Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

I received this "teaser email today: http://links.mkt2388.com/ctt?kn=1&m=2735925&r=MTgwOTM1MTgzMTcS1&b=0&j=NzgxMTAyODMS1&mt=1&rt=0
Anyone know what's up with this??

-=Art=-

Like I tell you Dib-ster, wealth and success is not a sprint.  It's a marathon.  Dyson holds the money now.  But his competitors are rapidly taking it away from him with sales and products. 

Carmine D.

Lucky1 wrote:

Lucky1:

You have dib-ster's number.  Where he stands is a result of where he sits.  Perfectly alright for dib-ster to justify dyson's propensity to sue, cry foul, impugh competitors' better products at better prices, and pout when dyson loses market share in the market place.  Dib-ster's canned response:  All a result of bad mouthing dyson dealers who nail dysons to the display floor. 

BUT when dyson and dib-ster are selling snake oil products with exaggerated claims and marketing propaganda, it's all under the mantra of technological innovation.   How's that working for dyson lately? 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I vaguely remember reading that 183 patents were filed for the Dyson Ball.   Who knows how many patents Hoover filed for the Z upright. 

One of the most prolific inventors in the US based on patent counts is a guy from New York who patents his flower arrangements. 

As a company, IBM has been dominant in number of patents per year.   I believe I read one time that General Motors patented a numerical series useful in theoretical math. 

Although I haven't been all that impressed with recent Dyson advancements - the dirt separation unit was a big step forward in non-water filtered bagless vacuums. 

Severus wrote:

I'd have to agree though making exception by saying that the idea had been around a long time. Early central vacs (circa the mid-1900s) primarily employed "cyclonics" for dust separation. The method wasn't all that complex as the units were large and expelled their exhaust stream outside the places where they were in use. What Dyson did was find a way to shrink the whole deal enough to fit inside a portable machine. I have no documentation as to how much fine dust cyclonic systems can contain for how long and to what degree without additional filtering medium but Dyson also benefits from someone else's invention -- the HEPA filter. Without it the whole idea of a portable cyclonic vacuum might well be a washout. No one does it all on their own. Venson

Venson wrote:

Venson,

You make some great points.   I've never lived in a home with a central vac, so I don't know much about them.  

However, having used my sisters dirt clogged bagless Hoover foldaway and attempting to clean the pleated filter by banging the filter against the garbage can, I quickly learned to despise such filthy designs.  These bagless designs were far inferior to any bagged vacuum.    Because of that experience, I have some admiration for Dysons work in incorporating a relatively pain free bagless filtration system.  

CarmineD wrote:
Cameron,
Your word has proven worthless countless times here.  I can almost care less how the markets tally up.  But if you want to belly up with a quote, a link, a doc, an article, a press release, a lawsuit that proves you/your words/claims as having credibility - then feel free.

Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Has Dyson developed a real fix for the design defects?  Or do they just replace the parts that wear out prematurely due to the poor design? 

Regarding the wool carpeting, I thought you weren't supposed to use any vacuum with a rotating brush.   Is there anything unique about the Dyson that causes problems on the wool carpeting? 

Severus wrote:

Decent central vac systems usually have greater suction than even the best of portable vacs. They also afford greater dust capacity -- we're talking several gallons worth of collected dirt, dust and debris. That means only having to empty the main unit just a few times a year. Because the main unit is generally installed in a part of the house well-removed from the regular living space vacuum cleaning can be a relatively quiet, unperturbing affair save for the whoosh of air at the hose end or the added noise of a power nozzle in use.

Greatest benefit is that there is zero percent blow-back if your unit exhausts to the outside. (Does this set the birdies and the local rabbit in your backyard sneezing? I dunno.)

A downside for some may be the trade-off. Dealing with a portable vac means dealing with the machine, its tools and also finding good places to plug in. A central vac has a very long hose (25-30 feet) which you have to find convenient storage place for. Dealers do supply wall mounted hangers for the hoses and also tools but the idea of hauling things out for quick clean-ups may be daunting to some.

MOLE is going to smack me but . . . my main problem with central vacs these days is that, at least in my opinion, the makers are also attempting to reinvent the wheel in trying to make central vacs for everyone. The results are bagged versions, models that have filtered exhausts to eliminate need for outside venting allowing installment in attached multiple dwellings. Keeping things simple in this case is nice I think. My lack of like for the gussied up central models is due to the potential extra expense by way of bag and filter purchases. These bagged units can be large or as small as the Canadian Cubby Vac. I like cyclonic units with external exhausts because there is a bit less expenditure required after their initial installation.

As for portable bagless vacs with pleated filters, they've been a turn-off since Jump Street. I've had several and found that whatever they may have impressed me with when first out of the box was soon forgotten as dirt began to embed in the filters even after regular dutiful tapping, brushing AND even washing. The quality of airflow degraded only to be pepped up again by a trip to the dealer for not necessarily replacement filters.

Venson

Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS:

I recall dyson's DC07 and early dyson bagless [now/soon to be discontinued] came with the false claim of cleaning pre-post motor filters once or twice a year depending on use.  With the mantra "Never clogs, never loses suction."  No more.  After trhe class action filing by 39 disgruntled dyson users in the UK, along with 2 vacuum makers, to the ASA, dyson was ordered to cease and desist else suffer punitive damages.  The mantra is long gone by dyson and its retailers.  The cleaning schedules for dyson filters are 2-3 months or more frequently depending on usage. 

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

Hi SEVERUS:

I have Mohawk wool medium pile loop carpet in my new home in Las Vegas.  Have for almost 3 1/2 years.  With a yellow English lab who shed year round, until she went to puppy heaven in October after 12 years.

I've used an assortment of vacuums with and without revolving brushes on the rugs.  HOOVER, ORECK, EUREKA, SIMPLICITY, BISSELL, dyson, etc.  Uprights with revolving brushes do the best.  As well as canns with a good power nozzle. 

All worked well except dyson's DC07 with the gawd awful clutch.  Brush bar stalled constantly and got wrapped with dog hair. 

Still use a HOOVER TEMPO and ORECK XL Classic regularly.  Rugs are cleaned and groomed.  HOOVER is the best with WT technology, ORECK is a distant second.

WRT dyson defects and faults, dyson's cure is to discontinue, reinvent, move on and charge more.  "Flaw to function" as the Business Week editor dubbed the subtitle of the article on dyson's Air Multiplier.

Carmine D.