Dust cap modifications

[DickB]

I like the concept of the Dust Cap, but I don't like the 1/2" diameter elbow, which seems quite restrictive. I'd like to open that up. Also, the Dust Cap is is a fairly complex piece to build. I've had some time to work on this and played with a few ideas, and I may have come up with some ways to simplify construction and increase the airflow. This is what I am working on now.

I found that there is enough room to run a plenum on the right side of the chuck. I've made a prototype base piece with the plenum opening in place. It fits. I am using Baltic birch at this early stage, but will probably switch to cast acrylic after I get some. I'm using an aluminum base plate, at least for now, because it was easy for me to fabricate. A wooden plenum mock up proves there is space. The actual plenum may be made of glued plexiglass sheets or bent aluminum. The rectangular shape eases construction. I intend to make a manifold for the top of the plenum to exit through the slot opening in the machine's cover. The manifold and/or plenum will be attached to the top of the y-truck. There is almost enough room in the slot to fit a 1" pipe or hose without modifying the cover. If the hose is mounted in a U to the left, there is no need to account for hose rotation.

There's no room for a dust cap top cover with my CarveTight, but it might be possible to glue a very thin and light plastic flange to the chuck, to expand the diameter of the chuck to the ID of the dust cap, acting like a piston most of the time if chips flying out of the top are a problem.

48103 48105 48108


I may try getting by with just an open cut-out for the bit plate. With the plenum right over that area, it may work. But if not I think that a sliding ring on a pivot might work. I made a cardboard prototype to test the concept of having the bit plate push it out of the way. My screw locations will need to change a bit for this to work, but I believe that once I do that the ring will fit without modifying the machine. I may cut out a ring of this type to test if it will actually work with the machine operating as my next step.

48104 48106 48107

I thought I'd post this as a work in progress to get feedback.

[ibewiggin]

That is nice. I definitely like the idea of the "dust cap" over the other DC options. I am waiting for someone to offer one for sale. Like you said it is a complicated device and I really just don't have the want to make inequality, even though it seems like a better option. Less mess! Now with the third party store I am hoping one of you may sell a dust cap device. Bagerude has a pretty good set up but doesn't sell them. There probably is not much profit in it for the time to assemble them though.

[bergerud]

Wow, I am happy to see some else experimenting. I wonder, though, have you made and tried the Dust Cap? My first one had a 3/8 elbow and that actually worked fine. I thought I would make it as big as I could and so it ended up being 1/2. I have had no problem whatsoever with the elbow being restrictive. Even when carving with the grain and those planer like shavings. It even sucks up metal. (Maybe you did not notice the how the vortex action throws the chips into the pipe.) The main problem with my Dust Cap is that it is perceived as complicated to make. It works just great. In my mind, its short comings are that it obscures the bit (I like to watch) and that the hose comes out of a cut hole in the front of the machine.

I thought long and hard about different ways to do things and, well, you saw what I came up with. I gave up on trying to go up the side of the carriage because of the bit plate on the right and because of no room on the left. I really wanted to go up on the left and cross over to the right to go out. I thought for awhile about having the Dust Cap swing out of the way for the bit plate and decided that it would be too complicated and risky. If it could swing then it might swing at the wrong time and hit the chuck or the bit or it might get jammed into the left side of the machine. Power to swing it out could not come from the bit plate because it has enough trouble as it is! You cannot have an open slot for the bit plate as that is exactly the direction the chips fly. Vacuum will not get the big chips. I concluded that the only way to deal with the bit plate was either to replace it or go under it. The original bit plate can be modified to give enough space under it. Again, more complication, who is going to grind up the old one or make a new metal bit plate? And don't forget, the cap has to be easily removable for cleaning and for using the scanner.

I am sorry, I do not want to bring you down. I know you are having fun with this. (Of course, I wish you would have made my Dust Cap and helped to improve it. I needed someone with the CT to test it.)

You know, if you really want to improve the Dust Cap, it has to have no moving parts and be easy for everyone to buy!

[DickB]

I have not built your Dust Cap and tried it. I set out to do that, by downloading and studying your excellent mpcs and photos, and examining my machine. I was convinced by your posts that it worked and that it would be a significant improvement over my current setup; that's why I started down this path. In doing so, it occurred to me that some changes could possibly be made that might make it simpler and easier to make and build. Simpler and easier is better, in my mind. I agree that no moving parts would be better, so I thought I would try that. If not, I have this idea for the one moving part that does not require modification of the bit plate. No modification to the machine is better if it can be made to work. I will have to try the swinging ring idea to be convinced that it won't work, so that's probably what I'll do next. If the bit plate can't swing it, perhaps a cam on the ring extending to the left that contacts the wall of the machine as the truck moves towards the wall could work (just like the bit plate itself). The plenum has the potential for about 3x the airflow of the elbow. That has got to be better. My table saw has a 3" dust port, and it works quite well. But if it had a 4" port, I'm sure I would use it. So if I can construct a larger port for the Dust Cap, and simplify it by eliminating the bearing and the two-piece, close-tolerance elbow, why not?

You state that you wish that I had made your Dust Cap and tried to improve it. In my mind that's exactly what I'm doing, although maybe not in the order that you envision. I guess I don't see the need for me to replicate what you have done exactly and then go from there. You have already done that and provided great detail on your work; I don't feel that I need to replicate it to take advantage of it.

[bergerud]

You know, Dick, I originally made the Dust Cap for myself. I did not care how hard it was to make, I just wanted a trouble free and effective dust system. I was quite happy with my original plexiglas version, the aluminum bracket, and the on board bit plate. I got so much positive feedback from the forum members that I was inspired to design the parts so the Carvewright could carve them. I spent two weeks of my summer vacation to perfect the process and make it as easy as I could to make. Well you know what happened - nothing. My advice to you is to decide what you are making. Either you design it for yourself or you design it to make and sell. If you think you are designing something that others will make, you may be disappointed. You would think that Carvewright users would be on the most part gifted makers of things. I am starting to think they are, on the most part, consumers. Ed Baker knows something we do not. When I first saw his rotary jig I thought, why would he make these things and sell them? Why not just sell the plans? The jig is easy for any woodworker to make. They bought them up.

On the topic of Dust Cap improvements, let me ask you this: If the Dust Cap with the 1/2 pipe gets 99.5% of the dust, why would you think that a higher flow volume would be a big improvement? Are you going to radically change the design to get 0.02% more dust? As for the bit plate, I originally thought it was an extra, undesirable complication to have to replace it and to have moving parts. As I have used the Dust Cap, my thoughts have changed. It is not a bug but a feature. That original bit plate was an undependable thing with scraping metal on metal contact and a horrible thwack. I am happy to be rid of it. (You really do not want it wacking at your cap!)

I believe that the ultimate dust system is more like what I tried with the Dust Shoe. An attempt to make dust collection a built in system. If I were to continue research on this topic, this is the direction I would go. I would design a new, higher bit plate and have the cap slide under it. The parts would have to be manufactured and sold.

Anyway, I challenge you to better my Dust Cap and I look forward to seeing what you come up with. I wish you the best of luck.

[DickB]

Thanks for your comments and insights.

In addition to wood products, I have made and sold other items: specialty automotive electronics. In fact I still am building and selling some electronic items that I first designed years ago. So I have a little experience with this.

I have not designed anything as a "product"; everything I have done, I did for myself. But then others who saw what I did asked if I would make them one, and in a few cases that grew into a small hobby business. The Dust Cap is no different. I'm doing it for myself and my own machine. Maybe it becomes a product down the road, I don't know. That depends on a lot of things. BTW I'm guessing that Ed did this as well - made it for himself first, then decided to sell. As it happens, I have a couple of projects in the pattern depot - again, these were items that I made for myself, not to sell - and I am very interested to see how these designs sell versus actual physical product. I've only a few months experience with the sale of designs, so it's too early to draw conclusions.

As I look at the aggregate of projects displayed in these forums, the majority appear to be "single-board" projects: plaques, signs, picture frames, etc. Your Dust Cap is not that type of project. So it is not so surprising to me that there has been little interest in your mpcs. (I have studied them and used them as a staring point.) As you see by the response to Ed's product and comments on the Dust Cap, there is definitely interest in a Dust Cap product if not a project. I think we saw this with at least one of the dust collector projects that was posted, where some users wanted to buy, not make.

The design change in the flow was not motivated primarily to increase volume or flow, but to simplify the build for myself. Turns out that the increased flow comes for free with this change. If I can get it, why not? As far as the bit plate goes, I had some issues with sticking bit plate at first, fixed with a bit of lube. But for hundreds of hours now, I have had no problem. Perhaps it loosened up with wear, I don't know. Again I am making the change for myself first and foremost. I cut a rotating ring today and affixed a small spring; the bit plate had no trouble pushing it out of the way. So I think it will work fine, and that's one less mod that I have to do for myself and yes, if this turns into a product, for others to do. BTW some find the thwack of the bit plate a reassuring indication that all is well. To each his own.

I've stated before and I'll say again, for the life of me I don't know why LHR did not facilitate dust collection from the outset. You buy a $50 sander and it has a dust shroud and outlet for a vacuum or dust collector. As I'm sure that you have discovered in working on your Dust Cap, there are needless restrictions for accommodating a proper dust cap or shoe built into the machine design. The head casting could easily have been made a bit differently to allow really nice dust collection right at the cutting/carving bit. Oh well.

For whatever it's worth, I give a big THANK YOU for coming up with this concept and developing it into a working device. I think it is the best solution presented so far, and I am anxious to see the concept in action on my own machine. Your posts, mpcs, pictures, and information have been invaluable.

[Digitalwoodshop]

I would design a new, higher bit plate and have the cap slide under it. The parts would have to be manufactured and sold.

Anyway, I challenge you to better my Dust Cap and I look forward to seeing what you come up with. I wish you the best of luck.

I love your Cap Design.... When I placed a block of wood on top of the bit plate to simulate making it higher it gave me a Air Carve.... so that distance in Height is a Standard to the machine and can't be moved.

AL

[bergerud]

Thank you for the compliments Dick and Al. It is nice to hear positive feed back for my efforts. Al, I only meant to gain 1/4 or maybe 3/8 an inch of height under a new bit plate. And Dick, about the thwack! Some else had the same comment that it was reassuring to hear it. I want you to think about that. You like the thwack because it means the thing is not failing. Believe me, it does not take long to forget the thwack when it, silently, always works.

[DickB]

Well, here's what I've come up with, keeping the bit plate in place. I'm using Baltic birch for now to test and fit the parts. I have some HDPE in the shop which I may give a try. The parts don't need to be glued, so that material could work. Or I will get some cast acrylic. But the birch parts are functional, so I will likely give them a try to see how well this concept works (or doesn't) with the CarveTight. I found a source for 1" x 1/2" rectangular aluminum tube to route the vacuum up the side of the chuck, so I will not need to fabricate that. It should be here soon. I am on to working on the manifold for the top.

48214 48215 48216 48217

[dbfletcher]

I am really liking the look of this. I have been following this thread with great interest since I am still relying on a downdraft system myself. If this ends up working well, I think I will opt for this design over the RNB DC insert. (Not that there is anything wrong with that solution either.... just the cap makes more sense to me.)

[Digitalwoodshop]

I am very impressed with this version....

AL

[bergerud]

This does look very cool. I cannot wait to see more.

[b.sumner47]

Your work has come a long way, looks great. I can't wait to see more. Capt Barry

[bergerud]

After looking at your pictures Dick, I wonder about some things. Is there a gap between the cap and the carriage for the z truck to fit? It may just be the picture, but it looks like the truck will hit the top of the cap on its way down. My cap is 1.75 O.D. which is as big as it can be and leave a gap for the truck. If your cap is bigger than this, I think you will have to make it smaller.

I see what might be a more serious problem. Your vacuum intake is high to be above the bit plate and this may cause a flow problem when the chuck is down low. It looks like the chuck itself may block dust under it from the vacuum above it. Air may get sucked in from above instead of sucked up from below. I am not sure that my cap would not suffer the same problem with the larger CT, but my air intake is lower. My ER16M chuck is a smaller diameter cylinder and nicely blocks the air from entering the top through my smaller hole. I think, you need a way to block air from getting in the top. You may need a larger passage way to get the air and dust around the chuck when it is down low. (This is of course, when it is creating the most dust). Having the top of the chuck pass below the top your intake would not be good. I think you have to get that vacuum intake down as low as you can.

Just some thoughts. Hope it helps.
Dan

[DickB]

The truck does not hit the top of the cap. I am using the same dimensions.

I noticed that airflow issue as well. The cap screw on the CT protrudes a fair amount, and there must be a gap between the chuck and the inside walls of the cap to accommodate it. Air is going to get pulled from above as well as below. I don't know how well this is going to work with the CT. There is no way to put a top on the cap as you did with your chuck. It would be better to pull air from lower down, but with the routing of air to the side like I am doing I don't see how at the moment. Hopefully, with the larger plenum, a good volume of air will get pulled from below even with air also "leaking" in from above. One idea that I have is to put a thin plastic disc the diameter of the protruding cap screw on the chuck to close off most airflow from the top when the chuck is down low.

[bergerud]

Sorry about thinking the truck would hit. The picture tricked me. I figured it could not be. I think you need a top cap, even if it is only a thin ring. The swirling air with the dust thrown to the outside may try and spill up and out the top. (Easy to add later if needed.) I do think you have to find a way to get that intake down to the bottom. Don't waist your time replying to me, just get it to the first test!

[bergerud]

Am I being fooled by pictures again or is my bit plate higher than yours? In your pictures, it looks like your bit plate swings in within the 3/8" of an inch above the base bracket. I think my bit plate was higher by at least 1/4". If I remember, it chopped my cap in half. I do remember that my bit plate was not horizontal but angled up. It may be that one of our plates has been bent or bit plates are not all the same. At some later date, we may have to measure and compare.

[DickB]

My bit plate is swinging just above the base bracket. The swinging arm on my cap is 3/8" thick, and the bit plate hits it about in the center. Seems to me the bit plates need to be the same height on all machines as it is a calibration reference.

I took a closer look at my design so far, and I believe it is possible to make the swinging arm thicker on the right side, then cut it out, in effect extending the rectangular duct down to the base, getting airflow down lower. I'm focused on designing the manifold for the top of the duct and mounting it and the exit out the top cover, so I won't get back to those cap changes for a while.

[bergerud]

I do not think the height of the bit plates needs to be fixed. The variation in chucks and bit lengths means it can only be relative. Just how much variation is possible before the "wrong bit error" is something I wanted to but have not gotten around to testing. Anyway, I think ours are different. I like the idea of the channel going to the bottom.

[DickB]

I worked on the manifold today and now I am nearly to the point of getting this functional. I haven't decided how to fasten the manifold yet. I could drill and tap a hole in the top of the y-truck and use a screw, or some double-stick foam tape would probably work as well. I misread the specs on the the rectangular aluminum tube that I ordered; the walls were way too thick. So I bent up some sheet aluminum to fabricate a plenum. This will work, but for ease of replication I am looking at alternatives. The machine's top cover will need to be modified a bit at the bit plate side to accommodate the 3/4" bilge pump hose, but I think it can be easily done with a drill-mounted sanding drum, as only a little material needs to be removed. No other machine modifications are needed so far. For ease and quickness of making parts, to date I've done all fabrication using the 1/8" cutting bit only, single side. But to make the parts functional I will need to do some work on the bottom of at least the manifold parts, and the design can be finessed with some additional carving. I've used 1/4", 3/8", and 3/4" stock for this build, but I believe that all parts could be fabricated from 3/8" stock only. Assembly is simple; most parts are just stacked and bolted together. I haven't made provisions for large-diameter bits or the scanning probe, as I very seldom use them, but by removing and replacing two screws, the dust cap and plenum are removable and the large bits and probe could then be used. I would like to get this functioning tomorrow to see how it works, but I also have a few other things to do.

48305 48306 48307 48308 48304 (in the last picture I may have had the mahcine's cover on crooked.)

[b.sumner47]

Thanks DickB , Look'in great. WoW ! Lots of Work. Capt Barry

[55president]

I'm following this thread too. I need a better dust collection system than I have now.

[Digitalwoodshop]

Yes, I think this is the Ticket.... I like the direction this is going... The biggest bit I use is the V 90 for Text...

Is the Spring a Home Depot item?

AL

[DickB]

Well, I'm almost embarrassed to show today's kludge, but I was anxious to get a working version and start judging performance. Results are encouraging. I'm definitely collecting more dust and chips than with my old downdraft and top-mounted systems. During carving, a few chips did fly out of the top, but not bad. Very little came out the top during cutting. Some chips are ejected out the bottom. Adding a brush skirt like the original Dust Cap may help that. But by far most chips are being vacuumed up. I also believe that a very large percentage of the finer dust particles are being removed, due to their low mass.
48359

Here's some of my latest work. At the manifold, I shaped the interior of the two halves to try to optimize airflow. These features were machine carved.
48357

Below, I did find a way to get airflow down lower. I "bent" the swing arm to allow a cutout, and extended and increased the size of the cutout upwards. I also split the top section to add a bit of a lid on top of the airflow path. I shaped the cavity a bit by hand, but I plan to come back and optimize these shapes for flow also and have the machine carve them.
48361 48358

Finally, here's a little detail of the spring return. The right spring is important. Too little tension and the swing arm of the dust cap will not return; too much, and the bit plate sticks. With this spring, it's working well, even with my crude wood pieces that must have some friction associated with them. Again, the fitment of the spring was done with a drill press and hand tools, but that was just to get things working. I see having these features machined by the CarveWright except for the very tiny hole that you see. Or I may find another spring configuration that is easier to build.
48360

Actually, build is not that bad. Now, all parts but the base were made from 3/8" stock, and I just cut a 3/8" base to try. So all the parts that need to be made could be machined at once on a single sheet of cast acrylic. The rest of the parts are off the shelf, if you can find the right shelf, which I continue to work. For example, I found what I believe to be a reasonable source for a nice clear plastic rectangular tube to replace the aluminum one that I made, so that would not need to be fabricated. Once you collect the parts and machine the acrylic, it's pretty straightforward to bolt together.

[bergerud]

Looking good. Try a carve before you take it apart. I think there is more "action" in carving. (Also probably more need for the brush.)

[Digitalwoodshop]

Impressive R&D....

AL

[DickB]

Looking good. Try a carve before you take it apart. I think there is more "action" in carving. (Also probably more need for the brush.)I did both carving and cutting, but not a lot of either. I will be using it as is for a while to see how it performs and also finessing a few things, in preparation for ultimately making one out of acrylic.


Impressive R&D....ALThanks. You should see my bone pile!

[b.sumner47]

Handy piece of work. Capt Barry

[DickB]

I may be premature here, but I would like to gauge interest in a "kit of parts" for other CarveWright owners to make a dust cap. Allow me to give some background.

bergerud of course came up with the dust cap concept, developed an implementation, and posted the mpcs for others to build. I think it's fair to say that there has not been a lot of CarveWright owners that have actually built one, despite all his efforts. I think one of the things that has contributed to this is the relative difficulty in obtaining materials. In bergerud's design, the cast acrylic, bearing, spring, and brass tube are all items most of don't have lying around. While it is true that these things can all be obtained, and without a whole lot of difficulty, most of us would have to go to three or four sources to get the materials. That costs time and money.

Switching to my own design version, in addition to the acrylic, there are some special parts such as the spring and the aluminum plenum that need to be made or sourced. The spring for example can be ordered on line, but in single quantities it costs $5.18 plus $6.50 shipping. In larger quantities, it becomes much cheaper. Likewise, the aluminum plenum. It took me probably a half hour to build, but I have a bending brake and some experience in sheet metal working. Not everyone else does. However, I found a neat plastic extruded tube that fits this project perfectly and is better than the aluminum plenum that I made, but it can only be purchased in quantity (actually, quite large quantities).

48488

I have some experience with a small hobby business of building and selling electronic items in relatively small quantities (hundreds). My thinking is that once I complete my design refinements for this project, I might offer a kit of parts that would consist of everything needed to build the design: cast acrylic sheet, spring, plastic plenum, screws, etc. A CarveWright owner that bought this kit would need to carve a simple sled in a board, then carve the cast acrylic from the kit using the sled and finish the parts (sanding etc.). Then, assemble the parts he or she just made plus other parts from the kit. I think I could offer a kit like this in the $40 - $50 range, and ship it via Priority Mail for $5 in the USA.

What I need to pursue this is to get an idea if there would be sufficient orders for me to take the inventory risk of buying sufficient quantities of parts up front to make this possible. If I could be fairly confident that I would sell at least 25 or 30 kits, that would be enough to avoid my taking a loss. Please take a moment to respond either way, yea or nay.

[Sallen1215]

Count me in for 1 after i see a video or proof of operation

Stephen

[b.sumner47]

DickB , I'm interested in one, maybe two. Nice work .


Capt Barry

[CarverJerry]

I think it's a great idea, what does bergerud think of you doing this? Is this something the two of you are working together on? I've been watching the thread on his system and all and think it's a great idea. My ring-neck blues system works really well and I'm happy with it but when it comes to carving cast acrylic or corrian it's can't get it all because of the static cling that stuff causes.
I would be in as long as there isn't any problems with bergerud and his original idea being used, and I'm not talking about the legal stuff it's all about our open forum here and sharing our ideas with one another, I call it "Respect"

CarverJerry

[chebytrk]

Count me in for 1 too. However, I would like to see a video snippet to see how it works and how much dust it does clean up.

[ibewiggin]

Yes, j would definitely be interested in one. one question that came up in our users group is the static problem.Does this system need to be grounded and if so have you developed a way accomplish this?

[bergerud]

Thanks for the consideration CarverJerry. I guess I better chime in here.

I am, as you know, upset that no one on this forum jumped in to help me test my prototype. The next stage of my plan was to test and refine it for use with the QC, Rock, and CT. Granted, I did not provide very detailed instructions, but that was part of it: I also wanted to know what kinds of problems others would have carving the parts. To this day, I am baffled as to why no one built it. Anyway, without any real external input, the project halted because I was not going to put an untested project on the Carvewright web site.

I am still hoping that someone will build it. Some were saying they were going to "get to it". Now along comes Dick, who is just the type of person I was looking for except he has ideas in a different direction. It is a direction I turned away from but hey, if he thinks it is better, lets see if it is. I am totally in favor of the best idea prevailing. I do not mind losing a fair test. So far, I am not convinced that Dick's dust cap is simpler, more dependable, or more efficient than mine. What will upset me is if others build Dick's dust cap and expound how wonderful it is without ever testing mine.

I have thought of sending people parts and even whole Dust Caps in an attempt to "get it out there". Anyway, we will just have to wait and see how Dick's cap comes along. I look forward to trying to provide an unbiased (if that is possible) comparison of the pros and cons of each. If his dust cap turns out to be the better system, I hope I can be the first to admit it.

[ibewiggin]

Begerud, I am waiting for my flexshaft and I would be interested in trying to make your dust cup, I have two machines and would be interested in comparing the two. I am not sure that I have a good source for the parts but can start investigating.. One of my machines have the rock and one has the ct, one has rubber belts and one has sand paper, one is a b machine and one is a c. I have waiting on buying the ringneck blues to see how the dust cap would pan out. I believe this is the better way to go. So yes, I will try and locate the parts to create your dust cap, and the other one. I can take videos and compare. I would like to see it first handany ways. Also I will probably bring it to our users group and have several of our comparisons.

[Ike]

I been reading and looking at the dust cup and it looks like it will work great! Yet I have a question how will effect the carving time and how much wear and tear is on the Y motor with the extra weight?

Ike

[bergerud]

That sounds great ibwiggin. I bought 20 bearings on line the other day for $1 each. If they are any good I will send you one. (I could send other spare parts as well.)

Ike, you now have to indicate which dust cap you are referring too!

[DickB]

I think it's a great idea, what does bergerud think of you doing this? Is this something the two of you are working together on? I've been watching the thread on his system and all and think it's a great idea. My ring-neck blues system works really well and I'm happy with it but when it comes to carving cast acrylic or corrian it's can't get it all because of the static cling that stuff causes.
I would be in as long as there isn't any problems with bergerud and his original idea being used, and I'm not talking about the legal stuff it's all about our open forum here and sharing our ideas with one another, I call it "Respect"

CarverJerry
CarverJerry, I think bergerud summed up the working relationship between us very well. Our only exchange to date has been through the forum. If you look here http://forum.carvewright.com/showthread.php?18302-The-Dust-Cap&p=156913#post156913 you'll see that I suggested a "kit" quite a while ago. I believe that having one or not does make a big difference in how many people will venture forward on a project like this. And yes having very detailed build instructions, of the type that are needed to submit a project to the Pattern Depot, is needed for many potential builders as well. So my thinking is if bergerud or someone else had stepped forward to offer a kit, I would not. But otherwise I see no reason not to. Not everyone is willing or able to do this; there is some work and risk involved.

I think that the performance of the two designs will be quite comparable. There are no major functional differences that I see. The diameter and height of the two caps are identical. The main differences as I see it are the bit plate and pickup methods. No matter what is said, some users will be reluctant to change the bit plate of their machine, and I think that is a real factor in acceptance. But I don't think that it affects performance. Routing the air up the y-truck and out the top seemed a natural to me. Airflow from the cap is in very comparable locations, although the exact location, size, and shape of the exit are different. I don't have a top cap, but then I don't beleive that I could have used one with the origional Dust Cap and my CarveTight either. In the attached photo, notice how narrow the gap between the CT screw and the dust cap inner wall is. I have experimented with a "hat" on the CT itself. This hat effectively closed the top of the cap at nearly all cutting or carving depths, as good or better than the Dust Cap top with the ER16 spindle I suspect. I am getting some chips thrown out away from the cap and I thought they might be flying out the top, but using this hat I could discern no difference.
48552

I don't yet have a brush on the bottom and I suspect that is where chips are coming from. I will be adding one and also will try lowering the base a bit as well. However, even as is, the cap is working better than my older systems, so I'm staying on this path. I will post a video when I get closer to a "final" configuration. Right now I am working on a cyclone separator and observing performance.

Ike, there is no noticeable effect on carving time with either design, as I don't think that the CarveWright can tell the device is there. The caps are mounted to the y-truck, and if you consider the mass of the caps versus the masses of the y- and z-trucks, both of which the y-motor must move, it is negligible in my opinion. I haven't measured, but I'd be very surprised to see any difference in time.

[Digitalwoodshop]

I want to equip all my machines with this type of collector at some time. I have been so busy making money that I have been neglecting my Carve Machines.... LOL....

Not to Step on any Toes like I did last week with the Round Jig.... Thinking out loud... I have a vendor that makes .080 Thick Aluminum Tags for me with either a Water Jet or a big Laser... I like the layered version and if I produced the parts or purchased the parts AND had permission... I would have the parts cut from .080 Aluminum and other thickness made of Aluminum. Using .080 to get the Thicknesses needed and some shimming... Just a thought....

Like anything... It takes a few Hundred Dollar Order from them.... I am saving for a big order soon and would love to add them to the order. I have a bunch of Accountability Tags and Boards I need cut.

I am also liking the Vertical Tube Collection System too..... The Hose version Does WORK......

Lots to think about.....


AL

[Ike]

That sounds great ibwiggin. I bought 20 bearings on line the other day for $1 each. If they are any good I will send you one. (I could send other spare parts as well.)

Ike, you now have to indicate which dust cap you are referring too!

Both caps, I know LHR bits are suppose to be calibrated with the chucks and I would think the motors Y and Z are chosen for the weight they carry? Just a thought I am not saying it won't handle the extra weight.

[bergerud]

Ike, if you think of the forces involved in controlling those cutting bits during carving and cutting, I think the extra weight of our bolt on stuff is negligible. Think of the power at which the carriage slams into that bit plate. Power to spare.

[DickB]

I've taken a break from this project as I need to get some other "real" projects done. I've switched back to my old dust collection system to regain my reference point so that I can compare performance. My initial take on first running the dust cap was that it does a better job, and I still believe that is the case. With the dust cap there is very little accumulation on the y rails an casting in that area. I get noticeable accumulation with my old system, and generally clean it with compressed air after every few projects.

I think that the dust cap does a better job of removing fine dust and preventing it from floating around in the machine. I think the rails, encoders, and gears are better protected with the dust cap.

I have not been able to contain all of the larger particles (chips) with the cap. To be sure, many chips are captured, but chips are still thrown around. The back side of a carving gets a lot, but this is relatively harmless, as the chips there are not affecting anything really. The far end of the machine, past the edge of the project board or sled, also gets a fair amount, but again that is relatively harmless. Some end up on the ledge on top of the casting, right under the clear cover. Some of this tends to vibrate off onto the board, and then get sucked up as the head passes over that spot. But the bottom line, and I can say this with more confidence now that I have reverted systems for a while, is that the dust cap at worst leaves no more chips than my old (current) system.

(My old system is a combination top mount and downdraft system. I may be able to get better performance by switching to top mount only, as I would have increased airflow in that area. I may try this.)

One drawback of the dust cap with the CarveTight is that there is very little clearance between the inside cap wall and the spindle screw. In fact, for testing the cap I had to remove the longer screw and washer recommended here: http://forum.carvewright.com/showthread.php?19190-New-Information-about-the-CarveTight-Spindle. I'm not sure if the cap can be made to work with this longer screw. One option might be to have the wedge part of the spindle machined with a bit more material or find a screw with a shorter head.

I'm not satisfied with my dust cap manifold on top. There are two issues. I currently have only a very short lip for the exit pipe to attach. I've attached it with an epoxy paste and it seems quite secure, but I would like to have more material there. And, the airflow makes a z-bend, which is not efficient and can be a place where larger, stringy shavings get caught. Both problems could be eliminated by moving the round exit pipe on top of the rectangular plenum, but this would mean that the slot in the machine's cover would need to be widened about a half inch, and that can't be done without addressing the cut motor safety switch.

[bergerud]

I think your comparison of your dust cap with the top mount is premature if you have not yet added the brush. Without the brush, quite a few of the larger chips shoot through the gap between the cap and the wood. These chips, because of their mass and velocity, escape the vacuum flow. The brush stops them and then the vacuum takes them away. The only chips which get away after the brush is added are ones which "bounce" though areas already carved. You can almost count them.

[ibewiggin]

So, my new parts shipped out on Wednesday. Where do I get the medium for carving my dust cap, and the other pieces? Also asked about the static earlier but had no response. Is static not an issue with this set up?

[Ike]

Ike, if you think of the forces involved in controlling those cutting bits during carving and cutting, I think the extra weight of our bolt on stuff is negligible. Think of the power at which the carriage slams into that bit plate. Power to spare.

I forgot I post the question! You mentioned the power to move the back plate and chuck to engage the bit plate. Well a little dust and the plate fails to engage and unless you clean and lube the pivot point it strains the Y motor. I know I don't keep trying to find the bit until I do clean and lube the bit plate. So I am concerned about the extra weight, again I am sure the motor can move the chuck with the cap. But the power is also needed for harder material, adding more weight would add more strain. Not to mention the motor is not a big motor compared to other CNC machines.

So many factors play in effect, dull bit, what material you are using, a clean lubed bit plate etc. I am not trying to a thorn in the side, but being a long time CW owner I can see issues with the extra weight! The ideal is awesome!

Ike

[bergerud]

ike: Just try and stop the carriage while it is moving. It has a lot of power. If you look closely at the bit plate, the reason it can resist the power of the carriage is because the carriage gets virtually no mechanical advantage and there is some scraping friction. What I meant was, look how hard it hits. Lots of power. Putting the weight on the z truck, on the other hand, would be a problem because of the high z acceleration. On the y - no problem - it does not accelerate much. Another way to look at it would be that the weight of the Dust Cap is only a small fraction of the weight of the whole carriage with the truck and the motor drive.

ibewiggin: I do not know what parts Dick is going to recommend making his cap from. If you go back to the end of the "To Carve the Dust Cap" thread, I have sort of a list. About static, I do not think there is much created compared with the high cfm systems. I live in a humid climate and so, for me it has not been a problem. I have thought, however, of finding anti-static hoses or hoses with a built in grounding wire.

[chkorte]

I love the concept but don't think I want to take my CW apart just to install it when what I have works so well and goes on and off in 1 sec. I certainly hope you get it to work.

[Ike]

ike: Just try and stop the carriage while it is moving. It has a lot of power. If you look closely at the bit plate, the reason it can resist the power of the carriage is because the carriage gets virtually no mechanical advantage and there is some scraping friction. What I meant was, look how hard it hits. Lots of power. Putting the weight on the z truck, on the other hand, would be a problem because of the high z acceleration. On the y - no problem - it does not accelerate much. Another way to look at it would be that the weight of the Dust Cap is only a small fraction of the weight of the whole carriage with the truck and the motor drive.

ibewiggin: I do not know what parts Dick is going to recommend making his cap from. If you go back to the end of the "To Carve the Dust Cap" thread, I have sort of a list. About static, I do not think there is much created compared with the high cfm systems. I live in a humid climate and so, for me it has not been a problem. I have thought, however, of finding anti-static hoses or hoses with a built in grounding wire.

Again I am not arguing the motor doesn't have enough power to do what it is intended to do! But a little dust on the rail and on the bit plate and the plate will not extend. Okay the Z truck moves the chuck up and down (vertically) The Y moves the Z plate left to right (horizontally) I am saying that out loud! Moving the dust cap up and down I would think would be okay. It is the the extra weight left to right under operating conditions while carving is what I wonder about.

I just wish an LHR engineer can say if the extra weight can be handled. I know they won't because any unauthorized add on will void the warranty. Not to mention be removed if sent in for repair. Floyd's DC is approved and when I can spare the funds I will get his! Again I love your ideal and I hope the best! I not against using non CW parts, I have a Rock on one of my CW, lol that I plan on switching to a Carve tight because the bits slip out of the Rock unless I make sure I really tighten it well!

Good luck with it I will keep up with the post and see how the dust cap works out!

Ike

[bergerud]

The up and down would be bad. If the cap had to move up and down, it would have to move with the high acceleration of the z truck. The reason for the flex cable is to make the z truck light so it can really accelerate up and down. The y movement, on the other hand is just slowly moving back and forth with virtually no acceleration. Carrying the cap is no big deal. In fact, the bit plate knock out would be even better with the cap on board. More momentum for the whack!

Anyway, it sounds like I am not convincing you. (It would be nice if the engineers at LHR would jump in once in a while. They do not seem to frequent the forum like they used to.)

[Ike]

It not that you are not convincing me the dust cap will work! I have replaced the Y motor a few time on various machines through the years and that is during "normal" operation! It is a pain to replace the Y motor and I rather wait and see that's all!

[bergerud]

I was trying to convince you that the added weight was no big deal for the y drive! I think the carving forces and the bit plate whack are the real y drive killers. But, you are not wrong, a little more to do means it wears out sooner.

[DickB]

I think your comparison of your dust cap with the top mount is premature if you have not yet added the brush. Without the brush, quite a few of the larger chips shoot through the gap between the cap and the wood. These chips, because of their mass and velocity, escape the vacuum flow. The brush stops them and then the vacuum takes them away. The only chips which get away after the brush is added are ones which "bounce" though areas already carved. You can almost count them.
I didn't have/ couldn't readily find a brush to bend into a circle, but I tried this weatherstrip seal which I believe would work as well (although it would probably wear faster).
48658

What is your source for the brush?

[bergerud]

Sorry, I just saw your reply. My brushes are cut from sliding window weather strip seals. These brushes are also on some door seals. If you go to a glass and window store, they have rolls it of it. The stuff I got has two rows of bristles and requires careful cutting to cut off one row.

[Ike]

Have you tried a vac attachment for computers or the smallest round brush?

Ike

[Kenm810]

A few years back I needed some round Nylon brushes for a couple of projects I was working on,
I trimmed them a little and they did the trick for me, -- Thought I'd mention them.
The assorted colors were for different bristle stiffness I believe.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Dishmaster+White+Nylon+Replacement+Brushe s&um=1&hl=en&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS322US323&biw=1272&bih=840&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

[bergerud]

I did buy some of those vacuum attachments but they were the wrong diameter and the bristles were too stiff. We only need about 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch of soft brush.

[Kenm810]

How about some door sweep and seal refill brush material
it's imbedded into aluminum or plastic that can be cut to any length
and bent or shaped into a circle as needed. Just a thought

[bergerud]

That looks interesting. I will check that out. Hey wait, my brushes are door sweeps.

[DickB]

I thought that I should close this out from my end. The lack of posts by me should indicate that I have stopped work on this concept. Two reasons: with the CarveTight AND the longer screw which improves balance, I found it impractical to machine a dust cap wall thin enough to work. Second, in my experiments, which admittedly weren't exhaustive, the dust cap did not perform significantly better than my top collector (a variation of Frederick_P's).

[bergerud]

Sorry to see you quit. It was fun following your progress and ideas. The Carvetight size does seem to pose a problem. A friend of mine just bought a new C machine and so I will now get a chance to experiment with the Dust Cap and the CT.

[DickB]

Cool. Maybe you can come up with something.