Thread: Micronair, anyone used their machine?

[QUOTE=Albert;1667265
.
.
.I may add a wide belt sander to my workshop in a year or two therefore I might need the RL200...[/QUOTE]

A wide belt sander is even more of a reason to get a Clearvue rather than the RL200.
The RL200 uses filters and big sanders will clog filters very quickly.
So, even though the flow rates might be higher on the RL200 initially, when the filters clog the flow rate will drop very quickly below that of the Cleavue.
Also do not believe manufacturers specifications for flow rates.
Except for the Clearvue, all manufactures quoted flow rates should be divided by at least 2 to get a more realistic figure.

hi BobL, thanks for the advise,

The wide belt sander that I am interested to purchase requires 3500m3/hr, its bigger brother requires 4200m3/hr

CVMax spec is 1935CFM, which is about 3290m3/hr

Would you happen to know if there is any bigger cyclone out there that I can install in my garage?

What ducting provisions are on the wide belts? The CV Max can exceed that figure of 3200'ish if needed by running it faster than 60hz. This is easily achieved by utilising the programming abilities of the VFD and if needed the VFD can have a special profile put in it so it runs at a specific speed for a particular machine. From memory the VFD can have ten profiles in it at any one time. Another alternative would be to use two CV Max cyclones and it would still be cheaper than one Micronair and be a far more versatile set up.

Hi Chris

The wide belt sander has 1x150mm and 2 x 100mm ports, probably not enough.

yes I was on that line of thought about installing 2xCVMax, would be cheaper than Felder/MicronAir unit. and more versatile like you said.

Originally Posted by BobL

A wide belt sander is even more of a reason to get a Clearvue rather than the RL200.
The RL200 uses filters and big sanders will clog filters very quickly.
So, even though the flow rates might be higher on the RL200 initially, when the filters clog the flow rate will drop very quickly below that of the Cleavue.
Also do not believe manufacturers specifications for flow rates.
Except for the Clearvue, all manufactures quoted flow rates should be divided by at least 2 to get a more realistic figure.

Wow, I'm surprised at the repeated statement that RL units have filters that clog. Agreed, all filters clog but only if they are not cleaned properly! All the RL units have built-in filter cleaners which are simple and very effective, and if necessary, an automatic filter cleaning system (using an air compressor) is available as an optional upgrade (probably for the price of a normal dusty)!

I have an RL160 which I have used regularly for the last 9 years. The HEPA filter is rather large and the unit still sucks with a vengeance. You say, "...when the filters clog the flow rate will drop very quickly below that of the Cleavue..."

May I ask what you mean by "very quickly"? Once, years ago, I got out of the habit of cleaning the filters (a manual operation that takes about 10-15 seconds) and I found my RL160 was not sucking well -- but this took weeks of use. I now clean the filters on a daily basis and the dusty appears to be sucking as strongly as ever.

Have I missed something here?

Warm regards,
David

Originally Posted by LuckyDuck

Wow, I'm surprised at the repeated statement that RL units have filters that clog. Agreed, all filters clog but only if they are not cleaned properly! All the RL units have built-in filter cleaners which are simple and very effective, and if necessary, an automatic filter cleaning system (using an air compressor) is available as an optional upgrade (probably for the price of a normal dusty)!

I have an RL160 which I have used regularly for the last 9 years. The HEPA filter is rather large and the unit still sucks with a vengeance. You say, "...when the filters clog the flow rate will drop very quickly below that of the Cleavue..."

May I ask what you mean by "very quickly"? Once, years ago, I got out of the habit of cleaning the filters (a manual operation that takes about 10-15 seconds) and I found my RL160 was not sucking well -- but this took weeks of use. I now clean the filters on a daily basis and the dusty appears to be sucking as strongly as ever.

Have I missed something here?

Warm regards,
David

"Quickly" is activity and wood dependent.

My comment about the RL comes from a mate who told me he notices a drop in performance of his RL after about an hour of using his 600mm wide belt sander on hardwoods - admittedly this is a lot of sanding. My mate is otherwise mostly happy with it on other machines although he still has more dust in his workshop than he would like. He is a bit miffed about this since his RL and very extensive spiral metal ducting cost him a lot of $$ and it is not performing that much better than the two 3HP conventional DCs that he had in his previous setups.

Sucks with vengeance or as strongly as ever are terms I hear often but are relatively meaningless. My measurements using air flow meters show that no woodworker is able to detect small to medium losses in flow rates by DCs, and by the time any operator notices a loss there has often been a very significant loss in flow, sometimes more than 50%. This is why folks who attach chip collectors and small cyclones on DCs think there has been no change in flow whereas measurements will show that flow losses can be in the 25%+ range.

I am scheduled to visit my mate and re-measure his RL flows. BTW when I first measured his flows when he had it installed almost a year ago I was impressed with the flow rate but not that impressed with its filter efficiency although his filters were not yet conditioned. This is a real issue for him since he could not vent outside. Hopefully his filters will have conditioned by now but he wants to know how his flow has been affected since conditioned (and hence improved efficiency) filters will always suffer some loss in flow rates.

BTW none of this applies to an externally vented Clearvue that do not need to be fitted with filters.

Originally Posted by BobL

"Quickly" is activity and wood dependent.

It's also dependant on the size of the actual unit.

Originally Posted by elanjacobs

It's also dependant on the size of the actual unit.

Sure, but generally units with bigger filters have higher flow rates and are connected to bigger machines that are doing more work.

In terms of conditioning filters there is no need to fill a workshop up with fine dust waiting for the filter to "condition"
In this thread I describe a relatively quick way to condition a filter safely.

Originally Posted by BobL

"Quickly" is activity and wood dependent.

My comment about the RL comes from a mate who told me he notices a drop in performance of his RL after about an hour of using his 600mm wide belt sander on hardwoods - admittedly this is a lot of sanding. My mate is otherwise mostly happy with it on other machines although he still has more dust in his workshop than he would like. He is a bit miffed about this since his RL and very extensive spiral metal ducting cost him a lot of $$ and it is not performing that much better than the two 3HP conventional DCs that he had in his previous setups.

Sucks with vengeance or as strongly as ever are terms I hear often but are relatively meaningless. My measurements using air flow meters show that no woodworker is able to detect small to medium losses in flow rates by DCs, and by the time any operator notices a loss there has often been a very significant loss in flow, sometimes more than 50%. This is why folks who attach chip collectors and small cyclones on DCs think there has been no change in flow whereas measurements will show that flow losses can be in the 25%+ range.

I am scheduled to visit my mate and re-measure his RL flows. BTW when I first measured his flows when he had it installed almost a year ago I was impressed with the flow rate but not that impressed with its filter efficiency although his filters were not yet conditioned. This is a real issue for him since he could not vent outside. Hopefully his filters will have conditioned by now but he wants to know how his flow has been affected since conditioned (and hence improved efficiency) filters will always suffer some loss in flow rates.

BTW none of this applies to an externally vented Clearvue that do not need to be fitted with filters.

Hi BobL
Thank you for your thorough and clear reply. By the way, I have zero intention to cause offence or defend anything controversial. I will make sure to try to avoid relatively meaningless phrases in future. I apologise if I have offended you! There is also a tendency, which I no doubt suffer from, to defend one's own point of view or choice -- I certainly don't have any air flow meters!

If I may ask for clarification so that I do not misunderstand you: it seems clear that you regard an externally vented Clearvue as superior. Fair enough (and as a layman, I find the Clearvue quite impressive). But my situation, which is presumably shared by others, demands the exhausted air be returned to the shop. In this case, the RL160 is better compared to the Clearvue + filter internally exhausted, which means both alternatives are open to loss of flow. At the time of purchase, I was unable to find said filters for a cyclone which could match the filters in the Felder unit. Do they exist (then and/or now)? For reference, I would appreciate brands/model numbers of filters available in Australia. Thank you.

Finally, I'm not surprised at all to hear that the 4HP RL160 is performing only a little better than 2x 3HP conventional DCs. Would it even perform as well, considering the difference in HP and possible differences in pipe cross sections? As you say, a 600mm wide sander puts out a lot of dust! Assuming your first choice is not an option, do you think your mate should have gone with the RL200? Or something entirely different.

Again, thanks for your opinions. I think I should clean my RL160 filter several times a day from now on!!

Originally Posted by LuckyDuck

Hi BobL
Thank you for your thorough and clear reply. By the way, I have zero intention to cause offence or defend anything controversial. I will make sure to try to avoid relatively meaningless phrases in future. I apologise if I have offended you! There is also a tendency, which I no doubt suffer from, to defend one's own point of view or choice -- I certainly don't have any air flow meters!

No worries, I get slightly miffed by these statements only because I have done so many measurements in this area. It must be the same for experienced motor enthusiasts who watch amateurs twiddle their donks and then make all sorts of claims about improved grunt etc whereas when these donks are actually put on a dyno the improvements are often difficult to even measure.

If I may ask for clarification so that I do not misunderstand you: it seems clear that you regard an externally vented Clearvue as superior. Fair enough (and as a layman, I find the Clearvue quite impressive). But my situation, which is presumably shared by others, demands the exhausted air be returned to the shop. In this case, the RL160 is better compared to the Clearvue + filter internally exhausted, which means both alternatives are open to loss of flow. At the time of purchase, I was unable to find said filters for a cyclone which could match the filters in the Felder unit. Do they exist (then and/or now)? For reference, I would appreciate brands/model numbers of filters available in Australia. Thank you.

I'm not a Clearvue owner or supplier but I do know the Clearvue filters sold in the US are extremely good but don't know if they are available here. You would need to ask Shedman about the latest in filters.
The filter performance I see on the the Felder website are dust mass/unit air volume based (<0.1 mg/m³) which is the good European standard but it says nothing about particle size distribution so 0.1 mg/m³ can still represent a lot of particles.
My conclusions after measuring a about 3 dozen DC filters is that once conditioned, the filter medium itself (even the thin calico bags used on cheap DCs) is not the elephant in the corner. The real dangers we should be concerning ourselves with are leaks from pin prick holes and rucked collection bags etc. When DCs are used in mobile mode they tend to have more leaks in them than those that are foxed in one place. In most cases the leaks were even clearly visible but the average WW punter says - ah it's only a small leak and there can't be much coming out of it.

After studying DCs for almost 18 months I have also come to the conclusion many DCs are often incorrectly blamed for excess dust left inside a workshop. Conventional DCs cannot capture the dust at source unless 6" ducting is used all the way to the source so single 4" and 5" ducting lines to machines are a bit of a waste of time. If multiple 4" ducting is use then it takes 3 x 4" ducts to equal 1 x 6" duct. Most machine ports and openings also require major surgery to take advantage of the 6" ducting.

Finally, I'm not surprised at all to hear that the 4HP RL160 is performing only a little better than 2x 3HP conventional DCs. Would it even perform as well, considering the difference in HP and possible differences in pipe cross sections? As you say, a 600mm wide sander puts out a lot of dust! Assuming your first choice is not an option, do you think your mate should have gone with the RL200? Or something entirely different.

He does have the RL200 and 8" trunk lines around his 170 m² workshop. His machines are served by a mix of 6" and 4" ducting but he has not opened up the ports on any of his machines -see comments above.

Again, thanks for your opinions. I think I should clean my RL160 filter several times a day from now on!!

It depends what you are doing. Rather than a time based schedule I would think about what processes have been undertaken and then make a decision about whether to clean filters or not. Better still would be to install a manometer and decide on how many loss of pressure you would tolerate before cleaning.

I just woke up to go to the loo and noticed your reply post. Thank you very much for the time you take on the forums. Your reply is incredibly helpful. Your comments appear to support Bill Pentz' research; I exchanged a couple of emails with him before I bought the RL unit. At the time he thought it was the only unit with adequate filter size (barely), apart from the Clearvue that is.

I now know what a manometer is. Can they be bought readily and if so, can I install one myself or is it a bit more complicated? (Time to search the forums -- again!)

Enjoy the rest of your evening (ah) morning.

David

Originally Posted by LuckyDuck

I just woke up to go to the loo and noticed your reply post. Thank you very much for the time you take on the forums. Your reply is incredibly helpful. Your comments appear to support Bill Pentz' research; I exchanged a couple of emails with him before I bought the RL unit. At the time he thought it was the only unit with adequate filter size (barely), apart from the Clearvue that is.

No Worries LD. BP's web info is very detailed and can be very hard to read, but it's all there and sometimes just needs to be interpreted correctly.

I now know what a manometer is. Can they be bought readily and if so, can I install one myself or is it a bit more complicated? (Time to search the forums -- again!)

Yes they can be bought but they are also easy enough to make.
There is some info on manometers here https://www.woodworkforums.com/f200/f...94/index3.html

Manometers have two sensing points to which tubes usually made of clear PVC are attached. To use them to sense filter blocking, one tube is normally left at atmosphere and the other is inserted in between the impeller and the filter. This is usually done by drilling a hole into the metal housing of the DC and fitting some sort of air tight tube connection.

Some Pitfalls
It is often tempting to drill the hole in or close to the impeller housing but the hole should be away from any regions of high speed air movement otherwise the Bernoulli effect may significantly influence the pressure readings. Unfortunately it is not easy to find a suitable point on a conventional DC to mount one of these which is probably why they are not flitted as standard to these machines. The pressure being outward also means that any tube inserted into this dusty volume can easily become blocked and it needs to be removable for cleaning. To get around this problem a small chamber with a flexible wall or membrane is sometime mounted onto the housing with the flexible wall exposed to the inside of the DC.

Provided the sensing tube is fitted in an area of low air speed flow and kept clean or a membrane is used, as the filter blocks up, the manometer will show a higher reading/pressure. To determine what pressure range the filters operate over, start by thoroughly cleaning the filters and record the pressure. Then let the filters block up to the point where you notice loss of flow and record the pressure. For folks that have a standard DC this can be simulated by tightly twisting/scrunching up the top filter bag.

Then you should determine somewhere in between the two readings a pressure reading that still represents a suitable flow at which you should clean the filters .

If you decide to use a U-tube manometer the pressure difference between the two readings may not be very large and you may need to slope the arms of the U to more of a wide V to increase the sensitivity.

Thanks BobL! I'm definitely not too old to learn new things!

This thread has shaken me up "dust wise", and makes me want to look into better solutions than what I currently have. I have choked on too much dust in my youth, and I fear that I don't clean my filter enough to keep my RL160 out of the "chip-collection" range but rather in the "dust-collection" range!

Thanks again.
David