Quad 5.7 vs Dual 6.6

[Papa John]

The downfall of most portables is not so much the components but the engineering. Or the lack thereof.

Since I couldn't "like" this post twice- I decided to post it again.

 

[Goomer]

View attachment 71480

Thanks Larry.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the only dual 6.6 machine that is going to get any significant attention from the masses is one with a parallel vac configuration and beefy stacks and plumbing, irregardless of any performance numbers to support the contrary.

Obviously a challenge to accomplish on any pre-existing mass produced body that was not originally intended for such large motors in such a way.

Same old story until someone else takes the leap in manufacturing a custom body tailored for such large motors like Hydro-force did with their Nautilus, and can improve upon it in some areas.

No machine using dual 6.6's in such an add-ball series configuration will ever get off the ground.

There is a lot more to it than just the numbers.

 

[Cleanworks]

The biggest problem with high performance portables whether in series or parallel is they always seem to want to cram the vac motors in to a much smaller space than is necessary. For a series configuration, I like Larry's setup but it is only good for a short run of 1 1/2 inch hose. It will be very powerful at a length not exceeding 35 ft but you are not going to put 100 ft plus of 2 inch hose on that machine. How about mounting the vac motors on the waste tank. Maybe through a manifold. Eliminate the short hoses connecting the vac motors to the standpipe. Look, I'm not an engineer but when I designed my portable, I built a manifold (box) underneath the waste tank with the 2 inch standpipe welded to it. The 5.7 3-stage 13.5 amp motors are bolted directly to the manifold, eliminating any hoses. Each vacuum has an opening of 1 7/8 inch directly into the manifold, (almost 4 inches) but the other side where the standpipe is welded is only 2 inches. This has the effect of increasing the rpm of both vac motors and lowering the amperage draw. It just about doubles the cfm and increases the lift a little, compared to just one motor by itself. It allows me to run a pumptec m58 1/2 hp pump at 500 psi at 1.5 gpm while only taking 2.74 amps. I have run 150 ft. of 2 inch hose with a 15 ft. 1 1/2 whip on the end and still have more power than a basic 1 cord portable. I may do another project this summer with 8.4 vac motors in parallel. I will try 4 inches into 3 this time and see what the results are. Hard to say if I will have enough power to run the pump without blowing breakers. Oh, by the way, my machine runs on 2 15 amp circuits. I could put a pump out on the other cord without exceeding 15 amps.

 

[Nate The Great]

The biggest problem with high performance portables whether in series or parallel is they always seem to want to cram the vac motors in to a much smaller space than is necessary. For a series configuration, I like Larry's setup but it is only good for a short run of 1 1/2 inch hose. It will be very powerful at a length not exceeding 35 ft but you are not going to put 100 ft plus of 2 inch hose on that machine. How about mounting the vac motors on the waste tank. Maybe through a manifold. Eliminate the short hoses connecting the vac motors to the standpipe. Look, I'm not an engineer but when I designed my portable, I built a manifold (box) underneath the waste tank with the 2 inch standpipe welded to it. The 5.7 3-stage 13.5 amp motors are bolted directly to the manifold, eliminating any hoses. Each vacuum has an opening of 1 7/8 inch directly into the manifold, (almost 4 inches) but the other side where the standpipe is welded is only 2 inches. This has the effect of increasing the rpm of both vac motors and lowering the amperage draw. It just about doubles the cfm and increases the lift a little, compared to just one motor by itself. It allows me to run a pumptec m58 1/2 hp pump at 500 psi at 1.5 gpm while only taking 2.74 amps. I have run 150 ft. of 2 inch hose with a 15 ft. 1 1/2 whip on the end and still have more power than a basic 1 cord portable. I may do another project this summer with 8.4 vac motors in parallel. I will try 4 inches into 3 this time and see what the results are. Hard to say if I will have enough power to run the pump without blowing breakers. Oh, by the way, my machine runs on 2 15 amp circuits. I could put a pump out on the other cord without exceeding 15 amps.

Showoff.....

 

[Nate The Great]

@Cleanworks The US Products Flood King I believe has the vacuum motors setup on top without hoses and a mesh-like filter to avoid debris from entering them... I even think the Soulus 500 had the vac mounted on the waste tank....

 

[Cleanworks]

The Solarus did have the vac motors mounted on top. Not sure of the connection to the waste tank.

 

[Nate The Great]

I uploaded a pic...

 

[Goomer]

The biggest problem with high performance portables whether in series or parallel is they always seem to want to cram the vac motors in to a much smaller space than is necessary. For a series configuration, I like Larry's setup but it is only good for a short run of 1 1/2 inch hose. It will be very powerful at a length not exceeding 35 ft but you are not going to put 100 ft plus of 2 inch hose on that machine. How about mounting the vac motors on the waste tank. Maybe through a manifold. Eliminate the short hoses connecting the vac motors to the standpipe. Look, I'm not an engineer but when I designed my portable, I built a manifold (box) underneath the waste tank with the 2 inch standpipe welded to it. The 5.7 3-stage 13.5 amp motors are bolted directly to the manifold, eliminating any hoses. Each vacuum has an opening of 1 7/8 inch directly into the manifold, (almost 4 inches) but the other side where the standpipe is welded is only 2 inches. This has the effect of increasing the rpm of both vac motors and lowering the amperage draw. It just about doubles the cfm and increases the lift a little, compared to just one motor by itself. It allows me to run a pumptec m58 1/2 hp pump at 500 psi at 1.5 gpm while only taking 2.74 amps. I have run 150 ft. of 2 inch hose with a 15 ft. 1 1/2 whip on the end and still have more power than a basic 1 cord portable. I may do another project this summer with 8.4 vac motors in parallel. I will try 4 inches into 3 this time and see what the results are. Hard to say if I will have enough power to run the pump without blowing breakers. Oh, by the way, my machine runs on 2 15 amp circuits. I could put a pump out on the other cord without exceeding 15 amps.

Vacs mounted upside down under the tank directly to the stacks removes soooo many unnecessary plumbing components that I agree it has the most potential as a solution to mounting bigger vacs in parallel to twin stacks.

It's actually a no-brainer, and I am sure others will COPY Mytee's design in the future because of it's many obvious benefits.

I have to get a closer look at the under tank vac mounts on my new 1005Dx to explore future pimping.

Gotta give credit where credit is due, as hard as it may be.

 

[Cleanworks]

I knew someone would copy me eventually.

 

[Papa John]

Vacs mounted upside down under the tank directly to the stacks removes soooo many unnecessary plumbing components that I agree it has the most potential as a solution to mounting bigger vacs in parallel to twin stacks.

It's actually a no-brainer, and I am sure others will COPY Mytee's design in the future because of it's many obvious benefits.

I have to get a closer look at the under tank vac mounts on my new 1005Dx to explore future pimping.

View attachment 71507

View attachment 71508

Gotta give credit where credit is due, as hard as it may be.

That Mytee design brilliance has been in existence for many years--SO reward them and yourself and buy their products and avoid the hassle.
The completion just isn't engineered correctly.

If I recall correctly-- Mytees design brilliance was the result of a porty competition at a Mikey fest years ago, which Mytee won.

 

[Goomer]

That Mytee design brilliance has been in existence for many years--SO reward them and yourself and buy their products and avoid the hassle.
The completion just isn't engineered correctly.

Bought one 2 months ago for this reason.

Far from a perfect with some obvious oversights in classic Mytee fashion, but what machine is?

 

[Cleanworks]

Mytee has been producing powerful machines for sometime now. Vacs in parallel. Only problem I have with them is they always need 1 20 amp circuit on the main power cord..

 

[Papa John]

Bought one 2 months ago for this reason.

Far from a perfect with some obvious oversights in classic Mytee fashion, but what machine is?

true about the oversights--- my ETM wouldn't start when I first plugged it in-- I thought it was my household wiring- but it turned out to be a disconnected or not ever connected wire in the ETM.
congrats on your new machine.

 

[Cleanworks]

@Cleanworks The US Products Flood King I believe has the vacuum motors setup on top without hoses and a mesh-like filter to avoid debris from entering them... I even think the Soulus 500 had the vac mounted on the waste tank....



View attachment 71509

The Solarus seems to be plumbed directly into the waste tank in parallel. Good design but in my opinion they would be better off going through a manifold into 1 filter assembly. It will allow them to run a more powerful pump at a lower amperage.

 

[Papa John]

before buying a porty consider its weight distribution of its components and body design--
Some are unsafe to drag up stairs. IF it has along wheel base from front to back, then it is unsafe for stair climbing.

 

[Goomer]

Each vacuum has an opening of 1 7/8 inch directly into the manifold, (almost 4 inches) but the other side where the standpipe is welded is only 2 inches. This has the effect of increasing the rpm of both vac motors and lowering the amperage draw. It just about doubles the cfm and increases the lift a little, compared to just one motor by itself. It allows me to run a pumptec m58 1/2 hp pump at 500 psi at 1.5 gpm while only taking 2.74 amps. I have run 150 ft. of 2 inch hose with a 15 ft. 1 1/2 whip on the end and still have more power than a basic 1 cord portable.

What exactly do you attribute the rpm increase to?

 

[Cleanworks]

What exactly do you attribute the rpm increase to?

Pinching down the size of the vac intake. From 4 inches to 2. Like putting your hand over the hose end.

 

[Papa John]

Pinching down the size of the vac intake. From 4 inches to 2. Like putting your hand over the hose end.

I'm wondering if you might be interrupting the sound as increased RPM when it might actually be from increased air speed; as the air is forced from 4 to 2 the air speed increases but the CFM decreases.
I think the drop in amps usage might be due to resistance since this reduction from 4 to 2 is strangling the motors.

But I would prefer Dan Gardner' s Scientific opinion on this

 

[Goomer]

Pinching down the size of the vac intake. From 4 inches to 2. Like putting your hand over the hose end.

Makes sense.

Biggest benefit is the extra amp room it gives you when NOT wanding, when most machines are most vulnerable.

As far as the RPM increase, are you just going on motor sound differences?

I'm curious as to how much of an RPM difference we are talking about, but tangible specs might be hard to obtain.

 

[Goomer]

Using the same pump and vac as you an one 15 amp circuit as opposed to a 20 amp circuit definitely increases the circuit fail rate, enough so that it can't be done regularly, so if you are successfully doing it, then it supports your theory, assuming there are no other differences between US/Canuck power to factor in, which I am unsure of.

 

[Larry Cobb]

A lot of useful topics brought up here, but let's discuss vacuum performance of the dual 6.6" vac motors used in our new machine.
Lift of these two vacs in series is 215" water or OVER 15.5" hg. CFM is 140 CFM max. This is the most powerful we have seen in a portable of this size. Portable machine design requires more LIFT for longer hose runs. Each section of hose reduces the lift at the wand. Whichever portable can generate the most LIFT at the wand, will also generate the highest CFM at the carpet- wand interface.
This graph shows our testing results with dual 8.4" Ametek vacs we did a year ago. The 6.6" Ametek vacs are very close in performance to the 8.4" results.
The Dual 3-st vacs on this graph were in parallel.
Quad vac was 4 2-st. in series/parallel.
Triple vac was 2 3-st. in parallel with high CFM vac in series.
Dual 8.4" series was 155% of Dual 3-stage in parallel.

Measured w/wand moving on the carpet. Dual 6.6" vacs are ~150% of Dual 3-stage vacs.

 

[Cleanworks]

Using the same pump and vac as you an one 15 amp circuit as opposed to a 20 amp circuit definitely increases the circuit fail rate, enough so that it can't be done regularly, so if you are successfully doing it, then it supports your theory, assuming there are no other differences between US/Canuck power to factor in, which I am unsure of.

Our power is usually 120v 15 amp. We have very few 20 amp circuits. Only in some new buildings. I have measured the amperage of my vacs when running under load and they are usually at 12 amps. They are rated for 13.5 max. My pump is rated for 5.5 amps but only takes only 2.74 at 500 psi.

 

[Cleanworks]

Just to be clear, I put this together almost accidently with help from a lot of people and somehow it worked better than I ever imagined.

 

[Larry Cobb]

Also, to quote the returning Dan G. from a previous post:

"A Sutorbilt 3M blower running at 2770 RPM:

• requires 4.7hp
• loaded (wand on carpet) could run as high as 117 CFM at 163 inches of water (12" hg)
• generates 2238 Airwatts of vacuum (0.117354 X 117 X 163 = 2238)."
• ------------------

The Dual 6.6" vacs generate 1250 Airwatts of vacuum or ~ 56% of the #33 blower in Dan's calculations.

 

[Cleanworks]

Also, to quote the returning Dan G. from a previous post:

"A Sutorbilt 3M blower running at 2770 RPM:

• requires 4.7hp
• loaded (wand on carpet) could run as high as 117 CFM at 163 inches of water (12" hg)
• generates 2238 Airwatts of vacuum (0.117354 X 117 X 163 = 2238)."

The Dual 6.6" vacs generate 1250 Airwatts of vacuum or ~ 56% of the #33 blower in Dan's calculations.

But the secret is transfering that power to the wand. That's where the engineering comes in. 140 cfm is probably not enough in a long 2 inch hose, which is why that machine has 1 1/2 inch hose connections.

 

[Larry Cobb]

But the secret is transfering that power to the wand. That's where the engineering comes in. 140 cfm is probably not enough in a long 2 inch hose, which is why that machine has 1 1/2 inch hose connections.

The #33 Blower in Dan's post only delivered 117 CFM to the wand.
That was @ 12" hg.

Many #33 TM's I've observed were operating closer to 10" hg with a 12" wand on the carpet (less CFM).

All the plumbing in our extractor can handle 117 CFM easily.

 

[Cleanworks]

But can it run 150 ft of 2 inch hose? Not to knock your machine Larry but it doesn't look like it was designed for 2 inch hose. Correct me if I am wrong. The vacuums are certainly powerful enough but the design doesn't let them run to their full potential if you are strangling them with 1 1/2 inch plumbing. You're not suggesting to run all 1 1/2 inch hose are you? 150 feet of it?

 

[Cleanworks]

Bought one 2 months ago for this reason.

Far from a perfect with some obvious oversights in classic Mytee fashion, but what machine is?

check inside the waste tank. Do you have 1 stack and 1 filter or 2 stacks and filters

 

[Papa John]

check inside the waste tank. Do you have 1 stack and 1 filter or 2 stacks and filters

Mine has 2 stacks n 2 filters.

Larry your text n graph don't match each other.. also your graph is on "relative performance"-- is that just opinion based or something more measurable n scientific?
I did noticed your graph proves parallel is better.

I thinking this might be the case:
1.5 hose setup needs more lift.-- it needs more lift to overcome the resistance of narrow hose.
2 inch needs more CFM-- because it can handle it better then 1.5 due to less resistance.

 

[Lee Stockwell]

Larry doesn't clean carpets.