Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Did they go out of business? GetHalo.com now sells only the vacuum cleaner bags...

Dave is the lightweight vacuum man!  Now, he is the UV-C light weight vacuum man!

Carmine D.

RAD1 wrote:
Rad1,

How did Miele treat you?  Did you have to sign your life away...  sign their disclosure, which typically states your rights (of said widget) are covered by your patent only.    Thanks.

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
DIB,
Actually it never really got passed "round 1" so to speak. I don't think they really saw a need, to be honest. I look at it like this...they had a better focus of the niche market and current core product and manufacturing a "specialty" vac - which is what the UV-C vac is - wasn't in their best interest. I tend to agree, really. Like I said, I distribute UV-C lights now - Believe me, people HAVE to be educated about these. It's not an impulse buy. Especially for $599 like the Oreck Halo will be. Plus, you are now talking about replacement costs on the bulb - which HAVE to be replaced every 1 to 1.5 years. This is where David Oreck will make money - in the replacement goods (besides the ridiculous mark-up in the vacuum itself).

RAD1 wrote:
Hi RAD1,

I've been trying to backtrack to learn who it was who made but htere was a UV set-up that was retro-fitted on re-furb Kirbys. The maker used a name all its own.  The product does not appear to have endured on the market but  It had to have come out some time last year when the Halo to-do began.

I peeked at a Consumer Reports on the rack at Costco and noticed that Halo, way down low on the list, rated as "good" for carpet cleaning but emissions scores were excellent.  Since you have some knowledge of UV lights, do you think they can last through the usual thumping and bumping most vacs endure and what's your guesstmate regarding price of replacement .

Thanks,

Venson

RAD1,

Thanks for getting back to me.  Hopefully you did not spend to much time on this project.

A prior to Halo concept was done (patented) in 1993...
http://www.google.com/patents?id=I3MfAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA2&dq=%22vacuum+cleaner%22+ultra+violet+kirby&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1_1#PPA1,M1

One of the earliest - UV in a vacuum patent...
http://www.google.com/patents?id=TodHAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=ultra+violet+%22vacuum+cleaner%22&as_drrb_ap=q&as_minm_ap=1&as_miny_ap=2009&as_maxm_ap=1&as_maxy_ap=2009&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1949&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1776&num=100&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1#PPA1,M1



Venson,
Here is a Kirby UV patent...
http://www.google.com/patents?id=3z5VAAAAEBAJ&dq=%22vacuum+cleaner%22+ultra+violet


DIB

Venson wrote:
Greetings Venson,
Hygienitech was/is the "maker" (here in the states) of a business opportunity offering mattress sanitizing services. They use a Kirby retro-fitted with UV. Fairly simple process and they were making lots of $$$ with the biz opp. This was almost 5 years ago that I first cam across them. I decided that this could be a viable business and This is when I decided to approach Miele, but since that never got going, I shelved the idea. An Aussie company also wanted my company to be a dealer of these machines here in the US, but it didn't seem like a fit. An acquaintance actually did retrofit Kirby's with UV light as well - and it does, in fact work. As for replacment UV lamps, I know mine sell for anywhere in the range of $45-60 - but these are a High Output Germicidal bulb (much more effective than what I anticipate Oreck using). I am guessing in the $25-35 range for his bulbs. Plus, like you said, it depends on the housing they are in, so there is not any breakage of the lamp - as there is a small amount of mercury in UV-C lamps. Should be interesting.

Thanks RAD1 -- I could't recall the name and began to think I might have been hallucinting.  Also, I'm glad you mentioned the varying bulb strengths.

I've included a link to Hygienitech if anyone wants to take a look for themselves.  http://hygienitech.com/index.html

Best,

Venson

If the halo failure in such a short period of time proved anything it is that the UV-C light has only niche appeal and specialty interest, not mainstream. 

MIELE, and other high end value vacuum makers, would argue, convincingly I might add, that their vacuums already minimize the hazardous health effects of household germs for the vast majority of households with frequent and proper vacuum use.  They would say that UV-C technology is redundant for their vacuums.  Hence, the higher ORECK Halo price tag of $599 too, niche market.  The ORECK Halo will be pitched for the very few fastidious vacuum consumers who absolutely must have the UV-C light benefits and don't mind the corresponding drawbacks:  Replacement bulbs and proper bulb disposal. 

Plus, the ORECK HOME Clean Centers offer a viable option to ORECK customers to upgrade to the ORECK Halo at a reasonable and affordable price with an ORECK trade-in.  Halo, selling through big box stores right out of the gate without a network of dealers, didn't have this business advantage.  If the initial ORECK Halo consumers are pleased and satisfied, they will spread the word about the UV-C benefits and in turn this will lead to further interest and hopefully, from ORECK's perspective, more sales.  Unlike the halo scenario, which required successful sales from the starting gate, ORECK can pace itself and let the ORECK Halo find its own successful sales speed.

Carmine D. 

CarmineD wrote:
The basic thing is that this UV light thing isn't worth a hill of beans if it is not properly applied.  It is highly doubtful that users in general will use them properly but will buy them due to familiar Oreck name. Thinking of an ideal product for this particle sanitizing medium it would have to be of all things, the Roomba.  Roomba could be adjusted to travel at the slow steady speeds most conducive to best use of the UV light. 

That aside, I don't know how well the public has adapted to Oreck's other "borrowed" vacuums.  The company picked up the European Philips canister named it the DutchTech and slapped a Wessel Werks PN on it.  It's a good cleaner but I have heard little word of mouth regarding it or seen little ad action per Oreck on its behalf.  http://www.oreck.com/canister-vacuum-cleaners/dutchtech_series.cfm

Oreck might have been better served to work the UV light into the Oreck design we're more familiar with.  I think hte more familiar Oreck with a UV light worked would garner buyer trust more quickly.

Venson

Hello Venson:

IRobot and ORECK will probably have a meeting of the minds on the UV-C light.  I also wouldn't be surprised if the UV-C light is adapted to the familiar ORECK upright in time.

BTW, recall that after halo lost the grievance filed by BISSELL about the veracity of its claims [I believe with the FTC], Ken Garcia commissioned another study at a University.  His expectations were to show that frequent use with the halo vacuum and UV-C light was better for allergy and sinus sufferers than regular vacuuming.  Obviously, Garcia was attempting to widen his target market with over 30 million persons in the USA with respiratory issues.  I never heard the outcome of the study.  But, I expect if there is a favorable outcome to this hypothesis by studies, this aspect of the halo's technology will be used as a sales pitch. 

Carmine D.