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

[David Kumm]

Ian, Wood mag tends toward the low end even if the results are irrelevant. Dave

[Phil Thien]

By this price rule, they wouldn't be able to test both a Sawstop and a lower-end Grizzly cabinet saw in the same test.

Likewise, comparisons between a Ridgid shop vac and a Fein, or Festool, would be off-limits.

[ian maybury]

Ta David - we don't get the mag over here, so to be fair i was speaking more generally/responding to some of the earlier comment which seemed to feel that the CV system should be included in any test.

That said being on a budget actually exacerbates the situation for a buyer - in that to have any hope of getting the job done (in health protection terms) it becomes necessary to understand even better what matters, and what doesn't - and to get even more creative in terms of finding ways to save money while still covering the essential (technical) bases.

Which requires accepting certain limits in the system and nature of the installation/application it can support as a result too - understanding for example that a low HP system brings definite limits in terms of needing to run short and correctly sized connections to machines etc.

The answer isn't inevitably 'yes', it may be the budget has got to be increased to properly handle a specific set of requirements. No matter how much we want it to be otherwise..

There's fairly clearly no escaping the need for joined up thinking. It brings to mind the embarrassingly large number of times I've been taken in - cut short cut my homework and bought machines and bits of woodworking equipment without checking out the sellers' claims of professional quality and the like - and ended up a very unhappy bunny. Life in miniature really..

ian

[Alan Schaffter]

Ian, I think you nailed it. That is one reason I don't participate in "what system should I buy" threads.

One big problem is that many woodworkers suspect or know what they plan to buy (can only afford to buy) will not be adequate to meet OSHA, NIOSH, EPA, Dylos counts, etc. standards (pick one). They reason something is better than nothing. In most cases this is true to some extent, but in some case it may not be at all- 25 micron "dust pump" bag filter. It will often lead to a false sense of security, however.

Before doing a comparison test of DC's and cyclones, wood should take a step back and talk about requirements, using an actual shop layout not CFM/SP measured at the end of a straight 10' pipe. Assuming we are talking about a fixed system, the layout would have a tablesaw with standard dust port on one side of the "shop" connected via 6' of flex, "up and over" 4" and 6" ducting, elbows, blast gate, etc. to a cyclone-based DC with cartridge filter that is on the other side, say 15' away. Do particle count and CFM/SP tests at a tablesaw when it is connected to a DC by 4" then 6" ducting, that discharges to a filter then directly outside with no filter, etc. Maybe even swap 90's for 45's, enlarge the machine dust port, etc. In other words clearly show how the "system" configuration affects dust collection. Then pick one configuration (the best) and start testing different DC's. Since many vendors provide filters with their DC's, they would need to be tested as a unit.

[Jeff Monson]

By this price rule, they wouldn't be able to test both a Sawstop and a lower-end Grizzly cabinet saw in the same test.

Likewise, comparisons between a Ridgid shop vac and a Fein, or Festool, would be off-limits.

Totally agree Phil. When I read that they did not test the Clear Vue, I thought the exact same thing. Doesn't make much sense to my why they would not include them in the test.

[David Kumm]

I would think that the mags would look at all the discussion DC generates and see there is enough interest to justify treatment of collection as a tool. Of course they would have to educate themselves as well. I remember an answer in FWW concerning cyclone reviews. When asked they stated cyclone reviews weren't necessary because all of them did such a good job. Yet they will review chisels annually. Dave

[ian maybury]

Ta Alan. Dave, Phil and guys - you got it. Something is way out of whack when after all these years almost everybody that wants to select a dust system still has to mount a major campaign to search out hard data.

Not only that, when they do they tend quickly to run up against the reality that even if they work at it that lots is missing, and/or isn't complete, and/or is often pitched so that it's very hard to make comparisons. So that even those of us with experience end up having to extrapolate, to rely on hearsay and otherwise read between the lines to make choices.

It's surely got to be one of the prime areas in all of woodworking where (a) there is a major data/knowledge gap, and yet where (b) the consequences of getting it wrong can be so serious. People coming cold to the area seem often to be quite shocked at just how subjective matters of equipment choice have remained.

It's i think a bit like the trust of the general public in medicine and the like that the politicians and the docs so often rely on. There's lots wrong, but it suits us while we're healthy to presume that there is an effective safety net in place to catch us if we get ill. By the time we find out that its got more than a few holes in it it tends to be far too late to do much about it....

It's strange given the level of interest (it's one of the biggest tops on S/C surely?) that the mags haven't long since targeted dust collection as a priority topic/issue to dig deeper into and write about. It's not like the required testing or the application of the long since well developed engineering applied in industry to DIY dust systems isn't well within the reach of even an organisation with quite moderate resources....

ian

[Alan Schaffter]

I would think that the mags would look at all the discussion DC generates and see there is enough interest to justify treatment of collection as a tool. Of course they would have to educate themselves as well. I remember an answer in FWW concerning cyclone reviews. When asked they stated cyclone reviews weren't necessary because all of them did such a good job. Yet they will review chisels annually. Dave

I have dealt with a number of editors at various magazines in the past few years and found it surprising how out of touch many are with what is really going on in woodworking. Their primary concern is publishing a magazine and lately have been relying more and more on contributors. Few ever go online to surf the forums. There as so few of them and they are so focused on a their next article that all they know is what the advertisers have fed them and a few know what they see at AWFS, WWIA, and other trade shows. They really don't have a good feel for what us unwashed masses want and need. I've mentioned a number of important forum topics to them and am amazed that they have never heard of the tool, problem, etc.

[Alan Schaffter]

Ta Alan. Dave, Phil and guys - you got it. Something is way out of whack when after all these years almost everybody that wants to select a dust system still has to mount a major campaign to search out the data.

Not only that, they tend quickly to run up against the reality that even if they do the work that lots of the data is missing, and/or isn't complete, and/or is often pitched so that it's very hard to make comparisons. So that even those of us with experience end up having to extrapolate, to rely on hearsay and otherwise read between the lines to make choices.

It's surely got to be one of the prime areas in all of woodworking where (a) there is a major data gap, and yet (b) the consequences of getting it wrong can be so serious. People coming cold to the area seem often to be quite shocked at just how subjective equipment choice has remained. A bit like the trust of the general public in medicine and the like that the politicians and the docs so often rely on I think.

There's lots wrong, but it suits us while we're healthy to presume that there is an effective safety net in place to catch us if we get ill. By the time we find out that that too is a myth it tends to be far too late to do much about it....

It's strange that the mags haven't long since targeted it as a priority topic/issue to dig deeper into and write about. It's not like the required testing or the application of the long since well developed engineering applied in industry to DIY dust systems is not well within the reach of an organisation with quite moderate resources....

ian

Several years ago, Bill P, another writer, and I were about to collaborate on "the definitive dust collection book". We had planned to use the info on Bill's website, but I wanted to make sure every statement or claim whether it be regulatory, health, or DC performance, was backed by solid verifiable documentation or test results. So for much of the info, we would need to start with a clean slate with no preconceptions. There were big challenges, however. Not the least of which was we had to provide summaries and data that were accurate, understandable, and actionable to regular woodworkers. Another challenge was to provide the info without attacking or criticizing DC manufacturers and their products (avoid lawsuits), which as you can guess might have been tough for Bill who has been quite outspoken over the years. Another impediment was that both Rick Peters and Sandor Nagyszalanczy had recently published updates to their dust collection books. While they still had numerous flaws, they were much better than their early editions. Finally, between the publishers (Fox Chapel, Taunton, etc.) who already had DC books, those receiving advertizing dollars from DC manufacturers, and those who were already aware of Bill's somewhat contentious history, it might have been difficult to find a publisher willing to take on our project, which I said was essential before we started what would likely have been a large, complex task. Another big issue was the three of us were busy to varying degrees with our own projects.

[ian maybury]

Just to pick up your topic and day dream a bit Alan. For sure it'd need to be well set up in terms of organisation and logistics - the question I guess is whether or not it could be made to work. Especially in terms of covering its costs, or better still of making a little for the contributors.

As we both said earlier it seems like it might take a team - who would contribute and share the proofing. A professional engineer with lots of experience and very well versed as to the state of the art on the collection and handling of fine dust on the industrial, industry body and regulatory scenes; an industrial hygienist with dust and related regulatory and medical expertise, an experienced woodworker with good dust system knowledge and experience, maybe a mag/publishing/editorial guy who knows where the boundaries lie, and a good creative writer.

These topics might not be covered by single individuals. Chances are that it would require pulling in more specialised expertise too. People well up to speed and specialising in stuff like fan, cyclone and filter development.

It could maybe be done by an individual with the right experience and background (some blend of familiarity with academia, dust system engineering, woodworking and the industry), but as you say that would necessarily be slow, and would have to start with quite a lot of research into both the state of the art and current engineering and industry practices. Something like signing up for a Master's degree in the field might be one way of getting into the topic at the right starting level.

It seems like one way of separating the principles and avoiding perceived criticism of suppliers would be to break it out in terms of a training manual, and then a separate cataloguing of available equipment - or at least a listing of makers. To move from that into listing maker's spec data or publishing test results is one place where it could get complicated - by creating a direct conflict with maker's claims and data. Here be dragons!!!

Another route might be to characterise (test if the data isn't to hand) the performance of representative examples of the various sorts of equipment found in the marketplace without naming makers. A test of long industrial pattern cyclones to the accepted industry models, and then of the truncated variety we see a lot of now might when blended with what's already known about cyclone design for example might be quite informative. It could be that when the dust settled that there might not be a need for a lot of testing, in that quite a lot of the territory could prove to be already known.

Using 'independent' (there's no such thing in my experience) academic groups to do the testing might head off the possibility of claims of lack of expertise, but it's notoriously difficult to get predictable output from even applied academic programmes.

I suppose it'd need legal assistance too, plus plenty of insurance.

Part of the problem is perhaps the way corporate publishers have chosen to structure the mag business. Back in the day it seems like you had staff writers who over many years became highly knowledgeable across the various fields - plus of course they didn't have to face the same legal environment. I know for example that i was asked by non US mag if I would write some pieces on dust collection. I ended up saying no, because i felt i just didn't have enough depth to my knowledge. When push came to shove it was clear that i'd be put on the spot to deliver content to very short lead times, would be entirely responsible for it, and would not have enjoyed the support of any longer term commitment or team as outlined above. It would of course be easy to write the oft seen 'everything is wonderful' toned stuff, but that didn't appeal either.

There's no doubt all sorts of dragons that would rear up as the work progressed - the devil (as 'they' say) is always in the detail.

Maybe we need a big time lottery winner or philanthropist with a big heart and deep pockets with the hots to do his/her bit for woodworking...

ian

[Jim Neeley]

"Now, to the question about Clear Vue: When we began acquiring dust collectors for the upcoming review, Clear Vue did not have a machine in the price range that is the focus of the review. Since we completed testing, though, several included models went up in price, raising the range up to where Clear Vue could have been included. However, at that point, it was too late to include them in our tests."

I too am disappointed, even though I've got a ClearVue in my shop. They said it's because it wasn't expensive enough. We'll know a lot more when the review comes out and they tell us what their lower price point was. It seems as if anyone with a verifiable 5hp fan motor shouldn't be excluded due to it's low price.

Jim

[Phil Thien]

Maybe we need a big time lottery winner or philanthropist with a big heart and deep pockets with the hots to do his/her bit for woodworking...

ian

I play the lottery from time to time and want to be perfectly clear: If I win, I'm outta here.

[ian maybury]

That's presumably to develop the material and write the book Phil????

ian

[Alan Schaffter]

Let us take Jim's point a step further. Why not test the old Wood Magazine DIY cyclone, the update clone being sold on E-Bay, a Pentz design cyclone, and Phil's baffle connected to your motor/blower of choice? Why should the options be limited to just commercially available dust collectors/cyclones?