Paul Fuller wrote:

> Strange how our experience can be so different.

Indeed.

> I was surprised how 
> fast it was and would say it was the best I've used.

I was surprised too. Usually even cheap hand driers work surprisingly 
well. I guess there's just not much to get wrong.

> No failure to register that my hands were in position.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that part... This air blade is sometimes quite 
awkward about that. Usually it works, but somethings it point-blank 
fails to register that your hands are there (to the point that you have 
to just leave with wet hands). And sometimes it stops before you've 
removed your hands, and nothing you do will make it start again.

As for the sound... sound meters don't lie. 93 dB isn't quiet. (Gives me 
tinnitus every time!)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> particular one is just faulty (wouldn't surprise me; everything else in 
> this building is!), but it is *hopeless*. 

I think it's just yours. Or you're doing it wrong, either way.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
    that the code does what you think it does, even if
    it doesn't do what you wanted.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:28:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> particular one is just faulty (wouldn't surprise me; everything else in
>> this building is!), but it is *hopeless*.
> 
> I think it's just yours. Or you're doing it wrong, either way.

I've found them to be pretty effective - they installed those things in 
the restrooms at the local CostCo.  I'd never seen one before, but it got 
the job done (at least well enough). :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Paul Fuller <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote:
> On 5/06/2010 3:39 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > this is it!  I name it the "WTF thread of the day" of yesterday.
> >
> > And it is a fan and will get dirty, except you quite likely won't be able to
> > clean it except by getting it to maintenance.  Lesson to be learned here:
> > underneath all shiny and neato things there's always a lot of dirt. :P
> >
> >
>
> I take that 'WTF' as disagreeing with me.

nope, sorry.  About the whole thread.  Only replied to your by sheer lazyness.
:P

> By its nature there is a large amount of dusty and dirty air being
> passed through the device.  Number of trips to maintenance thus far is
> zero.  Apparent loss of functionality due to the inevitable (you say)
> buildup of dirt is zero.

Isn't a vacuum cleaner designed to be cleaned and have the dirt properly
"captured" and packaged?  I don't think that's the point of this device, which
is to just get the blades out of sight (and, possibly, cleaning maintenance)...

Post a reply to this message

On 6/06/2010 6:27 AM, nemesis wrote:
>>
>> I take that 'WTF' as disagreeing with me.
>
> nope, sorry.  About the whole thread.  Only replied to your by sheer lazyness.
> :P
>

Sorry if I was snarky.  There are 3 or 4 products / brands that I've 
found to be close to perfect.  When some Internet know-it-all (not you) 
starts mouthing off about one with no more basis than what he or she 
'thinks' based on 15 seconds looking at a web site and maybe reading the 
opinion of other equally un-informed people - well you've got to take a 
stand at some point :)

>> By its nature there is a large amount of dusty and dirty air being
>> passed through the device.  Number of trips to maintenance thus far is
>> zero.  Apparent loss of functionality due to the inevitable (you say)
>> buildup of dirt is zero.
>
> Isn't a vacuum cleaner designed to be cleaned and have the dirt properly
> "captured" and packaged?  I don't think that's the point of this device, which
> is to just get the blades out of sight (and, possibly, cleaning maintenance)...
>
>

Yes.  But two points - First, as far as I can see the Dyson vacs are 
designed and engineered such that you don't have to clean the internal 
components.  The whole air path through the system which must include 
the fan / impeller seems not to allow any build-up.  There is a final 
stage 'HEPA' filter that they recommend rinsing out and drying once a 
year (I recall).  Again the design is such that it snaps out and back in 
as easily as you can imagine it could be done.  However so little dust 
gets to that stage that it does not seem to need any attention.  The 
'turbo head' does get long strands of hair wrapped around it over time. 
  Easily cleaned and I can't see how that can be avoided.

Second, to the extent that dust could be a problem in their fan, I'm 
willing to venture that the Dyson people have given just as much 
attention to the problem.  That is their strong suit.

Post a reply to this message

Paul Fuller wrote:
> I understand that some of the original patents protecting the Dyson
> vacuum cleaner have expired.  Now there are lots of cheap knock offs on
> the market that emulate the 'bagless' aspect.  The couple I've seen up
> close looked cheap and frail plus lacked a lot of the nice secondary
> features.

Jump to new topic: Dyson's patents may have run out, but I haven't seen
any bagged or bag-less vac that beats the old Rainbows. Similar concept,
impel the air into a cyclone; only the rainbows used a cyclone of water.

Back to topic: I saw one of the Dyson fans at a big store, I was
impressed by the design. It does hit "Oh, shiny" quite well. But I will
still wait for the cheap knock-offs, I can't afford $300 for
mass-produced art.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/06/2010 12:58 PM, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>
> Jump to new topic: Dyson's patents may have run out, but I haven't seen
> any bagged or bag-less vac that beats the old Rainbows. Similar concept,
> impel the air into a cyclone; only the rainbows used a cyclone of water.
>

I have seen but not used water based vacs.  More tagged as 'carpet 
cleaning'.  You could hire them from shops at one point.  Maybe they 
were the 'Rainbow' mode that you mentioned?

> Back to topic: I saw one of the Dyson fans at a big store, I was
> impressed by the design. It does hit "Oh, shiny" quite well. But I will
> still wait for the cheap knock-offs, I can't afford $300 for
> mass-produced art.

Same here.  Doesn't seem like a big enough problem to warrant the 
expense (assuming that they are indeed better).  I've never bought 
things for cool factor alone.

Plus I would almost never buy V1 of something radically new.  Even the 
original Dyson vac looks relatively primitive and lacks a lot of the 
refinements of the newer generations.

Post a reply to this message

>> Back to topic: I saw one of the Dyson fans at a big store, I was
>> impressed by the design. It does hit "Oh, shiny" quite well. But I will
>> still wait for the cheap knock-offs, I can't afford $300 for
>> mass-produced art.
> 
> Same here.  Doesn't seem like a big enough problem to warrant the 
> expense (assuming that they are indeed better).  I've never bought 
> things for cool factor alone.

Cool factor? Fan? I see what you did there. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 6/06/2010 10:41 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Back to topic: I saw one of the Dyson fans at a big store, I was
>>> impressed by the design. It does hit "Oh, shiny" quite well. But I will
>>> still wait for the cheap knock-offs, I can't afford $300 for
>>> mass-produced art.
>>
>> Same here. Doesn't seem like a big enough problem to warrant the
>> expense (assuming that they are indeed better). I've never bought
>> things for cool factor alone.
>
> Cool factor? Fan? I see what you did there. ;-)
>

Ok.  I admit I did buy a fridge for its cool factor alone.

Post a reply to this message

Paul Fuller wrote:

> Ok.  I admit I did buy a fridge for its cool factor alone.

Oh. So it wasn't just because you needed the storage space for all the 
bodies? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message