Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

http://www.patentstorm.us/applications/20090133214/description.html

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=15%2F$.CCLS.&OS=CCL/15/$&RS=CCL/15/$

Hi DIB,

Thanks for the link. I looked over the PDF at the site and all it has merited is a "ho-hum" from me. This is merely a display of marketing/design overkill. I maintain that any vacuum with a revolving brush that cannot get up pet hair by first or second pass is not worth buying. Doo-dads should not be necessary when mechanics that should be adequate are in place.

The UV aspect leaves me cold as well as I have yet hear to good report regarding sales for Oreck's Halo. I think the public sees UV as a cute idea but are not prepared to drop everything and run out to get a vacuum that has it. The ad guys will have to start claiming that UV will eradicate swine flu in virus ten seconds or less to nudge sales.

This machine is awfuly similar to the Bissell presently on the market (which I will note can be had for around $170.00). The similarity doesn't bother me but ideas that turn into cliches do.

Venson

Hello Venson,

Samsung just patented and created a U.S. monopoly on the cheapest (to manufacturer, to service?, to sell) UV upright.  And the tube is mounted at the leading edge of the vac unlike the Halo.  UV effectiveness or need aside, Samsung looks to own the cheapest UV on-top-of-carpeting upright segment.

Oreck should be embarrassed for not covering their bases and buying this patent first.  Now they have a behemoth sized competitor in Samsung....  Duh.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Hi DIG,

There's more to this than just pushing merchandise. The Samsung design is inferior as I see it. Whatever the value of UV may or may not be, Halo has its UV light in an out of the way enclosure underneath the cleaner along with safeguards like a deadman's switch. Cheap being the key word, I would not want a vacuum with a flip-up UV source because there are too many scenarios for possible accidents that I can think of in households where there are children.

Were I the maker of such, I'd want to hedge my bets to be sure I was covered all round regarding faults in manufacture that might lead to lawsuits by consumers. Use of UV calls for caution. We're not just taliking about an ordinary incandescent bulb. This design is just a little too easy.

Venson

Venson,

Is there any doubt that Samsung cannot make a UV vac safe or as safe as the Oreck/Halo?  I did not bother reading the patent, I only looked at the drawings.  Samsung can add more patents if needed or use in the public domain switching.  The switching is not the strength of this vac, the idea that a consumer can purchase a cheaper alternative to the Oreck/Halo is.

Don’t you think the recent swine flu deaths and fears is a good time to begin work on a UV upright?

DIB

Hi Venson, DIB:

Made a stop at the local ORECK store.  [BTW, the resident in one of the adjacent stores is no longer in business.]  The ORECK Halo was proudly displayed and we talked about it.  The ORECK sales lady did not push/pitch it in any way shape or form.  Quite the opposite.  SHe said it is 17 pounds, a tad on the heavy side compared to the ORECK standard.  She said it' recommended mostly for couples with small infants who crawl alot on the rugs and floors and are subject to allergies and/or have sensitivity to germs.  She laughingly said that her older children said there were no such vacuums with UV lights in their time, and they survived with no health problems.  It's strictly a niche seller to a limited market and ORECK is properly conveying that sales venue. 

BTW, the Steam It is due in next week.  Supposedly it is a homegrown ORECK product not a sourced item. 

Carmine D.  

PS:  The ORECK halo is not pictured in the ORECK product literature, pamphlets and brochures along with the line up of uprights, compact canisters, air purifiers, and orbiters.  Another example of the product not considered by ORECK as a mainstream market seller.

Carmine D. 

I just don't hold that much salt to any vacuum cleaner that has a UV ray attached to it. For starters even if its going to kill bugs etc with a paper bag in place or a cyclonic system UNLIKE that of Dyson's 100% Suction all the time principle, the bag is going to loose out on suction and the only way you'll be able to tell if anything microscopic is being picked up is for the vacuum cleaner itself to have a microscope on it so that their owners can have perfect 100% peace of mind. Now of course things would be rather different if Dyson brought out a UV!

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Most emphatically -- no. Disease prevention at best is better brought about by simple methods and rules that all can avail tehmselves of and the use of common sense. Beyond that it all hangs in the luck of the draw.

Viruses are spread a great deal through unavoidable human contact. We ride public transportation, shop and eat in public venues and are even taken care of in public facilities when we are very ill. Unfortunately, most of us can't manage a house on a hilltop where we can stay while the rest of the world stays away.

I've visited hiospital IC units where trained staff has come to work with colds. Can that be avoided when you don't get paid if you don't work? How do you keep them out?

As it stands, there are yet no established specifics as to application of UV light in the instance of vacuum cleaners. No one can tell the individual user what amount of speed, area and time is required to guarantee effective use.

Venson

CarmineD wrote:
Thanks for the Halo heads-up Carmine. That's what I'm talking about -- a hundred years later of "dust blowers" and civilization as we know it is still standing.

Venson

CarmineD wrote:
Thanks for the Halo heads-up Carmine. That's what I'm talking about -- a hundred years later of "dust blowers" and civilization as we know it is still standing.

Venson

Venson,

I did not say UV solves problems, only that it would be a good time to begin work on a UV vac/bolt-on UV lamp.  This UV bolt-on looks to be the most cost effective (cheapest) to produce of all the UV upright patents on file in the U.S.  And what did it cost this Giant to develop?...  almost nothing.  Almost nothing is a cheap price to pay for locking up the U.S. cheapest to manufacturer-UV-in-an-upright (market).

Parents with infants and toddlers look to be the primary target market for sure.


DIB

From what I can see, Samsung has no new vacuums of any kind on the market currently.  Does anyone know if there are any Samsung vacuums selling in the vacuum world today, either under the Samsung brand or another name brand?  And can you provide details, please.

Carmine D.

Hi Carmine,

Yes indeed! The Samsung "Silencio" bagless canisters are selling the UK. Samsung's Silencio and Nilfisk's Extrmem series are vacs that I've been hoping to see here. For whatever reason, the idea has not been attractive to either company.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Thanks Venson.  Very interesting!

Carmine D.

Samsung carry a full line of product for Canadian independents.

http://samsungvacuums.ca/

Dusty

dusty wrote:
Thanks Dusty. Following is the link for the Silencio.

http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/detail/detail.do?group=homeappliances&type=vacuumcleaner&subtype=cylinders&model_cd=VCC9540H4K/XEU

Venson

Thanks Dusty. 

Thanks once again Venson.  It appears that the 2 Samsung UK models, one cann and one upright, are bagless.  But the Canadian models are bagged except the small cann models.  I don't know if there is a relevance to this or not.  Maybe there is.  Does bagless appear the norm in the UK for vacuums vice bagged vacuums in Canada as the norm?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Don't know but what I have noticed is that many worldwide vac manufacturers sell different machines in different places. Some highly original models show up in one place and lesser generic type machines appear in other markets.

The following website may be helpful to some looking to investigate vacuums that are being made or sold in other parts of the world.

Venson

CarmineD wrote:
The small canisters are bag also, but one model includes a separator that attaches to the wand.  Works pretty slick, most people find a pack of bags last a year with that device hooked up.

Dusty

My knowledge of Samsung is this:

In the UK there have been a few bagged cylinders and a few bagless cylidner vacuums. Until two years ago they brought the basic budget priced "Jet Propel," bagless uprights to the UK market but for all intents and purposes the components are very similar to the Bissell Easy Vac/Dirt Devil Vibe/Hoover Hurricane/Vax Quicklite/Dirt Devil Dynammite - most of these vacuums are being made in ONE factory in China etc and then rebadged per company logo. My own LG VUP45/55 series has also been made by Samsung and is also currently remodelled as a Dirt Devil/Royal lightweight bagged commercial upright (dont ask me which one, I have no clue, sorry!) Basically a lot of these vacuums have been centrally made in one place and again rebadged or have slight cosmetic differences. The LG upright for example uses the sames bags as Samsung's older bagged upright which appeared in the 1990's in UK.

Samsung however have made a very good model in terms of the Silencio. I don't rate bagless vacuums that well unless they're Dyson and the Samsung has a prolonged filter which doesn't need that much maintenance. However they claim that their cylinder vacs are the quietest on the market and along with Miele I'd say that this was true.

In terms of the UK market, we have oodles of "same again" Chinese market offerings budget priced bagless cyclonics and the bagged models are slowly running out of fashion if it wasn't for Hoover who stick with their old Purepower upright, Electrolux with their new Powerlite range and the premium market with Miele and Sebo. It was only back in 2004 that Hitachi for example stopped production of their very old uprights and Panasonic in the UK still sell their awful MCE 4000? range. I say awful because they are noisy and have two drive belts to take off if the main one breaks - same model that Miele in the U.S sells under the Powerhouse tag.

dusty wrote:
Eureka had something similar a good while back.

http://samsungvacuums.ca/docs/jpgs/vac5115g_cmpt.jpg

Venson

Venson wrote:

Did I miss something, Venson?  A web site?

Perhaps bagged vacuums are more pervasive in markets that have a network of stores with reliable parts and service.  i.e. ORECK's success in the USA.  Tho, I understand a compact bagless ORECK canister is on the market soon.   Bagged vacuums are not so popular where stores to sell and service are not available.  My own observation is that the homegrown independent vacuum stores are a USA phenomenon and not translated into the European/UK markets.  Maybe that's not the case anymore?  Hence, bagless may be more sought after than bagged in those countries.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Good morning Carmine,

I'm so sorry. The link is as follows -- http://www.alibaba.com/

It's an online directory of sorts with whiich you can track down all sorts of manufacturers and suppliers from many parts of the world.

As for bagged vacuums I think they are still perceived as promoting thrift because owners don't have to go looking or disposable bags. Not a bad thing for the totally aware buyer who knows the other side of the coin is a good owner maintnenance routine to keep a machine running well. However, I think many consumers are buying bagless because they also think they won't need to go back to a shop for service until the vac just up and dies.

As for Europe, I think it's a border to border thing and that all hinges on any given country's state of economics and way of going about things.

Venson

Good site.  Thanks Venson.

CarmineD.

Here, here Venson!
You've hit the nail on the head here where bagged cleaners are concerned here in the UK. Many retailers just aren't bothering to sell bagged vacuums because Dyson's commercials have really changed the minds of the consumers, that it doesn't make sense to consider bags anymore. I find it totally ironic when most of the user manuals for bagless state that a bag should be used by allergy owners if emptying in a loose bin brings up the dust from the vacuum dust bin when emptied.

Hoover UK and Electrolux are persisting in selling some budget upright vacuums (and Electrolux also have a new Professional upright in the UK, similar in look to Sebo's BS36/commercial series) but has a manual height adjuster as opposed to electronics. I just bought a budget Electrolux Powerlite upright today - dead cheap plastic, very flimsy but its very light, incredibly quiet and a boon to use over heavier uprights.

I think it's interesting that, as yet, Electrolux do not offer a multi-cyclonic bagless system. Hoover do, Dyson do, Vax do - in other words, all the other top sellers, other than Lux. They must have something currently in development, it would be unusual forsuch a popular mainstream-brand to lag so far behind the rest of the industry.

Model2 wrote:

Not really that unusual for a company which places more emphasis now on manufacturing and selling kitchen appliances [Electrolux] rather than just vacuums [HOOVER, dyson, VAX].   Vacuums round out the home care product line for Electrolux.  For HOOVER, dyson and VAX, vacuums are the mainstay product line.  At the BEST BUY stores in the US, which feature the Electrolux appliance line, all the Electrolux kitchen appliances are displayed, stocked and sold.  The vacuums, save the Pronto and Ergorapido, are on-line orders only.  The latter don't have a pervasive demand.  Lowes stores in the USA feature the Electrolux vacuum line as well as the others.

Carmine D.

I'm referring to Electrolux within the UK market, where Hoover-Candy (destinct from the TTI-owned US Hoover Company) has a full range of laundry and kitchen appliances, and Hoover, Dyson, Vax, Samsung and LG all offer multi-cyclonic cleaners. In this context, it is odd that Electrolux still rely on a pleated cartridge-filter.

Model2 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong Model2, isn't Electrolux a large selling brand for kitchen appliances in the UK and European markets with a huge presence?  And has been for quite some time.  While Electrolux just launched recently here in the US for kitchen appliances through BEST BUY stores.

Carmine D.

Samsung is a small time player in the vacuum market.  Not its forte.  Samsung leads the world in large screen TV's.  Does LG have any vacuum products?

Carmine D. 

dyson and Vax don't have any kitchen and laundry appliances in the UK/Europe, do they Model2.  That is comparable to the likes of Electrolux?  Are you saying they do?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I never said they did. What's your point? I'm not talking about what can be 'compared' to Electrolux, I'm talking about what Electrolux sell within the UK, and what Hoover sell in the UK, compared to what the respective brand-equivalents sell in the US.

Model2 wrote:
Hi Model2,

Electrolux AB, not a specialist in vacuums but a mass producer of large and small appliances, is at least making an effort in the bagless department with the new "Versatility" upright (link to user manual below)and the "Twin Clean" canister.

I haven't heard any report of the Versatility yet but the Twin Clean can has been out for a while. Lowest canister score being 57 and highest being 73, our Consumer Reports gave it an overal rating of 63. Consumer reviews were telling in that it is made apparent that very regular filter maintenance is necessary to keep this model up to optimum "out of the box" performance as time passes.

Just a guess on my part, Electrolux already has so many irons in the fire that it may not be overly worried about a state-of-the-art vacuum under its own brand. It also owns our Eureka brand and the bagless Eureka Boss 4D 5893 got rather nice scores in CR's last ratings.

Versatility Upright

http://smallappliances.electroluxusa.com/Files/79976_rev%201%20OG%20eng.pdf

Twin Clean Canister

http://smallappliances.electroluxusa.com/files/usa_english/0-999/77764_TwinClean_OG_r10.pdf

Best,

Venson

CarmineD wrote:

Small time player or not, they offer technology far superior to Electrolux - and also currently offer the quietest vacuum cleaner onsale in the UK! As for LG - visit their website! Has it never occurred for you to do any original research? I'm not going to spoonfeed you infomation, Carmine! You really stretch your credentials when you try and comment on the UK market, which clearly you're totally unfamiliar with, both in terms of the products on offer, and the UK buyer's perception of their standing!

Venson wrote:

Again, I'm talking within the context of the UK market, not the US market. Electrolux are still the 3rd biggest seller of vacuum cleaners, in unit sales, within the UK, regardless of what other products they offer.

What you say about the need for filter maintenence in the Twinclean demonstrates the need for higher-efficiency cyclonics in their machines, to keep more dust away from the filters for longer. And like I've said, Hoover, Dyson, Vax, Samsung and LG all offer this!

My point Model2 is the same as Venson's.  Electrolux is a major player in kitchen appliances in the UK and Europe.  And now making a name for itself in the USA for appliances.  Vacuums are secondary to Electrolux's business model/mission statement.  In the USA, the Electrolux brand is primarily a producer of bagged vacuum cleaners not bagless [EUREKA being both bagged and bagless].  Bagless technology is not relevant to Electrolux brand vacuum products in the USA.  

BTW, LG to my knowledge has no vacuums in the USA.

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

There's the answer to your question Model2.  If Electrolux is the 3rd biggest seller of vacuums in the UK market, a product that is not its mainstay line in that market, why bother to invest more time and money to compete for first/second place.

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:

As we've said in response, HOOVER, dyson, VAX, SAMSUNG and LG don't have the huge kitchen appliance presence that Electrolux has in the same markets in which they all compete. 

Carmine D. 

Model2 wrote:
True Model2 but the world has changed. Just as you and I are communicating almost instantly and at little cost it would seem that other barriers are or should be breaking down. I want to look at vacuums with a less centrist and broader perspective. As the world is not all about vacuums produced in or for the UK or the US, it does not matter to me where a vacuum is made or who made it. My greater cause for interest is how it performs why I can't have it if it's good.

Regarding bagged versus bagless, I'm finding it all just about the same ticket. I have an bagless LG clone that does great at cleaning but fine dust filtration breaks down if litter begins to collect around the shroud and the cyclonic spin is hampered. I have the bagged Miele S7 Tango which I think is just wonderful. You can, clean and clean and suction is not notably altered until the bag is almost full AND, using the high-filtration type "U" bags you find little or no dust on the walls of the bag chamber. However, it has its shortcomings too.

The Twin Clean is not my ideal but then again I don't see it as the end of the world if it is what you have to work with. Having owned and used canisters and uprights plus water-type, permanent bagged, disposable bagged and bagless vacs its all more about being in tune with the machine you're using.

Venson

Whoah
I totally missed the debate here on Samsung.

To the best of my experience and knowledge model2 listen to what these guys are saying! Electrolux are a mass international brand company; Samsung started by churning out TVs, Videos and Stereos in the late 1990s. In Europe they tried their hand at vacuum cleaners and they were NOT their own design; the Samsung Jet Propel series is loosely based on LG's bagged upright and to a latter extent Dirt Devil U.S inspired uprights. Their cylinder cleaners followed a similar route whilst their latest cylinder vacuum may well claim to be the quietest, I still find Miele rules supreme in that market for cylinder vacuums even their new S7 range uprights are quieter than the rubbish Samsung are currently selling. Its all very well having to have a quiet claim on ONE type of market product but if it can't be applied to other vacuum cleaner styles in the family then there is limited appeal for those who dont like cylinder vacuums.

Samsung and LG are however different. The U.S market had LG for at least five years before we could even buy any of their larger household appliances inthe UK. I recall my father impatiently waiting for LG to launch their direct drive washing machine in the UK so we could buy one and that was back in 2000. Over Samsung however LG have had a great reliability record in the UK at least; Samsung are still recovering from their American style refridgerators that caught fire earlier this year.

vacmanuk wrote:
I am not familiar with appliance reliability, however, Samsung reliability excels over LG in audio/video electronics.

vacmanuk wrote:
Hi vacmanuk,

Just out of curiosity, is shopping in Europe limited border to border? As we've been commenting on vacuums sold in Europe though noot necessarily in the U.S., I have found that large manufacturers like LG and Samsung sometines offer different product in different places. As an instance a vacuum they might sell in Germany may not be the same as a model offered in Australia or Spain. My assumption is, were I European, if I wasn't quite satisfied with the offerings in my own country that I might easily find and buy something more to my liking in another. That would seem easy enough as we now have the internet.

Even better, most of those countries are blessed with the same electrical voltage. I would think European shoppers have more leeway to pick and choose than we do save for the additional cost of shippings and tariffs as they may apply.

I have two Mieles but the issue with the brand here is price. My main reason for buying either of mine was to have them in the house so I might better form an opinion through use regarding their worth instead of making judgements by way of specification sheets. And my opinion is that they are wonderful but they just cost too much.

I imagine that that this is due to the mark-up that falls into play concerning imports. A Mercedes here is a prized, coveted and expensive auto but I do recall how amazed I was that the Germans were using them as taxis. That's the kind of service we used to delegate to cheap American-made Chevrolets and Fords here.

Miele here is a niche brand and is usually sold in independent vac shops and by "select" vendors online. The exceptions I know of are two local chains, PC Richards and J&R carying some Miele canisters along with standard brands. Pricing for online shoppers is generally written in stone and "sales" involve not very significant price drops. We are now being challenged by a bad economy and people are tinking more than twice about what they flip out a credit card for.

People and business have been known to fall back when they get to feeling they're teh only game in town. No matter the maker, I'll always hope that we can avail ourselves of imports at least in the hope that a few "gems" may pop up here and there. Beside the competion that may put a little fire under some of our native appliance makers and get a few thinking more carefully about product and pricing.

As for the issue of quiet, I feel the more you spend the more you should expect. The ideal is a sound level low enough to allow you to carry on a conversation in a normal voice while you're working. Only a few vacuum makers -- even those who claim to make "quiet" machines -- list decible levels in the machine specs they offer.

Vacuums Like Filter Queen (our foremost high filtrstion vac at one time) and Lewyt strove for the goal of quiet operation and achieved it for years and years but somehow did not seem to impress the American public due to that. People were satisified to tolerate extra noise if they could spend less money.

Venson

WRT Electrolux Home Care Products, they are also the US distributor for Filtrete vacuum bags and belts which makes vacuum parts for assorted brands and models, including HOOVER.  Decent quality too and prices.

Interesting!?

Carmine D.

&lt;BR&gt;<BR> Venson wrote:
Sorry for the lateness of reply. In the UK and Europe some voltages are the same and some aren't, so as with the U.S if a UK buyer decides to buy in another model that isn't UK specific it may have a different voltage/amperage and a transformer would have to be bought so that the machine can work. In the UK generally buyers are not getting different models border by border, or district by district. Due to the size geographically of the UK any of the home websites of the brands on offer usually offer the same machines anywhere in the UK. As for Samsung being better than LG (response to HARDSELL) just because they appear to be better than LG in the audio department doesn't neccessarily mean its the same with every product line they make. I know this from experience and also that Panasonic's older upright and cylinder vacs are completelty different than they are in the U.S, are no less efficient but suffer from two drive belts, high noise and poor quality - which is nothing like any of the audio equipment I own with a Panasonic label on it. Infact in the U.S Panasonic's upright cleaners are available under the Miele Powerhouse tag.

vacmanuk wrote:

hi

ive heard that vacuums adapted [ transformer]  to run on a different voltage dont last as long..less performance. never tried so im not sure...have you.

I have never bought a vacuum cleaner that has a different voltage or needed a transformer other than a 110V Numatic Henry commercial tub I had to work with and the one I tried was already something like 15 years old. Its still going I think!

Model2 wrote:
Model2,

Don’t let the vac-whacks push you off this forum.  Pick your topics and/or battles and control the conversations.  I do.

Electrolux has applied for U.S. conical [Dyson inspired?] separation patent protection.  U.S. patent app: 20090235482 or zip file here.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Control the conversations?

DIB, You are a legend in your own mind!

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Control the conversations?

DIB, You are a legend in your own mind!

Trebor wrote:
How about... “steer the conversation” instead.

If you want to see a legend, then step back from your Carmine hero worship and take a look at the narcissistic-abuse he and others posted to T.G., Motorhead and Model2.  Turning away 3 top guys (historians) is in whose best interest?…the forums?...it’s readers (posters and consumers)?  T.G was a consumer-favorite at another site at one point in time.  Look around, where are they?

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson iB:

MH is alive and well and posts here if you read regularly.  TG has moved on to bigger and better things as vacuum museum curator and made amens with Tacony which debarred him as an authorized dealer when he was gung ho on dyson.  BTW, I advised Tom that it would.  Not sure about Model2.  But if he chooses to post here/not that's his business.  No adult makes another adult do anything that they don't want to do.  It's something we adults call free-will.

All may come and go here if they choose, even you.  Tho of late you appear to be on the defensive spouting conspiracy theories and psychotic interpretations of peoples' posts that bear little usefulness to the forum except in your own mind. 

Carmine D.    

Carmine,

I respect your 50 plus years in the vacuum industry, and the decades you supported a family and supplied gainful employment for others so they could likewise support their families, but I do not worship you, sorry. Admired aquaintance and fellow vac enthusiast you are, hero, no, but then I don't think you are the sort of man who requires or desires hero worship anyway, (OK with your grandkids, I'll cut you a little slack )

DIB, 

Like some others on this and other forums you seem to have a knack  for stirring hostility against yourself.  Carmine, Venson, Severus, mole, turtle, and others are able to dialog, share differing opinions and support them with facts, or at least unapologetically acknowledge them as personal preferences or prejudices without all this truculent diatribe.  You allude to knowledge and connections in the vacuum industry, and to be fair you seem to be on top of the current patent issues, but it's all rather vague and insubstantial.  I grow weary of the boorishness of your exchanges.  You might actually be a decent person. Why not give yourself a chance, and us a chance to take things to a higher level.  Leave the verbal brawling where it belongs, on the grammar school playground.

I looked at the Consumer Oct 2009 reports and they rated Kirby and Dyson as the two most reliable uprights. OK, I can buy that. But I have a little trouble believing Simplicty/Riccar and Miele are among the lowest in relaiability. Now, true, the lowest still means only about 14% needed repair, but can anyone explain precisely how the figures are derived? Does the response require a model and serial number? Are people accidentally, or puposefully mis-reporting the ages of their vacuums? My experience was always that people vastly underestimated the age of their vacuums,and vastly overstated the cost of any repairs because for most people a vacuum cleaner is a grudge expense. People resent the money they spend on their vacuums. So how does the collection of reliability data work and how accurate is it? I am not interested in any bashing of C/R or similar agencies. I really want to understand how the data is gathered and reported, and of what value it is in making a vacuum purchase.

By the way, has anyone seen the Karcher household canisters? I saw them online, but not in the USA, at least yet. I also saw two models of the SEBO Felix in yellow, can't remember if they were Tornado or Karcher.  Was Karcher with Tornado at one time? Or are/were they simply buying  the same/similar machines and having them labeled?

Trebor

Trebor wrote:

HI TREBOR

Never seen Karcher anywhere or in any shops around here........one shop 30min north of me carries commercial eqip. Tornado mainly.....thought they were somehow in  with Tacony.....not sure ....but  rare is it that we get a sebo, tornado,miele,riccar in for repairs......annual services in most cases. I agree on the data part.....dont see how it can be all that accurate........but its somewhat of a starting point ...i guess....gotta start somewhere,...to me a vac forum is a great place to start.....and gather info...knowledge is power....ive grown somewhat leary of c/r over the last year.....just the way i feel i guess.......but i have heard that karcher was top notch....some of the local detail shops use them......thats all i know of them.....so far.

turtle1

Trebor wrote:
Karcher and Tornado share many machines in common...can't say I've ever seen a felix with either label though.  I have seen the Felix under the Windsor label, who also share many machines with Sebo, Karcher and Tornado.

Dusty

http://www.windsorind.com/ViewCategories.aspx?Pid=145

Tornado and Karcher were partners in the North American market until Tornado was sold to Tacony in February 2007. Some machines are still made for Tornado by Karcher, but only a handful compared to what it once was.

In April 2007, Karcher then purchased Castle Rock Industries, including its Windsor brand.

Trebor wrote:

Hello Trebor:

Thank you for your kind words. 

My dear Wife is quick to remind me that even the star struck look in my granddaughters' eyes will fade with time and I should enjoy it while it lasts.  Which I intend to do by taking everyone to Disneyland next week for the week. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

HI CARMINE

May you and you family have a wonderful vacation/trip......i so love d-land and d- world........the west coast is beautiful this time of year......have a safe and wonderful time my friend.

turtle1

retardturtle1 wrote:

Thank you, turtle1.  Walt and all his disney characters are favorites of mine too. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Walt was nice to name a character after you.  GOOFY

HAVE A WONDERFUL OUTING WITH THE FAMILY.

Karcher and Sebo go back a long long way infact.. 1970s.

HARDSELL wrote:

Actually, and factually, it was Gepetto.  Dopey always got that wrong too!

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Factually it is Geppetto.  Creator of a liar.  Yep, could have been you.

HARDSELL wrote:

It's fairy tale not truth as in real life.  Hard for people like you to distinguish the difference!

Carmine D.

Trebor wrote:
Trebor,

I am a good guy and so is James Dyson.  Many here dislike me/like to dislike me and why shouldn’t they?  I expose the many trickery's and falsehoods (sugar coated words for lying and twisting) told by competing manufacturers and their representatives.  And I expose the inventive ineptness and much copying by said manufacturers.  Like most, I hate the lazy, thieving and liars.  Somehow and for some reason competing [to Dyson] dealers believe they’re livelihoods should be supported while telling untruths (another sugar coated word for lies).  My track record is clear, I never (to the best of my knowledge) hammer on, make fun of or confront any dealer or enthusiast’s who fly’s straight as pertaining to Dyson.  Did I confront Carmine when his Dyson dealer buddy said some wire harnesses are faulty?  No.  And you won’t find me confronting anyone who has a valid point (can be proven true).  How helpful is dumping on Dyson for Dyson-dealers like Dusty?  He sell’s Dyson’s and other brands.  If I were him I’d be piss’d off at the clowns for lying of my products.  He seems like a good guy, but why should he debate his income generator much (his Dyson’s) when he has me?  On the clubber site, many there have a small mans mentality and need to dump on men who get things done, create inventions, create jobs and wealth.  The club site and being with clubbers is a better vehicle for unsubstantiated Dyson bashing (a sugar coated word for bad-mouthing).  If you want to try out any new Dyson bashing or Dyson bad-mouthing concepts and see if I can defeat them then this is what mole and I do and Carmine and I do and Venson and I do. 

I liked what Model2 had to offer here, and I liked what Motorhead had to offer here and I liked what T.G. offered here (long ago) and they are gone – I did not chase them away and that’s demonstrable.

Is there anyone in the UK more knowledgeable about vacuums and vacuum history than Model2?  Is there anyone more willing to post vacuum videos than Model2?  Have you seen Model2’s YouTube channel?  The newer Dyson inventions are approaching ¼ million hits, and no other vacuum or brand (he’s uploaded) comes close to these numbers and interest and in such a short time frame.  Carmine worked him over pretty good and over petty things like how he cared for his vacuum/s.  Carmine and mole worked Motorhead over pretty good too.  And surprise, surprise – they’re gone.  Go figure.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB:

Many vacuum products and their performance equal/surpass your ONE AND ONLY favorite brand.  All posters here, not just dyson ones, can recommend brands/models to those who ask without the expectation of having you/others of the ONE BRAND FITS ALL contingency shouting them down.  Usually with insults both personally and professionally. 

You enjoy 'confronting' [your word] posters like VENSON, MOLE, SEVERUS, TREBOR and ALL the independents who don't sell/won't sell and don't recommend dysons as the cleaning panacea for the ages.   Even if it is an income generator [your words] for you and Sir James and dyson dealers.  The dyson fits all mantra is silly, unrealistic,  and so conspicuously self-serving that it is laughable.

BTW, I'm a good guy too with over 55 years in the vacuum business and a pristine reputation as back up.  How about you? 

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Trebor wrote:

Trebor,
The use of using - in the public domain expired patents:  I do wonder why corporate suits would rather have sloppy seconds (wait for Dyson patents to expire) over inventing their own patent protected monopolies and enjoy the notoriety, free publicity, profits, security and other upsides that accompanies this process.  I also wonder about this sloppy seconds mentality as how it relates to good stewardship for their employees.  Is a sloppy second mentality going to create, keep and well-pay their employees and help provide for their families?

Before Dyson, before Rainbow:  Long before the Rainbow water-bath [shop] vac there was a railcar water vac.  If you search this site, I’ve posted a patent drawing of it somewhere.

Me not commenting on your claims or positions:  I do not pour over all the posts for sure, I have not commented on your [above] claims or positions since I have not seen any supporting information.

I’ve got to run.

DIB

DIB,
Thanks for responding.

If there were no expiration dates on patents, or if the prevailing morality were to prevent the use of any prior art, no matter how old, then Dyson vacuums could not exist today, in fact nearly all vacuums would not exist. Hoover invented the revolving brush roll and the beater bar. Air-Way invented the paper bag.  No one else would have these features because only the originator would have them. Hoover had patents for on-board tools very early (late 1930's) and Jim Kirby had a patent for it in 1953.  So if everyone subscribed to your 'sloppy seconds' mentality, no one save the original inventor would ever be allowed to improve on his inventions because holding the patent is totally separate from putting it into production.  In fact, companies patent ideas and variations of them 'pre-emptively' so that people who are inspired from an idea to improve it or make it differently are foiled from doing so for the period of the patent exclusivity.  So, under your belief of the way things should be, the one who can patent the most ideas the fastest is the one who wins. And you know who loses? You and me and everybody else that's who, because unless someone has a totally original idea, and can patent it, nothing new could ever be manufactured.  And that would include cyclonic separation, because the separator invented by John Newcomb, was originally used to cyclonically separate wood particles (sawdust) from the air.  You missed my point about Rexair/Rainbow.  The fact that there was another water filtration vacuum before 1936 does not alter the fact that James Dyson falsely claimed Dyson to be the first and the only vacuum that does not lose suction.

The efficiency of the new filter bags (maintaining suction while filtering at nearly 100%,) is widely known by people in the vacuum cleaner community, but nonetheIess I will do some research and post the links for everyone to see.

Trebor

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Dustmite:

The Rainbow is far more than a shop vac.  It goes to show that you have no appreciation for the inordinate number of interventions prior to Dyson.  

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Though I'm not necessarily fully appreciative, long before Dyson, the intent of the first designer of Rexair/Rainbow was to make a bagless household vacuum WITHOUT aid of water as a filtering medium yet came upon the possibility and ran with the ball. Now more than seventy years since, with great numbers of new and repeat buyers, the idea is still out there on the market and not only being sold by Rainbow.

http://www.rainbowsystem.com/rainbowsystem/history

Venson

Severus wrote:
Batman,

Tell it to the consumer.  Seventy years of business knowhow and the masses continually reject it, and no big-player manufacturer wants it (wants to copy it).  It’s dead in the water (no pun intended).

Not bad and nice try - trying to state I do not appreciate inventions prior to Dyson.  You need to be a rep for the underwhelming vac corps and sling that slop from there.


DIB

Trebor wrote:
Trebor,
I'm glad to respond.

Do you know the meaning behind ‘sloppy seconds?’  In this context it means a manufacturer and it suits and/or it’s engineers weren’t good enough or smart enough to get there first.  It also means the market (industry people and consumer people) know who was there first.  The manufacturer who picks up IMMEDIATLY after the victor is done is considered - taking sloppy seconds.  Bissell and TTI (when contracted by Hoover/Maytag) followed the victor Dyson IMMEDIATELY following the expiration/near expiration of his Dual Cyclone patents.

I have no problems with and realize the importance of building on others expired patents.  Patents expire for few reasons, but primarily so 1) so others can copy and 2) so others can use in conjunction with other technologies.  Bissell or TTI have not made the Dual Cyclone better, but instead they are the preverbal ‘cheap copies’ (disasters really).  If TTI and Bissell were to shut down they would have a zero/near zero impact on vacuum cleaner development (per the patent office).  They would not be missed.

When the HSN Hoover rep claims their dual cyclone is "Hoover's version of cyclonic technologies" do you think consumers are aware Hoover is selling sloppy second technologies and not Hoover patented technologies?


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Dustmite,

If ignorance is bliss, you must be one happy fellow.    There have been numerous imitations, including water filtration vacs sold on HSN.  

DIB,

I do know the derivation of the term 'sloppy seconds'.  The question is, who decides what is the 'decent' interval between a patent's expiration and copying/adapting it by others?  A century ago a widow who remarried in less than 5 yrs was considered less than a proper lady.  This is the same kind of issue. This is about what YOU consider fair, decent, and proper.  The marketplace is what it is.  Patents expire, they are challenged in court, people copy others' ideas.  Get over it.  Dyson ADAPTED cyclonic separation to a vacuum cleaner. He was inspired by cyclonic separation of sawdust from the air.  Kirby and Hoover already had expired patents for on-board tool designs. Singer and Hoover and Panasonic and Oreck, had already done the 'floating, self adjusting head' concept. As with most inventions it is the application/combination of existing ideas that brings something 'new' to the market place.  Dyson made a mint, good for him. To quote King Solomon in Ecclesiastes "There is nothing new under the sun" 

Trebor

DysonInventsBig wrote: Severus wrote:
Boy-Blunder,

Is there a big demand and big money in manufacturing mud-bath vacs?  My guess is - mud-bath vacs account for less than 1% of vacuums sold.

Can the Rainbow look any uglier?  Although I bet it looks nice alongside some 1970’s Brady Bunch paneling.


DIB

Trebor wrote:
Trebor,

I do not understand why defending those with low expectations or defending the lazy is worth spending time on.  Feel free to point out all the patents Dyson has stepped on or immediately jumped on after a competitors patent has expired.  Most vacuum related patents are dogs, so Dyson jumping on them is highly unlikely.

Get over it?  You make these multi-million and multi-billion dollar corporations sound like victims and entitled.  Any neophyte can grab expired patents (parts) off the shelf and assemble them in a so-called novel way (not a patentable way for sure).  I say these $500m to $3b corporation’s ain’t entitled to 'jack' and neither are their slimy hustler reps.  Get over it.

DIB

DIB,

The 'mudbath' as you describe the Rainbow works extremely well.  I have one I use in my cleaning business (see my earlier post) that is 23 years old and still runs like new.  The Rexair was the FIRST water trap vacuum to use a separator. There are Rexairs in excess of 60 years old still working.  Think any Dysons will make it to even 20 years in daily use?

I am not defending anyone. Your perception that I am is indicative of a paranoid-schizophrenic personality. What I am saying is the patent laws are what they are. Any company is foolish to refrain from using patents which are available to it. And you, DIB are wasting time and posting space by accusing others of opinions holding they do not hold. Yeah, Bissell and TTI make low quality vacuums. And you know what? There is a market for them. People buy them.  I wouldn't, but then I don't buy a lot of popular stuff most people buy.

Ugly? That's a matter of perception. The Dysons, in my opinion, are no prizewinners for their looks. They are very industrial looking, not what I would call attractive at all.

You still have ignored James Dyson's claim that he invented the first and only vacuum cleaner that does not lose suction. I don't know about the water trap vacuum you mentioned prior to Rexair  as whether or not it lost suction in use, what I do know is that it did not use a separator, and thus, your bringing up the previous water trap vacuum, and lumping all water trap vacuums together as 'mud baths' is a misdirection away from the the fact that your St James either deliberately, or unwittingly made a false advertising claim when he touted his Dyson vacuum cleaners as "the first" and "the only" vacuum that doesn't lose suction. Not true.

Are you saying that you are unaware of the flimsiness of the hose on the upright Dysons, and/or the lack of a caveat in the manual not to tug on the hose to pull the machine around to a different direction?  I am sure anyone on this forum who repairs and or collects vacuums has seen the flaw I am mentioning.

Trebor

<BR> Trebor wrote: <BR><BR>I don't own a Rainbow - but I suspect the water bath solves the problem of the stinky pet hair exhaust that is common in bagged and bagless vacuums. It's amazing to me that Rainbow sells as well as it does with the $2200 price tag. User reviews on sites like epinions and consumerreports.org tend to be very positive. I suspect that Dyson got the idea of displaying the dirt collected from vacuums like the Rainbow. It was a case of sloppy seconds for the Dyson.<BR><BR>In recent years, there have been some cheap knockoffs of water filtration vacuums with no power nozzle. The Rainbow knockoffs tend to also be high dollar niche brands (e.g. Hyla, Delphin, ...). I guess Dustmite belittles the Rainbow because it was the first, and Dyson got Rainbow's sloppy seconds/thirds... <BR><BR><BR><BR>

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DIB:

You're talking from two sides of your mouth.  On one hand you want a monopoly on dyson's inventions and on the other you berate vacuum makers for their lack of new technologies.  Well, DIB you can't have it both ways.  Monopolies, for the sake of protecting creators' technologies, are not efficient for a market based, consumer driven economy.  Perhaps Sir James needs to file his copy rights and sell his products in communist/ government controlled countries.

Carmine D.

Severus,

You are right about the Rainbow water bath eliminating the odor from per hair, PROVIDED the machine is used and cared for properly.
If left set for two days with water in the basin, it smells like a sewer!  But it does clean extremely well.

At present there are several Rainbow competitors: Hyla, Pro Aqua, Blue Ocean, Delphin, Turmix, Robot.  I tried one of the early Hylas, liked it, but the P/N was not suited for American carpets. Saw the Delphin before they finally decided to sell the electric P/N instead of that silly little battery operated thing.  My D4 is running great, think I'll just keep it.

Trebor

DysonInventsBig wrote:
CarmineD wrote:
Copy rights?  Communist?  You’re incoherent...are you drinkin?  You've never been able to get your head around patents and their purpose. - So why start now?

FYI - Inventions are patented not copyrighted.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB:

Same same my friend.  Impress us by debating technological innovations, your mantra, and their legal protections on the industry.  Not by word use and definition.    

Patent and copyright protections are not just a legal right granted the creator.  They are economic rights of the market place and consumers.  Or, do you prefer that they be used to control consumers rather than satisfy them?  The latter is called a monopoly.  And not the board game.  You can't have product innovation with innovative technologies in a monopoly.  Nor can it be had in a government controlled market system, which appears to be your preference when your fave inventor is the patent creator.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Economic Rights?  Those are the words of lazy men and men who are supportive to knock-off manufacturers,  No free ride here Carmine and no 'Free Handout Rights' either.

When you speak incoherently and continually speak about a topic you've never understood - one wonders if it’s booze talking.

Why not take your theory of 'Economic/Free Handout Rights' over to Coca Cola and demand your rights - to their formulas.

I hate slothfulness and hate it more when the diligent and the good are expected and told to (and often do) carry the lazy?


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB, you're dithering again not debating.  Yes, economic rights are inalienable rights granted to consumers in a free, market based, consumer driven economy.  Unlike legal rights which are government given in a free market economy for patent/copyright protections and are time specific.  Read: Expire.  The purpose of protections is to give the invention creators their just rewards.  Not to grant them a monopoly for life.   Of course, you support the billionaire's rights over the consumer rights in the market place.  Control the consumer, don't satisfy them.  All the while impugning vacuum makers for lack of innovation.   Monopolies preempt innovation, my friend.  But, then again, small minded inventors and their supporters prefer to litigate rather than innovate. 

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
CarmineD wrote:
Cameron, It’s not [Patent] monopolies that preempt innovation.  It's stupidity and no-talent that prevents innovation.   Putting pen-to-paper-napkin and a 2nd grade education is all it takes to lock-up/prove originality and it’s this pen-to-paper-napkin that proves original art if challenged in court.  Do your favorite vacuum manufacturers have access to these tools and education?

DIB

P.S.  Did you enjoy your time at Disneyland?  My buddy was a WDI (Imagineer), I knew about Roger Rabbit and Tower of Terror two years before they broke ground.  Of course they engineered, prototyped and tested in secret so to prevent the less talented and less imaginative competitors from taking what's not theirs.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB:

US copyright/patent lawyers and savvy business people with a grasp of economics would vehemently dispute you/this.  Arguing in the reverse.  Hence, the reasons that the legal protections for innovators in the USA have been consistently diminished.  Apparently, your knowledge/association with theme park rides doesn't overlap into the business/common sense world of free markets.  

Do tell me dyson DiB, if the info on the Tower of Terror is/was TOP SECRET, how is it that you/others knew about it?  The answer is simple.  You can't legislate peoples' behaviors with laws.  Just as you can't restrict the free market system with overly expansive patent/copyright protections.  Except of course in a monopolistic economy where the government controls the consumers.  Your preference when Sir James innovations are on the line.

Carmine D.

DIB,

Please, this is a non-issue. The mfg of mass market vacuums. TTI, Bissell, et al, ARE NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS.  They legitimately can use Dyson's EXPIRED patents. A US Patent is 17 years, how long do you think it should be?  For crying out loud, the man is on to other ideas, which again are patented for 17 years.  The DC 02 and 02 never were marketed in the US because the multi-cyclonic technology was already in production . Dyson made his own inventions obsolete. Good for him.  But what he did NOT do was create a vacuum that the lower half of the market wanted to buy.  Not everyone thinks the Dysons are pretty. Dyson was so full of himself he initially REFUSED to develop a brush roll suitable for American w2w carpet.  He finally got around to it, but without the pressure of the imitators it seems highly unlikely that the brush roll design of the Dysons would have advanced.  Patent protections do work. Hoover sued Bissell and won over the first upright carpet cleaner. Bissell paid Hoover a royalty on every upright carpet cleaner they sold until Hoover's patent expired.

Every product has had its imitators.  If the originator is lazy, his imitators will surpass her/him, because regardless of what you think, there is creativity in seeing a different configuration of a device or application of a principle. Remember, Dyson did NOT invent the principle of cyclonic separation, he merely thought of applying it to vacuum cleaners.  Cyclonic separation is the use of centrifugal force to separate materials of different densities. It has been in use for a more than a century in laboratories, and in sawmills.   If anything, the imitators you disparage so much have to work harder, because they have to compete against each other for sales.  They have to make a product user friendly, visually attractive, and cost effective, that will last long enough, but not too long, to continuously fuel sales.  Over 1/2 of all the roughly 20 million vacs sold per year in the US are at or below a 100.00 price point.  Not Dysons customers at all.  So even with competing for a share of the upper 1/3 of the market, selling 8K cleaners PER DAY in the US, in a recession, Dyson ain't doin' too shabby.  What are you complaining about?  Anytime a competitor adapts an expired Dyson patent,  Dyson can copy it/improve on it with impunity. FREE ideas here.  And why isn't Dyson's wondrous engineering staff taking apart every competitors model to see what might be worth using?  If they are not they should be.

Have you ever done anything creative, like art, music, writing, DIB?  Don't you realize the works of art inspire others to produce more art?  People do arrangements of a piece of music, and there are countless variations.  Be glad inventions are not like fashion design.  Do you know that there is NO protection for originality for designers, NONE? The PATTERN companies have copyright protection insofar as using a pattern directly to mass produce garments.  Technically, it is illegal for even ONE garment to be produced for profit, but the big concern is the mass production. But all anyone would have to do is trace the pattern onto different paper and tweak it, and it would be VERY difficult to prove fraud.  That's why the big money is in copyrighted trademarks, like the Nike swoosh, and names like Michael Graves.  It would have to be a really big case of fraud, and an open and shut case, with plenty of damages to be had for a pattern company to sue for copyright infringement. They just keep cranking out patterns and collecting royalties, just like Dyson US cranks out 8K cleaners a day, and Mr. Dyson collects his royalties on every single one.

Dyson is and always will be the first dry cyclonic separation vacuum cleaner with the clear dust bin.  His place in history is secure. That's what makes it special, the clear container.  That's what Dyson should have patented, in addition to everything else, the clear container.  That's what sells ANY bagless cleaner.  Who would care about no loss of suction if the dirt were in an opaque container?

Can we move on now?

Trebor

DysonInventsBig wrote:
CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

Relax, food stamps will continue to flow to the lazy (should go to the truly needy), Wallmart will still  be responsible for killing American manufacturing in the name of - 'Save money. Live Better. Walmart.' and inventors will continue to invent so guys like you can wake up and have purpose and a job [ret].


DIB

Trebor wrote:

Hello Trebor:

Would you believe that the original patent/copyright laws allowed legal protections for 70 years!  17 is a huge improvement.  Inventors/creators most certainly can earn their just rewards for their incentives in the free market place in 17 years.  While providing all other industry competitors, old and new, ample opportunities to improve upon the innovations with the passage of time and technological advancements.  With the goal of offering consumers the latest and greatest at the best and most affordable prices.   Thank goodness the founding fathers understood and appreciated the benefits of a free market economy that is consumer driven.  

Carmine D.

Trebor wrote:

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello dyson DiB:

Now its my turn to teach you a lesson in words and definitions.  When you do something for 55 plus years that you love [and are good at], it's not called a job, it's called a vocation.

Especially when you're your own boss and don't have to cotton up to others [read kiss butt].

Carmine D.

Trebor wrote: DIB,

Please, this is a non-issue. The mfg of mass market vacuums. TTI, Bissell, et al, ARE NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS.  DIB reply: I know. They legitimately can use Dyson's EXPIRED patents.  DIB reply: I know.  A  US Patent is 17 years, how long do you think it should be?  DIB reply: It's 20 years not 17.    DIB reply: 20 is fine (but not certain).    For crying out loud, the man is on to other ideas, which again are patented for 17 years.    DIB reply: Well, since you've misunderstood my other posts, I can see why your way off base and confused here too.  The DC 02 and 02 never were marketed in the US because the multi-cyclonic technology was already in production.  Dyson made his own inventions obsolete.   DIB reply: Hmmm, I bet his dual cyclone patents expiring around 2005 had some influence too.  Good for him.  But what he did NOT do was create a vacuum that the lower half of the market wanted to buy.    DIB reply: So what, people being priced out is part of everyday life--so what else is knew. new   Not everyone thinks the Dysons are pretty.  DIB reply: So?   Dyson was so full of himself he initially REFUSED to develop a brush roll suitable for American w2w carpet.    DIB reply: Full of himself?  Can you point to an interview or an article that demonstrates this?  Or do you just like hearing yourself saying this?    He finally got around to it, but without the pressure of the imitators it seems highly unlikely that the brush roll design of the Dysons would have advanced.    DIB reply: You're clueless, Dyson does not hold a single patent on brushroll design.  Most brush rolls in most of the worlds vacuums are in the public domain inventions.  I never said he did. But, if Dyson had really done his homework the initial brush roll never would have been marketed In the US. Patent protections do work. Hoover sued Bissell and won over the first upright carpet cleaner. Bissell paid Hoover a royalty on every upright carpet cleaner they sold until Hoover's patent expired    DIB reply: I like hearig of Bissell paying out.  After the royalty, did Bissell still make a profit? Apparently, they continued to introduce new upright models of steamers all through the patent life.

Every product has had its imitators.  If the originator is lazy, his imitators will surpass her/him, because regardless of what you think, there is creativity in seeing a different configuration of a device or application of a principle.   DIB reply: Inventors become lazy, but thankfully the knock-offs are there to pick up where the lazy inventors left off?  That's funny, it sounds like Carmine logic. It's human nature to become complacent. Aesop knew this, remember the Tortise and the Hare?  Remember, Dyson did NOT invent the principle of cyclonic separation, he merely thought of applying it to vacuum cleaners.  Cyclonic separation is the use of centrifugal force to separate materials of different densities. It has been in use for a more than a century in laboratories, and in sawmills.     DIB reply: Hind site is 20/20.  And bad-mouthing of Dyson types always state this.  Not hindsight, not bad mouthing, statement of fact. So if it's a matter of "merely" "applying" an old "principle" in a new way then why are you here wasting your time and not pouring over expired patents (if I had a manufacturing company, I would, believe me, and anything usable, adaptable,  and marketable would be used, along with lab and marketing research. and merely applying old principles in a new way and become rich and change life as we know it?  No one said Dysons application was not useful, inspired, and profitable  If anything, the imitators you disparage so much have to work harder, because they have to compete against each other for sales.  They have to make a product user friendly, visually attractive, and cost effective, that will last long enough, but not too long, to continuously fuel sales.    DIB reply: What a bunch of garbage!  When Bissell and TTI use expired Dyson patents and enjoy the free plublicity (Dyson spending up to $50m in advertising.) it's equivalent to winning the lottery.   Over 1/2 of all the roughly 20 million vacs sold per year in the US are at or below a 100.00 price point.  Not Dysons customers at all.  So even with competing for a share of the upper 1/3 of the market, selling 8K cleaners PER DAY in the US, in a recession, Dyson ain't doin' too shabby.  What are you complaining about?   DIB reply: You sound like Obama...take money from those who have the guts to make things happen and give the money to those (mostly) who refuse to make things happen.   What do you want?  Manufacturers to leave expired patents lie fallow until a 'decent' interval has passed?  We have already established that the manufacturers are not breaking any laws. What do you want? Anytime a competitor adapts an expired Dyson patent,  Dyson can copy it/improve on it with impunity. FREE ideas here.  And why isn't Dyson's wondrous engineering staff taking apart every competitors model to see what might be worth using?  If they are not they should be.    DIB reply: Please!!! Lets see these wondrous dual cyclone improvements that the knock-offs have though up all by their lonesome. The patent archives are FULL of designs and inventions which were never manufactured because they were ahead of their time, or not feasible for production given available materials and prevailing methods of the day. And if Dyson were really smart he never would have abandoned the Dual Cyclone totally. Keeping a few models around at the 150.00 to 200.00 price point while TTI and the rest were just getting their feet wet in the technology would have insured even greater sales for Dyson. Free for the taking now, just like ANY expired patent. Dyson allowed the momentum to pass.

Have you ever done anything creative, like art, music, writing, DIB?    DIB reply: I've dabbled.  Don't you realize the works of art inspire others to produce more art?    DIB reply: Inspiring art and copyright infringement are separate issues. There IS NO infringement. Infringement is a crime, punishable by law after conviction in a court of law, a process James Dyson is familiar with. People do arrangements of a piece of music, and there are countless variations.  Be glad inventions are not like fashion design.  Do you know that there is NO protection for originality for designers, NONE? The PATTERN companies have copyright protection insofar as using a pattern directly to mass produce garments.  Technically, it is illegal for even ONE garment to be produced for profit, but the big concern is the mass production. But all anyone would have to do is trace the pattern onto different paper and tweak it, and it would be VERY difficult to prove fraud.  That's why the big money is in copyrighted trademarks, like the Nike swoosh, and names like Michael Graves.  It would have to be a really big case of fraud, and an open and shut case, with plenty of damages to be had for a pattern company to sue for copyright infringement. They just keep cranking out patterns and collecting royalties, just like Dyson US cranks out 8K cleaners a day, and Mr. Dyson collects his royalties on every single one.  DIB reply: Royalties?  Again, you do not know this subject.  Royalties are payments paid to inventors for the rights of usage.  Sir James is getting paid off his manufactured goods. You are right, my mistake

Dyson is and always will be the first dry cyclonic separation vacuum cleaner with the clear dust bin.  His place in history is secure. That's what makes it special, the clear container.     DIB reply: So called bagless w/ cartridge filters are clear binned and consumers hate them. But they keep buying them. repeatedly.  Dyson's are clear binned w/ Dyson patented technologies and consumers love them....to the tune of 100,000 manufactured per week., no argument.   That's what Dyson should have patented, in addition to everything else, the clear container.    DIB reply:   Again, you do not know this subject.   He tried, but could not. Maybe you could advise him on all the copyright and patent laws and secure this easy to obtain protection.  That's what sells ANY bagless cleaner.    DIB reply: Well, since you cannot get your head around what makes Dyson separators work I can understand your position.   Who would care about no loss of suction if the dirt were in an opaque container?    DIB reply: Fantom Vacuums used opaque bins. They sold $300m worth of product in 3 years and just in the U.S. only.They were translucent, not opaque, so the user could still see the dirt swirl. I know the difference between bagless vacuum technologies. The average consumer does not, nor does he/she care enough to spend the difference, hence my earlier statement that remaining in the dual cyclonic technology market at a lower price point would have been a smart move for Dyson. RE: Bissell's workaround Dyson's multi-cyclonic technology. Surely with his 5,000 prototypes approach Bissell's take on the concept was tried. And even if it was found lacking, it obviously works, and so could have been pre-emptively patented by Dyson, thus keeping Bissell and others at bay for the duration of the patent.

Can we move on now?    DIB reply: Feel free to move on - I hoped you would.  But religiously, you, Carmne, Venson and mole like to come back to Dyson (attack Dyson) in hopes that I respond. And I oblige when I feel like it. DIB, you are like a religious fanatic. It's absolute total conviction with you, or complete apostasy. I have never denied that Dysons inventions have merit, are groundbreaking, and have justly earned him place in history. That hardly sounds like being against him. I am critical of some of his moves in design and the marketplace, but then, I am also critical of Hoover, Rainbow, and others. I could give you a list, but you have no interest in discussing anything but Dysons. For the record I do hold (held) a patent in vacuum cleaner design, and have many ideas for more, but when companies pay big bucks for an engineering staff, they are reluctant to even hear anything from the outside. Dyson is brilliant. That does not mean he is incapable of human failings. He doesn't walk on water. But just because I refuse to worship him does not mean I am attacking him. There  is no middle ground with you.
Trebor

 DIB  

TreborDysonInventsBig wrote:

As for my "attacking" [your word] dyson, when I spend my money on a brand/product, I earn the right to criticize/praise it as the case may be.  If you don't accept that reality, tough.  I'm not here to please you.  I'm here to tell the truth.  It's worked for me in the vacuum business for over 55 years.  How about you?

Carmine D.