On Thursday I cleaned 1500 sq ft of light colored medium thick plush carpet with Host. First I vacuumed with a Sanitaire S647D with two 5/32" holes drilled in the base, one on each side of the belt chamber. I started on height adjustment 4, and while I liked the sound and feel of the agitation, it soon was bogged down with the brush not spinning as full speed, slowing way down. I bumped it up to 5, and the agitation was not as severe, but remained consistent until I was almost finished with the pre-vacuuming. 6 was too high. I had to move furniture, and so the belt cooled, and then 5 was fine for the remainder of the pre-vacuuming.
When I began picking up the Host material, at some point, the bag filled enough that 5 would not hold the carpet to the nozzle, and so I lowered it to 4. The bogging down of the brushroll did not occur as quickly as it did initially, but it did occur. Letting the belt cool down did help, and the agitation was adequate. Once the bag was better than 1/2 full, the brushroll height of 4 was fine until again, I was nearly finished. I did not clean the entire 1500 sq ft at once, but rather did it in sections.
This opens up several questions for discussion:
Did the conversion to paper bags, and subsequent decrease in air flow cause lesser agitation to some extent, due to loss of cooling of the turning belt?
How much does this loss of belt torque influence comparisons of vacuum cleaners in cleaning tests, including straight suction against revolving brushes?
What could be done to minimize this effect?
More bigger holes in the base? Better belts? Perhaps a sliding motor position to make the use of serpentine v-belts possible?
When I began picking up the Host material, at some point, the bag filled enough that 5 would not hold the carpet to the nozzle, and so I lowered it to 4. The bogging down of the brushroll did not occur as quickly as it did initially, but it did occur. Letting the belt cool down did help, and the agitation was adequate. Once the bag was better than 1/2 full, the brushroll height of 4 was fine until again, I was nearly finished. I did not clean the entire 1500 sq ft at once, but rather did it in sections.
This opens up several questions for discussion:
Did the conversion to paper bags, and subsequent decrease in air flow cause lesser agitation to some extent, due to loss of cooling of the turning belt?
How much does this loss of belt torque influence comparisons of vacuum cleaners in cleaning tests, including straight suction against revolving brushes?
What could be done to minimize this effect?
More bigger holes in the base? Better belts? Perhaps a sliding motor position to make the use of serpentine v-belts possible?
