Thread: major woodworking cyclone dusty

I had a good look at them around 6 months ago (even 2 visits to their showroom). There were some nice things about them and they can be basically rolled in. However, I decided that their cyclone design was outdated so am installing a 'more modern' cyclone.
cheers
Mick

As Mic says the design is an older one
The inlets are too small.
Claimed flow rate will be for a naked impeller, by the time you add ducting and connect to real machinery you can expect to half the claimed flow.
The motor is is too small.

I'd be looking at a Clearvue

Mick and BobL are pretty much on the money.

Motor is too small ... older less effective design ... small inlets ... impeller not really big enough.

The Clearvue is a bit more expensive, but it is likely the best small workshop dust extraction system on the market. I run a CV 1800 with 6" ductwork and get between 850 and 950 CFM (real, measured through machines and ductwork), depending on the machine. If I had my time again, I would get the CV Max. If you are interested in following up to get more detail let us know. There are more than a few forum members now running Clear Vue machines who can advise you.

Cheerio!

John

Cheers fellas - I'll keep saving

Baden

Originally Posted by brc3216

Cheers fellas - I'll keep saving

Baden

I have bought one of those cyclones and it is brilliant. You will always find someone to knock anything that is not DIY but these things are very efficient and well engineered. It easily takes care of my Hammer A330 going flat out. They are very easy and convenient to use - emptying and replacing the bin is a breeze. Auto start, Auto clean and remote control make it an absolute pleasure to use.

I should add that I looked at Clearvue but was unconvinced by their claims. I also thought the product was poor value by comparison. In a recent test in Wood Magazine Clearvue got slammed when the testers measured 20 times more dust than a similar Oneida Cyclone tested previously. It also was worse than 5 of the single stage dust collectors tested.

Originally Posted by TP1

I have bought one of those cyclones and it is brilliant. .

How would you really know how well it performs?
Just because it clears chips means very little in terms of invisible dust control.
Unless independently measured air flow and dust particle analyses are available then it's no better (and possibly worse) than anything else out there.

Irrespective of what Clearvue claims the Major still has serious physical limitations that any serious DC manufacturer has addressed at least a decade ago.
It's an older cyclone design that physically cannot separate dust as efficiently as the more recent designs.
The inlets are too small - if it is used as supplied with with 100 mm ducting it is physically impossible to capture fine dust at source
Claimed flow rate will be for a naked impeller, all the DC manufacturers do this. By the time ducting is added and it is connected to real machinery it will be half the claimed flow which is well below that needed to capture fine dust at source
The motor is just too small.

BTW I have stopped reading wood working magazine articles on dust.
These article have so many misconceptions and errors which indicates that the authors of these articles simply don't understand what is going on.
Until I see articles that at minimum pushing
- location or venting of DCs outside
- use of 150 mm ducting is the minimum ducting diameter needed for effective dust control
- being prepared to take the angle grinder to machines to help them breathe
then I cannot take them seriously.
The later point is especially is not going to happen because the magazines don't want to offend machinery manufacturers which supply them with the their machines to test.

Originally Posted by BobL

How would you really know how well it performs?
Just because it clears chips means very little in terms of invisible dust control.
Unless independently measured air flow and dust particle analyses are available then it's no better (and possibly worse) than anything else out there.

Irrespective of what Clearvue claims the Major still has serious physical limitations that any serious DC manufacturer has addressed at least a decade ago.
It's an older cyclone design that physically cannot separate dust as efficiently as the more recent designs.
The inlets are too small - if it is used as supplied with with 100 mm ducting it is physically impossible to capture fine dust at source
Claimed flow rate will be for a naked impeller, all the DC manufacturers do this. By the time ducting is added and it is connected to real machinery it will be half the claimed flow which is well below that needed to capture fine dust at source
The motor is just too small.

BTW I have stopped reading wood working magazine articles on dust.
These article have so many misconceptions and errors which indicates that the authors of these articles simply don't understand what is going on.
Until I see articles that at minimum pushing
- location or venting of DCs outside
- use of 150 mm ducting is the minimum ducting diameter needed for effective dust control
- being prepared to take the angle grinder to machines to help them breathe
then I cannot take them seriously.
The later point is especially is not going to happen because the magazines don't want to offend machinery manufacturers which supply them with the their machines to test.

You are wrong! - the MW has a 150MM inlet! There is a detachable 150MM to 2 x 100MM splitter which I removed. Clearvue also advertise so the point about magazines not offending anyone who advertises is not valid either. I would much rather take the results of independent testing that has actually done direct comparisons rather than someone glancing at an advertisement and guessing the rest.

Clearvue is overpriced IMO. They use the most inferior materials on any cyclone on the market yet charge so much.

Edit: Actually, The 150MM to 2 x100MM splitter is "attachable" in that it comes unattached and you have to fit it to the standard 150MM inlet if you want to split the intake into 2 X100.

Originally Posted by TP1

You are wrong! - the MW has a 150MM inlet! .

Fair enough, but the rest still applies especially the part about the old design and the small motor.
While it better to have 150 mm than not, the 1.5HP motor is not powerful enough to take full advantage of this ducting size.
Being an old design the cyclonic component will be generating a significant back pressure and with only a 1.5 HP motor to overcome this there is little chance of reaching the pressure necessary to pull 1000 cfm.
It's not even close to rocket science that a 3HP is the minimum needed to pull 1000 cfm using conventional DC technology.
Unless the MW has something inside it that we do not know about then it cannot deliver this flow rate.

Originally Posted by BobL

Fair enough, but the rest still applies especially the part about the old design and the small motor.
While it better to have 150 mm than not, the 1.5HP motor is not powerful enough to take full advantage of this ducting size.
Being an old design the cyclonic component will be generating a significant back pressure and with only a 1.5 HP motor to overcome this there is little chance of reaching the pressure necessary to pull 1000 cfm.
It's not even close to rocket science that a 3HP is the minimum needed to pull 1000 cfm using conventional DC technology.
Unless the MW has something inside it that we do not know about then it cannot deliver this flow rate.

This particular 1.5 HP motor pulls a lot more through the cyclone than my previous "conventional" 2 HP dust extractor which was rated higher than 1200 CFM.

Being an armchair critic without first hand experience is not helpful to those genuinely wanting to learn about the product. I don't necessarily believe all specs either, including Clearvue which has been proven to be BS compared to "older" designs.

I use a single 5" hose from the cyclone to the machines and the suction is more than enough for the table saw and the Hammer 12" planer/thicknesser operating in full flight. There is a metal 6" to 5" reducer at the Cyclone and reducers to 120MM at the Hammer and 100MM f at the table saw. If brc3216 wanted to set up a fixed network of suction pipes with multiple outlets than I would indeed suggest a bigger motor due to the extra drag and possible leaks that could be introduced.

There only ways I know of determining the effectiveness of a dusty have little to do with anything other than airflow (volume and velocity) and the size/effectiveness of the negative pressure bubble (or the effectiveness of airflow through the machine). This requires measurement and data that are meaningful. The fine dust that harms health cannot be seen, so observation is a poor guide. We need data.

As has been mentioned by several of the posters, the data provided by the manufacturers have largely proven to be meaningless. I often wonder if the quoted readings are taken with a naked impeller and the motor spinning at 60 Hz.

Even the motor and impeller size, whilst a guide, do not provide adequate data. If we add static pressure developed, we get better, but far from definitive data because some impellers are superior at overcoming resistance (duct and machines) and maintaining higher flows for a given static pressure. That's why the fan curve is important.

Because air is almost incompressible at the pressures/velocities we use, duct size is often an absolute limiting factor. To get 800-1,000 CFM through a duct and a machine with anything less than a 6" pipe is highly unlikely, regardless of motor and impeller size.

My data say that a 3 kW (4 HP) motor spinning at 60 Hz and driving a 15" impeller on a modern cyclone with 6" PVC ductwork draws about 900 CFM (plus or minus 50 CFM, depending on the machine). The research indicates we need 800 CFM, and good hoods/shrouds, to effectively capture the very fine dust.

Cheerio!

John

Originally Posted by TP1

I use a single 5" hose from the cyclone to the machines and the suction is more than enough for the table saw and the Hammer 12" planer/thicknesser operating in full flight. There is a metal 6" to 5" reducer at the Cyclone and reducers to 120MM at the Hammer and 100MM f at the table saw. If brc3216 wanted to set up a fixed network of suction pipes with multiple outlets than I would indeed suggest a bigger motor due to the extra drag and possible leaks that could be introduced.

I have been using my Hammer Slider a lot since I got it and have never really looked at the inlet port until a week ago. The bloody Europeans put a 120mm port on the cabinet and then it is choked down to 100mm. That is simply dressing up a machine to look like something it is not. I have never investigated the European standard for this but I have a feeling that the standard will say a 120mm port and nothing about what feeds it. So simply put I am wasting my time putting a 120mm hose onto the machine and to change it internally would require a full strip down and big mods.

And dont forget, most machines dont have enough air inlets to allow for suction.


Goes and sits down after can of worms spilled . . .

Originally Posted by Chris Parks

I have been using my Hammer Slider a lot since I got it and have never really looked at the inlet port until a week ago. The bloody Europeans put a 120mm port on the cabinet and then it is choked down to 100mm. That is simply dressing up a machine to look like something it is not. I have never investigated the European standard for this but I have a feeling that the standard will say a 120mm port and nothing about what feeds it. So simply put I am wasting my time putting a 120mm hose onto the machine and to change it internally would require a full strip down and big mods.

Chris, are you referring to the Hammer saw? Perhaps the saw has the reduction to increase air velocity through the machine. Planer/Thicknesser is 120MM without reduction behind the port. I would still use a 120MM hose rather than 100MM from the dusty because airflow losses will be lower. Hammer 120MM hose is light and strong.