Do you get more heat when you turn up the pressure?
- Thread starter Goldenboy
- Start date
Duane Oxley
Moon Unit
Probably...
Your solution is getting to the carpet faster, resulting in less time for it to lose heat as it passes through the air, but also there's more of it (higher flow). Thinner streams aerate more (mix with the air more) and lose heat faster than thicker streams do.
Turning up the pressure turns up the flow, increasing the GPM and making the jet streams denser, so that they lose less heat.
That's one of the reasons I'm not a big "more jets is better" fan. More jets divide the flow between them, making the jet stream less dense.
There's a counter- argument that more jets result in the jets being closer to the carpet (so there's less distance for the spray to travel). I see it as a "taking it off of one end and putting it on another", kind of situation, because the thinner the spray, the faster it loses heat. (In theory, if the spray of 2 jets is divided into 4, then the heat loss should be twice as fast from the 4, since the spray is half as dense.) Plus, smaller jets tend to clog more, so they then require strainers, etc., etc.
Here's another thing to consider. If you want more heat on a given tough area, move the wand slower...
As the spray comes into contact with the fibers, they gain temperature... but the spray loses temperature. The longer the spray maintains contact with the fibers, the more heat is transferred to them. Normally this is virtually instantaneous, so the time span that this occurs in is quick. But if the time is extended some (i.e., the wand is moved slower), the initial period of bringing the fibers up in temperature is achieved, and "more" then occurs.
Enclosing the jets on the wand actually helps as well. This is because there is a "mini- environment" created, in which the ambient temperature around the jets is constantly higher, than that around the wand. (They lose less heat, because the air around them isn't as cool as it would be otherwise.)
Personally, assuming that the jet spray pattern is balanced with regard to streak potential, I'd rather have a 2- jet enclosed wand, than a 4- jet wand with the jets exposed. The flow is "thicker" coming from the jets and the environment is hotter as well...
Your solution is getting to the carpet faster, resulting in less time for it to lose heat as it passes through the air, but also there's more of it (higher flow). Thinner streams aerate more (mix with the air more) and lose heat faster than thicker streams do.
Turning up the pressure turns up the flow, increasing the GPM and making the jet streams denser, so that they lose less heat.
That's one of the reasons I'm not a big "more jets is better" fan. More jets divide the flow between them, making the jet stream less dense.
There's a counter- argument that more jets result in the jets being closer to the carpet (so there's less distance for the spray to travel). I see it as a "taking it off of one end and putting it on another", kind of situation, because the thinner the spray, the faster it loses heat. (In theory, if the spray of 2 jets is divided into 4, then the heat loss should be twice as fast from the 4, since the spray is half as dense.) Plus, smaller jets tend to clog more, so they then require strainers, etc., etc.
Here's another thing to consider. If you want more heat on a given tough area, move the wand slower...
As the spray comes into contact with the fibers, they gain temperature... but the spray loses temperature. The longer the spray maintains contact with the fibers, the more heat is transferred to them. Normally this is virtually instantaneous, so the time span that this occurs in is quick. But if the time is extended some (i.e., the wand is moved slower), the initial period of bringing the fibers up in temperature is achieved, and "more" then occurs.
Enclosing the jets on the wand actually helps as well. This is because there is a "mini- environment" created, in which the ambient temperature around the jets is constantly higher, than that around the wand. (They lose less heat, because the air around them isn't as cool as it would be otherwise.)
Personally, assuming that the jet spray pattern is balanced with regard to streak potential, I'd rather have a 2- jet enclosed wand, than a 4- jet wand with the jets exposed. The flow is "thicker" coming from the jets and the environment is hotter as well...
The bottom line is this: we clean carpets at the wand carpet interface...not the f'n truckmount.
So what it says on the gauge at the TM means very little, although a local distributor in this area likes to think so.
A higher PSI will put more heat on the carpet, with everything else being the same, than a lower PSI, for the EXACT reasons Duane mentioned.
The other part of the equation is the jet size. It is pretty simple, larger jets deliver a larger stream of water to the carpet. The smaller jets deliver a much finer spray to the carpet that rapidly cools down.
I will say this though, what in the hell are you using 700 PSI for? That is totally not needed!
If you have a wand that has four jets, all number 2's, then being right around 400 to 500 is plenty.
We are only cleaning a 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch of fiber in most cases.
DevilDog
So what it says on the gauge at the TM means very little, although a local distributor in this area likes to think so.
A higher PSI will put more heat on the carpet, with everything else being the same, than a lower PSI, for the EXACT reasons Duane mentioned.
The other part of the equation is the jet size. It is pretty simple, larger jets deliver a larger stream of water to the carpet. The smaller jets deliver a much finer spray to the carpet that rapidly cools down.
I will say this though, what in the hell are you using 700 PSI for? That is totally not needed!
If you have a wand that has four jets, all number 2's, then being right around 400 to 500 is plenty.
We are only cleaning a 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch of fiber in most cases.
DevilDog
Mikey P
Administrator
Did you cry like a baby at your kid's funeral?
I agree 99% with what Duane posted, I actually thought most of that was assumed these days on this board, but the one detail which ends up being a big deal is multiple jet wands clean with a more efficient full sized cleaning path, two jet wands are flawed by design and mist the edges and really only clean well in about an 8" center zone.
5 jets 1" off the carpet at a 45º angle is just plain sweet.
5 jets 1" off the carpet at a 45º angle is just plain sweet.
Duane Oxley
Moon Unit
"only clean well in about an 8" center zone."
So, "all" 2- jet wands don't clean well at 2" from the edges on each end? Doesn't that figure vary with how far the jets are apart and how far they are from the carpet...?
"All" 2- jet wands aren't the same, 'ya know. 8)
I was speaking with someone the other day about this very topic. The funny thing is, that whenever someone says, "For every inch of travel, you lose about 15 degrees of heat...", they're citing a study done by SteamWay years ago...
And with all of that study they put into heat and heat loss, how many jets did they go with on their wands...?
One.
I'm guessin' that they saw such a heat loss coming from thinner streams, that they opted for the thickest possible... from a single jet.
Of course, their wands were narrower (by 1/2") than many today. And they used a different jet type... a "K" jet.
I hear so many people who want a wider wand head, and who do primarily residential carpet. And it makes me wonder... because, no job requires more maneuverability than residential. And a larger head isn't as maneuverable in those tight areas. I could definitely see an advantage to a wider wand on larger, more wide- open jobs...
So, looking at what they did years ago and analyzing "why", I can see why they went to a different number of jets and a bit narrower wand head.
Personally, if I designed a wand and used several jets, I would absolutely enclose the jets behind a shield. You get much less heat loss. (In fact, even with one jet, I'd enclose it...)
So, "all" 2- jet wands don't clean well at 2" from the edges on each end? Doesn't that figure vary with how far the jets are apart and how far they are from the carpet...?
"All" 2- jet wands aren't the same, 'ya know. 8)
I was speaking with someone the other day about this very topic. The funny thing is, that whenever someone says, "For every inch of travel, you lose about 15 degrees of heat...", they're citing a study done by SteamWay years ago...
And with all of that study they put into heat and heat loss, how many jets did they go with on their wands...?
One.
I'm guessin' that they saw such a heat loss coming from thinner streams, that they opted for the thickest possible... from a single jet.
Of course, their wands were narrower (by 1/2") than many today. And they used a different jet type... a "K" jet.
I hear so many people who want a wider wand head, and who do primarily residential carpet. And it makes me wonder... because, no job requires more maneuverability than residential. And a larger head isn't as maneuverable in those tight areas. I could definitely see an advantage to a wider wand on larger, more wide- open jobs...
So, looking at what they did years ago and analyzing "why", I can see why they went to a different number of jets and a bit narrower wand head.
Personally, if I designed a wand and used several jets, I would absolutely enclose the jets behind a shield. You get much less heat loss. (In fact, even with one jet, I'd enclose it...)
The Preacher
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 3,401
get that damn TM finished before you start building wands DOOOOOOOWAYNE!!!! 
Duane Oxley
Moon Unit
Not to worry... Workin' on 'em, Dan'l... 8)
The wand thing is a lot like the HX was. It will take some time to perculate. I'm not doing anything on it right now other than some reading in a few places.
Sort of like the HHO... But HHO is the next project after the Nemesis / Xcel...
The wand thing is a lot like the HX was. It will take some time to perculate. I'm not doing anything on it right now other than some reading in a few places.
Sort of like the HHO... But HHO is the next project after the Nemesis / Xcel...
hogjowl
Idiot™
With my TM I don't have enough heat to worry about, but I like my 5 jet, 14 inch, CMP wand alot. It doesn't overspray the edges and at 50 psi it flushes the carpet very well.
If I added a 3ht heater, I bet I could be cooking out some carpet.
If I added a 3ht heater, I bet I could be cooking out some carpet.
R
R W
Guest
I noticed the same thing, Waldo. More heat at the wand, the hoses, the fittings. I've been checking the guage at the machine to see that it's not spiking up. Still cleaning at about 220-230*, but I notice it more.
Duane Oxley
Moon Unit
On thing that could be coming into play at the higher flow rate is that the solution is staying in the hose for a shorter period of time, and losing less heat along the way as a result.
If you normally clean at 500 PSI, for instance, and bump it to 750, then the solution is in theory, moving along at 50% faster and spending 50% less time in the hose. That may mean that, instead of losing the typical 30 degrees, it's losing 15...
If you normally clean at 500 PSI, for instance, and bump it to 750, then the solution is in theory, moving along at 50% faster and spending 50% less time in the hose. That may mean that, instead of losing the typical 30 degrees, it's losing 15...
Duane Oxley
Moon Unit
"I just make what I think makes sense to me..."
Same here, Greenie. Maybe I over-analyze things at times. But once I get an idea percolating, it's difficult to drop it until I’ve looked at it from every angle. A cursory look at things gives a cursory understanding, in my experience.
I want to know, “Why” things work… not just know “that” they do. Just knowing that they do, and leaving it at that, may just be stopping short of something significant, in terms of a breakthrough.
If I were to design a wand again, I’d take at close look at the potential of floodjets (K-jets). They have some advantages, from what I’ve seen. (Like for instance, they can be rotated to adjust spray pattern in the process.)
In order to keep the wand head height low enough to get under obstacles, you’d have to use multiple jets. But to keep heat loss at a minimum, you’d want to keep the jets as few (so the streams flowed more and lost less heat) as possible.
My first thing would be to look at 2 or 3 Flood Jets as to their potential for the best performance with regard to spray coverage vs. heat loss. And it may be that the jets on the outside would do well as “filler jets”, with narrower spray angles and smaller jets, just to fill in a bit at the ends. (They could be turned in place to fine- tune.)
I dunno. I’ve got enough going at the moment that wand design will have to be a back burner project. But in the meantime, I’ll continue to “Think out loud.”, about ideas and principles (some of them, anyway…) as they come up.
Hey, I hope you don’t think that I’m trying to step on your toes here. I know you're passionate about your stuff, and that's a good thing, as long as you don't take things personally when they're not intended that way.
I’m simply discussing wand jet principles. I don’t make wands, and I’m not focused on the wand- selling biz. (I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I’m very interested, nonetheless.)
You have a lot of people buying the wand you promote who love it. And that’s all that matters, in the grand scheme of things.
Same here, Greenie. Maybe I over-analyze things at times. But once I get an idea percolating, it's difficult to drop it until I’ve looked at it from every angle. A cursory look at things gives a cursory understanding, in my experience.
I want to know, “Why” things work… not just know “that” they do. Just knowing that they do, and leaving it at that, may just be stopping short of something significant, in terms of a breakthrough.
If I were to design a wand again, I’d take at close look at the potential of floodjets (K-jets). They have some advantages, from what I’ve seen. (Like for instance, they can be rotated to adjust spray pattern in the process.)
In order to keep the wand head height low enough to get under obstacles, you’d have to use multiple jets. But to keep heat loss at a minimum, you’d want to keep the jets as few (so the streams flowed more and lost less heat) as possible.
My first thing would be to look at 2 or 3 Flood Jets as to their potential for the best performance with regard to spray coverage vs. heat loss. And it may be that the jets on the outside would do well as “filler jets”, with narrower spray angles and smaller jets, just to fill in a bit at the ends. (They could be turned in place to fine- tune.)
I dunno. I’ve got enough going at the moment that wand design will have to be a back burner project. But in the meantime, I’ll continue to “Think out loud.”, about ideas and principles (some of them, anyway…
) as they come up.Hey, I hope you don’t think that I’m trying to step on your toes here. I know you're passionate about your stuff, and that's a good thing, as long as you don't take things personally when they're not intended that way.
I’m simply discussing wand jet principles. I don’t make wands, and I’m not focused on the wand- selling biz. (I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I’m very interested, nonetheless.)
You have a lot of people buying the wand you promote who love it. And that’s all that matters, in the grand scheme of things.
The Preacher
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 3,401
Steven Hoodlebrink said:
yore a jr high drop out BDCC and you know it!!!
Brevik on Dannys computer
hogjowl
Idiot™
Give him a minute, Duane. Lisa is probably explaining what you said to him right now. As soon as she convinces him he's not pissed, he'll respond.
Art Kelley
Supportive Member
Duane Oxley said:
Duane Oxley
Moon Unit
Hey, Art...
Back when I cleaned, I did mainly apartments... empty ones more than 90% of the time.
I made it a point to develop the most efficient wand stroke pattern for each unit type, on each property I did. In other words, I started in a specific place, ended in a specific place and got between the two points in a specific route, for each floor plan.
My main approach went like this:
I used 230 ATW, through a #6 jet equivalency (2 x 03), at 800 PSI. (I used live solution reels and knew that I lost 250 PSI through them, so I turned up the pressure to compensate.)
When I cleaned an area, I took the mindset that I was "looking for areas that didn't come clean on the first try". When I found such areas (usually just spots, actually), I'd go over them again with a slower stroke, pulling the wand at about 1 ft. per 3 seconds or so, to increase the flushing ability, which worked about 7 out of 10 times. When it didn't work, I spotted the area again, kicked it in, and repeated. (I did carpet repair as part of my offering and knew the vast, vast majority of the time what would and wouldn't come out. And I patched or heat transferred before cleaning anything.)
The areas that I cleaned, I used an overlap of 1/2 of the wand width, so everything got cleaned twice as a matter of course. When I came to a traffic area that was ground in, I would "end" a pass (a row of wand strokes) on the side of the area closest to me, so that it was cleaned by that pass. Then I would begin the next pass at the side of the area farthest from me. This way, the area got cleaned 4 times.
I literally timed myself (glanced frequently at my watch...) on each unit, to be sure that I didn't slack off. (I had a minimum acceptable rate for myself of $75 per hour, with a target of $90 or more... $1.50 a minute, while in a unit.) And using that system, I could be in and out of a normally- soiled 1 bedroom efficiency (LR, BR and BR closet to do...) in 8 minutes. (1 BR w/ hall in 12 min.... steps took 5 minutes (I used an upholstery tool)... 2 BR took about 15 minutes)
I can see in that situation that I would have gotten about 10% fewer necessary strokes with a 14" wand. (2" = 1/6 of 12", or 16.6%, but my overlap pattern would have negated part of the 17%).
But in a production situation like that (I did up to 14 apartments in a day, with 10 being more typical), I would have preferred a wand that was more maneuverable so I could "fly" with it.
But that's just me... in that environment.
Coasting along (by comparison) in a residential setting, getting 10% more production but only doing 4 to 6 a day, max, I can't say for sure. I didn't like doing residential, other than carpet repair, so I don't have a real basis for comparison from personal experience.
Back when I cleaned, I did mainly apartments... empty ones more than 90% of the time.
I made it a point to develop the most efficient wand stroke pattern for each unit type, on each property I did. In other words, I started in a specific place, ended in a specific place and got between the two points in a specific route, for each floor plan.
My main approach went like this:
I used 230 ATW, through a #6 jet equivalency (2 x 03), at 800 PSI. (I used live solution reels and knew that I lost 250 PSI through them, so I turned up the pressure to compensate.)
When I cleaned an area, I took the mindset that I was "looking for areas that didn't come clean on the first try". When I found such areas (usually just spots, actually), I'd go over them again with a slower stroke, pulling the wand at about 1 ft. per 3 seconds or so, to increase the flushing ability, which worked about 7 out of 10 times. When it didn't work, I spotted the area again, kicked it in, and repeated. (I did carpet repair as part of my offering and knew the vast, vast majority of the time what would and wouldn't come out. And I patched or heat transferred before cleaning anything.)
The areas that I cleaned, I used an overlap of 1/2 of the wand width, so everything got cleaned twice as a matter of course. When I came to a traffic area that was ground in, I would "end" a pass (a row of wand strokes) on the side of the area closest to me, so that it was cleaned by that pass. Then I would begin the next pass at the side of the area farthest from me. This way, the area got cleaned 4 times.
I literally timed myself (glanced frequently at my watch...) on each unit, to be sure that I didn't slack off. (I had a minimum acceptable rate for myself of $75 per hour, with a target of $90 or more... $1.50 a minute, while in a unit.) And using that system, I could be in and out of a normally- soiled 1 bedroom efficiency (LR, BR and BR closet to do...) in 8 minutes. (1 BR w/ hall in 12 min.... steps took 5 minutes (I used an upholstery tool)... 2 BR took about 15 minutes)
I can see in that situation that I would have gotten about 10% fewer necessary strokes with a 14" wand. (2" = 1/6 of 12", or 16.6%, but my overlap pattern would have negated part of the 17%).
But in a production situation like that (I did up to 14 apartments in a day, with 10 being more typical), I would have preferred a wand that was more maneuverable so I could "fly" with it.
But that's just me... in that environment.
Coasting along (by comparison) in a residential setting, getting 10% more production but only doing 4 to 6 a day, max, I can't say for sure. I didn't like doing residential, other than carpet repair, so I don't have a real basis for comparison from personal experience.
Art Kelley
Supportive Member
Hi Duane. That kind of one step cleaning running emulsifier without any other pretreatment might indeed be faster with a smaller wand and a chop stroke pattern as you used. I hydroforce a room which takes less than a minute and decide whether I need to run a 175 which takes another minute. By then the steam cleaning (with a fresh water rinse) is just like pulling a vacuum cleaner, and you know that a wide width commercial vacuum is faster than a household size one.
Duane, I've not got the time to delve into this much further right now, maybe later, but rest assured ALL 2 jet wands do indeed have a design flaw, as do single jet wands, just pick your poison, and the multiple 128º flood jet concept will be even worse, ya want me to send ya a GH wand to play with in the mean time, just look at Martys sometime.
I too am always looking for the next best thing....just don't want to over think it when things are working and headed in the right direction, hard to argue with success.
And you can't hurt my feelings, I've been numbed by the boards. 8)
I too am always looking for the next best thing....just don't want to over think it when things are working and headed in the right direction, hard to argue with success.
And you can't hurt my feelings, I've been numbed by the boards. 8)
Duane Oxley
Moon Unit
I too am always looking for the next best thing....
I'm always looking to make the next best thing... I can only do so much at a time, though.
The thing is that, when I finally get into it again, there may be a different kind of jet entirely that we've over looked that comes to light... Or, I could find a solution to a situation that's different than what you've found or considered.
I'm open- minded enough to consider such a possibility... and will examine it thoroughly when the time comes...
So, I'll take you up on your offer. Go ahead and send me the wand. I'll take a serious look at it and give it to a customer with his system to try.
Enjoyed the conversation, BTW... 8)
[/i]
I'm always looking to make the next best thing... I can only do so much at a time, though.
The thing is that, when I finally get into it again, there may be a different kind of jet entirely that we've over looked that comes to light... Or, I could find a solution to a situation that's different than what you've found or considered.
I'm open- minded enough to consider such a possibility... and will examine it thoroughly when the time comes...
So, I'll take you up on your offer. Go ahead and send me the wand. I'll take a serious look at it and give it to a customer with his system to try.
Enjoyed the conversation, BTW... 8)
[/i]
