Thread: Cyclone Central

I'd be a bit concerned about buying anything from anyone promoting the use of a 4" ducting on a device that vents inside their workspace. Clearly they are not meeting BPs minimum spec.

But they do produce it in 150mm and 125mm variants, does that meet BP's specifications?

I have neither the capacity to vent outside or purchase a $2.5k cyclone. So I am looking for something that will improve the situation I have.

Originally Posted by nummins

But they do produce it in 150mm and 125mm variants, does that meet BP's specifications?

I have neither the capacity to vent outside or purchase a $2.5k cyclone. So I am looking for something that will improve the situation I have.

150 mm ducting is a minimum to get BPs specs - BUT if you want a 150 mm cyclone to work properly you will have to power it with a bit more than a 2HP DE - you will need at least a 4 preferably 5HP blower.

If you can't vent outside then you will also need a quality HEPA filtration after the cyclone. If they don't sell a HEPA stack ask Chris Parks (aka Mini).

There are no short cuts here. If you use a cyclone with 4" ducting to your 2HP DC you will just not get the BP spec airflow.

While I appreciate the research that Pentz has done in this regard, I think the requirements to reach the specifications are out of the reach of most hobby woodworkers. Therefore, does that mean that any attempt to improve dust extraction that does not meet Pentz's specifications is a futile effort and one should not waste their time and money in an effort to improve things? I realise that one cannot be half preganant, but surely there are some measures that can be taken to improve dust extraction short of spending thousands of dollars. I would have thought that something such as what is being offered by Cyclone Central would improve things in my shed somewhat, especially given the time I spend in there.

Cheers,
Nick

Originally Posted by nummins

While I appreciate the research that Pentz has done in this regard, I think the requirements to reach the specifications are out of the reach of most hobby woodworkers. Therefore, does that mean that any attempt to improve dust extraction that does not meet Pentz's specifications is a futile effort and one should not waste their time and money in an effort to improve things?

Definitely not. But many things being used are a waste of time/money from a health perspective. The most cost effective tack for hobby woodworkers is to vent outside the shed. What's the problem with venting outside. The DC can still be inside as long as it vents outside.

Using any form of DC/cyclone/filter combo to filter out all but the finest particles which are then pumped out into the shed is a waste and money in terms of health. In that situation one might as well just wear a mask full time.

Combining a cyclone with a HEPA quality filter is not a waste of time BUT the lower the flow rate the longer the DCs have to be run after the last dust making activity. It depends on the flow rate generated by your DC and size of your shed but the best a 1 HP DC can do is to run continually after the last dust making activity until you leave the shed for the day. A 2HP should be run for 40 - 60 minutes after dust making activity. But of course it is a waste of time if HEPA quality filters are not being used.

"given the time I spend in there.

If you don't spend more than a couple of hours each week on woodwork I would just wear a mask.

Nick I think the easiest way to answer your question is to probably devise a formula to calculate the required investment.

For example:
$0 available dollars to spend = do nothing there are no free lunches! You have nothing, you get nothing...

$1,000,000 dollars to spend = daisy chain 100 of the most expensive dust collectors you can buy...

Now what about the guys like you and me who are not related to a rich uncle that is about to croak it?

I would suggest a formula that goes something like this.

The amount of time you spend sucking up dust in minutes (per duration) X the amount you are prepared to risk your health as a percentage X the confinement of the area you are working in as a rating factor X amount of room you have to store said solution as an area X the noise limitation imposed by laws and neighbours X your greenie factor.

Now my math isn't that great so you might need to get one of your kids to help, but really while I agree with perfect filtration in theory, back in the real world we need a more sensible way to calculate what we should be buying.

As for the Cyclone in the YouTube video, with postage that would come to ~100+ pounds? I think you could build better for cheaper if you have the resources.

If I wasn't in so much of a hurry to finish off other jobs, I reckon I could design something better than that.

'Using any form of DC/cyclone/filter combo to filter out all but the finest particles which are then pumped into the shed is a waste of time and money in terms of health.'
What evidence is there that a hobby woodworker's health WILL be damaged by these 'finest particles'? Are hobby woodworkers so damaged presenting in any numbers for medical treatment? If not, is the danger a potential one which statistically is not likely to be experienced by a specific individual? If this last is the case, then many hobby woodworkers may well be more interested in the collection of VISIBLE sawdust and shavings, and its successful storage in separator bins, because that will make their work area cleaner, safer and more pleasant to work in. That seemed to be the intention of the original poster, and it is a perfectly reasonable aim.
There have been many similar posts about means of collecting sawdust and shavings in order to keep the work area clean, and they are often high-jacked by the 'invisible dusters' who seem to denigrate the efforts the posters are making. Those efforts are certainly generally not state-of-the-art because many posters do not have the funds, nor the circumstances to provide same. But if all the system does is provide a tidier workshop, then the effort is worth making.

The thing to be cognitive of here, is that a cheap solution is not a perfect solution but it is better than nothing (in most cases), but at the same time you can become complacent if you have half of a solution in place.

Much like wearing a crash helmet but failing to wear your leather jacket with a back protector in (I do that quite often). I think Bob is well intentioned but might creating a situation whereby people are saying well I'm going to die anyway why should I bother with the helmet?

There has to be a line there somewhere between paranoid and blasé that fits the common man.

Originally Posted by HeadScratcher

There has to be a line there somewhere between paranoid and blasé that fits the common man.

The main thing is there should not be any recycling of the dust no matter what size it is. Therefore all attempts should made to exhaust the DC to the outside of the work place.

Originally Posted by adeben

'Using any form of DC/cyclone/filter combo to filter out all but the finest particles which are then pumped into the shed is a waste of time and money in terms of health.'
What evidence is there that a hobby woodworker's health WILL be damaged by these 'finest particles'? Are hobby woodworkers so damaged presenting in any numbers for medical treatment? If not, is the danger a potential one which statistically is not likely to be experienced by a specific individual? If this last is the case, then many hobby woodworkers may well be more interested in the collection of VISIBLE sawdust and shavings, and its successful storage in separator bins, because that will make their work area cleaner, safer and more pleasant to work in. That seemed to be the intention of the original poster, and it is a perfectly reasonable aim.

In 2002 the US federal govt through its world famous National Institute for Health (NIH) release it's latest list of KNOWN human carcinogens. The list for the first time contained .

1 Steroidal estrogens.
2 Broad Spectrum Ultraviolet Radiation (UVR).
3 Wood dust. Listed as a "known human carcinogen" in this report, wood dust is created when machines and tools cut, shape and finish wood. Wood dust is particularly prevalent in sawmills, furniture manufacture and cabinet making. According to the report, unprotected workers have a higher risk of cancers of the nasal cavities and sinuses.

4 Nickel compounds.

The NIH is a highly reputable and conservative organisation and would not make this claim unless there was some sort of significant problem.

The 2011 the NIH released the 12th report on carcinogens.
Details here.
The full PDF can be downloaded and wood dust is described in detail in a couple of appropriately referenced pages.
Here is the hard word.

Carcinogenicity
Wood dust is known to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans.
Cancer Studies in Humans
Many case reports and epidemiological studies (including cohort studies and case-control studies that specifically addressed nasal cancer) have found a strong association between exposure to wood dust and cancer of the nasal cavity. Strong and consistent associa- tions with cancer of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses were observed both in studies of people whose occupations were associated with wood-dust exposure and in studies that directly estimated wood dust exposure. Cancer risks were highest for adenocarcinoma, particularly among European populations. Studies of U.S. populations showed similar significant positive associations between wood-dust exposure and adenocarcinoma of the nasal cavity. A pooled analysis of 12 case-control studies found a very high estimated relative risk of adenocarcinoma (45.5) among men with the greatest exposure, and the risk increased with increasing duration of exposure (Demers et al. 1995). The association between wood-dust exposure and elevated risk of nasal cancer (adenocarcinoma) in a large number of independent studies and in many different occupations in many countries strongly supports the conclusion that the increased risk is due to wood-dust exposure, rather than to simultaneous exposure to other substances, such as formaldehyde or wood preservatives (IARC 1995, NTP 2000)

The exposure issue is clearly stated, if you only do a few hours a week the risk is low, if you are in the shed several days a week covered in wood dust then you should be doing something about it.
The carcinogenicity is as well established as smoking and we should move on to alleviating the problem rather than keeping our shed tidy.

Originally Posted by BobL

In 2002 the US federal govt through its world famous National Institute for Health (NIH) release it's latest list of KNOWN human carcinogens. The list for the first time contained .

1 Steroidal estrogens.
2 Broad Spectrum Ultraviolet Radiation (UVR).
3 Wood dust.
4 Nickel compounds.

It is interesting to note the 4th item in your list, as I posted elsewhere on this forum about my work experience - was the Nickel industry!

Well the report actually states the following:

A listing in the Report on Carcinogens does not by itself establish that a substance will cause cancer in an individual. Many factors, including the amount and duration of an exposure, and an individual’s susceptibility to a substance, impact whether a person will develop cancer or not.

We are exposed to all sorts of carcinogens, it is nature of the exposure which we must assess. The same report also notes that wood dust is present in composted leaves. Will I stop raking leaves? Hardly.

Originally Posted by nummins

Well the report actually states the following:

A listing in the Report on Carcinogens does not by itself establish that a substance will cause cancer in an individual. Many factors, including the amount and duration of an exposure, and an individual’s susceptibility to a substance, impact whether a person will develop cancer or not.

This has always been the case with cancer and is known as the smokers defence. Are you perhaps a smoker?

We are exposed to all sorts of carcinogens, it is nature of the exposure which we must assess. The same report also notes that wood dust is present in composted leaves. Will I stop raking leaves? Hardly.

Sure but how long do you rake leaves for? I don't know anyone who is not a mowing contractor who will rake leaves for more than 1 hour a week but I do know amateur woodturners who will turn and sand in a fog of wood for 40 hours a week.