|
Forum
/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl General >> Vacuum Cleaner Forum >> Halo /cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1178743408 Message started by JimB on 05/09/07 at 4:43pm |
|
Title: Halo Post by JimB on 05/09/07 at 4:43pm Anyone know any facts yet about the new Halo vac? |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by guess_who on 05/09/07 at 5:43pm Well JimB, now that you mention . . . I've spotted it at http://www.bestvacuum.com The pitch for this vacuum draws on scare tactics. You know, more stuff about the hideous creepy crawlies lay in wait in the living room rug. BUT here's this wonderful thing that uses what is claimed to be a safe ultraviolet light source to break down the DNA of mold, dust mites, fleas and other in the rug nasties. The Halo is also a bagged machine with electronically adjustable carpet height setting, beltless brush drive and other nice stuff. I think it originates from China but I'm not sure. As for safety, I wonder but can't imagine that it can do much harm in the hands of a sensible adult but would feel a little edgy about having one in a household with kids. What this machine should have is a mechanism that will switch off the UV light source if the machine is upended or tipped over while plugged in and switched on. This is a UL requirement for electric space heaters I believe. Whatever the case, UL would have to have approved it since it is being sold here so I guess it must not be all that dangerous. On the bright side (pardon the pun) if the UV light really does what's claimed, I imagine that this machine would reduce the source of carpet odors. That would be a nice extra IF the machine cleans well. Regards, Venson |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by guess_who on 05/09/07 at 11:52pm For anyone interested I am tagging on this bit of thought, post initial reply, about my funny feeling regarding the UV light mechanism in the Halo Vac. Do I have definitive data regarding the issue? Uh-uh. However I think it is reasonable to be careful, cautious and thoughtful regarding new technologies as they may often be being fast tracked into the hands of consumers after the minimum requirements for testing. Nothing is perfect, including our regulatory systems. About the safest thing, or most predictable thing we know of, is probably aspirin. Why? Because it's over a hundred years old. A long history of use tells the tale about most technolgical developments. The stories of flaws may not turn up in the news until 30, 40 or 50 years down the line. Consumers, by all means do all you can to educate yourselves about what you may be buying into. Venson |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by Mike_W. on 05/10/07 at 4:19am This vacuum cleaner was mentioned before, in another thread re: Dyson. guess_who wrote:
The vacuum cleaner uses a trigger to activate the UV-C. It is not a requirement for an appliance, like a vacuum cleaner, to have the UL acceptance. People think that it is, since we have seen them on all our appliances and believe it is mandatory. It is like the Good Housekeeping Seal or the CRI label. You pay UL, they test it, then you put the seal on each product they test and approve. Today, consumers and retailers worry if they have something that is not UL approved. They will worry if the non-UL approved product will sell or be safe, so they will make sure they only sell UL approved. If you look at recalled items, you will find that they were UL approved. Personally, I would feel more comfortable if a product from another country, like China, was UL approved. Then I would know that I was not the first one who used the machine. |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by Carmine_Difazio on 05/10/07 at 7:43am Mike_W. wrote:
guess_who wrote:
Both CPSC (appliances) and FDA (food and medicines) have their 2008 budgets slashed (including all important staff for testing and inspections) and have for the past years under Bush's administration. Many US pet owners wish that China's food supply was subject to the same scrutiny as the USA (which ain't much these days) before its food ingredients end up in the products on USA food store shelves. "Human ignorance as well as greed knows no bounds," says Gerald Moy, manager of the World Health Organization's office that monitors chemicals in the global food supply. Caveat emptor! Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by guess_who on 05/10/07 at 7:14pm Hi Mike, Thanks for the clarification that UL listings are not mandatory. I take that to mean that it not UL's standard by which a manufacturer is judged if an unsafe product is placed on trhe market. My experience thus far with UL standards is limited but nonetheless confusing. As an example -- Schoettler Ind., maker of the Air-Storm and Patriot vacuums, sell an optional 14-foot electrified hose. I actually bought one a good while back to use with an Air-Storm I own. It worked well and the idea seemed so totally cool that a few years down the line, thinking anyone could do this, I called Filter Queen to ask if they could make up a longer than usual electric hose for me. They said no UL would not allow it. I got the same reply when inquiring of another long time vacuum maker. The request I assume is not made often and may or may not be difficult to fulfill but I was left to think that UL frowned on long electric hoses on canister vacs. Go figure. Venson |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by old-timer on 05/10/07 at 7:26pm Hi Venson, does that patriot air storm,use tristar paper inserts? O.T. |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by guess_who on 05/10/07 at 11:04pm Hiya O.T., I would guess yes. However Schoettler makes its original disposable bag collars different in that the collar of the Patriot and Air-Storm paper bag are desgned to fit in one way (though they are basically round they have a squared-off side that faces the rear of the cleaner). Another "little pig" Miracle Mate sets itself apart bagwise by way of the heavy collared bags it employs. Without one in place the lid does not seal well against the cloth bag's rim. Best, Venson |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by Vacuumfreeeke on 05/13/07 at 11:34am While I normally hate modern stuff, that's quite a cute machine! Would have been a great sales gimmick back when door to door selling was popular! |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by old-timer on 05/13/07 at 1:54pm Vacuumfreeeke wrote:
Hi V.F.,you know that there are still direct sales in certain pockets of the country. I know of strong aerus/electrolux, Kirby, franchise owners/area distributors that sell 200 to 300 units a month,all on leads and telemarketing,and still some do nothing but cold calls. I also believe that even rainbow and airway are still strong in certain areas. You and I both know that most sales reps dont stick with it for very long.But the distributors dont care,because they can usually make money off these people,with the test demos to the relatives. Direct selling is a tuff deal,but pays well when you get on a roll. Have you seen the FullerBrush guy lately? O.T. |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by Vacuumfreeeke on 05/13/07 at 8:38pm I know all too well, I quit two good jobs to sell Kirbys... lasted 3 days... all lies! Car got repossessed and I got kicked out of my apartment (thank goodness my name wasn't on the lease!) because they didn't pay me for what I sold. A couple weeks after I quit a salesman came to my door asking me if I wanted a free gift. He stuck out a can of dollar store air freshener and offered to shampoo my carpets. I said, "You selling Kirbys for S and T distributors?" He told me he just started. I told him to run fast back to whatever job he left and never look back! |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/12/07 at 7:46am Looks like the Halo vacuum made its way to the WTBV Forum side trailer. At least briefly. And finally available for purchase. http://www.halocompany.com/products/uvx/ Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by No Loss of Suction on 06/12/07 at 1:55pm “Halo negotiating supplier deals with major retail chains for holiday sales…” HERE (http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2007/06/11/story15.html) |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/12/07 at 4:05pm Must be heavy if it takes 4 people to carry! ;) Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by cprohman on 06/12/07 at 5:22pm guess_who wrote:
I am familiar with applications of UV light for other purposes. First of all, I can tell you that UV is typically divided into UV-A, UV-B, and UV-C. UV-C is typically filtered out by the ozone layer in the atmosphere or it would be very destructive to life as we know it. UV-B and UV-A both reach us, and both are disruptive to cells. UV-B is stopped at the surface layer of the skin, and disrupts cells that it comes in contact with. It causes several reactions in the skin. It kills cells, causing "sunburn", as we call it. The other reactions are the bodies self-defense reactions. One is to thicken the skin, for protection. The other is to create additional melinin, the stuff that gives you a tan. In response to UV-B, the body also produces Vitamin D, a beneficial effect. UV-A is more gentle. It does penetrate to the second layer of the skin. It can cause cellular mutation, but usually doesn't. It's primary effect is to "oxidize" the melanin, turning it brown. I doubt that the Halo emits UV-C, which would be dangerous. Instead I suspect it emits a UV-B/UV-A blend, and is much like a tanning lamp. It wouldn't take much light to kill a small organism, but a human would just get a tan if exposed to it. My only question is how long the light would have to be exposed to an organism to kill it, not whether it could kill it. I suspect it would take a couple minutes. Note that looking at a UV lamp without eye protection is a very bad idea. UV light will destroy the rods in your retina, causing a loss of night vision. The use of UV light for sterilization is not a new application. For years the cleaning industry has used UV light to clean feather pillows. The feathers are removed from the pillow, tumbled in UV light for a few mintues, and then blown into a brand new ticking. |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/12/07 at 8:46pm cprohman wrote:
Carl: I excerpted these from the Web Site about the Halo: "Scientists divide UV light into three spectrums: UVA, which many of us know as "black light", UVB, which is used by many for tanning, and UV-C, the germicidal UV light employed by Halo in its cleaning appliances, including the Halo™ UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum. Our patent-pending Halo™ UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum safely harnesses the germicidal power of UV-C to destroy dust mites, bacteria, viruses and more hiding in your home." And: "...........as scientists and hospitals have known for decades, the most effective way to kill unseen and unwanted pests without the use of chemicals is germicidal ultraviolet, or UV-C, light." And: "Over the last few years, building upon decades of independent research, multiple scientific and medical experts worked exclusively with Halo™ to design, specify and engineer the optimal UV-C bulb chamber within a vacuum. The goal was to achieve the desired disinfection during normal vacuum operation. The Halo™ UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum is the successful culmination of this effort! Its patent-pending design kills potentially dangerous micro-organisms by disrupting the DNA structure of their cells. Run the Halo™ UVX Ultraviolet Vacuum over your carpets while activating the UV-C bulb with the trigger on the handle and you're deactivating the DNA of the dust mites, viruses, bacteria, fleas, lice and mold that were lurking between the fibers. " Certainly sheds a whole new light on rug and floor cleaning! ;) From the little I know about Halo here's what I like: Adjustable handle; 31 foot cord; HEPA rated with a bag; 3 height electronic rug adjustment; gear driven brush roll [tho it's called brush bar] so no belts to replace. What I don't like: No tools on board; no headlight save the under the machine UV-C bulb; and the price is a tad bit too high for my liking at $399. That price is reminiscent of the cordless Westinghouse upright of recent past years which had a very short lived lifecycle with the big box retailers. My recommendation FWIW: First market the Halo through specialty stores like those which promote clean home air appliances and vacuuming products. And use the scientific and medical findings to reach niche customers with a need for this kind of vacuum product due to allergies and illnesses. If and when consumer demand dictates, branch sales out into the usual retailers starting with the high end store names and then all the others. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by cprohman on 06/12/07 at 9:54pm Thanks. UV-C, eh? Well, it will certainly kill the little buggers. But definitely don't look at the light. I hope there are some safety precautions in the unit to prevent such an occurance. |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by Mike_W. on 06/13/07 at 3:21am Some UV-C can pass through the atmosphere. I believe that this machine will kill some organisms, but not all. It will kill towards the top of the surface, but I cannot believe that it will kill at the bottom. UV-C cannot pass through barriers, so that would include deep, tight, fibers. Also, environmental issues arise w/ the disposal of the UV-C bulb. As I said in an earlier post, a trigger activates the bulb chamber. |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/13/07 at 7:08am One more recommendation on the Halo: Get it to market FAST, don't delay. The key to successful innovation is to bring new products to market faster and avoid delays. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by cprohman on 06/13/07 at 7:52am Carmine_Difazio wrote:
A minor correction to the information on the Halo site is that UV-A is the primary light used for tanning, because it is UV-A that oxidizes the melinin, i.e, turns you brown. Most tanning beds also include some UV-B as well, in small amounts, typically about 3% of the light, because it stimulates additional melinin production. If a tanning lamp has over about 5% UV-B, the customers will tend to have an orange coloration, caused by melinin being produced, but not oxidized, and customers will tend to burn quite easily. |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/13/07 at 8:48am cprohman wrote:
Hello Carl: Maybe true but it's a moot point for this discussion of the Halo. ;) The issue and relevance is the light used for the workings of the Halo vacuum: UV-C. The rest is filler IMHO. I have the same concerns and issues with the UV-C effectiveness as Mike: Mike_W. wrote:
The danger of the UV-C light has been reduced to make it household and people friendly. In so doing, what is the trade off to its effectiveness. If you look at the lenz cover over the bulb it obviously (at least to me) filters out a good deal of the "light." What is the result on thick tight woven rug piles? Buyers don't know (yet). Who do you believe? The maker? Or an independent tester like CRI, CR, ASTM, and/or Good Housekeeping? If you're like me, the latter. Especially when I'm plunking down $399 for what is, in the final analysis, a vacuum cleaner not a bug killer (gimmick). Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by cprohman on 06/13/07 at 12:35pm The intriguing thing about this is the potential to actually kill dust mites. Dust mites are about 30 microns in size, and live anywhere humans shed skin, which is pretty much anywhere humans live. Many people are allegic to chemicals in dust mite feces. Up until now the only thing we could do about them was to try to vacuum often to pick up skin flakes (i.e. food), and to pick up the feces before they become airborne. It was pretty much accepted that these guys would continue to live. If, and that's a big if, this vacuum actually kills them in the carpet, the mattress, etc, you could eliminate the feces altogether. I do agree that to the extent the dust mites are not on the surface, the light may not reach them, and that if the light doesn't reach them, it won't kill them. At this point, I see the possibility that this device could be a significant benefit to people allergic to dust mite feces, but also the possibility that it will do nothing useful at all. It will be interesting to see field tests of it by allergy sufferers to see what happens in the real world. That, to me, is the ultimate test. |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by guess_who on 06/13/07 at 2:59pm If dust mites pose a noticable influence on individual allergy sufferers' state of well-being . . . One -- I'm told that there are "additives" that you may use in hot water extraction carpet cleaners that may help to reduce the problem. Nonetheless please note that if persons in mention are also "chemical sensitive" this idea wuld not prove useful in that it would creat a problem in the process of solving one. Two -- dry vapor steam cleaners use the high heat of steam to kill bacteria and certain organisms and should do no harm to common fabrics . They should be adjusted to apply their heat with a minimum of actual steam production. These devices also can be easily used for dust mite management in regard to mattresses, other bedding and drapes. In this case please note that the application process is a little slow as one dealer suggests moving over carpeting at about one inch per second (with proper tool of course) and over mattresses, etc., at about a half-inch per second. A vapor steam may well be mre practical to try as it uses pure steam and no chemicals. I would also say to look around for quality plus good price -- they can be pricey. In either case, the chance of a better result is probably more in your favor that the use of a vacuum with a UV bulb. Regards, Venson |
|
Title: Re: Halo Post by old-timer on 06/13/07 at 7:46pm Hi vacuum people,after looking at the halo specs,it looks like a pretty nice machine ,I imagine the uv c set up looks good on paper and in the tests conducted probally works to a certain level. It will have to be field tested in real life applications in real home and commercial enviroments.I would say that the 399.00 price is with in reach of the common vacuum consumer.The only problem down the road is would excessive vibration out of the motor , brush rollor vibration cause the bulbs to fracture and fail,hence just making it a regular upright vacuum?. time will tell...... I also must say that im rooting for these young group of people for trying something new.With all the time and effort put in, and money, Ihope it pans out for them. O.T. |
|
Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.1! YaBB © 2000-2005. All Rights Reserved. |