[John Geurkink]

Ok, talked to a man in New Jersey this afternoon, unique individual with a different perspective of his own work. This guy has build his own TM, yes it cost plenty and it does achieve 28HG of mercury.

So he called talking about purchasing a Trinity CM, I was a bit surprised because he had not only invented his specific machine, but in 2008 he had actually attained credit to build these machines and sell them.

Here is where his unique perspective came in and what I would like to debate, give my opinion and GET your opinions on.

When he asked me how we cleaned with encap I gave him this description:
First off the removing of soil in straight encap is done by the product, NOT the machine, the machine can only prepare the carpet to be cleaned.
For example, we all know 79% of soil is particulate that is vacuumed up, the rest is stuck to the fibers.
So what can LM do to remove that soil?
We use the encap solution along with extreme agitation to strip the stickies and soils from the carpet.
Then because we have "sloshed" this product at super high speed through all the fibers and stripped them, now we let it dry.
Once dried, the fibers are coated as to insure no wickbacks, plus the soils and stickies are not coated with a polymer, a good polymer will
now dry, crystalized and then the stickies and soil have also become "particulate" soils, again, easily removed by vacuuming.

Another debate is Deep pile carpet, if you knew how much moisture was moving at incredible rates of "sloshing" for lack of a better word through the fibers, you will understand we don't so much spray the carpet as much as we do keep enough moisture in the pad itself. You can NOT miss stripping the fibers when using this much agitation and moisture together. That is another reason many will tell you, either encap works or it doesn't the idea of it only working on commercial carpets is a misnomer of not understanding what is happening under the machine when it is over the carpet. You don't move anymore water through the carpet with HWE than you do with LM, the difference is, with LM you have the added agitation PLUS that moisture is sloshing side to side at high speed whipping through all the carpet fibers. The carpet dries in an hour or less because we keep the moisture MOVING along with the pad.

There is not that much difference (excluding the agitation) to what is going on between the wand and the carpet as there is between the pad and the carpet.

His comment was this, you know, having all this power, I often feel I am bringing to life problems best left "IN" the carpet. the attempt to remove things long forgotten down deep in or on the BACK SIDE of the carpet has long brought me nothing but problems. If I was not sucking from so deep things that are totally out of play in the carpet, I wouldn't be having the problems with wickbacks that I do.

Can we debate the fallacy of validity of this view?

[*Hector*]

John as a dedicated padder myself, I found that interesting, however....

I am not sure how they clean the carpets over there with a TM or HWE, but I am pretty sure that here that 100% of the "good and professional" carpet cleaners all pre-spray and agitate the carpet before getting the HWE machine fired up.... So how is that different to the method you are suggesting??

It seems to me that in the cleaning of the carpets, most of us do the same things, and it is just the extraction method that is different....

[Mike Halliday]

John if something is a problem and we have the ability to remove it then we should, our skill level will allows us to do  this with out  further complications?

To use my favourite analogy.....that Hector loves so much

The dirt is a cancer although it can lay malignant in the depth of the carpet it still is there waiting to create problems in the future, we as cleaning surgeons have a duty to decide what is best for the patient ( the carpet)

 should we ......

1) leave it, as it is at the moment doing no harm
2) attempt a removal although  doing so we can create further problem.

The decision we make is based on the outcome we believe we can achieve.

Personally I have the skill required to remove the deep down dirt without creating further problems.


To take another piont you make that's incorrect, 79% (that's a very specific percentage) is dry soil And is removed by vacuuming,   On a carpet that has anything above a very short pile dry vacuuming with at best remove only 24.5% ( not 24% or 25% exactly 24.5% ) of the dry soil.

[Doug Holloway]

Hi Guys

This is a good example of what I mean by the unscientific manner in whch these products are promoted.

The use of a particulate dirt figure is nonsense, there is no such thing as all carpets will be different because all circumstances are different. It adds a psuedo mathematical angle which the author hopes will give credibility but to me at least, indicates it's not worth reading on..

Cheers

Doug

[Simon Gerrard]

I don't have a problem with wickback, never have. In fact I've only ever seen it once when a friend of my was cleaning a dirty ground floor office with a TM and RX.
But we do pad over traffic lanes if they are really dirty.
We just encappped a large office at the weekend and decided on encap because the carpet was 20 years old, never been cleaned and was worn. Tried the TM, very little discernible difference and didn't want to risk disturbing 'what lies beneath', so tried a variety of LM and and encap methods and decided on encap because it made the carpet look clean, which is what the client wanted.
Went back last night to check it out and it look good and the client is happy. Job done.

Simon

[Nigel_W]

John,

In 23 years of cleaning carpets using Hot water extraction I have no "experience of bringing to life problems best left in the carpet"

I tend to agree with Doug's comment regarding the 79% figure. In addition I would add that vacuuming is an extraordinarily inefficient way of removing that dry soil. For example I have triple dry vacuumed a large rug from the surface and produced an inch of dry particulate in the vacuum bag. Turned it over and Rugbadgered it and produced half a bucket of dry particulate. Therefore your assumptions that 79% of soil is dry particulate and is removed by vacuuming is in my opinion factually incorrect.

Nigel

[Andrew Briscoe]

Ok, talked to a man in New Jersey this afternoon, unique individual with a different perspective of his own work. This guy has build his own TM, yes it cost plenty and it does achieve 28HG of mercury.

So he called talking about purchasing a Trinity CM, I was a bit surprised because he had not only invented his specific machine, but in 2008 he had actually attained credit to build these machines and sell them.

Here is where his unique perspective came in and what I would like to debate, give my opinion and GET your opinions on.

When he asked me how we cleaned with encap I gave him this description:
First off the removing of soil in straight encap is done by the product, NOT the machine, the machine can only prepare the carpet to be cleaned.
For example, we all know 79% of soil is particulate that is vacuumed up, the rest is stuck to the fibers.
So what can LM do to remove that soil?
We use the encap solution along with extreme agitation to strip the stickies and soils from the carpet.
Then because we have "sloshed" this product at super high speed through all the fibers and stripped them, now we let it dry.
Once dried, the fibers are coated as to insure no wickbacks, plus the soils and stickies are not coated with a polymer, a good polymer will
now dry, crystalized and then the stickies and soil have also become "particulate" soils, again, easily removed by vacuuming.

Another debate is Deep pile carpet, if you knew how much moisture was moving at incredible rates of "sloshing" for lack of a better word through the fibers, you will understand we don't so much spray the carpet as much as we do keep enough moisture in the pad itself. You can NOT miss stripping the fibers when using this much agitation and moisture together. That is another reason many will tell you, either encap works or it doesn't the idea of it only working on commercial carpets is a misnomer of not understanding what is happening under the machine when it is over the carpet. You don't move anymore water through the carpet with HWE than you do with LM, the difference is, with LM you have the added agitation PLUS that moisture is sloshing side to side at high speed whipping through all the carpet fibers. The carpet dries in an hour or less because we keep the moisture MOVING along with the pad.

There is not that much difference (excluding the agitation) to what is going on between the wand and the carpet as there is between the pad and the carpet.

His comment was this, you know, having all this power, I often feel I am bringing to life problems best left "IN" the carpet. the attempt to remove things long forgotten down deep in or on the BACK SIDE of the carpet has long brought me nothing but problems. If I was not sucking from so deep things that are totally out of play in the carpet, I wouldn't be having the problems with wickbacks that I do.

Can we debate the fallacy of validity of this view?

can you explain this bit in English.

[John Kelly]

Then because we have "sloshed" this product at super high speed through all the fibers and stripped them, now we let it dry.
Once dried, the fibers are coated as to insure no wickbacks, plus the soils and stickies are NOT coated with a polymer, a good polymer will
now dry, crystalized and then the stickies and soil have also become "particulate" soils, again, easily removed by vacuuming.

John is that a misprint?

[Simon Gerrard]

Here's the bit I don't get.
You're cleaning a very dirty, greasy restaurant where the dirt is completely clogging the pile and using johns technique you strip the fibres of the soil and then leave it to be vacuumed out. For this to work surely you have to have as much encap solution as there is grease, soil in the carpet, otherwise it cannot encapsulate all of it and if not, where does all of that now liquified grease go?

Btw, if you have a TM developing 28hg, the recovery tank would have to be made of cast iron to survive those kinds of pressures, any normal tank would implode. If you took the vac relief of a Titan 875 I dare say it would produce those kind of pressures, but for what, considering it works so well at half that pressure.

Simon

[Derek_Walker]

John, with no disrespect, do you have any independent tests or even your own tests to coroborate what actually happens when cleaning with your system, or is this just retoric / theory on your part. I have used just about every system out there except the large orbital machines. I have always been open to new processes but with all the B-S out there it would have to be well documented fact rather than theory. Sloshing would not instil me with confidence, I might just as well sprinkle some some magic juice which turns into encapsulating fairy dust. Lets have some real information, side by side testing is fine but it does not tell you what is actually happening down at the carpet and below. Also if you have a carpet with a fairly long tightly packed pile there is not a lot of movement so agitation would be very limited beyond a certain point even for a crb. Also being a low moisture system, the statement low moisture cleaning, would this still apply if you have an extremely soiled carpet which needs more juice to get it clean. Wool holds far more moisture so would take significantly longer to dry.

[Mike Halliday]

A more logical explanation to how low moister works is the use of gravity, a universally accepted force.

A prespray causes the dirt on a fibre to detach and become enveloped in the encapsulation solution this encapsulated dirt is held in suspension away from the fibre.

THIS DIRT IS THEN UNDER THE CONTROL OF GRAVITY WHICH MAKES THE DIRT FALL DEEPER INTO THE CARPET this is aided by the action of the bonnet which shakes the carpet helping the dirt fall deeper into the pile, the dirt is now hidden from view so the carpet appears cleaner

Isn't this more believable that the sloshing theory  

...... But let's not get too caught up in this debate as we are just commenting on spam which John is putting on all forums ......probably hoping to get some sort of link juice (does this still work as a seo technique?)

[wynne jones]

I thought we were pretty good at closing down spammers. Obviously not. Congrats John.

[Buckland]

John - I have a couple of points to make about your post:

1. your words "the idea of it only working on commercial carpets is a misnomer of not understanding what is happening". I see where you are going here - no doubt it would be better for producers of pad systems and chems if they got much more of the domestic market - you will find here there is general understanding and agreement that the new gen of pad systems/chems are best for commercial carpets but you have an uphill struggle on the domestic front...


2. Your words "You don't move anymore water through the carpet with HWE than you do with LM" You are obviously an intelligent guy and I believe your machines and system comes highly recommended but this statement is just plain wrong

These are just two points that occurred to me as worthy of comment but there are other things that tell us you are engaged in a (not very subtle) charm offensive - nothing wrong with that and good luck as you are obviously very passionate about what you do - although I think the forum owners might take issue with you but thats up to them

I used to work for a largish US company who used academic conferences and papers and forums to engage with customers - it worked most of the time over there but often they were banned from conferences because they were accused of being mere "vendors" - and the same thing happened in the UK only more often! It is a widely used tactic here now in larger industries than ours but it needs to be done in a subtle, slowburn manner - I noticed you had a bit of a bust-up with the people on the other carpet cleaning forum and ended up throwing your toys out of the pram - I thought that was rash (and untypical of US vendors) as you must have realized woc might have been an avenue for sales. You will find we don't have the huge domestic market here that you have in the US - it's a small(er) world here...

Can I make a suggestion? At the end of the day what is wrong with just getting a distributor here for your product/system and doing things the old-fashioned way with an exhibition stand at the cleaning show for instance? I am genuinely puzzled as to why this is not your preferred angle of attack for this market. You will find we are a fairly conservative bunch but this does not mean we will not try something new - and the time is definitely right as OP and rotary systems and encap products are now making a real breakthrough here...

[John Geurkink]

But let's not get too caught up in this debate as we are just commenting on spam which John is putting on all forums ......probably hoping to get some sort of link juice (does this still work as a seo technique?)
Mike, discussion is not like dating for crying out loud... am I now considered unfaithful?  I am looking for opinions  and there is no conspiracy theory at play here.

To take another point you make that's incorrect, 79% (that's a very specific percentage) is dry soil And is removed by vacuuming,   On a carpet that has anything above a very short pile dry vacuuming with at best remove only 24.5% ( not 24% or 25% exactly 24.5%  ) of the dry soil.
“Industry surveys conducted by the DuPont Company and others [show] … 74-79% of carpet soil is particulate, or protein and cellulosic fiber. These soils not only have the potential to be removed with dry vacuuming, but if not so removed, when wetted during chemical application or in the course of being flushed from pile yarns, they increase in weight and become more difficult to remove.”

I am using industry "standard figures" not mine.
I noticed you had a bit of a bust-up with the people on the other carpet cleaning forum and ended up throwing your toys out of the pram - I thought that was rash (and untypical of US vendors) as you must have realized woc might have been an avenue for sales. You will find we don't have the huge domestic market here that you have in the US - it's a small(er) world here...
What I did there was make a point I am not interested in a cult that is closed minded to discussion of anything other than the party line, I am still on there and will be. If sales come from this someday, that is fine, however I am trying more to understand how and what you all do over there for now. I am NOT selling anything there nor will I be for a while.
Buckland= Your words "You don't move anymore water through the carpet with HWE than you do with LM" You are obviously an intelligent guy and I believe your machines and system comes highly recommended but this statement is just plain wrong
The carpets are totally engulfed in moisture in both methods, without moisture and extreme agitation we wouldn't even need bother discussing what is happening, I am feeding the pad with two number 2 jets at 60psi. Let me rephrase that then, how wet is wet? Mine has moisture beating through the fibers longer than a wand is spraying and sucking it.

Bucklalnd = no doubt it would be better for producers of pad systems and chems if they got much more of the domestic market
More than 80% of the carpets cleaned by Trinities IS domestic, or residential as we call it, markets. I have always had right at 80% residential and 20% commercial in my business for the last 39 years.
Then because we have "sloshed" this product at super high speed through all the fibers and stripped them, now we let it dry.
Once dried, the fibers are coated as to insure no wickbacks, plus the soils and stickies are NOT coated with a polymer, a good polymer will now dry, crystalized and then the stickies and soil have also become "particulate" soils, again, easily removed by vacuuming.
John is that a misprint?
Yes John it should be NOW instead of NOT...sorry, I got fat fingers.
slosh (slosh)
v. sloshed, slosh·ing, slosh·es
v.tr.
2. To agitate in a liquid: slosh clothes in a solution of bleach and detergent.
Maybe it should say, "Hillbilly for agitating a liguid".  LOL

Buckland, I am interested in the market, but first like to know how things are being done there, If I were PUSHING something, I might be concerned, but as of yet, I am more interested in the market facts than the sales at this point.

[Shaun_Ashmore]

I cleaned a lounge carpet today that had washing up liquid scrubbed into it after the customers daughter had tried to clean up an accident, how could this e rinsed from the carpet pile!

Shaun

[Mike Halliday]

John your reply to my comment about the ability to re move dry soil is meaningless, although at first glance looks comprehensible it is BS..... cleverly worded, but still BS

The fact that DuPont uses  the word "potential' totally invalidates any statement they make and make it only conjuncture

If they believed that dry vacuuming could remove all dry soil they would say so .... Eg "74-79% of all soil is dry particulate, which can be removed with dry vacuuming"  

the fact they say 'potential' is to accept the fact that although possible..... it is not achieved

You may think I am being pedantic with my explanation of your wording but your method of argument & debate is the clever use of misinformation and to type masses of BS to overwhelm the reader (which is why your replies are always so long)


I stand by my statement that vacuuming a carpet will not remove all the dry soil

[Neil Williams]

I stand by my statement that vacuuming a carpet will not remove all the dry soil

It will if done properly with a decent vacuum cleaner, ie north south - east west, possibly even with a carpet rake beforehand to part the strands, and taking enough time to do it.

Is it no wonder this forum gets called 'scream it up' by some of the others. It's like a closed shop at times when a new comer calls in, edging towards bullying if the truth be known.
 
Why doesn't someone throw in "Bet it can't sort a flood out" whilst we're at it. Of course it can't sort out ground in cooking oils as found in Indain Restaurents and other such situations, but padding can get the results in a lot of situations.... not all but it is an answer to a lot of the problems we come across.
John, the problem with your friend and his super suck machine is probably because it is too powerful for the situations he is finding himself in. As opposed to a reasonable amount of suction to get down to the base of the pile your mates machine is probably sucking from the carpet backing and even below that, bringing all that into play. Every damp strand 'wicks' the trouble is his has created it's own problem.

[Simon Gerrard]

It's turning into a childish game of one-upmanship and no one is gaining anything from it.
We could all do with remebering that if it weren't for people like John who the innovating and inventing behind the scenes, none of us would have the superb equipment and chemicals that we all take for granted, so let's cut the guy some slack, shall we?

Simon

[Nigel_W]

I disagree - I think there is something to learn from this debate and anyway John doesn't deserve any slack because he keeps talking ****.

Oh and may I remind you that you have been the one metaphorically "stamping on his head"

Nigel

[Susan Dean (1stclean)]

It's turning into a childish game of one-upmanship and no one is gaining anything from it.
We could all do with remebering that if it weren't for people like John who the innovating and inventing behind the scenes, none of us would have the superb equipment and chemicals that we all take for granted, so let's cut the guy some slack, shall we?

Simon

here here some things that seem silly now may become the the normal in years to come , if you said to daddy 40 years ago that we would be driveing around with car engines in the back of our vans driveing big hovers to clean carpets he would of said no way in hell it wont happen