Baffle installation issues on older Jet 1200

Started by hmh, November 27, 2011, 10:00:35 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

hmh

Hey folks,

I have been lurking for a good while, w/ the notion to upgrade my DC setup "one of these days".  I spent the weekend working w/ a lot of MDF, and now that that's done - this is definitely the time for better dust collection!, (the MDF dust is still settling 2 days later).

In anticipation of using the Thien baffle, I picked up a nice, very lightly used Jet DC1200, (2HP, 12" impeller - the old blue Jet era), 6 mo or so ago.  I plan to install the baffle inside the ring of the DC to separate the fines generated from the saws, and then build a standalone separator plumbed exclusively for my jointer & planer, (to limit the loss where the separator isn't needed).  I'll also be converting to the top-hat setup and a Wynn filter.

Phil's plans are straight-forward enough, (and thank you for making them available), but my issue w/ my particular DC is this:

Rather than the downward cone on all other DC's I've seen, mine is a downward spiral, starting above the 6" inlet, and spiraling clockwise to stop below the inlet.  It isn't very efficient, as there always seems to be a couple inches of dust sitting on top of this spiral ring when I pull the top bag.

The spiral is welded to the housing.  The newer Jet 1200's have the typical cone, so I'm thinking the logic behind the spiral was disproved at some point.

My question is:  Do I A) install the baffle below the spiral, flush w/ the bottom of the inlet.
B) cut out the spiral, and build a typical cone of some sort, (I'd like to avoid this if possible)
C) integrate the baffle/separator and avoid modification of the inlet ring all together.

Thanks!




dabullseye

i would just do the seperator  first and see how good it is. if u are getting fines up in the filter then modify the DC. maybe u could get a newer style ring for DC maybe even a HF one

hmh

Thanks - I may go that way if the baffle route fails.

The plan to add a baffle to the DC was to avoid pulling through the separator, (and taking the associated CFM loss), on the tools that don't generate chips, (TS, BS, Sander, etc.)