In our testing results at the most recent microfest in Muskegon we were able to do some head to head testing of encapsulation machines and techniques.

One of the machines was an OP Machine. Boy did that thing move! The agitation the brushes provided was a sight to see. However the results seemed poor. By that I mean that the machine had to be operated in the same area for a longer period of time before noticable results occured. The Cimex would make one quick pass with the hog hair pads and things would look great. For the longest time, I couldn't figure out why.

After some thought, I think I may of came up with the reason why. With the cimex you have the weight of the machine on all the pads. The pads cause the weight of the machine to be distibuted over the carpet fibers. Now the Cimex has those head constantly spinning so the weight of the machine is forcing the fibers to not only get scrubbed by the hoghair pads, but also by the fibers of the carpet rubbing up next to the fibers next to itself. This results in a major agitation with only a short "dwell" time of the working pads on the carpet per a specific area.

The whole idea is sort of the same as a washing machine- in particular, a front loader. The paddles of the tub provide little agitiation, but the clothes rubbing on the other clothes is what gets the superior cleaning action the front loaders tout. Conversely the brushes as like an old fashioned washing board, where the primary agitation is from the clothes being scrubbed directly on the washing board-- akin to the brushes having to individually scrub every fiber.

Now I may be way off in my ideas, however I would like to hear some talk on the subject- especially any that were at the Microfest and were able to see the comparisons of the machines.

Also to note- padding the areas with the OP and pads produced good results, faster then encap brush but still not as fast as the Cimex.

Tony

Makes sense to me, the one thing I have found is the Cimex is head and shoulders over any other means of encap cleaning. Your last sentence is the key the Cimex does it better faster and time is money, and after all we do this for money.Right.

Sorta fits in with what we have seen when comparing the Hog Hair pads, to the Brushes on the Cimex.
The Brushes on the Cimex just don't seem to do as well as the Pads. Sounds like the OP with the bursh, is'nt as good as the Cimex with the Pads.
Similar situation.

Tom

Hey Big T,
I didn't really notice how the CCS pad machine with the 1/2 horse motor and encap brush was doing. Guess I didn't really care since I own the Cimex and wouldn't consider using the CCS for any encap job unless very small.

I think the CCS might be more effective doing encap with the regular pads used for carpet cleaning. At least then you'd be picking up some soils as well as benefitting from the superior agitation of the pad over the brush--just a guess though. I'll get more opportunities to experiment soon.

I did do an encap job recently where I first used the Cimex and Mist N Brush, then went over it with the CCS and pad to pick up some dirt. The results were very good.

Steve

Tony,

I think your ideas here are right on the money!

"The whole idea is sort of the same as a washing machine- in particular, a front loader. The paddles of the tub provide little agitation, but the clothes rubbing on the other clothes is what gets the superior cleaning action the front loaders tout. Conversely the brushes as like an old fashioned washing board, where the primary agitation is from the clothes being scrubbed directly on the washing board-- akin to the brushes having to individually scrub every fiber."

Our IICRC training taught us that we clean with T A C T - temperature, agitation, chemical, and time. So it stands to reason that the degree of AGITATION that we employ will have a considerable bearing on our cleaning efficacy. I think this is why a few folks may have not yet seen the potential of this method when they tested encapsulation - they were simply using the wrong machine. I'm thinking of a couple of cleaners including one well known OP fellow who said they weren’t all that impressed with encap using their standard scrubbing equipment. STRONG agitation is what accomplishes great results. In other words, if you're hoping for spectacular results you’ll need to start with a serious scrubber.

Tony, I thought your comparison of laundry was an excellent analogy... "the clothes rubbing on the other clothes is what gets the superior cleaning action". I agree with your reasoning - the fibers rubbing against each other are obviously accomplishing a great deal of the scrubbing action. Before you commented on this I hadn't considered this aspect, and yet it’s really kind of obvious (the simplest things are easily overlooked). Thanks for sharing this with us!


Rick Gelinas