Thread: Timbecom cyclone, any good?

Originally Posted by BobL

The flow rates on all these DCs and cyclones are somewhat irrelevant.
The most air that most small DCs will pull though a (short) 4" duct is about 425 CFM and less for flexy.
Provided the DC is up for it (ie a 12" impeller DC is not) a 6" duct does much better, 1250CFM for short solid ducts and about 1000 CFM for flexy.

Thanks BobL for your help & comments (including a number of good past posts which I have read en-route to this thread).

Just to clarify my understanding, presumably the limitation of a 4" line to approx 425 CFM means that any connection to a 4" port on a machine (which most of mine are) limits you to this anyway? So say if you had a good DC and a 6" line to the machine, reducing it to a 4" at the connection immediately bottlenecks the system?

If this is the case then unless you open up the machine ports to 6" (which on some would not be easy) there is no point in connecting a system which is able to put through any more CFM then 425? In which case anything over a 2HP is fighting a losing battle, even a Clearvue cyclone?

A bit like trying to connect a high head water pump to a 1 inch line (exaggerated parallel), no matter how good the pump is you are trying to overcome fundamental laws of physics which = a losing battle and additional power = additional losses on an almost exponential scale.

If this is the case then we may as well buy a basic 2HP model to try and clear chips for efficient machine operation / to limit mess and follow your advice regarding forced ventilation for health reasons.

Thanks

Originally Posted by Matt712

Thanks BobL for your help & comments (including a number of good past posts which I have read en-route to this thread).

Just to clarify my understanding, presumably the limitation of a 4" line to approx 425 CFM means that any connection to a 4" port on a machine (which most of mine are) limits you to this anyway? So say if you had a good DC and a 6" line to the machine, reducing it to a 4" at the connection immediately bottlenecks the system?

Correct. There will be a small gain in flow due to reduced pressure losses from using a small size ducting of a specific length compared to a bigger one but the 6/4" junction bottle neck will be a bottle neck due to turbulence especially if it is not a longish tapered transition. More about that soon in another post

If this is the case then unless you open up the machine ports to 6" (which on some would not be easy) there is no point in connecting a system which is able to put through any more CFM then 425? In which case anything over a 2HP is fighting a losing battle, even a Clearvue cyclone?

Not quite - Clearvues and DCs on 3P can use a VFD so they can jack up the impeller speed up and hence increase the static pressure and hence pull more air through ducts. But even so its not like they can increase the flow by even 50% on a 4" duct - which is why people move to large ducting.

A bit like trying to connect a high head water pump to a 1 inch line (exaggerated parallel), no matter how good the pump is you are trying to overcome fundamental laws of physics which = a losing battle and additional power = additional losses on an almost exponential scale.

If this is the case then we may as well buy a basic 2HP model to try and clear chips for efficient machine operation / to limit mess and follow your advice regarding forced ventilation for health reasons.

If you are handy and ducting lengths are not too long there is definite value in modifying a 2HP DC and machines to use 6" ducting and there is still definitely value in locating DCs outside a shed. And single 4" ducting (ie 425 CFM) is still good for some machines, eg drill press, the blade guard hood on a TS, Routers, and using multiples of these on a bandsaw.

I looked at these cyclone units when they first came out, but the sticking point for me was the 5" inlet sizes.
Because cheap 5" ducting is impossible to find for a hobbyist.

You don't want to reduce to 4". And there is no point expanding to 6" when the cyclone constrains it back to 5".

I can offer no wisdom over BobL and other, but I can provide my experience!

• I did the whole Dust Deputy 50mm connected to a Festool Vac thinking I was pretty clever. Wrong!
• Then upgraded to a 1HP dusty (with pleated filter) with a 3M x 4" and was blown away.
• Then found an elcheapo 2HP with pleated on Gumtree.... man o man was THAT the business.... 4" still.
• Lastly....

Being in the shed doing a LOT of making for clients I saved and acquired the Timbecon 6" 2HP DC1750 which is an optimised 6-inch system that the blower is directly attached to the bag/filter. It was a MIGHTY improvement.

The dust didn't stand a chance. On the lathe, table saw and oscillating sander it was absolutely outstanding.

I loved it. It is cheap, quiet and easy to clean. Bit of a shame they no longer sell them.

The 5-inch systems they are selling now is a step backwards. It would be a mistake to buy a 5... definitely get a 6.

With a decent dust extractor (eg 3HP or more) 5" can draw up to about 750 CFM so this meets the needs of most machinery to meet basic OSHA dust collection.
BUT this assumes
The dust ports on machinery are 5" and the machine can breath - ie sufficient air flow into machine.
Ducting lengths (especially flexy) are kept very short and number of junctions are minimised.
DC is not inside workshop.
No medically compromised workers, seniors or children are using workshop as they have more stringent requirements.

The chart below shows OHSA are nothing special should OK for young/middle aged DIYers / Weekend warriors.
A health compromised senior working say, more than 20 hours a week in a small shed, should to be looking at the Euro standard.

Chart from Bill Pentz dust website.
Machinerydustflowrequirements.jpg

Originally Posted by robertye112

can you please elaborate on what you mean by the "redundant centrifugal separator improves nothing" means please? To my inexperienced mind, it separates most of the dust laden air to go into the large bin, thereby increasing the life of the pleated filter and is very much a critical piece to the system. Maybe I have that wrong?

I'm referring to the separator that came with the DC. Specifically that ring shaped sheet metal piece that supports the lower bag and the filter. It's a mediocre separator and becomes redundant when you add a cyclone in front. The problem with leaving it in place is it's flow resistance. It has more pressure loss than many cyclones. You get much better performance going directly from the blower to the filter.
Panorama.jpg

Dave, I knew it was worthwhiling raising the question, I've never seen one of these in real life and didn't realise there was yet another seperator inside that metal piece. Thanks for clearing that up for me!

so... with all that being said... With a budget of $1500 and limited skills / willingness to modify machinery, what would you gents recommend to buy?

Originally Posted by Matt712

Just to clarify my understanding, presumably the limitation of a 4" line to approx 425 CFM means that any connection to a 4" port on a machine (which most of mine are) limits you to this anyway? So say if you had a good DC and a 6" line to the machine, reducing it to a 4" at the connection immediately bottlenecks the system?

No, running 6" up to the machine, even with a 4" port will still be far better than running 4" line. It's not like a tap. The pressure loss with a 4" restriction builds very quickly with length but it's not a step function. You can pull a lot more than 425cfm through a short 4" port but with any length of 4" ducting, yes, the cfm will be quickly limited.

Cheers, Dom

Originally Posted by DomAU

No, running 6" up to the machine, even with a 4" port will still be far better than running 4" line. It's not like a tap. The pressure loss with a 4" restriction builds very quickly with length but it's not a step function. You can pull a lot more than 425cfm through a short 4" port but with any length of 4" ducting, yes, the cfm will be quickly limited.

What's often forgotten in connecting 6" to 4" ducting is the junction/transition that happens when 6" ducting is connected to a 4" port. If it's a step transition this will significantly contribute to a reduction in flow. This effect can be minimised using long tapered conical traditions but in many DIY WW situations this is often not possible

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts and advice, definitely picked up some good information and things I will take forward.

In particular I will modify my search for a DE with a 6" port and will take a serious look at modifying some of the ports on my current equipment if I can.

I can understand the sound logic and reasoning behind the Clearvue units being such a good system however with limited head height clearance in my garage / ground floor I am not sure that I would be able to make it work even if I saved up the cash for one. The Leguna systems also sound reasonable but it sounds like you pay a bit of a premium for the sleek shape and styling, will start trawling the 2nd hand adds but I am guessing they are rare to find and go quickly. Are there any other brands / options worth a look in Australia?

I am curious about making a system from other threads which I have read but have limited metalworking equipment / skills and can't help but think such a system would only be better than the generic setups if you have the craftsmanship to make components which seamlessly join etc.

As a side comment it is curious how few machines have dust extraction ports greater than 4". Most of my equipment is towards the lower end of the cost spectrum (which is fine for me) and have relatively small ports, however even high end $5000 machines still only have 4"? Maybe this will change with what seems to be a growing awareness of the need to keep a tidy workspace / airspace.

Thanks again

Originally Posted by Matt712

I am curious about making a system from other threads which I have read but have limited metalworking equipment / skills and can't help but think such a system would only be better than the generic setups if you have the craftsmanship to make components which seamlessly join etc.

It's a mystery to me why more woodies, who are generally a DIY bunch, don't make their own cyclones.

I have made two of them from sheet metal to Bill Pentz design. I did get the cones rolled by a sheet metal shop, but otherwise I cut, bent and soldered them together myself. Metal work isn't one of my strengths, but it wasn't a difficult task.

There wasn't any sub-industrial and affordable options available back when I made those. Even so, it is still an economical way to go.

And, they don't need to be constructed from sheet metal; bent plywood, moulded fibreglass, even heavy cardboard coated with something like marine varnish would probably do. And, there are other materials that are suitable that don't come immediately to mind.

Following Bill Pentz' proportions is critical, but it doesn't need to be all precisely geometric; a few wobbles here or there isn't going to make much difference.

The biggest challenge/conundrum for me back then was the recommended 14" impeller. The cost of importing one of those or getting one engineered here (the cost of that was scary!) was prohibitive. That issue can now be overcome by buying an impeller from Clearview + VFD to run off 240v. There is also the expertise on this forum to perhaps do the VFD component of that more economically too.

I'm not sure you can run 6" ducting through a cyclone and exhaust through filters with a 'whatever' 2Hp sucker and still meet the minimum air flow requirements. Ducting the exhaust outside without filters improves the situation. There is a lot of good advice here on that now.

One of the big benefits for me of having the cyclone is that it captures the solid bits and pieces that get sucked into the ducting and stops them from getting right through and impacting on the impeller. I have had a few small Jacobs chucks get away from me that could have potentially bent and put the impeller out of balance had they got that far. The cyclone picks up anything like that before getting that far.

Originally Posted by Matt712

As a side comment it is curious how few machines have dust extraction ports greater than 4". Most of my equipment is towards the lower end of the cost spectrum (which is fine for me) and have relatively small ports, however even high end $5000 machines still only have 4"? Maybe this will change with what seems to be a growing awareness of the need to keep a tidy workspace / airspace.

Machine manufactures respond at best to legal requirements. Current OHS requirements for wood dust exposure were hurriedly "borrowed" by Australian health and safety in 1972 from those in use in the UK, based on woods like beech and oak. It's now very dated as it makes no allowance for particle sizes (these days we know a lot more about the PM2.5 dust problem), the greater toxicity of Australian timber, and the age of wood workers. Using 4" ducting and dust ports is all that is required to usually meet those old standards. In Europe things have moved on somewhat and 5" ports are now becoming standard, although it's still a bit hit and miss on some Euro Machines.

Nothing more has been done about it in Australia because (unlike asbestos and kitchen stone tops) there has not been a clear cut epidemic in wood dust related health issues and no one has/is doing any proper research on it.

Wood dust was not added to the list of 200+ known causes of cancer until 2002, but these days (since 2017) ALL DUST is considered the 5th leading known world wide causes of death. Dust is also now implicated in the cause ion many non-respiratory diseases like strokes and heart failure. Interesting to see wood smoke getting a recent airing. Like most things in Australia we are quite a few years behind the 8-ball on things.

I thought this was a great question - does anyone have some suggestions?

Jeff

Originally Posted by robertye112

so... with all that being said... With a budget of $1500 and limited skills / willingness to modify machinery, what would you gents recommend to buy?