|
Forum
/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl General >> Vacuum Cleaner Forum >> Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson haters /cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1174373399 Message started by No Loss of Suction on 03/20/07 at 2:49am |
|
Title: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson haters Post by No Loss of Suction on 03/20/07 at 2:49am Videos… DC12 from a blog in the Netherlands. http://www.bright.nl/uitpakparty-dyson-dc12 James Dyson interviewed on CBCtelevision around the time of his Canidian Stowaway, Slim and Design contest launch. http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1388 James Dyson interviewed in Canada about his invention/design contest (launch). http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_8046.aspx Images… Very large image of a DC18. http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/10/10/452c3291f27f0570719380.jpg More DC18… http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/Dysonslim/ |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/20/07 at 2:50pm I like the take on "One Hour with George Stromboulopoulus." Reminds me of the Sunday USA News Program "This Week with George Stephanopolis." From the pix, it appears that the dyson DC18 Slim may be a tad top heavy and unsteady in the upright position. I don't have any personal knowledge and observation so I don't know if that is the case. Maybe others who do, know its stead worthiness. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Dyson DC18 on 03/20/07 at 3:56pm Don't forget to add the two videos I posted. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by No Loss of Suction on 03/22/07 at 5:55pm 4 videos - James Dyson himself demonstrating and discussing his vacuums and how they work. Year 2002/3? click... http://www.achooallergy.com/product-videos.asp |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Dyson DC18 on 03/22/07 at 6:18pm http://www.bestvacuum.com/images/dysondc18sw/SlimDemow.html http://www.bestvacuum.com/images/dysondc18sw/StowawayDemow.html |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by No Loss of Suction on 03/24/07 at 12:31pm |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/24/07 at 1:21pm No Loss of Suction wrote:
Funny you should post this. I recently witnessed first hand a similar rug test at our local PostNet store (mail services) here in sunny Las Vegas Nevada. The owner, a die hard ORECK fan, and an employee, a die hard dyson fan, did the same rug test over the same store's carpet. Here's how it worked. The employee used her DC07 All Floors (approximately 3 years old) for one week (7 days) vacuuming as she normally would at home and dumping the dirt bin fequently. Then the owner used his ORECK (over 5 years old) and did the same for one week. He started with a brand new paper bag. At the end of his week, he had a bag full comparable to the likes of your picture. The owner then purchased a new ORECK upright for his store. (The test was done to decide what vacuum to buy to replace a BISSELL bagless that lasted less than 2 years). Maybe the results would have been different with a DC15 Ball. But frankly, the PostNet store owner wasn't about to find out after the DC07 test. (The employee was shocked by the results!) The moral of the story is: Trust but verify! Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by No Loss of Suction on 03/25/07 at 5:41am Carmine_Difazio wrote:
Funny you should post this. I recently witnessed first hand a similar rug test at our local PostNet store (mail services) here in sunny Las Vegas Nevada. The owner, a die hard ORECK fan, and an employee, a die hard dyson fan, did the same rug test over the same store's carpet. Here's how it worked. The employee used her DC07 All Floors (approximately 3 years old) for one week (7 days) vacuuming as she normally would at home and dumping the dirt bin fequently. Then the owner used his ORECK (over 5 years old) and did the same for one week. He started with a brand new paper bag. At the end of his week, he had a bag full comparable to the likes of your picture. The owner then purchased a new ORECK upright for his store. (The test was done to decide what vacuum to buy to replace a BISSELL bagless that lasted less than 2 years). Maybe the results would have been different with a DC15 Ball. But frankly, the PostNet store owner wasn't about to find out after the DC07 test. (The employee was shocked by the results!) The moral of the story is: Trust but verify! Carmine D.[/quote] Hello, So true… trust but verify. I loved Ronald Reagan! He helped our family much when Governor of California. Our family will be eternally grateful to him. RIP Mr. President. I did not post it, but 1 week after using my DC15 on my neighbor’s carpet - taking the above picture – I bought a new DC21 Stowaway canister. – Went back to my neighbor’s home and pulled another gob of crap out of her carpets (I tried to vac where I did with the 15 previously). With that, she said “I’m getting a Dyson”. I warned her that the Dyson’s were heavier than the Oreck and could not lay down flat like the Oreck. – She said “I don’t care, I’m getting a Dyson.” As they say in real estate… location, location, location. Same with vacuum testing… conditions, conditions, conditions. Retail conditions typically mean loooooow, low profile carpet and rugs. Yes the Oreck is better suited for this task than the DC07 Dyson. The Orecks mouth will lay flatter and tighter in these conditions allowing a better grip on the carpet. The 07 Dyson cannot do this. The Oreck also has the wiper blade that helps to create a tight seal onto carpet. The 07 Dyson does not have this. The Orecks have 2 very thin and low profile wheels that sink easily into pile, helping to create a seal onto commercial carpet or rugs. The 07 Dyson cannot do this. - It has 4 wide snow shoes called wheels that keep it from easily sinking into commercial pile. There are other conditions that could perhaps have favored Oreck over Dyson as well (new Oreck bag, old dirty premotor filter for Dyson. No HEPA bag for Oreck, HEPA filter for Dyson). Orecks entire contents dumped out for all to see. Fine dust collected by the Dysons cyclones remain stuck to inside of cyclone collection pipe, not retrieved and not viewed). Reasonable questions I believe. The commercial or rug conditions favor the Oreck (for now). But get the 07 Dyson or perhaps better yet - get a Dyson with a dedicated motor to the beater brush DC15, 17 or 21 in a typical home and one gets the results I’ve posted. – Amazing. Poor old Dyson in the PostNet store test - it probably did not stand a chance. I am a David Oreck fan as well as a James Dyson fan. Oreck creating American jobs is awesome! But how many more jobs and how many move vacuums could they sell if innovation was king. With Dyson innovation is king. - A patent search will easily testify to this. Dyson is an inventor and innovator first and a vacuum manufacture second. It’s just a matter of time before he invents a commercial vacuum (using his digital motor for example) that will probably do some amazing things and yes, bring the weight down too. Sincerely, No Loss of Suction P.S. Here is what David Oreck said recently (nothing of innovating or alike)… http://enterprise.southofboston.com/articles/2007/03/01/news/news/news17.txt |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/25/07 at 7:54am No Loss of Suction wrote:
James Dyson (and others) calls himself an entrepeneur and designer. Thanks for the article about David Oreck. After over 45 years in the vacuum business and almost 600 USA Oreck Clean Home stores nationwide David Oreck has accomplished what others can only dream about. When Oreck intro'ed the 8 pound lightweight vacuum in an industry where the average weight of vacuums was almost 3 times that amount and said it would clean just as well, Oreck was blazing an innovative trail just as dyson MAY be doing now. Time will be the judge of dyson. There is a widespread theory that all dazzling innovations end their days as commodities: Products that anyone can make and that are bought only according to their price. Columbia Business School's Bruce Greenwald once expressed this view with the quip: "In the long run, everything is a toaster." What did he mean by this? Since the first commercially successful toaster was made by General Electric Co. in 1909, improvements have arrived regularly: bread grilled on both sides (1919); automated toasters (1940's); toaster ovens (1950's); and digital toasters (1990's). But at the end of the day, after 80 years of evolution, and all is said and done, toasters get judged not on innovation but on their performance and function: Toasting bread. Vacuums are the same. IMHO. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by guess_who on 03/25/07 at 2:53pm Hi No Loss, Just for clarification, the picture of the collected dirt is the result of one week's care of 700 square feet of carpeting? Can you expand on what kind of carpeting it was? What was the color and age of the carpet and also what is the traffic situation in your neighbor's -- kids, no kids, pets? I will be upfront about this and say that the amount of what you picked up for the area indicated over a week's time with regular cleaning doesn't surprise me much if in an average household. Because what I am to judge from is not actual, I am also curious to learn if I am correct in assuming the larger part of what your showing me is carpet fuzz. There are a number of other good performing vacuums I can think of that could have followed both the Dyson and the Oreck and would have picked up a notable amount of the same. The issue of real cleaning goes beyond getting up "top soil". Have you checked your neighbor's carpet fibers down at their base. Find a high traffic area and use your thumbs or fingers to separate the carpet's tufts to learn what's all the way down on the carpet backing. Little or no dirt and grit will indicate the exercise of a good vacuuming regimen per that household's requirements though it will not necessarily prove a recommendation for a particular vacuum. If you still find a lot of stuff there, that may well indicate using your vacuum more as opposed to looking for the wonder brand of the day. Regards, Venson |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by old-timer on 03/25/07 at 3:09pm Were you out vacuuming the sidewalk again :D B.T.W. when a cleaner head sealed to the the carpet it does not move much air and the pick up falls way off. A little test for you is to take a kirby under power off the rug and feel the bag,adjust the machine to the carpet ,then feel the bag,notice the difference? This little demo will explain why they have the tech drive now,and the slotted nozzle.. ;) O.T. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by No Loss of Suction on 03/27/07 at 2:58am Carmine_Difazio wrote:
James Dyson (and others) calls himself an entrepeneur and designer. Thanks for the article about David Oreck. After over 45 years in the vacuum business and almost 600 USA Oreck Clean Home stores nationwide David Oreck has accomplished what others can only dream about. When Oreck intro'ed the 8 pound lightweight vacuum in an industry where the average weight of vacuums was almost 3 times that amount and said it would clean just as well, Oreck was blazing an innovative trail just as dyson MAY be doing now. Time will be the judge of dyson. There is a widespread theory that all dazzling innovations end their days as commodities: Products that anyone can make and that are bought only according to their price. Columbia Business School's Bruce Greenwald once expressed this view with the quip: "In the long run, everything is a toaster." What did he mean by this? Since the first commercially successful toaster was made by General Electric Co. in 1909, improvements have arrived regularly: bread grilled on both sides (1919); automated toasters (1940's); toaster ovens (1950's); and digital toasters (1990's). But at the end of the day, after 80 years of evolution, and all is said and done, toasters get judged not on innovation but on their performance and function: Toasting bread. Vacuums are the same. IMHO. Carmine D. [/quote] Carmine, Interesting conversation with you. Gets one thinking. I like to think as long as its fairly intelligent. Dyson: Dyson is indeed a designer, inventor, entrepreneur, motivator, philanthropist, etc. He does not like the title inventor, he equates this to crackpot types and so chooses otherwise. Inventors get utility patents, designers get design patents (typically). In my opinion Dyson should stand proud of his inventions that come from him or his people and call himself an inventor/designer/etc., in that order. Oreck vs. Dyson: David Oreck has my respect and so on. I did not mention this in my previous post, it was getting late, my post was getting long and so I did not post more praise on Oreck. That said Oreck has no substantial patents or technologies that would prevent Dyson from moving into his space – the lightweight, low profile type upright cleaner space (commercial or residential). Service is something entirely different, 600 stores is incredible. But, for example Dysons digital motors (yet to be introduced into the US) are small, lightweight, superfast - can spin up to 110,000rpm and can talk – talk to other computers to self diagnose, runtime, etc. And perhaps much more. Perhaps in hotels the digital motor can have Bluetooth and talk with a home base with many interesting possibilities, notifying when a room is has been cleaned in real time for example. If this can aid in any way, that can be enticing for hotel management. - And ultimately more profits. Whats to prevent Dyson from putting a paper or shakeout bag onto a upright with this motor? – Nothing. Can Oreck turn to his patent lawyers and say get-em boys. Get Dyson he’s infringing on my patents! No he cannot. Technologically speaking Oreck and others cannot stop Dyson for doing what he wants with his motor and slapping onto Murry Spanglers 100 year old upright basic design. What’s to prevent Dyson from licensing his motor to Orecks competitors (existing or new)? – Nothing! Oreck or others just flat out do not have any substantial patents or technoligies that are of any real threat for Dyson - IMHO. Dyson: Time has already told us if Dyson will leave a blazing trail - the numbers! Numbers, not opinions are what count. Money earned, employees hired, market share owned, market share taken away from his competitors, innovations that are patentable and then profitable, projections based on past performance, awards, buzz, creating free and cutting edge think tank type schools – schools that Airbus, Williams-Mercedes F1, Rolls Royce jet engines and others want to be a part of, to contribute to, spending $20 million of his own money and time, that’s matched by the English government, challenging the status quo – telling all who will listen, the English government or anyone that inventors and engineers are relevant and why should we sit back and allow China and India do or poise themselves and take away what we once did well – invent, engineer, manufacturer, etc. He’s warning us! Time has and will continue to tell the Dyson story. As far as his entry to the US. The DC07 was his first go at vacuuming American carpets and so only 5 years later he is Blazzin big time. Love Dysons, hate Dysons, jealous of Dysons or somewhere in between, Dyson is growing at incredible speeds, here and in many other countries. When Toyota launched their first car in the US did it grow or take market share from established manufactures as is Dyson? No, No way! Dyson’s has and is doing just this. continued on next post... |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by No Loss of Suction on 03/27/07 at 3:04am ...continued from previous post Commodities vs. innovations: If patentable, protectable and profitable - it is an commercial innovation. - And hopefully a revolutionary innovation. Seventeen years later (assuming others cannot tweak and get around patent before patent expires) then I suppose it becomes a commodity. Dazzling vs. revolutionizing: Dazzling, you choose dazzling to describe innovations – a bit sarcastic sounding. Is the invention of Penicillin dazzling? It sounds like you’ve been looking at all the crap appliance makers make. And perhaps that’s where the sarcasm comes from. Cosmetics or minor changes, and manufactures want us to support it? - Calling it new and exciting is unfair. If they just can be truthful and call there tweaked 20 yr. old product just what it is – underwhelming and no more. But on the other hand what is a manufacture to do. He makes a cool widget – 1,2,3,5,10,20,40 years go buy and they struggle to reinvent their widget. But enough about Oreck vacuums, just kiddin Mr. Oreck. Bruce Greenwald: Sure glad I did not hear this bummer of a theory when I approached Balck and Decker with my toaster invention (yes, unfortunately it was a lowly toaster at its core) BUT PATENTABLE with features that millions could benefit from daily. – At least this was my pitch to Black and Decker. They thought long and hard about putting it into their line but ultimately said “Good idea but no thanks.” Toasters or my toaster was judged not on toasting but on patentability and ultimately profitability. I would guess Black and Decker do not even consider outside inventions unless $20mil can be made. Question, when is a hot tea maker not like any other? Answer, when you make the pot of white ceramic, not glass or metal, design the pitcher to look like an old English style tea kettle, a kettle basically sitting under a coffee maker like brewing system with soft lines and white in color too. – Trademark the name Mrs. Tea – approach Mr. Coffee with it and ultimately collect major royalties from Mr. Coffee. Not bad for about a $3000 investment and about 2 weeks of work (no prototype needed, just comps). My guess is my acquaintance never heard of Bruce’s theories like tea makers just make tea, etc. Good thing for my acquaintance and his family. Sincerely, No Loss |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/27/07 at 7:49am No Loss of Suction wrote:
Would you share the dyson numbers with the Forum? Year to year sales and market share (dollars and/or units) of vacuums sold? The last published authoritative dyson number for percentage of market share for vacuums indicated that dyson was losing ground in the UK. From 43 to 36 percent in 2005, a 7 percent fall off in sales. And more market share was lost last year in 2006 (from the "buzz"). While we all hear, read and see the glowing dyson reports about the dyson sales success worldwide, these reports are never substantiated with verifiable numbers. In one very rare case that dyson provided numbers, for the contra rotating washer (a dyson invention) in the UK, the sales number reported by dyson for 2004 (when he pulled it off the market) was higher than the industry reported number: 4000 (dyson) vice 1900 (UK appliance industry). When given the opportunity to explain the difference in the sales numbers, dyson (James too) was conspicuously silent. There is one descriptor you fogot to mention in dyson's repertoire: Cheerleader. He is a very good one (especially for himself). "Trust but verify." Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by JimB on 03/27/07 at 8:30am Could have sworn this thread was designated a "not for dyson haters zone" ;) I don't quite understand the argument that James Dyson has some type of responsibility to report his companies numbers to you while you are reporting wishful market share number trends based on the "buzz". Like dyson or hate it any professional in the industry and for that matter any "laymen" would have to have their head in a hole not to see the significant market share dyson has picked up in the past few years. How does one "trust but verify" the "buzz" exactly? |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/27/07 at 12:10pm JimB wrote:
Hello Jim B: After all this time on and away from the Forum, I would have thought you knew by now and didn't have to ask. I report the truth about vacuums without passion and prejudice. I'm neither a dyson lover nor a dyson hater. I am an industry professional seeking the truth about all things related to vacuums. I've learned over the years that the truth concerning vacuums oftentimes is not as simple as some would like to make believe. ;) Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by No Loss of Suction on 03/28/07 at 2:57pm JimB wrote:
Agreeed! God bless all the Dyon haters and 100 year old technology they rode in on. No Loss of Suction |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/28/07 at 4:59pm No Loss of Suction wrote:
Agreeed! God bless all the Dyon haters and 100 year old technology they rode in on. No Loss of Suction[/quote] For the record, cloth bags were the norm from 1905 to late 40's and early 1950's when paper disposable and even paper reusables were intro'ed. And cloth and paper bags coexisted for decades after. In fact some specialty vacuums like the Metro vacuum line still use cloth bags with paper optionals. The vacuum industry is slow to change and went through the first real bagless fad in the USA with the Fantom in the 80's which fizzled out. And now again with dyson bagless and a myriad of other bagless makes. While I see a definite application for some bagless uses in stick and hand vacuums and wet dry use, I don't see the paper bags going away. Especially in light of the allergen and filtrette varieties now widely available for vacuums. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by guess_who on 03/28/07 at 5:29pm Carmine I thoroughly agree. I don't have any allergies affected by way of dust exposure that I know of and if I do I guess they aren't serious, Thus I can't say how little exposure to dust it takes to make a dust-sensitive person have a reaction. Owning both, I do know that bagged vacuums (not the wide mouth type of course) offer the least exposure to collected dust and are usually a lot easier to manage in regard to disposal. As well, those who adhere to the least path of resistance when it come to household chores will also continue to maintain a high appreciation for them. Regardless of bagless brand, I think there's still some way to go before we arrive at quick, clean and simple dust diposal. Venson |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by old-timer on 03/29/07 at 4:02pm Hi,with the canister market coming back again,as predicted about 2 years ago,due to consumers floor plans changing,hardwood,tile,marble,area rugs of low pile but high quality,orientals, it seems like many die in the wool upright manufactures are coming [late to the game as one poster puts it],into the canister,tank, power team market. These guy's are going to really get a dose of reality when playing in this ballpark. I'm using this for an example,any one remember when electrolux told people that uprights are only good for open area carpet cleaning,the rest of the manufactures laughed and said ya,ok. my my my how the worm has turned... B.T.W.carmine and rat told you so....... I wish dyson luck [he'll need it when playing with the big kids' O.T. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by No Loss of Suction on 03/31/07 at 8:50pm Hello, I know this is a Dyson post (I should know I started it) but anyways... I saw this vac - "Halo UVX" on Good Morning America recently. It has a UV light that is supposed to kill micro-organisms. What do pros think? - Will this UV kill micro-organisms that are down deep and hidden in a carpets pile? - What's more of a sure thing to kill/remove micro-organisms... sucking into a HEPA filter or killing with UV? Thanks. No Loss of Suction click here> http://www.amazon.com/Halo-UVX/dp/B000OZZU2Y/ref=sr_1_5/104-1274489-9679901?ie=UTF8&s=office-products&qid=1175387522&sr=8-5 and here> http://www.uv-vacuum.com/index.html |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 03/31/07 at 10:22pm No Loss of Suction wrote:
This is an ideal thread for the Halo-UV. Why? If not for the dyson vacuum, this product would never come to the market in the USA especially with a price tag of $399. It is an interesting concept. And one talked about for as long as I've been in the vacuum industry. And that's a long time. How long? At breakfast today I ordered a 3 minute egg and the waitress asked me for payment in advance! Recently, I quoted Columbia Business School Bruce Greenwald who expressed the view that all dazzling innovations end their days as commodities: Products that anyone can make and that are bought according to their price. Greenwald quipped: "In the long run, everything is a toaster." This comes to mind with the Halo-UV. At the end of the day, it's a vacuum not a bug killer. The UV light may kill micro-organisms but many die a natural death. Vacuuming has to get the bugs (dead/alive) up and out of the rug and into the bag. (Yes, I said bag and not bin). How well does the Halo-UV do that on the rug? And how would we know? We don't. The only vacuum specifications for performance are the weight (15 pounds) and the motorized brush. Put the UV lights into a headlamp on an existing USA vacuum, like the HOOVER Tempo, with a price of $299 and now you're talking! Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by No Loss of Suction on 04/01/07 at 2:22am Carmine_Difazio wrote:
This is an ideal thread for the Halo-UV. Why? If not for the dyson vacuum, this product would never come to the market in the USA especially with a price tag of $399. It is an interesting concept. And one talked about for as long as I've been in the vacuum industry. And that's a long time. How long? At breakfast today I ordered a 3 minute egg and the waitress asked me for payment in advance! Recently, I quoted Columbia Business School Bruce Greenwald who expressed the view that all dazzling innovations end their days as commodities: Products that anyone can make and that are bought according to their price. Greenwald quipped: "In the long run, everything is a toaster." This comes to mind with the Halo-UV. At the end of the day, it's a vacuum not a bug killer. The UV light may kill micro-organisms but many die a natural death. Vacuuming has to get the bugs (dead/alive) up and out of the rug and into the bag. (Yes, I said bag and not bin). How well does the Halo-UV do that on the rug? And how would we know? We don't. The only vacuum specifications for performance are the weight (15 pounds) and the motorized brush. Put the UV lights into a headlamp on an existing USA vacuum, like the HOOVER Tempo, with a price of $299 and now you're talking! Carmine D. [/quote] Carmine, Glad you made it past breakfast. Everyday is a good day. Pickin your brain for info, if I may... Do you think it was Dyson's concept to put HEPA's onto vacuum cleaners or did others do it before him? - If so, who? And what came first - the HEPA filter or the HEPA bag. Thanks. No Loss |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/01/07 at 8:10am No Loss of Suction wrote:
Dyson was not the first. Not even for cyclone suction technology. Eureka had both HEPA and cyclone bagless suction technology combined successfully and marketed in the US vacuum industry (on a $150 upright) while dyson was still experimenting with prototypes. From the advent of paper bags in vacuums in the USA (40-50's), the filtering quality of the bag paper has improved year after year by leaps and bounds (hold more dirt in and let more clean air out). They had to improve for performance and price reasons to compete with cloth bags (less expensive over the life of the vacuum), the accepted industry standard for almost 50 years. Paper and cloth coexisted for decades in the US vacuum industry. Filters (pre/post motor) are as old as the vacuum industry. HEPA filter came first (mid 90's) in concert with bagged vacuums not bagless vacuums. Bagless vacuums with HEPA filters soon followed. Not for performance reasons but due to the increased emphasis on the perception of clean vacuum exhaust air. Most reputable bagged vacuums already provided clean exhaust air without HEPA filters and still do. HEPA is a "sexy" word and flashy feature to appeal to vacuum buyers (and allow makers to charge a little bit more). Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by JimB on 04/02/07 at 4:01pm Carmine_Difazio wrote:
This doesn't seem to jive with the dates the first Dyson designed cyclone bagless machines were launched either the G-force from the early 80's or the DC01 in the early 90's. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/02/07 at 5:06pm JimB wrote:
Hello JimB: It jibes perfectly. The G Force sold briefly door-to-door in 1983 in the UK. From 1982-84, Dyson tried to interest European firms in buying the design with the same welcome of a fox in a chicken shed. Dyson sold the rights in 1984. After a year the buyer pulled out so Dyson took the G-force to Japan where it was acclaimed. Progress was halted while dyson sued his former American licensee for patent infringement over a machine brought out after the breakup of their business relationship (not Eureka and/or HOOVER). After this was settled, royalties from abroad enabled him to set up a factory in Britain in 1992. Then he began making refined designs under the dyson name. Dyson's Dual Cyclone machine in both upright and cylinder form was launched in 1993. If dyson was THE first to the market with a "cyclone" bagless, it would have sued Eureka (as it did HOOVER) for patent infringement when Eureka called it's bagless Whirlwind upright "cyclonic." A moniker prominently displayed on the Eureka Whirlwind bagless dirt bins. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by JimB on 04/02/07 at 5:42pm Still not making sense that: "Eureka had both HEPA and cyclone bagless suction technology combined successfully and marketed in the US vacuum industry (on a $150 upright) while dyson was still experimenting with prototypes." if: "HEPA filter came first (mid 90's) in concert with bagged vacuums not bagless vacuums. Bagless vacuums with HEPA filters soon followed." and: dyson launched his first cyclonic upright in 1983 or so. Not a big deal really, certainly not worth a debate either a simple mistake or a slight exageration its just the dates you have given don't really match up. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/02/07 at 6:14pm JimB wrote:
Agreed. Mid 1990's give or take a year or so for lapse in memory! Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by JimB on 04/02/07 at 10:05pm Carmine_Difazio wrote:
Hey thank you for re editing that dyson history lesson to make it more accurate. Now just one last piece to clear up. When did this Eureka that had both hepa and Cyclone bagless come out that was before the dyson cyclone technology? I don't wan't to debate opinions with you as we know that is just cyclical, but seems you may be getting a little loose on the "facts" again, unless this to was just a "april fools" joke. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/03/07 at 7:42am JimB wrote:
Hello JimB: I had to add HOOVER to Eureka AFTER I "GOTCHA." If I had it there before, you would have caught on to my APRIL FOOL'S PLOY. ;) We both know who the real vacuum company (and former business partner) that dyson sued and dyson used the settlement proceeds (royalties) to open the Malmesbury plant! Correct? The Eureka WW bagless date: That is the 64,000 question! A staple of the vacuum industry in the USA for many years. It had a long and distinquished production run. One of my favorites for under $100 when it was finally removed from the Eureka line. I gifted dozens away. All to my knowledge are still in operation. Some are many years old. The Eureka Whirlwind bagless uprights were sold by all the big box retailers in the USA. They proudly displayed the "cyclonic" moniker on the dirt bins of each and every one. If Eureka were not first to market with the cyclonic bagless, dyson would have sued over its use of "cyclonic." Dyson's propensity and inclination for litigation in the vacuum industry is unparalleled and unprecedented in over 100 years of history. The 2 big lawsuits got him the money to open his Malmesbury UK plant and Malaysian dyson plant. Lucky man. He doesn't have to grow and eat his own vegetables anymore. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by No Loss of Suction on 04/03/07 at 3:20pm Carmine_Difazio wrote:
Hello JimB: I had to add HOOVER to Eureka AFTER I "GOTCHA." If I had it there before, you would have caught on to my APRIL FOOL'S PLOY. ;) We both know who the real vacuum company (and former business partner) that dyson sued and dyson used the settlement proceeds (royalties) to open the Malmesbury plant! Correct? The Eureka WW bagless date: That is the 64,000 question! A staple of the vacuum industry in the USA for many years. It had a long and distinquished production run. One of my favorites for under $100 when it was finally removed from the Eureka line. I gifted dozens away. All to my knowledge are still in operation. Some are many years old. The Eureka Whirlwind bagless uprights were sold by all the big box retailers in the USA. They proudly displayed the "cyclonic" moniker on the dirt bins of each and every one. If Eureka were not first to market with the cyclonic bagless, dyson would have sued over its use of "cyclonic." Dyson's propensity and inclination for litigation in the vacuum industry is unparalleled and unprecedented in over 100 years of history. The 2 big lawsuits got him the money to open his Malmesbury UK plant and Malaysian dyson plant. Lucky man. He doesn't have to grow and eat his own vegetables anymore. Carmine D.[/quote] Let me put a tissue to my eye and dry a tear for all those poor poor multi-million or billion-plus dollar companies who attempt to rip off and then are sued by James Dyson - to protect his property – his patents. I'm to broken up to continue writing. No Loss |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by old-timer on 04/03/07 at 3:44pm EVEN EUROPRO AND FANTOM? O.T. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/03/07 at 4:54pm No Loss of Suction wrote:
Save some tissues for the Brits who bought dyson models in the 80's and 90's only to be extremely disappointed with the vacuums' performance and the company's service. And the Brits who bought dyson products after the operation moved to Malaysia (from the UK). They need the tissues more. Or maybe toilet paper instead? Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/03/07 at 4:55pm old-timer wrote:
BUT not Eureka. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by old-timer on 04/03/07 at 5:12pm This machine still has no credability in the usa market,give it about 10 or 15 more years,The predictors and industry pro's all say the same thing. Make as much money from the scam and then move on to something else.Maybe he can sell them to the sultan of bunei, he buys everything else........ O.T. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/03/07 at 5:32pm old-timer wrote:
Nope! He's a Miele man! Nothing but the best that money can buy! Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by old-timer on 04/03/07 at 5:38pm Why dont the dysoners tell us what a big hit dyson was at the v.d.t.a. show this year :'( How many many new dealers you guy's pick up 2 or3. And do tell us about the huge parts distribution program[another joke]. Legit dealers and people that are really in the business,don't want it at any price[maybe free] O.T. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by JimB on 04/03/07 at 9:11pm Wow, always amazes me the anger at little old vacuum. The VDTA show I was at at Dyson as a very visible sponsor. A large attendance overflowing into several surrounding booths of a new product with the company president present. Employees that seemed to be constantly writing orders. It just is amazing how much commotion there is from competitors about a machine that "no one wants". As I have said before not every machine is for every person but I am very thankful to competition that has refused to share a piece of this pie. Keep talking about how it can't sell and I will keep paying down the mortgage just on those who are already decided. Parts distribution program? Never had a problem here in fact they are better than most to deal with. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by No Loss of Suction on 04/03/07 at 9:45pm old-timer wrote:
Old Timer, Not sure what you are asking, but here is a link to patents Dyson assigned to Iona (Fantom Vacuum). http://www.google.com/ptshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wt&q=iona%20dyson No Loss of Suction |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/03/07 at 10:12pm JimB wrote:
Hello JimB: It would appear that your response above confirms OT's conclusion below (by the tone of your gratitude). old-timer wrote:
You often sing the praises of dyson sales for yourself and dyson. But I can't recall you providing your synopses of the dyson product line and/or comparing any of the past and current dyson vacuums to others on the market. Maybe it is because your employees are the sales people "constantly writing the orders." I'm glad you can brag on the Forum about how well you are doing with dyson. JimB wrote:
I was fortunate when I was in business to make a livelihood for my family. My business was repairs and parts and rebuilts. New vacuum sales was more an accomodation for the public and for authorized dealer status. You must really really like the dyson product line and believe in it with all your being. Else I'm sure you wouldn't promote and sell it and brag about how well you do. Would you care to share the secret of your success with dyson? An/or tell us what you believe the product line offers that makes it so easy for you to sell. While others pass it up and miss out. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by No Loss of Suction on 04/03/07 at 10:15pm Carmine_Difazio wrote:
BUT not Eureka. Carmine D.[/quote] Carmine, I'd sincerely like to see Eureka's cyclonic vacuum patent that pre-dates Dyson. If you got the time... Here is Googles patent search engine. http://www.google.com/ptshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wt&q= Thanks. No Loss of Suction |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by No Loss of Suction on 04/03/07 at 10:26pm Carmine_Difazio wrote:
Nope! He's a Miele man! Nothing but the best that money can buy! Carmine D. [/quote] Miele in the news... http://miele-news.newslib.com/story/7494-52/ |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by JimB on 04/03/07 at 10:51pm Carmine_Difazio wrote:
Pretty simple actually. Sometimes "experts" in an industry outsmart themselves don't listen to what buyers want and instead try to tell them what they want. In retail the customer is always right. It is a simple rule that us "experts" sometimes are to full of ourselves to remember. The simple fact that competitors have been much to slow to realize is that consumers who buy a dyson like it and recomend it to others. Telling them all the reason they are dumb to like using a product they enjoy using and like the result from is bad business IHMO. If you want to sell against a product you build up your own not beat down the one the consumer already likes it hurts your credibility in the consumers eyes when you go negative on something they are happy with. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/03/07 at 11:03pm No Loss of Suction wrote:
From memory, I provided the facts and circumstances about the Eureka WW bagless and the approximate date. Along with the dyson facts and circumstances. Why not take the time yourself if you want to know and confim the date to see if my memory is good. Then let the Forum and me know. Carmine D. PS: I found it (several embeded searches) and my dates in the messages are right on even with my old man's memory. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/03/07 at 11:09pm JimB wrote:
So JimB, you're saying that all the people who buy dyson vacuums ask for them by name and no other brands? So you really don't have to educate the vacuum buyers to their cleaning needs and wants for vacuum products and their budgets. They already know. Just sell them what they want because they all want a dyson? Did I understand this correctly? Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by No Loss of Suction on 04/04/07 at 1:50am Carmine_Difazio wrote:
From memory, I provided the facts and circumstances about the Eureka WW bagless and the approximate date. Along with the dyson facts and circumstances. Why not take the time yourself if you want to know and confim the date to see if my memory is good. Then let the Forum and me know. Carmine D. PS: I found it (several embeded searches) and my dates in the messages are right on even with my old man's memory. [/quote] Fair enough "old man" - I'll check into it one day. And thanks for getting back to me on my HEPA questions. No Loss |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by No Loss of Suction on 04/04/07 at 2:01am :-[ Not an easy thing to read or watch - Hoover's 100 year old plant closing. God bless these folks. News and video here. > http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=65292 No Loss |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/04/07 at 8:01am No Loss of Suction wrote:
When you do, check out Kenneth J's "Ball facilitator" application for vacuums which predates dyson's DC15 ball by over 5 years. Unfortunately on Sept 12, 2006 when the court case was held, the Judge using a technicality (debate over the meaning of words) shot down Kenneth J's copyright infringement case against dyson. KJ was only a poor student. James a hot shot Sir Knight. It's hard for the little person to win "court" justice in the USA when they are right. Judges in robes and hot shot lawyers with 3 names and 3 piece suits. Main street justice is different. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Dyson: Video Images Articles. Not for Dyson ha Post by Carmine_Difazio on 04/05/07 at 8:26am No Loss of Suction wrote:
Excellent article about Miele from your link. Worth a read if interested in laundry appliances. http://miele-news.newslib.com/story/7494-64/ Carmine D. |
|
Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.1! YaBB © 2000-2005. All Rights Reserved. |