Workshop broom

[phaser]

Ok so here's an odd one for ya.
I'm tired of lathe and drill swarf getting stuck in the broom bristles when I try to sweep up.
What type of broom do you use ?
Is there a particular brand/model of broom that is good at pushing the bits without hanging on to them ?

[Stustoys]

Maybe not exactly what you are looking for. Steel swarf? get a magnetic broom. Other swarf I use a vacuum cleaner.

Stuart

[mark david]

I have a habit of machining and drilling 316 stainless and aluminium, not in the least magnetic.
Curly bits tend to clog the vacuum as well as sticking in hand-brushes and brooms.
Maybe we just have to live with inconvenience.


Maybe not exactly what you are looking for. Steel swarf? get a magnetic broom. Other swarf I use a vacuum cleaner.

Stuart

[Big Shed]

When you find something let me know, I also machine a lot of SS (mainly 304 and 303) and not only is it a pain to pick up/sweep, it is as sharp as! DAMHIKT!!

[KBs PensNmore]

Don't know if this helps, but I've seen a "broom" that instead of bristles, it uses a rubber flap to sweep up swarf mainly the larger stuff, then you could use a vacuum. Also seen a magnetic pick up for steel swarf.
Kryn

[BobL]

A natural bristle broom will be a bit less sticky than anything synthetic which seems to tangle with swarf more easily.

The same goes for dust pan brushes. I use a coconut fibre broom to sweep down my lathe and they seem to also be less sticky with lubricants.

They cost a bit more and are also getting harder to find but are usually worth it.

[phaser]

Don't know if this helps, but I've seen a "broom" that instead of bristles, it uses a rubber flap to sweep up swarf mainly the larger stuff, then you could use a vacuum. Also seen a magnetic pick up for steel swarf.
Kryn

Funny thing but that exact idea occurred to me shortly after I posted.
I was a bit dubious as to whether it would work so I figured I'll make something up tomorrow and try it.

[KBs PensNmore]

Let us know if it worked??
Kryn

[Steamwhisperer]

I use a wet and dry vac. Luckily it hasn't blocked up yet and doesn't look like it ever will.

Phil

[Michael G]

I also use a vacuum. I find the trick with that is to keep the small nozzle on it - once swarf is past the restriction at the front it is unlikely to jam further down the tube.

Michael

[Gavin Newman]

A cat

[Marc]

Magnetic "broom" and squeegee with a long handle for SS and a bit of patience.
The rest you can vacuum or use an ordinary brush to pick up.
The magnetic broom picks up also all the grind from the grinder.

[simonl]

TBH, I just use a "normal yard broom". I'm sure swarf does get caught up in it but I never bother to look too closely. I also use a vacuum after I have swept up all the larger stuff. On a side note, I notice my vacuum hose is getting quite heavy eventhough it's not loosing suction. I think it must also be full of oil :D Maybe I need to suck up a litre of thinners to clean it out? :B

Yes,, of course it's a wet and dry vac. I wouldn't be stipid enough to suck up a flammable liquid in a normal vac! :doh:

Simon

[BobL]

Yes,, of course it's a wet and dry vac. I wouldn't be stipid enough to suck up a flammable liquid in a normal vac! :doh:

A word of caution, even if its a wet and dry vac, the fumes will go through the filters and may enter the motor cooling loop and . . . . . well . . . . .you know the rest.

Instructions from a W&D VC
http://www.woodworkforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=339808&stc=1

Interesting what it says about toner dust. Tomer dust is ~8-10 microns in size. This means any dust smaller than this will pass straight through this particular VC. Thus a lot of the dust from welding/grinder wheel grit etc will pass straight through this VC and be pumped into the air reforging the workshop for a second time. To capture this dust a HEPA VC is needed and even these are not that reliable.

[Marc]

......I notice my vacuum hose is getting quite heavy even though it's not losing suction. I think it must also be full of oil :D Maybe I need to suck up a litre of thinners to clean it out? :B Yes,, of course it's a wet and dry vac. I wouldn't be stipid enough to suck up a flammable liquid in a normal vac! :doh:Simon

:oo: Needs no answer, hu hu

Sorry Simon, just rattling your chain, I wouldn't be using a vacuum cleaner, wet, dry or in between for anything that is not water.
In fact they suck even for water since they become a pita to clean out.

A wet and dry vacuum, produces vacuum (well what else) inside a bucket. Any water coming in is deflected by a little thingy at the end of the hose in the hope it will go down and inside the bucket and not inside the motor. Very primitive. The motor does get some water so much so that the filter needs to be fabric and you can not use the paper filters.
Furthermore even if by luck the liquid does not get straight in the motor, the fumes, if any, do and go straight through the motor to cool it and then out. I bet you your hose is full of metal shavings. They get stuck in the hose ridges yet do not block the air. Well eventually they will. Get yourself a magnetic broom from Bunnings. Best cleaning aid ever.

PS
The editing function also sucks ha ha

[KBs PensNmore]

TBH, I just use a "normal yard broom". I'm sure swarf does get caught up in it but I never bother to look too closely. I also use a vacuum after I have swept up all the larger stuff. On a side note, I notice my vacuum hose is getting quite heavy eventhough it's not loosing suction. I think it must also be full of oil :D Maybe I need to suck up a litre of thinners to clean it out? :B

Yes,, of course it's a wet and dry vac. I wouldn't be stipid enough to suck up a flammable liquid in a normal vac! :doh:

Simon

I've got several vacuum hoses you can have, if you are ever down this way, easier than trying to clean it.
Kryn

[simonl]

Hi guys,

I was in fact joking about sucking up flamm liquids. Only a right nutter would do that, in fact it's something you expect to read about in a Darwin award!

Kryn, thanks for the offer of a vacuum hose. I will keep that in mind.

CHeers,

Simon

[Belair_boy]

The motor does get some water so much so that the filter needs to be fabric and you can not use the paper filters.
Furthermore even if by luck the liquid does not get straight in the motor, the fumes, if any, do and go straight through the motor to cool it and then out.

I think you will find any wet and dry vacuum worth its money will have a bypass motor and not a flow through.
An ordinary household vacuum cleaner is usually flow through and all the air (and dust not caught in the filter) goes through the motor. Never suck water with one of these.
A bypass motor has its own fan for cooling and the air, dust and water doesn't go through the motor (only the vacuum fan if not caught in the drum or filter). The use of a foam filter instead of the paper one for sucking water is to save the filter not the motor.

I bought a wet and dry for my house build and have sucked 100's of litres of water with it. I am surprised how useful a tool it is.

[Oldneweng]

In regards to the rubber broom, I believe that hairdressers use a broom which has rubber fingers for sweeping up hair which apparently is also a problem.

One other option that came to mind is a lawn rake in either plastic or steel, followed by a vacumm for the smaller bits.

I bought a 50l wet/dry vacumm from Bunnies recently which has a larger than usual hose. It also has a 240v socket that you can plug a power tool into. There is a switch setting on the vac so that it turns on when you turn on the tool. Maybe this is common? Handy anyway.

Dean

[BobL]

I think you will find any wet and dry vacuum worth its money will have a bypass motor and not a flow through.
An ordinary household vacuum cleaner is usually flow through and all the air (and dust not caught in the filter) goes through the motor. Never suck water with one of these.
A bypass motor has its own fan for cooling and the air, dust and water doesn't go through the motor (only the vacuum fan if not caught in the drum or filter).

This may be the case but it won't prevent fumes or dust going indirectly through the motor loop.
What happens is the fumes and dust exit the vacuum cleaner (VC) and form a cloud or fog around the VC and are sucked straight back into by the motor cooling loop.
This is probably why every W&D VC manual I have read (even very expensive ones) will state that they are not to be used on flammable liquids.

I have tested dozens of vacuum cleaners and the reality is that they emit lots of fine dust and some even emit more fine dust particles than they suck up. Why am I bothering with dust in this post - because fine dust will behave a lot like fumes. They make more fine dust because the high air speeds cause the particles collide with each other and the innards of the VC which minces dust particles into finer ones. As their filters are useless at retaining fine dust it comes straight through the filters as will all the fumes. Then repeated passes through the motor loop further mince the fine dust into even finer dust. The motor in older a vacuum cleaners becomes a veritable dust trap and rapidly contaminates any clean space it is used in. Remember it only takes a 1/4 thimble full of fine dust to contaminate a 6 x 4 x 2.7 shed above recommended OHS levels.

To add to this, every VC I tested (even very expensive ones) more than a few months old, leaks fine dust from the pressurised section of the unit. This means fumes and dust escape before even getting to a filter. In general the older the VC was the more it leaked. This appeared to be due to poor maintenance and the fact that VCs are towed around inside workshops and bashing into various things. All this points to, where possible, locating the VC motor/impeller outside sheds.

Volatile liquids will behave the same way using so using any sort of W&D VC on these will further pump more vapour into the air.

There are industrial strength wet and dry vacs that can handle flammables but they cost thousands of dollars. They use explosion proof motors and are vented directly into fume extractor hoods. On the older fume hood setup setups we used at work the all plastic impeller and impeller housings were physically isolated from the motor by belt and pulley arrangements. Large volumes of air were added to the fumes to dilute the fumes.

[Belair_boy]

state that they are not to be used on flammable liquids.
I would not use (nor ever recommend) using any sort of vacuum cleaner with flammable liquids (or gasses for that matter).


they emit lots of fine dust
Dust will always get past any filter, better filter means less but finer dust. Dust can be explosive in sufficient quantities when airborne so the best idea is to vent the outlet from the vacuum cleaner outside.


leaks fine dust from the pressurised section of the unit. This means fumes and dust escape before even getting to a filter.
Not sure what you mean here, a vacuum cleaner creates a low pressure in the drum of the unit and any leak would be air going in. Only once past the filter and fan is there a higher than atmospheric pressure but this is the outlet direct to the outside of the unit anyway.

[KBs PensNmore]

JEEZ, put in a cheeky/silly comment and people take it to heart, CHILL.:D

[simonl]

JEEZ, put in a cheeky/silly comment and people take it to heart, CHILL.:D

:doh:

[BobL]

I would not use (nor ever recommend) using any sort of vacuum cleaner with flammable liquids (or gasses for that matter).
It would have been good if you'd said that in your original post otherwise some might interpret that it would be ok to do this with a non-straight through VC.



Dust will always get past any filter, better filter means less but finer dust.

In the case of a shed, what matters is the dust that affects us. Dust bigger than about 50 microns rapidly falls out of the atmosphere. Dust between about 30 and 0.3 microns is the one to concern ourselves with because it has a good chance of accumulating inside us. Dust smaller than this behaves like a gas and we breathe out most of what we breathe in. Even pristine atmosphere has very large amounts of sub 0.3 micron dust and fortunately our bodies have evolved to handle this very fine dust.

There are some very interesting air filters called "absolute filters" used for handling radioactive materials and making microchips that can take out at least 99.9997% of particles bigger than 0.3 microns.

There's a good reason they are called by this name because for all practical purposes they effectively filter air when used in a certain way. If we start of with dirty urban dust levels of around 10 million particles of dust per cubic ft, one pass through this filler will reduce the dust to 30 particles per cubic ft (3 times better than a hospital operating theatre)

Put that filter in series with another and the dust levels will drop to 0.000009 particles per cubic ft, or 11,000 cubit ft of air coming through that filter will contain 1 particle of dust of 0.3 microns or greater.

Put a 3rd filter in series with the other 2 and the 3.7 billion cubic ft of air will need to pass through the filter during which one particle of dust of 0.3 microns or greater will pass. If a flow rate of 1000 cfm is used thats 3.7 billion minutes (7 years) of flow time for just one particle of dust.

If you wanted to be really, really sure you could go for a 4th filter, or to get even more outrageous levels of filtering, recirculating the filtered air multiple times though the same filter. In one of our labs where we handles Antarctic ice cores we determined that it would take 100 million years to see just one dust particle :oo:

This is of course theoretical because in practice the, lab, lab fittings and equipment, the filter housing and filter itself will slowly over time generate some dust and any operators (even is space suits) working in the filtered air space will make some dust so the dust levels on the clean side of those filters never reach those levels, nevertheless the critical dust that needs to be filtered can be said to have been removed.

We have over 70 of these filters in the labs where I used to work, and provided no one enters the labs (people don't need to enter for work to be ongoing) we would see month after month readings of zero particles on our dust particle monitoring network. We often worried about whether the detectors were working but they were checked daily by sending an operator into the lab to just walk past them.

I have a similar filter in my shed that was rejected because it accidentally sucked up a lot of smoke from a small fire in one of the labs.
This one is only rated at 99.997% at >0.3 microns filter.

The dust levels in my back yard and in my shed are typically 250,000 particles (per cfm of air), containing dust of 0.3 microns or greater, so one pass through the filter gets the dust level under the filter down to 7.5 particles per cfm of dust of >0.3 microns. My dust particle counter takes one minute to pump 1 litre of air through it so theoretically I would need to count for an average of 4 minutes for the counter to see one particle. After many hours of counting it averaged about 1 particle per ~10 minutes indicating it is a 2.5 times better filter than it's factory rating. This is normal as they tend to clog up the longer they are used and probably the smoke helped to clog it up a bit more. This also means that the serial filters I referred to above will generally perform even better that the figures I refer to.


JEEZ, put in a cheeky/silly comment and people take it to heart, CHILL.:D
I've only gotten started :D

[simonl]

It would have been good if you'd said that in your original post otherwise some might interpret that it would be ok to do this with a non-straight through VC.




In the case of a shed, what matters is the dust that affects us. Dust bigger than about 50 microns rapidly falls out of the atmosphere. Dust between about 30 and 0.3 microns is the one to concern ourselves with because it has a good chance of accumulating inside us. Dust smaller than this behaves like a gas and we breathe out most of what we breathe in. Even pristine atmosphere has very large amounts of sub 0.3 micron dust and fortunately our bodies have evolved to handle this very fine dust.

There are some very interesting air filters called "absolute filters" used for handling radioactive materials and making microchips that can take out at least 99.9997% of particles bigger than 0.3 microns.

There's a good reason they are called by this name because for all practical purposes they effectively filter air when used in a certain way. If we start of with dirty urban dust levels of around 10 million particles of dust per cubic ft, one pass through this filler will reduce the dust to 30 particles per cubic ft (3 times better than a hospital operating theatre)

Put that filter in series with another and the dust levels will drop to 0.000009 particles per cubic ft, or 11,000 cubit ft of air coming through that filter will contain 1 particle of dust of 0.3 microns or greater.

Put a 3rd filter in series with the other 2 and the 3.7 billion cubic ft of air will need to pass through the filter during which one particle of dust of 0.3 microns or greater will pass. If a flow rate of 1000 cfm is used thats 3.7 billion minutes (7 years) of flow time for just one particle of dust.

If you wanted to be really, really sure you could go for a 4th filter, or to get even more outrageous levels of filtering, recirculating the filtered air multiple times though the same filter. In one of our labs where we handles Antarctic ice cores we determined that it would take 100 million years to see just one dust particle :oo:

This is of course theoretical because in practice the, lab, lab fittings and equipment, the filter housing and filter itself will slowly over time generate some dust and any operators (even is space suits) working in the filtered air space will make some dust so the dust levels on the clean side of those filters never reach those levels, nevertheless the critical dust that needs to be filtered can be said to have been removed.

We have over 70 of these filters in the labs where I used to work, and provided no one enters the labs (people don't need to enter for work to be ongoing) we would see month after month readings of zero particles on our dust particle monitoring network. We often worried about whether the detectors were working but they were checked daily by sending an operator into the lab to just walk past them.

I have a similar filter in my shed that was rejected because it accidentally sucked up a lot of smoke from a small fire in one of the labs.
This one is only rated at 99.997% at >0.3 microns filter.

The dust levels in my back yard and in my shed are typically 250,000 particles (per cfm of air), containing dust of 0.3 microns or greater, so one pass through the filter gets the dust level under the filter down to 7.5 particles per cfm of dust of >0.3 microns. My dust particle counter takes one minute to pump 1 litre of air through it so theoretically I would need to count for an average of 4 minutes for the counter to see one particle. After many hours of counting it averaged about 1 particle per ~10 minutes indicating it is a 2.5 times better filter than it's factory rating. This is normal as they tend to clog up the longer they are used and probably the smoke helped to clog it up a bit more. This also means that the serial filters I referred to above will generally perform even better that the figures I refer to.


I've only gotten started :D

Wewll that's taking the humble workshop broom to a new level!