Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

The vacuum manufacturers are jumping on the Dyson free-ride big time this year.  I just visited my local Target and it looks like their Bissell's and Hoover's are almost fully converted to single and multi-cyclonic's.  And lookie, lookie... the mighty Electrolux (heavy as a tank upright) has almost caught up with the Fantom vacuum (Dyson dual cyclone technologies), I doubt it filters better than the Fantom's.

Electrolux @ Target 11/2009


Bissell Healthy Home v.2 @ Target 11/2009

Dustmite,

Thank goodness that someone is taking that Dyson technology and combining it with a decent brush roll and nozzle. Many of the knockoffs clean better than Dyson at a much lower price. Those heavy bagless vacuums are really helping Oreck with their sales.

Severus wrote:

Hello Severus:

The issue with expansive copyright law protections, which dyson DIB obviously misses based on his unreasonable tirades on several threads here, is that they are inefficient for the market place and consumers.  The laws wildly exceed necessary incentives for creators and have a negative impact on new technologies/products that can't build upon the overly restricted protected copyrights. 

If the vacuum industry wants to convince innovators to bring new technologies to market, which is dyson's DIB's mantra, then the copyright laws have to allow a proper level of incentives in the rights granted and by setting reasonable length of protections.  Else, rather than satisfying customers' demands for new products with innovations as dyson DIB says it should do, the copyright laws [read government oversight] end up controlling customers wants by restricting innovative products.  All in the name of eternal protection for the original creator who ends up litigating rather than innovating.  The latter is always dyson's DIB claim to fame for his fave idol but it sounds to me that he/Sir James want a monopoly not an efficient market place.

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

I agree......they jumped on dyson vacs ...where they fell short...they made an existing product better....giving the people what they want or have asked for...at a lower price.

Who cares who did what first......its whos doing it better at a lower price that matters....consumers could care less who did what first....if they can get what they want at a lower price.....theyll get it....no matter who makes it.  it just so happens that this time dyson had to foot the bill on this one.....[his idea ? ]....while others make it better and offering more......it is what it is......land of the free.      ''What gave dyson [or vac manuf] the idea that nobody could or would take what he made and make it / offer better....?

turtle1 

This is Eureka's rehash of their Ultra Whirlwind 4880/4885 design from earlier this decade.  It was a good machine; I had one.  I wonder why they were scrapped..?

DysonInventsBig wrote:

iMacDaddy wrote:
Was a single cyclone separator used in this prior vacuum?

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Yep, no multi-cyclonic tech was used in the old Eureka.  It was almost the same layout as well, with the large debris container/shroud separated from the fine dust collection compartment.

iMacDaddy wrote: Actually it is a primitive dual cyclone machine.  The small tube on the right is the second cyclone.  It is slightly tapered.     While the dirt separation wasn't as efficient as Dyson's DC07, it had a superior brush roll and a manual height adjustment that enabled it to clean carpet better.    It also had a headlight.     It was rated very good for cleaning carpeting by Consumer Reports.  I belief it had a pretty good belt.   

iMacDaddy wrote:
Thanks, but I did not see it (a conical separator).  It looks like this Target-Electrolux is it, this is their first conical separator vacuum.

DIB

It's interesting to see other manufacturers using dual cyclone technology as I thought the patent ran out many years ago. I had assumed that they had been frightened to use it for fear of legal action by Dyson on any possible minor technical infringements after what happened to Hoover in the UK.

As for multi-cyclone technology, does anyone know if the patent for that is still valid? If not I wonder how Hoover and Bissell have managed to use them without infringing Dyson's patent?

nick_sub wrote:
Nick,

This is one of the best questions posted here.  Non-Dyson multi-cyclonic’s will ultimately make billions for competing corporations. IMO, Dyson too narrowly defined his cluster (multi) cyclone patent/s, which is claimed to be [stuffed] inside the clear bin and fine dust collector - Bissell’s and TTI’s clusters are not.  They skirted the Dyson patent/s easily by plopping 'their' clusters on top of the clear bin (pulled them out of bin and dust collector) resulting in...  big, easy money to be made.


DIB