--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would sure be good if the mills were endorsing this method like HWE. I could sure use some kind of documentation from other than myself to enforce this method. What about Dupont? As I recall they use this system, hearing it somewhere, so how come we don't here more from them? Now, I'm not trying to convince myself, I beleive in it, just the cleints. What does Dupont say? I would like to have something in hand to go back to these people who don't beleive in it! Does anyone have anything they could send me?

Gary Roland

A quick search on Google brought up a few links showing mill approval (and or usage) of various versions of the encapsulation process...

Dupont’s Resistech
http://antron.dupont.com/content/how_to/ant02_06_03.shtml

Interface Europe (Crystallizing detergent with Cimex)
http://www.re-sourcetech.com/Euro_Spec.pdf

Interface USA (Crystallizing detergent)
http://www.interfaceflooring.com/library/PDF/ReSource_Maint_Specs.pdf

These are all a quick search pulled up. However I know that other mills are also using encapsulation.

So, will the mills ever endorse the encapsulation method across the board for carpet cleaners to utilize? Perhaps.

But consider this. It’s interesting to note that these various mills have their own maintenance program employing their adaptation of encapsulation. So will it really be in their interest to endorse Brand X encapsulant?

Time will tell whether the mills will come forward and recommend the encapsulation process. My guess is that they will, since it is a safe method and they know it is, since most of them have chosen to use it. Keep in kind, “encapsulation” is a young cleaning process and mill approval takes time - so be patient. And in the meantime, the mill links above may be helpful to you.




Rick Gelinas

I agree. Why aren't we hearing more about the various mills prefering encapsulation over HWE to maintain their commercial grade textiles?

Myself, having twice gone to a major carpet manufacturer in Dalton and performed cleaning and resoil tests, I did notice that there seemed to be a "method" of encapsulating that they preferred.

This involved using a cylindrical brushes (ala GLS Machine)



rather than counter rotating pads (ala Cimex)

.

This is the "impression" I got from someone (who will remain nameless) high up in the company. Sounds "political" to me. I guess that's just the world we live in.

Reality is....the Cimex does a better job!

Mark,

The ONLY REASON that the GLS is approved by the mills is because Mr. Whittaker did a good job during the past decade to push his machine through the mill approval process.

Here's how the game is played, a manufacturer must push their machine through the mills. And the Cimex has never been pushed through the mills. The Cimex is an English made machine. The previous owners of Cimex never recognized its true value for carpet cleaning like we're seeing today. However the new owners of Cimex (Truvox) are very aware of the Cimex machine's presence in the commercial carpet cleaning market and they're planning to work the Cimex through the mills. The US importer likewise recognizes the need to get mill approval and is planning to support mill approval efforts. This process takes lots of time and persistence.

Regarding the safety of the Cimex on commercial carpet fiber - try this: On your next commercial job release some detergent. And then park the machine. Let it run on the same spot for a whole minute. Check the spot. Keep the area wet with some detergent. Run it for another minute. Check the spot. Run it for another minute. Check the spot. Run it for another minute. Check the spot. Run it for another minute. Check the spot. Run it for another minute. Check the spot. Run it for another minute. Check the spot. Run it for another minute. Check the spot. Run it for another minute. Check the spot. Run it for another minute. Check the spot. Run it for another minute. Check the spot. This type of treatment would be considered abusive or even destructive to the carpet with any other machine. Not so with the Cimex. The carpet will NOT be damaged.

Why does the Cimex NOT damage a carpet? For the same reason it scrubs so powerfully. It's triple PLANETARY counter-rotating scrubbing heads are the answer. As the heads are twisting in one direction, they're simultaneously un-twisting in the reverse direction.

So not only will the Cimex outperform a cylindrical brush machine, it's also exceedingly SAFE for the carpet. And it's just a matter of time till the mills recognize this.




Rick Gelinas

Thanks for taking the time to go into detail about this Rick. I think what you have givin me will be of help. One more question though. What kind of contraption is that on the dupont site? The dolphon with wheels, LOL. I believe in the cimex as well as the whittaker machine, different applications as Tom Rowe says. Keep up the good work & keep us informed, which I truly believe you are. Can't wait for the HWE encapsulator. Instead of leaving sticky residue, we'll be leaving dry crystals to go on & in with the dry cleaning side. Talk to you soon.

Gary Roland

The machine on the DuPont sight is manufactured by Clarke floor machines exclusively for DuPont. Oh and by the way, that's a ROTARY brush machine under that funky looking cover.




Rick Gelinas

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Gary