Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

I'm not very impressed with the design, but there's a guy who offers a way to convert Kirbys from bag to dirt canister.  Unfortunately, it doesn't offer dual cyclone or better technology.  It looks like you clean the pleated filter after every use.  I think I'd rather pay for bags than this gimmick.

http://www.kirbybagsneveragain.com/

Hello Bobby:

While I don't think and can't say he is an idiot, I can't imagine why anyone would take a perfectly good looking and working KIRBY and mess it up, save for money and a bagless fad.  Both of which will fade away and KIRBY will still be here as it's been for years. 

PS:  I'll mesage you privately on the other messages.

Carmine D.

Carmine, and Vacuumfreeek, and all.

Jim Keeler came up with this idea several years ago, and sold these units at $150.00. He figured out how to do it less exepensively, and is on the edge of being able to lower the cost of production enough to be able to offer them to selected vac shops. This was a product developed in response to market demand.

As ANY inventor knows, you ALWAYS use off the shelf, readily available parts whenever and wherever feasible. An engineer does not design any compnents he can buy. A painter does not invent new paint, he buys it off the shelf, and with his talent converts it into an image. It may be surreal, it may wonderful, it may be horrible, depending on who is looking at it, but undeniably it did not exist before. Things which are radically new, that is, bear liitle to no resemblance or relation to anything that existed before are often rejected in the marketplace. Sometimes they fail because they are unique just for the sake of being unique and offer no real advantge to anyone, and sometimes they fail because they are out of sync with they way we do or perceive things.

If I had had the idea and the capital to build this Kirby bagless conversion, knowing there were people clamoring for it, I would have built it as well. Who wouldn't? People do buy bagless vacuums, and they will be with us for awhile yet, and there's no moral issue in selling someone a product they desire to purchase. Yet there are always those who criticize somebody else's work because it isn't putting a dime in their pocket. You go, Jim!

Trebor

Trebor wrote:
You also have those who foolishly spend money for nitrogen to be put in tires when it adds no value.

HARDSELL wrote:

Why pay for it when you can get it free?

Carmine D.

I applaud the man and like the overall concept.  He’s got his own thing going on, answers to no manufacturer[s] and has ZERO direct competitors.  Although I think he could do much more business if it were multi-level cyclonic’s (styled too). - Perhaps someday.

DIB

Perhaps in a future re-iteration, the inventor can enclose the bagless conversion apparatus inside the KIRBY bag to maintain the classic charm of the signature KIRBY form.  Might even increase its appeal and market demand.

Carmine D.

Enclosing the conversion would mean the dirt picked up would be hidden. The cylinder is supposed to be emptied, and the filter cleaned after each use. Jim says he makes people aware of this when they purchase. Enclosing the dirt container would necessitate using a vertical canister, which is easier to damage by vacuuming under a dining room table, for example. Anyone who has demo'd a Kirby with a dirt meter is aware that the Kirby feels lighter and more balanced with it on as opposed to the bag,

Having done a few (thousand) Kirby demos I can tell you that if the Kirby cleaned as well with the bag as it does with the dirt meter, the bags would fill faster than they do. I have often pulled a bag full of dirt on the test pads. Yet after the sale and I am using the bag on the customer's newly purchased Kirby in preparation for finishing the shampoo, the bag does not fill with dirt at the same rate it piled onto the dirt pads. The dirt path to the bag through the fill tube is so much longer than the distance from the nozzle to the dirt meter. For that brief second or two before the pad totally clogs, the air velocity is much higher in the dirt meter. Then a new pad is put in. So those micro-bursts of tremendous cleaning power are really what sell the customer on the machine. I think Mr. Keeler's bagless conversion is really just a large dirt meter with a pleated filter that is cleaned instead of a pad that is changed

P.S. All of the cyclonic units, in fact all of the bagless units, with the exception of this new Keeler conversion SUCK the air into the container. This unit takes air directly off the fan chamber and the dirt/sand/dust is picked up and blown into the chamber. If anyone chooses to respond to this post, can we skip all sophomoric jokes and jibes about sucking, blowing, ad nauseum, please?

Trebor,

I have seen plenty of industrial [tapered] cyclonic’s that blew.  This fella’s clear bin is currently separating dust and debris from the [blowing] airflow.  So why not separate the finer dust particles too?  And then onto the final [Hepa] filter.

DIB

Trebor wrote:

Exactly.

Carmine D.

DIB,

I did not realize there were such cyclonic devices. Wonder why no one has devised one yet for a vacuum cleaner?

Carmine,

The whole point is for people to see the dirt so they empty it and clean the filter each time. Out of sight out of mind. To put a bag over the bagless conversion would serve no purpose. If you want the bag, just keep the one that comes with the Kirby. If not, buy the conversion.