Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 230

Thread: Wood Magazine to Test Whole Shop Cyclones

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    734
    The URL below should get you to a PDF of the last good test of full shop cyclones (IMHO) done by American Woodworker in 2006. Fan curves were tested showing CFM at various static pressure levels, cyclonic separation was tested, operation and fit and finish were evaluated. Cyclone theory was introduced. These folks are not engineers and we all know that a big critical variable of your installation success is the machine and duct layout of your system. The article at the time helped one to make some clear choices, I thought. ClearVue was not well known at the time so it was not tested. I hope it will be included in this go around with Wood. I wrote to ClearVue and asked if they are being included. I have not gotten a response, although they acknowledged my email.


    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...,d.dmQ&cad=rja

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    'over here' - Ireland
    Posts
    2,532
    The practicality is that there probably isn't any simple way around the technical issues without getting into hard data. Not unless as a user you can afford the $ to buy a turn key ready to install and run custom designed system from an expert supplier.

    The aim has to primarily be education - to help get non industrial system buyers to a place where they can properly specify the system performance they need, from that specify the elements of such a system, and from that know the questions and data to ask of suppliers. It's insane for example that we're buying cyclones with no hard data on retention capability - only subjective advertising claims. It's equally daft that we buy systems ranging from about 2HP to 5HP for similar applications, especially when they come without comparable fan curves. We similarly buy 'filters' that range from high efficiency HEPA standards to wide open dust distributors - and often hardly realise the choices we are making and their implications.

    +100% that there's more technicalities to be covered and data to be generated than a mag is going to be able to get done for a single written piece or round of magazine tests.

    Perhaps the mags shouldn't be running equipment tests at all - at least not until they have established clear technical criteria against which to do so. Plan B might simply be to concentrate on development of these, and to not test at all -or at least not until the criteria are clear. With the objective of creating a market environment where it gets harder and harder to sell dust system kit that doesn't come with credible test data.

    The aim has to be too to avoid the $ sledgehammer being applied. It can't bump prices too much. It shouldn't however - in that it seems pretty clear that some/many? of the makers in order to develop the selective data that's often presented are doing the testing anyway, but obfuscating the published results and instead using the data to enable them to sail as close to the wind as is possible on the spec of what they sell.

    It'd make a lot of sense to run a series of pieces dealing with each of the elements of the design of a system in rational groups or in turn. Probably best to build it up - start with the elements of a system and how they are specified and their performance rated - filter types, cyclones, fans, duct design, machine hooding etc. Then pull it all together in a module on system design. It could eventually be published as a manual or a book.

    Dust system designs as Michael and others here know are not rocket science - they instead use stock data, test standards and design methods that have been around for yonks. When we the DIY guys run into trouble it's usually because the required data is not available, and not because of complexity or lack of easily applied methods.

    In industry when you set out to design a system it's presumed that catalogues will deliver hard data and trustworthy data in a standardised format. It's not 100% watertight, but in principle the engineer selects the modules/pieces of equipment from these catalogues and builds them into systems using the system design methods he/she's been trained in. The fact is that most systems sold for use in an industry environment will be contracted to deliver regulated standards of air quality (the TLV number mentioned before, or similar) - so it has to be a reasonably exact science that delivers predictable outcomes.

    I'd have to say that if i was a magazine doing a series like this i'd look to find a properly trained, qualified and experienced dust systems design engineer, and partner him/her with experienced woodworking writers.

    For sure the 'losers' will kick up, but that's another reason for following good/established engineering practice in what's done. That they do is another consequence of the highly subjective 'whatever you're having yourself' sort of culture that surrounds the sale of DIY dust systems - I can't imagine anything that creates more exposure to kick back than purporting to test equipment but using subjective means and low levels of expertise that don't properly take account of the engineering and of well established methods.....

    ian
    Last edited by ian maybury; 01-17-2013 at 3:36 PM. Reason: clarity

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Washington, NC
    Posts
    2,387
    There are two secondary but important issues to this whole testing thing that bother me, one of which I already mentioned- no matter what system comes out on top, or receives the typical magazines' attempt at the best bang for the buck - "Best Buy", "Editor's Choice," etc. traditionally the consumer's main selection criteria is price. How does the magazine weigh all the technical performance data AND cost to come up with a "Best Buy?" Is an additional 150 CFM worth an additional $500?

    The second more important issue is the user's shop set-up and machine ports. It seems to me that industry designs their machinery with dust collection as a primary concern (because of OSHA?)- well designed dust channeling and ports, etc., etc. while hobby and light commercial machine manufacturers continue to treat dust collection as an afterthought or hardly at all. A consumer can buy the top 2 hp DC available (using hp just to classify) but install it in a shop where it woefully under-performs due to machine ports, fixed installation ducting, filters, etc., etc. On the other hand, he could buy a 2 hp unit which uses minimal ducting and is direct vented that "out-performs" a 3 hp connected to a large, circuitous duct system and a low-flow filter.

    And of course, what do I mean, what criteria am I using when I say "under-performs" or "out-performs." Also, you can have a DC that does a super job collecting dust at the source, verified by a Dylos to meet OSHA, EPA, or whatever standard you want, but if you have a "dust pump" filter what good is it?!?!?!
    Last edited by Alan Schaffter; 01-17-2013 at 1:41 PM.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    1,544
    Ian,
    I think you said it very well.

    I would re-emphasize that suppliers of the DC equipment have no control over the system that it is connected to. The DC equipment is a portion of the system and is an off-the shelf item that is not designed for the specific system. The system performance depends on all of the system components.

    For that reason, the customers need some technical expertise to select the appropriate equipment for their system. In turn, the suppliers need to provide accurate and reliable performance data that can be easily understood and compared. In the industrial markets, the suppliers that put in extra effort to educate potential customers are usually rewarded. It develops a sense of confidence and technical ability. If the hobby DC suppliers would take a similar approach to educate people (not an advertising, but technical from a supplier who knows their equipment), it would likely do well for their business.

    There is a book that discusses ventilation design in good detail. The Industrial Ventilation Manual by ACGIH. There are a lot of specific designs for woodworking equipment that have been developed over about 50 years. The information is based on empiracal data from actual applications. This is where I get a lot of my information.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    2,253
    But where do the editors draw the line? If they go too deep into what it takes to design something, or recommend an expensive outsourcing of design approach - they are going to lose the readers.

    Over simplify it and they 'may' be making 'poor' recommendations (and will be discredited, etc)

    I like this saying:

    The best hearing protection is the type that gets used........

    But I dont think its the same for DC. Is 'some', better than 'none'? It depends. And what level of dust collection is the goal?

    So they are going to need to be very practical in how they approach this article. And to do so, by definition, means doing a less than complete technical approach. Some people arent going to like that.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    1,544
    Ian's and Alan's posts got me thinking. A magazine like Wood that is very power tool oriented would be an excellent venue for a series of short (2 page) articles on different aspects of a DC system. Each article could be written by a supplier from a technical standpoint. In other words, "here is what to look for in a cyclone and this is how a cyclone works" written by Oneida or Clearvue. Or, "how to choose the appropriate after filter" by Wynn. Not, "you should buy my cyclone because it is better than his". After the readers are "educated" then I think you could have a better understanding of any equipment comparisons and what they mean.

    Carl, you are correct. Comparing DC systems is not like comparing tablesaws and bandsaws. The performance of a DC system is too subject to the system it is connected to. Other machines are more "stand-alone".
    Last edited by Michael W. Clark; 01-17-2013 at 2:19 PM.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    2,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael W. Clark View Post

    After the readers are "educated" then I think you could have a better understanding of any equipment comparisons and what they mean.
    This is the rub. My take is that there is a large % of magazine readers out there that only want so much education. I know I have read more about DC systems than I ever wanted to. Its like pulling someone through a very detailed technical analysis of how hearing loss happens - again, not something I particularly care about, I just want to cut up some wood. OK, guess I have to wear some hearing protection while doing it. DC??.... really??.... dang. I could have spent more on new tools, but (sighs), ok I will buy some DC equipment. (by the time Im done it costs WHAT?!!!?!?!? )


    So if you cant write the article in a way thats simple, you will lose the impact (hence not really protecting) your readership. Doesnt matter how technically correct/incorrect it is. Its like a politician - if you cant get and stay elected, you cant actually make a difference. And what is required to get/stay elected completely discredits you in the process. Catch 22.

  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Wade Lippman View Post
    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.
    I'd be thrilled if they did.

    Another magazine told me they were going to write-up my baffle modification, but then apparently dropped it, and I never heard another word.

  9. #24
    All I really care about is separation rate, and resistance. I hope they provide some #'s in those areas.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central WI
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Beckett View Post
    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?
    I'd like to see separation efficiency at 30 microns and down in a curve to 1 micron with the pressure drop at an operating cfm. Also a pressure drop for each filter type and size as well as the recommended cfm for each type and size. We have filtration numbers but don't know at what flow rate so some sq ft vs cfm data would be helpful. If manufacturers gave use those numbers and a cfm vs sp table for their various size impellers we could calculate the proper system by adding the pressure drops of the cyclone and filters to the pipe we use and add a little for hood loss. A great separator that has additional pressure drop would not be necessary if no fine dust is generated or could be mated to the proper impeller and motor to compensate. Systems should be considered as a bunch of separate mix and match pieces and built to meet the needs of the user. I think having those numbers would force the manufacturers to improve their designs or at least offer alternatives to those who desire them. Info regarding filter loading, ease of release, impact of cleaning, and when bags are preferable to cartridges would be educational as well. Dave

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    734

    ClearVue NOT Included in Wood Magazine Test

    When I originally posted re the upcoming Wood Magazine cyclone test, I contacted Clearvue to see if they were included. I received a reply from Clearvue today that they WERE NOT included. They said that they were going to contact Wood Magazine.

    If the upcoming article is truly meant to represent the cyclone choices available to woodworkers from major manufacturers I do not understand how Clearvue can be left out. Yes, I own a Clearvue as do so many other Creekers. And yes, I am happy with it. Among knowledgeable woodworkers ClearVue is a major player and the only cyclone purely based on ill Pentz's design.

    I have no connection whatsoever to Clearvue.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Highland MI
    Posts
    4,511
    Blog Entries
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by David Kumm View Post
    I'd like to see separation efficiency at 30 microns and down in a curve to 1 micron with the pressure drop at an operating cfm. Also a pressure drop for each filter type and size as well as the recommended cfm for each type and size. We have filtration numbers but don't know at what flow rate so some sq ft vs cfm data would be helpful. If manufacturers gave use those numbers and a cfm vs sp table for their various size impellers we could calculate the proper system by adding the pressure drops of the cyclone and filters to the pipe we use and add a little for hood loss. A great separator that has additional pressure drop would not be necessary if no fine dust is generated or could be mated to the proper impeller and motor to compensate. Systems should be considered as a bunch of separate mix and match pieces and built to meet the needs of the user. I think having those numbers would force the manufacturers to improve their designs or at least offer alternatives to those who desire them. Info regarding filter loading, ease of release, impact of cleaning, and when bags are preferable to cartridges would be educational as well. Dave
    All of that information would be wonderful, but we know it isn't going to happen, hey we all have our wish list. I would be happy to see a standardized fan curve showing the horsepower, on the same curve, not too complicated to add although it would complicate a side by side fan curve comparison. Sure hoping they give us their test procedure. I presume they will give us some basic information on particle removal of the filters so we know if it has a 30 micron bag or a certified HEPA filter or if it has a strong MERV rating. And I hope all of the major manufacturers and their most popular models are represented. I guess we need to remember that the targeted readership is primarily woodworkers and not dust collection engineers, so I am not getting my hopes up.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    'over here' - Ireland
    Posts
    2,532
    Seems to me that there should be a very high level of interest in a series of pieces working through dust system components and other topics. It's hard not to think for example that there wouldn't be interest in a piece on filters on its own:

    Types - bags, cartridges, other, sub types in each case.
    Basic characterisation - %retention/particle size, pressure drop vs airflow/cfm, rate of build up of pressure drop with wood dust and hence life/cleaning needs, likely lifespan, relative cost.
    Strengths and weaknesses of each type
    How/where best used and not used.
    Specs to apply when buying.
    How corners get cut/effects of reducing specs.

    It'd probably be best to take a look at principles of air flow before doing anything. Then do cyclones next, then fans, then ducting, then system design (matching components to systems); chip collection bins/level sensing/chip handling and disposal; power, wiring and use of VFDs; applicable regulations etc

    Somewhere along the line there's a need to cover health, standards and requirements - the whole business of air quality. What it means for users in health/risk terms, what the industrial air quality standards are, what they mean, how they are tested in practice, and how this links back to component and system performance.

    It's one of those topics which when taken methodically step by step isn't at all complicated. It's going to seem very complicated if too much is bitten off in one chunk - especially if as is usually the case attempts are made as you say to discuss whole systems in advertising driven sound bite terms - and without the principles being well understood by either the person writing, or the potential reader.

    If somebody/some organisation could pull it off and leave it so that there was a properly structured collection of high quality reference pieces available separately and/or in book/manual form it'd amount to one hell of a service to woodworking. It'd even have legs, in that as areas of the field evolved over time the reference pieces could be updated accordingly. Not only that, but there could be related (but separate) product/component/system directories, reviews and tests.

    It seems to me to be a classic case where driving down to the decent level of detail would not only make the material a lot more useful - it would also open up a whole world of bite size, interesting and directly useful written pieces/articles.

    One major barrier is the seeming reluctance of the mags to write about stuff beyond that offered as a ready for sale product now. Presumably driven by their advertisers. Trouble is that it tends to lead to punches being pulled, and to block the possibility of dealing with stuff at component as opposed to system levels. Which often leads to the confusion mentioned above.

    Getting it done in a way that simultaneously hit both the interesting writing and technical targets would need excellent creative and technical writing skills partnered with core dust system and woodworking expertise. There's so much to be said for a reference system that's correctly structured and well indexed - so that it's highly flexible, and that the information on specific topics is easily accessed and/or updated without having to re-jig the whole lot.

    Bill Pentz headed off down this sort of road, but since he was also developing and researching solutions the writing wasn't his primary focus.

    Fishing here - in the hope that the right person(s) might be reading and listening....

    ian
    Last edited by ian maybury; 01-18-2013 at 6:59 AM.

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Wunder View Post
    When I originally posted re the upcoming Wood Magazine cyclone test, I contacted Clearvue to see if they were included. I received a reply from Clearvue today that they WERE NOT included. They said that they were going to contact Wood Magazine.

    If the upcoming article is truly meant to represent the cyclone choices available to woodworkers from major manufacturers I do not understand how Clearvue can be left out. Yes, I own a Clearvue as do so many other Creekers. And yes, I am happy with it. Among knowledgeable woodworkers ClearVue is a major player and the only cyclone purely based on ill Pentz's design.

    I have no connection whatsoever to Clearvue.
    Agreed. The review should have included a CV unit.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    'over here' - Ireland
    Posts
    2,532
    That would be a pity, but not the first time the CV has seemed to be left out of various mags. One wonders....

    ian
    Last edited by ian maybury; 01-18-2013 at 7:01 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •