By the numbers.......6.6"LX vs 8.4" in series

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Sign up

Ymetimme

Active Member
Apr 27, 2018
356
213
43
Real Name
Tim yeater
#61
Jim;

Excuse me however, I highly suggest that you re-read my posts above in regards to the machines, the specific vacuum motors, and the honest and forthright in house testing result specifications of from Ametek. It answers all your questions! This wasn't intended to be disputed, debated, or start anything negative. The answers are there right in front of you.

To help offer further information, here is what a stock JAGUAR 8.4 industrial system produced in terms of mercury: 9.93

However, big deal, as I tried to emphasis with you is it is of much greater importance in how these numbers interact based on the design of any system. This aspect always appears to be the most over looked within these debates.

Anyways, IMHO, I think many here might agree that they are tired of all this and are ready to drop this subject before it runs into the ground.

Now, back to what we do best and that is servicing our customers, as I know you are doing as well.

Best;
Ed Valentine
And I just put my gauge on it but it only goes up to a hundred and forty in and it was completely pegged
 

Ed Valentine

Well-Known Member
Oct 8, 2008
1,629
433
83
Michigan, USA
cross-american.com
Real Name
Ed Valentine
Business Location
United States
#64
I find it amazing that someone like JRH continues to be so very negative and especially comments the way he did regarding James Morrow. Mr. Morrow has proven long ago on this board and in person to be one of the most honorable individuals we have ever known period. JRH's comment above was, IMHO, very unnecessary.

Ya know, if you strip off all the Gold, all you'll have left will be dirt and rocks.

Best to all, and also to JRH.
Ed Valentine
 

JRH

Active Member
Mar 16, 2011
670
187
43
Real Name
jr h
Business Location
Ireland {Republic}
#65
have plenty respect for JIM ...
My point was in your post when mentioning Jim ... you deliberately use words like 'correct procedures ' and ' quality control dept ' and mention his( irrelevant) ... past employment
... makes it sound like hes working in a test lab , and you employ him where hes scientifically testing multiple motor samples and drawing conclusions in a meaningful manner .

Where as ... hes just a customer who bought an extractor and fools around with upgrades or tests with a basic guage for his own amusement .... like many others here ...whom you are quick to disregard as ' armchair engineers '
 

Ymetimme

Active Member
Apr 27, 2018
356
213
43
Real Name
Tim yeater
#68
What Jim is doing is that he is testing the lift while the wand is on the carpet working.
When you're using a wand properly it seals against the carpet so you guys asked us to put a gauge on it I put a gauge on (it shows more! )now you want me to drill a hole insert a gauge just to prove what I already know
And using your own thinking. He testing at the end of the wand. I didn't see a gauge of the wand I saw it in the side of the tank. How do I know the other end of the hose isn't sealed . I am just way too busy making money doing work. (In Jims opinion just cleaning the tips of the fibers lol)Then to waste time doing endless testing maybe you should leave the the engineers do their jobs and you focus on getting jobs. You will find it far more profitable. Maybe one day you'll be able to afford a new machine that you won't have to modify.
 
Likes: Fedri

JRH

Active Member
Mar 16, 2011
670
187
43
Real Name
jr h
Business Location
Ireland {Republic}
#69
When you're using a wand properly it seals against the carpet so you guys asked us to put a gauge on it I put a gauge on (it shows more! )now you want me to drill a hole insert a gauge just to prove what I already know
And using your own thinking. He testing at the end of the wand. I didn't see a gauge of the wand I saw it in the side of the tank. How do I know the other end of the hose isn't sealed . I am just way too busy making money doing work. (In Jims opinion just cleaning the tips of the fibers lol)Then to waste time doing endless testing maybe you should leave the the engineers do their jobs and you focus on getting jobs. You will find it far more profitable. Maybe one day you'll be able to afford a new machine that you won't have to modify.
If your not trolling .. your making yourself sound like an idiot
 

Jim Davisson

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2016
2,158
2,088
113
Serving the greater Charlotte area
Real Name
James Davisson
Business Location
United States
#71
This is another job today on 40 oz face weight nylon. Operating lift is higher than the builder grade poly referenced in post #57 of this thread, everything else was exactly the same.
20180615_143757.jpg


Can someone please explain to me how "proven design and efficiency" makes up for lack of operating lift at any distance? Apparently, I don't understand fuzzy science!
 
Likes: Fedri and JRH

Ymetimme

Active Member
Apr 27, 2018
356
213
43
Real Name
Tim yeater
#72
This is another job today on 40 oz face weight nylon. Operating lift is higher than the builder grade poly referenced in post #57 of this thread, everything else was exactly the same.
View attachment 78273

Can someone please explain to me how "proven design and efficiency" makes up for lack of operating lift at any distance? Apparently, I don't understand fuzzy science!
Those are impressive numbers. So really what it comes down to 6.6 versus 8.4 is that they both perform incredibly well after all who would want to switch back to 5.7. and 7.4 . They both blow those older Motors out of the water. And I feel the "proven design and efficiency" he refers to is like saying lift versus cfm's the Jaguar 8.4 has a tremendous amount of cfm's. it is also one of those things once you own one you understand it far better I've used Mighty extractors and my Jag is a better design in my opinion I currently own Century 400 Ninja that I have put a 6.6 and it does okay up to 50 ft
I also own a Jaguar cub it has a 6.6 same motor and it blows the century 400 Ninja out of water. There is a lot of good design in Cross American Equipment you will find a very loyal customer base.
So which is better 6.6 or 8.4 they both do the job but I'm going to stick to my 8.4 ran in parallel I love the CFM and it still has plenty of lift.
 

John LaBarbera

Preferred Vendor
Premium VIP
Sep 13, 2008
2,457
877
113
69
San Diego, Ca
www.mytee.com
Real Name
John LaBarbera
#73
@Ed Valentine

50' with wand moving and keyed at 1.5 GPM through the wand here's the operating lift with 2 LX's in series.
View attachment 78264

Whatcha got on your end Ed?
Great question, Jim. I don’t think you’ll get an honest number here. No transparency. Thanks for posting that. Your number is right where I said the LX motors are at the carpet. 8.4s will be high 5’s when we measured them.
 

goomer

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2009
1,288
707
113
Pelham Bay, Bronx New York
www.pelhambaycarpetcleaning.com
Real Name
Frank Mendo
Business Location
United States
#74
And I'm really sick of the obsession on numbers series versus parallel it just keeps going and going and going.
A little clarity on my position here if anyone gives a fook.

I'm comparing vacuum motors here.

Brand A vs Brand B.

The vacuum motors.

Just the vacuum motors.

Not the complete machines.

Not Mytee units vs Ed's machines, or anyone elses.

Is it possible to accomplish appearing objective when one motor is proprietary to one major manufacturer?

Seemingly not with this crowd.

I will continue to obsess about the motors because that's what I choose to do.

Some may take the fact that the LX motors are the clear winners on paper over the 8.4"s, for whatever that is worth, as a knock on their units.

That is far from what I am saying, and again, that's hard to do when they are proprietary to Mytee.

Discussing complete units is a different animal, and there should be so many other considerations when choosing a primary unit.

Using Ed's machines as an example, just because I do not believe that his choice of 8.4" motors surpasses the LX motors in performance........by-the-number's.........on paper........that in no way would refrain me from purchasing, or even recommending his units.

I think the design of his units offers some advantages not found in all other mass produced units, enough so to where I would buy one if I decided that it was what I needed, regardless of the fact that LX motors look better on paper.

Numbers are important to consider, but they are not everything.

No one should be shopping machines off of vac performance alone.

It's unfortunate the discussion gets misunderstood by some to be an endorsement for one machine over another, because that is far from what I am saying.

Kind of difficult considering all the players at the table.
 

Jim Davisson

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2016
2,158
2,088
113
Serving the greater Charlotte area
Real Name
James Davisson
Business Location
United States
#75
In the past we had to choose between 2 cord portable machines with either high lift or high airflow. High lift series portables recovered great with short hose runs, but lack the airflow for distance recovery. High airflow parallel portables recovered well at distance but have less lift at any distance compared to series machines. Now we have another series motor option that gives us the best of both worlds, great mid-range operating lift with higher airflow at distance. Both mid-range lift and higher airflow are really important off paper in the real world for thoroughness and production, but that is only part of the story.

Internal airpath plumbing size and how efficient or clumsy the air is routed through the system, flex in the recovery tank itself, as well as what sustained temperatures the components operate among other things affect overall "system" performance.

GPM solution flow is the another important factor that affects recovery and production. At high solution flow rates with older high lift series machines thorough recovery is only practical with short hose runs. High airflow parallel machines do better at distance, but still lacked lift at the wand compared to a series machine anyway you sliced it and system design CANNOT overcome this one FACT. The latest LX motors don't make us choose one or the other. Both lift and airflow are important and at the highest intersection we can get them to cross at the carpet interface the better for thoroughness and production and not just the bare minimum intersection that certain component choices ONLY allowed for, like in the past.

Now I've been told "with all due respect that I do not understand the logistics and understanding of a effective and efficient system when it comes to water extraction at 10', or 200' ", because I question how a high airflow but lower overall lift systems performance is somehow able to overcome lack of lift at it's maximum rated distance because of how "efficient" it's parallel 2 industrial motor system is utilized. How can just the MINIMUM usable lift at the carpet interface be better for recovering sand, soil and water at any distance. I just can't answer that....
 

Tater

Active Member
Jan 14, 2014
462
177
43
Real Name
Richard Whithers
#76
I have concluded, based on how Ed V and John L have posted in this thread, that I would purchase from the man who was the most respectable person in this thread (Ed V) and not the person who acted like a child. Trust is essential. Both vacs can clan carpet period. Why do business with a person who responds to folks like....Ed baffles them with BS. America.
 

Fedri

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2015
2,463
1,061
113
Mississauga Canada
Real Name
Fedri Irsat
#78
In the past we had to choose between 2 cord portable machines with either high lift or high airflow. High lift series portables recovered great with short hose runs, but lack the airflow for distance recovery. High airflow parallel portables recovered well at distance but have less lift at any distance compared to series machines. Now we have another series motor option that gives us the best of both worlds, great mid-range operating lift with higher airflow at distance. Both mid-range lift and higher airflow are really important off paper in the real world for thoroughness and production, but that is only part of the story.

Internal airpath plumbing size and how efficient or clumsy the air is routed through the system, flex in the recovery tank itself, as well as what sustained temperatures the components operate among other things affect overall "system" performance.

GPM solution flow is the another important factor that affects recovery and production. At high solution flow rates with older high lift series machines thorough recovery is only practical with short hose runs. High airflow parallel machines do better at distance, but still lacked lift at the wand compared to a series machine anyway you sliced it and system design CANNOT overcome this one FACT. The latest LX motors don't make us choose one or the other. Both lift and airflow are important and at the highest intersection we can get them to cross at the carpet interface the better for thoroughness and production and not just the bare minimum intersection that certain component choices ONLY allowed for, like in the past.

Now I've been told "with all due respect that I do not understand the logistics and understanding of a effective and efficient system when it comes to water extraction at 10', or 200' ", because I question how a high airflow but lower overall lift systems performance is somehow able to overcome lack of lift at it's maximum rated distance because of how "efficient" it's parallel 2 industrial motor system is utilized. How can just the MINIMUM usable lift at the carpet interface be better for recovering sand, soil and water at any distance. I just can't answer that....
I always thought about lift/cfm in our industry same as a weight lifter. A weight lifter not challenged as much when first lifting the weight from the ground to his shoulders but they are more challenged when lifting the weight up above their heads, and this is when they need the air as they push the weight up all the way top. Same thing when a carpet extractor does not need much of a lift because the wand is not putting much water on the carpet and lifting less amount in a short distance, but the water has to be carried in a longer distance with great force (cfm).
 

Jim Davisson

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2016
2,158
2,088
113
Serving the greater Charlotte area
Real Name
James Davisson
Business Location
United States
#79
Fedri, here's my LX Scooter open flow CFM's using 2" hose. I use no cuffs at all and only thin wall aluminum tube to connect hose sections and the hose goes directly on the wand without a cuff for the least amount of lift lost due to air leaks. I take all measurements with my cyclone filter inside the recovery tank, because that is how it is going to be used. This isn't lab data, barometer readings are not compensated for or anything like that, just repeatable readings I can take to monitor improvements or deficiencies in my own system.

239 CFM @ machine
221 CFM @ 25'
210 CFM @ 50'
192 CFM @ 100'

Here's what I have measured in my own system lift wise. With my 2" pipe 14" wand attached and not engaged with the carpet it pulls ~3.85 -4" Hg. Operating lift is between 7-10 hg while cleaning. Max lift is 14.25 Hg.

What I found after running this machine for approximately 200 hours is that I have been able to use much higher flow through the wand, have improved soil recovery, clean faster and have quicker dry times at longer hose runs than any previous "matched" vac motor combination whether series or parallel. Once the LX's broke in they improved all the way around.

I have measured a notable increase in CFM's in other SERIES vac motors greater than the 1-3% often quoted, but that's a whole different discussion fraught with lots of subjective opinions typically restated in parrot fashion with very little actual reliable data, I'm not going there. Could an unmatched 2 vac combination of an LX and a 2 stage 6.6 or 8.4 produce improved series performance than either could in a matched vac system... Possibly and it would be really interesting to find out... Goomer are you listening?

I have no interest in trying to inflate any numbers or to make anything to appear better or worse than it is. I'm not selling anything for anyone and I have such a mashup in component choices in my own machine that it would be impossible to be schilling for anyone of them. To be honest, I know most manufacturers of carpet equipment from TM's to portables flat out LIE. They lie about CFM's and heat generated from heat exchangers the most often and quote raw CFM numbers without it attached to anything and the high heat it creates at minimal flows. Brochure hype is certainly the bro science of our industry.
 

Ymetimme

Active Member
Apr 27, 2018
356
213
43
Real Name
Tim yeater
#80
Fedri, here's my LX Scooter open flow CFM's using 2" hose. I use no cuffs at all and only thin wall aluminum tube to connect hose sections and the hose goes directly on the wand without a cuff for the least amount of lift lost due to air leaks. I take all measurements with my cyclone filter inside the recovery tank, because that is how it is going to be used. This isn't lab data, barometer readings are not compensated for or anything like that, just repeatable readings I can take to monitor improvements or deficiencies in my own system.

239 CFM @ machine
221 CFM @ 25'
210 CFM @ 50'
192 CFM @ 100'

Here's what I have measured in my own system lift wise. With my 2" pipe 14" wand attached and not engaged with the carpet it pulls ~3.85 -4" Hg. Operating lift is between 7-10 hg while cleaning. Max lift is 14.25 Hg.

What I found after running this machine for approximately 200 hours is that I have been able to use much higher flow through the wand, have improved soil recovery, clean faster and have quicker dry times at longer hose runs than any previous "matched" vac motor combination whether series or parallel. Once the LX's broke in they improved all the way around.

I have measured a notable increase in CFM's in other SERIES vac motors greater than the 1-3% often quoted, but that's a whole different discussion fraught with lots of subjective opinions typically restated in parrot fashion with very little actual reliable data, I'm not going there. Could an unmatched 2 vac combination of an LX and a 2 stage 6.6 or 8.4 produce improved series performance than either could in a matched vac system... Possibly and it would be really interesting to find out... Goomer are you listening?

I have no interest in trying to inflate any numbers or to make anything to appear better or worse than it is. I'm not selling anything for anyone and I have such a mashup in component choices in my own machine that it would be impossible to be schilling for anyone of them. To be honest, I know most manufacturers of carpet equipment from TM's to portables flat out LIE. They lie about CFM's and heat generated from heat exchangers the most often and quote raw CFM numbers without it attached to anything and the high heat it creates at minimal flows. Brochure hype is certainly the bro science of our industry.
I do appreciate all of information a great deal
And testing. I've been very busy and unable to do any further testing of my own and we are currently working on a way of reading lift and cfm's while cleaning carpet. Out of curiosity do you think of set of 8.4 would fit in a scooter