Which "SAFE" chemical is better?
Printed From: Carpet Cleaning Forum
Category: Carpet Cleaners Discussion
Forum Name: Carpet Cleaners Hangout
Forum Description: General discussion on anything related to carpet cleaning
URL: https://www.kleenkuip.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2721
Printed Date: 27/February/2025 at 2:27am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.06 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Which "SAFE" chemical is better?
Posted By: dennis_is_ok
Subject: Which "SAFE" chemical is better?
Date Posted: 04/July/2006 at 10:06pm
|
I am considering these three:
Anybody tried all three? I use a
 porty. |
Replies:
Posted By: huckmuck
Date Posted: 05/July/2006 at 6:53am
|
dfc and ecogent are your safest bet. Dfc is the better of the two but thats
just my preverence. They also have DFC heavy duty cleaner which is a great product. ------------- Huckmuck |
Posted By: Michael
Date Posted: 05/July/2006 at 12:39pm
| Haven't tried Benefect. But if you go DFC, be sure to get 210 also. |
Posted By: dennis_is_ok
Date Posted: 05/July/2006 at 3:04pm
| you saying the dcf wont work without a prespray? |
Posted By: doug
Date Posted: 05/July/2006 at 3:33pm
|
I put the DFC Heavy Duty threw my hydro force. Some put it threw their machines. ------------- Just My opinion |
Posted By: Michael
Date Posted: 05/July/2006 at 5:53pm
|
If you use the Heavy Duty, that's your prespray.If not, you can use the 105 as prespray, but at 6 oz. to the gallon. It's way more cost effective to use 210 as your prespray, and then extract with 105 at 1 oz. to the gallon. As for whether it will work without a prespray: you should always use a prespray. If you don't, it will work somewhat, but not as well as if you'd used a prespray. Always prespray. |
Posted By: LilNiteRidrhood
Date Posted: 05/July/2006 at 9:50pm
|
DFC heavy duty cleaner.
Its the one my cleaners pick over the others.
|
Posted By: cleanex
Date Posted: 06/July/2006 at 5:37pm
|
To each his own DFC 105 works great through the truckmounts, Heavy Duty prespray when necessary, have found DFC 105 works great on polypropylene berbers without prespray, don't forget poly carpets are water proof so all that prespray ends up at the bottom of the carpet and wick backs will occurr ------------- DON ELDRED YOU CAN "STAND" ON OUR REPUTATION |
Posted By: Michael
Date Posted: 06/July/2006 at 7:30pm
| You're thinking of olefin. Polyester, olefin, nylon--in fact, most synthetic fibers--are hydrophobic, but the reason water sinks through olefin is because its specific gravity is greater. |
Posted By: doug
Date Posted: 06/July/2006 at 7:36pm
|
Michael Olefin is polypropylene?? And I dissagree with you??? ------------- Just My opinion |
Posted By: Michael
Date Posted: 07/July/2006 at 1:55am
|
Yes, olefin is polypropylene . . . and . . .??? Where specifically do you disagree? Do you disagree with my opinion, have you had contrary experience, or are you saying my facts are mixed up? Kinda vague so far. |
Posted By: cleanex
Date Posted: 07/July/2006 at 1:54pm
|
polypropylene [olefin] is water proof absorbs less moisture than any other fiber, and that is why wick backs on this fiber are more likely to happen than the other man made fibers, and that is why I said the old way of applying presprays and allowing dwell time only made the situation of wick backs more common. ------------- DON ELDRED YOU CAN "STAND" ON OUR REPUTATION |
Posted By: Michael
Date Posted: 07/July/2006 at 3:09pm
|
I don't disagree that olefin is less absorbant than other carpet fiber types, and I never did. It makes sense that it would affect how the prespray is held/suspended, as will the fact that it has such a low specific gravity, which is the main contributing factor to over-wetting (as I was taught). Disagree? Contact Doug Heifferman, who is one of Bridgepoint's main instructors. I'm sure he'd like to be enlightened so he can stop spreading misinformation. Also, wicking on olefin can also be attributed to the fact that its more susceptible to oil-based soiling than other fibers used for carpet. |
Posted By: doug
Date Posted: 07/July/2006 at 4:50pm
|
Michael: could you explain to me what causes olefin to have a low specific gravity compared to nylon or wool or whatever? Are you also saying that it is oil based soiliing that is the cause of wicking in olefin? Please enlighten me? ------------- Just My opinion |
Posted By: Michael
Date Posted: 07/July/2006 at 6:21pm
| Just going by what the experts tell me, doug. I'm not a scientist. |
Posted By: doug
Date Posted: 08/July/2006 at 6:38pm
|
Michael I have never attended one of Mr. Heifferman's classes. Is he a scientist along with being a carpet cleaning instructor? ------------- Just My opinion |
Posted By: LilNiteRidrhood
Date Posted: 08/July/2006 at 6:46pm
|
The reason olefin floats on water is that it has a specific gravity of less than 1. The real issue here is that olefin absorbs NO MOISTURE. In real terms that means that water rolls right down the fiber. The second issue is that olefin has an affinity for oil.
It attracts oil. It loves oil.
|
Posted By: doug
Date Posted: 08/July/2006 at 7:01pm
|
So the fact it absorbs NO MOISTURE does not contribute to it's ability to be able to float. Is not the term specific gravity just the old Bulls*it baffles Brains to make the so called instructors every so increditable intelligent??? ------------- Just My opinion |
Posted By: Michael
Date Posted: 08/July/2006 at 11:47pm
Maybe, doug. Maybe not. Do you have enough definite knowledge to say one way or the other either, or are you just resting on authoritative sources that you trust, just like most of us do? I don't see any need to prove my point; I just asked for your points as to why you disagreed. If I was misinformed or semi-misinformed by being swayed by nerdy terminology, then shame on me, I guess. It doesn't really affect how I do my job. The point was that I don't have enough knowledge of physical chemistry to report with any certainty exactly how water behaves on two hypothetical separate pieces of carpet whose only real difference is their respective specific gravities. In other words, I don't have specific knowledge of an experiement where water's propensity to travel past the piles of carpets of differing specific gravities was recorded, so I can't personally comment with absolute certainty. Are you asking me to look this stuff up in the appropriate journals and report back to you? I was just trying to be honest, because your request for me to explain "why" these things work the way they do would eventually lead down this path, right? I just cut to the chase: none of us are scientists; we base our opinions on authorities that we trust (for whatever reason); then we compare knowledge to hopefully root out the truth, in time. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be enlightened, which I've already asked. You can either pony up with your definitive knwledge and its source, or you can just continue being vaguely contrary. Have I sort of answered your question, or are you still waiting for . . . something? |
doug wrote:Posted By: doug
Date Posted: 09/July/2006 at 11:01am
|
Michael I will not doubt you knowledge of the subject or your ability to do an exceptional job at what you do. My point is when an industry mass produces something, anything the quality goes dow. The same holds true for the IICRC and the number of instructors now out there and the never ending quest of changing things to try and attempt to keep them all busy. Some instructors are exceptional and others well??? It's money well wasted. But I am a believer in as long as you pick something up it is worth the time and money, I am just having a hard time in justifying some of it anymore. ------------- Just My opinion |
Posted By: Michael
Date Posted: 09/July/2006 at 12:15pm
| I can appreciate that, doug. |