Wood Magazine to Test Whole Shop Cyclones

[ian maybury]

Must say I struggle with price point as a stand alone rationale by which to select dust systems for testing.

There's hardly a week goes by but that we get somebody posting here looking for 'help' with selecting a system - but simultaneously ruling out most available choices by specifying up front it has to be an xyz type or even model. (lots clearly have picked up the questionable idea that there is such a thing as a 'beginner' system for example) It tends to become clear that several perspectives have been driving the thinking:

1. Systems offered by the manufacturers at all price points amount to valid solutions. ('they' wouldn't gild the lily, would they?)
2. No more than $____ is going be spent on the job.
3. It must be 'off the shelf.'
4. Lip service will be paid to the technicalities (i'd like some validation of my pre-conceptions please), but they better not get in the way of a good story.

This is of course a bit of a worst case characterisation rather than precisely how any specific individual might have approached the issue - but it's to my mind the height of wishful thinking. It characterises a situation where buyers rather than engaging with their actual requirements have already (without necessarily realising it) been conditioned into believing certain things about a given system or type of system - and are now moving to force this belief on their reality.

There's no doubt but that we're all subject to spending limits, and no doubt either that there's more and less cost effective ways to configure a system to meet a given requirement. The trouble is though that there's no side stepping the basic requirements/technicalities of a given application if the resulting system is to do a decent job in health protection and practical operating terms.

I guess what i'm saying is that it suits the industry to blur the boundaries of what a system can and can not do - to in effect encourage this pattern of behaviour.

The job of any tester (especially on a mag purporting to look out for its buyers) is surely to counter this. To (a) deliver reliable data, and (b) to push back against this tendency by providing the means by which we can quantify our requirements, and select systems to deliver them.

i.e. testing of dust systems or system components should surely first establish their capacity (CFM, pressure capability etc), and then move on to establish their level of performance. (effectively the quality of air delivered) Then take a look at what it takes to run them - stuff like build quality, maintenance tasks and required consumable parts.

It's at that point that the price becomes more important - but it's only by then that the information is available to judge how much bang your buck is buying with each system or solution. There's always going to be a level of performance and specification below which it makes no sense to go in health/risk and other terms.

It'd seem daft (if that's what's happening) to exclude systems anywhere even remotely close to being within a reasonable price range until this situation has been reached....

ian