Those were the days!

On Jun 25, 1:08 pm, Albert Ross wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:46:26 +0100, "Rick" wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
alexander.keys1 wrote:
Dyson's are grossly overrated, they're called "die soons" in the
trade, Dyson only make a limited range of vacs with built-in
obsolesence, and other 'fashionable' products.

Some 20 years ago I needed a new upright vacuum, and bought the Which best
buy. I've found Which ok for things I'm not really interested in. ;-)

That was a Panasonic. My next door neighbour raved about Dyson. She's on
her fourth since I bought the Panasonic.

I've got an Aquavac Super 30 wet and dry which has taken a real hammering
(since IIRC when it was purchased in the mid nineties) and I reckon its
still got enough suction to lift a house brick :-)

True or apocryphal I don't know, but at a demonstration of a
suction/vacuum roadsweeper it allegedly sucked a dog off its lead

My Vax needs a new bag and filters, when it's on song it will lift the
carpet and pull out parquet blocks

oh no.. don't open the door for the, ahem, "Kirby"............

Jim K

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:05:13 +0100, Albert Ross
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:37:01 +1200, Gib Bogle
wrote:

On 6/25/2011 6:59 AM, Andy Champ wrote:
On 24/06/2011 18:52, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 24/06/2011 16:53, Jim Lesurf wrote:

Should work. They are called "vacuum cleaners" aren't they?

Pedant mode on

Suction cleaners actually

Pedant mode off


more pedant They _are_ _called_ vacuum cleaners./more

Even though "suction cleaner" would be a better term I've never heard it
before.

That's when they aren't called Hoovers of course. Regardless of brand.

Andy

Ours was always called an Electrolux, even when it wasn't.

Yes, uprights were Hoovers, cylinder cleaners were Electroluxes.

I always admired the Hoover Constellation for its idea. I don't know
whether they actually worked though :-)


--
Frank

Jim K wrote:
On Jun 25, 1:08 pm, Albert Ross wrote:
Snip

My Vax needs a new bag and filters, when it's on song it will lift the
carpet and pull out parquet blocks

oh no.. don't open the door for the, ahem, "Kirby"............

When I were a yoof, I went for a job selling they. I took one look, and
immediately offered my skills as a repairman for after sales service.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 05:12:20 -0700 (PDT), Jim K
wrote:

On Jun 24, 11:53 pm, S Viemeister wrote:
On 6/24/2011 2:28 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: wrote:
Dyson's are grossly overrated, they're called "die soons" in the
trade, Dyson only make a limited range of vacs with built-in
obsolesence, and other 'fashionable' products.

Some 20 years ago I needed a new upright vacuum, and bought the Which best
buy. I've found Which ok for things I'm not really interested in. ;-)

That was a Panasonic. My next door neighbour raved about Dyson. She's on
her fourth since I bought the Panasonic.

I bought my first Dyson in 1998, on the recommendation of a number of
relatives. Theirs, and mine, are still going strong. Perhaps we were
all just lucky?

+1 our DC01 still doing the business here too (with regular washes of
the filters....)

I've had a DC01 Absolute for lots of years now. It's had a couple of
filters and a replacement wand (the original snapped by the handle),
but it still works fine.

--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:05:13 +0100, Albert Ross
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:37:01 +1200, Gib Bogle
wrote:

On 6/25/2011 6:59 AM, Andy Champ wrote:
On 24/06/2011 18:52, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 24/06/2011 16:53, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Should work. They are called "vacuum cleaners" aren't they?
Pedant mode on

Suction cleaners actually

Pedant mode off

more pedant They _are_ _called_ vacuum cleaners./more

Even though "suction cleaner" would be a better term I've never heard it
before.

That's when they aren't called Hoovers of course. Regardless of brand.

Andy
Ours was always called an Electrolux, even when it wasn't.
Yes, uprights were Hoovers, cylinder cleaners were Electroluxes.

I always admired the Hoover Constellation for its idea. I don't know
whether they actually worked though :-)


Only on hard floors, and then only until the rim got damaged.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:32:29 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message ...


Somehow I don't think that even the most powerful vacuum cleaner
imaginable
would be much good in space :-)


That's OK, we'll just take some compressed air up with us, so it's got
something to suck on....

OK... let's get practical about this.

So far we have vacuum cleaners floating about in space. If one finds an
asteroid to suck on it will just attach itself without noticeable affect
to its path. Using a long piece of cable to tether a vacuum cleaner to a
suitable planet, or whatever, is a trifle impractical. The solution is
to attach a rocket to each vacuum cleaner to pull the vac and attached
asteroid in the required direction.

The rocket's exhaust gases will surround the cleaner where it is
touching the asteroid thereby giving it something to suck on.

All we need now is an asteroid, a vacuum cleaner and a rocket with which
to perform a proof-of-concept experiment.

Plea to doubters: restrain yourselves until the research grant has been
obtained.

I've just invented a new kind of vacuum cleaner that uses no energy. Just
attach one end of a very long tube to a satellite in geostationary orbit,
with the other end dangling down to Earth. There's a stopper in the bottom
end which you remove to suck up all the dust into space.

If space elevators [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator ] work, why
not this?

--
Max Demian

On Jun 25, 1:33 pm, "Max Demian" wrote:
"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message

...



On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:32:29 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

"Rick" wrote in ...

Somehow I don't think that even the most powerful vacuum cleaner
imaginable
would be much good in space :-)


That's OK, we'll just take some compressed air up with us, so it's got
something to suck on....

OK... let's get practical about this.

So far we have vacuum cleaners floating about in space. If one finds an
asteroid to suck on it will just attach itself without noticeable affect
to its path. Using a long piece of cable to tether a vacuum cleaner to a
suitable planet, or whatever, is a trifle impractical. The solution is
to attach a rocket to each vacuum cleaner to pull the vac and attached
asteroid in the required direction.

The rocket's exhaust gases will surround the cleaner where it is
touching the asteroid thereby giving it something to suck on.

All we need now is an asteroid, a vacuum cleaner and a rocket with which
to perform a proof-of-concept experiment.

Plea to doubters: restrain yourselves until the research grant has been
obtained.

I've just invented a new kind of vacuum cleaner that uses no energy. Just
attach one end of a very long tube to a satellite in geostationary orbit,
with the other end dangling down to Earth. There's a stopper in the bottom
end which you remove to suck up all the dust into space.


how d'ya get the stopper out?

Jim K

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:33:13 +0100, "Max Demian"
wrote:

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:32:29 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message ...


Somehow I don't think that even the most powerful vacuum cleaner
imaginable
would be much good in space :-)


That's OK, we'll just take some compressed air up with us, so it's got
something to suck on....

OK... let's get practical about this.

So far we have vacuum cleaners floating about in space. If one finds an
asteroid to suck on it will just attach itself without noticeable affect
to its path. Using a long piece of cable to tether a vacuum cleaner to a
suitable planet, or whatever, is a trifle impractical. The solution is
to attach a rocket to each vacuum cleaner to pull the vac and attached
asteroid in the required direction.

The rocket's exhaust gases will surround the cleaner where it is
touching the asteroid thereby giving it something to suck on.

All we need now is an asteroid, a vacuum cleaner and a rocket with which
to perform a proof-of-concept experiment.

Plea to doubters: restrain yourselves until the research grant has been
obtained.

I've just invented a new kind of vacuum cleaner that uses no energy. Just
attach one end of a very long tube to a satellite in geostationary orbit,
with the other end dangling down to Earth. There's a stopper in the bottom
end which you remove to suck up all the dust into space.

If space elevators [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator ] work, why
not this?

It will work nicely until the pressure in the tube equals the pressure
outside the tube. Then it will stop sucking. After that you would need
to pull the tube up into space, empty it, put the stopper back in and
lower the end back to the surface.

Unfortunately, both the dangling sucker and the space elevator require
energy for their construction and use.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
It was just one little part of the extra costs. The analogy between
RGB and stereo is deeply flawed in all but the most simplistic terms.

That may be so. But saying so doesn't in itself 'explain' why RGB
isn't used inside kit or to carry signals over modest distances. I've
only said that this surprises me, am wondering why it is so, and that
your earlier comment doesn't really seem to explain to me. There may
be good reasons, but what are they?

Of course today it would be relatively easy to adjust these timings. But
not when colour started out.

That is pretty much what I was saying earlier. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:33:13 +0100, "Max Demian"
wrote:

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:32:29 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message ...


Somehow I don't think that even the most powerful vacuum cleaner
imaginable
would be much good in space :-)


That's OK, we'll just take some compressed air up with us, so it's got
something to suck on....

OK... let's get practical about this.

So far we have vacuum cleaners floating about in space. If one finds an
asteroid to suck on it will just attach itself without noticeable affect
to its path. Using a long piece of cable to tether a vacuum cleaner to a
suitable planet, or whatever, is a trifle impractical. The solution is
to attach a rocket to each vacuum cleaner to pull the vac and attached
asteroid in the required direction.

The rocket's exhaust gases will surround the cleaner where it is
touching the asteroid thereby giving it something to suck on.

All we need now is an asteroid, a vacuum cleaner and a rocket with which
to perform a proof-of-concept experiment.

Plea to doubters: restrain yourselves until the research grant has been
obtained.

I've just invented a new kind of vacuum cleaner that uses no energy. Just
attach one end of a very long tube to a satellite in geostationary orbit,
with the other end dangling down to Earth. There's a stopper in the bottom
end which you remove to suck up all the dust into space.

Bit of a bugger to sort through when, inevitably, you suck up that
missing SD card or diamond ear stud.

Nick