3D printed axial cyclone for dust separation

[edma194]

When I finally get around to designing and building a permanent fixed-plumbing installation for my 2HP dust collector, I'm going to take a hard look at integrating a Super Dust Deputy. Maybe sideways, with a big 90 degree elbow on the dust outlet, if it packages better that way.

I have the Super Dust Deputy. As soon as I get a chance i'll turn it on it's side and try it out. Using a right angle elbow into the collection bucket may work fine, but I can just as well turn the bucket on it's side too.

[RFGuy]

I finally watched all three of those axial-cyclone videos, and the guy is a pretty entertaining presenter. I have a 3D printer, and have used it a lot. But the novelty has worn off, and I wouldn't be excited about printing for hundreds of hours to build those twin cyclones!

The videos did get me curious about axial cyclones in general, however. I recalled seeing a fairly inexpensive one from Jet, and looked it up on Amazon. The reviews there were less than stellar. Some users say that it's not very efficient on fine dust. And many report that its vanes get clogged with large or stringy chips. Which probably explains the two-stage, two-bucket Harvey design. I presume that the purpose of that diamond-shaped structure near the inlet is to divert the big stuff into the first bucket, before it ever reaches the vanes.

By way of comparison, the Oneida Super Dust Deputy cyclone does have stellar ratings on Amazon. My experience with its little brother has been great, and there's only one bucket to mess with.

When I finally get around to designing and building a permanent fixed-plumbing installation for my 2HP dust collector, I'm going to take a hard look at integrating a Super Dust Deputy. Maybe sideways, with a big 90 degree elbow on the dust outlet, if it packages better that way.

Dennis,

Thanks. IF you do that, let us know how it goes. What I think keeps getting lost in translation on this thread, in my opinion, is the use of space for a true horizontal cyclone configuration. A traditional vertical cyclone like the Oneida Super Dusty Deputy is rather large in the vertical direction, especially for larger inlet/outlet sizes. Typically one puts this over top of a collection vessel of some kind. So, it eats up a lot of vertical real estate, but for most shops this is no problem because you shove it all into a corner somewhere. The potential appeal of a horizontal style cyclone like the Harvey knock-off is it could sit snugly on top of the dust collection bins so it monopolizes the length direction, not the width or z-axis. Where would this be a benefit? Well, the thought is under a workbench or other cabinet in a shop, i.e. tucked away. Also, for increasing inlet/outlet sizes it doesn't appear to grow in an outsized fashion like the vertical oriented cyclones by comparison. Not saying they are right for every shop, but I find them intriguing and this is how I see them potentially being a better fit for some in their shops. Now, yes, you have proven that you can turn a poor, defenseless Dust Deputy on its side and it still works, but hey I can do the same thing to my Mark V and it still works, sort of. Not exactly something I choose to do though!!!

[BuckeyeDennis]

I finally watched all three of those axial-cyclone videos, and the guy is a pretty entertaining presenter. I have a 3D printer, and have used it a lot. But the novelty has worn off, and I wouldn't be excited about printing for hundreds of hours to build those twin cyclones!

The videos did get me curious about axial cyclones in general, however. I recalled seeing a fairly inexpensive one from Jet, and looked it up on Amazon. The reviews there were less than stellar. Some users say that it's not very efficient on fine dust. And many report that its vanes get clogged with large or stringy chips. Which probably explains the two-stage, two-bucket Harvey design. I presume that the purpose of that diamond-shaped structure near the inlet is to divert the big stuff into the first bucket, before it ever reaches the vanes.

By way of comparison, the Oneida Super Dust Deputy cyclone does have stellar ratings on Amazon. My experience with its little brother has been great, and there's only one bucket to mess with.

When I finally get around to designing and building a permanent fixed-plumbing installation for my 2HP dust collector, I'm going to take a hard look at integrating a Super Dust Deputy. Maybe sideways, with a big 90 degree elbow on the dust outlet, if it packages better that way.

Dennis,

Thanks. IF you do that, let us know how it goes. What I think keeps getting lost in translation on this thread, in my opinion, is the use of space for a true horizontal cyclone configuration. A traditional vertical cyclone like the Oneida Super Dusty Deputy is rather large in the vertical direction, especially for larger inlet/outlet sizes. Typically one puts this over top of a collection vessel of some kind. So, it eats up a lot of vertical real estate, but for most shops this is no problem because you shove it all into a corner somewhere. The potential appeal of a horizontal style cyclone like the Harvey knock-off is it could sit snugly on top of the dust collection bins so it monopolizes the length direction, not the width or z-axis. Where would this be a benefit? Well, the thought is under a workbench or other cabinet in a shop, i.e. tucked away. Also, for increasing inlet/outlet sizes it doesn't appear to grow in an outsized fashion like the vertical oriented cyclones by comparison. Not saying they are right for every shop, but I find them intriguing and this is how I see them potentially being a better fit for some in their shops. Now, yes, you have proven that you can turn a poor, defenseless Dust Deputy on its side and it still works, but hey I can do the same thing to my Mark V and it still works, sort of. Not exactly something I choose to do though!!!

I definitely do understand the packaging appeal of a horizontal cyclone. But I'm not sure that you can't do just about as well with a traditional cyclone mounted sideways, even though its maximum diameter may be slightly larger. Like the axial cyclone, it would have one port at each end, namely the air outlet and the dust outlet. And one more port pointing outward radially -- up, down, or sideways, your choice -- that being the air/dust inlet. So it's pretty much the same geometry as the horizontal axial cyclones in the video, except that each of those has two radial dust outlets that have to be connected to separate dust buckets.

What especially intrigues me is the prospect of also mounting my DC's centrifugal blower sideways, with its air inlet directly coupled to the cyclone's air outlet. That could be pretty darned compact, and also eliminate a hose.

[SteveMaryland]

On my recent project to mount a cyclone onto an upright push vacuum, I "just assumed" that the cyclone had to be mounted vertical because otherwise gravity would pull the vortex off-center and screw up the flow. Guess I'm wrong again.

But try running a topload washing machine sideways and see what happens...

[edma194]

But try running a topload washing machine sideways and see what happens...

[DLB]

While I think the Pilson Guitars guy did a good job, I suspect that replicating the Harvey Gyro Air internal separator design is a violation of their patent rights. And that what he refers to as an impeller is not one. I didn't research their patents to confirm. Nice of him to give them credit for a "genius design" while generously giving it away on line for donations.

From Harvey's description: "...Wood Dust Processor incorporates a unique patented technology to separate dust particles from the air and capture them..."

- David

[RFGuy]

While I think the Pilson Guitars guy did a good job, I suspect that replicating the Harvey Gyro Air internal separator design is a violation of their patent rights. And that what he refers to as an impeller is not one. I didn't research their patents to confirm. Nice of him to give them credit for a "genius design" while generously giving it away on line for donations.

From Harvey's description: "...Wood Dust Processor incorporates a unique patented technology to separate dust particles from the air and capture them..."

- David

David,

Thanks. I had the same thought regarding this. However, given the comments on the recent CPSC - Sawstop related thread, it seems like NO ONE cares about patent rights or protecting patent holders on this forum. As someone with several patents in my own name, I was offended by many of the comments on that thread. For this case though, I suspect the Pilson Guitar guy is okay because he isn't offering anything for sale. I am not sure, but I am fairly certain that copying any patent idea for individual use solely is acceptable. It is only when you knockoff someone's patent design and then sell a product with it that you get into trouble.

[DLB]

Thanks. I had the same thought regarding this. However, given the comments on the recent CPSC - Sawstop related thread, it seems like NO ONE cares about patent rights or protecting patent holders on this forum. As someone with several patents in my own name, I was offended by many of the comments on that thread. For this case though, I suspect the Pilson Guitar guy is okay because he isn't offering anything for sale. I am not sure, but I am fairly certain that copying any patent idea for individual use solely is acceptable. It is only when you knockoff someone's patent design and then sell a product with it that you get into trouble.

IMO Pilson Guitar is going way beyond personal use. The YT channel video provides a design (derived from Harvey's), DIY instructions, and affiliate links for buying the available parts. Thus putting their slightly modified copy of Harvey's IP our there for a profit. They also put out the STL files for the unique plastic parts, allowing anyone with a 3D printer to copy 'their' knock off, out there for free / donation requested. So this instance of 'personal use' is also enabling essentially anyone that can glue parts together to replicate the design for their own personal use, and doing so for a profit.

- David

[RFGuy]

IMO Pilson Guitar is going way beyond personal use. The YT channel video provides a design (derived from Harvey's), DIY instructions, and affiliate links for buying the available parts. Thus putting their slightly modified copy of Harvey's IP our there for a profit. They also put out the STL files for the unique plastic parts, allowing anyone with a 3D printer to copy 'their' knock off, out there for free / donation requested. So this instance of 'personal use' is also enabling essentially anyone that can glue parts together to replicate the design for their own personal use, and doing so for a profit.

- David

David,

I'll take your word for it. I didn't look into that much detail into what he was providing related to this project. I thought he was only giving his 3D print files for free to anyone off of YT. While I believe in patent IP and its protection, I personally could care less if he knocks off Harvey's design. It is a Chinese company and they have zero regard for US companies and their patented IP's. They illegally copy our stuff ALL the time.