|
Thread Number: 6942
Inside Airvolution... |
[Down to Last] |  |
| Post# 76667 , Reply# 1 7/28/2009 at 15:26 (5,377 days old) by watsonw (Newport, Shropshire, UK) | ||
|
Jack, In your opinion how does the performance compair with the Dyson system ? Regards, Walter. | ||
Post# 76699 , Reply# 3 7/28/2009 at 19:32 (5,377 days old) by bagintheback  (Flagstaff, Arizona) |
||
 | ||
| Post# 76706 , Reply# 5 7/28/2009 at 20:15 (5,377 days old) by joe22 () | ||
|
God bless the guys in marketing for comming up with the word, 'Airvolution' joe | ||
| Post# 76723 , Reply# 6 7/28/2009 at 23:15 (5,377 days old) by kirbyduh (Kentucky ) | ||
|
which dyson cyclone system is the most effective? | ||
| Post# 76841 , Reply# 9 7/30/2009 at 08:27 (5,375 days old) by turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK) | ||
Jack, that is exactley what I detest about bagless cleaners. Given the exceptions metioned, most bagless cleaners just use the filter based bagless system and after vacuuming just half a room, you've already lost suction. Also I find emptying any bagless cleaner and cleaning the filters to be a very messy and unhygenic job. I know you are a fan of some bagless cleaners. I think they are very interesting machines with good performance (apart from the stupidly soft brushes on the Vax) - especially to see what comes out of the carpet on a daily basis. But I cannot abide having to empty them and clean filters. All the dust just seems to poof back up in my face - even when empyting outside into the wheelie bin. I'd sooner just drop a bag in the bin and save the mess. I was helping a friend out recently who'd been in a car accident and couldn't vacuum as she injured her back. I used her DC07 and when I emptied it, I got COVERED in very fine dust and ended up breathing a lot of it in and taking most of it back into the house with me. I just find this a very annoying process.
| ||
| Post# 76870 , Reply# 10 7/30/2009 at 13:54 (5,375 days old) by watsonw (Newport, Shropshire, UK) | ||
|
Jack, Many thanks for taking the time to give such a comprehensive account, I knew you'd know. Regards, Walter. | ||
| Post# 76964 , Reply# 13 7/31/2009 at 03:19 (5,375 days old) by turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK) | ||
|
Jack, maybe you've just been lucky. Certainly every Dyson I've ever emptied has blown a significant amount of dust back at me. I've even tried leaning right into the bin and doing it but I still get fine dust all over me. I had a bit of an annoying thing happen once when emptying my gran's DC04. The bin was almost full and I tip out all the dust into the bin and because it was windy, ALL the dust blew straight back onto me - but that was my own stupid fault lol. The one thing I agree with on the Oreck infomercial's is that bagless is unhygenic as all the dust particles - including dead skin flakes and dust mite droppings - just ends up all over you. As for the dust on the cylinder - well that doesn't bother me so much. I get dust on my Sebo, Miele and Henry. I think most of it is dust in the air that clings to the outside of the cleaner due to the static caused by the machine and not dust blowing out of the vacuum and it is easilly cleaned. It is just a bit annoying having to put a clean t-shirt through the wash and having a sneezing fit JUST because I emptied my vacuum.
| ||
| Post# 77020 , Reply# 14 7/31/2009 at 17:41 (5,374 days old) by rolls_rapide (-) | ||
|
But they're not - that went out when they stopped making the bright yellow bags. Today's bags are usually unbleached brownish paper. | ||
| Post# 77021 , Reply# 15 7/31/2009 at 17:44 (5,374 days old) by rolls_rapide (-) | ||
|
That was weird! I put a subject drift header, posted, then I was asked to log in. It posted, but removed the header! | ||
| Post# 77024 , Reply# 16 7/31/2009 at 18:04 (5,374 days old) by vintagehoover () | ||
|
Ok - well, they're still paper, bleached or unbleached! And once they're all full of dust, it's not like you can recycle them. | ||
| Post# 77146 , Reply# 19 8/2/2009 at 12:01 (5,372 days old) by rolls_rapide (-) | ||
|
"And once they're all full of dust, it's not li My point was that paper will break down in the environment, since it consists of cellulose, and will therefore be attacked by the enzyme cellulase. | ||
| Post# 77155 , Reply# 23 8/2/2009 at 12:55 (5,372 days old) by rolls_rapide (-) | ||
|
Once upon a time... it was recommended that the dust be burned. Maybe highly efficient incinerators should make a comeback. | ||
| Post# 77158 , Reply# 25 8/2/2009 at 13:39 (5,372 days old) by eurekaprince (Montreal, Canada) | ||
What about the energy it takes to run a 12 amp bagless?
I would rather save the energy by cleaning carpets with a 7 amp fan-first bagged Eureka or Sanitaire, which does as good a job of cleaning carpets as a bagless using 12 amps of electricity. It seems that all these bagless machines require 12 amps to get the cyclones whirling fast enough to filter the air. I leave the non-carpet cleaning to my 12 amp retro Constellation. And even then, I think the bagged machines save the environment more since you never have to use water to wash any filters or bins. Just my 2 amps worth!!! :-) | ||
| Forum Index: | 
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
