Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

http://www.patentstorm.us/applications/20090133214/description.html

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=15%2F$.CCLS.&OS=CCL/15/$&RS=CCL/15/$

Hi DIB,

Thanks for the link. I looked over the PDF at the site and all it has merited is a "ho-hum" from me. This is merely a display of marketing/design overkill. I maintain that any vacuum with a revolving brush that cannot get up pet hair by first or second pass is not worth buying. Doo-dads should not be necessary when mechanics that should be adequate are in place.

The UV aspect leaves me cold as well as I have yet hear to good report regarding sales for Oreck's Halo. I think the public sees UV as a cute idea but are not prepared to drop everything and run out to get a vacuum that has it. The ad guys will have to start claiming that UV will eradicate swine flu in virus ten seconds or less to nudge sales.

This machine is awfuly similar to the Bissell presently on the market (which I will note can be had for around $170.00). The similarity doesn't bother me but ideas that turn into cliches do.

Venson

Hello Venson,

Samsung just patented and created a U.S. monopoly on the cheapest (to manufacturer, to service?, to sell) UV upright.  And the tube is mounted at the leading edge of the vac unlike the Halo.  UV effectiveness or need aside, Samsung looks to own the cheapest UV on-top-of-carpeting upright segment.

Oreck should be embarrassed for not covering their bases and buying this patent first.  Now they have a behemoth sized competitor in Samsung....  Duh.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Hi DIG,

There's more to this than just pushing merchandise. The Samsung design is inferior as I see it. Whatever the value of UV may or may not be, Halo has its UV light in an out of the way enclosure underneath the cleaner along with safeguards like a deadman's switch. Cheap being the key word, I would not want a vacuum with a flip-up UV source because there are too many scenarios for possible accidents that I can think of in households where there are children.

Were I the maker of such, I'd want to hedge my bets to be sure I was covered all round regarding faults in manufacture that might lead to lawsuits by consumers. Use of UV calls for caution. We're not just taliking about an ordinary incandescent bulb. This design is just a little too easy.

Venson

Venson,

Is there any doubt that Samsung cannot make a UV vac safe or as safe as the Oreck/Halo?  I did not bother reading the patent, I only looked at the drawings.  Samsung can add more patents if needed or use in the public domain switching.  The switching is not the strength of this vac, the idea that a consumer can purchase a cheaper alternative to the Oreck/Halo is.

Don’t you think the recent swine flu deaths and fears is a good time to begin work on a UV upright?

DIB

Hi Venson, DIB:

Made a stop at the local ORECK store.  [BTW, the resident in one of the adjacent stores is no longer in business.]  The ORECK Halo was proudly displayed and we talked about it.  The ORECK sales lady did not push/pitch it in any way shape or form.  Quite the opposite.  SHe said it is 17 pounds, a tad on the heavy side compared to the ORECK standard.  She said it' recommended mostly for couples with small infants who crawl alot on the rugs and floors and are subject to allergies and/or have sensitivity to germs.  She laughingly said that her older children said there were no such vacuums with UV lights in their time, and they survived with no health problems.  It's strictly a niche seller to a limited market and ORECK is properly conveying that sales venue. 

BTW, the Steam It is due in next week.  Supposedly it is a homegrown ORECK product not a sourced item. 

Carmine D.  

PS:  The ORECK halo is not pictured in the ORECK product literature, pamphlets and brochures along with the line up of uprights, compact canisters, air purifiers, and orbiters.  Another example of the product not considered by ORECK as a mainstream market seller.

Carmine D. 

I just don't hold that much salt to any vacuum cleaner that has a UV ray attached to it. For starters even if its going to kill bugs etc with a paper bag in place or a cyclonic system UNLIKE that of Dyson's 100% Suction all the time principle, the bag is going to loose out on suction and the only way you'll be able to tell if anything microscopic is being picked up is for the vacuum cleaner itself to have a microscope on it so that their owners can have perfect 100% peace of mind. Now of course things would be rather different if Dyson brought out a UV!

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Most emphatically -- no. Disease prevention at best is better brought about by simple methods and rules that all can avail tehmselves of and the use of common sense. Beyond that it all hangs in the luck of the draw.

Viruses are spread a great deal through unavoidable human contact. We ride public transportation, shop and eat in public venues and are even taken care of in public facilities when we are very ill. Unfortunately, most of us can't manage a house on a hilltop where we can stay while the rest of the world stays away.

I've visited hiospital IC units where trained staff has come to work with colds. Can that be avoided when you don't get paid if you don't work? How do you keep them out?

As it stands, there are yet no established specifics as to application of UV light in the instance of vacuum cleaners. No one can tell the individual user what amount of speed, area and time is required to guarantee effective use.

Venson

CarmineD wrote:
Thanks for the Halo heads-up Carmine. That's what I'm talking about -- a hundred years later of "dust blowers" and civilization as we know it is still standing.

Venson

CarmineD wrote:
Thanks for the Halo heads-up Carmine. That's what I'm talking about -- a hundred years later of "dust blowers" and civilization as we know it is still standing.

Venson