# Who would buy a "Pentz" style Cyclone for £395



## Anonymous (23 Aug 2006)

Hi all

As mentioned in my previous postings I have been in discussion with a number of fabrication shops about building a Pentz style 16inch/400mm cyclone 
Exact dimensions are 
150 mm inlet
150mm outlet 
400 mm diameter
1116 mm tall (to witch you must add your collection bin underneath and your pipe or motor connection on top) 

Someone who understands what is required has come back with a price of £395 inc VAT for the competed unit plus shipping. This is based on him producing a batch of at least 10.

This is for a fully welded model with air ramp etc as per design.

SO .....
Firstly does anyone have any comments about this 
Secondly can we gather together 10 interested parties to place an order ? 

Francis 
Cobham


----------



## Barry Burgess (23 Aug 2006)

Francis what is the cyclone made of and how thick is it. Does it include the transition from 150mm diameter round to the rectangular input?
Barry


----------



## davy_owen_88 (23 Aug 2006)

> The bigger that diameter the less resistance and less work your motor and blower will have to do.
> 
> I recommend using 22" diameter cyclones for 1.5 to 2 hp motors with 11" to 12" impellers.
> I recommend the 20" cyclones for those who use 2 to 3 hp motors with 12" to 14" impellers.
> I recommend using 18" cyclones for those who use 14" to 16" impellers with 3 to 5 hp motors.



I will be getting a 3HP extractor with a 350mm (13-3/4") impellor. According to Bill that would mean I'd need a 20" cyclone... Anyone know if dropping down to a 16" would reduce the airflow that much?

As long as all the improvements to Bill's cyclone are implemented e.g the round to square intake, and a neutral vane I'm pretty interested. I'd like to hear more about it first though.


----------



## Nick W (24 Aug 2006)

I guess that this is just the bare sheet metal work and does not include an impellor etc?


----------



## Anonymous (24 Aug 2006)

Hi all - thanks for your feedback and comments todate 

1 - until will be made from 1.2mm (18 guage)

2 - material will either be galvanised steel (which is hard to paint) or mild steel (which can then be painted to match you workshop !!) 

3 - the price is just for the cyclone and does not include motor, impellor etc etc 

4 - the diameter of 16in/400mm has been selected - yes it is a comprimise and if my 2HP unit fails to deliver I will upgrade to a 3HP- but life is a comprimise and a 22in/560mm unit 
a) is more expensive, 
b) taller by 19 inches (62inches as opposed to 43 inches)
c) wider 

5 - the inlet duct will be rectangular as per design but with a rectangular to 150mm round transition on the end for connection to duct work


----------



## davy_owen_88 (24 Aug 2006)

fclauson":2ck61bax said:


> 4 - the diameter of 16in/400mm has been selected - yes it is a comprimise and if my 2HP unit fails to deliver I will upgrade to a 3HP- but life is a comprimise and a 22in/560mm unit
> a) is more expensive,
> b) taller by 19 inches (62inches as opposed to 43 inches)
> c) wider



Fair enough if you, for the reasons stated require a 16" cyclone, but if you need 10 people to get it that cheap, not everyone will want to have to upgrade their extractor aswell, or suffer the consequences of not upgrading.

I think 18" is probably the best compromise between the range (16" - 22") because even that, according to Bill needs a 14" to 16" impeller with a 3 to 5 hp motor, but will most probably get by with a 2HP motor, or atleast with better results than the 16".


----------



## Barry Burgess (24 Aug 2006)

Davy I used a 3HP motor with a 13 1/2" impellor and 6" pipe to the impellor and motor. I used 4" piping in the workshop with my cheapie cyclone and the body has a 15" diameter. It works and does not put undue pressure on the motor according to the clamp meter. I get no dust leaving the cyclone going to the impellor. It works far better than the extractor with filters so I am not sure why it contradicts Bill's findings but it does. 
Barry


----------



## davy_owen_88 (24 Aug 2006)

Barry Burgess":2249oqat said:


> Davy I used a 3HP motor with a 13 1/2" impellor and 6" pipe to the impellor and motor. I used 4" piping in the workshop with my cheapie cyclone and the body has a 15" diameter. It works and does not put undue pressure on the motor according to the clamp meter. I get no dust leaving the cyclone going to the impellor. It works far better than the extractor with filters so I am not sure why it contradicts Bill's findings but it does.
> Barry



Sure its better than a standard dust extractor with filters, but according to Bills site and the whole idea of static pressure loss is that the smaller the cylone the more resistance, so making it bigger means greater airflow (surely?) Obviously the smaller cyclone is just as effective but to pull the same amount of air a larger fan is needed Isn't the whole point of going the cyclone route, upgrading all the ducting and buying a bigger dust extractor to do much better, so why compromise at this point?


----------



## Barry Burgess (24 Aug 2006)

davy_owen_88":31188o1m said:


> Sure its better than a standard dust extractor with filters, but according to Bills site and the whole idea of static pressure loss is that the smaller the cylone the more resistance, so making it bigger means greater airflow (surely?) Obviously the smaller cyclone is just as effective but to pull the same amount of air a larger fan is needed Isn't the whole point of going the cyclone route, upgrading all the ducting and buying a bigger dust extractor to do much better, so why compromise at this point?


 
It cost less than £40 and it works. The larger diameters present a problem with the standard 8' ceiling height. I had considered using 450mm diameter and got a quote from CCL for the cone and main body at £136.32 including VAT. 
Once the cheapie worked I have had a hard time justifying spending say £395 for the cyclone and the cost of upgrading the pipe work to 6" and redoing all the connections from the 4" ones I made.


----------



## davy_owen_88 (24 Aug 2006)

Barry Burgess":5qaw4kuo said:


> It cost less than £40 and it works. The larger diameters present a problem with the standard 8' ceiling height. I had considered using 450mm diameter and got a quote from CCL for the cone and main body at £136.32 including VAT.
> Once the cheapie worked I have had a hard time justifying spending say £395 for the cyclone and the cost of upgrading the pipe work to 6" and redoing all the connections from the 4" ones I made.



I see your point, maybe its just me wanting to get the best being that I'm about to upgrade all my ducting, hoods, extractor so why not go the whole way and get everything to make the most out of the investment.

I've learned my lesson from slowly upgrading and soon outgrowing things. I find its best to do it all at once and save yourself a whole lot of money and hassle in the process.

If you already have a full 4" system set up then I see why you wouldn't want to rip it all out and start again. My point still stands though that an 18" cyclone would be the best compromise since 2-3 HP extractors won't provide enough suction to counteract the added resistance of a smaller cyclone to fully conform to Bills 800CFM requirements, which I thought the whole point of this was. But I see the height issues maybe dismiss my way of thinking.


----------



## Barry Burgess (24 Aug 2006)

davy_owen_88":2teem501 said:


> My point still stands though that an 18" cyclone would be the best compromise since 2-3 HP extractors won't provide enough suction to counteract the added resistance of a smaller cyclone to fully conform to Bills 800CFM requirements, which I thought the whole point of this was. But I see the height issues maybe dismiss my way of thinking.


 
Its better to use 450mm as it is a standard in the airconditioning industry - just short of 18"and .8mm or 1mm is ideal. You will have to use a short fat collection bucket to reduce the height or you will have to side mount the motor and impellor. Also try and find an impellor greater than 13 1/2". I got a quote of £140+VAT +carriage and could not establish what tests would be done to see if it was balanced. 
If you totally follow the Pentz site we will most likely be discussing your cyclone next year. I toke the decision just to make it warts and all with the idea that it might not work but it does. 
Barry


----------



## Anonymous (24 Aug 2006)

Afraid not.

My 4" extractor works perfectly well and catches all the chips and dust


----------



## davy_owen_88 (24 Aug 2006)

Tony":2mtidwtx said:


> Afraid not.
> 
> My 4" extractor works perfectly well and catches all the chips and dust



This is rather a difficult topic to discuss, everyone has different situations and different ideas about how well they want their extraction system to work.

Having read through the Bill Pentz website he clearly states anything less than 6" ducting and 3HP isn't going to provide sufficient airflow to actually move all the fine dust to the filters. This is what I'm after, and without the loss of suction after a few minutes work.

I'm sure there are people with systems out there that use 4" ducting and a smaller extractor with bags/small cyclone that perform well but for how long into the task at hand before the filters clog, airflow drops and the dust starts to escape? 

The dust the extra airflow catches is the sort that you don't notice - the stuff thats most harmful. When I got my first extractor (RSDE1) I thought 'wow its brilliant, theres no dust', but that was only until I put on the light and noticed the air was still filled with a very very fine dust. 

I'm just starting to really get into woodworking, and don't really want to let myself slip into a false sense of security by compromising now. Like I said before, its cheaper in the long run to just do things right first time round (or second in my case).


----------



## Anonymous (25 Aug 2006)

davy_owen_88":2rw1ce1p said:


> [but for how long into the task at hand before the filters clog, airflow drops and the dust starts to escape?
> 
> The dust the



Forever. Most DEs are designed with bags that actually work _best_ when they have a coating of fine dust on the inside - i.,e. when the bag is 'clogged' the filtering is at its best and the airflow is at spec.

I see no evidence of drop off in performance (I use a vane annemometer to test these things) unless I stupidly let the collector bag over-fill. - something I might have doen now and again


----------



## ike (25 Aug 2006)

I'm sceptical of the cost/benefit equation.

What is the _total_ cost likely to be? I can get a ceiling mounted fine dust extractor (e.g. JET or similar) in addition to my std DE for roughly the same I would suggest. Won't this achieve the same result? Is having an independent fine dust extractor actually a better solution given that it can work continuously removing ambient dust arising from incidental sanding jobs etc. Can you not also use activated-carbon filter pads in these to absorb solvent fumes?

cheers,

Ike


----------



## davy_owen_88 (25 Aug 2006)

Tony":i62hp16y said:


> Forever. Most DEs are designed with bags that actually work _best_ when they have a coating of fine dust on the inside - i.,e. when the bag is 'clogged' the filtering is at its best and the airflow is at spec.
> 
> I see no evidence of drop off in performance (I use a vane annemometer to test these things) unless I stupidly let the collector bag over-fill. - something I might have doen now and again



If you've measured these things then who am I to argue?

I'll admit I'm blindly accepting what Bill Pentz has on his website, since I have no means to measure, nor do I really want the hassle, but the things he says make perfect sense. 

Even though filters filter best with a fine layer of dust, it doesn't mean its letting the same amount of air through as when they are clean, or when they are totally covered.

When I mentioned the airflow dropping and dust escaping I was talking about the situation at the machine, where the airflow is the most important factor. Also the spec given for air flows are taken without filters or ducting. Again, if you have measured your blower without ducting/filters and then hookeed everything up and got the same reading thats brilliant, you have very efficient ducting and ample filter surface area, but is it moving 800CFM at 4000FPM at the furthest point?

That is what I'm striving for so that I don't have to keep adding bits and pieces, upgrading a blower here and a filter there, as these are the things that cause the price in the long run to sky-rocket.


----------



## Barry Burgess (25 Aug 2006)

Tony I totally disagree with you. For one the bag area of the extractors are too small and restricts the airflow. I difference I found when replacing the two top bags with filters was worlds apart. I have not got fancy test equipment but fill a bucket with MDF/ply dust and test the time it takes to empty the bucket at the end of the line. With the filters it was a third faster. 
Don't forget I started with a dust extractor(3HP) and converted to a cyclone so I have seen the difference in the sunlight. I don't have a thicknesser so I cannot test with chips alone but if it works with MDF I am happy. 
Barry


----------



## Anonymous (25 Aug 2006)

Barry Burgess":4ldyawmq said:


> Tony I totally disagree with you.



You are quite welcome to disagree. 

I have no issues with dust collection and no need for a cyclone as my £100 (+£30ish for fine bag) DE collects it all from my large machines. Down to 1 micro meter.

I use a performance power pro vac on small hand-held power tools - the one that Philly reviewed and this works well enough for me to although I use a dust mask at the same time on these tools.



> For one the bag area of the extractors are too small and restricts the airflow



These machines are designed to collect dust at a specified air flow with the bag on them. They are specified with the bag on, thus the airflow is not restricted with the bag on, it is to specification.


----------



## Barry Burgess (25 Aug 2006)

Tony":txfm4nwv said:


> [
> I have no issues with dust collection and no need for a cyclone as my £100 (+£30ish for fine bag) DE collects it all from my large machines. Down to 1 micro meter.


Tony from an earlier thread a number of people asked for the details of your bag - which we did not get. I have been unable to find a bag that could get anywhere close to your specs.
Barry


----------



## Jake (25 Aug 2006)

Tony":nielrt0n said:


> They are specified with the bag on, thus the airflow is not restricted with the bag on, it is to specification.



Come now, you're an engineer. You know that such things are specified in the most favourable looking way for the manufacturer. The bag they specify the throughput with is almost certainly a squeaky-clean one that has never been used or clogged in the slightest. And the one used for the one micron spec will equally likely have a nice thick coating of dust on the inside to give it a leg up.

That's just how specifications work, isn't it?


----------



## davy_owen_88 (25 Aug 2006)

Jake":1hsbfd5t said:


> Come now, you're an engineer. You know that such things are specified in the most favourable looking way for the manufacturer. The bag they specify the throughput with is almost certainly a squeaky-clean one that has never been used or clogged in the slightest. And the one used for the one micron spec will equally likely have a nice thick coating of dust on the inside to give it a leg up.
> 
> That's just how specifications work, isn't it?



Infact, most extractors are rated with 'free airflow'... meaning no bags, no ducting hence no resistance. 

Anyway, back on topic... I'm definately interested in the cyclone if you can make it 18" (I don't see why the company your paying to do this can't make them in different sizes... keeping the customer happy and all that). Otherwise, I think I'll pass and make my own.



Bill Pentz":1hsbfd5t said:


> Most who follow my plans and direction start with the cyclone top cylinder diameter, at 18". This is near the ideal compromise size in terms of giving enough separation and still not causing too much resistance while still providing ample airflow with a 3 HP motor turning a 14" impeller to generate about 1900 CFM.


----------



## Barry Burgess (25 Aug 2006)

Davy I agree with you the 450mm(+/-17.75") would be the best option if you have the ceiling height. You do realise that you will have to build you own impellor case?
Barry


----------



## davy_owen_88 (25 Aug 2006)

Barry Burgess":3j5ijog4 said:


> Davy I agree with you the 450mm(+/-17.75") would be the best option if you have the ceiling height. You do realise that you will have to build you own impellor case?
> Barry



The charnwood W792 has a 350mm / 13-3/4" impellor, but I'm going to look around for a blower unit on its own first. A 14" impellor is pretty much the limit for a 3HP motor, and I can't find a motor above 3HP in 240V. 

But with 6" diameter (well layed out) ducting and minimal back pressure from the 40m^2 of filter material it should be sufficient.

As for the ceiling height, if the motor is side mounted, then even with a 30" barrel it will fit under a 7 foot ceiling. Shouldn't be too much of a problem, just set it up like yours.


----------



## Barry Burgess (25 Aug 2006)

Davy with the 18", the outlet to the impellor is 9" if you are going to follow Pentz. - How do you get this to work with the 6" impellor inlet????? 
If you open up the inlet you have to also open up the outlet and this causes a resonating sound that I found very difficult to get rid of. 
Barry


----------



## davy_owen_88 (25 Aug 2006)

I hadn't thought of that.  

Opening up the inlet and outlet might well cause the motor to burn up...

I either find a motor that has a 9" inlet/outlet or I just use a reducer from 9" to 6". Its not going to add very much resistance if i keep it a very short run.. about 14 inches.


EDIT:


Bill's website":2v6aojvo said:


> I am taking your advice and upgrading to a 9" outlet. That will make the cyclone outlet 9" going into a blower inlet that is only 6". Is it ok to reduce the cyclone outlet right at the top of the cyclone so the blower can be top mounted?
> 
> Yes, the key here is to make sure that it is big enough to not create a fast airflow out. Otherwise it will cause the incoming air to "turn the corner" and greatly reduce separation efficiency. You can make for less turbulence if you make a taper. I made one from MDF to make a smoother transition. Most of the time, I just take off the face plate of the blower and the 9” cyclone outlet ends up defining a 9” blower inlet.



Seems like aslong as the outlet that is inside the cyclone is 1/2 the diameter then its OK.


----------



## Barry Burgess (25 Aug 2006)

Davy its when you get down and dirty that you discover what goes on - I have looked at Pentz's site more times than I can remember - but you have to make it work?? 
Barry


----------



## davy_owen_88 (25 Aug 2006)

Barry Burgess":1ow02yra said:


> Davy its when you get down and dirty that you discover what goes on - I have looked at Pentz's site more times than I can remember - but you have to make it work??
> Barry



Yup, I think I'll need to give another donation to Bill for using so much of his bandwidth :lol: 

I've read through Bill's site so much, but theres always something I've missed, because the amount of info on tap is just unbelievable.

I'm not looking forward to making the cyclone myself, I don't have the tools, experience or the 'get-up-and=go' to do it, which is why if I can get it made for me for a reasonable price I will do that. 

I'm still trying to think of things I havn't thought of yet... which is proving difficult :shock:


----------



## Anonymous (26 Aug 2006)

With 3 saying "yes" and 9 "may bes" where are we with getting this built.

I need 10 firm orders before this chap will start as the price is based on a batch run.

How should we proceeed ?????


Francis


----------



## RogerS (26 Aug 2006)

Barry Burgess":muhiez59 said:


> If you open up the inlet you have to also open up the outlet and this causes a resonating sound that I found very difficult to get rid of.
> Barry



Barry, I wonder if you effectively created an organ pipe? One trick I learned about double glazing was to have the two panes of different thickness as that prevented them resonating and transferring noise from one to the other. Just a thought


----------



## Anonymous (26 Aug 2006)

Barry Burgess":1wcw6hp9 said:


> Tony":1wcw6hp9 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Barry this is not true. Just because you are a cyclone convert does not make the rest of us liars, or wrong.

I posted all info I have in reponse to the request:
Axminster bag rated at 1um. It cost just over £30 and _just_ fits my Charnwood extractor. I do not have the receipt (why keep one for a bag once fitted and working????) and the order was placed over the phone with a salesman who went down to the demo machine area to measure all that he had in an effort to find one that fits my DE, thus I have no idea of part number etc. becuase he took care of everything for me.

I would expect all 1um Axminster bags to be exactly the same construction and materials.

*ALL of this was posted before when the request was made*

On my system, the only dust that escapes into the atmosphere does so from the blade edge and above the wood where the extractor cannot suck.
This is one thing that will also be the case with cyclones.

The plain *fact* is that standard DEs with 1um bags collect all the rubbish my machines can produce - even MDF dust. 

Bean bought the same bag for his DE, maybe he has more info


----------



## Mike.C (26 Aug 2006)

> Francis,
> 
> With 3 saying "yes" and 9 "may bes" where are we with getting this built.
> 
> ...



I was one of the maybe's, but the only trouble is, dust collection is a black art to me and before I spend another £395 I am going to need convincing that buying one of these cyclones will greatly improve my system.

I have always been impressed by what Bill Pentz claims his cyclones can do, but there is a huge difference between this and seeing it work in my workshop.

At the moment I have 100mm spirolux metal ducting running around the complete 27ft X 13ft workshop, which has branchs to 7 different machines.

I have another 27ft X 13ft upstairs which i have stopped using at the moment because I am going to fit a new staircase in the not to distance future, which is when I am going to need to either send another 1 or 2 branches up there, have a separate system, or just a mobile extractor.

Connected to this system I have a Elektra Beckum SPA1100, Scheppach HA2600 (with their fine filter) and a twin motor Camvac CGV386 dust extractor. I also have a Axminster AFS2000 workshop air filter hanging from the ceiling and I use a Trend Airshield 90% of the time.

The Elektra Beckum and the Scheppach are connected at the same time to one end of the system , and the Camvac is wheeled around and used on the router table and scroll saw etc, and as extra support (with a possibly hose) on any other of the machine's if i need it (for instance if I am cutting up some MDF on the Scheppach table saw I will set the hose to catch what ever may escape from the hose on the blade guard or the hose underneath the under the table.

My step dad installed this system while I was in the US, and although it does work pretty good, it could be better. Part of the problem is the use of the EB and Scheppach which I already had before I went to the US. Apart from taking up a lot of room they do not seem to work together as good as they do on their own.

So my questions are:

Will the 100mm pipe work be ok with the cyclone or will I need to renew it?

Will either of the motors from the extractors I already have work with the cyclone? If not what size will I need?

If these motors are not any good what will i have to spend on another one?

Will either of the propellers (or is that impellers?) work with the cyclone?

Will what ever motor I use easily cope with the machines downstairs and maybe upstairs on this size of workshop?

Silly questions I am sure but I do not want to buy something that is not going to be a lot better then what I have got, especially if I am going to have to buy another motor and/or propeller/impeller.

Cheers

Mike

EDIT, When I say that the system could be better, I don't mean for one moment that my dad did not do a good job in installing the system, what I mean is I don't think that these extractors working together do the sort of job you would think they would.


----------



## Barry Burgess (26 Aug 2006)

Tony":t5jro3zm said:


> Barry this is not true. Just because you are a cyclone convert does not make the rest of us liars, or wrong.
> 
> I posted all info I have in reponse to the request:
> Axminster bag rated at 1um. It cost just over £30 and _just_ fits my Charnwood extractor. I do not have the receipt (why keep one for a bag once fitted and working????) and the order was placed over the phone with a salesman who went down to the demo machine area to measure all that he had in an effort to find one that fits my DE, thus I have no idea of part number etc. becuase he took care of everything for me.
> ...


 
Tony I did not call you a liar but no bag can filter down to .5micro that I have been able to find and that is what is required to stop MDF dust. Its not just the Pentz site that says so. 
I am not a cyclone convert but was finding it hard in the gym following a day in the workshop and wondered why. That started me of on trying to improve my workshop's air. 
I would not have gone down the filter and cyclone route if my extractor had worked with MDF and ply dust. 
The standard bags are a dust blower and the ones I could find were no better than 2micro which will not do. 
The filters are 10 times at least the area of the bag so as to allow for the clogging that occurs and hence the reduction in the air flow. 
Tony how do you test to see if dust is leaking??? 
Barry


----------



## Barry Burgess (26 Aug 2006)

Tony my interrest in the bag you quoted as I am converting a dust extractor for a friend who cannot spend much. I fitted my old plastic bag and metal strap from my old dust extractor and offered to make the filter holder if he would buy the filter but he cannot afford it. I call Axminster and the technical department quoted me the spec on the bag as going down to 2 micros. A number of bag suppliers qouted figures close to £60. 
He uses mainly MDF so I need the correct spec.
Barry


----------



## Barry Burgess (26 Aug 2006)

Tony you stated this filter
http://www.axminster.co.uk/default.asp?part=AFS1000B 
But I cannot find it and looking back at some of your earlier posts you were also talking about a .5micro bag filter????
Hopefully you could bring it to Philly's as I would like to get it tested!!!!
Got a mate who tests this sort of things. An engineering type like you - I only did science and later computers.
Barry


----------



## Anonymous (28 Aug 2006)

> I was one of the maybe's, but the only trouble is, dust collection is a black art to me and before I spend another £395 I am going to need convincing that buying one of these cyclones will greatly improve my system.


True - you will need to cost justiify it 


> I have always been impressed by what Bill Pentz claims his cyclones can do, but there is a huge difference between this and seeing it work in my workshop.


As yet I have failed to find anybody who is not 



> At the moment I have 100mm spirolux metal ducting running around the complete 27ft X 13ft workshop, which has branchs to 7 different machines.
> 
> I have another 27ft X 13ft upstairs which i have stopped using at the moment because I am going to fit a new staircase in the not to distance future, which is when I am going to need to either send another 1 or 2 branches up there, have a separate system, or just a mobile extractor.
> 
> ...



True - in air movement 1+1 does not equal 2 - 



> So my questions are:
> 
> Will the 100mm pipe work be ok with the cyclone or will I need to renew it?


It will work - but 100mm is only 78.53sql CM of duct - 150mm is 176 sq cm - that more than double the area - and if you are going to go for 4000 CFM then you will need 150 mm



> Will either of the motors from the extractors I already have work with the cyclone? If not what size will I need?


Again - yes they will work - but from memory these are only 1HP (750w) if that and now way will the provide the CFM and FPM you are going to need to drive the system you have 



> If these motors are not any good what will i have to spend on another one?


Depends if you have 1 or 3 phase - on ebay you might well get something for under £100 - then you need an impellor which I suspect you will have to get from the US



> Will either of the propellers (or is that impellers?) work with the cyclone?



Nope they simply will not shift enough air



> Will what ever motor I use easily cope with the machines downstairs and maybe upstairs on this size of workshop?



Yup - if you have a 3 to 5 Hp motor - no problem


> Silly questions I am sure but I do not want to buy something that is not going to be a lot better then what I have got, especially if I am going to have to buy another motor and/or propeller/impeller.



With the quantify of machines you have etc you should be looking at dust extraction really carfully 
Cheers

Mike

EDIT, When I say that the system could be better, I don't mean for one moment that my dad did not do a good job in installing the system, what I mean is I don't think that these extractors working together do the sort of job you would think they would.[/quote]


----------



## Mike.C (28 Aug 2006)

Francis, thanks for answering my questions. As I have said if the cyclone is going to make a big difference to my dust collecting system then I would be interested.



> Francis,
> 
> If these motors are not any good what will i have to spend on another one?
> 
> Depends if you have 1 or 3 phase - on ebay you might well get something for under £100 - then you need an impellor which I suspect you will have to get from the US



What exactly is an impellor? Obviously it's not what I would call the propeller (inside the dust extractor) because why would I need to get one from the US.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## ivan (30 Aug 2006)

The problem with filter bags is dust....Axmister's 2 micron bag witll begin to filter smaller stuff _once teh fabric gets a coating of cake._


----------



## Scrit (30 Aug 2006)

Barry Burgess":2sf65eak said:


> Tony from an earlier thread a number of people asked for the details of your bag - which we did not get. I have been unable to find a bag that could get anywhere close to your specs.





Barry Burgess":2sf65eak said:


> A number of bag suppliers qouted figures close to £60.


Hi Barry

We should be speaking!

Being located slap bang in the middle between the Yorkshire heavy woollen district and the Lancashire cotton belt - and there's still some of these industries going (it's not all dead) - I'm lucky enough to have a manufacturer of fine felted cotton or cotton/poly mix filter socks nearby. The company actually weave the filter materials as well as making-up the bags and they are the OEM for a number of UK industrial extraction systems manufacturers as well as being an exporter. This company is unfortunately trade account only, however if anyone would like me to get them a quote for bags I'd be happy to do so as I have an account there. They can supply bags down to about 1 micron filtration suitable for use on MDF dust, and whilst (from experience) these are not as effective as a pleated filter set-up, partly because they have less surface area, they are nonetheless a huge improvement on OEM stuff and MUCH cheaper, especially as they will happily produce any diameter and length you require (mine were made 450 mm longer than the OEM filter socks). I found the cost of buying "2 micron" filter socks from them a few years back to be less than 1/2 the cost of buying Coral OEM filter socks - and they were only 20 micron string vests. Similarly they saved me well over £100 on the cost of the 24 pocket filter set in the fine DX we have in the CNC.

If anyone is interested in going down this path as an intermediate step, please PM me and I'll get some prices. Because these are not off the shelf items delivery is normally 10 to 15 working days.



ivan":2sf65eak said:


> The problem with filter bags is dust....Axmister's 2 micron bag witll begin to filter smaller stuff _once teh fabric gets a coating of cake._


Thi is true of any woven filter material. I tend to throw a couple of buckets of MDF through the DX to coat it to start with...... :shock: 

From an engineering perspective (?) I've just taken an 8,000 cfm unit out of our premises which used to be able to extract our CNC, a panel saw and two pin routers running at the same time - just. The problems that Barry is highlighting with fine dust are very real. Our fine dust DX had a pocket filter capable of filtering 1 micron, but it was only effective after a run-in period of a number of hours when it was new. Once the filter had been loaded, however, it was sufficiently good that _in general_ we were able to work at most of the machinery without masks most of the time. 0.5 micron filter socks are an impossibility, but it takes a lot less to coat the inside of a 1 or 2 micron filter sock to get it down to that sort of performance than it does to coat the inside of a 20 or 30 micron filter sock.

Scrit


----------



## ivan (30 Aug 2006)

Sorry, hit the submit button by mistake!

The problem with filter bags is dust....
Axmister's 2 micron bag will begin to filter smaller stuff _once the fabric gets a coating of cake._ At this point the airflow must be reduced because the pores of the fabric are now partially blocked with particles of 2 microns and over. It might be OK for you if you don't cut much mdf and clean the bag regularly. Incidentally my 2micron bag is more than twice as big as the Axminster one and with mdf needs cleaning long before the bin is even 1/4 full. Remember also that dust capture requires the highest velocity air flow.

According to the UK engineers airflow through a fabric bag _collecting fine dust_ should not exceed about 1.2M per minute, which for the sort of extractor we've been talking about (1440 - 2000M3/Hr) needs around 20-30 sqM of fabric _if the fine dust is to stay inside the bag,_ and not migrate through the fabric.

If I want to actually get in the workshop alongside the extractor I'd need to use a pleated filter similar to Barry's, and either clean it often, and probably replace it regularly as it gradually clogs up, or protect it with a cyclone to remove most of the dust load first.

The most sensible solution for you will depend on whether you cut up a sheet of MDF less than once a month or several times a day.


----------



## Scrit (30 Aug 2006)

ivan":3ajb57xd said:


> .......and with mdf needs cleaning long before the bin is even 1/4 full. Remember also that dust capture requires the highest velocity air flow.


That tends to make me think that your collector is not spinning out the finer stuff before it hits the filter material.



ivan":3ajb57xd said:


> According to the UK engineers airflow through a fabric bag _collecting fine dust_ should not exceed about 1.2M per minute, which for the sort of extractor we've been talking about (1440 - 2000M3/Hr) needs around 20-30 sqM of fabric _if the fine dust is to stay inside the bag,_ and not migrate through the fabric.


That is normally expressed as an air to cloth ratio (cfm to square feet) - commercial minimum is around 6:1 with 10:1 being the figure to aim for, i.e. a 1000 cfm collector needs 100 square feet of filter area. Very few dust extractors even get near the 6:1 ratio, let alone the 10:1 ideal

Scrit


----------



## Barry Burgess (30 Aug 2006)

ivan":3pwnkdgv said:


> If I want to actually get in the workshop alongside the extractor I'd need to use a pleated filter similar to Barry's, and either clean it often, and probably replace it regularly as it gradually clogs up, or protect it with a cyclone to remove most of the dust load first.T.


 
Ivan I am getting no visible dust going to the filter. Even if I use the palm of my hand and bang the filter. The dust and chips are remaining in the cyclone - far better than I ever thought. I am using a total of 40m2 with the two filters and totally agree with your comments on bags


----------



## Barry Burgess (30 Aug 2006)

Scrit the DIY extractors send too much of the dust to the top bag. This might be different with the commercial units but I found with my 3HP 4 bagger that the design was not ideal for separating the dust even if it was not fine. This excess of dust causes the bag to under perform and I suspect causes problems with the air flow 
Barry


----------



## ivan (30 Aug 2006)

My setup has the impeller housing/motor at the top (screwed to wall next to ceiling) with felt sock hanging down, and bin at the bottom. The extractor feeds what is more or less a "felt walled drop box" with bin under. regards, to all, Ivan


----------



## Scrit (30 Aug 2006)

Barry Burgess":2yypk7mg said:


> Scrit the DIY extractors send too much of the dust to the top bag. This might be different with the commercial units but I found with my 3HP 4 bagger that the design was not ideal for separating the dust even if it was not fine. This excess of dust causes the bag to under perform and I suspect causes problems with the air flow
> Barry


Barry

The commercial ones are a bit better, but not a lot, possibly because they are of grweater diameter. I've found that lengthening the sock has a marked effect on performance, though it's not as good as going to a proper cyclone and pleated filter. The other technique used in industry is to have a plenum chamber below an envelope filter with a drop box beneath where the air velocity drops by a huge amount in the plenum. This is the principle used by the DCE Unimaster, etc. and the fan, a full aerofoil impeller draws upwards through the filter envelope. 

Scrit


----------



## Barry Burgess (30 Aug 2006)

Scrit I tried all kinds of dust buckets before the extractor but they either collected nothing, if they were small and if too large caused a big drop in suction. If I had my time over on this project I would have used a airfoil but was worried how much dust would get into the airfoil but I should not have worried with the existing cyclone. 
Barry


----------



## neilc (30 Aug 2006)

With all the talk of cyclones lately I seen an add for this in the Aug/Sept issue of American Woodworker. Just wondering what you all thought of it as I'm quite interested (don't think I'd be up to making my own). My new workshop is in the process of been built at the moment and I'd really like to nail the DC once and for all.
Neil


----------



## WellsWood (31 Aug 2006)

Depends shipping costs / import duty etc. I suppose. But that aside, considering this thread is about a cyclone on it's own for £395 then £500 odd for the whole shooting match seems like a very good option. Certainly it _looks_ like the mutts nuts, what with that sexy gloss black finishand all. I reckon if I had the space and the cash it'd be pretty high on the shortlist.

Mark


----------



## Anonymous (31 Aug 2006)

Warning - with anything from the US make sure its suitable for 50Hz not 60Hz

The US is all 60Hz and if you run one of their motors over here there will be that acrid smell of burning and then and if you are lucky a bang as the motor says I DO NOT LIKE THIS - by by


----------



## Barry Burgess (31 Aug 2006)

With the US versions its better to buy with the impellor and without the motor. 
This is a better option as its made of perspex and the shipping is lower 
ClearVue http://www.clearvuecyclones.com/Order_Page.htm 

Even with this lighter version the shipping costs plus VAT plus import duty double the price. Ed at ClearVue ships to Australia and will supply bushes to suit your motor 
Barry


----------



## RogerS (31 Aug 2006)

Barry..why are there two versions - LH and RH?


----------



## Barry Burgess (31 Aug 2006)

Roger I think its down to the direction that the impellor rotates.
Barry


----------



## RogerS (31 Aug 2006)

Found the answer on Ed's site here


----------



## Bean (31 Aug 2006)

Oddly but I have just seen this, Barry the bag filters to 1 micron as stated by tony and is a 'ADE1100FFB' retails for about £36. It does not adversly affect the performance, I have the same extractor as Tony. I check with a manometer which I use to monitor the extraction booths at work.

I agree with tony that the cyclone is not the only way to go and that it is a very limited argument to say so. A combination of methods is possibly the best method.


----------



## RogerS (31 Aug 2006)

Bean..the price has gone up to £43...still a good deal.

Watching the videos on the ClearVue Cyclone site...especially the small shop vac cyclone, you do have to give some _very_ serious thought to cyclones...very impressive demonstration.


----------



## Anonymous (31 Aug 2006)

Bean":1xs7of98 said:


> Oddly but I have just seen this, Barry the bag filters to 1 micron as stated by tony and is a 'ADE1100FFB' retails for about £36. It does not adversly affect the performance, I have the same extractor as Tony. I check with a manometer which I use to monitor the extraction booths at work.
> 
> I agree with tony that the cyclone is not the only way to go and that it is a very limited argument to say so. A combination of methods is possibly the best method.



Interesting to note that Axminster only recommend this for Chippings and Sawdust - not for anding dust or MDF dust (its rated at perfomrance level 2)

So even though they say its 1Micro - they still do not recommend for filting fine dust

Francis


----------



## Bean (31 Aug 2006)

> Interesting to note that Axminster only recommend this for Chippings and Sawdust - not for anding dust or MDF dust (its rated at perfomrance level 2)
> 
> So even though they say its 1Micro - they still do not recommend for filting fine dust



Dont get misled by marketing information, that tries to make you buy equipment you do not need


----------



## Anonymous (31 Aug 2006)

> Dont get misled by marketing information, that tries to make you buy equipment you do not need



I am not misled !! 

I have a Fercell extractor with a 1 Micro bag - its one of the best DUST PUMPS I know considering I push everything from thick wood turings through to 1200grit sanding dust - don't bother with the Mirror test - just look at the shelves, bottles etc etc 

The quantity of very fine dust which gets spewed around the workshop by any of these bag collectors is just un-real (and you would be kidding yourself if your believe anything different). A bag filter will NOT keep delivering the required CFM to pick up ALL dust while providing 1 micron filtrations (assuming you are creating a range of dust types including fine dust such as sanding etc) without very regular maintenance (like burning the filter bag and buying a new one). 

My cyclone is due shorting - one is being built as a prototype. It will have 40sqM (as opposed to a classic bag filter of about 1.8sqM) of filtration (similar to Barry's filter stack) The cyclone will remove between 90% and 97% by weight of all the material it is passed leaving the filters to do the rest. I will expect to see no chips or chuncks of sawdust in the filters at all. 

I just cannot wait - Photo available when it arrives.


----------



## Noel (1 Sep 2006)

neilc":3n3wf7a3 said:


> With all the talk of cyclones lately I seen an add for this in the Aug/Sept issue of American Woodworker. Just wondering what you all thought of it as I'm quite interested (don't think I'd be up to making my own). My new workshop is in the process of been built at the moment and I'd really like to nail the DC once and for all.
> Neil


If it's $845USP you'll be paying a similar amount in GBP (or €1,250 odd) when it reaches your door after shipping, import dut and Vat. Not too mention the Hz problem. Without a motor would be ideal but as they are totally manufactured in Taiwan it's unlikely.
In any case what's the chances of something as delicate (shipping wise) arriving without dents or other damage?
There was talk at some stage of Axminster starting to carry a cyclone (which could well be a repaint job of the PSI unit) sometime next year but it's was only rumour. Who knows?


----------



## Anonymous (1 Sep 2006)

> There was talk at some stage of Axminster starting to carry a cyclone (which could well be a repaint job of the PSI unit) sometime next year but it's was only rumour. Who knows?



Spoke with Axminster recently - the are still looking into it - there problems is finding a price that people are prepared for a unit which delivers the goods - they recently sold a unit on eBAY for £250 which was a trial model they had bought - my issue with it was it was only a 4in inlet


----------



## RogerS (1 Sep 2006)

fclauson":2klxi6ad said:


> don't bother with the Mirror test - just look at the shelves, bottles etc etc



A bit confused now. 

How do you _know_ that the dust hasn't been thrown into the air by your saw blade/router cutter/planer blades/thicknesser ????


----------



## Anonymous (1 Sep 2006)

Well - each time I start up the extractor you can see this fine haze of dust coming off the bag - if you "beat" the bag then even more comes off - this is not dust which has settled onto the outside of the bag and then is being blow off - why should it be - the bag has an "outbound" draft when in normal use so no dust would settle on it

You are right - some of this extraneous dust does come directly from my work at the lathe (my main dust producer) - but the reason for this is that the extractor is not delivering the required CFM to the lathe because the bag has been blinded by the dust. 

So my approach is 
a) build a unit which retains ALL of the dust
b) build a unit which does not have filters which "blind" filters quickly

This will mean that the CFM stays high - and the dust which is captured stays where I want in (in the waste drum) 

This unit is going to be sucking 800 CFM - my workshop is about 1200 CF which means all the air in the workshop has the opportunity of going through the filters evey minute and a half - obviously this will not explicity happen - but I hope by position the work and the cyclone apart I will create a degree of circulation of air which will be good too


----------



## Bean (1 Sep 2006)

> How do you know that the dust hasn't been thrown into the air by your saw blade/router cutter/planer blades/thicknesser ????



Simple answer is you don't. The fact that it will be thrown out by any equipment that you use to cut with is the truth, regardless of the cfm it may or may not be drawing. If you believe that any form of extraction will completely cure the problem you are only fooling yourself.


----------



## neilc (2 Sep 2006)

fclauson":24hv0s64 said:


> Warning - with anything from the US make sure its suitable for 50Hz not 60Hz
> 
> The US is all 60Hz and if you run one of their motors over here there will be that acrid smell of burning and then and if you are lucky a bang as the motor says I DO NOT LIKE THIS - by by


Not really all that worried about the 60Hz thing. I have a unisaw working away with no problems for nearly a year now. If the motor were to over heat and blow it can be rewound.



MarkW":24hv0s64 said:


> Certainly it looks like the mutts nuts, what with that sexy gloss black finishand all. I reckon if I had the space and the cash it'd be pretty high on the shortlist.


My thoughts exactly.



Noel":24hv0s64 said:


> If it's $845USP you'll be paying a similar amount in GBP (or €1,250 odd) when it reaches your door after shipping, import dut and Vat. Not too mention the Hz problem. Without a motor would be ideal but as they are totally manufactured in Taiwan it's unlikely.
> In any case what's the chances of something as delicate (shipping wise) arriving without dents or other damage?
> There was talk at some stage of Axminster starting to carry a cyclone (which could well be a repaint job of the PSI unit) sometime next year but it's was only rumour. Who knows?


I have made contact with the company regarding shipping cost and the possibility of getting it with a 50Hz motor. As mentioned above the motor is not a ball breaker for me. I'm waiting for a reply email from them, I'll let ye know how I get on.
As regards Axminster my new workshop won't be ready till around Christmas or just after so if they had one available for sale by then great. I got a Jet planner from them a couple of months ago and was very impressed by the service. (Building a house is a great way to get new tools with SWMBO approval-kitchen, wardrobes etc.. to be done)
Neil


----------



## engineer one (2 Sep 2006)

ok, maybe i am being silly, but i am not sure that an extractor shifting
800 cfm is going to change the air in your workshop every 11/2 minutes
since that is not its job. the lathe is creating airflow, and that is what you
are extracting from, so why would there be a complete workshop 
change? 

from what i have seen, none of the cfm figure tell you with what size hose,
and unless the exhaust is outside the workshop, then you are re-circulating
the air anyway! 

no matter how big the extraction motor, you will never get rid of
all the dust.

i think from looking, unless you enclose the dust bag inside a cylinder
air and dust will leak through the bag/plastic unit. and many of the
proprietary units have very difficult to undo clips or clamps
which allow the dust to drop out.

actually i agree with bean on this.  

paul :wink:


----------



## Bean (2 Sep 2006)

> actually i agree with bean on this.
> 
> paul



Scary :wink:


----------



## engineer one (2 Sep 2006)

well in this place us engineers must stick together even if we
disagree about the value of some forms of metalworking :lol: 

what does interest me though is the airflow within the table
saw casing, because i think that causes many problems with
proper extraction. hence my experiment with the 744.

paul :wink:


----------



## ivan (2 Sep 2006)

Dust Checking:
You can do a rough and ready check by turning out the lights (at night!) and using a bright narrow beam to backlight the dust in the air. (Like a sunbeam can indoors) A low voltage 'spot' fitting or old car spotlight would probably do. Of course you can only actually see the stuff that's too big to be any harm....But if it's there, so is the finer stuff!

Cyclone:
The problem with a forum project is probably too many conflicting requirements? Thinking about this further, glass fire/lay up resin is cheap and low tec to use, and the mould is usually wooden. Split vertically a half cone and half cylinder would mean 2 moulds, and 4 mouldings. You make joins by moulding in a flange, and then glue/pop rivet the flanges together with resin. Mouldings can be cut with woodworking tools and bits patched on with resin and pieces of glass cloth heath robinson fashion (works for boats!)

There's an outfit called Glassplies sells all the stuff by mail. Would be srtonger than the USA plastic one, but not as pretty as the smooth surface would be inside.


----------



## engineer one (2 Sep 2006)

ivan, at last a sensible solution to this idea, one could actually 
have made cones which were long, and then people could
cut them down.

if you want pretty outside, you can always cover it. :lol: 

i think we generally use smaller machines than the americans,
so maybe we need smaller dx machinery.

paul :wink:


----------



## ivan (2 Sep 2006)

Musing on since posting earlier, with the cylinder in halves, the outlet and spiral could be easily fixed in place, and sized to suit your own requirement, likewise the inlet. The flanges would make fixing a ply top/extractor mounting quite simple. Only tools needed for glass fibreing are a few cheap disposable paintbrushes and maybe a lay up roller, probably under ten quid. All we'd need to agree is diameter and cone length? Anyone fancy hiring out 2 moulds?


----------



## engineer one (3 Sep 2006)

the good thing is that you could make the moulds of thin ply,or bendy mdf.

by the by is that getting more difficult to get, anyone got any addresses 
near london for suppliers??

paul :wink:


----------



## engineer one (3 Sep 2006)

just checked out the october issue of better homes and gardens wood.
two interesting things in there.

1/ an article about air cleaners like the small jet ones. some
interesting information and data.

2/ oneida are doing a cyclone kit for 150 bucks that fits on a 5-10 gallon
bucket, seems to have decent value for sanders and small pipes.
anyone in the states used it and what do you think about it,
the review looks pretty good.

paul :wink:


----------



## ivan (3 Sep 2006)

Engineer one, try Silverman I think they have outlets NW and E of London. The one here in Devon stocks bendy ply, down to about 1.5?mm, this latter in 1.2m sq sheets.

Ivan


----------



## Barry Burgess (6 Sep 2006)

I have been having a discussion with the master him self - Bill Pentz replied to so comments about cyclone diameters on an Australian website 
http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/showthread.php?t=35734&page=5 
He states that the smaller diameter cyclones down to 13.5" give better dust separation but require bigger impellors and that 4" pipe can be used with the smaller diameters - go read the comments for yourselves 
Barry


----------



## Jake (6 Sep 2006)

Barry Burgess":2rtouxpn said:


> I have been having a discussion with the master him self - Bill Pentz ... that 4" pipe can be used with the smaller diameters






Bill Pentz from link":2rtouxpn said:


> use 4” to support 350 CFM



This was pretty much exactly the throughput of the big Camvac that you were saying was inadequate in that big thread a while back.


----------



## engineer one (6 Sep 2006)

yes jake but is there a cyclone on the camvac????

i think personally that some of the figures are a bit dubious,
but also slanted toward the americans who have more and bigger
machines. i think we tend to have only one machine going at a time.

we certainly don't have the space to have 24 inch impellors, that are
10-12 feet high.

barry has kind of proved that a smaller item will work, but that is
practical work, and kind of defies the figures. i personally still think
a great deal is to do with the airflow from within the machine itself,
and the small extractors on almost all the machines. 

having read some of BP's file last year he talks a lot about blockages
causing the problems, so the answer surely is to cut down on the 
ability of lumps to get into the pipework, by having a pre filter 
of for instance garden mesh, so that the big lumps will drop down,
and then the dust would be held more in the air. another problem is
the over use of 90 degree bends. these are almost certain to cause 
some blockages, and the transition from one size to another can
cause build ups. 

i think a pre mesh, then only using 30/45and 60 degree bends
will cut down accumulation and thus many of the problems a big
impellor is supposed to sort out.

paul :wink:


----------



## Jake (6 Sep 2006)

engineer one":bngofkz5 said:


> yes jake but is there a cyclone on the camvac????



That's irrelevant - a cyclone is only a way of achieving good filtration without reducing throughput too much.


----------



## engineer one (6 Sep 2006)

i don't think it is irrelevant at all jake. 
the plan with the cyclone is to reduce the stuff that gets to the
filter, and then into the motor or its impellor.

and that is where different people have different ideas about 
controlling the air. 

as i have said i think bill's figures are a little too empirical
and also take little or no account of our using 250 volts and 60 mhz.

anyway, what we should maybe consider is the clear plastic type
of cyclone that is promoted on bill's site. must see how easy that 
would be to make for a kit. that certainly should be much cheaper. :twisted: 

paul
:wink:


----------



## Barry Burgess (6 Sep 2006)

Jake":33nmlnxy said:


> engineer one":33nmlnxy said:
> 
> 
> > yes jake but is there a cyclone on the camvac????
> ...


 
Its not irrelevant, the smaller diameter cyclones are increasing the airflow due to the tight turns of the cyclone so you are achieving better airflows. I am using 6" from the impellor to the cyclone and 4" air ramp into the cyclone and a 15" diameter cyclone with a 13.5" impellor. I am getting no dust or particles going to the filter and cannot see any visible dust passing along the pipes to the filter. I am not getting any drop in airflow which is not what you are getting as the Camvac fills up??


----------



## Jake (6 Sep 2006)

engineer one":1k5td3dy said:


> i don't think it is irrelevant at all jake.
> the plan with the cyclone is to reduce the stuff that gets to the
> filter, and then into the motor or its impellor.



Which is important with low pressure equipment because the filters clogging up has a massive impact on throughput.



> have said i think bill's figures are a little too empirical
> and also take little or no account of our using 250 volts and 60 mhz.



I don't disagree, but I wasn't the person using Bill's figures to dismiss a 350CFM throughput as adequate in the first place.


----------



## Jake (6 Sep 2006)

Barry Burgess":2gso8ika said:


> Its not irrelevant, the smaller diameter cyclones are increasing the airflow due to the tight turns of the cyclone so you are achieving better airflows.



Bill P was saying 4" pipe can support 350CFM throughput. Which is pretty much what a 3 motor Camvac does, and which you said wasn't good enough.

Cyclone or not is entirely irrelevant - the aim is to get XXXCFM at the machine and filtration to .5 microns or whatever. 

That said, the cyclone is an excellent way of keeping CFM up on a low pressure system where filter clogging has a disproportionate effect on the throughput figure. That doesn't mean that 350CFM to 0.5 micron with cyclone is any better than 350CFM to 0.5 micron without cyclone.

And it doesn't mean that 350CFM is or isn't enough - it is just that there seem to be double standards here as to whether it is enough or not, dependent on the means of getting there. That doesn't make sense to me.



> I am using 6" from the impellor to the cyclone and 4" air ramp into the cyclone and a 15" diameter cyclone with a 13.5" impellor. I am getting no dust or particles going to the filter and cannot see any visible dust passing along the pipes to the filter.



Good - seems to indicate that 350CFM is enough then - a conclusion that I'm happy with!

I use my Camvac right next to my machines with a 4', 4" hose, I can't see any dust in the exhaust air, and there is no way it could get through the three layer filter.



> I am not getting any drop in airflow which is not what you are getting as the Camvac fills up??



Doesn't happen - the high pressure means that filter clogging doesn't affect throughput to any discernable degree.


----------



## Barry Burgess (6 Sep 2006)

Jake your filters must cause a drop in suction as they are preventing the dust getting to the motors??? Don't forget I get no dust or chips anywhere near the filters and I have 40m2 of filter - a little more than you have. 
Jake I an not agreeing that the 4" pipe is idea but that is what I had installed already. I have just acquired two lengths of 6" PVC piping from a roof rack(3.2M each) from one of our members. I will start making 4" & 6" Y type connections for the run to the machines. Once this is complete I will be able to check Bill's comments. 
In the end its down to how efficient the hood at the machine is as well as the air speed. 
With regard to the Canvac I said I checked it out when it had 2" hose before the 4" was used. I hope we can agree that 2" will not work??? 
Barry


----------



## Jake (6 Sep 2006)

Barry Burgess":3bttmgkd said:


> Jake your filters must cause a drop in suction as they are preventing the dust getting to the motors???



To some degree, yes, but the effect is tiny compared to with a low pressure vacuum such as you are using. The static head, more suck, means that the air gets sucked through the filter regardless. Same as it does through a smaller dust collector hood, or a smaller pipe, etc. The resistances of those 'bottlenecks' are simply not anywhere near as important in a MVHP system such as the big camvac



> Don't forget I get no dust or chips anywhere near the filters and I have 40m2 of filter - a little more than you have.



And I have much much more static pressure than you, so there!



> Jake I an not agreeing that the 4" pipe is idea but that is what I had installed already. I have just acquired two lengths of 6" PVC piping from a roof rack(3.2M each) from one of our members. I will start making 4" & 6" Y type connections for the run to the machines. Once this is complete I will be able to check Bill's comments.



Excellent. I'm not decrying your system at all, btw. It's amazing. I'm just saying that 350CFM is 350CFM, whereever it comes from.

More is better, and what you do have is the ability to expand by upping pipe diameter. I can't add any more motors to my Camvac!



> In the end its down to how efficient the hood at the machine is as well as the air speed.



Which is where I have another advantage over you - my high pressure means more that the machine's hoods do not reduce the airflow as much as they do for your low pressure system - so changing the hoods isn't so important. In other words, a higher proportion of my free-air flow is real-world flow at the collecting hood. 

But for low pressure, yes, very much so - indeed doesn't BP say that all hoods need to be changed to 6" as well as the pipes?



> With regard to the Canvac I said I checked it out when it had 2" hose before the 4" was used. I hope we can agree that 2" will not work???



I'd worry about it clogging on eg a planer, and I think it does reduce throughput significantly - although nothing like you'd imagine from a LVHP perspective, as again, the extra resistances involved just aren't as important. I have used mine with a reducer to a 2" hose on a router table, and the amount of air it whips through is still extraordinary. Of course, I use the bigger hose on anything with an appropriate duct.


----------



## davy_owen_88 (6 Sep 2006)

Jake":8zq7o2fs said:


> Bill P was saying 4" pipe can support 350CFM throughput. Which is pretty much what a 3 motor Camvac does, and which you said wasn't good enough.



And he'd be right to say it isn't good enough. According to Bill 800CFM is needed for 'fine dust extraction' The keyword being 'fine' 100CFM is enough for chip collection (what my old RSDE1 moved), but to capture the fine dust 800 (or there about) is needed.



> Cyclone or not is entirely irrelevant - the aim is to get XXXCFM at the machine and filtration to .5 microns or whatever.



That is true, but without a cyclone the filters will clog up and reduce that xxxCFM substantially. Even with a high pressure extractor the volume WILL decrease. The other thing is that high pressure + low filter surface area = more likely that very fine dust is being blown straight through the filters.



> That said, the cyclone is an excellent way of keeping CFM up on a low pressure system where filter clogging has a disproportionate effect on the throughput figure. That doesn't mean that 350CFM to 0.5 micron with cyclone is any better than 350CFM to 0.5 micron without cyclone.



350CFM with or without a cyclone is exactly the same... before you start using it. 350CFM with a cyclone though will stay at 350 for a hell of a lot longer than it will without a cyclone because the filters will clog up and reduce that airflow.



> And it doesn't mean that 350CFM isn't enough - it is just that there seem to be double standards here as to whether it is enough or not, dependent on the means of getting there. That doesn't make sense to me.



Enough for what though? Chip collection? Then sure its adequate. For fine dust collection? No chance. (and by that I mean collecting all the fine dust at the machine)



> I use my Camvac right next to my machines with a 4', 4" hose, I can't see any dust in the exhaust air, and there is no way it could get through the three layer filter.



I have no doubt that the camvac is filtering everything it collects (I used a RSDE1 for about a year and that did the same) but that doesn't mean its collecting all the fine dust from the source which is where the 800CFM comes into play.


----------



## Barry Burgess (6 Sep 2006)

Jake most of my early work on cyclones was using a 2000W domestic vacuum and this is still the best for small hand tools but in the end I got tired of dragging the vacuum/cyclone from machine to machine. Now I have the whole workshop ducted with blastgates 
I am making a cyclone for 2" piping at present to replace my existing cyclone like system. Its a down scaled version of my big cyclone with a diameter of 6". I am likely to use a high revving(10000 to 20000 RPM) industrial vacuum motor. I hope it will work if all the hand tools and possible a down draft table. 
Barry


----------



## Jake (6 Sep 2006)

davy_owen_88":3ta9cxt0 said:


> And he'd be right to say it isn't good enough. According to Bill 800CFM is needed for 'fine dust extraction' The keyword being 'fine' 100CFM is enough for chip collection (what my old RSDE1 moved), but to capture the fine dust 800 (or there about) is needed.



Barry has said that empirically his system works fine - by his 'lungs in the gym test'. And that's with 4" pipe and what BP says is therefore c350CFM.



> That is true, but without a cyclone the filters will clog up and reduce that xxxCFM substantially.



With a LP extractor, yes, I agree.



> Even with a high pressure extractor the volume WILL decrease.



A bit - not much. There is no discernable difference between a newly shaken out, filters changed camvac and one that is nearly full. That isn't the case for a normal extractor, for which I agree there is a marked difference between a clogged filter and a cleaned one.



> The other thing is that high pressure + low filter surface area = more likely that very fine dust is being blown straight through the filters.



That's basically saying that Camvac's claim to achieve 0.5 micron filtering is a lie. You might be right - I can't test that. Seems a bit extreme to say that without any evidence, though. And it would have to suck the dust through three layers of filter, including a paper bag. Excuse me if I'm a bit sceptical about that.



> 350CFM with or without a cyclone is exactly the same... before you start using it. 350CFM with a cyclone though will stay at 350 for a hell of a lot longer than it will without a cyclone because the filters will clog up and reduce that airflow.



You are ignoring the massive difference in static pressure again.



> Enough for what though? Chip collection? Then sure its adequate. For fine dust collection? No chance. (and by that I mean collecting all the fine dust at the machine)



Barry seems to think his works fine.



> I have no doubt that the camvac is filtering everything it collects (I used a RSDE1 for about a year and that did the same) but that doesn't mean its collecting all the fine dust from the source which is where the 800CFM comes into play.



Are you seriously trying to compare a 3 motor camvac to an RSDE1? 

My point is that Barry has said that he likes his system, with what BP says is a c350CFM throughput, and finds it entirely adequate. He also said the camvac was inadequate. 

Fine, if you think the 800CFM is the requirement for you, forget the Camvac, it ain't going to do it for you. But if you are happy with a 4" pipe system, then you can't dismiss the Camvac.


----------



## Barry Burgess (6 Sep 2006)

Jake would you do me a big favour? I cannot load my cyclone in the car and come down to you. Could you load your Camvac and come out and pay me a visit and we both test the systems rather than debate all this airflow rates. 
We can do some bucket of MDF dust tests and if you have shaving from a planer we could also test that and publish the results on the BB. Do some tests using the pipe work in my garage. etc 
Barry


----------



## Jake (6 Sep 2006)

I re-read the old thread and saw I'd missed your acceptance of the dust bucket challenge! Let's go for that first?


----------



## Barry Burgess (6 Sep 2006)

Jake":fbd2g5r4 said:


> I re-read the old thread and saw I'd missed your acceptance of the dust bucket challenge! Let's go for that first?


Why???
We will both learn the capabilities of both systems - both will have good and bad points thats for sure.
It should take only an hour or two. I am available 24/7 to suit your time.
What would be fairer??
Barry


----------



## Jake (6 Sep 2006)

It would be very fair, but I'm not sure I can be bothered to waste a day on it.


----------



## Barry Burgess (6 Sep 2006)

As Jake does not want to waste time on the test is there any other three or two motor Camvac users that could help with the test? 
Barry


----------



## davy_owen_88 (6 Sep 2006)

Like Barry I don't want to spend all my time arguing on a forum about what is the right and wrong way to go about good fine dust extraction. So I'll just respond to your statements and then I'll shut up. :lol:



Jake":6n36p8zz said:


> Barry has said that empirically his system works fine - by his 'lungs in the gym test'. And that's with 4" pipe and what BP says is therefore 350CFM.



That may be the case, its a major improvement on what he had before, but its not the end of the ongoing struggle to get better dust extraction. As Barry has said hes upgrading parts of his system to 6" and I will bet my entire workshop that he will say its an improvement again. Simply because he wil have more airflow collecting more dust.



> That's basically saying that Camvac's claim to achieve 0.5 micron filtering is a lie. You might be right - I can't test that. Seems a bit extreme to say that without any evidence, though. And it would have to suck the dust through three layers of filter, including a paper bag. Excuse me if I'm a bit sceptical about that.



My comment about high pressure and low filter surface area wasn't just pulled out of my ass...



Bill Pentz":6n36p8zz said:


> increases the pressure which forces the fine silica (glass) particles that make wood strong to cut and tear their way through the fine filter strands soon leaving even a really good filter a useless sieve





> You are ignoring the massive difference in static pressure again.



I'm not ignoring it, you are hiding behind it. I'm sorry but a higher pressure doesn't solve all the problems. It means you can pull xx amount of air through a smaller pipe than a lower pressure unit. But they don't make high pressure extractors (within a reasonable price) that move the amount of air really required. So high pressure doesn't solve anything.




> Are you seriously trying to compare a 3 motor camvac to an RSDE1?



I'm not comparing them side by side, I'm saying they are both high presure extractors with tiny filters that don't move sufficient air to collect all the fine dust. What is the point of 0.5 micron filters when almost all the fine dust escapes the machine before being collected?




> My point is that Barry has said that he likes his system, with what BP says is a 350CFM throughput, and finds it entirely adequate. He also said the camvac was inadequate.
> 
> Fine, if you think the 800CFM is the requirement for you, forget the Camvac, it ain't going to do it for you. But if you are happy with a 4" pipe system, then you can't dismiss the Camvac.



Well I do think that 800CFM should be the requirements for anyone who gives a damn about their health. I understand all these upgrades are expensive, and I'm not trying to say you should just stop everything and upgrade now, but you can't seriously expect me to believe that a camvac is all I'll ever need if I use 4" ducting.


----------



## Jake (6 Sep 2006)

> Well I do think that 800CFM should be the requirements for anyone who gives a damn about their health.



Fine, go for it.



> you can't seriously expect me to believe that a camvac is all I'll ever need if I use 4" ducting.



My point is no more and no less than this: if you are following the BP line, you can't ignore the fact that he thinks that 4" piping is good for c350CFM and no more with a low pressure extractor. So yes, you might as well use a big camvac, until you upgrade the pipe. It will give you that c350CFM anyway, and lose less at the collector hood.

Once you have 6" pipe in, you are up up and away, and can look down on the puny camvac with disdain.


----------



## davy_owen_88 (6 Sep 2006)

Jake":2nfuaeej said:


> My point is no more and no less than this: if you are following the BP line, you can't ignore the fact that he thinks that 4" piping is good for c350CFM and no more with a low pressure extractor. So yes, you might as well use a big camvac, until you upgrade the pipe. It will give you that c350CFM anyway, and lose less at the collector hood.



The thing is, a 3 motor camvac is more expensive than a 3HP low pressure extractor - and only moves 333CFM free airflow according to their site.

So even if you can only get 350CFM through 4" ducting (17cfm more than a camvac could possibly deliver), its cheaper, quieter and leaves the option to upgrade later if you don't get a camvac but get a 3HP extractor.

P.S I know I said I'd be quiet but that was before I realised the price on camvacs... :shock: 

Anyway, I'm sorry if it seems like I'm just arguing for the sake of it, its just when you read through Bills website as much as I have trying to learn about all the details you come round to his way of thinking...


----------



## Jake (6 Sep 2006)

Davy,

I'm not arguing that the Camvac meets BP's requirements - it doesn't by a long way. All I'm saying is that no system with 4", according to BP himself, can do that. 

Barry has always said that his cycloned system as it is with 4" pipe works well enough for him, and I believe him. As he put it, before, he had problems in the gym, after, he didn't.

However, BP's 800CFM is more than twice what BP says can be achieved by an cycloned HVLP on 4" pipe. In that context the 17CFM shortfall of a 3 motor camvac is utterly irrelevant. Put it this way, one gives you 43% of what you need if you take BP at his word. The other gives you 41%.

My point is simply that you can't pick and choose - if you want to follow the BP line to the letter, you have to install 6" plus pipe. If you don't, you aren't going to achieve 800CFM, and you can't call other extractors which also have about 40% of the required throughput inadequate while holding your own up as still being adequate.

Re cost - sure, pricey - don't believe list prices though, factor in the lack of need for pipe (they are easy to wheel from machine to machine, and short enough not to get in the way), deduct extra cartridge filters, and the cost of a cyclone or materials and time to make one, and it's not looking so simple.


----------



## Barry Burgess (6 Sep 2006)

Jake make my day and spend a few hours testing your's and mine theory in practice. The shorter the run then more my 6" connection comes into play( from the filter to the impellor to the top of the cyclone - be aware)
Barry


----------



## Jake (6 Sep 2006)

By the time I've driven out there and back that's a whole day, and I have better things to do. I don't mind chewing the fat, or spending 20 minutes doing some test and writing it up, but I'm too busy doing up a house at weekends to spend a day out on this. Sorry.

I don't actually see what it is going to prove anyway. Or that it is particularly relevant how the camvac works on your piped system - one of its advantages, to me, is that you don't really need one 'cos it is portable and short.

The real point is go with 6" pipe if you want 800CFM, which it sounds like you are about to do. Good for you!


----------



## Anonymous (11 Sep 2006)

Take a look team - this is what you need to remove every bit of dust prior to it hitting the filters

Any comments !!!!

















[/img]


----------



## Barry Burgess (12 Sep 2006)

Looks totally professional to me - well done hope it did not cost too much.
Just one question how do you clear any blockages with the top fixed??
Barry


----------



## Barry Burgess (12 Sep 2006)

Just a few other comments. You can get a 200 mm slow bend from CCL for £21.31 +VAT but you will have to make a new plate for your impellor outlet as most are 150mm maximum. 200mm flexible could cost an arm and a leg. Also check your motor with a clamp meter as the 200mm impellor outlet might cause a load problem with the motor. You will have to modify 150mm flexible to connect your cyclone to the dust collector. 
Barry


----------



## Barry Burgess (15 Sep 2006)

Look whats for sale on eBay? 
link


----------



## Mike.C (17 Sep 2006)

> Barry,
> 
> Look whats for sale on eBay?
> link



fclauson, are you testing the water, because IMHO it would have been nice to let those of us who said that we maybe interested in buying one of these cyclone's that you were putting one of them on ebay and that we maybe able to get one for £220.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Pecker (17 Sep 2006)

I popped into a "rivals" workshop the otherday. He has just had a Felder extractor installed. I noticed it was mainly run in 6" and larger pipework - with 4" only being near the ends of the runs.

Now his isn't a large shop. I would say a bit bigger than a double garage.
He also only has a couple of machine, nothing really big, (though the swine has a lovely Felder table saw!).

Felder had insisted that 6" was now the normal recommeded size for the main ducting as opposed to 4". They had informed him this was due to the volume of air being pulled, not the pressure behind it. The greater the volumn of air, the more finer dust would be collected and more efficient his system would be.
Just my tuppence worth :wink: 

mark


----------



## mrbmcg (17 Sep 2006)

Hmmm. My Felder stuff has 5" ports. :? 

Wonder if anybody can answer this? If you have a 5" piece of pipe in a 6" run, does the pipe effectively become as restrictive as if it was all 5"?

I'll admit I don't really understand static pressure etc with regards to dust extraction, but can't for the life of me think why you can't get just as much air through a 5" pipe than a 6" simply by sucking a bit harder so to speak.

If this is a fairly complex answer then one should be warned that complexity isn't my strongest suit.


----------



## DaveL (17 Sep 2006)

Bob,

There is friction between the air and the pipe, this has less effect at lower speeds, thats why the big pipe is better.


----------



## Barry Burgess (17 Sep 2006)

Bob I have changed the ports on my table saw and router - they started out as 1 1 1/4" to 4". It takes some work with PVC piping and a heat gun as I am untried at welding. I am sure its possible to increase your 5" port but if your extraction system is working it might not be needed?? It depends on your airflow rates.
Barry


----------



## mrbmcg (17 Sep 2006)

Another quick one, my Felder AF-10 dust extractor moves 1500m3/h through a 5" port. This is about 880 CFM.

Now I know it doesn't have a cyclone, just the normal dust shute type inlet, but it has a very short hose, about 10ft of 5" pipe which connects to each machine.

Does Pentz say that this will definitely be inadequate for collecting fine dust at source? (ignoring that the bag of my extractor is then blasting the fine stuff all over the place)

I was thinking of situating the extractor outside and maybe lengthening the hose to stretch around the workshop,thus eliminating the problem with the bag?

Would maybe 20ft of hose be a problem? Or 30ft?


----------



## DaveL (17 Sep 2006)

Bob, 

These are my thoughs not from Bill Pentz web site. 

The longer pipe will have an effect, but to minimise it I would recommend you put a duct system in that has smooth bore pipes. Connecting up long runs of flexible hose should be avoided as the air flow is disrupted by the ridges in the hose. 
Use 45° Y joints not T joints and add a 45° elbow to complete the 90° drop to the machine, if you need a 90° use a big radius or two 45°'s as any sudden change in direction will cause dust to be dropped in the pipe.


----------



## mrbmcg (17 Sep 2006)

Hi Dave

Thanks for the info. I don'treally have any choice but to use flexible pipe as my machines aren't fixed in situ.

I have the Felder combination CF731 and it gets rolled all over the place to work around what I have on the go at any given time and to allow the workpieces to go throught the garage doors.

The only other big machine I have is a felder bandsaw FB400 on wheels which also moves about the place.

There is no way I could install a series of pipes unfortunately :-(

cheers


----------



## Barry Burgess (18 Sep 2006)

Bob rather move the extractor as you do your other equipment and use as short a piece of flexible as possible. If your extractor takes 6" use that with a conical reducer from 6" to 5" at the machine.


----------



## mrbmcg (18 Sep 2006)

Barry Burgess":26v5z5ok said:


> Bob rather move the extractor as you do your other equipment and use as short a piece of flexible as possible. If your extractor takes 6" use that with a conical reducer from 6" to 5" at the machine.



Thats what I do at the minute, but even with the 1 micron felt bag from Felder it still blows dust all over the shop. When the sunlight shines through the window at the right angle you can visibly see the cloud from it. All the shelves have a fine film of dust on them too. Moving the extractor outside would help that problem, but I fear that the length of flexi pipe I would need will prevent me collecting the fine dust at source as Pentz suggests. Its a bit of a catch 22 really. :-(


----------



## DaveL (18 Sep 2006)

Bob, 

How about running a length of duct along the shop with a number of take offs, each with a blast gate. Then have a length of flexible that you link from the machine to the closest gate. That would allow the dust to be dumped in the out house.


----------



## Barry Burgess (18 Sep 2006)

Try replacing the bag with a .5 micro filter??
Like this - I did it early on


----------



## mrbmcg (18 Sep 2006)

DaveL":shoni8w7 said:


> Bob,
> 
> How about running a length of duct along the shop with a number of take offs, each with a blast gate. Then have a length of flexible that you link from the machine to the closest gate. That would allow the dust to be dumped in the out house.



If you saw my workshop you would see that it would be quite difficult. I have units running along three walls with the other wall having two grage doors in it. :-(

I wish I had thought about the extraction more when I installed it, but I had the idea that i would just trail my extractor about with me, but as I've said, its creating way too much dust.


----------



## mrbmcg (18 Sep 2006)

Barry Burgess":1tvwbdpa said:


> Try replacing the bag with a .5 micro filter??
> Like this - I did it early on



That looks interesting Barry. May I ask where you got them?


----------



## Barry Burgess (18 Sep 2006)

Bob here is the link


----------



## mrbmcg (19 Sep 2006)

Barry Burgess":1rfaunw9 said:


> Bob here is the link


Thanks Barry, much appreciated


----------

