Thread: Advice requested

BobL is your expert on this John, he's advice is invaluable. PM him or I dare say he'll respond soon enough

If you have 3 phase and are going to spend that much I'd definitely get a Clearvue Cyclone.

And definitely open up the ports to 150 mm on machines where you can.
Remember 3 x 4" ports are needed to match the flow of 1 x 6" at >4000 fpm.

Bob,

I don't have 3 Phase and my sparky guesstimated the cost of providing it at $2,000+ ... ouch.

Just spoke to Chris from ClearVue. I had thought that the cost of providing 3 phase was a game stopper. But Chris has a solution for a bit over $300, and I think I will go with that. I wanted a ClearVue 1800, and it looks like I will get one.

The plan is to build a cupboard against an outside wall and vent the cyclone through a high window.

It is an expensive solution, but it appears to be very effective. I have been wallowing in dust and chips and now I am spending more time in the shop a proper fix was needed.

Thanks for all your advice. I certainly will be following up on all of it, including enlarging machine ports where possible.

Originally Posted by John Samuel

I don't have 3 Phase and my sparky guesstimated the cost of providing it at $2,000+ ... ouch.

OK

So far, I have been wallowing in dust and chips.

If that is the case then I would be more worried about what you cannot see as you will be constantly exposed to levels of invisible dust well above OSH recommended values that are going to be causing you long term problems.

When two weeks ago I decided to install a decent system I started with a budget of about $1,000, but now see that is an impossible dream for anything that will work reasonably well.

My system cost me about $1600 but I already had a heap of 4" flexing, I bought 6m of 6" flexy plus 6m of 6" steel ducting for $50 from a forum member and I made all my own blast gates (they really are very easy to make. I also already had most of the materials for my externally located sound reducing enclosure. I would strongly recommend enclosing the DC and vent t it outside or put it outside for the sound reducing aspect alone.

The Clearvue looks to be ideal, and for a while I was wondering about the wisdom (and the cost) of buying one without the motor and fitting a DC motor and a rectifier (or a phase changer and a 3 phase motor). But the cost was prohibitive. If you know of a solution that is not so expensive I would be grateful to hear it.

The Clearvue site now says it uses a 20.3A (230V - 3kW) motor so a single phase with VSD might work. You will need a bit more than a 10A line to your shed though - contact Chris Parks.

Another good thing about the Clearvue is a relatively small footprint.

Yep - big advantage

The 3HP DC's all seem to have a large footprint, and I would need to fit them with pleated filters or vent them outside.That is why I am looking at the CarbaTech cyclone. I can keep it close to my dustiest machines (shorter lines with fewer fittings), its footprint is smaller than the 3 HP DC's and it has pleated filters.

When you use 6" ducting the length of line and a few more fittings is not a problem for most sheds.

However, this is an expensive option, and I am still considering a 3 HP DC. Thoughts?

See ideas above

For instance, so far I have been unable to find 150 mm blast gates. Must I make my own?

COntact Chris Parks (Aust Clearvue Rep)

BTW the DC, it's location, and the ducting are only one half of the equation. The air flow in and around conventional machine port sizes are generally too small and very poorly designed and will need your attention.

You are a gold mine of information, and your advice is much appreciated.

I will be addressing all the points you made.

Thanks,

Originally Posted by John Samuel

You are a gold mine of information, and your advice is much appreciated.

I will be addressing all the points you made.

Thanks,

Happy to help.

In case you haven't seem it my system is partially described here.

My enclosure is described here starting at post #127.

The more I learn about dust control, the more I realise just how ignorant I am.

Nevertheless, this problem will get solved. I can only hope that with all the good advice I am getting here I can get most of it (at least the fundamentals) pretty right the first time.

I am pretty sure the Clearvue 1800 with a VSD (in a vented cupboard) will be the chosen option. That, it seems is the easy (if not expensive) part. I told Fighter Command that the cost was necessary for her health as well as mine, so at least the budget is approved. The real challenge will be getting the machine ports in the right place and at the right size.

My two worst dust producers are the TS and the Big Boy vertical/horizontal sander. I was feeling pretty good about the new ports made for the sander, until you (and Bill Pentz) indicated that 100 mm ports are likely not adequate. The same applies to the hopper and port made for the TS. A 150mm line will run from the cyclone to the machine. If we put in a wye and run two 150 mm flex hoses from the wye to the machine, are we not effectively pulling half the air from the main line through each branch at reduced velocity? I had thought that there would be some losses due to using two short 100 mm flex hoses, but that, in part, increased velocity would help here. just so I understand, can you indicate where my thinking is amiss?

Cheerio!

Originally Posted by John Samuel

The more I learn about dust control, the more I realise just how ignorant I am.

I don't like to use this phrase but ". . . . join the queue!"

I am pretty sure the Clearvue 1800 with a VSD (in a vented cupboard) will be the chosen option.

Unlike a DC with large area bags, the Clearvue the outlet is small so it could be vented out through a shed wall and an alternative to a full size cupboard to suppress noise could be a motor cover.

That, it seems is the easy (if not expensive) part. I told Fighter Command that the cost was necessary for her health as well as mine, so at least the budget is approved. The real challenge will be getting the machine ports in the right place and at the right size.

Yep - once a big enough DC is collected

My two worst dust producers are the TS and the Big Boy vertical/horizontal sander. I was feeling pretty good about the new ports made for the sander, until you (and Bill Pentz) indicated that 100 mm ports are likely not adequate.

There is nothing wrong with 100 mm ports but you will need at least 3 to equate to the air flow of a 150 mm port.
Since "port placement" is just as important as "Fllow", 3 strategically placed 100 mm ports may work better on some machines than a single 150 mm port

The same applies to the hopper and port made for the TS. A 150mm line will run from the cyclone to the machine.
If we put in a wye and run two 150 mm flex hoses from the wye to the machine, are we not effectively pulling half the air from the main line through each branch at reduced velocity?

True, but as I explain above, 2 x 150 mms are not optimal for a TS. The highest flows are not needed for a TS cabinet, and high speed rather than flow is needed for the guard. This is why TS are often set up with 6" cabinet port and a 4" or even 3" duct for the guard.

I had thought that there would be some losses due to using two short 100 mm flex hoses, but that, in part, increased velocity would help here. just so I understand, can you indicate where my thinking is amiss?

High air speed grabs up bigger (visible dust) whereas high volume/flow creates large volumes of low pressure near the source which restrains and capture escaping invisible dust. Unless you are producing large amounts of visible dust, health wise the priority should be on invisible or flow.

I would also recommend using fixed ducting and fittings over flexy until it becomes impossible to use the fixed ducting.
Large Sanders are particularly difficult to deal with - I don't have one in my shed but have a 2 x 3 m flat bed belt sander at work that .
I have been playing around with an idea of using a secondary fume hood extraction above the sander bed.
As sanding is a highly frictional process the small dust particles and air surrounding them will be heated and I think will rise as a warm plume above the sander - another experiment I need to do!!

I had not thought of a motor cover ... thanks ... that is worth investigating.

I have read so much about dust control recently am experiencing difficulty remembering it all. I now recall the issue about low velocity - large volume being superior for the small particles. Thanks for the slap to the side of the head. I needed it.

Got it about port placement, especially for the sander. This machine is very handy, but in its standard trim the dust collection is a cruel joke. Made up some new ports and they are a big improvement, but they are prototypes and will be improved in their next incarnation. I am using two ports. Current thinking is to make the port at the end of the belt 150mm with an improved shroud and the port at the front of the belt (for when curved pieces are being sanded on the wheel) 100 mm with a large, curved shroud.

As for the table saw I was planning a 100mm port for the blade guard/shroud (which I must buy or make because the guard that came with the machine is hopeless ... any recommendations?) and the cabinet hopper can easily be upgraded to a 150mm port. Current plan for the drum sander is to modify it from one 100 mm port to three because it would be more difficult to fit a 150 mm port and three smaller ports spaced along the drum sounds like a better way of drawing in air from the entire width of the drum. Does this sound right to you?

A few other machines will be more difficult, in particular the planer/thicknesser and drop saw, but a way to upgrade their ports/shrouds will be found.

I made a zero clearance fence for the drop saw and was feeling very pleased with myself until I tested it and realised I had made dust collection worse, but I have a few ideas about how to conquer that issue.

I understand your comment about minimising flexy hose, but many of my machines are on wheels parked against a wall, and they get wheeled out for use. It seems I am likely stuck with some flexy, but will certainly use PVC pipe as much as is possible. For the mobile machines I am thinking of running PVC down from overhead and attaching flexy to that ... but the options are not yet fully investigated.

Again, thanks a lot for your advice. It is invaluable.

Cheerio!

Originally Posted by John Samuel

Got it about port placement, especially for the sander. This machine is very handy, but in its standard trim the dust collection is a cruel joke. Made up some new ports and they are a big improvement, but they are prototypes and will be improved in their next incarnation. I am using two ports. Current thinking is to make the port at the end of the belt 150mm with an improved shroud and the port at the front of the belt (for when curved pieces are being sanded on the wheel) 100 mm with a large, curved shroud.

It would be good to see some pics of the prototypes.

As for the table saw I was planning a 100mm port for the blade guard/shroud (which I must buy or make because the guard that came with the machine is hopeless ... any recommendations?)

The Shark Guard is supposed to be the best but that also uses a very small duct. My Guard is based on a Dust Picker arm - its still far from idea but it's better than what I had.

and the cabinet hopper can easily be upgraded to a 150mm port. Current plan for the drum sander is to modify it from one 100 mm port to three because it would be more difficult to fit a 150 mm port and three smaller ports spaced along the drum sounds like a better way of drawing in air from the entire width of the drum. Does this sound right to you?

Sounds better. Drawing air from multiple ports on the same case can lead to ports fighting each other for the same air and create a dead or low flow zones so when you do that make sure there is plenty of access for air to enter the evacuated space. Sometimes cross flow instead of direct flow can produce a much better outcome.high volume

A few other machines will be more difficult, in particular the planer/thicknesser and drop saw, but a way to upgrade their ports/shrouds will be found.

I'm going to do some major surgery on my planer thicknesser to take a 150 mm duct. Drop saws are very difficult to deal with - the most effective dust controlI have seen for these is to place the whole partially inside a shroud/cabinet.

I made a zero clearance fence for the drop saw and was feeling very pleased with myself until I tested it and realised I had made dust collection worse, but I have a few ideas about how to conquer that issue.

Yep - been there done that.

I understand your comment about minimising flexy hose, but many of my machines are on wheels parked against a wall, and they get wheeled out for use. It seems I am likely stuck with some flexy, but will certainly use PVC pipe as much as is possible. For the mobile machines I am thinking of running PVC down from overhead and attaching flexy to that ... but the options are not yet fully investigated.

Yeah DC and mobile machines are not good combinations that's why I reluctantly ended up accepting fixed machine positions for everything except one machine in my shed.

OK ... here are some pics.

The first shows a small shroud with a brush type door seal glued to the edge. (You can see where I cut the original shroud with an angle grinder.) This allows me to sand long pieces (longer than the sander) without hitting the shroud. That little brush makes a world of difference to effectiveness. You can see the piece of timber against the belt just pushes the brush out of the way. Pretty basic and far from perfect, but even this works far better than the original.

The second pic is an outer shroud that fits over the first. It works quite well, but I do need to extend it a bit further from the belt (next incarnation). I was drawing a lot of air from the back of the belt, and so three more door seal type brushes were fitted. Two are between the outer guard behind the machine and the front of the sanding belt. Another is fitted between the body of the machine and the back of the belt. Its a long way from perfect, but it is orders of magnitude better than the original mess. I knocked these shrouds up from 3mm MDF, because I knew they were only cheap prototypes, but the MDF seems to work fine.

The third pic is of the shroud I use to pick up dust when sanding curved pieces on the front wheel. The curve was made by gluing two pieces of 3mm MDF together. Once again it is a huge improvement. Both ports are 100mm.

As was mentioned before, the plan is for a bigger shroud at the end of the belt and a 150mm port.

Thanks for posting the pics.

Rather than trying to suck the dust from a restricted end I would consider something like this cross-flow shroud.
The LHS is an open port and the air running past the belt at high speed should suck the dust in from the back and all around the edges of the belt.

That is a good suggestion, Bob.

I would hate to give up the capability of sanding round shapes on the wheel, but I do far less of this now I have started to make sleds to shape such items (like legs) on the spindle moulder, a much less dusty machine. A primary driver for creating the sleds was the idea that it was better not to produce the dust in the first place ... to find other ways to do the job.

Even then, it should be possible to make the LH end of your shroud removable when sanding on the wheel, and a second shroud and port attached (similar to pic 3).

The idea is now in my shed notebook. A more pressing issue is dust coming from the top of my TS. I don't have a radial arm saw and use crosscut sleds a lot. That, and the thin kerf blade I am using makes anything mounted on a riving knife problematic. The thinnest riving knife I have found is wider than my kerf, but the search is not over. Nevertheless, at this stage it appears likely that a guard/shroud supported from overhead is a more likely option.

Thanks,

Originally Posted by John Samuel

That is a good suggestion, Bob.

I would hate to give up the capability of sanding round shapes on the wheel, but I do far less of this now I have started to make sleds to shape such items (like legs) on the spindle moulder, a much less dusty machine. A primary driver for creating the sleds was the idea that it was better not to produce the dust in the first place ... to find other ways to do the job.

Even then, it should be possible to make the LH end of your shroud removable when sanding on the wheel, and a second shroud and port attached (similar to pic 3).

Or just put the ends on hinges that you can fold back

The idea is now in my shed notebook. A more pressing issue is dust coming from the top of my TS. I don't have a radial arm saw and use crosscut sleds a lot. That, and the thin kerf blade I am using makes anything mounted on a riving knife problematic. The thinnest riving knife I have found is wider than my kerf, but the search is not over. Nevertheless, at this stage it appears likely that a guard/shroud supported from overhead is a more likely option.

That's what I did.