Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 71

Thread: Which Air Filtration is Better??

  1. #1

    Which Air Filtration is Better??

    The Grizzly G0738

    or

    Shop Fox W1830 - Hanging Air Filter

    The tools that create the most airborne dust , are my Wood Lathes. The old Air filtration system I had, was an old Ridgid Canister air filter. They don't make those anymore. So, looking for a similar size unit I can place above the Lathe, and hang the Filter system from the 8x8 Basement Beams.

    So, what do you think is the best one ?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    73
    This one designed by Bill Pentz and with Wynn Environmental canister filter. Hang it from the ceiling if you prefer. I roll mine around on the floor.
    http://billpentz.com/woodworking/cyc...ir_cleaner.php

    Pentz air_cleaner_sm.jpg

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Modesto, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,262
    What makes you think there is any difference?
    Bill D

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tippecanoe County, IN
    Posts
    804
    Bill's question implies that one is just a rebranded version of the other. I think that's very likely. That same unit shows up in a number of different paint jobs. For example:




    I don't think you would see any real performance difference between any of those air cleaners. Pick your favorite brand or lowest price or best delivery.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Beranek's Law:

    It has been remarked that if one selects his own components, builds his own enclosure, and is convinced he has made a wise choice of design, then his own loudspeaker sounds better to him than does anyone else's loudspeaker. In this case, the frequency response of the loudspeaker seems to play only a minor part in forming a person's opinion.
    L.L. Beranek, Acoustics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954), p.208.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,204
    I'd noticed a while back that the WEN and Rikon versions are from China whereas the Grizzly / Shop Fox ones are Taiwanese. Not sure if there's any real performance difference between them but they don't all seem to come from the same factory in this case.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tippecanoe County, IN
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Kelly View Post
    I'd noticed a while back that the WEN and Rikon versions are from China whereas the Grizzly / Shop Fox ones are Taiwanese. Not sure if there's any real performance difference between them but they don't all seem to come from the same factory in this case.
    According to the spec sheets both the Grizzly and Shopfox are made in China.

    https://cdn0.grizzly.com/specsheets/g0738_ds.pdf
    https://d27ewrs9ow50op.cloudfront.ne...s/w1830_ds.pdf
    Beranek's Law:

    It has been remarked that if one selects his own components, builds his own enclosure, and is convinced he has made a wise choice of design, then his own loudspeaker sounds better to him than does anyone else's loudspeaker. In this case, the frequency response of the loudspeaker seems to play only a minor part in forming a person's opinion.
    L.L. Beranek, Acoustics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954), p.208.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Modesto, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,262
    David, thanks for the other pictures. I could not figure out that oval on top of the cabinet. I thought it was a vent hole. Your pictures show a folding handle that flips up.
    Bill D

  8. #8
    I am finishing up a cart based on a Shop Hacks article and Jay Bates Youtube build....both are conceptually similar to Bill Pentz's design. Mine uses a Lasco 18" floor fan (pulling through the filters and pointed at the ceiling) and 4x merv 12 filters which are 20x20x1. First off, I put a rough assembly together out of scrap so I could test this MYSELF as I not easily convinced by flashy articles....I was amazed with the results. After filling the shop with wood dust, I used my Dylos DC 1100 Pro to monitor and was able to get PM 0.5 counts down from 6k to under 1k in 4 minutes and under 500 in 10 minutes. These are numbers I am unable to achieve with my expensive Jet air scrubber.
    Last edited by fred everett; 05-29-2021 at 11:59 PM.
    Thanks,
    Fred

    Seasoned professional possessing unremarkable proficiency at innumerable skills.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Tampa Bay, FL
    Posts
    2,728
    Quote Originally Posted by fred everett View Post
    I am finishing up a cart based on a Shop Hacks article and Jay Bates Youtube build....both are conceptually similar to Bill Pentz's design. Mine uses a Lasco 18" floor fan (pulling through the filters and pointed at the ceiling) and 4x merv 12 filters which are 20x20x1. First off, I put a rough assembly together out of scrap so I could test this MYSELF as I not easily convinced by flashy articles....I was amazed with the results. After filling the shop with wood dust, I used my Dylos DC 1100 Pro to monitor and was able to get PM 0.5 counts down from 6k to under 1k in 4 minutes and under 500 in 10 minutes. These are numbers I am unable to achieve with my expensive Jet air scrubber.
    Interesting web site. I'm wondering, though. Can you achieve similar or better results by just adding an additional MERV 13 or higher filter to the outside of a Jet or similar air cleaner? Making them 3 filters with large surface area. Or even adding two MERV 14 filters to make a total of 4 filters. I've also thought of this to cut down on noise with my Jet 1000B and Jet 2000.

    The highest MERV rating I can find for 3M Filtrete filters is MERV 14. Which they call MPR 2800.

    I can get the particle counts down far lower than that with my two Jet air cleaners in I believe a similar time frame. I can achieve low single digits if I try hard enough (leave both Jet air cleaners on high for about an hour.) This is measured by my Dylos DEC1100 Pro also.
    Last edited by Alan Lightstone; 06-01-2021 at 11:07 AM. Reason: Corrected wrong MPR rating
    - When God closes a door, he opens a window. Our heating bill is outrageous & six raccoons got in last night. Please God, this has to stop!
    - Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Lightstone View Post
    Interesting web site. I'm wondering, though. Can you achieve similar or better results by just adding an additional MERV 13 or higher filter to the outside of a Jet or similar air cleaner? Making them 3 filters with large surface area. Or even adding two MERV 14 filters to make a total of 4 filters. I've also thought of this to cut down on noise with my Jet 1000B and Jet 2000.

    The highest MERV rating I can find for 3M Filtrete filters is MERV 14. Which they call MPR 2800.

    I can get the particle counts down far lower than that with my two Jet air cleaners in I believe a similar time frame. I can achieve low single digits if I try hard enough (leave both Jet air cleaners on high for about an hour.) This is measured by my Dylos DEC1100 Pro also.
    My Jet 1000b doesn't have the cfm to move air through my 14x28 shop even w/o filters. When looking to improve my filtration I looked at another Jet or a similar, but cost was an issue. Since I found the Shop Hacks article both logical and quite comprehensive, I decided on the test build.....put it together from scrap and $72 which was the cost of the filters.

    I can get single digits if I'm not woodworking and standing fairly still. The count stays around 500 to 1000 on 0.5 PM when actively woodworking depending on the operation.....stationary belt sanding will kick it to 1000 ish but that number goes back down when sanding stops.

    Your suggestions make good sense, but I'm wondering how far I need to go when my shop air has less PM than my living room and yard. Having said that, there is room for improvement by upgrading to MERV 14. Also, I didn't spend a lot of time fitting the fan shroud on my test build, so that's an easy improvement.

    With these lower PM numbers we're certainly not inhaling the amount of wood dust we did just a few years back....a good thing. It's a good discussion.
    Thanks,
    Fred

    Seasoned professional possessing unremarkable proficiency at innumerable skills.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Tampa Bay, FL
    Posts
    2,728
    My personal rule is that I wear a respirator and turn on the air cleaners when the ambient particle level is above what I know is background in my area (around 500).

    I should get my MERV 14 filters later today. I'll probably do a test in a few days for a before and after duct taping one of those filters on my Jet 2000. Also some on order for my Jet 1000B. I'll probably kick up some dust with the belt sander (which usually gets me over 1000) and time things. Boring test, but the before and after results may be interesting to see if adding the additional MERV 14 filter speeds things up.
    - When God closes a door, he opens a window. Our heating bill is outrageous & six raccoons got in last night. Please God, this has to stop!
    - Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tippecanoe County, IN
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Lightstone View Post
    My personal rule is that I wear a respirator and turn on the air cleaners when the ambient particle level is above what I know is background in my area (around 500).

    I should get my MERV 14 filters later today. I'll probably do a test in a few days for a before and after duct taping one of those filters on my Jet 2000. Also some on order for my Jet 1000B. I'll probably kick up some dust with the belt sander (which usually gets me over 1000) and time things. Boring test, but the before and after results may be interesting to see if adding the additional MERV 14 filter speeds things up.
    I'm really interested in seeing your data. Be sure to record the start and stop values along with the time interval. The important parameter is half-life since it's an exponential decay in particle count after you stop generating dust.

    In theory, the half life should be about 0.7 x (room volume) / (CFM x filter efficiency). Cascading filters will improve overall capture efficiency but degrade CFM. We'll see if either of the two dominate.
    Beranek's Law:

    It has been remarked that if one selects his own components, builds his own enclosure, and is convinced he has made a wise choice of design, then his own loudspeaker sounds better to him than does anyone else's loudspeaker. In this case, the frequency response of the loudspeaker seems to play only a minor part in forming a person's opinion.
    L.L. Beranek, Acoustics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954), p.208.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Lightstone View Post
    My personal rule is that I wear a respirator and turn on the air cleaners when the ambient particle level is above what I know is background in my area (around 500).

    I should get my MERV 14 filters later today. I'll probably do a test in a few days for a before and after duct taping one of those filters on my Jet 2000. Also some on order for my Jet 1000B. I'll probably kick up some dust with the belt sander (which usually gets me over 1000) and time things. Boring test, but the before and after results may be interesting to see if adding the additional MERV 14 filter speeds things up.
    I would be interested in your findings.
    Thanks,
    Fred

    Seasoned professional possessing unremarkable proficiency at innumerable skills.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Tampa Bay, FL
    Posts
    2,728
    Well, sorry it took so long. Life got in the way.

    Today I ran the belt sander with only the Jet 2000 running. Two tests. One with the original filters on the Jet 2000, running at high speed. The other with the original filters with the addition of a 3M Filtrete MERV 14 / MPR 2800 filter taped to the intake grill.

    The measurements were done with my Dylos DC1100 meter, which, I believe measures 0.5 micron particles for its small particle setting per 0.1 cu ft of air (I could be wrong on the particle size. I'm going from memory here, but its the one set up for woodworkers to measure the smaller particles). My shop has a volume of roughly 18600 cu ft (very tall ceilings).

    Baseline particle count in workshop: 329 small particles (was a good day here. It usually is about 500.)

    Original Setup: Starting small particle count - 2121. Ending small particle count - 323. Time - 18 minutes.

    Additional MERV 14 filter added: Starting small particle count - 2131. Ending small particle count - 318. Time - 17 minutes.

    Sorry I couldn't get this into a table format. But the bottom line seems to be that the addition of the extra MERV 14 filter only decreased the time to get to baseline particle count by 1 minute, or a little over 5% reduction. Essentially no difference.

    Now, I haven't been able to locate a MERV 14 filter that I could use to replace the original filter. That might have a more dramatic effect. But, basically, I'm not impressed that this helps.

    Any other thoughts? Am I missing something, David?
    - When God closes a door, he opens a window. Our heating bill is outrageous & six raccoons got in last night. Please God, this has to stop!
    - Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tippecanoe County, IN
    Posts
    804
    Great, those are some good numbers to work with. We can have some fun!

    First, let's look at the time constants, which are simply the time interval divided by the natural log of the ratio of the two particle counts. For the original it's 9.56 minute, or 6.3 air changes per hour and with the added filter 8.94 minute or 6.71 ACH. It's an improvement, but not much.

    Estimating the MERV 14 composite efficiency for particles greater than 0.5 micron we can do some algebra and estimate the filter efficiency of the original configuration, assuming the same CFM in both cases. That comes out to be about 93% so not much room for improvement, as we've already seen.

    As a sanity check, we can estimate the CFM by dividing the room volume by the time constant which yields something around 2000 CFM, which I think is what that unit is supposed to do.

    TL;DR: You're air cleaner is working about as well as it can, don't mess with it.
    Beranek's Law:

    It has been remarked that if one selects his own components, builds his own enclosure, and is convinced he has made a wise choice of design, then his own loudspeaker sounds better to him than does anyone else's loudspeaker. In this case, the frequency response of the loudspeaker seems to play only a minor part in forming a person's opinion.
    L.L. Beranek, Acoustics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954), p.208.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •