ASHRAE filter test?

[Frank Pellow]

Like Lee, I'm also a bit confused as to which portions are B.Pentz quoted statements and which are responses by R.Witter. I'm all for seeing this stuff brought up here on SMC, but just found the post somewhat confusing.

Make that three of us who are confused. Could the post be edited to make it clear who said what?

[Mike Dauphinee]

Bump, I was hoping that the principals might still offer some answers to what they have said.

TIA

[Alan Simpson]

Bump, I was hoping that the principals might still offer some answers to what they have said.

TIA

I was hoping as well.

[Robert Witter]

Bill Pentz says that the only test he trusts is ASHRAE. Except that the filters he tells people to buy are not ASHRAE rated.

We have had ASHRAE tests on our filters posted for many years on our site as a courtesy to the buyer.

Bill P says that his filters are Certified. So I am asking and I think readers would want to know what "certified" Filters he is using.

He also in numerous posts says that if you buy an Oneida cyclone system blow the air outdoors and, "throw out the filter".
So I am wondering why this is so.

We use Izumi axtar spun bonded polyester which is as good or possibly better than the filters he recommends, much better than the paper filters he says to buy. For example, Wynn might be using Kolon a cheaper less efficient media spu bonded media, but they are not identifying the type of media or providing test data.

Sincerely,
Robert Witter

[Jim O'Dell]

Actually Bill Pentz has advocated here, and on his web site I think, recently to exhaust outdoor if at all possible. Most people don't have that as an option, either because of proximity to neighbors, or losing the conditioned air from their shop in hot or cold climates. I have, in just the last few months, decided to start off with exhausting outdoors, and go to the filters later if I see a need to do so.
I also seem to remember that the Wynn filters were suggested because they are a good filter that will do what Bill's cyclone design needs in the way of a filter, but be a cost effective alternative to other filters that are available. There can always be a better product out there for a higher price. Not all of us need, or can afford, the Lamborgini or Bugatti. If the Chevy or Ford will do the trick, and is a quaility unit, then that may be the best way to go for many of us.

Mr Witter, is there a web site you can point us to that, well, rate is not the best word here, but that maybe describes the different types of filter material that are on the market, and gives a cost/feature/benefit of them? I think information like this would be helpful to all of us. Maybe one of the rating systems has this information already? Thanks! Jim

[Bill Boehme]

Like Lee, I'm also a bit confused as to which portions are B.Pentz quoted statements and which are responses by R.Witter. I'm all for seeing this stuff brought up here on SMC, but just found the post somewhat confusing.

I also was initially confused due to the font colors and sizes, but after rereading the post, it is clear that everything below the statement " Below are the quotes from Bill Pentz:" are quotes from Bill Pentz except for the bottom paragraph.

If I am not mistaken, ASHRAE does not conduct testing themselves, but develops standards. Test results performed to meet their standards may possibly be submitted to them for approval, but I don't know if they are in the validation business.

Bill

[Robert Witter]

Thanks for your reply Rick Wynn,

To clarify, I am not recommending a 15 to 1 air to cloth ratio. Only that this would be the upper end for people trying to retro fit. I see DCs with 30 or 40 to 1 ratios.

The ASHRAE test on our Spun bonded filter is at 11.6 to 1 air to cloth ratio.

Bill Pentz says that Oneida filters are no good and to buy Wynn filters. He publicly advises Oneida customers to, “throw the filter out and vent the air outdoors”
Do you share Bill’s view on this?

With all due respect to you and your products, being that you didn’t have your filters actually tested by a lab how is it that you know that
the efficiency is 99.995 % on 1 micron and up as claimed on your site Clearly this isn’t an initial efficiency. What would the pressure drop be at this level of filtration?
Do you stand behind this rating? What spun bonded media are you using?

Do you have direct experience with our cyclone units to know that the Clear vue separates material better?

Yes, WWs do complain about trying to clean tightly pleated filter cartridges, especially when the cage is on the inside. That’s why we went to an open pleat design. I understand that during normal operation
this isn’t a concern, but the day will come when the dust barrel overfills and the pleats will pack hard with fiberous material. How would you recommend dislodging this material on your paper filters?

I’m not trying to be a PITA or rude, but I think it OK to ask Companies to justify or explain the claims they make about their products.




Sincerely,
Robert Witter
Oneida Air Systems Inc.

[John Renzetti]

Hi, From Robert Witter's post I wasn't sure if the reply from Rick Wynn was something that got deleted, was private or was from the copy of the message that I posted from a post Ed Morgano posted in another thread which was a message from Rick at Wynn. This message was from Oct 9th.
In rereading Rick's message back on page two he says
"If it was really important, I could scrounge up the BIA rating of our Spun Bond material, and (surprise, surprise) it would be exactly the same as the Oneida's. For now, however, I'm not really interested in playing "show me yours" with Oneida."
From this I conclude that the materieal they use has a BIA certification, which means it is tested and certified. The BIA standards are for the wood collection industry and they are standardized.
Also Bill Pentz recommends the highly efficient Torit filters that Wynn also sells. These are the .2-2micron 99.9%. From the Torit website these are tested by an independant lab to ASHREA standards.
Both myself and I believe Jim O'Dell got this from Rick Wynn last week.
(Quote from Rick's Message)
I don't know why a filter manufacturer would choose an
> ASHRAE test for a dust collector filter, but I suppose it could be
> done for a price. The ASHRAE standard, however, is useless if you are
> selling against Torit, so we don't see the need. BIA is a European
> standard, and we don't target that market.
>
> So, yes, the ASHRAE and BIA standards are perfectly valid, and so are
> a couple dozen others. We use the 0.5 micron standard, and another
> supplier might use 1.0 micron. That doesn't mean they are
> wrong...just different. It really depends who your market is. If you
> are selling furnace filters, then ASHRAE or MERV is probably the most
> common. If you are selling in Europe, then BIA is needed. If you
> sell HEPAs, then DOP is the standard. Again, all valid standards, just different.
> Nobody's right, nobody's wrong.
>
> Bottom line...we give our customers the best quality filters, made
> from the very best filter media available, with the most square
> footage, at the best price. We don't sell junk, and we've been doing
> this for a really long time. Heck, we don't even advertise the hobby
> filters. All of that business is strictly word of mouth...from happy customers.
>
> So...I hope that heated discussion has settled down a bit, and I hope
> the above is helpful. (End of quote).

I went over to Grizzly's website and they state that their canister filters are imported from Europe and have an efficiency of .2-2micron at 99.99%. They don't mention any testing or independant lab results. But if they are BIA certified then those claims are valid.
In sorting through all this it appears to me, (and this is my opinion only), that we have a situation where marketing gets thrown in with design and engineering. In this case Oneida feels that showing that their filters meet an ASHREA test is important and maybe will give them a competive edge in the market they are seeking. Wynn doesn't think it's important to use that test. And if the material they use has a BIA certification, they don't have to do another test. Why waste the money. From Rick's message it appears that their primary customers, Industry, doesn't care about this test or that test. They just want results.
This has been educational, but a bit confusing since you have to piece things together from various posts and websites. And on a positive note, this has stayed friendly.
take care,
John

[Alan Simpson]

I don't know why a filter manufacturer would choose an
> ASHRAE test for a dust collector filter, but I suppose it could be
> done for a price. The ASHRAE standard, however, is useless if you are
> selling against Torit

Put me down for still being incredibly confused as to why Rick Wynn is sticking to his comments about ASHRAE being useless if you are competing against Donaldson-Torit. Donaldson-Torit uses ASHRAE and MERV ratings on all of their cartridge type filters.

[Robert Witter]

Without knowing what filter media is being used in the Wynn filters and without any test results being offered how do we know what the efficiency is on these filters? On the spun bonded filter how do we know that the efficiency is 99.995% on 1 micron or above? There are cheap and less efficient spun bonded medias on the market? Actual test results. These are listed for the hobbyist market, maybe industry is avoiding them.

This is what Bill Pentz has been so passionately preaching for so long that the seller supplies the actual test data; specifically ASHRAE or certified. At least some type of test results.

Direct Quote From Bill Pentz - ”That careful filter testing left me now only trusting filter ratings provided by an American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) certified independent testing laboratory. ASHRAE is not a government organization, but instead a private, non-profit group of professional engineers that set the standards for their industry. Unable to find any certified dust collector bags and knowing that most bags have so little surface area that then need constant cleaning which exposes me to the very dust I must avoid, I personally use certified cartridge filters with a cyclone to protect those filters. I recommend all others do the same”.

bill

[Mike Dauphinee]

Mr Witter, perhaps you can give your thoughts on the following along with Oneida's stance on how much clean the air is coming from the dust collector.

Mt Wynn stated and it was posted Mr Morgan and I assume he approved the post. So I am guessing that since I have asked for and received no clarification that it stands as their professional belief. (CNP quote follows)

Here is what I refer to:
-Based on the results of hundreds (thousands??) of hobbyist cyclone projects, it's been proven that the Bill Pentz/Clear Vue Cyclone removes essentially all of the fibrous material present in wood dust. (Excerpted from this thread)


My question for you is the same. Is this possible? Does a DC virtually eliminate all dust hazard in a hobbyist WW shop? Does the Oneida also perform as well in this respects? If so, where is the data from any of you on this claim? (Keep in mind that this claim means that I should suffer NO health hazard from airborne dust illness.)

If it does not, why do you or any other dust collector vendor sell them under these pretenses? Is the primary purpose of these devices to collect wood chips? And secondarily return as little as possible to the room air? The implication from previous claims and reading on any of the principals listed in that post are VERY clear and that is the health issues always referred to as the reason to get a better DC. So if the angle is that their DC collector will protect your health, it also stands to reason that others may not.

I want an honest answer from all of you because IMO, this garbage marketing stuff has gone too far. Can your DC eliminate my health risk? And to make it fair, Can your DC eliminate my health risk the SAME or better than the Clear Vue?

They made this claim, but I, the consumer want answers rather than just claims.

I apologize for my wordiness, but I want some answers and I hope my questions are clear.

Thanks,
Mike

[Matt Warfield]

Hi Mike,

While I'm not associated with either DC camp, perhaps I can add something for the consumer perspective.

I think the key term in the quote you've provided is "fibrous material." Mr. Wynn's quote was in reference to the cyclone's seperation capablilities, not the filters filtering capabilities. IIRC, there's also been reference to wood flour(don't recall from whom). At what point does the waste material from machining wood stop being "fibrous"? I don't know the answer to that but believe it to be very pertinent to the discussion.

As far as eliminating the health risk, I doubt you'll ever hear a stable and reputable company ever make those claims as long as lawsuits are permitted. With varying sensitivities and no exact science on what is dangerous and what isn't. It is fair to say it's common sense that the less air polution, from machining wood or other sources, the better it is for our health. The simple fact that you can smell the wood says that there is some component of that wood in the air but not whether it's unhealthy in any way. Today, 0.2 microns seems to be the lowest number being thrown around for filtration capabilities in relation to hobby shop DC. I suspect our great great grandkids will have the opportunity to be discussing DC which rivals clean room technology.

Personally, I did buy a ClearVue but did not buy the filters recommended. That's simply because I was able to find some super cheap, slightly dinged UltraWeb filters(4) for less than the cost of one that they recommend. I bought the ClearVue because it was highly recommended by owners, it was in my price range, and I was tired of my mucous being the same color as the wood. I'm sure that if inhaling a pound of sawdust takes 5 years off your life then I've taken 10-20 off of mine. But at the same time, the fact that my mucous did contain that much sawdust also shows that it's doing its job, IMHO.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on marketing. I think we'd be much happier as consumers if companies were forced to rely on word of mouth marketing. An I personally think that Mr. Whitter feels there is some word of mouth advertising which isn't favorable to him on the whole and isn't entirely factually based. Just my interpretation and I could be off-base in that assessment. He's certainly entitled to clear the air on that issue as would be any manufacturer of any product so long as it's based on actual fact and not manufactured/marketed fact. It appears to me that both Mr. Whitter and Mr. Pentz are firm believers that they are correct in their position. While Mr. Pentz hasn't provided direct feedback(unless I missed it) in this thread, it is clear through other threads that he is attempting to justify any claims for which he hasn't posted scientific claims.

I for one think that you and I and the rest of the WW community is benefiting from this open and civil discussion. As far as eliminating any health risk? Well, in the grand scheme of things, I think you'd be hard pressed to take up any activity or lack of activity for which you couldn't find a health risk. If you can identify one and mention it, I'd almost guarantee you'll see a government grant toward the study of its health risks. Well, maybe I can think of one activity - laughing.

Sorry to have drawn this out so long and don't wish to upset anyone with it. Simply my perspective on this whole DC discussion series.

Best regards,

[Mike Dauphinee]

I have to disagree with you and I have read much of the hype. The talk from these principals is how much of the "other" systems allow fibrous material to get through and theirs does not. Or how much better their filter is and how much better their testing methodology is.

Under your terminology, a HF DC with 30 micron bags gets "all" the fibrous material. Heck a wet/dry vac gets that too as does a broom. But to read Bill Pentz's site, that is NOT what we are talking about here. My question have much to do with this very same ambiguity that causes you to to relate that way and me to see it another way. So why not straight simple answer from Bill Pentz, Robert Witter, Ed Morgano and the others that they all have brought in to muddy up rather than clear the waters?

Perhaps they don't want to give a simple answer, but one REALLY does exist. This stuff can be taken down to black and white if it were not for the marketing needs of all the principals. I cannot believe that there is any other reason, because from a litigation standpoint, the statement quoted is over the top when taken with all the other information. Having some experience, any lawyer worth his money will pin that on them with all the web site info as back-up to intent.

But that is not the point, I just want a simple straight answer to some simple yes/no questions and then some room for explanation of that simple yes/no answer. I hope to not get a long dissertation that avoids these simple questions and their answers.

Being the time that has passed, we can safely assume they have been read. That means one side allowed their statement to stand (as questioned) and the other side avoided the answers altogether. But the questions will not go away. I want answers as a consumer and I think both mfgs owe them to us when they make these statements on an open site.

[Mike Dauphinee]

Mark, just for the record, I want to add that I am not associated nor do I favor any of them. But the more I read, the more upset I get about what is being put out in the name of education. I for one will just not accept it, rather I am gonna ask where it is unclear to me. Not a bandwagon kind of guy here at all.

Another BTW, Bill Pentz many times has made claims about the necessity of getting the under 0.5 micron "fibrous" stuff because it is what is really dangerous, not the larger stuff. Since they are all in it together, I take their statement together too. If not, that is like saying that one part of a company is not a part of the other....to me the association DOES matter and they all profit from it. So I want a unified answer.

I hope that clears up what I did not previously make evident.

Thanks,
Mike

[John Renzetti]

Without knowing what filter media is being used in the Wynn filters and without any test results being offered how do we know what the efficiency is on these filters? On the spun bonded filter how do we know that the efficiency is 99.995% on 1 micron or above? There are cheap and less efficient spun bonded medias on the market? Actual test results. These are listed for the hobbyist market, maybe industry is avoiding them.

This is what Bill Pentz has been so passionately preaching for so long that the seller supplies the actual test data; specifically ASHRAE or certified. At least some type of test results.

Direct Quote From Bill Pentz - ”That careful filter testing left me now only trusting filter ratings provided by an American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) certified independent testing laboratory. ASHRAE is not a government organization, but instead a private, non-profit group of professional engineers that set the standards for their industry. Unable to find any certified dust collector bags and knowing that most bags have so little surface area that then need constant cleaning which exposes me to the very dust I must avoid, I personally use certified cartridge filters with a cyclone to protect those filters. I recommend all others do the same”.

bill

Hi Robert, I believe that Bill Pentz did recommend a ASHREA tested filter when he recommended the use of the Torit .2-2micron filter. Torit states that this filter was tested to ASHREA standards. He recommends other Wynn produced fitlers if the individual doesn't think they need the filtration of the the Torit. Wynn sells both.
Rick Wynn in his message stated that he had a BIA certificate for their fitler media stashed away. If he does and I don't doubt him then his media is tested to BIA standards. I've already stated this in a previous message but it appears that you have missed it.
I'd like to get Shiraz from Grizzly in here since the Grizzly ad says their filters are imported from Europe and are rated to .2-2micron. These would have to have a BIA certificate.
Someone mentioned that Bill Pentz hasn't replied to any of this and I'm not surprised. If there is pending litigation here then Bills' attorney would have correctly advised Bill not to respond. If Mr Witter is aware of this then I would question the actual intent of his posts. I do have reservations about all this. But we're getting some great information and the thread is still moving along very nicely.
Finally I'd like to add that no matter what your opinion of Bill Pentz, (I like the guy, and I like Oneida), he sure has made probably a few thousand people aware of the dangers of microscopic wood dust.
I might not have internet access for the next few days, so I hope I don't miss anything good.
take care,
John