Insanely good video! To be able to get 94.2% in a DIY setup that has not been optimized through the R&D capacity of Harvey while using a smaller diameter setup is stupid good! Folks will rarely appreciate how much time and effort that went into the making of this video. Really well done!
@@pilsonguitars Well, the goal was to ensure pollution free dust extraction. In fact: YOUR HEALTH!:) The industry level 99% vs. your 95% effectivity just means that you have to clean your HEPA filter 3-5 times more often. Also $ 500 vs 3500? That is great and who cares, a secondary or tertiary filter (in spare) will mitigate that minor problem/inconvenience from above and doesn't add too much cost. I second that: It works. Really well done!:) Just an additional thought: You are not selling this as a product. That is okay. But you are possibly selling(!) plans for a device that is under patent right by Harvey. You should double check this, or our price calculation from above may become worse. I don't hope so, but a lot worse ... hehe:) Edit: Sorry, you are not selling the plan but provide them on . I don't know if this may still be a patent rights infringement. ... ask experts!:) More Edit: "Harvey Industries has entered the U.S. market with the Gyro Air Dust Processor. Its patented design aerodynamically splits wood dust ...", 7 Aug 2017 via Woodworking Network. From a Discussion forum with "R": "Depends on what the origin of the patent it is. In the US, there is not a personal use exception in patent law. Most other places (like all of Europe) there is. So if you are outside the US, should be OK (because a US patent would not apply to you)", user sebwiers, 8y ago. So greetings from Germany ... and I am good with that:P I've looked into other such vacuum cleaner patents and they usually expire after 18-25 years. Last words: In part 2 "the community ruins my dust collection" (joking) you mention those pesky guys who suggest a cyclone setup. The US1536592A patent for that has expired at 1942-05-05 ... Just saying, hehe:) (Oh, patented in 1921 by a German in Germany, Hermann Klug(Klug translates to smart, sure ...). I didn't know that).
Beautiful presentation and execution. From a 3D printing perspective: Vapor bathing the parts will reduce surface friction. From a dust collection perspective: One major reason for having a 2 stage collection (Vertical or Lateral cyclone) and then pleated air-filter is the protection of the impeller from debris, as such, attaching the blower after the cyclones is an opportunity for improvement. This also allows you to fit the cyclone with the exhaust pointing down into the Wynn style filter. A specific improvement: The dust collection chambers should be isolated (all 4) to prevent cycling flow. Part of the efficiency of the cyclone separator is that only acceleration affects the dust particles after the inlet of the next stage. With the dust collection chambers joined, a flow of air will create cycles between the two cyclone ports and allow dust to pass over the port on one side. Furthermore, offsetting the vertical port such that the rotational flow of air can proceed directly down into the dust collection will increase capture of the particles.
Hey, thanks for the kind words of encouragement. Means a lot. I’m just thankful to be able to offer up things I’ve learned and hopefully others find it helpful.
I watched the UnderDone video a while ago and just finished watching yours. Both of your videos were extremely informative. I use an Oneida cyclone separator which sits on a 35 gallon metal trash can. Instead of using a HEPA filter as the end catch all, I vent whatever is left thru a window or my overhead exhaust system, which exits to the outside. There is so little residual dust left that the excess vented out just is picked up by the wind and deposited on the ground somewhere. All I cut are wood products, so it is just the fine wood particles that are vented out. Great content!
I did something similar as I 3D printed a cyclone dust separator for my shop vac. One thing I immediately noticed was the static buildup on the plastic parts. This, along with the ridges that are created from 3-D printing, create a significant flow disruption, which doesn’t allow the dust to fall out of suspension in the air. I have used UV liquid resin to fill in/ smooth plastic in the past prints to make it smooth.
@@masonlenox6829 You want the surface smooth..however the boundary layer even with a slick surface cancels out most of that dust grabbing on the surface
Excellent work❤ IMHO try taking off the buckets and the oblong to round adaptors and use bins like Harvey and Underdun, even if you just screwed a couple of tea chests as a rough and ready or better still large storage boxes like the black ones a Costco or the transparent one from Meiste. Also rather that weigh what you have collected in the buckets, weight the exit filter before and after. That way your are not second guessing how much is left in hoses etc.
Adjustable air speed/flow is definitely something to look at and relatively easy to implement with a speed controller on the motor. I think the "dwell" duration of the particles as they pass through could have the biggest impact on the filtration efficacy = ) Great video edit, very informative and detailed !
I agree with you, definitely the diameter of the tube and the speed of the air affect the time it takes for the particles to cross the different obstacles, affecting the performance of the filter. Some of the variables (fluid speed -air- or tube diameter) must be adjusted to optimize filter performance. great job too @pilson guitars
Looking at the Harvey cutaway, they have a much more aggressive pitch on their vortex generator. Thier's are more of a "J" shape and yours are an "S" shape. I think they are getting a much higher rotational speed, and therefore more centrifugal force for separation. With a bright light and slow motion on your camera, you might be able to measure your rotational speed if you can see the particles through the tube well enough. Harvey claims 4000 rpm, which is ~66 revs/second. At a frame rate of 120 fps, a particle would be half way (180º) around the tube from one image frame to the next.
Good eye. I completely agree on the pitch of the fins. I just went back and more closely matched the pitch of the commercial unit. You can view on the product page for the 3D files at github.com/pilsonguitars/centrifugalDustSeparator. I'll be testing that unit just as soon as I can pull everything back apart and add the new part. I hadn't noticed the specs on the rotational speed on the site. Great info and thanks for calling attention to that. Best I can do is the slow motion setting on my phone and possibly catch it that way. You've got me interested. Great idea!
Yep, this caught my eye immediately when I saw your printed part. Seems to be a lot of particles that should be swirling around the tube are being redirected to go straight along the tube because of how your fins curve back.
Super cool. One thing I have learned with 3d printing is when you have to do really tight press fits it is always a massive pain. But I found that putting g a gradual chamfer on face that is going to be doing the press fitting helps align it all and makes it easier to push in. Really neat video!
i saw the under dunn video a week ago you have no idea how excited i was when i saw you already designed the full system, now i can print it to!! hope your channel gains some track so we see more of this content in the future, im already looking forward to more
Man this is really well done! I will probably try to replicate your work thanks so much for the inspiration to finally get some dust collection setup for my small shop!
Some of us are looking for low profile (horizontal vs vertical) and the only choice we had was Harvey, Jet, and Under Dunn (who said he wouldn't recommend). Now we have yours, and I think you nailed it. Thanks for the amazing content! Great parting line also. 👊
Fantastic work developing this. I saw the Under Dunn video. You have fine tuned this quite nicely. I downloaded your STL files for this and will be 3D printing this myself. I donated as compensation. Well done. I am a subscriber
Thank you so much! Please also check out the CapturingDust channel as Rudd has greatly expanded upon my design and testing. He is also committed to making those changes available to others.
I'm finally setting up dust collection in my shop and this video was exactly what I've been looking for. You've saved me months of work trying to do this project myself.
Excellent video, I'm impressed by the amount of work and time you invested in the manufacture of your cyclone. Bravo. I have built a Pentz style I use in my shop with a modified Harbor freight motor with upgraded impeller. After 1.5 years of dust collection I checked the filter and had less than 3 tablespoons of dust in there. Mine is huge thou, almost 8 ft tall and not as cool looking as your build. Congratulation on a cleaner shop and lungs.
The buckets will collect more dust if you give them a little exhaust also. Maybe some filter cloth over an array of half inch holes. There is back pressure in those buckets preventing the particles from going in there.
This was exactly in my mind when I saw Under Dunn's video. Why not upgrade to 3D printing. Thankfully someone picked it up and somehow the youtube algoritm actually was being useful for me.
I'm only 6 minutes in and already enjoying your approach to explaining the build and the editing. Enough glitz to make it enjoyable but still showing the engineering challenges. I've just seen that you only have 1k subscribers!!!!!! That cant be right for such a well produced channel.
I built one as well but made mine 8 inches in dim.I used1/2 inch threaded rod and 3d printed threads in the components. I have nothing escaping the discharge works well
Nice work! I think you were onto something with regard to the CFM being too much for the single unit. There is likely a sweet spot for the separator efficiency. I think Harvey is using a VFD controlled motor. If you can dial in the sweet spot CFM wise and then control the motor speed to keep you there, you could likely get similar results to theirs. I say this because the amount of air flow is changing during use as the final filters begin to have their effective surface area coated in fine dust. If you had a gauge on the discharge of the cyclone you could watch it happening.
the vacuum cleaner i have has an offset inlet to force a cyclone - the air exits only from the center, and the dust exits from the edge, thrown there by the spinning air. there is a cone with a fine mesh in the center that the air exits through. a perforated cylinder in the center to allow air through to the next separation area and a baffle to prevent air near the edge (which has lots of dust in it). A wider radius would also help, a larger difference between the edge and the center, and a longer dwell time would give more time for centripetal force to separate the air .
Looking to improve my dust collection system, I've been looking at different options from new to DIY. Your video offers me inspiration to think outside of the box. Thanks!
Have you tried the vertical approach taken by most shop vac bucket dust separators? Gravity assist could improve the performance further. Also check out how rainbow vacuums do their water-air separation, what they have in common is that the outlet is the high point of the system, with the cyclone below
One thing that would help the finer stuff make it down into the bins would be to allow for some air to escape them (through a piece of filter material). As it is with them well sealed, the dust has to fall in by gravity alone while swirling around in there. The smaller the particle the more unlikely that is going to be. By putting a hole in the lid of the bucket the back pressure on the final filter would already be enough to create a gentle air current down to the collection bucket. The trick would of course be to have enough air flow to help the dust down, but not enough to lift it up to the exhaust hole. So some sort of flow regulator would probably be needed. On a side note, you might want to dial the volume on the music back a bit. I found myself turning it up when you spoke and back down when the music came on.
If the bucket is open as you suggest it will improve dust collection at that end but will reduce overall air flow reducing system proficiency. In other words, greater percent of the dust will end up in the bin but less effective collection at the tool end unless bigger fan using more power…
by the way if you open up the throat at the exit were the dust is being collected it will reduce the velocity of the air and allow the dust to settle rather than staying suspended in the air flow. This is also why the commercial one with the larger diameter does better, job of separating particulates from the air.
This is pretty cool. I have a G700 I bought used and I love it. I just wanted to say, before you expand your dust storage check how much actually goes into your second container, in the G700, the bins are about 80/20 in size and the secondary never fills more than about 1/3 for each main bin fill.
Yes, I noticed that in their design too. My original thought was to custom build the collection bin to more closely match the commercial version but wanted to wait to see if the system worked first. Possibly a future modification.
Great vid. I'm a bit addicted to watching people struggle with dust collection, it's a fun engineering challenge for me. Good job on getting as far as you did. Be interested to see what solution you might come up with for miter saws, they seem to be another massive problem in terms of DC.
Awesome video! I am a hobbyist woodworker with some 3d printer skills and had the same thought when I saw this system. Moving this from the idea list to the project list! Also, excited to see how fast your channel grows. I was shocked to see you had
@@pilsonguitars less than 1k, plus one after seeing this video. After years of watching, I'm always surprised to find as good of projects and production quality. Like another commentor, I wouldn't mind if the music was normalised a couple db lower in comparison to the dialog.
well, you've earned a sub-I really appreciate you offering the plans. This is something I'll be getting soon. Like others have mentioned a smaller version would be great for shop vacs. Im sure you could just scale the file down for that. Thanks for taking the time!
Thanks so much for watching and subscribing! Technically, if you have a 3D printer setup, you should be able to just down-scale the STL's in your slicer to whatever you need. You'd just need to run a few tests to get the tolerance right for the tube size. I'd be interested in the results if you try it. Curious whether the cyclone continues to function well enough on the smaller sizes.
Some of the additional efficiency of the later design might have to do with backflow from the HEPA filter, I am not sure how well that one flows. I wonder if offsetting the ports like on your cyclone separator would help here too? Thanks for sharing your work, I watched the Under Dunn video and really liked it but his own comments at the end turned me off to trying it yet.
I felt like his comments may have been based on the level of effort to build it and that using 3D printed parts may overcome the challenges he faced. I'm not sure I landed any different than he did in terms of recommendations, but it was a great experiment to learn from.
here's a radical idea; you spoke about reducing the flow velocity ( to allow particulate to settle out of the airstream ) by increasing the cross sectional capacity, but I never heard you focus on the second most important factor -- gravity. why don't you try setting the system to vertical flow entering at the bottom and exiting at the top while re-aiming your dust exit ports to 45 decrees down cyclone. by having the entire system horizontal ,you limit the distance of the particulate from the main core of flow so the particles still contain the energy imparted on them. If you extend the distance from the source of power - you increase the differential between that power and the constant pull of gravity on the fixed mass of the particle. just a guess.
In addition to what others have suggested regarding smoothing of the printed surfaces and the angle of the fins, it seems to me that having a larger diameter seperator could make quite a difference in extraction efficiency.
The sawdust is going to move through in a standing wave, that is to say a spiral that doesn't move. Synchronize the exhaust ports on the bottom of the tubes so that when the dust is moving down it can exit.
For cleaning the edges of plastic after cutting, I highly recommend a deburring tool. It's just a handle with a little swiveling curved carbide cutter, but it makes super clean edges without the struggle of filing. Works on metal, too, so it's super useful to have around the shop.
Really appreciate it! Yah, from an overall effort standpoint, probably more work than it's worth, but since I put the time in, I wanted it to be something that benefitted others too.
4:50 - PRO TIP ---- use carbide coated blade --- like dremel 544 , 543 or Perma-Grit ONLY FOR NON METAL PARTS --- it even cut rocks , great tool for cutting plastic etc (the best you can get/// you can also get something simillar for 50 / 76 and 125mm grinders ( 2 / 3 and 5 inch) , its crazy effective for wood , plastic , composite materials (i love to use it on kevlar , carbon fibre , glass fibre etc
I would love to see another video where you introduce something like smoke along with the wood chips to see how the air is moving inside. Great job and great video - New Sub
Hey RUclips why are you not letting me comment ?? ? This is an addendum see above. Super work ❤ Try ditching the Lowes buckets and emulate the Harvey/Underdunn arrangement? Also weight the filter before and after this would be much more accurate and take out guessing how much dust is left in pipes etc. 🎉
The fact you posted those STLs just bought you a like, sub, AND a share! Outstanding work! And I do think I know what you can do here to up your capture. Will report back.
I've been working on something similar for my shop, although I have probably spent way too much time in CAD designing everything. I pulled up their marketing pictures, manuals, and even their patents to basically reverse engineer it. I chose to go with two shorter pieces of 8" tubing I got off Amazon to get the length that I want, thinking that if the Harvey unit has a 2HP blower, and I have a 1HP blower, that I should probably use the same diameter. The CFM I get out of my unit also seemed to support this I also have the turbine be a friction fit on the inside of the tube with a threaded rod holding the turbine, the front chip separator, and the end cone together. I've still yet to figure out what exactly I'm doing with regards to filter the output, but at this point, I should probably get to actually building the thing.
That’s exciting! I would love to hear how it comes out. Maybe you can shoot some videos of your test and share with everyone too. Good luck on your build. I hope it sucks! (in a good way) 😁
Larger diameter tube = greater centrifugal force of the spin of the dust, greater centrifugal force = more of the "light" stuff get's spun out... Your design works awesomely...and even though more of the "light" stuff get's by, the hepa filter on the end catches it...but like you said, it will take more cleaning out Very cool design and build!!!!
@@pilsonguitars Actually, you want larger diameter to slow things down. This allows more stuff to fall out of suspension in air. That is why two tubes worked better than one. Most of these I built (traditional cyclones, no faff even though they look great!) used classical vertical setup and larger tube to manage airspeed. Also, I always pulled a vacuum on the system so that debris did not have to pass through the actual fan. This makes it much safer in case of screws/nails get sucked up as there is less chance of sparks.
As a bonafide member of the "If it's worth doing, it's worth Overdoing" club, getting anywhere above 93% effective filtration just out of a vortex setup is quite an achievement. If you really want to get into stupid effective filtration, a downstream in/out airbox with MERV 13 fabric pleated between fine stainless mesh (and if you want to go Full Overkill, an inner ring of carbon mesh fabric), both of which can be had quite cheaply, will get you down into the .3 micron area. I use this exact setup on my bulk VOC filter/capture system for resin printer exhaust in my print room, though I suspect you have a much more powerful air pump than I employ, in which case you'll definitely be in good shape with the extra CFM headroom. Now it does come with the caveat that you have to keep up with the maintenance as it captures dang near everything, but if keeping the extremely fine particulates out of your breathable air space is a top priority, this will be cleaner than the air in a hospital surgical room.
You might consider smoothing your 3d prints with some kind of filler. I've seen people use bondo then sand it back. The turbulence the air encounters when it hits the layer lines could be impacting the efficiency of the separation
By having bigger diameter, 8" vs 6", they (1)put more centrifugal force on particles and (2)are getting them farther away from the central stream of air that goes to filter. These two drives more dust to end up in bins instead of filter.
I think the only thing I can think to change would make the impeller blades have a steeper angle. The whole thing works by spinning air around the cylinder, so by shrinking the size of the cylinder down without changing anything else about the setup, you're speeding up the flow of air, as well as not giving the air the same amount of space to filter out (shorter diameter, less distance, higher speed). By sharpening the impeller angle, you'd be tightening the spiral of air and slowing it down, making it work the same way mathematically as the larger diameter pipe. Hopefully this can help with a mk 2 version. Love the project and thanks for simplifying the process!
Yes, a steeper angle may help, although the rotation seems to be good. I think the exit port being moved to the side for better evacuation is probably the trick.
I have a Harvey.. it uses two of those, so the air volume is split which probably slows everything down a bit. That said the fines filters collect a lot of dust and need cleaning way more than anyone would like. You have to flick the pleats and clear cleanouts manually.
After several months of runtime, I see mostly those same results. (though I don’t have the agitator in mine to clean the pleats) I take it outside, suit up with a mask, and hit it with a leaf blower to clean out.
I only have a small, hobby setup. I bought a cyclone from eBay, which I fitted to the top of a plasterer's bucket, with the outlet connected to an Axminster shop vacuum. It cost probably £20 for the bits (I already had the shop vac). It's ok, but for a bigger shop a professional setup would be essential.
this is abosolutely awesome video probabaly watched couple of times all 3 videos. and thanks for the all STL files I am building exactly same as yours. I am so excited. Thank you
Another thought on the amount of fines escaping - if you have room, you may try lengthening the tubes and give more area to the ejection port (into the bucket) so that there is a better chance the particles get thrown out of the airstream before the exit port. It would be nice to be able to experiment with that.
The difference in separation efficiency you're seeing compared to the Harvey unit is likely related to you using 6" tubing vs their 8" tubing. The separation efficiency is driven in large part by how hard you can "throw" the particles to the outside. Using a larger diameter pipe, the dust particles will experience a significantly higher acceleration (perhaps as much as double the force by going from 6" to 8") while spiinning around the tubing, leading to better separation efficiency. If you wanted to improve the separation efficiency and you wanted to try a brand new design, you might try using 8" tubing for the next one.
Yah, I agree. I just didn’t have a large enough printer bed to run the 8” size. I figured likely others didn’t as well. So my setup will likely not be as efficient, but we’ll continue to tune and try to improve. Thanks for the feedback.
@@pilsonguitars Understood. I certainly don't have a large enough 3D printer for an 8" setup either! Super cool you attempted this and was fun to watch. Thanks for sharing!
I personally like drilling a couple holes, especially in the corners when cutting thermoplastics. Makes the nightmare of remelted nasty slightly shorter.
Great video, really liked this. A few points your missing, big companies have flow meters and dynamic drawing that can do all of that flow testing you can’t. They know exactly how much cfm they are drawing, hose resistance and all that fun stuff. Plus 3d prints aren’t as smooth as what they are doing so how much does that affect dust collection too? Also you dropped your diameter 2”s which is pretty significant in the speed that your dust is moving compared to theirs. Overall you did a great job and I applaud your effort.
Appreciate the feedback. Yes, exactly right. Without all the fancy measuring tools, all I can do is trial and error. I think I mostly ended up with something functional for my shop, so that's a win. Totally agree on the 3D printed parts. The commercial version has shiny, stainless steel parts that offer minimal resistance. Reducing the volume of the tube is likely a bigger impact than I anticipated. I would probably have to go to a 3rd tube to compensate, but then I may be at a cost point that doesn't justify increasing to the 8" tube. I did grab an anemometer to check airflow at several points the other day. Added those metrics to the description of the video.
@@pilsonguitars The linear velocity of the particles through a pipe is proportional to the cross sectional area of the pipe for a given cfm. So even though adding an additional cyclone sounds like an improvement, which it would be vs 2, because it will help slow things down, do a quick check of (3) 6" cyclones versus (2) 8" cyclones areas and you'll see that it still will be short compared to the(2) 8" diameter cyclones.
Yah, I looked at them quite a bit and would have gone that route. I just really liked the design of the horizontal separator version. It was a challenge, and I like a good challenge. 😁
This is impressive. If i had a 3d printer, i had the idea of having the tube spin thus creating more centrfugal force. Having it spin really fast and lengthening the tube and "propeller" inside may catch more of the fine stuff. Also, another idea i had was one you get to the ultra fine mist stage, injecting water mist or high humidity would make it fall.
@rzkharris greatidea. I also wonder if the canister that has the final filter, if you build the housing in such a way that water is at the bottom. Have a 90 degree elbow so when air enters the canister is immediately is directed down into the water. That should also catch a ton of fine dust
A thought about layer lines... Is it possible that the lines are creating turbulence that is keeping the super-fines from separating from the airstream? maybe lightly sanding and hitting the cone and fin parts with a coat of gap filling spray primer might improve the efficiency as well.
That's an excellent idea! I haven't really spent any time cleaning up my 3D prints like that before (mostly because it's never been important for the things I'm building), but in this case, it could really help with airflow and collection. Thank for that feedback!
The larger buckets should have some form of air vent/filter on them. I think you're having flow problems in that even the 35 gallon buckets will have pressure from the fan and giving that pressure somewhere else to be will improve flow.
You may need to increase the diameter of the separator. Under Dunn made a single 8" separator and had very little dust exiting. Since he didn't do a test to see the percentage removal, there's no way to know if it was more efficient. Even with dual 6 in separators, the air velocity may still be too high, preventing more dust from settling. Thanks for taking Under Dunn's concept and make it easier to construct. Unfortunately he did not have a 3D printer which is why he turned the parts, but even without a 3D printer his separator was quite successful. I did research the Jet separator and it turns out there is a particle size limit, which makes collection of planer shavings problematic depending on the type of cutter head.
Appreciate the feedback. Yes speed and volume are both at play. I’m doing some additional testing with an improved impeller to see if I can create a better vortex. I’m getting good results from the unit I tested in the video, but I’d like to see if I can get it a little better.
Great job looks like it was a fun build. I was confused by a couple points. To my understanding, one of the advantages of a separator is to remove larger, bulkier, and heavier dust and chips from the air stream before the fan or impeller. This will prevent the inlet guards to the impeller from getting clogged up especially when jointing or planing because those chips will be removed from the air stream by the separator. A second advantage would be to maintain better airflow for longer between bag or filter cleanings. Basically, the separator removes some portion of particles of all sizes, although more heavier particles than lighter particles. But, it seemed in the later shots the separator was used AFTER the blower and just before the filter? I wonder if pushing the air into the separator, rather than pulling it in, makes a difference in how well a smooth low turbulence centrifugal air movement forms? From my point of view, the results were good for a 3d printed solution which will have rougher surfaces than manufactured solutions from Harvey or Jet. In other words the air movement will not be as smooth. A separator like this is going to rely on the mass of the particle in the spinning air to pin it against the wall of the tube. As that particle slides along the tube in a rotating fashion, it will fall out with the aid of gravity through the collection holes. Any turbulence can cause these particles to leave the side of the tube, which means they will blow out the end of the tube rather than falling out the bottom holes. To get those lighter particles the tube will have to be a larger diameter, longer, and produce a very smooth airflow.
Great points! Lots of interest in the pull vs push of airflow. I ran it as push because 1) the existing Harbor Freight setup was that way and 2) the commercial version was also that way. I only process sawdust, nothing chunky. Yes, the 3D printed parts are not nearly as smooth. That’s something that I’ve considered improving in some modification steps. All things that will hopefully improve the collection. Thanks for watching and for the feedback!
I'm thinking about building one, too. Two things I'm wondering about: Diameter differences between dust collection pipe and centrifuge housing and diameter change angle and the impact both things have on the performance of the separator. I'd expect a larger diameter to impact flow speed and/or air pressure. And I'd also expect any diameter change in excess of 12° to add a lot of drag / reduce efficiency. Also, I'm blindly guessing without good reason that consistent flow speed and pressure would be something worth achieving. And for that I'd try to keep the cross section surface area of the pipe hollow consistent. With the inserts though, I wonder if this device actually requires high and low pressure zones and how they need to be modeled.
Just got the files and will wait on your update of the impeller before printing that section. Are the design files available if I want to scale this up to and 8 inch tube? Thanks for doing a great job on this.
Right...I think a much more aggressive angle/spin on the impeller will increase the RPM of the dust spinning...resulting in much more dust being spun out (think going from 1:12 to 1:7 on the rifling on the AR platform...RPM went WAY up Very cool!
To get the fine particles to drop out of the air, the air speed needs to become (close to) zero. The fast moving air has to be passed through a large chamber (still water runs deep). Baffles in the large chamber may help with this.
@@pilsonguitarsBe careful about patent infringement - my understanding is that patents allow you to copy a design for personal use or research, but if you are profiting off a patented design then you may be open to liability. I don't know if Harvey holds patents on this cyclone design but it seems likely.
I have analysed the video of Harvey again and compared it in cad to the stl-files and I believe that the inlet diameter is smaller with Harvey compared to the outer tube. Also the distance from the front cone to the inlet is much smaller with Harvey. I think this was done to keep the volume the same from the inlet up to the widest part of the first cone. After that, the volume increases and the speed and pressure decreases so that particles go down sooner. I will adjust the design to see that this increases the efficiency.@@pilsonguitars
That straight-on pic on their site with the parts shown in stainless steel is where I spent the most time analyzing how things fit together. (and then scaling down to the 6" tube) I do see the difference in the inlet port. It looks like they have a 4" port that expands into the 8" tube, which would be a different effect than 4" going into 6". If you need some source files (STEP) to work with instead of trying to play with STL's, let me know.@@ruudjacobs8337
Yesterday I completely redesigned the design of the impellor in Inventor. I reduced the intake to 3". And now I'm trying to print the impellor as 1 part and to be able to attach the nose cone with a long bolt. As a result, I hope to get rid of the nose cone supports in the intake. The print takes 12 hours on my Bambu Lab X1C. So i have to be patience. The 6" PVC pipe will arrive next week. If I have test results I'll be sure to let you know. @@pilsonguitars
"We all become better builders because of the contributions we make to each other." Dude. I'm an instant fan.
I 100% mean that! I’ve learned so much from other builder’s willingness to share their successes and failures.
Insanely good video! To be able to get 94.2% in a DIY setup that has not been optimized through the R&D capacity of Harvey while using a smaller diameter setup is stupid good! Folks will rarely appreciate how much time and effort that went into the making of this video. Really well done!
Thank you so much! Really appreciate it!
@@pilsonguitars Well, the goal was to ensure pollution free dust extraction. In fact: YOUR HEALTH!:)
The industry level 99% vs. your 95% effectivity just means that you have to clean your HEPA filter 3-5 times more often.
Also $ 500 vs 3500? That is great and who cares, a secondary or tertiary filter (in spare) will mitigate that minor problem/inconvenience from above and doesn't add too much cost. I second that: It works. Really well done!:) Just an additional thought: You are not selling this as a product. That is okay. But you are possibly selling(!) plans for a device that is under patent right by Harvey. You should double check this, or our price calculation from above may become worse. I don't hope so, but a lot worse ... hehe:)
Edit: Sorry, you are not selling the plan but provide them on . I don't know if this may still be a patent rights infringement. ... ask experts!:)
More Edit: "Harvey Industries has entered the U.S. market with the Gyro Air Dust Processor. Its patented design aerodynamically splits wood dust ...", 7 Aug 2017 via Woodworking Network.
From a Discussion forum with "R": "Depends on what the origin of the patent it is. In the US, there is not a personal use exception in patent law. Most other places (like all of Europe) there is. So if you are outside the US, should be OK (because a US patent would not apply to you)", user sebwiers, 8y ago. So greetings from Germany ... and I am good with that:P
I've looked into other such vacuum cleaner patents and they usually expire after 18-25 years.
Last words: In part 2 "the community ruins my dust collection" (joking) you mention those pesky guys who suggest a cyclone setup. The US1536592A patent for that has expired at 1942-05-05 ... Just saying, hehe:) (Oh, patented in 1921 by a German in Germany, Hermann Klug(Klug translates to smart, sure ...). I didn't know that).
I watched this video specifically because you said you were iterating on Under Dunn. I am glad I got to see this impressive work of yours.
Beautiful presentation and execution.
From a 3D printing perspective:
Vapor bathing the parts will reduce surface friction.
From a dust collection perspective:
One major reason for having a 2 stage collection (Vertical or Lateral cyclone) and then pleated air-filter is the protection of the impeller from debris, as such, attaching the blower after the cyclones is an opportunity for improvement. This also allows you to fit the cyclone with the exhaust pointing down into the Wynn style filter.
A specific improvement: The dust collection chambers should be isolated (all 4) to prevent cycling flow. Part of the efficiency of the cyclone separator is that only acceleration affects the dust particles after the inlet of the next stage. With the dust collection chambers joined, a flow of air will create cycles between the two cyclone ports and allow dust to pass over the port on one side. Furthermore, offsetting the vertical port such that the rotational flow of air can proceed directly down into the dust collection will increase capture of the particles.
How do you not even have 1k subs? Your video presents like you have 500k or more. Subscribed. Great content.
Hey, thanks for the kind words of encouragement. Means a lot. I’m just thankful to be able to offer up things I’ve learned and hopefully others find it helpful.
Was expecting 80k+ subscribers from how good the video was. Well, you got one more now.
Really appreciate it!
Make that another one!
Fascinating to see someone follow up on the Underdunn video.
Huge amount of work to design and print those files!
I watched the UnderDone video a while ago and just finished watching yours. Both of your videos were extremely informative. I use an Oneida cyclone separator which sits on a 35 gallon metal trash can. Instead of using a HEPA filter as the end catch all, I vent whatever is left thru a window or my overhead exhaust system, which exits to the outside. There is so little residual dust left that the excess vented out just is picked up by the wind and deposited on the ground somewhere. All I cut are wood products, so it is just the fine wood particles that are vented out. Great content!
I did something similar as I 3D printed a cyclone dust separator for my shop vac. One thing I immediately noticed was the static buildup on the plastic parts. This, along with the ridges that are created from 3-D printing, create a significant flow disruption, which doesn’t allow the dust to fall out of suspension in the air. I have used UV liquid resin to fill in/ smooth plastic in the past prints to make it smooth.
Great point! I hadn't considered that effect. Thanks much.
Couldn't you just ground certain parts of it?
You could coat in a self leveling 2 part epoxy, or several coats of polyurethane
@@masonlenox6829 You want the surface smooth..however the boundary layer even with a slick surface cancels out most of that dust grabbing on the surface
I'm thinking about grounding in both sections; the large particle side and the small particle side.@@masonlenox6829
Excellent work❤ IMHO try taking off the buckets and the oblong to round adaptors and use bins like Harvey and Underdun, even if you just screwed a couple of tea chests as a rough and ready or better still large storage boxes like the black ones a Costco or the transparent one from Meiste. Also rather that weigh what you have collected in the buckets, weight the exit filter before and after. That way your are not second guessing how much is left in hoses etc.
Ah, weighing the air filter before/after. That’s a great idea… thanks!
I'm impressed. There's nothing I like better than watching something that actually educates me.
Adjustable air speed/flow is definitely something to look at and relatively easy to implement with a speed controller on the motor. I think the "dwell" duration of the particles as they pass through could have the biggest impact on the filtration efficacy = ) Great video edit, very informative and detailed !
I agree with you, definitely the diameter of the tube and the speed of the air affect the time it takes for the particles to cross the different obstacles, affecting the performance of the filter. Some of the variables (fluid speed -air- or tube diameter) must be adjusted to optimize filter performance. great job too @pilson guitars
Exactly what I thought. There must be a sweet spot for the air velocity for the size of the separators.
gotta say, the production value on this video is amazing! great work!
Looking at the Harvey cutaway, they have a much more aggressive pitch on their vortex generator. Thier's are more of a "J" shape and yours are an "S" shape. I think they are getting a much higher rotational speed, and therefore more centrifugal force for separation.
With a bright light and slow motion on your camera, you might be able to measure your rotational speed if you can see the particles through the tube well enough. Harvey claims 4000 rpm, which is ~66 revs/second. At a frame rate of 120 fps, a particle would be half way (180º) around the tube from one image frame to the next.
Good eye. I completely agree on the pitch of the fins. I just went back and more closely matched the pitch of the commercial unit. You can view on the product page for the 3D files at github.com/pilsonguitars/centrifugalDustSeparator. I'll be testing that unit just as soon as I can pull everything back apart and add the new part.
I hadn't noticed the specs on the rotational speed on the site. Great info and thanks for calling attention to that. Best I can do is the slow motion setting on my phone and possibly catch it that way. You've got me interested. Great idea!
Yep, this caught my eye immediately when I saw your printed part. Seems to be a lot of particles that should be swirling around the tube are being redirected to go straight along the tube because of how your fins curve back.
@@pilsonguitars. I just tried to download the 3D print files but they seem to be “out of stock”. 😢 Any chance of getting a copy please?
@@pilsonguitars Getting the same error others are getting, that the file is out fo stock.
Files are available for free at: github.com/pilsonguitars/centrifugalDustSeparator
Super cool. One thing I have learned with 3d printing is when you have to do really tight press fits it is always a massive pain. But I found that putting g a gradual chamfer on face that is going to be doing the press fitting helps align it all and makes it easier to push in. Really neat video!
Try a ridge on the downwind side of the exhaust ports to deflect solids into the cans.
i saw the under dunn video a week ago you have no idea how excited i was when i saw you already designed the full system, now i can print it to!! hope your channel gains some track so we see more of this content in the future, im already looking forward to more
Man this is really well done! I will probably try to replicate your work thanks so much for the inspiration to finally get some dust collection setup for my small shop!
Some of us are looking for low profile (horizontal vs vertical) and the only choice we had was Harvey, Jet, and Under Dunn (who said he wouldn't recommend). Now we have yours, and I think you nailed it. Thanks for the amazing content! Great parting line also. 👊
Very interesting project, thx for building and sharing was pleasure to watch.
Very impressive build off your 3d Printer. Impressive build and video. To the point, good voice excellent details provided.
Thank you for the feedback and encouragement! Much appreciated!
Fantastic work developing this. I saw the Under Dunn video. You have fine tuned this quite nicely. I downloaded your STL files for this and will be 3D printing this myself. I donated as compensation. Well done. I am a subscriber
Thank you so much! Please also check out the CapturingDust channel as Rudd has greatly expanded upon my design and testing. He is also committed to making those changes available to others.
I'm finally setting up dust collection in my shop and this video was exactly what I've been looking for. You've saved me months of work trying to do this project myself.
So glad you found it helpful. Check out our friends over at the CapturingDust channel for some great updates to the design. Thanks for watching!
Excellent work! And sharing the .STL files.. thank you
Excellent video, I'm impressed by the amount of work and time you invested in the manufacture of your cyclone. Bravo.
I have built a Pentz style I use in my shop with a modified Harbor freight motor with upgraded impeller. After 1.5 years of dust collection I checked the filter and had less than 3 tablespoons of dust in there. Mine is huge thou, almost 8 ft tall and not as cool looking as your build. Congratulation on a cleaner shop and lungs.
The buckets will collect more dust if you give them a little exhaust also. Maybe some filter cloth over an array of half inch holes. There is back pressure in those buckets preventing the particles from going in there.
Came here for the dust collection, subscribed because that's the best DIY for this I've seen. And I love guitars, so bonus!
Thank you so much... really appreciate it!
I would do something to extend the life of the HEPA filter, like a coarser filtermat lining it, which is easy and cheap to clean out or replace.
This was exactly in my mind when I saw Under Dunn's video. Why not upgrade to 3D printing. Thankfully someone picked it up and somehow the youtube algoritm actually was being useful for me.
I'm only 6 minutes in and already enjoying your approach to explaining the build and the editing. Enough glitz to make it enjoyable but still showing the engineering challenges.
I've just seen that you only have 1k subscribers!!!!!! That cant be right for such a well produced channel.
Great video and great tips for us woodworkers on a budget and need dust collection system so thanks for sharing
This is the first time that I have come across your channal.
I am impressed!
I will be keeping an eye on what you get up to.
Thanks
Thanks! I really appreciate it.
What a great project!
Thank you for the 3d print files.
I wish I had a technical drawing.
I built one as well but made mine 8 inches in dim.I used1/2 inch threaded rod and 3d printed threads in the components. I have nothing escaping the discharge works well
Nice work! I think you were onto something with regard to the CFM being too much for the single unit. There is likely a sweet spot for the separator efficiency. I think Harvey is using a VFD controlled motor. If you can dial in the sweet spot CFM wise and then control the motor speed to keep you there, you could likely get similar results to theirs. I say this because the amount of air flow is changing during use as the final filters begin to have their effective surface area coated in fine dust. If you had a gauge on the discharge of the cyclone you could watch it happening.
the vacuum cleaner i have has an offset inlet to force a cyclone - the air exits only from the center, and the dust exits from the edge, thrown there by the spinning air. there is a cone with a fine mesh in the center that the air exits through. a perforated cylinder in the center to allow air through to the next separation area and a baffle to prevent air near the edge (which has lots of dust in it). A wider radius would also help, a larger difference between the edge and the center, and a longer dwell time would give more time for centripetal force to separate the air .
Wow, great job on the design. I've been thinking of doing this myself, but beyond my current design skillset.
Looking to improve my dust collection system, I've been looking at different options from new to DIY. Your video offers me inspiration to think outside of the box. Thanks!
Have you tried the vertical approach taken by most shop vac bucket dust separators? Gravity assist could improve the performance further. Also check out how rainbow vacuums do their water-air separation, what they have in common is that the outlet is the high point of the system, with the cyclone below
One thing that would help the finer stuff make it down into the bins would be to allow for some air to escape them (through a piece of filter material). As it is with them well sealed, the dust has to fall in by gravity alone while swirling around in there. The smaller the particle the more unlikely that is going to be. By putting a hole in the lid of the bucket the back pressure on the final filter would already be enough to create a gentle air current down to the collection bucket. The trick would of course be to have enough air flow to help the dust down, but not enough to lift it up to the exhaust hole. So some sort of flow regulator would probably be needed.
On a side note, you might want to dial the volume on the music back a bit. I found myself turning it up when you spoke and back down when the music came on.
If the bucket is open as you suggest it will improve dust collection at that end but will reduce overall air flow reducing system proficiency. In other words, greater percent of the dust will end up in the bin but less effective collection at the tool end unless bigger fan using more power…
@@toddharshbarger8616 How so? This seems to be mounted on the exhaust of the blower, not the intake.
by the way if you open up the throat at the exit were the dust is being collected it will reduce the velocity of the air and allow the dust to settle rather than staying suspended in the air flow. This is also why the commercial one with the larger diameter does better, job of separating particulates from the air.
This is pretty cool. I have a G700 I bought used and I love it. I just wanted to say, before you expand your dust storage check how much actually goes into your second container, in the G700, the bins are about 80/20 in size and the secondary never fills more than about 1/3 for each main bin fill.
Yes, I noticed that in their design too. My original thought was to custom build the collection bin to more closely match the commercial version but wanted to wait to see if the system worked first. Possibly a future modification.
Great vid. I'm a bit addicted to watching people struggle with dust collection, it's a fun engineering challenge for me. Good job on getting as far as you did. Be interested to see what solution you might come up with for miter saws, they seem to be another massive problem in terms of DC.
Creative problem solving entertainment is pricesless
I would add the blower on the filter side of things not the intake side. Less damage on the blower
Well done. I bought the files and my 3D printer is already printing. Hope to finishes in few days. Clear pipe is on the way.
Awesome video! I am a hobbyist woodworker with some 3d printer skills and had the same thought when I saw this system. Moving this from the idea list to the project list!
Also, excited to see how fast your channel grows. I was shocked to see you had
Very kind words. I really appreciate it! Would love to hear about your experiences as you build!
@@pilsonguitars less than 1k, plus one after seeing this video. After years of watching, I'm always surprised to find as good of projects and production quality. Like another commentor, I wouldn't mind if the music was normalised a couple db lower in comparison to the dialog.
Enjoyed the whole project idea and video, and agreed the background music was on the loud side.
Thanks for watching! We’ll work on the mix going forward.
well, you've earned a sub-I really appreciate you offering the plans. This is something I'll be getting soon. Like others have mentioned a smaller version would be great for shop vacs. Im sure you could just scale the file down for that. Thanks for taking the time!
Thanks so much for watching and subscribing!
Technically, if you have a 3D printer setup, you should be able to just down-scale the STL's in your slicer to whatever you need. You'd just need to run a few tests to get the tolerance right for the tube size. I'd be interested in the results if you try it. Curious whether the cyclone continues to function well enough on the smaller sizes.
Some of the additional efficiency of the later design might have to do with backflow from the HEPA filter, I am not sure how well that one flows. I wonder if offsetting the ports like on your cyclone separator would help here too? Thanks for sharing your work, I watched the Under Dunn video and really liked it but his own comments at the end turned me off to trying it yet.
I felt like his comments may have been based on the level of effort to build it and that using 3D printed parts may overcome the challenges he faced. I'm not sure I landed any different than he did in terms of recommendations, but it was a great experiment to learn from.
Very impressive work. Can tell you are a guitar-maker craftsman.
here's a radical idea; you spoke about reducing the flow velocity ( to allow particulate to settle out of the airstream ) by increasing the cross sectional capacity, but I never heard you focus on the second most important factor -- gravity. why don't you try setting the system to vertical flow entering at the bottom and exiting at the top while re-aiming your dust exit ports to 45 decrees down cyclone. by having the entire system horizontal ,you limit the distance of the particulate from the main core of flow so the particles still contain the energy imparted on them. If you extend the distance from the source of power - you increase the differential between that power and the constant pull of gravity on the fixed mass of the particle. just a guess.
In addition to what others have suggested regarding smoothing of the printed surfaces and the angle of the fins, it seems to me that having a larger diameter seperator could make quite a difference in extraction efficiency.
I'd also suggest narrowing the outlet port from the separator to only take cleaner air from the center of the vortex.
I scaled everything down from the commercial setup, so it should match, but the physics may not scale the same. It’s an interesting thought.
wow great video, and especially nice to include STL's, ill be trying it out eventually
The sawdust is going to move through in a standing wave, that is to say a spiral that doesn't move.
Synchronize the exhaust ports on the bottom of the tubes so that when the dust is moving down it can exit.
I really enjoyed watching and I think you’ve got a money maker there printing the separators as a kit they look a fun build plus they look great
Damn thought about this a lot and you come along with ready files and everything!
For cleaning the edges of plastic after cutting, I highly recommend a deburring tool. It's just a handle with a little swiveling curved carbide cutter, but it makes super clean edges without the struggle of filing. Works on metal, too, so it's super useful to have around the shop.
Thanks for the tip!
Whoa! whether this works or not, I want one. Super cool!
NICE DRAFTING ON THE PARTS!! looks like a lot of work compared to a simple build but love the effort and intelligence.
Really appreciate it! Yah, from an overall effort standpoint, probably more work than it's worth, but since I put the time in, I wanted it to be something that benefitted others too.
4:50 - PRO TIP ---- use carbide coated blade --- like dremel 544 , 543 or Perma-Grit
ONLY FOR NON METAL PARTS --- it even cut rocks , great tool for cutting plastic etc (the best you can get/// you can also get something simillar for 50 / 76 and 125mm grinders ( 2 / 3 and 5 inch) , its crazy effective for wood , plastic , composite materials (i love to use it on kevlar , carbon fibre , glass fibre etc
Great tip! Thanks much!
Great video. Only thigh I would improve is to smooth the surface of printed elements. It should improve airflow and reduce micro turbulence.
I would love to see another video where you introduce something like smoke along with the wood chips to see how the air is moving inside. Great job and great video - New Sub
Hey RUclips why are you not letting me comment ?? ?
This is an addendum see above.
Super work ❤
Try ditching the Lowes buckets and emulate the Harvey/Underdunn arrangement?
Also weight the filter before and after this would be much more accurate and take out guessing how much dust is left in pipes etc. 🎉
Must have been a bit of a delay... I saw your other posts and responded to those. Appreciate the comments and feedback.
beautiful IMPALER! :D thanks for the video :D
The fact you posted those STLs just bought you a like, sub, AND a share! Outstanding work! And I do think I know what you can do here to up your capture. Will report back.
Much appreciated! The STEP files are out there too if you need to make any modifications.
I've been working on something similar for my shop, although I have probably spent way too much time in CAD designing everything. I pulled up their marketing pictures, manuals, and even their patents to basically reverse engineer it.
I chose to go with two shorter pieces of 8" tubing I got off Amazon to get the length that I want, thinking that if the Harvey unit has a 2HP blower, and I have a 1HP blower, that I should probably use the same diameter. The CFM I get out of my unit also seemed to support this
I also have the turbine be a friction fit on the inside of the tube with a threaded rod holding the turbine, the front chip separator, and the end cone together.
I've still yet to figure out what exactly I'm doing with regards to filter the output, but at this point, I should probably get to actually building the thing.
That’s exciting! I would love to hear how it comes out. Maybe you can shoot some videos of your test and share with everyone too. Good luck on your build. I hope it sucks! (in a good way) 😁
I have almost the exact same set up. Mine is a 3 horse grizzly instead of the hf model.
Larger diameter tube = greater centrifugal force of the spin of the dust, greater centrifugal force = more of the "light" stuff get's spun out...
Your design works awesomely...and even though more of the "light" stuff get's by, the hepa filter on the end catches it...but like you said, it will take more cleaning out
Very cool design and build!!!!
Good points. Appreciate the feedback and thanks for watching!
@@pilsonguitars Actually, you want larger diameter to slow things down. This allows more stuff to fall out of suspension in air.
That is why two tubes worked better than one. Most of these I built (traditional cyclones, no faff even though they look great!) used classical vertical setup and larger tube to manage airspeed. Also, I always pulled a vacuum on the system so that debris did not have to pass through the actual fan. This makes it much safer in case of screws/nails get sucked up as there is less chance of sparks.
As a bonafide member of the "If it's worth doing, it's worth Overdoing" club, getting anywhere above 93% effective filtration just out of a vortex setup is quite an achievement. If you really want to get into stupid effective filtration, a downstream in/out airbox with MERV 13 fabric pleated between fine stainless mesh (and if you want to go Full Overkill, an inner ring of carbon mesh fabric), both of which can be had quite cheaply, will get you down into the .3 micron area. I use this exact setup on my bulk VOC filter/capture system for resin printer exhaust in my print room, though I suspect you have a much more powerful air pump than I employ, in which case you'll definitely be in good shape with the extra CFM headroom.
Now it does come with the caveat that you have to keep up with the maintenance as it captures dang near everything, but if keeping the extremely fine particulates out of your breathable air space is a top priority, this will be cleaner than the air in a hospital surgical room.
You might consider smoothing your 3d prints with some kind of filler. I've seen people use bondo then sand it back. The turbulence the air encounters when it hits the layer lines could be impacting the efficiency of the separation
By having bigger diameter, 8" vs 6", they (1)put more centrifugal force on particles and (2)are getting them farther away from the central stream of air that goes to filter. These two drives more dust to end up in bins instead of filter.
Hi Like the Centrifugal Dust Separator - Dust Collection You Made Good VIDEO
I think the only thing I can think to change would make the impeller blades have a steeper angle.
The whole thing works by spinning air around the cylinder, so by shrinking the size of the cylinder down without changing anything else about the setup, you're speeding up the flow of air, as well as not giving the air the same amount of space to filter out (shorter diameter, less distance, higher speed).
By sharpening the impeller angle, you'd be tightening the spiral of air and slowing it down, making it work the same way mathematically as the larger diameter pipe.
Hopefully this can help with a mk 2 version.
Love the project and thanks for simplifying the process!
Yes, a steeper angle may help, although the rotation seems to be good. I think the exit port being moved to the side for better evacuation is probably the trick.
I have a Harvey.. it uses two of those, so the air volume is split which probably slows everything down a bit. That said the fines filters collect a lot of dust and need cleaning way more than anyone would like. You have to flick the pleats and clear cleanouts manually.
After several months of runtime, I see mostly those same results. (though I don’t have the agitator in mine to clean the pleats) I take it outside, suit up with a mask, and hit it with a leaf blower to clean out.
I only have a small, hobby setup. I bought a cyclone from eBay, which I fitted to the top of a plasterer's bucket, with the outlet connected to an Axminster shop vacuum. It cost probably £20 for the bits (I already had the shop vac). It's ok, but for a bigger shop a professional setup would be essential.
Separation will be proportional to the centrifugal forces. It may be harder to get higher forces with the smaller 6inch tube.
this is abosolutely awesome video probabaly watched couple of times all 3 videos. and thanks for the all STL files I am building exactly same as yours. I am so excited. Thank you
Wishing you great results!
Another thought on the amount of fines escaping - if you have room, you may try lengthening the tubes and give more area to the ejection port (into the bucket) so that there is a better chance the particles get thrown out of the airstream before the exit port. It would be nice to be able to experiment with that.
The difference in separation efficiency you're seeing compared to the Harvey unit is likely related to you using 6" tubing vs their 8" tubing. The separation efficiency is driven in large part by how hard you can "throw" the particles to the outside. Using a larger diameter pipe, the dust particles will experience a significantly higher acceleration (perhaps as much as double the force by going from 6" to 8") while spiinning around the tubing, leading to better separation efficiency. If you wanted to improve the separation efficiency and you wanted to try a brand new design, you might try using 8" tubing for the next one.
Yah, I agree. I just didn’t have a large enough printer bed to run the 8” size. I figured likely others didn’t as well. So my setup will likely not be as efficient, but we’ll continue to tune and try to improve. Thanks for the feedback.
@@pilsonguitars Understood. I certainly don't have a large enough 3D printer for an 8" setup either! Super cool you attempted this and was fun to watch. Thanks for sharing!
I personally like drilling a couple holes, especially in the corners when cutting thermoplastics. Makes the nightmare of remelted nasty slightly shorter.
Great video, really liked this. A few points your missing, big companies have flow meters and dynamic drawing that can do all of that flow testing you can’t. They know exactly how much cfm they are drawing, hose resistance and all that fun stuff. Plus 3d prints aren’t as smooth as what they are doing so how much does that affect dust collection too? Also you dropped your diameter 2”s which is pretty significant in the speed that your dust is moving compared to theirs. Overall you did a great job and I applaud your effort.
Appreciate the feedback. Yes, exactly right. Without all the fancy measuring tools, all I can do is trial and error. I think I mostly ended up with something functional for my shop, so that's a win. Totally agree on the 3D printed parts. The commercial version has shiny, stainless steel parts that offer minimal resistance. Reducing the volume of the tube is likely a bigger impact than I anticipated. I would probably have to go to a 3rd tube to compensate, but then I may be at a cost point that doesn't justify increasing to the 8" tube. I did grab an anemometer to check airflow at several points the other day. Added those metrics to the description of the video.
@@pilsonguitars The linear velocity of the particles through a pipe is proportional to the cross sectional area of the pipe for a given cfm. So even though adding an additional cyclone sounds like an improvement, which it would be vs 2, because it will help slow things down, do a quick check of (3) 6" cyclones versus (2) 8" cyclones areas and you'll see that it still will be short compared to the(2) 8" diameter cyclones.
I CNC'd a Thien Separator. Not sure if you surveyed others out there in your project but for ease of construction the Thein works.
Yah, I looked at them quite a bit and would have gone that route. I just really liked the design of the horizontal separator version. It was a challenge, and I like a good challenge. 😁
Nice stuff! your videos are so entertaining and informative. I really appreciate what you do!
This is impressive. If i had a 3d printer, i had the idea of having the tube spin thus creating more centrfugal force. Having it spin really fast and lengthening the tube and "propeller" inside may catch more of the fine stuff. Also, another idea i had was one you get to the ultra fine mist stage, injecting water mist or high humidity would make it fall.
One of those ultra sonic disk misters like fogponics
@rzkharris greatidea. I also wonder if the canister that has the final filter, if you build the housing in such a way that water is at the bottom. Have a 90 degree elbow so when air enters the canister is immediately is directed down into the water. That should also catch a ton of fine dust
A thought about layer lines... Is it possible that the lines are creating turbulence that is keeping the super-fines from separating from the airstream? maybe lightly sanding and hitting the cone and fin parts with a coat of gap filling spray primer might improve the efficiency as well.
That's an excellent idea! I haven't really spent any time cleaning up my 3D prints like that before (mostly because it's never been important for the things I'm building), but in this case, it could really help with airflow and collection. Thank for that feedback!
This is also quite possibly a self-resolving problem; I imagine dust running through there for a while will smooth those out.
The larger buckets should have some form of air vent/filter on them. I think you're having flow problems in that even the 35 gallon buckets will have pressure from the fan and giving that pressure somewhere else to be will improve flow.
Fantastic video, I really enjoyed your approach to making this kind of dust collection.
Very interesting video and build. Might consider leveling the volume between your voice and the music blasts.
This was an incredible build video - THANK YOU
You may need to increase the diameter of the separator. Under Dunn made a single 8" separator and had very little dust exiting. Since he didn't do a test to see the percentage removal, there's no way to know if it was more efficient. Even with dual 6 in separators, the air velocity may still be too high, preventing more dust from settling. Thanks for taking Under Dunn's concept and make it easier to construct. Unfortunately he did not have a 3D printer which is why he turned the parts, but even without a 3D printer his separator was quite successful. I did research the Jet separator and it turns out there is a particle size limit, which makes collection of planer shavings problematic depending on the type of cutter head.
Appreciate the feedback. Yes speed and volume are both at play. I’m doing some additional testing with an improved impeller to see if I can create a better vortex. I’m getting good results from the unit I tested in the video, but I’d like to see if I can get it a little better.
Great job looks like it was a fun build. I was confused by a couple points. To my understanding, one of the advantages of a separator is to remove larger, bulkier, and heavier dust and chips from the air stream before the fan or impeller. This will prevent the inlet guards to the impeller from getting clogged up especially when jointing or planing because those chips will be removed from the air stream by the separator. A second advantage would be to maintain better airflow for longer between bag or filter cleanings. Basically, the separator removes some portion of particles of all sizes, although more heavier particles than lighter particles. But, it seemed in the later shots the separator was used AFTER the blower and just before the filter? I wonder if pushing the air into the separator, rather than pulling it in, makes a difference in how well a smooth low turbulence centrifugal air movement forms?
From my point of view, the results were good for a 3d printed solution which will have rougher surfaces than manufactured solutions from Harvey or Jet. In other words the air movement will not be as smooth. A separator like this is going to rely on the mass of the particle in the spinning air to pin it against the wall of the tube. As that particle slides along the tube in a rotating fashion, it will fall out with the aid of gravity through the collection holes. Any turbulence can cause these particles to leave the side of the tube, which means they will blow out the end of the tube rather than falling out the bottom holes. To get those lighter particles the tube will have to be a larger diameter, longer, and produce a very smooth airflow.
Great points! Lots of interest in the pull vs push of airflow. I ran it as push because 1) the existing Harbor Freight setup was that way and 2) the commercial version was also that way. I only process sawdust, nothing chunky.
Yes, the 3D printed parts are not nearly as smooth. That’s something that I’ve considered improving in some modification steps. All things that will hopefully improve the collection.
Thanks for watching and for the feedback!
I'm thinking about building one, too. Two things I'm wondering about: Diameter differences between dust collection pipe and centrifuge housing and diameter change angle and the impact both things have on the performance of the separator.
I'd expect a larger diameter to impact flow speed and/or air pressure. And I'd also expect any diameter change in excess of 12° to add a lot of drag / reduce efficiency.
Also, I'm blindly guessing without good reason that consistent flow speed and pressure would be something worth achieving. And for that I'd try to keep the cross section surface area of the pipe hollow consistent. With the inserts though, I wonder if this device actually requires high and low pressure zones and how they need to be modeled.
Going from 8 in to 6” reduced your efficiency. The centrifugal acceleration has a radius squared term in it.
Just got the files and will wait on your update of the impeller before printing that section. Are the design files available if I want to scale this up to and 8 inch tube? Thanks for doing a great job on this.
I've made the files open source and changed their location. You can find them all here. github.com/pilsonguitars/centrifugalDustSeparator
Right...I think a much more aggressive angle/spin on the impeller will increase the RPM of the dust spinning...resulting in much more dust being spun out (think going from 1:12 to 1:7 on the rifling on the AR platform...RPM went WAY up
Very cool!
Testing that now. I'll have another video to go through some of the suggested changes and results.@@haydenc2742
To get the fine particles to drop out of the air, the air speed needs to become (close to) zero.
The fast moving air has to be passed through a large chamber (still water runs deep).
Baffles in the large chamber may help with this.
Awesome build. You should release or sell the 3D files for this build.
Thanks! You can grab the files for 3D printing from here. github.com/pilsonguitars/centrifugalDustSeparator
@@pilsonguitarsBe careful about patent infringement - my understanding is that patents allow you to copy a design for personal use or research, but if you are profiting off a patented design then you may be open to liability. I don't know if Harvey holds patents on this cyclone design but it seems likely.
Yah, understood. I have reached out to the Harvey folks.
I tried to buy the files and it says out of stock.
New link for the files in the description of the video. They are free to download here: github.com/pilsonguitars/centrifugalDustSeparator
Great project maybe put them in series.
It’s a great idea. We tackle that in the next video. Thanks for watching!
Excellent video. Well done. I bought the files and my 3D printer is already printing. I'm planning on using this with a Record Power CamVac.
Excellent! Interested in hearing your results. Happy building!
I have analysed the video of Harvey again and compared it in cad to the stl-files and I believe that the inlet diameter is smaller with Harvey compared to the outer tube. Also the distance from the front cone to the inlet is much smaller with Harvey. I think this was done to keep the volume the same from the inlet up to the widest part of the first cone. After that, the volume increases and the speed and pressure decreases so that particles go down sooner. I will adjust the design to see that this increases the efficiency.@@pilsonguitars
That straight-on pic on their site with the parts shown in stainless steel is where I spent the most time analyzing how things fit together. (and then scaling down to the 6" tube) I do see the difference in the inlet port. It looks like they have a 4" port that expands into the 8" tube, which would be a different effect than 4" going into 6". If you need some source files (STEP) to work with instead of trying to play with STL's, let me know.@@ruudjacobs8337
Yesterday I completely redesigned the design of the impellor in Inventor. I reduced the intake to 3". And now I'm trying to print the impellor as 1 part and to be able to attach the nose cone with a long bolt. As a result, I hope to get rid of the nose cone supports in the intake. The print takes 12 hours on my Bambu Lab X1C. So i have to be patience. The 6" PVC pipe will arrive next week. If I have test results I'll be sure to let you know. @@pilsonguitars
Great video - what would happen if you put them in series rather than in parallel?
Yah, we’ve been discussing that. A little concerned about air flow in that scenario, but it may be worth a test.
Love it if you could sell the 3D printed parts as a kit.