Author Topic: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track (Read 19709 times)

Pancha · « **Reply #30 on:** November 08, 2015, 03:14 PM »

Chris Wong, thanks for sharing. It certainly seems feasible and more elegant than PVC. Also, just plugging the hose into the top of the arm is much simpler in terms of setup/breakdown as well as weight savings. As I said in an earlier post, my one problem with that approach is that you are committed to a certain length hose. If it's too long it will snag on things or become cumbersome. If it's too short you won't be able to perform certain tasks. You have two options the way I see it. Either you have different length hoses for different tasks or you go my route where you use clips and can modulate the length of hose coming off the top of the boom arm. I like my way because I use my boom arm for a myriad of tasks that require different lengths of hose. But people who plan to use their boom arm for one specific task may prefer yours. Carpenter/woodworkers choice. I use mine primarily for cutting ipe pavers, but I have also used it to break down sheet goods for stain grade deep soffit covered porches, siding etc. When I need a longer length of hose I can either feed more hose through the clips or pull the hose out and re-snap it back in at a different length. Again, I don't have a bias one way or the other, but my needs/interests require more flexibility.
Also, as soon as you start moving into different heavier/more rigid materials such as stainless steel. The more unrealistic my boom mount becomes in it's current state. The easier it becomes to tug on the hose and permanently alter the t-track, the less realistic this solution becomes. If one were to go with steel, I would definitely anchor the mount to the v-groove on the top of the mft extrusion or the t-track on the underside of it. If you're using 80-20 then it's even more variable based on the profile you've chosen. I could be way off base here, but this is how I'm thinking..

Cheers and thanks for being a part of the discussion

Chris Wong · « **Reply #31 on:** November 08, 2015, 04:51 PM »

If you designed it smartly, you wouldn't be limited to certain usable hose lengths.

First of all, adding or removing a length of tube changes the height/length of the boom arm, and would affect the reach.

Also, a hose would be required at each end of the boom arm - one to connect the boom arm to the dust extractor and one to connect the boom arm to the track saw or other tool being used on the MFT. I would make the two hoses slightly different in length so I could swap them if required. Perhaps cut a 3.5 m hose into two pieces, 1.25 and 2.25 metres long.

I think that this second approach with two hose lengths is more practical and adaptable.

Pancha · « **Reply #32 on:** November 09, 2015, 09:04 PM »

Quote from: Chris Wong on November 08, 2015, 04:51 PM

If you designed it smartly, you wouldn't be limited to certain usable hose lengths.

First of all, adding or removing a length of tube changes the height/length of the boom arm, and would affect the reach.

Also, a hose would be required at each end of the boom arm - one to connect the boom arm to the dust extractor and one to connect the boom arm to the track saw or other tool being used on the MFT. I would make the two hoses slightly different in length so I could swap them if required. Perhaps cut a 3.5 m hose into two pieces, 1.25 and 2.25 metres long.

I think that this second approach with two hose lengths is more practical and adaptable.

Chris Wong, Being able to swap hoses of different lengths is an interesting Idea. I have tried to go with a 50mm hose attaching to a 27 or 36 mm hose depending on need and what you have already. I think this gives you better dust collection than going with a 36 mm hose the entire way. I know others on the fog have said that a 50mm hose doesn't help with dust collection but I haven't found that to be the case. Maybe somewhere on the fog there is someone who has tested this. Still, your argument has merit. Your solution may be more practical, although I fail to see how it would be more adaptable. More specifically, I'm not sure about the hose ends. I don't have any experience with the stainless steel tradesman cleaning set and the inherent connections. I will pick one up to play around with it and see how everything connects together. I would also consider the price of festools cleaning set vs. PVC which is cheap and readily available and does the job. People can custom cut it to their desired lengths based on their needs and personal height. At the same time, people do like having a product that looks professional even if the only person seeing it is them. Maybe someone else can chime in on these topics... I'm not positive you could swap the different length hoses with out changing the hose ends and have them be "swapable". If you can, that would be really cool and it would encourage me to consider this solution further. Ultimately I still like being able to really "micro-tune" the length of hose coming off the top but that may not be something others are interested in. I don't see removing segments of the arm to modulate the reach of the hose as a realistic solution because for me, part of the point of the boom arm is to have it swivel above your head so it's not too tall that you can't reach it, in your face, or something hovering directly above the work surface. Again, Maybe other's feel differently. I'm going to explore your idea further and see what I find. It's definitely a good Idea and worth exploring..."smartly".

Chris Wong · « **Reply #33 on:** November 09, 2015, 11:58 PM »

Pancha,

You are correct about hose fittings. The tool end of either the D27 or 37 hoses will connect to the "back" (closest to dust extractor) end of the Festool tubes. I've actually never used the tubes in line before, so I'd have to check what fits on the "front" end.

Festool also makes polypropylene tubes for cleaning sets which are light. I don't think they'd be as sturdy for this application, though.

Tinker · « **Reply #34 on:** November 11, 2015, 04:04 AM »

I was a volunteer fireman for many moons. During that time, I did attend classes as they became available. We learned about the effect on water hoses from length and diameter vs pressure. Any fittings also effected pressure even more than length of hose. I do not have any of the information I stored either on paper or in my head, but I relate vacuum problems in the sme way as I had to look at pressure problems when operating a pumper for water to put out a fire. Length and size of hose I think make a big difference in picking up dust. any change in air floe due o change of fitting size will affect the velocity of air flow as well, perhaps more than size and length of hose.

I have a short length of 27mm hose attached to my saw and routers with the main hose being 36mm. The voluum of air and dust that can be handled by the larger hose is the same as the capacity of the vac. It just moves slower the larger the hose. At the tool end, the vomuum of air is the same per cubic inch, but t is actually moving faster. I think the CT vacs are designed to put out a certain voluum of air (vacuum) and the hoses are designed to allow a certain voluum of air and dust. To go the the 50mm hose would be counter productive over a long run as the air velocity would be slowed and dust would settle in the hose, especially if the hose is elevated overhead. (I forgot to mention "elevation" in my explanation about fire hoses)
Tinker

Pancha · « **Reply #35 on:** November 11, 2015, 05:13 AM »

Quote from: Tinker on November 11, 2015, 04:04 AM

I was a volunteer fireman for many moons. During that time, I did attend classes as they became available. We learned about the effect on water hoses from length and diameter vs pressure. Any fittings also effected pressure even more than length of hose. I do not have any of the information I stored either on paper or in my head, but I relate vacuum problems in the sme way as I had to look at pressure problems when operating a pumper for water to put out a fire. Length and size of hose I think make a big difference in picking up dust. any change in air floe due o change of fitting size will affect the velocity of air flow as well, perhaps more than size and length of hose.

I have a short length of 27mm hose attached to my saw and routers with the main hose being 36mm. The voluum of air and dust that can be handled by the larger hose is the same as the capacity of the vac. It just moves slower the larger the hose. At the tool end, the vomuum of air is the same per cubic inch, but t is actually moving faster. I think the CT vacs are designed to put out a certain voluum of air (vacuum) and the hoses are designed to allow a certain voluum of air and dust. To go the the 50mm hose would be counter productive over a long run as the air velocity would be slowed and dust would settle in the hose, especially if the hose is elevated overhead. (I forgot to mention "elevation" in my explanation about fire hoses)
Tinker

Tinker, thanks for weighing in. So in your estimation, using a 50mm hose with a boom arm is pointless/counter productive? I have a 50mm hose that goes from the vac to the bottom of the boom arm. From there, either a 27 or 36mm hose takes over. You think I should reduce the hose diameter at the bottom?

Tinker · « **Reply #36 on:** November 11, 2015, 06:38 AM »

@Pancha Quote:So in your estimation, using a 50mm hose with a boom arm is pointless/counter productive? I have a 50mm hose that goes from the vac to the bottom of the boom arm. From there, either a 27 or 36mm hose takes over. You think I should reduce the hose diameter at the bottom?

If the 50mm is raying flat, I don't think it would not work. If it rises more than to get to your CT connection, it should be ok. If you already have the 50mm hose, give it a try. In my case, the rise is immediate from tool to ceiling (6'8") and back down to the cyclone. In that case, a 50mm might work for using a sander. I think it would clog if i were using my routers, or maybe even my TS55. I have the older CT33 which has ess pull than the news models.

If you try the 50mm hose from the bottom of your boom, let us know how it worked and the conditions you used it. The rise is probably the most important factor in how it will work. the fittings will probably be the same hether yo go direct from your tool DOWN to the vac or rise to ceiling and then back down.

I sometimes use an extra length of hose to reach my WoodRat (w/625 DW router )drill press or a stationary sander. In that case, i run the hose as close to level or slightly down hill from machine to CT. If using the Rat with the extra length of hose, I go direct to the CT and bypass my cyclone. I have never tried going thru the cyclone when using the extra length of hose. It can be more hassle than I care for if the hose clogs, or if the clogging is inside of the Rat frame.
Tinker

Pancha · « **Reply #37 on:** November 11, 2015, 11:59 AM »

Quote from: Tinker on November 11, 2015, 06:38 AM

@Pancha Quote:So in your estimation, using a 50mm hose with a boom arm is pointless/counter productive? I have a 50mm hose that goes from the vac to the bottom of the boom arm. From there, either a 27 or 36mm hose takes over. You think I should reduce the hose diameter at the bottom?

If the 50mm is raying flat, I don't think it would not work. If it rises more than to get to your CT connection, it should be ok. If you already have the 50mm hose, give it a try. In my case, the rise is immediate from tool to ceiling (6'8") and back down to the cyclone. In that case, a 50mm might work for using a sander. I think it would clog if i were using my routers, or maybe even my TS55. I have the older CT33 which has ess pull than the news models.

If you try the 50mm hose from the bottom of your boom, let us know how it worked and the conditions you used it. The rise is probably the most important factor in how it will work. the fittings will probably be the same hether yo go direct from your tool DOWN to the vac or rise to ceiling and then back down.

I sometimes use an extra length of hose to reach my WoodRat (w/625 DW router )drill press or a stationary sander. In that case, i run the hose as close to level or slightly down hill from machine to CT. If using the Rat with the extra length of hose, I go direct to the CT and bypass my cyclone. I have never tried going thru the cyclone when using the extra length of hose. It can be more hassle than I care for if the hose clogs, or if the clogging is inside of the Rat frame.
Tinker

I've been using the 50mm hose at the base of my boom arm for a month or so(from the vac to 2' above the ground). I've noticed an improvement in dust collection. From there to my tool, I have been using either a 36 or 27mm hose. It has worked fine. I notice a little bit of dust falls out of the hoses when I pull them apart, roll them up and carry them from point a to point b but I haven't noticed a deluge of sawdust falling out of my hoses. I modeled my concept after the actual festool boom arm which includes a 5' foot 50mm hose coming off the vac to the base of the boom arm. I'de be curious to know if they have posted any testings or conclusions on how to effectively use different gauge hoses for different lengths in different applications, and whether the 50 mm hose is actually an improvement over a 36 for this application and when it wouldn't be.

Tinker · « **Reply #38 on:** November 11, 2015, 02:33 PM »

Quote: >>>I'de be curious to know if they have posted any testings or conclusions on how to effectively use different gauge hoses for different lengths in different applications, and whether the 50 mm hose is actually an improvement over a 36 for this application and when it wouldn't be.<<<

So would I.

I was thinking after I sent my last reply that with fire hoses, we were thinking in terms of 100 feet or more. Usually in multiples of 100'. With CT's and hoses coming of of them to the tool, we are usually thinking in terms of the neighborhood of 10 or 12 feet. A huge difference.
Tinker

SRSemenza · « **Reply #39 on:** November 11, 2015, 03:17 PM »

Aah! Very cool!

I love stuff that breaks down to fit in a Systainer for portability.

Seth

GarryMartin · « **Reply #40 on:** November 11, 2015, 05:09 PM »

Quote from: Pancha on November 11, 2015, 11:59 AM

I'de be curious to know if they have posted any testings or conclusions on how to effectively use different gauge hoses for different lengths in different applications, and whether the 50 mm hose is actually an improvement over a 36 for this application and when it wouldn't be.

There is something like that. Probably not exactly what you're looking for but it's a decent resource nonetheless.

See the attachment at http://festoolownersgroup.com/ask-festool/connecting-two-36mm-hoses/msg342346/#msg342346

Pancha · « **Reply #41 on:** November 11, 2015, 05:36 PM »

Quote from: GarryMartin on November 11, 2015, 05:09 PM

Quote from: Pancha on November 11, 2015, 11:59 AM
I'de be curious to know if they have posted any testings or conclusions on how to effectively use different gauge hoses for different lengths in different applications, and whether the 50 mm hose is actually an improvement over a 36 for this application and when it wouldn't be.

There is something like that. Probably not exactly what you're looking for but it's a decent resource nonetheless.

See the attachment at http://festoolownersgroup.com/ask-festool/connecting-two-36mm-hoses/msg342346/#msg342346

Thanks Garry, It's certainly useful for this thread. It doesn't really help in terms of discerning the most effective hose connection systems for different tasks but it is a great resource! It also lends itself to the idea that starting with a 50 mm hose in the beginning and then transitioning to a smaller hose is a more effective method of dust collection. Thank you for posting this! I'de be curious to know what others have found with their own hose arrangements.

GarryMartin · « **Reply #42 on:** November 12, 2015, 03:36 AM »

Quote from: Pancha on November 11, 2015, 05:36 PM

It also lends itself to the idea that starting with a 50 mm hose in the beginning and then transitioning to a smaller hose is a more effective method of dust collection.

Definitely.

You might find more information by looking at dust collection ducting design - it's all about volume moved and the velocity of the airstream, and changing the size of the duct (hose) such that it is narrower further away from the extractor is one of the main ways that you retain a well functioning system when increasing the length of the ducting.

Typically, small shop systems will start with a 6" duct at the extractor/cyclone, and maybe for the main trunk, with 5" duct coming off as branches, a 4" or smaller used at machines depending on their individual requirements.

The larger diameter of duct/hose at the tool end, the higher the velocity needed to move the volume necessary to extract dust efficiently from the tool.

I assume that's why tools like the Kapex work best with the 36mm hose - it hits their sweet spot with regard to volume and velocity; a 27mm hose has more velocity but not enough volume, and maybe the 50mm hose has enough volume but not enough velocity?

Tinker · « **Reply #43 on:** November 12, 2015, 06:41 AM »

Quote from: GarryMartin on November 12, 2015, 03:36 AM

Quote from: Pancha on November 11, 2015, 05:36 PM
It also lends itself to the idea that starting with a 50 mm hose in the beginning and then transitioning to a smaller hose is a more effective method of dust collection.

Definitely.

You might find more information by looking at dust collection ducting design - it's all about volume moved and the velocity of the airstream, and changing the size of the duct (hose) such that it is narrower further away from the extractor is one of the main ways that you retain a well functioning system when increasing the length of the ducting.

Typically, small shop systems will start with a 6" duct at the extractor/cyclone, and maybe for the main trunk, with 5" duct coming off as branches, a 4" or smaller used at machines depending on their individual requirements.

The larger diameter of duct/hose at the tool end, the higher the velocity needed to move the volume necessary to extract dust efficiently from the tool.

I assume that's why tools like the Kapex work best with the 36mm hose - it hits their sweet spot with regard to volume and velocity; a 27mm hose has more velocity but not enough volume, and maybe the 50mm hose has enough volume but not enough velocity?

When fuguring pumping presures and fire hoses, we used the large hose at the pressp and to narrow down closer to the fire. That is, I have always assumed, to be the way to set up vac hoses. I have a short 16" section of 27 hose at my TS55, OF 1000 router and sanders. the 36 hose from there to my cyclone and 50 from cyclone to CT 33. My HL 850 I run the 36 direct to the cyclone. For that machine, I also run the hose horizontal for 3 or 4 feet before going to ceiling joists and then back down to the cyclone. I don't know if that is necessary, but i just think giving that little extra horizontal run give the chips a better chance to sort themselves out before going into vertical mode. If I am working outside in my most spacious shop area with the entire universe for a ceiling, I just run the hose on the ground to my CT 22. My small domino gets the 27 to 36 hose treatment the same as for my TS55. My OF 1400 is in its permanent home in the CMS table. That gets the split hose treatment to the cyclone. I just move either/both within reach of each other and run vertical and down hill to the cyclone.
Tinker

Pancha · « **Reply #44 on:** November 14, 2015, 08:47 AM »

Quote from: Tinker on November 12, 2015, 06:41 AM

When fuguring pumping presures and fire hoses, we used the large hose at the pressp and to narrow down closer to the fire. That is, I have always assumed, to be the way to set up vac hoses. I have a short 16" section of 27 hose at my TS55, OF 1000 router and sanders. the 36 hose from there to my cyclone and 50 from cyclone to CT 33. My HL 850 I run the 36 direct to the cyclone. For that machine, I also run the hose horizontal for 3 or 4 feet before going to ceiling joists and then back down to the cyclone. I don't know if that is necessary, but i just think giving that little extra horizontal run give the chips a better chance to sort themselves out before going into vertical mode. If I am working outside in my most spacious shop area with the entire universe for a ceiling, I just run the hose on the ground to my CT 22. My small domino gets the 27 to 36 hose treatment the same as for my TS55. My OF 1400 is in its permanent home in the CMS table. That gets the split hose treatment to the cyclone. I just move either/both within reach of each other and run vertical and down hill to the cyclone.
Tinker

See that's the thing, People have completely different needs when it comes to what you have between the vac and the tool. It's hard for me to justify making the boom arm part of the suction apparatus despite how much I would like to. I like the Idea of having a boom arm that breaks down and can be transformed into a regular vacuum kit like the stainless steel tradesman cleaning set. I would love to have a cyclone soon too, but i'm not sure which direction to take with it. Home made vs new Oneida AXD000009 Ultimate Dust Deputy. I can't tell how serious this hole antistatic thing really is, but i digress... When you start committing to certain lengths of hose you end up limiting either the suction, your options, or having to have a bunch of different diameters of hose at different lengths, and constantly hacking up hoses as your system changes. I don't mind the last option, but they take up so much space and are a pain to carry and pack away. I also have an added issue in that I work on decks a lot. Awkwardly shaped ones, or narrow ones where my preferred setup doesn't work and I have to move things around. I would like to be able to do that without affecting the dust collection because for me that's the point. I don't know, I need to ruminate on this some more.

flyingWoodwork · « **Reply #45 on:** January 04, 2018, 09:33 PM »

Would it work to make the clips with a 3D printer?

Author Topic: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track (Read 19709 times)

Pancha

Re: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track

Chris Wong

Re: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track

Pancha

Re: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track

Chris Wong

Re: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track

Tinker

Re: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track

Pancha

Re: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track

Tinker

Re: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track

Pancha

Re: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track

Tinker

Re: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track

SRSemenza

Re: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track

GarryMartin

Re: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track

Pancha

Re: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track

GarryMartin

Re: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track

Tinker

Re: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track

Pancha

Re: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track

flyingWoodwork

Re: Portable Boom Arm mounted to MFT/ T-Track