A Thien Baffle tested on a shopvac

[Wade Lippman]

I have long been skeptical of the Thien Baffle. Though I am wholly ignorant of fluid dynamics, to my eye it seems as likely to keep the dust suspended as to make it drop. Many people are extremely satisfied with it's performance, but I haven't seen anyone actually test it. So I did.

I built setup identical to the one on Thien's website and tested it with and without the baffle in place to see what would happen. (The elbow I had on hand had a large radius, which resulted 4" between the baffle and the top, rather than Thien's 3". I doubt that matters, but wanted to mention it.)
I used a Dyson canister as a shopvac; it has near perfect separation (after six months of use in my shop the filter is still clean) so whatever ends up in the Dyson is what got by the test setup.

For media I used 3 gallons of debris from my JDS cyclone. Since some fines from the JDS had passed through and were lost, I added 3 cups of wheat flour to restore the balance. I built the separator out of the 5 gallon can that came with my Oneida Dust Deputy.

I sucked up the 3 gallons with the baffle in place and got 8 ounces of dust in the Dyson; about a 98% separation. I then removed the baffle and tried again, after mixing the 8 ounces back into the debris.
Without the baffle I got 3 ounces of dust in the Dyson. Repeating, I got 5 ounces.
Putting the baffle back in place, I got 11 ounces.

On the basis of these test it appear that both separated out essentially all but the finest debris. It would take more than 4 runs to determine which was better with the fine dust, but it is fair to say that the baffle was not significantly superior to no baffle.

I only got the bin half full (it was all the debris I had in my JDS) so I cannot comment on claims that the baffle is much better when the bin is nearly full.
I used a feed rate comparable to the one on Thien's website. Normal shopvac use would be much slower. I have no idea how it would affect the results; I simply didn't feel like spending a few hours feeding it slowly.
Most people seem to be using them on DCs. I don't know how meaningful my results would be to how it works on a DC.

I didn't test the Oneida Dust Deputy, but I have emptied it twice of mostly sanding dust since I got the Dyson, and less than an ounce wound up in the Dyson, so it is pretty good. And after all this the Dyson filter was still clean!

[Lee Schierer]

I don't know if it removes any more material, but on my set up with an older Delta DC sitting on a 55 gallon drum, the Thein baffle allows me to fill the drum to almost 3/4 full before sawdust fills the dust bag.182286 Before I made the baffle, I could not fill the drum over 1/4 full without clogging the filter bag.

[Wade Lippman]

I would like to see you (or someone else) come up with a test to actually establish that. Without a proper test it could be a difference in the material you are putting into it, the humidity, or some property I'd never think of; or simply the placebo effect.

I suppose someone could suck up a half bag of debris and measure the air speed with an anemometer. Clean the filter, mix the dust back in, and try again without the baffle. A consistent difference in airspeed over a couple runs would tell if there was a reduction in filter clogging.
Well, something like that anyhow.

I would also like to see someone repeat my test.

[Phil Thien]

Wade had been over at Woodnet badmouthing my separator design for some time, without having actually made or seen one.

I called him on it a month or so ago.

He seems heck bent on "proving" it doesn't work.

A strange situation. :confused:

[George Bregar]

Wade had been over at Woodnet badmouthing my separator design for some time, without having actually made or seen one.

I called him on it a month or so ago.

He seems heck bent on "proving" it doesn't work.

A strange situation. :confused: His response to Lee was telling...the vast majority like Lee are thrilled...and Wade's response "What are ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" You steal his girl Phil? ;)

[Bruce Wrenn]

To see the effectiveness of mine, google "Another Vote for Phil Thien's Baffle." Look at the pictures in the last post in the thread. The Minwax is a quart size can, FYI.

[david brum]

Wade, I haven't built the shop vac version myself. I have used the internal baffle on both a Jet 1.5 hp DC and a 3hp double bag DC. My test for efficiency is this: Without the baffle, my pleated Wynn filter would be caked with dust every time I emptied the collection bag. Sometimes the airflow would be so poor that I'd have to clean the filter between emptying the bag. After I built the baffle, my filter remained clean for months. This significantly improved the overall airfow and presumably the air quality in my shop. The only time I've since clogged the filter is after a long session using a 16/32 drum sander or if I've let the bag overfill. I still check my filter each time I empty the bag. Usually it is clean.

I've worked with maple, madrone, maranti, walnut, poplar,fir, pine and oak. I get the same results regardless of species with the exception of maranti, with it's nasty, abrasive dust. I don't see any difference is separation over seasons or temperatures.

Again, I can't vouch for the shop vac separator. The DC baffle works very well though. Definitely much better than without, probably as well as older cyclone designs.

[David Hostetler]

After the last 3 years with Thien separators, I find this test highly suspect. At the very least, This is NOT the sort of result I get with mine...

I am not going to bother with the scientific method here, but simply tell you, I use mine regularly. The shop vac model typically I have to clean the HEPA filter every 3rd empty of the trash can. The DC model I have yet to need to do anything more than knock the fines out of the filter after using the DC, this is after 2 years, and no less than 8 fill / empty cycles of the 55 gallon separator.

[Kevin L. Pauba]

My Thien Baffle has worked great on my shop vac since I built it soon after Phil described it and gave directions on its construction. I need no other proof ...

[Wade Lippman]

Wade had been over at Woodnet badmouthing my separator design for some time, without having actually made or seen one.

I called him on it a month or so ago.

He seems heck bent on "proving" it doesn't work.

A strange situation. :confused:

Phil,

Why don't YOU repeat my test as I described it above? If you do and find your baffle passes half the dust as the same rig without a baffle I will never mention it again. I will never post to a woodworking site again if that would satisfy you.
I only ask that you test it as I did and report the results. What can be more fair than that? In fact, I will make the same offer to anyone.

Since you haven't tested it, how can you be certain I am lying? Just to cover the one chance in a thousand that I am right, wouldn't a responsible person test it?

[Wade Lippman]

Without the baffle, my pleated Wynn filter would be caked with dust every time I emptied the collection bag. Sometimes the airflow would be so poor that I'd have to clean the filter between emptying the bag. After I built the baffle, my filter remained clean for months.

As I stated, my results might only apply to a shop vac with a fast feed rate. It might work as well as a cyclone on a DC. I don't know because no one has tested it.
I am glad you are satisfied with it, but that just isn't an experiment.

I have a friend (a chemist actually) who uses high octane gas because he kept records for years and found it gave him sufficiently better mileage to justify the higher price.
The gasoline companies and the auto companies say it is a waste of money to use any higher octane than the engine is designed for. Yet he has years of experience to the contrary. I am pretty sure he is wrong.
I do not doubt your sincerity or your intelligence anymore than I doubt his, but your experience is not proof; only a test is.

[Curt Harms]

I can't quantify my results either. I do know that with the same machine, same plumbing etc. I get virtually no chips in the canister filter with the Thien baffle. Without the Thien baffle I got a lot of chips in the filter. I do still get a little flour-like dust in the filter. I've never tried a baffle with my Fein vac. I just run a Genie bag & HEPA filter, don't see any advantage to a separator before the shop vac. Given the time & materials (leftovers mostly) to build it, the Thien baffle is the greatest value in my shop.

[Steve Ryan]

Looks like a lot of positive reviews from people using the baffle in real world situations. :) Negative results make the OPs research suspect because it is not a real world test. Testing with the same shavings and such repeatedly will change the composition of the chips and dust being collected. Larger chips will be broken up finer and finer as they get blasted through the collector. How are the chips being metered into the collector? Is the mix uniform or could there be different concetrations being sucked into the line? Is the chip stream a real world chip stream?
Real world research would require accurate testing with the dust and chips coming from a real machine doing real work. Same wood typ to compare with same wood type. Different machines generating different chips and chip loads, and so on. Seems like a lot of wasted effort with all of the positive reviews the baffle has generated.

[Gary Lange]

I can't understand why you are so bent on proving that the Phil Thien separator does not work. What possible motive can you have to damage a mans reputation. If all these people are happy with the way it works for them and you are not then don't use it. However, to go from web site to web site in an effort to prove something works or doesn't work in just unnecessary harassment of and individual who has done nothing wrong and gives away his invention anyway.

[Myk Rian]

I have a friend (a chemist actually) who uses high octane gas because he kept records for years and found it gave him sufficiently better mileage to justify the higher price.
The gasoline companies and the auto companies say it is a waste of money to use any higher octane than the engine is designed for. Yet he has years of experience to the contrary. I am pretty sure he is wrong.
Those last 7 words tells me a lot.
So, what you are telling us is you don't believe ANYTHING, even if someone has years of records for proof.
That tells me you aren't to be given one moment of consideration, no matter what your views are.

Does this forum offer an "ignore this poster" option?

[Bruce Wrenn]

What is it about DC threads that reduce normally sane people to name calling? I remember a few years back a couple of people were banned from posting because of this. My Thien didn't get all the dust from my band saw, but it got almost all the shavings from my planer. Later I found out that I hadn't built it perfectly, but it worked very well. I know that I like not having to empty the bin under the cyclone that is at the rear corner of the shop, when using either planer or jointer on the pad in front. It's so much easier to remove "top hat and put the lid on the can. Then take can to the dumpster.

[Wade Lippman]

Looks like a lot of positive reviews from people using the baffle in real world situations. :) Negative results make the OPs research suspect because it is not a real world test. Testing with the same shavings and such repeatedly will change the composition of the chips and dust being collected. Larger chips will be broken up finer and finer as they get blasted through the collector. How are the chips being metered into the collector? Is the mix uniform or could there be different concetrations being sucked into the line? Is the chip stream a real world chip stream?
Real world research would require accurate testing with the dust and chips coming from a real machine doing real work. Same wood typ to compare with same wood type. Different machines generating different chips and chip loads, and so on. Seems like a lot of wasted effort with all of the positive reviews the baffle has generated.

1) Real World Positives prove nothing. There are millions of RWPs for 5 Hour Energy, Zicam, St. John's Wort, and a thousand other products; but those have been proven not to work. RWP are encouraging, but do not take the place of tests.
2) I ran the Baffle 1st and 4th, and the no-baffle 2nd and 3rd; getting comparable results. That pretty much does away with changing the chips problem.
3) The feed rate is a valid issue, which I mentioned in my OP; as I am perfectly objective. (were I dishonest I would have claimed to have fed the chips in over an hour) However, since I fed the chips in to both the baffle and no-baffle at the same rate, it likely doesn't matter.
4) Someone else ridiculed my failure to believe my friend when he claimed to get better economy with premium gas, saying I don't believe anything. Wrong, since EVERYONE who has properly tested it found premium gas does not give better economy, I believe THEM; rather than my friends RWP.

I only have it in for the TB because I don't believe it works. I have tested it and found it and found it to be inferior to the same rig without the baffle. Doesn't that justify my having it in for the TB? ANYONE with a TB can simply remove the baffle and see if the rig works just as well without it. What is that, a 5 minute process to find out for sure? Phil, or anyone can test it and show it does work, but they haven't.
It is a poorly designed cyclone that separates 98%. I suppose that accounts for the WRPs, since 98% is an extreme improvement over nothing; but when you can get 99% on the same rig by removing the baffle, it is inexcusable to not even test it.

[Myk Rian]

Your statement on the other web site: "Damn, but you are right! I measured 240*, but cut to the lines I used to find the center.
Well, that invalidates the test", pretty much sums things up.

Since you made the baffle wrong, as Phil stated on the other web site, your testing is invalid.
Why did you come here to pick the same argument?

Probably time to lock this thread.

[Phil Thien]

Edit: I've deleted this post.

[George Bregar]

I'm not sure what this "test" is supposed to prove. Having done a fair amount of research, and reading many postives as well as Phil's input I have concluded: 1) That the PT is designed to drop the heavies out into the seperator and most of the fines. This "test" actually proves this. 2) Keeps the DC (or vacuum) from siphoning both of the above from the collection container once it starts to fill . The OP didn't even bother to do this. I have never seen anywhere where Phil has made the claim that his baffle reduces the fines over traditional "cyclone lids", or performs like a true cyclone...as matter of fact he has said that if you can afford it and have the room, get a cyclone. He has stated that the baffles "approach true cyclone" and eliminate the siphoning of normal seperators. The former seems to be borne out by the OP's test, but dismissing the elimination of siphoning (which he hasn't bothered to test) despite the real world experience of many many users who say this is factual is absurd.

Phil, your so called "whining post" just popped up in email so I will add this comment. Take solace in the fact that you have many fans. Look at the defenders here. I actually marvel in the fact that you have provided an invention free that likely has commercial value. Hopefully the satisfied users will help bring future $$$ success. I will be using the PT as a seperator in front of a 3HP single stage (based loosely on a design in your forum). I will be posting the build and results. While I have no confidence that it will mean anything to Mr. Lippman, hopefully it and a donation will help you get some sleep. :-)

[Scott Shepherd]

Before this thread, I'd never heard of it, Phil. I'm not a woodworker, but thought this was an interesting topic. I went to your website, looked at it, went to your forum to see that almost 21,000 people have visited your post on how to build it, on your website. That doesn't count for all the other forums you may have the information on. So that's 21,000 views, 2 people in 6 months bashing it. I'm not sure I'd lose any sleep over those results! If you told 21,000 people the sun was shining, my guess is about 1,000 of them would argue with you. So to me, it speaks volumes. Just ignore it. Hang in there, don't let people like this stop you from sharing ideas and thoughts with the rest of us. If that happens, then they have surely won. Don't give them the satisfaction.

[Tom Welch]

I have a Thien baffle mounted internally on both of the seperators cans on my grizzly 3 hp dust collector. In about 2 years of using it I can say that I never have cake on my filters and only a small amount of very fine dust on the filters. ( I have wynn filters installed on my dust collector) Before using the Thien baffle, I always had to clean the cake off my filters. Yuck. I think the Thien baffle is a "great invention" and thank you Phil for sharing it with us wood workers.

[Jerome Hanby]

As I stated, my results might only apply to a shop vac with a fast feed rate. It might work as well as a cyclone on a DC. I don't know because no one has tested it.
I am glad you are satisfied with it, but that just isn't an experiment.

I have a friend (a chemist actually) who uses high octane gas because he kept records for years and found it gave him sufficiently better mileage to justify the higher price.
The gasoline companies and the auto companies say it is a waste of money to use any higher octane than the engine is designed for. Yet he has years of experience to the contrary. I am pretty sure he is wrong.
I do not doubt your sincerity or your intelligence anymore than I doubt his, but your experience is not proof; only a test is.

So your friend kept records, analyzed the data, and formed a conclusion. But "experts" say his conclusion does not reflect reality and you are "pretty sure he's wrong". Best that I can interpret, you're saying he arrived at the conclusion he wanted to find (I'm assuming you don't believe your friend is intentionally lying).

I think in at least one of the other posts in this thread, you are being accused of doing the same thing. You want a particular result and viola, that's the result you get.

Your defense to reports from other users is that their conclusions are meaningless because they didn't "test". If they reported that this baffle removed 97% of the fines, then you would be correct, their reported experiences were not sufficient for that conclusion. However, they are describing the maintenance required before and after using the baffle. We aren't talking quantum mechanics here, all the equipment is large enough to see and touch, and therefore I think we can accept that the users reporting good results with this baffle would probably realize if some other factor was introduced at the same time as the baffle.

I have no idea if the baffles design makes sense or not, It's not that I can't handle the techniques necessary to analyze fluid dynamics, I just have no interest. But, the vast majority of the reports I've seen here from users of Phil's design are positive. Maybe any trash can separator from the local woodworking shop would work as well...

[Jim Mattheiss]

I have a problem with Phil Thein's Baffle design.

When the can below the baffle fills with shavings it stops separating properly! Definitely a design flaw! I want my money back!

I've been using Phil's baffle on my small dust collector for several years. I'm very satisfied. At some point I'll make a "topper" model for my shop vac.

Remember - People are funny critters! (I shamelessly stole that from someone on a WW forum)

Cheers

Jim

[Wade Lippman]

So your friend kept records, analyzed the data, and formed a conclusion. But "experts" say his conclusion does not reflect reality and you are "pretty sure he's wrong". Best that I can interpret, you're saying he arrived at the conclusion he wanted to find (I'm assuming you don't believe your friend is intentionally lying).

I think in at least one of the other posts in this thread, you are being accused of doing the same thing. You want a particular result and viola, that's the result you get.

Your defense to reports from other users is that their conclusions are meaningless because they didn't "test". If they reported that this baffle removed 97% of the fines, then you would be correct, their reported experiences were not sufficient for that conclusion. However, they are describing the maintenance required before and after using the baffle. We aren't talking quantum mechanics here, all the equipment is large enough to see and touch, and therefore I think we can accept that the users reporting good results with this baffle would probably realize if some other factor was introduced at the same time as the baffle.

I have no idea if the baffles design makes sense or not, It's not that I can't handle the techniques necessary to analyze fluid dynamics, I just have no interest. But, the vast majority of the reports I've seen here from users of Phil's design are positive. Maybe any trash can separator from the local woodworking shop would work as well...

1) I have asked others to repeat my tests. It took me about 3 hours; it would take them half that time because they already have the TBs. But no one wants to. Yes, it is possible that I am doing something wrong because of a bias (cold fusion is a good example) but if someone without my bias repeated the tests we would know (again, cold fusion). Though I can't imagine what I could be doing wrong. My friend with his octane gas studies probably had the misfortune of by chance driving a lot of highway miles while using premium and city driving while on regular, or something like that.
2) Ask any of the millions of users of Zicam (or Vitamin C...) if it prevents colds and you will get an enthusiastic yes. They compared their experiences before and after and concluded it worked wonders. Despite the fact it has no effect. There are countless examples of that.
3) The Thien baffle does work pretty well, which probably results in all the great experiences. It is just that the same rig without the baffle works even better. The commercial trash can separators I have seen have the inlet on one side and the outlet on the other, so you never get the centrifuge effect that separates the dust out. I had a Triton separator for my shopvac that had the outlet in the middle, like the TB. It worked well, separation was in the high 90s, but it passed the fines, so I got an Oneida DD which doesn't pass the fines.

[Eric Mims]

It is a fallacy to compare the placebo effect that a living human being experiences while taking herbal remedies, homeopathy, etc with results seen in a dust collection system which are not subject to any placebo effect. The former is subjective, the latter is objective...the dust is either there or not.

[David Hostetler]

I would volunteer to run a test of a Thien equipped vac / trash can, and a commercially available trash can separator, but I do not presently have a commercial separator available. I am also anything but unbiased here as I have advocated quite loudly for Phil's design as I find the results to be astonishingly good. I had previously had a commercial trash can separator lid and, well let's just say I find Wade's results a little hard to believe. I couldn't get past 1 gallon of material in the separator before all of it would scrub out of the separator and head straight to the vac...

I propose the following as a "Real and fair" test.

Generate approximately 30 gallons of woodworking waste to include everything from long shavings from planing / jointing activities, to the fine flour stuff that gets generated from sanding operations. Divide the waste into 2 piles.

Using 1 vac, and 1 20 gallon steel trash can, completely clean both. Insure both are bone dry. Install new, unused HEPA filter in the vac, and either the Thien separator, or the commercial separator, and suck up 1 pile of the debris. measure the material that bypassed the separator and got into the vac.

Repeat the cleaning, fresh filter etc... process with the other separator lid.

No less than 15 gallons of material for each separator mind you. A situation that most of us have found ourselves in.... Frequently.

Of course we can adjust this for 5 gallon size or whatever...

Who can be trusted to perform a truly unbiased test here? Any volunteers?

For what it's worth as well.. Look at the photos of Wade's build. There is no rabbet in the lid, no means to seal the lid to the can, this will induce HUGE air leaks into the system, which will almost guarantee a major drop in suction, and separation efficiency... If you are going to test and make your argument from a psuedo scientific stand point, please do it correctly. There is an excellent step by step write up on how to build these things on Phil's forum. The thread is a sticky called "Here's the plans".

[John Lanciani]

In the name of science I'll chip in and provide all of the mixed dust required for these tests. Just PM me your address and I'll get it to you asap!! :p:D I'll even send a double order to Wade since he only has a few handfulls to test with.:)

[Phil Thien]

1) I have asked others to repeat my tests. It took me about 3 hours; it would take them half that time because they already have the TBs. But no one wants to. Yes, it is possible that I am doing something wrong because of a bias (cold fusion is a good example) but if someone without my bias repeated the tests we would know (again, cold fusion). Though I can't imagine what I could be doing wrong. My friend with his octane gas studies probably had the misfortune of by chance driving a lot of highway miles while using premium and city driving while on regular, or something like that.
2) Ask any of the millions of users of Zicam (or Vitamin C...) if it prevents colds and you will get an enthusiastic yes. They compared their experiences before and after and concluded it worked wonders. Despite the fact it has no effect. There are countless examples of that.
3) The Thien baffle does work pretty well, which probably results in all the great experiences. It is just that the same rig without the baffle works even better. The commercial trash can separators I have seen have the inlet on one side and the outlet on the other, so you never get the centrifuge effect that separates the dust out. I had a Triton separator for my shopvac that had the outlet in the middle, like the TB. It worked well, separation was in the high 90s, but it passed the fines, so I got an Oneida DD which doesn't pass the fines.

(1) Nobody is going to waste 2-3 hours (and in my case vac bags) duplicating your "test" when you immediately dismiss what anyone else has to say.

At least one poster brought up the point that even if the baffle doesn't increase fines separation (and it does, I promise), that it prevents scrubbing. You completely ignored this, right? My point is, you aren't being objective at all.

But you didn't come here to be objective. You came here with an agenda.

(2) The placebo effect only gets you so far. It doesn't come into play when comparing two volumes of dust to each other.

(3) Oneida makes great products, but even Oneida doesn't claim 100%.

(3a) You mentioned your Dyson separates 100%, too, and that the filter is clean as the day it was new. Again, that just hasn't been my experience. Those filters do get dirty. Even Dyson suggests washing them at least once every six months, they even offer an online reminder service here: http://www.dyson.com/support/filter.asp

To recap a little bit:

You attacked my separator (at WN) without ever having seen one.

I asked you to stop.

You built one, announcing it was exactly the same as mine, except the elbow was a longer sweep.

I and someone else pointed out the baffle's proportions were quite obviously wrong. Also, the outlet tube was wrong. You also held the threaded rods at the outside (in maximum debris field) rather than towards the center. You haphazardly mixed wheat flour with wood dust. You didn't seal the top, and you used an underpowered vac that my tests indicate doesn't move enough CFM. Heck, here is another video showing the thing can barely hold onto a piece of paper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdW23iQh-Jc.

On your original pictures posted at WN, it was clear the debris wasn't spinning much at all, as anyone looking at the pictures could see a trail of dust between the inlet and the outlet. Dust was coming in, short-circuiting the spin, and exiting through the outlet. This is a tell-tale sign of leaks and/or inadequate CFM.

I could go on and on.

BTW, for anyone interested, here is a demo of someone stuffing sawdust into a Thien separator with no final filter stage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVCqHsa_zq4

You gotta admit, that is pretty impresive.

[Larry Edgerton]

Phil

This is why I have renamed the internet in my house "The Fountian of Misinformation".

There is always a nobody that wants their 15 minutes of fame, without the work. I often see simple solutions to stuff on here, but most times I don't bother posting, because I don't feel like arguing with those looking for their 15 minutes.

Just take solice in the fact that you have made shops a better enviroment all across the world. You have your 15 minutes, and "YOU" earned it.

Thanks by the way..
Larry

[George Bregar]

BTW, for anyone interested, here is a demo of someone stuffing sawdust into a Thien separator with no final filter stage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVCqHsa_zq4

You gotta admit, that is pretty impresive. Pffft, NOT A TEST! ;)

[Wade Lippman]

You gotta admit, that is pretty impresive.


(When it underlines a word in red, it means it is misspelled.)

All I gotta admit is that is impressive you have gotten so many people to use a product that doesn't work. But I guess even Jimmy Carter saw a flying saucer and they don't work either.
Did you actually spend money to apply for a patent on a product you haven't tested? That is pretty impressive also. I am pretty sure that you can't get an enforceable patent on something you already published, so I hope you haven't spent too much on it. OOPS!
Oh, I built my first separator outlet just like your pictures. If you say it isn't flush I believe you, that's not what the picture shows.
You wouldn't have to waste vacuum bags if it caught the fines. OOPS!

Why don't you just take the baffle off, suck up 3 gallons and prove me wrong? That wouldn't take much more time than responding to my posts, and would actually mean something. Psychics refuse to be tested also.

[Brian Kent]

Wade, I think you need to relax. You are letting your temper get the best of you. Take is easy, bro.

[Phil Thien]

(When it underlines a word in red, it means it is misspelled.)

Seriously? You're going to point out misspelled words?


All I gotta admit is that is impressive you have gotten so many people to use a product that doesn't work. But I guess even Jimmy Carter saw a flying saucer and they don't work either.

Are you going to post a picture of the flying saucer you built?


Did you actually spend money to apply for a patent on a product you haven't tested? That is pretty impressive also. I am pretty sure that you can't get an enforceable patent on something you already published, so I hope you haven't spent too much on it. OOPS!

You're wrong on that, too. All of it. Keep going, you're batting 1000.


Oh, I built my first separator outlet just like your pictures. If you say it isn't flush I believe you, that's not what the picture shows.

Correct, the picture doesn't show the outlet tube (it is a perspective thing). The caption refers to it, though: "The output port tube is a PVC coupler. The PVC fittings are simply hot melt glued to the plywood top."

Had you been truly interested in learning if/how it worked, rather than trying to humiliate me, you'd have read those words and maybe joined the discussion group, and figured it out.


You wouldn't have to waste vacuum bags if it caught the fines. OOPS!

Using bags is the absolute best way to perform testing. You see, you weigh the new bag before installing it in the vac, then you weigh it when you want to know how much debris it contains (subtracting the original weight, of course).


Why don't you just take the baffle off, suck up 3 gallons and prove me wrong? That wouldn't take much more time than responding to my posts, and would actually mean something. Psychics refuse to be tested also.

LOL. I test constantly. Plenty of other people here have tested, too. That is how I know your results are bogus.

Why I don't go suck up three gallons right now is simple: Now matter what I tell you, you're going to dismiss the results.

I can see it coming from a mile away.

[Dan Friedrichs]

I have to wonder about the motivation of the OP - if someone is just genuinely curious about the performance of a product/device, you would think he would conduct a more scientific test before boldly proclaiming that something "doesn't work". I can barely understand what exactly the OP did, and it doesn't seem very controlled or scientific.

What motivates someone to bash a design that is....free? :confused:

Ah, I see it...

"Oneida Dust Deputy"

[Myk Rian]

Wade;
It's time to take your Prozac and go to bed.

[John McClanahan]

I can't believe the amount of effort one person is putting into bashing a design thats FREE. If I built one and didn't like the way it worked, I would just move on. What am I missing here?

[paul cottingham]

I can't understand why you are so bent on proving that the Phil Thien separator does not work. What possible motive can you have to damage a mans reputation. If all these people are happy with the way it works for them and you are not then don't use it. However, to go from web site to web site in an effort to prove something works or doesn't work in just unnecessary harassment of and individual who has done nothing wrong and gives away his invention anyway.

Thank you for saying what I was thinking. And so eloquently as well. I find the OP's obsessiveness puzzling.

[David Hostetler]

I can't believe the amount of effort one person is putting into bashing a design thats FREE. If I built one and didn't like the way it worked, I would just move on. What am I missing here?

If I had to guess, I would say Mr. Lippman most likely has a financial dog in this fight. There isn't a whole lot of reason to intentionally skew "test" results unless you have a product you are backing, typically for financial gain. Chances are he probably has a design that will compete with what Phil came up with that he is prepping for market and wants to discredit any competing design, particularly one that is so easy to build correctly, and so inexpensive to produce.

[Dan Friedrichs]

If I had to guess, I would say Mr. Lippman most likely has a financial dog in this fight. There isn't a whole lot of reason to intentionally skew "test" results unless you have a product you are backing, typically for financial gain. Chances are he probably has a design that will compete with what Phil came up with that he is prepping for market and wants to discredit any competing design, particularly one that is so easy to build correctly, and so inexpensive to produce.

...or maybe the existing product that he mentioned in the OP....

[Keith Westfall]

Wade,

Time to give it a rest...

You could try mine, see if it works any better.

It's a 2 stage sort of system, picks up most of the big chips and quite a bit of the fines. It has been tested hundreds of times and the results are always the same.

If you are interested I could send you some drawings.

Or you could just to the local (submit your local store here) and pick up a broom and dustpan.

But even if you do, you will probably get different results, and then brooms and dustpans all over the country will have to be thrown out.

Where will it end???

If you don't like Phil's design, make your own, buy the best one on the market, or open the window and let it blow outside.

It really is time to move on...

[Carl Babel]

Wade,

While it is good and noble to question how and even if something works (I do applaud your curiosity and effort, by the way), I can't help but ask why you don't spend a bit more time questioning / re-working your own baffle/tests.

I would be curious to know the ratio of time that you have spent championing your "cause" compared to time spent testing (3 hours by your account - and I infer that 1.5 hours of that was spent cobbling together your baffle).

Phil has replied directly to you about the design / implementation of your baffle (support posts in inlet airflow / debris stream), inadequate seals, etc. Your argument will certainly become more compelling with each improvement you make and re-test that you perform. Or perhaps you might find that the Thien Baffle has some merit. Aren't you at least a little bit curious?

[Wade Lippman]

Why I don't go suck up three gallons right now is simple: Now matter what I tell you, you're going to dismiss the results.

Why don't you just give it a try? Dismissing your results would be unequivocal proof that I am a crank.

I have no financial stake in this. I have a JDS cyclone and a Oneida Dust Deputy and am perfectly happy with them. The JDS separation is mediocre, but the self cleaning filter takes care of that. It just bothers me to see people so excited about a product that can be made even better by removing the baffle, but you can't help people who don't want to be helped.

So I am done with this thread. If anyone actually ever does test it, maybe you could send me an email.

[David Hostetler]

One thing you are very correct about is that you can't help people that don't want to be helped. Your build was obviously very shoddy, and not to specs, and then you run around screaming how it doesn't work, yet you won't accept help to get your separator working when it is offered...

The testing has been done, by countless users, you just refuse to accept the results because they don't sync with your bias. If you build a separator, no matter the design, with the obvious amount of leakage, and blockage that yours is built with, you shouldn't be in the slightest bit shocked at the results you ended up with. Just from looking at it, it is VERY obvious that you did not follow the build instructions that are laid out ever so clearly on Phil's site. So how can you fault a design you didn't even bother to follow? Instead you are roaming around the forums bad mouthing Phil's design when you really ought to trying to figure out where you went wrong in implementing something countless other users have implemented with great success.

[Jerome Hanby]

(When it underlines a word in red, it means it is misspelled.)

All I gotta admit is that is impressive you have gotten so many people to use a product that doesn't work.

Just curious about something. I would feel like a complete idiot if my comment about someone's bad spelling contained grammatical errors. Is it just me, or is that a common feeling?

[Jerome Hanby]

I am pretty sure that you can't get an enforceable patent on something you already published, so I hope you haven't spent too much on it.

I think you are probably misinterpreting the attempt to patent the concept for the periscope many decades after Jules Verne described it in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Had Verne cared to apply for a patent, his prior publication would not have been an impediment. But a third party would not be granted a patent. So you would not be able to patent Phil's design, but Phill can. Pretty sure the flying saucer would fall into the same category

[Mike Henderson]

I think you are probably misinterpreting the attempt to patent the concept for the periscope many decades after Jules Verne described it in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Had Verne cared to apply for a patent, his prior publication would not have been an impediment. But a third party would not be granted a patent. So you would not be able to patent Phil's design, but Phill can. Pretty sure the flying saucer would fall into the same category
I think that if the inventor publishes the invention, they have one year from publication to start the patent process or they lose the right to patent it. I know our patent attorney used to make us get a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) from anyone we talked to about patentable concepts just for that reason. By getting an NDA we were not publishing the concept.

Mike

[Tony Perrone]

Wade,
This is where your test is flawed, the particles you re-vacumed were staticly charged the first time around and would not give you a true base line to conduct your test. Also did you account for humidity and temperature changes for each time you did your test? Statisticaly speaking this test is invalid if all variables are not accounted for. ( I loved statistics in college) By the way I have a Thien baffel in my dust collector and I love it thanks Phil for the FREE information.
PS, Smile it's Wood working and it's supposed to be fun!

[Steve Ryan]

Just curious about something. I would feel like a complete idiot if my comment about someone's bad spelling contained grammatical errors. Is it just me, or is that a common feeling?
He started this thread and his second sentence was "Though I am wholly ignorant of fluid dynamics". That just about explains everything.

[Steve Ryan]

OK Time to get serious. Just how does the Phil Thein Baffle work? To know how it works you need a bit of info on how a cyclone works and I will explain that below later on.
The Thein Baffle is just that, a baffle. The dust stream enters the container through an elbow directing the stream into a somewhat cyclonic action in the upper chamber. Centrifigal force pulls the particles to the outside of the spinning stream where they settle down to the lower chamber. There is a fair amount of turbulance introduced into the container from the elbow to the stream comming into the container and the Thien Baffle smoothes that turbulance out and prevents it from stirring up the entire contents of the container. You may think that the 90 degree elbow would direct the incomming stream 90 degrees, and you would only be partly correct. A good part of the stream will be a lot less than 90 degrees because the stream will take the path of least resistance. It is this off angle stream that keeps the solids stirred up a non baffled container instead of setteling down. Phil, have you tried the seperator with a smaller outside opening and a center opening somewhat like the cyclone has? The youtube vid is very impressive for what it is doing, and I think a good part of that is how air is introduced into the chamber. Side inlet will have less turbulance to start with, and not have the back of the elbow to run into.
And now for how a cyclone works. Seriously, look up cyclone seperator on wikipedia.


Steady state
As the cyclone is essentially a two phase particle-fluid system, fluid mechanics and particle transport equations can be used to describe the behaviour of a cyclone. The air in a cyclone is initially introduced tangentially into the cyclone with an inlet velocity Vin. Assuming that the particle is spherical, a simple analysis to calculate critical separation particle sizes can be established.
Given that the fluid velocity is moving in a spiral the gas velocity can be broken into two component velocities: a tangential component, Vt, and a radial velocity component Vr. Assuming Stokes' law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_law), the drag force on any particle in this inlet stream is therefore given by the following equation:
Fd = 6πrpμVr. If one considers an isolated particle circling in the upper cylindrical component of the cyclone at a rotational radius of r from the cyclone's central axis, the particle is therefore subjected to centrifugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal), drag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)) and buoyant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy) forces. The centrifugal component is given by:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/7/b/57b62e65cd33bcbdb81337b015706d7b.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/c/4/ac44b656352672552b51b362db6a5db8.png The buoyant force component is obtained by the difference between the particle and fluid densities, ρp and ρf respectively:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/8/2/b824bdb5377fc39ca87c4c0f6b43e4a0.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/f/7/4f799d13dde16a6f365e7e5a5be125ed.png The force balance can be created by summing the forces together
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/2/0/02090168bc53a7d2b34f89236e29149d.png This rate is controlled by the diameter of the particle's orbit around the central axis of the cyclone. A particle in the cyclonic flow will move towards either the wall of the cyclone, or the central axis of the cyclone until the drag, buoyant and centrifugal forces are balanced. Assuming that the system has reached steady state, the particles will assume a characteristic radius dependent upon the force balance. Heavier, denser particles will assume a solid flow at some larger radius than light particles. The steady state balance assumes that for all particles, the forces are equated, hence:
Fd + Fc + Fb = 0 Which expands to:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/3/7/6377735a6d8919c90328485f909a7c0d.png This can be expressed by rearranging the above in terms of the particle radius. The particle radius as a function of cyclonic radius, fluid density and fluid tangential and rotational velocities can then be found to be:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/b/1/7b121440f3cbdf2a6f7760deaf11f983.png Experimentally it is found that the velocity component of rotational flow is proportional to r2[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclonic_separation#cite_note-Rhodes-1), therefore:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/e/5/ee5b8279da8b8984422023ca7fcb95db.png This means that the established feed velocity controls the vortex rate inside the cyclone, and the velocity at an arbitrary radius is therefore:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/c/5/5c5988ee891250f2714e13c8347c5c00.png Subsequently, given a value for Vt, possibly based upon the injection angle, and a cutoff radius, a characteristic particle filtering radius can be estimated, above which particles will be removed from the gas stream.

[David Hostetler]

WOW... That is impressive. Not sure how to even reply other than to say that is impressive!


OK Time to get serious. Just how does the Phil Thein Baffle work? To know how it works you need a bit of info on how a cyclone works and I will explain that below later on.
The Thein Baffle is just that, a baffle. The dust stream enters the container through an elbow directing the stream into a somewhat cyclonic action in the upper chamber. Centrifigal force pulls the particles to the outside of the spinning stream where they settle down to the lower chamber. There is a fair amount of turbulance introduced into the container from the elbow to the stream comming into the container and the Thien Baffle smoothes that turbulance out and prevents it from stirring up the entire contents of the container. You may think that the 90 degree elbow would direct the incomming stream 90 degrees, and you would only be partly correct. A good part of the stream will be a lot less than 90 degrees because the stream will take the path of least resistance. It is this off angle stream that keeps the solids stirred up a non baffled container instead of setteling down. Phil, have you tried the seperator with a smaller outside opening and a center opening somewhat like the cyclone has? The youtube vid is very impressive for what it is doing, and I think a good part of that is how air is introduced into the chamber. Side inlet will have less turbulance to start with, and not have the back of the elbow to run into.
And now for how a cyclone works. Seriously, look up cyclone seperator on wikipedia.


Steady state
As the cyclone is essentially a two phase particle-fluid system, fluid mechanics and particle transport equations can be used to describe the behaviour of a cyclone. The air in a cyclone is initially introduced tangentially into the cyclone with an inlet velocity Vin. Assuming that the particle is spherical, a simple analysis to calculate critical separation particle sizes can be established.
Given that the fluid velocity is moving in a spiral the gas velocity can be broken into two component velocities: a tangential component, Vt, and a radial velocity component Vr. Assuming Stokes' law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_law), the drag force on any particle in this inlet stream is therefore given by the following equation:
Fd = 6πrpμVr. If one considers an isolated particle circling in the upper cylindrical component of the cyclone at a rotational radius of r from the cyclone's central axis, the particle is therefore subjected to centrifugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal), drag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)) and buoyant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy) forces. The centrifugal component is given by:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/7/b/57b62e65cd33bcbdb81337b015706d7b.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/c/4/ac44b656352672552b51b362db6a5db8.png The buoyant force component is obtained by the difference between the particle and fluid densities, ρp and ρf respectively:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/8/2/b824bdb5377fc39ca87c4c0f6b43e4a0.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/f/7/4f799d13dde16a6f365e7e5a5be125ed.png The force balance can be created by summing the forces together
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/2/0/02090168bc53a7d2b34f89236e29149d.png This rate is controlled by the diameter of the particle's orbit around the central axis of the cyclone. A particle in the cyclonic flow will move towards either the wall of the cyclone, or the central axis of the cyclone until the drag, buoyant and centrifugal forces are balanced. Assuming that the system has reached steady state, the particles will assume a characteristic radius dependent upon the force balance. Heavier, denser particles will assume a solid flow at some larger radius than light particles. The steady state balance assumes that for all particles, the forces are equated, hence:
Fd + Fc + Fb = 0 Which expands to:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/3/7/6377735a6d8919c90328485f909a7c0d.png This can be expressed by rearranging the above in terms of the particle radius. The particle radius as a function of cyclonic radius, fluid density and fluid tangential and rotational velocities can then be found to be:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/b/1/7b121440f3cbdf2a6f7760deaf11f983.png Experimentally it is found that the velocity component of rotational flow is proportional to r2[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclonic_separation#cite_note-Rhodes-1), therefore:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/e/5/ee5b8279da8b8984422023ca7fcb95db.png This means that the established feed velocity controls the vortex rate inside the cyclone, and the velocity at an arbitrary radius is therefore:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/c/5/5c5988ee891250f2714e13c8347c5c00.png Subsequently, given a value for Vt, possibly based upon the injection angle, and a cutoff radius, a characteristic particle filtering radius can be estimated, above which particles will be removed from the gas stream.

[Bryan Rocker]

Wade,
This is where your test is flawed, the particles you re-vacumed were staticly charged the first time around and would not give you a true base line to conduct your test. Also did you account for humidity and temperature changes for each time you did your test? Statisticaly speaking this test is invalid if all variables are not accounted for. ( I loved statistics in college) By the way I have a Thien baffel in my dust collector and I love it thanks Phil for the FREE information.
PS, Smile it's Wood working and it's supposed to be fun!

Just remember there's statistics and dam statistics ;)

BTW Phil, I would wager, Wade is what I would call a forum troll......You have done and continue to do a great service to the wood working community......My hat's off to you!!

Bryan

[Gary Lange]

I wonder who Wade Lippman is?

Pittsford Technical Services
23 Wood Stone Rise
Pittsford, NY 14534-3668 map

Phone:
(585) 385-8996

Website:
Information not found



About Pittsford Technical Services
Is this your company?

Pittsford Technical Services in Pittsford, NY is a private company categorized under Information Services, Consumer. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of 45,000 and employs a staff of approximately 1.

It appears this one employee is Wade Lippman. Interesting what information you can find on the computer and it is available to all who enter the name of this individual. It doesn't mean anything but he could get more work done if he wasn't harassing Phil and may increase his annual revenue.

[Ruhi Arslan]

Steady state
As the cyclone is essentially a two phase particle-fluid system, fluid mechanics and particle transport equations can be used to describe the behaviour of a cyclone. [...]

I am not an expert or even an unqualified self pro-claimed tester of dust separator systems but I think I could argue to the fact that (I have no basis to do so except having written my doctorate dissertation in constitutive modeling of biphasic micro structures) the subject continuum here is a mixture rather than a two phase system. :D



P.S. I also must admit that I should stop abusing my prescription strength cough medicine. ;) First, recent few SS topics and then this one, provided me an endless source of entertainment in my sick bed during the last seven days.

[Prashun Patel]

My gosh! I've been following this thread and have been on the fence about taking the time to build a Thien separator. I gotta say that the irony in Wade's posting is that I'm DEFINITELY convinced now the Thien is the way to go.

Phil, I think the numerous, disinterested, and virtually unanimous anecdotal endorsements you've gotten here are worth more than any scientific test you'd ever concoct. They've convinced me.

[Brian Kent]

OK Time to get serious. Just how does the Phil Thein Baffle work? To know how it works you need a bit of info on how a cyclone works and I will explain that below later on.
The Thein Baffle is just that, a baffle. The dust stream enters the container through an elbow directing the stream into a somewhat cyclonic action in the upper chamber. Centrifigal force pulls the particles to the outside of the spinning stream where they settle down to the lower chamber. There is a fair amount of turbulance introduced into the container from the elbow to the stream comming into the container and the Thien Baffle smoothes that turbulance out and prevents it from stirring up the entire contents of the container. You may think that the 90 degree elbow would direct the incomming stream 90 degrees, and you would only be partly correct. A good part of the stream will be a lot less than 90 degrees because the stream will take the path of least resistance. It is this off angle stream that keeps the solids stirred up a non baffled container instead of setteling down. Phil, have you tried the seperator with a smaller outside opening and a center opening somewhat like the cyclone has? The youtube vid is very impressive for what it is doing, and I think a good part of that is how air is introduced into the chamber. Side inlet will have less turbulance to start with, and not have the back of the elbow to run into.
And now for how a cyclone works. Seriously, look up cyclone seperator on wikipedia.


Steady state
As the cyclone is essentially a two phase particle-fluid system, fluid mechanics and particle transport equations can be used to describe the behaviour of a cyclone. The air in a cyclone is initially introduced tangentially into the cyclone with an inlet velocity Vin. Assuming that the particle is spherical, a simple analysis to calculate critical separation particle sizes can be established.
Given that the fluid velocity is moving in a spiral the gas velocity can be broken into two component velocities: a tangential component, Vt, and a radial velocity component Vr. Assuming Stokes' law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_law), the drag force on any particle in this inlet stream is therefore given by the following equation:
Fd = 6πrpμVr. If one considers an isolated particle circling in the upper cylindrical component of the cyclone at a rotational radius of r from the cyclone's central axis, the particle is therefore subjected to centrifugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal), drag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)) and buoyant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy) forces. The centrifugal component is given by:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/7/b/57b62e65cd33bcbdb81337b015706d7b.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/c/4/ac44b656352672552b51b362db6a5db8.png The buoyant force component is obtained by the difference between the particle and fluid densities, ρp and ρf respectively:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/8/2/b824bdb5377fc39ca87c4c0f6b43e4a0.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/f/7/4f799d13dde16a6f365e7e5a5be125ed.png The force balance can be created by summing the forces together
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/2/0/02090168bc53a7d2b34f89236e29149d.png This rate is controlled by the diameter of the particle's orbit around the central axis of the cyclone. A particle in the cyclonic flow will move towards either the wall of the cyclone, or the central axis of the cyclone until the drag, buoyant and centrifugal forces are balanced. Assuming that the system has reached steady state, the particles will assume a characteristic radius dependent upon the force balance. Heavier, denser particles will assume a solid flow at some larger radius than light particles. The steady state balance assumes that for all particles, the forces are equated, hence:
Fd + Fc + Fb = 0 Which expands to:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/3/7/6377735a6d8919c90328485f909a7c0d.png This can be expressed by rearranging the above in terms of the particle radius. The particle radius as a function of cyclonic radius, fluid density and fluid tangential and rotational velocities can then be found to be:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/b/1/7b121440f3cbdf2a6f7760deaf11f983.png Experimentally it is found that the velocity component of rotational flow is proportional to r2[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclonic_separation#cite_note-Rhodes-1), therefore:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/e/5/ee5b8279da8b8984422023ca7fcb95db.png This means that the established feed velocity controls the vortex rate inside the cyclone, and the velocity at an arbitrary radius is therefore:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/c/5/5c5988ee891250f2714e13c8347c5c00.png Subsequently, given a value for Vt, possibly based upon the injection angle, and a cutoff radius, a characteristic particle filtering radius can be estimated, above which particles will be removed from the gas stream.

That's easy for you to say!

[Neil Brooks]

That's easy for you to say!

I THINK ... he forgot to carry the "1."

;)

[Jay Maiers]

I THINK ... he forgot to carry the "1."

;)

Lol!
Prashun, I'm almost in the same boat.
I've been trying to decide if I should build one or not. Now, I'm definately going to build :)

[Doug Colombo]

Prashun: +2
I am upgrading my system now and have been reading whatever I can about dust collection. I have to say that I was on the fence - is it worth the work to build this? But after reading this thread, count me in !!!
Phil - thank you for all of your hard work and for making it available to us !!!
Wade - thank you for starting the thread - look at all of the people that are now going to build and use what looks like a great addition to our shops ! That is why you started this thread correct ??

[Greg Cuetara]

Interseting thread thus far. I have a ridgid shop vac and have built a few Thien Baffels. The first was in a 5 gallon plastic container and I think Wade might be correct that it doesn't work. I did not have any luck with a 5 gallon container and thought I was doing something wrong. I have since bought a 35 gallon steel trash can and built a baffel to go on it. Ummm...I am not sure how it really works and I don't really care...all I know is that I have increased the suction power of the shop vac by quite a bit and as long as I don't let the chips overflow the trash can I get pretty much nothing in my shop vac. I know that I have cleaned it out and after filling up the 35 gallon container looked and there is NOTHING in the shop vac. Something else is that I was having a problem with the baffel at one point in time and I was a bit miffed until I realized that I did not correctly seal the baffel down to the top of trash can and once I did that it worked flawlessly.

On another note the Steel trash can that I bought gets sucked in each and every time I turn on the shop vac. I had a build a ring inside the trash can to help keep it's shape. I think I need to pick up a 55 gallon plastic drum because even the 35 gallon is a bit small. The 5 gallon just did not cut it but once I got a bigger can things worked great.

And a note to Wade. I have sucked up at least 25 gallons of dust and chips within a matter of minutes and have gotten NOTHING in the shop vac container. Probably easier to pick up dust and chips with a dust pan but it is much more fun to use the shop vac.

Keep up the good Work Phil!

[Lee Schierer]

Phil,

Why don't YOU repeat my test as I described it above? If you do and find your baffle passes half the dust as the same rig without a baffle I will never mention it again. I will never post to a woodworking site again if that would satisfy you.
I only ask that you test it as I did and report the results. What can be more fair than that? In fact, I will make the same offer to anyone.

Since you haven't tested it, how can you be certain I am lying? Just to cover the one chance in a thousand that I am right, wouldn't a responsible person test it?

I don't see a need to repeat the test. I think this video tells it all. Note that in videos 1-4 he shows how he built the separator. Thein Separator in action (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhnBvdeaWS8&feature=related) The pile of chips is quite large, contains a lot of fines and none goes into his plastic bag.

[David Weaver]

For those of us who don't have many fines, is the slinging enough to keep plane shavings from making their way back to the center? So far, I haven't found anything that works well with them. Every time I ask that, someone says "use a dust pan". that's all fine and good, but a vacuum is faster when it's tied to a garbage can and I don't have to bend over and sweep around other benches near my bench.

At this point, I have a dust deputy on top of a 40 gallon can, but it doesn't work as normal - it was a waste of time that way. It's just a straight run-through to the hose now, and probably just because the outlet is smaller than the shop vac hole, I get probably 80-90% of the shavings in the can and the rest in the vac. No big deal, i guess, because what I'm shooting for is for the vac to fill up no faster than the can, which is what happens now.

But if I could get it so nothing was in the vac at all, that'd be great. The only sawdust I have is from actually using handsaws, so there is way more plane shavings by volume (and by weight) than dust.

Not impressed by Wade's behavior, what's the deal? Even if he could find a test where the baffle didn't work, it appears that several people were more than willing to show theirs working, but he's not willing to try what they did to see if there's a difference? If it works on 10 tests and you do an 11th and it doesn't, why would the results from the other 10 change to fit your opinion, wade? You need to cool down and let other people make their own decisions.

Why would someone use it on a cyclone, anyway, unless they didn't want any dust in the cyclone can? Might as well wear belt and suspenders at the same time.

I'm not surprised to hear WN allowed him to troll repeatedly, they're pretty troll friendly.

[Phil Thien]

For those of us who don't have many fines, is the slinging enough to keep plane shavings from making their way back to the center?

For plane shavings you can increase the size of the "drop zone" beyond the standard 1-1/8". I'd say to start at 1-1/2" and maybe even go to 1-3/4".

[Bruce Wrenn]

For plane shavings you can increase the size of the "drop zone" beyond the standard 1-1/8". I'd say to start at 1-1/2" and maybe even go to 1-3/4".Thanks Phil, I plane a lot of cypress, and the shavings are long and stringy.

[Douglas Clark]

OK... so this is old now but I just read through the whole thing and was quite amused. First of all, member or not, Mr. Lippmann is clearly a troll, so why he kept getting fed is beyond me; although, it is heartening to me to see so many people defend Mr. Thien! For crying out loud, he eschews greed and gives away his idea and he's still hunted by that one unsatisfied "customer". What is this world coming too? I haven't built the baffle yet, but I'd been considering it which is why I even opened this thread to begin with. I'm definitely more likely to now. After all I love any project that can bring crazies out of the woodwork.

[John Poole]

... gives away his invention anyway.

http://www.cgallery.com/jpthien/cy.htm has "patent applied for". I don't think applying for a patent is consistent with the concept of giving something away. If a patent is granted, it will be Phil's call as to what he does with the patent. With a patent, he would basically have a hunting license to prevent others from practicing his invention unless duly licensed. I'm wondering if he is granted a patent and then tries to exploit it, whether the industry will give him the cold shoulder as they did for the SawStop -- only to have the patent owner (who happens to be an attorney) vigorously pursue it to the point of cutting into market share.

[Douglas Clark]

Come on, John, you're nitpicking. I used the same phraseology Gary did and our point was to convey an basic idea, not engaging in legal discourse. I think what Gary's and my point is, is that up to this point he has shared his idea with others and even invited and encouraged them to employ his design. Whether he continues to do that if a patent is issued and what the consequences of that patent are is probably another discussion for another thread.

[Phil Thien]

Well of course, if my patent is granted, I will lobby the CSPC to require that all air-moving devices in your shop have a Thien baffle.

[Insert diabolical laughter here.]

[Brian Kent]

Thanks Phil. I needed a little insane laughter!

[Dan Hintz]

Well of course, if my patent is granted, I will lobby the CSPC to require that all air-moving devices in your shop have a Thien baffle.

[Insert diabolical laughter here.]
Well that put a grin on my face this early in the morning :p

[David Weaver]

http://www.cgallery.com/jpthien/cy.htm has "patent applied for". I don't think applying for a patent is consistent with the concept of giving something away. If a patent is granted, it will be Phil's call as to what he does with the patent. With a patent, he would basically have a hunting license to prevent others from practicing his invention unless duly licensed. I'm wondering if he is granted a patent and then tries to exploit it, whether the industry will give him the cold shoulder as they did for the SawStop -- only to have the patent owner (who happens to be an attorney) vigorously pursue it to the point of cutting into market share.

If he didn't patent it and he put details all over the web, you can guess what would happen next...all of the plastic doodads made in china and designed for the top of a garbage can (and sold for goofy prices) at the woodworking retailers would suddenly look like thien baffles.

[Kent A Bathurst]

Well of course, if my patent is granted, I will lobby the CSPC to require that all air-moving devices in your shop have a Thien baffle.

[Insert diabolical laughter here.]

And - even better- since it effectively converts your single-stage DC or shop vac to a 2-stage, hot dogs are not harmed when they get accidentally sucked up. If you choose not to ground your PVC piping, then the electrical charge also will cook them on-the-fly.

[Phil Thien]

And - even better- since it effectively converts your single-stage DC or shop vac to a 2-stage, hot dogs are not harmed when they get accidentally sucked up. If you choose not to ground your PVC piping, then the electrical charge also will cook them on-the-fly.

Oh GREAT! Now I want apple pie.

You see... When I think of hot dogs, I think of hot dogs from the Elegant Farmer in Mukwonago WI. They have had (spotty availability) the best garlic dogs. Real natural casings, of course. The kind where you have to snap into them. The good stuff. Did I mention garlic? Yes, these things have enough garlic to cure a list of ailments.

But the Elegant Farmer is known, of course, for their "baked-in-the-[paper]-bag" apple pies. Bobby Flay even visited and had an apple pie throwdown. They KILLED Bobby. If you have never had a EF apple pie (or even if you HAVE had one), you should seek one out and consume a piece.

Which I intend to do now.

[Douglas Clark]

All air moving devices?! Great now I gotta start doing more reps on my neck workout. I don't know how most of us are gonna be able to wear our respirators anymore.

[Carl Babel]

Well played sir!

I don't know if it was intentional or not, but your post was certainly in the spirit of the childrens' book "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie".

Of course, now I want Apple Pie! :D

[Daniel Berlin]

(When it underlines a word in red, it means it is misspelled.)

All I gotta admit is that is impressive you have gotten so many people to use a product that doesn't work. But I guess even Jimmy Carter saw a flying saucer and they don't work either.
Did you actually spend money to apply for a patent on a product you haven't tested? That is pretty impressive also. I am pretty sure that you can't get an enforceable patent on something you already published, so I hope you haven't spent too much on it. OOPS!

Speaking as a patent attorney, this is completely wrong. In the US the has a year from date of publication.

Never let facts get in the way though ...

[Norman Hitt]

Oh GREAT! Now I want apple pie.

You see... When I think of hot dogs, I think of hot dogs from the Elegant Farmer in Mukwonago WI. They have had (spotty availability) the best garlic dogs. Real natural casings, of course. The kind where you have to snap into them. The good stuff. Did I mention garlic? Yes, these things have enough garlic to cure a list of ailments.

But the Elegant Farmer is known, of course, for their "baked-in-the-[paper]-bag" apple pies. Bobby Flay even visited and had an apple pie throwdown. They KILLED Bobby. If you have never had a EF apple pie (or even if you HAVE had one), you should seek one out and consume a piece.

Which I intend to do now.

Hey Phil Cut It Out.......... You are TORTURING us guys that are Diabetic but LOVE Apple Pies.:eek: Sheesh, now I gotta go take another Insulin shot, from just THINKING about those Pies.:D

[Phil Thien]

Hey Phil Cut It Out.......... You are TORTURING us guys that are Diabetic but LOVE Apple Pies.:eek: Sheesh, now I gotta go take another Insulin shot, from just THINKING about those Pies.:D

Take one EF garlic hot dog and call me in the morning.

Seriously, savory is better than sweet, anyhow. You aren't missing a thing. I never had that piece of pie I mentioned.

In fact (this is a true story), the EF was apparently sold a year or two ago.

It is Sunday morning as I write this. I have two teenage daughters (well, one of them is 20 now but still). They consume vast quantities of fruit. So this morning I went to my local purveyor of fruits, where I was selecting a honeydew and a cantaloupe. I noticed they had a stack of EF pies, so I took a look at them, and they didn't look good.

The crust, which was one of the strong points previously, looked almost undercooked. Not brown enough. In the past they had always gotten the mix of butter, sugar, and cooking time just right so the top crust was almost like an armor. Not these pies. The top crusts looked thin, and soft.

So you aren't missing a THING, I tell you.

In any event, I'm trying to reduce refined sugar in my diet. I don't really desire it any more, anyhow. If I'm hungry for a snack I'd much rather have half a cheese sandwich (with the tangy zip of Miracle Whip, and not that light crap).

[quang nguyen]

OK... so this is old now but I just read through the whole thing and was quite amused. First of all, member or not, Mr. Lippmann is clearly a troll, so why he kept getting fed is beyond me; although, it is heartening to me to see so many people defend Mr. Thien! For crying out loud, he eschews greed and gives away his idea and he's still hunted by that one unsatisfied "customer". What is this world coming too? I haven't built the baffle yet, but I'd been considering it which is why I even opened this thread to begin with. I'm definitely more likely to now. After all I love any project that can bring crazies out of the woodwork.

I just read it too. Make that one more happy customer. I made the Thien baffle for my Delta dust collector. It works very well. It's amazing to see how a simple baffle can make such a big difference. >90% dust was going to the bin.

[Don Jeansonne]

I have a Thien baffle on a DC and it works. I don't have a scientififc test but if improves my shop maintenance. It definitely is a worthwhile addition.
I don't see why the forum police don't pull the plug on such a negative posting which is so one sided!

[Brian Kent]

It died in April.

[Kevin Killoy]

I built the Thien Baffle out of 3/4" plywood using the 32 gallon brute trashcan. It works very well, above 95% efficient. In four months there is only 1" of dust in the bottom of my delta vacuum clear plastic bag and I have not had to take the hose off of the Delta vacuum even once for debris clogging just before the impeller, because the Thien baffle is so good. I have owned the dust deputy with the 5 gallon bucket and it was good, but Thien's baffle is better. I am getting ready to build the 5 gallon baffle and hope I get as good of results as with my 32 gallon baffle. Thanks again Phil for the wonderful design. I also built your mortising jig out of starboard for the Dewalt DWP611 router which is also awesome. I do not know Phil and have never even emailed him, but wanted to defend this unjustified attack. Thanks again for your great design and documentation.