[Graeme@Access]

I would love to actually measure total amount of soil removed by both methods.

Imagine an experiment.. i can think of some. The soil is non volatile or it wouldnt be in the carpet most of the time, its the cleaning agent offset im struggling with and how to gauge the amount of soild and agent left behind in the pad. Both areas would taint the results heavily.

Then maybe we could settle the dirt spreading argument. There is always a way, but i dont think DF would fund it lol.

While your at this thinking lark, consider a way to gauge cleaning efficiency, again i have a few, but the variables and errors would taint it.

Would love some input on this and it would be good for the industry to settle it.

Graeme
Access Cleaning Solutions

[Shaun_Ashmore]

I used to work for a company cleaning carpets with Host on some carpets we used to dry granular clean then to improve the appearance then spray buff, the results were great and virtually dry but it took a lot longer to do.

Shaun

PS Mike and myself had some cotton bonnets I thought that they were the best way of LM extraction as they did actually absorb the soil onto them you could actually see the soil on the pad and therefore you get the feeling of you ARE removing soil.

[robert meldrum]

There is really no point in such an experiment Graeme................the ultimate test is how pleased the customer is with the result........... and with the carpet cleaner, how well the carpets appear on the next visit.

Having used LM methods and products for a number of years it's my experience that carpets cleaned with LM look and feel at least as good as they would with HWE.

In the case of upholstery I've found suites remain clean longer and are easier to clean the next time compared with HWE.

[Mike Halliday]

this is a picture of Robert moments before he made that post..... he's starting his weekend early

[Shaun_Ashmore]

Must laugh as it does resemble Robert in that picture, sorry Rob I do have to agree with Mike on this one and I did dry foam all upholstery for may be 10 years.

Shaun

[Graeme@Access]

Robert,

Surely when asked to "clean" something your service delivery is based on how much dirt you can remove as a %. You can hide this as whatever you want, but science would measure it this way.

I appreciate the art of sales, its not about that. I would just love one of these "LM's the Dogs dangglies" or "HWE for the win" tribal units to come forward with an actual scientific measurement. Its possible and maybe stupidly, i think i could actually carry it out? Science is about things that dont work, believe me i published 2 papers. Could of been 30 if stuff that didnt work was of interest.

Apparently we put people on the moon. This isnt actually that hard.

So I continue with this: Think of a way to compare soil removal levels accurately using LM and HWE.

Graeme
Access Cleaning Solutions

Bees are intelligent not because one bee is smart. A billion bees that communicate can kill a man.

[Shaun_Ashmore]

It's not as easy as the cleanest carpet, the best way to thoroughly clean a carpet would be to immerse it which in the home would not be practical, weighing up to what is practical and what the customer wants is what we have to achieve.

Dry or LM cleaning was 'invented' to solve a problem where flood cleaning was not possible, then marketing came along and moisture problems caused by nasty extraction machines.

Shaun

[Simon@arenaclean]

I don't believe there is a right way or a wrong way, LM this HWE that and comparison is rather pointless. To offer your customer the complete service based on the situation and practicalities is the right descision. I clean a lot of schools, all LM with a 20 year old victor. They look great when they are done and it would take considerably longer to HWE. I don't think there is an argument I use LM, VLM and HWE, why would I want to restrict myself. I often use both systems and post bonnet quite a bit on domestics, it works a treat. As professionals we should all be open minded and not entrench ourselves one way or the other.

[robert meldrum]

Not as rotund Mike and don't drink nowadays. I never thought it possible to remove soil with pads until I used a Tex' system which removed massive amounts of soil and the carpets did NOT resoil any quicker than when cleaned with HWE.

As you've recently discovered, o/p cleaning with the best products and pads can equal HWE in most cases, as been proven for some time in the US.

Graeme

By showing a client a clean carpet which had previously been a dirty carpet is proof enough to the client that the task has been done.
To constantly seek proof that one system will remove a a few micrograms more than another has no value to anyone other than the frustrated scientist . I f you MUST have proof lift  equally soiled carpet sections............weigh them...........clean them...........dry them ...........weigh them again......simples!

[Shaun_Ashmore]

Weight and appearance but it is as simple as what Robert has stated.

Rob what system and machinery do youtend to use these days?

Shaun

[cleaningmaster]

Mike,

what chemicals are you using with the new machine?

Many Thanks

Daryl

[Mike Halliday]

daryl.

I've used fusionclean and pureclean boith gave equally good results

[Graeme@Access]

Robert,

That would be simple, but it comes back to my point: how can you offset the cleaning agent deposited using LM? Its not soil but would add weight. If you used your method, then did a water submersion clean, i still think you would get an error from the leaching of water solubles from the carpet (assuming HWE rinsing with water).

Science is harder than carpet cleaning. I agree our debate should focus on how much the client likes the result. But it will never put an end to the dirt-spreading arguments. With design this could be ended, im sure between us we would be able to do the design.

After all, I feel we should be thinking whats the best way to actually clean a carpet. Service business is however, about making you client happiest. The conflict of these principles is the root of the disagreement.

Graeme
Access Cleaning Solutions

[cleaningmaster]

Thanks Mike

I have been using pure clean i just wanted to know if there was something better

Regards

Daryl

[Dave Roberts]

There is really no point in such an experiment Graeme................the ultimate test is how pleased the customer is with the result........... and with the carpet cleaner, how well the carpets appear on the next visit.

Having used LM methods and products for a number of years it's my experience that carpets cleaned with LM look and feel at least as good as they would with HWE.

In the case of upholstery I've found suites remain clean longer and are easier to clean the next time compared with HWE.

+1

 

[Dave Roberts]

Robert,

Surely when asked to "clean" something your service delivery is based on how much dirt you can remove as a %. You can hide this as whatever you want, but science would measure it this way.

I appreciate the art of sales, its not about that. I would just love one of these "LM's the Dogs dangglies" or "HWE for the win" tribal units to come forward with an actual scientific measurement. Its possible and maybe stupidly, i think i could actually carry it out? Science is about things that dont work, believe me i published 2 papers. Could of been 30 if stuff that didnt work was of interest.

Apparently we put people on the moon. This isnt actually that hard.

So I continue with this: Think of a way to compare soil removal levels accurately using LM and HWE.

Graeme
Access Cleaning Solutions

Bees are intelligent not because one bee is smart. A billion bees that communicate can kill a man.

What a comical post............    You think people pay us, based on scientific proof of a % of soil removed??    People pay us and THEY choose the requirements they want. It's usually a clean looking, feeling and smelling carpet, not some sort of OCD derived certificate on sterilty levels, or the assurance of an HWE guy that "don't worry pet, that dull looking carpet is DEEP clean".

This is what so many of you HWE peeps don't get - it's a business not a washing competition.  LISTEN to your customers.   They want stains and spots removed and a nice, clean, consistant looking carpet;   the LM methods discussed here provide that, often with greater success than HWE. Adn with a host of other benfits like fast drying, slower resoiling and fewer damage risks.

[Shaun_Ashmore]

But won't the power of HWE dislodge more soil as it's more direct to the base?

Shaun

[robert meldrum]

Shaun

If I could justify it I'd have one of Mr Guerlink's Easyglides and import their chemicals and pads............meantime, I have a Truvox 15" which gets used with Chemblend or a Colloid plus an old Bane and a couple of portables. Still use One Step and am working my way through a tub of Bane powder.

Graeme

I fully appreciate where you're coming from, but my priority in any business I've been involved in is to make a profit while keeping within ethical boundaries.

In carpet cleaning most incidents of " bad practice " I've encountered have been from users of HWE methods which is easy to " balls up "and often is, most often by applying too much water / failing to extract enough water.

To date I've been experimenting with and using low moisture type methods for about 10 years and  NEVER had a bad experience experience with them.

Buyers of carpet cleaning want a tangible result, something that's a marked improvement on what they currently have. They don't expect or seek proof that one method used is 2% or 20% better than another method. If it's clean and dry in a reasonable time and stays clean as long as any other method ............the carpet cleaner has done his job.

[Simon Gerrard]

Robert,
I think you're quite right, as far as the customer is concerned if it looks clean then it is clean - whether it is or not is another matter.
Simon

[Shaun_Ashmore]

I've been looking at the CCSOP machines, I've had a 13" floormac and found it to just skip across the carpet do you think if there was a machine that was heavier say 20kg not the 10 or 12kg like the Orecks or Floormac it would be any better?

Shaun