Wanting to Test Vacuums

VacuumLand – Vintage & Modern Vacuum Enthusiasts

Help Support VacuumLand:

The weaknesses I can see are as follows:
  • No procedure and measurements outlined to ensure consistent initialisation
  • No discussion of the distribution and placement of dust within pile — “spread evenly” is extremely vague and far more needs to be considered
  • No discussion of the properties of the dust materials and learned explanation of why they’re representative of an environment the machines were designed for
  • No discussion of the important properties of the carpet
  • No quantification of the cleaning speed and understanding why this is important, including overlap properties
  • No discussion of how to ensure accuracy of what’s measured and priming system to account for mass losses within the machine (dust sticking etc. and not being weighed)
  • No recognition, appreciation, or understand the statistical nature of particle removal from first order systems and how this is to be captured and correctly interpreted
  • No evidence of data reproducibility in any testing methodology, given all the above
Most people don’t have PhDs in experimentalism, so this is not surprising. Much of this is covered in my videos.

Even if you did all the above, without a laboratory and the necessary training, the results still have to be taken with a pinch of salt owing to lack of rigor that not using a laboratory brings.
@cheesewonton
 
The trend of the vacuum's removal quantity of (remaining) dirt per pass is not stochastic.
Agreed. That's not what it means though. See all evidence and explanations above as this is all fully addressed.
Now, I suppose technically if you want to analyse whether or not each individual particle of dirt is removed or not, I suppose you could stretch that into calling 'that' stochastic.
Individual particles are removed and some aren't. This is exactly what is meant by stochastic above. It is precisely mathematically modelled and empirically confirmed. There's literally no debate here and this is only revealing tremendous ignorance of well understood and solid science. Anyone who doubts this simply needs to go away, learn it all, and understand it. It has all been provided. If anyone here, of all places, thinks they know better, they'll carry no respect until they publish their findings like the actual scientists did and explain why they're contradicting them.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top