[stevegunn]

I was asked this question today can anyone help


"If I want to start up the business with power being at the heart of the marketing strategy, is it more important to have the 1500 psi power for hard surface cleaning or the water lift for most day to day jobs? What advantages could I have from a machine which has that sort of power but with significantly reduced water lift? Having been reading up on the net about these things, it seems that the machine's effectiveness is generally calculated by a combination of water lift and CFM (airflow), so would I need to be looking at the CFM comparisons as well as the water lift?"

[paul@ctcs]

Tell your mate to do as we both have done and invest in an Eclipse.

Although our pumps are rated at producing 500psi i have heard the psi will go well above this if you keep winding, not sure if it will do the pump much good though!

Would 500psi not be enough to do the job anyway??

Paul

[Dynafoam]

Steve,

1500psi is no great shakes for many hard surface cleaning tasks and 350psi is more than enough for most carpet cleaning.

The debate on the relative merits of AO as opposed to VO (airflow or water lift) has been on-going for some time, and many hold totally opposed views.

For most carpet cleaning I consider airflow the more important element, though there needs to bes efficient vacuum potential to sustain that airflow.

Let me illustrate the point: If the wand is pressed hard against the carpet, with any type of machine there will be little or no airflow. No movement within the system means no water removed. Relieve the pressure on the wand and air begins to flow, taking water with it.

The more air that flows through the wand at the wand/carpet interface, the more water is removed.

With portable extractors of each type (AO & VO) the wand technique to get the best from that equipment will vary. Someone who has optimised their technique for the Eclipse (for example), with a maximum airflow potential of approx. 100cfm, if then given (for example) a Recoil with its 300cfm, if addopting the same technique, would not produce the same result. The same would apply the other way round.

I have, and still do, use machines of both types and for general gleaning can produce similar fairly results with both, assuming the same number of vacuum units fitted.

The exception being for flood extraction, where the removal of water from beneath the carpet is better served by the VO machines.

In the last three paragraphs I have referred to portable machines since internal combustion engined TM machines have the potential to acceptable airflow potential and high water lift.

[Ivar_Haglund]

I have a few holes drilled just above the wand lips

keeps the water moving and carpets dry faster

start with one or two holes and test

I think you will be suprized on the results.


IVAR

[Mark@Eco-Powerclean]

John

Many thanks for the very detailed reply. Not too sure whether it's made my decision of what to go for any clearer though, but as you say, it's a debate that I've noticed has been going on for some time, certainly on US forums.

In fact, this all came about because I asked Steve about the merits of water lift against airflow as I've been talking to him about the Eclipse. They do a 500psi machine with 249" of water lift, but the 1500psi model only has 158", which on the face of it seems very strange. For that matter, I don't even know if the 1500psi model has greater airflow, but if it doesn't, then other than being more powerful, it doesn't seem to have much going for it.

Still, I'll speak to Nick tomorrow morning (I'm first in the queue as I left a message for him last week - sorry guys  ) and see if I can get any info on any advantages the 1500psi machine has over the 500psi one.

Steve

Thanks for posting the subject on here, as I've just been moving the PC so have been off line for a little while.

[stevegunn]

Sorry for stealing your thunder but I knew if I posted the question on here JB would give a sensible reply.

[Dynafoam]

Thanks Steve 

Newbie,

Just to get you a little closer, if I were to buy an Eclipse, the model I would go for is the 350psi model. It offers the same vacuum configuration as the 500psi, adequate pressure and flow-rate, but is very much lighter (and a bit cheaper).

I understand that this model MAY be imported soon.

If you want a pressure washer, buy a dedicated unit which would do a better job, rather than trying to make your carpet cleaning machine a hybrid.

[johnnyone]

I have a few holes drilled just above the wand lips

keeps the water moving and carpets dry faster




IVAR

I have a stair tool with the holes as you describe in your post. I was wondering who did that and why ,,, Thank you for ansewering my questions.

Does any body else have these hole in there carpet wands??

My ideas about lift and flow is;

The suction or lift extractes the media water and dirt out of the fibers.

The air flow moves the water/dirt  to the tank, its like a marrage, we need them both to accomplish our job, if one is'nt working we have one unhappy cleaner...

John

[Ian Gourlay]

Before I drill my holes has anyone any comment

If anyone with a digital has hoes in their wand could they post a picture to illustrate exact position.

[Mike Halliday]

I don't believe this theory about having holes in your wand.

To extract water from a carpet you must pull air through the carpet or directly across the top surface if you have hole in your wand how does it acomplish this?

all you will do is pull air out of the atmosphere. I think the only way this will work is if you have a serated edge on the lips of your wand, this will at least pull the air across the top of the carpet.

Mike

[Dynafoam]

Ian,

Air flow is important, but it must be in the right place at the carpet/wand interface. Whilst cleaning it is the force of the air rushing between wand-lip and carpet is the mechanism by which the water is removed.

Any hole above this point is only leaking away the extraction power.

The only instance where this would make any sense is in the early stages of flood extraction, when the extraction power of the machine is more than sufficient to lift surface water and a deliberate (calculated) air leak above water level improves transport of water along the hose. (This applies mainly to portables).

[Mike Halliday]

So John You agree with me the holes are no use what so ever in removing extra water from the carpet, all they do is help the extracted water move along the hose.

I've always thought that wand holes are one of those myths that people believe in  because they have them.

Mike

[lee_gundry]

drilled holes


i have done some testing of this.

i used the chemspec DD wand.

cleaned a section of carpet with holes blocked up
cleaned a section of carpet with holes open

the section of carpet were the holes were open dried a lot quicker than with the holes blocked.


there was no prespray applied to carpet
same speed & wand teqnique was used
same amount of dry strokes
carpet was the same for both tests 1/2 & 1/2

the test was done using a 47 type blower ,havent tried it with a portable

Lee G

[lee_gundry]

cfm & water lift


what you also need the determine is when a manufacturer claimes to the values of cfm & water lift, is where the measurments are taken from.i ckecked two units both from top manufactures both claiming 240" water lift.while both units did produce 240" lift at the vac connector on front of the unit,one of the units vac inlet was reduced in size compaired to the other so reducing cfm.

most portables use 11/2 " vac hose compaired to 2" vac hose for fule drived tm /bane units,while the measurment in cfm & water lift seam to compair close to each other, the truth is there is far more lift & cfm .


going back a few years when i was using a top of the range prochem portable,i used a 20 foot section of 2" vac hose on my portable,this improved drying times when cleaning upholstery.


Lee G

[Dynafoam]

Mike,

Yes, I agree totally.

This does not dispute the results quoted by Lee - With a 47 blower, and the wand flat on the carpet the turbulence created by the in-rushing air could create a vortex which would remove more water.

With lesser power being applied or with a different wand technique the results would have been different.

[Ian Gourlay]

I am not going to drill a hole then

[Ivar_Haglund]

All I know it works for me and faster dry times

I have done tests just the same as Lee


All I know it works


Ivar

[BeammeupScotty]

Hi from Scotty down under.
I have tested this for the last 2 years on both residential and commercial and have concluded it does work having small holes above the wand lips.
What I believe happens is during extraction the waste water can sit at the bottom of the wand and not allow complete extraction. Of course the more water that sits there the greater the seal so less air gets in to extract,  Electrics do not have the pull to overcome this, so by drilling small holes 2 or 3, air is bled into the wand which allows the air and water to be removed rather than sit at the base of the wand.
Not sure, test it out, holes are easy to fill in after
Scotty

[Dynafoam]

Scotty,

If the wand is used correctly the situation you describe does not occur unless there if a considerable amount (>0.0125") of surface water.

[Kinver_Clean]

I have an old plastic floor tool that has vertical slots cut in the leading edge. I use this solely on Flotex as there is no air movement through the backing.

Trevor