Dust collection flex tubing, what's good?

Page 3 of 4  


PS: The comments you made about a temp. reduction in pipe diam. was helpful. I don't understand much of the physics, but it has proven out in practice - e.g., putting a 4" pipe on machine's 2" duct fitting is better than putting a 2" pipe on it to the DC. In fact, this *suggests* a reason why my Dewlat TS has a small fitting - increased air speed perhaps improves dust capture over what it would otherwise be. Just a thought. -- Igor
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, fluid dynamics was not my prime concern. The concern was with the "carry", which of course is related to the flow rate. You are concerned with the fluid, I with the solid, which, at least to me, is the reason for having a collector, not to move air around.
"Bernoulli's principle can be explained in terms of the law of conservation of energy (see conservation laws, in physics). As a fluid moves from a wider pipe into a narrower pipe or a constriction, a corresponding volume must move a greater distance forward in the narrower pipe and thus have a greater speed. At the same time, the work done by corresponding volumes in the wider and narrower pipes will be expressed by the product of the pressure and the volume. Since the speed is greater in the narrower pipe, the kinetic energy of that volume is greater. Then, by the law of conservation of energy, this increase in kinetic energy must be balanced by a decrease in the pressure-volume product, or, since the volumes are equal, by a decrease in pressure."
Will you go this? Lower vacuum (large pipe), pieces drop - higher vacuum (narrower pipe) , pieces move.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
OK, you seem to have two contradictory statements: The first paragraph (correctly) states that the "carry" is related to the flow rate. But then in the last paragraph (and the quote about Bernoulli) suggests that the pressure _itself_ is responsible for carrying the particles. The correlation that high speed == low pressure and vice versa (Bernoulli's principle) is not really relavent, and for a ducted system, only marginally applicable.
Yes, the pressure and flow rate do change (and you can use Bernoulli's principle on a limited basis at the junction) when you change duct size. But pressure is just a means to an end (in that pressure differences are what move the air, of course). It is air speed that is responsible for carrying the particles (turbulence and particle friction, in particular). So when you say "Lower vacuum (large pipe), pieces drop" it should really be "Lower speed...".
Greg
George wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kinetic energy, as stated. Seems that demands some consideration of mass or force.
I think Owen already realizes that air through a tube is not the same as trying to put 3# of the proverbial solid into a 2# bag, which answers his question. So here's my question. If I've a 4" flex hose (standard), and the current "standard" 1200CFM @ 11 ft of water static pressure impeller, what percentage of my potential chip-carrying energy will I lose between equal lengths of 6,5, or 4" inside diameter transport pipe? I figured it would be in approximate proportion to the difference in cross-section. So or not?

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

Hmmm...not quite sure on your question, so I'll answer it two ways:
If you have two otherwise identical systems, one with say 4" ducts and one with 5" ducts, the airspeed will go [to a rather gross first order] like 1/AREA. With the reduced resistance of the 5" duct, however, that system will have a higher flow rate, and so the airspeed will be higher than said 1/AREA back of the envelope analysis. By how much depends on many factors, as you well can guess, including the impeller design, roughness, duct layout, etc.
If you have ONE system, with both 4" and 5" ducts connected in series, obviously the mass flow rate is the same in each duct. Since the volume changes little at these pressure differences, the volumetric flow rate is nearly unchanged. Then the airspeed will go almost exactly like 1/AREA for each section of pipe. Of course, the 4" will cause greater pressure losses; for equal sections of pipe, the narrower pipe will be more "lossy." Geez, I wish I could say how much; off the top of my head I think pressure loss goes like 1/RADIUS^3, but don't quote me on that. When all my textbooks get out of "storage" (read: the moving van blew its transmission), I can look it up.
When it comes to "chip carrying energy," if you mean kinetic energy, well, you know how to find that. If you mean "chip carrying _ability_," we'll have to define ability first. Good luck on that one. The best I've seen is a relationship between airspeed and maximum particle size, but I can't remember where I saw it. I seem to remember 3000 ft/min. is a good rule of thumb for wood dust, chips, and fingers.
Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
OK, pretty much as advertised. Lower velocity (sqroot) lower the pull, I guess.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No, the system is not limited by the narrowest pipe. It's not a "weakest link" analogy. The reason is that the speed of the air will vary inversely to the area of the duct. So the 4 inch restriction will just accelerate the air. There is some (small) loss with restrictions, mostly because it is easy to accelerate flow efficiently but hard to slow it down.
Others have properly noted the fact that while large ducts can pass a lot of air, the speed of the air drops so that dust can settle out in the pipe.
Greg
Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg, while I agree with your statements, per se, I'd like to toss in one more item. Specifically, the intake bypass in a 2-bag DC. We have a single fan (impeller), and if the air line to that was fully (or even mostly) blocked for some reason, the upper bag would collapse. To avoid this, there appears to be a partial intake bypass. The air movement would then split between the main duct and the bypass by the relative resistance of the two paths.
Now, I imagine a pressure limit valve could be used in the bypass, but I doubt they do this.
Haven't seen this mentioned before in discussions. But it explains why a 2-hp DC cannot match the static vacuum of even a medium shop vacuum, no matter how much you restrict the opening. It would also impact some of your conclusions (by degree, not type), in that moving from a 5- to 4-inch hose would be worse than expected since more air would flow though the intake bypass.
Does this make sense, or am I missing something? GerryG

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
When I'm lucky (wealthy?) enough to have a two-bag DC, I'll let you know. OK, really, there are a lot of caveats that are important in practice, and not quite knowing what you're describing, I'll just chalk it up as "it's quite possible."
There is one thing I'd like to point out and that is that the reason a shopp-vac has much higher static pressure is that the impeller speed is much higher. Pressure rise at zero flow goes something like [rotation speed * radius]^2 (I think--again, don't quote me). Despite the larger diameter of DC's, the high speed of the shop-vac is more than enough to compensate. Obviously, when there is airflow, things change, but you get the idea.
Greg
GerryG wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It's not Bernoulli mainly that factors into this, it's Boyle.
Pressure dynamics is the same whether it's for gas, liquid or even traffic patterns.
Reduce the size of the pipe, duct or road and you increase the pressure and reduce the velocity.
So the idea that a reduction at one point (be it the smaller pickup at a saw or a roadblock in the middle of the road), the pressure increases, the dust, car, water, whatever slows, but then, as the pressure decreases with the increase in the roadwork, the speed increases.
The traffic analogy was not mine, but worked out by some highway engineers. They were surprised to learn that traffic flow basically obeys Boyle's law.
Which is why you want large main ductwork, this is your freeway. The smaller gates are your on ramps.
The speed cannot be the same throughout. Just as traffic picks up after a slowdown. Sometimes when you hit traffic and then it speeds up, you wonder why. Well, there was a stoppage a while ago, and the system is simply recovering. It does not stay slow the entire way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nope, Newton.
We're moving solids, hopefully. That's Newton. Thus the concept passage cited.

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

Solids suspended in air perform as a fluid, do they not?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nope, they behave as masses acted upon by outside forces.
The fluid is a lube to reduce friction.
wrote:

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

I'm not sure that that's how a suspension behaves. "lube" would indicate that it forms a film between the thing being transported, and the plenum it's being transported in. Seems to me you're moving both the air _and_ the sawdust suspended in the air.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chunks, man, think chunks.
wrote:

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

I guess we need to find out which laws apply to a non-colloidal suspension. By the way...the Bernoulli equation is for frictionless, incompressible flow. It works well enough for fluids, but it's out for gases. A cursory look over my fluid mechanics info says that we might have better luck with the Euler equation.
Also, someone here pointed out that Bernoulli was Swiss (after someone else said he was Italian). He lived much of his life in Switzerland, but he was, in fact, Dutch.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Guess we need to think about how much energy we want to waste in turbulent flow to get things in suspension versus what we'd like to have to get them flowing in a more laminar pattern toward the impeller.
That is what velocity is, is it not? Motion in a direction?
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/BernoulliDaniel.html says Swiss, but http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Bernoulli_Daniel.html goes with Netherlands
Ethnicity of the name? Probably Italian. Wrote in Latin, so what's the diff?
Swiss are by language German or Italian, with a bit of French.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And to make it even more confusing, it is sometimes better to induce a turbulent boundary layer to get better flow than something that is strictly laminar.

Four and a half years of engineering school say "yes". The question is, what equations govern this type of flow? It sure isn't Bernoulli and I'm not sure Boyle's strictly applies. Boyle's Law is more applicable to a pressure cooker or a engine cylinder. I'm not sure it can be extended to a flow such as what we're discussing. But then, my specialization was solid mechanics, not fluids.

If you define "Swiss" by living in Switzerland, then this one is correct. Most people, howeve, define "Swiss" to mean, "born in Switzerland". It's clear he was born in the Netherlands.

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

Like Professor Fish's work with humpback[*] flippers. The nobs on the leading edge perform much better than the typical smooth leading edges on modern aircraft wings. Expect to see knobby wings on future aircraft :-)
[*] <http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR AD4ADB-2B35-221B-699D1485A73879AA&ARTICLEID_CHARB65445-2B35-221B-655AE8D9744434BC&sc=I100322>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Lurndal wrote:

Don't. It's called a "turbulator" and it works fine in low reynolds number flows. Put them on high speed aircraft and they create all manner of chaos. Been tried, repeatedly, in various forms. A whale is not an airplane.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
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.