Tacony Tandem Air Suction Not Too Great
- Thread starter shrink1982
- Start date
Help Support VacuumLand:
sptyks
Well-known member
Marcus,
you must have meant that photo in Reply #39 for Rob because I believe Bill has shown him that he is still WRONG unless he can make a video that proves otherwise.
~Stan
you must have meant that photo in Reply #39 for Rob because I believe Bill has shown him that he is still WRONG unless he can make a video that proves otherwise.
~Stan
wyaple
Well-known member
Mark,
Different carpet types require different machines and I'm sure many people are very happy with the results of whatever type of machine they have. For cleaning various surface debris, my channel has shown that 50 CFM is usually acceptable...except for fine particulate.
So far, I've discovered that high CFM models are largely useless for rubber backed mats...unless you have someone standing on the other end.
For medium pile flow through carpet, high CFM coupled with at least medium agitation works best to deep clean. Since most people (Vacuumlanders excepted of course) don't care or know about deep cleaning, they wait until they hire a truck mount rig and then gasp at how much lighter and brighter their carpets become, all the while still not understanding that if they had a better vacuum, the difference would be minimal.
Bill
Different carpet types require different machines and I'm sure many people are very happy with the results of whatever type of machine they have. For cleaning various surface debris, my channel has shown that 50 CFM is usually acceptable...except for fine particulate.
So far, I've discovered that high CFM models are largely useless for rubber backed mats...unless you have someone standing on the other end.
For medium pile flow through carpet, high CFM coupled with at least medium agitation works best to deep clean. Since most people (Vacuumlanders excepted of course) don't care or know about deep cleaning, they wait until they hire a truck mount rig and then gasp at how much lighter and brighter their carpets become, all the while still not understanding that if they had a better vacuum, the difference would be minimal.
Bill
Now this is getting interesting.
Using Nilfisk with the bag saver to vacuum remains it picked
up from the both sides what it was able to pick up. So how it was able to pick up same amount from the Kirby side, if Kirby did better job?
I still think, that the Kirby G6 is better overall, but Nilfisk came VERY close.
I didn't do this test to cause any conflicts.
Some thoughts:
- this wasn't very accurate test but good enough to show the differences
- Wessel Werk ph has a smaller brushroll opening = better airflow density
- my carpet is flow through (see the picture)
- I have ordered the dirt meter (it should be here soon)
- I said in the test that I am not yet convinced
- My Nilfisk has a quite rare two stage GMD motor (rating
label says type GMI) it means industrial model
- not many canister vacuums can pull 108 cfm from the hose end
Using Nilfisk with the bag saver to vacuum remains it picked
up from the both sides what it was able to pick up. So how it was able to pick up same amount from the Kirby side, if Kirby did better job?
I still think, that the Kirby G6 is better overall, but Nilfisk came VERY close.
I didn't do this test to cause any conflicts.
Some thoughts:
- this wasn't very accurate test but good enough to show the differences
- Wessel Werk ph has a smaller brushroll opening = better airflow density
- my carpet is flow through (see the picture)
- I have ordered the dirt meter (it should be here soon)
- I said in the test that I am not yet convinced
- My Nilfisk has a quite rare two stage GMD motor (rating
label says type GMI) it means industrial model
- not many canister vacuums can pull 108 cfm from the hose end
wyaple
Well-known member
Mike,
It's good to be skeptical!
But it the meantime, since you have flow through carpet, wouldn't it be great to see some flour under the carpet tests?
Some future testing suggestions:
1) Unless you're attempting to prove something rather special, keep the vacuum passes down to 1 or 2 maximum since that's all most people would do anyway.
2) Try to vacuum at a normal speed. Either too fast or too slow could skew test results.
3) As you can plainly see in my videos, even 50 CFM and a soft brush roll can pickup rice. Oatmeal is too easy as well.
Small particle tests can be aggravating to setup but aren't most people interested in how their machine does with fine dust or something similar? To that end, I'm looking onto obtaining some colored particles like sand, etc. and then creating a test that showcases that possibly along with flour.
I'm always rather dismayed at how some people see a video and jump to all sorts of conclusions. Enjoy your new dirt meter when it arrives. I also have one I use periodically.
Bill
It's good to be skeptical!
But it the meantime, since you have flow through carpet, wouldn't it be great to see some flour under the carpet tests?
Some future testing suggestions:
1) Unless you're attempting to prove something rather special, keep the vacuum passes down to 1 or 2 maximum since that's all most people would do anyway.
2) Try to vacuum at a normal speed. Either too fast or too slow could skew test results.
3) As you can plainly see in my videos, even 50 CFM and a soft brush roll can pickup rice. Oatmeal is too easy as well.
Small particle tests can be aggravating to setup but aren't most people interested in how their machine does with fine dust or something similar? To that end, I'm looking onto obtaining some colored particles like sand, etc. and then creating a test that showcases that possibly along with flour.
I'm always rather dismayed at how some people see a video and jump to all sorts of conclusions. Enjoy your new dirt meter when it arrives. I also have one I use periodically.
Bill
Bag saver loss of airflow
Very good points there!
I have already made a video how much the bag saver drops the airflow. It's quite dramatic.
In the video it drops from 6 (92 cfm) to something like 45-50 cfm. No wonder why bagless vacuums has a much weaker airflow.
To get more accurate results I have to wait dirt meter to arrive.
Very good points there!
I have already made a video how much the bag saver drops the airflow. It's quite dramatic.
In the video it drops from 6 (92 cfm) to something like 45-50 cfm. No wonder why bagless vacuums has a much weaker airflow.
To get more accurate results I have to wait dirt meter to arrive.
Nilfisk and the Kirby-from what you could see-they are very close.It would have been better for the tester to weigh the contents of those cups to see who the winner really is.Good that a REAL powernozzle was used with the Nilfisk rathere than the air powered one that came with mine from the Kirby guys van.I would rate the Nilfisk as better to use than the Kirby as a "canister".The Nilfisk is quieter and has more "suction" better for the canister work.
I am neutral
Well all comments are welcome for me
For these rugs I keep using the Kirby, because it's so light to push thanks to the techdrive. Canisters (Nilfisk or others) for anything else.
But if would had only one vacuum. It would be the Nilfisk or Lux Royal.
Now people really see (hopefully) Nilfisk potential ☺
Well all comments are welcome for me
For these rugs I keep using the Kirby, because it's so light to push thanks to the techdrive. Canisters (Nilfisk or others) for anything else.
But if would had only one vacuum. It would be the Nilfisk or Lux Royal.
Now people really see (hopefully) Nilfisk potential ☺
wyaple
Well-known member
Great job Mike,
May I ask for the nozzle measurements for the Nilfisk and Shark? I want to finish the interpretation of the results so all can understand your flour tests.
Kirby G6 Nozzle Area: 14.25" x 2.375" = 33.8 square inches
Nilfisk Nozzle Area: Need Measurements From Mike
Shark Nozzle Area: Need Measurements From Mike
As a preview (and guessing based on his video visuals, I'll take a wild guess that both the Nilfisk and the Shark have much smaller openings than the Kirby, say 22 square inches for the Nilfisk and 18 square inches for the Shark (both of these are guesses at the moment).
The CFM density for the G6 is 120 CFM / 33.8 sq. in. = 3.55 CFM per sq. in.
The CFM density for the Nilfisk might be 88 CFM / 22 sq. in. = 4.00 CFM per sq. in.
The CFM density for the Shark might be 55 CFM / 18 sq. in. = 3.06 CFM per sq. in.
Since Mike's carpet has much larger holes, the Shark with it's low CFM was able to get some flour. So Mike's weave might just begin to respond to a 55 CFM machine. My medium pile carpet backing is much more closed off and only starts to respond to about 75 CFM, anything lower just doesn't pickup unless you have an extreme brush roll with ridiculous agitation (Simplicity).
In two slow passes, the Nilfisk is able to come fairly close to the Kirby partly because the CFM is fairly high but also because the CFM density is high. That's the upside. The downside is that with the nozzle being significantly smaller, it will take significantly longer to vacuum large areas. For example, if the Kirby takes 40 minutes, the Nilfisk make take 60 minutes to finish the same square footage.
Some people will say that the Nilfisk is insignificantly different than the Kirby. I'll ask them this question then: If a vacuum constantly leaves 2% behind when you use it, how much will accumulate over time? Since everyone is in a hurry these days and vacuums as fast as possible and no more than 1-2 passes in one area, what will eventually be the result?
Much thanks again Mike for this video. And your bare floors look much better than my concrete ones.
Bill
May I ask for the nozzle measurements for the Nilfisk and Shark? I want to finish the interpretation of the results so all can understand your flour tests.
Kirby G6 Nozzle Area: 14.25" x 2.375" = 33.8 square inches
Nilfisk Nozzle Area: Need Measurements From Mike
Shark Nozzle Area: Need Measurements From Mike
As a preview (and guessing based on his video visuals, I'll take a wild guess that both the Nilfisk and the Shark have much smaller openings than the Kirby, say 22 square inches for the Nilfisk and 18 square inches for the Shark (both of these are guesses at the moment).
The CFM density for the G6 is 120 CFM / 33.8 sq. in. = 3.55 CFM per sq. in.
The CFM density for the Nilfisk might be 88 CFM / 22 sq. in. = 4.00 CFM per sq. in.
The CFM density for the Shark might be 55 CFM / 18 sq. in. = 3.06 CFM per sq. in.
Since Mike's carpet has much larger holes, the Shark with it's low CFM was able to get some flour. So Mike's weave might just begin to respond to a 55 CFM machine. My medium pile carpet backing is much more closed off and only starts to respond to about 75 CFM, anything lower just doesn't pickup unless you have an extreme brush roll with ridiculous agitation (Simplicity).
In two slow passes, the Nilfisk is able to come fairly close to the Kirby partly because the CFM is fairly high but also because the CFM density is high. That's the upside. The downside is that with the nozzle being significantly smaller, it will take significantly longer to vacuum large areas. For example, if the Kirby takes 40 minutes, the Nilfisk make take 60 minutes to finish the same square footage.
Some people will say that the Nilfisk is insignificantly different than the Kirby. I'll ask them this question then: If a vacuum constantly leaves 2% behind when you use it, how much will accumulate over time? Since everyone is in a hurry these days and vacuums as fast as possible and no more than 1-2 passes in one area, what will eventually be the result?
Much thanks again Mike for this video. And your bare floors look much better than my concrete ones.
Bill
ultralux88
Well-known member
I got the 15ft hose and tool set for mine
Its the non-stretch long hose that they sell for the clean air uprights, but instead of the tapered cuff on the machine end, its got the same end as the onboard stretch hose. I've found I get far better performance using it this way for tools. It won't really turn a turbo brush well on the stretch hose, but it'll quite nicely run it on the 15ft hose, longer, BUT it has a larger inner diameter, and a scooter inside than the stretch hose.
Its the non-stretch long hose that they sell for the clean air uprights, but instead of the tapered cuff on the machine end, its got the same end as the onboard stretch hose. I've found I get far better performance using it this way for tools. It won't really turn a turbo brush well on the stretch hose, but it'll quite nicely run it on the 15ft hose, longer, BUT it has a larger inner diameter, and a scooter inside than the stretch hose.
Bill
After watching your flour under the carpet tests I agree, that my carpet was easier for the vacuums.
For me differences in the nozzle sizes doesn't really matter (small areas)
Here are the nozzle measurements and my cfm ratings:
Wessel Werk ph 11.8 x 1.8 inches
Shark 9.8 x 1.6 inches
These are from the hose end.
Nilfisk 108 cfm
Shark 62 cfm
Thank you for calculating these things for me!
After watching your flour under the carpet tests I agree, that my carpet was easier for the vacuums.
For me differences in the nozzle sizes doesn't really matter (small areas)
Here are the nozzle measurements and my cfm ratings:
Wessel Werk ph 11.8 x 1.8 inches
Shark 9.8 x 1.6 inches
These are from the hose end.
Nilfisk 108 cfm
Shark 62 cfm
Thank you for calculating these things for me!
wyaple
Well-known member
Thanks for the nozzle specs Mike
Updated Nozzle Areas:
Kirby G6: 14.25" x 2.375" = 33.8 square inches
Wessel Werk: 11.8" x 1.8" = 21.2 square inches
Shark: 9.8" x 1.6" = 15.7 square inches
So the CFM density calculations become:
Kirby G6 is 120 CFM / 33.8 sq. in. = 3.55 CFM per sq. in.
Wessel Werk is 88 CFM / 21.2 sq. in. = 4.15 CFM per sq. in.
Shark is 51 CFM (Est.) / 15.7 sq. in. = 3.25 CFM per sq. in.
Mike, my 51 nozzle CFM estimate for the Shark comes from examining my growing database of bag-less uprights and using an average percentage drop from hose end to nozzle end.
CONCLUSIONS:
Since Mike's rug is not only shag (low density pile), but also has very large flow-through holes as seen in his videos, very, very low CFM machines can pull small particulate from the bottom fairly easily. And since the pile is not dense on top, rice can be pulled from low CFM bag saver crippled machines.
For those who think the Nilfisk/Wessel Werk combo nearly matched the Kirby consider this: The G6 picked up more fine particulate over a 33.8/21.2 => 59% larger area. And it did it with about 14% lower CFM density. This is a HUGE difference when you look at the mathematics.
As far as the Shark goes, the only way this low CFM machine can barely deep clean at all is because of the very tiny nozzle size. Dyson has pulled this trick with the DC25 and DC65.
Dyson DC25 has 57 nozzle CFM and a density of 3.37 (tiny nozzle)
Dyson DC65 has 52 nozzle CFM and a density of 2.33 (large nozzle)
Hopefully, this clears up many questions and observations regarding Mike's flour video.
Bill
Updated Nozzle Areas:
Kirby G6: 14.25" x 2.375" = 33.8 square inches
Wessel Werk: 11.8" x 1.8" = 21.2 square inches
Shark: 9.8" x 1.6" = 15.7 square inches
So the CFM density calculations become:
Kirby G6 is 120 CFM / 33.8 sq. in. = 3.55 CFM per sq. in.
Wessel Werk is 88 CFM / 21.2 sq. in. = 4.15 CFM per sq. in.
Shark is 51 CFM (Est.) / 15.7 sq. in. = 3.25 CFM per sq. in.
Mike, my 51 nozzle CFM estimate for the Shark comes from examining my growing database of bag-less uprights and using an average percentage drop from hose end to nozzle end.
CONCLUSIONS:
Since Mike's rug is not only shag (low density pile), but also has very large flow-through holes as seen in his videos, very, very low CFM machines can pull small particulate from the bottom fairly easily. And since the pile is not dense on top, rice can be pulled from low CFM bag saver crippled machines.
For those who think the Nilfisk/Wessel Werk combo nearly matched the Kirby consider this: The G6 picked up more fine particulate over a 33.8/21.2 => 59% larger area. And it did it with about 14% lower CFM density. This is a HUGE difference when you look at the mathematics.
As far as the Shark goes, the only way this low CFM machine can barely deep clean at all is because of the very tiny nozzle size. Dyson has pulled this trick with the DC25 and DC65.
Dyson DC25 has 57 nozzle CFM and a density of 3.37 (tiny nozzle)
Dyson DC65 has 52 nozzle CFM and a density of 2.33 (large nozzle)
Hopefully, this clears up many questions and observations regarding Mike's flour video.
Bill
wyaple
Well-known member
Mark,
Your forgot the additional constraints: These tests must be performed only on Tuesdays, during a full moon, while wearing something plaid, eating a chocolate chip cookie, and repeatedly shouting "beam me up" directly at the offending particles.
Bill
Your forgot the additional constraints: These tests must be performed only on Tuesdays, during a full moon, while wearing something plaid, eating a chocolate chip cookie, and repeatedly shouting "beam me up" directly at the offending particles.
Bill
Similar threads
