Yeah, there is something to that. But I have seen people who are perfectly happy with the light from a bub until they find out it's an LED and then they'll start complaining!
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Brexit matters
- Thread starter Xenophon PCDGS
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
py_megapixel
Established Member
I think this is why there are so many bulbs advertised as, for example:
Equivalent to
80W
Actual wattage 10W
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Seems to me there is a whiff of climate denialism about the objections to low-energy lamps and more efficient lower power vacuum cleaners. People are objecting to their right to use as much energy as they like as long as they pay for it, and ignoring the effect it has on the planet.
More efficient bulbs are fine, but I wouldn't necessarily say a lower power vacuum cleaner is necessarily better. If you have to run over the same area multiple times because the lower power unit can't pick up dirt like a higher power unit can then you may end up using more energy overall.
Are lower powers vacuum cleaners actually more efficient, or is that a simplistic misapprehension?
EDIT:
The post above appeared while I was typing this and makes the same point.
Not really, a Dyson, and any bagless vacuum for that matter, is not a great design and bagged machines (with decent bags) are much better. My Grans 1987 Henry with an 800W motor could hardly be seen to be lacking in power. The big issue was companies using high wattage motors for marketing purposes and to counteract terrible bagless systems, a 2kW+ motor is not required for a domestic vacuum.
Edit: to add to that a 620W Henry has only slightly less suction than a 1200W Henry, designs can be altered to make lower wattage motors work just as well, with improved floor tools and conical hoses being the usual methods to improve suction/pickup.
Admitedly there are some ~300W vacuums that are terrible and just don't work well at all but then we are talking about vacuums that would have been originally designed to use motors of at least 1kW with designs that cannot be made all that better to cope with vastly reduced motor wattages.
If you want a vacuum with higher wattage motors then you can still buy them relativly easily, just look for all-in-one machines as they can be supplied with a higher wattage motor, a Numatic George/Charles/Henry Wash/ Henry Wet & Dry all have 1000W motors and I believe there is a Thomas machine with a 1400W motor.
Last edited:
That will depend on how much longer you need to run the vacuum cleaner vs how much less energy it uses. For a model with half the power, it'd need to be run twice as long to use the same amount of energy. On a macro level, it is also better to have a lot of low powered devices running longer as you can meet that with a lower, cleaner generation mix than having to fire up coal stations (etc) when everyone runs the hoover!
EU energy labels for vacuum cleaners feature ratings for pickup performance on both hard floors and carpets, not sure if that still applies to UK labels though.
EU energy labels for vacuum cleaners feature ratings for pickup performance on both hard floors and carpets, not sure if that still applies to UK labels though.
There were also some awful LED lamps early on. I suspect that if LEDs had not arrived, compact fluorescent would by now have settled down and be accepted. In practice, LEDs are so much more efficient that there is no contest. I can't say that I have noticed any general resistance to LEDs.
Dodgy marketing claims are a whole different issue.
I don't know about others, I've never had a vacuum which hasn't been of a suitable power, I even went from a 2,000W to 1,400W and didn't notice drop in power (i.e. whilst there's a drop in power over time, the time to clean reset back to the same, which there wouldn't have been if we had to keep going over the same bit).
I suspect with no need to meet a limit there was an element of why bother making it better as no one else was and is your competition could claim that their was more powerful people would be more likely buy that on face value than yours.
Take for example the 1.0l Fiesta from the late 1980's was 0-60 eventually, whilst the current ones are are 0-62 in (just) sub 10 seconds. Now I know that combustion engines were easier to improve, however there have been some improvements to electric motors over time as well (even if at a bit slower rate).
Ultimately, whether a modern vacuum cleaner or LED bulb is better or not won't matter one bit to those who simply want the old tech as some sort of protest against those who want to cut energy consumption.
It's ironic that the UK was at the forefront of so much of this legislation. But it will be seen as something the EU forced upon us.
I don't know about vacuum cleaners, but there was a similar backlash against LED bulbs in the USA too. And I don't know who they blamed, but I guess democrats or socialism.
It's ironic that the UK was at the forefront of so much of this legislation. But it will be seen as something the EU forced upon us.
I don't know about vacuum cleaners, but there was a similar backlash against LED bulbs in the USA too. And I don't know who they blamed, but I guess democrats or socialism.
StKeverne1497
Member
I think the thing which annoys me most about the vacuum cleaner argument is all those people (and I absolutely include Dyson in this) who were insisting they needed to build machines with 1,500W motors in order to clean properly one week, and then the next week were selling us battery-powered machines which "clean as well as your mains model", absolutely none of which use anything like that amount of power - if they did they'd run for about five minutes and then need to be recharged!
Hypocrisy?
M.
Yes, our battery Henry has a 250W motor and a 2.9Ah 36V battery and you get only 20mins on the HI/250W setting, the battery itself is not exactly small and to get 20mins of runtime from a 1000W you would need 4 of them, that would be a heafty chunk of batteries.
Of course old vacuums didn't use many watts but the filtration and "dirty fan" designs would not really cut it these days.
Naturally manufacturers of cordless vacuums have pushed the few slight faults with a corded machine (such as running out of cable) and the convienience of a cordless machine to try and make their product seem better but in reality it's all marketing, no cordless machine can out do a decent corded machine at the moment but most people won't care so long as it picks up something.
People these days also want the "latest and greatest" even if what they already have works just fine, manufacturers love this and have gotten well versed in to playing to this and as such things like vacuums are sold more like mobile phones now.
If anyone is travelling on HS1 between Ashford Intl and where it passes near Maidstone, you get to see the huge lorry queues on the M20. A good advertisement for our country when people pass on Eurostar.
[sarcasm]Of course, it’s nothing to do with Brexit[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm]Of course, it’s nothing to do with Brexit[/sarcasm]
adrock1976
Established Member
Was the EU regulations more to do with encouraging better performance of the suction power, rather than the increased wattage of the motor?
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,962
Yes, the EU has generally understood that regulation brings innovation. It's very similar to how motorsport works.
Sometimes it doesn't work too well (Euro 6 engines and the need for AdBlue, for instance), but in general, there's a lot of sense in regulating things like this.
That said, it's also about changing habits as well. Rather than vacuuming being a once-a-week thing because the machine is big and cumbersome you can pick up the cordless any time something spills or you notice some dust/dirt.
That's exactly what we've noticed. Since getting a Dyson V6 for about £200, (we had a voucher that was expiring), we've noticed that the battery device gets' brought out much more often and the 20/6 min. duration of the battery is rarely an issue. We also have a DC33 which is about 1100W so overall, the impact on electricity bills of dust removal has reduced somewhat.
eoff
Member
There is no requirement for a business to do PAT testing.
But from an insurance point of view probably mandatory, at work it's better that I get to a dangerous item than a guest, and testing at the start of the year, before we've opened helps with that. Noting that I am one of the sites testers.
Gloster
Veteran Member
But think of the marvellous Brexit Bonus for the insurance companies who won’t have to pay out on policies because testing wasn’t done. And what about the benefits for all those hard-working, patriotic, flag-waving English builders who will now have even more work as they rebuild all the buildings that burnt down due to faulty equipment. Not just Sunlit, but also burning building-lit. J R-M.
py_megapixel
Established Member
There's a very fine line between pointless bureaucracy and worthwhile safety procedures. The general position of society regarding this, unlike that of Jacob Rees-Mogg, changes over time.
For example, I doubt many people would be happy travelling on the motorway without a seat-belt. But the first stretch of motorway opened almost a decade before it was mandatory to even fit seat belts in new cars, let alone actually wear them.
For example, I doubt many people would be happy travelling on the motorway without a seat-belt. But the first stretch of motorway opened almost a decade before it was mandatory to even fit seat belts in new cars, let alone actually wear them.
eoff
Member
I have no idea, the point is that it has been a long time requirement to maintain electrical equipment to be sure it is safe. How you do that is up to you, if you want to pay someone to do it who uses a fancy tester and puts labels on things then do so. If you don't but have a process for basic safety checks then I imagine that is all that is required to meet the 'mandatory' requirements.
It is nothing to do with the EU or Brexit.
The problem is that if you don't use a tester you'll miss some potential life endangering faults with electrical devices with metal enclosures (either full or part), the two being, lack/breakdown of insulation between the case and the live/neutral wires/conductors and a missing protective earth on Class I appliances.
Devices that are entirely made of plastic generally do not get tested on a machine as there is nothing really to test, a visual inspection is all that is required as there is little to no chance of a fault causing the case to become live.
Also a lot of the machines are not exactly fancy, we currently use a Seward PrimeTest 50 which is battery powered and just gives you a pass/fail indication, though personally I like a machine that gives you the ohms reading from the test as well as it helps in diagnosing why soemthing has failed and if it can be easily rectified.
Quite, teh company that does all the offices and other "back of house" equipment puts stickers on both the PSU of a device and the device itself which really is a scam as devices under 50V aren't part of in service electrical inspection and testing, only the PSU needs inspecting.
And to think I know all of this despite never being on a course, just being shown how to use our original machine (a Fluke 6200) and me personally buying the IET book on "In service electrical inspection and testing".
The problem is that grounded devices do need to have their earth continuity measured and any measurements must be made using instruments that have a valid calibration certificate. So that is why those businesses that take their safety obligations seriously often use professional services. However Mogg tries to appease the great unwashed brexiteers, nobody is going to get a bill to wipe out the advances in health and safety in the last few decades through parliament.
Gloster
Veteran Member
I am not as optimistic as you. I can see it being slipped in as Clause 94 of a ‘Throwing off of European shackles’ Bill. If anybody points out the risks they will be branded as a sour Remainer who can’t get over losing and wants to prevent the English people reaching those sunlit uplands. And most of the sheep in the Commons will baa-ck it.