Get listed in the Spick and Span Directory

Carpet Cleaning Issues - Carpet construction, upholstery cleaning, stain removal, equipment, events, etc.

Vacs- Parallel or in series!!

Posted by chris_rushton (Chris Rushton), 1 April 2004
can anyone explain about vacs being in parallel (side by side) or series (one vac sucking into the base of the other).What do you think is the best set up?I have used the CFR Pro 400 for a few years now, this only uses one vac motor, but dries VERY fast, I dont quite understand the difference Huh
I have copied the quote below from a posting by Mr John Bolton, about changes he will be making to his new recoil machine-
"For one thing, since the two three- stage and one two-stage vacs are all in parallel for maximum airflow, the  total vacuum potential is less than, for example a Ninja or Cheyanne 3."
Does this mean that they would be better in series?
Confused Huh
Posted by Dave_Lee (Dave_Lee), 1 April 2004
I can only tell of my own experiences. I still have a portable with twin (large) 3 stage vacs in parrallel. I also used to have to run alongside this machine a Prochem Cheyanne 3 with twin (Smaller) 3 stage vacs in series.
Some tell, that the better airflow the dryer the carpet.
The cheyanne with the smaller vacs but mounted in series had  noticeably more pull, And, left carpets dryer.
Posted by Kinver_Clean (Kinver_Clean), 1 April 2004
This is the old one again.
Twin in series gives higher vacuum
Twin in parallell gives high unresricted airflow
To get a high airflow through the carpet you need high vacuum with enough air flow and poer to maintain it.
Twin in series presents problems with the second motor sucking the first and making it over rev thus shortening its life.

Life is always a trade pays your money and takes your choice.

A decent TM will beat all portys any time.

Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 1 April 2004

Both Dave and Trevor are correct regarding the relative vacuum/airflow results with the two setups.

As to which will get the carpet drier, that is to a large part dependant on wand technique and wand design.

For example, the CFR wand is designed for a high airflow set-up and fuctions at its' best in this situation. The Glidemaster wand supplied with many machines such as the Ninja and several offerings from Prochem will fuction well with either set-up provided  the opperator understands how the wand should be used with whichever set-up is being used.

As Trevor has pointed out, a good TM will deliver greater airflow and vacuum than portable machines, so either flavour of wanding will produce results generally identical.


Posted by ALEXDH (ALEXDH), 1 April 2004
Do the  gods agree that you should not push the wand down into the pile as this restricts airflow.

Grin Grin Grin.

Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 2 April 2004

It depends entirely upon what you are trying to achieve and where you need the airflow to act.

Posted by Neil_Gott (Neil Gott), 3 April 2004
If there is little or no airflow through the backing, then pressing the wand into the pile would be counter productive.

I do find it very helpful to use wands with observation windows. That way you can see whether or not you are wasting your time and energy
Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 3 April 2004

Airflow through the backing will always be lower than airflow through the pile, but, for example, in many situations where wicking of a deep-penetrated stain may occur it can be avoided by creating this deeper suction then following up with a 'surface' rinse. Thinf also about flood work.

This is a situation where a vacuum-optimised (series) machine has the edge.


This page is a thread posted to the cleanitup forum at and archived here for reference. To jump to the archive index please follow this link.