Who really invented the cyclonic vacuum cleaner?

[Absolute Rainbow]

The title is the question in this case. It's been widely accepted that Dyson have invented the cyclonic vacuum cleaner, but the likes of @cheesewonton didn't accept that and said that Rexair was the first cyclonic vacuum cleaner. More source (including AI, as started down the quote though you guys can try correcting it) however suggested that Filter Queen was the first cyclonic vacuum cleaner.

We have:
- 1926: Rexair, the supposed cyclonic originator, but in 1936, it's finalized as water-based vacuum cleaner. It has cylindrical bin, and it's very likely the first bagless vacuum cleaner ever.
- 1939: Filter Queen, the ur-example, with conical separator instead of water... but doesn't have nearly enough centrifugal force to do the job properly (especially without enough airflow) because of wide and short cone, and thus relies a lot on filters.
- 1983: Dyson invented the multi-cyclonic (a cylindrical bin like Rexair, and thinner and longer version of FQ's cone, now packs in multiples), or ultimately true cyclonic vacuum cleaner, as in the ones that's less reliant on filters than previous designs thanks to immense centrifugal force. And way less likely to clog and lose suction, if used carefully.
- All three designs are somewhat inspired by industrial cyclones for factories, and they all still exist in the market to this day, with various advancements in the process (most notably Dyson, as the likes of @Vacuum Facts can attest).

You're right that there's confusion, and the answer is more nuanced than a simple "either/or." Neither of the common beliefs is entirely correct, as they mistake different types of technology.
Here’s the breakdown of who invented what:
1. Rexair (Rainbow)
Rexair was not a cyclonic vacuum. The confusion comes from its "separator," which it did have very early on (the company dates to the 1920s). However, its technology, finalized in 1936, is water-based filtration.
* How it works: It sucks air and debris into a high-speed separator that mixes everything with a basin of water. The dust and dirt are trapped in the water (as their slogan says, "Wet Dust Can't Fly!™").
* Conclusion: This is a bagless system, but it filters with water, not with the dry centrifugal force of a cyclone.
2. James Dyson
James Dyson invented the first dual-cyclone (or multi-cyclone) bagless vacuum. His breakthrough, inspired by industrial sawmill cyclones in the late 1970s and 1980s, was figuring out how to make cyclones efficient enough to separate microscopic dust without a bag or filter that clogs and loses suction.
* How it works: It uses a high-speed vortex (the cyclone) to spin air. Centrifugal force throws heavy dirt and debris to the outside of a bin. His key innovation was adding a second, or multiple, smaller cyclones that spin even faster, generating immense G-forces to separate fine dust particles from the air.
* Conclusion: Dyson's claim to fame is inventing the specific multi-cyclone technology that makes modern bagless vacuums work effectively without losing suction.
3. The Actual First Cyclonic Vacuum: Filter Queen
The title for the first company to patent and sell a cyclonic vacuum for home use actually goes to the P.A. Geier Company of Cleveland, Ohio, which patented its design in 1928.
This company was later sold to Health-Mor, which began producing the Filter Queen in 1939.
* How it works: The Filter Queen uses "cyclonic action" (a single, large cone) to spin and separate the heaviest debris. However, its design still relies on a series of filter cones to capture the fine dust.
* The Key Difference: This single-cyclone system was not efficient enough to remove all the fine dust, so it needed those filter cones, which would eventually clog and need cleaning or replacing, causing suction to drop. This is the very problem Dyson solved decades later with his dual-cyclone system.
So, Who's Right?
* Rexair is incorrect. It's a water-filtration vacuum, not a cyclonic one.
* James Dyson is correct in that he invented the first cyclonic vacuum that doesn't lose suction by using dual-cyclone technology.
* However, the Filter Queen was the very first vacuum to use the principle of cyclonic separation in a home appliance, albeit with a less-efficient, single-cyclone design that still relied on filters.
In short, Dyson didn't invent the idea of putting a cyclone in a vacuum, but he perfected it in a way that revolutionized the industry.

Dyson may have revolutionized the industry with his cyclones, but was it original (enough)? Vote and comment!

 

[centralsweeper63]

I would say that by definition, rexair nor filterqueen machines have a bag or the option to use a bag. Filterqueen doesn't do the best job at keeping suction, though they do not use a bag.

 

[herbicide]

Rexair*. I know you don't want to hear/admit this, but @cheesewonton provided the patents saying so in the other thread...

Now if you want to qualify it as 'double cyclonic,' that might be Dyson, but that is not what you polled.

Here is the link @cheesewonton provided to the patent from the 1920's. Please look at it and ask yourself what it resembles...

https://patents.google.com/patent/US1420665A/en

 

[centralsweeper63]

I wonder where dyson got the idea for the idea for a spinning perpherated plate like in the linked video.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

This topic was fully exhausted before this thread was even made—as the OP knew—albeit totally off-topic in another thread. Dyson didn't invent the first bagless cyclonic cleaners, but they were the first to do it right, meaning to eliminate the need for mechanical filtration as the primary filtration method—which is a major technological leap. All details in previous thread, which also outlines how Dyson invented what is now known as the cordless stick vac formfactor that has several new key technologies to distinguish it from similarly shaped products of the past that do not fall under the title of 'cordless stick vac' as now understood and widely accepted.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

This topic was fully exhausted before this thread was even made—as the OP knew—albeit totally off-topic in another thread. Dyson didn't invent the first bagless cyclonic cleaners, but they were the first to do it right, meaning to eliminate the need for mechanical filtration as the primary filtration method—which is a major technological leap. All details in previous thread, which also outlines how Dyson invented what is now known as the cordless stick vac formfactor that has several new key technologies to distinguish it from similarly shaped products of the past that do not fall under the title of 'cordless stick vac' as now understood and widely accepted.

Who do you vote? Anyways... Agreed with you on Dyson.

 

[kirbyman65]

I vote Rexair,
They were first, it’s a fact. Also has Dyson ever been sued because of their old slogan “the first vacuum without a bag”.

 

[rlsellman21]

The title is the question in this case. It's been widely accepted that Dyson have invented the cyclonic vacuum cleaner, but the likes of @cheesewonton didn't accept that and said that Rexair was the first cyclonic vacuum cleaner. More source (including AI, as started down the quote though you guys can try correcting it) however suggested that Filter Queen was the first cyclonic vacuum cleaner.

We have:
- 1926: Rexair, the supposed cyclonic originator, but in 1936, it's finalized as water-based vacuum cleaner. It has cylindrical bin, and it's very likely the first bagless vacuum cleaner ever.
- 1939: Filter Queen, the ur-example, with conical separator instead of water... but doesn't have nearly enough centrifugal force to do the job properly (especially without enough airflow) because of wide and short cone, and thus relies a lot on filters.
- 1983: Dyson invented the multi-cyclonic (a cylindrical bin like Rexair, and thinner and longer version of FQ's cone, now packs in multiples), or ultimately true cyclonic vacuum cleaner, as in the ones that's less reliant on filters than previous designs thanks to immense centrifugal force. And way less likely to clog and lose suction, if used carefully.
- All three designs are somewhat inspired by industrial cyclones for factories, and they all still exist in the market to this day, with various advancements in the process (most notably Dyson, as the likes of @Vacuum Facts can attest).



Dyson may have revolutionized the industry with his cyclones, but was it original (enough)? Vote and comment!

I think it is. He was the first to implement cyclonic separation that is effective in filtering out the fine dust that clogs the bags and filters of other vacuums. Even Filter Queen can't claim that. I remember Fantom being a really popular vacuum brand in the USA and Canada, and that's because they used the Dual Cyclone technology and the handle wand designed licensed to them by Dyson. And Dyson of course became the dominant brand of bagless vacuums here in the US when they entered the market here in 2002 with the DC07.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

The answer was provided in the earlier thread which fully exhausted the topic and its history.

 

[herbicide]

Yes, in review the correct answer isn't even listed, unless the OP considers Newcombe & Rexair to be one in the same.

 

[Absolute Rainbow]

The answer was provided in the earlier thread which fully exhausted the topic and its history.

Oh my god... What a doozy!

Circa 1926 John Newcombe invented a dust separator using a cyclone to separate the dust particles from airflow in industrial operations like sanding or wood milling. Another person named Leslie Green saw the invention and thought it might be a great idea for use with a vacuum. Green teamed with Newcombe to design the very first cyclonic bagless vacuum was the small handheld "Newcombe Bagless" introduced in 1927. A year later they introduced a floor based model

In 1935 another company called Rexair, now known as Rainbow, added water filtration to the cyclone design used by Newcombe. That design has carried fourth to this day and is now widely copied. But His Unholy Excremence Lord Diesoon is very late to the party. Cyclonic bagless vacuums were on sale long before he or probably even his parents were born.

Compact then turned the cyclone on its side to force the dust out of the airflow and pile it up against a bag at the nose of a bagged canister vac so the airflow to the motor is not restricted as the bag fills. That design carries fourth to this day with the Schoettler Research and Engineering Patriot vacuum. [...] https://rainbowvacuummanila.com/our-history

[...] Using a cyclone per se wasn't invented by Dyson. It was using a cyclonic separator capable of extracting almost all *micron sized* particles out of the air such that it could be used as a *primary* separator and eliminate the need for bagged mechanical separation entirely. This technological feat is really hard to achieve. This source you've cited shows no evidence this was the case and wasn't just some crude wood-mill-like cyclone and still needed bags, thereby advancing nothing. [...]

And again you are wrong. The very same person who invented the cyclonic dust separator who's idea you wrongly attribute to James Dyson was a partner in the very first application of that technology to a vacuum way back in 1927.

I don't think you actually read my previous comment at all. I've never attributed cyclonic dust separation to Dyson, so it's you who's wrong...again. I've attributed the invention of how to use it specifically within vacuum cleaners to specifically extract micron sized particles, such as to eliminate mechanical separation as the primary separator—because the evidence for it is clear. Again, the rest is in the previous comment you appear to have conveniently ignored.

I honestly doubt James Dyson was and maybe still is aware that John Newcombe and Leslie Green even existed much less was aware they were selling a cyclonic bagless vacuum in the late 1920s. Dyson probably thinks it was his original idea but it was not. He was decades late to the party. I would also bet money James Dyson is blithely unaware that a Rainbow and its several copies use cyclonic action to filter the air and entrap dust. And then uncritical souls like you fall for the Dyson marketing hype. [...]

And again, you are wrong. Newcombe, Green and Rexair were all there decades before James Dyson was born. And obtw, without a HEPA filter your Dyson isn't extracting micron sized particles. Take that filter out or fail to clean / replace it as necessary and see how fast the motor dies from dirt accumulation or the thing plugs up and looses suction. Without the HEPA filter a Dyson is no better a filter than my old 1960s Hoover Dial-A-Matic. You really do not know the vacuums or their history.

This shows the severe lack of knowledge and understanding predicted earlier of what Dyson patented and why it was distinct from what came before, despite it being pointed out repeatedly—namely elimination of mechanical separation as the *primary* separation method. It also shows a severe lack of understanding of the levels and methods of filtration through the air system. Dyson's cyclones have gravimetric efficiencies >99% of particles >0.5 µm as verified by particle counting tests using Grimm sensors (old tech) and parallel beam laser diffraction, which replaced it. This technology scatters laser light through particle suspensions to calculate size distributions (via Mie theory), enabling precise measurement of sub-micron particles that cyclones might miss. [...]

That's because you apparently didn't bother to read the links provided for you in the previous post. Maybe try again? Dear me...

Edit: I mean, in 1 minute I found more sources making reference to the 'white paper' advertised to retailers at the time. You couldn't achieve this yourself? They all confirm the same thing. [...]

"With gravimetric efficiencies of over 99%, they capture particles as small as 0.5 microns."

A lot of original material disappears from the internet over time and only echoes of this nature remain. It's all consistent though, from multiple independent sources. Regardless, the point stands.

[...] If you're still not happy with that, then you're stuck with the dilema of explaining why you're happy with the original claim associated with the 1940s cyclone being implied to be the same as Dyson's cyclonic achievement, which has absolutely *zero* evidence in support of it. Slight disparity there you're ignoring. Figures...

Incidentally, predicting you're still living in denial, I'll just mention a few things about Newcombe's separator. The early air-based one from the late 1920s has sketchy records, but you can estimate its effective cutpoint size at around 15–20 µm (size of dirt and lint) from the technology of the time (see later), which is wholly inadequate to not need bags or avoid heavy air pollution.

The later water-based separator bubbled dust-laden air through a cyclonic water vortex, using centrifugal force to fling particles into the water film. This impractical hybrid design by today's standards captured coarser particles effectively but struggled with fines due to re-entrainment in the wet vortex and lower centrifugal forces (estimated 500–1,000 g, vs. Dyson's 150,000 g—see below). No original efficiency curves survive, because I've checked, unlike my failed attempts to successfully get you lot to adequately above, but 1920s patents emphasize "coarse dust removal" without quantifying fines. I'll leave you to fact-check this for yourself—it's fairly straight forward because I did it myself in all of 2 minutes.

[...] This is still over an order of magnitude inferior to what is needed to act as a fine dust primary dirt separator—i.e. not reliant on bags or risk causing heavy air pollution or rapid filter clogging. This is apples to oranges. Again and again, despite all the evidence, you deny what Dyson did was fundamentally technologically different, despite that they built on the foundational historical designs. They achieved, for the first time, true adequate primary dirt separation of micron scale particles that affect health, entirely inertially without primary reliance on mechanical separation or dealing with scummy water tanks. I think most readers can get this by now, even if you are unable to.

Anyone who has any experience with them knows how much those cyclones miss that ends up clogging the filter. If those cyclones are so good why have filters? Explain that!

[...]? Figures. Filters capture particles smaller than even the best cyclones can capture (namely <0.5 µm). These are numerically significant, but insignificant by mass and volume, hence why filters only need to be small, unlike bags. Was that really so hard? This is exactly what I mean about serious lack of basic knowledge to be spouting what you do. You fall back on grandiose claims about your past career, but then fly in the face of basic respectability with rejection of science, clear evidence of tribalism, and a lack of even simple fact-checkable knowledge.

The conclusion is, despite wrongly thinking Dyson invented cyclonic separation—a claim no one educated has ever made—the early cyclonic separators in vacuum cleaners were insufficient to avoid relying on additional methods of primary dirt separation. Dyson was the first to achieve primary dirt separation exclusively cyclonically (inertially). This was a profound technological advancement and brought substantial advantages. [...]

That's why I voted for Dyson. It's not just the most popular option out of the three, it's the safest option as well since Dyson was the one perfecting the cyclones.

 

[herbicide]

Oh my god... What a doozy!











That's why I voted for Dyson. It's not just the most popular option out of the three, it's the safest option as well since Dyson was the one perfecting the cyclones.

Your poll isn't about "perfecting" cyclonic filtration in vacuums, it was who "invented" cyclonic filtration for vacuums. Those are two entirely separate matters.

Who really invented the cyclonic vacuum cleaner?​

I don't think anybody would claim Dyson hasn't drastically improved the cyclonic filtration from Newcombe's 1926 patent, in terms of particle separation. "Perfecting" it, well that is subject to much debate.