A Thien Baffle tested on a shopvac

[Bruce Wrenn]

What is it about DC threads that reduce normally sane people to name calling? I remember a few years back a couple of people were banned from posting because of this. My Thien didn't get all the dust from my band saw, but it got almost all the shavings from my planer. Later I found out that I hadn't built it perfectly, but it worked very well. I know that I like not having to empty the bin under the cyclone that is at the rear corner of the shop, when using either planer or jointer on the pad in front. It's so much easier to remove "top hat and put the lid on the can. Then take can to the dumpster.

[Wade Lippman]

Looks like a lot of positive reviews from people using the baffle in real world situations. Negative results make the OPs research suspect because it is not a real world test. Testing with the same shavings and such repeatedly will change the composition of the chips and dust being collected. Larger chips will be broken up finer and finer as they get blasted through the collector. How are the chips being metered into the collector? Is the mix uniform or could there be different concetrations being sucked into the line? Is the chip stream a real world chip stream?
Real world research would require accurate testing with the dust and chips coming from a real machine doing real work. Same wood typ to compare with same wood type. Different machines generating different chips and chip loads, and so on. Seems like a lot of wasted effort with all of the positive reviews the baffle has generated.

1) Real World Positives prove nothing. There are millions of RWPs for 5 Hour Energy, Zicam, St. John's Wort, and a thousand other products; but those have been proven not to work. RWP are encouraging, but do not take the place of tests.
2) I ran the Baffle 1st and 4th, and the no-baffle 2nd and 3rd; getting comparable results. That pretty much does away with changing the chips problem.
3) The feed rate is a valid issue, which I mentioned in my OP; as I am perfectly objective. (were I dishonest I would have claimed to have fed the chips in over an hour) However, since I fed the chips in to both the baffle and no-baffle at the same rate, it likely doesn't matter.
4) Someone else ridiculed my failure to believe my friend when he claimed to get better economy with premium gas, saying I don't believe anything. Wrong, since EVERYONE who has properly tested it found premium gas does not give better economy, I believe THEM; rather than my friends RWP.

I only have it in for the TB because I don't believe it works. I have tested it and found it and found it to be inferior to the same rig without the baffle. Doesn't that justify my having it in for the TB? ANYONE with a TB can simply remove the baffle and see if the rig works just as well without it. What is that, a 5 minute process to find out for sure? Phil, or anyone can test it and show it does work, but they haven't.
It is a poorly designed cyclone that separates 98%. I suppose that accounts for the WRPs, since 98% is an extreme improvement over nothing; but when you can get 99% on the same rig by removing the baffle, it is inexcusable to not even test it.

[Myk Rian]

Your statement on the other web site: "Damn, but you are right! I measured 240*, but cut to the lines I used to find the center.
Well, that invalidates the test", pretty much sums things up.

Since you made the baffle wrong, as Phil stated on the other web site, your testing is invalid.
Why did you come here to pick the same argument?

Probably time to lock this thread.

[Phil Thien]

Edit: I've deleted this post.

[George Bregar]

I'm not sure what this "test" is supposed to prove. Having done a fair amount of research, and reading many postives as well as Phil's input I have concluded: 1) That the PT is designed to drop the heavies out into the seperator and most of the fines. This "test" actually proves this. 2) Keeps the DC (or vacuum) from siphoning both of the above from the collection container once it starts to fill . The OP didn't even bother to do this. I have never seen anywhere where Phil has made the claim that his baffle reduces the fines over traditional "cyclone lids", or performs like a true cyclone...as matter of fact he has said that if you can afford it and have the room, get a cyclone. He has stated that the baffles "approach true cyclone" and eliminate the siphoning of normal seperators. The former seems to be borne out by the OP's test, but dismissing the elimination of siphoning (which he hasn't bothered to test) despite the real world experience of many many users who say this is factual is absurd.

Phil, your so called "whining post" just popped up in email so I will add this comment. Take solace in the fact that you have many fans. Look at the defenders here. I actually marvel in the fact that you have provided an invention free that likely has commercial value. Hopefully the satisfied users will help bring future $$$ success. I will be using the PT as a seperator in front of a 3HP single stage (based loosely on a design in your forum). I will be posting the build and results. While I have no confidence that it will mean anything to Mr. Lippman, hopefully it and a donation will help you get some sleep. :-)

[Scott Shepherd]

Before this thread, I'd never heard of it, Phil. I'm not a woodworker, but thought this was an interesting topic. I went to your website, looked at it, went to your forum to see that almost 21,000 people have visited your post on how to build it, on your website. That doesn't count for all the other forums you may have the information on. So that's 21,000 views, 2 people in 6 months bashing it. I'm not sure I'd lose any sleep over those results! If you told 21,000 people the sun was shining, my guess is about 1,000 of them would argue with you. So to me, it speaks volumes. Just ignore it. Hang in there, don't let people like this stop you from sharing ideas and thoughts with the rest of us. If that happens, then they have surely won. Don't give them the satisfaction.

[Tom Welch]

I have a Thien baffle mounted internally on both of the seperators cans on my grizzly 3 hp dust collector. In about 2 years of using it I can say that I never have cake on my filters and only a small amount of very fine dust on the filters. ( I have wynn filters installed on my dust collector) Before using the Thien baffle, I always had to clean the cake off my filters. Yuck. I think the Thien baffle is a "great invention" and thank you Phil for sharing it with us wood workers.

[Jerome Hanby]

As I stated, my results might only apply to a shop vac with a fast feed rate. It might work as well as a cyclone on a DC. I don't know because no one has tested it.
I am glad you are satisfied with it, but that just isn't an experiment.

I have a friend (a chemist actually) who uses high octane gas because he kept records for years and found it gave him sufficiently better mileage to justify the higher price.
The gasoline companies and the auto companies say it is a waste of money to use any higher octane than the engine is designed for. Yet he has years of experience to the contrary. I am pretty sure he is wrong.
I do not doubt your sincerity or your intelligence anymore than I doubt his, but your experience is not proof; only a test is.

So your friend kept records, analyzed the data, and formed a conclusion. But "experts" say his conclusion does not reflect reality and you are "pretty sure he's wrong". Best that I can interpret, you're saying he arrived at the conclusion he wanted to find (I'm assuming you don't believe your friend is intentionally lying).

I think in at least one of the other posts in this thread, you are being accused of doing the same thing. You want a particular result and viola, that's the result you get.

Your defense to reports from other users is that their conclusions are meaningless because they didn't "test". If they reported that this baffle removed 97% of the fines, then you would be correct, their reported experiences were not sufficient for that conclusion. However, they are describing the maintenance required before and after using the baffle. We aren't talking quantum mechanics here, all the equipment is large enough to see and touch, and therefore I think we can accept that the users reporting good results with this baffle would probably realize if some other factor was introduced at the same time as the baffle.

I have no idea if the baffles design makes sense or not, It's not that I can't handle the techniques necessary to analyze fluid dynamics, I just have no interest. But, the vast majority of the reports I've seen here from users of Phil's design are positive. Maybe any trash can separator from the local woodworking shop would work as well...

[Jim Mattheiss]

I have a problem with Phil Thein's Baffle design.

When the can below the baffle fills with shavings it stops separating properly! Definitely a design flaw! I want my money back!

I've been using Phil's baffle on my small dust collector for several years. I'm very satisfied. At some point I'll make a "topper" model for my shop vac.

Remember - People are funny critters! (I shamelessly stole that from someone on a WW forum)

Cheers

Jim

[Wade Lippman]

So your friend kept records, analyzed the data, and formed a conclusion. But "experts" say his conclusion does not reflect reality and you are "pretty sure he's wrong". Best that I can interpret, you're saying he arrived at the conclusion he wanted to find (I'm assuming you don't believe your friend is intentionally lying).

I think in at least one of the other posts in this thread, you are being accused of doing the same thing. You want a particular result and viola, that's the result you get.

Your defense to reports from other users is that their conclusions are meaningless because they didn't "test". If they reported that this baffle removed 97% of the fines, then you would be correct, their reported experiences were not sufficient for that conclusion. However, they are describing the maintenance required before and after using the baffle. We aren't talking quantum mechanics here, all the equipment is large enough to see and touch, and therefore I think we can accept that the users reporting good results with this baffle would probably realize if some other factor was introduced at the same time as the baffle.

I have no idea if the baffles design makes sense or not, It's not that I can't handle the techniques necessary to analyze fluid dynamics, I just have no interest. But, the vast majority of the reports I've seen here from users of Phil's design are positive. Maybe any trash can separator from the local woodworking shop would work as well...

1) I have asked others to repeat my tests. It took me about 3 hours; it would take them half that time because they already have the TBs. But no one wants to. Yes, it is possible that I am doing something wrong because of a bias (cold fusion is a good example) but if someone without my bias repeated the tests we would know (again, cold fusion). Though I can't imagine what I could be doing wrong. My friend with his octane gas studies probably had the misfortune of by chance driving a lot of highway miles while using premium and city driving while on regular, or something like that.
2) Ask any of the millions of users of Zicam (or Vitamin C...) if it prevents colds and you will get an enthusiastic yes. They compared their experiences before and after and concluded it worked wonders. Despite the fact it has no effect. There are countless examples of that.
3) The Thien baffle does work pretty well, which probably results in all the great experiences. It is just that the same rig without the baffle works even better. The commercial trash can separators I have seen have the inlet on one side and the outlet on the other, so you never get the centrifuge effect that separates the dust out. I had a Triton separator for my shopvac that had the outlet in the middle, like the TB. It worked well, separation was in the high 90s, but it passed the fines, so I got an Oneida DD which doesn't pass the fines.

[Eric Mims]

It is a fallacy to compare the placebo effect that a living human being experiences while taking herbal remedies, homeopathy, etc with results seen in a dust collection system which are not subject to any placebo effect. The former is subjective, the latter is objective...the dust is either there or not.

[David Hostetler]

I would volunteer to run a test of a Thien equipped vac / trash can, and a commercially available trash can separator, but I do not presently have a commercial separator available. I am also anything but unbiased here as I have advocated quite loudly for Phil's design as I find the results to be astonishingly good. I had previously had a commercial trash can separator lid and, well let's just say I find Wade's results a little hard to believe. I couldn't get past 1 gallon of material in the separator before all of it would scrub out of the separator and head straight to the vac...

I propose the following as a "Real and fair" test.

Generate approximately 30 gallons of woodworking waste to include everything from long shavings from planing / jointing activities, to the fine flour stuff that gets generated from sanding operations. Divide the waste into 2 piles.

Using 1 vac, and 1 20 gallon steel trash can, completely clean both. Insure both are bone dry. Install new, unused HEPA filter in the vac, and either the Thien separator, or the commercial separator, and suck up 1 pile of the debris. measure the material that bypassed the separator and got into the vac.

Repeat the cleaning, fresh filter etc... process with the other separator lid.

No less than 15 gallons of material for each separator mind you. A situation that most of us have found ourselves in.... Frequently.

Of course we can adjust this for 5 gallon size or whatever...

Who can be trusted to perform a truly unbiased test here? Any volunteers?

For what it's worth as well.. Look at the photos of Wade's build. There is no rabbet in the lid, no means to seal the lid to the can, this will induce HUGE air leaks into the system, which will almost guarantee a major drop in suction, and separation efficiency... If you are going to test and make your argument from a psuedo scientific stand point, please do it correctly. There is an excellent step by step write up on how to build these things on Phil's forum. The thread is a sticky called "Here's the plans".

[John Lanciani]

In the name of science I'll chip in and provide all of the mixed dust required for these tests. Just PM me your address and I'll get it to you asap!! I'll even send a double order to Wade since he only has a few handfulls to test with.

[Phil Thien]

1) I have asked others to repeat my tests. It took me about 3 hours; it would take them half that time because they already have the TBs. But no one wants to. Yes, it is possible that I am doing something wrong because of a bias (cold fusion is a good example) but if someone without my bias repeated the tests we would know (again, cold fusion). Though I can't imagine what I could be doing wrong. My friend with his octane gas studies probably had the misfortune of by chance driving a lot of highway miles while using premium and city driving while on regular, or something like that.
2) Ask any of the millions of users of Zicam (or Vitamin C...) if it prevents colds and you will get an enthusiastic yes. They compared their experiences before and after and concluded it worked wonders. Despite the fact it has no effect. There are countless examples of that.
3) The Thien baffle does work pretty well, which probably results in all the great experiences. It is just that the same rig without the baffle works even better. The commercial trash can separators I have seen have the inlet on one side and the outlet on the other, so you never get the centrifuge effect that separates the dust out. I had a Triton separator for my shopvac that had the outlet in the middle, like the TB. It worked well, separation was in the high 90s, but it passed the fines, so I got an Oneida DD which doesn't pass the fines.

(1) Nobody is going to waste 2-3 hours (and in my case vac bags) duplicating your "test" when you immediately dismiss what anyone else has to say.

At least one poster brought up the point that even if the baffle doesn't increase fines separation (and it does, I promise), that it prevents scrubbing. You completely ignored this, right? My point is, you aren't being objective at all.

But you didn't come here to be objective. You came here with an agenda.

(2) The placebo effect only gets you so far. It doesn't come into play when comparing two volumes of dust to each other.

(3) Oneida makes great products, but even Oneida doesn't claim 100%.

(3a) You mentioned your Dyson separates 100%, too, and that the filter is clean as the day it was new. Again, that just hasn't been my experience. Those filters do get dirty. Even Dyson suggests washing them at least once every six months, they even offer an online reminder service here: http://www.dyson.com/support/filter.asp

To recap a little bit:

You attacked my separator (at WN) without ever having seen one.

I asked you to stop.

You built one, announcing it was exactly the same as mine, except the elbow was a longer sweep.

I and someone else pointed out the baffle's proportions were quite obviously wrong. Also, the outlet tube was wrong. You also held the threaded rods at the outside (in maximum debris field) rather than towards the center. You haphazardly mixed wheat flour with wood dust. You didn't seal the top, and you used an underpowered vac that my tests indicate doesn't move enough CFM. Heck, here is another video showing the thing can barely hold onto a piece of paper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdW23iQh-Jc.

On your original pictures posted at WN, it was clear the debris wasn't spinning much at all, as anyone looking at the pictures could see a trail of dust between the inlet and the outlet. Dust was coming in, short-circuiting the spin, and exiting through the outlet. This is a tell-tale sign of leaks and/or inadequate CFM.

I could go on and on.

BTW, for anyone interested, here is a demo of someone stuffing sawdust into a Thien separator with no final filter stage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVCqHsa_zq4

You gotta admit, that is pretty impresive.

[Larry Edgerton]

Phil

This is why I have renamed the internet in my house "The Fountian of Misinformation".

There is always a nobody that wants their 15 minutes of fame, without the work. I often see simple solutions to stuff on here, but most times I don't bother posting, because I don't feel like arguing with those looking for their 15 minutes.

Just take solice in the fact that you have made shops a better enviroment all across the world. You have your 15 minutes, and "YOU" earned it.

Thanks by the way..
Larry