dust collection ducting

Page 4 of 5  
patrick conroy wrote:

Depends.
Is it still a bucket of water?
Is it safe? bzzzzzzzzzzz
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

... snip

Alright, stepping into the realm of pedantry: From the axiomatic definitions of probabilty theory (Papoullis, Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes), "The probability of an event a is a number P(a) assigned to this event. This number obeys the following three postulates: I. P(a) is positive: P(a) >= 0 II The probability of the certain event equals 1: P(S) = 1 III. If a and b are mutually exclusive, then: P(a + b) = P(a) + P(b)" [Version I have at home is McGraw-Hill 1965 version, page 7]
Note: from (I), P(a) = 0 is a valid probability. For the examples stated, "a bucket of water bursting into flame", or "a unit of helium bursting into flame", or "conservation of mass in a chemical reaction holds" the probability of these events can be stated to be zero. Unless you are going to imply that the laws of physics and chemistry are muteable --- if that is the case, then the whole fundamental fabric of science and technology is essentially destroyed. i.e., there is no, zero, zilch, zip, nada chance that helium will burn (i.e. oxidize) in an chemical reaction -- helium is an inert gas, it cannot combine with oxygen, it *will not* burn. This is more than "empirical evidence", it is a fundamental element of the chemical nature and properties of elements. If we can say that there is some non-zero probability that elements will behave willy-nilly contrary to their fundamental chemical and nuclear properties, we are wasting our time with science and technology. Thus, in these cases, one can indicate that the probability of those events occuring P(a) = 0, and in addition, the probablity of those events occuring are the impossible event. Further, from II, it is also possible to have a certain event, for which the probability = 1.
It is also important to note that one must distinguish between the impossible event, and those events with probability = 0. For example, the probability P(t = t1) = 0 may be true, but not necessarily an impossible event. Same is true that even though the probability of an event = 1, this is not necessarily the certain event. However, for the impossible event P(a) = 0, and for the certain event P(a) = 1. But this is a side detour to the original statement. The fact is that it is *not* inherently incorrect to state that a probability is exactly identical to zero.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday 28 Jan 2005 3:34 am, Mark & Juanita scribbled:

To add to the pedantry, if the quantum effect of neutron decay happened all at once in the bucket (a negligible but not zero probability), the helium could be changed into deuterium and/or berillium and/or lithium and hence burst into flames. Hence, the probability is not zero.
--
Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But you just changed the helium into something else so the probability of HELIUM bursting into flames is still ZERO.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
... snip

oops, that should have either been the certain event P(a) = 1, or restated as "conservation of mass in a chemical reaction does not hold" P(a) = 0.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

his point, though was that the odds of your dust collection system exploding- in your garage- are about the same as the odds of a bucket of water exploding -in your garage.
and he's right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@all.costs wrote:

...
But he masked the point by the assertion of zero for both...which probably means some will just write off the message as well as the messenger...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:49:52 -0600, Duane Bozarth

if a little enthusiasm for the argument is gonna kill the message, you'd better shut down usenet right now.
sure, he probably should have goven odds of a few billion to one rather than zero. either way, he was closer to truth than you are.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@all.costs wrote:

....
Actually, I've never said anything about the actual numerical value, but I would assert that it <is> >0 which would put my estimate closer... :)
My chief complaint is the assertion of <no possible> problem in any system, sight unseen that is implicit in the proposition. The reference he quotes, in fact, says specifically it can't be totally ruled out, but is merely highly unlikely for home-shop systems, anyway.. If people say that, I'll not complain a lick...if the claim the problem is <totally> non-existent I'll continue to think that unsupportable. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

With all of the dust collectors in use in home shops and the fact that not a single instance can be found of this happening, this it is safe too say that it simply will not happen and until even a single instance occurs, anything else really is nothing more than paranoia.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Why do you say this? Not everyone believe in the absolutely no absolutes BS like some in here. There are things that are simply not going to happen ad some like me believe more in statistical significance. If the chance is so small that it becomes insignificant, this it simply has no chance. I can't speak for you but I have things of real significance to worry about.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@all.costs wrote:

Not the point
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:17:07 -0500, Steve Decker

his or yours?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:59:46 -0500, the inscrutable Steve Decker

Cosmic shielding is cheap and easy, so why not? http://zapatopi.net/afdb/links.html
JUST DO IT!

I didn't and won't.
--

People will occasionally stumble over the truth, but
most of the time they'll pick themselves up and carry on.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Decker wrote:

Internal grounds can cause clogs.
I grounded, clogged, removed the grounds, much better!
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:40:14 GMT, B a r r y

So right! Chips and sawdust are notorious for catching on anything. That's why I wondered about some kind of conductive paint that can be used inside PVC to keep the inside smooth. I recall the military had conductive paint used for aircraft, not sure if anything like that is available tot he public.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There certainly is. Electronic stores..(the BIG ones) often carry a spray which was developed to create a ground plane on the back of CRT's aka repairing TV tubes. I do not know, however, how well it would stand up to particulate matter flying by at the speed of sound ( well.. ahem..it COULD maybe go that fast...maybe not THAT fast...) If somebody just feels they HAVE to ground the frickin' thing..what about self adhesive aluminum tape, huh? Huh? on the OUTSIDE of the PVC? I see no reason to eliminate static charge build-up on the inside only. I have a plastic ShopVac that builds up enough static to suck the hair off my head on a dry day like today....I mean, the frickin' thing levitates and sticks to the wall like balloon!!! The air flow on the inside, builds up the static on the outside of the container.
Or... take a trip to:
http://www.welbecksawmill.com/Dustcollectors.htm
On your way by, stop in and have a coffee.
0?0
Rob
"Et tu, Spongebob?"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
When I bought into this stuff, I used aluminum tape on the insides of the PVC pipes (2 strips on opposite sides) to prevent clogs and wrapped the outside with copper wire. It appeared to work since I never got zapped touching it (the pipe) but I believe it did little to prevent a fire since data clearly shows it to be just about impossible for it to happen anyway.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving


"Robatoy" < snipped-for-privacy@BULLtopworks.ca> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

4" SD pipe comes in 20 ft lengths. how'd you get the tape in there?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

since
anyway.
I was working with 10 ft lengths but the method is still the same. Most foil tape (at least the stuff I work with) has a release backing and that is what you will need. Cut a length a few inches longer than the length of the pipe you are using it on. Feed a pull line down the pipe (I used a telescoping pole) and attach the line to the tape. Fish the tape down the pipe. Now here is the tricky part. Send the feed line back down the pipe the other way. Peal back a small section of the release tape and attach it to the feed line then attach the foil tape to the pipe on that end. From the other side of the pipe, hold the foil tape sticky side up from the pipe and pull the feed line to remove the release tape from the foil. Once removed, pull the foil tight (not so tight as to break it) and set it into position within the pipe. To make the bond complete, form a tight fitting ball from a shop towel and push it down the inside of the pipe and you are done. I did this on opposite surfaces inside the pipe. On the ends I drilled small holes and put a screw and washer with the head on the inside of the pipe in each hole and secured it with another washer and a nut on the outside. I used another washer and nut on these bolts as mounting points for the braided copper wire I had wrapped around the outside of the pipes which also completed the ground connection.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.