Numatic Henry Xtra Vacuum Cleaner Review
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 มี.ค. 2021
- A full review of the Numatic Henry Xtra vacuum cleaner and how it compares to market leading machines of similar cost. No, this was not gifted for free for a bribe review.
Links:
1. The cause of and solution to vacuum cleaner smells - • How to Fix a Smelly Dy...
2. How to empty the Dyson bin without any mess - • How to Empty Bagless D...
3. The problems with bagged cleaners - • Bagged Vs Bagless Vacu...
4. Henry cordless review - • Henry Cordless Vacuum ...
5. Dyson V11 review - • Dyson V11 Review Vacuu...
6. Final Dyson mains cleaners review - • Review of Dyson Cineti... - บันเทิง
Should be titled “why you should buy a dyson” - I own a cordless dyson vacuum and the things so fragile, the slightest but of heavy dust and it gets blocked. I spend more time cleaning it and actually hoovering
That's a silly comment. I recommend you watch the video properly. The evidence leading to the conclusions shown was clearly demonstrated. I don't believe your very vague comments about a bit of dust causing a Dyson cordless blockage because it completely contradicts some very simple observations of the opposite being true. If you can provide clear, objective evidence of how to reproduce this, your respectability might be returned. The evidence is completely clear, e.g. in the V15 review: the latest Dyson cordless can outperform the best mains cleaners on the market. th-cam.com/video/noCLwXCVDsk/w-d-xo.html and th-cam.com/video/ZmzG8XOQAeQ/w-d-xo.html
... figures
I have used 2 dysons, expensive and the parts break . I have a Miele that lasts over 10 years and still good and cheaper than dyson. You seem very bias to dyson.
Which parts? How did they break? Do they break for others? Where is the evidence of how to reproduce this for inspection? Also, you seem to be confusing the facts presented in the video for bias. Which claims, very specifically, do you think constitute 'bias'?
...figures
You're proper on a roll with these vids!
I think Henry's are quite decent for their simplicity and what they are, if you're on a budget they'd make an alright vacuum
When I remove bags I have to be cautious not to get the bucket dusty so I tilt it so the face is facing upwards and then slowly remove it, kinda a design flaw cos then the filter gets dirty but I still like these for what they are, British made, robust, simple, cheap parts which are easily found etc
I guess that's a fair comment. There's better technology out there. For £40 more you can get the best performing product on the market with none of the issues this Henry has. Probably get it for less on offer too.
@@VacuumFacts yes deffo agree, these Dyson uprights are the cheapest they've ever been and Henry's are more expensive than they've ever been so more powole would see the Dysons and be more inclined to choose one of them over a henry
@@parwaz7861 Given most people's buying choices are based on something as pathetic and cosmetic as a silly face paint job, rather than anything, you know, *meaningful*, I wouldn't be so sure of that. :/
@@VacuumFacts It's unique for sure, you never know what people want more from a vacuum and Henrys sure bring that characteristic of personification out lol
Kids love them, maybe they'd be more likely to vacuum with a Henry instead of the exact same vacuum with the face removed
@@parwaz7861 And not a single rabid vacuum enthusiast complaining about how terrible my video is (without evidence as always) now it evidences some positive claims about the Henry. Their silence reveals their hypocrisy; they cherry pick what they decide to accept that I present, even though everything I show is confirmed as fact with the same level of evidence. Even worse, no one else is calling that out, which is equally unrespectable... Their behaviour really should be treated with the utmost contempt.
My cousin had a Dyson V10 and ended up breaking it and it getting blocked etc. They swear by Henry's and I can see why - their large hoses pick up quite big detritus left behind by 5 kids. They are really robust too, but I wouldn't have one over my Dyson!
Really? Breaking it? I don't understand how it's possible to break a V10 without being negligent and careless. That is not a virtue to engineer for at the expense of everything else good. The benefits of Henry's come at great cost to the environment. They rely on sloppy brute force and waste.
They ended up dropping it and breaking the body.
I'm not suggesting their Dyson experienced an easy or ordinary life - they're house is like a petting zoo/nursery rolled into one. It got tested to destruction.
@@sbomorse haha damn. Severe :)
Exactly it’s why cleaning companies and valeting love using the numatic ma
the turbine is air driven, it doesn't have a turbine...
somebody's been bought by dyson. 😊
You're confusing presenting facts in a comparison review with bias. When there's literally no arguing against what's presented that you might not like, resort to a fabricated smear campaign designed to discredit instead. Hallmark of someone with no leg to stand on. The evidence in the video speaks for itself. Given you didn't take reasonable issue with any of it, I presume you accept it and come to the same conclusions as anyone else objective watching it.
I was thinking the same lol 😆
I tried the shark stratos recently and I’m shocked at the cleanerhead design - the actual bristles are basically as soft as actual carpet fibres, and relies more on the rubber wipers to do most of the work so I’m not really happy with its performance, along with the duo clean design leaking airflow out the front. Not to mention there’s already suction leaking out the hose vents on both carpet modes!! Such an odd machine
I'm no defender of Shark's inferior technology, but the idea you criticise it because the cyclone clogged whilst failing to realise that the situation you subjected it to was so absurdly unrepresentative of the real-world use it was designed for, is completely unrespectable. It's cyclonic technology is crap, but not for the overloading situation you showed. The only value in the 'big mess' test you did was that it served as an accelerated use case, showing how their reliance on filters due to poor cyclones results in their clogging faster and need for more frequent rinsing. It's a junk piece of tech for many reasons not touched on. I won't be reviewing it though because, technologically, it's all but identical to the model I've already reviewed.
@@VacuumFacts I wasn’t mentioning the cyclone, instead the cleanerhead design and suction loss at the suction vent during carpet use
Would you recommend Charles or Henry xtra
I don't recommend specific products. Rather, I provide information to help people make their own decisions. My understanding is that both products use fundamentally the same technology, and so there'd be very little difference.
Thank you
I'm glad you've noticed how much the performance improves with the turbo head. It improves still further with an electric powered head but of course numatic no longer offer one but Sebo do 😊
I am the ONLY person on YT who bothered to quantify it properly instead of essentially relying on an assumption or broken, flawed testing that reveals a lack of credibility and respectability. Shame on the entirety of the rabid vacuum enthusiast 'community', really. But then there's all the other flaws with the Henry glossed over, like how badly the turbo head is designed, how difficult to manoeuvre it is, how it gets stuck randomly on the floor, how noisy it is. Then there's the bag issues. For £40 more, you can get a Light Ball, which is better in every single way. It's a no brainer.
The real highlight no one seems to have picked up on (which I'm not sure is surprising or unexpected) is that I have also explicitly shown in this video that modern bags do not lose suction. I could not get performance to decrease, even when dust-loaded. But still, this is no bragging right, because bags have a shameful and disgusting, wholly avoidable impact on the environment, and there are far better ways, as the Light Ball has shown.
It's interesting though, I'm sure all the rabid vacuum enthusiasts who scoff at my work, claim it's 'fake', or try to dismiss and rubbish it by scraping the barrel with nonsense, will suddenly decide they can make an exception in this case because I've shown something that happens, this time, to agree with their opinions. They'll cherrypick the bits they want to accept, ignoring that I've gone about determining the factual accuracy of everything I produce in *exactly* the same way. Hypocrites. Look out for it. When it comes to explicitly *showing* the Turbo heads work better than straight suction and bags don't clog, they'll suddenly have no complaints. The double-standard of their silence will be the evidence of how poor their behaviour is and why they should not be respected, and why anyone who respects or tolerates their behaviour should also not be respected.
@@Xenon777_ I'm sure they do
@@VacuumFacts I'm not surprised the bag maintained the suction, since it was a) (I assume it's flour?) b) just that amount shown in the vid- however I have managed to clog Henry bags in the past when I vacuumed out my DC17 and 41 mk2 using my henry with hepaflow bag, the suction dropped, was that flour? Because my Henry hepa bag lost suction after vacuuming the cyclone and bin assembly out after vacuuming the mosque with the DC17 and 41 mk2
@@parwaz7861 What I didn't show is emptying it out and sucking it up lots of times so really make sure it coated the inside and tried to block up the pores. But I think you'd have to pack it solid to block it. It's very fine powder and far smaller than most dust (by mass) that you pick up in the home, so a good stress test. Modern (good) bags are not reasonably cloggable is my conclusion now. Or more, specifically, cleaning performance doesn't drop when heavily dust-loaded. But they're still shit and cyclonic technology is far superior because it's costless and impactless when scaled up across a nation. Also, these bags are NOT hygienic; they spray dust everywhere just taking it off, as I showed. The rabid vacuum enthusiasts who were salivating over the Henry cleaners didn't quite mention that... >_>
@@VacuumFacts hmm, quite a different experience to me, maybe the dust in the mosque is ultra fine for my henry bag to get clogged
I used a sebo x4 boost there as well and that also clogged its bag noticeably enough that the performance dropped
using a henry bagless doesn't hurt, its a commercial machine and anyone who says other wise has never pushed a henry to its full potential
So what you're effectively saying is that you think Numatic are robbing shysters who sells bags when they're not needed, thereby fuelling a false economy which is also utterly polluting to the environment, because "using a henry bagless doesn't hurt, its a commercial machine and anyone who says other wise has never pushed a henry to its full potential". That's pretty a damning position for a supposed fan of them. You can't have it both ways.
@@VacuumFacts here's two machines put to their full potential
th-cam.com/video/KnAMHJ4INAk/w-d-xo.html
both are made in the 1990s, one of them is almost 30 years old. I've never bought a bag in my life, nor did my uncle or nana. They too had henry's from the early 90s. I'd imagine people buy bags thinking it prolongs the life.
Even in old Numatic literature they said "bag or bagless
@@seveermada So you've just confirmed it. You've exposed Numatic as unscrupulous shysters who peddle a false economy, promote environmental harm, and mistreat their customers by encouraging them into unnecessary running costs. And furthermore, you're effectively highlighting how all their fans are clueless clowns for not spotting something that you find completely obvious when it comes to disposable bags, and that all those who have aggressively argued the exact opposite stance to you are flat out wrong and now look incredibly stupid. Quite an impressive achievement there.
@@VacuumFacts Where does Numatic force their customers LMAO I've just told you 2 of my relatives and myself have never bought bags, hell when I bought a second hand George the initial owner was using that bagless and full to the brim
Also can you show me a dyson thats been running 30 years in a commercial environment without a single part being replaced? any hoover can withstand 5 seconds of picking up flour in a bowl... or plaster but no dyson can stand 30 years of it. nah im being too generous, no dyson can stand 1 year picking up plaster
@@seveermada I meant encouraging. But you missed the point anyway and ignored the rest of the points I raised. You've exposed the utter disgrace that Numatic and Henrys are. Also missed the point that just because a machine is durable in the ways shown doesn't make it a good performer. The evidence for that is clear. It's lose-lose no matter how you look at it.
That was more of a product assasination than a review...
That wasn't really the intention. All this video does is state facts and the full truth that is often hidden by manufacturers or poor sources on YT. People can make their own minds up about what's presented. You came to an interesting conclusion based on the hard data shown.
You talk about "environmental impact" a lot while advocating for what amount to disposable appliances, which is what Dysons and almost every other kind are nowadays. It's beyond ironic. The Numatics are indeed simple, but they will quite literally last a lifetime in a domestic environment and often a decade or two being hammered relentlessly in commercial ones. Over the years I've seldom, if ever, seen an advert for a Numatic product (unlike the afore-mentioned polystyrene and ABS junk - "as seen on teevee!"), which should tell you something.
You missed the point entirely. In addition to the impact a product has by simply existing (applies to everything), the Henry has an additional and significant impact from disposable bags. This is wholly avoidable with better design. For normal users wanting a machine to clean their homes under normal living conditions, there's simply no excuse for the Numatic products; there is better technology out there we know works without the impact. And then there's literally everything else mentioned in the videos you glossed over...
@@Ady- You seem to be conflating abused machines (which applies to any product) with the points raised above. Bit silly. Love how you seem to have fogotten to mention that this applies to literally every product; you can find job lots of Henry vacuum cleaners too. Misleading half-truther.
@@Ady- Can you provide the evidence to support that statement, including the analysis to ensure you've correctly normalised to popularity / number of units sold, those discarded, those broken? I suspect you can't. And it's all academic anyway given my previous comment that you didn't seem to understand. >_>
@@Ady- That was a deeply unconvincing evasion and failure to evidence your own claim. I think undereducated internet kids are not welcome here... bye
Excellent reviews thanks
Possibly the only person in the world who thinks henrys are bad
Possibly the only person in the world to have shown representative data that allows intelligent people to draw meaningful conclusions for themselves about what's actually true.
@@VacuumFacts data? Heres some data. 130 quid, best suction, doesn't break. Thats all the data i need. Ive used nearly every type of vaccum and brand. Nothing compares to the henry. Especially price to performance its unbeatable. Not sure why you hate it so much
@@stevem9529 You stated many claims but provided little in the way of reputable data. Anyone who forms a judgement based on that is unlikely to recognise the help provided here and instead misinterpret and draw conclusions that are at odds with reality. Too bad. The rest of the picture not ackowledged in your comment can be found in the video.
@@VacuumFacts £130 and best vacuum I've ever used. Only 'data' i need
That's fine. Then this video wasn't for you...making it strange that you commented for any reason other than to troll. This video provides the rest of the actual data you're apparently not interested in for others to make more informed decisions.
You can get reusable bags for Henry so the environmental impact is the same of the mess is the same as bagless. I have a shark pet and vax one power pet 4. The shark is rubbish… I had to buy 2 filters and constantly wash one and replace to get the best suction. The vax is okay and picks up everything the shark doesn’t. But the battery is horrendous and can’t cope with small areas of cleaning and a right pain. So I’ve went bought a Hetty xtra with reusable bags. The shark is ruined after a couple of years use, the vax costs me in electricity constantly charging the battery.
How did you conclude the environmental impact was the same? It's not. It still takes additional unnecessary resources to manfacture those bags. They don't come as standard. They cost the user extra to buy. In fact, are you sure they're official and not some third party product, essentially revealing Numatic have a problem these other third party manufacturers have a 'solution' to? How do you know they perform the same? If they do, then you're implicitly suggesting Numatic have been scamming their customers all along by peddling a disposable approach at great cost to them and the environment when there's a better approach. And have you considered how easy it is to maintain these reusable bags? The hassle of cleaning them, the cost of washing them, the dust that gets everywhere as shown in the video when you take it off? How long do they last before they have to be replaced? Are people going to throw them away anyway when they smell? No matter how you look at it, it's bad. And then there's literally everything else poor about the machine in the review.
Those bags are CHEAP. Kenmore Bags are like $16 for 6 and Miele Bags are $20 for 4!. Also these are over $400 in the US. A total rip off. The bags are also $30 here for 10.
Shows how much of a scam those other bagged cleaners are. There's a sucker born every minute. A single Henry bag might be cheap, but multiply by the total number of bags you might go through as a heavy user over the product's lifetime and that's a huge hidden cost people ignore. Add it to the RRP of the machine and you've got a price similar to a high end cleaner. So why not just go for a high end cleaner and avoid the environmental impact, which, when multiplied by all users, is huge and avoidable? It's a no-brainer.
@@VacuumFacts many people are still stuck in the past thinking bagless vacuums are messy. Sure if you empty the bin 5 feet over your trash. But stick the bin to the base and there is almost no mess at all.
@@VacMaster1991 Poor bagless designs make that more difficult because the button is near the trapdoor. And, as I showed in my Shark review, even closing a badly designed bin sprays dust everywhere. Poor bagless designs (so all but Dyson's as far as I've seen) empty messily.
@@VacuumFacts lg has a touch free bin emptying mechanism with the kompressor models. But yes by far Dyson has the best bin designs. Another mess free way is to stick the bin inside a trash bag and push the bin release through the bag.
@@VacMaster1991 The kompressor models do not have touch free! They kludge a copycat shroud scrape as an extra manual action the user must do, and their bin emptying button is right near the trapdoor, meaning you still have to get near the dirt and can't get deep into the bin to avoid a splash. It's no improvement at all. Patented technology can't be copied, leaving the inferior to copycat kludges that don't work as well. th-cam.com/video/0CF9puE0FAE/w-d-xo.html
I think the Henry vacuums are actually banned from my country, because I wasn't able to find it anywhere. I think it is because of the wattage and wasted power. My uncle has a Henry and it always tripped the socket or the breaker because of the inrush current of the motor. I would rather not vacuum at all than using a bagged vacuum that just acts like a fan which sucks the trash from the floor and trashes the whole room with that dust.
They are only 625watts 🧐
This thing is expensive over here in the U.S. Over $400 I think. Why would anyone pay that amount for a air driven turbine head? I can get a Big Ball Animal 2 for the same price or less.
Yeah. The better question is why would anyone be buying a bagged cleaner with all the other practicality issues I showed, when for comparable cost, you can buy a superior Light (Small) Ball with none of the issues or environmental impact. It's literally a no-brainer.
You can even get brand new Dyson V10 for 400€ or less.
1:45 what?? my more than a decade old Karcher vacuum has a better bag system, no mess like this though I rarely use it.
I believe you. However, comparing bagged system vs bagged system is missing the point. All bagged systems are absurd, old-fashioned, and are done better by the best baggless systems on the market. Their advantages are replicated and their disadvantages are avoided. th-cam.com/video/ptN0kkOtGSM/w-d-xo.html
@@VacuumFacts right. it is hard to believe that my two cheap chinese cordless beats my Karcher for dust despite having ridiculous power. suction gets weak and motor heats up once the bag is clogged despite the bag appearing almost empty. thanks for the link, going to watch that!
The only thing the Kärchers are good for is the car spot cleaning and pressure washing, because that's what they were made for. Not a house carpet cleaning. They don't even have a HEPA filter. They look like a HEPA filter for most people but its just a paper filter. And the biggest catch is, where is the motor filter???? Looks like someone should be fired from their company.
@@thisfeatureisbad well its old an old vacuum prior cordless and its a wet/dry vacuum. It is not too bad back in the day.
Totally biased review. My experience shoots this review to pieces. ££??
Pity you didn't state-let alone evidence-any details whatsoever. I usually see this from those who are disgruntled their wonky worldview is in conflict with facts. Everything presented in this complete review is evidenced objectively by contrast, so people can make their own minds up without having to rely on your vague subjective 'experience'. >_>
@@VacuumFacts Without prejudice, your response is the subjective personal attack which I expected from a complete moron...see how it feels?. I am a qualified mechanical design engineer. I have also been a widely experienced published journalist for many years. Watch your own review, then ask yourself "should Shark be paying me more". My opinion remains unchanged by your unconvincing rant.
These style vacuums are only good for wet pickup, IMHO.
With the exception of a flood or something catastrophic, carpet cleaning is better achieved without water: th-cam.com/play/PLBxUOcW7kaEu8EFLi2rq3aU9A1QTQ0Xkp.html
@@VacuumFacts I agree, which is why those style cleaners aren't good on carpet.
@@Boodieman72 ha be careful what you say. There are rabid vacuum enthusiasts out there that will bite your head clean off for saying such things that go against what they want to be true. Although, those unpleasant types have been surprisingly quiet on my channel lately-probably because of the sheer amount of evidence they've been wrong all along. In fairness, the data showed the Henry perform as well as any good mains cleaner with its turbo head, even though it kept getting stuck on carpet and was terribly designed for all the reasons pointed out in the video.
@@VacuumFacts Those style vacuums are called shop vacs (even though there is a brand called that) and are used for picking up large debris like sawdust, nails, etc. They aren't used for cleaning carpets. They also get used for cleaning up water.
@@Boodieman72 Fans would strongly disagree with you. They are actually vacuum cleaners and are designed to do the same job as any cleaner. With the right head, they do it as well as any decent mains cleaner. But there are major practicality and environmental impact issues that are associated with this formfactor and product, as exposed in the video. Those are its biggest weaknesses.
All my work colleagues said buy a Henry because it’s cheap. I want great performance and as less foot print space taken up so Henry is a pass for me.
Don't all Vacumes that use bags contribute to landfill ?
So using this as s Negative against this Range is not Valid
Plus Henry do a Reusable bag that can be washed , so you can use this Machine and not contribute to Landfill , which is I agree very important .
Yes to the first part. The second part is absurdly illogical; you've missed that better designs exist which don't use bags at all, despite it being explicitly pointed out in the video.
@@VacuumFacts
I've used Bagless , I don't like Dyson , which is all I see is Recommendad in this Video .
One of your biggest issues to a lot if the people who have Commented , is how bad bagless Vacuums are for the Environment.
I do not put anything into landfill if I can avoid it ,
I've watched many many reviews on many Models , and every single one has Pros and Cons , even the Dyson ..
And you can buy a Henry that is affordable , starting at €139 here , with a very large capacity , that you can if you choose purchase Reusable bags.. so the Environment Con ..no longer exists , nor does the. Hidden cost over time Con ...
Dyson however. Starts at €400 for it's very basic model , and honestly.not everyone can afford that .
So two of your biggest reasons. Not to purchase this are not 100% valid or accurate. In My personal experience ...
And what is illogically Absurd about a Vacuum Bag that is reusable and washable ???
It's not a new concept , and many Machines use bags like this
My Mum has a model that cost €90 , with a bag you unlock ....Empty...and put back into your Vacuum..
She has had it for about 7 yrs and still works with incredible Suction
Price. does not always equal Quality
@@deannalynch7092 >> “I've used Bagless , I don't like Dyson”
Why?
I’ve seen no evidence reusable bags can be emptied mess-free (feel free to provide some for review). Bagged supporters argue bagless is messy, which it is for the knockoff clones, but not true for Dyson, as evidenced on my channel. I’ve also not seen evidence they don’t lose suction either or don’t suffer from festering smells. The washable idea is interesting. Which do you use and how long do they last? I'd also like ot learn how effective they are at capturing microscopic dust. I agree that new Dyson vacuums are extremely expensive but the best upright discussed in the video is similarly priced to a Henry without the usability drawbacks.
@@VacuumFacts the most expensive Henry I've seen here is €289
The Dyson starts at €400
Please show me the Dyson model that retails at €289 in Ireland ,
As an Asthmatic with an extreme Dust allergy , even inhaling tiny particle means I need to use my Inhaler , so I have gone through many Vacumes , both bagged and Bagless , currently I have a Miele which I can use with no issues or needing to grab my inhaler when emptying ,
Not so with the Bissell One ..
fir me it's not that I don't want dust because it bothers me , I literally can't inhale it without triggering an Asthmatic attack , which is why my Vacuum playlist is huge ....
I need the dust Completely contained , not just whilst using , but especially when emptying ....
My Miele is doing this , but unfortunately the bags are not reusable , which is why I'm researching other options , including Vacumes that use Compostable bags ...
@@deannalynch7092 €299 on their website www.dyson.ie/vacuum-cleaners/uprights/dyson-small-ball-upright/dyson-small-ball-animal-2
It's allergy friendly too. If you have any information on those disposable bags so I can examine just how dusty they are to empty, please send it along. Also if you have any answers to the other questions I asked above.
Oh boy, another 6 minute advertisement for Dyson! Still no particle counter test huh? Yet you have the audacity to talk about filtration like you know a damn!
I think you missed all the facts again. I'd recommend you actually watch the video. Your particle counter test is a silly test and you haven't even explained what you expect it to show, or why there's a need to show it. You might complain, but you certainly aren't leading by example. But trolls never do.
Why don't you test the sealing and filtration on the vacuums using the particle counter while vacuuming fine particles to help your claim so to see if Dyson is better
@@jerrycheese1506 Can you explain why you think a particle counter will achieve what you think you want it to, first? Make sure you fully account for all sources of contamination. Explain why your hypothesis is. Then go look up the tests where people have already done this (e.g. the EU ratings labels for emissions quality) and tell me what they say. Then explain why there's a HEPA version. Then explain why this specific issue is of focus and why you've nothing to say about anything else measured in the video. If you provide a really learned, thorough explanation that holds water, makes total sense, shows you've fully considered everything carefully, I might consider it.
First It will tell us how good is the vacuum is sealed and how good is the HEPA filter the particle counter will have a base start (preferred to have an air filter)for the dust that is already in the air then a pile of fine particles (eg.flour) is vacuumed the particle counter will see how bad does the air get while well tell us how good is the filtering and containing particles in it yes theirs data where it is already tested but why not do it to help you show on you own how good the Dyson is better not only for the environment but also for the air quality and why it is better to pay a bit more to get a better vacuum
I found this th-cam.com/video/Z9HyOy9NrJA/w-d-xo.html
Vacuum bags make up only a minor fraction of the total waste created by people, so an absolute non-argument, especially since a Numatic will last a lifetime, unlike the favorite vacuum of the maker of this video by the way.
This is a flawed and specious argument debunked long ago. Trot along. Your opinions are not accurate or interesting, and you ignore literally everything else factual pointed out in the video...
@@VacuumFactsplease show me the source where this is debunked.
You don't seem to understand the burden of proof. You need to show the evidence that "a Numatic will last a lifetime"-presumably excluding all the disposable, costly ancillaries-and then explain why so many are dumped and why there's evidence that they don't out there on YT. As for "Vacuum bags make up only a minor fraction of the total waste created by people", your claim misses the point entirely. Vacuum bags scale across the globe to make a substantial avoidable waste. And then there's their cumulative carbon footprint in manufacture and distribution. All avoidable, as discussed in the video you don't appear to have watched. You're not being clever here; you just look foolish now.
@@VacuumFactsThe burden of proof is on you my friend, as you’re mentioning the Henry’s environment unfriendliness. Since you claim to state facts only and base everything on data: can you show me the total environmental footprint of let’s say 10 years of Dyson use compared to 10 years of Numatic use (taking in account production, development, production location (Malaysia vs EU), distribution, marketing etc.)?
I would like to see some hard facts at this point, because your claims are wild.
If you can't see that (dust + bag) is worse than (dust alone), then there's no hope for you or point in continuing your troll comment. And then there's literally everything else mentioned in the video you continue to glaze over.