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

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.

CarmineD wrote:

Your not talking about the creative accounting scam like regina, counting repacks as sold units.How much time did those 2 guys do.And wrecked the company at the same time. What a great bunch of guys.

regards

MOLE

HARDSELL wrote:

That's why I married her!

Carmine D.

Why does every thread on this forum end up discussing Dyson? This thread was about finding a vacuum that would thoroughly yet gently clean them.

Trebor

Trebor wrote:

I used the word 'Dyson' in one of my posts, and that seems to be a red rag to a bull with Carmine! I've certainly tried to share all I can on the issue of pre-war Hoovers and efficient rug-cleaning. If you feel that was unhelpful of me, or not what you were looking for, I apologise.

Model2 wrote:

I concede that one fact is right.  The HOOVER 700 is the Greater HOOVER.  But in actuality all the 700 series are the Greater HOOVER.

If you state that your fave brand is an "overwhelming success" that is an opinion unless you have the dyson "facts and figures" to back it up.  Where are they?

I recall the ASA in 2008 [when it ruled against dyson in favor of Electrolux] that it did not have any confirmed research and any facts/knowledge to support dyson's claim in its suit against Electrolux that it was the leading selling vacuum in the UK.  Opinion, not fact and no figures with back up.

Carmine D.

Model 2,

I do appreciate your info and your willingness to share it. I just grow weary of the seemingly constant bickering over the relative merits of James Dyson's contribution to vacuum cleaner history. And it's more that that. The "discussion"  degenerates into thinly veiled name calling and questioning of forum contributors integrity and intellectual prowess. The whole topic has had more attention than it justly deserves. Let's move on guys!

Trebor

Trebor

Trebor wrote:

Trebor:

I'm ready, willing and able.  But when someone wants to fence with me, I thrust and parry. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Model 700 was 'The Greater Hoover'

Model 725 wasn't afforded specific a title.

Model 750 was 'The Two-Speed Hoover', part of the 'Silver Jubilee Range'.

Model 800 was 'The Sentinel', and in the UK, 'The Jubilee Hoover'.

Other than these Hoover-given titles, they were referred to by Hoover as 'the Deluxe Model', or 'The Standard Model'.

Since these models have official Hoover given-titles, this is why I do not use the term 'The Greater Hoover' for any model after the 700. The title does not appear in Hoover promotional material after the 725 was introduced in 1929.

But call them what you will- a rose by any other name, etc!