I still would have exceeded the total of 6″ when I added the dust collection from above the blade, but I wouldn’t have had to modify my saw’s port and the dust collection most likely would have been better. So I would have been better off leaving the saw alone at 5″. In general, when you split off the main line, its a good rule of thumb to keep the sum of the two new lines no greater than the main line itself (within reason, of course). So between the overhead port and the cabinet port, its actually way too much surface area. Afterward, I added the overhead guard with dust collection, which has a 3″ port. In an attempt to increase airflow, I modified the port to make it 6″, so that it would match the size of the main trunk of my dust collection system.
The dust collection port on my tablesaw was originally 5″. What would you do differently if you had to design your dust collection system over again? What specifically is unsatisfactory about the 6 inch port on the table saw and do you also use an overhead saw guard with integral dust collection? Once again, many thanks for your time and contributions to the woodworking community. I am in the process of redesigning my own dust collection system and, after reading about the hazards of wood dust, really want to do it right this time. I would like to know more about your experience in that area. My question is this: In one of your video segments you mentioned that increasing the dust collection port diameter of the table saw to 6 inches probably decreased dust collection efficiency. He writes:įirstly, thank you for all the time and effort you put into producing such a wonderful Website.
0 kommentar(er)
