Flawed Vacuum Cleaners.
Question:
Flawed Vacuum Cleaners. The Vacuum Cleaners we use have many major flaws. 1/. They release contaminated air back into the home environment. 2/. They blow dust from furniture allowing it to become air born. 3/. They needlessly waste large amounts energy. The 22 million cleaners used in the UK waste almost all the power taken from UK Wind Farms. 4/. They are noisy and smelly. An alternative to the Vacuum Cleaner exists and has undergone over ten years of testing. But because of the reluctance of cleaner manufacturers to change their designs, I now call for others to help me to impress their Governments on the importance of this project and to spread the information. More information about the "Air Recycling Cleaner" can and be found at, New Web Page. http://www.edginton.info/arc Ben Edginton An Extract from information on the Home page "High-efficiency particulate arrest-filter vacuum cleaners increase personal cat allergen exposure in homes with cats." North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK
Response:
Flawed Vacuum Cleaners. The Vacuum Cleaners we use have many major flaws. 1/. They release contaminated air back into the home environment. 2/. They blow dust from furniture allowing it to become air born. 3/. They needlessly waste large amounts energy. The 22 million cleaners used in the UK waste almost all the power taken from UK Wind Farms. 4/. They are noisy and smelly. An alternative to the Vacuum Cleaner exists and has undergone over ten years of testing. But because of the reluctance of cleaner manufacturers to change their designs, I now call for others to help me to impress their Governments on the importance of this project and to spread the information. More information about the "Air Recycling Cleaner" can and be found at, http://www.edginton.info/project1 http://www.edginton.info/cafc Ben Edginton An Extract from information on the Home page "High-efficiency particulate arrest-filter vacuum cleaners increase personal cat allergen exposure in homes with cats." North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK
Response:
I think you overstate the facts. —- Again!
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Flawed Vacuum Cleaners. > The Vacuum Cleaners we use have many major flaws. > 1/. They release contaminated air back into the home environment. > 2/. They blow dust from furniture allowing it to become air born. > 3/. They needlessly waste large amounts energy. > The 22 million cleaners used in the UK waste almost all the power taken > from UK Wind Farms. > 4/. They are noisy and smelly. > An alternative to the Vacuum Cleaner exists and has undergone over ten years > of testing. > But because of the reluctance of cleaner manufacturers to change their > designs, I now call for others to help me to impress their Governments on > the importance of this project and to spread the information. > More information about the "Air Recycling Cleaner" can and be found at, > http://www.edginton.info/project1 > http://www.edginton.info/cafc > Ben Edginton > An Extract from information on the Home page > "High-efficiency particulate arrest-filter vacuum cleaners increase personal > cat allergen exposure in homes with cats." > North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK
Response:
You forgot , of course, Central house Vacs. And how about the outside venting ones, No dust blown in, all blown outside.. Just to remind you of course.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Flawed Vacuum Cleaners. > The Vacuum Cleaners we use have many major flaws. > 1/. They release contaminated air back into the home environment. > 2/. They blow dust from furniture allowing it to become air born. > 3/. They needlessly waste large amounts energy. > The 22 million cleaners used in the UK waste almost all the power > taken > from UK Wind Farms. > 4/. They are noisy and smelly. > An alternative to the Vacuum Cleaner exists and has undergone over ten > years of testing. > But because of the reluctance of cleaner manufacturers to change their > designs, I now call for others to help me to impress their Governments > on the importance of this project and to spread the information. > More information about the "Air Recycling Cleaner" can and be found > at, http://www.edginton.info/project1 > http://www.edginton.info/cafc > Ben Edginton > An Extract from information on the Home page > "High-efficiency particulate arrest-filter vacuum cleaners increase > personal cat allergen exposure in homes with cats." > North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK
It sounds like whut yall bees describling is one of them thar house cats. Since one of the descriptions is the fact that they blow, perhaps yall could recover some of that thar to regenerate some sort of usefull thang like an air ionizer. Maybe they should have named this group >>> ALT.ENERGY.HOME.ELECTRICAL.POWER DAVE (COB)
Response:
haven’t you spammed usenet enough with this? — Steve Spence Renewable energy and sustainable living http://www.green-trust.org Donate $30 or more to Green Trust, and receive a copy of Joshua Tickell’s "From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank", the premier documentary of biodiesel and vegetable oil powered diesels.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Flawed Vacuum Cleaners. > The Vacuum Cleaners we use have many major flaws. > 1/. They release contaminated air back into the home environment. > 2/. They blow dust from furniture allowing it to become air born. > 3/. They needlessly waste large amounts energy. > The 22 million cleaners used in the UK waste almost all the power taken > from UK Wind Farms. > 4/. They are noisy and smelly. > An alternative to the Vacuum Cleaner exists and has undergone over ten years > of testing. > But because of the reluctance of cleaner manufacturers to change their > designs, I now call for others to help me to impress their Governments on > the importance of this project and to spread the information. > More information about the "Air Recycling Cleaner" can and be found at, > http://www.edginton.info/project1 > http://www.edginton.info/cafc > Ben Edginton > An Extract from information on the Home page > "High-efficiency particulate arrest-filter vacuum cleaners increase personal > cat allergen exposure in homes with cats." > North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK
Response:
>>Flawed Vacuum Cleaners. > Please stop now, before you get as bad as that Feerguy. > Posting the same crap over and over will accomplish nothing, > except to earn you a pathetic kind of fame in the bowels of > a thousand killfiles.
Bjay isn’t reading the newgroup, just posting his spam. Insult him all you want to, the idiot won’t notice. He’s made a trivial change to standard vacuum cleaner design, and is hyping it like crazy hoping to sell cheap underpowered "cleaners" at absurdly inflated prices. CM
Response:
I have only just realized what has been happening Virgin my server have been having trouble and consequently I have only just received all the posting. My replies to news groups did not show up on the news group and I have had to resort to a number of test postings to find this out. I have to apologies for any inconvenience or frustration I have caused. My only purpose is to bring to the attention of mankind a better and safer way of cleaning their home and to save the vast amount of power that is being wasted. Spaming is the last thing I want to inflict on anyone. Bjay – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > haven’t you spammed usenet enough with this? > — > Steve Spence > Renewable energy and sustainable living > http://www.green-trust.org > Donate $30 or more to Green Trust, and receive > a copy of Joshua Tickell’s "From the Fryer to > the Fuel Tank", the premier documentary of > biodiesel and vegetable oil powered diesels. > Flawed Vacuum Cleaners. > The Vacuum Cleaners we use have many major flaws. > 1/. They release contaminated air back into the home environment. > 2/. They blow dust from furniture allowing it to become air born. > 3/. They needlessly waste large amounts energy. > The 22 million cleaners used in the UK waste almost all the power taken > from UK Wind Farms. > 4/. They are noisy and smelly. > An alternative to the Vacuum Cleaner exists and has undergone over ten > years > of testing. > But because of the reluctance of cleaner manufacturers to change their > designs, I now call for others to help me to impress their Governments on > the importance of this project and to spread the information. > More information about the "Air Recycling Cleaner" can and be found at, > http://www.edginton.info/project1 > http://www.edginton.info/cafc > Ben Edginton > An Extract from information on the Home page > "High-efficiency particulate arrest-filter vacuum cleaners increase > personal > cat allergen exposure in homes with cats." > North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Please let me try explain, in the Air Recycling Cleaner because the air is >returned at pressure to the intake of the cleaning head the amount of energy >required to do a given amount of work is reduced. this allows the motor to >be much smaller in size or the power to the motor can be reduced. >In the machine that is shown on my web pages cleaning up a pile of hairs and >dust, the input to the motor is turned down to 250 watts. >because of this the heat that it generates is less than the heat generated >by the 1500 watt plus conventional vacuum cleaners. > I concede it will be reduced, but not by much. You are introducing air > into the atmosphere over various surfaces, dropping the pressure.
I have just pointed out that 1500 watts has been reduced to 250 watts. >The model of cleaner I now use for my prototypes has a paper dust bag, and >because of the smaller motor power and reduced backpressure in the Air >Recycling Cleaner, will separate and contain the dust that becomes suspended >in the air stream. > All filtering systems have their limits, and your PPM of untrapped > microparticles will climb – just as dirt accumulates in the bag > and heat accumulates in the air. >the volume of air drawn into the cleaner is complimented by an equal
amount of air that is returned from the motor. >The expansion chambers compensate for heat expansion caused by any >change of temperature of the air as it passes through the motor. >It has not been found necessary to use independent cooling for the motor. >But surely the Dyson cleaners blow out large volumes of air into the room >and this disturbs dust and germs lying about in the room > That’s an assumption, not a fact. Walking, running, pets, fans, >sea-breezes, children etc, also disturb ‘dust and germs’ lying > about in the room. This Dyson model (DC05) actually blows air > to the rear and slightly upwards.
possibly back towards your face ? I don’t know if you remember the old (GE?) Satellite cleaner – the > globe style that blew air out the bottom. Now *that* really > did disturb the air.
Yes I still have one somewhere probably in the attic collecting dust >The energy waste is a very important to many people who would think >it more important than the health issue.
> >By bringing the two arguments together I hope to encourage >Government action on this matter. > That’s a bad premise for a business model. Fixing two wrongs > won’t make it right for gov’t attention.
Two for the price of one sounds good to me but I will have to wait and see. > Add a solar charger and you might hit gold. After all, there > are many robotic domestic cleaners that don’t use wires.
I think I will stick to what I am doing now if you don’t mind. . >It has taken over ten years to bring it to its present stage and >some of the things you mention were at one time troublesome but >have now been satisfactorily overcome.
I don’t see how you can be so knowledgeable about my Air Recycling Cleaner, as you have never tried one you can only make assumptions about it. But if you ever come this way email me and I will arrange for you to get hands on experience of an air recycling cleaner and I feel sure you would then change your opinion and realise it is a superior cleaner. 1/.No smell, 2/.Light to push, 3/.More work for less power. 4/.Quieter in use. 5./Does not blow air back into the room, 6/.Safe for Asthmatics to use. what more can you want. http://www.edginton.info/project1 http://www.edginton.info/cafc Cheers Ben Edginton
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The Vacuum Cleaners we use have many major flaws. > 1/. They release contaminated air back into the home environment. > 2/. They blow dust from furniture allowing it to become air born. > 3/. They needlessly waste large amounts energy. > 4/. They are noisy and smelly. > Clearly, there are better alternatives than the typical cheap > plastic glorified carpet sweeper that most people seem to > purchase. I don’t think your particular unit is the best > alternative. > Central vacuum systems release contaminated air outside the home > environment. Any air they "blow" (as opposed to "suck") is on > the exhaust side and therefore away from furniture or the inside > air. I don’t know about how much energy they use but since a > vacuum cleaner is used for only brief periods of time this does > not seem very important. In fact, a unit that uses a lot more > power but for much shorter periods of time (say, it has a lot > more suction) would use much less total energy. I don’t think > it’s possible to get a vacuum cleaner without some noise but a > central vac has the power unit in an entirely different part of > the building so I think that’s as close as you can get. Lastly, > no vacuum cleaner should smell. If it does then that indicates > a malfunction of some kind. > Anthony
But they do sell scent sachets to put into the dust container. Thanks for your interest . Ben http://www.edginton.info/project1 http://www.edginton.info/cafc An Extract from information on the Home page "High-efficiency particulate arrest-filter vacuum cleaners increase personal cat allergen exposure in homes with cats." North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK
Response:
>More information about the "Air Recycling Cleaner" can and be found at, >http://www.edginton.info/project1 >http://www.edginton.info/cafc > I don’t buy the argument that recycled air reduces the > power consumption dramatically, and I also don’t see > anywhere that addresses the technical problems that > would be faced by such a cleaner, namely that recycled > air using a traditional motor fan/pass-thru cooling would > overheat in minutes.
Please let me try explain, in the Air Recycling Cleaner because the air is returned at pressure to the intake of the cleaning head the amount of energy required to do a given amount of work is reduced. this allows the motor to be much smaller in size or the powered to the motor can be reduced. In the machine that is shown on my web pages cleaning up a pile of hairs and dust, the input to the motor is turned down to 250 watts. because of this the heat that it generates is less than the heat generated by the 1500 watt plus conventional vacuum cleaners. > Recycled air in a perfectly closed environment will also > heat up, but not to the detriment of the motor if it has > separate cooling. > I didn’t see what your solution for filtering was. A closed > system will gather fine particles and eventually saturate > the air being used. Given that the system is not a perfectly > closed environment, the system will undoubtedly shed air during > operation, and without perfect filtering, leave the usual trace > of microfine particulates in its wake. > I would guess that the system would shed about 20% of the air > volume through various seal and head flow inefficiencies. If it > were pushing through 100cfm, that’s 20cfm of loss.
The model of cleaner I now use for my prototypes has a paper dust bag, and because of the smaller motor power and reduced backpressure in the Air Recycling Cleaner, will separate and contain the dust that becomes suspended in the air stream. In practice there is no shedding of air, the volume of air drawn into the cleaner is complimented by an equal amount of air that is returned from the motor.The expansion chambers compensate for heat expansion caused by any change of temperature of the air as it passes through the motor. It has not been found necessary to use independent cooling for the motor. > The motor load comes from pushing air through a filter, > and no matter what you do about recovering the air, the > filter remains a constant, if not rising load factor. > IMHO, you can’t have a decent recycled air system without > using a cyclone and a really large area HEPA filter to decrease > the pressure and achieve your ‘low consumption’ targets.
–> Research made by the, North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK. Says that. High-efficiency particulate arrest-filter vacuum cleaners increase personal cat allergen exposure in homes with cats. I have pasted a copy with links onto my web pages. Your first step is to licence a proper cyclone from Dyson > and then back it up with an appropriate motor design and > microfine particulate filter, and finally make something > that resembles a steroidal Dyson because of the return > flow tubes.
The cyclone system does nothing special for the air recycling cleaner but I see your point. > I dislike upright cleaners and your designs are nominal. > I’m not saying that it can’t or shouldn’t be done, just > that this isn’t a bolt-on solution and that the demand > will not be universal. You might replace 1 in 50 > cleaners over a decade, and that’s big money if you > create a realistic solution. > But your science and your facts will have to be very > very good indeed to trounce Dyson in the low-emission machine > stakes,
But surely the Dyson cleaners blow out large volumes of air into the room and this disturbs dust and germs lying about in the room >and believe me, Dyson will take your > and give it a lab test to see if it lives up to its > claims.
He has probably already already built and tested an air recycling cleaner but I don’t think he would ever market anything to put his own machine into second place. > And price? Well, that’s another story. I paid 400 pounds > for the Dyson just because of what it was, and I don’t > care if it uses 100W or 2000W providing it performs. > Consumption just isn’t a factor. > All that windmill & windfarm crap is argumentative fluff that > has no bearing at all on the main purpose of the cleaner – > that of providing a contaminant-reducing cleaning system. You > are adding an emotional argument on an already reasonable > position. > You have to decide which is important. Consumption or > contamination.
The energy waste is a very important to many people who would think it more important than the health issue, By bringing the two arguments together I hope to encourage Government action on this matter. Thank you for replying to my posting, I hope I have answered some of your questions, it is difficult to explain to anyone how well this machine works without a demonstration. Forty volunteers tested one in their own home over many weeks. In their written report they said it was better than the machine they normally used , these included Dyson cyclone cleaners It has taken over ten years to bring it to its present stage and some of the things you mention were at one time troublesome but have now been satisfactorily overcome. http://www.edginton.info/project1 http://www.edginton.info/cafc An Extract from information on the Home page "High-efficiency particulate arrest-filter vacuum cleaners increase personal cat allergen exposure in homes with cats." North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK
Response:
>1/.No smell,
Doubtful. When the system shuts off, the overburdened small air volume will leak out, if not by itself when switched off, then when opened up unless you whip it outside just as you turn it off. >2/.Light to push,
Lighter than what? Only the airflow has changed. >3/.More work for less power.
Still not convinced. >4/.Quieter in use.
Well, if you aren’t pumping as much air, of course. >5./Does not blow air back into the room,
Except for 20%, imho. >6/.Safe for Asthmatics to use.
I’m an Asthmatic, they’ve always been safe except for the worst cleaner designs with the most sensitive ‘matics. >what more can you want.
Something more convincing than untested theory. I know you guys have hacked together a prototype or three, but your claims for the possible end product go beyond my assessment of it. So that’s a big IMHO from me and a challenge for you. I say it will leak, it will be of insufficient power and have operational problems from under-engineering. Ask Sir Clive. He knows the ultimate price of under-engineering. His products never lasted in the marketplace. You have to have a concept of what it means to have a 2% return rate for faults, and what a disaster it is to have 10% returned for not performing as claimed. Do you know how traditional makers will combat your model? They’ll simply say that theirs has better suction and a more ‘efficient’ motor with three times the power. For your product to become a defacto standard that people will still buy in 2020 because it satisfies their needs, you have to excel in just one factor that is important to the product. I’m telling you now, it is not the power consumption. The only products I’ve purchased based on consumption are lights. If I was the marketer/investor for this product, I would seize on the most important element of its reason for existence and transform the entire product around that one thing. So, I’ve had my say, you’ve had yours. I’m not saying don’t do it, just to do one thing really well and take the consequences of the pursuit of excellence in one direction as your *next* challenge. S —
Response:
I need to reiterate something I only touched on lightly before… If you recycle the air and your particulate sizes are below your filter’s ability to hold them, they will build up in the air and you’ll have a rather dense few litres of suspended nasties to contend with when you’ve finished. If, however, your filter does trap everything and lets only clean air out, you don’t need to recycle the air, as a simple upward exhaust with a low pressure dissipation will suffice. So I now doubt that the focus was ever on anything as useful as a low-allergy device, but simply on lower power through recycling with a potential ‘bonus’ of helping the allergy stricken. I should’ve worked that out a little quicker that it was an ass-backwards scheme when I first read your Windmill lecture. S —
Response:
>Please let me try explain, in the Air Recycling Cleaner because the air is >returned at pressure to the intake of the cleaning head the amount of energy >required to do a given amount of work is reduced. this allows the motor to >be much smaller in size or the powered to the motor can be reduced. >In the machine that is shown on my web pages cleaning up a pile of hairs and >dust, the input to the motor is turned down to 250 watts. >because of this the heat that it generates is less than the heat generated >by the 1500 watt plus conventional vacuum cleaners.
I concede it will be reduced, but not by much. You are introducing air into the atmosphere over various surfaces, dropping the pressure. There’s no such thing as a "no work" situation as the air velocity will level out according to the overall efficiency of the input and output sides of the airflow loop. Your 250W motor *might* achieve the same as a 500W open in/out cleaner if all design factors were in your favour. As pointed out, however, by one other poster, wattage is not an issue to buyers, and consumption reduction is useful but not mandatory. You need considerable suction to pick up sand and other small/heavy particles. The majority of the wattage goes towards achieving a velocity given the other factors of bag/cyclone/hose/head/fan. The air will heat up and while you might conceivably dissipate enough heat from cooling a small motor, the small volume of recycled air will heat up to an unacceptable level. You just can’t keep adding heat into the loop without taking it out somewhere – hence the need to separate motor cooling from the cycle, as I believe you will find that 250W isn’t enough. >The model of cleaner I now use for my prototypes has a paper dust bag, and >because of the smaller motor power and reduced backpressure in the Air >Recycling Cleaner, will separate and contain the dust that becomes suspended >in the air stream.
All filtering systems have their limits, and your PPM of untrapped microparticles will climb – just as dirt accumulates in the bag and heat accumulates in the air. >In practice there is no shedding of air,
Sorry, but as soon as it enters the atmosphere, turbulence and various low pressure zones will mean that some cycled air will be lost and replaced with external air, plus leakage points. >the volume of air drawn into the >cleaner is complimented by an equal amount of air that is returned from the >motor.The expansion chambers compensate for heat expansion caused by any >change of temperature of the air as it passes through the motor. >It has not been found necessary to use independent cooling for the motor. >But surely the Dyson cleaners blow out large volumes of air into the room >and this disturbs dust and germs lying about in the room
That’s an assumption, not a fact. Walking, running, pets, fans, sea-breezes, children etc, also disturb ‘dust and germs’ lying about in the room. This Dyson model (DC05) actually blows air to the rear and slightly upwards. I don’t know if you remember the old (GE?) Satellite cleaner – the globe style that blew air out the bottom. Now *that* really did disturb the air. >The energy waste is a very important to many people who would think >it more important than the health issue. >By bringing the two arguments together I hope to encourage >Government action on this matter.
That’s a bad premise for a business model. Fixing two wrongs won’t make it right for gov’t attention. The right way to marketing is to solve the most popular problem as step one and sell it. Then introduce a low power model as step two if you can retain the effiencies of the first model. Add a solar charger and you might hit gold. After all, there are many robotic domestic cleaners that don’t use wires. >It has taken over ten years to bring it to its present stage and >some of the things you mention were at one time troublesome but >have now been satisfactorily overcome.
Perhaps, but you are assuming rather much. I’d like to hear your method of proof for 100% containment, because that’s the biggest claim you have that will be shot down in the first lab test. S —
Response:
> The Vacuum Cleaners we use have many major flaws. > 1/. They release contaminated air back into the home environment. > 2/. They blow dust from furniture allowing it to become air born. > 3/. They needlessly waste large amounts energy. > 4/. They are noisy and smelly.
Clearly, there are better alternatives than the typical cheap plastic glorified carpet sweeper that most people seem to purchase. I don’t think your particular unit is the best alternative. Central vacuum systems release contaminated air outside the home environment. Any air they "blow" (as opposed to "suck") is on the exhaust side and therefore away from furniture or the inside air. I don’t know about how much energy they use but since a vacuum cleaner is used for only brief periods of time this does not seem very important. In fact, a unit that uses a lot more power but for much shorter periods of time (say, it has a lot more suction) would use much less total energy. I don’t think it’s possible to get a vacuum cleaner without some noise but a central vac has the power unit in an entirely different part of the building so I think that’s as close as you can get. Lastly, no vacuum cleaner should smell. If it does then that indicates a malfunction of some kind. Anthony
Response:
>More information about the "Air Recycling Cleaner" can and be found at, >http://www.edginton.info/project1 >http://www.edginton.info/cafc
I don’t buy the argument that recycled air reduces the power consumption dramatically, and I also don’t see anywhere that addresses the technical problems that would be faced by such a cleaner, namely that recycled air using a traditional motor fan/pass-thru cooling would overheat in minutes. Recycled air in a perfectly closed environment will also heat up, but not to the detriment of the motor if it has separate cooling. I didn’t see what your solution for filtering was. A closed system will gather fine particles and eventually saturate the air being used. Given that the system is not a perfectly closed environment, the system will undoubtedly shed air during operation, and without perfect filtering, leave the usual trace of microfine particulates in its wake. I would guess that the system would shed about 20% of the air volume through various seal and head flow inefficiencies. If it were pushing through 100cfm, that’s 20cfm of loss. The motor load comes from pushing air through a filter, and no matter what you do about recovering the air, the filter remains a constant, if not rising load factor. IMHO, you can’t have a decent recycled air system without using a cyclone and a really large area HEPA filter to decrease the pressure and achieve your ‘low consumption’ targets. Your first step is to licence a proper cyclone from Dyson and then back it up with an appropriate motor design and microfine particulate filter, and finally make something that resembles a steroidal Dyson because of the return flow tubes. I dislike upright cleaners and your designs are nominal. I’m not saying that it can’t or shouldn’t be done, just that this isn’t a bolt-on solution and that the demand will not be universal. You might replace 1 in 50 cleaners over a decade, and that’s big money if you create a realistic solution. But your science and your facts will have to be very very good indeed to trounce Dyson in the low-emission stakes, and believe me, Dyson will take your machine and give it a lab test to see if it lives up to its claims. And price? Well, that’s another story. I paid 400 pounds for the Dyson just because of what it was, and I don’t care if it uses 100W or 2000W providing it performs. Consumption just isn’t a factor. All that windmill & windfarm crap is argumentative fluff that has no bearing at all on the main purpose of the cleaner – that of providing a contaminant-reducing cleaning system. You are adding an emotional argument on an already reasonable position. You have to decide which is important. Consumption or contamination. That’s my opinion on your proposition. S —
Response:
Flawed Vacuum Cleaners. The Vacuum Cleaners we use have many major flaws. 1/. They release contaminated air back into the home environment. 2/. They blow dust from furniture allowing it to become air born. 3/. They needlessly waste large amounts energy. The 22 million cleaners used in the UK waste almost all the power taken from UK Wind Farms. 4/. They are noisy and smelly. An alternative to the Vacuum Cleaner exists and has undergone over ten years of testing. But because of the reluctance of cleaner manufacturers to change their designs, I now call for others to help me to impress their Governments on the importance of this project and to spread the information. More information about the "Air Recycling Cleaner" can and be found at, http://www.edginton.info/project1 http://www.edginton.info/cafc Ben Edginton An Extract from information on the Home page "High-efficiency particulate arrest-filter vacuum cleaners increase personal cat allergen exposure in homes with cats." North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK
Response:
I never vacuum. Some people are still living in the 20th century. Just set your phasor to clean and zap that dust away. Even Tesla used free energy to zap his dust away. The truth is out there, just ask George Bush.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Flawed Vacuum Cleaners. > The Vacuum Cleaners we use have many major flaws. > 1/. They release contaminated air back into the home environment. > 2/. They blow dust from furniture allowing it to become air born. > 3/. They needlessly waste large amounts energy. > The 22 million cleaners used in the UK waste almost all the power taken > from UK Wind Farms. > 4/. They are noisy and smelly. > An alternative to the Vacuum Cleaner exists and has undergone over ten years > of testing.
Response:
Related Posts