[OP]
Contributor
In this issue's "coming attractions" it appears that the next issue of Wood Magazine will report on its testing of whole shop cyclones. The teaser picture showed an Oneida.
It will be interesting to see what brands/models are included in the testing, what methodology is used and what conclusions they draw.
Member
It will be interesting, indeed!!
One can never have too many planes and chisels... or so I'm learning!!
Moderator
Historically, they have done a good job with this testing. They are sticklers for methodology. They also make every effort to anonymously purchase equipment on the open market so there's no "juicing" by a vendor/manufacturer.
--
The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...
Guest
Cool its been a long time coming for a useful independent test. I bet a LOT of people are waiting eagerly for this one
Member
nice to see such enthusiasm for independent testing. i've seen many "old timers" on several WW sites cast aspersions on tests by the likes of wood and pop WW. like others here, i'm very interested in that test and it's results.
Member
I'm with you there, Joseph, for I read "independent reviews" carefully and then pass them through my own filter based on the source, author, and the tone of the writer.
Well that, and looking for one or more of the reviewees with multi-page color ads in that issue, especially near the review.
That doesn't make the review invaluable; just don't take it at face value. Interpret their findings in light of all you already know. It's still good data, and generally fun to read about!!
Jim
One can never have too many planes and chisels... or so I'm learning!!
Member
i too like independant any truly objective (we are all subjective a bit thow) and un biased(we all have biases too for tool brands etc).
i would like to see all the players take to the field
oneida
all the other copys
clear view
thien baffel type design
and anyother similar concepts.
Member
Hopefully they will be able to make an engineering/data based job of it.
The starting point has to be to divide the available systems into groups of comparable airflow (CFM) and pressure capability. (inches WG) i.e. systems capable of running a particular duct size/size of machine/length of duct run/size of workshop at 4,000ft/min or so. There's no point comparing apples with oranges, and no point testing marginally specified/low HP systems without being clear as to their limitations in terms of the sizes and types of applications they can handle.
My recollection is a bit fuzzy, but I've a feeling that in the tests i've seen before the resulting air quality may not have been measured in terms of particle sizes and % passing either. That's for both cyclones (to determine what's carried on into the filters = likely filter life) and for the filters. (to determine what's blown through into the shop air = key determinant of shop air quality)
Best of all if they would offer a methodology to link exhaust airflow/CFM, cleanliness of the return air/level of dust blow through to the quality of shop air delivered in terms of the mgm/m3 TLV number.
It'd be nice to see proper independently generated fan curves too (for the fans alone in the standard industry test configurations - not chosen to big up the numbers or avoid comparability), plus maybe some spot checks of CFM versus pressure drop when hooked up to real world loads. (i.e. machine hoods and ducting systems of varying degrees of restrictiveness) Especially how each dust system does on more highly restrictive machines and applications. (some fan types and sizes can be expected to do better than others)
Pressure drop/CFM curves for each of the filter and the cyclone set ups on their own would be great too - to deliver numbers suitable for use in calculating system pressure drops. (system curves)
Better still a piece on how to estimate system curves, and match them to fan curves to select an appropriate dust system.
No small task - and maybe enough for a series of pieces. It'd do so much to clear the air on dust systems though..... (pardon the pun)
ian
Last edited by ian maybury; 01-16-2013 at 8:18 PM.
Contributor
You guys are cracking me up. Just the rumor of a DC article and it has already been picked apart, and redesigned 'properly'
Can't wait to hear the comments on th actual article.
Member
3 weeks too late for me.
But unless something really wierd come out, I can't see how anything can compete with the Grizzly if price is considered.
I would love to see a test on the Thien baffle, but I guess they just consider commercial products. Or maybe its that they don't care about dust collectors anymore.
Member
That's broadly how its done Carl - if the aim is to enable direct comparisons. Can't speak for Wood mag and it sounds promising, but most of the stuff published so far elsewhere seems almost to be designed to confuse and obfuscate rather than to clarify. This is all data that in industry is considered both standard and basic....
ian
Member
I am skeptical. Too hard of a problem for a magazine to do it right and meet the wants of all woodworkers. What do you want- motor/blower with highest CFM, highest CFM and SP, or a mix of CFM/SP you think is best, what is that and what weight factor should be used? Remember, DCs perform best somewhere on a continuum (fan curve) between high CFM/zero SP and high SP/zero CFM. The answer in all cases will likely be the DC with the biggest (and most expensive) motor (hp)/blower (impeller diam.) tested. Or do you want a CFM per $ comparison to give you a means to determine which mid-priced or low-priced units are best (again, using what criteria?). What is a mid-priced unit? What is "best"? Wood will not have time to test all models in a particular manufacturer's line, so what will they test? All 2 hp DC's (all "real" 2 hp DCs)? Will they include filters- bags, cartridges, none, same filter with each unit, manufacturer's spec'd filter?
Then, as soon as they publish their results the "losers" will yell foul - flawed test, unfair test, used last year's model, didn't allow them to check their DC was connected properly, wrong DC (theirs or others) etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. I'll start popping corn right away.
Regardless of the outcome, gotta say Wood has cajones. Of course, it will be like the Boston Sawstop lawsuit, "everyone" will want to discuss and praise or attack it, so "everyone" will need to read Wood. I wonder if advertising rates for that issue will be like TV ads during the Super Bowl- demanding super high prices per inch?
Last edited by Alan Schaffter; 01-16-2013 at 10:19 PM.
Contributor
I'm with Alan. I would like a test of cyclone separation efficiency for various designs at various cfm and numbers for the pressure drop but other than impeller design I can't think of much that can be relevant considering how much depends on how each system is installed and what types of dust are captured. Every time a fairly complicated thing is dumbed down for general reviews as much bad info as good is generated. I should wait until I see the article to opine so I will comment in a month. Dave
Member
Seems like they would need to test cyclone efficiency as one test, then system performance (CFM vs SP) as another test. I just hope they go into a little more detail and it is not a basic single stage vs two stage article and why one is chosen over the other.
Contributor
Well, the purpose of these reviews in general is to provide some guidance to the reader population, to help them through decision making.
What criteria would yield a helpful conclusion, without getting deep into a technical deisgn?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote