Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

http://www.overstock.com/Home-Garden/Rainbow-SE-Bagless-Water-Vacuum-Cleaner-Refurbished/3402181/product.html

Hi Carmine,

Lewyt first came out with some sort of push-powered mechanical device that was merely a carpet sweeper that hooke up to the vacuum.  I've only seen advetisements of it.  Also, Lewyt did make one early try with an electric power nozzle for a square "big wheel" model as did GE with a model it put out in the early 60s, same style as the green C7.  Its PN was appeared to be made in-house though years later they tried a generic add-on..  I did see the GE in a department store but never saw the Lewyt with power nozzle anywhere but in magazine ads. A case of I came.  I saw.  I fell flat on my face.

Venson

Thanks DIB,

I downloaded the article in PDF form so I can keep it.  I don't think "cyclonic" has much to do with issue as centrifugal force is really the action to be described.  Matter being flung away tries to follow a straight path but is affected by its confines, or lack of confines and gravity.  "Cyclonic" is of better use, metaphorically speaking, on the sales side of things.  It's something like the contained "rain storm" Rexair/Rainbow reffered to for many years of pitching.  Interstate Compact had the term "Cyclonic" stamped or molded in to its floor tools though any sort of cyclonic or centrical action was actually obvious or described..

Not saying the whole world is stupid, I think if the average lot is told, "This vacuum uses centrifugal force . . ." they would need to stop a minute to get a grasp of exactly how the statement applies.  On the other hand, we all know cyclones -- Pecos Pete even rode one.  They're the great powerful columns of swirling air that suck up houses, barns, cars and the like and toss them away.   Yes, little columns of swirling air do influence the traffic and placement of airborne dirt inside the dust containers of bagless vacuums but all roads lead to Rome though this time the name of town is Centrifugal Force-ville.

Best,

Venson

Lewyt argued unsuccessfully that Health-Mor couldn't claim patent and exclusive rights since the components of the vacuum were not new and different but old and already in use [off the shelf technology as one likes to say].  The courts disagreed with Lewyt.  I excerpted this from the decision [1950].  It summarizes the court's reasons.   

"In this case then, even though the use of a replaceable paper filter, or a conically shaped filter, or an air intake which set up a centrifugal force was not new, still it seems to us that there was patentable novelty in Yonkers' combination of these elements. This novelty lay in the form of and cooperation between the air intake and the replaceable conical paper filter, which operate together to produce a combined result not disclosed or suggested in any of the prior art patents. That the result achieved is both useful and desirable is evidenced by the machine's commercial success, attributable, obviously, to the fact that it eliminates inconveniences and disadvantages inherent in the older cleaners. 

The highlighted portion almost sounds like:

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Save one exception.  There are no caveats for overfilling and no full line on the Filter Queen cann base.  Seems to you [and me also] based on the court's decision in 1950 that Health-Mor's Filter Queen [circa about 1940-ish with the models 200 and 350] was the first to the vacuum market with cyclonic air [centrifugal force] flow.

Carmine D.

Hello MOLE:

I didn't know Stan passed.  Thank you for the info.  May his soul rest in peace with the angels and saints +.

WRT your above statement, I used a Lewyt bagless cann as my under bench vacuum for awhile and thought it was fine.  I liked to use both the suction and blower ends for servicing vacuums.  Lewyt was convenient for this purpose.

I converted to the GE swivel with a cloth bag/and no paper insert as my under bench vacuum [keeping the Lewyt too as a spare].  Used the GE up until the time I sold my business and still had both GE and Lewyt until I moved to Las Vegas a few years ago.  The GE clocked 50 years of service easily w/o any repairs other than plugs/cord/hose/tools.  Although not used as much, the Lewyt cann was still going strong when I gifted it away before moving here to LV.

Carmine D.

Hi Venson:

I recall even GE tried its hand at a power head but fell flat.

In the mid-50's HOOVER launched its Convertibles [2 speed motor with the higher speed for tool/attachment use]: HOOVER-s 31 and 65.  With these and the proven HOOVER agitator: Beats, As it Sweeps, As it Cleans, and American consumers increasingly buying rugs/carpets in the USA, many of the straight suction tank and canister vacuum makers fell by the way-side.  They were psyched out by HOOVER and rightly so.  HOOVER"s stock rose in the industry.  Even vacuum brands with decent uprights, like GE, Singer, and Westinghouse [Lewyt was strictly canns and sticks], dropped out of the industry.  Couldn't compete.

Carmine D.

Hi DIB,

Your point is well taken but the Devil is in the details.  I think the better a thing is described the more clearly it is explained -- wherever.  Of course, I do not in any way imagine that persons involved in debating like issues in a court of law spend a great deal of time opining the finite detail of the mechanics of a vacuum cleaner or using one for that matter.  However, whether the comparison is to natural phenomenon or popular brand, I'd much prefer they eased off euphemistic reference and leaned on basic physics more. 

The big problem is that myriad brands are taking on the term "cyclonic" -- which can be owned by no one -- and all should be expected to well explain how the term applies to their product lest the public be mislead.

Venson