Ultimate DIY Cyclone Build Thread

[HeadScratcher]

Figuring as many as intend having some input already have, its time to start building the ultimate DIY Cyclone (Caveat: by "ultimate" I mean sort of works OK )

Thanks to all that contributed, stay tuned and we'll see how it turns out. The purpose of this build thread is to build a decent cyclone using commonly available over the counters parts, or easily made with regular tools, on a budget (I know that's a subjective term but not thousands, hopefully not too many hundreds).

I am hopeful that it will be so straight forward and the results so decent, that it is worth others following in my foot steps and giving it a go...

So step 1 is to build a circle cutting tool.

Step 2 is to build a few jigs to hold the pipes steady so I can cut them accurately and squarely. Being that I need to sandwich the 150mm pipes between the cyclone top section and the bin lid, I need to make sure there is very little variance in the length and to make sure both ends are square.

I am hoping the jig allows me to cut these lengths as required. So here is today's after work effort... one quickly knocked up circle cutter.

I used some old screws that got a bit chewed up since I was only going to throw them out anyway.

Couple of bits of scrap, tiny bit of glue and circle cutter is born. Figure the maximum to be around 400mm and the minimum to be around 45mm.

Tools used so far a handsaw, a jigsaw, reversible drill and various drill bits, screwdriver tips for use in drill, and the router with a 1/2" cutter to cut its own slot.

Edit:

I used a roll pin and a 4.5mm drill to stick in the hole, fit nicely and worked well.

[HeadScratcher]

Today was spend making the pipe holders (and seeing if the circle cutter worked, it passed with flying colours )

Haven't tried them yet, did a quick mock up and put the grinder to the edge, but it looks like it will work. Still need to make some kind of pipe collar that can sit against the pipe holders and rotate free of using the roughly cut ends.

Tools Used:
Router with 1/2" bit, circle cutter, jigsaw, drill and 1/8th bit, file and file cleaner, sand paper and sanding block, glue, disk grinder with cutting disk, Aldi F clamps, and 6 screws (new ones today).
Held job down with cross bar on work bench but could have used F clamps.

[opelblues]

It mite not mean much, but I'm watching

[Peter57]

Me too - with great interest.

[Ross]

Comfy chair, cuppa tea, I'm ready.

[Chief Tiff]

Coffee and cookies within arms reach......

This is something I'm very interested in; my DE is a small portable underbench unit that fills it's bag up too damn quickly and still manages to fill the workshop with a slight haze.

[HeadScratcher]

Well settle in and get comfy as this build will be much like the work bench I built earlier, no plans style… This time around I have a few solid ideas around what I plan to do, but there are still some parts of the project that have received zero consideration and will require designing on the fly.

[BobL]

I'm not trying to dampen your enthusiasm but to inject a scientific reality check here.

By what criteria will you judge success?
Pressure drop: requires a manometer - easy enough to make.
Noise levels: do you have a dB meter?
Air flow efficiency: Will need a pitot tube air pressure/flow device, difficult to make or expensive to but and some skill needed in use thereof.
Particle counts: Need a calibrated particle size generator and multichannel particle detector and a particle free clean room to perform testing.

Unless criteria such as these are set and then tested any product produced will be overly subjective. Even the time between cleaning bags or filters is subjective unless it is used in conduction with a manometer.

The real killer is the particle counts - this is impossible to test without using a particle free clean room.

[Groggy]

The real killer is the particle counts - this is impossible to test without using a particle free clean room.

Why is that Bob? I would have thought you could establish the existing particle count before running the machine to establish a baseline.

[surfmat]

please lets just enjoy the build and see how it goes...
I've seen too many build threads in this forum turn into (as another forumite described) a Royal Commission into dust particle size. I don't think that we are talking about a room filter or air scrubber and no one will be performing any surgery in this room ( I hope).....
yes it might be a chip collector, or a >5 micron collector, but it sounds like a really interesting starting point.
I'm keen to strap in for the ride and see where it ends up.....

[HeadScratcher]

I take Bob’s point and I can emphatically money back guarantee that the dust collector will be infinitely better than the current nothing I am using to build this system.
But yes it would be nice to have some kind of idea of how well it works. I could wash my black motorbike and see how long it takes for the dust to settle back on it (due its annual wash anyway)
It may not be scientific but there may be a few simple tests I could do, that while not conclusive should give a fairly good indicator of its efficiency.
For example… even cutting out those couple of pieces of MDF to build the pipe stands, it produced a lot of dust both on the workbench and the surround concrete.
While it is virtually impossible to sweep dust off rough concrete (as you don’t know what is dust and what is concrete), I should be able to see a significant measurable reduction in the amount I sweep up.

[BobL]

Why is that Bob? I would have thought you could establish the existing particle count before running the machine to establish a baseline.

Normal urban air already has anywhere from 10^4 to >10^7 particles of invisible dust per cubic metre (/m^3) in it. This is composed of things like; soil, building products (including wood dust), combustion products, shed skin, fabric wear, and a not insignificant amount of dust from car tyre wear.

Unfortunately conventional particle counters cannot discriminate between types of dust so before and after testing might be trying to measure 10^5 or even 10^6 particles of wood dust per cubic metre within an ocean of 10^7 other particles per cubic metre. The fluctuations (short and long term) make it very difficult to perform accurate measurements.

To perform accurate measurements on particle counting an ultra clean space is required so that when wood dust is made we know what it is.

[BobL]

I take Bob’s point and I can emphatically money back guarantee that the dust collector will be infinitely better than the current nothing I am using to build this system.

A dust pan and broom, and a damp cloth will also be better than nothing.

But yes it would be nice to have some kind of idea of how well it works. I could wash my black motorbike and see how long it takes for the dust to settle back on it It may not be scientific but there may be a few simple tests I could do, that while not conclusive should give a fairly good indicator of its efficiency. For example… even cutting out those couple of pieces of MDF to build the pipe stands, it produced a lot of dust both on the workbench and the surround concrete. While it is virtually impossible to sweep dust off rough concrete (as you don’t know what is dust and what is concrete), I should be able to see a significant measurable reduction in the amount I sweep up.

Once again I see someone falling for the idea that what they see will be a guide to something they can't. If that is your criteria then at least you have one but it falls any sort of engineering or scientific merit.

Can I urge you to at least build and use a manometer. Home made chip collectors and cyclones are notorious for producing so much back pressure on the impeller that it reduces the air flow down to a point where they are near useless. These chip collectors leave a chip free floor but have such low flow rate they fail to clear invisible dust from a shed within a reasonable time.

A target pressure drop would be at least that of the Clearvue (2.25").

[BobL]

please lets just enjoy the build and see how it goes...
I've seen too many build threads in this forum turn into (as another forumite described) a Royal Commission into dust particle size. I don't think that we are talking about a room filter or air scrubber and no one will be performing any surgery in this room ( I hope).....
yes it might be a chip collector, or a >5 micron collector, but it sounds like a really interesting starting point.
I'm keen to strap in for the ride and see where it ends up.....

I agree it is an interesting project but even so I would still like to see it put on a more quantitative footing. So far the project has only been about geometry and meeting basic flow rates but there is a lot more to making an efficient dust collector than this.

My observation in this and other fora are I have seen too many build threads on making dust removal devices that focus entirely on reducing the need to clean filter bags clean but are very likely to knock the stuffing out of the air flow rates of perfectly good DCs. Keeping filter bags clean should be a long way down the track to maintaining flow rates which is what removes invisible dusts.

[HeadScratcher]

Again far from a fool proof means of determining air born particles, but even with some light filing and sanding (compared to the router) there was visible particles that could be seen hovering in the close proximity of the spot light I am using to work outside.
While I can’t easily see particles under normal daylight conditions, the presence of a high powered light makes them so much more visible to the naked eye.

For me to consider this build a success, I would like to “see” zero air born particles after using the router. Again doesn’t address the unseen one but it does serve as a very rough measure of dust extraction ability.
I would also expect to see minimal to zero dust on the concrete if it is working to an acceptable level.

If it passes the simple test first, I will see if I can arrange some more scientific instruments to measure at a greater depth. If it fails the simple tests it will hardly pass anything more stringent.