Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

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

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

Hi DIB,

What is brilliance? The Hula Hoop, the Cabbage Patch Doll and the Pet Rock made a lot of money for the folks who thought them up.  That as remarkable ingenuity as I've ever witnessed.

There are still other vacuum makers who diligently strive to provide quality product and appear to be prospering because there are people who gladly buy them.  I appreciate your enthusiasm but Dyson is not and never will be running the only game in town. It's all a mattter of choice.  The best vacuum is the one your happy to make frequent use of.

As well, originality remains a moot point as, like beauty, its all in the eye of the beholder.  If "cyclonics" is the subject I don't necessarily think of Dyson first.  I think of Filter Queen, maybe not to you the perfect instance, that took its user a long way when it came to lasting, usable cleaning power and could probably even plead the case in regard to Electrolux's Model XXX.  I think of central vacs that used the full-blown idea back as far as what feels like Year One.  If Dyson fine-tuned the idea, shrunk it to portable machine size  -- plus made some money -- wonderful.  Nonetheless, there are other companies that bear large and equally illustrious histories by way of less unique product without much dispute over who had first dibs on the cloth dust bag.  The only original "vacuum cleaner" will probably be the one that snatches up dirt and disintegrates it with no moving parts involved.

In regard to what's interesting, though I am a great lover of science, I am interested in any vacuum that promotes thorough cleaning with minimum effort and maintenance.  That's still a dream waiting to be realized.  Though we may now dump our clothing into automatic washers and put the dinner dishes in our dishwashers and walk away, vacuuming remains nearly as labor-intensive as working with a broom and dust cloth.  So far Roomba is the visionary leader in the area of at least lessening the effort of floor cleaning and Dyson and everyone else has long way to go.  However . . .

My main concern, as I stated, is the lack of clear explanations of how products work or don't work  -- in court or out.  Since the makers of appliances and those who sell them, no matter who, are all mortals just like us I think we may safely assume as my beloved Aunt Lucy used to say, "Their mouths aren't prayer books and their backsides aren't stack of bibles."  Therefore, some skepticism and questioning are never out of order until some sort of requirement by law regarding accuracy of description is firmly set in place.

Venson

Carmine D.