We are quite familiar with the Powerupsystem by Beamco. In fact, we were in full negotiations to buy them out about three years ago but had it completely dependant upon their achieving UL approval. The system is brilliant and clearly the technology works. They are correct in operating an electric powerbrush with 110 volts using the low voltage control wires. I believe the system has sufficient safeguards in it to keep from causing electrical hazards.

In fact, we even showed it in our booth at VDTA about four years ago! At the time Beamco (aka Grand Central) was controlled by Stuart Breslin and they were more of an engineering company than a marketing company. Apparently someone has come in as an investor and created a wonderful marketing presence including slick brochures and a beautiful website. Please note, though that there are no pictures yet of the system.

The system uses a Flexible Technologies hose (Hayden plastic type) with a wire reinforcement. It is only a two-wire hose which is good but they have installed their own end on it. A headphones-type-jack is mounted on the end of the hose and they have modified their own inlets from the early 60’s to accept the hose. The connection looks quite “kludged” and is not, in my estimation, up to modern standards. I would hope that they have changed it by now.

I would whole-heartily back this system if, in fact, it was UL approved. Unfortunately it is not. The main issue is that the NEC (National Electrical Code) requires any wire less than 14 gauge to be installed in a conduit if it has the potential of carrying 120 volts. Plain and simple, that throws a huge amount of liability on any installer who installs these systems into any home. If the system has any trouble and causes any damage to the home, the installation company will have a non-defendable lawsuit on their hands.

Beamco’s was left with two options: Either change the NEC code or market the product without UL approval. I would hope that they are in the process of changing the NEC and then being able to obtain a UL approval but my fear is that an excited investor is willing to accept the risk of it never causing any damage in any home. Oddly enough, these systems have been being installed in homes in the San Francisco area for almost 20 years. Somehow they have been able to pass electrical inspection. It is my belief that the inspectors see it as a normal low-voltage-only system and thus they have not bothered to reject it. As the system’s notoriety spreads to other municipalities and states, it will get caught and the word will get out to watch for it. At this point they will have a difficult time with additional marketing.

It is my hope that they would receive UL approval because then it would save installers a tremendous amount of labor and costs. The technology is solid but changing the NEC will take an act of Congress. Unfortunately there are union interests at stake when you take away the need for electricians to run electrical outlets and wires. I believe this obstacle was too difficult for them to overcome. I would even put my backing behind the product to get it through the NEC but I doubt that this direction was chosen.

We wish them the best of luck in their efforts.

We are often asked about standardized testing of central vacuums. “Has there ever been comparisons by major organizations?” Consumer Reports July 2004 did their first blurb on central vacuums and it was a total disaster according to everyone that I interviewed. They really did not understand what they were testing and obviously provided “Best Buys” to the least expensive products. The article was interspersed inside an article discussing the problems of portable vacuums and it only confused the consumer.

So March 2006 issue was just published in response to all the uproar and strangely they did not even mention central vacuums. At MD, we believe that they recognized their shortcomings and opted not to confuse the matter further. They had called our factory back in 2004 and spoke at length with us but obviously our market is still too small to be considered by them.

Because of the uproar regarding the 2004 article, the Vacuum Dealer Trade Association (VDTA) did contact the Consumer Reports and it was learned that they have developed their own tests over time and feel quite confident in their results. The new issue did have quite a few interesting findings;

Ironically in this issue they actually listed some portable vacuums as “not recommended.” This seems to be any vacuum that scored less than or near 50 on their 1-100 scale. Vacuums costing the consumer $60 actually scored higher than a $1,000 model! Over 72,000 responses to the CR Questionnaire revealed Hoover and Kenmore having the worst track record for repairs but stats for Dyson had not been compiled because of it’s fairly new entry into the market. A brief glance at on-line posting among vacuum cleaner professionals shows Dyson will quickly be winning in this category.

“Six of 19 newly tested uprights and canister vacuums broke or emitted high levels of dust” is the opening sentence to the entire review. Consumer Reports stated outright that the “Cordless Vacuums don’t deep-clean” and vacuums with disposable bags spread less dust. It also recommended that those with allergies should think twice before purchasing a bagless model.

Most portable vacuums scored well on cleaning hard surface floors and they praised uprights with longer hoses, bag-full alerts, I was surprised to see the $700 Oreck placed at 11th with the $400 version almost dead last at 33rd. The average canister tested weighed over 23 pounds but the average upright was over 18 pounds.

So what does all this say about central vacuums? I guess we need to keep pounding away about the power, reliability, filtration, ease of use, and quality of a central vacuum. I know that our satisfaction rating was 100% when we surveyed thousands of our users if they would purchase a central vacuum again!