Penn State 2.5 hp Tempest DC

[Ole Anderson]

I am looking at the Penn State 2.5 hp Tempest cyclone as an alternative to ClearVue, Grizzly and Oneida systems. I have seen plenty of the positive comments from the fans of each of those other well respected systems, so I am looking for anyone that has this exact system and can give me their input as to noise, fine dust removal efficiency, customer service, etc. I have done a search and found only a couple of older comments.

My reasons for looking for an alternative:

ClearVue: Frankly I don't care for the plastic and MDF homebuilt construction and the 5 hp motor.

Grizzly G0440: Motor less efficient, filter too small at less than 100 sf.

Oneida 2 hp Super Dust Gorilla: Pricey and the footprint is too large

The advantages I see to the PSI unit: 2.5 hp motor more likely to handle the 14 inch impeller, smaller footprint, efficient motor looking at amps vs hp, (barely) under a grand, 425 sf of filter area, flow of 800 cfs at 9" of suction adequate for a TS in my one man home shop. I am thinking of swinging the filter up horizontally to the ceiling, between the rafters until it needs cleaning, something I don't think the others can do. (PSI responded, no, filter must be vertical). , Now if PSI doesn't promptly answer my recent email with a list of questions, that will say a lot. (PSI responded to my questions same day, that is a good sign.)

http://www.pennstateind.com/store/TEMP1425S.html

[Kurt Barker]

Ole:

I just purchased and installed the Tempest last month. It's my first DC and first cyclone, so I don't have another point of reference. It arrived promptly after the order was placed, and everything was in order. Installation was very straightforward, but I did need the help of a second pair of hands for about 5 minutes.

The filter must be vertical because it's mounted on a clean-out box.

If you have specific questions or would like photos, PM me your email address.

Best,

Kurt Barker

[Paul Wunder]

Ole,


There are few head to head cyclone tests that are reliable. American Woodworker magazine did one in Jan 2006. They tested Grizzly, Penn State, Oneida, Jet and others. Penn State did not do well in term of cyclonic separation of dust before it hit the filters. Therefore, more dust will wind up in the filters..meaning shorter filter life. The Penn State units also underperformed in CFM/Static pressure as compared to the manufacturer specs. The test results are still valid because the designs have not changed. The top performers at that time were the Grizzly 2 and 3hp (g0440 and g0441?) and the Oneida Super Dust Gorilla (2 and 3 hp). I own a ClearVue.

[Ole Anderson]

I would like to see the details of that review to see if it was even the same unit I am looking at, or if all PSI cyclones are being presumed guilty. Just to be fair. I went to AW site and could not retrieve the article. If they tested the 2 hp, it has a 12" impeller, a different machine from the 1425.

[Ron Natalie]

I believe he's referring to the one in Wood. They actually tested two Penn States. The one that sucked (pun intended) worst was the 12" impeller (which was barely acceptable), but the 142CX (14" impeller which appears to be the same as the 1425CX and 143CX only with a smaller motor) was in the middle of the pack (only out done by the Oneidas and the 3HP Grizzly) for some tests and outperformed all the others when there was high pressure loss in the ductwork. It certainly seems to have the best bang for the buck of all the units tested.

[Paul Wunder]

http://www.oneida-air.com/documents/...jan%202006.pdf

Here's the link to the American Woodworker cyclone test. When I was looking for product info I was concerned that Penn State's published specs did not hold up to scrutiny. The ClearVue was not tested probably because they were only on the market for a few months.

[Ron Natalie]

Well for that matter nearly all the other manufacturers had the same problem. The only one that came close was the Oneida's and even those diverged at the higher static pressures. I see no justification for your earlier claim that " Penn State did not do well in term of cyclonic separation of dust before it hit the filters." which doesn't appear to be supported by your article. In fact it says quite the opposite: "The 1425S we tested had excellent separation, with only a trace of dust remaining in the filter bins."

FWIW the review isn't tremendously out of line with the results done in the Wood article I was referring to. Both of them give credit to the Tempest being able to hold the CFMs up when the static pressure goes up.

[Rod Sheridan]

Having read the reviews I was surprised to see that the Penn State filter requires vacuuming of the dust pan, as opposed to the clip on type my Oneida uses.

Is this still accurate?

If so that would remove the Penn State from my list as I don't have a vacuum with a filter capable of blocking the very fine dust. That kind of negates the benefits of having a nice cartridge filter.

regards, Rod.

[Mark Beiting]

Ole,

I have had my 1425s for almost two years, and I love it. I never get anything in the filter cleanout unless the drum over fills. Mine keeps up with the volume from a 15" planer even with one or two other blast gates open. This is also my first cyclone, but the fine airborne dust is way better (non existant as far as I can tell) than my old bag style collecter. As I remember it their customer service was good also.


Rod,

Cleaning the dust pan is easy. You only need a blast gate close enough to connect to the 4" gate on the dust bin. Hook it up, let it run for a minute or two and it's good to go.

Mark

[Dan Chouinard]

How would you rate the tempest with regards to assembly/installation?

[Paul Wunder]

Well for that matter nearly all the other manufacturers had the same problem. The only one that came close was the Oneida's and even those diverged at the higher static pressures. I see no justification for your earlier claim that " Penn State did not do well in term of cyclonic separation of dust before it hit the filters." which doesn't appear to be supported by your article. In fact it says quite the opposite: "The 1425S we tested had excellent separation, with only a trace of dust remaining in the filter bins."

FWIW the review isn't tremendously out of line with the results done in the Wood article I was referring to. Both of them give credit to the Tempest being able to hold the CFMs up when the static pressure goes up.

The AW article tested the performance of all the cyclones in a similar manner. Yes, there were discrepancies in "real world performance" vs. the manufacturers "claims", but a careful reading of the fan curves provided by AW clearly indicates that the Tempest model by Penn State Industries performed more poorly against its competitors:

The first numbers for each machine are the mfg specs; the second are the results observed by American Woodworker:

Penn State 2.5hp 750cfm/9.0" sp 600cfm/9.0" sp
Grizzly 2.0hp 1100cfm/9.0" sp 900cfm/9.0" sp
Oneida 2.0 DGorilla 750cfm/9.0" sp 750cfm/9.0" sp

The above data, taken from the AW fan curves indicates that the Penn State fared poorly in its ability to handle a typical load vs. its competitors. 750 cfm at 9.0" is a good baseline requirement and Penn State didn't deliver. I called Penn State when I was looking to buy, and asked their cyclone guy about the test results and whether they had any updated numbers. They didn't.

As I mentioned in my previous posting, I own a ClearVue because it suits my needs. If the CV were not available my choices would have been Grizzly and then Oneida

AW was careful in its language for each manufacturer re cyclonic separation:

Grizzly and Oneida: "a mere spoonful of dust enters the filter bag from each barrel load of shop dust"

Penn State: "excellent separation................". But no mention of the term "from each barrel load of shop dust"

I have learned to be careful in reading subjective testing comments by magazines, particularly when they the magazines are subject to advertising pressures.

Which words do you think are more objective?

Paul

As for the Dust separation,

[Ole Anderson]

Paul,

Thanks for the link to the article. Very useful information, and I am glad to see that it was the 1425 that was tested. Too bad they didn't measure the noise level as well, that is an important factor and the numbers from the different manufacturers seem significantly different. PSI is claiming 75 dB at 5 feet which I find hard to believe. The G0440 was measured at 83.5 dB at 10' with the muffler. In looking at fan curves in general, it is somewhat immaterial as to how many cfm's the unit can pull at a very low suction pressure, it might be better to compare the amount of suction at what the needs of a one man shop are, likely 500 to 800 cfm, and the 800 only if you have a dual hose setup on one of your machines such as a tablesaw. Looking at the information provided by Bill Pentz, he says that the common 6" duct is limited to about 800 cfm anyway unless you go to a 16" impeller, needing typically a 5 hp motor.

And how much flow are we likely to get with the typical machine with one 4" hose? About 350 cfs. That is where many DC's really fall off, many not able to produce even 10" of suction.

Another plus for the Penn State unit is 425 sf of nanofiltering, the others (except the ClearVue) don't come close, again Bill talks about needing lots of filter area.

Boy, I wish the 2 hp Super Gorilla were still selling at $895, they are now going for $1645 delivered. Granted, that included a bin full sensor and a remote control not seen on the PSI 1425. Still, the difference will pay for my ducts and drops.

Here is the link to a G0440 installation done by a noise and vibration engineer: http://www.chrisbillman.com/Tools/G0440.htm

Still weighing the options...

[Paul Wunder]

Ole,

Good luck in whatever you decide. All cyclones are noisy and frankly, the noise ratings are unreliable. Too much depends upon your install method and location. Many cyclone users try to locate their unit in another room or at least put it in an enclosure for isolation. Regarding the fan curves, testing seems to be done with a clean filter under optimal conditions with maybe a 10' length of duct. In real usage, your filter will become quickly caked, and your duct work may be less than tidy. Or you may upgrade your machines or port size. All of these variables suggest considering a cyclone brand/model with a higher capacity than lower. Final thought on filters. They are important, but a cyclone that separates the fine dust and deposits it the dust bin BEFORE it hits the filter is a more desirable trait in a cyclone. Aside from the ClearVue, the Grizzly 2 0r 3 hp series does it all and is more cost effective than the Oneida. Incidentally, many ClearVue folks have mounted their filters remotely, both horizontally and vertically. Mine are mounted side by side to save headroom. For ideas, you can go to the ClearVue website and check out their user galleries. There are hundreds of user installation pictures and how to's that were submitted by customers. There is also an active user forum when all sorts of user questions are asked and answered. It is a very active community.

Paul

[Rod Sheridan]

Ole, please see the attatched link to my post regarding cyclone noise measurements on my machine.

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthre...se-Measurement

regards, Rod.

[Ole Anderson]

Boy, I wish the 2 hp Super Gorilla were still selling at $895, they are now going for $1645 delivered. Granted, that included a bin full sensor and a remote control not seen on the PSI 1425. Still, the difference will pay for my ducts and drops.

My bad. I was looking at the new Smart version, the bin full sensor and the remote are not included on the "dumb" 2 hp Super Dust Gorilla.

That being said I just pulled the trigger on the 2 hp Oneida. And shipping was $169, not $250 as claimed on the website. I would have gone with the Grizz, but the extra footprint was a killer. As it is I am having to build a bump out into my finished basement at the foot of my stairs to acommodate the cyclone.

My second inquiry to Penn State went unanswered when I asked if they had made any design changes since the 2006 AW comparison and questioning if the 18-20 gage steel in the blower housing would be enough to contain a impeller fragmentation. Also I was disappointed in the exaggerated published vs tested fan curve. Thanks for the heads up on that one guys!

And I am feeling pretty good about buying American this time. And the pricing my son was able to get me on the steel ductwork, half of the best internet price. He manages a local HVAC supply shop.