"Low suction will deep-clean just as well if pile separated" Indeed, the proof of this is how well the V10 cleans floors on the medium setting, which doesn't have much suction at all. So what I learned is that it's not all about suction. The magic is happening mostly in the direct drive head. As long as the brush bar is picking up and moving particles directly to its outlet, not much suction force is actually needed to carry them up the wand. The suction is just there as a means of moving the particles along to the cyclones, not to actually separate them from the floor. However, when using the crevice tool, for example to clean in sliding door tracks, I do need to use the high setting, because in this case it's all about suction. But on floors, it's not so much about suction.
Yes. my next video will show this is true again in a different way. Powerful cleaner with a crappy head vs the "weak" V10 (according to the mindless propagandists). The V10 embarrasses the other cleaner with a fraction of the power.
In general, great video. You're one of the scarce number of people that understands that brute force power and suction doesn't always constitute to good cleaning performance. The only small error that I noticed is, your graph at 5:33 shows an inverse proportion graph [f(x)=1/x] which assumes that as the time spent vacuuming tends to zero, the concentration of dirt will tend to infinity (there's no y intercept). As you correctly pointed out earlier, it should be a negative exponent exponential graph [f(x)=e^-x].
Ha, technically you're correct, but the graph at 5:33 is a crude prop sketch whose purpose was only to cosmetically illutrate the 'decreasing residual' trend, and hence why it is unquantified. The formal, quantified plot preceding that is of the form [f(x)=Ae^-Bx], as the parameterisation shows, and is the standard equation for a first-order rate system. It's nice when you semi-formally/scientifically show what you've said is true; very pleasing when your measurements land perfectly to theory and support every point you're making. Not that most of the aggressive people commenting here would likely appreciate the significance of these measurements. The bad ones would probably fail to understand anything mentioned and announce "omg, 12 cleans and the V10 STILL left dust behind...the Kirby would have got ALL of that in a SINGLE pass" (without presenting any convincing evidence). They're not my target audience though really.
I vacuumed a low pile carpet thoroughly and then decided to clean the rubber mat under the carpet. A large amount of fine dust fell onto the floor from the carpet, released by gravity. I could not believe how much fine dust the vacuum failed to pick up.
I'm not sure which video you're referring to, but I'd bet the testing methodology was flawed or subjected to the misleading tricks and errors often observed in amateur bedroom testing that prevent fair comparative and representative testing.
Oh; just found the video you're referring to. Yeah, it's the usual sloppy nonsense from that channel masquerading as factual. It's obviously not a fair comparative test. No understanding what was in the carpets to begin with or whether it was homogeneously distributed, no control over area cleaned, no control over number of passes, no evidence of reproducibility or appropriate mathematical trending. Typical amateur bedroom testing grade misleading nonsense. In fairness, unlike the rest out there, I'm fully educated in how to conduct formal research at scientific level, but this is why I'm here; to point out why things like this are misleading. I've never set out to insult the people doing this nonsense, at least until they snapped back aggressively without a solid defense and mouthed off, in which case, gloves are off. I'd be saying exactly the same thing if the V11 had come out on top. This is not believable comparative testing; it's 'entertainment' at best. What I do also isn't scientific level, but it's a home not a lab and all the sources of error are eliminated to ensure reasonable comparative fairness without all the glaring errors of every source of YT 'testing' I've seen out there. This is clearly seen in the mathematical trends observed in the data (e.g. different V11 power modes showed the sensible relative trends expected). That objectively shows a level of control in the testing methodology I use to ensure sensible data that's reproducible. You can't just take one mass measurement and be done with it; that's just plain stupid if using to draw any conclusions. You have to show reproducibility and exactly the curve profiles expected from a (roughly) first order system like this. They don't have a clue.
I'm considering buying a Dyson cordless to try one out to see if it is good or not wich one do you recommend I have pets and a big hose? I was thinking of the Dyson v10
Up to you and your budget. I'd always recommend the latest technology, which, by definition, is the best. The V15 has an outsize version now too, more suited to very large homes. A v15 will also be fine and you can adapt to more regular, shorter, bite-sized cleaning. I recommend watching my review videos.
Presumably you mean reaching the lowest concentrations when soiling is representative of real-world conditions rather than absurdly exaggerated. In which case, yes, and only formal evidence from industry standard testing shows which ones. Most of the 'tests' on YT are of course absurd, dripping with ignorance or propaganda, and serve only to mislead and disservice viewers when portrayed as fact rather than nothing other than pure entertainment. Shameful. No wonder there's such liking for old-fashioned bagged cleaners and Shark products, especially after the recent court rulings exposing how deeply disgraceful so much about the manufacturers and their supporters are, with all the lies, deception, discrimination, and corruption.
Amazing how videos like this, which quantify and semi-formally prove the claims I make, are so quiet on the hostile-comments front from the agressive, rabid vacuum enthusiast haters. I guess evidence does finally work at sinking in, there's now no argument left, and it's accepted that myths have finally been busted. Win
lo0ks like poor quality carpet. Vacuum cleaners have many different quality levels. our house has good central vacuum and also we steam clean carpet. Also two Roombas. Two big dogs. House is presentable always. Clean and everything organized in order.
Your explanations could be realistically true all day but the way you're presenting them is so weak and unconvincing. Like it seems you're making an incredibly weak argument and I can't quite put my finger on why
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [2/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qJbQs_nhjD4/mqdefault.jpg)
"Low suction will deep-clean just as well if pile separated"
Indeed, the proof of this is how well the V10 cleans floors on the medium setting, which doesn't have much suction at all.
So what I learned is that it's not all about suction. The magic is happening mostly in the direct drive head.
As long as the brush bar is picking up and moving particles directly to its outlet, not much suction force is actually needed to carry them up the wand.
The suction is just there as a means of moving the particles along to the cyclones, not to actually separate them from the floor.
However, when using the crevice tool, for example to clean in sliding door tracks, I do need to use the high setting, because in this case it's all about suction.
But on floors, it's not so much about suction.
Yes. my next video will show this is true again in a different way. Powerful cleaner with a crappy head vs the "weak" V10 (according to the mindless propagandists). The V10 embarrasses the other cleaner with a fraction of the power.
In general, great video. You're one of the scarce number of people that understands that brute force power and suction doesn't always constitute to good cleaning performance. The only small error that I noticed is, your graph at 5:33 shows an inverse proportion graph [f(x)=1/x] which assumes that as the time spent vacuuming tends to zero, the concentration of dirt will tend to infinity (there's no y intercept). As you correctly pointed out earlier, it should be a negative exponent exponential graph [f(x)=e^-x].
Ha, technically you're correct, but the graph at 5:33 is a crude prop sketch whose purpose was only to cosmetically illutrate the 'decreasing residual' trend, and hence why it is unquantified. The formal, quantified plot preceding that is of the form [f(x)=Ae^-Bx], as the parameterisation shows, and is the standard equation for a first-order rate system. It's nice when you semi-formally/scientifically show what you've said is true; very pleasing when your measurements land perfectly to theory and support every point you're making. Not that most of the aggressive people commenting here would likely appreciate the significance of these measurements. The bad ones would probably fail to understand anything mentioned and announce "omg, 12 cleans and the V10 STILL left dust behind...the Kirby would have got ALL of that in a SINGLE pass" (without presenting any convincing evidence). They're not my target audience though really.
I vacuumed a low pile carpet thoroughly and then decided to clean the rubber mat under the carpet. A large amount of fine dust fell onto the floor from the carpet, released by gravity. I could not believe how much fine dust the vacuum failed to pick up.
I like this video but I’m still confused about the v11 vs hoover turbomaster video where the turbomaster picked up more :/
I'm not sure which video you're referring to, but I'd bet the testing methodology was flawed or subjected to the misleading tricks and errors often observed in amateur bedroom testing that prevent fair comparative and representative testing.
Oh; just found the video you're referring to. Yeah, it's the usual sloppy nonsense from that channel masquerading as factual. It's obviously not a fair comparative test. No understanding what was in the carpets to begin with or whether it was homogeneously distributed, no control over area cleaned, no control over number of passes, no evidence of reproducibility or appropriate mathematical trending. Typical amateur bedroom testing grade misleading nonsense. In fairness, unlike the rest out there, I'm fully educated in how to conduct formal research at scientific level, but this is why I'm here; to point out why things like this are misleading. I've never set out to insult the people doing this nonsense, at least until they snapped back aggressively without a solid defense and mouthed off, in which case, gloves are off. I'd be saying exactly the same thing if the V11 had come out on top. This is not believable comparative testing; it's 'entertainment' at best. What I do also isn't scientific level, but it's a home not a lab and all the sources of error are eliminated to ensure reasonable comparative fairness without all the glaring errors of every source of YT 'testing' I've seen out there. This is clearly seen in the mathematical trends observed in the data (e.g. different V11 power modes showed the sensible relative trends expected). That objectively shows a level of control in the testing methodology I use to ensure sensible data that's reproducible. You can't just take one mass measurement and be done with it; that's just plain stupid if using to draw any conclusions. You have to show reproducibility and exactly the curve profiles expected from a (roughly) first order system like this. They don't have a clue.
Vacuum Facts ah, good answer!
Does it ever get to zero or is it more like a half life?
Depends on how good the vacuum is at reaching the lowest concentrations and the nature of the carpet.
I'm considering buying a Dyson cordless to try one out to see if it is good or not wich one do you recommend I have pets and a big hose? I was thinking of the Dyson v10
Up to you and your budget. I'd always recommend the latest technology, which, by definition, is the best. The V15 has an outsize version now too, more suited to very large homes. A v15 will also be fine and you can adapt to more regular, shorter, bite-sized cleaning. I recommend watching my review videos.
They do but some leave more than others 😁
Presumably you mean reaching the lowest concentrations when soiling is representative of real-world conditions rather than absurdly exaggerated. In which case, yes, and only formal evidence from industry standard testing shows which ones. Most of the 'tests' on YT are of course absurd, dripping with ignorance or propaganda, and serve only to mislead and disservice viewers when portrayed as fact rather than nothing other than pure entertainment. Shameful. No wonder there's such liking for old-fashioned bagged cleaners and Shark products, especially after the recent court rulings exposing how deeply disgraceful so much about the manufacturers and their supporters are, with all the lies, deception, discrimination, and corruption.
Amazing how videos like this, which quantify and semi-formally prove the claims I make, are so quiet on the hostile-comments front from the agressive, rabid vacuum enthusiast haters. I guess evidence does finally work at sinking in, there's now no argument left, and it's accepted that myths have finally been busted. Win
lo0ks like poor quality carpet. Vacuum cleaners have many different quality levels. our house has good central vacuum and also we steam clean carpet. Also two Roombas. Two big dogs.
House is presentable always. Clean and everything organized in order.
Your explanations could be realistically true all day but the way you're presenting them is so weak and unconvincing. Like it seems you're making an incredibly weak argument and I can't quite put my finger on why
haha well, until you do, your comment is genuinely weak and unconvincing xD