My wand cfm tester

I am testing my wands for cfm between Legend and Vw Tm
My legend today
50' of 2.5 was my start point @ 2600 rpms was 295-300 cfm
PC Quad came in at 256 lowest number
WP 14 came in at    261 lowest number
Evo 16 came in at    271 lowest number
All were hitting a little higher @ 5 points but I took the lowest number.
All were tested as if you just bought it no glides for PCQ or WP14
Evo 16 comes WITH glide so it was tested that way.

I here and myself say the PCQ gives great cleaning and seems to have really good dry times, I believe this to be true on my legend due to the fact the wand slot is not as long. There for generating a little better seal and producing better recovery.
I had mentioned on another thread about 20 HP kohler and what I noticed was that when my son is cleaning and I went out to check tm the Hg gauge was averaging 10-12" of Hg even though my vac relief is set at 16 Hg PLUGGED/BLOCKED hose.
I think this is due to the fact the # 4 blower and the amount of air that passes at wand slot can not create any more seal than that on that carpet that day.
I does change on different carpet like CGD Carpet it will hit 15 Hg all the time.
I have never tried the VT type wands and They may have a better flowing design thus giving a better seal in a 14" size wand.
I do think the design of a wand will help change how the air leaves the wand more efficiently thus allowing a better seal with a longer slot[url=]

I have never been able to really test a wand to see what the actual air is going through the wand, so I placed each wand on slot and sealed with duct tape so NO leaks used standard testing funnel at other end of wand cfm tester
I think it is a true number as it showed ALL wands to drop cfm due to tube curves and wand to tube elbow.
Thus showing that the Evo even though it is a ugly wand does produce more cfm like they stated. It is easy to see that it would due to the design anybody can see that but how much.
It is not a huge jump but we are talking about the wand slot and that small area that is a pretty good increase.
Haven't done the math yet work on that tonight.

Id like to see the numbers on hg testing on the carpet. Not at the machine for each wand. Of course you would have to do it with different types of carpet, different glides and so on.

Yes I do agree with you on that one also. A friend of mine sent me a picture, He has a small vac gauge on his rotary tool showing the lift at the carpet. I will ask him where he got it.

Wouldn't the length of the opening at the manifold change the CFM all else being equal? The CFM at the opening 14" inch would be lower than 16"

Why did you only use 50' rather than the testing standard of 100'?

And 2" hose?

I wanted the most cfm that my Little #4 blower could suck at 2600 rpms its Sunday people were watching the game
So 50' of 2.5 is the standard of this test rpms and cfm stayed the same at the end of the 50 feet of 2.5 which was 295-300.
Each wand was tested with that standard.

When you place the wand at the cfm box the funnel on the other side is where the reading was taken, showing what the wand is flowing.
What would also be good in this test is what effect each wand had on the lift at TM. I did not look at that. That also would show how the air flows through the wand. I think the biggest impact on a wands performance is at the wand head / tube connection
This is brought out by the smaller PCQ flowing almost as much air as the west pack with a 2"+ longer wand slot.
The Prochem internals must be better thought out than the cheapo wp14
Most people would look at the west pack 14 and think by looks it would blow the PCQ out of the water in flow but this test showed it was very little.
If I would have know this I would not have paid 600.00+ for my west pack 5 years ago it was a waste of money for the 4-5 cfm gain.
Also my # 4 blower really works better with the smaller wand. I told Joe a long time ago a 12" 2" tubed wand would be sick. The smaller wand slot builds more lift on resi carpet with my tm anyway.
The problem is the smaller wand adds more time to jobs due to its size. Really that is what attracts most to wands is the larger head meaning " I CAN GET DONE FASTER"
Guys with wick back issues may be using larger headed wands that create less lift due to the seal at the carpet and combine that with going even faster....wick wick come back

Mo wrote:Wouldn't the length of the opening at the manifold change the CFM all else being equal? The CFM at the opening 14" inch would be lower than 16"

You would think so and it does reflect that,but the internals of the wand and how its made also HAS A HUGE impact. This was proven today.

SCCC wrote:I wanted the most cfm that my Little #4 blower could suck at 2600 rpms its Sunday people were watching the game
So 50' of 2.5 is the standard of this test rpms and cfm stayed the same at the end of the 50 feet of 2.5 which was 295-300.
Each wand was tested with that standard.

That is totally understandable.

I just asked because it's not comparable to the way most if not all of us test here and report CFM readings.

Apples to apples, in your own test.....

On any tm test I would always due 100 as the normal. That is the way Joe taught me and I still follow that rule today as far as improvements to truckmounts would go.
100' is the control