Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

The 'Freedom' and 'Slalom' uprights, and the 'Xarion' cylinder cleaner. All employ 'Airvolution' technology.

You'll have to wander about the Argos site yourselves, as I can't be bothered battling with the silly formatting of pictures on this forum, and the website linking didn't work either.

Venson,

Do not take my criticism of Hoover UK personal.  Their thieving, dishonesty, scheming and un-innovative ways is their doing, not yours.  While Hoover UK’s stealing from the much younger, smaller and much less profitable Dyson is celebrated and/or dismissed by vacuum enthusiasts and their “independent dealer” buddies who have DC07’s and/or DC14’s nailed to their floors. - The public, some Universities and those who teach patent law do not agree nor appreciate the giants (Hoover UK) taking what does not belong to them - taking from the little guys - taking Mr. Dyson’s intellectual property.  Search vacuum sites and Hoover UK stealing from Dyson is dismissed, search Google and Hoover UK stealing from Dyson is hated.

 

Thanks for the brushroll story (Hoover Eureka).  Hoover worked hard, pioneered, proved and promoted a better way to clean carpets, but they left the patent door wide open and allowed Eureka to figure a legal way around Hoovers patents.  Like I posted here before, it is Dyson’s own fault for not securing additional DC14 styled cyclonic patents that could have made building a competitive upright multi-cyclonic much more difficult or costly.  His patents narrowly defined his cones to be placed inside the receptacle (bin).  So what did the genius’s at Bissell, and TTI do?…  They simply pulled the cyclone out of the bin and they beat Dyson’s patent.  Dyson poured the R&D money and time into developing multi-cyclonic’s, poured $37 to $50 million annually in advertising dollars here in the U.S. telling the cyclonic story (its benefits) and now Bissell and TTI can enjoy/profit from Dyson work and money.

 

I’m quite familiar with the DC15’s up and downsides.  I have researched steerable vacuum cleaner patents, here in the U.S., Europe and in Japan.  The Hoover UK steerable upright will prove to be difficult and not practical for a woman to use easily on carpeting.  Dyson comes out with lightweight steerables and Hoover UK comes out with a clogging upright, that’s just as heavy as the DC15, yet harder to turn steerable, which is scoffed at here by anti-Dyson independents and enthusiasts.  - Is Hoover UK on drugs?  Maybe not, maybe the steerable DC15 is a winner in Hoover UK’s eyes.         DIB

So D.I.B. should the general vacuum cleaner buying public consider your post as you liking the hoover machine and hating the company, or visa versa?

Am i trying to read to much into it?And in the grand scheme of things what are really trying to say?Do you like the latest HOOVER offerings or not.

MOLE

Mole,

I dislike the suits and/or owners much more than their vacuum products.  I probably would say nothing of them if they played fair.  I hate cheats and hate the rich and powerful cheats all the more.        DIB

DIB, i can understand where your coming from,But you have to realize that your dealing with theHUMAN element here,This business has always been this way.Every industry known to mankind operates this way. Including Dyson.

MOLE

Hi D.I.B.,

I certainly don't take it personally but I fear for loss of clarity regarding the bigger picture.  I just don't buy into the theft thing even in the realm of intelletual property.  Televisions are more or less the same device, but who defines what or actually knows what features or manner of construction is significantly patent worthy?  The Rexair started out as a "bagless" machine many, many moons ago.  The use of water happened to come into play after the fact.  Central vacuums were using cyclonic dust separation long before JD was out of diapers.  Whether one "cyclone" or ten is employed, does this mean that Dyson owes someone something?  And . . .

Don't underestimate the strength of women.  I don't think any will be laid low by the use of the Slalom and that those who don't like this new spin on mechanics will certainly say so.  I'm sure that you're aware that womankind comes in all sizes and shapes and even the smallest among them have been known to execute and endure all sorts of tasks -- even childbirth.  Not often privileged to delegate duty, they are also known to lug kids, strollers, groceries, the dog, etc., up, down and around all through the day with little or no help from their "helpmates".  After all that, most amazingly, the larger part of the group actually live long enough to see grandkids.

There are thousands of the same  who swore by unwieldly old Hoovers,  Kirby or Rexair/Rainbow or Lux XL and went back to buy more of the same after they'd worn the first one out.  It's all a matter of who buys into what hype or that which is perceived as most useful. 

The most interesting conversation I've had ocassion to listen in on occurred in the floor care section at Bed Bath & Beyond.  The Dyson Ball was on display and apparently upon viewing the price, loud enough to be heard throughout the store, a female voice boomed, "I'll never spend $600 on a vacuum cleaner."  There was an ensuing discussion involving this person and another equally disdainful woman shopper.  The second party summed the whole issue up by stating in regard to what was to her just one more chore to tackle, "It's about getting the job done."  Men are about the same I think.  When I attack my bathroom, I don't think about state-of-the-art.  I think about how soon I cant get it properly done but quickly over with.  There are a large amount of folks who merely want an affordable floor care machine that will offer the same.

IF they are of relatively durable material, I don't imagine the new Hoovers will prove a problem for those who may like them.  By the way, what's your opinion regarding Consumer Reports' current of the DC24?

Best,

Venson

DysonInventsBig wrote:

The Triple Vortex was apparently designed in conjunction with BHR Group, who are specialists in the oil industry. They specialise in cyclonic separation of the oil from sediments, and had a recycling system to amplify the amount of sediment recovered from the oil. Hoover apparently stated at the trial that their machine was derived from the oil industry technology.

The Hoover Triple Vortex had an intermediate cyclone, called "the involute vortex separator", situated between the low and high efficiency vortices. This did not deposit dirt in the normal way, by spinning it out of the airflow. Instead, it took the soiled air filtered by the perforated shroud, and allowed the air to follow a spiral pattern up the inside wall of a smaller diameter cyclone chamber, exiting tangentially via ducting, which led to the high efficiency vortex chamber, where the dust was spun out of the airflow.

The clean air (which might still have dust particles in it) exited up through the vortex finder of the high efficiency chamber, right into the 'eye of the storm' of the involute chamber. The idea being that the dirt particles would rejoin the airflow in the involute chamber, to go for another scrubbing through the high efficiency chamber. The clean air from the high efficiency vortex finder traced a vertical path, right through the involute chamber, until it encountered another vortex finder at the top of this chamber. The air exited to a foam diffuser pre-motor filter, then into the motor. The exhaust filter was washable foam, on the basic model, or washable HEPA on the top model.

Here is a link to the involute vortex technology:

http://www.bhrgroup.co.uk/bhrsoln/process/isep.htm

Trilobite wrote:

Thanks Trilobbite,

If a picture paints a thousand words then the PDF certainly did the trick for me.  I also noticed that the BHR listed one of its applications as vacuum cleaners.  However, I got to thinking somehow I'd seen this before and then it struck me that this may be the same idea used in bagless vacuums that claim multiple cyclones.  Your final description of how one  works also describes how the dozen or so in my LG-cloned Kenmore bagless work.  The votes aren't in as to whether more is better but  I wonder if it might prove a legal loophole.

Venson

Trilobite,

I have not seen the Vortex vacuum but the term “trumpet” shaped cyclone or alike came up often and that was where the infringement took place.

 

Venson,

The question amongst collectors most always is…  Others invented the [dual] cyclone before Dyson.  I have seen an upright (possibly Rexair?) patent, but I was not able to determine how it filtered exactly.  This is very important to note...  Hoover UK countersued Dyson and attempted to get the Dyson patent voided.  Hoover’s position was - there was (much older) prior art out there.  If I rember correctly, no Rexair patents of any sort were not used to demonstrate prior art, but instead 2 other and much older (than Dyson) U.S. patents (canisters, I think) were presented and the judge and he find prior art that pre-dated Dyson.

 

I have some personal things that need attending and so in the future I may or may not be posting much.        DIB

Here is an X-ray type photograph, showing the trumpet-shaped cyclone. The involute separator sits above this. This is the photo that was printed upon the sales brochures, item cartons, etc.

http://www.bhrgroup.co.uk/bhrsoln/process/sephome.htm