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

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??

DysonInventsBig wrote:
It's taken from a shop training DVD given out at DC15 launch. There's other video clips, but that's all there is with regards to the development.

M00seUK wrote:

No problem.  If there is anything of other interest to us Dyson guys, please post too.  Thanks.        DIB

M00seUK wrote:

Hello M00seUK:

Thank you for the repsonse and your thoughts.  I can understand HOOVER's point of view with regard to the bagless.  As a proponent of bagged and not bagless, bagless are a fad and will eventually fizzle out except on hand/stick vacuums and inexpensive big box store brands.  Perhaps that is the reason in part HOOVER UK wanted it shelved.  And not the pernicious self-serving reasons that most dyson fans ascribe to HOOVER.

While the pretense of not buying bags is enticing to most initially, the side effects of more frequent dumping of the dirt bin than bag replacement is more and more mentioned by bagless users as a major drawback.  Add to this, the obvious health risks and associated hazards to the air in your home by having all this ilk [that is well contained and isolated in a bag] up close and personal to the bagless vacuum user.  And constantly in the dirt bin and bin components.  Then throw in the high costs of pre-post motor filters and labor intensive filter maintenace.  What are you left with?  A one-two-three punch combination for likely fading of the bagless fad especially in high priced full sized vacuums.

I don't fault HOOVER UK at all for wanting to shelf the dual cyclone.  That would have been my recommendation too except, as I said, for hand and stick vacuums and inexpensive vacuums sold in the big box stores.

Carmine D. 

Indeed. Hoover UK's position was that they (and others) were happy with their bagged vaccums and the continual revenue it brought in, for little investment. The bagless vacuum can be seen as a disruptive technology, one they were keen to avoid. Unless someone can perfect a bagless dumping method that is as clean and easy as a bagged, I think we'll have both types on the market for sometime yet.

CarmineD wrote:

Are you sayin that it is permissable to use a stick vac or a cheapo although they (according ot you) could be  hazardous to one's health?

Typical for a hypocrite.