I am looking at the Super Dust Gorilla 3HP (SDG) and was interested in real world separation results. Since I have only seen one review that talks about separation (American Woodworker from 2006 - recommending the SDG 2 or 3HP or the similar sized Grizzly). Since separation is the whole point of a cyclone I would like to get feedback from real users about their experience, both for myself and possibly helping others in decisions. I have read about users having both bad a good experiences In your response could you please provide:
1) Model & HP (for V series please also state steel or molded version)
2) Type of material in your bin (. i.e. is your discharge small shavings and dust from saws and routers or mostly fine powder from sanders?)
3) How much material gets past your filter to the bag/bin below filter.
4) How often do you clean your filter and how much approximately comes out (You do clean your filter.).
5) How long have you had your machine.
Sorry I can't comment on that model. It does look identical to my Tempest 2 hp cyclone, which has fantastic separation. A sprinkling in the cleanout, if anything with extended use.
In general I have found the tall cyclones have stellar separation. Hopefully you can get some model-specific information with your question here. Most of the complaints I have read were reviewers expecting 100% collection. One reviewer even said he weighed the dust somehow, and was complaining that according to his calculations it only captured 98% of the dust.
Thanks for the input. That is good to know but it appears PSI no longer makes cyclones. Several weeks ago I went to their site and the link to cyclones was dead. Today the link is gone from their site. I am glad you have good separation, that is key. From what I could gather they use a neutral vane that is strictly extending the inlet tube into the upper body, They do not appear to use an air ramp. Out of curiosity do you remember if your impeller is backward curved? Also could you tell me the circumference of the upper body (just below the inlet).
With all due respect, 98% separation in a cyclone would be horrible, and even 99% would not even be close to acceptable to me. 98% would mean that for every 50 gallon barrel full of dust, you would end up with a gallon of dust in the filter. I would SWAG that you'd see a 25 - 40% decline in CFM by the time you emptied the drum every time. And you would have a very hard time cleaning that much dust out of a filter without removing the filter and taking a leaf blower to it. I would much rather have a single stage dust collection system, where I could just smack the filters and knock down the dust, than a cyclone that got only 98% separation, or even 99%
The good cyclones run well above 99% separation. For each time that you empty the drum, you should see no more than a couple tablespoons of dust in the filter basin. 2 tablespoons for each 50 gallon drum = 99.98%. Two tablespoons vs. 1 gallon is not splitting hairs in my view. I would suggest thinking differently about the math here. You're thinking 98 is almost equal to 100, so what's the dif, right? The way that I think about it is that 1 gallon that you get at 98% is more than 100 TIMES more dust than the 2 Tablespoons you get with 99.98%.
I measured the separation of MY SDG at Oneida's request. My method was to empty the bin and clean the filter as absolutely good as I could (this was a multi step process which got all the dust out that was going to come out). I think used the cyclone until the dust bin was full. I measured the height of the chips in the bin and calculated the volume because I didn't have the means to weigh it. I then cleaned the filter again, exactly as before but this time I captured all the fines in a container. I then measured that volume. When all was said and done I got 98.4% separation, Oneida claims 99%. Close enough that I call it even. Like Pmayer said, I consider that woefully inadequate and my complaints on forums is what led to Oneida contacting me to "help" with the issue. In the end I wound up working with a Mr. Witter (President and founder), and after he found out I was getting 98.4%, I never heard from them again. I hope to someday (this year maybe) replace this POS with a CV. When I'm running a drum sander a lot, I can actually see the filter clog with a gauge I have on the unit. I had to put the gauge on to keep track of the many times I needed to clean the fines out. The issue with the Oneida units is the basic design, if you read the Pentz criteria the Oneida doesn't follow anything close to the what he found to work best.
pmayer - Thanks for the reminder on perspective, a small difference can result in a lot of dust!
Fred - I have seen your comments a feel your frustration. I am sure you have impacted at least one sale if not more and I would think Oneida would have done more to resolve the issue.
cabmaker - glad to hear you are happy with both your units and their performance
I have a 5 hp SDG and have absolutely no issues with separation. I have almost no dust in my filters and have emptied the bin out many times. I also monitor the filter with a gauge and have no problem with clogging. I have had my SDG for about 10 months.
Of course Pentz is critical of the Oneida as he designed the CV and Oneida is the competitor.
Please note that I do not have a drum sander. Most of what is in my bin is from the saw and planer. If you have one and use it a lot, you are generating a large amount of fine dust and you will get more dust into the filter.
For the record (and I'm really not trying to start a fight) I haven't read anything Pentz said that was critical of Oneida's design, and he doesn't own CV (though he gets a small royalty from the sales) so he really doesn't have a competitive issue with Oneida. Any criticism above was my own. I've only heard Pentz explain what his findings were on separation and how he come to the design criteria he settled on. On the other hand, Bill Witter was mildly critical of Pentz in phone conversions with me. But all my comments are based on my own experience, and as they say: YMMV. Carl, regarding impacting Oneida's sales: I have no idea, I can only hope that's happened. If so, I'm suspect someone wound up with better performance using a different brand.
Just as another point of data….I just went down and emptied my SDG. I very carefully looked at my bin and filter.
The bin was full at 35 gallons.
I then took the time and used compresses air to carefully clean out the filter and measured the volume of that plus whatever had already fallen in the bottom. I got about a cup and half of fine dust or 0.09375 gallons.
So by volume, 99.73% went into the bin and 0.26% into the filter.
How do I explain the difference in separation results? The only difference is that I do not run a drum sander and the finer dust may be harder to separate.
A single experimental result is just that. In order to have meaningful data you need to do this multiple times.
In addition, I monitor my dust filter pressure and it stays within a narrow range and does not indicate filter clogging.
I agree with your conclusion about the fine dust, that's what I have experienced as well. It performs quite well for everything else. Also with the need to repeat the test (something I'm not planning on doing). I started my filter cleaning process by setting it on the floor (covering the top) and giving it a hand slap around the circumference, then the air gun from the outside. After that, I laid it on it's side and picked each end up about 18" and dropped it. Rotate the filter about 90° and repeat. After doing that 4 times stand it back up…in my case a lot more of the fines fell out. As an aside, the only time I ever found anything in that canister that clamps on the bottom was the one time I over filled the dust bin, then some of the chips that blew by wound up in there.
Given all of the above, there are a couple of things that I want to point out.
Smaller particles are more hazardous because they can be drawn more deeply into the lungs.
Sanding seems to generate very fine particles even under 1 micron. It is probably the worst operation in a shop in terms of small particle generation.
Cyclones are very good at separating larger particles above 30 microns. The efficiency drops off as you get smaller. I guess the real question is how each cyclone design handles these under 10 micron particles. To determine this would take a very good research study. As I have read today, sampling and measuring these particle sizes is difficult.
I want a cyclone with sufficient capability to suck up as much as possible. I have that but need to work on the capture of the dust at the point they are generated, dust hoods and such. In my opinion, this is the most difficult part. I really am not too worried if my cyclone efficiency is 98%, 99% or 99.9%. It just means I may have to clean the filter slightly more often. There is little doubt that using a drum sander results lots of very fine dust that needs a good cyclone design. Whose design is the best? I have yet to see any test results that are credible in terms of separating small particles.
The bottom line is to remove the particles and avoid breathing them.
Since sanding creates lots of fine particles, I want my ROS sander to be efficient at sucking up the particles. For that reason, it has to be designed well and connected to a vacuum because they have a much higher static pressure. I use a HEPA rated vac for my sander and an air filter.
Redoak - It is good to hear your results and I appreciate you taking the time to measure your bypass. I too would be happy with your results, but I do not have a drum sander (yet). I understand and agree with the concern of the small particle issue. I believe the human eye can not see smaller than 40 micron particles, so all the dust that got through the old 30 micron single stage bags was still filling the air…we just couldn't see it!
Fred - It sounds like the sander is the weakness for the Oneida's. I talked with a V3000 owner and he has similar problems with caking on his filter after a couple of 35 gallons full (he has a sander as well). I had previously looked at the Thein baffle, and although it does a decent separation job it does not seem to compare to a cyclone (both in separation and efficiency). What it does allow is to adjust the baffle opening and I believe vortex height to fine tune the material to separate. So you could make it great at fines but terrible for chips or vise versa. What some guys did was put a baffle right at their planner to pre-filter the chips. I don't know if you have found any feedback from CV owners that have sanders about separation. Regardless which Cyclone you use long term a pre separator might help if that is a general cyclone weakness. I have seen a lot of comments about how great they are just not specifics of they are used.
"I really am not too worried if my cyclone efficiency is 98%, 99% or 99.9%"
This is a common perception until people end up with a machine that only separates at 98.X% and they realize what an absolute pain it is to maintain, and then they hear stories about other guys with an efficient cyclone that almost never has to be cleaned. I think that the cyclone manufacturers do a disservice to consumers by publishing numbers this way, but it is easy for them to all sound really good with this model of measurement so why not? It makes the differences between 98% to 99.9% sound trivial, and that could not be further from the truth.
If the comparisons were based on "tablespoons in filter / 50 gallons in drum" which is really what matters (who cares how much is in the drum, you don't have to clean that), now the comparison of machine A (98%) to machine B (99.98%) would be 100:1. If it was stated that way, I think people would care. If something is important, as I believe this measurement absolutely is, it's hard to believe that people wouldn't be indifferent if one machine were 100 times better at it than the other machine. But people think, well it's not even 2% better so who cares. Another way to look at it; machine A puts 9900% more dust (that's not a typo; nearly 10,000%) into the filter than machine B. If the inefficiencies were compared in this way, which is equally mathematically correct and far more indicative of the experiential difference, then people would have a much better understanding of the difference in what they would find in their filter when it was time to clean it.
Thanks for the input. That is good to know but it appears PSI no longer makes cyclones. Several weeks ago I went to their site and the link to cyclones was dead. Today the link is gone from their site. I am glad you have good separation, that is key. From what I could gather they use a neutral vane that is strictly extending the inlet tube into the upper body, They do not appear to use an air ramp. Out of curiosity do you remember if your impeller is backward curved? Also could you tell me the circumference of the upper body (just below the inlet).
Carl,
The circumference you asked about is 64". Mine is a standard 14 or 15 inch impeller, not backwardly inclined.
Pmayer-
Okay, you have me convinced to pay more attention to the separation % numbers. I never saw a spec for my 2 hp Tempest, but it must be very close to 100% based on your explanation.
Duct layout also has something to do with it as well, especially decreasing turbulence near the cyclone inlet.
"Duct layout also has something to do with it as well, especially decreasing turbulence near the cyclone inlet."
This is a good point. The last stretch of duct that the dust travels before the cyclone matters a lot, to let the dust stabilize before entering the cyclone. The CV guys told me that ideally you have a 10' straight pipe coming out of the cyclone before it makes any turns, but in most hobbyist shops that isn't likely. But at least with that understanding you can do what you can in the space that you have. A few feet of straight pipe is better than no feet.
As redoak pointed out, particle size is a huge factor. I've heard a lot of cyclone owners complain about clogging with sanding dust. Before I got a CV I had a single stage Jet canister system before they added the wok inside of it. What a nightmare. Sanding dust didn't land in the bag until the filter was so full it couldn't take any more. I read about one woodworker who was having a similar experience as Fred with his SDG and he stopped using it for his drum sander altogether which improved the situation on the SDG a lot. Instead he bought a 1.5 hp single stage system with a bag and hooked it directly to the sander, and he just smacks down the bag ever so often which is a lot easier than cleaning the filter on a cyclone. Not ideal, but "good enough".
Carl, I hope we get some input on your original question, as this would be interesting data. I hear a wide variance on separation experience from SDG owners (as we've already seen here with only a couple data points), and I haven't heard or read much from V Systems owners.
This is/has been a good discussion. The problem caused by the lack of separation I have (besides the reduction in air flow as the filter clogged) was that after many cleanings, I could not get the filter cleaned anymore. I guess the dust plugged the pores up so badly the particles wouldn't fall out. This happened in a matter of 6 years (OEM Oneida filter) and the replacements aren't cheap.I bought an aftermarket filter to replace, and just recently bought another one to have a spare on hand just in case.
It is pretty clear to me that drum sanders are a difficult problem for dust collectors…difficulty for any cyclone to separate very fine particles, the amount of dust, and the fine particle size. The fine dust also poses the greatest health risks. One that I had not considered before is that filter life goes down when the amount of very fine particles goes up.
I have wanted to get a drum sander but have held off due to the costs. I guess one has to also consider the costs of running a dust collector as you may need to replace the filter sooner.
I think that a comment made earlier about a Thien baffle is likely not correct. Adding a Thien baffle before a cyclone IMHO is not a good idea. It will increase static pressure and reduce air flow. I do not see any way a Thien baffle will do a better job at separation than a cyclone. They operate in a similar way but the cyclone is a better design.
I think that's true, when i was communicating with Oneida about my unit one of the things (among several) they asked was what grit was I running on my DS and would I mail them a sample of the dust from the filter (I did).
Well this has been an interesting discussion and I realized I should have not been so narrow minded in my view of cyclones. So I will start a new thread asking for input from all Cyclone owners. I hope this helps anyone looking at cyclones.
So what conclusion has been established? I'm looking at getting a good dust collections system soon and want to be done with the first purchase if possible. I plan on either spiral or PVC duct and can place so as to follow any minimum ducting requirements. I have a copy of Woodshop Dust Control Revised and Updated but that appears to be dated 2002. At least that's the only date I can see. I did talk to Lisa at Oneida this morning about a used unit I saw on Craig's List in my area but it's a long discontinued unit that they stopped production on due to design concerns. And the asking price was $600 more than new. I was steered toward the V3000 unit which for all I can see is a nice unit, at least for what little I know about these. Then I looked at Laguna's PFlux3…..well you get the idea. Too many to consider and too little experience to make an informed decision….yet.
I never finished my research/testing, but I did a lot of research both in reading numerous research papers and talking with actual owners of equipment. The research repeatedly stated that cone height is probably one of the biggest contributors to cyclone efficiency. The taller the cone (not the body) up to 5x the diameter will increase efficiency. The shorter cone cyclones available are classified as high throughput (not high efficiency). The cone angle is what I have found to distinguish better performance (separation not flow),
The other feature that is most researched is inlet geometry. Every research paper I came across looked at rectangular inlet proportions to optimize efficiency. No one considered a round inlet to improve performance. Interestingly Oneida used to make a square inlet but switched to round (assumedly for cost reasons).
What got me started down this path was a comment I saw from someone who was told by an Oneida rep that the V series was the most efficient cyclone they sell (I tried to get that confirmed but my rep was not aware of that point). Knowing that cone height is so significant it made sense. It also followed the design style of the Dust Deputy. The feedback was a bit mixed, all were very happy with the system, but the fine drum sander dust (or similar) was a challenge.
The Clear Vue incorporates most of what should be in a high performance cyclone. If you don't generate the fine type of dust from a sander then most of the 3HP+ units from Grizzly and Oneida should also serve you well. If the Penn State Tempest was still available it seemed to be a good performer (not built the best).
Now that you have a CV, how is your separation with your drum sander? Can you provide any feedback on the amount of bypass you see per say 10 gallons of dust?
I suspect that usage will make a big difference. I do have a Supermax 19-38 but it will be used for end finish sanding while the jointer and planer will do the most work getting the wood to its proper size. I expect the majority of the sanding to be light passes several times and then finish sanding with the orbital sander. That plus the fact that it's a personal home shop it won't have heavy usage like a commercial shop. I'm still leaning towards the V3000 and hard piping. Thanks for all the input. I still have some research to do but hope to make a decision in the next 30 days or so unless a really good deal arises.
Steve
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
LumberJocks Woodworking Forum
2.5M posts
96K members
Since 2006
A forum community dedicated to professional woodworkers and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about shop safety, wood, carpentry, lumber, finishing, tools, machinery, woodworking related topics, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!