There may have been some procedural error or missed variable that skewed the results of their testing. I am not trying to defend Wood magazine's study. It would be nice to know what the problem was. If that was what caused Clearvue to review poorly, then I would say they deserve the poor rating. They, like you, pointed out that the reason for poor performance on some units was leaks from poor design or manufacture rather than ineffective filtering. They pointed out that the best performer (Oneida) had the least amount of such manufacturing defects. The authors did check for leaks around filters, seals and welds. However, that has more to do with how often you have to clean the filter rather than how much wood dust you are inhaling at any point in time. Separation efficiency is an interesting parameter and I wish testers would attempt to measure that directly. They showed that the most effective system was not necessarily the one with the highest air flow. What they really measured was system effectiveness. Seasoned filters rather than new ones were used.

Then, they measured the amount of dust in the atmosphere during and after each machine was used to sand a controlled amount of material (MDF through a drum sander). First, they mapped out fan curves for a variety of collectors showing the reduction in CFM with increasing static pressure. In the original article, the authors measured two things. I haven't yet read the follow-up to the May 2013 issue in which Clearvue is apparently rated after the fact but in the same way as the other machines. And I can assure you, that isn't the case. Because the only other explanation would be that Wynn filters are inferior. The most likely scenario is (IMHO) a hole or a gap somewhere on the pressure side. Now, I don't know which Wynn filters were employed, but I can assure you that all of the Wynn filters I've tested have exceeded my expectations. Anything that doesn't fall out in the cyclone itself has to make it past the filter before escaping.ĬV uses Wynn filters (I believe). Rather, they're really testing the filters. These types of reviews don't typically address separation rates/efficiency. Nobody can honestly say one dust collector is any better than another unless they routinely use precision dust measurement equipment under controlled circumstances on all the brands being compared. I am just saying there is ample reason for skepticism. I am not saying that is what is happening in this case.

Why would they be deliberately dishonest on behalf of one of their lesser advertisers and yet dutifully report unfavorable information concerning their single largest one?Īnecdotal evidence is always questionable because persons are often unwilling to admit to others, or even themselves, that they paid a premium for a mediocre (or worse) piece of equipment. Wood magazine frequently publishes test results in which the findings are not the most favorable to their advertisers. I am not ready to declare the publisher of Wood magazine as dishonest or incompetent on the basis of someone's mere feelings on the matter. Clearvue has achieved an almost mythical status as the finest dust collector you can buy, but I have never seen any hard evidence to prove it.

ClearVue Suite free instals