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:
True. Considering that at this very moment many perfectly nice people who've lived perfectly nice lives in perfectly nice home environments are now, due to loss of jobs and our very ill economy, are focusing on things of more importance. Things like figuring out how pay rent or mortgages, how to juggle bills so that children may be properly fed, how to scratch around for cash to keep their health insurance active, how to maneuver the dire straits of illness of all kinds in light of cutbacks at public health facilities. Vacuum buying will soon be a no brainer. Cyclonics, beater bars and brushes, LED displays and where the dirt goes are no longer an issue. It's all about how much they cost.

During the early 20th century vacuums were considered more a luxury and not the near necessity we see them as today. Thus during the depression it's doubtful that many worried long over life without one and just got on with their lives. This time round, though a household vacuum is definitely a good thing to have and more easily accessible, price is now an essential selling point for the masses.

As for this thing about the Chinese giant . . .

Statistics have it that if the rest of the world consumed to the same degree we do, we'd need a planet about five times bigger to handle the resulting trash pile. I never get why no one is ready to face up to the cold hard fact that it's not about the giant -- it's about us. WE gave him vitamins.

We were more than glad to see him when he showed up with trinkets we liked for less than we would have had to pay the guy next door to make. Thrifty soul that that old giant is by way of frugality regarding labor and possibly social programs in is own homeland, he's managed to sock away enough to be able to start calling the shots for himself but is also laying down the tune that those well beyond his door dance to. Nonetheless, knowing who we're feeding and how much we're feeding them, we're still hell bent on glooming up as much as we can here in the land of plenty.

None of the Asian and European countries who have prospered by way of American consumer dollars are at fault. There were no threats of our being nuked if we didn't buy their TVs, fridges and autos. Lost jobs have not been taken away -- they've been given away. Our economic problems are due to greed on one hand and blindness on the other. Unfortunately, we've now reached a point where analysis has come too late and pointing the finger of blame is an absolutely useless action. The only thing left is to try to think of what to do until the doctor comes.

It would be great if that $300 Hoover was still being made in North Canton.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Venson:

They'd sell millions of them.   But, alas it is what it is.

Carmine D.

Venson wrote:

The only thing left is to try to think of what to do until the doctor comes.

It would be great if that $300 Hoover was still being made in North Canton.

Venson,

Well said, indeed. 

Trebor

Model2 wrote:
CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

Your many post to Model2 have gone unanswered, but only after you piled it on...  to-much-to-soon.

One day (maybe) you will figure out...  it is better to have knowledgeable/very knowledgeable posters participating here on the forum than pushing them out.  Model2, like Motorhead and to a lesser extent DC18 are gone.  Your smothering has a downside.

DIB

DIB:

Thanks for the clarification.  I was worried they didn't like me anymore.

Carmine D.

Trebor wrote:
Trebor,

While it is true Dyson is a vacuum cleaner, it in no way comes close to stepping on, borrowing or infringing on the water bath vacuum.  FYI, long before the Rexair, there was a patent for a water bath vacuum (for use on rail cars).

Perhaps me calling Knock-off Manufacturing a thief or a counterfeiter is not technically accurate on some comparisons.  Although TTI and Hoover/Maytag were cohorts in the ripping off of the Dual Cyclone before the patents expired and that would make them a thief or counterfeiter (legally and technically).  When TTI took the Dyson creation of “No Loss of Suction” they are neither a thief or counterfeiter legally or technically.  They are though - cunning, deceptive and at times creatively lazy.  When TTI takes what is not theirs, it’s careful to come close only, but not break technical and legal laws.


DIB

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

Not all want or know how to "have-at-it".

DIB

FYI, long before the Rex-Air, there was a patent for a water bath vacuum

Yes it was patented by James Kirby before he designed the Non electric model.

"The first model he developed in 1906 employed water for dirt separation. After noticing the inconvenience of emptying dirty water, he began pursuing better ideas. In 1907, he developed a vacuum that pushed dirty air into a cloth bag that filtered out the dirt."*

*http://www.kirby.com/Portals/0/kirbystory.html

Just wrote:
How does this work within the time frame regarding developments by the Mssrs. Hoover and Spangler?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_cleaner

http://www.vdta.com/HOF/Kirby.html


Venson

OMG, Venson are you trying to say that Hoover didn't invent the modern vacuum cleaner, Kirby did?