parts of Europe -bearing in mind they use a very similar voltage to ours in the UK- this sort of attitude has never been adopted, and so many appliances can have their plugs inserted into the wall socket so that either pin of the plug could be connected to the live or the neutral. I do believe that in France this is not possible on plugs with earth connection (grounded), but on most other French plugs and plugs (earthed or otherwise) in other European countries can also be used either way. The potential danger from having the switch in the neutral side of the circuit is not reduced in other parts of Europe, so I don't know why the UK is the only one to try and instil polarisation.

Now, that Clarke back-pack with PN...I can't see the point of that. Why? Well because that very design of cleaner has long been on sale in the UK under many names, only in these instances it was sold as an upright. The PN was literally attached to the bottom of the back-pack machine, and a handle attached to that. It even had an on-board hose & tools. Quite what benefit this back-pack and PN set up is, I don't know, but hope that someone can tell me?

As for motor wattage, that is now at a ridiculous level on European machines. Mostly it is to compensate for generic, badly designed cleaners, and also because bagless non-Dyson cleaners clog up like Billy-ho and need as much suction as possible in a poor attempt to overcome the lose of cleaning power. And added to that, the UK market has been conditioned into thinking that more watts means a cleaner home. It never occurs to the consumer that they are running a machine with the same electrical consumption as a heater or tumble dryer.

 

[sebo_fan]

"More watts mean a cleaner home..."

Yes it is funny that isn't it - but then most buyers are also convinced a Dyson rules the roost - and most of their vacuums are hardly higher than 1300 watts.

 

[vintagerepairer]

Yes, well that is another matter altogther. There is only one thing which seems to trump high-wattage, and that is the name Dyson. You are quite right Sebo-fan.

 

[danemodsandy]

Benny:

You have my gratitude for pointing out a little-considered point: The unnecessarily increased electrical usage of today's high-wattage vacuums. I think this goes along with a point I made earlier: All a vacuum NEEDS to do is to get the dust from the floor (or wherever) to the bag or cup, and filter the exhaust.

We are getting very far beyond need in our new appliances; I have a friend who is proud of her new EnergyStar rated fridge. It is stainless, to replace a black one she'd grown tired of; there was nothing wrong with the old one. It is the size of a small garden shed; my friend is single, and the new fridge is mostly empty. And it's from China, meaning that this enormous object was dragged halfway around the Earth to replace something that was more energy-efficient and not remotely worn out yet.

But the new fridge has an EnergyStar seal, so she's free to feel virtuous about being "green." Bah. Humbug.

All I can say is that I have nothing but vintage appliances, which - according to conventional wisdom - ought to be energy hogs, gulping down electricity and water with merry, and expensive abandon. I have the lowest energy bills of anyone I know ($110 for both electricity and natural gas in February. In Iowa.).

Knowing when one has ENOUGH would seem to be a huge energy-saver right there.

 

[vintagerepairer]

You are as always very welcome to my input. I do find the bulk of the threads interesting.

The 'green' concept has hit the UK too, and I admit that I am sloppy. So I do the recycling and I try to limit my gas and electricity consumption. But that is about it. On one hand I admire people for being green. On the other hand, I note that a lot of people are saving the planet on one hand and yet killing it with the other. Not to mention the 'behind the scenes' implications you mention, such as the costs of taking a fridge-freezer round the world.

So many manufacturers are jumping on this band wagon too. Take the Philips jug kettle in my link below. It is sold as an eco-kettle, with pro-rata savings statistics to match. How does it do this? How does it 'save' energy. Well, it doesn't. See, it is nothing more than any other high-wattage, concealed-element, fast-boil kettle, except that this one has a large water gauge with more precise measurements. Therefore it is easier to see the smallest amount of water in the bottom of the kettle and could discourage overfilling.

In reality, one could take ones cup, fill it with water, pour into a kettle, and mentally note where the water-line came to. I am not slating the Philips kettle and saying it is bad, what I am saying is, is that it does nothing more than any other. But I bet it sells.

 

[vintagerepairer]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Philips-HD4644-Energy-Efficient-Kettle/dp/B001EHF3OG