Fon Johnson
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,066
Yeah.. I saw the temp gage hit 300, and I walked away. I kinda have grown attached to my skin, and want to keep it that way! :shock:
I visited Duane Oxley yesterday..
- Thread starter Fon Johnson
- Start date
Duane Oxley
Moon Unit
Mikey...
The SplitSteam was running 2 wands at the time. I'm guessing that it was about 3 GPM. I can build an L.P. unit that will give you 250 degrees of constant heat, measured at the wand, at 4 GPM. (That one I built in 2001 would do it...)
The new one has a modulated thermostat... It only burns enough fuel to maintain the temperature it's set at, so it burns fuel half as fast for one wand, as it does for 2, at any given flow rate...
Duane
The SplitSteam was running 2 wands at the time. I'm guessing that it was about 3 GPM. I can build an L.P. unit that will give you 250 degrees of constant heat, measured at the wand, at 4 GPM. (That one I built in 2001 would do it...)
The new one has a modulated thermostat... It only burns enough fuel to maintain the temperature it's set at, so it burns fuel half as fast for one wand, as it does for 2, at any given flow rate...
Duane
Fon Johnson
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,066
Now get off the bb and get that exchanger unit built! 
Duane Oxley
Moon Unit
Lift was set on the machine. Dale Collins used a CFM gage he brought. As maximum CFM was indicated, vacuum gages were checked to verify lift. All systems were evaluated with the same (Prochem) wand.
Temperature was measured ATW, with an in- line thermometer, using the same wand on each system, with all systems running at the same pressure. (I just checked and it was set at 450 PSI on all systems, BTW. 600 PSI is the standard that I've used over the years...)
Search "Atlanta", by author "Dale Collins", in 2001, on the ICS board to verify...
The motor on the SplitSteam at the time was a Kohler 25. The 2 blowers were a Tuthill 3003 and a Roots 33, both over- driven identically and plumbed identically, sharing the same exhaust plumbing... a 4" square tube manifold, forming a "Tee", with a Stoddard silencer on each branch of the Tee. A Cat 290 was used as well, with a 350,000 BTU L.P. boiler.
For your reference... I built a Dominator for a guy in N.C. a few months ago, that used the same heater. He wanted to be able to run 3,000 PSI, at up to 5 GPM, at 200 degrees or better. That system was built with a Cat 5CP pump, 5 GPM @ 3,500 PSI (if memory serves...). The heater handles 10.000 PSI...
Temperature was measured ATW, with an in- line thermometer, using the same wand on each system, with all systems running at the same pressure. (I just checked and it was set at 450 PSI on all systems, BTW. 600 PSI is the standard that I've used over the years...)
Search "Atlanta", by author "Dale Collins", in 2001, on the ICS board to verify...
The motor on the SplitSteam at the time was a Kohler 25. The 2 blowers were a Tuthill 3003 and a Roots 33, both over- driven identically and plumbed identically, sharing the same exhaust plumbing... a 4" square tube manifold, forming a "Tee", with a Stoddard silencer on each branch of the Tee. A Cat 290 was used as well, with a 350,000 BTU L.P. boiler.
For your reference... I built a Dominator for a guy in N.C. a few months ago, that used the same heater. He wanted to be able to run 3,000 PSI, at up to 5 GPM, at 200 degrees or better. That system was built with a Cat 5CP pump, 5 GPM @ 3,500 PSI (if memory serves...). The heater handles 10.000 PSI...
Mikey P
Administrator
Can you get one to Aptos before March 9th?
Duane Oxley
Moon Unit
Man, I wish I could.... But right about that time, we'll be moving into our new shop... (I'm trying for this month, actually, but have some loose ends to tie up first.)
I'm hoping to be able to do the Connections thing in Fla. this year... If so, I plan to have a SplitSteam and a HX system there this time.
I'm hoping to be able to do the Connections thing in Fla. this year... If so, I plan to have a SplitSteam and a HX system there this time.
hogjowl
Idiot™
Is the guy in NC willing to talk?
Duane Oxley
Moon Unit
Billy Boone... he's on line sometimes.
Bob Savage
Member
Duane,
Here's the logic. True, on a dual blower setup the wands are completely isolated from each other, but at that point you are not getting the TOTAL CFM of both blowers to each of both wands. You are getting what each blower produces by itself at each wand (225 CFM to one wand and 240 CFM to the other wand - respectively). Hook them together, and you will about double the airflow (465 CFM) for single wand cleaning - which was my point.
On a single larger blower setup when using 2 wands, you will NOT notice hardly any difference when one wand is lifted from the floor, providing the system is designed properly. Also, when using 2 wands this way, the CFM going to each wand is still close to what 1 wand was receiving since the blower is still producing the same CFM as it was when 1 wand is used, with the lift at each wand still very respectable.
Duane you said in Atlanta with the Splitsteam you had almost as much CFM as the Vortex at each of 2 wands, but that is not true. You would have had 220 CFM at one wand, and 240 CFM at the other wand, since you were referring to a dual wand setup with the blowers now SEPARATED - which is my point. With the Splitsteam setup for running 1 wand, 2 blowers, you would have close to 500 CFM, but not when running 2 wands at once.
Am I missing something here?
Respectfully,
Bob
Kevin B
Member
I will never own another air cooled machine again. Make one with a water cooled block, and I might look. Otherwise, if its aircooled, its either a VW or just a TOY.
Duane Oxley
Moon Unit
Bob...
The figures I gave are from about 6 years ago. I gave them, because they're quickly verifiable. In today's figures, with (2) #3006 blowers, they "jump", about 100 CFM per blower... Keeping that in mind, in order to be relevant, you have to speak in terms of principles at work...
And the principle is that, with one wand off of the floor, you have, in effect, a big hole in the vacuum part of the system (which, BTW, gets bigger, if you're using a 2" wand and 2" hose... and perhaps even effectively bigger with 2.5" hose at the machine for a "trunk" hose...).
(In my experience, the way to address that in a single- wand system would be via over- driving the blower, but that's another story...)
"you will NOT notice hardly any difference..."
Huh...? Does that mean that you WILL notice more than a little, or NOT notice any, or, WILL notice some, or... :wink:
"when using 2 wands this way, the CFM going to each wand is still close to what 1 wand was receiving..."
Only if the system is run with a cap off of the other port during single- wand use... If that port is capped, there is no way you wouldn't get a net increase on a single wand...
It's pretty simple... Say that there is 500 CFM available... And you're running a single blower on a single wand. You have, in theory, 500 CFM available for that wand. If you have 2 wands connected, you divide the available airflow between them. In theory, that means that 250 CFM is available to each, although in fact, there will always be a source of imbalance affecting the "even split"... But there will always be a split of the available CFM... Not some kind of "2 + 2 = 5" stuff...
I don't remember specifically (and it wasn't posted on the ICS board as a record to refer to...), but it seems like the Vortex was about 260 CFM in dual- wand use, per wand. (I remember that Dale's meter had a limit of 500 CFM and it pegged the meter in single- wand use, with a port capped...)
The figures I gave are from about 6 years ago. I gave them, because they're quickly verifiable. In today's figures, with (2) #3006 blowers, they "jump", about 100 CFM per blower... Keeping that in mind, in order to be relevant, you have to speak in terms of principles at work...
And the principle is that, with one wand off of the floor, you have, in effect, a big hole in the vacuum part of the system (which, BTW, gets bigger, if you're using a 2" wand and 2" hose... and perhaps even effectively bigger with 2.5" hose at the machine for a "trunk" hose...).
(In my experience, the way to address that in a single- wand system would be via over- driving the blower, but that's another story...)
"you will NOT notice hardly any difference..."
Huh...? Does that mean that you WILL notice more than a little, or NOT notice any, or, WILL notice some, or... :wink:
"when using 2 wands this way, the CFM going to each wand is still close to what 1 wand was receiving..."
Only if the system is run with a cap off of the other port during single- wand use... If that port is capped, there is no way you wouldn't get a net increase on a single wand...
It's pretty simple... Say that there is 500 CFM available... And you're running a single blower on a single wand. You have, in theory, 500 CFM available for that wand. If you have 2 wands connected, you divide the available airflow between them. In theory, that means that 250 CFM is available to each, although in fact, there will always be a source of imbalance affecting the "even split"... But there will always be a split of the available CFM... Not some kind of "2 + 2 = 5" stuff...
I don't remember specifically (and it wasn't posted on the ICS board as a record to refer to...), but it seems like the Vortex was about 260 CFM in dual- wand use, per wand. (I remember that Dale's meter had a limit of 500 CFM and it pegged the meter in single- wand use, with a port capped...)
Bob Savage
Member
I have a slide-in with a #45 over-driven. When running 2 wands, we can lay 1 wand down, even disconnect the vac hose from this other wand, and notice very little change in the available vacuum at the other wand.
When capping off 1 side to run 1 wand, there is really not much, if any increase in airflow to that single wand, telling me that the airflow on a larger 1 blower system does NOT halve when using 2 wands. Think about it for a minute.
This TM uses 2" vacuum hose all the way to each of the 1-1/2" glided wands, and does have 2 separate recovery tanks, but only 1 -#45 vacuum blower. Each vacuum tank is plumbed off the 2-1/2" intake of the Roots #45 blower with a 2-1/2" to 2" to 2" T.
I'll be glad to bring this TM to a gathering if it's not too far from here, so others can verify what I am saying is true.
Or, someone is welcome to come here to check out what I am saying.
But what I was saying is that on your Splitsteam, you will NOT have almost 500 CFM at each wand when dual wanding. True or False.
You build good systems, so please understand that I am only disagreeing with you about the airflow and what happens at 2 wands.
When capping off 1 side to run 1 wand, there is really not much, if any increase in airflow to that single wand, telling me that the airflow on a larger 1 blower system does NOT halve when using 2 wands. Think about it for a minute.
This TM uses 2" vacuum hose all the way to each of the 1-1/2" glided wands, and does have 2 separate recovery tanks, but only 1 -#45 vacuum blower. Each vacuum tank is plumbed off the 2-1/2" intake of the Roots #45 blower with a 2-1/2" to 2" to 2" T.
I'll be glad to bring this TM to a gathering if it's not too far from here, so others can verify what I am saying is true.
Or, someone is welcome to come here to check out what I am saying.
But what I was saying is that on your Splitsteam, you will NOT have almost 500 CFM at each wand when dual wanding. True or False.
You build good systems, so please understand that I am only disagreeing with you about the airflow and what happens at 2 wands.
Duane Oxley
Moon Unit
"I have a slide-in with a #45 over-driven."
I know... I told you how to do that in 1999, after we met at the first SummerFest... remember...? Over- driving blowers is something I've been into since the first system I built in 1996...
"But what I was saying is that on your Splitsteam, you will NOT have almost 500 CFM at each wand when dual wanding. True or False. "
I seriously don't see your point in repeating what I said before and putting it back as if it's "new" and making a point, etc. If you read my post above, you'll see that I stated that previously... You only get full flow to one wand. Go back and re- read it...
I'm wondering something, though... When you run your system in single- wand mode, do you cap off the other tank?
I know... I told you how to do that in 1999, after we met at the first SummerFest... remember...? Over- driving blowers is something I've been into since the first system I built in 1996...
"But what I was saying is that on your Splitsteam, you will NOT have almost 500 CFM at each wand when dual wanding. True or False. "
I seriously don't see your point in repeating what I said before and putting it back as if it's "new" and making a point, etc. If you read my post above, you'll see that I stated that previously... You only get full flow to one wand. Go back and re- read it...
I'm wondering something, though... When you run your system in single- wand mode, do you cap off the other tank?
Bob Savage
Member
Absolutely, you certainly did, and I thank you for sharing that information with me. It works great!
That's what I said in my original post, so I agree. You only get full flow to one wand, and that same full flow will be reduced by quite a bit (half) when using 2 wands. I wasn't calling it a new point, just restating it.
Yes, I do. But I can also just remove one hose from one wand, lay it down, and still clean with that hose open and the other wand now cleaning, with very little vacuum loss.
The resistance created by that open hose, will keep the flow going fine to the other wand. However, disconnect that laid down hose (usually 100') from the truckmount, and now you will notice more vacuum drop in the wand still cleaning. So, now the vacuum port coming from that tank needs to be capped off.
Duane Oxley
Moon Unit
From me:
"...On a single blower system, you will still notice a difference in one wand when you lift one wand off of the floor. "
From You:
"I can also just remove one hose from one wand, lay it down, and still clean with that hose open and the other wand now cleaning, with very little vacuum loss. "
So, we're in agreement, then... :wink:
Here's the crux... There has to be more airflow attempted than the two wands can "allow", for there to be minimally- noticeable vacuum loss with one off of the floor, disconnected, etc. If there is, then, in theory, there is enough being pulled through the open hose, to act as a "plug", of sorts. So, for this to work, there needs to be a minimum reached, in terms of blower size... or more accurately, airflow capability provided by the blower (which opens the door for over- driven blowers to "qualify").
...But..... (And this isn't directed at you or anyone else, Bob... it's just me thinking out loud, so to speak...)...
If there is more air being pulled than can go through, something else occurs... resistance to that airflow that is beyond the normal resistance introduced by the hose alone.
That resistance is also known by another name: "robbed inches of lift". In other words, that resistance actually "robs" you of lift, by consuming available lift in the process of the air passing through.
So... It really doesn't matter how big the motor is, as long as it has enough power to turn the blower at full RPM under a full load. It really doesn't matter how big the blower is, past the point of it being able to reach the maximum CFM the hose / wand / system plumbing configuration allows for. Because once you get past that maximum, available lift is consumed rapidly, in the process of trying to pull "more"... and regardless of whether the blower can pull 100 or more "extra" CFM, it only has 15" or so of available lift to do it.
What this means is that, if you have 15 inches of lift available, and your system is reading 8" before a wand hits the floor, then you really only have 7" to work with...
This gets back to Greenie's big push for 2.5" "trunk" hose, and why it works... reduced restriction to the airflow = reduced "consumed" inches of lift.
All of this is looking at the vacuum side of the suction part of a truck mount. But the pressure / exhaust side is as important, however commonly overlooked. Simply put, any restriction on the exhaust has a similar effect to restriction on the vacuum side. Why..? Because, just like blowers have limited inches of lift, they have limited pressure capability as well... but pressure restriction on a system is not something that is measured... or set up to be measurable... even though it is, as important as vacuum restriction.
In other words, inlet restriction is only half of the story.
But now, let me point to another factor... an intentionally- hidden one by several manufacturers in our industry...
If you look closely (really closely) at most exchanger systems, you'll find that there has been intentional vacuum restriction built into their systems. Look at the plumbing. It's virtually always on the vacuum side... not the exhaust. (Because the motor exhaust is often plumbed into the blower exhaust, and motor back pressure is not only critical, but E.P.A. mandated now...)
How is this done...? It's done by smaller diameter plumbing... It's either actually smaller piping... or via several unnecessary turns... or, in some, specially- fabricated blower intake plumbing that has an "orifice" of sorts, hidden in it's construction. What this does, is reduces airflow and makes the blower have to work harder for the airflow it pumps... In other words, it makes the blower strain... and in straining, it makes it run hotter, which means more heat available for heat transfer.
... but it also makes the blower's net CFM decrease... In other words, the net is more like a blower that's the next size down. So, when a prospective buyer looks at the system and is hung up on a particular blower size, he, in effect, is being cheated... because the blower he sees, is effectively not the one he gets to clean with as an owner of the system.
Take for instance a system that has a #47 blower, plumbed down from 3" (7 sq. in.) to 2.5" (4.9 sq. in.) just under30% reduction of cross- section for air flow......
...or a #45, plumbed down from 2.5" (4.9 sq. in.) to 2" (3.14 sq. in.) .. over 30% reduction.
(Man, I got on a bit of a rant here... Just some ideas I've been considering and observing over the last few years, while looking at heat exchange technology, as others do it...)
"...On a single blower system, you will still notice a difference in one wand when you lift one wand off of the floor. "
From You:
"I can also just remove one hose from one wand, lay it down, and still clean with that hose open and the other wand now cleaning, with very little vacuum loss. "
So, we're in agreement, then... :wink:
Here's the crux... There has to be more airflow attempted than the two wands can "allow", for there to be minimally- noticeable vacuum loss with one off of the floor, disconnected, etc. If there is, then, in theory, there is enough being pulled through the open hose, to act as a "plug", of sorts. So, for this to work, there needs to be a minimum reached, in terms of blower size... or more accurately, airflow capability provided by the blower (which opens the door for over- driven blowers to "qualify").
...But..... (And this isn't directed at you or anyone else, Bob... it's just me thinking out loud, so to speak...)...
If there is more air being pulled than can go through, something else occurs... resistance to that airflow that is beyond the normal resistance introduced by the hose alone.
That resistance is also known by another name: "robbed inches of lift". In other words, that resistance actually "robs" you of lift, by consuming available lift in the process of the air passing through.
So... It really doesn't matter how big the motor is, as long as it has enough power to turn the blower at full RPM under a full load. It really doesn't matter how big the blower is, past the point of it being able to reach the maximum CFM the hose / wand / system plumbing configuration allows for. Because once you get past that maximum, available lift is consumed rapidly, in the process of trying to pull "more"... and regardless of whether the blower can pull 100 or more "extra" CFM, it only has 15" or so of available lift to do it.
What this means is that, if you have 15 inches of lift available, and your system is reading 8" before a wand hits the floor, then you really only have 7" to work with...
This gets back to Greenie's big push for 2.5" "trunk" hose, and why it works... reduced restriction to the airflow = reduced "consumed" inches of lift.
All of this is looking at the vacuum side of the suction part of a truck mount. But the pressure / exhaust side is as important, however commonly overlooked. Simply put, any restriction on the exhaust has a similar effect to restriction on the vacuum side. Why..? Because, just like blowers have limited inches of lift, they have limited pressure capability as well... but pressure restriction on a system is not something that is measured... or set up to be measurable... even though it is, as important as vacuum restriction.
In other words, inlet restriction is only half of the story.
But now, let me point to another factor... an intentionally- hidden one by several manufacturers in our industry...
If you look closely (really closely) at most exchanger systems, you'll find that there has been intentional vacuum restriction built into their systems. Look at the plumbing. It's virtually always on the vacuum side... not the exhaust. (Because the motor exhaust is often plumbed into the blower exhaust, and motor back pressure is not only critical, but E.P.A. mandated now...)
How is this done...? It's done by smaller diameter plumbing... It's either actually smaller piping... or via several unnecessary turns... or, in some, specially- fabricated blower intake plumbing that has an "orifice" of sorts, hidden in it's construction. What this does, is reduces airflow and makes the blower have to work harder for the airflow it pumps... In other words, it makes the blower strain... and in straining, it makes it run hotter, which means more heat available for heat transfer.
... but it also makes the blower's net CFM decrease... In other words, the net is more like a blower that's the next size down. So, when a prospective buyer looks at the system and is hung up on a particular blower size, he, in effect, is being cheated... because the blower he sees, is effectively not the one he gets to clean with as an owner of the system.
Take for instance a system that has a #47 blower, plumbed down from 3" (7 sq. in.) to 2.5" (4.9 sq. in.) just under30% reduction of cross- section for air flow......
...or a #45, plumbed down from 2.5" (4.9 sq. in.) to 2" (3.14 sq. in.) .. over 30% reduction.
(Man, I got on a bit of a rant here... Just some ideas I've been considering and observing over the last few years, while looking at heat exchange technology, as others do it...)
Bob Savage
Member
Duane,
I don't think you are going to face too much air trying to be pulled through 2 -2" hoses during a dual wand setup, unless you have a monster blower (as you mentioned in your post).
2 -1/2" ID vacuum hose seems to be a good thing to do (from the machine as the first hose), according to many cleaners who post here. I am going to try it also.
When I bought this TM I am talking about in these posts from Cleaning Technologies (the place where you used to work) back in '85, it came with this same #45 blower it has now. As soon as I returned back here with it, I started looking closely at the machine itself. Right off the bat I noticed that they plumbed the Onan 20 HP exhaust, and the #45 blower exhaust, into the same 1-1/2" ID intake side and discharge side of the silencer. As you know the #45 blower has a 2-1/2" ID intake and discharge port. Then they bushed down that 2-1/2" port on the blower down to accept a 1" ID pipe from the blower to the original small silencer, where it met up with the Onan exhaust pipe. Talk about restriction!
I disconnected the Onan exhaust and took the van to a custom muffler shop, where they directed the Onan exhaust through the hole I had cut in the van floor, into a sports car muffler, and out a tailpipe on the driver's side, just in front of the rear wheel.
Then I ordered a larger silencer - 2-1/2" ID intake and exhaust, and installed it. The machine was instantly much quieter and had a little more vacuum because of less restriction on the intake and discharge. This was an LP system so no need to try and capture heat from the other machine components in whatever way seemed to work.
A few years later, I put a smaller pulley on the blower, and sped it up a bit, but did not over-drive it yet (not until '99 when we talked).
Then in '99 I added a 4" intake and discharge silencer from Stoddard, and did the 8" pulley on the Onan, and 7" pulley on the blower, as you suggested. I immediately noticed a big increase in vacuum, and the air coming from the blower discharge was rushing faster, and was much cooler.
As far as heat exchangers go, I agree that many manufacturer's do restrict the discharge sides of the blower and motor exhaust in order to capture heat for cleaning.
This all puts more strain on the components, increases fuel consumption, and will probably shorten the TM component's life.
Let me know how that HX you are working on comes out. A good HX system that doesn't have to "squeeze" the TM's heat generating devices, will be great for our industry.
I hope your new move goes well.
Bob
I don't think you are going to face too much air trying to be pulled through 2 -2" hoses during a dual wand setup, unless you have a monster blower (as you mentioned in your post).
2 -1/2" ID vacuum hose seems to be a good thing to do (from the machine as the first hose), according to many cleaners who post here. I am going to try it also.
When I bought this TM I am talking about in these posts from Cleaning Technologies (the place where you used to work) back in '85, it came with this same #45 blower it has now. As soon as I returned back here with it, I started looking closely at the machine itself. Right off the bat I noticed that they plumbed the Onan 20 HP exhaust, and the #45 blower exhaust, into the same 1-1/2" ID intake side and discharge side of the silencer. As you know the #45 blower has a 2-1/2" ID intake and discharge port. Then they bushed down that 2-1/2" port on the blower down to accept a 1" ID pipe from the blower to the original small silencer, where it met up with the Onan exhaust pipe. Talk about restriction!
I disconnected the Onan exhaust and took the van to a custom muffler shop, where they directed the Onan exhaust through the hole I had cut in the van floor, into a sports car muffler, and out a tailpipe on the driver's side, just in front of the rear wheel.
Then I ordered a larger silencer - 2-1/2" ID intake and exhaust, and installed it. The machine was instantly much quieter and had a little more vacuum because of less restriction on the intake and discharge. This was an LP system so no need to try and capture heat from the other machine components in whatever way seemed to work.
A few years later, I put a smaller pulley on the blower, and sped it up a bit, but did not over-drive it yet (not until '99 when we talked).
Then in '99 I added a 4" intake and discharge silencer from Stoddard, and did the 8" pulley on the Onan, and 7" pulley on the blower, as you suggested. I immediately noticed a big increase in vacuum, and the air coming from the blower discharge was rushing faster, and was much cooler.
As far as heat exchangers go, I agree that many manufacturer's do restrict the discharge sides of the blower and motor exhaust in order to capture heat for cleaning.
This all puts more strain on the components, increases fuel consumption, and will probably shorten the TM component's life.
Let me know how that HX you are working on comes out. A good HX system that doesn't have to "squeeze" the TM's heat generating devices, will be great for our industry.
I hope your new move goes well.
Bob
Duane Oxley
Moon Unit
Hey, Bob...
I'll let you know how the HX system does...
I started a thread a few minutes ago, but didn't hit "Submit". It was to be a "teaser", featuring a couple of the unique design features of the systems. But I realized that it might open some doors that I'm not ready to open just yet.
When the time comes, I'll start that tread. It should be interesting to see what the feedback will be. I don't want to start it until the patent paperwork is actually submitted...
I'll let you know how the HX system does...
I started a thread a few minutes ago, but didn't hit "Submit". It was to be a "teaser", featuring a couple of the unique design features of the systems. But I realized that it might open some doors that I'm not ready to open just yet.
When the time comes, I'll start that tread. It should be interesting to see what the feedback will be. I don't want to start it until the patent paperwork is actually submitted...
hogjowl
Idiot™
You've been teasing for some time now.
Duane Oxley
Moon Unit
"That's what she said."... 8)
Fon Johnson
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,066
Dude, don't be posting anything here that someone else can use to their advantage. Just wait until you build that killer exchanger and we'll post about it for ya!
