Actually , just spotted Ashbys full reply here ...
Published on Sep 21, 2012 by AshbysUK
Thank you BucklandSteamClean for bringing the Cleansmart video to our attention. We have posted the link below -
http://youtu.be/ZXn5gL3AaBsas it is only fair people see both to understand the difficulties faced in the accurate testing and comparing of vacuum systems.
Ashbys have over 35 years experience in the professional carpet cleaning industry. We know our customers work hard and we want to support them by offering the best machine. To ensure our customers get the best, it is important that they can make an informed decision when buying a machine - and to do this, they need to know a machine's specification.
When we test a machines vacuum system it is not in laboratory conditions, but we try to do so in a fair, monitored and controlled environment using a standard model and test equipment which provides a consistent result. This can be difficult when measuring CFM.
Having used in the past both vane and hot-wire anemometers, the Omega gauge used in our video produces consistent results which can act as a fair comparison between machines. Hand held devices need to be fixed in position, in a known cubic area to calculate CFM accurately. If not fixed in position you achieve varying results. A good example of this shown in Cleansmart's video (see time 2.54 - 3.07), where the vane anemometer shows readings which appear to vary between 400 - 300 CFM prior to being positioned in the test area of their Airflex Turbo.
We believe our testing methods are sound and stand by our comparative results. We believe our vacuum system PC9951 is the best in its class and if it were not, we would willingly install a different system.
In our video the Enforcer tested was brand new. The Cleansmart Airflex Turbo was not brand new, but was in good working order, had the dump valve fully closed and we have no reason to believe it did not perform to its normal working specification.
It did not however, have the grey plastic / metal device shown at the back of the clear recovery / dirty water tank lid (see Cleansmart's video time 1.14), which during the airflow test could act as a clamp if the lid was being pushed down (see time 3.05) and create a higher CFM reading by preventing air leakage.
Our engineers have noted that when the air-flow of our Enforcer is tested, the operative's right hand is in (and remains in) a position on the recovery tank lid hinge where, if force were applied, would pivot the lid away from where it should seal and creates air leakage, giving a lower CFM reading (see time 2.13 on Cleansmart video).
Is the operative's wink at the end significant?
We believe the fairest way would be for an independent third party to test standard versions of both machines under agreed simulated working conditions.
Please ring me on 01795 436999 if you wish to discuss this or come and help me set up a test method you feel is fair.
Kind regards
Derek Ashby
Ashbys Cleaning Equipment
