Talk:Dyson (company)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Dyson (company). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Founding date should be 1993

The company was founded in 1993, not 1992. Pretty basic fact to have wrong, and very easy to find. I can't edit as would be a conflict of interest, but it would be nice to have someone update this little bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.153.212.167 (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not so original?

So, how is this any different from the Fantom bagless vacuum cleaner, which preceeded Dyson? --Quicksilver^{T @} 09:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm because Fantom bought right to manufacture their bagless vacuum, they used Dysons Dual Cyclone Technology and Fantom no longer is in buissness and only Dyson makes the true Root Cyclone Vacuum.Locust43 23:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

DC07 with clutch?

Does anybody know if the DC07 has two models, one with a clutch and one without? and if so, what the clutch is actually for?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.35.16 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there seem to be some DC07 models without clutch: [1] You can see the missing knob on the left bottom of the vacuum cleaner (e.g the Standard, the Indepenent, the Origin are without clutch).

The clutch lets you switch the brush bar on and off. You need the brush bar to better clean carpets, but on wooden floors one should switch the brush bar off in order to be more gentle to the wooden floor. On models without clutch, the brush bar is always on. Ccwelt 19:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Products AfD

I am recommending the deletion of the articles (mostly stubs anyway) about specific Dyson appliances, on the grounds that they are less article and more advertisement. Please see the AfD pages I am creating for those articles. If you see any information there that should be preserved, consider moving it to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturgeonslawyer (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 April 2006

agreed. it reads like an advert and even has links in the article main text on specific products to dyson web page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.166.156 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 June 2007

Criticism

There have been studies that say it performs no better than other vacuum cleaners, as well as other things like: not really being ergonomic, and not worth it for the money. [2]70.111.251.203 21:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancedotal, but when I worked at a large department store (Sears) more Dysons were returned (as a percentage of units sold) than any other brand -- the common complaint was that they did not have the same suction power as the customer's old hoover/kenmore/etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.5.138 (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

True! Very true!! Dyson has a near-mythical status in the UK, but the sad truth is that the "revolutionary" styling of the appliances does not make up for the fact that they just don't have the motors of the quality Miele and Bosch produce. Dyson has admitted this publicly, I think in an interview with the Guardian.81.178.145.170 (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Dyson Font?

Hello, does anyone know the name of the font that the dyson logo uses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.131.186 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 26 May 2006

Like many large corporate identities, it is a font designed specially for Dyson. However, there may well be copycat fonts available. Dapablue 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

ITC Bauhaus Demi is closest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.188.120 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 16 July 2007

But why are they do expensive - they're just fonts?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiyabyers (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 August 2007

Absolutely not the first centrifugal vacuum cleaner

We have a shop dust collector that does this that's from the 50s. In fact WIKIPEDIA HAS AN ARTICLE ON THIS! Dust Collector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.240.60 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 30 May 2006

What year?

I think that the merge with Dyson Root Cyclone is a good idea, but there's a lot of conflicting information in them. Anyone have a good source for what year the G-force came out? -- Kaszeta 13:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I found few citations and corrected the date. -- Kaszeta 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Various comments

Much of the article does read like Dyson promotional material. I'm not convinced that the precise difference between each machine is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. If the details are wanted the perhaps they could be moved to a new page Dyson cleaners or Dyson technology (which could incorporate the existing Dyson Root Cyclone page. The Dyson (company) page would then be used for more general background. Pontificake 18:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Number jump

Why no DC13? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.188.120 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 16 July 2007

A few numbers have been missed for products that are still in development, were trialled but didn't succeeed, and privated or are products suffering from not being able to obtain patents.

One example is the DC06. This was to be a robotic cleaner but was never released because it offered no value financially.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiyabyers (talk • contribs) 16:19, 7 August 2007

Centrifugal Force? No such thing...

As many physics teachers will smugly tell you. And I am now smugly repeating. Definite no-no to using that in the "how it works" section, although as a quote it is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.24.72 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 3 August 2007

Actually you are mistaken, centrifugal force does exist although it is a fictitious force that results from taking a non-inertial frame of reference so it is entirely valid using it in the how it works section. Sorry to out smug you and the physics teachers... 88.110.200.106 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Something a bit weird about writing "does exist although it is fictitious" --- suggest you replace the first mention of "force" by "effect". The effect most certainly does occur, as you might experience for yourself in a fair-ground ride that exploits it.81.178.145.170 (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A fictitious force is not fictitious in the sense that it does not really exist. In the same way that an imaginary number is not really a figment of someone's imagination. Fictitious forces are also known as phantom forces, pseudo forces, d'Alembert forces or inertial forces, if that helps. 81.154.219.19 (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Positive pressure design?

I have a suspicion that Dyson vacuums use a positive pressure system. I have also read reports of Dyson vacuums that leak dirty air. Can anyone confirm this? Does the fan pressurize the air before it reaches the cyclones? I am concerned because leaks in a positive pressure system will result in particulates being ejected into the air.

This video demonstrates a Dyson leaking dirty air: [3] The relevant portion is between 4:30 and 5:15— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpheym (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In the YouTube video, he is measuring at the exhaust of the Dyson. There is no leak, the guy is talking bullshit and I wouldn't be surprised if he had removed the filters from the Dyson. The Dyson does not have what you call a "positive pressure design'. Ccwelt 19:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Some reviews indicate similar leaks: [4] and [5]

I once got a severe coughing attack from 5 minutes with a Kirby vacuum. Upon examination I found a cracked plastic pipe that was leaking dirty air. The Kirby was indeed a positive pressure system.

Here is an Oreck leaking, quite dramatically: [6] The Oreck is obviously a positive pressure system since the air bag is pressurized against the outside air.

Needless to say I find the use of positive pressure designs quite troubling.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpheym (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

wireless charging technology???

"The DC03 was the first Dyson to use wireless charging technology, which has continued on all newer models."

This ain't right, is it? Ccwelt 18:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wireless charging technology could mean electrostatic charging

The Dyson cyclones only spin the dust and air past the plastic parts to put electrostatic charge on the particles. You can see this when you turn the cleaner off. The finest dust sticks to the plastic parts. Some animal hair, carpet fibres and big (0.1 mm) particles collide with baffles inside the container, and drop out of the air flow.

So if Dyson company claims "wireless charging", maybe they are referring to electrostatic charging of the plastic cones and dust particles? Richardh9935 (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

900mph claim

The claim of 900mph is incorrect. I have put a note in the main body but I don't have time to reference it. Dyson has stopped using the claim but unfortunately the 900mph claim continues to kick around. I understand that the claim is referenced but the reference is in error. Wikipedia is only perpetuating the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.241.55 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

900 mph claim

The article currently states in the "Cyclone Technology" section that the air within a Dyson vacuum reaches speeds of 900 mph; then, just a few lines down ("Misleading Advertising" section), the article says that the 900 mph claim is false, and the actual speeds are nearer to 90 mph. To be honest, I know absolutely nothing about these vacuum things, so I can't tell if the 900 mph claim is false and its source is in error--in which case the 90 mph corrected claim should be sourced and the false 900 mph claim should be removed to avoid self-contradiction--or if the 90 mph claim is the erroneous one, in which case that section of the article should be deleted. In either case, that piece of the article as it stands right now is both self-contradictory and relying on unsourced information...anybody have the information necessary to fix it? --69.149.120.87 (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

"Before starting Dyson Appliances James Dyson tried to sell his technology to other companies including Amway who ended up stealing his technology. Dyson sued them and won. Hoover UK also tried to put out a machine using the technology but again Dyson sued and won." - sourced to http://www.amquix.info/amway_dyson.html.

I removed this because the source doesn't appear to meet WP's sourcing requirements - it looks to be a self-published website. The source also doesn't appear to support the claim that Dyson 'sued Amway and won' (which would mean a verdict going against Amway) - it states that the case was settled, which presumably means the case never reached the verdict stage. It is a really bad idea (and against Wikipedia policy) to accuse people of illegal conduct without a reliable source that backs up such accusations. --GenericBob (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

900 mph claim strikes again

Just another note about the 900 mph claim, the speed of sound in air at normal conditions (20 °C (68 °F) air at the sea level) is approximately 343 m/s (1,230 km/h; 767 mph). That means that the cyclon is braking the speed of sound!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.163.102 (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The 900mph claim contradicts the article on choked flow. Even if you were to break out a window on your space ship, the air wouldn't exit that fast. I've removed the number. Spiel496 (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Big Ad

This reads like a big ad for the company, given Dyson being such a public vacuum cleaner company(compared to Kirby who obscure themselves) this shouldn't be free marketing, does anyone have anything we could collectively add? From the history I see representatives of Dyson may be the cause of the article's current slant. Revrant (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms section

This edit reintroduces a large chunk of criticism of James Dyson which is not obviously pertinent to the company. Aside from belonging in his article, if anywhere, the section is so poorly written as to be nearly unreadable. I'll be removing this again shortly unless either a good justification is forthcoming or it is completely rewritten in first-language English along our style guidelines. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 06:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikivertisement

I see comments dating back to 2006 pointing out that this article is, in fact, an advertisement. I just read it (August 2011) and thought exactly the same thing. No, I don't design, build or sell vacuum cleaners, but I can smell a vacuum-cleaner salesman at ten paces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.13.202 (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the stink of a positive pressure soot leak, isn't it?81.178.145.170 (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Vax

This article mentions the patent case against Vax but doesn't mention any previous relationship. According to the Vax article, Dyson was contracted to Vax prior to starting his own firm. No idea how true this is as the cite given there is merely an Amazon link to Dyson's biography, but if true then it's certainly worth having in this article.

Also, on a separate note, something about the design of Dyson products would be good. The designs are as iconic in their own way as Johnny Ive's stuff for Apple. danno_uk 22:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy Section Have Neither

I read these comments and see no criticism of Dyson, nor any controversy about his comments. I think the entire section should be deleted unless someone wants to add some sourced references to some criticism and/or controversy.Jonny Quick (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree Jonny, I think we should take this down. If you agree, you have my blessing to take it off. Robw_r (talk) 14:00 20 May 2014

Edits of key facts

I have noticed a couple of facts that could do with an update. I would edit them but I have a conflict of interest. In the 'key people' section, James Dyson is named as the managing director and Deirdre Dyson, the deputy managing director. James Dyson is in fact the chief engineer.[7]. And Deirdre Dyson is not involved in the running of the company. She runs her own interior design firm.[8] I propose that Deirdre Dyson is removed from the key people tab and James Dyson's position is changed to chief engineer.

Robw r (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Rob

Dyson Research Projects

There has been lots in the press recently about Dyson's involvement in a number of research projects and I feel that their work with universities is noteworthy. Again, I will not make the edit outright as have a conflict of interest but I feel it is worth drawing to your attention. Dyson recently invested £5m [9] into a joint robotics lab with Imperial College London with the intention of investigating vision systems with a view to engineer a generation of household robots capable of understanding the world around them.[10]Dyson invested £1.4m in a Dyson Chair at Cambridge University in November 2011. The Dyson Professor of Fluid Mechanics focuses teaching (of both graduates and undergraduates) and research on the science and engineering behind air movement.[11]Robw r (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Rob

Dyson Airblade

I think its worth including something on the Dyson Airblade.

Dyson Airblade™ hand dryer (2006): Dyson engineers and scientists took 3 years to create an entirely new type of hand dryer. Dyson Airblade™ hand dryer technology creates a high velocity sheet of air that effectively wipes hands dry.The Dyson digital motor (DDM) produces an air stream flowing at 640km/h (400 mph). This unheated air is channelled through a 0.3 millimetre gap, no thicker than an eyelash. A sheet of air acts like an invisible windscreen wiper to wipe moisture from hands leaving them completely dry in just 10 seconds. [12] A study conducted by MIT concluded that the Dyson Airblade™ hand dryer is the most sustainable way to completely dry hands. Paper towels and warm air hand dryers have the highest environmental toll according to this comprehensive lifecycle analysis (LCA), generating 70% or more carbon emissions than the Dyson Airblade™ hand dryer. Rather than warm air, the Dyson Airblade™ hand dryer uses sheets of cool, clean air to literally scrape water from hands.[13]

The Airblade™ is certainly noteworthy, but any discussion of it should include a comparison with Mitsubishi Electric's Jet Towel™ products, which are very similar and came out well before (1993) the Airblade™ (2006). [14] I've used both and they are not that different. I'm not sure what the specific differences are, but the Airblade™ was, at the very least, inspired by the Jet Towel™ so it is *not* "an entirely new type of hand dryer".

70.109.59.67 (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Dyson's expansion

I think we really need to include something on this. Dyson has recently announce plans to undergo their biggest expansion to date. A £250m investment will see their R&D facility doubled, creating an additional 3000 jobs over the next 25 years.[15]Robw r (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Rob

Bosch Spy

There's nothing about the Bosch spy caught working in Dyson's digital motor research lab in 2012. I looked here hoping to find what the current state of the legal case was, but nothing. 81.187.1.83 (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sayın yetkili.2 yıl önce aldığım dyson DC 29 un ergonomik tutma kolu kırıldı,servisine götürdüm 08.02.2015 tarihinden bu güne yani 20.03.2015 tarihine kadar hala yedek parça tarafıma ulaştırılamadı.Sevis dağıtıcı firmayı dağıtıcı firma servisi eksik işlem yapmakla suçladı durdu.sonuç 0 elde var 0 ve ben artık kimseye dyson u tavsiye edemiyorum,çünki eşimin tepkisi ile karşılaşıyorum.beni bu üçgen de sıkıştıran kimse lütfen hesabını sorun......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.184.48.73 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sayın yetkili.2 yıl önce aldığım dyson DC 29 un ergonomik tutma kolu kırıldı,servisine götürdüm 08.02.2015 tarihinden bu güne yani 20.03.2015 tarihine kadar hala yedek parça tarafıma ulaştırılamadı.Sevis dağıtıcı firmayı dağıtıcı firma servisi eksik işlem yapmakla suçladı durdu.sonuç 0 elde var 0 ve ben artık kimseye dyson u tavsiye edemiyorum,çünki eşimin tepkisi ile karşılaşıyorum.beni bu üçgen de sıkıştıran kimse lütfen hesabını sorun.. kemalgop5353@hotmail.com gop İSTANBUL TURKEY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.184.48.73 (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dyson (company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)