Even when the toilets are regularly serviced on a 'professional' basis I bet the door handle never gets cleaned.
At work a few years back, there was a cleaner who took his duties seriously. Everything shone like a new pin. The only problem was that he used the same cloth to wipe down the urinals, the pans, the sinks and the taps.
I don't wish to know that ! :-(
More seriously I've started carrying this stuff around and using it.
DG
Christ, I'd have dumped that years ago. I've had my older one since the
80s and it has needed a total of zero spare parts. And quite likely it hasnt had any parts since it was made decades earlier. The modern cyclone hoover otoh...NT
Like most antibacterials, it kills some bugs and leaves all the others to multiply to greater numbers. This is one reason why antibacterial handwashes arent the answer.
NT
Whys it not valid?
NT
Back to hand driers. Many moons ago I used to visit a company that supplied roller towels. They did a hygiene survey, hand driers simply blew all the "nasties" into the air, just the job for other users to breathe in, so much for them being better than linen or paper towels.
I make a point of not using antibacterial products. I have an immune system, which relies on being exposed to bacteria in order to learn what to protect me from, which is exactly what I want it to continue doing. The only time I use antibacterial handwash is when I'm preparing food for friends, or visiting people in hospital, and in both cases that's to protect others who may have given up using their own immune systems (or whose immune systems may be impared), not to protect me.
My missus buys 'anti bacterial' stuff, to my way of thinking ordinary soap is 'anti bacterial'. Surely it's all a con to make us buy overpriced stuff that we dont really need.
These are installed in some of the M1 service stations. I used one just this week while travelling up to Leicester. I thought it worked damn well actually. You just put your hands in, it automatically senses them and blasts air at them. 'Blasts' is definitely the word though. Much quicker and effective than using a standard hand dryer.
Dave
Same here. I've often thought toilet doors should open outwards so you can push them with your foot.....
Alan
The message from Alan Vann contains these words:
Funnily enough I was only thinking this as I say on the bog in Asda yesterday. Their doors open outwards, which apart from being easier to open without picking up more bugs means you don't have to squeeze between the pan and the door to close the door.
A practical point is that if someone collapses in a cubicle you can open the door.
Hear, hear. Excessive use of antibiotics is why we now have things like MRSA.
Don't go that far, just normal hand washing before food preparation.
Aye, I'll use the hospital supplied wash as required for a given area, entering, leaving or both. But again that is primarily to protect others rather than me.
Indeed. There's a pub near me where it's almost impossible to walk in and close the door behind you, but I was thinking more of the main doors. How many times have you stood there washing your hands, watching the guy that was standing next to you/sitting in trap 1 leave without washing his? ...and you think, "I've got to touch that handle after you you abstrad....".
Still, I suppose that's what we have an immune system for and, as somebody said earlier, it pays to exercise it....
Alan
It's worse than "we dont really need". Antibiotics encourage bacteria to evolve which are resistant to them. Then when you do really need them, they don't work anymore. The double whammy is you're more likely to really need them some day if you stop training your body to deal with bacteria itself.
The anti-bacterial products marketing is all pandering to an irrational fear of bacteria, but ironically it's a fear which may become justified if people keep going down that path of dumming down their own immune systems whilst at the same time making the bacteria more robust...
Because whilt it is true, it's misleading. A Dyson 08 is quoted as having a performance of 300 air-watts [1] maximum. The 5.7" 2 stage motor in something like a Henry will develop around 550 air-watts.
This 550 air-watts will drop as the filter starts to clog with dust particles it's true, but it could drop by 45% and still give equal performance to a Dyson. In practice the bag would be full long before this happened.
So, it's true - no loss of suction - but it doesn't relate that to how much suction was there in the first place.
I've used various Dysons in customers premises and IME the performance has always been poor.
[1] Air - watts is a measure of airflow and suction at the most efficient final aperture.
Not true. Try a Henry with a plaster chaser. It works for less than
10 seconds before it can't suck anymore (or if you take the bag out, it makes a brilliant fog machine, just like not coupling any vacuum up to the chaser). A Dyson will collect bin full after bin full, and still keep up with the chaser's dust production without any noticable drop in suction. Also, you end up with no staining whatsoever of the Dyson's post-motor filter, so no dust is making it to the exhaust.What would be nice would be a small commercial cleaner which came even slightly close to the Dyson's performance. It's just not possible to make a cyclone separator that small and efficient without using Dyson's patents. (Large cyclone separators have existed for decades, but they aren't portable.)
A cyclone separator is exactly the right type of filtration to use for building dust, and a bag or cloth filter is exactly the wrong type because if it catches the dust, it's clogged the air path, and if it doesn't clog the air path, it's not being trapped.
Doesn't matter if that suction only lasts a few seconds.
You snipped the important part -- it's easy to make a large effective cylone cleaner and they've been around for decades. The difficult part is making a cyclonic separation cleaner which works acceptably for domestic cleaning in the size of a portable vacuum cleaner. That is what Dyson managed to do and no one else did.
That's not cyclonic separation.
It's not a cylone -- it separates by dropping heavy dirt out in a low velocity chamber (opposite to cyclone) and filtering light dirt. It's also 3 times the size of a Dyson, so it's not a domestic cleaner. In spite of that, it would still be rather too small to be an effective cyclone, without resorting to some of Dyson's patented features.
Works for me. I can fill the tank with plaster dust without any loss of suction. A Henry lasted less than 10 seconds before it was clogged and couldn't take the dust from a plaster chaser. We then tried it without the filter and it did a superb imitation of a fog machine. Completely useless.
Thats probably true but it doesn't alter my arguement. Perhaps I should have added the disclaimer "In normal use". Neither machine is designed for that task, they are both essentially carpet vacuums.
Isn't it?
I'm not saying the Dyson doesn't run with 'no loss of suction', whay I'm saying is;
When used for the purpose intended i.e. vacuuming floors, it's better to have nearly twice the suction nearly all of the time.
Why don't you ask Mr Dyson to build DIY dust extractor? I'm sure there is a market for it? You might get a reward!
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required