Wand testing results from MF4

[harryhides]

I applaud ANY testing being done in an attempt to help all of us both carpet cleaners AND manufacturers to come up with improvements of many kinds. Testing as described above with gauges is the simplest but still will not tell every carpet cleaner what is the best unit for each one of them.
There are personal preferences and abilities to repair units, price, weight and ergonomics etc.

I will say it again, I did a lot of work in an attempt to get fair, reliable and repeatable results at MB4.

But it rained every single day of the event and through some mis-communication, the carpet samples that had all been laid out to dry of the last evening of the event were thrown around and stacked up on each other early in the morning and so many were still damp when they were weighed for the last time. There was no tomorrow because everything HAD to be cleaned up and removed that afternoon.
The end result was that some samples actually weighed MORE after cleaning than they did before they were cleaned because the weight of the soil removed was less than the weight of the water remaining in the wet carpet.


Brand width # Jets Jet capacity Glide Pre-clean gms Post-grams Diff pre-dry Post-clean Diff

Evolution 16" 6 4-1.5 2-02 Yes 1914.5 2069.6 155.1 1906.8 ........................- 7.7 gms
Bentley 12" 4 1.5 Banana 1917.4 1977.3 59.9 1897.6................. -19.8 gms
PMF 802 12 2 3 Hybrid 1944.5 2074 129.5 1944.9....................... + 0.4 gms
Butler 14 5 3-01,2-1.5 None 2026.5 2220.0 193.5 2024.3 ........................ - 2.2 gms
White Magic 12 2 0.02 None 1933.3 2086.1 152.8 1924.0................ - 9.3 gms
Prochem Ti 14 6 1.5 Hybrid 1932.3 2022.9 90.6 1909.3 ................ -23.0 gms
Prochem Quad 12 4 1.5 Hybrid 2061.8 2216.9 155.1 2050.0 ........ -11.8 gms
Green Horn 12 4 2 Holed 1921.2 1998.9 77.7 1912.4 .......................- 8.8 gms


Prochem Evererst 650 @400

So, unfortunately the above tests were flawed and the results are simply not worth publishing and I certainly do NOT stand behind them.
I wish the testers lots of luck and hope that they will have lots of useful results to post. But if some testing equipment turns out to be malfunctioning, I for one will not beat the testers up over it.
So all of you horrible people should just shut up, once and for all and try to get over it.

 

[Chris Muetterties]

Re: Portable Shoot Out @ MF5

I think HELL just froze over.

 

[Greenie]

Re: Portable Shoot Out @ MF5

Brand width # Jets Jet capacity Glide Pre-clean gms Post-grams Diff pre-dry Post-clean Diff

Evolution....16...6 (4-1.5, 2-02).Yes/Evo slot ...1914.5 ... 2069.6... 155.1... 1906.8 .......- 7.7 gms
Bentley......12...4 (4-1.5)........Banana Hybrid...1917.4 ... 1977.3... 59.9... 1897.6 .......-19.8 gms
PMF 802.....12...2 (2-03).........Hybrid ............1944.5 ... 2074.0... 129.5... 1944.9 .......+ 0.4 gms
Butler........14...5 (3-01,2-1.5)..None .............2026.5 ... 2220.0... 193.5... 2024.3 .......- 2.2 gms
WhiteMagic.12...2 (2-02).........None .............1933.3 ... 2086.1... 152.8... 1924.0 .......- 9.3 gms
Prochem Ti 14...6 (6-1.5)........Hybrid.............1932.3 ... 2022.9... 90.6... 1909.3 ...... -23.0 gms
Proch Quad 11...4 (4-1.5)........Hybrid ............2061.8 ... 2216.9... 155.1... 2050.0 ...... -11.8 gms
GreenHorn ..12...4 (4-02)........Holed ..............1921.2 ... 1998.9... 77.7... 1912.4 .......- 8.8 gms

 

[John Watson]

I applaud you and your other vollenteer helpers who took their time out of mixing and mingeling to attempt to do any testing at all. Sorry you have taken so much flack from a certain few, I didn't see their scragly asses out there offering any help.

In 07, You, Bobby, Butnik and Luddy buddy did a meraculus job with the Vacuumes even trying to make sure you had the right type of soils, Hell, I brought down a big box of that stuff in the Caddy that Bryan played hell getting a pure sample from his big Duster at DA Burns.
I don't know if it was Luddy's cammera or not but I know the reason he took the photo's. The glare of the flash would have been just to bright plus Paul was the only one who took a crash course in fish scales and their uses...Bobby was the best foreskin on the job with you being the ramrod..

In 08, the flippen rain killed us, and those there know you announced that from the start, and you and your groupies tried anyways. A lot of vollenteer hours went into just the attempts. Cobb lent his scale so more accurate weights could be taken,

So my Limey, African, Cannuck friend (And they wonder why you talk funny) I do thank you and your cronies for even just the attempt and though the results are not scientific, they are better and more accurate than what we had before.

Then the Coup De Graw you went an broke your flippen arm the following week during your travals of the US before you went back home to Canadia...

 

[vegijohn]

Don't feel bad Tony. If CRI can stand by their SOA program and testing procedures, then your test results are good enough. Oh wait--- You did this test in the search of knowledge in the hope of helping your fellow CC--- Not for greed and money---- Better luck next time.

 

[Guest]

Here's some test results to help the professional cleaner make a wise choice:


WAND SLIDE/GLIDE DEMO 12/10/08

Aim – To determine whether there is any advantage to having any type of attachments to wands.

Equipment used –
Machine - Prochem Performer I set at 1900rpm,
Temp - 210F temp,
Pressure - 200psi
Wand type - Prochem Quadjet 11”
Tee-jet size - 950015 outer, 110015 inner
Hose length - 30m
Carpet type - Polypropylene loop pile, on rubber underlay

Methodology –
Carpets pre-vacuumed with Dyson DC04 Constantmax,
Pre- sprayed with Prochem Performance Plus @ 64:1,
Liquid Slurry emulsifier @ 300:1 set to 3g/hr.
Single wand pass with ½ wand overlap
Moisture levels measured immediately after and then @ 1 hr intervals thereafter with Protimeter MMS

Note:
Dry carpet measured @ 70 as base level @ 18C, RH - 75%

Results –
0hrs 1hr 2hrs 3hrs 4hrs resistance(kgs)
Control 150 148 160 157 105 8-
wand

GreenGlide 186 164 150 102 80 6+
holed

Agitator 156 168 153 100 78 8-
"Slide"

Advantage 141 158 138 130 78 7
"Slide"

Slotted 163 143 134 138 78 7-
"Slide"

Twin Vac 158 145 94 82 75 7+ (The Right Choice Slide)
"Slide" {In 2 hours is DRYER than a naked wand is after 4 hours!}

"The Hybrid" Slide 158 166 131 97 70 7- (The Right Choice Slide) {That's 50% faster dry time! }



TI wand 158 173 169 163 138 5+
"Slippery Sucker"


RX20 191 205 221 210 200 n/a
unglided

Note – RX20 measured after 1 x wet pass & 1 x dry pass
All other measurements done with 1 only wet pass.





Summary
Surprise was seeing that most readings went up in the 1st hour before they went down again. All glided wands undoubtedly showed improvements on drying time, however it must be noted that jetting on GreenGlided wand was actually 2 x 85001 outer and 2 x 11001 inner jets, meaning that technically 33% less water was delivered to the carpet face. My error on that, I’d forgotten that I had changed jetting as part of another experiment, although I don’t think the difference would have been that great, at most probably 10% as a guesstimate. (Yes I like to play with my toys a lot )

Slides across the range exhibited better moisture removal and ultimately faster drying than the GreenGlided wand, but not to a great degree. Average across the range was 75.8 as against 80 for the GreenGlide as a final reading, making them 6% faster overall than the GreenGlided wand and a whopping 42% faster than a standard wand!!

Even bigger surprise was the TI wand with a locally made "Slippery Sucker" glide, included as a last minute “curiosity factor” and supplied by Greg King, which exhibited great moisture removal to start, but then was significantly slower to dry and the RX20 supplied by Kim Howson - well, the figures speak for themselves!

What also needs to be noted here is that only a single wet pass was done, no dry passes as would normally be done with an attachment (normally you wouldn't bother lifting wand off carpet face unless you like doing extra work for no reason, right?). I am confident that an extra dry pass would significantly change readings shown, but for the purposes of this demo I was wanting worst case scenarios to be shown here.

Conclusion –
If you’re not using a Slide or Glide, why not? They are making a significant difference to both the effort physically expended and drying times. 40% is a heck of a difference and no favouritism was shown to any product as Gary Bethel from Powerclean or Brett Holman from Prochem Australia will attest to, as they were present for the demonstration along with 30-odd curious Advantage Group members.

The advantage for the Slides, and to be fair this would need to be repeated on a variety of carpet types for greater accuracy, is that in my experience the different types work better on different fibre/construction types and the fact that they are so quick to remove (including the aluminium link) when compared to a Glide is also a major factor in their favour, but if you have a Glide already and aren’t using it as I know some of aren’t, think again and trial it a bit more!

Prepared by Franco Preo
13/10/08
as part of the Advantage Group Carpet Cleaners (Inc) AGM Demo Day
_________________ Hope this helps, Cheers, Mr. Slide

 

[Mikey P]

buy a banner.

 

[John Watson]

Equipment used –
Machine - Prochem Performer I set at 1900rpm,
Temp - 210F temp,
Pressure - 200psi WTF
Wand type - Prochem Quadjet 11”
Tee-jet size - 950015 outer, 110015 inner
Hose length - 30m
Carpet type - Polypropylene loop pile, on rubber underla

Alan, why are you just dribbling at 200psi??? Hell a std. bane is 150psi
The industry std for TM units was 350-400 psi till the last year, year and a half. I run 750psi on my JEM. I would love to see your results with some real flow where you are flushing and wetting the face fibers. Till then I am sorry, Oh,yeah I tried to get you and/or your slides at MF08 but, neither you nor your slides appeared.. Thats why your slide was not included with the other wands all playing on the same field...

 

[Guest]

buy a banner.

This is just good info 4 all ! It's called Shareing.
Isn't that what your here 4 ?


And John, the tests were done in Aussie ! Had nothing to do with it., But supply the BEST wand attachment in the world! :mrgreen:


Cheers, Mr. Slide>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[hogjowl]

"Volunteer helpers"?

It was related to me a bit differently.

 

[Jimmy L]

No mention of a CASTEX wand.


Big infomercial for Greenglides.

 

[Sticky]

you did a lot of work and tried to be as far as possible and put all wands on a level playing field...you went out of your way to get the same soil from the CRI testing and brought it to the MF and we got to see it...I really appreciate that and thought that was really cool to see the soil that they used...Its not your fault those Jazzercize BIOTCHES took the samples and threw them all over...thank you for all that you did....

 

[Desk Jockey]

So all of you horrible people should just shut up, once and for all and try to get over it.

You've got to quit letting Jimmy help you compose your posts.

 

[Larry Cobb]

Tony;

Welcome to the world of testing...

It is a very difficult job, and I applaud you for taking the time to do the testing at the MickeyFest.

Your test results agree pretty well with some of the testing I have done on a few of the wands.

Looking at the third weight column (difference before drying)...
it looks like the Bentley and the Greenhorn (CMP Angle-Jet) showed the best initial water removal.

Thanks,

Larry

P.S. The electronic gram scale is still working :roll:

 

[ruff]

Thanks for the hard work.
Greatly appreciated.
Ofer

 

[vincent]

Thanks Harry, but I wish I knew the metric system.

 

[harryhides]

Thanks Harry, but I wish I knew the metric system.

28 Grams to 1 ounce, 16 ounces to one pound.