The new reduced wattage Numatic Henry with a wattage of 580 watts has 10% more suction than the old model with a 1200 watt motor. It's been re-designed in line with the new EU regulation and shows what can be achieved. It's been on sale in John Lewis for a while as Numatic John and Numatic Lewis versions and I've heard good reviews.
Maybe not, but I wasn't willing to take the chance. I need suction .... lots of it.
What you need when purchasing a vacuum cleaner is a specification entry for suction power rather than power usage which is irrelevant to you other than the cost of running the device. The entry for this should be specified as "air watts".
Lesser wattage hoovers will not necessarily have less suction, they just waste less energy on heat and noise.
That's completely incorrect.
A more powerful motor costs more to make, manufacturers only spend that money because you cannot have powerful suction without a powerful motor.
The idea that the difference between 2000W and 1600W is "waste" is nonsense. Pseudo-science is what it is.
In the case of lamps there was a valid argument to go with "lower wattage" bulbs. But the important part was not the wattage, it was the fact that new technology allowed lower wattage with (nearly) no loss of brightness. This is not the case with vacuum cleaners.
There is NO new technology for electric motors in vacuum cleaners. No efficiency gains. All there will be is significantly less suction.
I hate the EU's interfering ways, but they have a point. Why do vacuum cleaners boast about how much power they use rather than the amount of 'suck' they generate? Who would buy a car that brags it uses more petrol than any other?
Sucking power and cleaning efficiency is the important thing, not power consumption.
You CAN have a 1.5KW cleaner that sucks better than a 2KW one, it's all down to the efficiency of the air-flow design. Of course if both cleaners use identical airflows, the 2KW one will be better, but different designs are different in their suction.
A more powerful motor costs more to make, manufacturers only spend that money because you cannot have powerful suction without a powerful motor.
The idea that the difference between 2000W and 1600W is "waste" is nonsense. Pseudo-science is what it is.
In the case of lamps there was a valid argument to go with "lower wattage" bulbs. But the important part was not the wattage, it was the fact that new technology allowed lower wattage with (nearly) no loss of brightness. This is not the case with vacuum cleaners.
There is NO new technology for electric motors in vacuum cleaners. No efficiency gains. All there will be is significantly less suction.
So you are saying that a smaller engine is always less powerful than a larger engine? If that is the case then a 2 litre vauxhall chevette should out perform a formula 1 car.
If a vacuum cleaner motor is making a noise and generating heat then it is wasting energy. There are lots of ways you can increase the efficiency of an electric motor but most of them are more expensive which is why cheap high power motors cost more than energy efficient low power motors even if their torque output is the same.
No it may be cheaper or more expensive it depends on the design.
If it was possible to use a lower power motor in a vacuum and retain the same performance then manufacturers would have done it, they would do it because there would be money in it for them.
They have done it, there are low power vacuum cleaners that outperform other higher power cleaners. Some stick with inefficient old designs for two main reasons they are cheaper to make and many people erroneously mistake the power input for the power output.
Further, it does not follow logically that an objection to this particular issue is an objection to all power-saving schemes.
Indeed but a Venn diagram of those that object to CFLs with those that object to this would show a significant overlap.
If I object to stupidity it does not follow that I would object to wisdom.
Yet you are showing a lack of wisdom here. You completely misunderstand the science and don't listen to those that do understand it.
A more powerful motor costs more to make, manufacturers only spend that money because you cannot have powerful suction without a powerful motor.
The idea that the difference between 2000W and 1600W is "waste" is nonsense. Pseudo-science is what it is.
In the case of lamps there was a valid argument to go with "lower wattage" bulbs. But the important part was not the wattage, it was the fact that new technology allowed lower wattage with (nearly) no loss of brightness. This is not the case with vacuum cleaners.
There is NO new technology for electric motors in vacuum cleaners. No efficiency gains. All there will be is significantly less suction.
Where have the years and long gone the days when my 125cc could do a ton.?
Seems like there are a lot of 'suckers' out there who will now buy inefficient vacuum cleaners as some sort of protest against the EU.
We should remember the industry knew about this for almost five years, so many have spent the money on improving designs. Those that didn't will have no choice but to try and convince people that higher powered motors are the only solution, for as they delay the inevitable.
My next car will almost certainly be a 2 litre 4 cylinder engine, and it will have more power than my 2.5 litre 5 cylinder engine, with far lower emissions. Anyone still going to tell me that if we didn't have ever tightening emissions laws, taxes and rising fuel costs, we'd have had smaller engines sooner? Not a chance (the proof being that we didn't).
tungsten filament bulbs are still available but not with standard bayonet fitting .......
The next on the EU banned lisit 1. high powered sports cars F1 cars Fast cars high speed railway 2 ban the sale cigarettes in Europe need we say more:)
The next on the EU banned lisit 1. high powered sports cars F1 cars Fast cars high speed railway 2 ban the sale cigarettes in Europe need we say more:)
I can tink of one good reason why they would ban hs2, because our hs2 will be over-engineered to run faster than France or Germany's lines.
Do they already have rules on hand dryers (not hair)? The newer ones with powerful fans and less heat are far better, and must be a lot more economical.
The legislation makes sense. Vacuum cleaners are one of the most energy hungry appliances in the Home (or workplace). If you can achieve the same or better result with a smaller motor then that has to be good for everyone?
We cannot continue to use resources in such a wasteful way, this is good for the environment and ultimately good for the consumer, as it will force companies to innovate or be left behind, and will reduce all of our electricity usage
Well lets be honest here do hairdryers really need a 2500w motor? The GHD air is a very good dryer & that is only about 2100w. Most salon dryers are either 2000/2100w & work a lot faster due to their design.
Comments
Maybe not, but I wasn't willing to take the chance. I need suction .... lots of it.
What you need when purchasing a vacuum cleaner is a specification entry for suction power rather than power usage which is irrelevant to you other than the cost of running the device. The entry for this should be specified as "air watts".
Rest assured, once they're sold out then every manufacturer will really push the new models and how much better they are.
At the moment they have an incentive to let the panic work for them.
That's completely incorrect.
A more powerful motor costs more to make, manufacturers only spend that money because you cannot have powerful suction without a powerful motor.
The idea that the difference between 2000W and 1600W is "waste" is nonsense. Pseudo-science is what it is.
In the case of lamps there was a valid argument to go with "lower wattage" bulbs. But the important part was not the wattage, it was the fact that new technology allowed lower wattage with (nearly) no loss of brightness. This is not the case with vacuum cleaners.
There is NO new technology for electric motors in vacuum cleaners. No efficiency gains. All there will be is significantly less suction.
Sucking power and cleaning efficiency is the important thing, not power consumption.
You CAN have a 1.5KW cleaner that sucks better than a 2KW one, it's all down to the efficiency of the air-flow design. Of course if both cleaners use identical airflows, the 2KW one will be better, but different designs are different in their suction.
So you are saying that a smaller engine is always less powerful than a larger engine? If that is the case then a 2 litre vauxhall chevette should out perform a formula 1 car.
If a vacuum cleaner motor is making a noise and generating heat then it is wasting energy. There are lots of ways you can increase the efficiency of an electric motor but most of them are more expensive which is why cheap high power motors cost more than energy efficient low power motors even if their torque output is the same.
No it may be cheaper or more expensive it depends on the design.
They have done it, there are low power vacuum cleaners that outperform other higher power cleaners. Some stick with inefficient old designs for two main reasons they are cheaper to make and many people erroneously mistake the power input for the power output.
Indeed but a Venn diagram of those that object to CFLs with those that object to this would show a significant overlap.
Yet you are showing a lack of wisdom here. You completely misunderstand the science and don't listen to those that do understand it.
We should remember the industry knew about this for almost five years, so many have spent the money on improving designs. Those that didn't will have no choice but to try and convince people that higher powered motors are the only solution, for as they delay the inevitable.
My next car will almost certainly be a 2 litre 4 cylinder engine, and it will have more power than my 2.5 litre 5 cylinder engine, with far lower emissions. Anyone still going to tell me that if we didn't have ever tightening emissions laws, taxes and rising fuel costs, we'd have had smaller engines sooner? Not a chance (the proof being that we didn't).
The next on the EU banned lisit 1. high powered sports cars F1 cars Fast cars high speed railway 2 ban the sale cigarettes in Europe need we say more:)
The Henry won it and was the least powerful
See all you need it a good design not a high power motor..
We cannot continue to use resources in such a wasteful way, this is good for the environment and ultimately good for the consumer, as it will force companies to innovate or be left behind, and will reduce all of our electricity usage
engineers to the rescue
Well lets be honest here do hairdryers really need a 2500w motor? The GHD air is a very good dryer & that is only about 2100w. Most salon dryers are either 2000/2100w & work a lot faster due to their design.