Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

1)  Nov 21, 2007 James Dyson t.v. commercial parodied on Saturday Night Live.

2)  March 17, 2009:  While many independent vacuum dealers bad-mouth, lie of and/or dismiss James Dyson and his teams contributions, many others champion the man.  Watch James Dyson in his element - in his Malmesbury Headquarters.  NBC’s “Today Show”  http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=71fa9222-10d2-413c-bf31-0007895697ac

2)  Older video news:  I could not resist...  A Hottie car-news chick mentions the rumor of Dyson working with car makers, and Oreck gets a mention too (funny).

www.blinkx.com/video/hamann-stallion-audi-a7-fast-lane-daily-24jun08/JQ18e2m7y5hiULCgEQWSvw

HARDSELL:

Follow me here.  DC24 not DC07.  Have to bend down and touch your toes to wrap the cord.  Despite Mr. Dyson's pledge in his autobiography spouted here by all the dyson fans like you that dyson users will never have to bend over to fiddle with controls.  How do you and they reconcile the glaring contradiction?  Simple question.  Anyone have an answer relevant and worthy to post? 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

James states in his autobiography that he decided against adding a cord winder to the DC01 upright since they could be unreliable.

Based on a off-forum discussion with DIB and to answer claims that Dyson copied 'the ball' invention from somebody else, I'd like to share a short video clip showing the development process of this feature on the DC15 :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pPlYR6Hql8

M00seUK wrote:

Hello M00seUK:

I think he doesn't because its one more thing to go wrong.  More and more big box store vacuums have cord winders.  Even inexpensive models like the HOOVER Elite Rewind: $100, which is 3 years old now.  I mentioned my HOOVER cann for $50 has a cordwinder.  No problems with it.  It's a small vacuum and having the cord stowed away is wonderful for using and storing.

Now, you still haven't answered my question.  How do you and other dyson fans reconcile the statement in Mr. Dyson's autobiography with the gawdawful cord wraps on the DC24?  No bending over to fiddle with controls is the dyson mantra.  What happend on the DC24 bottom cord wrap?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
I presume Dyson's stance on the cord winder issue is if someone has a problem with wrapping the cord on the upright, they can look to purchase one of their canisters instead.

How does the cord wrap work on the DC24? I've only looked at it briefly in store. Is it different to the other Dyson uprights?

M00seUK wrote:

Hello M00seUK:

I use an upright for my daily use.  The HOOVER cann is a weekly and as needed user for above the floor and attachment cleaning.  A canister vacuum as a dialy user is not in my future.  Too much work and weight to pull out and use.  Too much effort when the upright is so convenient.

The bottom cord wrap on the DC24 [supposedly dyson's lightweight ball] is about 2 inches off the floor.  Worse possible location for people most likely interested in buying and using a lightweight upright.  Back problems, like me.  If I have to bend over and touch my toes every time I wrap the cord on a vacuum, I ain't buying it.

I have mentioned in the past and worth repeating here again.  One reason my dear WIfe and I loved the RICCAR upright and now the ORECK is the easy and high off the floor cord wraps.  

Carmine D.

M00seUK wrote:

Hello M00seUK:

It's entirely probable and possibly for two or more individuals to invent the same/similar things independent of each other and unknown to each other.  History has proven this time and time again with inventions, medical and scientific break throughs.  In the USA and overseas at the same time.  It's becoming less likely now because of the advancement in technology and instantaneous sharing of information.  Usually resulting in collaboration among people in professions.  In the case of dyson's ball technology, maybe not so likely with a student and business man.  But who knows? Maybe not so unlikely for Mr. Dyson to have known about the Kenneth J patent but remain silent until Kenneth J came forward. 

From my way of viewing, and probably most others who are not diehard dyson fans, it is quite natural and understandable to side with Kenneth J, the engineering student, who patented his version some 10 years before dyson.  Why?  For the very reason DIB cites so often for dyson against other vacuum makers.  Americans and I trust most others like and root for the underdog.  In this case, Kenneth J. not James D.

Carmine D.

M00seUK wrote:

Hi Moose,

Thank you converting and uploading this video.  I was somewhat disappointed with it's short duration, is there more of this Dyson video you can share?  If you post more (longer clip) can you bump up the quality too.  Many here have broadband and viewing hq video is no problem for us (or post 2 clips low and hi).  Thanks again.        DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Moose, I failed to mention (above)...  It was great seeing some inside Dyson stuff and great seeing the fella who transformed the very old method and standard of - straight line pushing/pulling of an upright.        DIB

CarmineD wrote:

Hello Carmine,

I think it's unconceivable that Dyson *didn't* investigate the validity of Kenneth J's patent during the course of developing their own invention. Indeed, patent filings often reference similar, pre-existing patents for the purpose of describing why their invention is different.

Dyson would be very foolhardy to have committed several millions pounds of R&D spend, testing, tooling and marketing - only to risk withdrawal of the product due to legal action.

What do you think Dyson should have done? Offered Kenneth J. a token amount for his patent or licensed it as a goodwill gesture? That would have set a dangerous legal / financial precedent. If he didn't have the foresight to word the patent correctly or Dyson have been ingenious enough to design around pre-existing methods then they can hardly be accused of using underhand techniques.

What had Kenneth J. been doing for the previous 10 years to bring his invention to market? Why hadn't anyone else licensed it from him during that time?

If the patent in question *had* been watertight, what's the odds that one of Dyson's competitors would have brought it, not to develop it in to an actual product (their shareholders wouldn't want the risk / expense), but to 'put it on the shelf' like Hoover UK admitted they would have done with the Dyson dual cyclone patent back in the day, to prevent anyone else using it against them. Is this the net benefit to the people, 'supporting the underdog' in this example??