Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

The vacuum manufacturers are jumping on the Dyson free-ride big time this year.  I just visited my local Target and it looks like their Bissell's and Hoover's are almost fully converted to single and multi-cyclonic's.  And lookie, lookie... the mighty Electrolux (heavy as a tank upright) has almost caught up with the Fantom vacuum (Dyson dual cyclone technologies), I doubt it filters better than the Fantom's.

Electrolux @ Target 11/2009


Bissell Healthy Home v.2 @ Target 11/2009

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Yep, no multi-cyclonic tech was used in the old Eureka.  It was almost the same layout as well, with the large debris container/shroud separated from the fine dust collection compartment.

iMacDaddy wrote: Actually it is a primitive dual cyclone machine.  The small tube on the right is the second cyclone.  It is slightly tapered.     While the dirt separation wasn't as efficient as Dyson's DC07, it had a superior brush roll and a manual height adjustment that enabled it to clean carpet better.    It also had a headlight.     It was rated very good for cleaning carpeting by Consumer Reports.  I belief it had a pretty good belt.   

iMacDaddy wrote:
Thanks, but I did not see it (a conical separator).  It looks like this Target-Electrolux is it, this is their first conical separator vacuum.

DIB

It's interesting to see other manufacturers using dual cyclone technology as I thought the patent ran out many years ago. I had assumed that they had been frightened to use it for fear of legal action by Dyson on any possible minor technical infringements after what happened to Hoover in the UK.

As for multi-cyclone technology, does anyone know if the patent for that is still valid? If not I wonder how Hoover and Bissell have managed to use them without infringing Dyson's patent?

nick_sub wrote:
Nick,

This is one of the best questions posted here.  Non-Dyson multi-cyclonic’s will ultimately make billions for competing corporations. IMO, Dyson too narrowly defined his cluster (multi) cyclone patent/s, which is claimed to be [stuffed] inside the clear bin and fine dust collector - Bissell’s and TTI’s clusters are not.  They skirted the Dyson patent/s easily by plopping 'their' clusters on top of the clear bin (pulled them out of bin and dust collector) resulting in...  big, easy money to be made.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

AND, less cost to consumers.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

It's actually inside the assembly that holds the clear bin in place. It's located right above the shroud, lying horizontally, pointing left towards the dust tube. It's a rather stubby, short length tapered cyclonic apparatus.

iMacDaddy wrote:
Interesting.  Thanks.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Thanks DIB. Given the importance of patents, it seems strange that they effectively left a loophole open.

It'll be interesting to see how Dyson will deal with that as, as far as I'm aware, they havn't made any major advances in their cyclone technology since the multi-cyclone so there won't be much to differentiate between them and the much cheaper machines. Fortunately for them they've established themselves well in the marketplace and they have several other novel features which will probably enable them to maintain most of the premium they charge.

nick_sub wrote:
You're welcome.  IMO, they should begin obtaining one or two more obvious patents to prevent or make knocking-off more difficult (expensive to build).  Dyson's Core + Root separators paired with his Digital Motor (DC22) is deadly...nothing can touch this filtration (around 4 years of no pre-filter cleaning maintenance).  Only and for some reason he is not advertising this as so.  FYI, the guy who invented the Core + Root is also the fellow who invented the Dyson Ball.  Below is the Dyson multi-cyclone patent drawing.  If you want to read of some future Dyson products, the poster Motorhead put up a short list within this last months worth of posting (search Motorhead).
DIB