• As of January 1, 2018 The brand new logo that was created and released in 2017 will be the only official logo in affect and allowed to be used on any electronic media however, any such media like truck wraps, stationary, and postcards will be grandfathered in. Contributing Members will be allowed to use the UAMCC logo in any advertising. Permission to use the logo otherwise must be in writing. Logos used in electronic formats (ie: Websites, forums, etc.) must be linked back to the member’s profile in the UAMCC directory. Contributing Members are members that are paid and current with their dues. Please contact info@uamcc.org with any questions.

Which is better?

Tony Evans

Board of Director
I could but the video from ABC I posted earlier already proved conclusively that 1/16 inch size difference provides more flow. We are dealing with low pressure systems in water fed pole work and orifice size plays a huge role in flow rates.
 
We can all agree that more flow of water does make cleaning more efficient, no argument or disagreement there at all. When doing a demonstration and comparing two pieces of equipment they both need to be used correctly. Using one incorrectly as you (Tony) did in your video defeats the purpose of proving that one tool is better than the other. You could have used both big and small jets correctly and could have still gotten your point across. Top take this a step further you could have cleaned one window with small jets and cleaned in equal size window using the bigger jets and at the end of the video said; "See how much more faster I cleaned the second window" and that would have worked perfectly.

I am also interested in doing what Ron suggested. I might even do the test myself and tape it. Reason being is that the tubing would still be the same size the only difference is that jets at the end would change. I'm sure pressure would lower as Tony showed in his video, but I'm curious if GPM would be affected and if so by how much.
 

Tony Evans

Board of Director
The video shows new people in the industry why they may be experiencing issues and a way to clean more efficiently. I'm sure they got the point of the video as it was intended. I may do the test myself just as a useful addition to any future discussions on jet size and flow rates.
 
So you think by using a piece of equipment incorrectly is giving the experiment due justice? Look, we can debate this until the cows come home, but the fact is that you were using the piece of equipment incorrectly and you need to admit that you were not using the way it was intended. That particular jet was never meant to be used in the manner you're showing.
 

Tony Evans

Board of Director
Kris I'm doing my best here to deal with you. The video demonstrates a common problem encountered by new wfp users - splashback (also called by some bounce) and how the proper sized jets eliminate that problem while at the same time speed up the cleaning. I'm not sure why you feel the need to attack me on this.
 

Tony Evans

Board of Director
A video of jets that have been drilled out to allow for optimal flow. With these even hydrophobic glass can be done quickly and efficiently without the bounce or splashback to much pressure can create or the need to slow you cleaning by reducing the flow on smaller pencil or fan jets. Another example of how flow trumps pressure in speed of cleaning.

 
Top