Talk:Vacuum cleaner

Changes

I changed this article. I took out the phrase, "Contrary to popular beliefs, the vacuum inside the tube does not suck. " The paragraph went on to correctly explain that the air is actually pushed in because the atmospheric pressure is higher than the pressure inside the canister. However this is exactly what the word "suck" means: to create suction by creating a difference in air pressure.

---

But roomba cannot mop a floor with water.

---

Should mention robotic vacuum cleaners in body of article. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:11, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Air Rider

About the new "Air Rider" vacuum that rides on a cushion of air? Can we add more details?

Here's a link to the website: http://www.airridersystems.co.uk

---

Robotic 'vacuum cleaners'

The range of robotic cleaners on the market such as the Roomba, Trilobite etc are not vacuum cleaners and arguably should not appear in this section. They are merely motorised brooms that sweep the dirt into a container without the use of suction, rather like the mechanical sweepers your granny used to have. Dyson did actually make the DC06, a true robotic vacuum cleaner that employed suction though it never made it to market as the cost of manufacture was too high. -- DrFod

[1] says that a vacuum is employed in the Roomba (click on "Effective cleaning").

Atlant 13:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The section on Dyson DC06 is extremely promotional and definitely dubious. The only reference is to the company itself. No external/non-promotional reference is included. I recommend deleting Dyson DC06 from the entry. SueH917 (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hoover as common noun or as verb in the US

This article makes the claim that hoover is genericised in the US as in Britain, although to a lesser extent. I question that assertion. I've never heard the term used generically in place of "vacuum cleaner" except in Britain or by people of very recent British origin. Does anyone think I ought not to remove the reference to the US in that context? Pzavon 02:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, nobody in the US but Anglophiles or Brit ex-pats uses the verb "Hoover"; I agree with removing the reference to its use in the US.

Atlant 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In Ireland the word hoover is used as a noun and a verb quite extensively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.210.109 (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Vacuum cleaners for arenas (central or other)

Anyone has an idea where I can find info on this? TIA

Deep cleaning of carpets -remove

The section on "Deep cleaning of carpets" contains no text relevant to the subject of this article, namely Vacuum Cleaners. I propose its removal. Pzavon 01:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Air Watt

should Air Watt be a separate article? Also this page states that it is equal to 0.9983 watts. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 03:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The formula for air watt needs clarification. I suspect it is not the product of airflow and waterlift.

Rated airflow is measured by a standardized process assuming a fixed orifice (2 inches).

Waterlft is the suction (pressure differential) generated in a no-flow situation (O inch orifice).

Therefore airwatt should be the measured suction (pressure differential) that occurs at the rated airflow.

Refer to this webpage for clarification.

http://www.ristenbatt.com/smpower.mv

Unless you realise this you will get a spurilous answer like that of the Sebo C3 - cfm 170 and waterlift 90 inches - ~ 1800 airwatts (which exceed its electrical power input rating of 1500W. A clear physical impossibility.

James Murray Spangler

Does anyone know when he died and how sucessful he had been?

Benefits of Central Vacuum Cleaners

I made an edit explaining how central vacuum cleaners don't recirculate dust in the room being cleaned and described this as a benefit for asthma and allergy sufferers. The change was reverted in its entirety and I'm unsure what was objectionable; perhaps because the supporting link I included was to a commercial site (http://www.beamvac.com/images/study.pdf)? The link was to a PDF of an article in a medical journal (J Invest Allergol Clin Immunol 2001; Vol. 11(4): 290–294) which I believe supports the claims I made for central vaccuums. Or was it claiming this is the main benefit of this type of vacuum cleaner rather than just a benefit of them. Thanks. Appliance matt 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted for both of the reasons you cited, but would welcome you re-adding a more-nuanced statement (and, of course, minus the commercial link). I think central vacs have many advantages and whether non-recirculation is tops depends on the user's needs. I like that feature of mine, but if I were to pick my top reasons why I like having central vac, that probably wouldn't be among them (given the availability of HEPA filters in ordinary vacs).

Again, please feel free-to re-add your statement that non-recirculation is a good thing.

Atlant 20:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; well done!

Atlant 00:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This Article Needs a Cross-Section Diagram!

I was looking through this article in the hopes of finding a picture of the inside of a vacuum cleaner. For a school project. I was thinking of a cross-section or something--just a little diagram that showed what one may find on the inside of one of these strange machines. I noticed that there isn't such diagram! Can someone please connect me with one, and perhaps place a vacuum cross-section diagram or something in this article? I think that it would be a worthwhile addition--every article should have a picture, for us visually-oriented people, showing how it works. Jedi Shadow 04:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Colorado

In Colorado, it is against the law to loan your vacuum cleaner to your next door neighbour. 216.86.113.16 02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Vacuum cleaners in philosophy"

The following text was in the article, and I removed it because the lack of any sources makes this section sound like an essay of "original research." Besides Wikipedia not being a publisher of original, unsourced material, I do not believe this topic adds any significantly important material to the article. 70.95.54.98 02:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

-- Is it a good thing if a vacuum cleaner really sucks? --
Whether or not it's a good thing if a vacuum cleaner really sucks is a common philosophy question. The answer is yes, as vacuum cleaners than really suck will get all of the dirt out of your carpet, while vacuum cleaners that don't really suck might leave some dirt in your carpet. Therefore, it's a good thing if a vacuum cleaner really sucks. This question is commonly seem throughout the internet.

Why has my addition to this encyclopedia topic been removed? I'm TheSpaceRace, by the way.

Oops sorry forgot to sign in. I am Horncomposer.

Any info. on vacuum cleaner vehicles?

Anybody know anything about the vehicles,(resembling a golf cart), that has a vacuum cleaner attached to it? I live in Albany, NY USA and I occasionaly see one driving by picking up the trash with a great big movable hose. It has the words "ABM" printed in large letters in the front of the cart. It seems like a very useful device, and one that should be very popular in big cities, or anywhere else there is a lot of garbage to pick up.204.80.61.110 14:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk I found one on Google.com. It called the Madvac 101 and the type is referred to as a: Vacuum Litter Collector and a All Wheel Drive Outdoor Vacuum. It can hold up to 120 gallons. I do not know how much it costs. I do know there are other vehicles of this type around. What a great, useful invention. 74.76.84.212 23:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Help

I know this sounds stupid but I don't know were else to ask. I have a Everstar Canister Vac 1200, the rug/roller brush attachment wont work, I can hear the motor running but the roller brush wont turn so I took it apart, the the little drive belt thing was attached to the motor and the brush, but I cant seem to be able to see what the problem is besides there being a slant to all the teeth, almost as if when it as was running something was putting pressure on the one side therefore wearing it down. And now I don't know how to put it back together because there are no grooves on the brush for the teeth on the belt to fit onto to the brush. If anyone can help I would be very grateful. 216.26.208.227 09:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Post World War II

The opening sentence of this section - "Vacuum cleaners working on the cyclone principle became popular in the 1990s, although some companies (notably Filter Queen and Regina under the leadership of Don Sheelen, Don Sheelen is the creator of the "tools on board" upright vaccum cleaner, in the mid eighties---the model for over 90% of vacuum cleaners sold today, despite it being over 20 years since Don Sheelen invented it) have been making vacuum cleaners with cyclonic action since 1928." - is very difficult to untangle without several read-throughs and needs reworking. (Sorry, sneaking a read at work, so don't have sufficient time myself.)40.0.96.1 (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection against the "sheelan spammer"

I think it is a good plan to semi protect this article against the highly irritating and frustrating nameless editor who keeps spamming THAT NAME (which I don't want to pronounce to give it extra attention) into this article -- Mdd (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a so called "sheelan spammer" on this page who has reverted this page for at least eight times, to get the non-notable name of Sheelan back at the page. -- Mdd (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Shop-vac

Mitre saw links "shop-vac" to this page, but this page doesn't say what a "shop-vac" is (I'd guess it's a term mainly used in the USA - I've not heard it used here in the UK). I assume it's a specialised vacuum cleaner used in, well, shops, but I don't know what features it has that separate it from normal domestic cleaners. I'm also not sure whether "shop" in "shop-vac" refers to retail-type shops or factory-type shops (workshops). If you know, please add an answer. :) Pippin (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A shop-vac is a heavy duty vacuum, usually a wet/dry vac for use in workshops. If you could imagine sucking up several pounds of sawdust with it, it's probably a shop vac. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha, thanks, but I actually meant to suggest a suitable definition be added to the main article rather than here! (I'm not the one to do it as I don't really know the term.) Pippin (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC).

A Shop-Vac is a term used for a Wet vac or wet/dry vacuum— A Shop-Vac is a specialized form of the canister vacuum and can be used to clean up wet or liquid spills. They commonly can accommodate both wet and dry soilage; some are also equipped with a switch or exhaust port for reversing the airflow, a useful function for everything from clearing a clogged hose to blowing dust into a corner for easy collection.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyclef00469 (talk • contribs)

Shop-Vac is the most popular brand of wet/dry vacuum in the US, manufactured by Shop-Vac Corporation of Williamsport, PA. "Shop vac" has become a genericized trademark (like "hoover" in the UK). Yerocus (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Amway references

I work for Dyson and would like to change the references to Amway. In short, James Dyson sold the license for a bagless vacuum cleaner to Amway. They then revoked the contract and a few years later, started selling a bagless vacuum cleaner (using James Dyson's patented technology) under their own name, without paying royalties.

You can read the story here: http://www.amquix.info/amway_dyson.html

I am also looking for reference to the early 'cyclonic vacuum cleaners'. Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dysonteam (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparent Contradiction

The article states: In 1899 the first motor-driven vacuum cleaner was invented by John Thurman.

It then goes on to state: The first powered cleaner employing a vacuum was patented and produced by British inventor Hubert Cecil Booth in 1901. I would like to add to Your disscusion here that, I have always undertood the founder of Hoover company in England to be Mary Hoover, the sister of the companies namesake. Also, I do not recall in this discussion any mention of the name of James Kirby who patented His revolving brush and revolving fan mechanical vacuum cleaner. Kirby sold this patent to The Scott and Fetzer Company of Cleveland Ohio who, among other things, added an electric motor to the "Kirby" vacuum cleaner. The Kirby and the similar Royal were first marketed at about the same time in the first decade of the twentieth century. I think some clarification is in order here. Is it that Booth's machine was the first to be granted a patent, despite the existence of Thurman's prior art? The wording is ambiguous and needs work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenStrauss (talk • contribs) 18:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Audio Spectrum

There are some sounds, like vacuum cleaners, jackhammers, and babies crying, which people find more annoying than other sounds of similar volume. Some theorize that this is a characteristic of the audio spectrum (no, I don't have a source, that's why this is a comment in the Talk page). Does anyone know of information about the audio spectrum of vacuums?

Thanks, N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.26.209 (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No word about Efficiency

If there's already a section on 'Airwatts' and a preceding section that states that only the rated electrical *input* power is given for most models, shouldn't there be a few examples of actual efficiency of the 'average' vacuum cleaner? (i.e. 2500 watts in, 500 "airwatts" out) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Reorder history section

Instead of section headings for particular inventors, which is not generally a format used elsewhere on similar articles, it would be better to order it according to technological criteria. It could also do with some trimming of tangential information, especially for early designs, which weren't actually vacuum cleaners at all (they didn't use a vacuum to generate suction).Noodleki (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Tile based vacuums for industry

Are there tile based vacuums for floors and if so wouldnt it be made with spind;es and used in a buffing type circular motion? Like the spindles would be sharp similar to a metal bristle brush for pots and pans. Can i put tile bleaching formula in it? Basically i have 25 feet of basement floor empty, except the cracks have lots of stains and don't have time to scrub every inch of surface crack. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.25.193 (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

:lol, btw i use sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) to clean tile with a bristle brush, lol...the gay empire has sodium carbonate as bleach, it don't do anything to tile, yet its marketed as the chosen tile cleaner, the idiots even went as far as not using sodium sulphate which is wall cleaner, even that cleans tile floors.  Bleach does nothing. A tile base vacuum cleaner would be the most stupid idea in the world, unless it had a bristle brush that went up and down forcefully between cracks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.25.193 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2015

Robotic section: delete: The Dyson robotic vacuum cleaner (DC06) was too expensive for home use, due to its high technical specifications. Thus, it was never released, although it is claimed that it would have been the first robotic vacuum cleaner sold.

add to end of section: Dyson experimented with possible robotic versions of its cleaners after marketing cordless battery powered versions matching the power of their regular models after 2010. Prototype robots were shown but not marketed until November 2015 when the Dyson 360 Eye robot was released for initial sales only in Japan. Matching power of its full size versions limits use to small spaces and short run times on batteries. Dyson joined other makers such as iRobot and Samsung in using camera robotic vision to accomplish systematic guidance first used by Neato Robotics with a spinning lidar laser years before. Advances in digital electronics and lithium battery technology over several years made possible a new more powerful class of robotic vacuums, just as similar advances had made the Neato Robotics laser possible in an earlier innovation.

Along with the more powerful Dyson robot appliance maker Samsung in Korea expanded its line in 2014 with a PowerBot brand featuring a larger, lithium battery, more powerful motor and cyclonic extraction similar to Dyson. In 2015 Samsung added a short run extra power mode with 180 watts electric power to run only thirty minutes, competing with the newly released Dyson products. Besides additional power the late 2015 models added WiFi internet computer connection for updating software and operation with smartphone displays. Neato Robotics and iRobot also added WiFi to their models in the older, lower powered class. A range of different prices and capacities developed with the new models. Robotic vacuums became 15 per cent of new vacuum sales (iRobot corporate presentations) expanding beyond the electronic gadget market.

2606:A000:BFC0:B2:42E:FF40:8031:48FB (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you are suggesting removing information which cites a reference, and adding information without citing any reliable sources whatsoever, to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2016

We represent Shop-Vac Corporation (“Shop-Vac”) in its intellectual property matters. The statement “Wet or wet/dry vacuum cleaners (commonly known by the generic trademark Shop-Vac) are a specialized form of the cylinder/drum models that can be used to clean up wet or liquid spills” is inaccurate because SHOP-VAC is not a generic trademark. To the contrary, Shop-Vac owns active federal registrations consisting of or comprising SHOP-VAC, including SHOP-VAC, SHOP∙VAC QSP, SHOP-VAC COMMERCIAL, SHOP-VAC INDUSTRIAL, SHOP VAC QUIET, SHOP VAC QUIET PLUS, and SHOP VAC SUPER, to name a few. See U.S. Registration Nos. 647,763; 1,680,975; 2,027,359; 2,196,625; 2,196,626; 3,867,977; 3,864,969; and 4,218,129. Moreover, the link to “generic trademark” and the cited reference do not support the statement that Shop-Vac is a generic trademark. Instead, the link for the term “generic trademark” contains qualifying language that notes that SHOP-VAC is still widely-known by the public as a brand name and that the mark is registered as a trademark, continues in use, and is actively enforced by its trademark owner (see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks#cite_note-140). In addition, the cited reference includes the following statement: “this list is therefore a subjective assessment, as some marks may already have become generic, whereas others may not be accepted as being generic…” (see www.danataschner.com/trademark_genericized.html). Moreover SHOP-VAC appears in a list of trademarks that the author believes are sometimes used generically, not in a list of trademarks that have “become generic.” Consequently, the reference to Shop-Vac as being a generic trademark is inaccurate. We also must reiterate that the SHOP-VAC mark still serves as a source identifier for Shop-Vac’s vacuum products, and there are no court decisions or other rulings finding the SHOP-VAC mark generic. We therefore request that the statement contained in the posting be changed to read “Wet or wet/dry vacuum cleaners are a specialized form of the cylinder/drum models that can be used to clean up wet or liquid spills.”

In addition, the posting contains an image of a vacuum cleaner with the following caption: “Wet/dry shop vac for home use.” The vacuum cleaner contained in the caption does not appear to be a Shop-Vac vacuum. For the reasons mentioned above, we request that the caption be amended to read “Wet/dry vacuum for home use.”

Cbeaker (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Done st170e^talk 21:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2016

We represent Shop-Vac Corporation (“Shop-Vac”) in its intellectual property matters. The posting entitled “Vacuum cleaner” contains an image of a vacuum cleaner with the following caption: “Wet/dry shop vac for home use.” The vacuum cleaner contained in the caption is not a Shop-Vac vacuum. Consequently, the reference to the vacuum cleaner as a “shop vac” is incorrect. We therefore request that the caption be amended to read “Wet/dry vacuum for home use.”

Cbeaker (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Air amplifier vac

Nothing here on Air amplifiers (aka:vacuum guns or as compressed air blow guns). They are cleaners which are operated using compressed air as a power source - I would like to know the scientific name of the operating principal (it's not "air amplifier" else wiki would have it!). It seems to be covered under the heading of "Pneumatic", but there is little there on their function. Found it: it is Venturi operated. Charlieb000 (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vacuum cleaner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100313170420/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2006/4/2006_4_4.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2006/4/2006_4_4.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Domestic vacuum cleaner

Please correct the second last line of this section to read . . . German company Vorwerk . . . Editrite!203.196.41.161 (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Applications of a vacuum cleaner

Can someone help me?

What are the Applications of a Vacuum Cleaner? DeepanshuBora7 (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2018

Specialized shop vacuums can pick up dust and liquids.

change to:

Specialized vacuums can pick up dust and liquids, including but not limited to, specialized shop vacs.

I believe this is a fair way to include domestic systems, such as the original system to pick up dust and liquids: the Rexair and later called the Rainbow. Furthermore, the Rainbow for a short time, was marketed successfully as the "CSD" [Contain, Secure, Destroy] for Hazmat applications and I have a friend who used it for hazmat cleanup. It was and is the best, according to his opinion. The video can be found on youtube. Rexair no longer markets this version of the Rainbow, as it was too costly and annoying to maintain the red tape. I can get anything you need to support any of this info; just joined and don't really know how this process works. I'm a 20yr direct distributor for Rexair, llc. Love the article, by the way. Cleanairpref (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The provided source does not cover the particulars included in your request.  Spintendo  12:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

CHANGE

The performance of a vacuum cleaner can be measured by several parameters:

Airflow, in litres per second [l/s] or cubic feet per minute (CFM or ft³/min) Air speed, in metres per second [m/s] or miles per hour [mph] Suction, vacuum, or water lift, in pascals [Pa] or inches of water

TO...

The performance of a vacuum cleaner can be measured by several parameters:

Airflow, in litres per second [l/s] or cubic feet per minute (CFM or ft³/min) Air speed, in metres per second [m/s] or miles per hour [mph] Suction, vacuum, or water lift, in pascals [Pa] or inches of water Filtration, as a percentage of impurities that are not captured JackG 15:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@JackG4603: Can you provide us a source for this addition? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel the filtration point as having parity with the other specifications detailed. I agree it would be better with a strong additional source but only have basic detail on a review website. There are other elements within the Wiki article that give good information on HEPA filters etc. Also, re-reading this, it's more accepted that the measure is impurities retained. So it should read...

Filtration, as a percentage of impurities that are captured wdyt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackG4603 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made, as previously suggested. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

1. In the first sentence, the serial comma is missing, while in the fourth sentence, it's present. Please add a comma after "draperies" in the first sentence.
2. This image caption, The Electrolux Trilobite was the first mass-produced robotic vacuum cleaner, has a citation that's promptly followed by {{citation needed}}. Please remove the citation-needed, since there's a citation there.

Thank you. 64.203.186.104 (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)