|
|
Post by jonathan on Oct 20, 2015 10:16:09 GMT -5
I fitted some clean bags in all my vacuums and did some measurements with an entry-level Extech AN-200 anemometer.
Anyway as you can see in the image attached below, the Protool/Festool & Bosch vacuums performed pretty much equal with a tiny edge going to the Bosch. I tested with a few different kind of hose diameters and lengths. All the hoses used are Festool by the way.
The results really surprised me because on paper Bosch states 150CFM vs 138CFM for Festool. By simply sawing on the Erika 85 I had much better results in dust collection with the Bosch than the Festool but thinking about it now, the Protool wasn't fitted with a clean bag at the time, instead it was approx 1/4 full. I didn't think such low contamination of the bag would make a difference, so I didn't take it into account. Now that I see these numbers, I've replaced all my bags with spanking new ones for these measurements.
I'll test out a few more configurations with a Dust Deputy cyclone in the mix as well later on and of course I'll post those findings as well.
(Click to enlarge)
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Gensmer on Oct 20, 2015 11:26:57 GMT -5
Thanks for posting this Jonathan! I wonder if there's a way you could get your hands on a Starmix ISP-series unit to compare as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Oct 20, 2015 12:06:26 GMT -5
Thanks for posting this Jonathan! I wonder if there's a way you could get your hands on a Starmix ISP-series unit to compare as well? Yeah I'm really aching to test those as well. I too am very curious to see those results... Buying another vac is not in the cards for some time to come though  Maybe my dealer will allow me to bring some of my hoses and do some airflow measurements when I stop by ... 
|
|
|
|
Post by toomanytoys on Oct 21, 2015 8:09:03 GMT -5
Ah, product testing. What I did for 25 years.
I don't have any of the vacs you guys are talking about, just an older Fein. But I do have an Extech 451112.
Now we all know in our minds about instrument calibration, product variations, and instrumentation variances. But Tom since your in the U.S. If you want to borrow my aerometer to compare what you have I'll be willing to lend it out to you. If you have access to one of the vacs Jonathan mentioned maybe the testing of it with my unit could be used as a relational baseline. If there is no baseline, pulling numbers may not be beneficial.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Oct 21, 2015 8:46:15 GMT -5
Yeah I'm by no means an expert at this. The CFM readings seem very low, but I suspect that's because the anemometer vane is larger than each of the hoses that were measured. Also some of the support struts for the vane always covered part of the hose end.
I did however make sure to carefuly position the vane/hose in the same position and took the highest reading I could get.
So these numbers are probably not accurate, but I do believe they provide me with a reliable baseline based on the fact I was careful to measure as close as I could to identical each time.
In any case, the real result should become clear to me once I actually test these configurations by making sawdust and see how much isn't collected.
To be continued... |
|
|
|
Post by toomanytoys on Oct 21, 2015 9:53:30 GMT -5
Yeah, those details get in the way, lol. I'm not an expert in its design either, just use it to balance ducting. I would say as long as it used with same diameter hose it should be apples to apples. Ideally maybe if the hose is smaller then the vane head then a hose adapter used to connect to a larger hose is attached so it's larger then the vane head, but with a cover so it's orifice is the size of the vane head. This way it there would not be any interference with any differential caused by some parts of the vanes not being in the flow but pushing stagnant air around the outside of the hose driven by the vane section in the flow. That explanation may need a picture. On edit - this quick sketch.  |
|
|
|
Post by jm on Oct 21, 2015 18:40:40 GMT -5
Can you also get a vacuum gauge and measure as well? You'd need something that reads pretty accurately in the 0-200 mmHg range (<0.25 bar).
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Gensmer on Oct 21, 2015 21:13:02 GMT -5
Ah, product testing. What I did for 25 years. I don't have any of the vacs you guys are talking about, just an older Fein. But I do have an Extech 451112. Now we all know in our minds about instrument calibration, product variations, and instrumentation variances. But Tom since your in the U.S. If you want to borrow my aerometer to compare what you have I'll be willing to lend it out to you. If you have access to one of the vacs Jonathan mentioned maybe the testing of it with my unit could be used as a relational baseline. If there is no baseline, pulling numbers may not be beneficial. I'd be happy to borrow your measurement tool to get some readings on my Metabo-branded Starmix vac! I also have a CT-26, so that can serve as a benchmark when comparing my findings to Jonathan's. I also have a CT-MIDI, which might be interesting to compare as well. I'm exhausted this evening, but tomorrow I'll PM you to coordinate how to borrow the device. Thanks for the idea! |
|
|
|
Post by holmz on Oct 22, 2015 6:10:13 GMT -5
Yeah I'm by no means an expert at this.
... Bull$hit - you are doing it scientifically the same way that any expert would approach it with repeatable measurements. I like your work, and I do not get to say that often enough as many only give perceptions and feelings. [hatoff-emoji] |
|
|
|
Post by toomanytoys on Oct 22, 2015 20:37:46 GMT -5
I wasn't initially going to write this as my knowledge is from 10 years ago. In my facility there were some activities that would generate dust, so during the time our corporate EHS was upgrading regs we had to address those activities. For our tasks we used "shop vacs" for the majority of things, but in our company we relied on corporate to provide data and tell us what vacs could be used. All of our retail units had to get tossed and we ended up just with Nilfisk HEPA units.
Jonathan, you stated you were surprised at the low ratings and I was hoping with the new HEPA standards that those ratings were more regulated. I'm guessing they are still are not and of course we do not have any reference material of how those values were acquired by the companies. But from my distant memory I think we were told by EHS those units cfm ratings typically were without any filters or hose. So the addition of those two may be reason for the low flow values you've seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by holmz on Oct 23, 2015 1:03:01 GMT -5
I would trust measurement made with some custody of care, such as jonathon's..., over measurement with no care or questionable pedigree.
As an example... Take VW for instance.
|
|
|
|
Post by calidecks on Dec 12, 2016 18:01:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Eoj on Dec 12, 2016 19:34:05 GMT -5
220 CFM is off , the vac should be around 130 CFM . With the I-Pulse cleaning and no filter bags this vac is top of the line .Concrete , sheetrock ,wood dust ,plastic decking and blown in insulation are no problem for this vac .
|
|
|
|
Post by arvid on Dec 12, 2016 20:01:42 GMT -5
220 CFM is off , the vac should be around 130 CFM . With the I-Pulse cleaning and no filter bags this vac is top of the line .Concrete , sheetrock ,wood dust ,plastic decking and blown in insulation are no problem for this vac . No way it has 220 cfm |
|
|
|
Post by arvid on Dec 12, 2016 21:09:52 GMT -5
220 CFM is off , the vac should be around 130 CFM . With the I-Pulse cleaning and no filter bags this vac is top of the line .Concrete , sheetrock ,wood dust ,plastic decking and blown in insulation are no problem for this vac . are these vacs generally used with no filter bag? just empty the canister? |
|
Maybe my dealer will allow me to bring some of my hoses and do some airflow measurements when I stop by ... 
