COPIED FROM MIKEYSBOARD:ProcedureLift in Inches of Water, (Ave H2O Lift)
We used a Bentley wand with holed glide and a hole drilled into the
head to test vacuum at the floor. Measurements were taken as it was
pushed forward and when pulled backward on dry carpet and then taking
the average.
H2O Lift was measured at the vacuum inlet of each machine.
CFM was measured at the end of 25ft of 2” hose.
Amperage was the average measured when the wand was on the floor and off.
Accessories are not that accurate. Lacking info.
Apologies for lack of pictures. I believe Mark Cermack has some, if he would be so kind as to post them.
Water recovery test.Preparing
the machines, ie equalizing them. Enough water was poured into each
machine, then sprayed and recovered till the water ran out. The
recovery tank was then emptied with the machine flat, ie not tipping
it. Since some water will remain in the soln tanks when the pump runs
dry and some will remain in the recovery tanks, this preparation
ensures that the quantity of water poured into the soln tank will be
used and whatever water is recovered can be drained.
An AW29
non-glided wand was used for the recovery test because of it’s the
normal wand sold with a portable. (note, I didn’t even look at the
jets, I believe 02’s are stock on the AW29) It was also the best choice
since there were malfunctions with the Bentley wands. Further tests
were not made with a glided Bentley when it was fixed because we ran
out of time. The same hose, 25ft of 2”, was used with each portable.
Since
the Horizon has no soln tank, the AW29 was hooked up to it and sprayed
into a bucket for 1 minute. That water level was marked and then that
amount of water was added to the solution tanks of each portable. When
we tested with the Horizon the “on jet time” was measured at 1 minute.
Only cold water was used to prevent any differences due to water temp.
A
basic wand pattern was used, spray on the back stroke, dry pass on
forward, moving sideways till all the water was used up. Then dry
passes were performed in reverse.
All units were set at 250psi
except the Sphere which only has a 100psi pump. It simply tool longer
to spray out its measure of water.
Recovered water was poured into the same bucket that measured the fresh water to measure amount recovered.
Results/Observations/Conclusions/TheoryThe
Sphere did pretty good, as mentioned, it tool longer to spray out its
measure of water since it only has a 100psi pump but still recovered
100%, even with 2” hose.
250psi seemed like a nice pressure to work with.
Each
machine recovered almost 100% of the water, even the Sphere. The M5
recovered a little less than the rest, which since it didn’t make
sense, we theorized that with its higher lift the wand was locking down
on the carpet and therefore losing airflow and thus recovering a little
less. We never had the time to test each machine with a glided wand
which we believe would have shown more of a difference between the
different machines performance. We were going to test with 50ft of 2”
hose.
The M5, Master Force and Horizon had the switches all up
top. The M5 and Horizon each has circuit locators which were nice to
have. The M5 was the easiest to hook up with both vac and soln
connections located on top plus having a cool cuff for its vac
connection. The Recoil’s switches were located in a somewhat awkward
location, at the bottom on the front, under a lip of the tanks, with
that position and being non-lit they were hard to see.
The motor
compartment of the Recoil and Sphere were bolted and makes them the
hardest to access the machinery. The others were fairly easy to get
into.
The M5 had the best CFM while the Master Force had the
most lift. This is due to the different configuration of the vac
motors, ie parallel and series respectively.
The theory with the
Recoil was that since all three vacs were in parallel there was a loss
of vacuum “through” the weaker 2 stage vac, ie sucking through it. This
would explain the increased lift when the 2 stage was disconnected.
Would have been nice to see a new machine.
Overall, I liked the
M5 and Master Force best. Though the other 3 really weren’t in the same
class. The Sphere isn’t meant for large area cleaning. The Horizon is
mainly a flood extractor and for tile but since it was there we
included it in the test. It would make a decent carpet extractor as
well.
Of the M5 and Master Force, the M5 has some better tweaks,
ie the connections are all up top, some cup holders to hold a spotter,
or a beer. The dump is in the back away from the hoses. I find its
easier to tip a machine from the back than from the front in order to
drain the tank.
The machines could use a little larger fill
hole for the soln tanks. At the end of the job they need to be sucked
out and one needs to squeeze his arm in with the vac hose. Nothing
major but something for future models.
The Master Force\s pump needs
to be greased. It comes with a small grease gun. That’s an extra
maintenance step the M5 doesn’t have to worry about. Would have to see
over the long term which pump performs better.
As has been said,
would have been nice to try all the machines with a glided wand and a
longer length of hose. We got carried away with getting all the numbers
which ate up the time. The numbers show that the M5 and MF are the best
machines. However, the simple extraction test shows that they will all
do the job, just the larger the machine, the faster the job will be
completed. Plus, with the higher pressure, a cleaner job will be the
result as well.
Can some one post the price of the Master Force and the M5? That will also be a big factor.