.... here we go ....
its a bit like light bulbs really - which is brighter - a 60W
incandescant or a 20W recent LED?
The new generation of *digital* (not my word) high revving brushless
motors are far more efficient than the old mains powered contraptions
that power corded machines.
That, coupled with a free flowing cyclonic filter system produces far
more usable suction watts at the cleaning head - where it matters.
We really DON'T need 1000W motors to power vacuum cleaners anymore.
On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:32:46 +0100, Andy Bennet wrote:
You're way out of date with that LED GLS lamp example. These days it's a
comparison between a 125LPW 6.5W 810Lm LED lamp and an American 806Lm
120v 750 hour incandescent lamp. Compared to a UK 240v 1000 hour
incandescent, the same LED lamp is noticeably brighter.
Not that great an improvement when a 1930s Hoover universal motor would
be some 90 to 95 percent efficient and look not too dissimilar to a 1980s
vacuum cleaner universal motor with a similar efficiency rating.
A modern DC brushless (so called 'digital') motor gains its efficiency
rating of 95 to 99 percent (depending on how hard you're trying to
squeeze the design for a maximum horsepower rating for a given volume/
mass) by virtue of neodymium magnets and a maximum working RPM rating.
That's true of the recent breed of vacuum cleaners that were being
marketed on their power consumption alone as their headline figure for
suction power. However, you still need several hundred watts worth of
suction power in a reasonably efficacious vacuum cleaner. Bagless
cyclonic filtering is the major factor in improved efficacy but it can't
magically improve its suckiness to the point where a mere 120W motor can
outperform a more conventional 700W vacuum cleaner.
Unlike the LED GLS lamp versus the incandescent GLS lamp case where a
100W tungsten filament lamp converted only some 2 to 3 percent of its
input energy into useful light versus a modern day LED converting 25 to
30 percent into light, the vacuum cleaner motor is only improving its
efficiency from a low of 85% to a high of 95 to 98 percent at best.
Quite frankly, aside from specific requirements for cordless operation,
I'd rather they saved the weight and expense of the battery pack by
powering a high power, high efficiency neodymium magnet brushless high
speed DC motor from a lightweight mains powered smpsu built into the
handheld vacuum cleaner so that I can enjoy the cleaning power of a five
to seven hundred watt lightweight vacuum cleaner without the worry of a
battery going flat before I'd finished vacuuming. The drag from a
lightweight mains flex is far less of a strain compared to that of
lugging the weight of a rechargeable battery around with the vacuum
Even the older vacs were using cyclonic filter and yes, it does make
them more efficient/ require less power.
Unfortunately, that is not entirely true. A 50W+ motor is still not
able to do the same work as a conventional tech 1000W motor, no matter
how much you read the Dyson hype. Motors were already pretty efficient
and efficiency is all that could be improved. Assuming the 1000W motor
were only 50% efficient, making the same motor 100% efficient only
reduces the consumption to 500W. You are trying to suggest that the 50W
is ten times more efficient than 100%, which defies the laws of
physics. One HP is still and will remain 746 watts.
1/. Dyson motors are not 'digital': They are in fact offspring of the
motors used in model aircraft. They use electronic commutation, thats
all. And decent magnets.
2/. They are only a litle more efficient. A worts catse cheap as shot
can motor that ypu might fidn in a toothebrisus is about 50% edfdiecint
at noirmla working. A well made breusless rinning at a devent poi8nt on
te curce mightcrack 90%.
3/. They are however a lot lighter due to the use of neodymium permanent
magnets.You camn easily get a brake horspower out if something the sized
of a coffee mug or smaller.
4/. However batteries to generate a brake horsepower are much bigger and
heavier and will only stay charged about 5 minutes at full chat.
5/. Ergo Dyson is a lying shit. And peole who lie about priducets dint
do it because the produceys ell themselves without lyoing.
6/. Ergo Dyson products are shit too.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.
You talk about efficient use of electricity when you have to re-charge a
battery? C'mon. If his DC motors are so much better than his mains ones he
could use them in the mains machines too with a built in power supply.
*America is so advanced that even the chairs are electric.
Dave Plowman email@example.com London SW
However, the portable Dyson hangs on the wall in the kitchen. While I'm
brewing the tea or cooking the sausages or whatever it is no effort to
unhook the vac and have a quick whizz round.
Unlikely to happen with a corded machine - haul it out of the cupboard,
unwind the flex, plug it in, fix the right attachment, vacuum, remove
attachment, unplug it, recoil the flex and put it back in the cupboard.
As far as I am concerned it's all a matter of convenience and the Dyson
portable just does that fine.
I'm a happy bunny. Period.
You have your dyson hung on the wall for all to see, but a mains cleaner
has to be kept out of sight in a cupboard somewhere?
And when using your Dyson, you carry all the attachments round with you?
It probably also comes down to how many convenient mains sockets you have
for cleaning. When I re-wired this house I made sure there were plenty.
Even adding one if I discovered a 'blind spot' when hoovering.
I also don't have anywhere I'd want a Dyson hung on a wall. It would have
to be rigged up in the same cupboard as the mains one. But I already have
a small cordless one conveniently situated for small spills etc.
*HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A CIVIL WAR?
Dave Plowman firstname.lastname@example.org London SW
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.