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/

Re:  cyclonic exhaust

If Dyson is the first with this type of exhaust separation, then he has a monopoly.  Any manufacturer, government, university, etc. that may be interested or in need of such separation must first purchase or license *patents from Dyson. - That's not a bad investment of [little] time and money.


DIB

*If they exist.

Trebor wrote:

It is obtuse to buy a new KIRBY then add an after market non-Kirby unsanctioned bagless converter for $150.   If you are fortunate enough to own a KIRBY but decide to go bagless then buy a bagless.  

Carmine D.

Carmine,

Are you of the opinion that a bagless BigBox vac will outclean a Kirby with a conversion on it? I don't think anyone specifically mentioned putting this on a brand new Kirby Sentria. There are plenty of G-3,4,5,6,UG and UG Diamond units out there, and owners are buying the conversion at a rate that means Jim Keeler will not be able to keep up with demand by manufacturing all of the units himself. The market rules, for better or worse, it's just the way it is.

Model 12

As to the warrany, technically it would violate it, but who is going to know? Put the bag on when you have to take it in for service.

DIB,

I do not know if Dyson patented his exhaust fed cyclonic separation chamber, and even f he did, the patents would have long since expired. This was in the R&D stage before anything hit the market

Trebor

Trebor wrote:

Does this reasoning apply for revolving brushes and uprights used on shag, frieze, and berber carpets also to preclude the voiding of the rug makers' warranty?  Just say you used the straight suction mode.  Sounds obtuse to say the least.

Carmine D.

Trebor wrote:
Trebor,

I do not remember seeing Dyson exhaust patents here in the U.S. - true.  If he was first to patent, it would be a gamble which could have a payday somehow or someway.  It could very well of been a simple and inexpensive experiment and nothing more.

It has been a long while since I read the autobiography, so I can't remember when he/his team worked on them.

You’re welcome (for the pics).

DIB

Model2 wrote:

If the Kirby conversion used at a minimum dual cyclone technology, it might not be so bad.  I do agree with James Dyson that the purpose of the bagless design was to get away from the problems with bags, i.e. that they clog.  Switching from a bag that clogs to a filter that clogs doesn't seem like a very good trade.  The Kirby has huge bags with huge surface area.  Switching to a pleated filter seems uncivilized.    I'd bet that 8 out of 10 conversion purchasers don't use the thing after 6 months. 

Severus wrote:
Well said Severus.

Venson

Carmine,

A rug would show damage if it were vacuumed with a rotating brush when it should not be. If you take a Kirby in with the bag on it, who is going to question the owner about whether or not they used a bagless conversion unit? The bagless cylinder only violate sthe warrany because Kirby wants to sell their bags. The same could be said of using off brand bags in the Kirby.

DIB, Severus, and Venson,

If you have ever seen a Kirby demo, or done one yourself you know that even in that small cavity there is a cyclonic action of sorts. What makes you think there is not some cyclonic action in the bagless conversion? The Kirby is producing at least 50% more ariflow than a bagless vac, with the possible exception of Dyson. Maybe the filter doesn't clog as quickly as you think in this application. People with large homes and multiplr pets are a large percentage of the people purchasing the bagless conversion. At the cost of the hepa bags, I can see where this could save them money.

Trebor wrote:
Hi Trebor,

This'll at least make DIB happy -- when Dyson started to become prominent the first line of defense by some manufacturers' nitwit designers was to take the easy way out with pleated filters so they could quickly come up with some sort of offering they too could call bagless. It's never worked. The pleated filters clog quickly, are hard to clean and usually require replacement every six months or more when they've become empacted with dirt that won't rinse out if "washing" is allowed.

Trust me, I have already lived this. First time round was with the Kenmore Evo. It used a pleated filter inside the dust bin. It was a little bulky but, overall, a pretty good cleaner -- at first. With a few months a drop in overall performance was quite noticeable even though the vacuum was frequently emptied and the filter washed. This experience also repeated it self by way of a couple of high-powered stick vacs I bought.

Later on down the line, I picked up the Kenmore Iridium, an LG designed machine with true cyclonics and there came a world of difference in the experience. There is no pleated filter in the collection bin but just one small foam pre-filter for the motor that washes out in seconds. As long as the cleaner is not allowed to overfill so that the air swirl produced around the shroud remains unhindered, only small amounts of fine dust land on the pre-filter. I washed the bin out maybe every five or six weeks to keep the air channels clean.

In the case of the Kirby doo-dad, dirty air is blown into the bin and cleaned by the pleated filter as it exits. Though the tap-n-clean fairy tale has it that all you have to do is dump the collection bin and give the pleated filter a couple quick taps against the side of your garbage can it's a lot of hokum. Those filters not only have to be tapped, nearly banged cleaned but also brushed clean to thoroughly get dirt out of the pleats. This only gets worse when you pick up a good amount of pet fur and/or fluff and lint.

Not only myself but several other posters here have tried out bagless vacuums with pleated filters and most of us experienced nothing but annoyance when it got down to maintenance and disappoint with performance. Use of cyclonics for bagless "clean air" uprights appears to have increased and the use of pleated filters has declined except in the "disposables".

The Kirby -- and probably none of the other direct air machines on the market -- is designed for this new gadget. And the only way you can live with it is to run outside to dump it and bang the filter clean two or three times per cleaning session so that you never have any major amount of collected dust to impede airflow. If a direct air upright's bag becomes overly clogged with dust its performance definitely will drop the more its fan is rendered unable to force air out. As mentioned by Severus surface area for filtration is very necessary. The surface area of the pleated filters in these devices is much, much less than that of Kirby's bags. Even if some sort of cylconic air cleaning system could be developed for cleaning this brand's dirty exhaust air, more than likely, it would only make an already not easy to maneuver machine all the more difficult to manage.

You know I hate bag prices but in this case Kirby fares better with its regular bag set-up which allows for a generous flow of air that helps them work best. Kirby may well be in line for modernizing but so far it's good enough as is. Though it may prove a bit too complex for some due to attachments, etc., current bagged Kirbys clean well, have good emissions and last a long time.

Venson

Venson,

No question Kirbys are durable and perform well. They really are not all that difficult to manuever, although there is a shallow learning curve to putting the machine through all its configurations. Most people are just too lazy to bother.

But I come back to my previous points:

1) There is cyclonic action (however brief) in a dirt meter, ergo it makes sense that there would be cyclonic action in this cylinder, and 2) it would make a difference because the air is being blown into the chamber at a rate far greater then a Big Box upright. According to JIm the horizontal units work better. The container is to be emptied and the filter cleaned after each use, that is a given.

There seems to be  resistance to even entertaining the notion that maybe this is better than the bagless units we have seen up until now. I haven't seen one in use, but then neither has anyone else on the forum (unless they are being coy and not putting their 2 cents in.) I'm not saying it's the greatest thing since the rug renovator, I just think Jim Keeler has done something no one has marketed until now, and it deserves to be tried before being prematurely dismissed as just another dimestore bagless. These have been selling for a few years now. The price has come down significantly, which is feeding demand. Are people that resentful of another's success? OK, Maybe it is a piece of crap and Jim is huckstering his was to fame and fortune, on the other hand, maybe for reasons I have postulated, it's really quite good. When I have a Kirby and a Keeler bagless conversion to play with, I'll post my findings.