I wanted to see if there has been any testing of pure water cleaning over traditional methods.
I know how good pure water is but has there been any official testing done?
Thanks
Karl
I just got a pure water system a month ago, i find that there are pros and cons for both,
Pros for Pure Water
1: it is fast. Really really fast
2: when properly done the windows are just as good if not better then traditional method
3: its Safe
Cons for Pure Water
1: doesnt get paint or anything stuck to the glass off
2: water can leak thru if windows arent correctly shut
3: sills are harder to scrub
Pros for traditional
1: its more thourough, you are able to catch your mistakes,
2: you can be more technical in technique
3: you can blade to remove paint etc
Cons
1: its time consuming:
2: ladder work can be dangerous
3: its taxing on the body
4: you can leave streaks or smears,
Imo i think pure water is just as good as traditional, in some cases the glass comes out better then traditional, both systems have flaws but i like that you can do more glass with less help then tradaitional…just saying
If you want to extend the life of you being able to clean windows, WFP is the way to go.
I have on “official” data except what the others have said. Staying off ladders as much as possible is worth the cost. The speed improve not means more profit. However it’s still only a tool and for most businesses it won’t completely replace conventional methods. I love it. My customers like the results. I stay on the ground and make more money. That’s all the data I can give.
What sort of “official” test results are you looking for? “Pure water is more…” what?
I guess I don’t agree with some of the items on this list of pros and cons above. It says Pure Water is ‘as good as, if not better, than tradtional.’ Then one of the Pro’s for Tradition cleaning says it is more thorough. Both can’t be true. The truth is that both methods are very effective when employed by a skilled window cleaner.
As for scraping the glass, it’s neither a Pro nor a Con for either method. You can do it with either one. Pure Water window cleaning does not rule-out the use of scrapers.
Either method will leave streaks or smears of some kind if not done correctly.
Having said all of this, I always use Pure Water if there is any way to do so. It’s faster and less physically taxing than traditional window cleaning.
If you know how good it is what do you want the test to reveal?
Both methods could an will clean a window effectively . You will always need traditional tools and ladders, the wfp is a nice addition to any window cleaners truck, van, or scion.
[FONT=Verdana]
[/FONT]
Just like Majestic said, a great tool to add to your truck. Lot’s of houses I do traditional, then pull out pole and backpack sprayer to get high and nasty windows. Some houses I use wfp on everything but the sliders ( I find I can do a row of sliders faster traditional ). To me, each job is different and sometimes setting up the system, I’m better off doing traditional. By Spring I’m hoping to set up a tank and pump to use with the pure water which I think will make the wfp even more efficient and useful. I’ve only been using it for about 6 months , so I can only imagine the benefits are better as you get more experience.
It’s been proven that a WFP user looks much cooler than traditional user.
awww, you thought of me 
the only parameter that I can think of that might be tested scientifically is the theory that windows cleaned with pure water stay clean longer. But that would be an exhausting test to perform thoroughly, considering all of the soap solutions and types of glass that would need to be tested…
funniest joke ever:D
Sorry i was not clear enough in my original post, i am a long term user of pure water and great fan of it.
What i was wondering was has anyone tested to check the difference to see how much longer the glass stays clean for compared to traditional.
Cheers
Can’t leave out the coolest window cleaning car around, and you were the only one smart enough to think of what he is trying to find out.
I have not done any scientific tests, but I have tested windows on my monthly account. They have a wall of windows, that I tested with pure water, GG4, and Ecover. The Ecover was the worst, then GG4, and pure water. I did this test on 12 windows, every month for 3 months. Pure water was sometimes barely distinguishable with GG4, but both were dramatically better than Ecover. During the 3 trials, I switched each product I used on the 12 windows, so it wouldn’t be skewed by just location of the glass. Hope that helps. I feel nerdy.
hope this helps…Nerd!
I have a long list of residential customers that I have been doing myself once or twice a year for about five years the traditional way before I started using the WFP on every residential window I clean. I know what they are supposed to look like it terms of dirt on the windows on my return visit to clean them. The difference is big. I am worried that my twice a year customers will switch to an annual service because the stay clean much longer.
Some of these guys with swinging squeegees hanging on their belts may have a different opinion on who looks cooler Majestic, especially when the fanning technique hits the glass.
For me I’m a user of both as is the majority on the board, personally I prefer wfp over old traditional (no hauling ladders etc)
but will continue to do 'ole school when necessary.
Obligatory “like” for the flattery… 
I see your point that it sounds like a contradiction, what i was getting is that the results of a clean window of wfp can come out better then a traditional clean because streaks and smears are always possible on a traditional method…
