The Vacuum Cleaner Police Are Coming

[Executive Sadman]

Good post over at Simple Living in Suffolk about this very topic - Self-seeking vacuum cleaner manufacturers lambast energy efficiency moves.

Its not good. Its the ramblings of a fascist twit whose sole reasoning is 'you don't need' it.

Nor do you 'need' the internet. Or more than one room. Or much more than 1000 calories a day if you limit your activity.

What kind of totalitarian nut thinks 'you don't need' something is ever an acceptable reason to ban anything.

In a morally just world, people would go round his place and empty his house of things he 'doesn't need'

What right does he or anyone else have to tell anyone they cant have what they 'don't need'?

[wish I could afford one]

Its not good. Its the ramblings of a fascist twit whose sole reasoning is 'you don't need' it.

Nor do you 'need' the internet. Or more than one room. Or much more than 1000 calories a day if you limit your activity.

What kind of totalitarian nut thinks 'you don't need' something is ever an acceptable reason to ban anything.

In a morally just world, people would go round his place and empty his house of things he 'doesn't need'

What right does he or anyone else have to tell anyone they cant have what they 'don't need'?

Whatever happened to healthy debate on this site... Once upon a time we used to be able to express different viewpoints without name calling or challenging each others way of life giving us all the opportunity to think about different ways... Apparently those days are fast disappearing... Have you taken some time to read through some of the other content on that site or did you read the first paragraph and just get angry? I happen to respect a lot, not all but a lot, of what Ermine has to say.

I'm the first to suggest that in a lot of areas the EU has lost the plot but in other areas I also respect what it's trying to achieve with regulation. One simple example is the CE mark which is trying to ensure a minimum level of product safety or would you prefer your children to choke on a part that has broken off that unregulated toy? How about your new TV catching fire and burning your house down because it doesn't meet an EU Directive? Or what about all those emissions and heavy particulates polluting your and your families life because "what right does he or anyone else have to tell anyone they cant have what they 'don't need'?"

My view is that done well regulation can spur innovation and make a better life for the current but importantly future generations. Done badly and it can destroy economies.

[BalancedBear]

 

Its not good. Its the ramblings of a fascist twit whose sole reasoning is 'you don't need' it.

Nor do you 'need' the internet. Or more than one room. Or much more than 1000 calories a day if you limit your activity.

What kind of totalitarian nut thinks 'you don't need' something is ever an acceptable reason to ban anything.

In a morally just world, people would go round his place and empty his house of things he 'doesn't need'

What right does he or anyone else have to tell anyone they cant have what they 'don't need'?

 

Spot - on. I can understand efficiency ratings, but not a cap on power output. What next? A maximum amount of power from car engines? Max size of a tv screen? How about a maximum size of kettle, enough for only one cup of tea? (most people waste power heating too much water).

The push to electric cars and plug-in hybrids is going to consume and waste far more power I would think. Unless we use solely renewable electricity production, there is no point burning fuel to generate electricity to send over grids to then charge batteries to power cars. It is more efficient to burn the fuel in an efficient car directly.

[Giraffe]

This is just the initial suck up

I think that stage II of the EU legislation is to cut the power to a max of 900W

Yes September 2017 the max power must be 900w or less.

I find it hard to believe the EU did not test "dust loaded" machines. Until we see the results of such tests the legislation could actually increase energy consumption.

But I suppose if we all spend 3 times as long vacuuming each day we will have less time to spend on rabble-rousing websites like this, discussing the Brussels EU mong farm.

[Rave]

I'm yet another person who thinks this is nonsense. I'm a tightwad and I don't like wasting electricity, but I also want a vacuum cleaner that works well, and quickly. If a manufacturer developed a vacuum cleaner that worked as well as rival models while consuming 25% less power, then I would buy that one when my current one needs replacing. I don't need the EU compelling me to do so.

Edit to say- does anyone know how 'bagless' type cleaners compare to bagged ones? It may be that swirling the air around to make the dust fall out of it actually uses quite a bit of power- in which case we could see baggy hoovers make a comeback...

Unless we use solely renewable electricity production, there is no point burning fuel to generate electricity to send over grids to then charge batteries to power cars. It is more efficient to burn the fuel in an efficient car directly.

My emphasis. Actually I'd say that if we got to 50% of energy production being renewable then electric cars start to make a lot more sense.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Rave

[Executive Sadman]

Whatever happened to healthy debate on this site... Once upon a time we used to be able to express different viewpoints without name calling or challenging each others way of life giving us all the opportunity to think about different ways... Apparently those days are fast disappearing... Have you taken some time to read through some of the other content on that site or did you read the first paragraph and just get angry? I happen to respect a lot, not all but a lot, of what Ermine has to say.

I'm the first to suggest that in a lot of areas the EU has lost the plot but in other areas I also respect what it's trying to achieve with regulation. One simple example is the CE mark which is trying to ensure a minimum level of product safety or would you prefer your children to choke on a part that has broken off that unregulated toy? How about your new TV catching fire and burning your house down because it doesn't meet an EU Directive? Or what about all those emissions and heavy particulates polluting your and your families life because "what right does he or anyone else have to tell anyone they cant have what they 'don't need'?"

My view is that done well regulation can spur innovation and make a better life for the current but importantly future generations. Done badly and it can destroy economies.

Healthy debate is he doesn't have to have one if he doesn't want one. Healthy debate is him shouting from the rooftops that other people shouldn't have them, but not praising the EU for using force and violence to prevent anyone from having one.

If the EU actually wanted to reduce energy consumption or limit emissions they would ban ANY imports from outside the EU that aren't produced in a carbon neutral factory.

That they haven't done that is clear evidence they simply want to assert their dominance over people.

[Steppenpig]

Good post over at Simple Living in Suffolk about this very topic - Self-seeking vacuum cleaner manufacturers lambast energy efficiency moves.

It seems like dyson may have a specific issue with favouring more power, but for the manufacturers in general, it is win-win. One half of the population will rush to buy up the old models, and a lot in the other half will probably think, if there's a law about it, then they ought to throw out their old model and buy a new low powered one. In addition they can stick a "green" tag on their products. And afterwards there is no long term negative consequences, in fact they may be able to save a bit on research and development that was looking at more powerful motors.

They will have been actively lobbying and back-handering the eu-troughers and selling it as "doing their bit" for the environment

[Steppenpig]

I find it hard to believe the EU did not test "dust loaded" machines. Until we see the results of such tests the legislation could actually increase energy consumption.

Did they actually do research on any products? My default starting assumption would be that it would be energy neutral, i.e., halving the power would result in a doubling of the time required to achieve the same cleanness, same energy use.

Obviously there are a lot of factors that would need be added in, and it's quite possible that more powerful ones are overall less efficient, but equally it wouldn't surprise me if they turned out to be more efficient.

[Democorruptcy]

It cannot be energy neutral.

With a 1600 you can spend hours, days, weeks even forever trying to suck up those black bits off your socks.

That will be the EU's next move. Carpets with black bits in must be replaced annually.

My advice... from now on only buy socks that match your carpet colour.

[Caravan Monster]

I suspect this only applies to domestic vacuums. Some smaller industrial vacuums are similar price to domestic and made from better components, so there will probably be a loophole there for anyone wanting extra cleaning power at home. Was talking to a stove fitter the other day who was very pleased with his triple motored vacuum that could suck brick ends up it's 4" pipe and had accidently removed a customer's living room curtains when he started it a bit too nearby

[alexw]

Did they actually do research on any products? My default starting assumption would be that it would be energy neutral, i.e., halving the power would result in a doubling of the time required to achieve the same cleanness, same energy use.

Obviously there are a lot of factors that would need be added in, and it's quite possible that more powerful ones are overall less efficient, but equally it wouldn't surprise me if they turned out to be more efficient.

Why would it? The stuff you want to vacuum up lies on top of the carpet fibres. Thus all you really need is a fairly gentle suction to vacuum it up.

Granted there is some stuff that gets trapped and entangled with the carpet fibres (we've all seen bits that seem to be sticky when hoovering), but its the rotating brushes that free those not the air flow.

The error people here are making is confusing the rate of air flow with cleaning power. We measure the efficiency of vacuum cleaners as air watts - the amount of air pulled in per watt of power, but this doesn't really tell us anything about cleaning power. It tells us how good it is at sucking in air and not what % of dust/etc is removed from the carpet.

Here's a test for those of you with two vacuum cleaners of different power ratings but that are fairly similar in other ways. Vaccum a room with the lower power vaccum cleaner, then go over it with higher one. See how much dust/etc is collected in the second one vs the first.

[Steppenpig]

That will be the EU's next move. Carpets with black bits in must be replaced annually.

My advice... from now on only buy socks that match your carpet colour.

Stage IV: Carpet colours restricted to shades of "Dust". Wearing of socks indoors banned.

[wish I could afford one]

Healthy debate is he doesn't have to have one if he doesn't want one. Healthy debate is him shouting from the rooftops that other people shouldn't have them, but not praising the EU for using force and violence to prevent anyone from having one.

Having written a personal viewpoint, on a site that he owns, which you don't have to read, is hardly "shouting from the rooftops" IMHO. I happen to like the site because Ermine always gives a different perspective to things which I enjoy. That perspective is also usually very different to the MSM and all the Advertising £'s that go with it. It was me who provided the link simply because it is in opposition to a lot of the prior posts. A different opinion providing food for thought.

If the EU actually wanted to reduce energy consumption or limit emissions they would ban ANY imports from outside the EU that aren't produced in a carbon neutral factory.

That they haven't done that is clear evidence they simply want to assert their dominance over people.

I don't know enough about it to comment on what they are trying to achieve. I just know I'm always wary of leaping to conclusions without full knowledge of both sides of the story.

[gf3]

well this thread has cost me £149 today

[gf3]

[gf3]

[snowflux]

I'd make more sense to discourage the use of energy-intensive appliances through taxation rather than banning them, but this is politically impossible because of the usual suspects screaming about green taxes. So banning it is, unfortunately.

[little fish]

If they have to do something why not do something useful? Cold fill washing machines for instance. Far as I can figure out, it saves the manufacturers money to make cold fill machines but costs us a small fortune to heat the water for each wash. If you already have a tank of hot water why can machines not use it?

[gf3]

If they have to do something why not do something useful? Cold fill washing machines for instance. Far as I can figure out, it saves the manufacturers money to make cold fill machines but costs us a small fortune to heat the water for each wash. If you already have a tank of hot water why can machines not use it?

I used to think this. However a lot of washing machines today use very little water. If you run a hot tap it takes a little while before the hot water starts coming through. By that time the washing machine is full and all the hot water is going cold in the pipes.

[Democorruptcy]

I'd make more sense to discourage the use of energy-intensive appliances through taxation rather than banning them, but this is politically impossible because of the usual suspects screaming about green taxes. So banning it is, unfortunately.

Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious

[little fish]

I used to think this. However a lot of washing machines today use very little water. If you run a hot tap it takes a little while before the hot water starts coming through. By that time the washing machine is full and all the hot water is going cold in the pipes.

I went off on a mission and found this http://www.whitegoodshelp.co.uk/cold-fill-washing-machines/ Pros and cons of cold and hot wash. Seems you are right as the majority of people seem to benefit from a cold wash fill machine. Unfortunately I'm not one of them. Interesting though, I have learnt something.

[oracle]

Great idea. It will encourage the development of more efficient machines that use less energy and at the same time get fat UK women a bit less fat.

ruthlessly backed up by the anti-obesity police who sentence offenders with x amount of kilowatt-hours in community service, running on treadmills connected to the national grid.

(actually not such a bad idea, you see all these numpties spending £50 a month on gym membership and just wasting their energy- maybe when times get a bit tougher david lloyd will drop the price and apply for a feed-in-tariff!!)

I can see it now!!!..eco-gym's are the next big thing!(bugger,I'm far too altruistic,I should have gone on dragon's den with this concept!!)

they can even hold competitions as to which site produces the most per week(with a small prize as compensation)

Edited August 25, 2014 by oracle

[BalancedBear]

Why would it? The stuff you want to vacuum up lies on top of the carpet fibres. Thus all you really need is a fairly gentle suction to vacuum it up.

Granted there is some stuff that gets trapped and entangled with the carpet fibres (we've all seen bits that seem to be sticky when hoovering), but its the rotating brushes that free those not the air flow.

The error people here are making is confusing the rate of air flow with cleaning power. We measure the efficiency of vacuum cleaners as air watts - the amount of air pulled in per watt of power, but this doesn't really tell us anything about cleaning power. It tells us how good it is at sucking in air and not what % of dust/etc is removed from the carpet.

Here's a test for those of you with two vacuum cleaners of different power ratings but that are fairly similar in other ways. Vaccum a room with the lower power vaccum cleaner, then go over it with higher one. See how much dust/etc is collected in the second one vs the first.

I did exactly this. We had an older Dyson which my wife was given. It was supposed to be good, but I never thought much of it. I bought a 2300 watt bagless philips from France (could not buy it here) with 400 air watts suction power. When I got it, I went through the room again right after using the Dyson. I filled the entire dust container doing the one room. It is the best and sucks like no other domestic hoover I have used before. Suction power does matter very much indeed.

[Steppenpig]

Why would it? The stuff you want to vacuum up lies on top of the carpet fibres. Thus all you really need is a fairly gentle suction to vacuum it up.

Granted there is some stuff that gets trapped and entangled with the carpet fibres (we've all seen bits that seem to be sticky when hoovering), but its the rotating brushes that free those not the air flow.

The error people here are making is confusing the rate of air flow with cleaning power. We measure the efficiency of vacuum cleaners as air watts - the amount of air pulled in per watt of power, but this doesn't really tell us anything about cleaning power. It tells us how good it is at sucking in air and not what % of dust/etc is removed from the carpet.

Here's a test for those of you with two vacuum cleaners of different power ratings but that are fairly similar in other ways. Vaccum a room with the lower power vaccum cleaner, then go over it with higher one. See how much dust/etc is collected in the second one vs the first.

I didn't see your post earlier. You may, or may not be correct. But you are just assuming it be so based on your application of common sense. But it's a very significant decision affecting hundreds of millions of people and billions of pounds/euros of purchases. Isn't it worth spending a few tens of thousands of pounds (probably less than one mep's annual expenses) to have some proper studies done? Don't the assessments done by "Which" carry any weight? Can't we have decisions based on actual studies rather than on the assumptions of unqualifed amateurs under the influence of lobbying.

Just to give a counter-example to your observation. It's possible to conceive a a vacuum with a motor so weak, say 10w that it doesn't pick up dust at all, so increasing the power to 100w, to the point it actually started working, would be an infinite increase in efficiency. I don't know all the factors that are necessary to consider, and I assume you don't either, and I assume the eu parlamentarians certainly don't know.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Steppenpig

[snowflux]

I didn't see your post earlier. You may, or may not be correct. But you are just assuming it be so based on your application of common sense. But it's a very significant decision affecting hundreds of millions of people and billions of pounds/euros of purchases. Isn't it worth spending a few tens of thousands of pounds (probably less than one mep's annual expenses) to have some proper studies done? Don't the assessments done by "Which" carry any weight? Can't we have decisions based on actual studies rather than on the assumptions of unqualifed amateurs under the influence of lobbying.

Just to give a counter-example to your observation. It's possible to conceive a a vacuum with a motor so weak, say 10w that it doesn't pick up dust at all, so increasing the power to 100w, to the point it actually started working, would be an infinite increase in efficiency. I don't know all the factors that are necessary to consider, and I assume you don't either, and I assume the eu parlamentarians certainly don't know.

They don't just do this sort of thing on a whim to annoy Daily Mail and Telegraph readers. Of course they have proper studies done beforehand:

Work on Preparatory Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs (II)

Lot 17 Vacuum Cleaners

TREN/D3/390-2006

Final Report