h a l f b a k e r y"It would work, if you can find alternatives to each of the steps involved in this process."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The vacuum has standard sucking and brushing configuration. Instead of a bag, the dirt is run through a series of tiny cutting blades. The tiny particles are then mixed with a
clear sticky oil and released into the room as a fine heated mist. Evenly distributed the dirt won't be noticed. Once a
year, wipe off walls and ceiling.
The Prune Syndrome
http://www.halfbake...cy_20test_20tampons
read my thoughts on prune's postings [dj_photon, Feb 13 2002, last modified Oct 04 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Yuck! You want moldering toast crumbs plastered on your walls? You'd have to paint all your walls black to hide the dirt. |
|
| |
Never mind the toast, what about the *skin*!? Do you really want sticky, oily skin all over your house? And if you're simply going to redistribute the grime, what, in the name of the wee man, is the point in hoovering in the first place? Hmmm? |
|
| |
You can buy mulching garden vacuums anyhow, so is this really any different? |
|
| |
I understand cleaning my room as sucking all the dirt off the floor, walls and furniture, into the bag in the vacuum cleaner. |
|
| |
Your idea, however, serves to distribute dirt. You would do well to change the description to "bagless dirtying". |
|
| |
The very worst thing about this idea is releasing the oily dirt as a heated mist. Even as you vacuumed, you would be sprayed with sheen of your own greasy filth. As Clibean said, boke. |
|
| |
// I take it you haven't yet read his 'internet CD' idea, then?// |
|
| |
I gotta give Prune credit for coming up with a lot of original ideas (nb: his "Internet CD" idea actually was baked a few years ago, back when it was actually practical). Too bad so many of them are so incredibly (albeit original-ly) bad. |
|
| |
I have a gramophone in my house that uses a steel needle with a high tracking force. If all the stuff I hoovered from the carpet got in the groove of the record, it would act as a grinding powder which would wear out the needle within the first 78 revolutions. Then I would have a poor quality record lathe for all the next revolutions. Sticky oil is not good for acetates and one-offs and dubplates. |
|
| |
Jeez. Jeez. How dumb can you get? |
|
| |
This would kill asthmatics like me |
|
| |
How could this fine idea be so roundly boned? |
|
| |
People, people. You're being misled by the title. As an
improvement on vacuum cleaners, this makes no sense --
but in reality, it's an improvement on feather dusters.
Those devices merely redistribute dust, making it less
conspicuous. The problem is, the dust settles unevenly --
mostly on horizontal surfaces, very little on the vertical
ones -- so, pretty soon, the room looks dusty again. With
this system, the dust would be evenly distributed to *all*
the surfaces (even the ceiling). Result: far more dust could
accumulate before a more thorough cleaning was required.
Intervals between cleaning would be longer. Not to
mention that some of the dust would be removed from
the room on your clothes & skin, and washed down the
drain when you bathed or laundered your garments.
Pulmonary disease would be a small price to pay. Maybe
the sticky oil could contain bronchodilators. |
|
| |
This is fantastic! I would buy three. |
|
| |
calm down. Who cares if his ideas are usually stupid? The point is they're supposed to be funny. They make me laugh. That's like half the point of this site - humor. |
|
| |
Agreed. Prune, come back! |
|
| |