You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CV1800 fan curve
- Thread starter wavery
- Start date
The fan curve posted is something I did to show the difference in performance between the CV-1800 and CV-Max cyclone bodies when all were tested powered by the same CV-Max blower with its 16” diameter impeller. This test shows airflow with both 6” and an 8” diameter main test pipes. I do see that there is an error on this graph where the CV-1800 with larger blower is shifted by a data point. Probably my error when I copied all the columns to create the graph. There has been so much abuse I don’t share fan curves.
We should buy a cyclone based on how well it separates and a blower based on it moving enough air against our overhead resistance known as static pressure. My Clear Vue marketed cyclone provides six times better fine dust separation than its nearest competitor. We now have over 10,000 users of this cyclone worldwide and all agree that with these Clear Vue cyclones they spend a lot less time cleaning filters, can use much finer filters, and filters last years instead of months.
Decades of research shows good fine dust collection requires 1000 CFM at each small shop stationary tool. With typical static pressure overhead we need a 15” diameter impeller. It draws less than 4 hp so with a choice of 3 hp or 5 hp motors I chose a 5 hp. Wanting to use the extra hp on that motor I came up with a 16” impeller size which is what is used in the max. Many, including me use Max blowers with 16” diameter impellers with their CV-1800 cyclones.
bill
We should buy a cyclone based on how well it separates and a blower based on it moving enough air against our overhead resistance known as static pressure. My Clear Vue marketed cyclone provides six times better fine dust separation than its nearest competitor. We now have over 10,000 users of this cyclone worldwide and all agree that with these Clear Vue cyclones they spend a lot less time cleaning filters, can use much finer filters, and filters last years instead of months.
Decades of research shows good fine dust collection requires 1000 CFM at each small shop stationary tool. With typical static pressure overhead we need a 15” diameter impeller. It draws less than 4 hp so with a choice of 3 hp or 5 hp motors I chose a 5 hp. Wanting to use the extra hp on that motor I came up with a 16” impeller size which is what is used in the max. Many, including me use Max blowers with 16” diameter impellers with their CV-1800 cyclones.
bill
The fan curve posted is something I did to show the difference in performance between the CV-1800 and CV-Max cyclone bodies when all were tested powered by the same CV-Max blower with its 16” diameter impeller. This test shows airflow with both 6” and an 8” diameter main test pipes. I do see that there is an error on this graph where the CV-1800 with larger blower is shifted by a data point. Probably my error when I copied all the columns to create the graph. There has been so much abuse I don’t share fan curves.
We should buy a cyclone based on how well it separates and a blower based on it moving enough air against our overhead resistance known as static pressure. My Clear Vue marketed cyclone provides six times better fine dust separation than its nearest competitor. We now have over 10,000 users of this cyclone worldwide and all agree that with these Clear Vue cyclones they spend a lot less time cleaning filters, can use much finer filters, and filters last years instead of months.
Decades of research shows good fine dust collection requires 1000 CFM at each small shop stationary tool. With typical static pressure overhead we need a 15” diameter impeller. It draws less than 4 hp so with a choice of 3 hp or 5 hp motors I chose a 5 hp. Wanting to use the extra hp on that motor I came up with a 16” impeller size which is what is used in the max. Many, including me use Max blowers with 16” diameter impellers with their CV-1800 cyclones.
bill
Bill,
I realize this discussion is several years old, but today people are still asking " CV vs. everyone else?". I just became aware of this post recently.
I have been a supporter and advocate of your research and the Clear Vue product for many years.
I personally believe it is imperative that the performance claims provided by any manufacture be based on solid, reproducible test criteria. A proper fan curve is the only way to confirm the performance claims.
I am disappointed in your position of not sharing your fan curves. That we should accept that you say it is so, therefore it is?
Is this not the reason for all of this? Manufacturers saying one thing and not being able to support it?? There is an entire industry on the Pacific Rim that market single stage dust pumps on the same basis.
I am disappointed that there is an error in the data published, I did not read that you are going to make the required correction. Clear Vue provided the same "broken" fan curve in May 2102. If there id=s a curve available, then it should be accurate. I want to be able to enter my physical system details in you static calculator, then go to the performance curve and see where I am. I can do this with most of the top tier systems.
I have a CV-1800 with the 15" impeller. Clear Vue have not promoted this upgrade. Why?
Clear Vue do not even present this "CV-1800 on steroids" option in their pricing.
So who deems it a good idea and what supports the idea? An accurate curve would go a long way.
To upgrade to a 16" housing/impeller would cost me an extra $465.00USD ($600.00 CAD) plus shipping and brokerage. I would want to base, not only my original purchase, but any upgrade decision based on a bit of science.
How do CV and users point to a superior design? With no reproducible test scenario, there is nothing.
I really have difficulty understanding how anyone can abuse proper test methodology. If everything is a good as we have all been led to believe, this info should be freely available.
I am sorry I did not catch this earlier, but I try to not live on the internet.
Regards,
Don
otterpilot
New member
CV Fan Curves
CV Fan Curves
I agree with Don01. Professional and certified test reports should be made available to all current and potential users as needed. This would include not only fan curves but certified test reports with data on cyclone removal efficiency by particle size at various flow rates and energy input. Intuitively, the CV is an excellent design. Why not back it up with data? This is helpful in making decisions on options and potential emissions without filters.
otterpilot
CV Fan Curves
I agree with Don01. Professional and certified test reports should be made available to all current and potential users as needed. This would include not only fan curves but certified test reports with data on cyclone removal efficiency by particle size at various flow rates and energy input. Intuitively, the CV is an excellent design. Why not back it up with data? This is helpful in making decisions on options and potential emissions without filters.
otterpilot