The big test is coming.

[The Magician]

Jeff Ellis is going to post the results of Nicks tests on the 4 -2 the door & 2.5 hose. Jeff states the test are not good for the 2.5 or 4-2 the door. Post is on ICS.

The big new truck truck mount is being built by the Allen's and Jeff Ellis. Any dist interested contact them soon.

 

[Jimbo]

I suppose next they will be promoting garden water hose for vacuum hose.

 

[Mikey P]

Anything coming out of Nick, Jeff and or the Allen's pie holes should be considered very suspect.


Do I have to post the Nick O Mount pictures again?

 

[Greenie]

Allen and Ellis....there is something I want to distribute.... :roll:

Is it something in the prespray, why are so many in this industry just plain retards?

 

[Mike Draper]

they will prolly say that 2" hose had close to the same suction, we all know that's bs though.

 

[Greenie]

maybe on an Ellis machine?

too many real worlders here to listen to a bunch of BS from the tard yard.

 

[TimP]

I doubt they fully understand the physics behind what they are trying to prove or disprove. CFM alone doesn't mean anything, and I'm thinking that's all they tried to measure. CFM is a function of lift, in which with both you can calculate suction.

 

[Guest]

Yeppers went over there and read up on it; sounds like the myth was busted from what I read. But still a lot of beleivers of the 2.5 nagging them though!!

 

[Guest]

Well, don't they always trash talk the foe to da doe?

Then how do you think those results will turn out?

Also, don't they run 'free flow' on their machines?

 

[Ron Werner]

From ICS:

From Nick:

Wands with glides . 1.5 wands and 1 3/4

08 flow at 500 psi came to aprox 1.5 gallon or 5.2 liters

Test wand was keyed for 1 minute on carpet moving stokes all the way across carpet.Then uniform dry stokes on the entire piece of carpet. Then we let 10 seconds pass before shutting down machine to evacuate hose of remaining water.





Recovery results:

4tD - 2-2" X 50' sections to y fitting then 100'.Total distance 150'. Recovered 3.1 liters.

150 feet of 2 inch hose to 1.5 wand Recovered 3.9 liters


50 feet of 2.5 inch hose to 50 feet of 2 inch hose to 1.5 wand. This recovered 4. liters

2 inch hose 100 feet long to 1.5 inch wand recoverd 4.25 liters .

2 inch wand 150 feet of 2 inch vac hose to wand, recoverd 4.2 liters.

It just doesn't seem right.
Just for hellray, lets assume these are accurate ( :roll: ) is there any logical reason why a length of 2" hose would pull more water than 2x2" or 2.5" modifications?

Could the airflow be accelerated, ie the speed of the air is faster in the 2" and slower in the larger hose? ie much like taking a 2" hose cuff and changing it to a 1 1/2" cuff and hearing the air flow scream louder

 

[Larry Cobb]

Ron;

The results were NOT what I expected ....

They were one wand vac tests .....

2" hose has a higher velocity than the 2" x 2 or the 2.5" ....

I set up the brand new Extech CFM meter for the CFM testing (not posted yet)

I also furnished the vac cuff with airtight liquid-filled hg. guage.

If you have seen a better testing series of vacuum, I'd like to see them.

Larry

 

[Larry B]

would like to see the results with a 2" wand on the 2.5" hose

 

[Greenie]

Junk Science plain and simple.

2" hose does NOT have a higher velocity than 2.5" hose.

300 cfm is 300 cfm, it does not travel any faster through a 2" conduit than it does through a 2.5" conduit, it just travels with LESS friction through the larger conduit, therefor PRESERVING available LIFT at the tool.

It'll be 2020 and we'll still be having this same conversation, and cleaners will still be buying and using 2.5" hose because it WORKS in REAL life.

And Yes, a 2" wand and 2.5" hose would be very impressive for testing purposes, as would a 2.5" wand and 2.5" hose.

 

[FB7777]

leave them be


they will prove to people their true ignorance on the 4 to the door vs 2.5


2.5 wins out on convenience and performance


but if you want to just carry 2 inch hose on your truck reel and run four to the door then go for it

 

[Ron Werner]

i was thinking of water flow, large tube, high pressure low velocity, smaller tube, lower pressure higher velocity.

Guess air flow and vacuum work different.
But if running 300 cfm, wouldn't air velocity be higher in a smaller hose than a larger one? Thats why the holes in a glide work better than the slot.
volume, velocity, and lift
Would need a sufficient blower behind it as well.

 

[Greenie]

Just for the record, the LIFT a given blower was pulling would determine velocity more than conduit size, and assume the lift would be set the same with both examples.

That is why I don't like to cite cfm only, but instead say 300 cfm at 12"hg, like you would find on a Blower Performance chart.

 

[Eric Valentine]

When the lift is at the same level, the smaller hose would force the air to move faster through the hose as the blower is trying to move as much air as possible. The larger hose will have the air moving slower through it, but will have more overall airflow due to the lower friction loss. To move the same amount of air through a smaller hose, you will have to increase the lift.

The reason for lower "water recovery" would be due to the simple fact that faster moving air will move water laying in the bottom of the hose more efficiently. With larger hose, or dual hoses in parallel, the slower moving air needs longer to get all the recovered water to the waste tank.

 

[rick imby]

Evaporated Water?

I think they could have done the test with brand new rugs (not carpet) and weighed the rugs before and after. That is the real result you are after a lighter weight dryer rug. My question is how much of the water evaporated and was expelled from the truck. If they had to spend a couple more minutes running the air in the bigger hose to get the water out of the bottom of the hose then more evaporated water probably and went right through the truck.

I do not think if they are weighing the water at the truck they set up the test correctly.

Airspeed
From rafting I know when a river gets wider it slows down and then you accelerate as the river gets narrower.

The goal of the bigger hose is to maximize the airflow at the wand with the lowest energy expended at the truck.

We are making an assumpion that the larger hose has less resistance

I do not know if the change in velocity of the air when it goes from the 2" hose to the 2.5" absorbs a lot of energy. Turbulence in airflow causes a lot of drag. If you can hear it you are probably hearing turbulence.

The field that has done a lot of work on airflow is the engineers building motors. They put a little gizmo in a Chevy intake to smooth out the airflow.

There are a lot of things that happen with airflow that do not make sense. how does an airplane fly? The air flowing over the top of the wing moves faster lifting the plane?

Rick

The tests need to be set up with the proper goal in mind.

 

[Ron Werner]

so would I be wrong in stating that the general consensus is that 4TD and 2.5" will greatly assist in extracting more water from the carpet, based on common sense, ie getting more airflow to the wand/carpet interface, and real world experiences?
chock up the experiment's results to something that doesn't meet with real world results
Just have to figure out a better way to test this, or if its even necessary. Its been tested in the field and many are getting faster drying times than before. Whatever works.

Another unexplained scientific anomaly is the bumblebee. Last I heard, according to scientists, it shouldn't be able to fly

 

[Walt]

I think there too many varibles in a test like this. For instance, if the size on the blower is so small that doesn't generate enough lift to function correctly.

Personally, I'd love to go back to 2 inch hose. But I am convinced that 2.5 makes bigger difference in performance than anyother upgrade you could make.

 

[Ron Werner]

Personally, I'd love to go back to 2 inch hose. But I am convinced that 2.5 makes bigger difference in performance than anyother upgrade you could make.

I know how you feel. When I went to 3" hose I knew it made a huge difference with my old rig. No restrictions in airflow, it was like using 50ft of hose ALL the time when I was 100ft out. BUgger to work with though. And everyone knows, no testing or debate required, that 50ft will give better performance than 100ft.

 

[Larry B]

The 1 machine we started running the GH and 2.5" hose is getting much better dry times than it was with 2" and 1 1/2" wand. I dont know for sure if its the wand or hose as they were both changed at the same time and they will be left that way.

 

[Steve in Omaha]

I for one like the test results and would urge all my competitors to heed the results. As for me, I will continue to use my greenhorn, 2.5, & Parker KMA, cause I am too cheap to change back.

 

[Farenheit251]

Since it was tested using a Nickmount does that mean it had the freeflow vac relief? The idea is to move more air through the wand with larger hose and less through the vac relief. If you move the same amount of air you will have less recovery through a larger hose. Of course on Nick"s machines the free flow vac relief gets first dibs at the airflow and the wand gets the leftover.

Another way to look at it is when you use 2.5 hose the hg on your guage will read lower with the wand hooked up. That is additional lift and cfm available to the wand before the guage hits 15hg and the vac relief opens(not going to work if your vac relief is a hole drilled in the lid).

 

[Goldenboy]

The problem here is between Ellis and Allen you have a total of about three brain cells. They are forgetting about the basics. The CFM / lift thing is virtually the same as the GPM / PSI thing in reality... After all, CFM is basically "flow rate" in the absence of cleaning solution, under vacuum. And PSI is flow rate OF cleaning solution, under pressure...

You can get into all sorts of technical "stuff" about it, but it all boils down to this:

The two (CFM / lift) go hand in hand. In principle, they're both important. Lift becomes more important as distance from the source increases.


"If you have no waterlift happening , then nothing moves. If nothing moves, then there is no cfm."

The real question is:

"How much airflow and lift ATW (at the wand)are necessary to do a good job of cleaning...?"

Naturally, the answer to such a question isn't going to be a specific number, but a range of numbers. In other words, you'll get "adequate" performance at a lower range (4" Hg. / 80 CFM or so... I'm guessing) and "great" performance at a higher range (14" @ 225 CFM... once again... I'm doing an educated guess here). Within whatever range that turns out to be, you can get the carpet equally clean... the difference will be in the time required to do the same level of quality.

NONE of this matters as it pertains to a HWE system, if uyou don't take into account the other part of the equation... liquid flow. For instance, if you had a fire hose connected somehow to a wand, there would be no way to recover such an amount of flow before the carpet was over wet. And, on the other hand, with out enough fluid flow (I know, air is a fluid, but I'm talking about the flow of cleaning solution, fresh water, rinse solution, etc., here), all the vacuum in the world will not "flush" the carpet fibers.

As a result, I see this discussion being one that can take many twists and turns and go on with "pontification", forever... kind of like Ellis trying to build a TM.

Golden Boy

 

[Hoody]

Junk Science plain and simple.

2" hose does NOT have a higher velocity than 2.5" hose.

300 cfm is 300 cfm, it does not travel any faster through a 2" conduit than it does through a 2.5" conduit, it just travels with LESS friction through the larger conduit, therefor PRESERVING available LIFT at the tool.

BINGO!

JHC! How hard is that to understand ? Lessening the restriction to increase the time before the blower is choked and the relief opens. Put a 2" port, and a 2.5 port on a waste tank. Close the 2.5 off get a reading of what the Hg is. Close the 2", and open the 2.5. The Hg will decrease more with the 2.5; even on smaller blowers.

 

[Chris Sheldon]

The problem here is between Ellis and Allen you have a total of about three brain cells. They are forgetting about the basics. The CFM / lift thing is virtually the same as the GPM / PSI thing in reality... After all, CFM is basically "flow rate" in the absence of cleaning solution, under vacuum. And PSI is flow rate OF cleaning solution, under pressure...

You can get into all sorts of technical "stuff" about it, but it all boils down to this:

The two (CFM / lift) go hand in hand. In principle, they're both important. Lift becomes more important as distance from the source increases.


"If you have no waterlift happening , then nothing moves. If nothing moves, then there is no cfm."

The real question is:

"How much airflow and lift ATW (at the wand)are necessary to do a good job of cleaning...?"

Naturally, the answer to such a question isn't going to be a specific number, but a range of numbers. In other words, you'll get "adequate" performance at a lower range (4" Hg. / 80 CFM or so... I'm guessing) and "great" performance at a higher range (14" @ 225 CFM... once again... I'm doing an educated guess here). Within whatever range that turns out to be, you can get the carpet equally clean... the difference will be in the time required to do the same level of quality.

NONE of this matters as it pertains to a HWE system, if uyou don't take into account the other part of the equation... liquid flow. For instance, if you had a fire hose connected somehow to a wand, there would be no way to recover such an amount of flow before the carpet was over wet. And, on the other hand, with out enough fluid flow (I know, air is a fluid, but I'm talking about the flow of cleaning solution, fresh water, rinse solution, etc., here), all the vacuum in the world will not "flush" the carpet fibers.

As a result, I see this discussion being one that can take many twists and turns and go on with "pontification", forever... kind of like Ellis trying to build a TM.

Golden Boy

Very good post.

 

[Mikey P]

Guys, guys, it NICK F'Nellos we are talking about here right?
Have you even seen Nickers NOT take the easiest way out of anything?


I'm just surprised he didn't rig the "test" to promote the use of 1 1/2 hose all the way from machine to the wand.


Larry must have been real drunk to not notice all the free flowing CFMs going right out of the waste tank..

 

[SRI Cleaning]

When the lift is at the same level, the smaller hose would force the air to move faster through the hose as the blower is trying to move as much air as possible. The larger hose will have the air moving slower through it, but will have more overall airflow due to the lower friction loss. To move the same amount of air through a smaller hose, you will have to increase the lift.

The reason for lower "water recovery" would be due to the simple fact that faster moving air will move water laying in the bottom of the hose more efficiently. With larger hose, or dual hoses in parallel, the slower moving air needs longer to get all the recovered water to the waste tank.

This is exactly right.

 

[gary mackay]

I've done the "big test" when my helper left the Y fitting in the gutter last week on a job. I guess the only thing 4 to the door does it make my wand noisier & a little harder to push for some reason.