yep, there's more variables...solution hose ID, & length, and # of QDs. oh yeah, ambient temperature.
But wait, there's Able's variables... trigger frequency... that affects heat output too. right?
So you wanna define a specific jet size for all to use? Good luck. Better just stock em all cuz there's as many choices as there are cleaners. I would think the discussion oughta center around a goal, like optimum heat output, or shear force at a given shear angle.
You guys been tossing around high flow all this time, how bout some summarization for the mortals just trying to make the most of what they got?
I'm hoping for more general conclusions in the form of a table that we could all refer to, to eliminate misconceptions like "With lower flowing wands your not really taking advantage of what your TM is putting out IMO."
Fact is, lower flowing wands are a necessity with some systems so as not to override the lower heat generating capability of some systems, right? (Nellos' mini tms and US Products portables come to mind, killer heat at lower flows).
graph atw temp vs gpm flow and systems like these are at the bottom of the curve and Steamways, etc with their high heat @ high flow systems are at the top.
Right?
Do our homework and jet size goes from a choice to a variable that delivers predictable results based on the interaction of all the other variables.
Short of that, we could make from general observations that would apply to the various systems out there. right?
Put em in a table for all to read.
Meat, I was using thermometers ATF on my HydraHOE maybe 12-13 yrs ago. Not very reliable. Built-in wand models are much more useful imo. All I learned from ATF tests was that jets 6" away from the fiber is not as good at cleaning as the same heat is at 3" from my PC tri-jet. Duh.
With high shear, your 1.0" to 1.5" away. That's huge as far as getting heat to the fiber.
It's analogous to cfm testing. You could have listened to the stick in the mud naysayers who resisted it with their 'you don't need that...' or 'oh you can't do that cuz hair gets stuck in the airstream.' Or you can just go ahead and do the testing...measure it at the end of the vac hose (top of the wand) like hundreds of cleaners have done, Thge results are indirect, yes, but they can (and are) be directly applied by the average cleaner in his attempts to maximize his vacuum ATF. I've never helped a cleaner do these tests who didn't come away with bold statements like, "OK, here is what I'm going to do ..."It's powerful (and fun) to take that guy from 'I wonder ...' to 'I know ...'
I Guarantee you ain't gonna get this stuff from any showroom salesman reading from some labcoat sales brochure.
This is driveway stuff.
In the case of testing water temp, forget about ATF measurements unless you're prepared to spend a ton a dough like Jeff Bishop did, what was it 10 yrs ago? Sure, heat drops off big time as it hits the fiber, and fact is, you're not gonna get very usable results trying to do your measurements? I sure didn't. All I ever got was a sore back and a big headache. But when I went to the permanently mounted inline thermometer, I was in control for the first time. As an average Joe, I could measure temps ATW and come away with results I could immediately apply to help maximize my heat ATF.
So, have you done it inline Meat? If so, let's see your data.
I bet it would more scientific, repeatable, applicable than any ATF testing.
