Clean It Up

UK Floor Cleaning Forum => Carpet Cleaning Forum => Topic started by: john martin on February 21, 2015, 06:58:22 pm

Title: Quick vac test ...
Post by: john martin on February 21, 2015, 06:58:22 pm

  John Martin is testing motors  :)

  Im gonna put a suction guage on these three in about anhour and i will post the results  ... 
on the left a 6.6  , middle an Electro 1600w , and on the right a £60 ebay vac

The suspense might be too much for some  , anyone want to predict the results , first second ,  third ? or  " waterlift


(http://i57.tinypic.com/2e2iblt.jpg)
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: Lewis Newby on February 21, 2015, 07:20:14 pm
John for lift figures i cant imagine the 1600w electro not winning. What spec is the ebay motor? Cheap usually means poor reliability or poor performance but not necessarily both so could initially perform well.

im going elector - 6.6 - ebay (assuming likely 1200w
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: stuart_clark on February 21, 2015, 07:35:33 pm
6.6
electro
cheap ebay



Stuart
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: john martin on February 21, 2015, 07:46:38 pm

 Ebay is a 1500w czech Ametek , looks beefy !

 6.6 is also a 1600w
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: Lewis Newby on February 21, 2015, 07:51:29 pm
Close call, i still stick to my origional post. Do you have facility to measure cfms John?
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: fibresafe on February 21, 2015, 07:58:03 pm
The Electro and Ebay one are 3-stage motors so should both be higher on lift. The 6.6 is more about airflow. The Electro one also draws nearly 9 amps, compared to about 7 amps for the 6.6. The 6.6 will probably come 3rd for lift, but the 6.6 would win if you were measuring airflow. The 6.6  would draw with the Electro if you were measuring overall vacuum power (airwatts) despite drawing nearly 2 amps less - you get more power per amp with the 6.6's because they're more efficient.
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: Raymondo on February 21, 2015, 07:58:48 pm
I have a spare Briggs and Stratton 16 hp vanguard engine and an old blower can we try that as well. :) :)

6.6  electro cheap ebay
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: dan paton on February 21, 2015, 08:18:20 pm
And the winner is?????????? ;D
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: john martin on February 21, 2015, 08:24:12 pm
And the winner is?????????? ;D

results delayed due to unforeseen events , trip to the Chinese  ;D

about an hour ...
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: stu_thomson on February 21, 2015, 08:25:45 pm
I couldn't care less coz I've a TM

I've also had a 🍺😀
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: derek west on February 21, 2015, 08:47:15 pm
the winner will be the owner of the one that markets there business better regardless of suction.  ;D
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: john martin on February 21, 2015, 09:48:13 pm

  The E-Bay motor  ...  9.5HG or 130" waterlift

 
  (http://i60.tinypic.com/21v2wo.jpg)

 
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: john martin on February 21, 2015, 09:53:17 pm

The Electro  ...  10.5 HG    143" waterlift


(http://i59.tinypic.com/106x5ko.jpg)
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: john martin on February 21, 2015, 09:54:02 pm


 and the winner is  ...
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: john martin on February 21, 2015, 09:58:02 pm

  not the 6.6  :P   10HG    136" waterlift

(http://i60.tinypic.com/29y4nkw.jpg)
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: stuart_clark on February 21, 2015, 10:02:05 pm
Its all a fix

only joking John
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: john martin on February 21, 2015, 10:02:16 pm
The Electro and Ebay one are 3-stage motors so should both be higher on lift. The 6.6 is more about airflow. The Electro one also draws nearly 9 amps, compared to about 7 amps for the 6.6. The 6.6 will probably come 3rd for lift, but the 6.6 would win if you were measuring airflow. The 6.6  would draw with the Electro if you were measuring overall vacuum power (airwatts) despite drawing nearly 2 amps less - you get more power per amp with the 6.6's because they're more efficient.

It wasn't the highest amp electro fibersafe , that one is about 1800w  , i had the meter on but didnt take pics , 6.6 was 7ams max , electro was 6.8 ish , around the same for  the ebay motor .
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: john martin on February 21, 2015, 10:03:28 pm
Its all a fix

only joking John

I think the 6.6 did well for a two stage , i might switch over the Enforcer to 6.6 in series to see how that goes .
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: john martin on February 21, 2015, 10:05:18 pm
Close call, i still stick to my origional post. Do you have facility to measure cfms John?

No i got a meter on ebay but i cant get any accuracy out of it , its a tricky thing even with the good gear .
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: Lewis Newby on February 21, 2015, 10:07:41 pm
John, im sure you know alot more about it then myself but i have read several posts suggesting the lamb 6.6 is not recommended for series configuration by the manufacturer.
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: fibresafe on February 21, 2015, 10:08:22 pm
Sorry, John, thought it was the bigger Electro. Be interested to see how you get on if you try the 2 x 6.6's in series, don't know anyone who's tried that yet
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: fibresafe on February 21, 2015, 10:13:12 pm
I don't think Lamb recommend any of their motors be mounted in series, but Lamb 5.7 motors have been mounted in series on quite a few machines for years
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: Lewis Newby on February 21, 2015, 10:22:24 pm
Im guessing 2 6.6 in series would give similar lift but anothed 20-25cfms to your enforcer john?
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: john martin on February 21, 2015, 10:27:22 pm

 It would probably have the same lift as the stock Enforcer , i have two 1600w electros in mine .  Ant increase in airflow might be interesting like u say .

I think they are just covering their as$ by not recommending series in general ...
This portable in the states uses the 6.6 in series , its the same body by alltec elite and others use , they have no 2" plumbling though .

http://www.excellent-supply.com/gallery.asp?catalogid=345
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: Carpet2Clean on February 21, 2015, 10:48:02 pm
Hi John

Chris at Alltec was building a twin 6.6 dual stack Elite a few months a go, not to sure how its going now but did have a go at the time and it had amazing suction power.


Richard
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: john martin on February 21, 2015, 10:59:25 pm
Hi John

Chris at Alltec was building a twin 6.6 dual stack Elite a few months a go, not to sure how its going now but did have a go at the time and it had amazing suction power.


Richard

sound like a parallel machine , Alltec seem to favor it which is fair enough , i kinda like series now ... and  4 vacs series /parallel even more ... four 6.6 would be real nice
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: Carpet2Clean on February 21, 2015, 11:04:10 pm
Hi John

Yes it was in parallel

Richard
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: stuart_clark on February 22, 2015, 11:04:07 am
Trouble is there is nothing new about 2x 6.6 set up machines, the Jag was the 1st then the Airflex pity he isn't producing a tripple or a quad now that would be something



Stuart
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: Paul Moss on February 22, 2015, 12:03:55 pm
Altec did a quad vac machine years ago, also had a heater on board, a massive porty .
Title: Re: Quick vac test ...
Post by: stuart_clark on February 22, 2015, 04:56:20 pm
Aye it was called the meleniam