Call me crazy, but I crave to let people (that are open to it) ascertain the truth about which vacuum cleaners / air purifiers truly work and those that literally suck. Besides starting a much needed discussion, with this blog, I strive to educate consumers and give them a solid foundation about vacuum cleaners and air purifiers.
I receive hundreds of emails a month, and I am more than happy to answer questions and just maintain a dialogue. But, sometimes I get an important email from a reader which compels me to share my feelings and in-depth analyses with the rest of the readership out there.
Consider this email correspondence below (reads from top-to-bottom). To me, it helps us realize the main differences between the Dyson and the Miele vacuum cleaners. For which, we realize the Miele brings Dyson to its knees!
From: DarrenSent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 5:47 AM
Hello, Mr Rubin,
I watched your video on Youtube about Miele Versus Dyson and I think your comparision was riddled with bias.
Firstly, the test of picking lumps of dirt out of a carpet is unfair, since ANY upright isn't designed to do that. Why didn't you pull the hose out of the Dyson and test that? That's what it's there for.
Secondly, You say that Miele's bagged cleaner is better. Try doing the same test after a year's worth of use and see what results you get. A bagged cleaner will lose suction because dirt will clog the pores of a bag which will restrict suction. A fresh bag won't have this problem. Unless you change the bag when you do a new room.
Thirdly, that particulate meter you have. Was it properly calibrated? How do we know? Speaking as a scientist, if that machine isn't independently and properly calibrated, then your comparison is meaningless.
Anyway, I look forward to your reply. I have a Dyson vacuum cleaner and it does everything it claims to and more.
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:30 PM
Thank you for your note. While your feedback is very much appreciated, your questions are riddled, through and through, with a lack of simple fundamental vacuum knowledge. This is the exact reason why I have decided to educate consumers via YouTube and with my blog. As you may or may not know, I have been in the industry for 30+ years and have chosen to share my deep level of experience with the internet community. I aspire towards objectivity, which is why I use the particle counter. This device rules out fallacies and shows the public with empirical evidence – what vacuum/air purifier works and what doesn't.
In addition, your suppositions are inherently biased, accompanied with justifications and a zealot attitude. We must remain neutral, but in order to do so, you must look past the Dyson hype. In seeking to overcome this bias, you have chosen to employ the very same defective "lens" you claim that I have.
I have considered your analysis. Please see my rebuttal below.
1) The Dyson fails to pickup heavy dirt. Through my YouTube video here - , clearly, the Miele vacuum cleaner was actually able to pickup all the "dirt" that I laid on the carpeting, while the Dyson failed this rather simple task. The dirt as you say, is K-pok, which is a light feathery-cotton substance that professionals typically use to test a vacuum's suction performance on carpeting. EVERY vacuum is meant to pickup this dirt. Recall that Dyson claims to pick up cat and dog hair. Then, why is it unfair to test this cotton-like substance you speak of? Do you find it strange that the Miele can pick it with one swipe, yet the Dyson struggles on the 3rd swipe? By the way, I don't need to use the hose if the brush-roll (the most powerful part of the machine) on the vacuum can't even pickup the dirt. The hose is meant to be an attachment to reach areas that you can't get to.
2) BAGLESS = time consuming + less capacity than a bag+ dirty + is not sealed. For starters, Dyson's bin capacity is 0.71 gallon. As my YouTube video shows here- , the Dyson is picking up less dirt than the Miele, which sports a bag capacity of 4.76 Quartz (remember 4 Quartz/1 Gallon). The Dyson bin must also be emptied more frequently, thus, taking longer to clean. Most consumers I know would rather save time, and not spend it on taking numerous trips to the garbage (you inhale the dust you dump too). If you had a vacuum bag, it would be sealed, and require you to make only one trip to toss it out (plus you would not have to breathe and touch that stuff). Now your right, most vacuums come equipped with one-ply generic paper bags which have relatively large pores. To compare, the Miele's vacuum bags are not made of paper but rather high filtration cheese cloth with protective foil layering the inside. Notably, you can fill Miele's vacuum bag completely TO THE BRIM and the vacuum will still have 100% suction.
3) Dyson vacuums are not completely sealed. As I demonstrated here, Dyson vacuums do not trap the fine dust, particles and contaminants to true HEPA standards of 99.98%. While the HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air) filter itself may be HEPA certified outside the machine, it only matters what is being dispelled from the machines once it is inside the architecture...
Now, this leads me to the next point...
Dyson vacuums lower your indoor air quality, increasing health risks and your need for more vacuuming. If a vacuum is supposed to trap the dust, why buy a Dyson, if it doesn't accomplish its main purpose --to trap the dust and dirt, without recycling it back into the air you breathe. I have attached a picture (see below) of the back of the particle counter, and as you can see, the next calibration date is Sept-13-08. The particle counter does not lie, and evidently, the Dyson is spewing particles back into the air you breathe, while nothing is coming out of the Miele, it is completely sealed. The second you open the Dyson bin and pour your dirt into the garbage bag, you have already unleashed the fine particles back into the air, which reinvigorates your vacuum cycle. In a Miele, the vacuum gets all the dust, pet hair, sand, tiny allergens, so your floor and air will stay cleaner longer because nothing is left behind.