Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Carmine,

This will probably fall under your area of expertise and experience, but all are welcome to contribute. As I transition from being unemployed to being self-employed, I am looking for more specialized services to offer my clients.

There are specialized 'rug dusters' for sale which tap the accumulated dirt, dust, sand, and grit out of Oriental rugs by laying them face down over a grid which gives the debris room to fall. These cost upwards of 4,000.00! These have been developed as an alternative to the huge stationary 240 volt dusting machines. All of this to replace regular vacuuming with a Hoover 300, 700, or 150, the ones with the dual divergent agitator bars, with shorter agitator bars and bristle strips in between on each side.

The magic of the Hoover was that the 5,000 taps per minute during slow motion vacuuming set up a wave pattern that  vibrated the rug, dislodging the dirt, sand, and grit. It was not accomplished with tremendous suction, though the airflow was good, it was the balance of enough suction to keep snapping the rug up after each tap. The sand was not actually beaten out of the rug as much as the rug was pushed down leaving the sand in mid-air to be caught by the airflow generated by the fan, as explained by the laws of Newtonian physics.

My question is this: Short of finding and restoring a few 150 Hoovers, is there any alternative? Would any later model Hoovers accept the dual divergent agitator? How late? A current Guardsman, maybe, with some alteration perhaps?

A Kirby with a cloth bag has been suggested to me. A G series will not accept a full-fledged sani-emptor, and probably is too powerful to sustain the tap/snap action. A cloth bag would yield too much airflow, and a hepa bag too little as it fills. A Heritage I with a cloth bag seems the only other possibility. The Sanitaire Vibra-Groomer I is not sufficient, about the same as the standard Hoover agitator with just one strip of beater bar per side.

The idea of being able to restore neglected Oriental rugs with simple thorough vacuuming for good pay is very appealing. As I understand it, Hoover abandoned this configuration of agitator because as area rugs gave way to wal to wall carpet, it did not grab and hold the wall-to-wall carpet as well as the newer, less expensive to produce version, which had just the one spiral strip per side. Hoover could have ruled if they had stuck to being a status symbol. Imagine being able to switch out the roller and bottom plate to adapt the vacuum to whatever carpet/rug/floor needed to be cleaned. The mind boggles, while the Hoover just beats, as it sweeps, as it cleans...

Trebor

Model2 wrote:

Having been in the vacuum biz for many many years I took the liberty and license during my professional career to refer to all the HOOVER 700 series:  700, 725, and 750 as the Greater HOOVER!  I'm sure BOSS HOOVER, a friend of mine, forgives me for my sin.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Sorry, the way you grill us over precise Dyson facts and figures, I thought you'd appreciate the accuracy. Maybe I'm just pedantic. I don't discuss these machines on TV for nothing 

 ~ The Hoover Building, Greenford, Perivale, Middlesex ~

Model2 wrote:

dyson..............facts and figures.  An oxymoron!

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Why an oxymoron? Because you don't have access to them?

Model2 wrote:

Does anyone?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I'm sure those who do aren't at liberty to share them on internet messageboards! Remember, in the Malmsbury HQ, only one set of scanned-fingerprints has unlimited access to all areas

Getting back to the 725 for a minute, I forgot to say congratulations, Trebor, on a splended choice. Whether or not THE Greater Hoover, it certainly is a great Hoover! Solid, reliable, and so simple that there's nothing to go wrong. Early models even have two small holes on either side of the front casting, to help keep the Agitator bearings cool - so much thought in one design! It's let down only by the retractable bag cord, which debuted with this model - 99 times out of 100, they've long since torn and whipped back inside the handle, to be replaced with an equally-functional, and considerably more durable, spring!

Model2 wrote:

You may get an "A" for accuracy with your "facts" but not for honesty with your figures.  If dyson's figures were truly facts, they would be plastered all over here and the internet, just like in years past, early and often. 

Model2 wrote:

Guess is right.  Only the guy with the right set of fingerprints knows for sure.  And he ain't saying. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

If you concede that my facts are accurate, why do they earn the dismissive quotation marks? What Dyson figures have I attempted to deceived you over - please give me an example, or retract that statement. And please clarify exactly which figures you're talking about.

CarmineD wrote:

Not sure if this is an oxymoron or a joke.  I got a good laugh so maybe it is both.

Really, a pro who did not know about Oreck until his wife told him.