ClearVue CV1800 review

[Kelby Van Patten]

I recently installed a ClearVue CV1800 cyclone with a 16” impeller. This is my review.

My shop: 3 car garage. 6” spiral ducting.

Prior Dust Collection: Many years ago, I used a Jet 1-1/2 HP bagger. It collected the chips, but pumped more dust into the air than it collected. I switched to a 2 HP Laguna cyclone. That was a big upgrade. It got most of the dust, but certainly not all. It left a fine coat of dust around the shop. It also did a terrible job separating – I would generously say that 75% of the material went in the bin, and 25% went into the filters and the plastic bag on the bottom of the filters.

ClearVue install: It was not technically difficult. I had no problems. But there were a lot of things that were a hassle. A fair amount of stuff wasn’t included, so I made quite a few trips to Lowes. People claim that it only takes a day or two to assemble. That may be, but you have to factor in all the shopping (go ahead and see how long it takes you to track down a product that allows you to connect the intake transition to your 6” spiral ducting), and trying to find answers online when you run into something in the instruction manual that you aren’t certain about. Overall, you are definitely purchasing a DIY project.

Fit & Finish: It is plastic & MDF, so it doesn’t look fancy. But everything was machined well. And while I might knock the plastic & MDF from a cosmetic perspective, I don’t really care about that. It’s plenty sturdy and I don’t foresee any durability problems.

Performance: This is an enormous upgrade over the 2HP Laguna. I’ll break the performance issues down into five categories:

1. Airflow: I used a manometer to measure airflow with my Laguna and then with the ClearVue at each tool, measuring in the same place both times. The ClearVue had better than 50% more airflow than the Laguna. (Yes, I know manometer readings have limitations that make them not useful for getting absolute accuracy, but my focus here is on how the ClearVue compares to the Laguna, and the manometer is perfectly useful for that.) Here are my results:

Tablesaw guard: Laguna – 1048 FPM; ClearVue – 1650 FPM (+57%)
Tablesaw below-table shroud: Laguna – 3980 FPM; ClearVue – 6300 FPM (+58%)
Jointer: Laguna – 2000 FPM; ClearVue – 4300 FPM (+115%)
Wide Belt Sander: Laguna – 600 FPM; ClearVue – 1000 FPM (+66%)
Bandsaw: Laguna – 2500 FPM; ClearVue – 5400 FPM (+116%)

I made some changes to the location and ducting to the Jointer and bandsaw before I hooked up the ClearVue, so some of that increase is likely due to better ducting. So, I would probably consider the other tools to be a better indicator of the ClearVue’s airflow improvement.

I will note that I milled some cherry for a built-in over the weekend, and I cut about 75 lineal feet of ¾” cherry on my tablesaw. I cleaned the tablesaw first so I could see how much dust was on the tablesaw after. There was no fine dust, although there were couple of modest-sized flecks of sawdust on the table. But I was pretty surprised by how much the dust collection caught.

2. Separation: The Laguna got about 75% separation, with the other 25% of dust going into the filters and the plastic filter bag. With the ClearVue, I am getting pretty darned close to 100% separation. I did some work this weekend using the tablesaw, planer, and wide belt sander, and I generated about 15 gallons of dust and chips into the collection bin. There is no visible dust in the filter clean-out tray. I banged on the filters, and no dust came down into the clean-out at all. I suspect there is some dust in the filters somewhere, but the separation on the ClearVue is spectacular, especially compared to the Laguna.

3. Filtration: I bought one of the Dylos air quality monitors, and when I was running the wide belt sander with the Laguna, I would get small particle measurements in the 5000-6000 range; with the ClearVue, it generally stayed in the 2000-2500 range, although there was a time when it peaked around 3000. Once I stopped sanding, the count went down under 1000 within five or ten minutes by leaving the ClearVue running with a blast gate open.

There is a Wood Magazine review that claims the ClearVue pumped a lot of dust back into the air. I have no doubt that the reviewers failed to properly seal either the bin or the filter assembly. If you look around online, you’ll see that there are lots of people out there who had a leak that resulted in problems like that. The leaks are not difficult to find and correct (a 20-cent incense stick and a couple dollars for a tube of caulk will do the trick), but you have to be self-critical enough to acknowledge that maybe you screwed up and therefore take the time to light up an incense stick and look for leaks.

4. Noise: There are quite a few ClearVue owners who complain about the noise and who build sheds and go to all sorts of efforts to minimize the noise. I don’t get it. Sure, it’s loud, but not much more than other dust collectors. It’s probably louder than my Laguna or my Jet Bagger, but the ClearVue is a lower frequency that is not as annoying. Overall, I would wear hearing protection with any of these machines, and this one is no different. My family says that the noise in the house is not much different than it was when I ran the Laguna. I think the noise complaints in some reviews are overly dramatic.

5. Cool factor: Watching the dust spiral through the cyclone is cool. I don’t spend much time watching it, but it would definitely be the first thing I show off to anyone who wants to check out the shop.

Overall, I’m very pleased with the performance and glad that I have this tool. This was a huge upgrade over the Laguna (although at more than double the cost and all the effort to assemble, it should be). It was a pain in the butt to get it all assembled.

[Kelby Van Patten]

IMG_20170508_103214.jpg
Right now, the bin is sitting on a pair of 2x4s. I'm building a rolling base for the bin to sit on.

[Andy Giddings]

Thanks for the detailed review, Kelby. Think you've got the same package as I just installed. Like you, I didn't consider the noise a big deal as a saw is easily 10-20dB louder and you're right next to it. This more or less forces you to wear hearing protection. Your results look good in terms of the increase in performance. Although the sander seems to be the poor relation. Is that due to the port on that machine or ....? Have you converted your FPM figures into CFM?

[Larry Frank]

I would be interested in how you used the manometer to get velocity.

Are you using a pitot tube and a differential pressure meter?

I think there are some who would like to see how you measured the velocity. It is great to have people make actual measurements and report them.

[Kelby Van Patten]

Thanks, guys.

The poor airflow at the wide belt sander is a function of the fact that my Grizzly 18" only has a 4" dust port, and then inside the cabinet, that port transforms into a shroud that focuses the airflow right on the lower roller of the sander. It does a great job directing airflow, but the surface area of the shroud is poor (it is a 19"x3/4" rectangle next to the roller). One of these days, I may cut a second 4" hole in the roof of the sander and add a second port.

My airflow readings are really only useful for comparing before and after, and not for calculating actual CFM data. To get accurate data, I would need to put a pitot tube in my ductwork, which was a lot of hassle for a set of information that isn't critical to me right now. My methodology was simply to find a spot on the tool where I could place my manometer in the middle of the airflow and take a reading that I could repeat when the new dust collector was in place. For some tools, I removed the flex hose at the tool port and measured the flow through the end of the flex hose. For other tools, I was able to measure inside the tool after the port (such as the wide belt sander). The reason this does not yield accurate data is that airflow at any opening is not an accurate representation of airflow inside the duct, but the opening is the only place you can put a manometer. Also, the body of the manometer is, to some degree, an obstruction that artificially increases airspeed. The pitot tube eliminates these inaccuracies. But it is more work.

With that said, the manometer gives some degree of repeatability (if you hold it in the same spot each time), so it is useful for a before and after comparison. It also provides a rough sense of the ballpark numbers. Converting my numbers based on the square inches of the openings, here are my inaccurate-but-in-the-right-zipcode CFM numbers, before and after:

Tablesaw guard: 80 CFM before, 125 CFM after
Tablesaw shroud: 195 CFM before, 305 CFM after
Tablesaw total: 275 CFM before, 430 CFM after
12" Jointer: 400 CFM before, 860 CFM after
Wide Belt Sander: 60 CFM before, 100 CFM after
Bandsaw: 470 CFM before, 700 CFM after
Planer: 325 CFM before, 702 CFM after

Looking at these numbers, anyone would probably say, "the jointer, bandsaw, and planer look pretty good, but the tablesaw and wide belt sander look terrible. However, the numbers by themselves are misleading. The tablesaw and wide belt sander have shrouds that focus the airflow right where it is needed, while the bandsaw (for example) dumps the airflow into an unsealed cabinet at a point that is a couple feet from where the blade exits the wood. Based on my experience this weekend, I would say that the tablesaw and wide belt sander actually do a better job than the bandsaw notwithstanding the numbers above. Nevertheless, I do want to improve the wide belt sander, because I did notice the particle count in the shop increasing meaningfully as I used that tool.

So, I still have room for improvement if I can tweak the ports and hoods on the tools. Nevertheless, this was a huge improvement over what I had before. And if I leave the dust port open for a five minutes after turning off the tool, the shop particle count comes down dramatically.

[Kelby Van Patten]

OK, I'm feeling a little sheepish. I kept typing "manometer." I meant "anemometer." Similar word, but not a similar tool. Sorry for the confusion.

[Andy Giddings]

For interest, thought I'd measure the FPM at the connection to the table saw as we have the same DC. My saw's port is 120mm dia and I exceeded the max on a hand held anemometer (9999 FPM) and had to switch to a different unit of measure (214 km/h on that one which converts to almost 12k FPM or 1400CFM). I don't believe the readings are anywhere near accurate as the manufacturer only certifies the meter to 8000 FPM +/- 3% of total reading. I'm using 6 inch S & D and this 120mm inlet is at the end of a 20 ft run. As the Clear Vue claimed performance is 1440 CFM +25% due to the larger impeller, I am expecting the CFM to be above 1000 so was a little worried when I saw your readings. Next stop is a pitot tube in the duct and a Magnahelic to see if I can get a more accurate reading. Don't know why I'm doing this as the collection is really good - must be the engineer in me :-)

[Kelby Van Patten]

Andy, the problem with my tablesaw is that the 4" port on the cabinet immediately reduces to a 3" hose inside the cabinet that is then connected to a shroud that goes around the blade. My measurement for the shroud was taken at the base of that shroud, which is after the air has passed from the 4" port through about 2' of 3" hose. So while the FPM number is quite high, the CFM number is pretty low because of the tiny surface area of the 3" hose. I'm confident that if I were measuring with the 4" hose removed from the saw, my FPM and CFM measurements at the end of the 4" hose would be more in the range that you got today.

One comment about all of this is that I believe the FPM numbers are more important than the CFM numbers when the airflow is carefully directed precisely at the point the blade exits the wood, as is the case with a well-designed shroud. CFM is much more important than FPM when the airflow is more generally in the vicinity of the cut. But that's just my instinct.

[Andy Giddings]

As posted earlier, finally got my pitot tube and differential gauge hooked up and measured the following readings:

Saw ports only open (120mm/4.7inches main table and 2.5 inch port above table) measured with all hoses and saw connected 4804 fpm 943 CFM
One 120mm port open (no hose) 6794 fpm 1334 CFM
All ports open (two 120mm and one 2.5 inch with hose on one 120mm and the 2.5 inch) 7654 fpm 1503 CFM
1 x 6 inch ID bare S & D pipe (ie no reducers, no hose) just to see what max CFM would be) 7995 fpm 1569 CFM

Clearly the internal saw dust collection hose and shroud are reducing the airflow but that's to be expected.

This is with an almost new filter and the pitot tube placement as per Dwyer's recommendations. The tube is inserted about 2 inches into the 6 inch pipe - I didn't want to do a full traverse to see what the different flow measurements would be. Pitot tube is a Dwyer 167/6. Gauge is a Dwyer Magnahelic 0-3 in WG scale. Calculations were done using Dwyer's Android application which takes into account temp, humidity & pressure.

These readings are lower than the anemometer and, based on what I've read, a more realistic measure of the flow. They also tend to support ClearVue's expected performance figures for a CV1800 with a 16 inch impeller (1440 CFM +25% or 1800 CFM)

[Larry Frank]

Thank you Andy for REAL measurements.

Please, if you can, post some pictures of the set up and instruments.

[Chris Parks]

The internal piping and under blade guard on a Hammer as Andy has is a disaster for air flow. I am sure the Europeans must have a law that says 5" ports are mandatory but the piping behind that 125mm port is about 90mm and I doubt the guard would flow enough to supply the 90mm. I know of one person who pulled it all out and fabricated new sheet metal ducting to overcome the problem.

[andy bessette]

OP--thanks for reporting all this.