hogjowl
Idiot™
Not true.
Just pay attention the next time McDonalds runs out of chicken nuggets
Just pay attention the next time McDonalds runs out of chicken nuggets
New Hi-AirWatt Portable Arrives
- Thread starter Larry Cobb
- Start date
Kenny Hayes
Member
Actually, I guess that's what soured me on two cord portys to think of it
And bringing one in a customers house
$1,200 in am wouldn't matter if you burn the house down in the pm
And bringing one in a customers house
$1,200 in am wouldn't matter if you burn the house down in the pm
Kenny Hayes
Member
Desk Jockey
Member
A porty, a Bane...Kenny shut up. You're telling them what an idiot you are.I use a Bane single cord with little giant portable heater. Still a pita!! My truckmount is a pita too !!! Don't think you know much about me being an idiot
Larry Cobb
Member
1/3 HP Ametek Motor
Kenny Hayes
Member
I know right!!!!At least I'm not defending them as the second coming. (Or third)A porty, a Bane...Kenny shut up. You're telling them what an idiot you are.
Kenny Hayes
Member
It's amazing what chimps will play with. I make each available in case one decides he really likes it and decides to go to town with it. Don't matter to me as long as I'm not using it, and I'm not!
Kenny Hayes
Member
Nuh uh, cause I'm not out doing residential, much less with a 3 cord party!!
Kenny Hayes
Member
Porty, porty
Nate The Great
Member
Goomer
Member
That motor looks different from the other one used in your other Breeze.
What was the HP on the old one?
Looks like a nice little match for that cat pump, and lightweight.
"Difficult to do for Series."
Are you saying your proprietary motors used here are difficult for parallel, or all 6.6 motors?
Larry Cobb
Member
They were both 1/3 HP motors. The new one is more reliable.
The new vac motors were designed to run in series for maximum efficiency.
Goomer
Member
So you have said.
If you are going to continue your attempts to control the vac spec narrative by only using Airwatts as a unit of measure, and withhold the cfm/lift specs of each "proprietary" motor of yours, then I have no further questions regarding this unit.
Yes, we are all well aware, as you have stated many times, that Airwatts is the best way to compare vac performance, but that does not warrant being a spec Nazi to all the seasoned porty deplorables that would like to independently chew on the cfm/lift specs for themselves.
Seems to be a old common practice to bury low cfm specs on machines with the vacs configured in series.
Mikey P
Administrator
Old Coastie
Supportive Member
...but all the local frogs have big grins, in series OR parallel.
It appears that Larry has been Colluding with Mytee... Did they really affect(oops effect) the deflection? Will Larry ever stop Tweeting about Air Watts and answer the question? It is OK the NSA recorded all the conversations between Larry and Mytee and the conversations have been leaked... Larry please put your mask back on...
Cleanworks
Moderator
Now I know why I built my own. If the pro's don't know how to do it, we are all in serious doo doo. Rick, parallel doesn't have to mean dual pipes. My parallel setup only uses one. Larry's setup isn't bad for series but loses suction and airflow due to the connecting hoses to the vac motors and waste tank. Whether series or parallel, put the motors on a permanent manifold and ditch the hoses. You will have better performance and it will take up less space
SCC
Member
A series set heats up the rear vac motor a lot and doesn't perform that great past 50 feet. I would prefer two 8.4's in parallel. Hot temps cause hot wires and melted switches. If I'm only using 50 foot or less I'm not understanding the need for the 8.4's. I think a single 8.4 with a pump out would be a better option than the dual vac model if you are using 50 feet or under vac hose. If you are looking at hookups past 100 go with a parallel set up.
Larry Cobb
Member
These are definitely high CFM vac motors (from specs=166 CFM open; & 176" of lift-
measured)
The efficiency of these vac motors is so high that they run cooler & will last longer because of low temps.
The testing I have done shows excellent results for cleaning @ 25 ft.; or water extraction with 100 ft. of 2" hose.
AirWatts on this new motor is higher than two-stage 8.4" Ametek vac motor (over 700).
That high number is what is driving the higher performance.
Last edited:
Cleanworks
Moderator
Larry, some free advice. If those motors are that powerful, put them in parallel. Mount them on a manifold, 2-2 inch holes, mount the manifold to the bottom of the waste tank with a single 2 inch standpipe. You will be blown away or maybe sucked into the machine. I did it, it works. I am only using 13.5 amp 5.7 motors and can run 150 ft hose lengths. Imagine what you can do.
Larry Cobb
Member
The current Mytee speedster has two hi-perf 13.5amp 3-stage vacs mounted in parallel directly to the recovery tank bottom (no plumbing).
Very good performance.
This new machine beat it by 22% more lift @ wand when actually cleaning carpet.
Very good performance.
This new machine beat it by 22% more lift @ wand when actually cleaning carpet.
Last edited:
Cleanworks
Moderator
The lift doesn't matter after you get to a certain point. The airflow is what will keep the lift effective over a longer length or using a bigger hose.
Larry Cobb
Member
These new vacs have 166 CFM each . . .
Far more than any vac I've seen.
Far more than any vac I've seen.
Old Coastie
Supportive Member
Larry, invent an inline dry filter to use for vacuuming. For that matter, why would a devastator not work? Run the rotovac over everything dry, swap out the bag for a filter and storm on!
Imagine a Mikeysboard where nobody argued over vacuums...
Imagine a Mikeysboard where nobody argued over vacuums...
Bob Savage
Member
Define efficiency.
Larry Cobb
Member
We built a dual cylindrical brush machine with 1/2 HP AC motor, and a vacuum inlet to hook up to TM.
It did a great job, but customers preferred the lighter Whittaker machines of the time.
Larry Cobb
Member
On the vac efficiency question . . .
Electric HP to Vacuum HP:
Early 2-stage 5.7" vac motors were ~27% efficient
Early 2-stage 7.2' vac motors were ~29% efficient
Early 3-stage 5.7" vac motors were ~31% efficient
Late 3-stage 5.7" vac motors were ~33% efficient
Early 6.6" vac motors were ~37% efficient
First 8.4" vac motors were ~43% efficient
New 2017 AirWatt vac motors are 46% efficient (used in new Breeze)
That is a 70% improvement in efficiency from early 2 stage vacs !
Electric HP to Vacuum HP:
Early 2-stage 5.7" vac motors were ~27% efficient
Early 2-stage 7.2' vac motors were ~29% efficient
Early 3-stage 5.7" vac motors were ~31% efficient
Late 3-stage 5.7" vac motors were ~33% efficient
Early 6.6" vac motors were ~37% efficient
First 8.4" vac motors were ~43% efficient
New 2017 AirWatt vac motors are 46% efficient (used in new Breeze)
That is a 70% improvement in efficiency from early 2 stage vacs !
Last edited:
