As a g700 owner, I have seen differences under normal machine conditions for dust collection vs sucking up dust out of a bucket (or in my case, floor sweepings from machines that aren't hooked into my system), so you're probably seeing more passthrough than you would under normal tool use. From a physics standpoint, under-sizing the system for cost savings (using 6" instead of 8" tubes) dramatically reduces your cross sectional area, which reduces the volume the system can handle by a square (only 9pi vs 16pi CSA per tube - or 18pi vs 32pi per system) means that your system can only actually handle roughly 56% of the flow of the g700. It also reduces the distance from the cylinder wall to the outlet intake tube by a fair margin, causing some of the particulate to get caught up in the escaping airstream. Those 2 reasons are surely large contributing factors as to why you are seeing more particulate making it through the whole system than what is seen in the commercial units.
I mentioned that in his first video as well. The diameter is playing a HUGE part. Where he saved money on diameter, he would have to spend more on linear feet to make up for it so the air can decelerate in the chamber.
Yep, totally agree. Sometimes, decisions to reduce cost have a greater impact than realized. That may make this entire setup move beyond a reasonable alternative to a cyclone. Appreciate the numbers you provided. I’m learning a ton from all the feedback and I greatly appreciate it!
@@pilsonguitars cheap, roll up, single layer stove pipe sections with foam seals glued to the inside, you could pop it open if there's a slowdown, instead of having to break glue, some of those pipe sections hit 12". for a production ready version, you don't need to see the dust inside.
@@pilsonguitars I think this has been a great experiment to actually see what different aspects of design have on the end result. Ultimately you want to slow down the particles/dust from the air stream as much as possible to capture it. Larger diameter cyclones will help with that process. The other thing that will help, which I think someone else mentioned in your last video on this, is the exiting strategy for the dust collection particles. Your current port allows the dust to shoot across the top of most of the port. However, if it's shifted, leaving it in the same orientation, but offset to one side so the particles shoot down into the port instead of across it, you would notice a dramatic improvement in collection efficiency.
I think you're spot on. The many vertical cyclone separator tests that I've seen, the larger, bucket wide vortex are always better at separating fine dust than the narrow funnel shaped ones, and it only makes sense as the whole idea is for centrifugal force to be generated, and if you have that much less volume, you probably need to compensate with 3 instead of 2 chambers, or maybe more..
I don't know if you tried it already, but aerodynamics plays a huge role in this whole system. And studies have actually shown that that 3D printed propellers, turbines, impellers, etc... can have as much as a 50% reduction in efficiency, and an increase in really turbulent airflow due to the layer lines. I don't really know all of the mechanics and intricate details of how one of these systems work, but I bet that if you sanded the impeller, the cones, and everything that's has to do with airflow, down to a smooth finish it will greatly increase the efficiency and the end result. I enjoyed the last video quite a bit and also enjoyed this one. Great job!
Reducing the turbulent flow would help but sanding off the layer lines can work but its time consuming. Using a thin layer of epoxy can give great results. Getting smooth prints is a huge topic in 3d printing and there is heaps of info out there from sanding to acetone fume cupboards.
I cannot stress the value of this stuff enough: investigate "heat shrink sealant tape". They use this stuff for sealing the shrink wrap around BOATS. The brand I use is HIPPWRAP. Stuffs as sticky as duct tape, shrinks to fit like heat shrink, peels off clean, even after heating, and is air and water tight. I use it on all my dust collection joints. Stuffs marvelous. eBay.
I have thought a lot about that and I think you’re absolutely right. I could definitely see more escaping with larger handfuls. It was surprisingly difficult to feed it slow. 😏
When cyclones are designed the relationship between the cone lenght and exhaust pipe lenght going into the cone is very important. As I recal it is called the return length in the cyclone. The lenght basically determines where the clean air is picked out of the stream If you have it too long or too short it will feed from the dirty air, so it is very important. You could also play with the exhaust pipe diameter to see if a smaller and thus closer to the center feed will help picking out the clean part of the stream.
I would be interested to see if there would be any difference placing this setup on the suction side of the blower so it's all running at negative pressure rather than the positive pressure you're running it at now. Maybe it won't matter, but many cyclones run on the suction side, so maybe it does matter.
@@Culpride If you work in series you will need 4 bins. If in parallel, normally 2 should be sufficient, but maybe also 4 can make a difference. Front & back should always have separated bins.
I found this pretty cool. i modeled this up and ran it on my CFD sim and i found the tube diameter is too small. based on the particle size and centrifugal forces it needs to be around 7.8 to 8.6in to get proper separation before getting pulled back into the exit port . based on sims 5.4m/s is about the sweet spot for this build also shrinking the exit by 3/4-1in will help as well. adding a single 3in long 1/2 tall bar inside the tube to help pull the spinning material into the exit will help with larger chunks but the main problem is the material is too close too the air exit a larger diameter will help separate the air better with a peel at 22m/s that's a 9.8-10.4in diameter. the higher the flow the more separation is needed in sim 98.5% collection down to 40 micron is doable in just the 2 stages but honestly the first stage design was a bit lack luster only really helping with very large particles. if you want i can refine the designs you have a bit send a few changes
Amazing information! I guess that plays well into what everyone has said… 8” is the sweet spot for this blower. So with my current sizing, at 2.5” inlet at the tools, I was getting 6.4m/s. Close, but still too fast. I’m still open to suggestions. Not sure how much more tweaking I can do, but I’d love to learn more.
A far less rigorous method (A+ for the CFD work) for sizing parts or choosing distances is to calculate the Reynolds number in various sections using the linear air speeds and estimates for characteristic lengths based on the tube ID and the cross sectional area occluded by the various parts. You could do this for parts of each of the stages in the commercial setup and then use these same calculations with your setup to figure out what the equivalent dimensions should be for the 3D printed parts. Another idea I had for helping figure out where more effort is needed would be to run lots of dust having all sizes of particles with the current setup and then use these graded materials to run subsequent experiments using only coarse, only fine, and only extra fine particles. This way you could see if the coarse part worked well (for example), but maybe the larger part of the fines wasn't separated as well.
If you put them in series and you have to separate bins, it would work. But you have to air can go through the bin and it’s obviously not going to . That’s it being better than parallel is still relatively unlikely, due to the higher airvelocity. However, at the same velocity of having them in parallel , aka half. You’d probably capture 90% on the first one and then say 50% on the second one which might be slightly better
When my son researched his collector build he found it necessary to have a grounded copper conductor running through it to prevent electrostatic sparks from causing an EXPLOSION!!! Make sure you protect yourself!!!
Appreciate the concern. I am thinking about that. I’m not experiencing much static buildup that I can detect, but I’m not ignoring it. More modifications to come. Thanks for watching!
Using ribbed flex tube slows air flow and adds turbulence. Bends and every fitting also impedes air movement. Smooth wall tube is best. Series would only work if you had 4 collection cans, not very practical. Sticking with my Thien baffle for now.
Awesome videos and thank you for tackling this project. As someone who is looking at dust collection solutions as well as a 3d printer, I find this very interesting and something I may pursue.
I'd like to see it using something like a Record Power CamVac vs a traditional dust collector. The overall CFM would be less but the static pressure would be increased dramatically. I feel this would be closer to the original Harvey.
For series with shared bins you need to add rubber flaps so that the air can't flow through the bins. If done with limited pressure it fall through as they collect. For the larger particles you need a larger low pressure / flow zone so they can fall out
I was wondering what you needed to mitigate the air escaping to the bins. This seems like one of the cheapest improvements to the system. The bigger diameter and longer tube people make sense but are most costly to change.
just for the future, they make super glue/CA glue desolver..think most companies call it a "debonder" good to have around incase you glue fingers together (don't ask how I know LOL)
@@pilsonguitars I would agree with the music being very aggressive. I personally don’t mind the “dead air” as you call it. If you look at some extremely popular channels they have silence or simply shop sounds (think AvE, this old Tony, ect). A way to fill those in is with voice overs helping to add content and context to what’s being seen on screen. While editing and only hearing yourself it can become excruciating but you have to consider the end user (viewers of your channel) aren’t watching the same clips for hours while editing. We only see 10 to 20 minutes and we are here for the content not the tunes. If you must have the music because it’s your style then possibly consider lowering the levels to 60-65% of what your voice is at. It plays as more of a background than a jarring slap in the face. I mean these suggestions to be respectful and constructive. I hope they are received in that way. Otherwise, very cool content!
@@anynamey I appreciate the feedback and perspective. I see/hear both types of styles when viewing other channels. I realize the content isn't for me, but I do want to enjoy personally what I'm putting out. It's just my preference for the format. That said, I needed to take a more cautious approach to the levels I was using. I was just dumping the music in at full volume and that didn't match up normalized against my voiceovers. I'm also paying more attention to backgrounding the music at a more consistent level to get it out of the way of instructional content. (that 60-70% that you mentioned) I realize that style will not suit everyone. Hopefully, the value of the content is stronger than the distaste for the style. 😀 I'm grateful to those who watch and especially for those that take the time to provide constructive feedback, like yourself. Thanks much!
I think everything you have is correct and functional but the collection ports and catch being too small and not vertical walled to the deck. The slow air coming in off the pipe is siphoning without those vertical walls breaking it up. The venturi of the original, 6" in to 5" off the blower then split to 2-5" to 7", might be better served with the downsized centrifuge going 5" in to 4" off the blower then split to 2-4" to the 6" centrifuge. I'm just building my dust collection system, so this will be a fun project. Again, great work!
I remmember from other builds Your problem is probably the joined buckets . The airpressure can such back out stuff from the bucket when there are two openings
A larger diameter tube might help. E=MV squared The more velocity you impart to the dust the more energy it has so the easier it separates from the air .
If you want, you can try with multicyclone. Like this one.th-cam.com/video/ozy4aHfJNhA/w-d-xo.htmlsi=CAp-hwHnWBWXTzWX This is for water but you get an idea. Nice and very little 3d printing necessary. I would prefer vertical multicyclone cause gravity helps there even at low velocity. And you dont need to overcome it as in horizontal ones. At this level you can read some engineering handbook with calculations and optimize system to your own needs. I wish you good luck!
when watching the flow through if you made the exhaust tubes a bit longer so they went over the end of the cones a little bit it should stop the particles flowing back out instead of dropping down into the bin you could make it a sliding fit so you could change its lenght also the sides of the outlet for the fines sounld be as large as the clear tube
a single long three stage, with three separate bins, would be as good for capacity as two two stage separators. maybe single stage after a small cyclone would do the job, some tools are gonna spew out large chips that i'd worry would clog this thing.
You need to measure the amount of material comes out the exit and then subtract that from the initial volume. This is because material is still trapped in the whole system.
The greater turn angle was definitely an improvement. I think what is going on there is by getting it to the outside sooner, it has less chance to go straight out the back. I still think there is gain to be had by playing with the outlets a bit more. I am also wondering what would happen if the rear exit port tube was longer. The velocity is going to be greatest straight off the fins and the further it goes back the more opportunity it has to come back to the middle. If the rear exit tube was closer to the fins, I think it would pick up less fine dirt.
I'd love to see one more impeller test where you go more aggressive on the pitch than the commercial. I also agree that series (vs parallel) would help but would make the canister situation tricky. I'm curious how much is getting stuck in the system. Perhaps you could exhaust to a bag filter and weigh the bag before & after to see what it collected vs what's in the bins. Did you ever chamfer the edges of the bin tube or consider making some sort of catch-lip that would knock things down better?
I notice in your last video and this video, you always measure what is captured and through subtraction determine the efficiency. But this doesn't account for any dust trapped in your hoses, in the separators, etc. Instead of that, you should try measuring the weight of the final filter before and after filtration to determine what the filter is trapping that the separator is not trapping.
That is brilliant! I hadn’t even considered that I can just assume the rest of the material is in “the system”. This is why I put these videos out. I think I learn more from everyone else than I’m teaching. 😁 Thanks so much!
Most cyclones have the suction at the end of the system, creating a negative pressure in the barrel (my barrel implodes every once in a while).It feels like that would actually suck up the dust into the barrels more, where as now you're pushing the material through and the barrels might be so full of pressured air that smaller dust particles don't see it as the path of least resistance? So try vacuum instead of pressure, is what I'm suggesting. But I'm not a fluid dynamics expert at all.
Huge miss on the series system testing. As you identified your setup allowed short-circuiting. Need individual containers, with an inline mounting system. It will likely perform much better than parallel (this is what we do in mineral processing to get the metals out of the ore…).
I’d love to see what would happen if you added a 2in line from the buckets connecting to the 4in line between the separator and the filter. That would remove any back pressure from the buckets, I imagine you don’t want clean air coming back through the hole that the dusty air is meant to get thrown into
I think definitely test out 8 inch tubing and also improve your weighing methodology. As someone else mentioned only weighing the filter canister makes more sense than pouring out the drums as you have particles stuck to all those surfaces and you can even see big plumes of fine dust when you pour into the smaller bucket. I think one more round of iteration and testing and I would definitely buy your plans for this
@@pilsonguitars oh for some reason I thought the stl files cost $20! Will you update them with the new impeller angles? I’ve really enjoyed this series and I also designed one of these myself based off some other files I found but never got round to making it. Keep up the good work.
maybe you can try to mimic how air compressor in turbines work, you the impeller with X fins, that collect heavy particles, but in the second impeller make it with more fins for finer particles
A little ridge on the trailing edge of the dumps into the collectors to catch the dust flying around on the inner diameter would catch those light pieces. Like a scoop.
What about modifying the base units to catch the particles on a tangential path heading down to the canister? Like a P shape, rather that a T at the discharge opening
I think you would probably see good gains figuring out how to slow down the air velocity (not the cfm, just the speed) in the fines collection section. You mention that they use an 8" instead of 6" body - that's a huge difference in air speed at the same flow rate. Maybe a 6" x 8" transition immediately after the impeller / as part of the impeller so the fines collection side is at a lower air speed? A third unit also in parallel would drop the air speed by a third. May also be worth playing with the geometry of the outlet. Could mess with length, diameter, shape, adding baffles to counter the centrifugal flow.
As previously indicated, the main issue is that your exit port is not tangential to the outside of the tube. That discontinuity destroys laminar flow, and the dust does not cleanly exit into the tub. It remains suspended, and can exit with the air. You only have centrifugal force, which diminishes, not gravity (as in a cyclone) which does not. BTW, dust canister pressurization is NOT an indication of airflow- once established, the pressure will not fluctuate and no flow will happen (where would it go?).
I think you've not explained this correctly, the exit port is centrally located on his design and on the G700. But on the G700 the port is inset to avoid letting dust on the outside of the cylinder to keep traveling in a straight line, it would have to jump back to get to the outlet port.
@@jaro6985 The outlet port needs to be tangential to the outside of the tube. The other side does not, and probably better not to- see the outlet of an axial impeller. The principle is for the mass of the particle to cause it to travel in a straight line into the bin- the mass overcoming the force of the air trying to keep it in a circular path (the air cannot go into the bin- pressures have equalized). As particle size decreased this becomes harder- mass is the cube of the particle size, air force the square. The faster the air stream, the more effective the separation- but the higher air-flow required (more than that needed for extraction). Any discontinuity, such as the path not being a straight line, will disturb the flow and reduce the separation. There will always be a point in particle size that prevents further separation for any given design. At that point other separation methods are needed- filtration is the most common (cheap to implement, but higher maintenance) but there are others, such as electrostatic. Personally, I achieve perfect fine dust extraction by exhausting the air from the shop. Not suitable in all climates, but works for me.
You can't easily ground non conductive materials to counter static electricity, you could however try a conductive paint or coating. I've DIY'd such a coating from raphite powder and varnish. It was very cheap and worked reasonably well! Would definitely be enough for ESD
you can use oring , more part but easier to make prototype for testing, put vent on your canister, put your systeme vertical, taper to reduce speed of raw
Looks like your blower is too powerful for 2 tubes. The fact that 2.5" hose got you better result means each tube need to get a lower air speed. Maybe it's time to add a 3rd tube.
The "shaft" of the part with the fins should be a cone shape as well, so it's not only introducing the spin, but give the particles an initial direction towards the side wall, that way you're not relying on the centrifugal force alone. Also, glue a small lip on one side of the collection outlet inside the tube, so the particles are not just keep spinning in circles but caught on this lip and fall into the bin. I think the series idea was good if you gave it a proper chance. As you concluded in the first video, airspeed makes a big difference. With two in series, you essentially doubled the airspeed, that's why did it preform worse than in parallel. So the correct test would've been a single unit vs two in series. Obviously the more chance you give the particles to fall out the better, so the sweet spot is probably four units total. Two in series and those two in parallel. And if you don't insist on acrylic tubing (which is the main bulk of the cost), it could be made cheap (PVC pipes).
Appreciate the feedback. It was a fun project and test. Ultimately I ended up with something that worked a lot better than what I had and I learned a lot along the way. Thanks for watching!
Erm, what on Earth happened to my comment? Did it get scrubbed because I had a link in it? Anyway, it was about changing the shape/size of the drops going into the bins. The response was positive, although the modification was too extensive to fit into these quick alterations. I do agree that it's a fairly extensive bit of surgery, but I hope that the response suggests that we' might get a third video in this series?
Wow, thank you for this and the previous video. Ever since I saw Under Dunn's video I've been wanting to create one of these. I've even gone so far that I've made a 3d model, but never gotten around to print it. Maybe this is the motivation that I need in order to finally do it? Some ideas though, consider using print in place threads, I've used in in loads of models and removes the need for glue and other fasteners, just print ant it is done. Also, as you sort of mentioned, offset the dust-hole for the second phase so that it spirals down into the bucket. No need to have it as wide as the pipe, just offset it to one of the sides, at least that is my plan if I ever get around to create one of these.
True. 3D printers have become very affordable ($100). When I first got one, I thought it would just be for fun stuff here and there for the kids. It’s turned into quite the useful tool.
Love the video... 2 Questions. Since the percentage was less then the first test would you say that the original 3d parts do not need to be changed to the more aggressive designed part and what is the difference between using your cyclone or just adding a filter to your Harbor Freight setup instead of a bag?
Does the stator (impeller) need to be changed? Hard to say. I think it may have been OK in the original shape but I don’t have a way to do an A/B test on that now. (check out part 3 of this series) As for adding a filter on top of the Harbor Freight setup, yes, that would have been an improvement. (as well as changing to a plastic, non-porous, bag on the bottom) But the Harbor Freight setup is not a good separator. That filter on top would get clogged in a big hurry. It works, and it’s better than the out-of-the-box setup, but it’s not great.
I do not know if you noticed in your video but the dust before the cone was collecting after the first opening. So, I would either advance the unit or lengthen the cone so it disrupts the flow before the first opening. Last if you had a larger hose coming in then going out it will increase the air flow. Air flow is always constricted when it goes from large to smaller size which is why there are dealers who suggest large tubing for maximize air flow.
I think you’re referring to the shroud that’s around the stator. If so, I believe that’s how it’s supposed to operate, allowing those large particles to hit and then drop into the first container. At least that’s what I see happening. Let me know if you’re seeing something else.
Yes, I considered it. The challenge is, 1) it's a little too close to the Harvey unit and I'm sure they've spent a good number of dollars and time perfecting that design and want to protect their patents (rightfully so) and 2) I make guitars as a hobby so my jigs and tool building are in service to that hobby.
Hmm, what about flaring out the back part of the tube to get the particles further away from the exhaust pipe? And as you said in video 1, get the ports on the underside bigger so that parts can just fall straight down.
When building a test/prototype design, I find it's best to use fasteners wherever possible .. glue is for the final assembly/small parts. ;) Also, one thing I haven't seen someone do is upscale a Dyson design. With the Dyson vacuums, they use a bunch of small cones (in parallel) to create multiple vortexes that spin against a holed cone, it's very effective on tiny particles, be curious how well it'd work for workshops. Dyson's latest: th-cam.com/video/O-8Ysa44XrQ/w-d-xo.html
Quick thought - if you run a cheap'er sacrificial filter in front of the HEPA you might significantly extend the life of the HEPA and only have to pay for a couple of sacrificial pre-filters a year. Thank you for these videos!
Saw the thumbnail and thought, "cool, but it's probably a bit overkill, no?" Then I saw that you make guitars. Yup, all the dust collection and separating you can manage is probably still not enough.
I think this is the same as a cyclone. But I could see some improvements. First part at best simulates a 90° bend. That catches the bigger particles, but than there is nothing to guide it down to the bucket. Same could be achieved with a T pipe fitting and a smaller pipe crossing the T. The smaller pipe could be conical and it would accelerate particles more at it's end. At the end air will need to bend 180° and all bigger particles will be thrown to the bucket. I imagine this T on it's side, the particle exhaust going straight down to the bucket taking advantage of gravity as well. Second stage looks great. Gets the air spinning but so will a cyclone. What I'm thinking here is to get particles out faster by cutting a longitudinal slit. Something like a vegetable slicer. That would allow dust to exit the spinning cycle and just fall to the fine dust bucket. If the static presure over this slit is not uniform, a blow back may form, pulling dust from the slit in lower section. Now I don't have hands on experience with neither. But the physics are somewhat the same, and cyclones are very old news and proven by time. And yes this look better, more futuristic. I would definitely like to see one modified to be mounted on a wall.
Great videos! Wondering how pressure relief valves would work on your dust bucket lids? You can make them with a bolt, some big fender washers and a spring - print a gasket for the washers with TPU or just use whatever gasket material you have sitting around (foam, etc.). Would make it easy to adjust pressure by tightening or loosening the nut or adding stiffer/looser spring.
I have been tossing around a few ideas on this for a few months as well, scaled down for a shop vac I have been working on a version with a tangential inlet opposite of the first dust port to force the primary cyclone into the first dust outlet. I have also been looking at some of the bagless upright vacuums for inspiration just trying to scale it up and make it less compact. SimScale CFD is free for a few CFD test models BTW.
Great content and awesome build.. yes tweaking or even twerking may improve the process.. but that is what is great about product development. I am with the 8" design.. if implemented,. would buy your plans for sure!
The design seems weird, you have a lot of dead space at the end there where dust gets trapped til it eventually gets large enough to be pushed into the hole. Maybe you could close that deadspace off a bit to where its flush with the edge of the find particle hole?
I’m seeing that as well. The design choice was from replicating similar commercial systems and scaling down to the 6” tube size. Appreciate the feedback.
When hunting for more efficiency in lower percentages it is always the little tweeks that get the gains. For testing I'd be using more dust material to get better averages. Obviously the 3d printed parts could be smoother and may get some gains, but that may be better for final stages due to the hassle and time needed. Is it possible to add a small vacuum port to each bucket to ensure negative pressure? Maybe a baffle or long tube to reduce the slow moving dust from being pulled back into the system. I'd try tapping into the main line for the buckets at a point with the highest velocity, which may be before the cyclone units.
A system like this works by causing deceleration in a controlled flow direction, so the 3d prints actually are benefiting his process, as they are creating a turbulent surface instead of smooth airflow that will retain its speed.
@@MattWeber I'm not sure I agree completely as the blades are to direct the flow of air to accelerate the particles out to the side and guide it into the waste, then it is meant to decelerate and fall.
@@pilsonguitarswas hoping I could just duct tape the inside of a tube and use that as dust collection. Like how using a lint roller on the dog works better..
Maybe the impeller needs to go the opposite direction. Instead of being more aggressive it should be less aggressive. Further once you go beyond the tuning of the separator your efficiency will get worse again. Your threading the needle......here!
two amazing videos. love the way you structured your experiment and fondings and your making abilities are amazing im so glad to have found your channel
Yes, lots of interest from everyone on that. Not sure it makes a difference but I may test that at some point. The commercial system uses a push method, so I was replicating that.
Hi mate, just another quick idea, could you maybe put some small filters between the seperator and collection buckets to dissipate some of the pressure coming back out of the collection buckets?
If you look at the diagrams you'll notice the exit port for the fine section is fully offset to one side. IMO you need to refo that part of the base to get full performance out of this. The coarse section should probably be full width ss you said in the last video. My 2c.
Just wondering if there's a measurable weight increase in the final canister filter with each test? If so, comparing the weight of material from the separators with the increased weight of the final filter might better represent the percentage efficacy of the separation system. As the result will not be affected by dust caught up in the ducting which never makes it to the separation system. Just a thought.
Maybe if you hybridised the system on the in-series setup you could get better results. Instead of having the air cycle in and out through the same inlet, you could an inlet into the drum which would enter at an angle and then have a vertical outlet for the air to move on to the next step of the system. But your system would probably need to be redesigned so that the first step would filter large particles and the second step would get the finer ones.
Paralel separators effectively doubles the surface area of the path, series keeps the area the same but has more resistance. I think series with individual collection bins would be better than parallel as the air is getting filtered twice instead of spilt in half and filtered once
That water trap idea works very well. I have built a diy dust collector with a water trap and i can say it is very good, you only have to take care of the small water drops that escape into the system using a sponge trap or a small seperate water trap. There is hardly any dust left in the exhaust after the water trap stage
They’re so steep angled at this point, I’m not sure I can twist them anymore. I see the results you’re talking about, but I almost think less force would be better so they get to the back faster.
@@pilsonguitars you could push the exit tube closer to to the turbine? back flow turbulence behind the outflow port could slow it down enough not to enter the exit. it would be faster to iterate on that versus moving to 8in diameter tubing. Ive been playing around with making one of these for my shop, but 3 stage instead (not including the filter. Also the price of 8in acrylic tube is insane. I would use 8in steel air ducts and cut out a viewing window for testing.
I agree with @wscottcross4012 and think you should try it on the suction side of the blower, it shouldn’t be a whole lot of work to change things around.
Another fantastic video, how far are you planning on going with these experiments? - Larger Tube? Different designs such as the G800? As with everything, there's a trade-off and their newer designs (Especially the G1000) appear to use more of a traditional cyclone design, so I think the main point of the G700 design is to reduce overall height rather than to improve filtering. It may well be that the original G700 design was already on the edge of the performance limit before you changed it to use a smaller tube diameter so that might be why you're seeing such a dramatic difference with the smaller tube.
Well, I’d like to get much closer to that 99%. (but I do need to build guitars in addition to a day job) Based on the way I’m testing the results, weighing the filter may reveal that I’m getting a lot more than I realize. I may try testing with a scale that would allow me to weigh the filter.
You may want to make the fine dust drop off section larger (Full width of the tube). Looking at the Harvey product you can see the tube becomes a flat area where dust hitting that would loose momentum and drop down vs cycling around and giving it another change to escape.
This is a great series. I would love to see you carry it on and get it perfected. I don't have anything further to add than the comments below on changes. Great Job! Fun Video!
Great set of videos, and I’m gonna do some testing on an in-line design versus the traditional cyclone and see if I see any results that are worth mentioning. That said, I wouldn’t necessarily measure efficiency, in a matter which you have use simply because we know that some material is getting left behind within both the hoses and the extractor. In measuring performance, I think you would have to test the outflow side and capture those particles. Great job and I look forward to more of your content
Great experiment and thank you for providing the files. Did you ever look at extending (inside) the exit tube so that it protrudes deeper into the main clear tube. Wondering if this would increase (or decrease) dust collection of the fine particles
The research and effort you have put into this project is commendable and applaudable. higher air speed will keep more particulate in the airstream. Rapid drop in pressure or airflow will allow the suspended particulate to fall out of the air stream and be deposited into the collection bins. The key is to measure the air speed as they exit the bins before the canister filter. A larger bin or barrel will have a much more significant air speed drop reducing the generated air stream pressure allowing the particulate to fall out of the air stream. Volume and velocity are relevant at the point of air speed drop which in your case is the collection bin. Possibly a simple fix would be to baffle the area between the collection and the filter. 🤔 Or possibly have 1 large collection bin with a greater volume than the smaller food safe containers. On my system I use (2) 30 gallon trash cans that have a diy cyclone cap. I split the single main supply line to the containers into 2 lines significantly dropping the air speed and related volume and I have gone 9 months to a year of daily use before needing to address my filter.
As a g700 owner, I have seen differences under normal machine conditions for dust collection vs sucking up dust out of a bucket (or in my case, floor sweepings from machines that aren't hooked into my system), so you're probably seeing more passthrough than you would under normal tool use.
From a physics standpoint, under-sizing the system for cost savings (using 6" instead of 8" tubes) dramatically reduces your cross sectional area, which reduces the volume the system can handle by a square (only 9pi vs 16pi CSA per tube - or 18pi vs 32pi per system) means that your system can only actually handle roughly 56% of the flow of the g700. It also reduces the distance from the cylinder wall to the outlet intake tube by a fair margin, causing some of the particulate to get caught up in the escaping airstream. Those 2 reasons are surely large contributing factors as to why you are seeing more particulate making it through the whole system than what is seen in the commercial units.
I mentioned that in his first video as well. The diameter is playing a HUGE part. Where he saved money on diameter, he would have to spend more on linear feet to make up for it so the air can decelerate in the chamber.
Yep, totally agree. Sometimes, decisions to reduce cost have a greater impact than realized. That may make this entire setup move beyond a reasonable alternative to a cyclone. Appreciate the numbers you provided. I’m learning a ton from all the feedback and I greatly appreciate it!
@@pilsonguitars cheap, roll up, single layer stove pipe sections with foam seals glued to the inside, you could pop it open if there's a slowdown, instead of having to break glue, some of those pipe sections hit 12". for a production ready version, you don't need to see the dust inside.
@@pilsonguitars I think this has been a great experiment to actually see what different aspects of design have on the end result.
Ultimately you want to slow down the particles/dust from the air stream as much as possible to capture it. Larger diameter cyclones will help with that process. The other thing that will help, which I think someone else mentioned in your last video on this, is the exiting strategy for the dust collection particles. Your current port allows the dust to shoot across the top of most of the port. However, if it's shifted, leaving it in the same orientation, but offset to one side so the particles shoot down into the port instead of across it, you would notice a dramatic improvement in collection efficiency.
I think you're spot on. The many vertical cyclone separator tests that I've seen, the larger, bucket wide vortex are always better at separating fine dust than the narrow funnel shaped ones, and it only makes sense as the whole idea is for centrifugal force to be generated, and if you have that much less volume, you probably need to compensate with 3 instead of 2 chambers, or maybe more..
I don't know if you tried it already, but aerodynamics plays a huge role in this whole system. And studies have actually shown that that 3D printed propellers, turbines, impellers, etc... can have as much as a 50% reduction in efficiency, and an increase in really turbulent airflow due to the layer lines. I don't really know all of the mechanics and intricate details of how one of these systems work, but I bet that if you sanded the impeller, the cones, and everything that's has to do with airflow, down to a smooth finish it will greatly increase the efficiency and the end result. I enjoyed the last video quite a bit and also enjoyed this one. Great job!
Reducing the turbulent flow would help but sanding off the layer lines can work but its time consuming. Using a thin layer of epoxy can give great results.
Getting smooth prints is a huge topic in 3d printing and there is heaps of info out there from sanding to acetone fume cupboards.
I cannot stress the value of this stuff enough: investigate "heat shrink sealant tape". They use this stuff for sealing the shrink wrap around BOATS. The brand I use is HIPPWRAP. Stuffs as sticky as duct tape, shrinks to fit like heat shrink, peels off clean, even after heating, and is air and water tight. I use it on all my dust collection joints. Stuffs marvelous. eBay.
One thing when you're doing those tests, don't just dump those large handfuls in. Make it emulate more closely how a machine would produce the dust.
Practical testing, instead of simulated too large or too small quantities, is pertinent to test the real-world efficacy
I have thought a lot about that and I think you’re absolutely right. I could definitely see more escaping with larger handfuls. It was surprisingly difficult to feed it slow. 😏
@@pilsonguitarsSpread it out in a single line just as if the dust collector is a nose and the dust is Coke!
When cyclones are designed the relationship between the cone lenght and exhaust pipe lenght going into the cone is very important. As I recal it is called the return length in the cyclone. The lenght basically determines where the clean air is picked out of the stream If you have it too long or too short it will feed from the dirty air, so it is very important.
You could also play with the exhaust pipe diameter to see if a smaller and thus closer to the center feed will help picking out the clean part of the stream.
I think you should continue to iterate and test and document for the audience. Great job.
I would be interested to see if there would be any difference placing this setup on the suction side of the blower so it's all running at negative pressure rather than the positive pressure you're running it at now. Maybe it won't matter, but many cyclones run on the suction side, so maybe it does matter.
Great video. Since you already have all at hand, I would love to see the approach with the separated bins. The results will be much better.
Like one bin for the first separator turbine and one for the second, still in series ... or four seperate containers? One for each outlet
@@Culpride If you work in series you will need 4 bins. If in parallel, normally 2 should be sufficient, but maybe also 4 can make a difference. Front & back should always have separated bins.
I've found that drywall dust & EPS balls are the most difficult to separate in a cyclone device.
I found this pretty cool. i modeled this up and ran it on my CFD sim and i found the tube diameter is too small. based on the particle size and centrifugal forces it needs to be around 7.8 to 8.6in to get proper separation before getting pulled back into the exit port . based on sims 5.4m/s is about the sweet spot for this build also shrinking the exit by 3/4-1in will help as well. adding a single 3in long 1/2 tall bar inside the tube to help pull the spinning material into the exit will help with larger chunks but the main problem is the material is too close too the air exit a larger diameter will help separate the air better with a peel at 22m/s that's a 9.8-10.4in diameter. the higher the flow the more separation is needed in sim 98.5% collection down to 40 micron is doable in just the 2 stages but honestly the first stage design was a bit lack luster only really helping with very large particles. if you want i can refine the designs you have a bit send a few changes
Amazing information! I guess that plays well into what everyone has said… 8” is the sweet spot for this blower. So with my current sizing, at 2.5” inlet at the tools, I was getting 6.4m/s. Close, but still too fast. I’m still open to suggestions. Not sure how much more tweaking I can do, but I’d love to learn more.
A far less rigorous method (A+ for the CFD work) for sizing parts or choosing distances is to calculate the Reynolds number in various sections using the linear air speeds and estimates for characteristic lengths based on the tube ID and the cross sectional area occluded by the various parts. You could do this for parts of each of the stages in the commercial setup and then use these same calculations with your setup to figure out what the equivalent dimensions should be for the 3D printed parts.
Another idea I had for helping figure out where more effort is needed would be to run lots of dust having all sizes of particles with the current setup and then use these graded materials to run subsequent experiments using only coarse, only fine, and only extra fine particles. This way you could see if the coarse part worked well (for example), but maybe the larger part of the fines wasn't separated as well.
@benjfitzpatrick2054 I started with the numbers. I just did the cfd work to validate them better with efficiency
If you put them in series and you have to separate bins, it would work.
But you have to air can go through the bin and it’s obviously not going to .
That’s it being better than parallel is still relatively unlikely, due to the higher airvelocity.
However, at the same velocity of having them in parallel , aka half.
You’d probably capture 90% on the first one and then say 50% on the second one which might be slightly better
When my son researched his collector build he found it necessary to have a grounded copper conductor running through it to prevent electrostatic sparks from causing an EXPLOSION!!! Make sure you protect yourself!!!
Appreciate the concern. I am thinking about that. I’m not experiencing much static buildup that I can detect, but I’m not ignoring it. More modifications to come. Thanks for watching!
Using ribbed flex tube slows air flow and adds turbulence. Bends and every fitting also impedes air movement. Smooth wall tube is best.
Series would only work if you had 4 collection cans, not very practical. Sticking with my Thien baffle for now.
Yes, agreed.
Awesome videos and thank you for tackling this project. As someone who is looking at dust collection solutions as well as a 3d printer, I find this very interesting and something I may pursue.
I'd like to see it using something like a Record Power CamVac vs a traditional dust collector. The overall CFM would be less but the static pressure would be increased dramatically. I feel this would be closer to the original Harvey.
For series with shared bins you need to add rubber flaps so that the air can't flow through the bins. If done with limited pressure it fall through as they collect.
For the larger particles you need a larger low pressure / flow zone so they can fall out
I was wondering what you needed to mitigate the air escaping to the bins. This seems like one of the cheapest improvements to the system. The bigger diameter and longer tube people make sense but are most costly to change.
just for the future, they make super glue/CA glue desolver..think most companies call it a "debonder" good to have around incase you glue fingers together (don't ask how I know LOL)
This is awesome - thanks for posting this follow-up video!
my guy I'm interested in your content but cranking up the volume every time you stop talking is really abrasive
I don’t really like dead air and it keeps the pace moving. I’m a guitar builder… music in the blood. 😁
Absolutely agree. I had to turn the volume off, and then stop watching.
@@pilsonguitars I would agree with the music being very aggressive. I personally don’t mind the “dead air” as you call it. If you look at some extremely popular channels they have silence or simply shop sounds (think AvE, this old Tony, ect). A way to fill those in is with voice overs helping to add content and context to what’s being seen on screen. While editing and only hearing yourself it can become excruciating but you have to consider the end user (viewers of your channel) aren’t watching the same clips for hours while editing. We only see 10 to 20 minutes and we are here for the content not the tunes. If you must have the music because it’s your style then possibly consider lowering the levels to 60-65% of what your voice is at. It plays as more of a background than a jarring slap in the face. I mean these suggestions to be respectful and constructive. I hope they are received in that way. Otherwise, very cool content!
@@anynamey I appreciate the feedback and perspective. I see/hear both types of styles when viewing other channels. I realize the content isn't for me, but I do want to enjoy personally what I'm putting out. It's just my preference for the format. That said, I needed to take a more cautious approach to the levels I was using. I was just dumping the music in at full volume and that didn't match up normalized against my voiceovers. I'm also paying more attention to backgrounding the music at a more consistent level to get it out of the way of instructional content. (that 60-70% that you mentioned) I realize that style will not suit everyone. Hopefully, the value of the content is stronger than the distaste for the style. 😀 I'm grateful to those who watch and especially for those that take the time to provide constructive feedback, like yourself. Thanks much!
I think everything you have is correct and functional but the collection ports and catch being too small and not vertical walled to the deck. The slow air coming in off the pipe is siphoning without those vertical walls breaking it up. The venturi of the original, 6" in to 5" off the blower then split to 2-5" to 7", might be better served with the downsized centrifuge going 5" in to 4" off the blower then split to 2-4" to the 6" centrifuge. I'm just building my dust collection system, so this will be a fun project. Again, great work!
Great videos. I know it is a very difficult quest, but two of the big variables: the length of the separation tube and the diameter of the tube.
I remmember from other builds
Your problem is probably the joined buckets .
The airpressure can such back out stuff from the bucket when there are two openings
Hi, I have two different systems with cyclone separator, for your system the motor with speed controll will help you to find the best efficiency.
A larger diameter tube might help.
E=MV squared
The more velocity you impart to the dust the more energy it has so the easier it separates from the air .
Exactly the issue with most cyclones!
Just an FYI, super glue tends to melt PLA, which makes it great for bonding, but not great for teardown.
Yeah when he started to replace parts I cringed. Maybe someone can improve the parts to all screw or snap together.
Yep, I definitely experienced that! 😁
If you want, you can try with multicyclone. Like this one.th-cam.com/video/ozy4aHfJNhA/w-d-xo.htmlsi=CAp-hwHnWBWXTzWX
This is for water but you get an idea. Nice and very little 3d printing necessary.
I would prefer vertical multicyclone cause gravity helps there even at low velocity. And you dont need to overcome it as in horizontal ones.
At this level you can read some engineering handbook with calculations and optimize system to your own needs.
I wish you good luck!
next update video is gonna be putting them in series, bust all exits have their own bin, so the path of least resistance does not interfere.
when watching the flow through if you made the exhaust tubes a bit longer so they went over the end of the cones a little bit it should stop the particles flowing back out instead of dropping down into the bin you could make it a sliding fit so you could change its lenght
also the sides of the outlet for the fines sounld be as large as the clear tube
I like the idea of a slide over modification to make adjustments. Thanks!
a single long three stage, with three separate bins, would be as good for capacity as two two stage separators. maybe single stage after a small cyclone would do the job, some tools are gonna spew out large chips that i'd worry would clog this thing.
You need to measure the amount of material comes out the exit and then subtract that from the initial volume. This is because material is still trapped in the whole system.
The greater turn angle was definitely an improvement. I think what is going on there is by getting it to the outside sooner, it has less chance to go straight out the back. I still think there is gain to be had by playing with the outlets a bit more. I am also wondering what would happen if the rear exit port tube was longer. The velocity is going to be greatest straight off the fins and the further it goes back the more opportunity it has to come back to the middle. If the rear exit tube was closer to the fins, I think it would pick up less fine dirt.
I'd love to see one more impeller test where you go more aggressive on the pitch than the commercial. I also agree that series (vs parallel) would help but would make the canister situation tricky. I'm curious how much is getting stuck in the system. Perhaps you could exhaust to a bag filter and weigh the bag before & after to see what it collected vs what's in the bins. Did you ever chamfer the edges of the bin tube or consider making some sort of catch-lip that would knock things down better?
I notice in your last video and this video, you always measure what is captured and through subtraction determine the efficiency. But this doesn't account for any dust trapped in your hoses, in the separators, etc. Instead of that, you should try measuring the weight of the final filter before and after filtration to determine what the filter is trapping that the separator is not trapping.
you should also run the same tests on your original dust collector and compare them relatively rather than absolutely according to the weights.
That is brilliant! I hadn’t even considered that I can just assume the rest of the material is in “the system”. This is why I put these videos out. I think I learn more from everyone else than I’m teaching. 😁 Thanks so much!
Most cyclones have the suction at the end of the system, creating a negative pressure in the barrel (my barrel implodes every once in a while).It feels like that would actually suck up the dust into the barrels more, where as now you're pushing the material through and the barrels might be so full of pressured air that smaller dust particles don't see it as the path of least resistance? So try vacuum instead of pressure, is what I'm suggesting. But I'm not a fluid dynamics expert at all.
Huge miss on the series system testing. As you identified your setup allowed short-circuiting. Need individual containers, with an inline mounting system. It will likely perform much better than parallel (this is what we do in mineral processing to get the metals out of the ore…).
I’d love to see what would happen if you added a 2in line from the buckets connecting to the 4in line between the separator and the filter. That would remove any back pressure from the buckets, I imagine you don’t want clean air coming back through the hole that the dusty air is meant to get thrown into
I think definitely test out 8 inch tubing and also improve your weighing methodology. As someone else mentioned only weighing the filter canister makes more sense than pouring out the drums as you have particles stuck to all those surfaces and you can even see big plumes of fine dust when you pour into the smaller bucket. I think one more round of iteration and testing and I would definitely buy your plans for this
Just measuring the filter weight… ah… brilliant! Geesh I love this community!
Also, no need to buy anything. Plans are FREE and you can scale them to whatever size you need. (just increase the percentage)
@@pilsonguitars oh for some reason I thought the stl files cost $20! Will you update them with the new impeller angles? I’ve really enjoyed this series and I also designed one of these myself based off some other files I found but never got round to making it. Keep up the good work.
maybe you can try to mimic how air compressor in turbines work, you the impeller with X fins, that collect heavy particles, but in the second impeller make it with more fins for finer particles
Just a curiosity only one extraction pipe would work? why do we need two extractions , how would that apply in terms of efficiency ?
A little ridge on the trailing edge of the dumps into the collectors to catch the dust flying around on the inner diameter would catch those light pieces. Like a scoop.
maybe extending the outlet port a bit further into the separator would help. Dust would need to make a S turn to make it to the filter.
What about modifying the base units to catch the particles on a tangential path heading down to the canister? Like a P shape, rather that a T at the discharge opening
I think you would probably see good gains figuring out how to slow down the air velocity (not the cfm, just the speed) in the fines collection section. You mention that they use an 8" instead of 6" body - that's a huge difference in air speed at the same flow rate. Maybe a 6" x 8" transition immediately after the impeller / as part of the impeller so the fines collection side is at a lower air speed? A third unit also in parallel would drop the air speed by a third.
May also be worth playing with the geometry of the outlet. Could mess with length, diameter, shape, adding baffles to counter the centrifugal flow.
Great ideas! Thanks for the feedback.
Metered orifice air bleeds from the collection bins to the final filter or potentially a third collection bin, to minimize reversion of the bins?
As previously indicated, the main issue is that your exit port is not tangential to the outside of the tube. That discontinuity destroys laminar flow, and the dust does not cleanly exit into the tub. It remains suspended, and can exit with the air. You only have centrifugal force, which diminishes, not gravity (as in a cyclone) which does not.
BTW, dust canister pressurization is NOT an indication of airflow- once established, the pressure will not fluctuate and no flow will happen (where would it go?).
I think you've not explained this correctly, the exit port is centrally located on his design and on the G700. But on the G700 the port is inset to avoid letting dust on the outside of the cylinder to keep traveling in a straight line, it would have to jump back to get to the outlet port.
@@jaro6985 The outlet port needs to be tangential to the outside of the tube. The other side does not, and probably better not to- see the outlet of an axial impeller. The principle is for the mass of the particle to cause it to travel in a straight line into the bin- the mass overcoming the force of the air trying to keep it in a circular path (the air cannot go into the bin- pressures have equalized). As particle size decreased this becomes harder- mass is the cube of the particle size, air force the square. The faster the air stream, the more effective the separation- but the higher air-flow required (more than that needed for extraction). Any discontinuity, such as the path not being a straight line, will disturb the flow and reduce the separation. There will always be a point in particle size that prevents further separation for any given design. At that point other separation methods are needed- filtration is the most common (cheap to implement, but higher maintenance) but there are others, such as electrostatic. Personally, I achieve perfect fine dust extraction by exhausting the air from the shop. Not suitable in all climates, but works for me.
Would it not be better to have you motor after the separator than before it were it would pull it through instead blow it through?
You can't easily ground non conductive materials to counter static electricity, you could however try a conductive paint or coating. I've DIY'd such a coating from raphite powder and varnish. It was very cheap and worked reasonably well! Would definitely be enough for ESD
I was thinking about grounding a copper strip to run the circumference of the inside of each section; large and small particle.
you can use oring , more part but easier to make prototype for testing, put vent on your canister, put your systeme vertical, taper to reduce speed of raw
Looks like your blower is too powerful for 2 tubes. The fact that 2.5" hose got you better result means each tube need to get a lower air speed. Maybe it's time to add a 3rd tube.
I’m running out of shop space. 😁
Print in ABS and acetone vapor smooth
The "shaft" of the part with the fins should be a cone shape as well, so it's not only introducing the spin, but give the particles an initial direction towards the side wall, that way you're not relying on the centrifugal force alone. Also, glue a small lip on one side of the collection outlet inside the tube, so the particles are not just keep spinning in circles but caught on this lip and fall into the bin.
I think the series idea was good if you gave it a proper chance. As you concluded in the first video, airspeed makes a big difference. With two in series, you essentially doubled the airspeed, that's why did it preform worse than in parallel. So the correct test would've been a single unit vs two in series.
Obviously the more chance you give the particles to fall out the better, so the sweet spot is probably four units total. Two in series and those two in parallel. And if you don't insist on acrylic tubing (which is the main bulk of the cost), it could be made cheap (PVC pipes).
Appreciate the feedback. It was a fun project and test. Ultimately I ended up with something that worked a lot better than what I had and I learned a lot along the way. Thanks for watching!
Erm, what on Earth happened to my comment? Did it get scrubbed because I had a link in it?
Anyway, it was about changing the shape/size of the drops going into the bins. The response was positive, although the modification was too extensive to fit into these quick alterations. I do agree that it's a fairly extensive bit of surgery, but I hope that the response suggests that we' might get a third video in this series?
yes any youtube comment with a link gets deleted automatically.
Wow, thank you for this and the previous video. Ever since I saw Under Dunn's video I've been wanting to create one of these. I've even gone so far that I've made a 3d model, but never gotten around to print it. Maybe this is the motivation that I need in order to finally do it? Some ideas though, consider using print in place threads, I've used in in loads of models and removes the need for glue and other fasteners, just print ant it is done. Also, as you sort of mentioned, offset the dust-hole for the second phase so that it spirals down into the bucket. No need to have it as wide as the pipe, just offset it to one of the sides, at least that is my plan if I ever get around to create one of these.
Thanks for the feedback! Great ideas too, thanks.
I think you feed too much material at the same time (is not how it will work once attached to a machine)
Great iteration from @underdunn and your creation
I would have to spend more that 500 bc I don't have a 3d printer....great video!
True. 3D printers have become very affordable ($100). When I first got one, I thought it would just be for fun stuff here and there for the kids. It’s turned into quite the useful tool.
Love the video... 2 Questions. Since the percentage was less then the first test would you say that the original 3d parts do not need to be changed to the more aggressive designed part and what is the difference between using your cyclone or just adding a filter to your Harbor Freight setup instead of a bag?
Does the stator (impeller) need to be changed? Hard to say. I think it may have been OK in the original shape but I don’t have a way to do an A/B test on that now. (check out part 3 of this series)
As for adding a filter on top of the Harbor Freight setup, yes, that would have been an improvement. (as well as changing to a plastic, non-porous, bag on the bottom) But the Harbor Freight setup is not a good separator. That filter on top would get clogged in a big hurry. It works, and it’s better than the out-of-the-box setup, but it’s not great.
I do not know if you noticed in your video but the dust before the cone was collecting after the first opening. So, I would either advance the unit or lengthen the cone so it disrupts the flow before the first opening.
Last if you had a larger hose coming in then going out it will increase the air flow. Air flow is always constricted when it goes from large to smaller size which is why there are dealers who suggest large tubing for maximize air flow.
I think you’re referring to the shroud that’s around the stator. If so, I believe that’s how it’s supposed to operate, allowing those large particles to hit and then drop into the first container. At least that’s what I see happening. Let me know if you’re seeing something else.
Great 3 part series, have you ever thought about selling a kit to build the centrifugal separator? A whole lot cheaper than the Harvey.
Yes, I considered it. The challenge is, 1) it's a little too close to the Harvey unit and I'm sure they've spent a good number of dollars and time perfecting that design and want to protect their patents (rightfully so) and 2) I make guitars as a hobby so my jigs and tool building are in service to that hobby.
Hmm, what about flaring out the back part of the tube to get the particles further away from the exhaust pipe? And as you said in video 1, get the ports on the underside bigger so that parts can just fall straight down.
When building a test/prototype design, I find it's best to use fasteners wherever possible .. glue is for the final assembly/small parts. ;)
Also, one thing I haven't seen someone do is upscale a Dyson design. With the Dyson vacuums, they use a bunch of small cones (in parallel) to create multiple vortexes that spin against a holed cone, it's very effective on tiny particles, be curious how well it'd work for workshops.
Dyson's latest:
th-cam.com/video/O-8Ysa44XrQ/w-d-xo.html
Yeah, I didn't expect the series to win, but thank for entertaining the thoughts of us armchair experts.
I wasn’t certain, so the experiment was worthwhile. Appreciate you watching.
Great video man! Keep them coming!
Quick thought
- if you run a cheap'er sacrificial filter in front of the HEPA you might significantly extend the life of the HEPA and only have to pay for a couple of sacrificial pre-filters a year.
Thank you for these videos!
Saw the thumbnail and thought, "cool, but it's probably a bit overkill, no?" Then I saw that you make guitars. Yup, all the dust collection and separating you can manage is probably still not enough.
I wonder if having an aviation/race-car style NACA duct opening into the canisters would improve performance.
I think this is the same as a cyclone. But I could see some improvements.
First part at best simulates a 90° bend. That catches the bigger particles, but than there is nothing to guide it down to the bucket. Same could be achieved with a T pipe fitting and a smaller pipe crossing the T. The smaller pipe could be conical and it would accelerate particles more at it's end. At the end air will need to bend 180° and all bigger particles will be thrown to the bucket. I imagine this T on it's side, the particle exhaust going straight down to the bucket taking advantage of gravity as well.
Second stage looks great. Gets the air spinning but so will a cyclone. What I'm thinking here is to get particles out faster by cutting a longitudinal slit. Something like a vegetable slicer. That would allow dust to exit the spinning cycle and just fall to the fine dust bucket. If the static presure over this slit is not uniform, a blow back may form, pulling dust from the slit in lower section.
Now I don't have hands on experience with neither. But the physics are somewhat the same, and cyclones are very old news and proven by time. And yes this look better, more futuristic. I would definitely like to see one modified to be mounted on a wall.
Great videos! Wondering how pressure relief valves would work on your dust bucket lids? You can make them with a bolt, some big fender washers and a spring - print a gasket for the washers with TPU or just use whatever gasket material you have sitting around (foam, etc.). Would make it easy to adjust pressure by tightening or loosening the nut or adding stiffer/looser spring.
I have been tossing around a few ideas on this for a few months as well, scaled down for a shop vac I have been working on a version with a tangential inlet opposite of the first dust port to force the primary cyclone into the first dust outlet. I have also been looking at some of the bagless upright vacuums for inspiration just trying to scale it up and make it less compact. SimScale CFD is free for a few CFD test models BTW.
Great content and awesome build.. yes tweaking or even twerking may improve the process.. but that is what is great about product development. I am with the 8" design.. if implemented,. would buy your plans for sure!
The design seems weird, you have a lot of dead space at the end there where dust gets trapped til it eventually gets large enough to be pushed into the hole. Maybe you could close that deadspace off a bit to where its flush with the edge of the find particle hole?
I’m seeing that as well. The design choice was from replicating similar commercial systems and scaling down to the 6” tube size. Appreciate the feedback.
When hunting for more efficiency in lower percentages it is always the little tweeks that get the gains.
For testing I'd be using more dust material to get better averages.
Obviously the 3d printed parts could be smoother and may get some gains, but that may be better for final stages due to the hassle and time needed.
Is it possible to add a small vacuum port to each bucket to ensure negative pressure? Maybe a baffle or long tube to reduce the slow moving dust from being pulled back into the system. I'd try tapping into the main line for the buckets at a point with the highest velocity, which may be before the cyclone units.
A system like this works by causing deceleration in a controlled flow direction, so the 3d prints actually are benefiting his process, as they are creating a turbulent surface instead of smooth airflow that will retain its speed.
@@MattWeber I'm not sure I agree completely as the blades are to direct the flow of air to accelerate the particles out to the side and guide it into the waste, then it is meant to decelerate and fall.
how much saw dust was on the inside of the duct tape on that Y joint?
Definitely not none. I can’t quantify it, but it was visible for sure.
@@pilsonguitarswas hoping I could just duct tape the inside of a tube and use that as dust collection. Like how using a lint roller on the dog works better..
Maybe the impeller needs to go the opposite direction. Instead of being more aggressive it should be less aggressive. Further once you go beyond the tuning of the separator your efficiency will get worse again. Your threading the needle......here!
Oh, still music playing huh. Nope.
Yah, gotta jam a little while we work. Appreciate you watching though.
two amazing videos. love the way you structured your experiment and fondings and your making abilities are amazing im so glad to have found your channel
Fantastic project and great videos. Well presented, good flow (see the pun there!) And entertaining. Thanks
I wonder if it would perform differently if you plumbed before the blower rather than after
Yes, lots of interest from everyone on that. Not sure it makes a difference but I may test that at some point. The commercial system uses a push method, so I was replicating that.
Hi mate, just another quick idea, could you maybe put some small filters between the seperator and collection buckets to dissipate some of the pressure coming back out of the collection buckets?
If you look at the diagrams you'll notice the exit port for the fine section is fully offset to one side. IMO you need to refo that part of the base to get full performance out of this. The coarse section should probably be full width ss you said in the last video. My 2c.
Just wondering if there's a measurable weight increase in the final canister filter with each test? If so, comparing the weight of material from the separators with the increased weight of the final filter might better represent the percentage efficacy of the separation system. As the result will not be affected by dust caught up in the ducting which never makes it to the separation system. Just a thought.
This was awesome. Thank you for doing it, I for one found it very helpful and interesting.
Do the stl files use the more aggressive stator blades or original?
Yes, files are updated to the more aggressive pitch.
Maybe if you hybridised the system on the in-series setup you could get better results. Instead of having the air cycle in and out through the same inlet, you could an inlet into the drum which would enter at an angle and then have a vertical outlet for the air to move on to the next step of the system. But your system would probably need to be redesigned so that the first step would filter large particles and the second step would get the finer ones.
So they are horizontal at the moment, what would vertical ones do, think crude oil fractional distillation
Paralel separators effectively doubles the surface area of the path, series keeps the area the same but has more resistance.
I think series with individual collection bins would be better than parallel as the air is getting filtered twice instead of spilt in half and filtered once
I think you need to test this with a dual cyclone at the end, for science!
😁
Was TOTALLY worth it and interesting!
That water trap idea works very well. I have built a diy dust collector with a water trap and i can say it is very good, you only have to take care of the small water drops that escape into the system using a sponge trap or a small seperate water trap. There is hardly any dust left in the exhaust after the water trap stage
I think the new impellers are still too shallow - the fine dust is staying in the middle chamber for too long.
They’re so steep angled at this point, I’m not sure I can twist them anymore. I see the results you’re talking about, but I almost think less force would be better so they get to the back faster.
@@pilsonguitars you could push the exit tube closer to to the turbine? back flow turbulence behind the outflow port could slow it down enough not to enter the exit. it would be faster to iterate on that versus moving to 8in diameter tubing.
Ive been playing around with making one of these for my shop, but 3 stage instead (not including the filter. Also the price of 8in acrylic tube is insane. I would use 8in steel air ducts and cut out a viewing window for testing.
Where did you get the container from?
Facebook marketplace find. It was a local surplus provider. $20/barrel
I agree with @wscottcross4012 and think you should try it on the suction side of the blower, it shouldn’t be a whole lot of work to change things around.
Another fantastic video, how far are you planning on going with these experiments? - Larger Tube? Different designs such as the G800?
As with everything, there's a trade-off and their newer designs (Especially the G1000) appear to use more of a traditional cyclone design, so I think the main point of the G700 design is to reduce overall height rather than to improve filtering. It may well be that the original G700 design was already on the edge of the performance limit before you changed it to use a smaller tube diameter so that might be why you're seeing such a dramatic difference with the smaller tube.
Well, I’d like to get much closer to that 99%. (but I do need to build guitars in addition to a day job) Based on the way I’m testing the results, weighing the filter may reveal that I’m getting a lot more than I realize. I may try testing with a scale that would allow me to weigh the filter.
You may want to make the fine dust drop off section larger (Full width of the tube). Looking at the Harvey product you can see the tube becomes a flat area where dust hitting that would loose momentum and drop down vs cycling around and giving it another change to escape.
Yes, absolutely. Going to work on that design change.
This is a great series. I would love to see you carry it on and get it perfected. I don't have anything further to add than the comments below on changes. Great Job! Fun Video!
Thanks for the encouragement and for watching. My next task is figuring out how to fit it into my space. 😁
Great set of videos, and I’m gonna do some testing on an in-line design versus the traditional cyclone and see if I see any results that are worth mentioning. That said, I wouldn’t necessarily measure efficiency, in a matter which you have use simply because we know that some material is getting left behind within both the hoses and the extractor.
In measuring performance, I think you would have to test the outflow side and capture those particles.
Great job and I look forward to more of your content
Appreciate the feedback. Yes, I’m certain I’m loosing material in the journey. I really needed a baseline test with my existing system.
Great experiment and thank you for providing the files. Did you ever look at extending (inside) the exit tube so that it protrudes deeper into the main clear tube. Wondering if this would increase (or decrease) dust collection of the fine particles
It’s a good thought. Thanks!
The research and effort you have put into this project is commendable and applaudable. higher air speed will keep more particulate in the airstream. Rapid drop in pressure or airflow will allow the suspended particulate to fall out of the air stream and be deposited into the collection bins. The key is to measure the air speed as they exit the bins before the canister filter. A larger bin or barrel will have a much more significant air speed drop reducing the generated air stream pressure allowing the particulate to fall out of the air stream. Volume and velocity are relevant at the point of air speed drop which in your case is the collection bin. Possibly a simple fix would be to baffle the area between the collection and the filter. 🤔 Or possibly have 1 large collection bin with a greater volume than the smaller food safe containers. On my system I use (2) 30 gallon trash cans that have a diy cyclone cap. I split the single main supply line to the containers into 2 lines significantly dropping the air speed and related volume and I have gone 9 months to a year of daily use before needing to address my filter.
Great tips and feedback! I’m not sure I want to go to a larger bin just due to space in the shop, but I understand your point. Still tweaking…
Great video, I loved it thank you!
He did the ideas! You get a like, you get a sub