Tuesday, January 18, 2022

Colonoscopy In A Vacuum? On A Shark?


     Why, yes, you can, if it's the Shark Rocket Vacuum. In this household, over the many years,  we've owned 3 dogs, 6 cats, 3 refrigerators, 2 stoves, 3 dishwashers, and about a hundred vacuum cleaners. The latest, the Shark, was purchased 4 years ago, and it's been okay, nothing spectacular, but gets the light cleaning jobs done. Until last week, when it refused to pick up any debris, even from the hard surface of the kitchen floor. Now I will say, I faithfully empty the dust cup after each use, sometimes twice during the use. And  after each use, I clear the accumulations mostly of hair, etc. from the brushroll on the base. So when the Shark showed no accumulation in the container, I thought it must be time to toss it into the dumpster. But then, I thought, I'll look in the Instruction Booklet. I found  a page under maintenance that indicated I may want to "check the wand for blockages." Now since I assembled the vacuum cleaner, I'd never thought to check the wand, but worth a try. First I had to remove the wand from the handheld portion and check  all the dust cup intake (colon) openings. I'd done that and there was no significant issue. Next step was to remove the floor nozzle from the wand and check the wand for blockages. And to clear blockages if required. Instructions stop there. The so-called wand, or large intestine, about 3 feet in length, appeared to be totally blocked. Visibility was zero, in attempt to peer through. My first tool was an old toothbrush, which reached only a short part of the blockage. I tried next an old bottle brush, but that was also too short in addition to being too spindly. So I located an old and very long screwdriver, and was able to push and pull the remainder of the blockage* away from  the sides and center of the "wand." The operation was a success, and no anesthesia was needed, though if I drank alcohol, I could have used a drink.

 * Most of the blockage consisted of wads of cat hair, not strands of hair, but the shedded fluff of her undercoat, which probably could serve as insulation.

No comments: