Last year I was sourcing my exhaust filters I had some interesting email discussions with a few suppliers.
The issue was relating to the overall effectiveness of of using spunbond over paper.
The spunbond is easier to clean but the nominal pore size is listed as 1 micron. So you need fewer pleats (sq ft) to deliver the desired flow.
Paper elements are listed as .5 micron nominal pore size, more pleats (sq ft) to achieve the desired air flow.
I went with paper as I thought this whole idea of cyclonic separation, big pipes, optimal velocity and cfm was to get as much of the bad stuff out of the air as possible.
Neither manufacturer convinced me that there was enough justification to go with a larger nominal pore size. My thinking is I can replace elements if necessary, not so with my lungs.
I have not read anywhere that owners of CV products experience an unacceptable amount of filter maintenance. I am assuming that the CV design results in minimal dust being carried through to the filters.
I have a friend near by who built the Pentz design from Bill's plans. He has a commercial operation and builds a lot - a lot of baltic birch cabinents for local industry. He is able to discharge to the outside. The amount of waste behind his shop is incredibly minimal, even considering he has overflowed his dust bin a few times.
I can run my exhaust through a knockout chamber and use the best 3M filtrete element to optimize flow and keep the discharge at less than micron.
Am I off base in my thinking?
Don
The issue was relating to the overall effectiveness of of using spunbond over paper.
The spunbond is easier to clean but the nominal pore size is listed as 1 micron. So you need fewer pleats (sq ft) to deliver the desired flow.
Paper elements are listed as .5 micron nominal pore size, more pleats (sq ft) to achieve the desired air flow.
I went with paper as I thought this whole idea of cyclonic separation, big pipes, optimal velocity and cfm was to get as much of the bad stuff out of the air as possible.
Neither manufacturer convinced me that there was enough justification to go with a larger nominal pore size. My thinking is I can replace elements if necessary, not so with my lungs.
I have not read anywhere that owners of CV products experience an unacceptable amount of filter maintenance. I am assuming that the CV design results in minimal dust being carried through to the filters.
I have a friend near by who built the Pentz design from Bill's plans. He has a commercial operation and builds a lot - a lot of baltic birch cabinents for local industry. He is able to discharge to the outside. The amount of waste behind his shop is incredibly minimal, even considering he has overflowed his dust bin a few times.
I can run my exhaust through a knockout chamber and use the best 3M filtrete element to optimize flow and keep the discharge at less than micron.
Am I off base in my thinking?
Don