CUSTOMERS LOVE THE BAGLESS KIRBY CONVERSION

[turbo500]

lux1521..

I responded to Keeler in the same tone he posted in. Read his first post and the posts that followed. He was clearly trying to sell his product to us and was not open to anyone's opinion on it. Had he given us some REAL information about the product and accepted that it does have it's flaws (as do a lot of things), I'm sure this thread would have been a much more positive discussion. Instead of coming on here and going "HEY LOOK AT MY PRODUCT, ISN'T IT WONDERFUL, EVERYONE SHOULD BUY ONE. THE PROOF IS IN MY EBAY FEEDBACK", he should've said "this is my product. this is what it does. it does this well but the drawback is this". And after he failed to answer any questions with a half decent answer and started to get patronizing once he found out I was younger than him, I lost my patience. Maybe it was rude and immature. But hey, I'm a ass hole sometimes.

 

[hoovercelebrity]

I still just wanted to see these Selp-Propelled Kirby mechanism thingys.

~Fred

 

[rolls_rapide]

Lux1521

"Conclusion: a basic bagless design, that has no inventive steps and thus nothing of merit."

I stand by what I said: it is a basic bagless design and non-cyclonic to boot (as Keeler freely admitted in his response to my posting), employing a filter that clogs. Such bagless, non-cyclonic technology has been tried in the past and found to be ineffective.

The whole point of getting the air to spin in vortices is that it separates the dust from the airflow. Different diameter cyclones have the ability to remove particles of certain sizes.

You do realise, don't you, that dirt entering that particular bagless design will migrate very rapidly to the air outlet, which in this case is covered by the pleated filter. There is no swirling action to keep the dirt away from the filter. Had there been a modicum of swirling it might have slightly improved the length of time between filter cleaning.

'Dirty-fan' also known as 'direct-air' bagless technology has been done before (both cyclonic and non-cyclonic) by various manufacturers, including James Dyson himself. He tried and tested a cardboard and duct-tape affair, strapped to his Hoover 'Junior' (below).

 

[kirbyotronic]

"All of those positive feedbacks are most likely from people who don't know a damn thing about how a vacuum works!"

Its all of these stupid people in the general public that get tricked into buying a overly complex Kirby, or excessively heavy (with exceptions) Dysons that require high technology just to get the job done and are power hungry. These companies certainly don't build cleaners with us collectors in mind."

Overly complex Kirby....nozzle, fan, bag, motor......all them complex partz names just makes my head spin! How can a Kirby be overly complex? They've used a very similar design for decades, with the biggest changes being disposable bag systems and adding the TechDrive. And they're not stupid for buying a Kirby or a Dyson (depending on which model). Power hungry?!?! Last time I checked, the G series uses 7 amps. Most Dysons use 12 amps, but the DC24 uses 6.5 amps.

~Alex

 

[a007kirbyman]

Re: Just To Set The Record Straight

Regarding Jim (& Judy) Keeler's pity party...

"Oh poor me (us), I (we) am (are) being asked to 'prove' or 'validate my (our) claims. They don't take us at our word that we invented this or that item. Oh poor me (us). Boohoo, boohoo."


I am not going to speak for others' comments; however, I will for mine. If you go back & "re-read" my initial comments, it relates to his (Jim) claims of what he invented, period. Jim said in a prior post: "...Anyway hear are the facts..."

Most people [with common sense] (imho) would not buy/invest in something w/o seeing it (actual item); or seeing some valid proof (blueprints/Patents w/diagrams, etc.) of what it is or what it is capable of doing. I have "seen" NO FACTS, I have "heard" 'claims', NO PROOF.


*****Some individuals may be willing to buy into "The Emporer's New Clothes" program; however, I am not one of those people. (SEE LINK BELOW)

I was brought up to (attempt to) use common sense. If something 'smells fishy in Denmark' (or Sweden, Germany, US, etc. [incl. CANONSBURG, PA]), then BUYER BEWARE.

If you are not willing to provide any documantation (Patents), proving your claims of inventing what YOU said YOU did, then why in anybody's wildest dreams would you have us believe your 'other' claims about a 'different product' that is 'so wonderful' & that has "...ALL ARE POSITIVE, 100%..." feedback?


You (Judy) show me where any of that [my posts] is disrespectful!?!?!


And, I take issue with you lumping everyone together & then stating this or that... (blah, blah, blah), about ALL of them.

Address an individual directly. "THAT, WOULD BE RESPECTFUL."

Oops, on my cap lock.

Have a wonderful day.

http://www.rickwalton.com/folktale/yellow04.htm

 

[dualsanitronic]

Peace,love,sunshine

I just don't understand the hatred here. I don't like bagless at all and I love the balooning bag effect also. I would not like something like that, but some people would like this product for some apps. Can't we all get along and disagree agreeably? Jim seemed nice to me,I wish it wouldn't have ended this way. The world is full of wars and rage but "let there be peace on Earth and let it begin with me".Let's roast marshmallows in the campfire of life, not each other. I think Goldenboy's saying that some were heartless was true.

 

[lux1521]

"The IEC Standard figures I ‘threw out’ have nothing to do with Dyson at all, aside from the fact that they examine the performance of bagless cleaners. They were actually commissioned and published by Hoover for their UK ‘Airvolution’ multi-cyclonic range. So I’m not trying to deceive or mislead anyone by ‘...fail[ing] to tell what competing cleaner Dyson tested...’. Dyson don’t enter into the equation!"

The IEC Standard is only a test method. You left out a number of important figures including the vacuums used in the test, the surface areas of the filters, and the actual performance change caused but the filters inefficiency. Without more info, this data has little meaning. Who performed the test is quite irrelevant, when half the data is missing anyway.

"I should also add, Mr. Gasko certainly is an unrivalled authority on Dyson (and surely other brands as well!), so if his arguments - or those of Shanon or myself - tended to go on, it's because we know what we're talking about! We can usually respond to people's criticism with our own knowledge, or else know where to find the answers. I know it must make a change from the brainless 'Dyson r crap'-type comments, which I find on my YouTube videos every day, from people who, in your own words '...are closed minded when presented with new ideas..' "

The problem is the source of your knowledge. Its simply a restating of what Dyson (or anyone else) puts out. You need to try harder to challenge what Dyson releases. Even its performance measurements (air watts) are derived from other measurements and don't tell the complete story. I'd like to see some water lift and air flow measurements. Dyson also makes claims such as being completely free from maintenance, with no filters to replace and no belts to replace, which is clearly not true.

 

[lux1521]

"I responded to Keeler in the same tone he posted in. Read his first post and the posts that followed. He was clearly trying to sell his product to us and was not open to anyone's opinion on it. Had he given us some REAL information about the product and accepted that it does have it's flaws (as do a lot of things), I'm sure this thread would have been a much more positive discussion. Instead of coming on here and going "HEY LOOK AT MY PRODUCT, ISN'T IT WONDERFUL, EVERYONE SHOULD BUY ONE. THE PROOF IS IN MY EBAY FEEDBACK", he should've said "this is my product. this is what it does. it does this well but the drawback is this". And after he failed to answer any questions with a half decent answer and started to get patronizing once he found out I was younger than him, I lost my patience. Maybe it was rude and immature. But hey, I'm a ass hole sometimes."

Whats wrong with trying to sell a product. I'm sure we would all love it if we had an actual manufacture of vacuums as a forum member, but we don't, because they don't care that much about our opinions. You have to give him credit for trying something, which is more than many of us have done. All we do is sit around and post ideas about others designs. None of us are true insiders or designers.

There is nothing wrong with constructive feedback, but what happened was a complete dismissal of the entire concept. You should at the very least give the concept of a bagless Kirby a shot. It would not surprise me if Kirby built an bagless unit of their own in the near future.

 

[vacuumfreeeke]

Well, at least we had a little action here... Can't remember when we've had a thread with this many responses.

Fred, you handled that perfectly. And, thank you for not deleting me for being so mean to "Judy's" husband! LOL

I still don't think anyone was mean or out of line, people just stated their opinion!

 

[lux1521]

Rolls_rapide:

I clearly understand the idea of a cyclonic bagless system. What Mr. Keeler designed was more like a Shop Vac than anything else. Its great if you have substantial dense partials to pick up, and drastically decreases in performance with finer materials.

What is original about Mr. Keelers designs, is the application. No high end, metal, fan first, side discharge, self propelled, full size cleaner has ever been marketed with such a system, and no conversion has ever been offered for mainstream consumption.

If he had used Dyson style cyclonic technology, chances are you would have still pushed the issue and accused him of stealing the idea. There is no way he could win.

 

[eurekaprince]

I think what irked many of us about Mr. Keeler was...

that it seemed his first priority was to use Vacuumland to sell his product for profitable purposes. I have no idea whether his product is good or not, or whether it is worth the cost he is charging. And I imagine he feels quite proud of something he worked on. That's not the problem. The problem is seeing the citizens of Vacuumland solely as potential purchasers of his device.

Besides discussing vacs and sharing stories about our common hobby, we all use the forum as a way of easily acquiring vacs we love and parts we need. I don't think any of us intends to use the forum as way of making a financial profit. Even when I mentioned the appearance of a beautiful vintage vac on EBay, I had no connection to the seller and had no vested interest in seeing the seller make a profit. I just thought that I was doing the group a favour by shining a light on something they might have not otherwise known about.

If Mr. Keeler really was interested in enhancing the collections of our group, he could offer to send free units to any Kirby-lover who is interested.

Just my two amps worth.....

 

[veroroger]

For Dualsanitronic

Thank you - I was beginning to believe I'm the only one reading these posts who finds the hatred and vindictiveness far out of control. It reminded me of posts in the old Vacuum Cleaner Forum before that left.

Now, I've never claimed to be the brightest bulb in the light fixture, but even I could see the initial post as shameless huckstering for Mr. Keeler's product. I had intended to post when I initially read this concerning that but the other posts had already started and, to be honest, I was fascinated to see how far this would go. I read with interest Fred Nelson's post concerning the email received from someone claiming to be Mrs. Keeler and his answer. Even he had reservations concerning what is going on. As webmaster, he made the decision to allow them to continue. I'm not sure I agree with that as the personal attacks really have no place on this forum - this has gone way off track from a discussion over the merits or defects in the collection system made by Mr. Keeler.

It has gotten to the point where I'm reading this not for information but entertainment. Wondering who would be the next to join in the "witch hunt". It does seem like there are several posting here who have the mentality of "my way or the highway". And, before you begin jumping on me, I do agree that there are several valid questions asked of Mr. Keeler which have not been answered or the answers make no sense.

However, to get back to my original point, I'm sorry I didn't take the time to post concerning what I saw as trying to sell a product here. Maybe that post would have shut down this thread and saved a lot of people anger.

 

[lux1521]

"Overly complex Kirby....nozzle, fan, bag, motor......all them complex partz names just makes my head spin! How can a Kirby be overly complex? They've used a very similar design for decades, with the biggest changes being disposable bag systems and adding the TechDrive. And they're not stupid for buying a Kirby or a Dyson (depending on which model). Power hungry?!?! Last time I checked, the G series uses 7 amps. Most Dysons use 12 amps, but the DC24 uses 6.5 amps."

The Kirby is a complex machine from an end user standpoint. Any cleaner that requires a multi-hour in home demo, and a instruction video in addition to the manual is clearly complex!

Yes the Dyson is power hungry. Nearly double the power to do the same task as an old Eureka with a VGII could do, or dust bare floors and upholstry as well as an old Electrolux. The only benefit is it cleans just fine until you fill the bin.

Now I don't see Mr. Keeler's post as a sales pitch, it was a defense after what has already been said in the past about his device. Perhaps he thought we might be interested (not in buying, but just interested) and look at what happened.

 

[compactelectra]

Let Me Jump In Here

I welcome this dialogue. I have been hoping that the forum would evolve into a place where people can give their honest opinions without fear of nasty retribution. Glad to see some honest dialogue here. Keep it up. Lord knows I have had my challenges keeping this forum up and running in spite of some serious initial attacks. The earlier vacuum forums have gone down in a ball of flames, but this one survives. Let's keep the respectful and honest discussions going.

Fred

 

[joe22]

have you seen, he sells rebuilt kirbys, finished in black with the bagless feature. very nice looking, have thought about adding one to the collection. g3 and g4's. and they have an outlet for a powerhead (?????) for use in the canister mode. really, ck his various sites. joe

 

[rolls_rapide]

"What is original about Mr. Keelers designs, is the application. No high end, metal, fan first, side discharge, self propelled, full size cleaner has ever been marketed with such a system, and no conversion has ever been offered for mainstream consumption."

Who cares if it is "high end" or low end? (irrelevant).
Who cares if it is "metal" or plastic? (irrelevant).
Who cares if it is "side discharge" or centre discharge? (irrelevant).

The important point is that "fan first" non-cyclonic, bagless technology has been done before, and proved to be ineffective in action.

 

[lux1521]

"Who cares if it is "high end" or low end? (irrelevant)."

A high end cleaner will outlast its competition. Just look at how many refurbished Dysons you can find on the internet, and even through Dyson itself. I'd assume you could find a horror story behind nearly every one of them, or they would have lasted with the original owner.

"Who cares if it is "metal" or plastic? (irrelevant)."

Same reason. Why do you think a lot of people buy Kirbys in the first place.

Basically what you are saying is similar to saying something like "the first power nozzle for canisters is irrelevant because it lacks beater bars, so its been outdated since 1927, and is completely irrelevant." Your ripping the entire concept over a detail. Like I said earlier, if he used Dyson style separation, people would still have a problem with it, so he can't win.

 

[rolls_rapide]

Lux1521

Dear God Almighty! I never mentioned bloody cylinder cleaners or power nozzles!

I was saying that he used an ancient failed technology - it's obsolete, because it was found to be inefficient. Been there, done that - period.

He used it on a Kirby - so what. He could have used it on a Sanitaire, or a Royal or a Hoover or an Oreck direct air machine. In any case, the thinking is flawed. That bagless design will strangle whichever of the cleaners' performance.

 

[lux1521]

Its quite obvious that I was working towards an example.

What I'm really trying to get at is a bagless Kirby is not a bad concept. Does the Keeler design have problems, sure, but the concept is not without purpose, and even in its current state has its uses.

 

[rolls_rapide]

"...a bagless Kirby is not a bad concept."

No, that much is true. However, with direct airflow, it is a bad concept.

For a Kirby machine to become bagless, it would have to become totally redesigned and that means adopting the 'clean air' principle. Simply sticking a plastic tube and filter on the old design will not work efficiently.