Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Dyson is in the news frequently and so a dedicated thread.

.

CarmineD wrote:
Hi,

That's true but GE moved back to more conventional upright design.  Though GE continuallly manufactured canisters wasn't there laspe in upright manufacture before it started producing the external beg models with the suction port at the back of the base or were both on the market?

Venson

Hi Venson:

If memory serves me correctly, GE produced both ups/canns thru the time that it sold all the vacuum rights to Premier, probably mid-late 70's.  Had stick/brooms too.  We tend to think, myself included, that GE went to canns only.  Why?  HOOVER and EUREKA owned the upright market then.  GE's and most other uprights couldn't compete and stopped trying.  Especially with the big box stores selling the EUREKA and HOOVER brands while the GE brands were sold primarily through GE and appliance dealers.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Model2 wrote:
Model2,

 I have seen two vacuums in the United States Patent Office, that use a manipulating handle (1. a swivel and 2. a gimbal) both from the 1930’s (early and mid). These two vacuums are the obvious forerunners in function to the Miela S7 and alike.  If there is a vacuum that rides on a DC18 type roller it is not in the US patent office (I’m 95% sure).  I’d like to see this vacuum, do you have anything illustrating it that you can post?

 I have a love/hate for wiper blades under vacuums. It may be a good consumer element but it’s not the best way to vacuum a hard surface as you know. I’ve yet to see a broom that uses a wiper blade.  The Dyson blades cut into fingers as you pointed out certainly have more benefits than a straight edged blade. I too think the DC18 has some benefits unlike the DC25. I assumed moving the motor, HEPA and all the housing from the DC18 handle and into the DC25 Ball would have lightened up the DC25 handle weight considerably, which it did not. I found this to be disappointing.

DIB

P.S.  The vacuum [wand] swivel dates back to 1909.

Hi DIB,

Please take a look at the following link -- http://www.137.com/museum/airway.htm

You will be led to an image of one of the ealiest innovation in electric vacuum cleaners.  It is the Air-Way upright vacuum that I mentioned in an earlier post. I believe.  This Air-Way vacuum originally began with just a straight suction nozzle but all, the way back in the late 1920s somebody got the idea to make what had to be the first electric power nozzle.

This idea did not seem to validate itself until the very latter 1950s.  Imagine an Electrolux XXX or Hoover Aerodyne tank-type fitted with one of these.  Then again  . . . To everything there is a season  . . .

In the nearer past Hoover produced a PN for am series of canisters that that allowed you to lowerr an actual brush strip for cleaning bare floors. They also supplied for one stick vac model.  'Tis true I -- I owned one.

Someone please correct me if my memory has failed but I believe circa 1970-something Panasonic canisters used a plastic blade on its PNs. 

Plastic or rubber blades in in the past 50 years in general have usually only been used for "squeegee" tools meant to remove fluids from hard flooring.  Pardon my presumptuousness, but the standard for hard floor cleaning has been either natural or synthetic bristle used to compose brush strips intended to aid vacuum cleaning hard flooring.  In my opinion, plain old plastic strips tend to moreso push whatever is loose on a dry floor that dislodge adherent matter as well as a for real brush strips do.

Venson

Hi DIB,

the Airway vacuum I refer to doesn't ride on a roller or a ball; in comparing it to the Slim, I referred to more general similarities between the two machines:

• they both have rear wheels for stability which aren't used when vacuuming - the Slims retract automatically, the Air-Ways are clear of the floor when you're holding it for use
• they're both slim-profile, lightweight uprights
• the Air-Way rides on a floorhead which has two wheels, meaning it is possible to steer the cleaner more easily than a conventional, 4-wheeled upright. The swivel-neck means the cleaner can be turned on its side for doing underneath low furniture
• they both have change-over valves which divert suction down the handle for 'above-floor' cleaning - the Air-Ways being a round celluloid dial you turn manually; the Dysons being automatic. The Air-Way has a wide, hollow handle, which you can affix a hose to for 'above floor' cleaning
• stylistically the floorhead on the Slim is VERY reminiscent of the one used on the Air-Way twin-motor models

The biggest difference between the Airway and the Slim is that Airway introduced disposable bags, and Dyson introduced a system which made them obsolete! When I first saw the Slim, my impression was that the Dyson designers and engineers had looked at the innovative Air-Way, and updated it for the new millennium, taking its overall design and features and making them more user-friendly. Here's a set of pictures of my Air-Way 'Fleetwood Special':

Thanks Model2.  It's a real stunner.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Air-Way put themselves out of the upright market by copying Hoover's Agitator for their powerhead. Hoover successfully sued them for patent infringement. Air-Way claimed that since their beater-bars were mounted on rubber, their design was distinct from Hoover's, but the courts ruled against them.

Air-Way are also notable for being the first brand to introduce disposable dustbags on their machines; or as they called them, 'cellulose filter fiber dirt containers' . Hoover then offered similar disposable bags - 'Hygienisacs' - made of treated pulp-felt, as an option on their machines in 1929. There's some confusion as to what happened next; Air-Way did take Hoover to court, and my understanding was that it had again ruled in Hoover's favour, because the Hygienisac was re-useable, and the Air-Way bag was not. However, an Air-Way expert advised me that this was not the case, that Air-Way won and Hoover had to stop making them. Certainly, the Hygienisac wasn't around for long, but I couldn't say which ending is correct!

WRT the wiper-blade, it was originally included to stop uprights with revolving brushes from scattering debris when used on hard floors. I know Sebo have included them for quite a long time. They seem a little redundant on uprights where you can switch off the brush-roll for hard floor cleaning, but I guess they help focus the airflow in front of the nozzle, and prevent debris from being missed by guiding it into the airstream.

Model2 wrote:
I hope I get an actual chance to look one of these over .  In any event, I still find merely "suctioning" a bare floor with an upright vacuum when in need of a good cleaning as less than worth the while.  I much prefer a hose and bare floor attachment -- if the cleaner has the power.  A quick pass or so to get up a dust mote with an upright is probably not all that bad but Kirby's felt pad -- though it only allowed for airflow at either end -- was probably the most serious anhancement to any American upright regarding bare cleaning.  For a time, the G series was accommodated with a snap-on plastic plate that had a brush strip -- I've got one -- that was even more helpful on bare floors.

Venson

Model2 wrote:

My ORECK XL Classic has the wiper blade too on the rear of the sole plate that goes the length of the brush roll.  One pass forward is all that it takes to get anything/everything up and off the barefloor for the entire swath of the nozzle.  But as I've tried to tell HARDSELL many times, the trick to get the best performance from the ORECK is to turn it on.

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

The HOOVER Handi-Sacs [with the bag clips for the top openings] were reusable papers that were very expensive, labor intensive, and messy.  They were standard equipment on two new HOOVER upright models offered in the USA: The HOOVER 61 [circa about 1949] and HOOVER 62 [early 50's].  Then they disappeared in favor of the disposable Type C papers on the HOOVER 63, 64 and all the bottom fill Convertibles.  But the HOOVER Handi-Sacs were still available for many years for customers who still had these bags in their H-61 and H-62.  Most customers hated them for the cost and the mess.  And vacuum repair shops offered work arounds to avoid the reusable papers in favor of a straight cloth bag/disposable paper. 

Carmine D.