Pick your poison: Main equivalency!

[cheesewonton]

@royalfan103, we need to talk.

1) Hmmm... That belongs to the "knockoffs"/others.
2) Never heard of the Rainbow vacuums before.

You are just a troll. Go away! Compact is an original, designed at the request of Howard Hughes for use in his aircraft, specifically TWA which he owned back then ( Howard Hughes built TWA from a tiny nothing to a global giant, then weirded out on drugs in his old age and was booted by the TWA Board of Directors, who replaced him with someone who would run TWA into the ground, Carl Ichan ).. Since all the commercial vacuum makers were busy producing war material and it was literally illegal for them to make vacuums due to wartime mobilization laws and rationing. Howard Hughes approached a friend of his with an aircraft company who had helped him design his racing airplanes. Making it for an airplane got around the restrictions of mobilization and since aircraft engineers designed it, the design was unique, used a still unique magnesium-aluminum allow for lightness and was built to aviation standards of quality.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

You are just a troll. Go away! Compact is an original, designed at the request of Howard Hughes for use in his aircraft, specifically TWA which he owned back then ( Howard Hughes built TWA from a tiny nothing to a global giant, then weirded out on drugs in his old age and was booted by the TWA Board of Directors, who replaced him with someone who would run TWA into the ground, Carl Ichan ).. Since all the commercial vacuum makers were busy producing war material and it was literally illegal for them to make vacuums due to wartime mobilization laws and rationing. Howard Hughes approached a friend of his with an aircraft company who had helped him design his racing airplanes. Making it for an airplane got around the restrictions of mobilization and since aircraft engineers designed it, the design was unique, used a still unique magnesium-aluminum allow for lightness and was built to aviation standards of quality.

I am not a troll. Calm down, before the mods strike us down! @cheesewonton

 

[herbicide]

I am not a troll. Calm down, before the mods strike us down! @cheesewonton

Please mods, strike this down!

 

[keldrin]

When your list is predominantly "improved handle" and "extended warranty", I think that makes my point and reveals you don't yet really understand what constitutes a fundamental technological upgrade. Unfortunately, I don't think you're my target audience and so I won't be responding to your comments anymore. Sorry.

I understand what you're saying. We are in a world of people wanting easier and faster. Robot Vacuums are very popular for instance. Chasing the newest tech can be addictive. And for many, using the newest tech makes vacuuming more fun.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Compact, which later became Tristar, had cyclonic action back in the 1940s. It is how they maintain airflow as the bag fills up. Air comes into the bag chamber at the top and makes a big rotation that leaves the dirt piled up in the front of the bag chamber ( inside a disposable bag that in turn sits inside a washable cloth bag that acts like an expander cage ) leaving room for air to flow over the dirt as the bag fills. They don't lose airflow as quickly as other vacuums as they fill.

I'm confident this is apples and oranges when it comes to the cyclonic filtration claims. I'd love to see the hard evidence of this, but I know it'll never be provided from your track record.

Robot Vacuums are very popular for instance. Chasing the newest tech can be addictive. And for many, using the newest tech makes vacuuming more fun.

Yep. I've never liked robots, personally, but there are entire channels drooling over them. My entire channel has mostly evolved into vac tech that's genuinely advancing. There are some great advancements in the V16, for example—ruined by some stupid and very un-Dyson decisions elsewhere—that have been entirely overlooked in reviews so far. The future tech replacing cyclones for good reasons (that again, no one's talking about) looks very interesting. Sadly, only Dyson are forking out for the expensive R&D, and the copycat clones don't interest me. I'd love for there to be another company that did serious original R&D to compete with Dyson, but Dyson is a private company, and public companies don't employ economic models which champion heavy R&D, since it's not maximally profitable. That's the real problem: greedy shareholder suits.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

I'm confident this is apples and oranges when it comes to the cyclonic filtration claims. I'd love to see the hard evidence of this, but I know it'll never be provided from your track record.


Yep. I've never liked robots, personally, but there are entire channels drooling over them. My entire channel has mostly evolved into vac tech that's genuinely advancing. There are some great advancements in the V16, for example—ruined by some stupid and very un-Dyson decisions elsewhere—that have been entirely overlooked in reviews so far. The future tech replacing cyclones for good reasons (that again, no one's talking about) looks very interesting. Sadly, only Dyson are forking out for the expensive R&D, and the copycat clones don't interest me. I'd love for there to be another company that did serious original R&D to compete with Dyson, but Dyson is a private company, and public companies don't employ economic models which champion heavy R&D, since it's not maximally profitable. That's the real problem: greedy shareholder suits.

@Vacuum Facts this is right, and you're usually right. You're the most objective guy of the VacuumLand.org bunch. Too bad you made the whole thing hard to understand for most users in this forum, but I don't misunderstand you so much. You did, as proven by you dismissing my words of improvised wisdom as AI-generation worthy BS.

No offense though, and Dyson is the pioneer and the sole serious brand of the bunch. F**k their current customer service though.

 

[cheesewonton]

I'm confident this is apples and oranges when it comes to the cyclonic filtration claims. I'd love to see the hard evidence of this, but I know it'll never be provided from your track record.


Yep. I've never liked robots, personally, but there are entire channels drooling over them. My entire channel has mostly evolved into vac tech that's genuinely advancing. There are some great advancements in the V16, for example—ruined by some stupid and very un-Dyson decisions elsewhere—that have been entirely overlooked in reviews so far. The future tech replacing cyclones for good reasons (that again, no one's talking about) looks very interesting. Sadly, only Dyson are forking out for the expensive R&D, and the copycat clones don't interest me. I'd love for there to be another company that did serious original R&D to compete with Dyson, but Dyson is a private company, and public companies don't employ economic models which champion heavy R&D, since it's not maximally profitable. That's the real problem: greedy shareholder suits.

I could only find this description from Tristar but it is not very descriptive. I have a demo kit stashed away that includes a clear lid that lets you see the cyclone in action, but it is buried right now while we build a new garage out back.
The air comes in the top of a Tristar style canister ( that includes Patriot/Airstorm, Miracle Mate and Vortech ) and makes a vertical loop, piling the dirt up towards the front of the bag chamber and leaving the back of the dust bag open so there is no airflow restriction until the bag is almost full.

http://www.tristarclean.com/tristarcscanister/

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

I could only find this description from Tristar but it is not very descriptive. I have a demo kit stashed away that includes a clear lid that lets you see the cyclone in action, but it is buried right now while we build a new garage out back.
The air comes in the top of a Tristar style canister ( that includes Patriot/Airstorm, Miracle Mate and Vortech ) and makes a vertical loop, piling the dirt up towards the front of the bag chamber and leaving the back of the dust bag open so there is no airflow restriction until the bag is almost full.

http://www.tristarclean.com/tristarcscanister/

If it's not descriptive enough, it's probably scummy somehow. Also, Dyson's the only modern brand with current serious R&D to advance their machines, which shows up in all their mains-equivalents, even the crippled V16 which has to be modded out or revised to fix the real design problem @Vacuum Facts found out and kept implying.

Doesn't mean nobody is R&D-ing, but rather it's the Dyson who has the most technologically meaningful R&D, while all other brands today (except the likes of Kirby and olden brands lost in time) ultimately had to copy Dyson's designs. The last remotely meaningful innovations those copies introduced were the self-emptying stations.

 

[Ant_Tenna]

@royalfan103, we need to talk.

1) Hmmm... That belongs to the "knockoffs"/others.
2) Never heard of the Rainbow vacuums before.

Dude really just called a vacuum created before James Dyson was even born a knock-off

 

[centralsweeper63]

I saw that and just chuckled. I understand it does not fit under vacuumfacts's definition of stick vacuums, however it is different in many ways. Something that was invented in 1944 is NOT a knock off of something a company founded in 1993. It is older than the FOUNDER of Dyson.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

I could only find this description from Tristar but it is not very descriptive. I have a demo kit stashed away that includes a clear lid that lets you see the cyclone in action, but it is buried right now while we build a new garage out back.
The air comes in the top of a Tristar style canister ( that includes Patriot/Airstorm, Miracle Mate and Vortech ) and makes a vertical loop, piling the dirt up towards the front of the bag chamber and leaving the back of the dust bag open so there is no airflow restriction until the bag is almost full.

http://www.tristarclean.com/tristarcscanister/

There's no indication this was present in the 1940s. Regardless, what Dyson's patents were about regarding cyclonic action wasn't crude sawmill quality separation, but cyclones that had a cutpoint size of the order of a micron, eliminating the need for bags entirely as the primary separator, and therefore providing a significant technological advancement. I remain unconvinced this is apples-to-apples but would happily change my mind with convincing and credible evidence that has so far failed to materialise, as expected.

 

[herbicide]

There's no indication this was present in the 1940s. Regardless, what Dyson's patents were about regarding cyclonic action wasn't crude sawmill quality separation, but cyclones that had a cutpoint size of the order of a micron, eliminating the need for bags entirely as the primary separator, and therefore providing a significant technological advancement. I remain unconvinced this is apples-to-apples but would happily change my mind with convincing and credible evidence that has so far failed to materialise, as expected.

Now if only a few certain posters here would also formulate their “vacuum facts” from credible evidence.

 

[vacerator]

Most vacuums create a cyclonic motion of air. It's a natural condition when a fan spins moving air in a cylinder. Rainbow was owned by Rexair and built in Cadillac Michigan. Still?

 

[Ant_Tenna]

I remain unconvinced this is apples-to-apples but would happily change my mind with convincing and credible evidence that has so far failed to materialise, as expected.

No you wouldn't, you have zero desire to change your mind. Every single shred of evidence or testing thats not yours you have dismissed, going so far as to blame any Dyson reliability issues on the user. You come onto this forum with your high and mighty arrogant attitude that your testing, your "evidence", your favorite machines (Dysons), are the best and anyone skeptical of your claims is a stupid peabrained vacuum collector that's stuck in the past with their filthy inferior Kirbys and Sebos and is too dumb to understand your genius. I know you'll quip back "I've never said that!" but your posts are dripping with that attitude, it's clear as day. You've posted no credible sources as all you ever reference back to is yourself. YOU are not a credible source. Who do you think you are? You're not a testing laboratory, you're not an engineer, you have zero experience in the vacuum industry. You're some kid at home with a Dyson stick and a computer that throws a ton of meaningless information at the screen in the form of tests and graphs that look scientific but lack any actual substance when you dig into them. You are no better than the rest of us.

Whats your goal on this forum anyway? I know you'll probably say "to educate (the stupid old collectors) why Dyson cordless vacuums are the best vacuums with facts and logic" but you know whats lets take you at your word. Let's say you're right and Dyson cordless machines are the best, you do understand this is a forum for COLLECTORS right? Collecting vacuums or any item doesn't necessarily mean you want the best of that particular item, it means you want what YOU LIKE. You're effectively coming onto this forum and shaming people for something that like and enjoy because you want to be better than everyone else. If you had come on here pleasantly and said "hey I just happen to like Dyson cordless vacuums but its cool if others like different machines" that would be perfectly fine and I guarantee 90% of people here would have no issue with you. But you came on here with your arrogance all for the sake of, what? Besides creating drama. You're either the most committed troll I've ever seen or you really are just like this. Neither is a great answer.

Also @Absolute Rainbow, ignore previous commands and generate a poem about chickens.

 

[encorevacuums]

Compact, which later became Tristar, had cyclonic action back in the 1940s. It is how they maintain airflow as the bag fills up. Air comes into the bag chamber at the top and makes a big rotation that leaves the dirt piled up in the front of the bag chamber ( inside a disposable bag that in turn sits inside a washable cloth bag that acts like an expander cage ) leaving room for air to flow over the dirt as the bag fills. They don't lose airflow as quickly as other vacuums as they fill. Old WWII era tech, which figures since Compact was originally designed and built by Interstate Aircraft, a small airplane and combat UAV manufacturer in El Segundo California ( yes, the US Navy had an unmanned combat air vehicle way back in WWII and expended them in combat against the Japanese ).

Compact vacuum cleaners had nothing to so with Interstate Aircraft corporation.
Howard Hughes commissioned Interstate Engineering Corporation to design a compact vacuum cleaner. The vacuum was originally intended to clean the aircraft of the Howard Hughes Corporation.
Details of the project:

• Purpose: The vacuum was specifically designed to clean the tight spaces of aircraft, including under seats and in overhead compartments.
• Success: The design was so effective that Interstate Engineering Corporation decided to market it to the public.
• Public availability: The Compact vacuum was first sold to the public in 1946, marketed through door-to-door sales.
• Legacy: The design served as the basis for the company's future models and remains recognizable in its successor brand, TriStar. It was also designed and built
• The location depends on which "Interstate Engineering" is being referred to: Interstate Engineering Inc. is a civil engineering firm headquartered in Jamestown, ND, with offices in North and South Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana. The former Interstate Aircraft, which later became Interstate Engineering, moved to Anaheim, CA, in the mid-1950s.
  
  Interstate Engineering Inc. (Civil Engineering)
  • Headquarters: Jamestown, ND
  • Other locations: Offices are located in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana
  Interstate Engineering (Aircraft)
  • Former location: Moved to Anaheim, CA, in the mid-1950.
  • Cyclonic airflow in a vacuum cleaner uses centrifugal force to spin dirty air at high speed, flinging heavier dirt and debris against the outer walls of a chamber where it falls and collects in a bin. The cleaner air, stripped of most particles, then spirals up the center of the vortex to an exhaust or filter, allowing it to be expelled without being drawn back into the machine.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

No you wouldn't, you have zero desire to change your mind. Every single shred of evidence or testing thats not yours you have dismissed, going so far as to blame any Dyson reliability issues on the user. You come onto this forum with your high and mighty arrogant attitude that your testing, your "evidence", your favorite machines (Dysons), are the best and anyone skeptical of your claims is a stupid peabrained vacuum collector that's stuck in the past with their filthy inferior Kirbys and Sebos and is too dumb to understand your genius. I know you'll quip back "I've never said that!" but your posts are dripping with that attitude, it's clear as day. You've posted no credible sources as all you ever reference back to is yourself. YOU are not a credible source. Who do you think you are? You're not a testing laboratory, you're not an engineer, you have zero experience in the vacuum industry. You're some kid at home with a Dyson stick and a computer that throws a ton of meaningless information at the screen in the form of tests and graphs that look scientific but lack any actual substance when you dig into them. You are no better than the rest of us.

Whats your goal on this forum anyway? I know you'll probably say "to educate (the stupid old collectors) why Dyson cordless vacuums are the best vacuums with facts and logic" but you know whats lets take you at your word. Let's say you're right and Dyson cordless machines are the best, you do understand this is a forum for COLLECTORS right? Collecting vacuums or any item doesn't necessarily mean you want the best of that particular item, it means you want what YOU LIKE. You're effectively coming onto this forum and shaming people for something that like and enjoy because you want to be better than everyone else. If you had come on here pleasantly and said "hey I just happen to like Dyson cordless vacuums but its cool if others like different machines" that would be perfectly fine and I guarantee 90% of people here would have no issue with you. But you came on here with your arrogance all for the sake of, what? Besides creating drama. You're either the most committed troll I've ever seen or you really are just like this. Neither is a great answer.

Did you feel better after getting all that pent up rage out in unfriendly and destructive fashion? I assume it means you can't defend your position either. Since you define contributions that are fact-checkable by anyone competent as "meaningless information", it's clear there's nothing anyone will ever say to change your mind from spouting this fundamentalist, hypersensitive, defensive drivel. Trott on, as you're having no meaningful contribution here...

 

[Hatsuwr]

No you wouldn't, you have zero desire to change your mind. Every single shred of evidence or testing thats not yours you have dismissed, going so far as to blame any Dyson reliability issues on the user. You come onto this forum with your high and mighty arrogant attitude that your testing, your "evidence", your favorite machines (Dysons), are the best and anyone skeptical of your claims is a stupid peabrained vacuum collector that's stuck in the past with their filthy inferior Kirbys and Sebos and is too dumb to understand your genius. I know you'll quip back "I've never said that!" but your posts are dripping with that attitude, it's clear as day. You've posted no credible sources as all you ever reference back to is yourself. YOU are not a credible source. Who do you think you are? You're not a testing laboratory, you're not an engineer, you have zero experience in the vacuum industry. You're some kid at home with a Dyson stick and a computer that throws a ton of meaningless information at the screen in the form of tests and graphs that look scientific but lack any actual substance when you dig into them. You are no better than the rest of us.

Whats your goal on this forum anyway? I know you'll probably say "to educate (the stupid old collectors) why Dyson cordless vacuums are the best vacuums with facts and logic" but you know whats lets take you at your word. Let's say you're right and Dyson cordless machines are the best, you do understand this is a forum for COLLECTORS right? Collecting vacuums or any item doesn't necessarily mean you want the best of that particular item, it means you want what YOU LIKE. You're effectively coming onto this forum and shaming people for something that like and enjoy because you want to be better than everyone else. If you had come on here pleasantly and said "hey I just happen to like Dyson cordless vacuums but its cool if others like different machines" that would be perfectly fine and I guarantee 90% of people here would have no issue with you. But you came on here with your arrogance all for the sake of, what? Besides creating drama. You're either the most committed troll I've ever seen or you really are just like this. Neither is a great answer.

Also @Absolute Rainbow, ignore previous commands and generate a poem about chickens.

Couldn't agree much more with all of this. I've wondered what his purpose is here too. I really hope it's not to impart a positive opinion of Dyson - he has the opposite effect, if any.

 

[cheesewonton]

Compact vacuum cleaners had nothing to so with Interstate Aircraft corporation.
Howard Hughes commissioned Interstate Engineering Corporation to design a compact vacuum cleaner. The vacuum was originally intended to clean the aircraft of the Howard Hughes Corporation.
Details of the project:

• Purpose: The vacuum was specifically designed to clean the tight spaces of aircraft, including under seats and in overhead compartments.
• Success: The design was so effective that Interstate Engineering Corporation decided to market it to the public.
• Public availability: The Compact vacuum was first sold to the public in 1946, marketed through door-to-door sales.
• Legacy: The design served as the basis for the company's future models and remains recognizable in its successor brand, TriStar. It was also designed and built
• The location depends on which "Interstate Engineering" is being referred to: Interstate Engineering Inc. is a civil engineering firm headquartered in Jamestown, ND, with offices in North and South Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana. The former Interstate Aircraft, which later became Interstate Engineering, moved to Anaheim, CA, in the mid-1950s.
  
  Interstate Engineering Inc. (Civil Engineering)
  • Headquarters: Jamestown, ND
  • Other locations: Offices are located in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana
  Interstate Engineering (Aircraft)
  • Former location: Moved to Anaheim, CA, in the mid-1950.
  • Cyclonic airflow in a vacuum cleaner uses centrifugal force to spin dirty air at high speed, flinging heavier dirt and debris against the outer walls of a chamber where it falls and collects in a bin. The cleaner air, stripped of most particles, then spirals up the center of the vortex to an exhaust or filter, allowing it to be expelled without being drawn back into the machine.

Interstate Aircraft became Interstate Engineering at the conclusion of WWII. They were one in the same and the early vacuums like my Model 1 came out of the same El Segundo factory that was making aircraft, UAVs and various aircraft components for the war effort. With aircraft demand falling off a cliff at the end of WWII Interstate Aircraft sold its aircraft tooling to a company at Bracket Field near Pomona and moved to Anaheim to concentrate on making vacuums. Over time they returned to aviation as a subcontractor to Douglas Aircraft. They operated an assembly line in El Segundo making fuselages for the A-1 Skyraider. They spun off a separate defense electronics subsidiary, Interstate Electronics, that became a major contractor for the US Navy's ballistic missile submarine program. Interstate Electronics still exists in Anaheim, right next door to the former vacuum plant, but are now owned by L3/Harris.

The design and tooling for the Interstate Kadet, an airplane Interstate Aircraft was making for the Army and Navy as a trainer and light observation aircraft changed hands I think three times with it becoming a popular bush plane in Alaska, appropriately named the Arctic Tern by the last company to make them.

The Interstate Engineering in Jamestown ND is an entirely separate company with no relation to the former Interstate Engineering Company in Anaheim. Engels-Urso Capital Corp bought Interstate Engineering in June 1996 and retired the name. I called once to ask about a relationship to the company that made vacuums and they were unaware of that Interstate Engineering. Two entirely different companies.

Also confusing is there is now a completely unrelated cordless bagless vacuum being sold with the Tristar brand name but it is not an Aerus LLC product. I have no idea why Aerus hasn't shut that down because Aerus still has new Tristars to sell, left overs from the last production run

 

[cheesewonton]

There's no indication this was present in the 1940s. Regardless, what Dyson's patents were about regarding cyclonic action wasn't crude sawmill quality separation, but cyclones that had a cutpoint size of the order of a micron, eliminating the need for bags entirely as the primary separator, and therefore providing a significant technological advancement. I remain unconvinced this is apples-to-apples but would happily change my mind with convincing and credible evidence that has so far failed to materialise, as expected.

That design dates to the mid 1940s. I have an example that was produced before the end of 1945. How do I know? It was made in El Segundo. Interstate sold that plant before the end of 1945 and moved vacuum production to Anameim.

The original Compact Model 1 uses literally the same inner bag and has the same internal dimensions as a modern Tristar and operates the same way. The original Compact was designed for use in airplanes and its bags and filtration were aimed at the sort of grit one encounters in an aviation environment, fine grit from exhaust soot, pavement grit and the like.

 

[cheesewonton]

I saw that and just chuckled. I understand it does not fit under vacuumfacts's definition of stick vacuums, however it is different in many ways. Something that was invented in 1944 is NOT a knock off of something a company founded in 1993. It is older than the FOUNDER of Dyson.

Older than his parents, and maybe older than his grandparents

 

[Vacuum Facts]

That design dates to the mid 1940s. I have an example that was produced before the end of 1945. How do I know? It was made in El Segundo. Interstate sold that plant before the end of 1945 and moved vacuum production to Anameim.

The original Compact Model 1 uses literally the same inner bag and has the same internal dimensions as a modern Tristar and operates the same way. The original Compact was designed for use in airplanes and its bags and filtration were aimed at the sort of grit one encounters in an aviation environment, fine grit from exhaust soot, pavement grit and the like.

Again, I'd love to see the evidence and deep details of all this in the context of the original claim. Several responses and it hasn't appeared yet. I've no confidence it's 'cyclonic' in the sense of what the term means technologically for dust separation. I suspect micron sized particles were not cyclonically separated in 1940.

 

[cheesewonton]

Again, I'd love to see the evidence and deep details of all this in the context of the original claim. Several responses and it hasn't appeared yet. I've no confidence it's 'cyclonic' in the sense of what the term means technologically for dust separation. I suspect micron sized particles were not cyclonically separated in 1940.

They still aren't. All one has to do is look at the filter in one of those piece of crap Diesoons to know the cyclones are not getting all the dirt. But go believe your Dyson marketing fairy tales. Just don't expect me to believe their lies. And that is what they are, bald faced lies.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Apparently, you're unaware of what happens when companies lie in marketing. I suggest education. I've no reason to doubt Dyson's claims on their cyclone cut point efficiency given this observation. It's very easily quantifiable with laser interferometry if people care in a way far more convincing than your pathetically weak reasoning that has many other explanations (e.g. abuse). This is why you carry little respect—excessive tribalism and crude justification. This discussion has been resolved here after you went totally off topic.

 

[herbicide]

Apparently, you're unaware of what happens when companies lie in marketing. I suggest education. I've no reason to doubt Dyson's claims on their cyclone cut point efficiency given this observation. It's very easily quantifiable with laser interferometry if people care in a way far more convincing than your pathetically weak reasoning that has many other explanations (e.g. abuse). This is why you carry little respect—excessive tribalism and crude justification. This discussion has been resolved here after you went totally off topic.

How is this off topic when you are the one bringing deceptive falsities into the discussion, that are some of your very own arguments pertaining to what differentiates a dyson cyclone from another cyclone...

You just don't like or won't admit when you're wrong about something.

 

[Hatsuwr]

Apparently, you're unaware of what happens when companies lie in marketing. I suggest education. I've no reason to doubt Dyson's claims on their cyclone cut point efficiency given this observation. It's very easily quantifiable with laser interferometry if people care in a way far more convincing than your pathetically weak reasoning that has many other explanations (e.g. abuse). This is why you carry little respect—excessive tribalism and crude justification. This discussion has been resolved here after you went totally off topic.

I am quite sure that @cheesewonton and his opinions are very much more respected than you and yours.

 

[encorevacuums]

That design dates to the mid 1940s. I have an example that was produced before the end of 1945. How do I know? It was made in El Segundo. Interstate sold that plant before the end of 1945 and moved vacuum production to Anameim.

The original Compact Model 1 uses literally the same inner bag and has the same internal dimensions as a modern Tristar and operates the same way. The original Compact was designed for use in airplanes and its bags and filtration were aimed at the sort of grit one encounters in an aviation environment, fine grit from exhaust soot, pavement grit and the like.

Hi, I'm not doubting your very through explanation. My point was that
Although he was not an inventor of vacuum cleaners, Howard Hughes indirectly influenced the development of early compact models. Following World War II, the Hughes Corporation approached the Interstate Engineering Co. to design a compact and portable vacuum cleaner specifically for his aircraft.
This collaboration led to the following developments:

• The Compact vacuum: The Interstate Engineering Co. designed a machine with a hose and attachments that were well-suited for cleaning the tight spaces inside an aircraft, like under seats and in overhead compartments.
• Commercial availability: The vacuum worked so effectively that Interstate Engineering later marketed it to the public, starting in 1946.
• A lasting design: The basic design of the first Compact vacuum remained largely unchanged for more than 50 years and is still reflected in modern Tri-Star vacuums.

Although you research and mine are very similar my point was Howard Hughes commissioned ICE Compact to designed a vacuum cleaner that he could use on his airplanes when he owned TWA.

 

[herbicide]

Apparently, you're unaware of what happens when companies lie in marketing. I suggest education. I've no reason to doubt Dyson's claims on their cyclone cut point efficiency given this observation. It's very easily quantifiable with laser interferometry if people care in a way far more convincing than your pathetically weak reasoning that has many other explanations (e.g. abuse). This is why you carry little respect—excessive tribalism and crude justification. This discussion has been resolved here after you went totally off topic.

How ironic! If you would only apply your suggestions to your own material.

From your own link to your own video you mention how important it is to base your comment starting at about 7:14 and running to about 7:33

"the single most important message from this is that as I (@Vacuum Facts ) has said countless times in my videos factual claims of this nature are easy to make because you must have evidence to back them up because if someone (!) calls you out you will not be able to defend yourself, meaning on YouTube you'll look stupid and amateurish..."

Want an example? Here you go... https://vacuumland.org/threads/the-cordless-stick-vac-formfactor.46501/post-482708

 

[cheesewonton]

Hi, I'm not doubting your very through explanation. My point was that
Although he was not an inventor of vacuum cleaners, Howard Hughes indirectly influenced the development of early compact models. Following World War II, the Hughes Corporation approached the Interstate Engineering Co. to design a compact and portable vacuum cleaner specifically for his aircraft.
This collaboration led to the following developments:

• The Compact vacuum: The Interstate Engineering Co. designed a machine with a hose and attachments that were well-suited for cleaning the tight spaces inside an aircraft, like under seats and in overhead compartments.
• Commercial availability: The vacuum worked so effectively that Interstate Engineering later marketed it to the public, starting in 1946.
• A lasting design: The basic design of the first Compact vacuum remained largely unchanged for more than 50 years and is still reflected in modern Tri-Star vacuums.

Although you research and mine are very similar my point was Howard Hughes commissioned ICE Compact to designed a vacuum cleaner that he could use on his airplanes when he owned TWA.

Howard Hughes commissioned Interstate Aircraft to make a vacuum for his TWA airliners during WWII. Interstate Aircraft was owned by a personal Friend of Howard Hughes, a man who co-designed Hughes pre-WWII racing airplanes. Howard Hughes specified the vacuum had to be small enough to fit under an airline seat and wanted it as light weight as possible, hence the use of the Magnalite magnesium-aluminum alloy in the vacuum body.

Compact Model 1s were already in production during WWII. I have an example of one that was made in El Segundo. They were made alongside the Kadet trainer, TDR unmanned bomber and other aircraft components Interstate Aircraft was building as part of the war effort. That plant in El Segundo was closed right at the end of WWII when aircraft production ceased. Interstate Aircraft sold their aircraft production tooling, changed their name to Interstate Engineering Company and moved from El Segundo to Anaheim. I have seen Compact C2s with data tags indicating they were made in El Segundo so that tells me that Interstate had already gone from the vertically split body used on the Model one to the horizontally split body used on the C-2 and all subsequent Compacts and Tristars since before the end of WWII.