| Name |
George Weasely |
| Email Address |
private |
| AIM |
|
| YIM |
|
| ICQ |
|
 |
| Gender |
Male |
| Age |
|
| Location |
|
|
| Personal Quote |
Bagless vacs benefit from illusion that seeing the dirt somehow makes it better. A fair comparison requires each experimental unit to have the same opportunity to perform - anything less is deception. |
|
| Privileges |
Normal user |
| Rank |
 |
| Points |
133 |
| Number of Posts |
133 |
| Number of Reviews |
0 |
| Date Joined |
Jul 31, 2007 |
| Date Last Access |
Today 1:01 am |
|
 |
Re: James Dyson carries the tired vacuum industry and just in time for Christmas...
#1 Today 1:01 am |
|
Yep, no multi-cyclonic tech was used in the old Eureka. It was almost the same layout as well, with the large debris container/shroud separated from the fine dust collection compartment.  Actually it is a primitive dual cyclone machine. The small tube on the right is the second cyclone. It is slightly tapered. While the dirt separation wasn't as efficient as Dyson's DC07, it had a superior brush roll and a manual height adjustment that enabled it to clean carpet better. It also had a headlight. It was rated very good for cleaning carpeting by Consumer Reports. I belief it had a pretty good belt.
|
 |
Re: James Dyson carries the tired vacuum industry and just in time for Christmas...
#2 Yesterday 11:55 am |
|
Dustmite,
Thank goodness that someone is taking that Dyson technology and combining it with a decent brush roll and nozzle. Many of the knockoffs clean better than Dyson at a much lower price. Those heavy bagless vacuums are really helping Oreck with their sales.
|
|
|
Re: Samsung's- Dirt Devil Eraser / Halo inspired UV patent.
#3 Yesterday 9:58 am |
|
<BR> DIB,<BR><BR>The 'mudbath' as you describe the Rainbow works extremely well. I have one I use in my cleaning business (see my earlier post) that is 23 years old and still runs like new. The Rexair was the FIRST water trap vacuum to use a separator. There are Rexairs in excess of 60 years old still working. Think any Dysons will make it to even 20 years in daily use?<BR><BR>I am not defending anyone. Your perception that I am is indicative of a paranoid-schizophrenic personality. What I <span style="font-style: italic;">am</span> saying is the patent laws are what they are. Any company is foolish to refrain from using patents which are available to it. And you, DIB are wasting time and posting space by accusing others of opinions holding they do not hold. Yeah, Bissell and TTI make low quality vacuums. And you know what? There is a market for them. People buy them. I wouldn't, but then I don't buy a lot of popular stuff most people buy.<BR><BR>Ugly? That's a matter of perception. The Dysons, in my opinion, are no prizewinners for their looks. They are very industrial looking, not what I would call attractive at all. <BR><BR>You still have ignored James Dyson's claim that he invented the first and only vacuum cleaner that does not lose suction. I don't know about the water trap vacuum you mentioned prior to Rexair as whether or not it lost suction in use, what I do know is that it did not use a separator, and thus, your bringing up the previous water trap vacuum, and lumping all water trap vacuums together as 'mud baths' is a misdirection away from the the fact that your St James either deliberately, or unwittingly made a false advertising claim when he touted his Dyson vacuum cleaners as &quot;the first&quot; and &quot;the only&quot; vacuum that doesn't lose suction. Not true.<BR><BR>Are you saying that you are unaware of the flimsiness of the hose on the upright Dysons, and/or the lack of a caveat in the manual not to tug on the hose to pull the machine around to a different direction? I am sure anyone on this forum who repairs and or collects vacuums has seen the flaw I am mentioning. <BR><BR>Trebor<br type="_moz"/><BR> <BR><BR>I don't own a Rainbow - but I suspect the water bath solves the problem of the stinky pet hair exhaust that is common in bagged and bagless vacuums. It's amazing to me that Rainbow sells as well as it does with the $2200 price tag. User reviews on sites like epinions and consumerreports.org tend to be very positive. I suspect that Dyson got the idea of displaying the dirt collected from vacuums like the Rainbow. It was a case of sloppy seconds for the Dyson.<BR><BR>In recent years, there have been some cheap knockoffs of water filtration vacuums with no power nozzle. The Rainbow knockoffs tend to also be high dollar niche brands (e.g. Hyla, Delphin, ...). I guess Dustmite belittles the Rainbow because it was the first, and Dyson got Rainbow's sloppy seconds/thirds... <BR><BR><BR><BR> |
|
|
Re: Just to be clear
#4 Nov 19, 2009 6:06 pm |
|
Batman,
Tell it to the consumer. Seventy years of business knowhow and the masses continually reject it, and no big-player manufacturer wants it (wants to copy it). It’s dead in the water (no pun intended).
Not bad and nice try - trying to state I do not appreciate inventions prior to Dyson. You need to be a rep for the underwhelming vac corps and sling that slop from there.
DIB Dustmite, If ignorance is bliss, you must be one happy fellow. There have been numerous imitations, including water filtration vacs sold on HSN.
|
|
|
Re: Just to be clear
#5 Nov 19, 2009 12:21 am |
|
Trebor,
...
Before Dyson, before Rainbow: Long before the Rainbow water-bath [shop] vac there was a railcar water vac. If you search this site, I’ve posted a patent drawing of it somewhere.
Me not commenting on your claims or positions: I do not pour over all the posts for sure, I have not commented on your [above] claims or positions since I have not seen any supporting information.
I’ve got to run.
DIB | |
Dustmite: The Rainbow is far more than a shop vac. It goes to show that you have no appreciation for the inordinate number of interventions prior to Dyson.
|
|
