Originally Posted by
Alan Schaffter
I agree "speculation" surely adds nothing, but without knowing the specifics of testing, who says the "actual statistics from someone with experience" are any better. For example, is the Alnor vane type anemometer versus a hot wire anemometer, best in this situation ? How was it used? Were multiple readings taken across the opening in the same place- velocity decreases rapidly as you approach the walls of the inlet- for each reading during all tests? Were the readings averaged or integrated? It can make a big difference. The "regurgitated 'facts'" from "some website" may in fact have been obtained during repetitive, well designed and conducted experiments. Finally, your last two statements fall under the worst category of speculation. "I . . . satisfied that I am controlling the dust." "I do not have any equipment to actually measure my CFM etc.. . . . . however, I do have the evidence of my eyes and nasal passages." Tell us what kind of woodworking operations you do and provide us with before, during, and after Dylos readings. The dangerous stuff is typically not captured by mucous in the nasal passages, etc.
The whole point of my post, is that rarely, if ever, do these posts contain results or comparisons that would hold up under any sort of scientific scrutiny.