Derek

Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #60 on: February 15, 2004, 08:14:49 pm »
Hi Lee

I do believe they do.... when dry!

I am not sure what happens though when they are rewet.

My point is that it doesn't necessarily have to be the chemicals that are at fault but that the chemicals already contained within the substrates (i.e. Dyes/fixers/finishes etc.) during the manufacturing process are constantly changing and therefore have the potential to react with cleaning chemicals

Cheers
Derek

Lee

Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #61 on: February 15, 2004, 08:33:14 pm »
Thankyou Derek, its something I guess I have very little knowlege of as I dont think its really every caused me any problems. Perhaps the truth is that I never get to hear of the problems! I really only use what i call trial and error, and so far have not been able to better the overall performance of a chemical I have used for over 5 years now.

Derek

Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #62 on: February 15, 2004, 09:14:18 pm »
Hi again Lee

Likewise....then suddenly one day something unexpected happens... you have used what you have always used before with no problem.

It's happened to me several times and each time I have subsequently discovered that the problem has been the result of some change in the manufacturing process.

I take calls quite frequently from cleaners who have had this sort of problem... I try to help whenever I can

Cheers
Derek

Lee

Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #63 on: February 17, 2004, 12:18:57 am »
I think I could really do with your number!!!

Dave_Lee

  • Posts: 1728
Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #64 on: February 18, 2004, 02:13:56 am »
Dont, get me wrong on this one - I agree with change and progression. As I have said I do use fresh water rinse with micro splitters etc. I have used acidic rinse as the only cleaning agent on many a job. Lets face it new ideas machinery, gadgets and solutions crop up, at, it seems, an ever increasing rate.
But can anyone especially those who have had past experience really say that these new ideas are now THE way to clean - abandon high PH detergents  (which manufacturers are STILL improving and supplying). I for one cant see that as an argument. I have used medium to high PH products since I started in 1980 - apart from a couple of mistakes in my first year - using these products even without any other rinsing - I have never had any problems just repeat business and recommends which is still the mainstay of my business.
Furthermore, over the years I have been to clean many a suite and carpet on their last legs - resurected it - and been cleaning it years after the owners thought it beyond saving. Concerning resoiling, my repeat cleans of the same carpet averaged every 2-3 years and clients often express how well they stay clean - especially since using a self neutralising product. What I am really getting at, is - that on the evidence of what I have personally experienced, the business about the slight residue that is left with these med to high PH products - as the manufacturers claim themselves, do little to enhance any resoiling of an unacceptable degree (If at all). Like the saying goes "If it aint broke -why fix it."
Dave.
Dave Lee, Owner of Deepclean Services
Chorley Lancs. Est 1980.
"Pay Cheap -You get Cheap - Pay a little more and get something Better."

Bryan H

  • Posts: 143
Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #65 on: February 18, 2004, 03:07:26 pm »
Reference the issue of chemical residues left in carpets & (apparent danger of).   I sometimes feel it a little strange that a now large number of cleaners frown on this practice, but will happily use a rotary or contra-rotating brush machine (on domestic carpets) for agitation, particularly when using a micro-splitter.

I have owned a rotary machine in the past & do now have a couple of Host type machines.  I use these often for agitation on commercial carpets, or sometimes go the whole hog. and use a Stimvak power brush followed by a wand.

But I would never use these type of machines on my carpets, or allow anyone else to do so, ( not refering to bonnet pads by the way).  Consequently I would not feel inclined to use them on my clients domestic carpets either.

I believe ,  rightly, or as I will no doubt be told, wrongly, that the use of this type of machine is far more injurious to the carpet in the long term than the tiny amount of alkaline residue left after using conventional tank additives.

Anything which causes unnecessary fraying or blowing out of the tips of the pile, will cause roughening of the surface and speed up the re-soiling process.  Perhaps even more importantly, it can also mar the appearance of the carpets.

As I know many of you guys use this system of agitation, I may have stirred up a Hornets nest !   I am not setting out to be controversial, but just stating it as I see it from experience of using these machines & examining the results.

Looking forward to viewing the responses:  and hoping to find some lone soul who agrees with me.    

Bryan


Christal Clean - Berks

Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #66 on: February 18, 2004, 03:19:15 pm »
Hi Bryan

I would definately advocate the host machine with soft brushes on a domestic carpet,there are also light weight agitation machines available fro the likes of Sebo, if used correctly there is not a risk of damaging a carpet with either of these machines.

You can of course use a pile rake on domestic if you are looking to stay fit and trim!!!

Best regards Nick

Robert_O

Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #67 on: February 18, 2004, 05:01:06 pm »
Hi Bryan

When I first started out in this business quite a few years ago, I recall being told on an NCCA training course that if you rub and scrub at a carpet particularly under wet conditions, then you may often cause distortion to the pile fibres of a carpet.

Even in stain removal we are taught by the professional trainers and on any spotting reference guide 'Blot, do not rub or scrub'!

I look at things like this ::) :o

No seriously, I personally have reservations about useing rotary shampoo scrubbing systems on carpet fibres, due to the aggressive nature and tork placed on the fibres. This can and often does distort fibres leaving swirl marks in its wake, which can be difficult sometimes impossible to brush out completely.

Now there are always exceptions to the rule, and in some situations having this system on the right type of carpet when dealing with heavy soiling can be an excellent way to break up soiling prior to extraction (duel process clean).

I personally like the use of the Host type contra rotating brushes because there is little or no tork on the fibres. The fibres are being agitated reasonably uniformly, and are being brushed in an upward motion, not swirling around. This upward agitation will effectively lift the fibres whilst not serving to break them up by twist action under a heavy weight.

My personal view is that the dry carpet cleaning brush systems are an essential piece of kit for aggitation of main traffic areas, to work in prespray, and of course their original purpose to dry clean carpets that are problematic to wet cleaning.

Thats my thoughts on the matter any way.

Regards

Robert




Bryan H

  • Posts: 143
Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #68 on: February 18, 2004, 06:51:24 pm »
Yes Nick,  I do use a standard carpet brush & it can be b****y hard work I agree, but I usually find it preferable to humping an extra piece of metal into a confined space, especially a third floor flat!

I agree with Robert about the possible effects of using a rotary, which is why I sold mine.  Unfortunately this means I don't have the option of using bonnets.

I also accept what both of you are saying, that a host m/c with soft brushes appears to do negligible damage, and is certainly very effective for agitation.  I didn't say I never did it, and in fact used it on a very grotty carpet in a rented property recently.  Saved a lot of sweat !

But another problem that does occur with these machines on soft wool carpets, is the production of large amounts of fluff: far more than is produced by a normal carpet brush.  If this is not carefully removed it blocks up the wand.  I have spent many an hour struggling to prise wads from the vacuum slot.

I value your comments, and maybe it is time for me to have a re-think on this issue & see if I can squeeze a permanent space on my already full van for the host m/c .

Bryan  
Christal Clean - Berks

Dynafoam

Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #69 on: February 18, 2004, 08:44:08 pm »
Bryan,

Whilst I applaud your caution, I fully endorse Roberts comments and would add thet since the Host machine works in the vertical rather than the horizontal plane,  in addition to lifting the pile it avoids most of the abrasive action of grit within the pile.

Provided the correct brushes are fitted to the machine - the gold is very soft - I am comfortable with its' use.

John.

SteveTruman

  • Posts: 148
Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #70 on: February 18, 2004, 10:14:23 pm »
Sorry guys have to disagree. I have used a rotary (Numatic) for 15 yrs never a problem. So unless they have decided to make carpets differently ...no problem ...
Always rake afterwards and you will be fine.

Regards

Steve

Petersullivan

  • Posts: 40
Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2004, 10:36:10 pm »
Hi guys so are you saying that the correct cleaning method for hwe would be to pre spray , agitate , then with a product in your tank like crystal green to bring the ph value back to neutral, and then re rinse with just water to ensure that the detergent that youve just applied is removed? ???
P.Sullivan

Dave_Lee

  • Posts: 1728
Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #72 on: February 19, 2004, 12:47:11 am »
Peter,
What I was saying, is that for years I had/have had no problems including premature resoiling, using aprocess like you described, only without the fresh water rinse to finish. Incidently Crystal Green and the like do not bring the PH back to neutral. The small amount of alkaline residue that is left, dries to non resoiling fine granules. I sometimes think some people are thinking this type of residue is the smae as a Crystalising Shampoo - where there is significant residue left in the carpet which DOES greatly lead to RAPID resoiling.
Dave.
Dave Lee, Owner of Deepclean Services
Chorley Lancs. Est 1980.
"Pay Cheap -You get Cheap - Pay a little more and get something Better."

Robert_O

Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #73 on: February 19, 2004, 01:03:44 am »
It might be an idea to conduct some sourcer tests, as I thought that it was the other way around with the Crystal Green and crystalising shampoo solutions.

Crystal green as a rinse solution to neutralise? :o :-/

Crystalising shampoo as I understand it is designed to dry to a crystalised form encapsulating the emulsified soil. When dried this encapsulated soil is simply dry vacuumed out of the carpet. The residue left by this product if used at correctly should not encourage rapid resoiling (check with sourcer test).

If I am wrong then please forgive my ramblings.

But if anyone else can put this into better perspective then I would very much appreciate being corrected or even endorsed.

At the end of the day we can all benefit by learning from eachother.

Regards

Robert

Dynafoam

Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #74 on: February 19, 2004, 01:21:17 am »
Robert,

Perhaps I am wrong too, but I am of the same oppinion as you.

Whilst Crystal green can crystalise when dry, the crystals are anhydrous and become noticeably sticky.

Crystalising shampoos, wether of the older embritalising variety or the more recent encapsulants, are claimed not to produce rapid resoil.

John.

PS What happened to Ultimate master?

Robert_O

Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #75 on: February 19, 2004, 02:12:31 am »
I believe also that Crystal Green is a cationic compatible detergent. This means that it can be used in conjunction with sanitising bactericides.

I feel sure though that it can leave soil attracting residues, and is certainly not any form of rinseing or neutralising agent.

I hope that helps people from steering clear of any potential problems.

Regards

Robert Olifent

Dave_Lee

  • Posts: 1728
Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #76 on: February 19, 2004, 02:22:42 am »
I am going off personal experience. You are both correct about the crystalisation of shampoo, however vacuums only seem to picked a small percentage, and high percentage of the crystals are left. I remember when a lot of shampooing went on and when the optical brighteners had faded they always looked dull and very quickly soiled. Also a pre shampooed carpet was/is a nightmare to clean with all that foam reactivation, especially in the recovery tank.
Anyway, what got me going along this thread in the first place was - Micro Splitters are very good in hwe and may be the safer alternative to traditional Alkaline rinse solutions in many cases. Does this mean a move away from the traditional methods or will there always be room for them. It just seemed to me that these well tried and tested methods are being critisised as dangerous, resoilers and after years of success with them I for one never had these so called problems.
Dave.
Dave Lee, Owner of Deepclean Services
Chorley Lancs. Est 1980.
"Pay Cheap -You get Cheap - Pay a little more and get something Better."

Dynafoam

Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #77 on: February 19, 2004, 02:29:01 am »
Robert,

Crystal Green, unless they have completely changed the formulation very recently is non-ionic and contains no cationes.

It is its' non-ionic nature that make it suitable for use with residual sanitisers such as B125.

The presence of cationes would amorphise the B125 crystals, leading them to be surrendered by normal vacuum cleaning.

John.

Robert_O

Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #78 on: February 19, 2004, 03:02:55 am »
Hi John

Just to clarify my point, I mentioned that Crystal Green was 'Cationic compatable', not that it was its self cationic in nature.


Regards

Robert

Dynafoam

Re: Ultimate Master
« Reply #79 on: February 19, 2004, 09:44:11 pm »
Dave,

I agree that crystalising shampoos are not completely removed by 'normal' dry vacuuming.

The dulling of carpets is another downside - which is even worse when the optical brighteners 'yellow' with age.

As to the more traditional chemicals, yes, many of them will continue to have a place as specific problem solvers.
The example Robert gave regarding crystal green, in association with B125 being one such case.

Despite being a convert to micro splitters, which I use on 90% of jobs, I still have over 30 other products on the van...............Just in case.

John.