Mike Halliday

  • Posts: 11581
Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2012, 05:50:27 pm »
in that case forget me previous post........ the carpet will melt and burst into flames within 20 mins releasing a radioactive dust cloud that will engulf the planet causing the death of all known life :o :o :o

to be sensible...... that's the problem with chemicals were the manufacturer doesn't give you the option to use a a pre-spray without the oxygen booster its got to be used on everything even if it not needed or suitable
Mike Halliday.  www.henryhalliday.co.uk

Colin Day

Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2012, 06:06:24 pm »
If you mix it cold, the OB won't be activated anyway.... Surely ???

james roffey

Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2012, 06:14:32 pm »
One thing i have noticed, after just three years carpet cleaning i am down to probably three chemicals now rather than having loads of stuff on the van, i use powerburst, and SPM, sometimes use ultrapac but thats it, almost the same with spotters the same ones come out on most jobs solvex, citrus gel,  stain pro i did wonder whether SPM can be used as a spotter in the same way as pureclean a similar product i think, Prochem say you can mix it up very strong with almost boiling water and spot with it, i have had good results using it like this and wonder if spm can be used like this too.

Kinver_Clean

  • Posts: 1120
Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #23 on: February 20, 2012, 08:02:03 pm »
SPM does not contain optical brightener.
It contains an Oxy boost type of thing.
This needs good hand hot water in the sprayer when mixing to activate It will then carry on for an hour or so. Too hot water will make it fizz and losr the oxy bit too quickly.  It is best to mix enough for the job- 5 litres for an average 3 bed semi.
It will carry on working for a longer time but the oxy bit will be lost as the oxygen will be spent.
It works.

God must love stupid people---He made so many.

Mark Lawrence

  • Posts: 288
Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #24 on: February 20, 2012, 08:29:13 pm »
..15 minute dwell time, (no agitation) hwe,

You may have been lucky on this occasion. Why on earth do you not agitate? its just as important as the other processes. Surely you wouldnt put shampoo in your hair and then rinse straight away without getting your fingers in your hair? No, of course not because you know its essential.

Quite simply your results would be better. It aint rocket science is it.

Mark

Jim_77

Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #25 on: February 20, 2012, 08:45:46 pm »
I think we all need to go back to the science classroom (or wikipedia ;) ;) )

"An oxidizing agent (also called an oxidant, oxidizer or oxidiser) can be defined as a substance that removes electrons from another reactant in a redox chemical reaction. The oxidizing agent is "reduced" by taking electrons onto itself and the reactant is "oxidized" by having its electrons taken away. Oxygen is the prime example of an oxidizing agent, but it is only one among many"   {source}

"Optical brighteners [...] are dyes that absorb light in the ultraviolet and violet region [...] of the electromagnetic spectrum, and re-emit light in the blue region [...] These additives are often used to enhance the appearance of color of fabric and paper, causing a "whitening" effect, making materials look less yellow by increasing the overall amount of blue light reflected" {source}


Optical brighteners and oxidising agents are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS!!

Admittedly, the term "oxygenating brightener" is a little confusing.  It sounds better than "oxygenating bleach" though ;)

Still doesn't sound as bad as Dihydrogen monoxide and I get through gallons of it every day ;) ;)

Nigel_W

Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #26 on: February 20, 2012, 09:31:48 pm »
So it contains an oxidising bleach. Surely it makes more sense to use a standard micro splitter/ detergent pre spray and add the oxidising bleach as a booster when required in extreme circumstances. I think this as the arrangement with Solutions Mpower and soluboost. Maybe this particular version of oxidising bleach is ok. It would be nice to know though before hosing down wool carpets with it.

I wonder if Prochem Pureclean contain "oxygenating brighteners"? Or do any other pre spray/carpet rinses contain them?


Nigel



Jim_77

Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2012, 09:40:22 pm »
Nigel I think the amount of it in the mixture is nowhere near as much as what you'd add to a pre-spray if you were mixing it yourself.  Why not ask the main man on WoC? ;)

Nigel_W

Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #28 on: February 20, 2012, 09:47:26 pm »
Hi Jim,

I will ask Nick next time I speak to him. This thread reminded me of my concerns about using SPM on wool. I just thought some of the regular SPM users/supporters would know the answers ;)

Nigel

Colin Day

Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2012, 09:53:25 pm »
..15 minute dwell time, (no agitation) hwe,

You may have been lucky on this occasion. Why on earth do you not agitate? its just as important as the other processes. Surely you wouldnt put shampoo in your hair and then rinse straight away without getting your fingers in your hair? No, of course not because you know its essential.

Quite simply your results would be better. It aint rocket science is it.

Mark

What if it was a loop pile wool carpet? You would risk pulling and fuzzing the carpet fibres if you agitated. Sometimes all a carpet needs is a longer dwell time if you think there is a risk of damage to the carpet fibres....

Shaun_Ashmore

  • Posts: 11381
Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #30 on: February 20, 2012, 10:32:18 pm »
On berbers I wouldn't rotary but I would contra rotate  :o but on certain occassions I may just use a pre spray only, I haven't tried SPM as I have a garage full of alsorts to get rid of first but it's on my list.

Shaun

Mark Lawrence

  • Posts: 288
Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #31 on: February 20, 2012, 10:50:28 pm »
..15 minute dwell time, (no agitation) hwe,

You may have been lucky on this occasion. Why on earth do you not agitate? its just as important as the other processes. Surely you wouldnt put shampoo in your hair and then rinse straight away without getting your fingers in your hair? No, of course not because you know its essential.

Quite simply your results would be better. It aint rocket science is it.

Mark

What if it was a loop pile wool carpet? You would risk pulling and fuzzing the carpet fibres if you agitated. Sometimes all a carpet needs is a longer dwell time if you think there is a risk of damage to the carpet fibres....

Obviously agitating on a loop carries risks - and I presumed he (a CC who would/should know this) knew this already. Didnt realise I had to add this to my comments ???

I'll re-phrase what I said Colin ..."except berber loops where it may be deemed risky thus possibly causing fuzzing/fibre damage - except where a carpet may be heavily worn and the risk is acceptable in the circumstances". or something like that.

Is that better  :)

Mark

des

  • Posts: 513
Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #32 on: February 20, 2012, 10:53:45 pm »
S P M does not contain optical brightners and Tony C have you ever tried mixing spm on the job as this keeps it hot and this is how it works best and if you want better results try a bit of agitating Des
des at mister clean

john martin

  • Posts: 2699
Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #33 on: February 20, 2012, 11:29:24 pm »
was gonna have a snoop at its contents , but cant see an MSDS sheet for SMP or Mpower   ...

Colin Day

Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #34 on: February 21, 2012, 07:30:58 am »
was gonna have a snoop at its contents , but cant see an MSDS sheet for SMP or Mpower   ...


Nick with gladly provide one at your request... But that's gonna be difficult as he will have to send it to never never land to reach you.....  ;D

Colin Day

Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #35 on: February 21, 2012, 07:33:12 am »
..15 minute dwell time, (no agitation) hwe,

You may have been lucky on this occasion. Why on earth do you not agitate? its just as important as the other processes. Surely you wouldnt put shampoo in your hair and then rinse straight away without getting your fingers in your hair? No, of course not because you know its essential.

Quite simply your results would be better. It aint rocket science is it.

Mark

What if it was a loop pile wool carpet? You would risk pulling and fuzzing the carpet fibres if you agitated. Sometimes all a carpet needs is a longer dwell time if you think there is a risk of damage to the carpet fibres....

Obviously agitating on a loop carries risks - and I presumed he (a CC who would/should know this) knew this already. Didnt realise I had to add this to my comments ???

I'll re-phrase what I said Colin ..."except berber loops where it may be deemed risky thus possibly causing fuzzing/fibre damage - except where a carpet may be heavily worn and the risk is acceptable in the circumstances". or something like that.

Is that better  :)

Mark

Marginally less condescending as you didn't finish it off with the "It's not rocket science" bit... Well done you!!!! ;D

Tony_C

  • Posts: 28
Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2012, 02:54:15 pm »
..15 minute dwell time, (no agitation) hwe,

You may have been lucky on this occasion. Why on earth do you not agitate? its just as important as the other processes. Surely you wouldnt put shampoo in your hair and then rinse straight away without getting your fingers in your hair? No, of course not because you know its essential.

Quite simply your results would be better. It aint rocket science is it.

Mark

Why on earth would you agitate if getting excellent results without.

Agitating takes time, time is money. It aint rocket science is it.

What was the point of your post? Was it to appear superior if so you failed.

Was it to improve your post count - well done.

Colin Day

Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #37 on: February 21, 2012, 03:18:40 pm »
..15 minute dwell time, (no agitation) hwe,

You may have been lucky on this occasion. Why on earth do you not agitate? its just as important as the other processes. Surely you wouldnt put shampoo in your hair and then rinse straight away without getting your fingers in your hair? No, of course not because you know its essential.

Quite simply your results would be better. It aint rocket science is it.

Mark

Why on earth would you agitate if getting excellent results without.

Agitating takes time, time is money. It aint rocket science is it.

What was the point of your post? Was it to appear superior if so you failed.

Was it to improve your post count - well done.

Touché ;D

Mark Lawrence

  • Posts: 288
Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #38 on: February 21, 2012, 04:03:12 pm »
..15 minute dwell time, (no agitation) hwe,

You may have been lucky on this occasion. Why on earth do you not agitate? its just as important as the other processes. Surely you wouldnt put shampoo in your hair and then rinse straight away without getting your fingers in your hair? No, of course not because you know its essential.

Quite simply your results would be better. It aint rocket science is it.

Mark

Why on earth would you agitate if getting excellent results without.

Agitating takes time, time is money. It aint rocket science is it.

What was the point of your post? Was it to appear superior if so you failed.

Was it to improve your post count - well done.

You were complaining that you couldnt get a result and that you dont agitate. I was explaining obviously why (my analogy is absolute sense - as you know). Perhaps you dont understand what CHAT means? Most CC's do.

Maybe your a splash n dash (as you say it takes 'time' to do this, so lets cut this bit out) - well done.

Mark

Jim_77

Re: Tried SPM again
« Reply #39 on: February 21, 2012, 04:32:53 pm »