Walking The Dog with Air Flow Regulator

[CCWorks]

This is something that may be on a few portables or something you can build your self.

This is a video I made. At the last test, I walk the hose down to my finger tips from my palm using increased air flow and vacuum pressure.
The mod increases air flow and suction while lowering amps on a electric vacuum motors.
We have a duel 3 stage, parallel system, with a single vac in series using a air flow regulator.

[video=youtube_share;E_K-w1qGq24]http://youtu.be/E_K-w1qGq24[/video]

Learn more here, about this mod:
www.GrandRapidsCarpetCleaning.com

I thought I would share this as I seen some guys may not visit another board, where I been a member for a while.

 

[dealtimeman]

???!!!

 

[Nate The Great]

???!!!

I kept asking myself the same question... I still think it'll be better to run the booster inline... Or just add a third vac to the machine via the top of the tank like Steambrite sells..

 

[Bjorn]

aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh yeah I have been scratching my head for awhile about this too.

where is your before and after amp meter test?

 

[dealtimeman]

???????!!!!!! Part 2

 

[dgardner]

So, your setup essentially flows air from the two parallel vacs inside the extractor, and exhausts it through the "relief" valve, until the airflow is reduced to the point it equals the flow of the booster, at which time the "relief" closes, and the air flows in series through the booster, increasing lift.

The white check valve is not necessary, you would obtain the same results without it.

We can draw some conclusions from your demo. You state that all 3 vacs are the same model.

First, when you place the wand(s) on the carpet, the flow out the relief stops. This tells us that the CFM from the two parallel vacs has reduced to the same flow as the booster, or one vac motor. From this, we know that one of the two parallel vacs is useless, as the CFM is that of a single vac (parallel vacs don't increase lift, so no help there). With the wand on the carpet, you would obtain the same results if you used one vac in the extractor along with the booster. This is the classic series setup, which is well known to increase lift.

Your setup essentially only has two vacs doing anything at any given time - when the wand is off the carpet you have two parallel vacs flowing (relief air), and the booster does nothing. When the wand is on the carpet, the two parallel vacs are reduced to a single vac flow (first vac, for all practical purposes), in series with the booster (second vac).

Unless we are concerned with great airflow when the wand is off the carpet, your demo proves that for your setup, two series vacs provide the best lift at the wand.

So, if you eliminated your whole contraption and just went with two series vacs, performance with wand on the carpet would be the same, but you would flow less CFM with wand off the carpet. I certainly could live with that.

 

[Art Kelley]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm enjoying this porty porn.

 

[CCWorks]

So, your setup essentially flows air from the two parallel vacs inside the extractor, and exhausts it through the "relief" valve, until the airflow is reduced to the point it equals the flow of the booster, at which time the "relief" closes, and the air flows in series through the booster, increasing lift.

The white check valve is not necessary, you would obtain the same results without it.

We can draw some conclusions from your demo. You state that all 3 vacs are the same model.

First, when you place the wand(s) on the carpet, the flow out the relief stops. This tells us that the CFM from the two parallel vacs has reduced to the same flow as the booster, or one vac motor. From this, we know that one of the two parallel vacs is useless, as the CFM is that of a single vac (parallel vacs don't increase lift, so no help there). With the wand on the carpet, you would obtain the same results if you used one vac in the extractor along with the booster. This is the classic series setup, which is well known to increase lift.

Your setup essentially only has two vacs doing anything at any given time - when the wand is off the carpet you have two parallel vacs flowing (relief air), and the booster does nothing. When the wand is on the carpet, the two parallel vacs are reduced to a single vac flow (first vac, for all practical purposes), in series with the booster (second vac).

Unless we are concerned with great airflow when the wand is off the carpet, your demo proves that for your setup, two series vacs provide the best lift at the wand.

So, if you eliminated your whole contraption and just went with two series vacs, performance with wand on the carpet would be the same, but you would flow less CFM with wand off the carpet. I certainly could live with that.

In a parallel vac set up, your telling me that when you put wand on carpet its only acting like one vac, no lift gains. so, with this theory we only need one vac per extractor, It is how US products builds their portables.

So if I take the theory of what you are trying to say, is that duel vacs in parallel is pretty much a waste of room, energy and that the only benefit is a gain of CFMs when you have no resistance, like lifting wand to clear water faster?

As we see in the other longer video, when wand is on the carpet using two vacs in parallel, we have air flow.
Now when the third vac is running with contraption, it seems that we lose over half of the air flow when wand is on carpet, as you say.
So this proves a duel vac portable in parallel is not needed.
So why does everyone think two vacs in parallel is best? Is that a sham that Ed V talked us all into?

If your the same Gardner from *** a few years ago, I really like your posts, loaded with intelligents.

 

[Nate The Great]

parallel vac setup are best for CFM. Series vac setup is best for Lift. Same like the Flood King.

But if it works for you and you're happy with it, that's all that really matters. Who am I to pee on your parade?!?

 

[Bjorn]

 

[CCWorks]

parallel vac setup are best for CFM. Series vac setup is best for Lift. Same like the Flood King.

But if it works for you and you're happy with it, that's all that really matters. Who am I to pee on your parade?!?

It is nice to know what is going on with this set up.

Gardner is telling us that when wand is on carpet, there is no extra anything when two vacs are in parallel. The only time one has extra CFMs is when wand is off carpet, as no restriction.
So the only way to get anything out of two vacs is when the two electric vacs are in series.

 

[CCWorks]

Nice power detector. Whats it doing? I know its reading 8.8 amps, but what kind of set up and what kind of vac motor? Is it under load?

 

[CCWorks]

I think that the air flow regulator does just what it does in two ways.

It increases air flow and lift when you need it. It maintains CFMs of the two vacs with little resistance in hose and maintains 50% of the systems CFMs when wand is on carpet creating more lift to pull CFMs through dense carpet on a long hose run.

It has both of the good things a CC needs. It uses less power then a fore vac set up and has with some good stats when using the air flow regulator, as in CFMs and Lift when needed.

Using the air flow regulator when wand is on carpet will maintain CFMs depending on hose run and how you have the vent set to lock up, as in how much air flow loss 40% or at 50%
Maybe a electric switch that can detect when the air flow is weak, it turns on the power to the third vac. Now that's getting too complicated, but it would save a bit of power.

 

[Bjorn]

so where are the actual cfm and lift meter readings with amp readings

vacs in parallel running 220 reading with on leg and both legs running equal amp in a balanced system

 

[CCWorks]

so where are the actual cfm and lift meter readings with amp readings

If this is a question to me about the air flow regulator.

I do not have any testing equipment and can not afford the tools, for I would only use them a few times. I'm not a manufacture or do I have a shop to store such items.

 

[Mikey P]

Welcome to the veteran board!

Can you back up a bit and describe your day to day residential set up and process?

 

[Bjorn]

so without any testing meters or amp meters how do you come up with the numbers

what is the amp comparison compared to running the booster inline with the wand and the amps running behind the machine?

and so what is the real advantage over running it inline?

Trust me I have done so much testing on all kinds of systems combinations and have over the years found the booster is used best closer to the wand than behind the machine.

 

[Bob Savage]

So, your setup essentially flows air from the two parallel vacs inside the extractor, and exhausts it through the "relief" valve, until the airflow is reduced to the point it equals the flow of the booster, at which time the "relief" closes, and the air flows in series through the booster, increasing lift.

The white check valve is not necessary, you would obtain the same results without it.

We can draw some conclusions from your demo. You state that all 3 vacs are the same model.

First, when you place the wand(s) on the carpet, the flow out the relief stops. This tells us that the CFM from the two parallel vacs has reduced to the same flow as the booster, or one vac motor. From this, we know that one of the two parallel vacs is useless, as the CFM is that of a single vac (parallel vacs don't increase lift, so no help there). With the wand on the carpet, you would obtain the same results if you used one vac in the extractor along with the booster. This is the classic series setup, which is well known to increase lift.

Your setup essentially only has two vacs doing anything at any given time - when the wand is off the carpet you have two parallel vacs flowing (relief air), and the booster does nothing. When the wand is on the carpet, the two parallel vacs are reduced to a single vac flow (first vac, for all practical purposes), in series with the booster (second vac).

Unless we are concerned with great airflow when the wand is off the carpet, your demo proves that for your setup, two series vacs provide the best lift at the wand.

So, if you eliminated your whole contraption and just went with two series vacs, performance with wand on the carpet would be the same, but you would flow less CFM with wand off the carpet. I certainly could live with that.

With one vac in the extractor, and the vac booster inline, that would be a parallel setup, not a series setup. Now if you use the booster at the ectractor, sucking the exhaust of the extractor's vac motor, it would be a series setup, and would give you the most lift using 2 motors.

In order to have a series setup one vac motor must discharge it 's air into the intake of a second vac motor. The booster inline does not do this.

 

[CCWorks]

From the data I have see posted mostly in the past by forum members in vacuum motors and looking at data charts from manufacturers of these motors. I have a little more insight as how these motors work, but its not a study I have taking to deeply.

I did test my duel vac system and the booster you see in the video with a vacuum gauge at a supplier of cleaning supplies a few years ago.
The duel vac system in parallel using a 25 foot section of a 2" hose, seemed to pull 150" of water when each motor was rated at factory as pulling 144" of water. I see about a 3.5% increase in water lift on the parallel set up over factory stats wile the vacs are in a portable system with air tube routing.

Adding a inline booster to the same system I tested a minute ago, using the 25' 2' hose, I had a vac pressure reading of 140" of water, a 10" loss in lift.
I guess the loss of water lift on a 1 vac system, same set up, can be about 15% / 20%
Note, with a longer hose past the inline booster may have or would create more of a restriction then using no hose on this test. Using hose may lower the water lift even more, dew to the fact that I had no restriction on the main system, as I was using 25' hose instead of 125' of hose. I do not know.
I do know that the inline booster can act like a big hole in a hose run, reducing all water lift, but increasing CFMs.
The water lift of the main systems set up pulls more lift most times and this also reduces the water lift of the booster vac.
Inline boosters seem OK, but has lower lift over all.

Now the duel vac set up in parallel, as to just one vac, has side effects that increases the motors RPMs, (when resistance is on the two vacs) creating more lift and CFM while using a percentage of more amps working on the same resistance. Any kind of restriction may effect such readings, like hose size and inner air plumbing.

The series set up I have only tried to use these, but I always have a beaker pop off.

What I know about theses set ups is they work together and both pull when a load is on the system that is restricting air flow. In open flow, I guess the vacuum pressure bounces around, like back and forth, (lifting wand, air acts like water, it moves in waves with force, this also applies to the inline booster set up) drawing a small percentage of more amps, enough to pop a breaker.
I see some say the series set ups have a 60% gain in water lift reading. I guess there may also be a bit more CFMs, because we have two vac motors working on same resistance.

Using the Air Flow Regulator, Got to keep them separated

We have the duel vac set up with a single vac set up in series, in debate here.

A duel vac set up in parallel has more CFMs, working together on the same force. They have positive enhancements to each other and also moving two times the CFMs that reduce the time it will take to reach the systems max lift and CFM flow (lift time) at the wand. The two vacs also create more water lift when working on the same force.

Higher CFMs and vacuum pressure then what a single vac can do, will move the water in the hose faster, removing the water at a higher speed. High speed CFMs is like creating a water mist when air moves at high velocity (atomizing water). Slow water movement can let water become more like a solid heavy chunk in time, that would also disrupting air flow, creating more of a restriction and the low air flow speed will build up blockage in hose.

The effects with three electric vacuum motors using the air flow regulator and check valves keep one system from effecting the other system in a bad way, parallel and series combined, that may cause the system to draw more amps. But yet the air flow regulator also allows the three vac to have a good balance between air flow speed and water lift when cleaning carpets.

Due to the series set up giving a two vac system 60% more lift. I take that 60% increase and add in the parallel set up as having a 15% increases in lift. That's is how I guess that the 3 vacs with regulator can give 75% more lift (than using two vacs in parallel) while using 30% less amps then a fore vac system, two sets of series.

With the two vacs in parallel and regulator, the force the exhaust blows will increase the air flow of the third vac when the relief valve is near to locking or when locked.
I also thought that the pull from the third vac motor on the two parallel motors will also have a improvement on air flow when the relief valve is near locking or locked.
I think that the two systems working with the regulator helps in many small ways to increase lift and CFMs, yet use less amps, do to limiting the bouncing air forces between vac motors that may force vac motors to spin faster then factory specs.

So you thought you tested so many configurations.
With the regulator, it can have many variables and now add the many electrical vacuum motor configurations. I think if you like what the regulator does, you may have many more testing's to try.

I find that the regulator maybe more technical than whats posted here. So, if you can understand all the variables in this set up. Good Luck.
I may have touched a few theories as why I'm excited about the regulator.

 

[Bjorn]

with out a meter you really don't know anything except you think it works



other than that it's just your speculation

 

[CCWorks]

with out a meter you really don't know anything except you think it works



other than that it's just your speculation

Your right, I have no tools to test true reading stats.

I think you know more accrete stats on the regulator then I do.
As you have said. You do lots of testing.

It would be nice of you to share them if you do have them.

 

[CCWorks]

This is a edit or more details on post #19 concerning amp draw, CFMs and Lift numbers.

Side effects using the regulator.
Having all vac motors rated the same from factory, they still may not have identical performance.

This is what leads me to have another theory on lift numbers.
As I added 15% more lift from the two vac motors in parallel may be wrong.
I took the 60% reported standard readings when two motors are in a series set up then added 15% to get a guess of 75% more lift using the regulator on a 3 vac set up.

Thinking now that I had a 3.5% gain in lift using two vacs in parallel and then testing inline booster, I lost 10" of lift. So the gain in parallel took about 2.7% lift from the factory rating on the single vac down line on the inline booster. The inline booster still acts like a hole in your system, losing water lift.

So if I take the gain in lift from the two vacs in parallel and add to the regulator's in series configuration, I should get more lift at about 4%, making the total lift at or near a 70% increase in water lift using 3 vacs and the regulator.

But what about side effects?

Can the booster vac on the 3 vac system using the regulator actually increase the RPMs on the two vacs in parallel? If so, I do not think that the two vacs in parallel can reach max lift as rated from factory for the booster vac will not let that happen.
So if the two vac motors can not reach their max lift, then the vac motors must be putting out more CFMs when the series configuration is engaged on the regulator. And if this is a true theory, when the wand triggers and locks the vent down, the system is pulling more CFMs though the carpet to witch is even better then pure increase in a lift reading, in my thinking.
It could also be the two parallel vacs are pushing on the back vac and or a combination of both, a push and pull effect until it reaches its limits between lift and CFMs.
And if this is true, I guess the system would only get about a 50 to 60% increase in lift at a vacuum test reading using three electric vacuum motors and the regulator...

 

[Art Kelley]

Your right, I have no tools to test true reading stats.

I think you know more accrete stats on the regulator then I do.
As you have said. You do lots of testing.

It would be nice of you to share them if you do have them.

That's not going to happen.

 

[rick imby]

That's not going to happen.

He just shared in the only way he knows how. CFM when the wand is off the carpet is irrelevant as long as it is significant. Lift when the wand is on and off the carpet is critical. All the "Theoretical Testing" and I thinks compared to the numerical and on the carpet research done by PetroVillan and Savage Beast----I will just take PetroVikes word for it. Just put your vacs in Series and get one of them as close to the wand as possible or just go directly to the wand with your vacuum like Rug Doctor or Steamin Demon. There truly is a reason they are gold certified, they take Petroviking's advice to the extreme and put the vacuum 12 inches from the carpet with very little air volume under vacuum. (which is very important also)

 

[CCWorks]

so without any testing meters or amp meters how do you come up with the numbers

what is the amp comparison compared to running the booster inline with the wand and the amps running behind the machine?

and so what is the real advantage over running it inline?

Trust me I have done so much testing on all kinds of systems combinations and have over the years found the booster is used best closer to the wand than behind the machine.

Trust me too. I also have done a lot of testing on portables trying to get a good combination of lift and airflow using a 75 foot 2 inch hose and wand.

I never used air flow testing tools to meter air flow. I may not have done as mush testing as you have but I too have done a lot of testing using front end boosters and back end booster and three vacs connected in parallel on one system.

They all worked using a lot of power cords for little gains in air flow or water lift. This was human perception testing using other forms of testing other than a scientific testing meter.
I did not have any real noticeable difference in air flow or vacuum pressure using these premade tools that took lots of power to use and cost me a lot of money and time. They took so much electrical power for very little gains, I never used the boosters any more for the gains where little compared to power used.

Using the regulator, I notice a lot of vacuum suction and have good air flow, even on wet carpet. All I used is one more power cord for a real noticeable gain in lift.
All my pre made tools that cost me a lot of money did not work like or as good as the 3 vacs and regulator configuration.
These pre configured tools claimed to increase this and that but took too much power for little gain.

Is sad noone seems to like the idea or wants to help me test this tool
It seems most thinks its just another high powered low benefit tool that really does not work. Maybe you all feel as I did after buying stuff that took too much power for small gains, or more power for the same gains.

The single inline vac be hind the wand is not that good using todays high powered duel vacs in parallel or in series. You need to have two vacs, using two cords on the inline booster to have any befits using the duel vac portables of today.

Maybe someday you may think I was helpful. but to day it seems lot a lot of forks are upset at me and it is displayed on the other forum too.
I also asked for testing tools on the other forum but no one wants to help it seems.

 

[CCWorks]

I was up doing research last night on three vac configured portable extractors.
Larry Cobb was the most testing of this configuration, two duel vacs set up in parallel and one vac behind the two parelle vacs in a series configuration.

He said it was a great configuration and a few other guys also tried this setup. For some reason it never took to being incorporated in to poertables or boosters, and everyone dropped the idea and it just faded away.

Last year I tried to tell everyone on the other forum that a air flow relief valve behind a powerful vac motor to a lower powered vac motor was the trick using a series configuration or to making a 3 same vac system work.

Larry Cobb did make a post where I describe the idea first. He said it would not work and it was a bad idea.

 

[dgardner]

With one vac in the extractor, and the vac booster inline, that would be a parallel setup, not a series setup. Now if you use the booster at the ectractor, sucking the exhaust of the extractor's vac motor, it would be a series setup, and would give you the most lift using 2 motors.

In order to have a series setup one vac motor must discharge it 's air into the intake of a second vac motor. The booster inline does not do this.

Bob, sorry, I was out of town for a few days and just saw this. If you look at both videos, it's pretty plain he's not using the booster in the classic hookup. He has the exhaust of the extractor vacs feeding the inlet of the booster. It's series.