CHAPTER I.History of Mechanical Cleaning.

—Whenever machinery has been introduced to assist or replace manual labor, the earlier attempts have been in imitating the tools formerly used by man. As the earliest mechanically-propelled carriages were mechanical walking machines, the earliest steamboats mechanical rowing machines, and the earliest flying machines mechanical birds, so were the earliest mechanical cleaners in the form of mechanical brooms.

These mechanical brooms were introduced about 1880 and took the form of the well-known street sweeper, with a large circular brush mounted on a four-wheeled cart and rotated by means of gearing driven from the wheels, the propelling power being the horses which drew the machine.

This machine at once made itself unpopular with the residents of the streets cleaned on account of its great activity in stirring up dust, because the streets were swept dry. This trouble was later overcome to a considerable extent by sprinkling the streets before sweeping, but only at a sacrifice in efficiency of cleaning, especially where such uneven surfaces as cobble or medina stone blocks formed the surface of the roadway. Various attachments were added to reduce this dust nuisance, but none has apparently been successful, as we see these machines in their original form in use today.

Almost simultaneously with the introduction of the street sweeper came its counterpart, the carpet sweeper, with a similar but smaller brush, enclosed in a wood and metal case, the brush being driven by friction from the wheels supporting the box and the power for operation being derived from the person who pushed the machine along the floor.

This machine has not been modified to any great extent during the thirty odd years of its existence. It is today in practicallyits original form, and is doing no better work than when first introduced. This form of mechanical cleaner occupied the field of household cleaning for nearly twenty years without a rival, during which time it won its way into the hearts and hands of many housekeepers in this and other countries.

—This device, with its light brush and equally light pressure on the surface cleaned and its limited capacity for carrying the material picked up, has never been a thorough cleaner in any sense of the word, and has been and is now used only to take up that portion of the usual litter and light dust which is located directly on the surface, and is, therefore, most annoying to the housekeeper, owing to its being visible to the eye. Because of its generous proportions, made necessary to accommodate the material picked up, and its centrally-pivoted handle, made necessary by its mechanical construction, it is impossible to operate it under low furniture. Like the lawn mower, it must be in motion in order to operate its revolving brush, on which its cleaning action is dependent. It is impossible to make use of same in corners, along walls, or close to heavy furniture, its use being limited to a literal slicking up of those portions of the carpet in the most conspicuous portions of the apartment. In spite of these serious defects it came into, and is still in, nearly universal use, even in households equipped with the latest approved types of mechanical cleaners. Its use on bare floors has never been even a moderate success and in no case has it superseded the broom and dust pan of our grandmothers.

—Compressed air has been in use for many years in foundries and machine shops, for cleaning castings and producing certain finishes on metal. With the introduction of modern electrical machinery it was rapidly adapted to the cleaning of windings and other inaccessible parts of this machinery. Its first use in cleaning buildings was undoubtedly in the form of an open jet for dislodging dust from carvings and relief work, for which purpose it is very efficient as a remover of the dust from the parts to be cleaned and also as a distributor of this same dust over the widest possible area for subsequent removal by other means. It has a draw-back in that the expansion of air both cools the same and reducesits ability to retain moisture, resulting in the deposit of moisture on the surfaces cleaned.

About 1898, attempts to overcome the objections to the open air jet and to produce a commercially successful compressed air carpet cleaner were undertaken almost simultaneously by two companies, the American Air Cleaning Company, of Milwaukee, operating under the Christensen patents, and the General Compressed Air Cleaning Company, of St. Louis, operating under the Thurman patents.

The renovator used by the American Air Cleaning Company consisted of a heavy metal frame, about 18 in. long and 12 in. wide, having mounted on its longer axis a wedge-like nozzle extending the entire length of the frame, with a very narrow slit, ¹⁄₆₄ in. wide, extending the entire length of its lower edge. This nozzle was pivoted and so connected to the operating handle, by which the renovator was moved over the floor, that when the renovator was alternately pushed and pulled over the surface to be cleaned, the slot was always inclined in the direction in which the renovator was being moved. The top of the renovator was closed by a canvas bag, smaller at the neck than in its center, which was supported by a wire hook.

Air was introduced into the nozzle, at a pressure of from 45 to 55 lbs. per square inch, and issued from the slot in a thin sheet which impinged on the carpet at an angle. The frame was held close to the carpet by its weight, preventing the escape of the air under its lower edge. The air striking the carpet at an angle was deflected up into the bag, inflating same like a miniature balloon. The dust loosened from the carpet by the impact of the air was carried up into the bag where it lodged, the air escaping through the fabric of the canvas into the apartment.

The renovator used by the General Compressed Air Cleaning Company differed from the above-described renovator in that it contained two nozzles, with slots inclined at fixed angles to the carpet. A pair of hand-operated valves were provided in the handle to introduce air into the nozzle which was inclined in the direction in which the renovator was moving; otherwisethe renovator was identical with that used by the Milwaukee company.

These renovators were generally supplied with air from a portable unit, consisting of an air compressor, driven by a gasoline engine mounted with the necessary gasoline and air storage tanks on a small truck. One of these machines was in use in Washington last year, but its use at that time was very limited and it is not to be seen this year.

These trucks were drawn up in front of the building to be cleaned and a large-size hose, usually 1¹⁄₄ in. in diameter, was carried into the house and attached to an auxiliary tank from which ¹⁄₂-in. diameter hose lines were carried to two or more renovators.

A few buildings were equipped with air compressors and pipe lines, with outlets throughout the building for use with this type of renovator, among which was the Hotel Astor in New York City.

These renovators, the construction of which is shown diagrammatically inFig. 1, required approximately 35 cu. ft. of free air per minute at a pressure of from 45 to 55 lbs. per square inch and were usually driven by a 15 H. P. engine.

FIG. 1. EARLY TYPE OF MECHANICAL CLEANING NOZZLE USING COMPRESSED AIR.

The renovators were very heavy to carry about, although their operation with the air pressure under them was not difficult. However, their operation was complicated, requiringskilled operators. Owing to their generous proportions it was impossible to clean around furniture, making its removal from the apartment necessary, and limiting their use to the cleaning of carpets at the time of general house cleaning. The cooling effect of the expansion of the air in the nozzle often caused condensation of moisture on the carpets when the relative humidity was high. They were also at a disadvantage in that all the heavy dust collected in the canvas bag had to be carried from the apartment by hand. Owing to the constant agitation of the dust in the bag by the entering air currents, much of the finer particles of dust and all the disease germs liberated by the renovator were blown through the bag back into the apartment. They were not, therefore, by any means sanitary devices.

—The General Compressed Air Cleaning Company also introduced another form of renovator for use with their compressed air plants. This was composed of an ejector operated by compressed air, with a short hose attached to a carpet renovator of the straight narrow-slot type, such as was used later in vacuum cleaning systems. The outlet from this ejector was connected by another short hose to a metal box containing a canvas bag, woven backwards and forwards over metal frames to give a large surface for the passage of air. The dust picked up by the suction of the ejector was carried with the air into the box and there separated from the air, which escaped through the canvas into the apartment.

This form of renovator overcame some of the objections to the former type in that there was no condensation of moisture on the carpets, and it was possible to operate the renovator under and around furniture, and even on portieres and other hangings. However, the apparatus was rendered inefficient by the resistance of the bag, causing a back pressure on the injector which greatly reduced its air-drawing capacity.

—Shortly after these two companies began operation, the Sanitary Devices Manufacturing Company, of San Francisco, introduced a new system of mechanical cleaning under the Lotz patents. Thissystem used a renovator having a compressed air nozzle terminating in a narrow slot, similar to the nozzles of the American and Thurman systems, but differing from them in that the slot was fixed vertically, pointing downward. This nozzle was surrounded by an annular chamber having an opening at the bottom of considerable width. The whole formed a renovator about 14 in. long and not over 2 in. wide at its base. In addition to the compressed air connection to its nozzle, a second hose, 1 in. in diameter, was connected to the annular space surrounding the nozzle and led to a vacuum pump by which the air liberated through the nozzle, together with the dust which was liberated from the carpet, was carried from the apartment. The construction of this renovator is shown diagrammatically inFig. 2.

FIG. 2. ANOTHER TYPE OF COMPRESSED AIR CLEANING NOZZLE, SUPPLEMENTED WITH VACUUM PIPE.

As dust-laden air was not suitable to be carried through the pump used as a vacuum producer, separators had to be provided to remove the dust from this air before it reached the pump. The separators used consisted of two cylindrical tanks. The air was introduced into the first tank in such a way that a whirling motion was imparted to it, thus separating the heavier particles of dust by centrifugal force. The second tank contained water which was brought into intimate contact with the air by means of an atomizer located in the pipe connection between the two tanks, thus washing the air in a manner somewhat similar to the familiar air washers used in connection with mechanical ventilating systems. The air and spray then entered the second tank, above the water line, wherethe entrained water separated on the reduction of velocity and fell back into the water below, to be recirculated through the atomizer. The air passed on out of the top of the tank to the pump. An illustration of these separators is shown inFig. 3.

FIG. 3. SEPARATORS USED WITH COMBINED COMPRESSED AIR AND VACUUM MACHINES.

FIG. 4. PISTON TYPE OF VACUUM PUMP, MOUNTED TANDEM WITH AIR COMPRESSOR.

—Various types of apparatus were tried as vacuum producers, including an air ejector, such as was used with the Thurmanrenovator, and found to be ineffective due to its inability to overcome the back-pressure necessary to discharge the air through the hose, which was placed on its outlet. A rotary pump was next tried, but, owing to the selection of an inefficient type, this was abandoned and, finally, a piston-type vacuum pump, with very light poppet valves and mounted tandem with the air compressor, was adapted and remained in use with this system until straight vacuum was adopted, when the air compression cylinder was omitted. This pump is illustrated inFig. 4.

FIG. 5. MR. KENNEY’S FIRST RENOVATOR, VACUUM ALONE BEING USED AS CLEANING AGENT.

In this system we see the first sanitary device to be introduced into the field of mechanical cleaning, as the dust and germ-laden air were removed entirely from the apartment and purified before being discharged into the outside atmosphere. The foulness of the water in the separators clearly showed the amount of impurities removed from the air.

These machines were mounted on wagons, similar to their forerunners, and were also installed in many buildings as stationary plants, among which were the old Palace Hotel and the branch Mint, in San Francisco, and the old Fifth Avenue Hotel, in New York City.

—In 1902 David T. Kenney, of New York, installed the first mechanical cleaning system in which vacuum alone was used as the cleaning agent. Mr. Kenney used a renovator with a slot about 12 in. long and ³⁄₁₆ in. wide, attached to a metal tube which served as a handle, and to a ³⁄₄-in. diameter hose and larger pipe line leading to separators and vacuum pump. Mr. Kenney’s first renovator is illustrated inFig. 5.

FIG. 6. AIR COMPRESSORS ARRANGED FOR OPERATION AS VACUUM PUMPS.

Mr. Kenney used as vacuum pumps commercial air compressors, the first of which was installed in the Frick Building in 1902 and is illustrated inFig. 6. Later he adapted the Claytonair compressor, with mechanically-operated induction and poppet eduction valves on larger sizes, and single mechanically-operated induction and eduction valves on the smaller sizes.

The separators used by Mr. Kenney differed from those used by the Sanitary Devices Manufacturing Company in that they contained several interior partitions, screens, and baffles, and the air was drawn directly through the body of water in the wet separator. The relative merits of these types of separators will be discussed in a later chapter.

FIG. 7. SEPARATORS INSTALLED BY MR. KENNEY IN FRICK BUILDING.

The separators installed by Mr. Kenney in the Frick Building, and which are practically the same as were used by himas long as he manufactured vacuum cleaning apparatus, are illustrated inFig. 7.

After his application had been in the patent office for about six years he was granted a fundamental patent on a vacuum cleaning system.

—The Sanitary Devices Manufacturing Company then produced a carpet renovator using vacuum only as a cleaning agent. This cleaner has a wider cleaning slot than the cleaners usually furnished by Mr. Kenney, about ⁵⁄₁₆ in. wide, with a supplemental slot or vacuum breaker opening out of the top of the renovator and separated from the cleaning slot by a narrow partition extending nearly to the carpet, as illustrated inFig. 8. The relative merits of these types of renovators will be discussed in a later chapter.

FIG. 8. VACUUM RENOVATOR WITH INRUSH SLOT, INTRODUCED BY THE SANITARY DEVICES MANUFACTURING CO.

Shortly after the introduction of vacuum cleaning by Mr. Kenney and the Sanitary Devices Manufacturing Company, the American Air Cleaning Company published an interesting little booklet entitled, “Compressed Air Versus Vacuum,” which set forth in great detail the so-called advantages of compressed air over vacuum as a medium of mechanical carpet cleaning, and, apparently, proved that vacuum cleaners were much less efficient than cleaners operated by compressed air. A year or two later the American Air Cleaning Company evidently had a change of heart and began to manufacture these same “inefficient”vacuum cleaners. Their previous treatise on vacuum cleaning, which apparently was not copyrighted, was republished by both the Sanitary Devices Manufacturing Company and by the Vacuum Cleaner Company, which had acquired Mr. Kenney’s patents, and freely distributed. Thus this little work of the Milwaukee company, instead of injuring their competitors, was turned into good advertising for them and required a lot of explanation from the Milwaukee company.

—The American Air Cleaning Company used a steam aspirator as its vacuum producer and, unlike its predecessor, the air-operated ejector, it made good and has also been used to a limited extent by the Sanitary Devices Manufacturing Company. It is now marketed by the Richmond Radiator Company, and its merits will be discussed in a later chapter. The American Air Cleaner Company also used as a vacuum producer the single-impeller type of rotary pump, made by the Garden City Engineering Company, which was also later adopted, to a limited extent, by the Vacuum Cleaner Company. This will be discussed further on.

The renovator used by this company was a single-slot type, with ¹⁄₈-in. by 10-in. cleaning slot. These systems at once became notable on account of the small size of the vacuum producers used, the low degree of vacuum carried, and the vigorous campaign of advertising which was conducted.

Several firms soon began to market vacuum cleaning systems almost identical with that of Mr. Kenney, among which were the Blaisdell Machinery Company, The Baldwin Engineering Company, and The General Compressed Air and Vacuum Machinery Company, the latter being the original Thurman company.

The Vacuum Cleaner Company then began a series of infringement suits against nearly every manufacturer of vacuum cleaning systems. In nearly every case the suit has resulted in the offending company paying license fees to the Vacuum Cleaner Company, and this concern has now abandoned the manufacture of vacuum cleaners and has become a licensing company. At this writing nearly twenty firms are payinglicense fees to the Vacuum Cleaner Company and there is one suit now in the courts.

—A vacuum cleaning system of somewhat different design was produced by two former employees of the Vacuum Cleaner Company, Mr. Dunn, the once well-known “Farmer Dunn” of the weather bureau, afterward salesman for the Vacuum Cleaner Company, and Mr. Locke, at one time this firm’s engineer. This company was first known as the Vacuum Cleaning Company, and, shortly afterward, as the Dunn-Locke Vacuum Cleaning Company. No separators were used with this system, but the dust-laden air was led from the pipe lines directly into a chamber on the pump, known as the “saturation chamber,” and there mingled with a stream of water converting the dust into a thin mud. The air, water and mud then passed through the pump, the muddy water was discharged into the sewer, and the air into the atmosphere. The vacuum producer used was a piston pump without suction valves. With this system it was possible to handle water in almost unlimited quantities and with this feature a system of mechanical scrubbing was attempted for which great claims were made, none of which, however, were realized in a commercial way.

These gentlemen sold their patents to the E. H. Wheeler Company, which attempted to market the system in its original form. It was found, however, that the piston pump was not adapted to the handling of grit which was picked up by the renovators, and a rotary pump, with single impeller and a follower was substituted. This system is now marketed by the Vacuum Engineering Company, of New York, and is known as the Rotrex system.

Mr. Dunn again entered the field of vacuum cleaning and began marketing his machine a short time ago with a new form of automatic separator discharging to sewer.

—About 1905, Dr. William Noe, of San Francisco, constructed the first portable vacuum cleaner. This machine contained a mechanically-driven rotary brush, similar to the brushes used in the familiar carpet sweeper, for loosening the dust from the carpet. This dust was sucked up by a two-stage turbine fan and discharged into a dust bag,mounted on the handle, similar to the bags on the compressed air cleaners. The whole machine was mounted on wheels and provided with a small direct-connected motor. This machine is illustrated inFig. 9and is the original form of the well-known Invincible renovator manufactured by the Electric Renovator Company, of Pittsburgh. This company now produces a complete line of stationary and portable vacuum cleaners, all of which use multi-stage turbines. The sale of the product of this company, until recently, was controlled by the United States Radiator Corporation.

FIG. 9. FIRST PORTABLE VACUUM CLEANER, CONSTRUCTED BY DR. WILLIAM NOE, OF SAN FRANCISCO, IN 1905.

—About 1905 Mr. Ira Spencer, president and engineer of the Organ Power Company, which manufactured a multi-stage turbine blower for organs, known as the “Orgoblow,” organized the Spencer Turbine Cleaner Company and marketed a vacuum cleaning system, using a modification of the “Orgoblow” as a vacuum producer. These machines were first constructed withsheet metal casings and had sheet steel fans, with wings riveted on and mounted on horizontal shafts. The separators were sheet metal receptacles with screens for catching litter. Light-weight hose, 2 in. in diameter, was used to connect the renovators to 4-in. sheet metal pipe lines. A variety of renovators was produced for use with this system. Carpet renovators having cleaning slots varying from 10 in. by ³⁄₄ in. to 20 in. by ¹⁄₄ in. were used, and a very complete line of swivel joints for connecting the renovators and the hose to the handles was developed. This system was operated at 5 in. vacuum, which was much lower than that used by any other system, 15 in. being standard at that time, and a much larger volume of air wasexhausted under certain conditions than was possible with any of the then existing systems. Owing to the large volume of air exhausted and to the large size of the renovators, hose and pipe lines, larger articles could be picked up than was possible with any of the existing systems. A great deal of weight was attached to this condition by the manufacturers, a favorite stunt being to pick up nails, washers, waste, small pieces of paper and even pea coal from a floor and finally to pick up a quantity of flour which had first been carefully arranged for the demonstration.

FIG. 10. LATE TYPE OF SPENCER VACUUM CLEANING MACHINE, OPERATED BY MULTI-STAGE TURBINE BLOWER.

This invasion of the vacuum cleaning field was considered by the established manufacturers as a freak and the apparatus was christened “the tin machine.” Whenever it was installed in competition with other forms of cleaning systems, the daily question asked by its competitors was, “Has the tin machine fallen apart?” However, the tin machine did not fall apart, but held its own with the other systems, even in its crude and inefficient state. Finding that the construction he had adopted was too flimsy and subject to abnormal leakage, Mr. Spencer developed a new form of machine, using cast-iron casing and welded fan wheels and adopted standard pipe and fittings. He also brought out a line of sheet metal tools and on the whole perfected a satisfactory cleaning system. One of his machines of a later type is illustrated inFig. 10.

—A new form of vacuum cleaning system was introduced by Mr. Moorhead, of San Francisco, who used an inrush type of renovator having an inlet for air on each side of the cleaning slot.

The separator used with this system was a wet separator and contained a screen cleaned by a rotary brush into which all the dust contained in the air lodged. The pump used with this system was generally of the piston type, fitted with a single rotary valve, so connected to the valve stem that it could be rotated thereon and the machine changed from a vacuum pump to an air compressor in order that the contents of the separators might be discharged into the sewer by air pressure when it was desired to empty same.

This system was marketed by the Sanitary Dust Removal Company, of San Francisco, and, later, was taken over by the American Rotary Valve Company, of Chicago, which is nowmarketing same. It eliminates the manual handling of the dust at any stage of its removal, a feature which is made much of by its manufacturers, but one which is likely to cause some trouble for the sewerage system if care is not exercised.

—The use of a Root type of rotary pump as a vacuum producer was first undertaken by the Foster and Glidden Engineering Company, of Buffalo, which marketed the Acme system about 1907, the same company having previously built a similar system for the removal of grain from steam barges. The other features of this system did not differ materially from those already on the market.

Being familiar with the various uses to which this type of vacuum pump had been adapted, the principal one being the operation of pneumatic tube systems, the author suggested the use of this type of vacuum producer about two years previous to its introduction and was advised by one manufacturer that such a type of pump was not suitable for vacuum cleaning. The fallacy of this statement will be brought out in detail in a later chapter.

The type of vacuum producer just described has been adopted in many makes of vacuum cleaners, including the Hope, Connellsville, Arco, and, lately, in the American Rotary Valve Company’s smaller systems.

During the past four years a score or more of new stationary vacuum cleaning systems have been introduced, among which are the Palm, a modification of the Dunn-Locke system; the Tuec, a turbine cleaner; the Water Witch, which uses a water-operated turbine as a vacuum producer, and the Hydraulic, with water-operated ejector. At the same time a hundred or more portable vacuum cleaners have been marketed. These are of almost every conceivable type and form and are operated by hand, electricity, and water power. Among them will be found machines which are good, bad and indifferent, the efficiency and economy of which will be discussed in a later chapter.

This nearly universal invasion of the vacuum cleaner field by anybody and everybody looking for a good selling article, establishes the fact that the vacuum cleaner is not a fad or fancy, but has become almost a household necessity and has ledlarge corporations to take it up as a branch of their business. First, the Sanitary Devices Manufacturing Company and the Vacuum Cleaner Company, the pioneers in the field, after a legal battle of years, consolidated with a view of driving their competitors from the field as infringers of the patents controlled by the two organizations. The result of this was the licensing of other companies. In an attempt to control the sale of their type of apparatus notice was served on all users of other types of vacuum cleaners that they were liable to prosecution for using infringing apparatus.

Later, the McCrum-Howell Company, a manufacturer of heating boilers and radiators, secured control of the products of the American Air Cleaning Company and the Vacuum Cleaner Company and sold these machines to the trade for installation by the plumbers and steam fitters. The McCrum-Howell Company has been succeeded by the Richmond Radiator Company, which is handling these vacuum cleaning machines.

Shortly afterwards, the United States Radiator Corporation secured control of the Invincible and the Connellsville systems, and, lastly, the American Radiator Company secured the Wand system.

Thus we see that vacuum cleaning seems to be virtually in the control of the manufacturers of heating apparatus, who are also among the largest corporations in this country and well able to control the future of this business to their liking.

As to the future of vacuum cleaning the author considers that it is at present, like the automobile, at the height of its career, and also, like the automobile, that it is a useful appliance to mankind and that it has its proper place as a part of the mechanical equipment of our modern buildings.

As to the type of vacuum cleaner of the future, the author believes that these appliances will become standardized, just as all other useful appliances have been, and that the form that it will then take will be a survival of the fittest. What that form may resemble the reader may more readily judge when he has completed the reading of this book.

Back to Index Next