Thread Number: 33360
/ Tag: 80s/90s Vacuum Cleaners
Electrolux Olympia One 1401-B Airflow Losses |
[Down to Last] |
Post# 363889   12/19/2016 at 19:54 (2,683 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
The first two measurements were easy to get, the last one (CFM at the nozzle) required me to build an airflow box. I think this pic should easily illustrate where and by how much CFM is lost in this machine. I think this is excellent performance from a 36 year old cleaner, admittedly with a new vinyl hose.
From the base of the machine to the hose (stretched out straight), there is a loss of 104-95 = 9 CFM. From the hose to the nozzle, there is a loss of 95-75 = 20 CFM. The CFM lost through the wands and power nozzle is just over twice as much as the hose. Total airflow losses from the canister base to the power nozzle (held at a 45 degree angle to the floor) is 104-75 = 29 CFM or about 28% of the original airflow. Of course as the bag fills, the airflow will drop in addition to more losses depending on how the hose is coiled. Last note: even though the rug plate opening is small (about 21 square inches), the CFM density is well above average, about 3.6 CFM/Sq. In. If you ever wondered if this old beast was capable of deep cleaning, I would argue it definitely was even with soft, long brush roll bristles. Bill |
Post# 363906 , Reply# 1   12/20/2016 at 09:44 (2,683 days old) by human (Pines of Carolina)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
Just an unscientific guess but I'm thinking your losses are occurring at the joints where machine and hose, hose and wand, wand halves, and wand and nozzle come together. They aren't perfectly airtight and except for the hose, have some 36 years of wear. Also, the hose appears to be an aftermarket unit (I can see a power switch on the handle, which the OEM hoses never had) so the connectors may not be as tight as the original. But hey, it's still a great machine. I love my 1205's, my Super J and my Diamond Jubilee.
|
Post# 363909 , Reply# 2   12/20/2016 at 12:20 (2,683 days old) by suckolux (Yuba City, CA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 363923 , Reply# 5   12/20/2016 at 15:54 (2,683 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Sometimes, I think that measurements mean very little here. (ha!)
Conditions of the test performed: -Brand new, unused Perfect "C" HEPA bag (as stated in the picture). -Dedicated 122 Volt, 20 Amp circuit used -Machine itself fully serviced, commutator polished, fully seated new motor brushes, all seals like new. -All original motor and power nozzle, obviously replaced aftermarket hose. As far as total machine performance goes, Electrolux rates this bad boy at 9.7 Amps total current usage with the power nozzle. My current tests show 8.2 Amps with the hose and 10 Amps with the power nozzle in operation on medium pile carpet. I personally would be about 99% sure that 104 CFM at the base with a clean HEPA bag would be maxed out. The paper bags test slightly worse and lose airflow very quickly as they fill up. Without any bag, I did get a reading of 113 CFM at the canister base, which I believe easily holds its own against most modern vacs, with the exception of a Kirby of course. If you want to see the BIG table of nozzle airflow results, check out the link below. I will be posting airflow loss pics just like this one for all my machines over time (like 1 every day or so). Next on my list is a mint condition Dyson DC14 Animal. Bill CLICK HERE TO GO TO wyaple's LINK |
Post# 363952 , Reply# 7   12/21/2016 at 01:48 (2,682 days old) by compactc9guy (Bathurst NB)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
I have tp say that my Electrolux AP 200 , whit a vinyl hose performs quite well i do know , that the air flow could be improve whit the hepa bags .I use 4 ply paper bags but whit the vinyl hose air flow and suction is quite strong .But on the other hand my Compact Electra C9 whit vinyl hose and new electrostatic bag and new cloth bag and new motor filter .now that bad boy sucks the floor nozzle to the ground and keeps on going .
|
Post# 363972 , Reply# 8   12/21/2016 at 13:46 (2,682 days old) by Real1shep (Walla Walla, WA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
great! Not condemning you for your efforts and do continue. I was merely saying that without the factory numbers, we have no 'standard'. But...we can compare whatever we have to your results....which to me is more than worthwhile.
Kevin |
Post# 364002 , Reply# 10   12/21/2016 at 20:00 (2,681 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Love to hear your kind of stories! When I set off to measure all this stuff from various vacs, I collected the CFM from them and stared at the results for a while. Then I created a measurement of CFM density in the power nozzle and WHAM! It hit me that some machines may not have gargantuan total airflow at the PN, but the CFM density may hold the key as to why some lower airflow machines can still clean very well.
Loosely speaking, if a PN has a CFM density of 2.5 CFM/SqIn or above, it should have very good pickup. Vacs with a PN density of 3.5 CFM/SqIn should clean insanely well. Machines that test out around 1.5 CFM/SqIn clean poorly as you have to keep going over the same spot over and over again. AND, you *hint* that you may have some test data? If so, please post it somewhere or email it to me (I had one poster do that a few months ago). At the time of this posting I also have posted airflow losses for a Dyson DC14 and a Rainbow D4C SE PE in the contemporary forum. Y'all have to check those out and tell me what you think. Bill |
Post# 364013 , Reply# 11   12/21/2016 at 22:26 (2,681 days old) by human (Pines of Carolina)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
2    
When I was in high school, I used to think the Electrolux 1205 we had was a seriously wimpy machine. You practically had to feed debris into it by hand. What I came to understand long after the fact was that it had a seriously leaky hose. I rescued it from my parents' attic last summer with the idea of keeping it as a parts donor for my other 1205, but now that I've cleaned it up (and out) and fitted it with a good vinyl hose and a power nozzle, which it didn't have before, it performs better than ever, or at least better than it has since Dad nabbed it from a neighbor's trash some 35 years ago. I've tested it side by side with my other 1205 and my Super J using the same hose and power nozzle and it stands up well against both of them. While they're certainly no slouch in the performance department, none of my Luxes can quite match my three G-series Kirbys for for all-out brute power. Nonetheless, I still tend to prefer the the metal Lux canisters for their versatility and relative ease of use. They're just such elegant machines, both in design and operation.
|
Post# 364017 , Reply# 12   12/22/2016 at 04:45 (2,681 days old) by Real1shep (Walla Walla, WA)   |   | |
This post has been removed by the member who posted it. |
Post# 364019 , Reply# 14   12/22/2016 at 04:53 (2,681 days old) by Real1shep (Walla Walla, WA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
your calculations on CFM density are fascinating to me. Can you share with us how you do that on a PN??
Kevin |
Post# 364030 , Reply# 15   12/22/2016 at 10:40 (2,681 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
To obtain PN CFM density, simply take the PN CFM and divide by the nozzle opening area. For example, the above machine has an opening of 21 square inches and an airflow reading of 75 CFM. Take 75 CFM / 21 sq in = 3.57 CFM/Sq In. This density is well above average and somewhat proves that this 36 year old beast can deep clean.
As far as water lift goes, my Lux will do 78" from the base and 74" from the hose end with no bag installed. Bill |
Post# 364041 , Reply# 17   12/22/2016 at 13:20 (2,681 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
Here's the link to the BIG table of air flow box results. That should answer some of your questions. And thanks for taking an interest in my tests. I've posted quite a few of them here over the years.
Bill CLICK HERE TO GO TO wyaple's LINK |
Post# 364307 , Reply# 20   12/29/2016 at 10:48 (2,674 days old) by wyaple (Pickerington, OH)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
I used a high-end microfiber cloth to ensure a good seal just in the front of the rug plate. I have seen other manufacturers on YouTube use them (i.e. Dyson).
The "false back" you *thought* you saw was actually some 2x4's used to prevent cardboard box droop when testing machines over 16 lbs. So all the Kirbys needed them... At some point, I will rebuild the same airflow box, but instead from cardboard, I'll use wood so I can test water lift from the power nozzle. My cardboard one definitely couldn't withstand any sealed suction tests as it would implode. Bill |
Post# 364324 , Reply# 21   12/29/2016 at 15:56 (2,674 days old) by Real1shep (Walla Walla, WA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
On a second look-see the wood stiffener was apparent. Maybe like you say...when I build the box I'll do it in wood for a final version. Thanks!
Kevin |
Post# 364378 , Reply# 22   12/30/2016 at 10:26 (2,673 days old) by mchmike (West palm beach fl)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
I have no suction at all , I wonder why.
View Full Size
|
Post# 364635 , Reply# 23   1/4/2017 at 08:23 (2,668 days old) by Kloveland (Tulsa)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|