The cordless stick vac formfactor

[herbicide]

You post marketing hype as references? That's what Dyson claims. It is not proof of anything except perhaps your own naivety.

Anyone who has any experience with them knows how much those cyclones miss that ends up clogging the filter. If those cyclones are so good why have filters? Splain that!

In this case he’s claiming stuff Dyson isn’t even trying to claim!

@Vacuum Facts we are on topic; you brought this topic into the conversation, it is one of YOUR talking points.

Edit: I see he has provided additional links from the original posts, where now all three have the same language of the claimed "white paper:"

However NONE of them state 99% efficiency of >0.5 particles: They all state:
-"With gravimetric efficiencies of over 99%, they capture particles as small as 0.5 microns"

1. That is not the same as saying what @Vacuum Facts has posted of "efficiencies >99% of particles >0.5 µm" (no mention is given on the the percentage/rate of capture by particle size.)
2. There is no citation of this claim to Dyson, or anyone else. These are all third party sellers, no reference can be found on regarding this claim from Dyson themselves. Perhaps it was removed from Dyson's material as a result of one of the lawsuits?
3. Where is this reported "white paper?" There is a common saying that the 'internet never forgets' but in this case we are supposed to believe it has.

TLDR: @Vacuum Facts statement is even more deceptive than originally thought, the unreferenced sources are not even claiming what he is!

That's because you apparently didn't bother to read the links provided for you in the previous post. Maybe try again? Dear me...

Edit: I mean, in 1 minute I found more sources making reference to the 'white paper' advertised to retailers at the time. You couldn't achieve this yourself? They all confirm the same thing. The Amazon link will need to be copy-pasted, since it leads to the wrong location when followed from within this forum.
https://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/Ho...-Upright-Vacuum-Cleaner/17404708/product.html
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B015OPYU2Y
https://www.ntelectronic.com/produc...HIhpHbEIFAux4mVnoPWRARwfpJ6SkAI-op-1sgTRj-0f4

"With gravimetric efficiencies of over 99%, they capture particles as small as 0.5 microns."

A lot of original material disappears from the internet over time and only echoes of this nature remain. It's all consistent though, from multiple independent sources. Regardless, the point stands.

 

[dysonman1]

Panasonic designed their own cyclonic bagless vacuums for sale by Kenmore that are original and not Dyson copies. Far from it! The canisters have the same outstanding hoses, attachments, wands and power nozzles used by Kenmore and Panasonic branded bagged canister vacuums, not the miserable junk sold by Dyson. The Titan T8000 canister is a direct carry over of that Panasonic design that is also built for Kenmore ( model 22614 ). Kenmore also recently introduced a new design in the 500 Series bagless canister with their Hair Eliminator power nozzle.

I bought, and then returned one of those new Kenmore canisters. It is a single cyclone system that clogs very quickly. The power nozzle is like pushing a huge cookbook across your rugs. I agree with you about the Titan canister. Except for the small capacity for people with pets, it does work like a dream and cleans beautifully.

 

[vac14012]

Idunno about older Kenmore canisters but newer bagged ones leak dust everywhere in the canister. So they're pretty hard to recommend.

 

[cheesewonton]

Idunno about older Kenmore canisters but newer bagged ones leak dust everywhere in the canister. So they're pretty hard to recommend.

Well I disagree. If you use only genuine Kenmore brand Style Q synthetic HEPA dust bags, their excellent CF-1 pre-motor filter and change the pre-motor and exhaust filters regularly they stay clean. I have a 16 year old Kenmore Elite 800 Series, the one with the CrossOver Brush power nozzle, and it is still clean inside. You take the exhaust filter out and run your finger around the duct and no residue inside.

Kennys get a bad rap because so many owners use cheap aftermarket dust bags they buy at Wally World or Amazon, never bother to change the pre-motor or exhaust filter and the result is a filthy vacuum. The aftermarket bags have thin mounting cards that don't seal to the bag holder well. They also have lower quality materials and lack a critical feature I have only seen in genuine Kenmore bags, a sheet of plastic directly under the bag opening so sharp objects entering the bag cannot puncture it. That piece of plastic also prevents the accumulation of dust on the bottom of the bag chamber under the bag opening. Modern Kennys have high airflow and they can pull dirt right through cheap aftermarket bags and you will see the dust accumulate on the bottom of the bag chamber under the bag opening. Modern Kennys will pop a paper dust bag. It happened to a friend's Elite 800. Fortunately he was using the CF-1 pre-motor filter and nothing got past the filter so clean up was only required in the bag chamber. The CF-1 is a fantastic filter. If you treat a Kenmore canister like you would a Sebo or Miele, meaning use only genuine Kenmore brand HEPA dust bags, genuine Kenmore brand filters and do regular filter maintenance, it will last as long.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Well I disagree. If you use only genuine Kenmore brand Style Q synthetic HEPA dust bags, their excellent CF-1 pre-motor filter and change the pre-motor and exhaust filters regularly they stay clean. I have a 16 year old Kenmore Elite 800 Series, the one with the CrossOver Brush power nozzle, and it is still clean inside. You take the exhaust filter out and run your finger around the duct and no residue inside.

Kennys get a bad rap because so many owners use cheap aftermarket dust bags they buy at Wally World or Amazon, never bother to change the pre-motor or exhaust filter and the result is a filthy vacuum. The aftermarket bags have thin mounting cards that don't seal to the bag holder well. They also have lower quality materials and lack a critical feature I have only seen in genuine Kenmore bags, a sheet of plastic directly under the bag opening so sharp objects entering the bag cannot puncture it. That piece of plastic also prevents the accumulation of dust on the bottom of the bag chamber under the bag opening. Modern Kennys have high airflow and they can pull dirt right through cheap aftermarket bags and you will see the dust accumulate on the bottom of the bag chamber under the bag opening. Modern Kennys will pop a paper dust bag. It happened to a friend's Elite 800. Fortunately he was using the CF-1 pre-motor filter and nothing got past the filter so clean up was only required in the bag chamber. The CF-1 is a fantastic filter. If you treat a Kenmore canister like you would a Sebo or Miele, meaning use only genuine Kenmore brand HEPA dust bags, genuine Kenmore brand filters and do regular filter maintenance, it will last as long.

Not sure what this has to do with the stick vac formfactor. Perhaps you could enlighten us...

 

[cheesewonton]

Not sure what this has to do with the stick vac formfactor. Perhaps you could enlighten us...

There was a comment that Kenmore canisters leak a lot of dust that I was responding to. I have used Kenmore canister vacuums since 1969 and that OG Kenny still runs and cleans as well as the day we bought it though it definitely has the patina of use, so I have maybe a different perspective on Kenmore canisters based 56 years of hands on personal experience with them.

 

[cheesewonton]

You reject the only supporting material to survive but then make factual claims you've no interest in evidencing yourself. You don't see something wrong with that? Figures. Filters capture particles smaller than even the best cyclones can capture (namely <0.5 µm). These are numerically significant, but insignificant by mass and volume, hence why filters only need to be small, unlike bags. Was that really so hard? This is exactly what I mean about serious lack of basic knowledge to be spouting what you do. You fall back on grandiose claims about your past career, but then fly in the face of basic respectability with rejection of science, clear evidence of tribalism, and a lack of even simple fact-checkable knowledge.

The conclusion is, despite wrongly thinking Dyson invented cyclonic separation—a claim no one educated has ever made—the early cyclonic separators in vacuum cleaners were insufficient to avoid relying on additional methods of primary dirt separation. Dyson was the first to achieve primary dirt separation exclusively cyclonically (inertially). This was a profound technological advancement and brought substantial advantages. Cyclones are on their way out too for good reasons in the next few years. Other separator technologies are coming along for the IQ-challenged to propagandise.

Maybe we'll get back on topic now... >_>

Your "supporting material" has no factual basis. It is nothing but marketing lies.

Here is the 1920 patent for the Newcombe Dust Separator that was used in the very first bagless cyclonic vacuum that hit the market in 1926.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US1420665A/en

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Your "supporting material" has no factual basis. It is nothing but marketing lies.

Here is the 1920 patent for the Newcombe Dust Separator that was used in the very first bagless cyclonic vacuum that hit the market in 1926.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US1420665A/en

This was mentioned many posts ago and resolved now.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Apparently Kirby is the only company now to not jump on Dyson's bandwagon with the stick vac formfactor. Then I came across this. Seems legit xD

 

[centralsweeper63]

That is most definitely either AI or photoshopped. Probably both. So how are you calling absolute rainbow an AI?

 

[Vacuum Facts]

That is most definitely either AI or photoshopped. Probably both. So how are you calling absolute rainbow an AI?

Yes, it's a joke. Necessary to get back on topic and lighten the mood.

 

[herbicide]

This was mentioned many posts ago and resolved now.

Yes it is, your statement of the below is unequivocally false, as you can't provide even a scrap of evidence to prove otherwise:

Dyson's cyclones have gravimetric efficiencies >99% of particles >0.5 µm

 

[Hatsuwr]

Apparently Kirby is the only company now to not jump on Dyson's bandwagon with the stick vac formfactor. Then I came across this. Seems legit xD

Oh are we doing bad AI generated images now?

 

[cheesewonton]

This was mentioned many posts ago and resolved now.

Yep. I proved that Dyson did not invent the bagless cyclonic vacuum and provided the actual 1920 patent for separator used in the first bagless cyclonic vacuum.

Here's the deal. Dyson saw the separators used in industrial setting and got the idea to design a vacuum around it. But he was not the first and I will bet more than a cold beer that Dyson wasn't even a teeny-tiny bit aware of the vacuum Newcombe and his partner designed way back in the 1920s. It was a design that didn't sell very long before it was modified to use water as part of the cyclonic filtration. That design from Rexair has been used since 1935 but because they are sold door to door mostly in the US and is not sold widely abroad coming from UK Dyson was probably not aware of Rainbow vacuums either. So he did his own thing unaware that he was kind of reinventing the wheel. And much of the world doesn't know about Newcombe or Rexair so nobody challenged his claims to be the first. But actual history proves otherwise.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Yep. I proved that Dyson did not invent the bagless cyclonic vacuum and provided the actual 1920 patent for separator used in the first bagless cyclonic vacuum.

Congratulations 'proving' something that wasn't disputed or the point of contention and sustaining off-topic natter. >_>

 

[rlsellman21]

Yep. I proved that Dyson did not invent the bagless cyclonic vacuum and provided the actual 1920 patent for separator used in the first bagless cyclonic vacuum.

Here's the deal. Dyson saw the separators used in industrial setting and got the idea to design a vacuum around it. But he was not the first and I will bet more than a cold beer that Dyson wasn't even a teeny-tiny bit aware of the vacuum Newcombe and his partner designed way back in the 1920s. It was a design that didn't sell very long before it was modified to use water as part of the cyclonic filtration. That design from Rexair has been used since 1935 but because they are sold door to door mostly in the US and is not sold widely abroad coming from UK Dyson was probably not aware of Rainbow vacuums either. So he did his own thing unaware that he was kind of reinventing the wheel. And much of the world doesn't know about Newcombe or Rexair so nobody challenged his claims to be the first. But actual history proves otherwise.

True. Dyson's cyclonic separation technologies seem to be pretty effective based on my experience. The pre-motor filter on my Ball Animal 3 can go for several months before it needs to be washed. That was also the case for my DC33 that I used to have.