Ghost Washes

[Manko76]

I have a 100 ft conveyor tunnel, full service car wash.

For several years now I have had to deal with daily "ghost washes". My photo entry eyes either dont pick up a car at all, or lose contact half way through a car and report it as "vehicle too short". Then the car rides through with no machines turned on or product. Sometimes it will correct itself for the next car, sometimes the timing for the next few cars is off, and sometimes it happens for 2-3 cars in a row.

Ive cleaned my eyes, ive replaced my eyes, Ive reset and replaced my eye amplifier, ive had different companies come out and look at my set up and tell me everything looks fine.

My business has gone up these last few years. Is this something I just wasnt running into when I was slower? Is it common? are there any suggestions on how to fix it?

 

[MC3033]

Not common at all.

I’d try going with normally closed photo eyes so the wash turns on rather then off when an issue occurs.

If you are looking for a permanent fix looks like wiring or your controller are what is left.

Have you been able to verify voltage on the input when issues occur?

 

[Earl Weiss]

1. Are you sure the Pulse switch is sending the signal to the controller without fail? 2. I gave up on photo eyes years ago because people walking thru the tunnel caused all sorts of issues. I went to floor mounted loop pads instead.

 

[JustaGuy]

Definitely not normal. How often is it happening? Try moving the eyes to another input channel in your controller, that will eliminate the input as the problem.

Since you say the problem sometimes happens for several cars in a row, like Earl said it could also be a problem with the pulse switch. If it is registering too many pulses it would make the controller think the conveyor is moving a lot faster than it is. Check what the controller is reporting as the conveyor speed when that happens. If it reports the speed you expect, then that's probably not it.

 

[JustaGuy]

I gave up on photo eyes years ago because people walking thru the tunnel caused all sorts of issues. I went to floor mounted loop pads instead.

If the eyes are set up properly, most controllers have settings that should eliminate that as a problem. That, and it sounds like a training issue to me...

The precision of eyes, and their ability to handle the nonmetallic bumpers, etc., make eyes a better option in my opinion.

 

[Earl Weiss]

If the eyes are set up properly, most controllers have settings that should eliminate that as a problem. That, and it sounds like a training issue to me...

I prefer not to have issues that require training. Usually some metal not far behind bumper. .Even if it is the Front suspension.

 

[MEP001]

I prefer not to have issues that require training. Non Metallic bumpers are typically skins over metal.

I don't think any cars have metal under the bumper anymore. It's usually more plastic or Styrofoam.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I don't think any cars have metal under the bumper anymore. It's usually more plastic or Styrofoam.

You are correct - I thought I had edited post but I guess I had forgotten to save the edit.

 

[MEP001]

I just had a mental image of a Honda crashing into an acetone tanker and leaving no trace of itself.

 

[JustaGuy]

I prefer not to have issues that require training. Usually some metal not far behind bumper. .Even if it is the Front suspension.

Again, a decent controller can handle a brief activation due to an employee walking into the eyes, and depending on the controller and equipment configuration, the training issue self-resolves when the employee keeps getting sprayed... Regardless, even if a little training is required the benefits of using eyes outweigh the negatives. The reduced chemical, water, and electricity costs make the training required, if any, more than worthwhile. Given how many operators successfully use eyes without the issues you mention makes one wonder exactly why you found them difficult to overcome.

 

[Earl Weiss]

The reduced chemical, water, and electricity costs make the training required, if any, more than worthwhile. Given how many operators successfully use eyes without the issues you mention makes one wonder exactly why you found them difficult to overcome.

1. I don't see how the eye reduces anything vs standup loop or floor loop pad. Car sensed when it senses front and stops when it no longer senses. If the 24" length of the pad is an issue, all you need to do is program your controller to reduce car length by that much. Frankly with a car traveling a foot per second and typical delay in activation from sensing to solenoid trigger / Motor start to application this 2 seconds is not an issue. 2. It was easy to overcome - Just replaced with loops. (Enter switch and door activation) Still use eyes for Pulse switch. Makes me wonder why when I read about issues with eyes more people don't switch to loops.

 

[JustaGuy]

1. I don't see how the eye reduces anything vs standup loop or floor loop pad. Car sensed when it senses front and stops when it no longer senses. If the 24" length of the pad is an issue, all you need to do is program your controller to reduce car length by that much. Frankly with a car traveling a foot per second and typical delay in activation from sensing to solenoid trigger / Motor start to application this 2 seconds is not an issue. 2. It was easy to overcome - Just replaced with loops. (Enter switch and door activation) Still use eyes for Pulse switch. Makes me wonder why when I read about issues with eyes more people don't switch to loops.

I don't think you quite understand the difference between eyes and loops. You can't simply adjust out the inaccuracy of loops. For some vehicles, the adjustment needs to be more than others, and less than still others, so you end up needing to adjust the timing to come on early and stay on late so you get complete coverage of all vehicle. Eyes on the other hand are considerably more accurate and precise, allowing you to dial in the delivery of services far more closely than a loop can, and that directly results in lowered chemical, water, and electricity costs.
And, quite honestly, you didn't overcome your issues with eyes. Instead, you gave up and settled for a lesser solution.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I don't think you quite understand the difference between eyes and loops. You can't simply adjust out the inaccuracy of loops. For some vehicles, the adjustment needs to be more than others, and less than still others, so you end up needing to adjust the timing to come on early and stay on late so you get complete coverage of all vehicle. Eyes on the other hand are considerably more accurate and precise, allowing you to dial in the delivery of services far more closely than a loop can, and that directly results in lowered chemical, water, and electricity costs.
And, quite honestly, you didn't overcome your issues with eyes. Instead, you gave up and settled for a lesser solution.

I only dealt with eyes as enter switches for a couple of decades and now loops for a few more decades. Perhaps in a few more decades I will figure out the difference. If you can trigger your functions so that they effectively work within a fraction of a foot - more power to you. I did find a solution with eyes that was "Less" Less of a headache by orders of magnitude.

 

[JustaGuy]

I only dealt with eyes as enter switches for a couple of decades and now loops for a few more decades. Perhaps in a few more decades I will figure out the difference. If you can trigger your functions so that they effectively work within a fraction of a foot - more power to you. I did find a solution with eyes that was "Less" Less of a headache by orders of magnitude.

As a matter of fact, yes, I *can* trigger functions so they effectively work within a fraction of a foot, though not all pieces of equipment really benefit much from that level of precision, of course. Let's face it, there is little to be gained from engaging a hydraulic-powered brush, mitter, or similar with that kind of accuracy. For equipment that can benefit, any reasonably modern controller paired with eyes as the enter switch can achieve that result, though some controllers are more capable in this regard than others. Unfortunately, you just can't get there with inductive-loop technology. Like you, I have been at this for several decades (and in my case, hundreds of car washes), but I do understand how some folks might not care to, or are reluctant to, change and adapt as the technology improves.

Ultimately however, I think I'll bow out of this side discussion since it's pretty clear you aren't interested in that kind of optimization, and that's OK if it suits you. If that should ever change, although I no longer work directly with operators I'd be happy to make an exception in your case and consult with you to show you how, with no or minimal training, you could achieve those results for yourself. Not that I'm anything special in that regard, mind you, I know many capable field technicians that can do the same. Best regards to you, Earl.

 

[JustaGuy]

...

My apologies for derailing your post, that was not my intent at all.

I hope you've been able to get your issue resolved. If not, you might let us know what you've discovered and what you've done to see if there's more we can do to help. Something you haven't mentioned, have you talked with your distributor or tunnel controller manufacturer to see if they can help?

 

[Earl Weiss]

As a matter of fact, yes, I *can* trigger functions so they effectively work within a fraction of a foot, though not all pieces of equipment really benefit much from that level of precision, of course.''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''', I have been at this for several decades (and in my case, hundreds of car washes), but I do understand how some folks might not care to, or are reluctant to, change and adapt as the technology improves.

. Best regards to you, Earl.

To some extent we agree and to some extent you miss my point.

While it is possible to use controllers to operate within a fraction of a foot for BOTH eye and loop technology, as you state it is of no practical use for as you say "All" and as I say "Most" pieces of equipment.

Since I still use eyes for some doors I don't really see any practical improvement or advantages over the eyes from the 1960's onward.

The benefit I have tried to convey as a choice for operators is to be able to choose what may or may not be the highest and best performing piece of equipment as a trade off for one that gets the job done really well with less attention needed. This is also one of the reasons that I have eliminated all but one top brush in favor of Mitters, as well as just about every air cylinder (except the top Brush) some equipment uses for retracts extension etc. I prefer the KISS method.

 

[jfmoran]

Not common at all. Somewhere in line you are losing signal from the photo eyes back to your controller. I would start with running new signal wire from photo eyes back to the amplifier and from amplifier back to the controller. If that doesn't fix it, you can rule out the photo eyes being the problem and start looking at the controller or maybe a pulse issue.

 

[JustaGuy]

Not common at all. Somewhere in line you are losing signal from the photo eyes back to your controller. I would start with running new signal wire from photo eyes back to the amplifier and from amplifier back to the controller. If that doesn't fix it, you can rule out the photo eyes being the problem and start looking at the controller or maybe a pulse issue.

Though less likely, it could still be the eyes themselves after replacing the wiring. Unfortunately, the OP hasn't replied in a week now, so until/unless he does we may never know...

 

[Manko76]

my apologies, we are in the midst of several upgrades and you know how this business is, start working on one issue, and 5 other pop up.

Everything I have heard or when I talked to DRB i think my best bet will be to replace the wiring from amplifier to the controller.

I appreciate all the ideas, and have considered switching from eyes to a loop but that will be my last resort. As my brother and I get older and 20 years in the business we are trying to make everything easier on ourselves.

I think I am going to switch to a higher quality banner eye, and just redo all wiring from eyes to controller. I will keep you posted when and if I fix it.

Thanks everyone.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I appreciate all the ideas, and have considered switching from eyes to a loop but that will be my last resort. As my brother and I get older and 20 years in the business we are trying to make everything easier on ourselves.

Exactly why I went to loops. I gave up the "To the Inch" accuracy for whatever that might have been worth to not have to be concerned with dirty eyes, knocked out of alignment eyes, people walking thru eyes