tseg
Well-known member
We've all seen the videos where a Sebo or Miele vacuums a carpet after a Dyson is finished and continues to pull up debris... but what if that Dyson made 1 more pass, would it also pull up that debris?
Is anyone aware of more scientific carpet cleaning analysis, maybe analyzed with macro-photography? ... or the use of translucent fibers and colored dirt in a laboratory?... or determining what CFM is the minimum to pull certain kinds of debris? For as long as vacuums have been around and as hi-tech as some are, and some of the labs of manufacturers seen in videos I would think actual scientific assessment of actual cleaning ability would have been developed. Maybe it exists and I just have missed it? Maybe standardized density and weight of debris, standardized carpeting... parts per million sucked up per second? I don't know. I see the EU tag assessment, so assume they have tried to standardize the process, but have not really seen a lot of content about it.
I've seen hours of footage of vacuums sucking up globs of pet hair, or snow-plowing it, and paper-towel tugs-of-war, but it seems to me so much of the "proof" shown on the web (or in at-home demonstrations) is so unscientific. Yes, 150 CFM at the nozzle can clean a carpet thoroughly (and what does 'thoroughly' or 'deep' really mean... scientifically?), but what about 100 CFM? 80 CFM? 50 CFM? what does the cleaning curve look like? I assume there would be some type of bell curve drop off... when does that happen? Is 100 CFM and 150 CFM within 2% or each other relative to sucking debris but 80 CFM at 50% lower performance? There has got to be an 'over-engineering' point for all these different things, but I never see them spelled out. Does my floor that shakes with the latest 40 horse power titanium agitator force significantly incremental debris removal than an air-powered plastic agitator? How can you prove it scientifically? By how much? Inquiring minds want to know.
Is anyone aware of more scientific carpet cleaning analysis, maybe analyzed with macro-photography? ... or the use of translucent fibers and colored dirt in a laboratory?... or determining what CFM is the minimum to pull certain kinds of debris? For as long as vacuums have been around and as hi-tech as some are, and some of the labs of manufacturers seen in videos I would think actual scientific assessment of actual cleaning ability would have been developed. Maybe it exists and I just have missed it? Maybe standardized density and weight of debris, standardized carpeting... parts per million sucked up per second? I don't know. I see the EU tag assessment, so assume they have tried to standardize the process, but have not really seen a lot of content about it.
I've seen hours of footage of vacuums sucking up globs of pet hair, or snow-plowing it, and paper-towel tugs-of-war, but it seems to me so much of the "proof" shown on the web (or in at-home demonstrations) is so unscientific. Yes, 150 CFM at the nozzle can clean a carpet thoroughly (and what does 'thoroughly' or 'deep' really mean... scientifically?), but what about 100 CFM? 80 CFM? 50 CFM? what does the cleaning curve look like? I assume there would be some type of bell curve drop off... when does that happen? Is 100 CFM and 150 CFM within 2% or each other relative to sucking debris but 80 CFM at 50% lower performance? There has got to be an 'over-engineering' point for all these different things, but I never see them spelled out. Does my floor that shakes with the latest 40 horse power titanium agitator force significantly incremental debris removal than an air-powered plastic agitator? How can you prove it scientifically? By how much? Inquiring minds want to know.
