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

Trebor wrote:

Hello Trebor:

If I recall correctly Venson addressed orientals and delicate rugs in a recent post on a thread here.  You may want to do a search here for the posts.

The problem with the early HOOVER model agitators are the method for the brush strips to be held in.  Usually by spring action into the brush strip holder on the agitator.  And the brush backings were soft white metal so they broke easily if not inserted correctly. 

I prefer the HOOVER agitators with the brush strips that use screws to hold on.  Or the HOOVER Convertible agitators with the push in brush strips. 

To my knowledge none of the HOOVER Convertibles and upward models accept the old HOOVER style agitators.  Tho, the late run of HOOVER Convertibles with the 4 adjustments and top fill paper bags would be good for this usage.  These had beaters bars before they went to just straight brushes [early 90's].  I prefer the beater bars too on the delicate/sculpted carpets if set on a higher rug adjustment setting.  Just don't get the fringes, typically used to border these rugs, caught in the revolving brushes.  In the old days, we demo-ed the HOOVER's usage on the fringes by vacuuming them up/away from the edge of the rug.  With practice, customers could master the technique.

Carmine D. 

Carmine,

Thank you for your response

Today, I tested a Decade 80 with an beater bar agitator assembly. It did not suck up and hold the rug quite like an older Hoover. Those were specifically designed for Orientals, it's all they had to test them on. Would the center rod and end caps from a newer agitator bar fit on a 150 style agtitator? I'd give it another shot with a cloth bag assembly.

It's amazing how something perfectly designed is unappreciated until it is no longer made. I never thought I would be in the market for an older Hoover. The Hoover Guardsman with the steel line fan chamber, cloth bag and 150 agitator assembly would probably be a winner, ya think?

Trebor

Trebor - I don't think putting a 150 Agitator in a newer machine will give you the performance you're looking for, and I'm pretty sure it's not possible to achieve, either. I agree, though - nothing will clean that sort of rug better than a Model 800 or an 825.

Trebor wrote:

You're welcome.  The HOOVER Decade 80 is an excellent choice.  Sorry to hear it did not work quite the way you hoped.  Excellent vacuum.

No, not straight out.  It would need some expertise and work from a machinist.  

Trebor wrote:

Here too it's unlikely that a HOOVER 150 agitator would ever work in the HOOVER Guardsman.  Tho, a Guardsman/the older Elite and HOOVER uprights like the Guardmans may achieve the rug cleaning action you want.  Why?  Despite the lack of beater bars, the direct fan and rug adjustment on the nozzle head may be just what's needed for Orientals. 

Tho I too share Model2's opinion that the best set ups are usually designed and fitted for their specific applications.  And once you start to retrofit and redesign, you run into problems, if not initially, then eventually.  [Hence my feelings in part with the Kirby bagless device]. 

Also, don't rule out the 1980's style EUREKA uprights [1400 series] with the metal agitators and beater bars.  Those may do the trick too, if you can locate one/more.

Carmine D. 

Thanks to everyone who responded. I may settle for a Decade 80. There were older Guardsman models which used the more modern style agitator beater bar assemblies, too. Those come the closest to the performance of the 150 style agitator.

Nothing else has the same 'sweet spot' of vibration, suction, airflow, and brushing that cleaned Orientals so well. Think about it. The demise of the older Hoovers has allowed a multi-million dollar industry to emerge selling rug cleaning equipment to people who charge the owners of these beautiful rugs outrageous prices to periodically clean  them. All they need is an old Hoover to use a few times a week. I have concerns about the stiffness of the new bristles employed without beater bars.

Trebor

Nothing they make today is quite as beautiful, either!

Trebor wrote:

A respectable choice. 

Carmine D.

Today, I scored a Hoover 725, which I intend to rebuild. This model, I have learned was the pinnacle of Hoover engineering. It was the first air-cooled motor, AND the last agitator with the small veritcal beater bars. It was after the Model 725 that cost became a guiding factor in design and manufacturing.

Trebor

Ah, the Greater HOOVER.  Excellent.  Check out the brush strips in the agitator.  Makes sure there good!

Carmine D.

Trebor wrote:

'Model 725 is the finest electric cleaner ever built. 25% more efficient than any previous Hoover. A new type cloth bag with an opening on the top for simplified removal of the dirt. A more powerful, smooth-running ball-bearing motor. An improved fan. An automatic friction-stop handle control. Non-rusting, Nitralloy beater bars. It is also newly beautiful in line and finish.' 

The purpose of those smaller vertical bars is not to beat, but to prevent lighter rug from hugging the Agitator too closely. It ensures the beating action is gentle but effective. They serve the purpose the nozzle-guard did on the pre-Agitator models.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say ' It was after the Model 725 that cost became a guiding factor in design and manufacturing.' - Models 750, 800 and 825 were every bit as well-made, durable and efficient - more so, in fact, thanks to the 2-speed 360w motor.

(Model 700 was the Greater Hoover)

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.

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!

CarmineD wrote:

Point 1) Where did I say the term 'overwhelming success' was anything other than an opinion? As a member of the public, not an industry insider, I don't have access to trade figures for Dyson, or any other brand.

Point 2) I thought we'd cleared this up already - the ASA ruled in favour of Dyson, not Electrolux - I posted the report in it's entirety to clear that misrepresentation of the "facts" up. There was no official "ruling" about the DC14 being (or not being) the leading selling vacuum in the UK, it was simply commented on during the discourse of the investigation. The only ruling, ie. the ASA's ultimate decision following the investigation, was that Dyson's objection was sustained, and that Electrolux could not continue to run the misleading advert in it's current state. As an aside, on the American Electrolux website, the section on the Intensity, where the performance claim '50% more suction than market leader' is printed, it's followed by' '*Dyson DC14'. I'd post a link, but for some reason the server's being slow and won't let me access the page in question. You're welcome to check it out for yourself.

And I do apologise, Trebour. I'd much rather talk about the Hoover 725!

Model2 wrote:

Yes, I thought I did clear it up.  Dyson filed against Electrolux Intensity for claiming it has 50 percent more suction.  ASA ruled in favor of Electrolux and said the evidence proved it had 50 percent more suction with a full bag than a DC14.  What ASA said was that Electrolux could not say it gave a deep down cleaning w/o submitting more proof. 

ASA also said it did not have any evidence to prove that dyson was the leading vacuum seller in the UK which dyson imputed in its claim against Electrolux. 

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

I use Greater HOOVER for all the 700 series.  Always have and always will.  And the only person who could and would persuade me otherwise is not around anymore to do so.  When I see him, I'll be sure to ask him.

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

My final point which seems to elude you.  If the dyson facts and figures were as good as some here claim, including you, they would have been plastered all over the news media and internet early and often.  They are not and haven't been for some time now.  The only reason I can offer is that after coming out of the gate so well, your fave pick has faded quickly and lost steam in the final stretch.  Now, if I'm wrong, I ask you and anyone else here with the information on the current dyson sales to ante up.

Carmine D. 

Carmine wrote: ...during my professional career...

During your jubilantly and phenomenally successful career, Dear Carmine, I'm sure you had to forego indulgence in 'thrust and parry', however tempting and entertaining it might have been, and just 'let sleeping dogs lie'. They scratch and growl, but if you leave them alone they settle down. They dream they catch the rabbit and all is well. If you have forgotten, please tell your dear wife you need a longer leash, and to let you out of the doghouse more. Throw us all a bone and let the Dyson bunny rabbit go.

Regards,

Trebor

Sadly, I've never learned the art of backing down, w/wo the leash tightly held.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

There you go again. I've already said my 'fave pick' is Hoover. You're just totally ignoring everything I'm saying! I guess that's one method of discussion which is always guaranteed to get the outcome you want!

What Dyson facts and figures have I claimed? You keep stating that without offering an example. I'm looking for some evidence where I've stated, 'Dyson sold x-number of cleaners in these markets this year, generating a total of $$$, compared to x-brand, who sold x-number of cleaners, and generated $$$.' Happy hunting. All I've offered is opinion. If I say Dyson is enjoying overwhelming success, that was opinion, much like when you said, 'In the USA, Dave ORECK is the most recognized face in the vacuum industry.  That is a given and well known fact here in the US vacuum industry.', witthout publishing proof of something like a random poll of the public of their recognition of David Oreck vs. Sir James Dyson.

'The only reason I can offer is that after coming out of the gate so well, your fave pick [sic] has faded quickly and lost steam in the final stretch.' - Pure speculation, with no facts or figures to back it up!

Carmine wrote:  Sadly, I've never learned the art of backing down, w/wo the leash tightly held.

Carmine! Surely you are not saying you are too old to learn, "Sit. Stay." ?

(please forgive me, Carmine, but I'm laughing so hard I can hardly breathe! )

Trebor

Unfortunately, I omitted a key aspect of ORECK's success.  It's Carpet and Rug Institute approval for over 25 years including currently with the revised green label seal.

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

Until you/anyone here like you who claims in their opinions that dyson is an overwhelming success and the most popular vacuum seller "antes" up proof to contradict my statement above, I'm sticking with it.   Get use to it.  You and your dyson cohorts will be hearing and seeing alot of it in the days, weeks, months and years ahead.  The truth always come out. 

Carmine D.

Here's some more to make your day and give you a laugh:

How a vacuum brand can have not just one model worthy of being called the Greater, but several.  While another brand wishes it had even one!

How a brand that touts "never loses suction" as its mantra, loses a test of pure suction power by over 50 percent to a lowly contender like Electrolux, a lightweight vacuum no less with a full bag, and deemed here the ASA winner.  Not just once, but twice!  Even with the relevant facts culled, excerpted, and highlighted for ease of reading.

After you use the Greater HOOVER and have a performance standard, try the latest HOOVER Platinum lynx cordless stick with Windtunnel technology.  See if you are not equally impressed with the results.  Then you will have saved your best laugh for last.  I'll even provide my 4 legged furry pet friend to make the test interesting.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

If you don't like Dyson, Carmine, don't buy one (and you don't need to tell me you won't!). Simple as! I'm going to respect Trebor's wishes and let the matter drop.

On to the rest. Use the Greater Hoover (Model 700), and establish a performance standard: Check.

As for the cryptic 'punchline' - the Hoover Platinum cordless stick isn't available in the UK. If you'd like to furnish me with one, I'd be happy to give it a try. And I have a dog, so I won't require the loan of yours, as I'm sure your wife will be happy to hear. If you feel the performance of the two is equal, why didn't you recommend this machine to Trebor at the beginning of this thread?

Model2 wrote:

I own a DC07 pink and it's stored at my daughter's house.  Due to the style of our carpets here in the USA and dyson's gawdawful clutch, it does not work.  I don't like/dislike vacuums, including your fave brand.  They all have their pros and cons. 

I dislike disingenuous statements of facts and claims to tout one brand's superiority at the expense of another.  Especially w/o proof for back up.  That is my pet peeve.

There is no differences in the 725 and 750 that would warrant them not worthy of being called Greater just like the 700.  The 700 was just first.  In fact, the later models may be more worthy than the 700 for the title.  Note all the 700 series have the same inscription on the motor hood.  Something about "Servant to the Home?" 

I suspect the Platinum lynx cordless stick will be available in the UK in short order.  Be patient.  You'll get your chance.  Finally, I didn't mention the newest because I thought I'd save the best for last!  For a good laugh.

Carmine D.

BTW, with regard to the pictured HOOVER 700.  Some observations.  There are nicks and scuffs on the chrome.  Whovever buffed it out missed them and its very obvious.  Hope it's not my friend in NC.  The rivets holding the bumper are rusted and in need of a good cleaning and new coat of lacquer paint.  But, on a positive note, the MIELE in the background looks pretty and perfect.  And I love the words on the bottom of the 700 bag, "empty after each use."  Tho if I recall correctly in another picture from another view, the bag had a botched stitch job.  Very amateurish for a rebuilding job of such a fine specimen of vacuum history.  Another pet peeve of mine.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

'I don't like/dislike vacuums, including your fave brand.' - there you go again. Would you like me to repeat my ACTUAL favourite brand for the 3rd time? Or is this a 'lalalalala, I'm not listening!'-type scenario? I guess wisdom doesn't always come with age!

'Note all the 700 series have the same inscription on the motor hood.  Something about "Servant to the Home?"' - in the US they did. in the UK, they came with the Royal 'By Appt. to....' warrant. Hoovers no longer bear the royal seal of approval. Guess what brand of cleaner is used in Buckingham Palace now....

Well I know it's not the dyson Airblade!  Xlerator, and American made brand, has that distinction.

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

No guessing needed.  IQ is not a function of age.  I was brilliant even before the winter of my years.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

If you've been trying to clean floors with an Airblade, I can well see why you'd dispute Dyson's vacuum performance claims!

CarmineD wrote:

It didn't take long for your nasty streak to come out, did it!?

 I'll leave the experts to pass judgement on my machines, thanks. Nobody you'd know.

It's a no-brainer that Dyson vacs would be used in Buckingham Palace. Mr. Dyson has been knighted after all.  Very convenient I'm sure...."Sir James, would you mind sending over another lorry loadful...the dustbins are all full...

I AM going to ignore any further Dyson comments, sorry Model 2, you left yourself wide open for that one, and I went ahead and posted before I read your statement you were going to drop the issue. I could have edited it, but it seemed cowardly after the fact. Can  we, PLEASE all play nicely in the same sandbox?

Trebor

Model2 wrote:

A sign of maturity is to accept constructive criticism and profit by it. 

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

Both the same inventor, let readers draw their own conclusions as to the worthiness of the products.

Carmine D.

Trebor wrote:

I live in the Las Vegas desert.  I'm highly qualified to do so. 

Carmine D.

Trebor wrote:
I’ve seen a photo (online) of a staff member at 10 Downey Street using a DC02 on the front walk and porch and long before Dyson received any accolades.  Sir James mentions it in an BBC interview.

James Dyson wrote in his autobiography - when the Queen presented him the CBE Award and asked (something like)...
Queen:  So, Mr. Dyson, just what is it that you do?
Dyson:  I make the Dyson vacuum cleaner.
Queen:  Oh, we use lots of them in the palace.

The Henry Vacuum is designed and manufactured in England.  10 Downey Street and the Palace staffers/decision makers passed on the Henry for new, radical technology...  the Dyson.

DIB

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:G5gFlc-2_zsJ:news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3113002.stm+dyson+10+downing+street&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The purchase of a particular brand of product by a high-profile customer provides leverage to the idea that "you too will be of like stature if you purchase our product." But all it really means is that at a particular moment in time, someone associated with a highly regarded entity with the authority to make a purchasing desicion did so. And that is all it means.

At one time or another Kirby, Electrolux, Hoover and Sebo vacuums (that I am aware of) have all been purchased for use in the White House. Sebo boasts of purchases by the Kremlin and Buckingham Palace as well. Does that mean that every other vacuum was rounded up and disposed of? Doesn't seem likely if they still work, does it? Kirbys were also purchased at one time by the Navy for use on board ship because of their versatility. The purchase order explained of why all other vacuums onboard would be repalced with Kirbys. Silver Kings have seen widespread commercial use in Federal and state institutions.

Filter Queens have been used in major colleges and universities, hospitals and medical centers, in US nuclear submarines, and to clean the Indianapolis race track before the big race. There were of course photo op shots in the dealers 'proof' books, along with glowing letters of recommedation. Filter Queens and Compacts have both been used by major airlines to clean the cabins of jet liners. Rainbows have been purchased by the Winterthur Museum. Oreck boasts the patronage of 5 star hotels around the world, but some of those clients have since replaced those Orecks with Windsor/Sebos because of lower operating costs, including less downtime, and the convenience of onboard tools as opposed to carrying/using a second vac for tool useage.  And at one time Hoovers were the preferred vacuum of many hotels.  Now Pro-Team boasts an ever growing list of high-profile customers.

So what? What does any of it matter? The purpose of this forum is primarily to assist people who are shopping for a vacuum cleaner to make an informed, IMPARTIAL decision based upon their needs and budget, not for any of us to promote our own agendas. An opinion is an opinion. Facts and figures are fine, but oft times their meaning or relevance are subject to interpretation. And for the record, "Doesn't lose suction" IS AN ADVERTSING SLOGAN, copyrighted by Dyson. Slogans do not have to be subjected to factual scrutiny, which is why the Oreck/D**** dispute was thrown out as old business already handled.  "Pepsi, the choice of the younger generation" "Coke, it's the real thing" "You're in Good Hands with Allstate" "Doesn't Your Dog Deserve Alpo?" "Hallmark, when you care enough to send the very best." "Better Ingredients, better pizza-Pappa John's" "Behold the power of cheese" "There's more for your life-at Sears" "All the news that's fit to print" "Brylcreme, -A l'il dab'll do ya" "Purina, so complete, all you add is love." "Miele-Anything else is a compromise" The list goes on and on and on and on. None of it, NONE of it MEANS anything. It is all JUST MARKETING, and you-know-which is JUST A VACUUM CLEANER.  It is not going to match you up with your soulmate, get you a raise, help you lose 10 lbs, or balance your checkbook. It might give you a cleaner rug if you like it well enough to use it, but that's all. I fear for the future of this forum if we don't al settle down and get back on track. The original VacWeb forum was discontinued for shenanigans such as we have been seeing here lately. If someone says their opinion is thus and so, then take them at their word, stop antagonizing. We are vacuum cleaner gentlemen. If you are a sweeper hooligan do us all a favor and take your two cents worth elsewhere

Trebor

Trebor wrote:

Trebor,  If we were talking about cat food there are a few regulars who would be critical of Dyson.  It looks as if you have joined the ranks.  Two forums were closed in part to a regular Dyson basher.  It seems as if the two of you may be brown nosing the other.

What is good for one is good for all.  You ask us to quietly accept a biased opinion, misleading information or a lie. Yet you fail to caution these bashers to keep quiet.

There are gentlemen here only as long as we listen to their BS or brown nose them. 

Why not do us a favor.  Read only what you like and ignore the rest or take your own advise and go elsewhere.

To All,

It is unfair and untrue to label anyone a basher of anything just because he/she does not share the same level of enthusiasm for it. Most of what I have posted here has been in the seeking of new information, or is based on my personal experience with vacuums. I prefer and use Passap and Superba knitting machines, but that doesn't mean Brother, Silver Reed, and Toyota are not valid options for those who prefer them. I've used Dysons, and didn't care for them. I have seen lots of them setting in vac shops needing extensive repair. But, for someone who is a fastidious housekeeper, and takes excellent care of their household equipment, Dyson could be a very satisfactory choice because for that type of individual it IS likely to last through the warranty without having any major problems. Like most expensive devices, Dysons have a bit of a learning curve if major problems are to be avoided. The only other thing I have ever said about Dysons is that they are marketed to those consumers least likely to learn to use them properly so they WILL last through the warrany period. That is not Dyson bashing. I won't even call it fact or truth, it is simple observation. The ones not in the repair shop are working, correct? And if they are working, people are using them properly, right?

Dyson is a vacuum cleaner, one choice among many, but still JUST A VACUUM CLEANER. I don't care if people buy them or not, but that does not make me a Dyson basher. I'm just tired of people treating Dyson like it's a religion and trying to convert everyone who doesn't share the same opinion, and calling people who are indifferent to them 'Dyson Bashers.' Dyson has made a ton of money, good for him, so has David Oreck.  I like Kirbys and Rainbows, and quite recently have developed an interest in very old Hoover uprights, but  I'm not trying to convince anyone that those are the only choices worth considering. I don't like oysters on the half shell, but if people like them and want to eat them, hey, why should I care? If you look back at my posts, when people start flying off the handle, I have tried to interject a note of rationality or humor to remind people this is not life and death we are discussing. Everyone sees through their own filters. A rational man acknowledges that his opinion is not the only one. An irrational man dismisses all disagreement as the babbling of infidels, and insists only he sees 'THE TRUTH".  I have opinions, but I am MORE than my opinions, and my self esteem does not depend on how many people I get to agree with me, or crucify for disagreeing with me. It's just a vacuum cleaner.

And, for the record, I am not suggesting that anyone accept another's opinion as their own, but simply not to antagonize someone else by telling HIM what his OWN opinion is.

Trebor

CarmineD wrote:

Let’s re-examine your constructive criticism (fuelled, of course, not by spite, but a true, heartfelt desire to help) shall we?

'There are nicks and scuffs on the chrome [sic].  Whovever buffed it out missed them and its very obvious.' - Yes, there are nicks and scuffs. It's an 83-year old cleaner that's given many years of faithful service, not something I just bought at John Lewis. Some of the scratches are quite deep, doubtless from being pushed repeatedly under a particular item of furniture by its former owner. No amount of buffing will remove them, and nor would I want to.

'Hope it's not my friend in NC.' - He’s no friend of yours, Carmine. He's a good person, and somebody worthy of being called an expert.

'The rivets holding the bumper are rusted and in need of a good cleaning and new coat of lacquer paint.'  - Again, they're showing their age, at 83. Granted, they could do with a light cleaning, but lacquer paint? Why would I add that - they wouldn't have been painted originally, although given your particular 'grasp' of Hoover history, I wouldn't expect you to know this. I'm sure your "friend" BOSS Hoover forgives you (he does this a lot, doesn't he? Thank heavens he was a man of God!).

'But, on a positive note, the MIELE in the background looks pretty and perfect' - It's a modern machine which has only been used lightly. Since I prefer uprights, I’ll be trading it soon for an S7. Did you have a point here, or are we playing 'I spy...'? 

'And I love the words on the bottom of the 700 bag, "empty after each use." ‘ - If you look at the photo again, you'll see it actually says, 'Empty each time used'. Good try, though.

'Tho if I recall correctly in another picture from another view, the bag had a botched stitch job.' - The "botched" stitch job is certainly not my work. When I repair bags, they're patched unobtrusively from the inside, so the repair doesn't show. The stitching (actually on the bag of my Model 800 - I know, these "Greater Hoovers" all look the same to the untrained eye), was in fact the work of the machine's former owner, a housewife of the make-do-and-mend era. Why would she pay money for a new bag, when she could just darn the small tear herself? No, it's not a neat job, but one borne out of frugality and practicality on her part. I'm sure the resultant aesthetics of the task were far from her mind. However, it's part of the history of the machine, and adds a certain charm to it. I chose not to repair it. You may feel differently, but that’s the great thing about opinion.

'Very amateurish for a rebuilding job of such a fine specimen of vacuum history.' - I can assure you, yours is decidedly the minority view here. It's easy to sit at your computer and make snide remarks about other people's work. Why don’t you offer us some of your own, so others can offer you ‘constructive criticism’? Or perhaps you don't have any actual experience to share?

'Another pet peeve of mine.' - You have so many "pet peeves", Carmine, it's a wonder you ever get out of bed.

I hope you can sleep easier tonight, now I’ve graciously answered your good-natured concerns.

Hey guys,

Adamant xxx that I am about some things -- and ready to stand toe to toe with just about anybody if I feel I'm right -- isn't some of this stuff, especially if it's going to get personal, better served by PMing each other? Nothing is being helped.

You all have tremendous talents and perceptions plus loads of personal experience that have served many of us well. Continued jibes and obligatory retorts regarding issues that are, were and still will be debatable are clouding the view of all that.

Best,

Venson

Trebor wrote:

Hi Trebor:

You'll recall for many many years that all HOOVER vacuums carried the inscription:  "HOOVER makes rugs last longer."  Which all the major rug makers wholeheartedly agreed with.

Carmine D. 

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson:

I'd put you on the short list of the gentlemen and scholars who post here.  And high atop the list.

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

Before I opened my business, I was a professional vacuum rebuilder for the trade.  My rebuilts, sold for new door-to-door, by salemen with larceny in their hearts, who couldn't make the $deal for their own brand.  Of course wheh I learned this, I opted of the arrangement and went into business.

WRT the old HOOVER models, like you pictured, all the accoutrements like the name plates and even rivets [in black] were available from HOOVER and generic parts suppliers for rebuilders like me.  And were for many many years.  Never skimped on these small details because they gave the vacuums that like new look, despite their age and previous use.  Scuff marks, even deep, were no match for my high powered buffing wheel, fabricated from an old washing machine motor, and assorted rouges and of course my attention to detail.

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

Touching story.  But I'd never let her touch one of my rebuilt bags.  A stitch in time saves nine is fine for socks and stuff not cloth vacuum bags.  I used a heavy duty sewing machine, surplus sale from the military, for repairs and refurbs on cloth bags.  Worked like a charm.  I was the first to add colored leather cuffs to the frail and faulty bags spots for reinforcement.  Lasted years.  Added a nice flare and fancy too.  When the HOOVER branch office in East Orange NJ, just a stone's throw down the road from my store location in Bloomfield, learned about it, it farmed its bags out to me for repair.  Not all customers could spring for a new bag.  But a repair job, that was better than new, by all means.

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

What is "worthy of being called an expert?"  There are alot of people with their own unique skills, knowledge and abilities in and around the vacuum industry past and present.   They're called "experts."  Are they "craftsmen."  "Experts" may/may not be.  A craftsman takes an old, beat up, junked up vacuum out of the rubble and turns it back into the pretty and perfect specimen it was back it's it day.  Regardless of its current age and past use.  That's what some of the independent vacuum store owners/operators do who post here.  That's one of the things, I did.

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

Excellent series, "I Spy."  Bill Cosby was wonderful.  But right now I'm thinking more "Get Smart."  Did you get that one on BBC?  Do you recall the introductory clause:  "Would you believe............."  It comes to mind now.  But not in the same farcical way, in fact just the opposite.  I'm proud to say that thanks to me and a handful of other US citizens, Aldrich Ames, the most notorious traitor and spy in the annals of CIA history, was put permanently behind bars.

Surely, when I get to Heaven my friends and family, BOSS HOOVER included, who could not thank me in their lifetime, will do so in the next.

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:
CarmineD wrote:
God whispers inventions into mans ears so to better life.  If TTI were good stewards (growth via honest means and building better mousetraps) God would be pleased.  The Book describes in no- uncertain terms how He loathes thieving, lying, unfair gain, etc.  God calls men like this evil.  TTI’s greatest attributes are... taking ideas from others (stealing) and selling them cheaper than those who birthed them.  As well, they are by definition... a monopoly.

DIB

*Some called it intuition or a feeling or a [flash of genius] eureka moment.

Below is an example of Knock-off manufacturing's work...

MIELE must surely be flattered by the resemblance.   Thanks for posting the comparative pics.  MOLE was the first, if I recall correctly, to point out the similarities of these two brand models and others.  It was on a thread here that deals, among other issues, with the evolution of today's vacuums into standard looks and features without unique variances.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Applauding thieves?  Chapter and verse please (support in scripture).       DIB

CarmineD wrote:
Hi Carmine,

I feel the same way about cars. I often find little difference when looking at the aerodynamically inclined wedges most autos have become. Guess the separating line is now more determined by what's on the inside of the car as opposed to the outside and that may not be a bad thing.

DIB,

The proof is in the pudding as it were. The Hoover S3670 pictured sells for $300.00. The Miele Capricorn sells for $1,100.00. As I own one, I of course have high anticipations as to its continued worth over time but I am in no way bothered by Hoover's attempt to produce similar product at a more affordable price. Miele never will.

The S3670 similarity is basically by looks though it, as many other manufacturers cans of late, employs cloth-like high-filtration bags. The WindTunnel style power nozzle is pure Hoover and had been used for years now.

Nonetheless, this new canister rated high with CR. It got high marks for rug and bare floor cleaning, tool suction, pet hair pick-up and emissions. Can't ask for more than that. The question is will it last as long as the Miele is expected to.

For me the question is -- is price the dividing line between good and bad vacuum cleaners? I say not always. I also welcome attempts by anyone to produce product that provides effective and efficient performance at price that allow not just some of us life's small pleasures and conveniences. That may be looked on as infringement by some folks but I see it as fair.

Venson

Venson,

It is a suction machine at its core (brushroll, collection sack/filter and suction generator).  On the outside it's a counterfeit Miele.  I say let the $3b TTI get off their wealthy, creatively-lazy (lack of original ideas), thieving asses and design and invent their own stuff.

DIB

Has TTI violated any copyright laws? An appearance of similarity does not constitiute theft. All canister vacuums have a certain similarity to them, as do all bagless uprights. Patent laws eventually expire to keep inventors inventing and improving. Making something look different just to make it look different is not being original, it's just altering someone else's originality to make yourself look original.

Trebor

Model2 wrote:

Actually, its called "old age" and the unaided eye.  I left my reading glasses in the bedroom and didn't want to go back in and risk waking my dear Wife.  I was using my memory recall, which doesn't always work, and the fact that the lettering is not complelely visible from the first picture view and the obstruction of the handle and fork.  When you posted the pics the first time [I had my glasses] but glossed right right over never giving them more than a cursory glance.  When you posted the pics a second time a day or two later I didn't have my glasses and had to post [despite my unaided eyes, bad memory, and lack of concentration on the first viewing].  Like I said, a pet peeve of mine.

Carmine D.   

Trebor wrote:
The TTI canister is a near counterfeit, designed to deceive and siphon Miele’s sales.  Although not an exact copy, it comes close to [design] patent infringement.

Society is much better off when companies choose to dig deep and bring exciting, fresh and problem solving ideas to market.  Thus far this $3b monopoly is a miserable patent failure, their copying and taking others ideas (totals) far exceeds their patent and patent pending totals.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Hi DIB,

The $300 Hoover has a completely different power nozzle -- a Hoover original for years that does its job well. Hoover includes an mini-turbine tool that is not like Miele's and I would point out that Miels makes you pay $75.00 for its little turbo tool which is no better than Hoover's PLUS either one costs about $2.50 to make.

I'd also humbly submit, that once you've actually looked over a Miele, a Bosch, an Emer, a Riccar/Simplicity and this Hoover canister you'll find you're looking at the same animal and will be hard pressed to tell who stole what from whom.

Best,

Venson

Hi Venson, good observation,while your at it mine as well look at the eureka oxygen can and the electrolux oxygen can, Who stole what from who/ I know why,

The miele/Hoover can are from the same mold,Hoover use Hoover attachments,Miele uses wessel werks,There a lot more to this story than the public knows.

regards

MOLE

Venson wrote:
Lol.  This is true!  I would blow it off if this was the only vacuum look-a-like they have done, but they have a long history of taking what is not theirs (legal or otherwise).  They should develop their own IP and take market share that way and not by counterfeiting.  They do not limit themselves by only taking mechanical and design elements but taking marketing too...  they are also “No Loss of Suction” counterfeiters.

DIB

DIB, I'm glad you're getting the point. That said . . .

I hope you'll also reflect upon the aspect of how product can "degrade" when entrepreneurs are allowed to merely buy names and blueprints and the nature of the game is purely about making money. I have no idea if you dabble in stocks and the like but if you do -- what do you care most about? The return on your investment or the thing you've invested in? From that comes decisions regarding "quality" or "profit".

That is a great sadness for me. Hoover, Eureka and Electrolux, just as instances and names not to be sneezed at, existed long before Dyson and have near a hundred years of innovation under the belt. Yet when times get hard and the public is not prepared to meet the cost of bright ideas AND once illustrious manufacturers falter and fade due to decreasing revenues what is there to do but sell and try to back out of "business" gracefully?

Bigger companies, with mind sets thoroughly ensconced in the corporate ethic, absorb such manufacturer's hard earned names and hold onto them till the last drop of worth is wrung from their names. I would much prefer if TTI would have rebranded Hoover but why make it hard if you can get a free ride for a while? TTI is not doing all that much new -- it is still riding on Hoover's coat tails believe me. Electrolux AB is cheapening Eureka and Aerus is doing little with the heritage gain by the acquisition of "American" Electrolux. In any event, the larger part of this is all sham.

What is important is that whatever vacuum you buy is efficient and affordable. Miele is great but why not an affordable spin on it. Why not a more accessibly priced look at cyclonic machine other than Dyson.

Venson

Venson,

Society is far ahead when the creative are protected.  

With regards to the Miele design copy...  There is zero mechanical gain buy wrapping the Hoover in a Miele design.  It is to deceive and syphon Miele sales.  Protecting what you made keeps innovation alive and betters society ultimately (including the creation of jobs).  Shifting Miele money to China helps who exactly?  Again, the product is a suction machine at its core and wrapped in Miele.  I do not like Miele’s ways.  I do not like gang bangers too, but if we look away when a gang banger steals from or destroys another gang banger it will eventually grow like cancer and then the innocent are harmed.  So, I will defend Miele, Oreck and others when monopoly giants take their work.  It is only a matter of time before Oreck is forced to close down all/near all U.S. assembly plants in order to compete with the Hoover Platinum Bag.  And speaking of Platinum, did not Oreck come out with a Platinum about a year before Hoover launched their Platinum line?  The pilfering goes on and on.  Their ways are a caustic.  I’d much rather see Miele profit and build innovative and stylish appliances than watch this knockoff company profit via pilfering and hurt the innovative/close the innovative down.  The high price of low cost knockoff vacuums is something to consider.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
And before that Panasonic had and still is running with a Platinum line. 

Dusty

Two infomercials...  on left - Oreck, on right - Hoover.


http://www.google.com/patents?id=uH8JAAAAEBAJ&dq=patent:6446304&as_drrb_ap=q&as_minm_ap=1&as_miny_ap=2009&as_maxm_ap=12&as_maxy_ap=2009&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2009&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&num=100

The two lovely ladies are sisters too!  One happens to be an ORECK fan and the other a HOOVER/TTI.  Wonder who did the commercial first?  She can sue her sister and the family can live unhappily ever after.

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

No problem sleeping at night.  3 grand daughters less than a mile away tire me out daily.  No problems waking in the morning either.  A yellow lab with a cold nose and wet tongue works better than the alarm clock.  More than pet peeves, the aches and pains of years of use and abuse make getting out of the bed difficult.  Thank you kindly for your concerns.

Carmine D.

Hoover was not the first to copy Oreck,

Panasonic/Kenmore

Bissell dual fan, now offered as Tacony Powerflight and Tornado

Good Housekeeper/ElectraPure

Royal and Hoover with their commercial lightweights

Simplicity and Riccar, which clean far better than Oreck, and are more properly identified as the vacuums Hoover copied with their Platinum lightweight bagged model, which by all accounts, presently rules the category.

Trebor

Trebor wrote:
I'll say this...  it is hard watching this Chinese giant walk all over American corporations and potentially harm American workers and/or corporations who belly up and deliver answers and creativity.        DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

You'll be in for a harder time when the Chinese buy Volvo and Saturn just to name a few likely brands they are honing in on as we post here.  Business is business.  Only the strong survive.  That usually means those with the deepest pockets when money is in short supply.

Carmine D.

mole wrote:

I'd probably, if still in business, carry both canns and put the HOOVER and MIELE right along side each other and let customers pick and choose.  That's how free enterprise and freedom of choice work here.

Carmine D.

Hi Carmine,

I'd probably do the same if I were in a position to. However, what I notice in my local vac shops is that less expensive vacuums and "disposable" machines get lumped together in one area and the "stars" Miele, Riccar/Simplicity, Bosch, etc., usually have their own spots on the shop floor. This appears to be done with a purpose in mind. Is this a recommendation or requirement by company sales reps. I haven't been directly "sold" anything in quite a while and pay less attention regarding how a customer can be steered to the more costly item.

Big box stores in my area are far less discriminate as they merely line up stock all in a row and let the customers simply go for it with little attendance by sales staff.

Venson

Hi Venson:

I always gave my premier store display space [complete with oak shelves bottom to top] to my rebuilts, which I displayed together in groups as uprights, tanks, and canisters by price ranges.  As a warranty dealer for several vacuum brands, I gave the remaining space equally to them.  Usually the reps put together the displays for their brands and I let them carve out the space they wanted.  If I didn't like what they did, I rearranged or let another rep do it with theirs.  It was always a fight among them for the best space [after the rebuilts which always got my best store space].  Rebuilts were my bread and butter.  New vacuums were an accomodation for customers.  I was a warranty dealer for most of the brands that at the time sold in the big box stores.   I couldn't compete with them on price.  I mentioned that I started a consortium of about a dozen vacuum stores in Northern Jersey so we could buy in volume and at least compete closely with the big box stores on price.  They always undercut the MSRP which often underpriced us.  I had the slight advantage since I was a warranty dealer for these brands.  That counted for something with vacuum customers and the other Mom and Pop vacuum stores in the consortium.  No legal agreement, just handshakes. 

Back to the HOOVER/TTI & MIELE canister match off.  Regardless of one's personal perspective, this is a perfect time for a match off of the two similar models on price and performance.  Why?  Economic malaise.  A $300 copy of a $900 vacuum that performs as good if not better on rugs is a great selling feature.  Sells itself.

And as MOLE cogently pointed out with MIELE and HOOVER/TTI, there is more than meets the eye at play behind the scenes.   Is there a business partnership of the two brands in future?  In lean times, brands across all industries consolidate forces.  I expect to see some joint ventures of various brands.

Carmine D.

Hi Carmine,

I think the rebuilt/pre-owned vacuums are about as green as you can get. Not a bad idea at all and we have a good amount of vacs still in existence that are repairable and that may even be upgradable in regard to emission levels and PNs for "better than new" efficiency. In the not too distant past, there was a company producing high-filtration bags for Hoover Convertibles. The Convertible was not overly heavy and a good, easy to maintain machine. And of course, metal Luxes are still a good investment. However, I wonder if people especially younger shoppers would see the value.

Yes, I have always liked fancy-schmancy vacuums but what the world needs most are moderately priced good-performing vacuums that more of us can avail ourselves of.

The Hoover S3670 generally runs as low as $260 and as high as $325 online. With the boost it got by way of CR's Best Buy rating its going to be attractive to lots of shoppers. Attached is an epinions.com link with two customer reviews so far.

http://www.epinions.com/reviews/Hoover_S3670_Vacuum

High or low it prices below a third of the Miele Capricorn's price and comes with a three-year warranty. Also to be considered are some of the better Kenmore canisters though the rise in pricing on top-of-the-line models surprises me a bit.

Bottom line, put any price on on 'em you feel like -- the trick is finding buyers willing to pay it.

Venson

DIB wrote:

I'll say this...  it is hard watching this Chinese giant walk all over American corporations and potentially harm American workers and/or corporations who belly up and deliver answers and creativity.

Agreed, DIB, but if you examine the past you can see the chain of decisions that led to TTI owning Hoover actually began with Hoover. The introduction of product to the store shelves with the Hoover name, the steam iron, the floor polisher, the tank vacuum led to the elimination of the salesforce. The personal relationships those men had with their customers, along with their livelihood, were blinked out of existence by the decision of the Hoover company. I recently learned that until the introduction of the Convertible Hoover uprights were still sold door-to-door, primarily off of referrals and leads from the Hoover departments in better department and appliance stores and they were the most expensive vacuum cleaner on the market, bar none, more than Kirby, Rexair, Electrolux, and Airway. They cared about being the best. It was a status symbol to own a Hoover.  Hoover still had a decent run, until the sale to Maytag, but the machines were nowhere near the quality of the older Hoovers. I regret the sale of Hoover to TTI as much as anyone, but if they had not purchased Hoover, the famous red circle logo with the white letters would have faded into history...

Carmine wrote:

I'd probably, if still in business, carry both canns and put the HOOVER and MIELE right along side each other and let customers pick and choose.  That's how free enterprise and freedom of choice work here.

To an extent Carmine, but the manfacturer can choose to allow you to vend their product or not.  Miele does not like to see their product compete with other quality vacuums. Their kitchen appliances are seen in exclusively Miele showrooms for the most part. Some vac shops can sell the dishwashers and Laundry equipment. (The ones that sell nothing but Miele and BB vacuums.) I have yet to find a brick and mortar or online vac shop which sells the full line of Miele and the full line of Sebo AND the full line of Lindhaus AND the full line of either Riccar or Simplicity. Miele has put 25 years into building its brand name recognition, and do not want to see their European competitors going toe to toe with them. For one thing, witness Catlady's statements that she has not heard of Lindhaus, nor was she able to compare a Riccar Radiance to the S7 in the same shop. If you have not heard of Lindhaus or Sebo, Miele would rather you didn't. They would rather you compare them to a BB Hoover, Bissell, Eureka, or Dirt Devil. Will Miele tolerate their canisters on the shelf next to a Hoover bagged canister which looks like its twin? We'll have to wait to see. If anyone takes issue with my assertions, please just list the vac shops you find with COMPLETE lines of Miele, AND either Sebo OR Lindhaus, AND the full line of EITHER Riccar OR Simplicity.

Trebor

Trebor wrote:

Conversely, the vacuum store owner/operator can choose to sell and service the vacuum brand or not !   

Carmine D.

Absolutely, Carmine,

But there are dealers caving and dropping lines in order to keep Mieles in their store. Maybe it's time to let Miele know they are not the 2,000 lb Gorilla they think they are!

Trebor

DIB wrote: they are also “No Loss of Suction” counterfeiters.

DIB, Dyson himself is a "No Loss of Suction" counterfeiter. The first vacuum cleaner that did not lose ANY suction was Rexair, later known as the Rainbow.

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?

Just wrote:
Nope. Just want to learn how the efforts of all involved fit in chronolocically.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Oh--well heck, I dunno.

I did know the part where James Kirby had his machines built by Royal for a short time before his marriage with S&F. 

Filing date:  March 16, 1903 - vacuum uses water as a "wet" separator.  I do know know it this pre-dates all or just many.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=nppdAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=847948&rview=1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1#PPA3,M1

Thanks DIB. The Kirby thing was portable and required water in buckets per the stuff I read.

Venson

DysonInventsBig wrote:

12 July 1942, Charleston (WV) Gazette, pg. 7, col. 6:
Favorite rejoinder of Sen. Harry S. Truman, when a member of his war
contracts investigating committee objects to his strenuous pace. "If you
don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Carmine D.

The Rexair used an actual device called a separator initially designed to be used without water. The introduction of water in the basin underneath the separator is considered my most vacuum historians to be the the advent of water filtration because it was 1) portable 2) electric 3) actually released water washed air back into the room, and 4) did not require a separate dry vacuum chamber. Kirby gave up on water filtration, Rexair made it a reality. I have 2 D4s which are 15 and 23 yrs old. Each has seen more use than most vacuums see in 40 yrs. Still performing like champions.

Trebor