Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Hi Carmine,

I see the mechanisms as different.  Filter Queen and Lewyt's filter paper and/or cellulose cones were intended to be a physical barrier between the fan chamber and the contents of the dust container in lieu of the conventional dust bags they did not employ. Their conical shaped filters allowed more filtering surface than competitors of  similar ilk at the time like Fairfax and Silver King.  Both of those brands employed flat, round filters that fitted between their dust containers and motor units.    The metal cones in the FQ and Lewyt served more to make the conical filters keep their form. 

So-called cyclonic action was employed to help keep dirt off the filter cones by the air swirl produced when air entered the dust container. Air was deflected to the left, at least in Filter Queen, with the intention of keeping dirt collection on the cone to the minimum and suction to the maximum because of the whirling air.  I know from experience that this works for a time but eventually dust, fluff and debris begin to build up behind the deflector eventulally reducing the usable surface area on the filter cone.  This did not prove a serious problem to me as FQ can maintain good suction and clean well nder normal conditions for a good amount of time even if the ideal "cyclonic situation" isn't happening internally.

In true cyclonic bagless vacuums, if there is such a term, the intention is to use the centrifical force of induced air-swirls to fling off the dust and dirt carried into the machine to such a degree that minimal filtering medium is all that's needed to capture dust still in the air stream after it exits the dust container.  As I said, that's the intention but once the shroud begins to collect debris -- fluff, hair, bits of paper, etc. -- cyclonic filtering capability decreases and residual dirt in the air stream after the process increases.  That is why frequent emptying is required AND why I don't necessarily feel that much ahead of the game on way or another due to it.   I'd be glad to see this same technology applied to a portable machine with larger dust capacity than generally available today to help keep the principles used for cyclonics at their optimum with less need for emptying. 

Best,

Venson

Any Comments....................

MOLE

Hello Venson:

Similar in that today's shroud, as on dysons, separates the large debris in one cyclone

from the 2 nd intermediary and 3rd fine cyclones.  The paper cones serve this purpose in addition

to the perforated conical assembly keeping all the dirt large and small from the motor. Particularly

if the users did not dump the base regularly, which we know is a dyson [bagless vacuum] caveat.

Interestingly, Lewyt [do it] changed to the see thru speed saks in the very early 50's.  And still claimed these

as superior to dust cloth bags. 

BTW, dyson in its product literature claims it's the only true cyclone vacuum.

Carmine D.

Bucks03;

As I said, I'm with you.  The DC07 perorated shroud is much

smaller than the DC14 and DC15.  The DC17 reverts back to the smaller DC07

shroud and perforations area than the DC14 and DC15.  As I mentioned in the HSN

dyson demo, dyson Dave made sure the the big

debris [cat litter which he suctioned up using the hose] was off the shroud perforations

by leveling off the dirt bin contents.  Then, he proceeded to vacuum up the pet hair in

rug mode and the coffee grinds in bare floor mode.  This maneuver was key to the demo.

Had he not, the intermediary and fine dirt/debris would not have made it to the 2-3 cyclones.

Did you email dyson and ask about the shroud sizes and perforations? 

Carmine D.

Mole:

I say NO cyclonic filtration does not work as well as bagged vacuums in household

venues!  Why? Dyson's own rethinking/revising the pre-motor filter maintenance caveats

[from a very cavalier and non-chalant once is enough every 5-6 months to

make sure at least every 3 months to maintain the warranty ] is prima facie evidence

from dyson [IMHO].  Why? 

If more evidence is needed, look at the constant dyson changing in the

cyclones' positions, numbers, shroud configurations and bin sizes.  Why? 

To force the user to make more frequent bin dumping?  Again: The

inevitable Why? 

Which brings me back to BUCKS03's question, point and post.

Carmine D.

1 they are just spending R@D money to keep the engineers busy.

2 or just cant figure out why this revolutionary [so called], system just does not  work for real customers in real homes in the real world...........

MOLE

Mole:

Apparently, dyson slightly reduced/reclassified the job positions of its engineers

since the number has decreased a tad over time.  My sense is that your latter reason is correct. 

Try as it does dyson just can't get the right bagless application.

IMHO that's the reason for the major rethinking/revision in the dyson filter maintenance. 

As long as the warranty was 2 years, it wasn't an issue.  A nebulous passing word of instruction

was adequate.  Saying that cleaning once is enough every 5-6 months unless heavy duty use. 

But with the 5 year dyson warranty, users MUST perform more frequent filter care [read maintenance]

to ensure the 5 years.  And more frequent washings degrade the pre-motor filter performance. 

Meaning more filter replacements over 5 years.  Which are not covered under the warranty.  What do the

filters cost?  $18 plus tax?

What is the advantage of bagless over bagged?  Instead of buying bags, the bagless

users [dyson too] are buying and replacing filters.  And bin dumping more often than changing paper bags.

Plus paying a premium high up front price for it.

Carmine D.

I have't contacted Dyson with regards to the big shroud design.  I doubt they will disclose why (look at their website) I can't say i'm impressed with the information on their, their brochures don't really go into deils now either.  Dyson used to produce big brochures with quite a bit of info in them the latter ones are only pocket sized booklets with hardly info info in them.

Like I've siad before I am not that keen on the latest generation of machine, they may be more studier but just don't think they have the wow factor now, maybe due to the darker colours!  I dunno why exactly I take a dislike to the newer ones.

I tried out a DC25 in the shop it has a rather set of pathetic cleaning tools as do most of the latest Dyson models, a very small stair tool and brush crevice, unlike the larger more substatial ones on the older modals and again, the SMALL bin capacity which I know will cause inconvencience to some having to empty this halfway through vacuuming their homes, unless Dyson wants the user to vacuum everyday so there is less dirt picked up??

there was only ever the cone that sat inside the which was not that big.  Then on the root cyclone again between 7/12 cyclones (depending on the models) that where angled to fit simular size on the cone on the dual.  Now we have 3 stages the shroud has been made bigger to accommerdate

the root and core technology.  Thats my view as to why the shround may be bigger.

I have to agree the bin capacity has come down alot (I can understand for the DC22/24 as they are small models).  The DC25 cound have been at least 2 to 3 litre bin without putting too much extra weight on the machine, after all this modle is for the larger home!   Like bucks03 say the plastic

on later models does look cheap.  The DC23 wand (which I saw in the shops) is not the usually shiney plastic like on the DC21/20 its dull and looks a bit cheap.  Yes I had a new nozzle for my DC05 a few years ago and the metal soleplate had been replaced with plastic.  Standards do not

seem to be carried over to newer models, take the metal soleplate on the DC15.  No where to be found on the DC18/24/25 models.  I agree with you DIB Dyson sometimes does over engineer in places. 

DC18

I happened to see the Dyson Baby (DC22) on display at a store the other day, so went on over to take a closer look. It's certainly smaller than the other Dyson canisters, but hrmmm... not as small as I'd like and presumably not as small as the DC12? Why is this? Has it fallen victim to the root cyclone 'arms race' where more visible cyclones is seen as a good thing? Pffft.. soon it'll be as getting bad as Gillette are with razor blades! Also, the DC22 doesn't  have Core separator - I think?

I noticed what buck03 was saying about the inner part of the wand being plastic, not aluminium. Again, I'd love to know why this is. I guess it's either 1)reduce costs and/or 2)improve reliability but either way it looks cheap in comparison.

Still, not a bad vac and there's nothing else quite like it at the top end. I'm in the progress of moving house at the moment, but I'll likely be looking to buy one in time.

I like the new metallic styling... I'll wasn't too sure of it to begin with, but it makes it look a lot more substantial. I noticed that the other brands (Electrolux) are starting to copy it. Just as in the beginning, they laughed at Dyson's 'crazy' yellow and grey styling, then copied it.