Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

I was never very impressed with Oreck's dry carpet cleaner and I wanted to try the Host products and also the machine that Sebo makes. Do either of these work well? I'm not interested in using the wet carpet extractors of any kind. Are these dry technologies a lot of hype?

vacmanuk wrote:
Believe me vacmanuk, I am so much older than you that I'm araid too. However . . .

The product I am referring was a "dry" cleaning product made for rug cleaning back in the 1950s. It came in large glass jars and resembled sawdust. There was some sort of quick evaporating fluid cleaning agent in it and once you had it evenly distributed through the absorbent solids, it was sprinkled onto carpeting and worked in with a stiff brush. It was then left to sit x-amount of time and then vacuumed up. I think at one point in time there was also an electric machine with the Glamorene name designed for application.

Venson

Ahh. Fair respect to you and this product. I've never heard of it. Was the sawdust particularly good at what it claimed to do?

vacmanuk wrote:
To be honest, I never thought much of the results. I best like the so-called "steam cleaning" method -- hot water bearing a mimimum of detergent being jetted and worked into carpet fiber and immediately sucked out again.

I've used rug shampooers but always felt compelled to follow up with a large sponce and clear water in the hope of reducing dirt attracting detergent residue.

Venson

Venson wrote:
I've often wondered about rinsability of carpet cleaning products...

But Which? magazine did once report that Bissell high foaming shampoo (for use with the Bissell 'Spinfoamer' and cheaper non-electric shampoo brushes) give a certain degree of anti-resoiling capability to the test sample carpets.

They went on to say that the Bissell shampoo might be a good choice for the Hoover Shampoo/Polisher, as Hoover did not specify a shampoo at that time (circa 1986-1989).

As for UK carpet dry-cleaning powders, there were two that I can think of:

"Dri-Magic", 1970s-1980s; possibly made by Airwick, the airfreshener people.

"Sapur", mid '80s; seemed to be a European made product.

Trilobite wrote:
Hey Trilobite,

How are you? With carpet shampoo, which I used for years and years, I always saw a sort of hard, dark waxlike residue collect on the brushroll of my vacuum. I've never seen it develop when doing new rugs until after they'd been shampooed. I was very careful about the amount of shampoo I used in the solution but didn't seem to be getting it right which is I why I decided on "rinsing."

In any event, the shampoo polisher is almost a thing of the past here. I still have a really great Hoover Floor-A-Matic that I shall not part with until it or I die. It's a twin brush machine that scrubs plus picks up used cleaning solution on hard floors. It also aerates and foams carpet shampoo solution before it contacts the rug.

Of course the big thing now is the so-called steam cleaner for carpets but I have also have heard there may be problems regarding residue too. Nonetheless, there was a poster a good while back who swore by the results she got using just distilled vinegar and water in this type machine. That is probably a manufacturer's no-no but I'd at lest like to give it a try someday. Besides which, it isn't expensive.

Best,

Venson

Hello Venson,

I have always been intrigued as to why extraction cleaners are known as steam cleaners in the US.

We in the UK know steam cleaners as those 'Polti' type machines that boil water and use terry-toweling as absorbent pads (like steam generator irons, minus the iron). What do the Americans call these machines?

Trilobite wrote:
Hi Trilobite,

The carpet cleaning devices probably got the name "steam cleaner" because the term steam loosely relates to the warm/hot water they generally use for carpet cleaning. It would seem short and to the point product names sink in more quickly so I guess "steam cleaner" was an easy out for ad people and also more easy for possible buyers to remember than water extraction cleaner.

"Vacuum cleaner" is also a misnomer. In truth it should be partial vacuum cleaner as the creation of a partial vacuum is how and why one works.

The steam vapor cleaner, a relatively new kid on the block as far as U.S. shopper cognizance goes, is usually called a steam cleaner here too. I'm a big fan of the more versatile models.

Best,

Venson

Yes, vacuum cleaners should actually be known as 'air displacement' cleaners.

Come to think of it, "suction cleaners" is probably the best description for vacuum cleaners. I'm sure that Electrolux UK used that description on their Royal Warrant.

Here is my expereince using the Host product. Carpet in a home subjected to the ravages of a cat with progressive kidney failure. Berber carpet soaked clear through the pad with urine. After repeated attempts with Hoover SteamVac and Bissell SpotBot I tried Host. I worked a generous amount of the powder in and left it to DRY for 48 hrs. As long as there is any dampness in the product it will absorb dirt and odors. The result after 4 to 5 applications was no more stain, and very faintly detectable odor with my nose on the carpet. I cannot tell you how many times I dumped urine smelling water from recovery tanks, convinced that at last I had removed all of the offending residue, only to have the smell and stains return as the perfume in the cleaner evaporated. The Host is also easy to blend in if you are removing stains from a traffic area.

Great strides have been made in what is called micro-encapsulation carpet cleaning. A random orbital floor machine with a pad resembling a cotton terrycloth bathmat and a teflon glider is moved over a carpet which has been sprayed with the cleaner. The dirt and stains are dissolved and absorbed into the pad. The random orbital motion means the machine does not distort the pile or pull away from the operator. There is a vid on You Tube comparing the method to 'steam' extraction. After the extraction, using no additional cleaner of any kind, the machine is moved over the still wet carpet with a clean pad, which blackens in a few seconds. A clean pad after the first pad with the micro/encap liquid shows very lttle residue on the pad. If a product for this type of cleaning will dry to a crystalline powder and easily brush off a glass surface, then it will easily vacuum away. One such product claims such thorough soil removal it does not require post cleaning vacuuming.

Take a glass full of the liquid from an extraction recovery tank. This represents the water left behind at an 80% recovery rate. Pour 4/5 of it out and fill the glass with clean water. This represents the remaining soil after a follow up rinse. Repeat the process, this represents the remaining soil after a 2nd rinse. Each time the carpet is rinsed before it is given a chance to completely dry means that more water/detergent is forced into the padding, where it breeds mold, mildew, bacteria. "Steam" carpet cleaning has long been suspected by the medical community as a cause of Kawasaki's syndrome. If the ph of the detergent and/or the temperature of the water is too high, the soil/stain resistant properties of the carpet can be neutralized. With the advaces in low moisture carpet cleaning, I see no advantage to using HWE excpet as an immediate removal of liquid spills.

The dual brush machines have counter-rotating brushes, and in the case of the Host machine, a little more weight, so the powder is thoroughly brushed in, AND the pile is lifted and separated from those little clumps that remaion even after hot water extraction cleaning. Whether low moisture powder, or encapsulation, both methods work on the princible of absorption, and do indeed work quite well, with no wick back of stains.

Thanks VacmanUK for your reply!

I'm actually using the Sebo machine with the powder. I like the idea of the weight applied on the brushes to help work the powder in. Besides, none of my other vacuums would have worked it in the carpet to my satisfaction. I've observed that with these 2 brush machines the powder piles in between the 2 brushes due to their counter rotation - each brush towards the other. Because the cleaning material piles up between the 2 brushes, it appears that the material distributes more consistently through the carpet. I've been having a ball with this machine and the product is really good at removing stains. As for whether or not all of the powder is removed, Who Cares? It's impossible to remove every bit of dust and dirt from any carpet and I've the rest of my life to keep vacuuming that carpet. I'm just pleased that it really removes stains with wetting down the carpet.