DC Selection

[Allan Vance]

I'm in the market for a stationary cyclone DC. After alot of searching, studing and comparing my first choice is a JDS 3100-CK.

http://jdstools.com/3hpcyclone3100-ck2300cfmdustcollector.aspx

My second choice is the Grizzly GO441.

http://www.grizzly.com/products/3-HP-Cyclone-Dust-Collector/G0441

Before making a selection, I would appreciate some firsthand experience and/or opinions from anyone on either of these two machines? Thanks for your help.

[Mark Ashmeade]

I recently faced the same dilemma. It forced me to spend a LOT of time, and got a LOT of help in the Workshop section, to correctly engineer my system.

I considered the JDS, ruled it out because it was too short, and too expensive for the performance. I have their air cleaner, and it's been great though.

I considered the Grizzly, and it was in with a shout, but slightly out on cost. Also needs a 30A circuit.

If I had to pull another circuit for the Grizzly, I may as well have got a 5HP beast. I considered Oneida (costly), Clearvue (costly, not such a finished product as others), and the Penn State 5HP Tempest-S (3 phase).

In the end, I did all the calculations to get 1200CFM at the end of the worst run, and the Penn State 3.5HP was sufficient.

It is the least expensive for the performance, and was just enough, so long as I use 7" ductwork for the mains. I can't grow my shop any at all, so I didn't consider the need for expansion. It also has by far the largest filters, which are now nanofibre.

It's sitting in the garage waiting for me to finish the shop construction, so I can't comment on the performance for another month or so.

[David Kumm]

I have not used either machine and am only reading the specs but will give you my take. The JDS seems to have a pretty strong motor at 18 amps and you should ask where it is sourced and about it. A good motor is really important as they are very hard working in a DC system. It also seems to have the advantage in the impeller design if it indeed pulls to 16"SP. Negatives are the filter area is less and I would prefer at least 100sq ft. You haven't said what you are using it for. My biggest concern with the JDS is the short cyclone if you intend to do much sanding. Long cone cyclones are much more efficient in capturing that. The Grizzly cyclone design is better assuming it has the center cylinder with the baffle inside it. Ask both about the cyclone design. The Grizzly motors are a weak point compared to an Oneida- Baldor motor, OK cyclone, ClearVue, good cyclone design, Leeson motor. The Grizzly has more filter area but the specs seem a little lower in CFM. If I wanted a really great portable the JDS looks top of the food chain. For a stationary unit I would look elsewhere. In a perfect world I would find a used Toit 20-3 or 20-5 and run it on a VFD and add a cartridge to go with the tube filters. I did that and spent less than the JDS. You are starting with the right idea though. A stationary system plumbed in permanently needs to be a 3-5 hp system. You will also need to size your pipe and fittings correctly to maximize whatever you buy. Incorrect plumbing will negate the performance benefits of one unit over another real fast. Dave I just saw the port about the Penn state. I didn't include it because I'm not familiar with the motor. I would put the 3.5 in the running- with the 7" mains- provided you feel warm and fuzzy that they are sourcing a quality Asian motor. The Baldor on the Oneida is what the commercial Torits use and is more expensive than the other choices so you have to factor that into the cost- value comparison. Dave

[Matt Mackinnon]

I can't say how the two units that you are looking at perform. But for the money that you are looking to pay, I wonder why you don't just get a Clearvue? The design is well proven, and has a well built motor, made in the USA and backed by a great company.

Both of them you are running a new 30amp line for them, so why not go to a 5hp motor to begin with?

[jean dulmaine]

I have the Laguna equivalent to the JDS. The motor has been a problem from day one, frequently blowing starter capacitors. (Laguna was responsive in sending a replacement motor and impeller, but I elected to replace the capacitor rather than take the whole thing apart.) Moreover the 18 amp power drawer is inefficient for the 3 HP rating, although I have not actually tested the true amp draw. The short cyclone works very well for fine dust, and the filter really keeps the return air clean. The noise level is very reasonable for its capacity. In summary, the design is good with the motor being the weak link.

[Jeff Hamilton Jr.]

Hi Alan,

The only caution I'd recommend on the JDS is to look at their filter specs. Last I saw, they were still offering a 1 micron pleated filter. That is too LARGE to catch the dangerous "fines."

[David Kumm]

Hi Alan,

The only caution I'd recommend on the JDS is to look at their filter specs. Last I saw, they were still offering a 1 micron pleated filter. That is too LARGE to catch the dangerous "fines."

Probably why they can use a smaller filter. Dave

[ian maybury]

Just to comment on the 5hp 'monsters'.

They actually seem to run at more like 4HP +/- if hooked up to 6in ducting.

The bigger motor gives better protection against being overloaded if the system is run in circumstances where the CFM is higher than normal - which risk is higher with big impellers normally run slightly restricted. e.g. if it's for some reason subsequently hooked up to a very short duct, or if lots of gates are for some reason simultaneously opened into a large low resistance header.

The advantage of the larger diameter impeller (for a given RPM) run a little restricted though is that it delivers a reduced fall off in CFM against any increase in pressure drop - at our sort of sizes every inch or so in diameter pushes the pressure at which the curve tails off a few inches WG higher. Which means it'll cope better/suffer a less marked reduction in CFM with dirty filters, or if hooked up to a machine with restrictive hoods. (it's better to not run filters dirty though - particles get driven into and lodged in the media which it seems may lead to gaps opening up and problems when cleaning)

ian

[John A langley]

Alan. I have 2 JDS dust collectors. One is the 3100 and is the 1.5 canister. Both are very adequate. Two things I like about the JDS 3100 it is easy to get the barrel out and it has the self cleaner for the filter. Also their customer service is excellent. I had a need for a third dust collector, also had a friend in the air handling business who is helping me upgrade my piping to to Norfab. I asked him him what kind of dust collector I should get for the third one and he said he has been pleasantly surprised with the Grizzleys. So I bought a GO542 canister and it will suck the chrome off a trailer hitch. Don't think you'd be unhappy with either brand.

[Michael W. Clark]

I don't have either one, but I second the comment about the cyclone design of the JDS being less efficient. The overall collection efficiency of the JDS unit may be great, but you will capture more fine particulate in the Grizzly cyclone, and have less carryover to the cartridge filter. The short cyclone design of the JDS will probably allow more material re-entrainment as the container fills and carry more dust over to the cartridge filter. Bottom line, with the JDS cyclone design, you will probably not want to let the container fill under the cyclone and you will have more material carryover to the cartridge filter which could mean a reduced exhaust volume sooner.

I also like the comment about going with the 5hp if possible or if you can justify it. The more CFM the better in most cases.

[David Kumm]

Check CL as well. There are lots of 3-5 hp systems listed at enough less to add a cartridge or VFD. Dave

[ian maybury]

It's a pity there isn't much by way of data (never mind trustworthy data) about by way of information on the separation efficiencies of the cyclones you see offered for hobby use.

Judging by the layout of the models used in industry it might well be reasonable to surmise that the short and stocky cyclones you see in this field are that way to save head height, and to save on weight, shipping and material costs - and that it probably doesn't do anything to improve their performance.

It's also likely that cyclone performance is highly dependent on the precise specifics of your type of dust (particle size distribution and the like - suppliers of high performance systems it seems may often start with analysis of your dust) - but equally they don't seem to customise cyclone designs to application specifics...


ian

[Michael W. Clark]

It's a pity there isn't much by way of data (never mind trustworthy data) about by way of information on the separation efficiencies of the cyclones you see offered for hobby use.

Judging by the layout of the models used in industry it might well be reasonable to surmise that the short and stocky cyclones you see in this field are that way to save head height, and to save on weight, shipping and material costs - and that it probably doesn't do anything to improve their performance.

It's also likely that cyclone performance is highly dependent on the precise specifics of your type of dust (particle size distribution and the like - suppliers of high performance systems it seems may often start with analysis of your dust) - but equally they don't seem to customise cyclone designs to application specifics...


ian

Exactly. Wouldn't it be great if the "retail manufacturers" published some type of performance data. Fan curve, % efficiency @ micron for the cyclones, etc. so you can evalute the equipment. You can sometimes back into it or at least back into their claims.

Custome high efficiency cyclones for specific applications exist, but are not cheap. Therefore, they tend to target markets where the higher efficiency is more appreciated ($$).

[David Kumm]

Did you see the Clearvue max in the classifieds here? Dave