The 4" provided a larger area of vacuum.dlbristol wrote:I played with Nicks formulas as well and came up with the same numbers. Since it makes very little difference apparently, I will stay as is and spend my money on something else. I did try an experiment with a clean up of chips on the floor, and the 4 in hose worked better than the reduced 2.5 did. Not enough to temp me to take off and put on the reducer! I suspect that the issue for my situation is that the length of the hose is not enough to produce any real advantage either way. If I was doing a collection system, the difference would be much greater. Thanks
The Sience of Suction
Moderator: admin
-
JPG
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 35457
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:42 pm
- Location: Lexington, Ky (TAMECAT territory)
╔═══╗
╟JPG ╢
╚═══╝
Goldie(Bought New SN 377425)/4" jointer/6" beltsander/12" planer/stripsander/bandsaw/powerstation /Scroll saw/Jig saw /Craftsman 10" ras/Craftsman 6" thicknessplaner/ Dayton10"tablesaw(restoredfromneighborstrashpile)/ Mark VII restoration in 'progress'/ 10E[/size](SN E3779) restoration in progress, a 510 on the back burner and a growing pile of items to be eventually returned to useful life. - aka Red Grange
╟JPG ╢
╚═══╝
Goldie(Bought New SN 377425)/4" jointer/6" beltsander/12" planer/stripsander/bandsaw/powerstation /Scroll saw/Jig saw /Craftsman 10" ras/Craftsman 6" thicknessplaner/ Dayton10"tablesaw(restoredfromneighborstrashpile)/ Mark VII restoration in 'progress'/ 10E[/size](SN E3779) restoration in progress, a 510 on the back burner and a growing pile of items to be eventually returned to useful life. - aka Red Grange