giving the lie to Dyson

No sensible person ever quotes that. Too many variables.

Quite. Some time ago, in a Currys, noticed just how many various Dyson spares they had on display. Several times more than the space devoted to all other makes. And they're not going to waste space displaying slow moving goods.

I still prefer an upright for many things, since I still have carpets. And my near 30 year old Panasonic is still going strong. With only bags and drive belts replaced. But it's not the only vacuum I have. Just not a Dyson.

Dyson and Farage would get on well. Both could sell a fridge to a foolish eskimo. Although I have a bit more time for Dyson.

but it can be measured on a rolling road.

And all too easy to fiddle.

No bag in my old Henery, it just has a large removable, washable filter.

The watts is neither here nor there. What counts is the volume of airs shifted over a set pressure drop. A multi stage vacuum cleaner will normally be more efficient. There aren't many around these days.

Only vaccum cleaner so exoensive yopu dont just chuck it and buy a new one.

we've got a chap who fixes Dysons. And henrys and brethren 'there is a demand for the Dysons and the henrys are worth fixing'

that's one way to establish that multi-stage fans & multi-stage filters are common in domestic vacs today.

NT

No car salesmen quotes that. Its less that power at the flywheel.

Ther are no variables at all. Top gear with brakes off. is standard cinditions

...A lot more easily that taking the engine out and slapping a dyno on the flywheel...

Wll I could run mine that way, but I like to put a bag in.

You're correct there! I had a George - good suction at 1000W. Bought a Nilfisk to get the PTO socket - 1400W, a lot of heat and, via a rather unscientific test, about the same as George. Got fed up with the weight, noise, heat and the rather stiff hose that chamfered corners, so looked at reviews etc. and settled on a mid-range Miele cylinder (£100 less in Currys than in Argos, unfortunately). It' rated at 900W but the top whack is 1000W+; setting 5/6 is about rated; setting 4 is about all that's useable on cord carpets, low-pile rugs etc., otherwise it won't let go. The suction on 5/6 is about the same as the 1400W Nilfisk, but a lot less heat and noise. It's actually a pleasure to use (relatively and FSVO pleasure!). The suction, more importantly the airflow, is maintained across a wider range and the wattage doen't climb on load - also the PF is close to unity across all setting and loadings. Drawbacke: hose is a bit short cf. Henry, retractable lead is superb, but

No it isn?t.

The machine isn?t PRODUCING the Watts, that was the point I was making. A Watt is a Joule per Second. If it could produce 1kw, that is 1000 J per second. Note produce - the word originally used. A few of them an you could heat your house, true you?d have to harness the energy PRODUCED.

HINT: it isn?t really PRODUCED

I expect it is some environmentalists idea.

Sorry I waited and waited for a comment but... This is why cutting off quotes or top posting is better for this sort of use. Brian

Yes. They ensure a steady income stream for manufacturers of bags.

A bag that causes major loss of suction power as it fills is inconvenient to me. A bag that I have to go out and buy and keep spares of is an inconvenience to me.

Frequently.

Define ?challenging?. I find it very easy.

If you?re careless.

It can happen occasionally. It?s no biggy. Certainly not ?challenging?.

I have pets. I feel totally unchallenged by my Dysons.

He?s a lazy c*nt then. Seriously, I can?t help wondering what other trivial tasks in life you find challenging.

Tim

It is.

Grandmother/ eggs/ suck

I am not supporting claims of 1100 air watts, I am supporting the claim that air watts is a reasonable measure of machine efficiceinncy when the task is to blow or suck air.

As it happens because of my interst in model planes, I and very aware of the power train efficienccies of things that blow air.

Prehaps yopu are intelligent enough to follow and engineering view of that part of flight.

An aircracft in the glide is losing potential energy. It is so to speak shedding energy at a rate that can be expressed in watts. The actual figure is the weight times the rate of sink.

In a climb, at the same airspeed, the amount of energy required to do that is a part to overcome that sink loss of energy and then a partt to allow for the increase in potential energy as the aircracft climbs. THis energy could easily be vcalled air watts and it is in fact what you get out of the motor and propellor.

Tests show that the propellor is about 70% efficiency and so is a typical cheap motor. So about half the power going in actually gets used to fly the plane.

Airwatts about 50% ofd electrical watts.

Of course in you are holding the model its just blowing air and is less efficent unless its a helicopter. I optimised my power trains and props for cruise and climb, nit for acceleration or hovering.

Model planes fly somewhat slower than full size, but it is illumianting that this doees not affect the power to weight ratio required to fly much.

I used to fly sedate models at 30 watts per lb, and performance ones at

A Piper cub is about 75W/lb and a Hawker Typhoon around 160W/lb

Of course it is.

Air is accelerated. Moving air has power. Ask any windmill fanatic.

I expect you dont understand physics and engineering as much as you pretend

If anything it would be a marketeers invention

Like miles per gallon you dont really care until your ebnergy source gets expensive

So is a bagless clinder full

A bag that I have to go out and buy and keep spares of is an

So you dont wash with soap either. Or drink tea or coffee

Soap tea bags of coffee beans that you have to go out and buy and keep spares of being an inconvenience to you.

It is if you dnt mind 20% of the dirt going back onto the floor

Or into your lungs

And then you have to wash the filter a and te container.

And then you have to wash your hands. In your case without soap obvipously.

Nope, Almsot impossinle also to clean a filter that is clogged without relasing the dust into the air. Fortunately I had no neigbours

Easiuer to slap a new bag in. They are not expensive on Henryts

WEll if touy dont mind living with pet dander, fine

Well I certainly dont find grabbing a bag of Henry dustbags off the shelf at Homebase exactly onerous.

In normal use (when I am not renovating) that would last me a year. £9.50.

In general a Die Soon would cost you that much per year just to repair.

They are plasticky pieces of s*it and they are always breaking.

But, whatever rocks your boat.

With respect the statement was

which is correct. Learn to read. And in billy's case, learn basic physics.

NT

He's either an incompetent or a troll.

He's either an incompetent or a troll.