CT CYCLONE Pre-Separator: Coming to NA on October 1

Administrator_JSVN

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
8,426
Coming October 1 to North America
[attachimg=3]
CT CYCLONE
Less time changing Filter Bags. More time for doing what matters.
The new CT pre-separator with cyclone technology

For craftsmen who work with large volumes of dust and debris, the CT CYCLONE pre-separator is the simplest answer for increasing the efficiency of your CT Dust Extractor and minimizing its lifetime cost of ownership — all within a compact solution that fits seamlessly into the Festool mobility system. Compliant with OSHA’s Table 1 when used with a HEPA-certified CT Dust Extractor*, the CT CYCLONE is an anti-static** three-step filtration system that separates and collects large debris and coarse dust before it reaches the mobile dust extractor — decreasing the number of filters and dust bags that you’ll need to purchase to keep your CT running smoothly. Additionally, the CT CYCLONE reduces the overall dust load on the main filter and ensures consistently high suction power throughout the work process. Compatible with all CT Dust Extractors, it is a highly portable and compact cyclone solution that can be easily transported to wherever your work takes you.

-  When used with a HEPA-certified CT Dust Extractor, the CT CYCLONE is in full compliance with OSHA’s Table 1 rule for silica dust. Applications and details coming soon to festoolusa.com/osha
-  By removing larger dust and debris before it fills your filter bag, the CT CYCLONE reduces how often you need to replace filter bags and filters — saving you both time and money.
-  Engineered with a unique flat cyclone design to minimize necessary space, the CT CYCLONE fits securely within the Festool SYSTAINER modular storage system — allowing for easy storage and transportation.

CT CYCLONE
CT-VA-20
Item no: 204083
Catalog Price: $375 USD / $480 CAN

*Consult festoolusa.com/osha for applications and details.
** Anti-static system is effective only when used with anti-static design (Festool’s CT series) Dust Extractors.
 

Attachments

  • fog_cyclone_sm.jpg
    fog_cyclone_sm.jpg
    43.3 KB · Views: 801
  • fog_cyclone_sm.jpg
    fog_cyclone_sm.jpg
    43.3 KB · Views: 783
  • fog_cyclone_sm.jpg
    fog_cyclone_sm.jpg
    43.3 KB · Views: 4,517
What took you so long?  [smile]

I'm surprised that the hose between cyclone and CT isn't a larger diameter. And those 90 degree fittings are too tight a bend for my liking, but they do make for a more compact setup.

The way the hose going to the tool comes out of the front, it looks like it will be an awkward fit with a Boom Arm.
 
Curious how it meets Table 1 compliance... at least as shown, it's using a plastic liner bag on a CT 36 AC, which while capable of handling a HEPA filter, I believe is not rated as HEPA? So I'm assuming to reach Table 1 compliance you have to use the cyclone with the non-AC model?
 
The product description first says compatible with all CT dust collectors and then says it can't be used with the CT-SYS, MINI, or MIDI - I guess they use the US Cellular providers definition of "Unlimited".

But I don't understand why it can't be used with the MINI or MIDI - is it simply that the connecting hose is a little too short given that it gets plugged underneath the systainer?
 
No thank you. I don't want to void the warranty on my vac on account of static electricity building up and frying the electronics. I'll stick with my Oneida UDD that has the built-in static conductive components.  [big grin]
 
Corwin said:
The way the hose going to the tool comes out of the front, it looks like it will be an awkward fit with a Boom Arm.
The boom arm extension hose is 5ft. I would guess it will wrap around to the back no problem. As shown in this photo the length of the 3.5m hose should still work with the cyclone mounted backwards. (Note: I haven't bought a boom arm setup and am speculating.)

s-l1600.jpg


Question: I might have missed it but can the "clear bucket" part be left out and just use the lower systainer part as the bucket, making it more compact, albeit with a more limited container size? (Still utilizing a bag.) Better for road warriors and all...
 
sprior said:
But I don't understand why it can't be used with the MINI or MIDI - is it simply that the connecting hose is a little too short given that it gets plugged underneath the systainer?
Me neither. They are all equally untistatic. What's the problem?
 
Just a thought.
Shouldn't the cyclone section go between the tub and the motor section of the CT? Then it'll drop dust straight into the tub. Of course the intake of the tub will need to be closed and the cyclone section will have its own intake. Don't all CT series, have the same tub opening shape and dimensions (interchangable)?
In the current configuration the CT tub is not utilized (almost), most of the dust goes into this awkward and mostly redundant tower.
While at it, I'd make the cyclone itself more efficient. >99% is easily achievable. Yes, an efficient cyclone puts more drag on the system, but I'd rather spend the energy there than on pulling air through redundant box, stretch of hose, and two elbows.
 
James Carriere said:
Looks good.  Any word on if it will be compatible with the WCR 1000?
Fully compatible. Even says so in the listing on the Festool products website. Imagine that.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 
Svar said:
Just a thought.
Shouldn't the cyclone section go between the tub and the motor section of the CT? Then it'll drop dust straight into the tub. Of course the intake of the tub will need to be closed and the cyclone section will have its own intake. Don't all CT series, have the same tub opening shape and dimensions (interchangable)?
In the current configuration the CT tub is not utilized (almost), most of the dust goes into this awkward and mostly redundant tower.
While at it, I'd make the cyclone itself more efficient. >99% is easily achievable. Yes, an efficient cyclone puts more drag on the system, but I'd rather spend the energy there than on pulling air through redundant box, stretch of hose, and two elbows.

So you are saying that the existing tub on a CT would be divided into a portion with a new bag size and a portion to take the larger particles and chips?

CT26 and CT36 are the same upper part. CT Mini and Midi are the same upper part. CT48 is larger.  CT22 and CT33 have the same upper part.

Seth
 
SRSemenza said:
Svar said:
Just a thought.
Shouldn't the cyclone section go between the tub and the motor section of the CT? Then it'll drop dust straight into the tub. Of course the intake of the tub will need to be closed and the cyclone section will have its own intake. Don't all CT series, have the same tub opening shape and dimensions (interchangable)?
In the current configuration the CT tub is not utilized (almost), most of the dust goes into this awkward and mostly redundant tower.
While at it, I'd make the cyclone itself more efficient. >99% is easily achievable. Yes, an efficient cyclone puts more drag on the system, but I'd rather spend the energy there than on pulling air through redundant box, stretch of hose, and two elbows.
So you are saying that the existing tub on a CT would be divided into a portion with a new bag size and a portion to take the larger particles and chips?
Seth
Cyclone section can contain a small 2-3 liter bag. We are talking about miniscule amount of dust making it through. At least this was my experience with cyclones. I understand its getting complicated, but Festool solution is just awkward.
 
Wouldn't it have been simpler and better for transport if the top (cyclone portion) systainer just connected to a sys-5 somehow for the collection bin? Heck, even make the bottom sys-5 clear so you can get the same visibility effect and allow liners inside of it.
 
Chance B said:
Wouldn't it have been simpler and better for transport if the top (cyclone portion) systainer just connected to a sys-5 somehow for the collection bin? Heck, even make the bottom sys-5 clear so you can get the same visibility effect and allow liners inside of it.

  At least one person has built a collection bin from a regular Systainer with a cyclone on top (same idea as the DD for Festool unit). They had to line the inside of the Systainer with plywood to keep the sides from collapsing. As I recall it worked out.

  I think there are trade offs with the design. If the collection bin is a Systainer in size and footprint they stack and transport like any other Sys. But then they would not nest like the bin as shown for compact transport / carrying of a whole bunch of empty bins. If I just had one bin I'd want to be a Systainer. If I had three, five or more I'd want them to nest.

  Seth
 
Back
Top