Clear Vue Cyclone...

[Phil Thien]

When I mentioned anecdotal evidence, I brought up two objections. The first one is that it is impossible, without accurate measurement equipment and repeatable conditions, to make valid comparisons of one unit over another. That is a simple fact. The second objection I had is that owners tend to believe in and therefore unduly favor the products they are already invested in. That is just human nature. You will note that, in the case of Janis, he did not favor the Clearvue as far as fit and finish is concerned, but rather offered some very legitimate and believable criticisms. You can believe whomever you like but I tend to place more credence in what people say who offer honest criticisms as well as praise for the things they own and use. All anecdotal evidence is not created equal.

I am indeed being a little unfair to Clearvue based on the fact that what they are selling is not a dust collection system but rather a kit the performance of which depends to a large extent on the skill and care of the person who builds it. I would also say that people like the authors of the Wood article have a right and even obligation to point that out.

Just keep in mind that hundreds of the Dylos meters have now been sold into the woodworking community, and I'd imagine at least 20+ people w/ CV cyclones also own one or more (yes, I know a few people with multiple) Dylos meters. Also consider that I know at least one owner of a CV cyclone that has access to commercial-grade particle counters, as he works for a large HVAC manufacturer.

The vast, vast majority of people w/ particle counters and dust collectors using cartridge filters found that, the longer the DC units ran after machining, the more the air quality in their shop improved. Those that found otherwise often found holes in their filters, or other leaks on the pressure side (and those issues were typically addressed). And I'm not just talking about CV issues, I remember the threads (and calls) about the time the Dylos meters first shipped, people were discovering small problems with all makes/models.

So when someone comes along and says "hey this thing is returning 20x the dust as brand x," and that it isn't even working as well as single-stage units, well, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever, right?

If they were to instead say "something was wrong with ours, maybe a leak, and we couldn't find it," that would be quite a bit more honest (but perhaps a less interesting read), IMHO.

My dad (as I said, he was a journalist) once quipped that the only thing a manufacturer likes more than a favorable review of their own product is a unfavorable review of the competition's. And I imagine this review of the CV will be used extensively to sell against it. Which is a shame, because it doesn't provide an accurate indication of how well it works.

All just my personal opinions, of course.

[Janis Stipins]

...what they are selling is not a dust collection system but rather a kit the performance of which depends to a large extent on the skill and care of the person who builds it. I would also say that people like the authors of the Wood article have a right and even obligation to point that out.

I think that's a fair statement.

Based on my experience (and my Dylos air meter), I find it very, very difficult to believe that the CV system tested in the magazine was installed properly. It almost certainly had a bad leak. Mine keeps the particle count very low, and lower the longer it runs.

But also based on my experience, I find it easy to believe that somebody could end up with a leak after attempting to install it. Like Art says, the performance is going to depend a lot on the installer. So any comparison with something that runs right out of the box is going to be apples to oranges.

-Janis

[Art Mann]

I just received my copy of the latest Wood magazine in the mail today and it has the review of the Clearvue collector tested in the same way as the other dust collectors. What was surprising to me is not only was the filtration system ranked below the others (for whatever reason), but the air flow was also lower than many other systems, especially under high static pressures. That is a very easy thing to measure. They have a photo of the system they built and the design looks like some sort of Rube Goldberg apparatus. To my knowledge, this is the first time the Clearvue was independently tested against other brands by real mechanical engineers under controlled conditions. Could it be that the design really is that bad? That is hard to believe. I would like to see some more testing.

[Chris Parks]

Edit: Don't you think that maybe it is a little unfair to criticize the authors of an article which you obviously haven't read?

Are you saying that those who have read the article and reported the overall facts here can't be trusted to report the main thrust without exception or bias?

I have actually been out there and spoken to editors and journos about this stuff, more than you have possibly?? Why does everyone get their knickers in a knot when it comes to DE? It is definitely a subject that brings out the believers and those that don't for some reason.

[Chris Parks]

The end result of any DE installation does depend on the skills and knowledge of the installer and I could show examples of both. The big plus with CV is that it can be custom installed to suit the situation to a far larger degree than others, to the point where the cyclone and the fan/motor can be put in as two separate units if height becomes an issue. Any installation that depends on recirculating through filters is never going to give a result as good as one which exhausts straight to atmosphere no matter what it is or who installed it. Filters leak dust as they can't have a 100% capture, pure and simple.

[Janis Stipins]

Well, some data points:

- With 10' of 6" S&D PVC attached (in a straight line), I got almost 1900 CFM. Note that this is more than you get with _no_ pipe attached; it takes a certain length of pipe to establish a smooth airflow.

- The path to my table saw is roughly 20' of 6" S&D pipe, including some gradual turns, passing through three wyes, and then ending with 8' of 6" smooth-walled flex hose. At the end of that I get over 1300 CFM.

My setup is pretty simple and not Rube-Goldberg-y, but those numbers still impressed me, anyway.

I wonder if they are giving the Leeson motor enough power? Mine has its own 30A circuit.

-Janis

[Art Mann]

Are you saying that those who have read the article and reported the overall facts here can't be trusted to report the main thrust without exception or bias?

I have actually been out there and spoken to editors and journos about this stuff, more than you have possibly?? Why does everyone get their knickers in a knot when it comes to DE? It is definitely a subject that brings out the believers and those that don't for some reason.

Chris,

The Wood article included a photo of the consulting engineers that worked on the dust collector performance evaluation. We are discussing what Wood Magazine had to say and whether some other editors of some other magazine used older articles as a "jumping off" point (your words) is irrelevant. You have yet to see an editor who sought expert advice (your words) because you obviously didn't read the Wood article. You can question the competence of their consultants but it is ridiculous to claim they didn't seek outside help.

The people who read the article reported the facts accurately enough. What I question is your assumptions that were not reported by anyone else and bare absolutely no resemblance to the truth.

[Chris Parks]

Chris,

The Wood article included a photo of the consulting engineers that worked on the dust collector performance evaluation. We are discussing what Wood Magazine had to say and whether some other editors of some other magazine used older articles as a "jumping off" point (your words) is irrelevant. You have yet to see an editor who sought expert advice (your words) because you obviously didn't read the Wood article. You can question the competence of their consultants but it is ridiculous to claim they didn't seek outside help.

The people who read the article reported the facts accurately enough. What I question is your assumptions that were not reported by anyone else and bare absolutely no resemblance to the truth.

Isd reading the article going to tell me any more than reported here? If the reports here are not good enough perhaps you could fill in the gaps.

[John Coloccia]

So when someone comes along and says "hey this thing is returning 20x the dust as brand x," and that it isn't even working as well as single-stage units, well, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever, right?

Exactly.

Incidentally, my Clearvue was well built and pretty trivial to assemble. At the time, some years ago, you still had to build your own cleanout. You can buy that now. You can buy the electrical box. You can even buy the angle brackets to mount it with in case screwing a couple of 2x4s to a piece of plywood is beyond your skillset, you're lazy or you're massively busy like me....I probably would have just bought everything if it was available. You still have to build the collection bin, but my design for a lid makes that trivial as well. Make a hole in a piece of plywood, caulk in the tube, stick weather strip on the bottom, and done.....so no messing with the can. I just used a jigsaw to cut it out, and it took all of 5 minutes from start to finish. Maybe one day they'll make this "lid" available too.

I'm not sure what needed to be caulked in the article since I don't have it in front of me. The only thing I can think of is they had to caulk everywhere they should have caulked in the first place. Anyhow, there's something to be said for not having to do any assembly when you get a piece of equipment, but I don't know of much that comes that way. If laying down a bead of caulk and bolting together CNC cut pieces of MDF is some daunting task, there's an excellent chance that woodworking is not a great choice of hobby. It's also somewhat irrelevant because none of these system just work out of the box without ductwork, and ductwork is easily more time consuming and more difficult to get right.

Anyhow, to each their own, but from what I've read here so far the results seem very difficult to take seriously. Assembling one of these things correctly is not rocket surgery.

[Janis Stipins]

Anyhow, there's something to be said for not having to do any assembly when you get a piece of equipment, but I don't know of much that comes that way. If laying down a bead of caulk and bolting together CNC cut pieces of MDF is some daunting task, there's an excellent chance that woodworking is not a great choice of hobby.

That's a bit harsh, at least if you're referring to my description of my CV experience. :-) In my case the pieces did not fit together properly; a good deal of shaping and filing and massaging and forcing was required. None of it was daunting, but it wasn't trivial either. I'd rather spend my time joining wood than fixing somebody's shoddy plastic work. But yes, as you say...

It's also somewhat irrelevant because none of these system just work out of the box without ductwork, and ductwork is easily more time consuming and more difficult to get right.

I can't agree more. In my case the time I spent doing the ductwork and the sound-isolating enclosure totally dwarfed the time spent actually assembling the cyclone. Even if the CV came pre-assembled and worked out of the box, it wouldn't have saved me more than 1% of the time I spent on the whole dust collection system.

-Janis

[Art Mann]

Isd reading the article going to tell me any more than reported here? If the reports here are not good enough perhaps you could fill in the gaps.

Yes, reading the article will tell you a great deal more than has been reported here. No, I will not waste my time writing a synopsis just for you. If you want to actually understand how the experiment was conducted and by whom, you will just have to obtain a copy and read it for yourself. What I don't understand is why did you would make critical comments about a magazine article which you have never read and about which you know practically nothing.

[Alan Schaffter]

Well, I held off on this one to see where it would go. I've been at the DC game for a long time now. I'm still no expert but I have gleaned a lot of experience and knowledge over the years. Many years ago, I built the early Wood Magazine cyclone and powered by a very old 3 hp motor/blower unit with 14" impeller I found on Ebay. I also incorporated a spiral inlet ramp/neutral vane and set it up in the push-through configuration)- separation was barely adequate and it clogged the 300 sq. ft. cartridge filter fairly quickly. About 11 years ago I built another push-through cyclone based on Bill P's design but with a longer cone and dual parallel 300 sq. ft. filters. I have no figures to back up performance but it works worlds better than the Wood one. I have all the CFM and SP test equipment but never used them. I don't have a Dylos.

I agree with points made on both sides of this discussion. Discounting the $200 I spent on the used blower unit, the cyclone cost me under $50 to build, so I have a hard time with the cost of a ClearVue. Ed and maybe the Busheys too don't have the resources, but I don't know why they don't have them blow or roto molded like plastic bottles chemical drums, kayaks, etc. then add stiffener rings to prevent it from collapsing if it is set up in the traditional pull-though configuration (we are only talking 12" or less SP, not the 80" - 100" generated by a typical shop vac).

Frankly, from my experiences and reports by ClearVue owners over the years including those with Dylos meters, I find Wood's filter effectiveness results highly suspect and likely the result of improper installation and/or testing as mentioned by others. Since Oneida always seems to be the Gorilla in these discussions (pun intended), lets compare the ClearVue to that. My color perception may be off, but the fan curve graph sure makes it look like Oneida and ClearVue move about the same amount of air (CFM) at typical DC system operating SPs. The fan curve cross-over point appears to be at 8" SP/700 CFM. It actually appear that at higher CFM/lower SP the ClearVue performs better than the Oneida. For a given SP you want a system that moves the most air. I don't need to remind this crowd that the goal is to capture as much dust at the source as possible and to do that you need CFM and a tad of SP. Now let's talk about filter efficiency- come on! a cyclone with dual filters with high MERV ratings pumping out more dust than a single stage dust pump, er dust collector. That should have been a HUGE RED FLAG to the testers!!!!

Of course many of you know my feelings about filters- frankly Oneida's 110 sq ft is insufficient for a system that supposedly can move over 1000 CFM. I won't even get into the MERV vs HEPA definitions and discussion but I find Oneida's product page and specs page confusing- which filter does it come with? All that aside, to achieve the best "dust collection at the source" you want the highest CFM at the source. SP overhead, anywhere in the system, on either side of the cyclone, affects CFM at the source. So the best results can be obtained by discharging outside through the a short large duct regardless of whether the filter is new or seasoned- it might get a little brisk in your shop if you do that too long with the recent Polar Vortex.

As to Wood Mag, well dang two strikes in the March issue. They have a uncredited two page article just filled with errors and omissions about setting up lock miter bits (I know a little about those too- the Infinity Lock Miter Master is my baby):

" . . . getting the correct router-table setup. . .can be a challenge." They got that right!

"Make a setup gauge [drawing]. Draw a centerline across (the stock). . . .Use it as shown" The drawing indicates you should align the board centerline with the "center of the bit"- Wrong! First, it should be aligned with the center of the profile- which may or may not be at the center of the bit. (The center of the profile is not defined by an obvious point on the cutting edge of the bit.) The diagram is imprecise and they don't define "center of the bit." Even if you knew where the centerline of the bit (or profile) was you would likely be hard pressed to get a good alignment using their technique, because the board is too far away to line it up accurately!

"(both parts of the joint must be the same thickness" WRONG! Maybe if you use their technique you are limited to using boards that "must be" the same thickness.

As to their series of photos showing how to correct for a misaligned joint- TOTALLY WRONG! The corrections ONLY WORK if you have already cut (all) the piece(s) for the other side of the joint!!!! No mention is made about that. A change in one setting will always require a change in the other setting if you cut both sides of the joint after making the adjustments! If, in the first two photos you adjust the fence only, your joint will be no better and maybe worse if you cut additional boards in the horizontal position. A change to the bit height is required too if you will be cutting boards for both sides of the joint- If you move the fence forward as they suggest in the first photo and don't adjust the bit height, any boards subsequently cut in the horizontal position will have a blunt tip, not the desired point! Moving the fence back is even worse! It will cause boards cut in the horizontal position to be unsupported on the outfeed side of the fence and result in a gouge in the last half or so of the edge of the board!!! The same goes if you adjust the bit height and not the fence position.

Also, similar to a glossed-over part of their box joint jig article and video from a few years ago, this article says "After you cut test pieces . . . .adjust the fence position and bit height in small increments. Cut additional test joints and make adjustments. . . ." That sure doesn't sound like a "sure-fire method for setting up this bit" especially in view of what I said above. You may luck out and finally get a good joint, but after making how many test cuts!! Besides, the article provides no help in understanding how the lock miter bit works or why it can be difficult to set up.

[John Coloccia]

That's a bit harsh, at least if you're referring to my description of my CV experience. :-) In my case the pieces did not fit together properly; a good deal of shaping and filing and massaging and forcing was required. None of it was daunting, but it wasn't trivial either. I'd rather spend my time joining wood than fixing somebody's shoddy plastic work. But yes, as you say...

No, I think you had legitimate problems. I bought mine from Ed some years ago, and everything pretty much fit like a glove. From what I understand, everything fits like a glove now too. As you mentioned, you got yours in the transition period and I'm sure that yours WAS difficult to work with. My point is more that this isn't some slipshod, DIY kit. It's just bolting things together. I hope that clears it up. I wasn't referring to your experience at all. I think your experience was unfortunate and not common.

[Janis Stipins]

I think your experience was unfortunate and not common.

Yeah, that was my thought too. Since the system performance is outstanding, the customer service is outstanding, and (as you correctly pointed out) the time and effort on the cyclone itself is nothing compared to the rest of the installation, I figured it still adds up to a good experience overall. I'd buy from them again, and just hope that the quality control is a little tighter.

[Ole Anderson]

Read the article last night. I agree that the dust capture issue really seems suspect. But isn't it possible that if the folks at Wood mag can't get the installation right, that there is a strong possibility that a lot of the end users might have the same problems with getting a dust free installation? Or possibly they got a faulty filter, just like an end purchaser might get a faulty filter? They note that "During assembly we needed a couple tubes of silicone sealant for all the joints. Nevertheless, in use we discovered a half dozen air leaks that required more silicone." So obviously they knew there were leaks and attempted to fix them, just as an end user would try to do. It points out some shortcomings with the basic plastic and MDF design of the CV. Hey, these guys aren't a bunch of idiots, even if they can't get the lock miter bit thing right. They knew enough to go and get somebody with some credentials and experience in the subject. I do know that the Oneida SDG (and I presume the other steel factory built units) doesn't require ANY caulking (other than on the duct system the user provides) to get a leak free system. I tend to trust the relative data provided regarding the fan curve, with the caveat that all of the units were tested in the same manner ("...and put it through the same tests."). Granted I am an Oneida user, so I may be somewhat prejudiced however I tend to agree with their conclusion that "$1,595 is a lot of money for a kit collector that performs at a level below many lower-cost machines."