Vacuum Cleaners Discussions |
|
Hertz
Joined: Jan 31, 2010
Points: 199
![]()
|
 |
Re: Why Dyson is different.
Reply #47 Jul 20, 2010 4:43 am |
|
Miele's AirClean™ Vacuum Cleaner Filtration System Proven 21x Better Than the Leading Bagless Vacuum PRINCETON, N.J., June 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Miele introduces scientific evidence that proves their vacuums (with an AirClean™ Filter-bag™, certified HEPA filter and Sealed System™ engineering) are more effective at safeguarding indoor air quality than the leading bagless vacuum. In fact an independent laboratory confirmed that Miele vacuums capture and retain 99.99% of harmful pollutants – on average 21x better than the HEPA-filtered bagless rival. "The results clearly demonstrate that Miele vacuums equipped with the AirClean™ Filter-bag™ are the best at eliminating dangerous fine particles released into the air when vacuuming," says Nadine Gast, Senior Product Manager for Miele. On average, the leading bagless HEPA-filtered vacuum emitted over 175,900 lung-damaging particles per minute during the test. "The evidence shows that a bagless vacuum equipped with only a HEPA filter cannot effectively protect a home's air quality or prevent particle emissions that exacerbate allergy and asthma conditions," explains Gast. "That's just when the vacuum is running... what the test doesn't show is just how many particles are released back into the air when the bagless vacuum bin is emptied. It's an indoor environmental disaster! If you can smell the dust after cleaning the bin, you are already inhaling fine lung damaging particles." A Miele AirClean™ Filter-bag™ with its unique spring-loaded collar locks shut when removed to trap particles and keep them out of the airstream. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), indoor air pollution is a concern for everyone, not just those suffering from respiratory conditions like asthma, allergies or emphysema. Especially considering that 90% of our time is spent indoors with pollution levels up to five times greater than outdoor air. http://www.epa.gov/ The Study Miele commissioned Interbasic Resources (IBR), a recognized laboratory, to conduct an emissions test comparing their vacuum against four leading HEPA-filtered brands including Dyson®, SEBO®, Riccar® and Simplicity®. The results prove that the Miele vacuum, with its Sealed System™ engineering, equipped with a unique AirClean™ Filter-bag™ and certified HEPA filter, had significantly lower rates of particle emissions than competitive models. "In fact, the particle emissions from Miele's vacuum was next to nothing," says Gast. Each test was replicated three separate times according to the strictest scientific protocols. "Our AirClean™ Filter-bag™ is the best protection we can offer families to safeguard their homes from vacuum cleaner dust," per Gast. Copies of the complete study can be found on www.mieleusa.com. SOURCE Miele Carmine D. Why Dyson is different: http://www.mieleusa.com/products/benefits/filtration.asp?nav=30&snav=24&tnav=26&oT=272&benefit=119 Good try, but this just proves not only that your biased and/or blind against the facts, or just that Dyson makes a VERY high quality filtration vacuum that not even a Sebo can touch *evidently* Good run, but obviously Dyson makes a quality machine and and for the filtration alone, let alone the longevity of their DC07's and on, AND their cleaning ability.
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Why Dyson is different.
Reply #48 Jul 20, 2010 6:36 am |
|
You're again blinded by your bias; no other "cheap" brands could have gone through the abuse these have and still survived. They plastic is *MUCH* higher quality than cheap-china brands, MUCH better performing, and again, LAST LONGER. Any cheap-china piece of junk will last maybe 4 years tops; there are Dysons still going strong after 7-8. BIG difference. Not to mention what usually goes in the Dyson is the motor which is actually VERY user-replaceable. The plastic doesn't crack, break, or fall apart if cared for properly - and as evidence from my experience, if even UNCARED for! Also, you can't even begin to argue that the engineering behind Dyson's cyclonic system is *INCREDIBLE*. Why? Because it works!! Genius to say the least. Also, they're SEALED systems! With VERY high quality motor seals and motor gaskets deep in the motor housing, with VERY high quality filtration. NO other brand - not even some Riccars and a Sebo model Miele tested can compare buddy. That cute link you posted where Miele is "21x" better also contains a nice bit of information where a Dyson DC25 FILTERED BETTER THAN A RICCAR AND SEBO, but again, you "must have missed that." Why Dyson is different: http://www.mieleusa.com/products/benefits/filtration.asp?nav=30&snav=24&tnav=26&oT=272&benefit=119 Good try, but this just proves not only that your biased and/or blind against the facts, or just that Dyson makes a VERY high quality filtration vacuum that not even a Sebo can touch *evidently* Good run, but obviously Dyson makes a quality machine and and for the filtration alone, let alone the longevity of their DC07's and on, AND their cleaning ability. No, quite the opposite. You missed one of the most salient points of the study. Despite the vacuum's filtration during operations, once the user removes the dirty bin and dumps the dirt indoors all the vacuum's filtration/indoor air quality is voided. It's all for nought. Dirt is back in the air and breathed. If dumped outdoors, the user is exposed directly to/inhales the dirt from the vacuum. Lose-lose for both users and household air quality. Dust/face masks are recommended for the dirt bin dumping and air purifiers for indoor air. Excerpt: ...explains Gast. "That's just when the vacuum is running... what the test doesn't show is just how many particles are released back into the air when the bagless vacuum bin is emptied. It's an indoor environmental disaster! If you can smell the dust after cleaning the bin, you are already inhaling fine lung damaging particles." Carmine D.
This message was modified Jul 20, 2010 by CarmineD
|
vacmanuk
Location: Scotland UK
Joined: May 31, 2009
Points: 1162
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Why Dyson is different.
Reply #49 Jul 20, 2010 10:11 am |
|
You're again blinded by your bias; no other "cheap" brands could have gone through the abuse these have and still survived. They plastic is *MUCH* higher quality than cheap-china brands, MUCH better performing, and again, LAST LONGER. Any cheap-china piece of junk will last maybe 4 years tops; there are Dysons still going strong after 7-8. BIG difference. Not to mention what usually goes in the Dyson is the motor which is actually VERY user-replaceable. The plastic doesn't crack, break, or fall apart if cared for properly - and as evidence from my experience, if even UNCARED for! Also, you can't even begin to argue that the engineering behind Dyson's cyclonic system is *INCREDIBLE*. Why? Because it works!! Genius to say the least. Also, they're SEALED systems! With VERY high quality motor seals and motor gaskets deep in the motor housing, with VERY high quality filtration. NO other brand - not even some Riccars and a Sebo model Miele tested can compare buddy. That cute link you posted where Miele is "21x" better also contains a nice bit of information where a Dyson DC25 FILTERED BETTER THAN A RICCAR AND SEBO, but again, you "must have missed that." How can you be so naive to suggest that all Cheap China brands last a short time? Where's your evidence? I've rented apartments that have the old LG upright that was made in China and they're easily 8 years old and STILL going. How do I know that? Because the same company Ive rented from for the last five years all have a fleet of these cheap Chinese upright vacs that suck up dirt and dust efficiently. You need to have your head tested, Hertz before you can make fleeting statements!
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Why Dyson is different.
Reply #50 Jul 20, 2010 9:21 pm |
|
You're again blinded by your bias; no other "cheap" brands could have gone through the abuse these have and still survived. They plastic is *MUCH* higher quality than cheap-china brands, MUCH better performing, and again, LAST LONGER. Any cheap-china piece of junk will last maybe 4 years tops; there are Dysons still going strong after 7-8. BIG difference. Not to mention what usually goes in the Dyson is the motor which is actually VERY user-replaceable. The plastic doesn't crack, break, or fall apart if cared for properly - and as evidence from my experience, if even UNCARED for! Also, you can't even begin to argue that the engineering behind Dyson's cyclonic system is *INCREDIBLE*. Why? Because it works!! Genius to say the least. Also, they're SEALED systems! With VERY high quality motor seals and motor gaskets deep in the motor housing, with VERY high quality filtration. NO other brand - not even some Riccars and a Sebo model Miele tested can compare buddy. That cute link you posted where Miele is "21x" better also contains a nice bit of information where a Dyson DC25 FILTERED BETTER THAN A RICCAR AND SEBO, but again, you "must have missed that."
I laughed out loud when I read this. You argue the obvious. You extol dysons for lasting 7 years and berate cheaper brands for lasting 4. But of course we expect vacuums priced like dysons in the range of $400-$600 to last 7-10 years plus with normal use and routine expected maintenance. It's a given when plunking down that much money. Why is it such a big deal for you about dysons. From my perspective, and probably others, the earliest model dysons are still only 8 years old at the most in the USA [the brand was launched April 2002 with DC07]. The jury is still out on dyson's longevity and durability at least in the USA. There are some more years to go before a reasoned intelligent decision based on supportable evidence regarding dyson's quality and longevity. I find it ludicrous to base any credibility on the opinions you formulated over a few days about a dozen dysons bought off the junk heap. Along with one dyson you bought for $30 and repaired by vacuuming, wiping down and spraying with silicon lubricant. If I'm paying $400-$600 for a vacuum, I need more reason than that. But thanks for the laughs. They were priceless.
Carmine D.
This message was modified Jul 20, 2010 by CarmineD
|
Hertz
Joined: Jan 31, 2010
Points: 199
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Why Dyson is different.
Reply #51 Jul 21, 2010 1:32 am |
|
I laughed out loud when I read this. You argue the obvious. You extol dysons for lasting 7 years and berate cheaper brands for lasting 4. But of course we expect vacuums priced like dysons in the range of $400-$600 to last 7-10 years plus with normal use and routine expected maintenance. It's a given when plunking down that much money. Why is it such a big deal for you about dysons. From my perspective, and probably others, the earliest model dysons are still only 8 years old at the most in the USA [the brand was launched April 2002 with DC07]. The jury is still out on dyson's longevity and durability at least in the USA. There are some more years to go before a reasoned intelligent decision based on supportable evidence regarding dyson's quality and longevity. I find it ludicrous to base any credibility on the opinions you formulated over a few days about a dozen dysons bought off the junk heap. Along with one dyson you bought for $30 and repaired by vacuuming, wiping down and spraying with silicon lubricant. If I'm paying $400-$600 for a vacuum, I need more reason than that. But thanks for the laughs. They were priceless. Carmine D. Again I pity those who fail to realize fact due to unsightly bias; I've shown you the evidence that they're quality, sealed machines based off of Miele's OWN tests. The plastic IS much higher grade; anybody with a sense of intelligence about plastics and quality could EASILY tell that, and the performance is that of a Miele, if not better (suction and airflow) - at least VERY close to. EVERY SINGLE PART is user-replaceable, and the plastic is recyclable, as well (from what I've gathered from the DysonFoundation website) - not all plastics are. They are quality machines. Not the best, but well built overall - of course they're no Kirby - but if taken care of decently and maintained, they are durable, relatively long lasting machines with INCREDIBLE design and great filtration. Period.
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Why Dyson is different.
Reply #53 Jul 21, 2010 7:04 am |
|
Again, why Dyson is DIFFERENT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-RK7Pc4aBg&feature=related Try doing that with nearly ANY - or even ANY - current China-made Target special or "any other bagless machine" coming out of China and I would bet a good deal on it breaking compared to the Dyson. If anything this proves my point Carmine - amongst the filtration test I showed you from Miele - that Dyson is a well made, durable machine that is *FAR* from "every other cheap bagless machine" - which is pure FALSITY. Obviously.
No, quite the opposite. It proves mine. This is exactly what people expect when they plunk down $400-$600 US for a vacuum. 7-10 years plus of service with normal use and routine expected maintenance. Nothing special if the vacuum delivers what's expected.
WRT dyson filtration, it's all for nought as soon as you remove the dirt bin and dump. Ask any doctor who specializes in patients with eye, ear, nose and throat diseases. They'll tell you to stay clear of bagless vacuums even dysons. Bagless vacuums are triggers for the breathing disorders. Carmine D.
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Why Dyson is different.
Reply #54 Jul 21, 2010 7:17 am |
|
Again I pity those who fail to realize fact due to unsightly bias; I've shown you the evidence that they're quality, sealed machines based off of Miele's OWN tests. The plastic IS much higher grade; anybody with a sense of intelligence about plastics and quality could EASILY tell that, and the performance is that of a Miele, if not better (suction and airflow) - at least VERY close to. EVERY SINGLE PART is user-replaceable, and the plastic is recyclable, as well (from what I've gathered from the DysonFoundation website) - not all plastics are. They are quality machines. Not the best, but well built overall - of course they're no Kirby - but if taken care of decently and maintained, they are durable, relatively long lasting machines with INCREDIBLE design and great filtration. Period.
Now...who's being biased? Dysons should deliver exactly what people expect when they plunk down $400-$600 on a vacuum. 7-10 years plus of service with notrmal use and routine maintenance. That's a given. Nothing special if it does except in your way of thinking.
Carmine D.
|
|
|
