Dyson Cinetic Technology is Amazing
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.พ. 2018
- * Why you should never go above the max fill line on bagless cleaners: • Never Go Above the Max...
* Supplementary Cinetic video: • Dyson Cinetic Technolo...
This amazing technology I've never felt was given due credit and seemed to lack appreciation. This video is to try and explain why, from a purely technological perspective, this technology is such a quantum leap in vacuuming convenience.
(This is not an advert for Dyson before anyone points that out. If another company had created this, their name would be up there instead. This is purely a technology admiration video.)
(I minor re-upload to better distinguish original art) - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 67 | คู่เอก "นักรบ vs ทาเกียร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eahGc1XmrEU/mqdefault.jpg)
I like seeing the dust spin around so I empty my nearly every time even if it’s nearly empty
m2
I have the Cinetic Upright (US version). I take reasonable care of it, clean the shroud when particulate starts to cake on it, and I dump it every use, and rarely get close to the max fill line. All of that being said, the technology performs flawless like you said. I did get skeptical and checked the HEPA filters, only to find them still perfectly white after a year and a half. The machine is doing EXACTLY what Dyson claims it can do. 100 percent truthful marketing. Anyone who I've seen have a problem with any cyclonic machine almost always seems to be lack of filter maintenance or a shroud screen totally packed with debris and dust. As the machine is 2 years old at this point, the suction is exactly the same as the first time I turned it on. It stays constant every time I use it.
I wanted to thank you for making this video and explaining things so well. When maintained per the user manual's instructions, the technology is rock solid. Thanks again for giving a clear, logical, and intelligent breakdown of the technology and how it works.
Yeah. Most people are smart enough to inherently know what you've observed as obvious; if you treat things as intended, they work. Who'd have thunk it? A lot of people don't, and seem to lack basic intelligence. They smear a tech based on faulty logic, and assume failures due to user error are an indication of technology failure. These people seem to constitute the entirety of the 'vacuum enthusiast community' and most of my videos are attempts to counter their incredible stupidity.
@@VacuumFacts I'm glad someone is actually trying to combat the bashing videos. I've seen alot of the videos out there, specifically from one that you included a screen shot of in your video. If it's his machine of choice, it's always user error. Anything from big box machines, his crosshairs are mainly at Dyson and Shark, it's displayed as the fault of machine design. Another favorite seems to be the air particulate test machines. The exaggerated mess, as you state in a previous video, is another one. One that comes to mind the most is the use of Kapok fiber to simulate animal hair.
@@BigRyan505 Yeah, then you'll like my channel. I've noted people have biases against certain brands (rather than technologies or specific products), and the lot get whitewashed. It's mindless tribalism. All the common deceptions you listed I've covered the physics behind. From the use of exaggerated initial messes, to erroneous conflation of user error with technological failure, to lots of other misunderstandings of the way cleaning processes work. Flick through my videos in time order. My latest videos have finally hit home to these questionably behaving people and they're all still reeling at the moment.
@@VacuumFacts I have watched some of your other videos, that's why I brought those things up specifically, i'm slowly watching all of them. Total agreement with everything you present. Another group that has extreme opinions is the audiophile community. Tell them you like Bose brand audio speakers, and they get very aggravated and hostile. Those I must admit, some do post legitimate reasons for disliking that brand. The company, like Dyson, has a totally different way of doing things to achieve results, which people aren't happy with.
@@BigRyan505 Interesting; I've never encountered the audiophile community, despite being a sound quality buff. I have some sennheiser products. Good job I'm not active in that world; getting objective data for sound testing would be a nightmare, unlike grabbing a stick vac and throwing some flour down. :)
Thank you for making this this! Awesome video, I’ve always wondered how the new kinetic technology works. Very well made video with thorough and detailed explanations. This just reenforces why I love Dyson so much. I think one of their next steps should be to bring this to their battery powered vacuum line.
I think the thing that's stopped them so far is that it only works for a constant air flow through the cyclones. The cordless units have variable speeds. Not sure what their solution will be.
Vacuum Facts - I have no doubt that they’ll come up with a solution to that :)
Using de DC-52, it literally works.awesome stuff
Thanks for a great explanation and illustrations!
Hi I have had both the upright and pull along cinetic and was impressed with the initial performance. I have found that there is a slight drop off in performance after a few months of normal use that can be rectified by dismantling the cyclone and cleaning around the tips of the cyclones. I have never seen a blocked cyclone but perhaps the body of the cyclone being covered in dust reduces its ability to vibrate. I realise this is conjecture but I also repair Dyson’s and have seen this many times. I realise people may not be keen to dismantle their bin due to warranty worries/ scared or breaking it but this simple job does restore the performance. A can of compressed air also helps but does make a mess.
I have seen severely clogged and immaculate post motor filters on these so without the history of the model its impossible to ascertain if it’s a design flaw or user error. I believe you have to be a little more circumspect when using this model and they do make it clear not to hoover up ash on the sticker.
I hope dyson don’t give up on this tech and keep refining it as the science behind it is fantastic
Thanks for the comment. I'd be interested to know how you reliably quantified performance in a convincing manner that was believable. No air actually passes through the tips of the cones, so there's no physical reason why cleaning them would improve 'performance', however we're defining that. In fact, if the cone tips stopped vibrating and thus became blocked, the cyclones would essentially be bypassed, and the filter would receive all the fine dirt and clog fully very rapidly. You would see fully blocked cones and completely caked filters when going inside, as has been observed frequently on abused and neglected machines where the owners simply failed to empty it. There would be no partial performance reduction; it would be all or nothing, just by definition of how the system works. Given this technology has been tested to death in rigorous, conjecture-free laboratory environments to full and professional scientific levels of objective scrutiny, I'd need to see very strong evidence of cause of failure, with clear steps to reproduce it, to be convinced. Such evidence doesn't exist of course from doubters of the technology, and often performance reduction is subjective and psychological.
The main reason Cinetic technology was dropped from the handhelds, isn't because the technology doesn't work or was a failure-as many Dyson brand haters would jealously like people to believe, but because the tip oscillation is airspeed-dependent. Old-fashioned mains-powered technology used motors which only operated at a single power, producing a single airspeed. But modern cordless cleaners modify motor power to optimise suction (and corresponding airflow through deeper carpet pile) and cleaning performance depending on floor type, and also thus battery power. It’s therefore not possible (yet), given the material property dependence of the tips, to include Cinetic technology in the cordless range. Pity, because filter rinsing is a nuisance, even though you rarely need to do it with cyclonic filtration technology, as I’ll demonstrate again in a future video.
Vacuum Facts on the pull along model the head was spinning quite a lot slower, I had a brand new cyclone assessmbly and when I fitted that the brushbar picked up a lot more speed and there was more suction available. This led me to dismantle the cyclone and clean it thus improving performance.
I have done this a few times and it is simple and if people would do it perhaps they wouldn’t revert to the standard Dyson’s are rubbish rhetoric.
I cleaned one in the shower which is obviously not recommended and after waiting to make sure it was dry it performed better than it was. Now obviously I don’t have any empirical data and the 20 or so I have done this with can be taken in isolation but I found it interesting as dismantling the cyclones on non cinetics does not have as profound an effect.
Perhaps if you come across any used dc75’s/big balls you could set up a test.
I’ve got the new ball animal 2 and the cleaner head on those is very impressive and an improvement on the heads on the DC40-DC75 which had the central soleplate wheel issue.
I agree that sheer suction at the cleanerhead is not the be all and actual agitation is the key however I think a little more grunt at the hose would have been better as the tangle free tool does not spin nearly as fast on previous models. This could probably have been rectified by narrowing the hose as I feel the diameter on the new connections is too big
Yeah, interesting but all speculative though, really. There's no need for me to test myself; I couldn't do as good a job as has been done testing formally to industry standards and beyond in highly professional and independently verified assessment. There are many possible explanations for an alleged drop in 'performance' (whatever we're really talking about there), and there's no clear evidence the cinetic tech is in any way responsible. Even cowboys, like CNET, when testing showed no drop in performance (shown in the video). All examples of failure of the Cinetic machines are almost certainly down to abuse and failure to follow simple manual instructions-namely empty before full; that simple but still too hard for some people. I've never tried a cinetic machine, and I doubt I ever will seeing as the otherwise great filtration technology is attached to old fashioned peripheral technology of mains machines.
It's interesting you think the diameter on the new connections is too big; many of the rabid vacuum enthusiasts out there slate the Dyson machines citing the exact opposite (without evidence of course). The rest of the videos on my channel explain the physics principles of vacuum cleaning and clear up a lot of misunderstanding peddled by a few loud voices and zealots out there.
I recently bought a secondhand dc75 cinetic big ball, i will say with absolute certainly the filters definitely need changing over the years depending on the use, the one i got has the strongest smell of dog iv ever come across, its pumping though the filters and stanks! After i took it all apart and washed it out thoroughly the smell has died down, I've got new filters on order so fingers crossed the smell will be gone. I have to say I'm extremely impressed with its performance though, i put it up against my old dc33 and dc03. They technology/performance jump is amazing.
That is interesting. I would say from that anecdote that it sounds more likely that if the vacuum had been abused and not used correctly, then you'd see the symptoms you saw. Odour producing particles from dogs are much larger than the cut point of Cinetic cyclones under healthy operation; if they're all in the filters making a smell, then the machine has had an abused history. It has been proven scientifically to a level that is indisputable, that if used according to the manual, cinetic cyclone performance does not drop over its lifetime. I've never yet seen convincing evidence to the contrary from a mere naysayer on YT (and there've been many) that doesn't have a much better explanation (usually machine abuse).
@@VacuumFacts theres no doubt it was abused the brush bar was chewed to hell, everything else seems to be working perfectly fine, after a good service I've got my fingers crossed everything with it should now be ok in my hands
@@VacuumFacts update, after a full cyclone washout and new filters, along with a new motor head and a fill clean inside and out iv managed to completely removed the smell and its performing brilliantly. I've got a originally £500 machine for a 5th of the cost.
Great informative video 👍 Stand by what you say and keeping to the max fill lines and manufactures instructions. Yes I do have one and yes I use it in real world situations but never have exceeded the fill lines and the suction power is outstanding from day one and still is now. So if it was to ‘clog’ or cause problems then surely I would have seen this by now. One thing that I personally use is filters can smell after a while (yes Dyson ones do on older models) this has not once smelt like my dog! Thank you for this video
Best way to avoid smells: empty the bin frequently (can't do this affordably or in an environmentally friendly way with bags), and keep the pre-motor filter rinsed every month. The design of the cyclone assembly now also helps with this; pet dander sized particles fall into an inner recepticle which is not involved in airflow and thus any odour producing imcroscopic particles are trapped there and dumped in the bin.
I sometimes notice that after a week of use you have to clean the filter is it normal ?
@@Modelo646 Depending on how often you vacuum and, above all, what you vacuum up, the filters may need to be washed more often than the 1x/month mentioned by Dyson.
Fantastic video, thanks.
Whoa...someone not offended because their deep rooted opinions not grounded in evidence were challenged by facts! Made my day! :) Thanks.
JohnnyL8 Absolutely. I own a Dyson Cinetic vacuum and it is brilliant. I’m fed up with the people on here slagging off these cleaners because they have not done their homework or don’t know that it needs emptying. Great video.
Be careful; someone hypersensitive and full of subjective opinions might bite your head off for saying that; great community...
I have a v15 with laser and totally love it! I had a Siemens before (with bag) but now it's kinda fun to vacuum, even if it sounds silly. Sadly i have to wash the post filter which is not a real problem, but then 24h drying is. I have 2 small birds so a lot of dust, having 2 filters is almost inevitable. Sadly that they couldn’t produce the cyclones within a handheld vacuum, cause that was the main point for me, you just pick it up and clean around the cage quick, without the need to get tangled in the siemens cord constantly, and its much lighter.
The monthly filter washing is mostly for odour management. If you empty after every use and never allow dust to go over the max fill line, then you can get away without washing the filters for much longer.
I think this technology is great! I hope to see this on their handheld vacuums
Yeah expecly on their stick vacuums. I bet their designing it right now
Dyson should add this to the V series stick vacuums.
Random Acts of Video they did
@@binnydinney9739 when
Thanks man!
Very well presented video.
Plenty more on my channel :)
Quite a piece of impressive technology to remove the need to have a pre motor filter and associated filter maintenance. The Engineers came up with quite a good piece of engineering and technology with the Cinetic pushing new boundaries!
The Cinetic technology I think magnifies the user abuse vacuum cleaners in general are subjected to and put through by the owner. Like any Appliance follow the user and operating manual and carry out any regular maintenance if needed or required and the appliance will work and last! There is only a certain amount of neglect an appliance will take before it fails or breaks! If any at all!
If dust and dirt was making its way through to the motor the extensive testing would have picked up on this and changes made before launched to the market! Plus the fact the technology is still available on some global markets confirms the technology works or Dyson would of pulled it!
Thanks
Hey I watched your videos on cinetic technology and was really amazed by the cyclone technology. I ended up finding and buying a brand new up14 cinetic. I want this to last as long as possible but I'm still worried about the lack pre motor filter after watching other videos and reading some stuff on reddit. Can I put like a piece of vacuum bag material over the motor hole(under canister)?
You could do what you want. You can cement it up if you like too for all the point it would have. Citing the internet's toilet, Reddit, as a reason to be concerned is silly. I suggest a more reputable source, such as th-cam.com/video/Z3MefmIot6M/w-d-xo.html They're even cleanable in case total neglect and abuse has occurred th-cam.com/video/bP1vdnWIZSY/w-d-xo.html They're otherwise lifetime filters that never need cleaning.
@@VacuumFacts I can clean the post motor filter of my Dyson cinetic up14? Isn't it paper?
PTFE I think. Paper is old technology found on poorer products these days.
What bothers me is that several long hairs make it past the cyclone assembly into the pre filter in my Dyson 360 eye. The cyclones in the 360 eye may not be as efficient as the large uprights, but in the event of large debris sneaking there way into the air path a simple mesh screen could end up saving the motor.
Doesn't the filter do that?
The Dyson Cinetic Big Ball Animal is rated at 170 air watts. It has a lifetime belt and a washable lifetime post filter. It does not have a pre filter. It has sealed HEPA filtration. It has significantly less air watts than the DC33 and the Ball Animal 2. The Cinetic Big Ball Animal is a major step backwards for Dyson.
I don't agree with your assessment that "the Cinetic Big Ball Animal is a major step backwards". The way you concluded that is not supported by anything you've said. Air watts does not directly relate to cleaning performance, as has been shown beyond all reasonable doubt e.g. th-cam.com/video/YnJ6OqVC_wg/w-d-xo.html , nor does it directly relate to filtration performance.
I wonder why Dyson have stopped using this technology in their newest vacs.
It's probably deep rooted in fluid dynamics. I suspect it'll reappear in the future in their handhelds.
@Adam Danilowicz the answer is EU regulations, Brussels mandates that vacuums are no louder then 80 decibels, and unfortunately Dyson had to stop selling its existing cinetic vacs and to make this technology more quieter on a powerful vacuum would cost too much
Nice animations. In your opinion, is it okay to vacuum up wood or even concrete dust with the Dyson V11 Torque or other earlier Dysons?
I suppose. As long as the concrete dust has already set. Follow the manual for maintenance and filter rinsing.
@@VacuumFacts Thanks. I'd love you to make a video of vacuuming up such (dry) brick/concrete dust (wood dust too from drilling/sawing), and see how much makes it to the precious motor compartment. It would make for a very interesting experiment, and you can try with and without boost mode to see if that makes a difference too.
How do you propose accurately quantifying "how much makes it to the precious motor compartment"? I think this is an experiment anyone else can do too, including yourself if you get hold of a cheaper unit.
@@VacuumFacts With your experience and know-how, I'd trust your results over mine. I don't even know where the motor is situated in my v11 Torque and I'd be a bit nervous about opening it up. Quantifying may be tricky, though a visual inspection may suffice for a satisfactory conclusion unless you have a particularly accurate weighing machine.
I don't think you've thought this through enough
I have the V8 , is the newer version any different reg. cyclone size? My air purifier sensor go red if i vacuum, and it does have hepa filter also.
Interesting I've seen test that shows it doesnt leak
I watch these to enhance my vacuum experience from time to time
Does the cyclone increase the suction ? And airflow
No that's not how they work. The motor determines the suction. The magnitude of airflow in the context seen talked about on YT is not directly relevant for reasons I'll do a video on in the future. Watch out for all sources that say it is important. They lack knowledge of basic science, as will be revealed, and cannot be trusted, no matter what they say. Cyclones resist the flow of air but the motor is tuned to compensate to achieve the desired aerodynamic properties at the cleaner head where dirt removal occurs. Their function is to separate particles from the air.
How come there's a label on cinetic Dysons saying not to suck up plaster if this technology is capable of sucking up such fine dust?
I'd guess the machine was designed only for normal household use and dust. This has a very specific particle size distribution. Given how cyclonic filtration works (probabilistic based on particle size), over time, enough of the material it was never designed to tackle could accumulate and impair performance. So it's ass-covering. I don't know enough about plaster dust relative to replica test dust to be any more specific. You could probably pick up a small amount. Although it is interesting that CNET's crude bedroom test sucked up a bucket of plaster dust without any measurable loss of suction, unlike every other inferior product they compared to.
@@VacuumFacts Cool, this vid actualy motivated me to get my DC75 out of the loft and start using it! Haha
Very interesting video, they’re very well made. Although after a period of time they get blocked, naturally and is flawed, sorry 😐, but yes, the majority of broken machines are due to neglect. How many Dysons do you have and how long have you been using them? You claim this, but where are your proof videos?
I've seen no evidence of that (that doesn't turn out to be propaganda sourced from user neglect and abuse). It's a myth, hence the video. If you have formal evidence, please share.
I've had the Light Ball since near the initial review date. Also proof videos about what? That Cinetic tech doesn't block? That's for Dyson to prove. They've got test data (apparently) to show it doesn't fail after 10 years of household dust (was all discussed in the video).
It would be interesting to see data how well the cinetic system works in the normal household use after a several years and how dirty the post motor filters gets. I am not interested of any Dyson test data, because it's just a "Dyson data". If vacuum cleaner repair shops have to constantly deal with the clogged cinetic models there are clearly something very wrong in the cinetic technology.
To outright dismiss formally collected objective data, just because it came from a company testing one of their own products is irrational. It's the subjective bedroom user test data which is rational to dismiss because it's not rigorous or of scientific quality, which is not the case for Dyson's tests. Such a dismissal also implies the assumption they've fabricated data which is a serious accusation. It's also faulty logic to claim that just because vacuum shops get broken machines in, there’s something wrong with the technology. This thinking was debunked in the video; abuse is more likely the reason they’re in vacuum repair shops. In fact, why else wouldn’t Dyson’s warranty cover it unless it was neglected. I mean, come on...
I don´t know where those cinetic vacuums came to the repair shops, but I am very concerned about this. If experienced mechanics from the vac shop warn to stay away from the cinetic models it makes me think.
I think it was the Performance Reviews channel showing faulty Dyson with clogged filters.
So which one would be better Cinetic big ball or regular big ball upright?
Honestly, the only reason why Dyson stopped making cinetic models is because of thoes videos.. People just thought they don't work and no one bought them
OK. Except they haven't stopped making them, though. So...moving on.
Your videos are beautifully made and narrated. One challenge on this one. Have you dismantled any Dysons with Cinetic cyclones? Those who have, are reporting that they still clog badly after prolonged use. Not sure it’s the answer yet.
I haven't no. But to repeat the content of the video, even if others had and found them to be in poor condition, that doesn't say anything about how they got like that. Also, all that's really important are the objective measurements of performance. Dyson claim to test not just to industry standards, but well beyond. For example, at bin full, and then at bin full after 10 years of replica test dust. No performance lost is measured. The only way performance would be lost is if they had not been treated according to the manual (i.e. normal responsible use). Most importantly of all, no one has ever rigorously demonstrated formally how, by following normal use as instructed, they could reproduce a failure. I covered this in the video. It's easy to show how a machine can be neglected, and I pointed out that many are eager to use neglect as an excuse to peddle misleading nonsense as propaganda. You've always got to be skeptical of nonsense on youtube and always demand rigorous evidence from people who show this stuff. If people want to show this fails, then they've failed to do that professionally and in a way that eliminates all suspicion of fabrication so far.
JohnnyL8 I should have watched the full video before posting as you do go on to make that point! Really interesting. As someone who makes money from refurbishing and maintaining Dyson’s It will be interesting to see how this develops. I love the fact you can strip down most earlier models to their individual components. Suction and reliability/robustness seems better on the older models too. I have a 2017 Dyson Cinetic Big ball cylinder which is good but doesn’t pick up as much as a 2004 DC07!! Progress?
Don't worry about it; I'm sure many people watch my videos by title only before commenting. But it's nice to see people going back and watching them properly and learning; it shows that they're not fundamentalist in their opinions and are open to reason. :)
It's also interesting, because some have argued the opposite regarding robustness, claiming earlier models were less robust. So both can't be right really. I don't know about other manufacturers, but Dyson demonstrate they do very thorough testing to destruction, and have full statistical analysis models of lifetime prediction. Hence why they guarantee for 5 years and expect them to last 10 years. (The 50% difference is a consequence of statistical analysis if you're interested). This assumes they're treated responsibly and as we all know, people don't, and hence why there are people like you who are needed to repair.
Also, as I've discussed in another video and will go into more detail in a future video, cleaning performance is determined by many more parameter than just suction alone. How it's used is more important than how much there is.
This guy is head over heels in love with his Dyson vacuum cleaner.
You're confusing admiration of a product with admiration of technology
Its sooooo amazing that it is no longer sold now 😅
I see you're spreading nonsense again. You are consistent at least in your efforts to troll. This silly claim has been made for many years and a simple fact check will reveal your appalling ignorance. It is absolutely still sold today, for example, www.dyson.fr/aspirateurs/traineaux . What you're likely confusing this with (I appreciate it might be very, very difficult for you, given your trouble with simple truth) is that it is not included in new products. Your sarcastic comment also didn't really address anything about its virtues and simply stated it wasn't good. This video I made a long time ago now should finally fill your gaping knowledge gaps th-cam.com/video/Z3MefmIot6M/w-d-xo.html
Does dyson has a patent on cinetic?
Ask them?
Yes! The main one seems to be patents.google.com/patent/EP2587980B1/en (and international equivalents as given there), expected to last until 2030-2032 depending on country; its first claim mentions "a plurality of frusto-conical cyclones arranged in parallel and each having a relatively wide, rigid frusto-conical portion and a relatively narrow, flexible frusto-conical portion connected to the relatively wide portion; the relatively wide portion comprising at least one dirty air inlet, and the relatively narrow portion comprising a dirt outlet; wherein the flexible portion of each cyclone is arranged to vibrate as airflow moves through the cyclone during use."
The claim doesn't specify whether the flexibility is due to material properties (as in Dyson's products), shape, or any other factor, so it seems to me (not a lawyer, let alone a patent lawyer) that any conical cyclone whose tip is deliberately less rigid than its upper part, such that cyclonic airflow can make it vibrate, is covered by this patent (as long as it's used in a "surface treating appliance"; other cyclone applications such as stationary dust collectors are probably fine). Also claimed are any and all conceivable means for agitating the flexible cyclone tips (claim 4), as long as said cyclones meet claim 1's criteria.
-I've been thinking about this for a little while now, and I have yet to come up with any practical way to get around the patent. My ideas so far are: a) a rigid but segmented tip that somehow intermittently opens up like flower petals to release dirt, and b) rigid cyclones equipped with a mechanism to suck air backward through them one at a time, cyclically, to clear dirt. I suspect those alternatives would be nowhere near as effective as the flexible tip.-
Actually (after rereading claim 1 and adding a bunch of qualifiers to my second paragraph), I have two better ideas: a) make cyclones with flexible tips just like Dyson's except with a curved and/or piecewise taper to either or both parts, or a cylindrical shape to the rigid part, because those would (arguably) not be "frusto-conical" and therefore not meet the criteria of claim 1; b) make cyclones with flexible tips just like Dyson's, but such that the tips _don't_ vibrate due to airflow and therefore don't meet the criteria of claim 1, and then agitate them by other means. (Though, against (b), Dyson's lawyers could argue that "as airflow moves through" just means "while airflow moves through" rather than "as a result of airflow moving through".)
Also, the claim specifies "airflow", so similar cyclones operating on liquids would seem to be in the clear, even if used in a "surface treating appliance" (such as a floor washer). -I don't know if cyclones are really useful with liquids, though; I don't think I've heard of them being used that way.- [Edit: In further patent browsing, I see cyclonic separation is used in swimming pool cleaners, quite analogously to how it's used in Dyson vacuum cleaners.]
There's also patents.google.com/patent/GB2492743A/en (among others), which mentions the flexible cyclone tips, but only as dependent claims (claims 27-32), with the only independent claim being the number and arrangement of cyclone stages. (That patent answered an unrelated question I had: The three cyclone stages do not drain into a common bin, but each into its own bin; however, those three bins are emptied together as seen here: th-cam.com/video/v6F0wqT3xKI/w-d-xo.html )
I have both an upright and a smaller DC54 mainly for the stairs etc , it was sold as a non servicable consumer filterless model, yet four years down the line it sounds like concord is landing , I stripped it down & found a hepa filter all clogged up non washable, dyson online wont sell you a new one unless you have an electric cert its supposed to be non servicable, e bay came to the rescue @£34 a lot cheaper than direct from dyson same part same part number & genuine dyson part. To sum up i purchased what was supposed to be a non filter cleaner but it does have one but dyson dont admit it because we customers are not aloud to service are own products .
Anecdotes are never as convincing as real evidence-particularly the evidence that shows how to reproduce such an alleged failure so it's clear how it happened. Because it doesn't have to happen, and evidence shows that it doesn't if used as instructed in the manual. Failure can be easily reproduced with product abuse. Evidence Cinetic technology works as claimed is available here th-cam.com/video/Z3MefmIot6M/w-d-xo.html and th-cam.com/video/WNRayUWCKCE/w-d-xo.html
Would you say dyson cordless is the best design out there since they have patented cyclones others don't? Just score very good condition v8 absolute for 150 bucks that had overheat issue. Turns out it needed pre motor filter cleaned... Probably an amazon return.... Wow people amaze me.
They have the best filtration approach, yes, and have had so for 20-30 years now.
So if it picked up let's say a U shape pin, or something larger like a fries, it'll get stuck in the little tube openings? cuz those little tubes/tips( the thing they spits out dust into the bin) look pretty small.
No because only very small particles can reach there because of the fine-mesh shroud keeping them in the main bin.
@@VacuumFacts i thought the way it works is to sucks up the dirt and spits it out via those many little tips.
I've covered how it works here: th-cam.com/video/4eQ7pE0KmnE/w-d-xo.html
And this second video then goes into a bit more detail: th-cam.com/video/B8gOZ31CkvE/w-d-xo.html
Hope that helps
Hang on, you don't even need to rinse that clear plastic basket thing? 😲
and what about moisture? the reason I didn't buy a dyson is because I saw a teardown of the big ball, and it had soo much dust buildup on those little tubes... shure if you are vaccuming super dry dust everything works great. But live is not about vaccuming super dry stuff all the time.
There's no evidence non-condensing moisture impairs function. Dust is supposed to be in the inside of the internal cyclone discharge chamber, as another of my videos discusses.
Even cinetics used in careful conditions let hair and dust pass through the cyclone. In their lifetime they will most likely be expected to pick fine dust up in small amounts and the cyclones just don't get it 100%. Do you have a cinetic machine?
No they don't. The whole point of the video was to explain why this is a nonsense myth. There's no evidence it fails if used according to the manual that isn't debunked as propaganda, but please feel free to share some. I do not have a Cinetic machine.
+JohnnyL8 I don't think it's too fair when other experienced collectors and myself point out that cinetics aren't what they are made out to be yet you reject this even though you haven't got a cinetic to put these claims to the test. I used mine in normal circumstances and never overfilled yet dust was passing through
I reject it, not because I don't have a Cinetic to put it to the test, but because the onus and burden of proof is on those making the claims they fail. There is already evidence it works if used according to the manual. There is already evidence it fails if abused and neglected. There is no evidence it fails if used properly. And subjective hearsay about who saw what, when, is worth nothing; being an experienced collector is worth nothing; only objective formal evidence carries any weight on specific matters of fact such as these claims; opinion is irrelevant.
The logic is simple. A factual claim is made; it's either true or it's false. There is thus evidence bearing on it and that evidence must be presented and investigated formally. Subjectivity is irrelevant and plays no part in whether the claim is true. All objective formal evidence so far shows the claim is false; Cinetic technology works exactly as stated unless it is abused.
+JohnnyL8 That's not what I've found...
The cyclones are only there to catch the dirt , and do not have anything to do with actual suction power .An upright or stick vacuum needs a powered head to get best results ,without suction must be lost through a long tube
That's correct. However that conflicts with your earlier comment that dirt "changes the [cyclone] profile and effects efficiency" (there's no evidence for this).
@@VacuumFacts That also conflicts with this video , where you say over fill the bin and the cyclones do not work , similar to having a load of dirt jammed up on the inside of them , it effects efficiency .
@@LOTPOR0402 You're conflating normal expected use with abuse, which is misleading... >_>
Why don’t they make the bins bigger.
A big bin sounds like a good idea, but unfortunately people then complain it's too bulky and heavy. So they can't seem to win no matter what they do. However, what's good with their vacuum's going forward is that they've made the emptying process much much easier. You can empty the bin and scrape the shroud, without making any mess, in about 2-3 seconds now on the V10. So a smaller bin capacity is really a non-issue now.
It’s nice to see someone giving credit to dyson for there impressive technology, dyson often spends millions perfecting technology to get no credit for it, its sad dyson cannot use this technology as of yet in there handhelds, and they had to discontinue there existing upright cinetic vacuum due to EU regulations on how loud a vacuum can be, but they still sell the cylinder ones so at least there technology is still out there
Yes. However, their discontinuation of Cinetic technology in general has nothing to do with EU regulations. This is a myth I've seen commonly propagated by some of the more rabid vacuum enthusiasts out there that hate the Dyson brand and have very wonky worldviews. Dyson had produced Cinetic machines that were well within spec of the regulations, blowing that silly propaganda-driven myth right out of the water. It's more likely that it's because the technology relied on a fixed air speed through the cyclones. With the necessity of variable speed motors to accomodate battery life, the technology couldn't therefore be used. The future of battery technology may allow its reintroduction over time.
Heres a question. Why does Dyson on their V10 and upwards. Run these models at 135000rpm for effective suction. To be honest if his product backs up ( never lose suction). Why now does he need to up the revolutions of the impeller faster than the speed of sound??? One can achieve good cyclone separation at lower speeds why the extra ramp up??? Why not use venturi technology which can produce better suction at lower RPM???
I think I've decoded your quasi-sentences. If you rotate the impellor faster, you can move more air using a smaller motor. In other words, a smaller, lighter product can yield greater power. I'm not sure I've seen any evidence their impellors are supersonic, if you can provide some (rather than ignore the point going forward). Cyclonic separation efficiency is controlled by the airspeed within the cyclones, requiring higher pressure motors to create the jets. I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically by "venturi technology" as you didn't provide any details.
. Airflow can be amplified through a venturi system in a vacuum chamber an aerodynamic reduction can increase vacuum. Carburetors in older engines and small engines accomplish this as well.
No idea what you're talking about. If you think this will work, feel free to evidence it with a working product.
@@VacuumFacts Here's the evidence you need. Even though crude. It's also good to do personal research. This technology can be incorporated even in the most complex digital motor vacuums.
th-cam.com/video/iKzVhe8-AMg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=BXXmc5LCj2VXFqfl
Here is the evidence of venturi systems because it can separate a lot of things, including gases and also the digital motor doesn't even need to be in the vicinity of the dirts pathway.
th-cam.com/video/iKzVhe8-AMg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=BXXmc5LCj2VXFqfl
It’s a shame it’s hard to find machines with this technology now, I genuinely believe it’ll work brilliantly, my experience of Dyson muticyclone machines keep the filters pretty clean when used properly, in fact the filters stay clean much longer than I’d expect, I imagine that Cinetic cyclones are amazing.
Cinetic vacuums are great. But unlike the cinetic canister, the upright has a center duct that leads to the motor and every time you empty dirt, dust will float into the center duct and when you close the bin and put it back on the machine and turn it on, it will get sucked to the filters which eventually will clog up the filters. On the canister models, the duct is after the cyclones and is attached to the machine. So when you empty It, dirt will float but only to the cyclones. So when you turn it on, the dirt will spin back into the bin - making the filters last longer. So if Dyson made their upright bins like the ones in the canister, it will truly have no loss of suction
Yes that's right. A small amount of dirt is introduced into the motor and then captured in the HEPA in such cases. There's no indication that Dyson tested for this specific aspect, but you'd think they must have done and found it had very little net effect, even after 10 years. In the V10, they layout automatically fixes it and dirt goes straight into the bin on the first stop. The mains-powered upright models will never change now because development has been discontinued.
JohnnyL8 yeah. But out with the old, and in with the new - if it's good is my mindset
Me too. While I can appreciate the collector-mindset of the vintage lovers, when they scoff at new technology and have opinions leading to claims which are clearly false that mislead people, I go out of my way to call them out. Plenty more myth-busting exposé videos on their way.
Shame they've not bothered to adapt this for their V10.
I don't think that it's a case of them not 'bothering' to, but that there are technical hurdles. The cordless are variable speed and the technology worked historically at a fixed speed. So until that changes, it might not appear in handhelds. But with the vast improvement in battery technology due in the next decade, who knows what possibilities that will unlock.
used to crap all over dyson but then i thought i would buy one new and actually maintain it myself its not that hard
ha ikr. 1. Empty the bin after every use or before the max fill line, whichever comes first. 2. Rinse the filters once a month or so. (De-tangle brushbar if even necessary.) That's it. It's a problem with people all over the world really; they form faulty opinions not based on evidence and you just can't get through to them with truth. They're died-in-the-wool.
Shame the cordless Dyson’s on low speed don’t generate a high enough cyclone and most of the fine dust goes to the filter
This simply isn't true. Under real world, normal operation, emptying before the max fill line, the filter does not clog. This was demonstrated here th-cam.com/video/T3prXR-aeOg/w-d-xo.html and here th-cam.com/video/Z3MefmIot6M/w-d-xo.html . Furthermore, I'm seeing how long I can avoid washing the Gen5 filter and there's been no loss of performance so far with only cosmetic filter dusting.
It's a cool concept, but I get so many in at my work with dead motors just from regular house hold use, I just hate seeing them.
-from regular house hold ABUSE; popularity + abuse = lots in your shop. Amazing really; total failure to follow the most simple of instructions; just empty the bin. Like, *that* hard. And they couldn't even do that. It's nothing short of embarrassing they end up in that state.
@@VacuumFacts Agree people just abuse vacuum cleaners { as well as other things }, then do not seem to realize why they do not last .Empty the F@@kin things once in a while and clean filters once in a blue moon
there is a sticker on those machine saying not to use this machine against ash.
Yeah; ash could be hot still. But it's also so ultra fine that it escapes even Dyson's cyclones and will immediately clog the filter, needing rinsing. Ash isn't normal household dust, which has much larger particle sizes.
@@VacuumFacts I just watched the video you made regarding this.
OK well thanks for the comment anyway :)
With all the advancement they have made why the hell do they still sound like jet engines?
To help evidence what you're saying, can you at least show a video clip of the vacuum in question and then a clip of a jet engine so I can see for myself these alleged similarities?
Their latest products, which I own and can fact-check for myself, are some of the quietest machines I've ever used, which is all the more impressive given how amazingly they perform. Some products out there are quiet, but hardly do anything. I've shown this here th-cam.com/video/YPnPwBRpNBc/w-d-xo.html and here th-cam.com/video/VumIXJvbatk/w-d-xo.html . Most of the noise in older products is down to the noisy, large, conventional motors they used. No one worth their weight in salt would use such technology these days for home use. If you want to understand more, there are plenty of videos on my channel which go into detail about things like this.
It's so disappointing that this hasn't become standard across Dyson models. All modern Dysons have a fatal flaw, which is that they need to be (destructively) disassembled to clean the cyclone chambers once greasy dust builds up on them. As a result, they have a major problem with cyclone clogging as well as large particles bypassing the system entirely. I understand that Dyson doesn't trust users to service those parts, but why not use some security screws instead of glue, single-use gaskets and snap fits?
The cyclone chambers never need to be cleaned as discussed here th-cam.com/video/TjUdD6FZtMY/w-d-xo.html and here th-cam.com/video/hsl4tCaL6g8/w-d-xo.html There is no evidence that when used as instructed, there is cyclone clogging. There *is* evidence that when abused and neglected, like any product, failure can occur. More about the cinetic technology is discussed here th-cam.com/video/Z3MefmIot6M/w-d-xo.html
Its as always, people blaming technology for their faults in using the machines correctly. So i doenst matter if its Dyson or any other Vaccum cleaner. Using it inaproperly causes malfunctioning.
Try telling that to those who don't follow instructions...like simply emptying the bin. They'll bite your head off and accuse your sensible comment of being outrageously offensive.
@@VacuumFacts That's what some people unfortunately are like. Consumer do want the BEST product, it should be and perform absolutely perfect and without any flaws even when the operator is using the device wrong.
You can see this behavior when surfing the web, reading reviews at online stores etc. If they would only go back one step and try to understand the whole situation. If the device is really faulty, almost all manufacturer offer free of charge replacement - you only have to ask friendly (during warranty period of course!)
The wear and tear and sandblasting effect is still bad on plastic. Metal is by far better. Also the chamber gets milky on every dyson. It doesn't maintain its see through feature because of sandblasting effect.
Do you have any reputable, objective evidence that the "sandblasting effect is still bad on plastic" and that it affects performance? The bin clouding is completely cosmetic, doesn't affect performance, and the bin still remains transparent. And show me some transparent metal >_>
@Vacuum Facts you don't need see through material all the time. Plastics wear and tear is very common. Plus Malaysia built machines aren't good quality. Nowadays plastics are cheap. I'd have to show you pictures through email. I'm not going to do videos on this. Waste of time.
@@Ecksterphono If you "'don't need see through material all the time", the rest of us wonder why on earth you bothered to complain about transparent bins becoming cloudy in the first place. xD The rest of your racist tirade was devoid of the objective evidence asked of you to justify your position and separate you from a mindless tribalist. And just to add icing to the cake, if it's such a "waste of time", readers will again wonder why on earth you even started the conversation spouting nonsense you couldn't defend convincingly. Dear me...
@@VacuumFacts Racist? What on earth. Whom I being racist against. Why use such unprofessional comments. Has nothing to do with racism
@@Ecksterphono "Plus Malaysia built machines aren't good quality" The idea that you judge and brand the worth of a product by the people that make it. The definition of racist. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your position for the specific situation in question. Absolutely none. This is pure racism.
to be fair, nobody reads manuals so any vacuum that requires that step in order to survive it's first year of life is doomed to failure.
Hmm, wouldn't say not reading instructions is a justification for stupidity. If someone can't figure out to empty before full then it's hardly the manufacturer's fault. Like blaming a car manufacturer because the driver didn't realise you need to put fuel in the car BEFORE it runs dry-and of the correct type-to avoid damage and failure. Doomed to failure eh? Not convinced!
“Always be skeptical of what you see on TH-cam” says the biased Dyson shill 😂😂
Do you have any good reasoning to support your position, or was it just a mindless ad hominem attack that suggests you missed the point entirely? The latter would explain your comment.
You're right. Lots of the older components are discontinued. Over time the dustbins do crack and cloud because of the plastic deterioration. Eventually UV rays take their toll. Also environmental conditions. Everything wears even after normal years of use and proper maintenance. Technology works. Yes they have limiter devices, wear and tear no matter what the technology. I have an electrolux canister from the 1960s that still works fine and yes it still works and parts are readily available. After a good service, and of course a moderate rebuild of some of the components it runs fine. I still can't find a dustbin for my Dyson DC41C because it's no longer available and it's the first generation radial root technology. I had to superglue the old one and make due with it. Small aging cracks have developed and the one I had to glue spread across the side of the bin, yes they're somewhat impact proof but do not hold up to normal aging. This what I'm writing is not a myth and also comes from vacuum repair facilities as well. Technology is there but the test of time isn't.
Uh no
Huh?
Hi Johnny. With Dyson’s Big Ball models of barrel vacuum cleaners you might find this strip-down of the non-Cinetic model interesting. Its internals are probably not dissimilar to the Cinetic’s, other than of course the pre-motor filter. You’d see that this Big Ball has what appears to be an excellent post-motor filter and, surprisingly, a Panasonic motor (of questionable quality). You’d also see, unfortunately, how poorly built the machine is all told, just not built to last. No need to reply. Dave, Australia.
th-cam.com/video/NPTzNJMd19A/w-d-xo.html
I don't think anyone could reasonably conclude that a Dyson isn't "built to last" from a user TH-cam bedroom video, particularly when it flies in direct contradiction of hard evidence from many other more professional sources. If you could point to a large, professional, statistically significant reservioir of observational evidence from multiple sources, all mutually corroborating of such a conclusion, I might take it seriously.
JohnnyL8 If you could point to the evidence that these Dyson models are reliable, then please do so. (I myself had one for 24 hours with ‘cord creep’, which I posted to the effect on one of your other videos and which you ignored.) As for the link I sent you, let’s not forget that your channel could be just as suspect as the one you criticise. And did you watch the whole video? Further, have you checked the user reviews in say ‘product review dot com dot au’ and compared them with say Miele’s bagless model reviews in the same website? Moreover, have you spoken with experienced department store sales staff about Dyson’s durability issues - about how many corded machines are RETURNED?
I wanted to keep my Cinetic. I think the design is fantastic, for all the reasons you have detailed. Dyson only need to up their game in the reliability stakes with solid, reliable products if they’re going to continue selling corded vacuum cleaners, Johnny. Cheers. Dave, Australia.
You'd have to contact Dyson directly for their statistical data. Individual cases of failure are statistically irrelevant and can't thus be used to conclude sweeping statements about reliability. The content on my channel either links to evidence to support claims, or is based on well-established science found in any text book.
JohnnyL8 Well, the burden of proof is with you, Johnny, to both validate your own conclusions and that of Dyson’s. The negative user reviews are commonplace, in websites and on Dyson’s very own Facebook pages. The Dyson apologies are numerous. I await your evidence, then; and let’s not forget that you were wrong about loop pile carpet. Dave, Australia.
JohnnyL8 PS I don’t doubt the physics. My issue is the durability of the product in real world use. Dave, Australia.
Dyson Cinetic is the biggest mistake Dyson ever made. No wonder they are discontinued now. Too much motor failures.
Can you provide the evidence they're discontinued now? I'll give you a chance before I provide the evidence you're wrong.
Also send along the numerical verified data you used to conclude there were "too much (sic) motor failures"
So, expecting absolutely no response, I'll point out that only in the UK are cinetic models not sold. For the rest of the planet in all those different countries, they are still sold as normal. A simple look at Dyson's website fact-checks this. That's the problem with basing your opinions on utter myths. If there were too many motor failures, then they certainly wouldn't be sold anywhere. In other words, everything you said was total nonsense.
I agree that cinetic models should have still been user accessible to clean a washable HEPA filter for the few who abused their machines and caused cyclonic failure. But the technology was sound and the most advanced in the world. It's not in the cordless devices because, unlike mains machines, they have variable speeds, and cinetic only works with one speed. Until a single air speed is used in cordless cleaners, it won't likely make a comeback. Bit of knowlege goes a long way.
Regular Man Shut up!
0_0 kick him while he's down why don't you :/
You do know he didn't invent this technology? He actually stole it and called it his own. Cyclonic technology has been around for decades and decades in commercial applications.
Uh...you don't understand how patents work and what they protect...I'm not even bothering
@@VacuumFacts it's not about a Patent, nor what they protect. Could care less. It's about who actually invented it first. Regardless if a Patent has ended for a particular technology. People on here constantly post utter BS. They do ZERO fact checking and just go on their merry way. Dyson invented the "bagless vacuum" but not the "cyclonic separator" which has been in use since 1885, when the actual inventor of the technology, John M Finch received a patent for it. Dyson shrunk it to vacuum size and put his name on it. That's all. Ignorance truly is bliss. And again, beyond junk machines. Always have been, always will be. And I won't even bother mentioned a few things that completely flopped; anyone in the market for a second hand Dyson CR01? Yeah didn't think so.
And I'd even buy you a new vacuum if you used one new Dyson for a year and took it apart to see how much dust, dirt and other debris is literally caked on inside the "cyclones". It's beyond disgusting. Dysons start to smell, as I've seen and heard many people's accounts. They wash the filters, buy new ones and still, no relief. The design is inherently flawed , but just like any "fanboy", a Dyson "fanboy" wouldn't listen anyways. Tool.
o_0 er... Mathematicians 'invented' cones, so everyone stole from them, by your absurd logic. It IS all about patents and understanding what they mean, whether or not you cared less. That you trivialised application of cyclonic filtration to a mere "shrunk it down" is a beacon of absurdity and ignorance. Far more was involved to solve the problem of being able to separate very tiny, microscopic particles efficiently (unlike massive easy sawdust with high relative mass) and it took a lot of research to reach the level they're at today. Their cyclones are the most efficient available commercially and have a cut point so low that pre-filters aren't needed on the Cinetic models because they do the same job. A method to achieve this in a commercial application is what's patented. The CR01 was a technological success, way ahead of the competition at the time. They pulled the plug after gen 2 because it wasn't a profitable product-and they were reluctant to do so. I presume you fact-checked this seeing as you claim to champion it.
I've already debunked the myths and ignorance of dusty cyclones and the origin of smells. th-cam.com/video/B8gOZ31CkvE/w-d-xo.html
It's not that amazing really. It was a big flop and it is no longer being sold in the UK. If it was so amazing, it would still being produced for sale here in the UK and there would not have been problems with clogged post motor filters in the Cinetic models or burnt out motors.
A common myth based on erroneous conjecture. A more accurate statement is that the machines using the technology are no longer produced. New cordless machines don't currently use it because the technology relies on a fixed motor speed, and the new machines vary motor speed considerably to ensure energy efficiency. There is no convincing evidence that the technology didn't work; all public 'failures' (propaganda) were likely down to abuse and failure to follow instructions, and scientific testing confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt that the technology worked as described when used as instructed, as discussed in the video.
Your videos are basically dyson propaganda, the same way people who are fans of other brands talk about and rave about what they like. You’re absolutely no different.
Except I don't gain from raving about their products. You've misinterpreted admiration for technology that's better than anything else out there for 'propaganda' (which is the sullying of image for petty reasons). My channel is in fact about exposing propaganda. I suggest you learn the distinction. I take it you can't find factual fault over what's presented, so are left with ad hominem attacks in lieu of anything meaningful to say. >_>
@@VacuumFacts lol man I’m all for new technology and I do quite like dysons vacuums, but I have to say your content is extremely biased.
@@ajc5869 Again, a consequence of your misconception. My channel is about debunking propaganda made against the best technology out there (this video being a specific example-I suggest you watch it). And it's about showing why the best technology is so. Because Dyson have a monopoly on what is measurably 'the best', it may come across as 'biased', but it's nothing of the sort. There are plenty of reviews of other non-Dyson products in fact, particularly those associated with grandiose claims. Although they do usually explicitly expose the claims as myths and evidence their inferiority. That's not bias, that's fact-checking. Given that my channel forcusses ONLY on what is the best, is there something specific you feel I'm missing, and if so, what is the evidence why it's worth attention or the best? Or are you just having a whinge?
@@VacuumFacts lol ok man you’re Dyson bias is unbelievably obvious but it’s fine, you do you.
@@ajc5869 I've just explained and explicitly accounted for why that's not true and why you might misinterpret a bias towards a given manufacturer. You're clearly not listening and are continually reducing it down to a form of petty tribalism, yet not actually justifying your position at all, or accounting for what I've already said. I even asked you to put forward a case so you would be satisfied that there's no bias here, and you didn't even do that, ignored it completely, and reverted to echoing your earlier comment which has already been full addressed. Nothing good can be said about someone who doesn't listen to reason.