Woodshop Dust Collection

I was not able to make the last committee meeting. Do we have an update on the new dust collection progress? The DC for the planer/jointer side just stays above 5 and I have to imagine we have made some progress in the last 2 months.
@Team_Woodshop

1 Like

That is likely of a decreased function of the filter, which in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. (Assuming the barrel was empty and the filter wasnā€™t filled with chips.

The system I saw that was proposed was only marginally better than what we have now - What seems to be causing confusion is there is a major difference between chip collection and dust collection. But like you, I havenā€™t seen or heard of any recent updates.

1 Like

The BOD approved the expenditure of up to $57,000 for the new dust collection system.

It should be installed in a few weeks.

There are a handful of hoops to jump through, still.

4 Likes

Perfect! Did we decide on the indoor system proposed two months ago or go a different route?

1 Like

It is the indoor system.

2 Likes

In which case, you approved yet another undersized and inadequate system, this time costing $60K to purchase. Since it was inadequate for the existing shop, it will be far more so in the new one.

No surprise that this was snuck onto an emergency agenda, with no notice to anyone, without the rest of the woodshop having even a particle of input, the opportunity to speak, the opportunity to either review the instructions given to the Engineer (aka how many tools running at once, which is no doubt how he got bamboozled) or anything else. Particularly in view of the fact, that the woodshop committee meets on the 26th, and had no knowledge of this proposal.

So is it now the policy of the Board, to deny the committees the right to decide what happens in their shop, denies them the right to vote on proposals, and denies them even the simple courtesy of knowing whatā€™s going on?

Iā€™ll also point out, that 2 different Engineers, one of whom specializes in this sort of flow system, and both being experienced in the woodshop, have gone on record to advise that this unit was not big enough to handle the real load in the existing woodshop.

Perhaps one of you could explain why this was such an emergency, that it had to be passed by stealth, just a few days before the Woodshop Committee was scheduled to meet, and could have decided what to propose?

Because thatā€™s exactly what they just did.

5 Likes

@Team_Woodshop

Iā€™ll second Tapperā€™s complaints - Andrew, why not share the information being taken to the board? There were critical complaints, including mine, that suggested this was a flawed solution. I would be happy to be proven wrong and will be the first to eat my words, but why, knowing there were those who have far more experience, ignored and kept informed?

3 Likes

I am not an engineer or D/C specialist, so I donā€™t know if proposed system will or wonā€™t suffice for current and/or future woodshop needs, but based on two previous posts, Iā€™ll ask: who thought the proposed system would indeed be sufficient, or alternatively, who, specifically, designed and recommended it?

Additionally, Iā€™ll point out that just because funds have been approved doesnā€™t not mean the purchase has to happen.

Finally, I thought new committee rules and guidelines indicated that a quorum of a committee had to vote to approve expenditures of > $500. That ā€˜ruleā€™ may not apply in this situation, but it seems like it shouldā€¦right?

7 Likes

@tapper this was brought up in an emergency meeting because DMS has had a violation from the Fire Marshal since October 2nd of 2017 that needs to be resolved ASAP. The Fire Marshal can walk in ANY TIME and lock the whole place down for not complying.

@jlcourtman Iā€™m sorry if this comes as a surprise to you or anyone else. I proposed this same solution to the BOD on October 20th 2017. Some insisted on an outdoor unit, but the BOD agreed that an engineering firm would manage this. Months later when that plan fell apart the BOD appointed Chuck Graf @dallasmagna due to his extensive experience with air systems to manage the project and resolve the violation directly with the Fire Marshal. I worked with Chuck to consult with engineers and dust collection specialists to identify four options from three manufacturers. All four options were presented to the woodshop committee at a meeting held 1/30/2018. We discussed the options in length. Chuck and I shared pricing and capacities of all the options that were provided by each manufacturer. Everyone in attendance except for @tapper agreed that the RL350 solution from Felder (nearly 1/3 the cost of exterior option) made the most sense for DMS current and any future woodshop expansion.

Chuck shared the Felder indoor solution with the Fire Marshal in February. After review, the Fire Marshal APPROVED the dust collection system we proposed and stated that it would be adequate for DMS and resolve the violation notice against us once we received a building permit to install it. We presented this solution to the BOD on 2/23/2018 and were told to get the requested building permit and also have a 3rd party engineer review/approve this option. We have shared our progress with the BOD and asked that they approve it as soon as possible to resolve this issue with the Fire Marshal and remove the violation against DMS.

7 Likes

Did the FM approve this system I remember discussion about him and maybe building
inspectors

1 Like

Yes he did approve the Felder indoor system

1 Like

Did we get a 3rd party engineer to approve of it?

2 Likes

So lets see. You waited 4 months to propose a solution based on a salesmans pitch. Then, after the Board rejected it and instructed you to get an Engineer to approrpriately size the system, you elected to simply wait until a new Board was in place, and re-submit the same woefully undersized system. Yep, I understand.

What I donā€™t understand, is why the new Board let you pull a stunt like this. Certainly Kris and Dave were well aware you were submitting a system that wasnā€™t large enough to handle our shop, and likewise knew, weā€™d be expanding the shop soon. I get that the new guys got sandbagged, but thereā€™s just no excuse from the old members. Why did they allow you to blow off the Woodshop Committee? Why did they allow you to blow off the engineers report you were instructed to obtain? Especially after not one, but two engineers told them explicitly that it was too small?

As to emergency, the plan is to move the woodshop to 102, so you still have until August (at minimum) before anything can be done (unless youā€™re planning to re-do the ducting at significant expense, twice), and youā€™re claiming this was an emergency of such critical and overriding concern, that you just couldnā€™t wait to get a vote from the Committee next week, in plenty of time for the regular Board meeting. As to the January (last) Committee meeting, I believe I was the only Engineer in attendance (and didnā€™t identify myself as such), so it probably shouldnā€™t be too surprising that the rest of the committee, having only the salesmanā€™s material to look at, went along.

As to the Fire Marshall, perhaps you could share with us his written approval? Because if it isnā€™t in writing, you got bupkus.

And of course, the small felder (on the $50K salemanā€™s quote you presented) was half the price of the exterior unit. On the other hand, your salesman included $40,000 in electrical work in the exterior unit. So, yeah. Do you suppose the fact that you presented numbers prepared by the salesman wanting to sell us his unit (the little one), might have biased his ā€œestimateā€?

And where is the engineers analysis of the size needed, which the Board instructed you to obtain, by vote? Donā€™t you think, given the large size of the expense, and the very limited funding we will have in the near future, merit making sure weā€™re getting what we need, versus the wild-ass-guess they approved?

As to the Board, they clearly ignored their own instructions, relied on the advice of two members who had no experience or training such that they could make an informed recommendation. In the end, they approved a unit that will not fix our problem, thus ensuring we will have to do it again, when the Fire Marshall sees that it isnā€™t getting the job done.

5 Likes

Andrew - as I said, Iā€™m happy to eat crow. I understand that this solution was supported by experts and therefore withdraw my objection to the system- Iā€™ll move toward cautious optimism :slight_smile:

My complaint about lack of communication still stands, though - that there has been minimal notice of meetings has meant that I have not had time to adjust my schedule accordingly. I would have loved to been at the January meeting and could have made less of a whiny bastard of myself.

1 Like

Donā€™t be sillyā€¦you are not whiny.

1 Like

I ran for in this election on the basis of Transparency and Trust.

Wednesday night, the new board had a working session to help us settle in to the job as the new BOD. All 3 previous board members were invited. Both Brian and Alex were unavailable. Robert Davidson was there to help fill in needed knowledge to the new board. DMS has many many moving pieces. I felt somewhat like I had looked into a firehose, running at full force, by the end of the meeting.

One of the agreements, the new BOD had made, was to disagree civilly. This does not mean there will not be disagreements, loudness, or strong feelings. It does not mean we will, in unison, be rubberstamping every decision. It does mean at the end of the day, I will be willing to break bread with any of my fellow board members and they with me. Period.

Chris Marlow had received and then emailed to the BOD information on the landlordā€™s counter proposal, just before the session began. We voted to have a Special Called board meeting, after the working session, to ask the attorney to review the landlordā€™s counter proposal. We also voted to proceed with the air handling system for the wood shop. (Read Andrewā€™s post on the timeline of this issue.) Several people walked by the Lecture Hall as we were talking. Luke posted the minutes of the Special Called session, immediately after we finished. If the new BOD are meeting secretly for nefarious ends we are doing a really lousy job of it.

If we had not had an Special Called meeting, we would have needed to call one. The next scheduled meeting is April 27th. That would have meant NOTHING would have been done to move the new lease forward until after that meeting was held. That would have made no sense at all.

If anyone has any questions about why I voted for the air handling system or the #102 lease proposal, I am willing to have a civil conversation in person or via TALK. Your choice. If there are enough people interested. I am willing to have a meeting. I am stating this now and on ANY other board topic that comes up during my term. This excludes items like disciplinary actions against someone else or other items that are deemed confidential.

I am here to serve the DMS community.

14 Likes

This has been an outstanding issue for months. It reeks of a kid being told no and then goading their other parent in to submission.

The Board action is one thing, the bigger thing is the disagreement amongst experts as to the solution. But hey, DMS has always spent money like itā€™s someone elses.

2 Likes

Can you elaborate Iā€™m not sure I understand.

2 Likes

Since you have the same email chain that I do, you know that the stated purpose of the meeting was an information download between old and new Board members. No mention of other issues. No post on Talk, advising the membership that other issues would be acted upon. No notice of any sort or character, that other actions would be taken prior to the meeting.

Itā€™s nice to hear these statements about what you ran for, etc. But you are a Board member now. What you do, is all that really matters. In this case, you did the exact opposite of transparency. You did the exact opposite of include. And in adopting an action relying on the advice of a salesman with a vested interest in selling his product, and two well-meaning, but wholly unqualified individuals, despite earlier on-record statements by professionals advising that the unit is not big enough to do the job, cannot be described as good judgement, well-advised decision-making, or even common sense.

If we spend $60,000, and the proposed collector turns out to be inadequate, What then? What will be the consequence of your impatience and total lack of research or due diligence? The fire Marshall did not write us up because the dust collector was the wrong model. He wrote us up because the collectors werenā€™t getting the job done, and the shop was a dusty mess and a fire hazard. Will he close our doors for a couple of months until we can replace an undersized (again) collector? Other Makerspaces have been closed by the Fire Marshall for less.

Are you absolutely sure that the Collector you voted for will be large enough? You blew off the requirement for an third party engineers report. You blew off the advice of two separate members who were also Engineers. You relied instead on the estimates provided by a salesman with a vested interest in selling us his product. On what basis did you blow off your duty to make informed decisions in the best interest of DMS?

Beyond that, the two issues considered illuminate each other. It is a fact, that the Space will be squeezed tight financially in expanding. Careful and thoughtful decisions about money will be required, to avoid forcing DMS into insolvency. Yet, your first action, was to vote to spend $60,000.00, a significant portion of our available cash, on a unit where your only professional advice was, that it wasnā€™t big enough.

As to the rest, I donā€™t doubt that you intend to do the right thing, and want to be a good Board member. But that means you have to be accountable for the decisions you make. Iā€™m sorry, that your first foray into it, was to get pushed into a bad decision. The new Board deserved better, than getting pressured by a false ā€œemergencyā€, and bum-rushed into making a poor decision.

Unless you intend to pay to have the ductwork rehung twice, thereā€™s no reason to buy right away. The new space wonā€™t be available for move in before August. Thatā€™s four months away. I call on you to back up a little, get a real third party engineers report on the size needed, and buy a collector based on that, making dead certain you are spending such a huge lump of cash on the right unit. The $3K-$4K spent, will ensure we donā€™t get burned with a bad choice.

Iā€™m not asking you to do what I want. I have proposed no collector. Iā€™m asking you to do the right thing, and ensure your decision is the best you can make.

8 Likes

As a lay person, but with a certain amount of science/technical expertise and general Woodshop experience, here is a back-of the envelope analysis interested people/parties should review and consider:

  1. A Dust Collector has a certain rated CFM at the collector; this is what can be found/read on the tin. The actual CFM at any machine port will be somewhat less, depending on efficiency, length, materials used, etc. for rest of system. So a D/C system rated at X will have an effective CFM of X-dX at the machine.

  2. If you have a system that has an effective CFM of X at a machine port when the first port is opened, and then open a second port, you are NOT then getting X/2 effective CFM at each port but X/(2+?), because the decrease in CFM is NOT linear. In our current D/C systems in the Woodshop, once a third port is open, NO port is getting enough CFM to effectively draw chips and dust. This is one of the primary reasons the place is a dust nightmare.

  3. Most of our big woodworking machines require significant CFM, as specā€™ed by manufacturer. E.G. the two table saws, router, miter saw, large band saw, jointer, planer, drum sander, edge sander, all require ~800-1100 CFM *each. Applying a simplistic calculation (i.e. NOT taking into account CFM non-linear attrition), this is ~10,000 absolute minimum CFM required. It does not include the 4 lathes, or a few other machines that have a dust ports hooked up. I assure you, we are frequently busy enough that 5-8 machines (dust ports) are in use at same time. And this does not take into account the dust ports that are left open by lazy people and are not noticed/closed by others before they start their work on another machine. In reality, a system for current Woodshop configuration probably requires close to double this,as in 20,000 rated CFM, but IANAE.

  4. If there is an actual proposal(s) for a new system available for review on Talk or Wiki, I am not aware of it, and I have looked. Are we or arenā€™t we a transparent organization?


And a question, since I canā€™t locate proposal(s) to review: Is whatever organization/sales person that specā€™ed current solution willing to guarantee that it will meet our current and future needs, that is a shop with 8+ machines running at same time that efficiently/effectively collects >90% of chips an dust we produce?

This is a good point.

5 Likes