More airflow tests.

VacuumLand – Vintage & Modern Vacuum Enthusiasts

Help Support VacuumLand:

airflow of electric and nonelectric hoses

I don't have an airflow meter, but I did notice something with my Sirena water filtration machine. It includes two hoses, one is an electric hose to provide power for the power nozzle, the other is a nonelectric hose for wet pick-up, you can also use this hose for dry pick up if the power nozzle is not needed. When using the nonelectric hose, a turbine brush will spin a bit faster than when using the electric hose, and this is when using the same machine, so there must be something slightly different with electric hoses.
Mike
 
Baird meters

I have access to 3 Baird meters, 1 I own, the other two belong to the shop. The measurements i gave to Bill (wyaple) used the shop (front) meter as we can see we are getting a higher reading from it vs the other two. This for me confirms my idea that it's spring is somewhat worn so there would be less resistance.

The machine used was the same Miele C3 I've been testing. It does have a little sand in it's bag but it shouldn't be enough to impact it's numbers much at all

blackheart-2017092316201309933_1.jpg
 
Strangely, it doesn't seem like the cable running through the hose makes all that much of a difference in the measurements (hardly enough to have much notable effect -- 95 vs. 102). Any guess as to why (if it is the cause) it would make such a comparatively giant difference at the end of the wand? It actually looks like -if it (the power cable) was going to make a big difference in turbulence and flow the hose is where it would really hit hard (for a number of reasons) and be especially noticeable.

blackheart: Wonderful to see the pictures! The Baird meter picture is especially neat to see. You had to throw it in there. It makes the mystery go even deeper. The differences between the respective Baird meters definitely do not account for the scale/difference between the earlier (April - 95 CFM) wand readings vs. the newer ones (81 CFM).

I would be curious for experiment's sake (just for fun) to see what/if any difference existed with a C2 like the electro+ with the electric hose on. I wouldn't expect it to be terribly different but there do certainly appear to be fascinating things happening.

Thank you for sharing.
 
Is your electric wand the latest... SET 220? My SET 220 diameter looks the same as the non-electric, but perfectly smooth inside whereas the non-electric has all kinds of notching for the telescoping. The SET 220 has a different mechanical design to address which leaves perfectly smooth and round innards.
 
A friend of mine said that before saying something, one should think about it and ask oneself "Is it true? Is it helpful? Is it kind?" and not say anything unless one gets at least 2 "yes".

So, with that in mind, please realize that fun as it may be, a Baird meter is not a serious instrument for science. Just look at it and ask yourselves how you'd calibrate the 3 copies above to bring them to agree with each other in that measurement. Electronic instruments often have an auto-calibration routine, instruments that depend on springs often have something to help calibrate it to a known quantity, usually a knob or something.

Hard as this may be to hear, Baird meters were made to sell Kirby vacuum cleaners, and there's no reason to even believe they are not cheating in some way, the spring might be non-linear enough to make most of the cleaners of the time the meter was created to read under say, "5" and Kirby's read "10" despite the difference being small.

Has anyone among us put this meter to an apparatus that can generate known pressures and volumes at will and seen what happens?

And please, before you misunderstand me, no, I'm not saying this just to harsh y'all's vibes -- y'all tell me this is just for fun and I'll drop it, but if y'all are to take this all as serious, you need to do it in a more scientific way.

A lot of the differences we've been seeing here can be assigned to lots of small things -- aerodynamics is not as simple as it looks, like someone already said, just putting the hose in a straight line as opposed to curved makes a difference. When an airstream takes some path as opposed to another, all kinds of turbulence (or absence thereof) will give different results. You can see this in as simple situations as a box fan gives different results depending on how far they are from a wall, for example; that means that unless the adaptor boxes that Bill and Devin, among others, are using are identical, the measurements (airflow and pressure) they are reading for uprights will differ too.

Cheers,
   -- Paulo.
 
Tseg & earthling177

Tseg: Glad you mentioned what you did. I began to wonder the same as I have just had someone tell me the lumen of the SET220 is effectively the same diamteter as the non electric wand (right or wrong) and found a number of images that seem to support his statement. It really wouldn't make much sense with the SET220 design for it to be any narrower than the non-electric. Honestly though, I would be inclined to believe that the wand used here was an SET220.

earthling177: I have a science background and think you were very thoughtful in how you worded your statement. How rare on the internet! To me, this is largely fun and interesting. I definitely appreciate the time that these guys have put in for what I may not consider especially "academic" but definitely interesting and fun. Worth anyone arguing about? Not to me. Enticing and appreciated? Absolutely.
 
The Baird meter was not designed or intended to make scientific measurements! This tool was designed merely to make general comparisons in airflow between different vacuum cleaners.


 


It is true that most bagless vacuum cleaners generate high suction but very little airflow where most bagged units generate much more airflow with less suction and Direct Air machines generate the most airflow of all types of cleaners.


 


The Baird meter is also a useful tool to indicate when your bagged vacuum cleaner may need to have it's bag replaced or maybe a tune up is needed.


 


 
 
Bag Influence Would be Interesting to See

I mentioned it a little in my first post above, but I also wonder if the smaller bag of the C2 creates more resistance --to the extent-- that it affects the overall CFM. Or, do the respective sizes and (Miele's bag design) not fall within a size range (condition) that actually results in much of a real difference if any? Do the smaller C2 bags and larger C3 bags influence CFM?

I've seen random evidence that suggests there is little to no difference interestingly but would love to learn more on the subject.
 
So the old-fashioned simple fan first designed uprights outperformed the expensive clean air uprights and canisters. Looks like they even out performed the tandem air designs. Good reason to use my Kirbys and Hoover Convertibles. I think the results speak for themselves. I don't think a person can really argue raw numbers or facts.
 
If airflow is one's only priority, there you have it. As with many premium consumer goods, an alternative consideration is overall balance of benefits. Excellent airflow for deep cleaning of rugs, excellent suction for above floor or hard floor cleaning, light weight for multi-floor transport, large and effective filter bag/compartment to limit servicing, smaller size for optimized storage, quiet motor for pleasing vacuuming experience for you and others around, variable suction for multi-surface cleaning, variety of accessories for multi-function cleaning, outstanding filtration to limit allergens, rubberized shock absorbing multi-directional wheels for quiet maneuverability, compartment to hold accessories on unit for quick accessibility, long cord and/or hose to extend reach, auto cord rewind for ease of use, awesome color and design for viewing pleasure, easy clean or stay-clean design, perceived cost/value benefit, etc...

There is a whole other category that seems to get somewhat limited play in discussion, which is critical assessment of cleaning head performance, and performance on which surface. I'd rather have strong suction and limited airflow and a suction-only parquet head on wood floors than amazing airflow and a powerful beater-bar, for instance.

Statistics are what they are, but how they are spun by the statistician can lead to false conclusions.
 
Another Wrench!!!!

Well I recently purchased a Miele C3 Brilliance and I'm once again getting different figures. I think the most likely explanation for the difference in the C3 cat and dog and this unit is the filter. The cat and dog used a granulated charcoal filter where the Brilliance uses a Hepa filter. I figure having solid particals in the filter has to have some sort of effect on it's flow.

blackheart-2017122719195500879_1.jpg
 
Henry!

An HVR200-11 quite a powerhouse,but the floor tool leaks quite a bit. When the ball gauge was put onto the airflow box i could feel air leaking around the joints and around the selector pedal on the floor head.

blackheart-2018052716323400241_1.jpg
 
Bill

I posted on your explanation of your chart asking for a website. I found the website other than YouTube.
Nice job on dumbing science in layman terms. I really appreciate you're efforts. Its informative and enjoyable.
Les
Aka utah vacuum guy
 
I need to make the hole smaller.

Now it is 2.2 inches and the anemometer is a bit less than 2 inches. Just right size hole to the cardboard piece and problem solved. Baird meter adapter fits to this 2.2 hole.
I quess adapter is only good for suction measurements?
 
I'm very surprised by your results for the Miele C3. I would have thought it would produce more airflow than that.

It certainly feels one of the most powerful cleaners I've used.
 

Similar threads

amtraksebo1997
My childhood dream vacuums (aka my guilty pleasures)
Replies
6
Views
49
amtraksebo1997
amtraksebo1997
niclonnic
Shark Navigator Lift-Away Speed Pet with Zero-M (ZU561)
Replies
0
Views
57
niclonnic
niclonnic
M
Measuring my vintage vacs
Replies
0
Views
5
mjhoshaw
M
Z
Shark design changes in "newer" models ala Electrolux?
Replies
12
Views
30
thevacuumbarn
T
P
1985 NYTIMES article on the Electrolux Factory Closing in Old Greenwich, CT
Replies
9
Views
15
royalsuper
royalsuper

Latest posts

Back
Top