[Bob Allen]

recently purchased a 2nd hand ninja 135psi as a back up machine it has a twin jet wand.
what is the best size brass spray tips to use, not sure of size already in there as writing has worn away
regards Bob

[Dynafoam]

Bob,

Probably 11003's would best suit this set-up.

[Ed Valentine]

Darn it.

That J B always seems to give the right answers on every subject regarding equipment in this Industry.

I'll second his recommendation of #03 jet orfices!


Good Fortune to all Brits;
Ed Valentine
cross-american corp.

[Dennis]

I'll third it! I've got the same machine and that's what they are.

[Bob Allen]

Thanks all,
now is woodbridge the best place to order them?

[Mike Halliday]

I DISAGREE : : :

i appreciate that the stock answer to this question would be 2x3 to add up to 6 but have you thought this is a spare wand and so could be used for other carpet cleaning applications

so you could fit 2x11015 (or 01)and use it for cleaning Belgion wiltons ( carefully)

or

2x11004 or 6 and use it to clean glued down commercial carpets were a 'flooding' action would be preffered.

some might not agree, but what i'm trying to say is jet choice is'nt as simple as it first seems

Mike

[Dennis]

Far too complicated   keep 2 no 3's

Belgian Wilton - fast wand stroke

glue downs - slow wand stroke.    

[Bob Allen]

Just looked at the woodbridge catalogue and they seem only to do the jets in blue plastic
can anyone suggest where to get the brass ones (quick delivery aswell)
Bob

[paul@ctcs]

I like Mikes idea, if its a back up machine there are two wands ( no need for a back up wand too, is there??) so leave one set with 03's or 04's and wand number two jetted for special applications.

Paul

[Ed Valentine]

Gentlemen;

I would like to share my experience over the past 33 years+ in regards to sizing of jet orfices.

Whenever one try's to select the proper size ---for Optimum performance---they must take into consideration: 1. Pump PSI
                       2. Pump FLOW
                       3. NUMBER of Jets

In Bob's situation, he is limited to 135 PSI. His goal (perhaps) is to maintain a certain Production rate. This involves: 1. Speed
              2. Through Cleaning

The (very) Basic rule of thumb is this:
               1. The SMALLER the orfice; more PSI
               2. The LARGER the orfice; reduced PSI

Pump Requirments:
              1. The Lower PSI pumps
                  (Low Flow):  -A- Smaller Orfice Required
              2. The Higher PSI pumps:
                  (Higher Flow): -B- Can handle: Larger    

(Please note that smaller psi pumps generally (w/ a few exceptions) have much LOWER Flow rates then Higher PSI pumps)

Bob is in a situation where he wants to clean fast and efficiently, and perhaps without exhausting his water supply within minutes. Therefore, he wants to arrive at a compromise (peak level performance)

What John Bolton suggested (2-#03), I happen to stand by for these reasons:

1.  With only 135 PSI, Bob needs "SURFACE IMPACT" (Pressure) in the effort of breaking down surface tension.

2.  At the same time, a clean carpet requires: "FLUSHING ACTION" for through extraction.        

He could not accomplish this by using the lowest Orfice size of #01---will not break surface tension/no flushing action---- (this would only provide a mist and slow cleaning); while #4 would provide flushing action but would not break surface tension and would exhaust water supply quickly.

Conclusion: 2- #3 would be maximum in an effort to provide total cleaning. Remember that 2-#3 equals 1-#6 and that is a large demand (max) on a 135 psi pump flow.

Anyways, those are my findings based on the term: SYSTEM Cleaning. Everything from the plug ins-to-the-machine-to-the-Wand Jets must be "as optimum as possible". And, I have found that doing so takes alittle engineering but the payoffs and differences can be HUGH. And, when this happens, as John Bolton has indicated before; "All Portables are not the same"!

Hope this helps;
Good Fortune to our friends in Jolly Old England;
Ed Valentine
Cross-American Corp.

[Shorty]

WOW how do I comment after all of that.

I bow to your experience in the field Ed.
(Hope to catch up with you at Connections04).

However, (there's always an however), IF it was MY wand, I would still go for the 2 x #3's, but for the denser, or wool carpets, I would add an extra drying stroke to the equation.

Vacuum also, (amount of), is always going to determine to a degree, how fast or slow the dry stroke may be.

A lot of the more experienced guys on here will know what to do when that situation raises it's ugly head, but pity the new guy just starting out.

I remember how the butterflies used to start flapping in my stomach back then.  :    :

Cheers,

Shorty.

[Dynafoam]

There is much validity in Mikes' suggestion, but for the reasons so admirably stated by Ed, I feel that the two #3's will give a general performance that can be best adapted by wand technique in either direction.

With the Surflow 135 pump, larger jets would reduce the pressure to below 100psi, since it does not have the ability to maintain sufficient flow.

With Mikes' 500psi pump, turned down to 135 psi, it will still deliver 135 at the jets - which brings us back to Eds' point about total system engineering.

John.

[Mike Halliday]

after reading the exellent replies so far i feel I have to justify my earlier post a little bit,

lets take the cleaning of a belgion wilton. what we need to achieve when cleaning a B/W is the limitation of water getting through to the backing. if you're cleaning witha machine that does'nt have an adjustable pump then there are two ways to control the amount of solution 'hitting' the carpet

1) pull the wand across the carpet quicker, this will limit the amount of solution that comes in contact with the carpet but will also expedentially limit the vacuuming.

2) put smaller jets in the wand, if you do this then you can pull the wand slower across the carpet without applying too much solution but you are increasing the amount of vacuuming.

this is'nt very clear so i'll try and write a formula for it

with normal jets;

(x+x) - (y+y) = Q.  

X being the amount of solution
Y being the amount of vacuum
Q being the amount of recovery

with smaller jets;

x - (y+y) = 2xQ

[Doug Holloway]

Mike,

I think it was clearer without your formulae.

Substituting equations you have x-2y=4x-4y so 3x-2y=0

x = 0, y =0 or x = 2 ,y = 3

Cheers,

Doug

[Mike Halliday]

Doug, you're probably right.

mathmatical equations was never my strong piont, i was hoping it would sound so intelligent that no one would question it


Mike

[Dynafoam]

Mike,

I felt that your reply was sufficiently valid not to require justification.

As to your mathematics - just stick to counting your money  

John.

[Martin_Bignell]

Hi folks,
Why does the jet size combination have to equal 06?
I went to collect a Blazer from Prochem with a mate and noticed the wand had two 11002 jets.
John Taylor said that's the size that they always install.

Bob, I have two 02 in the Prochem wand that I have  run with the Bane at 250 psi  for about two years now and found it the best balance.
And buy stainless steel you tight git.
Martin.

[Dynafoam]

Martin,

The jet-size combination does not HAVE to equal 6. This simply happens to be the figure that generally gives a discharge that in normal conditions satisfies the requirements laid out in Ed's detailed explanation.

Mike has pointed out some alternatives which, with the appropriate wand technique will also work.

The important thing to remember is that the machinery that pumps and sucks, the chemistry that is pumped, the hoses that connect, the characteristics of the wand and the person pushing the wand are all part of the overall system. Variations exist in each part of that system and further variations can be introduced to compensate or enhance those differences.

Clearly the two 02 jets suit your technique when attached to your machine, but if you were to use your wand on Bobs' machine you would find that it took a lot longer to achieve the same results.

John.