Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Hi,

As I was looking for other information, I discovered that TTI, the present maker of Hoover, has come up with a "new" Royal canister vacuum.

Someone please check me out on this but it appears that the Hoover S3670 has been given a new paint job, refitted with the power nozzle from the Platinum Bagless canister and re-branded as the Royal Model SR30020 - Lexon S20.

Thar she is (notice the two generic throw aways aso in this new Lexon series at the top of the page) -- http://www.royalvacuums.com/Household/Canisters/lexon.aspx

I can only imagine the sweat they broke into to come up with this.  For reasons beyond economic, I think I've bought all the vacuums I'm going to for a while.

Oh yeah, I forgot to ask if any of the dealers here has knowledge as to whether the little Royal tank-type with PN has been discontinued.

Venson

Mike_W wrote:

Exactomundo!  See, you aren't as obtuse as some claim .  Tho, Mike W.  I'm sorry to break the newsflash to you [obviously several years later than you got it] that Venson and the vacuum industry have a volume of scientific studies on their side.  That's the reason for the lawsuit against halo, which halo lost, and in large part is the reason halo went belly up.

Halo had a hoax claim and you an erroneous opinion BASED ON IT. 

Sorry, no recall on this one.  Can't weasel out of this one.  You're stuck with it!

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

CarmineD wrote:

Hi guys,

Just to set the record straight since DIB has already racked me up as a charlatan with dual personalities -- I believe the comment was not made in reference to bacteria but the dust mites Halo claim it killed.  Remember them -- the household terror used to get folks to teh stores again? 

A standard vacuum will do in x-amount of dust mites in the process of its use but Halo never showed any real data other than that "one might reasonably expect" as to what manner of application of its UV light was required to prove it worthwile per its claims.

Thank you,

Norman Bates

As for "multi-branding", specifically what is being said?  If we're talking about the re-badging of domestic vacuums that indeed was going on for years and still is.  Hoover and Eureka product turned up badged as Ward, Penney and who knows how many other names.  So did General Electric, Royal, Regina and Landers, Frary, Clarke vacuums.  Whirlpool (on and off) and Kenmore did the same.  There are also many I have forgotten I'm sure

That I make no issue of as the machines mentioned were, to the best of my knowledge, manufactured on American soil in the first place.  Correct?

I also remember when Panasonic (Matsu$#%*a), an import, was a stand alone brand.  In time that all changed.  I think that it's a shame that all this outsourcing has led to a sameness in product.    I greatly miss individual manufacturer's efforts to build the better mouse trap as it were.  The larger part of PNs, upholstery, bare floor and combi tools are all the same stuff.  I can look at stuff from 40 or more years ago and tell you who made it.  Regarding the hodge podge of generics chucked in the box today, I wouldn't have a clue.  It's all starting to look alike to me.

That said, I would highly prefer to buy American product that I liked.  However, besides not having seen much of anything I like in a good while I've come to believe few American vacuum makers are either prepared to or interested in offering what each of us would consider a decent living wage to their employees.  The better profit is having appliances "made-up" on foreign soil and shipping it in.  Its the same deal with electronics.

As I've stated prior, it's really late in the game for a debate over domestic vs. import appiance buying as we basically have lost the choice.  Nonetheless, I have every right to resent how much has been done by way of business acumen and consumer ignorance to turn the market into a place where you may buy anything you can pay for but lends little return to the native economy.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Hey Norman,

How much longer do we have before were invaded and taken over by the little creatures

Should i start carrying my can of raid with me......

regards

MOLE

mole wrote:

Hey MOLE,

Heck no!  A baseball bat will serve just as well.

Seriously, the dust mite has been with us since forever and will be.  For all the commotion about them and bacteria, mankind somehow still exists.

What's funny to the point of tragic, is the way we jump on every supposed bright idea seemingly meant to offer our salvation from the unseen microbes and bugs that, eons later, have yet to kill us.  Hysteria is a luxury and boy what a mark-up it gets when you bring it to market.

The best solutions are sometimes quite simple.  Serious problems like childbed fever were reduced when person like Louis Pasteur, Alexander Watson and Thomas Gordon helped bring to light that simple hygiene could bring about a dramatic change.

For all the interest in hyper-clean, my biggest curiosity is why people don't wonder more, despite all the sanitizing chemicals and UV light applications, etc., available, why it may be easier to pick up a super infection while in care at your local hospital than while rolling around on the sidewalk in front of your house.  Speaking of which . . .

Just now I'm wondering why Kirby, who gave us knife sharpeners, drills and buffing attachments, never came up with a snow blowing attachment.  I'd be content with dust mites I can't see as long as I could get rid of some of the snow I've been looking at.

Best,

Venson

Oh look! Here's what's available in Australia:

http://www.godfreys.com.au

And from their various pages comes a company called Wertheim and look what model they have!

vacmanuk wrote:

Hiya vacmanuk,

And still they ask  . . . would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?  This is so funny.

Wertheim has a string of offerings that resemble and appear to borrow from several brands -- some of which are on the market here. 

http://www.wertheim.net.au/

There is a write-up about Wertheim on Wikipedia:

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

Best,

Venson

Venson wrote:

Hello Venson:

As ORECK halo claims:

Patented UV-C light chamber kills many of the germs, bacteria, mold, dust mite eggs, and flea eggs on your floors - in just a few seconds. And it’s chemical-free.

2-in-1 cleaning power in just one easy step. The UV-C light kills many of the germs and microbes on your floors, and powerful suction removes dirt, dust, and other debris just like all of our trusted vacuums.

Unlike halo which falsely claimed, and was sued and lost, that no other vacuums did this except halo.  ORECK truthed the claim in accordance with industry studies with the scientific results.

Thanks Venson.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Hi Carmine,

I basically just wanted to clarify that dust mites not bacteria are killed during vacuuming and that  I never stated or implied that vacuuming in any way does in germs.  That said, the real issue is to what degree are dust mites done in with UV light.

So Halo and its UV light can kill germs, dust mites and their larvae, yes.  Neither Halo or Oreck clarify and plain facts woulds better cinch the deal.  During that few seconds, per square foot I assume, has 10 percent, 50 percent or 75 percent of the existing little meanies on your floor eradicated.  Terms like "some" and "many" aren't very helpful to a consumer possibly deciding to go to great expense to solve a perceived problem.

There's no way for the average user to monitor the effectiveness of a device like this.  Nor would I see reason to go out and buy one especially if it bears a high price tag just on the makers say so.  If the maker said x-amount of seconds per x-amount of area assured x-percent of kill, I'd be fine with the whole thing.  Unfortunately, they do not.

You merely end up with people breezing around the house with a machine that may well make no significant difference affecting the problem it was bought to solve.

Another matter not discussed is how often must such a machine be used to lower and maintain a lower infestation level.  Good to know but not established.

Venson