Next EU Meddling Target: Vacuum Cleaners
Discussion
paranoid airbag said:
So your hand uses tens of watts at most, to the same effect as a device consuming 2000.
Tell me again how that doesn't lead you to the conclusion that your hitachi is inefficient.
I can wash my clothes by hand as well - it's not very efficient on time though - energy used = power X time (as has been mentioned several times on this thread). It's general rollocks like this which will sink the EU further into the productivity quagmire versus the US / Asia - legislation without accountability on a continental scale.Tell me again how that doesn't lead you to the conclusion that your hitachi is inefficient.
Oops .. I meant without accountability!
Edited by fido on Friday 22 August 12:48
sirbadger said:
Derek Smith said:
Was told to try for a month and then, if it didn't show its worth, he'd replace it. After a fortnight we decided it was what we wanted. That was around 5 years ago and it is still at full suck. We've been in a smaller, 3 bed, place for 2 years now and 1300W is over-powered.
I have to ask.. How can a hoover be fine for a 4 bed house but too powerful for a 2 bed house? Are you worried that due to the smaller rooms it's likely to suck up furniture as its in closer proximity to it? 
I've just checked - my wife reckons that it's the best vacuum cleaner we've ever had. I say we, but she won't let me use it to clean my cars, so I've had to buy a portable one.
turbobloke said:
Your point, and I quote but with my emphasis added, was that "If UKIP did a fair job of representing facts and figures accurately, I'd give them a lot more credit..." The figure of 2% for the UK's share of global emissions of carbon dioxide as represented in the first chart is accurate.
To be fair to my original statement about facts and figures - maybe I wasn't clear - I was referring to UKIP's reporting on European related numbers (costs, loss of jobs, etc...) which are typically wildly inaccurate and sensational. Other parties are equally bad at this of course.turbobloke said:
Which is all irrelevant, as the point being made by UKIP was to indicate that the total UK national share of global emissions is a paltry 2%. You clearly need to read the full document rather than latch onto the first chart and run off at a tangent.
I did read the whole document and found the first chart misleading, there are more examples throughout. It's obvious that we produce less CO2 than larger countries, but we also produce more than similar sized advanced countries. Conveniently ignoring that fact makes us look good right ?turbobloke said:
The amount per capita is irrelevant. In the junkscience of mammadeup warming, the planet doesn't care whether a nation's emissions emanated from one very person in a very emissionary position or 60 million persons.
I totally agree, the planet doesn't care and I'm not debating that overall China, India and the US produce more than us, the point was (except for the US) that we have a greater individual impact and if all modern countries make a small contribution towards improvement, the overall effect will be more than 2% and could actually start to make a difference. turbobloke said:
The numbers support the UKIP argument that wholesale destruction of the UK economy on the back of a myth that doesn't stack up is pointless when, for example, if we stopped all tax gas output overnight, the rate of increase in China's emissions would wipe out our token gesture in about 2 years. At which point we would have regressed to a localised medieval lifestyle with an appalling death toll for no reason.
Really ??? I thought we were having a semblant of a reasonable discussion and that's just killed it. Isn't that a little too sensational and unrealistic ? As for wholesale destruction of our economy, nobody's yet answered how Numatic would fare with their UK specification super-powerful Henrys. They couldn't sell them into Europe without meeting euro regulations, I guess they would simply accept the loss of revenue, and loss of jobs to follow. Unless they sold them to China and India however unlikely that is.turbobloke said:
oyster said:
currybum said:
fido said:
not some meddling twunt from Brussels.
Sometimes its like a Dailymail reader / UKIP swingers party in here.
That's different though, as it would be a meddling twunt in Westminster, and we have more of a chance of putting them out of a job than unelected meddling twunts of the EU variety.
It seems people prefer moaning than acting.
Then there's the automatic assumption that EU=bad.
hairyben said:
What irritates me is if the EUocrats wanted to help the environment and or increase efficiency, then they could simply make every vacuum (and every other appliance) come with an unconditional 10 yr warranty and product support. End the whole throw-it-away and buy another culture. but that would mean growing balls, standing up and upsetting the gravy train instead of pretending-to-care plastic policy'd tinkering parasitic skimming flotsam that they are.
You could leverage that criticism to our own government, they have the power to legislate but won't, so it's not just the EuroCrats now is it ?fido said:
I can wash my clothes by hand as well - it's not very efficient on time though - energy used = power X time (as has been mentioned several times on this thread). It's general rollocks like this which will sink the EU further into the productivity quagmire versus the US / Asia - legislation with accountability on a continental scale.
Thanks, I know about that relation, and someimtes teach it my in spare time (no offence taken though). However I wouldn't have thought it under question that it doesn't require twenty times as long to do by hand, which is what would be needed for break-even. And that's with frankly quite a high estimate of how much effort a human would be putting in.Sorry but I'm going to disagree, what sinks productivity is inefficient use of resources (inc. energy), and complacency. Why on earth should companies not be striving to at least match the efficiency of a human being at this? Even that's a fairly modest goal really, humans weren't designed for the task. It's simply not credible that current machines are even nearly the best we can do.
And large-scale accountability is usually easier for a multinational - the alternative is usually multiple accountabilities, which drives up dev costs (although sometimes, that also prevents cycle-beating behaviours).
budgie smuggler said:
mikesalt said:
hairyben said:
What irritates me is if the EUocrats wanted to help the environment and or increase efficiency, then they could simply make every vacuum (and every other appliance) come with an unconditional 10 yr warranty and product support. End the whole throw-it-away and buy another culture. but that would mean growing balls, standing up and upsetting the gravy train instead of pretending-to-care plastic policy'd tinkering parasitic skimming flotsam that they are.
That is a damn fine suggestion, add 'user servicability' amongst that legislation and end the waste. I kid you not, my folks were going to throw away a Flymo because the blade was blunted and the bolt was stuck tight. I offered to take it off their hands, loosened the bolt, touched up the blade on the bench grinder and re-assembled - free lawn mower! I get quite sick of this 'throw it away because it's broken' culture. I've got a perfectly good garage vacuum cleaner at the moment because its previous owner threw it out due to a non-functioning brush-bar.If i'd had to replace those items when the batteries died, I would have had less than half the life out of them I've had.
e.g. my parents, normally tightwads, with a 5-6 yr old desktop they use for web browsing and basic excel. A few choice updates (e.g. SSD), be fine for probably another 6 years (funnily enough given this thread, if there was a reason to change it would be for something like an NUC, achieving the same tasks with less power and space). They don't leave the house often nor need to be particularly mobile within it, and have an iPad.
So naturally, they want a laptop. Almost certainly a cheap one, that'll break within 3 years and be next to impossible to get parts for. It's just ingrained, like the people who spend £20k on a new diesel they use for shopping runs "to save money".
hairyben said:
What irritates me is if the EUocrats wanted to help the environment and or increase efficiency, then they could simply make every vacuum (and every other appliance) come with an unconditional 10 yr warranty and product support. End the whole throw-it-away and buy another culture. but that would mean growing balls, standing up and upsetting the gravy train instead of pretending-to-care plastic policy'd tinkering parasitic skimming flotsam that they are.
That would put James Dyson and his crappy vacuums out of business very quickly!matchmaker said:
That would put James Dyson and his crappy vacuums out of business very quickly!
out of interest, how so?I have had 3 dysons so far, still have them all (original one reserved for workshop use now), yes, they have broken a few bits over the years, but their warranty is superb (as in next day parts to the door and a man to fit if you want).
they are easy to use, very easy to clean, and in ~20 years I reckon I have spent less than £30 to keep them running (odd belts and 1 brush bar)
I also have a henry, and whilst it's OK, for carpets etc, the dyson is way ahead and a lot less agricultural, the henry only used as a dust extractor for a sand-blasting cabinet these days.
thefrog said:
hairyben said:
What irritates me is if the EUocrats wanted to help the environment and or increase efficiency, then they could simply make every vacuum (and every other appliance) come with an unconditional 10 yr warranty and product support. End the whole throw-it-away and buy another culture. but that would mean growing balls, standing up and upsetting the gravy train instead of pretending-to-care plastic policy'd tinkering parasitic skimming flotsam that they are.
You could leverage that criticism to our own government, they have the power to legislate but won't, so it's not just the EuroCrats now is it ?
t, tends to be peddled by said chapter and rubber stamped by the acting divisional manager (UK), currently comrade camaron&co (This is an observation rather than a political point..)Scuffers said:
matchmaker said:
That would put James Dyson and his crappy vacuums out of business very quickly!
out of interest, how so?I have had 3 dysons so far, still have them all (original one reserved for workshop use now), yes, they have broken a few bits over the years, but their warranty is superb (as in next day parts to the door and a man to fit if you want).
they are easy to use, very easy to clean, and in ~20 years I reckon I have spent less than £30 to keep them running (odd belts and 1 brush bar)
I also have a henry, and whilst it's OK, for carpets etc, the dyson is way ahead and a lot less agricultural, the henry only used as a dust extractor for a sand-blasting cabinet these days.
Derek Smith said:
We used to live in a large 4-bed place with a great deal of floor area. We always bought powerful vacuum cleaners, at least going by the wattage. They tended to last 3 or 4 years. A couple were less than reliable and so we asked advice and were told to opt for a SEBO. I was stunned when the chap suggested the 1300W would be the best buy.
Was told to try for a month and then, if it didn't show its worth, he'd replace it. After a fortnight we decided it was what we wanted. That was around 5 years ago and it is still at full suck. We've been in a smaller, 3 bed, place for 2 years now and 1300W is over-powered.
If Sebo can do it with 1300W then so can other companies.
I agree that governments should keep their noses out of my life but I can't see the problem with this restriction.
In that case I guess you'd agree with a ban on all cars over 2 litres? Why on earth would anyone need a car with. 4 litre engine?Was told to try for a month and then, if it didn't show its worth, he'd replace it. After a fortnight we decided it was what we wanted. That was around 5 years ago and it is still at full suck. We've been in a smaller, 3 bed, place for 2 years now and 1300W is over-powered.
If Sebo can do it with 1300W then so can other companies.
I agree that governments should keep their noses out of my life but I can't see the problem with this restriction.
If you want to get a snapshot of how stupid (including radio show hosts) are, switch on radio 2 and listen to the Jeremy Vine show.
Caller 1: it's such a waste, what about all the hoovers in warehouses and for sale on ebay thay will just end up in landfill
Industry expert: it's OK, basically you won't go to prison for using your powerful vacuum cleaner. All cleaners which have been made are OK to use, sell etc
Caller 2: I can't afford to buy a new vacuum cleaner by the 9th of September
Jeremy Vine (when told all Dysons are under the new limit) repeatedly says "What if Dyson's aren't powerful enough though"
He also seems to equate noise with power. A patient caller then explained that noise has nothing to do with it and is due to air disruption cause by more fans
The general gist is "HOW DARE THEY TAKE OUR VACUUM CLEANERS", as is typical of tabloid, rabble-rousing journalists who's main aim is to get the uninformed to spout off without knowledge of the subject ignorant of laws and how it actually affects them.
Caller 1: it's such a waste, what about all the hoovers in warehouses and for sale on ebay thay will just end up in landfill
Industry expert: it's OK, basically you won't go to prison for using your powerful vacuum cleaner. All cleaners which have been made are OK to use, sell etc
Caller 2: I can't afford to buy a new vacuum cleaner by the 9th of September
Jeremy Vine (when told all Dysons are under the new limit) repeatedly says "What if Dyson's aren't powerful enough though"
He also seems to equate noise with power. A patient caller then explained that noise has nothing to do with it and is due to air disruption cause by more fans
The general gist is "HOW DARE THEY TAKE OUR VACUUM CLEANERS", as is typical of tabloid, rabble-rousing journalists who's main aim is to get the uninformed to spout off without knowledge of the subject ignorant of laws and how it actually affects them.
currybum said:
When you have populations in the hundreds of millions small changes really do make a decent sized impact.
Impact on what, saving the planet, or reducing our own personal electric bills? If they are trying to reduce consumption then why not do something as simple as force business office blocks to turn off all lights at night when they are empty? You only have to look across any city to see a gazillion lights on all over business blocks, all night long.
JensenA said:
In that case I guess you'd agree with a ban on all cars over 2 litres? Why on earth would anyone need a car with. 4 litre engine?
Why should you think that? There's nothing in my post to suggest that. Why do posters try to prove a point by trying to change what others say?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff