2.5 Hose..finally

[Greenie]

It has been my experience that even on "small" systems where the machine is just 2" throughout, having 100' of 2.5 did indeed "help" vacuum, not hurt it. To the extreme of even having one fellow use 2.5 on his recoil with the report being a definite improvement in vacuum at the wand, better recovery.

I support this even further by noting the recent 2" conversions on portys, it does seem to help a basic 100 cfm machine at 50', if there were ever an "accordion" theory in play, I would think that 100 cfm centrifugal vacuum would show it quickly.

"My advice is to try running parallel 2" hose and if it gets you excited, then try 2.5".

Sounds very familiar, I echo it once again, I made balanced 2" Ys before I made balanced 2.5" Ys.

 

[R W]

Jeez....I'm gonna feel bad running 1 - 2.5 to the door tomorrw, then spliting to 2" for dual wands.



Not.

 

[Greenie]

ya get away with that stuff on a 59 blower and 75' of hose u old fart. :wink:

nice to have options in the cold.

until someone has run 400' around the building at a fest with a stock roots 45 blower, the 2.5 doesn't really set in how cool it is.

 

[Duane Oxley]

It has been my experience that even on "small" systems where the machien is jsut 2" throughout, having 100' of 2.5 did indeed "help" vacuum, not hurt it.

Define, "help"...

I'd have to see that happen over a number of times, to put credence to it. And comparing a portable's vacuum to a truck mount isn't apples and apples comparison. I'm guessing that you'll say that if it works on something"so small", then it works on anything larger, but that's not necessarily the case.

I got to thinking about this very thing a while back- the idea of "sponginess" introduced by larger recovery tanks. (It wasn't about larger hose at the time, but the idea is relevant, as I think I can show you:

To start with, you'll need to know the size of the recovery tank. Let's say that it's a standard 65 gal. tank. (In terms of actual recovery capacity, it is about 56 gal. But the true capacity for this consideration is the entire tamk's capacity, because we're looking at putting the tank under vacuum.)

There are about 7.5 gal. per cubic foot. So, if you divide 65 by 7.5, you'll see that there are about 8.66 cu. ft. in the tank.

So, let's say that the blower is a standard #33. And under load, it's moving 170 CFM, which is a bit generous, actually.

So, take 170 CFM and divide it by 8.66 cu. ft. and you'll get 19.63. So, the blower can in effect, evacuate that tank 20 times a minute. A minute is 60 seconds. So, divide 60 by 20 and you get 3 seconds to evacuate that tank.

If you increase the tank size, the rate of evacuation decreases. That rate of evacuation keys into what I refer to as, "rise time", or, "quickness of response".

Now, the tank size of a portable is quite a bit less than 65 gal. In fact, 12 gal. is more typical. And that's fairly large for a portable. But the vacuum motor of one can still be in excess of 120 CFM. So, you can see that there is a quickness of response there that has room to decrease and not be noticed. At the same time, as you've said, Greenie, there is a likelihood of vacuum improvement with such a portable. Why? IMO, It's because the CFM potential of the portable is not fully taken advantage of, if the motor(s) of the portable have a decent CFM capability. (It would be good to see a vac gauge on a given portable, to see the "before" resistance and the "after", larger hose is used.)

And one thing that portables do have is closer proximity to the job. So there is a bit more "potential" there, in the form of unconsumed lift, I think.

But to compare that to a truck mount with a small blower and a much larger tank than any portable isn't truly accurate, for the reasons I outlined above.

Adding a larger hose to a system, in effect, increases the size of the "recovery tank", from an evacuation- time standpoint. And if the blower is a small one, it can affect response time in a way that causes it to be increased.

Granted, all truck mounts are not the same. And two by the same manufacturer may be radically different if one has a lot of hours on it and the other relatively new, etc. And even two of identical age, hour- wise, can perform differently, due to differences in how well they're maintained. So there's a lot to take into account. But all things being equal, you can, on a given system, with a small blower, decrease vacuum response, by going to a larger hose... especially if the tank is not a small one. But even if it's not.

It all depends upon "how small and how slow the blower is" vs. "how big the area to evacuate" is...

 

[Dolly Llama]

DooWayne, I couldn't make it all the way thru your post, so forgive me if the answer is some where in the second half of it

You thoughts on the small tank vs large make sense and i can easily makes sense to me.
Maybe it makes more difference on #3 blowers, but as a practical matter, i can't tell any difference when my 105gal waste is empty and when it's near full (greatly reduced the tank volume)

Most guys keep their wand on the carpet anyway.
So wouldn't the tank and hose volume thingie be pretty much a moot point regardless?

Once again, it comes down to theory and physics doesn't always equate to "practical" performance in the real world.
There's no arguing physics, but often, they just don't make a dimes worth of difference in the real world of practical use


..L.T.A.

 

[Mikey P]

Dual wanders can't run 8 to the door.


Cooper owns a Vortex, does not use it for what it was intended and calls others stupid.

 

[Rex Tyus]

Please allow me to remind everyone, no one has said that the 2.5" conversion would show SIGNIFICANT variance either way over 42td. The original debate was that Greenie's 2" Y for 42td was a waste of time and money. They finally gave up on that and have gone to promoting 42td as the better way. Saying 2.5" is not needed.

They have shifted the debate to something that no one disputes. Preference is that preference.

COOP, please clarify which debate you will be testing. 2" vs 2.5" or 2" vs 42td.

Don't even think about 2.5" vs 42td. That is NOT in debate. Other than convenience or preference and an individual can NOT prove or disprove that.

While you are at it please explain how you will record and account for the variance in pile density, pattern, style and type of carpet. The humidity of the day as well as the conditions inside the structure, ie type of cooling system, compressor size duct work,dywall,plaster or paneling ..... I mean you DO want to be scientific right?

 

[Duane Oxley]

The original debate was that Greenie's 2" Y for 42td was a waste of time and money. They finally gave up on that and have gone to promoting 42td as the better way. Saying 2.5" is not needed.

They have shifted the debate to something that no one disputes. Preference is that preference.

I'm not sure who, "They" is. But my main point was to clarify things a bit. The idea of larger hose is simply an extension of using larger plumbing in a given system, which is something I've been vocal about and done for years. With heat exchange systems being prevalent these days, reduced system plumbing, as I've said many times, is common, due to the intentional strain on the blower- engine to generate more heat... at the expense of airflow.

2" wands have been around for as long as I've been in this industry... probably as long as Judson has been building systems. And you need 2" hose, in order to take advantage of a 2" wand. But they are more cumbersome and most people I've sold systems to over the years don't want that... to the point that 2" wands simply fell by the wayside.

Now, with some people using 2" wands, 2" hose to the wand is logical. And, larger hose diiameter, feeding the 2" wand to the hose is also logical, as long as it's not connected to the wand, making the wand even more of a "weight" to maneuver.

I was asked about a small blower and large hose. I gave an answer that, based upon my own experience, I know to be true. (That experience came from working with the old "Chem Lawn" systems back in the 80's, which had 100- plus gallon tanks and #2 blowers, and from working with SpitFires. My guess is that the older Bane systems would serve to illustrate the point further.)

Greenie differed and cited why he differed.

I replied with a more specific look at why I differ, with regard to smaller blowers, based upon something I came up with a while back, when wondering how the "sponginess" I noticed on the small blower systems arose.

As stated above, regarding the larger hose use, it's simply a personal choice for the user to make.

That's how I see it.

 

[Duane Oxley]

DooWayne,

You thoughts on the small tank vs large make sense and i can easily makes sense to me.
Maybe it makes more difference on #3 blowers, but as a practical matter, i can't tell any difference when my 105gal waste is empty and when it's near full (greatly reduced the tank volume)

Most guys keep their wand on the carpet anyway.
So wouldn't the tank and hose volume thingie be pretty much a moot point regardless?

..L.T.A.

Thanks, Larry...

The calculations I posted above are what I came up with in searching for an answer to the question of delayed "rise time" a while back. I'm not saying that it's a complete picture. And as you point out, it should actually vary with how full the tank in question is, since the effective capacity reduces.

I think that what comes into play is how quickly the tank gets to full vacuum when the wand is on the carpet. And, when the system is running, the tank is always under a partial vacuum load, at least, so it's always part of the way to "there".

So, "No", it's not a moot point. It's just not quite as simple as the calculations above make it seem. Because when the tank is under a partial vacuum, it doesn't have to go the full route (and take the full time indicated) to get there as a result.

Like I said, this becomes more and more obvious as the blower in question is smaller... especially if the tank it's connected to is large in relation to it.

My guess is that you have a #47 blower on your system. That blower turns almost 500 CFM, assuming that it's turning at rated speed. So, the effect that it has on a 100 gal. tank is substantially more than a 45 (about 300 CFM) would have, which in turn would have more effect than a 33 would have.

Keeping the wand on the floor should help, assuming that the wand had a "semi- lock" on the carpet. But as I understand it, that's what glides specifically prevent.

 

[Greenie]

Duane nailed the heart of my example, sometimes we look past the obvious, in all of my examples I am "assuming" one of my average customers, (because I don't spend much time talking to folks who aren't my customers..lol) and Duane reminded me, in order for the extra area of the vac hose to really come into play, a guy would have to be cleaning without a glide, and would probably have to be lifting his wand at the back of each stroke to get the drop in volume required to make any real effect on net vacuum, this might be real obvious with a 175 cfm system, not so much on a 300+ cfm system.

That is just it, something I've beat the drum over for years now, the glide introduces a FIXED amount of resistance, not enough to hurt water recovery(in fact it helps, and I have the lawsuit to prove it) but enough to prevent a 175 cfm system from experiencing the drop in volume fast enough to show it's weakness on a smaller system.

So, maybe Duane and I agree on both the portable extractor preservation of lift and airflow as well as the small TM's ability to re-energize it's holding tank?

 

[Bill Soukoreff]

Good information here.

 

[Guest]

Please allow me to remind everyone, no one has said that the 2.5" conversion would show SIGNIFICANT variance either way over 42td. The original debate was that Greenie's 2" Y for 42td was a waste of time and money. They finally gave up on that and have gone to promoting 42td as the better way. Saying 2.5" is not needed.

They have shifted the debate to something that no one disputes. Preference is that preference.

COOP, please clarify which debate you will be testing. 2" vs 2.5" or 2" vs 42td.

Don't even think about 2.5" vs 42td. That is NOT in debate. Other than convenience or preference and an individual can NOT prove or disprove that.

While you are at it please explain how you will record and account for the variance in pile density, pattern, style and type of carpet. The humidity of the day as well as the conditions inside the structure, ie type of cooling system, compressor size duct work,dywall,plaster or paneling ..... I mean you DO want to be scientific right?

Look this whole thread has shifted and morphed so many times it no longer even resembles what it started as.

This is the whole premise : Claims have been made saying 2.5 performs much better than 4 to the door. I questioned how much more and all I got were vague non answers .

Now its been turned into a matter of preference as to which is better. While I can live with that , I think its still important to do the testing to substantiate the claims , which bottom line is , which one dries faster and which one is easier to setup and breakdown.

 

[TimP]

Cooper, you always twist things to your likeing. I don't see how anyone who can read this from beginning to end can take you serious with anything.

 

[Rex Tyus]

This is the whole premise : Claims have been made saying 2.5 performs much better than 4 to the door. I questioned how much more and all I got were vague non answers .

If you will show me that post I will stand corrected and apoligize to you.

 

[Art Kelley]

[ Look this whole thread has shifted and morphed so many times it no longer even resembles what it started as.

Claims have been made saying 2.5 performs much better than 4 to the door. I questioned how much more and all I got were vague non answers .

.

Never in the history of the bulletin boards, much less this thread, has anyone said 2.5 performs better than 4 to the door. Curtis started this thread about going to 2.5 and getting a lot more vac, one would assume he meant he was using 2 inch hose before like most truck mount users. James, don't waste time testing 2.5 against 4 to the door, test it against the 2 to the door most normal cleaners use. Then you could prove to the world Greenie is full of crap and you could sing it to the mountains. Or you could be wrong.

 

[Guest]

[quote="James Cooper":216x6bem][ Look this whole thread has shifted and morphed so many times it no longer even resembles what it started as.

Claims have been made saying 2.5 performs much better than 4 to the door. I questioned how much more and all I got were vague non answers .

.

Never in the history of the bulletin boards, much less this thread, has anyone said 2.5 performs better than 4 to the door. Curtis started this thread about going to 2.5 and getting a lot more vac, one would assume he meant he was using 2 inch hose before like most truck mount users. James, don't waste time testing 2.5 against 4 to the door, test it against the 2 to the door most normal cleaners use. Then you could prove to the world Greenie is full of crap and you could sing it to the mountains. Or you could be wrong.[/quote:216x6bem]

Show me where I agreed to test 2 in vs. 2.5 ?? Its not my fault you guys have reading/comprehesion problems.

 

[Rex Tyus]

Show me where OUTRAGEOUS performance claims were made as to 2.5" over 42td.

Reading is fundamental.

 

[joey895]

[quote="Art Kelley":2gkp66rd][quote="James Cooper":2gkp66rd][ Look this whole thread has shifted and morphed so many times it no longer even resembles what it started as.

Claims have been made saying 2.5 performs much better than 4 to the door. I questioned how much more and all I got were vague non answers .

.

Never in the history of the bulletin boards, much less this thread, has anyone said 2.5 performs better than 4 to the door. Curtis started this thread about going to 2.5 and getting a lot more vac, one would assume he meant he was using 2 inch hose before like most truck mount users. James, don't waste time testing 2.5 against 4 to the door, test it against the 2 to the door most normal cleaners use. Then you could prove to the world Greenie is full of crap and you could sing it to the mountains. Or you could be wrong.[/quote:2gkp66rd]



Show me where I agreed to test 2 in vs. 2.5 ?? Its not my fault you guys have reading/comprehesion problems.[/quote:2gkp66rd]


Maybe this is all a big misunderstanding.

So James would you agree that 2.5 is a substantial improvement over 2?

And it seems you think that the performance of 2.5 would be about the same as 4to the door, right?

If the answer is yes to both of those questions then there is NO arguement because that is what greenie, rex and everyone else I've seen post says.

 

[harryhides]

Is this what happens to the human brain on a diet of greens, grits and roadkill ?

I wonder if Rex, Curtis or Dwayne share Coops dietary habits?

Someone should do a test on this.

 

[Rex Tyus]

Is this what happens to the human brain on a diet of greens, grits and roadkill ?

I wonder if Rex, Curtis or Dwayne share Coops dietary habits?

Someone should do a test on this.

Easy now. I resemble that remark.

 

[Duane Oxley]

Is this what happens to the human brain on a diet of greens, grits and roadkill ?

I wonder if Rex, Curtis or Dwayne share Coops dietary habits?

Someone should do a test on this.

Tony:

You know from personal experience what I eat.

Come to think of it, you "et" it, too... 8)

 

[harryhides]

Is this what happens to the human brain on a diet of greens, grits and roadkill ?

I wonder if Rex, Curtis or Dwayne share Coops dietary habits?

Someone should do a test on this.

Tony:

You know from personal experience what I eat.

Come to think of it, you "et" it, too... 8)

I did indeed, a few weeks back I was in a town called Truth or Consequences, NM - spent some time in a natural hot spring and later after meditating in a "Power spot" among the rocks of Sedona was finally able to clear my head. Now I can see clearly again.

 

[Art Kelley]

So James would you agree that 2.5 is a substantial improvement over 2?

And it seems you think that the performance of 2.5 would be about the same as 4to the door, right?

If the answer is yes to both of those questions then there is NO arguement because that is what greenie, rex and everyone else I've seen post says.

Joey, you have encapsulated 3 long boring mikeyboard pages to 2 simple points even a 5 year old could understand. Good job. Do you think James will figure it out?

 

[Scott Rogers]

Let him run his fricken test already. But I hope he includes what a GIANT PIA pulling all that extra 2" hose and the Y for a week compared to pulling a single 2.5 inch hose for a week.

And as far as 2.5 inch hose costing more. Does it really, if it takes two 2" hose to do the same job?

2.5 hose doesnt cost cleaners more it saves us time and aggravation and lets me do a superior job as easily as possible

 

[Curtis Pennington]

Let him run his fricken test already. But I hope he includes what a GIANT PIA pulling all that extra 2" hose and the Y for a week compared to pulling a single 2.5 inch hose for a week.

And as far as 2.5 inch hose costing more. Does it really, if it takes two 2" hose to do the same job?

2.5 hose doesnt cost cleaners more it saves us time and aggravation and lets me do a superior job as easily as possible

But the village iDiOt dosent undrstand.

 

[Guest]

Coop, you kill me with your fair and thorough Exclusive stuff....Do you think people trust you or even listen to you for one minute?
Don't forget I was cleaning with 2.5" hose before I ever offered it for sale, I transitioned from 4 to the door to 2.5 cause it was better all around.
Mathematically 4 to the door has a larger area, but it doen't deliver any better dry times, so the point is really moot, the PITA factor alone settles the arguement for those that have the funds to set up this way, you are 4 years behind the curve, please catch up, soon you'll be giving the ® Bayco valve review, I'm glad Mikey allows you here, occasionally we need someone to kick the shit out of .

Wonder who said that Rex - or does it have to be OUTRAGEOUS PERFORMANCE NOW ??? Twist it any way you want Bub .


Did I say That ?? I guess I did , its actually in this thread :
Look this whole thread has shifted and morphed so many times it no longer even resembles what it started as.

Claims have been made saying 2.5 performs much better than 4 to the door. I questioned how much more and all I got were vague non answers .





Joey sayS :


Maybe this is all a big misunderstanding.

So James would you agree that 2.5 is a substantial improvement over 2?

And it seems you think that the performance of 2.5 would be about the same as 4to the door, right?

If the answer is yes to both of those questions then there is NO arguement because that is what greenie, rex and everyone else I've seen post says .

Joey gets it , for the most part

.

[quote="Rex Tyus":1sd2unzf]Please allow me to remind everyone, no one has said that the 2.5" conversion would show SIGNIFICANT variance either way over 42td. The original debate was that Greenie's 2" Y for 42td was a waste of time and money. They finally gave up on that and have gone to promoting 42td as the better way. Saying 2.5" is not needed.

They have shifted the debate to something that no one disputes. Preference is that preference.

COOP, please clarify which debate you will be testing. 2" vs 2.5" or 2" vs 42td.

Don't even think about 2.5" vs 42td. That is NOT in debate. Other than convenience or preference and an individual can NOT prove or disprove that.

While you are at it please explain how you will record and account for the variance in pile density, pattern, style and type of carpet. The humidity of the day as well as the conditions inside the structure, ie type of cooling system, compressor size duct work,dywall,plaster or paneling ..... I mean you DO want to be scientific right?

Look this whole thread has shifted and morphed so many times it no longer even resembles what it started as.

This is the whole premise : Claims have been made saying 2.5 performs much better than 4 to the door. I questioned how much more and all I got were vague non answers .

Now its been turned into a matter of preference as to which is better. While I can live with that , I think its still important to do the testing to substantiate the claims , which bottom line is , which one dries faster and which one is easier to setup and breakdown.[/quote:1sd2unzf]


How bout that I quoted myself ........ dumbasses

 

[Rex Tyus]

Show me where OUTRAGEOUS performance claims were made as to 2.5" over 42td.

Reading is fundamental.

I just quoted myself as well. :shock:

 

[Guest]

This is the whole premise : Claims have been made saying 2.5 performs much better than 4 to the door. I questioned how much more and all I got were vague non answers .

If you will show me that post I will stand corrected and apoligize to you.

Just to remind you .

Its evident that 2.5 vs . 4 to the door is merely a preference thing at this point . Real numbers will put things is perspective one way or other , but I dont expect it to change anyones mind .

I'm sure there are others ( like Jim Martin ) that have used 2.5 and didnt like it for reasons I have stated before. Maybe he will chime in and let us know his reasons for ditching it.

 

[Guest]

[quote="James Cooper":1lp4hfaz].
I questioned how much more and all I got were vague non answers .

We like to watch you dance. [/quote:1lp4hfaz]


I realized a long time ago no answers were coming . The real question is how much more money can be made if 2.5 is sold over 2 ?? Of course along with Y's and greenie cuffs - er cool cuffs .....

 

[Rex Tyus]

[quote="Rex Tyus":1ph8fwf9]

This is the whole premise : Claims have been made saying 2.5 performs much better than 4 to the door. I questioned how much more and all I got were vague non answers .

If you will show me that post I will stand corrected and apoligize to you.

Just to remind you .

Its evident that 2.5 vs . 4 to the door is merely a preference thing at this point . Real numbers will put things is perspective one way or other , but I dont expect it to change anyones mind .

I'm sure there are others ( like Jim Martin ) that have used 2.5 and didnt like it for reasons I have stated before. Maybe he will chime in and let us know his reasons for ditching it.[/quote:1ph8fwf9]

I assume by your avoidance this means you are NOT able to find a post that claims the performance of 2.5" was greater than 2 2" by Greenie or myself.