<a href="http://www.cobbcarpet.com/encapq.html

The definition of ENCAPSULATE according to Webster
Main Entry: en·cap·su·late
1 : to enclose in or as if in a capsule

The definition of "film former encapsulation"...
"When our product is applied to the fiber, it has a low surface tension surfactant to preferentially coat the fiber and in doing so, it tries to displace any soil particles adhering to the fiber."

That sentence contains the entire explanation of how "film former" supposedly works.

(1) A fluorochemical is introduced to the carpet, which "lowers surface tension".
(2) It "tries to displace any soil particles adhering to the fiber".

Now let's be rational about this. The surface tension of the fiber gets lowered. And now the dirt is somehow "displaced". Displaced where? Does the dirt now hover in the air above the carpet? Think!

Keep in mind, the soil has NOT been encapsulated. So how is it ever going to be recovered from the carpet during post-vacuuming, when the soil has not been encapsulated to begin with?

The function of a fluorochemical is to lower surface tension. However lowering the surface tension WILL NOT accomplish encapsulation. Lowering surface tension has plenty of merit. That's why we also include a fluorochemical in Releasit. However lowering surface tension alone will not accomplish encapsulation.

It's easy to "displace" soil from the carpet - heck dish soap can accomplish that. Providing a means to get the soil OUT OF the carpet is another story. We must have a means of recovering the soil if we are to accomplish our task of cleaning the carpet. There MUST be a vehicle for extracting the soil during the post vacuuming process.

Releasit is LOADED with the best crystallizing polymer available today to serve the purpose of capturing soil so it can be recovered during the post-vacuuming process. The polymer is NOT cheap. However there is no way to build a good encapsulator without using a good encapsulating polymer.

In conclusion I will restate, fluorochemicals are a good addition. However a fluorochemical is not going to accomplish encapsulation on its own. Here are the 4 reasons why we include a fluorochemical in Releasit products.

This info is copied from the Releasit website...

Why Is Releasit® Fortified With a Fluorochemical Formulation?
1. Our fluorochemical helps to release the crystal from the fiber.
2. Our fluorochemical lowers the detergent's surface tension, so the surfactancy of Releasit® increases.
3. A balanced formulation containing a fluorochemical can help retard wicking.
4. Our fluorochemical adds a degree of soil resistance to the carpet.

And here is a description of the function of the polymer, also copied from the Releasit website...

Crystallizing Polymer: Releasit® uses innovative polymer technology to form a distinct crystal when it dries. The crystal is the vehicle that enables a good encapsulator to capture soil so it can be removed through post-vacuuming. Although some products may claim to "encapsulate" on the label and they may get the carpet to look good initially, (it's easy to get a carpet to look cleaner) the real concern should be whether or not the encapsulated soil can be removed with post-vacuuming.

Bottom line: If you're satisfied with the performance of a "film former" product, then by all means use it. But keep in mind that the soil is not being encapsulated according to Webster's definition of encapsulation - "to enclose in or as if in a capsule". And if the soil has not been encapsulated, we are left with the unanswered question of how will the dirt be removed from the carpet during post-vacuuming.
















Rick Gelinas
rick@excellent-supply.com

Morning Rick,

If I understand this correctly. The film former was designed to encap the fiber ( which meets one part of the meaning described above) and displace the soil. Meaning suspend the soil just like any other pre conditioner works, but leaves a film of protector behind that encaps the fiber. The way the soil is removed is by hwe, bonnet, pads or any means similar at the time of cleaning. This process differs significantly from your method of encap. Your method is to suspend the soil and that suspended soil is surrounded by the polymor, which will dry and hold the soil. This soil can later be removed by vacuuming. The film former I think was designed primarily for the hwe guys, where the encap you have produced was designed for the low moisture guys. I have used both and have found them to work extremly well. Both methods of encap can be used with bonnets, pad, etc etc etc. Both theories encap, but from two entirely different ways to do it. One encaps the fiber, the other the actual soil load. Or did I simplify this way too much?

Bob

Thanks for posting that Coach, and I never heard it explained like that Bob (good) My take is this; 85% of the soil is dry and can be removed with a good vacuum cleaner. We can never get the carpet 100% clean, so I'll say 95% clean. That leaves 10% of soil we are trying to remove. Almost seems a shame to buy a $45000 truckmount to remove that 10%. Dynachem forms a film around the carpet fiber so the soil can't re-adhere to it, now it is lying there in the carpet waiting for the post vacuuming, kinda like crystals with dirt in them waiting for the post vacuuming. That is the way this old county boy understands it.

did you have a girlfriend before Nancy??? you seem a bit insecure about this whole encap thing???

you have good products and service, so just be the best at what you do and you'll be a happy sucessful man at the endd of the day!!!

Danny, does having a quiver full of arrows, give you that kind of wisdom? LOL

sometimes!!!

we have one less as my oldest turned 18 and is ouuta here, but the 16 years old has friends over all the time so the food bills arn't going down!!!LOL

i would think aa a professional cleaner Rick would be happy that there has been improvment in chemistry, no matter if it's his product or not???

I think you may be misunderstanding me here. What I'm saying is that the technology, as it has been described, doesn't make sense. That's all. The reason I say that is simple. If the surface tension of the fiber were to be lowered, that alone would NOT accomplish soil displacement/encapsulation. Do you really believe that the soil jumps off the fiber because of the introduction of a fluorochemical, and it's just laying there in the carpet waiting to be vacuumed up? That is not likely going to happen.

Now if the soil were to be extracted via HWE or with a bonnet as Bob mentioned above, then that is a different story altogether. But we're talking about ENCAPSULATION cleaning. And as you know, "encapsulation" is typically considered a method where post-vacuuming will be engaged as a means of recovering the soil.

My response to what you posted simply addresses the subject you brought before us. You posted a link describing how Larry's "film former" is supposed to work. And I am responding with a counterpoint that the technology as it has been described becomes tricky to rationalize.

I'm not arguing the fact that you like how it works. Like I said above... "If you're satisfied with the performance of a "film former" product, then by all means use it." And it sounds like you are satisfied. That's cool with me








Rick Gelinas
rick@excellent-supply.com

hi Danny

really, you understand.

imagine you are in a clients home and a supplier comes in while you're CC'ing and explains the bene's of your competitor's process. you get the idea.

plus, read rule 1 below this thread. Rick graciously allowed to reply as i see it.

thanx --- Derek.

How you doing Rambo,

Yes dry particulate soil is best removed by dry vacuuming. We all agree on that point. Now we need to remove what is left. That is usually oily soil. Now if using the film former you need to extract via hwe, pad or bonnets at the time of actual cleaning. If you do not remove it then it will only adhere itself back on the fiber or backing.(remember oily soil will stick to protectors, but are easily removed than non protected.) That oily soil will not vacuum away. If it did, it would have been removed in the first place with the pre vac. If it did then we would all be out of a job if Mrs home owner could clean with just her vacuum, right? Now using a crystal drying encap form of cleaning, yes you can come back later and vacuum it up because the oily soil will be ecapsulated in the crystal. No where in the explanation of how a film former works did I see anything about vacuuming the soil out at a later time. That is the beauty of Ricks products, they are left in crystal.

Bob

I have to say that I agree with Bob. I haven't read all the posts here on this thread, so if others agree with Bob ... then you all need a hug and a kiss, too. (I'll leave that to danny.)

I have always thought that you really need SOME form of extraction (real extraction ... not simply vacuuming) when you use Larry's product.

It I'm gonna scrub-n-run, then I gots to haff a crystal former!

Bob, I humbly reply this way, I don't believe Mrs. Homeowner could remove any of the remaining 10% of soil left in her carpet unless she used Dynachem or Releasit to remove it mechanicaly from the fiber. I am sure she could remove the 85% of dry soil with a good vacuum, but she calls us to get the remaining 10%.I do not believe it adheres back onto the fiber after it has been coated with a film. My point is they both work, they just work differently. If the soil remained in the carpet after using Dynachem (my own carpet 5 times) and you came to my home with a microscope, I doubt if you would find any residue build up.I use a small Tasco illuminated microscope 30X to check for residue. "Where does the dirt go?" Rick asked, jokeingly saying "into the air above the carpet" I believe it gets vacuumed up, IMHO But if I see any residue with my microscope then I will HWE it.

Rambo,

Read what I wrote again. Only carefully this time. My first and second post. You will see that you basically just said what I did about them working differently. Mrs home owner certainly can not vacuum up oily soil. You will see that on my second post. To my knowledge oily soil will stick to a degree but is easily released. That is the whole theory behind a protector to start with. Take two frying pans. One plain and one teflon. cook up some bacon in both. After they cool wipe them both with a towel, which towel will have the most grease on it? Which pan will be the cleanest?
Rambo, when you use the Dynachem, what procedure do you use. If you are using pads or bonnets then you are extracting as you go. So you probably will not see anything with a microscope.
So you are saying that the film former will also film the soil to be vacuumed out later? Seems to me that just a thin film would not hold soil as well as a hard drying crystal. Although I can see where it would resist soiling to a degree when coating a fiber.

Bob

really fellas, what we scrub into the carpet "encapsulates" EVERYTHING...soil and tuft bundles. one product is not going to determine it loves soil and repels fibers now is it? and vice-versa?

will it not encase everything it touches...whether it is encapsulating it in a soon-to-dry-crystal or a soon-to-dry-film of another kind?

thanx --- Derek.

I surrender.

I value the friendship over being right, and I am not a chemist type guy, so maybe I need to shut up and work on relationships with my customer/clients and fellow CCers.

was it something i said

thanx --- Derek.