Water Rinse Extraction aka Hot Water Extraction aka Steam Cleaning. I use WRE to be general, regardless of heat. Water is the extraction media. I just don't want to list them all.
Practically the same meaning, unless you're looking under a microscope, and even then you'd have very little to go off of, you would have little difference in who cleaned what, maybe Steve can post the findings, I don't have them.
Apologies for delays. I don't do social media or post much.
As well as restoring balance to the industry. 
can you clarify what WRE stand for?Apologies for delays. I don't do social media or post much.
This is a lot and we'll get to it eventually. The Fast Foamer does not replace WRE when it come to urine, heavy organics, etc. this is primarily for the majority of commercial built environments where WRE systems are not applicable to the majority of the environment. The 85%/ 15% soil matrix. There is a place for every method. If the entire space can be cleaned via encapsulation extraction while in front of the restrooms and break room may require WRE, either periodically during a planned maintenance program or a single cleaning intervention. We don't need to WRE the entire space. This is technically "wrong" in the sense of overkill, inefficiency.
I won't get into "deep cleaning" yet, but water penetration is not "deep cleaning". I'll share what "deep cleaning" is, which is for "health" soon. But I have "depth of the pile" and "comprehensive" covered as well."Deep cleaning" is part of the WRE corruption bias. It was most likely added because of the asthma & allergy scare the industry went through in the 90's & 2000's and why it was introduced in the S100 2011 revision. WRE bias got their way. Yes, we knew better at the time. So, why did they really add it?
Look at the composition of the S100 over the years and who shaped it? Bill Bane, Jeff Bishop and others. BIAS! Not hating, I get why they did what they did. However, this has to be rectified or the liability must shifted to the IICRC, CRI and manufacturer's.
Playtime is over. The reckoning is here. How painful the industry wants it to be is on them.
I can't tell you all my secrets because I've expanded on the "science of cleaning" and re-written the principle of cleaning to be "principles of soil removal" to encompass dry compound and encapsulation extraction. These are complete extraction/ cleaning methods. As well as created a new system that cannot be corrupted.
It's based on physics (movement) over chemistry, chemistry (preparation) and extraction interventions.
When we say the Fast Foamer often rivals if not exceeds WRE, we're not talking restaurants, dissolving, emulsification, etc. We are talking about environments like office, retail, hospitality, etc. where if one is vacuumed and WRE vs vacuumed and the Fast Foamer is used. The Fast Foamer will outperform WRE, particularly if a CRB is not used.
The Fast Foamer isn't trying to replace WRE or the Truckmount systems. It's about proper product care, getting rid of prohibited ineffective and inefficient rotary type systems, which has been deemed bad since the 1980's. Yet, oscillation was introduced.
I don't want to break anyone. This is a lot of info to take in and it's not really far off of what we already know. However, it's still a lot when you wake people up. They get ornery, LOL!
Expectations? If you're anything like me. You'll be disappointed. I'm a non-voting member on the S100, while Daryl Hagan (CRI) has the lead chair and Richard Bodo is co-chair. These guys don't know cleaning. Daryl is part of the "old guard" and Bodo is a "gate keeper". We know why they were chosen.
The first production had a heavy, bulky external compressor but has since been replaced with a proprietary smaller continuous run compressor simplifying things. If I had to choose a Fast Foamer with the heavy, bulky compressor, I'd still take it, opposed to no Fast Foamer at all. Plus, the 50 -100 models with the external compressor can be retrofitted with the newer proprietary smaller internal compressor.
I thought this too, but it's too fatiguing. Plus, a solenoid would need to added only increasing parts that can fail. The ball valve is the way to go. The onboard trigger sprayer is not for "advanced encapsulation extraction", those are for "pile lifting" aka "traditional encapsulation extraction" the Whittaker blow and go method is what I like to call it. No dwell and minimal agitation. Which to this day, Whittaker still stays single and dual pass. Not that it can't be used. Use what makes you the most effective and efficient and applicable to the cleaning objective. I just wanted to explain because these are all questions I had and still want to try. If I get a solenoid version demo worked up to test I'll share.
