I'm not convinced from their advertising, but it is believable. Also doesn't translate into cleaning performance on carpets.
What you said is true, but cleaning performance needs to be measured directly since, as discussed in the previous response, there are other factors associated with the cleaner head. Direct measurements are needed, not values from indirect variables. The science of this is well known and discussed in the lecture you write off as complicated. Well the real world is and if you want to understand it, an investment in education is needed. I've kindly made it available for those who want to learn, and it's accessible to the age of about 16.
Again true. No argument from me. However, their standard measures for effectively one particular use case that isn't universally applicable to all situations (unlike the ISO). And it's only relevant for above floor cleaning. You claim it's for a tool sealed to a surface (which makes sense), but this is different to tool extracting from a deep crevice. Air watts are fixated on too much and not many seem to understand their value. Their real value for floor cleaning is outlined in the lecture associated with various low resistance flooring that allow high air currents, and more air watts sustains suction and air speed. All well understood and has been for a few hundred years.
Since @Vacuum Facts thinks airwatts are better... How about people measure airwatts for above-floor-plus-crevice performance (like he suggested in his videos), and use the Japanese standard for base floor cleaning, at least in Japanese market? Also, it's not like you necessarily needs so many airwatts, because all of it would be wasted away by a sufficiently sloppy cleaner head, just like Vacuum Facts himself noted.
The air watts of the motor can be in some cases irrelevant to what is happening at the hose end. Example. I am weird for Tristars and their several imitations from Miracle Mate, Schoettler ( Airstorm and Patriot among others ) and Vortech. I have Tristars going back to the very first Compact Model 1 circa 1944-45 up to the most recent models. All of them have hoses with a 28 mm inside diameter at the spout. And every single one of them regardless of the year made or the motor installed produce 27 to 28 cfm at the hose end. The OEM motor in a Tristar DXL is rated at 356 peak air watts. I have an EX-30, which is basically a DXL with a different upper body shape for the Japanese market I converted to a 120 volt machine. I have used different Ametek motors in it with peak air watt ratings of 356, 447 and 489 air watts ( 116884-49 the original DXL motor, 115923 and 119347-01 respectively ) as well as an Electromotor Inc. 6500-298 two stage motor rated at 438 air watts. All of these produced the same 27-28 cfm. I also have a couple of the current Tristar bodies used with the EXL, MG and CS series into which I have finagled other motors. They came with a VM3 motor that I have no data for but even this newer Tristar only produces 27-28 cfm. Wimpy by modern standards. I put an Electromotor 6500-298 in one and it still makes only 27-28 cfm. I put a 600 air watt Panasonic 3D Inducer Motor in one that came from a Kenmore Elite. That gave me a rip roaring 29 cfm at the hose end. The exact same motor in a Kenmore Elite with its 40 mm hose end gives me 43 cfm.
This is inaccurate. I've repeatedly said airwatts are misunderstood and fixating on them has limited value.
What a bunch of hooey. First of all I don't use one of those fan style anemometers. Kludge! I measure the velocity of the airstream with a digital hot wire anemometer. I measure the inside diameter of the hose opening with an inside caliper and calculate the surface area of that opening in square feet. I have a spreadsheet with the surface area and diameter in inches for hose openings ranging from 28mm through 55 mm. After that the calculation is air velocity times surface area. That is true regardless of the units used, but you have to pay attention to the fact that the units used for the surface area and air velocity are the same, ft per minute and square feet, or meters per minute and square meters, etc.
Not sure where you are getting this from. It's not true. You often regurgitate what I write, but on technical matters, you get it wrong. Replication isn't the same as understanding. An example of this kind of error, and similar to the stochastic generative AI failures, is below.
Airwatts are not relevant in this way at the cleaner head and you've misunderstood. Loss of suction at the cleaner head is relevant there. Airwatts simply indicate the magnitude of airflow into the head that can be achieved whilst sustaining sufficient suction to maintain the speed of that airflow, which is what counts. This is relevant for low resistance flooring. This was discused in detail in the lecture.
