Dual 1800's ?

O

OB Cues

New member
First, let me state that I've used a CV1800 Max for several years now and it has performed very well.

However, I have a unique machine that puts out wood chips that are more like long shreds than chips. They are very stringy and tend to be carried by the air stream too well and clump together. Needless to say, they make it through my cyclone too often and we have to clean and replace the filters too often.

This machine is a turning machine for pool cue parts and uses 4 table saw blades as "live tooling" to cut 4 spinning cue shafts at a time. I also have several other smaller machines that do the same thing with routers and slot cutters. They all run off the same 1800 Max. I have a 10" pipe that runs down one wall with 6" hose drops to the machines.

The problem is that the stringy chips carry too much fine dust with them through the cyclone, as well as plugging my filters to I just don't catch as much of the fine dust as I want anyway.

My question is can I run 2 cyclones in series? I would use the second to catch what the first let pass through.

If so, do I draw through both with the motor on the last one, or could I "push" through the second?

Any advice or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com
 
Last edited:
One motor to drive both cyclones? With filters on the 2nd? If they are carried too well by the air stream - perhaps adjusting the air stream would help the issue?
Interesting design question.

I am not sure what would be different with the "shreds" that made it to the 2nd cyclone - so that they would not pass thru the 2nd cyclone just like they did the first?

Boy, that has to be the most horrible sentence structure I have put together in a long time...:mad::p

Put another way - Why would the 2nd cyclone handle things differently than the first?
 
Last edited:
Reprosser

My understanding is that if you "slug" the cyclone with a big mass of dust, then much of it will go through to the filters. The reason for this is that the cylcone takes time to separate the chips so they can drop to the drum. When they come in as a big chunk of chips, they get caught up in the upflow and are carried through to the filters. My thoughts about the second cyclone is that the added time of the second pass would allow the chips to separate and fall to the drum.

I could be completely wrong though, so I would be open to any and all suggestions.

Thanks

Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com
 
Dual 1800s

Dual 1800s

I recall Matt discussing their (then) new lid for the Rigid vac; the one that was molded rather than hand-built. . It used a cylinder at the bottom rather than a cone and I believe Matt said it separated as well as the mini but handled stringy stuff better. Ed said they did not get enough orders to take it to production. Also, I took it that they were playing it close to the vest. If you search this forum you probably can find the posts as several went around. In any case my thought is that a redesign of the cone section of either your existing 1800 or a second one operated as a push through might be in order. Maybe better, one preceding your 1800 and operated like a drop box.? Clearvue probably owns the design (?) so you might talk to them. I use the old design lid and I don't even bother vacuuming my green bowl shavings because it plugs too much. And the shavings fly so fast and far that the CV-1800 collects very few. It does clean the air in my small shop. I just pick the shavings up by hand and then vacuum.
bababrown
 
Dual 1800s

Dual 1800s

A couple more thoughts. A cyclone in front and used as a drop box (with higher airflow capability) would not need to separate well. It would need to separate the big stuff but it could pass all the dust. You would want low pressure loss so you might go with a larger diameter and a shorter height (fewer turns for the air). You also must need a huge bin so a short cyclone with no motor sticking up would play well. You might be able to buy an off the shelf cyclone that would do that job.? I don't know how Bill Pentz is doing but you might drop him a line to see what he thinks.
bababrown
 
bababrown

You might be on to something. I have thought of a "low velocity" box of some sort. The air would slow down enough that the chips could not stay in suspension and would fall. Then the air would go on to the filters where it won't matter if it has to speed up again to get through the filters. Of course, this box would have to be made where it could be emptied.

I do like the idea of a short fat cyclone though. I wonder what I could come up with to build one out of.

Royce
 
I wonder if you had the impeller in the first cyclone - would the blades tear apart the clumps and allow the 2nd cyclone to manage better - only dust to the filters?
 
OB Cues said:
bababrown

You might be on to something. I have thought of a "low velocity" box of some sort. The air would slow down enough that the chips could not stay in suspension and would fall. Then the air would go on to the filters where it won't matter if it has to speed up again to get through the filters. Of course, this box would have to be made where it could be emptied.

I do like the idea of a short fat cyclone though. I wonder what I could come up with to build one out of.

Royce
Click to expand...

How about a low velocity cyclone? If you have three phase you can use a variable frequenct drive to reduce the RPM of the impeller. In fact the Max was initially designed to work at 50hz which gives 2850rpm against 60hz which gives 3450rpm to be sold in markets which had the lower frequency such as Europe. Many people outside the US use the 1800 at 2850 quite successfully even though it does give a reduced flow and is not recommended.
 
Chris P

I didn't know that! But, I'm not 3 phase. I do have it here in the shop, but my shop is wired for single phase, so I went with the single phase motor. It would be interesting to use a VFD though and play with the speed.



Last night I went back and read up on the Bill Pentz site again. I hadn't done that in years. I think I bought my Max in February of 2008. The one thing I kept coming back to is using 2 Pentz design cylcones in series.

He talked about the low velocity box, or drop box, and the size necessary would be huge. Too big for me to build. I looked at a 2D, but the Pentz design still has less resistance and removes the big stuff too. I'd rather spend a few hundred dollars and build something simple than $715.00 on another Max, but unless I come up with something here, I think that's what I will have to do.

Any more ideas?

Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top