Protector Tests

[everfresh1]

Understood and of course a test that is useful for the tester's own purposes is something that everyone should be encouraged to do, imo. Publishing test results, however had better be defensible and repeatable if only for legal reasons.

:shock: What legal reasons we are not naming any brands here. Come on man lighten up. I've done an even simpler test myself with DUPONT TEFLON!! I don't think it works very well so sue me :roll:

 

[J Scott W]

We will see if it correlates with experiments in our lab.

Scott:

Can you tell us about your experiments?

We do most of our testing on small samples of greige goods. These are made by Shaw specifically for testing and comparing. Undyed nylon Saxony (cut-pile) with no factory applied protector. I think it is 28 oz yarn weight.

Testing on used carpet or placing something down on the floor to be walked on introduces variables that could call into question how even the testing was.

Instead we put small squares (about 1 1/2" square) of the treated carpets and untreated control pieces in device to simulate foot traffic. We can add dry soil, oily soils or whatever we desire to examine how the carpets respond to different soiling.

In real world, most protectors are applied to carpet that has some amount of protetor already applied, either from the factory or following previous cleanings. To simulate this real life circumstances, we often apply twice the suggested amount of protector. Same for ours and the products we test against.

We also compare to food dyes such as found in Kool Aid, Gatorade and other beverages. Since real life spills do not always get cleaned up right away, we test at different time ranges - 1 minutes, 5 minutes, 20 minutes or even longer before we try toremove the spill.

Cleaning is always done with tap water. This way we avoid confusing the results of the cleaning product with the results of the protector.

Our testing compares products we sell - Maxim Advanced, Teflon, etc. with competing products. Our goal is to be sure that what we are offering to the cleaners is equal to exceeds the performance of competing products at resisting oily soils, dry soils and food dyes.

While I look for opportunities to promote products sold through BRidgepoint and Interlink Supply, I try to never knock the competition. So I won't post specific test results. I can say that none of the leading products protects against food dyes as well as MAxim Advanced. Maxim is equal or better than the competition on other tyeps of soils.

 

[steve g]

We will see if it correlates with experiments in our lab.

Scott:

Can you tell us about your experiments?

We
Testing on uesd carpet or placing something down on the floor to be walked on introduces variables that could call into question how even the testing was.

Instead we put small squares (about 1 1/2" square) of the treated carpets and untreated control pieces in device to simulate foot traffic. We can add dry soil, oily soils or whatever we desire to examine how the carpets respond to different soiling.

why not test in a real situation?? instead of your laboratory situation. IMO if its NOT being walked on with real traffic, variables are coming into play that you don't want

 

[J Scott W]

We do some testing in real world. But the majority of testing is more controlled than would be accomplished by simply hoping people wlak on the carpet evenly.

Both types of testing have benefits.

 

[The Great Oz]

Follow this thread and you see the problem with testing any product on carpet. Real world testing involves variables that would affect the outcome, so can't be considered "scientific." A completely controlled environment that allows scientific (repeatable) results will be criticized as not being "real world."

My personal observations may not mean much to someone else, so I've done some testing just as Jim describes. I've done this with protectants and encap shampoos, putting one carpet at a high-traffic entrance and another in our break room where food and coffee will be spilled, turning the carpet for even use. I don't have to debate with technicians about why I chose a particular product, it's there for them to see.

I've done this with wool, nylon and polypropylene but until recently haven't seen enough polyester to bother, so I'm also looking forward to Jim doing the work for me. (Insert huzzah icon here.)

PS: I've also done plenty of testing at commercial establishments that wouldn't pay for any "extras." The difference is observable at the time of the next cleaning.