cyclone review

[phil harold]

is there an objective review of cyclones
penn state
grizzly
onida
jet
clear view

I am interested in how well the cyclonic action actually performs in terms of dust separation (how much gets sent to the filters)
and actual performance maybe some one has connected each one up to thier duct work to compare them in a real work environment...

I am looking at approximatively 3 hp

thanks

[David Kumm]

Good luck Phil. The only way to get true results would be to hook the cyclone and impeller to the same ductwork and filters and then find a way to measure the dust trapped in new filters after the same usage each time. You are unlikely to get anything other than opinions as to how well each person's system works and that will be more subjective than objective. There are differences in cyclone design- diameter and length of cone- that are more efficient than others but the effectiveness also depends on how much cfm is forced through the unit which in turn is dependent on pipe size, impeller, hp, and filter area and material. Companies should be able to give you some advice and if you talk to enough people about the specifics of their unit you may gain some knowledge. I can only tell you I am happy with my Torit 20" cyclone with the impeller located away from the cyclone with both fine dust and chips. I think the torit design is good and suspect not having the fan immediately above the cyclone top helps with the separation but it is all a guess on my part. Dave

[Ole Anderson]

If you can find a copy of the January 2006 American Woodworker review of cyclone dust collectors, it might answer some of your questions. I have a link that worked last year, but it has since been taken down.

Here is one of their more recent tests on smaller portable cyclones: http://americanwoodworker.com/blogs/tools/archive/2010/10/25/tool-test-portable-cyclone-dust-collector-testing.aspx

[phil harold]

If you can find a copy of the January 2006 American Woodworker review of cyclone dust collectors, it might answer some of your questions.
ThanksS found a link her
http://www.oneida-air.com/PDF/AWW%20article%20jan%202006.pdf

but with all the changes 6 years may be out of date

I agree with david
The only way to get true results would be to hook the cyclone and impeller to the same ductwork and filters and then find a way to measure the dust trapped in new filters after the same usage each time
just hoping some one will publish and article like that so we can compare apples to apples and make an informed decision

[David Kumm]

Phil, if you are looking for a stationary piped system you are correct to be in the 3-5 hp 14-16" impeller type system. If you size the system and piping properly you will get a pretty good result with most of the systems now available for the hobby guy. Ten years ago that was not the case but more recently the impellers are sized appropriately for the motor and the cyclones have the interior baffle that helps with the separation. Motor quality is pretty important and as I have posted about a million times, I really like a three phase motor for running DC. Even more so with a VFD. Dave

[Brad Gobble]

While I admire your approach the only way to truly know which device performs the best is a true side to side. If we omit this option then you'll have to agree to trust someone. I recommend Bill Pentz's site. I've spent time on the phone with Bill over a few details, gave him a few $$ for his site, and am satisfied with his research and conclusions. As an engineer and technologist myself his approach is sound, documentation solid, and commitment to the topic as an academic endeavor impressive.

Both CV and Oneida follow his design (Oneida will not admit it). I am not familar with the specifics of Jet, Penn, or Griz.
Firts, assuming a "standard" design (ref: Bill Pentz) then you can evaluate differences from that design, and choose an acceptable level of variance.
Second, determine what non-performance variables are important to you and rank them (assembled vs. DIY, design services of systems, etc)
Third, balance 1 and 2 against cost. (Oneida is almist 2x CV by the time you're done).

FWIW, I have owned a CV for 6 years. Performance is awesome, price was what I could afford, and it is cool to watch dust swirl.
Were I to do it again I'd do the Oneida simply because my time is very valuable (kids, work, coaching) and to get the CV done from beginning to end is real time. The Ondiea is a phone call and stuff just arrives - you're working in an afternoon (from what I 've heard). Just to repeat: THE CLEAR VUE WORKS DAMN WELL.

Notes:
- If you have the $$ the metal 6" trunk lines to 4" branches is the way to go. If you care about saving $$ then get the ASTM 2729 white plastic stuff. No need for ground lines.
(Aside: The fear of spark/explosing is below mention - a gross statistical anomaly akin to cell phones causing gas stations to burst into flames or airplanes to fall from the sky.)
- Expect to build a sound proof closet, insulated, to keep noise down. These devils are LOUD.
- Add the ability to vent (after your filters) to the outdoors - you can use this to just get the smallest stuff OUT of the environment when it's warm and is also a great way to clean your filters (run the cyclone while gate is open to outside and use compressed air to blast the filter fabric).
- you will still need an ambient air cleaner (Jet AFS1000, etc) for your shop as well as a shop-vac (EX: Fein Turbo 3) for cleanup and tool dust control.

Finally, remeber that advice is worth exactly what you pay for it ... (grin)
Take pics when you're done and post 'em!

~Brad

[glenn bradley]

Its right next to the concise and clear comparison of cell phone plans. This is an area that sells best when clothed in mystery for whatever reasons. Diligent comparisons and posts from owners of specific systems (preferably those who have had other systems to compare with) are my favorite for this type of info.

[David Kumm]

Brad's advice is actually worth more than what you pay for. The Onieda cyclone has benefitted from the Pentz design and Pentz brought the commercial cyclone design to the hobby market. If you look at older commercial units they are larger versions of the Pentz cyclone. Compettition has helped the hobby market. dave

[Michael W. Clark]

(Aside: The fear of spark/explosing is below mention - a gross statistical anomaly akin to cell phones causing gas stations to burst into flames or airplanes to fall from the sky.)


Brad, I have noticed significant static charge buildup when using hoses that are not grounded. A 4" hose building a good static charge doesn't feel very good when you get popped on the arm or leg. It doesn't cost much $$ or time to ground the plastic pipe. I'll admit that combustible dust may not be an issue in a home shop, but static charge and dust explosions are real. If in doubt, do a google search on combustible dust codes and check out NFPA, OSHA, and the Chemical Safety Board. Woodworking and wood processing industries have their own NFPA combustible dust code.

Just want to make the point that dust explosions do occur and can be caused by static electicity discharge. (There is a grounding and bonding requirement for duct systems in most of the combustible dust codes). While this probably does not apply to home shops (and would likely not be enforced if it did), some on here may be in a commercial/industrial shop and could be subject to the combustible dust code requirements.

Mike

[Jim Andrew]

Spiral pipe and the fittings are expensive. My cyclone cost less than the pipe. But the system works pretty well.

[Thomas Hotchkin]

Phil
My 2 year old Oneida 3 hp does not have the neutral vane of Bill Pentz design. Grizzly Wood Magazine review one year later ended with a filter full of dust. http://community.woodmagazine.com/t5/General-Woodworking/Grizzly-dust-Collector-G0441-One-year-later/m-p/22540 Good luck in your search. Tom

[David Kumm]

Phil
My 2 year old Oneida 3 hp does not have the neutral vane of Bill Pentz design. Grizzly Wood Magazine review one year later ended with a filter full of dust. http://community.woodmagazine.com/t5/General-Woodworking/Grizzly-dust-Collector-G0441-One-year-later/m-p/22540 Good luck in your search. Tom

Actually the neutral vane and the inclined inlet came from commercial cyclones. Pentz acknowledged and copied them to some extent in producing a cyclone for the hobby market. If you want the original, look at used Torit, Dustkopp and Aget cyclones. A good alternative for those who correctly or incorrectly feel better about steel but want the design benefits of better fine dust separation. Dave

[Brad Gobble]

David, you're a gentleman - thx for the props.
Michael Clark, fine point on static mess and discomfort - I need to occaisionally dust the mains off (hey, free esp, right?). The problem with grounding in the traditional manner of a single conductor is that static buildup on plastic is uniformly ununiform (meaning that a bit to the left and a bit to the right of the grounding wire the static may be dissapated but the rest of the pipe has charge).
Thomas, didn't see that review - every few years I clean my filter out, and much to my amazement I remove almost nothing from the filter.

All - RE: Neutral Vane, anyone know of a metal cyclone with this (giving the OP the option to have all of the CV benefits in a metal cyclone)?

[ian maybury]

This isn't an anti cyclone view (the opposite in fact) - but there really doesn't seem to be good test data about for the sort of cyclones sold for DIY woodworking dust collection applications. It's a bit of a PIA, and one of the reasons why selecting the hardware for a dust system is so difficult.

Pure supposition, but it's hard not to suspect that separation of the sort of very fine dusts that we are most interested in is right out on the periphery of the capability of the sort of cyclones on offer, and that these dusts normally make up a very small proportion of the dust we produce. Which could well mean too that separation performance is also influenced by factors like the precise blend/nature of the dust, the layout of the installation, and the precise CFM the cyclone is run at.

It's hard for example not to look at the turbulence inside a cyclone and wonder how in heaven the damn thing manages to drop out fine dust at all. :)

If this is the case then it's not impossible that there are quite wide differences in fine dust performance between different models, and different installations.

There seems to be a definite reluctance on the part of even those selling what seem to be high performing units to publish data. This may be a getting around to it sort of an issue, but it may also be the result of the knowledge that (a) 'our' cyclone does/does not perform as well as the others, or (b) that we can't control the conditions of installation well enough to guarantee a provable level of performance. Either of which might lead to legal exposures if unwise claims were made.

The situation for the makers is i suspect eased by the fact that pretty much all seem to drop out the larger chips and particles very well - with the result that the average Joe on visually inspecting the results is left with little reason for concern.

It really would be nice though if there was solid information about.....

ian

[David Kumm]

Ian, here in the US you can get better info on cyclone efficiency if you deal with commercial cyclone fabricators. They make cyclones for metal, dust, gas, etc. so they will spec exactly what you need and build accordingly. Expensive though. I think when I priced a cyclone it was $1800 or so just for it. Custom of course but much easier to buy my used torit for $300. The Torit does have the vane in the middle and looks very much like the cyclone the Clearvue is patterned after. Very heavy gauge steel and a long cone. I took the blower off and installed my own. For anyone looking for an efficient alternative, the Torit does separate very well. I'm running big chip machines and drum sanders and do very little cleaning of filters until I have a stupid moment and overfill. I can tell if the filters are clogging by the change in amp draw with gates open and find it takes over a year before I need to get out the compressed air. I'm just a hobby guy so usage isn't that heavy though. Just another choice for those inclined. Dave

[ian maybury]

That's pretty much the difference, isn't it David? I linked a page of technical papers on the Camfil site before, and in one on how they handle filtration and separation requirements (think that was what it was) they said that one of the first steps is to characterise your dust - especially the particle size distribution.

It's hardly necessary to test every time for wood dust though - or is it? If it's that sensitive then it wouldn't bode well for the performance of stock woodworking cyclones...

[Michael W. Clark]

Yes, there are a lot of factors that affect cyclone efficiency, from the dust characterization, CFM, cylone size, cyclone geometry, etc. I wish manufacturer's would post some type of performance data as well. However, if you post efficiency data at one airflow, and you operate at another, the efficiency would be different. If designing a cyclone for a commercial application, you would want to characterize the dust for that application. Small particulate will require a much more efficient cyclone than large particulate. If you design the cylone for large particulate and it sees small particulate, it will not meet the customer's performance requirements. If all it will see is large chips, and you design it for small particulate, it wil work well, but be more expensive than was required. Cyclone efficiency is governed by two basic things, pressure drop and residence time. Pressure drop costs you energy and residence time = size which = $$.

If putting an after filter on the outlet of the cyclone, cyclone efficiency is not a huge concern since the polishing filter will catch the small stuff. However, if you may have to clean the after filter more often. I think one of the drawbacks to some of the cyclones we use in our home shops is that they look more suceptable to re-entraining the captured dust and carrying it over to the after filter. I'm not familiar with what is being referred to as the "nuetral vane", what is its function?

Mike

[Salem Ganzhorn]

Mike my understanding is it keeps the circulating dust/chips from interfering with the inlet stream. On the Oneida it is simply that the inlet extends into the cyclone. On some others there is actually a ramp that steers the incoming debris downward.
Salem

[Bob Wingard]

Brad, I have noticed significant static charge buildup when using hoses that are not grounded. A 4" hose building a good static charge doesn't feel very good when you get popped on the arm or leg. It doesn't cost much $$ or time to ground the plastic pipe. I'll admit that combustible dust may not be an issue in a home shop, but static charge and dust explosions are real. If in doubt, do a google search on combustible dust codes and check out NFPA, OSHA, and the Chemical Safety Board. Woodworking and wood processing industries have their own NFPA combustible dust code.

Just want to make the point that dust explosions do occur and can be caused by static electicity discharge. (There is a grounding and bonding requirement for duct systems in most of the combustible dust codes). While this probably does not apply to home shops (and would likely not be enforced if it did), some on here may be in a commercial/industrial shop and could be subject to the combustible dust code requirements.

Mike


This myth just refuses to die !!! Plastic/PVC pipe is, in itself an insulator ... it is impossible to "ground" an insulator ... you can attach a ground to it, but, it is worthless.

Dust explosions do occur ... that is true ... BUT ... the conditions that are necessary to support one are (nearly) impossible to encounter in a typical workshop. You would need a concentration of ultra fine dust that was so great that you couldn't see your hand in front of your face, coupled with a spark sufficient to cause ignition. The little, annoying static pops you feel when running a planer or other tool in your shop are NOT going to cause a fire and/or explosion. If anyone wishes to contest that statement, I would challenge you to include in your post documentation proving that such an event has ever occurred. A commercial shop simultaneously running a half dozen wide-belt sander MIGHT be able to create such a condition, and, if that is your working environment, you probaly need more professional help than you are likely to receive here.

[David Kumm]

Mike my understanding is it keeps the circulating dust/chips from interfering with the inlet stream. On the Oneida it is simply that the inlet extends into the cyclone. On some others there is actually a ramp that steers the incoming debris downward.
Salem

On some it is a helix fin wrapped around the interior tube leading to the outlet. The design of the inlet ramp into the cyclone has some significance as well but I don't know the science. Dave

[ian maybury]

The drawing for the Pentz cyclone is here and shows what's probably its equivalent to a neutral vane - the downwards angling of the inlet chute, and the spiral: http://billpentz.com/woodworking/cyclone/CyclonePlan.cfm

Neutral vanes are one of those things you keep hearing references to but rarely seem to be defined. I wouldn't be surprised if they started out as a simple plate or shield.

The rectangular section of the inlet chute is in effect maintained inside the cyclone for one full turn after passing through the cyclone wall. There's mentions about too of the rectangular chute's cross sectional area in some cyclones being purposely made larger than that of the duct with a view to dropping the air velocity a bit.

Chances are it's about getting a cleanly defined 'swirl' going, pointed in the right direction and at the right velocity inside the cyclone - the inwards flow from the open end of a simple entry in the form of a pipe cut into the wall of the cylinder but not continuing on inside looks like it would run the risk of being disrupted by the circulating flow.

There's also mutterings about to the effect that a longer cone helps separation, and industrial units do tend in this direction but it's again hard to get good information.

It's a pity there's not better information about on the 'why' of the various dimensions in a cyclone. When building mine it bugged the hell out of me that i'd really no idea what was critical, and what was not. I still don't have a clue in this regard (and perhaps there's not much that is), but know that minor changes can make big differences in some devices flowing air at fairly high speed by triggering turbulence or differing modes of flow

ian

[Michael W. Clark]

Bob,
I agree with you that it is unlikely in a home shop, but I wanted to put it out there for some on here who may work in a commercial shop or with a dust collection system at work. It is not ficticous, and it is a concern, at least according to many professionals in the field.

I didn't spend much time looking, but I found this link http://www.esdjournal.com/static/Georgia/georgia%20sugar%20explosion.htm

Static electricity is cited as a leading cause of dust explosions, however, it is hard to prove after the fact. There is no evidence. All combustible dust codes that I have worked with call for the duct to be conductive, grounded, and bonded. When the duct builds up static charge, material tends to stick to the outside of the duct. The material is also likely sticking to the inside of the duct as well. This can cause plugging, loss of performance, and is at least a fire hazzard.

Most explosions occur at the collector where you have a lot of fine dust and a thick cloud as you say. If you get an explosion in the collector, the flame front will propagate in both directions down the ductwork away from the collector. If there is material in the duct, this fuels the explosion and causes it to burn faster with more intensity. I think the build up of material in the duct is the real issue with static charge. With material in the duct, and a hot ember from cutting through a nail you didn't know was there, the materil could ignite. This material is being conveyed toward the collector (which has a thick cloud of fine dust particles in it) at a rate of 4,000 FPM. This could be bad, at the very least, a new pair of pants may be required. :)

The amount of energy needed to ignite a dust depends on many things including the type of dust, the size of the dust particles, etc. I worked in one place where they were handling aluminum powder and we designed a dust collection system for them. This was a new installation. Once they started production, employess were required to wear conductive soled shoes to dissipate static charge. Obviously, wood dust would require much more energy to ignite than the aluminum dust.

I agree that it is more unlikely in a home shop, but want to caution others that read the forums who may have commercial shops or dust collection systems at work that handle other dusts. If you can keep the static from building up, it will help prevent plugs and reduce the risk of fire.

[Jerome Hanby]

Maybe we just need to accept that the term "ground" is gong to be misused in this context and just get over it. I'm sure that practically everyone knows that plastic is an insulator and I'm equally sure most everyone knows you can build up one heck of a static charge on a hunk of plastic and, other than some folks that may be mentally challenged, no one likes to get zapped with static electricity. In this context "grounding" is actually adding a device to bleed off that static charge. The purpose is not prevent some mythical static induced dust explosion, but to keep from getting the crap zapped out of you when you touch the duct work. Ben Franklin was doing this with much bigger static charges than we're dealing with over two hundred years ago and it still works today. It's just providing a "better" path to ground for that static electricity. You could probably get the same benefit by having a grounded cable that you touched to the duct work before you put your hand to it, but you have to remember to do that and no one actually plans to accidentally brush against their duct work...


This myth just refuses to die !!! Plastic/PVC pipe is, in itself an insulator ... it is impossible to "ground" an insulator ... you can attach a ground to it, but, it is worthless.

Dust explosions do occur ... that is true ... BUT ... the conditions that are necessary to support one are (nearly) impossible to encounter in a typical workshop. You would need a concentration of ultra fine dust that was so great that you couldn't see your hand in front of your face, coupled with a spark sufficient to cause ignition. The little, annoying static pops you feel when running a planer or other tool in your shop are NOT going to cause a fire and/or explosion. If anyone wishes to contest that statement, I would challenge you to include in your post documentation proving that such an event has ever occurred. A commercial shop simultaneously running a half dozen wide-belt sander MIGHT be able to create such a condition, and, if that is your working environment, you probaly need more professional help than you are likely to receive here.

[Michael W. Clark]

Thanks David and Ian, I see the nuetral vane now. It looks like it is used to get the airflow around the outlet pipe, not a bad idea to combat abrasion with the tangential inlet. I would suspect the inclined inlet is to promote the cylonic action. Most commercial high efficiency cyclones use an involute inlet. It is built rectangular for ease and cost of fabrication. It wraps around the outside of the cylone body at the top.

[ian maybury]

This risks diverting the thread away from topic, but the most comprehensive piece I've seen on the issue of plastic ducting vs. fire/explosion risk is here: http://www.woodcentral.com/articles/shop/articles_221.shtml

It's pretty convincing.

My recollection is that Bill P draws on it (?) in recommending PVC ducting - the conclusion is basically that the risk is at worst minimal, and that the writer was unable to find reference to even a single instance of a problem. He goes on to discuss how the physics support this view.

For what it's worth i used galvanised spiral ducting. My rationale was that (a) it was actually cheaper over here, and (b) the biggest risk with plastic ducting is (should the worst ever happen) probably trying to convince some know it all insurance assessor that no, it wasn't caused by the ducting.

ian

[Michael W. Clark]

I don't want to get away from the thread topic either, so this will be my last post about static charge on this thread.

I did not intend to infer that dust explosions were likely in the home shop or that static charge would cause one in the home shop. I merely wanted to say that this is a concern in commercial and industrial systems and that it is not a "myth" in these larger systems. There may be readers that get some of their information here and apply it in their workplace. There are a lot of things that are not a concern in the home shop, but that doesn't mean that they do not exist or that there are certain code requirements applicable in the work place related to the topic. Whether the codes are right or wrong, the requirement is still there to use conductive duct that is grounded and bonded. One thing unique about the dust codes is that they are not like building codes, where you are grandfathered in if your system is installed prior to a particular date. The dust codes are retroactive and enforcement is completely up to the authority haveing jurisdiction; fire marshall, OSHA rep, safety rep, insurance agent, etc.

It is my opinion that the NFPA woodworking combustible dust codes were written to minimize or eliminate requirements for homeowners. There are minimal requirements for "open type" (single stage type with bag or canister filters) collectors under 5,000 CFM in the code. Also, collectors with an internal volume of 8 ft3 are exempted from most, if not all, of the requirements.

By the way, the referenced article from Ian states;

"The reason PVC is banned is because when backed with a conductor (or otherwise
is highly charged on the outside as well as inside), and very special
circumstances occur, a discharge with enough energy to ignite dust may occur."

I agree with all of you and Ian's referenced article that it is highly unlikely that it occurs and even more unlikely in a home shop. Regardless of the explosion chance or not, giving the charge an easier path to ground may save you a zap or two. The article referenced from Ian recommends this as well does Bill Pentz's page.

Article cited by Ian;
"If you use PVC the primary issue is to protect yourself
from a shock. For this I recommend either a bare grounded wire in the duct, or
grounded screws through the pipe spaced every 4 inches. "

From Bill Pentz site:
"Explosion or not, getting a good zap while next to a sharp blade or cutter can
be plenty dangerous, so if you live in a dry climate and chose to use PVC, you
might want to seriously consider grounding your ducting."

Let's talk about cyclone efficiency and give the OP advice to their question. I apologize for getting this off track. We can agree to disagree and/or continue it on another thread.
Mike

[phil harold]

[/I]Let's talk about cyclone efficiency and give the OP advice to their question. I apologize for getting this off track. We can agree to disagree and/or continue it on another thread.
Mike

You guys are sucking the life out of this thread with pvc vs. steel


thanks for all the responses
but I wood like to see variety of units connected to the same ducting in a single shop, and then test the units
otherwise we are comparing apples to mangos

[David Kumm]

Phil, I think your best bet is to talk to an industrial cyclone fabricator who makes custom units and ask about what is appropriate of your application. Most tech guys are pretty decent about giving some pointers that you could compare to diagrams and specs from the hobby companies. Then talk to them. Oneida has various types of cyclones, The Busheys are good to talk to, and the designs are close enough that you should get opinions as to why each company's design differs. Even if we got data on different cyclones with the same ducting we would need to know the velocity of the air entering the cyclone as it will differ with every set up and what works best at a certain speed may not at another. Would also need to know the efficiency across the velocity-cfm range the system is capable of. Makes my head hurt. Dave

[Brad Gobble]

in the last 6 years I've read and learned quite a bit about dust collection, but like many I am frustrated by the lack of definitiave data. What do you guys (and gals) think about putting together a real test plan for evaluating this gear? Given the breadth of professional experience and the amount of gear we possess this would seem a valuable investment. We (the consumers / users) could
Establish an agreed upon test plan
Solicit donation of time / space / gear / $$
Execute the plan
Vet the results
Revise and re-test

Sounds like fun - thoughts?

[Ryan Mooney]

I believe that you could actually model these systems under varying conditions with a reasonable computer or two and free software (openfoam and freecfd come to mind, there may be better). This would be predicated on having someone who actually knew something about CFD modeling be involved, but would in theory be substantially cheaper than testing and would allow modeling under various usage and installation conditions that wouldn't be practical time wise for a full installation test.

Yes I'm fully aware that modeling has its limitations :D but I'd bet that this would get you closer to the truth faster than any other solution, especially given the amazing quality of modern sw/computers. You could also test some alternative designs if you started seeing trouble spots. I would be surprised if the commercial folks aren't already doing this (and maybe some larger hobby/small shop folks like Oneida aren't already doing this.. of course if you could get access to their pre-done mesh definitions would save you a lot of time...). Its also possible that they reached a sufficient level of confidence in their designs before this was practical that they mostly haven't bothered (this was doable commercially/govmnt ~15+ years ago, really the last 5-10 have been when it would be possible for hobbiest level).

I've been out of touch with the folks I used to know who did this sort of thing for a longish while so I don't have any immediate contacts to help..

[Michael W. Clark]

Interesting idea on the test setup. It seems like that would be the only way to truly evaluate the different models avaialable. If you had a system that you could feed a known rate of material into, then weigh the amount of material collected for each cyclone, it seeems it would give you a good idea of relative performance. Like David alluded to, you would want to test cyclones of smilar size/capacity, else the tests may not be relevant. Maybe test systems of the same horsepower rating?

I wonder if someone like Rockler or Woodcraft would be willing to sponser or let you test some systems they are already using. Most of them have a shop for demo, not sure what kind of DC they use. What about a university or grad student looking for a thesis project? Magazines may be willing to help, but they also get advertising $$ so there may be some conflict of interest.

CFD may work, but I think you would still want to do some validation with empiracle data eventually. Just to prove that the model is providing the correct results.

If this goes forward, I would definitely be interested in helping in any way I could.

Mike

[Alan Lightstone]

you will still need an ambient air cleaner (Jet AFS1000, etc) for your shop as well as a shop-vac (EX: Fein Turbo 3) for cleanup and tool dust control.
~Brad
+100. The combination of all of those will handle most of what you can throw at it. I'd recommend enlarging any tool that you can to 6" ducts - really increases CFM at the tool.