ASHRAE filter test?

[Alan Simpson]

If there is pending litigation here then Bills' attorney would have correctly advised Bill not to respond. If Mr Witter is aware of this then I would question the actual intent of his posts.

I'm not sure why you are assuming that their is any litigation between the two parties. Even more questionable is why you would question the motives of Mr. Witter's posts. If there WAS litigation, he wouldn't be posting either.

I for one am very dissapointed the Bill Pentz has not addressed the (seemingly)factual statements and questions presented by Mr. Witter. Since he has made numerous posts since the questions were posed, it is likely that he is avoiding this.

Mike D. pretty much summed up my viewpoint with his own. I want to know the truth. I have heard conflicting things for years. Conflicting to the point you would have to believe that there is NO answer. But this is science we are talking about. There IS an answer, but it seems that no one wants us to know it.

[James Kuhn]

Actually I'm not sure that John is too far off the mark. I did a search and Bill's website has gone through at least one change as far as making references to Oneida. In the updates log:

07/09/05 "Bill, would you please give me your two cents on the new Oneida-Air, Grizzly, and MacIntyre cyclones being sold? I want to buy one, don't have the ..."

Now reads as:

07/09/05 "Bill, would you please give me your two cents on the new cyclones being sold? I want to buy one, don't have the...


I too would like some clarity to all this but I don't forsee that happening...

[Alan Schaffter]

Gee, does anyone remember Jim Halbert, the guy who arguably made the first big push for and publicized the hobbiest DC and cyclone movement and fortunately or unfortunately, also did a lot to create an atmosphere of distrust of the early DC manufacturers (justifiably?). That is until a lawsuit or threat of one (cease and desist?) by one or more of the manufacturers silenced him, (literally).

I have been using a cyclone based DC for many years. I started with the very inefficient Wood Mag cylcone that I made and which included a spiral inlet ramp before Bill had even found the helix formula for his first cyclone spread sheet, and progressed to more efficient units based on Bills design, so I have been following all the developments for quite awhile.

I know those of you who already have lung problems and others that are paranoid about getting them want assurrances that your cyclone and/or filter will protect you. Frankly you are missing a big point (which I think Bill has discussed somewhere), that is, no manufacturers' system removes all the offending dust- mainly because no system gets all the dust at the source. If you don't believe me, be careful, but cut some wood with a table saw or miter saw, or even better, use a belt or disk sander that has DC hook up, with the lights turned off and a spot light coming from an angle- I bet you'll see plenty of airborne dust!!!! And what about portable belt or random orbit sander dust- is your shopvac or even your Festool getting all of that dust- nope. So what if your cyclone/filter removes 100% of what it sucks up if you are not getting everything at the source? Discharging outside like Bill suggests is only slightly better. So it seems to me that everyone is getting all excited about testing standards, results, and marketing claims, when, for the good systems (insert manufacturers name) it doesn't really matter since they are not all that much different. So what if one system allows a thimble full of dust to pass through and another two thimbles full out of every bushel of dust and chips sucked up. If you want truly clean air to breathe in a woodworking shop the only answer is a really good contaminate mask, a hose supplied air mask, or scuba rig! And yes, side-by-side, end-to-end testing and comparison of DC systems is possible, but to what end?

Final comment about those still wanting anwers. Frankly after reading all the posts, I don't know what the questions are. How about someone coming up with a set of questions that Creekers can agree on (figure the odds), verifying they are technically correct, then submitting them to Mr Wittier, Rick Wynn, Ed Morgano, Pap Griz, Bill, medical community reps, et al. I don't mean to be facetious, but how do those of you who are havng so much problem with specs, ever decide which car to buy?

[Bill Boehme]

Alan, your post is one of the small number of rational posts that have been made on this thread from the perspective of the woodworking consumer who is trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. I want to say that I greatly appreciate your well stated thoughts on this matter.

I also agree wholeheartedly that a lot of us appear to have gotten wound up tighter than a four-dollar pocket watch over things that are beyond the capability of any DC that I know about, especially the fact that it is not possible to capture all of the dust at the source without some not-yet-conceived extraordinary and probably impractical means. I am sure that if I had a better DC that I could capture more of the dust generated in my shop, but it is obvious that the design of many WW machines, most especially a belt sander leave something to be desired when it comes to capturing the dust that it generates.

I don't think that we can ever expect a DC to be the end-all when it comes to collecting all of the dust being generated. It will still take a multi-pronged attack in dealing with dust. Although I do not have an air-filtration system, I think that it could be part of the solution. Additionally, some sort of mask or respirator would be very effective in keeping the remainder of the dust out of your lungs. I think it also will still be necessary to actually clean your shop out occasionally to get the dust that settles on all of the surfaces and will remain there until you actually vacuum it up.

Currently my shop is too small to hold a cyclone DC, but I have plans to expand it in the not too distant future and when I do, I am considering the Oneida Gorilla DC.

Bill

[Alan Schaffter]

Thanks Bill.

I have a few other comments.

Except in the case of many of the old bag type DCs which are still around and being sold and which put a lot of dust back in the air, most of the new generation of DCs w/cyclones and cartridge filters are a quantum leap in air improvement over the old days.

Cleaning the shop- every couple of weeks open the doors and windows, get a leaf blower and a BIG fan. Put on a GOOD mask and have at it- clean all the nooks and cranies with the leaf blower to get the dust airborne again and use the fan to exhaust everything outside.

I applaud Bill Pentz., Ed Morgano, Mr Wittier, Rick Wynn and others, who I believe have all really tried to do the right thing with their DC's over the last few years. Not necessarily these folks, but it hasn't always been that way and there still are exceptions. Whatever differences Bill and all parties concerned have, NO ONE can argue that Bill's efforts (and Jim Halbert before him), the open (yes, sometimes acrimonious) discussion, more keen WW hobby interest, AND the industry response, hasn't resulted in a better, safer product for us all.

There certainly is no lack of sensitivity to various statements and claims made by all parties, since competing products are referred to by name these days, and especially since sales can be affected (or perceived to be affected). The power of the INTERNET and forums like this help spread the word (any word, right or wrong) and at times fan the flames. Unfortunately, some folks are getting caught up in the marketing. We all would like our decisions to be easy- be able to compare oranges to oranges and apples to apples, price to price. Almost all other industries (auto, appliance, mattresses, politicians, you name it), have tried their best to make this impossible by using different testing standards, confusing model names/numbers, confusing pricing, different option packages, and yes, half truths (and some lies?). It is a waste of my time to get between the vendors- let them have their healthy competition (marketing wars?), and if a law is broken and a party injured because of intentionally false claims, let them resolve it amongst themselves. Me, except for these two uncharateristically long posts, I'm going back to my shop and build something. Any airborne dust in my shop not handled by my DC is of my own making, and probably not as bad for me as the smoke in some restaurants. Now, everybody get back to work and post pics of projects not rants about DC systems.

[Robert Witter]

The way to cut through the hype is to get facts from accredited 3rd party agencies. That is what i am trying to do. I don't care if it is ASHRAE or not.
If you sell a filter an make the claim, "99.995% efficient on 1 micron and above" you have to back this claim up with something. I have a test somewhere but can't be bothered to find it doesn't work for me as a consumer. Bottom line

[Mike Dauphinee]

The way to cut through the hype is to get facts from accredited 3rd party agencies. That is what i am trying to do. I don't care if it is ASHRAE or not.
If you sell a filter an make the claim, "99.995% efficient on 1 micron and above" you have to back this claim up with something. I have a test somewhere but can't be bothered to find it doesn't work for me as a consumer. Bottom line

Personally, I want to go one further....If you sell a DC system and make a claim, back it up with an independent test on your system, not just the filter. After all i am gonna use the whole thing, not a lab test on a filter. I am a little tire of techicalities, there used to be a day when folks were up front and honest about their meaning as percieved, not the technicalities they can hide behind.

Mike and kind of a "show me the money" person.

[Robert Witter]

Mike - Thanks for your question about an independent test. This is what you can expect if the system is setup correctly.

This was an independent before and after test done by the University of Washington on our 3Hp air system. As per Mary Ellen Flanagan, CIH (Research Industrial Hygienist) she stated "Your personal exposure was reduced by over five times - from 7.52 mg/m^3 to 1.36 mg/m^3 [milligrams per cubic meter]."

You can read the full text with the link below.

http://www.oneida-air.com/PDF/Univer...Washington.pdf

[Jim O'Dell]

Mr Witter, in the independant study you posted about (Randy Riley's shop) I have a couple of questions please. While I'm guessing you did not set up the parameters for the test, I'm hoping you can find out, if you don't know, some answers. I'm a little concerned that two different locations were used. The study states the size of the first shop, but only says the new shop is "approximately the same size" Is this the normal way to set up a test of this nature? I would think that at the minimum, the size of the second building should be stated, and most scientific studies would have been conducted on the exact same building, is this not true?
Along the same lines, the study says that the original shop was in a warehouse building, but doesn't state the type of building the new shop was in. Is it a newly constructed building, or just a new shop in a different building, same or different type of construction? If it is in a different type of construction, wouldn't this have affected the testing in some way?
I understand that the tests were conducted as a typical day in a custom shop. But again, wouldn't a scientific study have controlled the machines, the wood and the amount of time that each machine was used?
The study also stated that the new shop was using the Oneida 3hp system. Was the old shop using any type of dust collection system, and if so, what was it?

Thanks for your time and help in these matters. Jim.

[Robert Witter]

Jim,

The test was designed by the University or Washington School of Medicine, not Oneida. You are welcome to second guess them as to whether they know how to design a study. The air is collected from a device on the workers shirt collar. It represents the air the worker is breathing during the day. The first test had no dust collection. Our participation was only to find them a customer before and after the DC system was installed.

It puts legs on what you can expect with engineering controls and
without as far as air quality in a wood shop.

For example, it brings down to earth claims like, "a small shop can have
10, 000 times more than allowable dust level as per OSHA."
Unsupported nonsense like this has been circulating on the forums.

You can see from this test that a shop without dust collection was only
7mgM3 or a little over the OSHA threshold of 5 mg M3.
Controls brought it down close to 1mg M3. Far under the reg.

This gives you allot of solid information and helps WWs put dust control in perspective. It is not the only test or necessarily the best test out there.

Sincerely,
Robert Witter

[Jim O'Dell]

Thanks for your reply, Mr Witter. I agree that the information received has some value for basic information. It would have been a lot more meaningful if it had been in the same shop building. For example, the first shop is in a warehouse building. Could other industry in this same vacinity have contributed to the amount of dust in the air? I don't commonly think of a warehouse building as being very well sealed off from outside sources of polution. If so, then measuring in another shop, another location, a newer building construction that could keep out more of the outside dust, may not be indicative of how much ANY brand or type of dust control could have helped, or hurt, in reducing particulate matter in the air. Measuring before and after in the same shop, using the same machines, cutting the same material, would be a lot more indicative of how, again, any brand or type of dust control helped in the area of cleaning the air.
I do feel that a manufacturer quoting an independant test as proof of how something works, at least indirectly adds credence to it's findings, that may or may not be valid. I think we all, as consumers, would like to have available to us valid independant testing in a clinical setting, with specific controls. I don't think that will happen in either of our lifetimes, unless someone in the proper field of science picks up on this, applies for, and receives, a big government grant to do the study. Even that is a long shot.
Take the study that Bill Pentz is doing on hobby shops in California. Again this is not a clinical study with specific checks and balances, and it doesn't compare different brands of dust control machines or filters, and we don't know yet what type of testing equipment is being used, but it is testing the same shop before cutting wood, including outside air, and after making the same number of cuts on the same type of material. It is already looking like the type of filter material we commonly use as not doing the trick, and/or we have a lot more research and development to do on capturing the dust at the point of it's creation. We may need to take the filters we are using now, and use them as a prefilter and put these in a chamber, with true HEPA filters filtering their output before it goes back out into our shops. If we think good filters are costly now.....just wait!
Again, as I have indicated previously. Thank you for the dialogue. I'm appreciative that it has ben conducted on a professional level, and that hopefully the questions we raise will help spur future developments that will help all of us who love this hobby. Jim

[Ed Morgano]

Jim,

The test was designed by the University or Washington School of Medicine, not Oneida. You are welcome to second guess them as to whether they know how to design a study. The air is collected from a device on the workers shirt collar. It represents the air the worker is breathing during the day. The first test had no dust collection. Our participation was only to find them a customer before and after the DC system was installed.

It puts legs on what you can expect with engineering controls and
without as far as air quality in a wood shop.

For example, it brings down to earth claims like, "a small shop can have 10, 000 times more than allowable dust level as per OSHA."
Unsupported nonsense like this has been circulating on the forums.

You can see from this test that a shop without dust collection was only
7mgM3 or a little over the OSHA threshold of 5 mg M3.
Controls brought it down close to 1mg M3. Far under the reg.

This gives you allot of solid information and helps WWs put dust control in perspective. It is not the only test or necessarily the best test out there.

Sincerely,
Robert Witter

I just wanted to try to clarify one small point that seems to be escaping Mr. Witter. What I have read is that particle counts not dust levels have been 10,000 times higher than acceptable levels. I believe this is a small but important distinction.

[Phil Thien]

I just wanted to try to clarify one small point that seems to be escaping Mr. Witter. What I have read is that particle counts not dust levels have been 10,000 times higher than acceptable levels. I believe this is a small but important distinction.

Could you elaborate on this a little? First, I think medicine is primarily interested in total inhaled, non-respirable mass, not count. But, I don't understand how particle counts can be 10,000 times higher than acceptable levels while dust levels are still acceptable. I can't get my arms around the distinction you're making.

[Ed Morgano]

Could you elaborate on this a little? First, I think medicine is primarily interested in total inhaled, non-respirable mass, not count. But, I don't understand how particle counts can be 10,000 times higher than acceptable levels while dust levels are still acceptable. I can't get my arms around the distinction you're making.

Phil,
This was my post in the thread about Bill Pentz's shop tests:
Quoted from Robert Witter's previous post on that thread.
.......For Example:
In 9 tests they recorded zero % of the material was below 1.2 micron in size. On 4 tests the amount of dust below 1.2 micron was one tenth of 1 % of the total air borne material. By weight.
There are 8000 .5 micron particles in one10 micron particle (10/.5 = 20, 20^3 = 8000)…..By weight. So, if you had the equivalent of 12.5 10 micron particles, it would take 100,000 .5 micron particles to weigh the same amount. Maybe that is why Bill is getting such high particle counts?

Ed

[Pete Bradley]

Ed, I think your point is escaping a lot of us. I get the difference between volume and mass. Your small but important distinction is that "particle counts not dust levels have been 10,000 times higher than acceptable levels". Is there a separate standard for the number of particles that is different from the mass?


Pete