Equipment Used -

Machine - Prochem Performer I set at 1900 rpm

Temp - 210° F

Pressure - 200 psi

Wand type - Prochem Quadjet 11"

Tee-jet size - 950015 outer, 110015 inner

Hose length - 30m

Carpet type - Polypropylene loop pile, on rubber underlay

Methodology -

Carpets pre-vacuumed with Dyson DC04 Constantmax
Pre-sprayed with Prochem Performance Plus @ 64:1

Liquid Slurry emulsifier @ 300:1 set to 3g/hr.

Single wand pass with 1/2 wand overlap

Moisture levels measured immediately after and then @ 1 hr intervals thereafter with Protimeter MMS

Note: Dry carpet measured @ 70 as base level @ 18C, RH - 75%

Results -
0hrs 1hr 2hrs 3hrs 4hrs resistance(kgs)
Control 150 148 160 157 105 8-
wand

GreenGlide 186 164 150 102 80 6+
holed

Agitator 156 168 153 100 78 8-
"Slide"

Advantage 141 158 138 130 78 7
"Slide"

Slotted 163 143 134 138 78 7-
"Slide"

Twin Vac 158 145 94 82 75 7+

Hybrid 158 166 131 97 70 7-
"Slide"

TI wand 158 173 169 163 138 5+
"Slippery Sucker"

RX20 191 205 221 210 200 n/a
uniglided

Note - RX20 measured after 1 x wet pass & 1 x dry pass
All other measurements done with 1 only wet pass.

Summary -

Surprise was seeing that most readings went up in the 1st hour before they went down again. All glided wands undoubtedly showed improvements on drying time, however it must be noted that jetting on GreenGlided wand was actually 2 x 85001 outer and 2 x 11001 inner jets, meaning that technically 33% less water was delivered to the carpet face. My error on that, I'd forgotten that I had changed jetting as part of another experiment, although I don't think the difference would have been that great, at most probably 10% as a guesstimate. (Yes, I like to play with my toys a lot)

Slides across the range exhibited better moisture removal and ultimately faster drying than the GreenGlided wand, but not to a great degree. Average across the range was 75.8 as against 80 for the GreenGlide as a final reading, making them 6% faster overall than the GreenGlided wand and a whopping 42% faster than a standard wand!!

Even bigger surprise was the TI wand with a locally made "Slippery Sucker" glide, included as a last minute "curiosity factor" and supplied by Greg King, which exhibited great moisture removal to start, but then was significantly slower to dry and the RX20 supplied by Kim Howson - well, the figures speak for themselves!

What also needs to be noted here is that only a single wet pass was done, no dry passes as would normally be done with an attachment (normally you wouldn't bother lifting wand off carpet face unless you like doing extra work for no reason, right?). I am confident that an extra dry pass would significantly change readings shown, but for the purposes of this demo I was wanting worse case scenarios to be shown here.

Conclusion -

If you're not using a Slide or Glide, why not? They are making a significant difference to both the effort physically expended and drying times. 40% is a heck of a difference and no favoritism was shown to any product as Gary Bethel from Powerclean or Brett Holman from Prochem Australia will attest to, as they were present for the demonstration along with 30-odd curious Advantage Group members.

The advantage for the Slides, and to be fair this would need to be repeated on a variety of carpet types for greater accuracy, is that in my experience the different types work better on different fiber/construction types and the fact that they are so quick to remove (including the aluminum link) when compared to a Glide is also a major factor in their favor, but if you have a Glide already and aren't using it as I know some of you aren't, think again and trial it a bit more!

Prepared by Franco Preo
13/10/08
as part of the Advantage Group Carpet Cleaners (Inc) AGM Demo Day