Hi guys
I have done my googling and web research,gone to the library and looked in
the books and have read all the opinion on the type of ducting to use.And I
am befuddled. I have a grizzly 1 1/2 hp dust collector (110v) if any of you
are using this type of collector what type of ducting are you using? and how
many inlets are you able to use?
thanks Len
When I bought into this stuff, I used aluminum tape on the insides of the
PVC pipes (2 strips on opposite sides) to prevent clogs and wrapped the
outside with copper wire. It appeared to work since I never got zapped
touching it (the pipe) but I believe it did little to prevent a fire since
data clearly shows it to be just about impossible for it to happen anyway.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I recall the military had
> > conductive paint used for aircraft, not sure if anything like that is
> > available tot he public.
>
> There certainly is. Electronic stores..(the BIG ones) often carry a
> spray which was developed to create a ground plane on the back of CRT's
> aka repairing TV tubes.
> I do not know, however, how well it would stand up to particulate matter
> flying by at the speed of sound ( well.. ahem..it COULD maybe go that
> fast...maybe not THAT fast...)
> If somebody just feels they HAVE to ground the frickin' thing..what
> about self adhesive aluminum tape, huh? Huh? on the OUTSIDE of the PVC?
> I see no reason to eliminate static charge build-up on the inside only.
> I have a plastic ShopVac that builds up enough static to suck the hair
> off my head on a dry day like today....I mean, the frickin' thing
> levitates and sticks to the wall like balloon!!! The air flow on the
> inside, builds up the static on the outside of the container.
>
> Or... take a trip to:
>
> http://www.welbecksawmill.com/Dustcollectors.htm
>
> On your way by, stop in and have a coffee.
>
> 0?0
>
> Rob
>
> "Et tu, Spongebob?"
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:55:53 -0500, Steve Decker
> <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
>
>>All of which strays far from the point of dust explosions.
>>
>>They can and do happen.
>
>
> but not in home shop dust collection systems from static discharge
> from plastic piping.
>
> time to put up or shut up, steve.
As it happens, friend, I didn't say anything about home shop, plastic
yadda yadda in that particular post.
Dust explosions, including wood dust, can and do happen and are well
documented. We all have LRod to thank that one will never ever happen in
a home shop.
Now as Gus says, I'm going to make some sawdust.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:22:05 -0500, "leonard"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>thanks guys,
>I have read the grounding post before.And have consulted my wife the (PHD
>in electrical engineering) also about the grounding and she say not to.
>What I'm trying to pick is the material to use as ducting, pcv, havc or
>special made spiral duct, ect. I have Six machines to hook up and a floor
>sweep with 1 1/2 hp dc(with a chip collector).
Take a look at http://www.ShopTours.org Look specifically for Terry
Hatfield's shop. Look at the gorgeous job he did piping with 6" PVC.
For a while he was marketing a cyclone system based on Bill Pentz'
data. For an email addy (I'm sure he'll be happy to answer some
questions) go to http://www.woodcentral.com and look for one of his
posts. He usually has his email addy in them.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
In article <[email protected]>,
Steve Decker <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
>>>whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
>>>anything else even remotely relevant.
>>>
>>>Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
>>>bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
>>>certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
>>>It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.
>>
>>
>> Actually, that is not precisely true. Probability theory comprehends the
>> fact that there are events for which the probability of occurence is
>> exactly zero as well as events for which the probability of occurence is
>> exactly 1. In the case of what you are citing above, one can, with
>> absolute certainty state that the probability of a container of helium
>> bursting into a chemical flame is exactly zero since helium is an inert gas
>> and will not combine with oxygen to combust. Another example of absolute
>> certainty: conservation of mass in chemical reactions. These are events
>> for which the probabilities don't approach zero or approach one, they can
>> be stated as being identically equal to zero or one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I don't agree.
>
>You could say "empirical evidence suggests it won't happen" or
>"experience shows us it won't happen".
>
>Stating a probability as exactly identical to zero is inherently incorrect.
You have a single die (a regular hexahedron, with the faces labeled "1", "2",
"3", "4", "5", and "6".
What is the probability of rolling a "7" ?
I do believe that saying "exactly identical to zero" _would_ be an accuracte
answer.
I'll willingly agree that the _question_ could be considered 'inherently
incoherrent'. <*grin*>
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 28 Jan 2005 14:12:32 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Whatever.
>>
>>You win, LRod!
>>
>>You da man !!
>>
>>Now hear this everyone:
>>
>>LRod hath decreed that there will NEVER, EVER, NEVER be a home shop
>>dust explosion. Not EVER. ZERO chance. ZIP, ZILCH. NADA !
>>
>>Let all Rod's people say AMEN.
>>
>>You has done converted this wayward sinner, LRod.
>>
>>Can I get a AMEN ?
>>I has SEEN DA LIGHT !
>>
>>Now everybody shake hands and go make sawdust !
>
> If I've only converted one, it was worthwhile...
>
>
ROTFLMAO!!
Greg
leonard wrote:
> Hi guys
> I have done my googling and web research,gone to the library and
looked in
> the books and have read all the opinion on the type of ducting to
use.And I
> am befuddled. I have a grizzly 1 1/2 hp dust collector (110v) if any
of you
> are using this type of collector what type of ducting are you using?
and how
> many inlets are you able to use?
>
>
> thanks Len
Like most other things, it depends a lot on what you want to do with
your system, how safe you want to be, and how much you want to spend.
Concerning duct materials, spiral metal duct seems to be the top of the
line solution. Penn State sells it, among others. Rather pricy, but
there you are. You can check it out at www.pennstateind.com. Many
people, myself included, use flexible plastic dust hose. This comes in
many different varieties, including self-grounding. In general, plastic
dust hose is more difficult to ground than metal. Why ground at all? To
prevent a possible dust explosion. Nasty business, that. Commercial
shops will almost always use metal ducting.
How many inlets can you have open? Again, what do you want to do? Will
you run several machines at once or only one at a time? How far is your
DC from your machines? Short answer - you can have as many inlets open
at a time as you want, but each additional opening will reduce the
overall performance of the system. (less suck).
If you have a small DC, you can roll it up next to whatever machine you
are using at the time, minmizing duct run, maximizing suck. If you want
to run several machines at once, that's a different story and will
probably call for a more permanent installation.
As for personal experience, I use translucent plastic 4" hose,
grounded, and I have 5 machine drops. I have blast gates on each branch
and at each machine. This system seems to work well for me. I like the
translucent hose because I can see if and where blockages occur. I'm
thinking of switching to spiral metal duct, though. I like the
durability of the metal duct.
A couple of hints. If you use the plastic blast gates, be aware that
dust can accumulate in the corners, preventing full closure of that
gates. This can be remedied easily by snipping off the bottom corners
of the blast gate housing.
Finally, I recommend you pick up one of the "Long Ranger" type DC
remotes.
Not a necessity, but real nice to have.
I hope at least some of this diatribe makes sense to you.
Good Luck,
Gus
The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
anything else even remotely relevant.
Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.
> Hey Gus - include the text you're replying to will ya? It's
impossible to
> follow who you are replying to when you cut the original text and
just post
> your reply.
Sorry boys, the old quote button was malfunctioning.
I must have violated one of them thar "laws of physics" that LRod is
always prattling on about.
Probabilities are measured on a scale of 0 to 1.
Even a "zero" probability is not an indication that an event will never
happen.
A zero probability states that an even "almost never" happens. A
probability of one states that an event "almost always" happens.
Therefore, probability theory would state that, while the probability
of rolling a 7 is zero, there is still a chance (however small) of it
occuring.
Let me put this another way. Prior to 9/11/2001, most Americans would
have said that the probability of two airliners striking both towers of
the World Trade Center within minutes of each other and destroying
both, was zero.
Yet, it DID happen.
LRod actually did make a cogent point in one post that he was willing
to settle for a "reasonable estimate". That is actually a good way of
explaining the situation.
The lesson to be learned here is to refrain from making absolute
statements like "zero chance".
Gus
Whatever.
You win, LRod!
You da man !!
Now hear this everyone:
LRod hath decreed that there will NEVER, EVER, NEVER be a home shop
dust explosion. Not EVER. ZERO chance. ZIP, ZILCH. NADA !
Let all Rod's people say AMEN.
You has done converted this wayward sinner, LRod.
Can I get a AMEN ?
I has SEEN DA LIGHT !
Now everybody shake hands and go make sawdust !
On 25 Jan 2005 06:01:49 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>When someone says "zero chance", that's an exposition of opinion, or
>hope, not facts.
What are the chances of that bucket of water sitting in the garage
bursting into flames?
Zero.
Not hope.
Not opinion.
Fact.
There is no mechanism known to man or supportable by any area of
science that can give one scintilla of credence to the possibility of
that bucket of water bursting into flames.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
"Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Probabilities are measured on a scale of 0 to 1.
>
>Even a "zero" probability is not an indication that an event will never
>happen.
>
>A zero probability states that an even "almost never" happens. A
>probability of one states that an event "almost always" happens.
>
>Therefore, probability theory would state that, while the probability
>of rolling a 7 is zero, there is still a chance (however small) of it
>occuring.
That's a pretty novel understanding of probability theory! How large
does the chance of something happening have to be before its
probability gets to be non-zero? <G>
>Let me put this another way. Prior to 9/11/2001, most Americans would
>have said that the probability of two airliners striking both towers of
>the World Trade Center within minutes of each other and destroying
>both, was zero.
>
>Yet, it DID happen.
Which is dramatically different from what you said before. You seem to
be confusing the probability of an event with what most Americans
would say the probability of that event was.
>LRod actually did make a cogent point in one post that he was willing
>to settle for a "reasonable estimate". That is actually a good way of
>explaining the situation.
yep. And maybe that "reasonable estimate" is 1/1000th of the
probability of all life on Earth being destroyed in an asteroid hit.
Risks like that I can live with!
>The lesson to be learned here is to refrain from making absolute
>statements like "zero chance".
I agree.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
"leonard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Hi guys
> I have done my googling and web research,gone to the library and looked in
> the books and have read all the opinion on the type of ducting to use.And
I
> am befuddled. I have a grizzly 1 1/2 hp dust collector (110v) if any of
you
> are using this type of collector what type of ducting are you using? and
how
> many inlets are you able to use?
I have the 1HP Griz - the 8029. Just switched over to about 20' total of 4"
S&D PVC pipe. 20' run is with one 90* elbow. 4 "Wye's", 4 blast gates.
Small runs of 4" Flex hose to each machine. Only one gate open at a time.
Works great.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:10:54 +0000, LRod <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:55:53 -0500, Steve Decker
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>All of which strays far from the point of dust explosions.
>>
>>They can and do happen.
>
>All of which begs the challenge I originally posed: cite a single
>example of a dust explosion occuring in a home shop dust collection
>system.
>
To be exact, no example of a dust explosion occuring in a home shop dust
collection system as a result of a static spark ignition can be cited. It
may be possible to cite examples of fires caused by metal debris contacting
the impeller and causing a fire by spark or heat.
Problem is, static electricity does not have enough energy to ignite the
size of particles present in a home dust collection system.
>With your absolute certainty that they do, it should be dirt simple to
>find a cite. Just one. Come on. You know everything. Surely you can
>come up with one verifiable example. I'll leave the wreck forever if
>you can come up with a single documented instance.
>
>>The point, again, is to refrain from absolutism.
>
>Uh, where does that leave "[t]hey can and do happen"?
>
>- -
>LRod
>
>Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
>Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
>http://www.woodbutcher.net
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>, Gus
<[email protected]> wrote:
> LRod hath decreed that there will NEVER, EVER, NEVER be a home shop
> dust explosion. Not EVER. ZERO chance. ZIP, ZILCH. NADA !
>
> Let all Rod's people say AMEN
AMEN!
djb (Who be sorely tired of this topic coming up again, and again, and
again, and again, and again)
--
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows
On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, Gus <[email protected]> wrote:
> The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
> whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
> anything else even remotely relevant.
Who are you talking to? There's this really cool thing called "including
enough context so people can follow the conversation".
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:51:57 -0500, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hey Gus - include the text you're replying to will ya? It's impossible to
> follow who you are replying to when you cut the original text and just post
> your reply.
Yeah, I tried too, but he seemed not to get the hint.
LRod wrote:
...
> Sorry how? "Better-safe-than-sorry" is only reasonable advice when
> there is a possibility, even remote possibility of an event occuring.
> In the cas of a single home shop dust explosion in a plastic pipe
> ducted system there is ZERO chance. ...
Well, the conclusion of the article is to quote..
"...home shop DC explosions are somewhere between extraordinarily rare
and nonexistent."
That is <not> precisely zero...
While rare, railing at such extremes is just not warranted...
LRod wrote:
...
> Given, however, that my point was that it was fruitless to expend
> resources in pursuit of "preventing" an occurance that is "somewhere
> between extraordinarily rare and nonexistent," it seems I've been
> vindicated.
...
That could have been done in a much less combative way and in all
likelihood been more effectively received...
Gus wrote:
>
> Probabilities are measured on a scale of 0 to 1.
>
> Even a "zero" probability is not an indication that an event will never
> happen.
>
> A zero probability states that an even "almost never" happens. A
> probability of one states that an event "almost always" happens.
>
> Therefore, probability theory would state that, while the probability
> of rolling a 7 is zero, there is still a chance (however small) of it
> occuring.
This isn't a math ng, but this is simply wrong...the probability of
generating a value outside the set of possible integral results of any
discrete function is identically zero.
> Let me put this another way. Prior to 9/11/2001, most Americans would
> have said that the probability of two airliners striking both towers of
> the World Trade Center within minutes of each other and destroying
> both, was zero.
>
> Yet, it DID happen.
After which the probability was identically one...the problem here is
that a hunch or opinion is not a mathematical probability and much
experiment has been done to show that people hold opinions of
likelihoods of events that are far from being mathematically
consistent...but, given the question you posed I don't really think most
would have actually said "zero" but given something on the order of
"highly unlikely".
> LRod actually did make a cogent point in one post that he was willing
> to settle for a "reasonable estimate". That is actually a good way of
> explaining the situation.
>
> The lesson to be learned here is to refrain from making absolute
> statements like "zero chance".
Except, of course, when there really is zero chance, which in the case
of the potential for dust explosions is <not> identically zero. This
assertion detracts significantly from the point attempted to being made
as a cogent argument--it just isn't.
[email protected] wrote:
>
...
> his point, though was that the odds of your dust collection system
> exploding- in your garage- are about the same as the odds of a bucket
> of water exploding -in your garage.
>
> and he's right.
But he masked the point by the assertion of zero for both...which
probably means some will just write off the message as well as the
messenger...
On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
>whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
>anything else even remotely relevant.
>
>Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
>bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
>certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
>It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.
Actually, that is not precisely true. Probability theory comprehends the
fact that there are events for which the probability of occurence is
exactly zero as well as events for which the probability of occurence is
exactly 1. In the case of what you are citing above, one can, with
absolute certainty state that the probability of a container of helium
bursting into a chemical flame is exactly zero since helium is an inert gas
and will not combine with oxygen to combust. Another example of absolute
certainty: conservation of mass in chemical reactions. These are events
for which the probabilities don't approach zero or approach one, they can
be stated as being identically equal to zero or one.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 27 Jan 2005 07:33:42 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Probabilities are measured on a scale of 0 to 1.
>
>Even a "zero" probability is not an indication that an event will never
>happen.
>
>A zero probability states that an even "almost never" happens. A
>probability of one states that an event "almost always" happens.
>
>Therefore, probability theory would state that, while the probability
>of rolling a 7 is zero, there is still a chance (however small) of it
>occuring.
>
>Let me put this another way. Prior to 9/11/2001, most Americans would
>have said that the probability of two airliners striking both towers of
>the World Trade Center within minutes of each other and destroying
>both, was zero.
>
>Yet, it DID happen.
>
>LRod actually did make a cogent point in one post that he was willing
>to settle for a "reasonable estimate". That is actually a good way of
>explaining the situation.
>
>The lesson to be learned here is to refrain from making absolute
>statements like "zero chance".
The problem with this analysis is that it attempts to compare two
entirely different hypotheses. While the events of 9/11 were certainly
unthinkable and had, even if considered, an extremely low probability,
the fact is all of the mechanisms to make it a an eventual reality
were always in place.
In the case of the six sided die, there isn't any chance, not one,
zero of a seven coming up. It isn't physically possible. There are
only six choices--six possibilities. A seventh possibilty does not
exist. There is zero chance for it to occur.
But obviously six (or seven) events is too complex for some of our
members. Let's make it simple. The classic example for demonstrating
probability is tossing a coin. Whenever the event is postulated it is
always expressed as, "what is the possible outcome of a coin toss," or
words to that effect. The answer of course is either "heads" or
"tails."
One can then calculate and demonstrate all of the probability
machinations one wants on the probability of any particular toss,
however, if one were to say the probability of a toss coming up turkey
feathers (or cream of tartar) is zero but could still occur is utter
nonsense since turkey feathers is not in the set of possible outcomes.
There is zero chance of getting turkey feathers from a coin toss.
In order for there to be probabability there must be possibility. The
burning helium mentioned earlier is an example. Can't happen. The laws
of physics (or more accurately, chemistry) dictate this. One can't
even express a probability of it happening.Those who don't know where
to find these "laws of physics" need read no further; the rest will be
far too complex.
I made my point about an estimate because I knew it must include the
word "zero" which is what seems to have so many up in arms.
Now, having said all of that, I will concede this: "zero chance" or
absolutism, as one of my fans described, may not be technically
accurate when measured to the painfully smallest degree. However, if
you are living life in a real world, breathing real air, eating real
food, driving real cars on real streets, hey, if you're woodworking
with real wood and real tools, then you are already engaging in
countless activities all of which have probabilities of danger orders
of magnitude higher than an explosion of dust in a home shop dust
collection system. That anyone would pick the demonstrably miniscule
potential of that event on which to take a stand on personal risk
management makes me double over in mirth.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://billpentz.com/woodworking/cyclone/index.cfm
in a nutshell
use 6" ducting
use sewer and drain for solid runs - works good and is cheap
use 6" flex hose for very short runs
i'm using the advice there, making my own blast gates, and so far, i'm
very happy
i have the jet 1.5hp w/ canister
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:02:35 -0500, "leonard"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi guys
>I have done my googling and web research,gone to the library and looked in
>the books and have read all the opinion on the type of ducting to use.And I
>am befuddled. I have a grizzly 1 1/2 hp dust collector (110v) if any of you
>are using this type of collector what type of ducting are you using? and how
>many inlets are you able to use?
>
>
>thanks Len
>
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:37:15 +0000, LRod
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:49:26 GMT, "TBone" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> That, and your "bucket of water" example was truly laughable.
>>
>>
>>Was it, or did you just not understand it? Please give the exact percentage
>>chance for the said bucket of water bursting into flames.
>
>I'd settle for a reasonable estimate. I'd bet a large amount of money
>the answer will have "zero" as part of it: "approaches zero," "nearly
>zero," "greater than zero, but..." are probabilities that come
>immediately to mind.
>
>
>- -
>LRod
you could get that bucket of water to make quite a nice big 'ol
explosion- but you'll have to crack the oxygen from the hydrogen
first. if you can do that in your garage, then I'm really happy I
don't live next door to you.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:49:26 GMT, "TBone" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>
>> That, and your "bucket of water" example was truly laughable.
>
>
>Was it, or did you just not understand it? Please give the exact percentage
>chance for the said bucket of water bursting into flames.
I'd settle for a reasonable estimate. I'd bet a large amount of money
the answer will have "zero" as part of it: "approaches zero," "nearly
zero," "greater than zero, but..." are probabilities that come
immediately to mind.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:54:19 GMT, "TBone" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >When I bought into this stuff, I used aluminum tape on the insides of the
> >PVC pipes (2 strips on opposite sides) to prevent clogs and wrapped the
> >outside with copper wire. It appeared to work since I never got zapped
> >touching it (the pipe) but I believe it did little to prevent a fire
since
> >data clearly shows it to be just about impossible for it to happen
anyway.
>
>
> 4" SD pipe comes in 20 ft lengths. how'd you get the tape in there?
I was working with 10 ft lengths but the method is still the same. Most
foil tape (at least the stuff I work with) has a release backing and that is
what you will need. Cut a length a few inches longer than the length of the
pipe you are using it on. Feed a pull line down the pipe (I used a
telescoping pole) and attach the line to the tape. Fish the tape down the
pipe. Now here is the tricky part. Send the feed line back down the pipe
the other way. Peal back a small section of the release tape and attach it
to the feed line then attach the foil tape to the pipe on that end. From
the other side of the pipe, hold the foil tape sticky side up from the pipe
and pull the feed line to remove the release tape from the foil. Once
removed, pull the foil tight (not so tight as to break it) and set it into
position within the pipe. To make the bond complete, form a tight fitting
ball from a shop towel and push it down the inside of the pipe and you are
done. I did this on opposite surfaces inside the pipe. On the ends I
drilled small holes and put a screw and washer with the head on the inside
of the pipe in each hole and secured it with another washer and a nut on the
outside. I used another washer and nut on these bolts as mounting points
for the braided copper wire I had wrapped around the outside of the pipes
which also completed the ground connection.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
LRod wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:59:46 -0500, Steve Decker
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>LRod wrote:
>>
>>>On 24 Jan 2005 10:33:57 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>...dust hose is more difficult to ground than metal. Why ground at all? To
>>>>prevent a possible dust explosion. Nasty business, that.
>>>
>>>
>>>That was a really great post except for the above. Pure, utter
>>>nonsense.
>>>
>>>When you can produce evidence of a single home shop dust explosion in
>>>a plastic pipe ducted system, I will gladly retract my statement.
>>>
>>>I suggest you checl this link before repeating such blather:
>>>
>>>http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readarticle.pl?dir=shop&file=articles_221.shtml
>
>
>>Better safe than sorry, old boy.
>
>
> Sorry how? "Better-safe-than-sorry" is only reasonable advice when
> there is a possibility, even remote possibility of an event occuring.
> In the cas of a single home shop dust explosion in a plastic pipe
> ducted system there is ZERO chance. In such a case, better safe than
> sorry is just a pitiful justification for the ignorant to continue
> their ignorance.
>
>
>>Grounding is cheap and easy so why not?
>
>
> Because it's unnecessary and unproductive. Do you sprinkle cream of
> tartar on your saw before you work? Why not? It's cheap and easy.
>
>
>>I realize the subject has been discussed here ad nauseum and I don't
>>intend to add to that.
>
>
> Yet you did.
>
>
>>If you don't want to ground then don't.
>
>
> That's fine. But people shouldn't be report as gospel a circumstance
> when there's no data to support its existance.
>
>
>>Lighten up
>
>
> I'll "lighten up" when ignorance on this subject is eradicated. Your
> promotion of it necessitates rebuttal. When it's no longer necessary
> there'll be no activity of mine up from which to lighten.
>
>
> - -
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
LRod wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:59:46 -0500, Steve Decker
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>LRod wrote:
>>
>>>On 24 Jan 2005 10:33:57 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>...dust hose is more difficult to ground than metal. Why ground at all? To
>>>>prevent a possible dust explosion. Nasty business, that.
>>>
>>>
>>>That was a really great post except for the above. Pure, utter
>>>nonsense.
>>>
>>>When you can produce evidence of a single home shop dust explosion in
>>>a plastic pipe ducted system, I will gladly retract my statement.
>>>
>>>I suggest you checl this link before repeating such blather:
>>>
>>>http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readarticle.pl?dir=shop&file=articles_221.shtml
>
>
>>Better safe than sorry, old boy.
>
>
> Sorry how? "Better-safe-than-sorry" is only reasonable advice when
> there is a possibility, even remote possibility of an event occuring.
> In the cas of a single home shop dust explosion in a plastic pipe
> ducted system there is ZERO chance. In such a case, better safe than
> sorry is just a pitiful justification for the ignorant to continue
> their ignorance.
>
>
>>Grounding is cheap and easy so why not?
>
>
> Because it's unnecessary and unproductive. Do you sprinkle cream of
> tartar on your saw before you work? Why not? It's cheap and easy.
>
>
>>I realize the subject has been discussed here ad nauseum and I don't
>>intend to add to that.
>
>
> Yet you did.
>
>
>>If you don't want to ground then don't.
>
>
> That's fine. But people shouldn't be report as gospel a circumstance
> when there's no data to support its existance.
>
>
>>Lighten up
>
>
> I'll "lighten up" when ignorance on this subject is eradicated. Your
> promotion of it necessitates rebuttal. When it's no longer necessary
> there'll be no activity of mine up from which to lighten.
>
>
> - -
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
Zero chance?
Obviously you are omniscient as well as a crank.
If you won't lighten up, then get bent.
thanks guys,
I have read the grounding post before.And have consulted my wife the (PHD
in electrical engineering) also about the grounding and she say not to.
What I'm trying to pick is the material to use as ducting, pcv, havc or
special made spiral duct, ect. I have Six machines to hook up and a floor
sweep with 1 1/2 hp dc(with a chip collector).
Len
with "leonard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi guys
> I have done my googling and web research,gone to the library and looked in
> the books and have read all the opinion on the type of ducting to use.And
> I am befuddled. I have a grizzly 1 1/2 hp dust collector (110v) if any of
> you are using this type of collector what type of ducting are you using?
> and how many inlets are you able to use?
>
>
> thanks Len
>
"Gus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
> whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
> anything else even remotely relevant.
>
> Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
> bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
> certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
> It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.
>
Hey Gus - include the text you're replying to will ya? It's impossible to
follow who you are replying to when you cut the original text and just post
your reply. Most people do not keep the entire thread tree visible in their
newsreaders and without that there's no way to know who you're speaking to.
In fact, it can really make it difficult to understand the context of a
reply.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
patrick conroy wrote:
> "Steve Decker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>>Now as Gus says, I'm going to make some sawdust.
>
>
> Izzit OK if I bring that bucket of water back in the garage?
>
>
Depends.
Is it still a bucket of water?
Is it safe? bzzzzzzzzzzz
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>Well, the conclusion of the article is to quote..
>>
>>"...home shop DC explosions are somewhere between extraordinarily rare
>>and nonexistent."
>>
>>That is <not> precisely zero...
>>
>>While rare, railing at such extremes is just not warranted...
>
> Oh, WELL. I stand corrected.
>
> Given, however, that my point was that it was fruitless to expend
> resources in pursuit of "preventing" an occurance that is "somewhere
> between extraordinarily rare and nonexistent," it seems I've been
> vindicated.
Instead of arguing over this stuff, do what I do. before cutting or planing
any wood, I spray it with Static Guard. So far I've never had an explosion.
LRod wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:23:12 -0600, Duane Bozarth
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>LRod wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>Sorry how? "Better-safe-than-sorry" is only reasonable advice when
>>>there is a possibility, even remote possibility of an event occuring.
>>>In the cas of a single home shop dust explosion in a plastic pipe
>>>ducted system there is ZERO chance. ...
>>
>>Well, the conclusion of the article is to quote..
>>
>>"...home shop DC explosions are somewhere between extraordinarily rare
>>and nonexistent."
>>
>>That is <not> precisely zero...
>>
>>While rare, railing at such extremes is just not warranted...
>
>
> Oh, WELL. I stand corrected.
>
> Given, however, that my point was that it was fruitless to expend
> resources in pursuit of "preventing" an occurance that is "somewhere
> between extraordinarily rare and nonexistent," it seems I've been
> vindicated.
>
> Picking fly shit out of pepper over whether it's actually zero or just
> really, really close to it is to obscure the bigger truth.
>
Not really.
Making statements like "zero chance" obscures truth very nicely.
That, and your "bucket of water" example was truly laughable.
Homer
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, Gus <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
> > whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
> > anything else even remotely relevant.
>
> Who are you talking to? There's this really cool thing called "including
> enough context so people can follow the conversation".
>
And AOL thinks it's a good thing that people today are developing more of a
chat room mentality and less of the type of dialog that usenet was built on.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:37:15 +0000, LRod
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:49:26 GMT, "TBone" <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> That, and your "bucket of water" example was truly laughable.
> >>
> >>
> >>Was it, or did you just not understand it? Please give the exact
percentage
> >>chance for the said bucket of water bursting into flames.
> >
> >I'd settle for a reasonable estimate. I'd bet a large amount of money
> >the answer will have "zero" as part of it: "approaches zero," "nearly
> >zero," "greater than zero, but..." are probabilities that come
> >immediately to mind.
> >
> >
> >- -
> >LRod
>
>
> you could get that bucket of water to make quite a nice big 'ol
> explosion- but you'll have to crack the oxygen from the hydrogen
> first. if you can do that in your garage, then I'm really happy I
> don't live next door to you.
Yea, but then it wouldn't be water anymore.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
>>whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
>>anything else even remotely relevant.
>>
>>Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
>>bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
>>certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
>>It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.
>
>
> Actually, that is not precisely true. Probability theory comprehends the
> fact that there are events for which the probability of occurence is
> exactly zero as well as events for which the probability of occurence is
> exactly 1. In the case of what you are citing above, one can, with
> absolute certainty state that the probability of a container of helium
> bursting into a chemical flame is exactly zero since helium is an inert gas
> and will not combine with oxygen to combust. Another example of absolute
> certainty: conservation of mass in chemical reactions. These are events
> for which the probabilities don't approach zero or approach one, they can
> be stated as being identically equal to zero or one.
>
>
>
>
I don't agree.
You could say "empirical evidence suggests it won't happen" or
"experience shows us it won't happen".
Stating a probability as exactly identical to zero is inherently incorrect.
"Gus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Whatever.
>
> You win, LRod!
>
> You da man !!
>
> Now hear this everyone:
>
> LRod hath decreed that there will NEVER, EVER, NEVER be a home shop
> dust explosion. Not EVER. ZERO chance. ZIP, ZILCH. NADA !
>
> Let all Rod's people say AMEN.
>
> You has done converted this wayward sinner, LRod.
>
> Can I get a AMEN ?
> I has SEEN DA LIGHT !
>
> Now everybody shake hands and go make sawdust !
>
My, this sure has become a testy place of late. Maybe someone ought to fart
and break the tension...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"leonard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> thanks guys,
> I have read the grounding post before.And have consulted my wife the (PHD
> in electrical engineering) also about the grounding and she say not to.
> What I'm trying to pick is the material to use as ducting, pcv, havc or
> special made spiral duct, ect. I have Six machines to hook up and a floor
> sweep with 1 1/2 hp dc(with a chip collector).
>
> Len
The problem with steel ducting is the cost of the fittings. They are a
friggen rip-off and one 'Y' connector can add up to the total cost of a
complete 4" PVC system. PVC works fine, is easy to use, strong, and is very
cost effective.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"leonard" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> thanks guys,
> I have read the grounding post before.And have consulted my wife the
> (PHD in electrical engineering) also about the grounding and she say
> not to. What I'm trying to pick is the material to use as ducting,
> pcv, havc or special made spiral duct, ect. I have Six machines to
> hook up and a floor sweep with 1 1/2 hp dc(with a chip collector).
And did your PhD wife comment on the pvc grounding technique in the
archives? ;-)
Whatever you plan to do for ducting, figure a chip seperator into your
plans. A barrel, some S&D fittings, and a chunk of plywood for a lid, and
cleaning the system gets so much easier.
I used 4" S&D, with my 1.5hp Delta, because I could get it from the local
hardware store. My hand tools make the biggest mess in the shop now.
Patriarch
"Gus" <[email protected]> blabbered on in message
news:[email protected]...
> The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
> whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
> anything else even remotely relevant.
Starting off with name calling I see. That just shows the strength (or lack
of) of your argument. Like I said, you simply don't understand. The point
is GUS, that there are some things that can be said with 100% certainty and
the bucket of water was an example. Unless the laws of physics are
different in your world, water in its liquid state cannot burn so there is a
100% certanity that a bucket of water sitting in your garage WILL NOT burst
into flames.
>
> Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
> bursting into flame. Nor can you.
Sure I can. If you actually studied a few facts, you could as well.
> Conversely, you cannot state, with
> certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
> It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.
I guess that the laws of physics don't apply in your world or are you trying
to justify this crap with the chaos theory of variables. The fact is that
many of these variables are so rare that they become statistically
insignificant and are treated as non-existent. Simple facts say clearly
that a bucket of WATER will never burst into flames and if something were to
contaminate it and make it flammable, then it is no longer just a bucket of
water now, is it? The same can be said for explosions in a home shop dust
collection system. The mixture and conditions simply are not there to cause
an explosion and if you introduce variables that don't exist in a normal
home shop, then you are not dealing with a home shop dust collection system
anymore.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> ...
> > his point, though was that the odds of your dust collection system
> > exploding- in your garage- are about the same as the odds of a bucket
> > of water exploding -in your garage.
> >
> > and he's right.
>
> But he masked the point by the assertion of zero for both...which
> probably means some will just write off the message as well as the
> messenger...
Why do you say this? Not everyone believe in the absolutely no absolutes BS
like some in here. There are things that are simply not going to happen ad
some like me believe more in statistical significance. If the chance is so
small that it becomes insignificant, this it simply has no chance. I can't
speak for you but I have things of real significance to worry about.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
leonard wrote:
> Hi guys
> I have done my googling and web research,gone to the library and looked in
> the books and have read all the opinion on the type of ducting to use.And I
> am befuddled. I have a grizzly 1 1/2 hp dust collector (110v) if any of you
> are using this type of collector what type of ducting are you using? and how
> many inlets are you able to use?
I have the same sized dust collector from Penn State and I've got my table saw
(high and low) hooked up to it, a RAS, a floor sweep plus another outlet to hook
up tools I use occasionally, such as the jointer or planer. My tubing is a
combination of 4" PVC and 4" corrugated hose along with various elbows, wyes,
and blast gates. Works really well.... BTW, get a remote control if you
haven't already.
I'd bought an air cleaner first and had I known then what I know now, I'd have
bought the DC and been done with it. As it is, I hardly ever turn on the air
cleaner.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:23:12 -0600, Duane Bozarth
<[email protected]> wrote:
>LRod wrote:
>...
>> Sorry how? "Better-safe-than-sorry" is only reasonable advice when
>> there is a possibility, even remote possibility of an event occuring.
>> In the cas of a single home shop dust explosion in a plastic pipe
>> ducted system there is ZERO chance. ...
>
>Well, the conclusion of the article is to quote..
>
>"...home shop DC explosions are somewhere between extraordinarily rare
>and nonexistent."
>
>That is <not> precisely zero...
>
>While rare, railing at such extremes is just not warranted...
Oh, WELL. I stand corrected.
Given, however, that my point was that it was fruitless to expend
resources in pursuit of "preventing" an occurance that is "somewhere
between extraordinarily rare and nonexistent," it seems I've been
vindicated.
Picking fly shit out of pepper over whether it's actually zero or just
really, really close to it is to obscure the bigger truth.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Instead of arguing over this stuff, do what I do. before cutting or planing
> any wood, I spray it with Static Guard. So far I've never had an explosion.
Ed always has a common sense, Yankee way of solving problems.
I'm suprised Ralph Engerman hasn't weighed in on the static issue.
Barry
On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
>whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
>anything else even remotely relevant.
>
>Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
>bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
>certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
>It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.
Apparently, bonehead, you think that the laws of physics are just
suggestions. There are all sorts of certainties. Water not bursting
into flame in your shop is one of them.
If you don't get the connection of that illustration to woodworking
and the myth of the exploding home shop dust collection system, then
you are apparently just skimming the posts to find something to argue
about.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:40:14 GMT, B a r r y
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Steve Decker wrote:
>
>> Grounding is cheap and easy so why not?
>>
>
>
>Internal grounds can cause clogs.
>
>I grounded, clogged, removed the grounds, much better!
>
>Barry
So right! Chips and sawdust are notorious for catching on anything.
That's why I wondered about some kind of conductive paint that can be
used inside PVC to keep the inside smooth. I recall the military had
conductive paint used for aircraft, not sure if anything like that is
available tot he public.
In article <[email protected]>,
Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I recall the military had
> conductive paint used for aircraft, not sure if anything like that is
> available tot he public.
There certainly is. Electronic stores..(the BIG ones) often carry a
spray which was developed to create a ground plane on the back of CRT's
aka repairing TV tubes.
I do not know, however, how well it would stand up to particulate matter
flying by at the speed of sound ( well.. ahem..it COULD maybe go that
fast...maybe not THAT fast...)
If somebody just feels they HAVE to ground the frickin' thing..what
about self adhesive aluminum tape, huh? Huh? on the OUTSIDE of the PVC?
I see no reason to eliminate static charge build-up on the inside only.
I have a plastic ShopVac that builds up enough static to suck the hair
off my head on a dry day like today....I mean, the frickin' thing
levitates and sticks to the wall like balloon!!! The air flow on the
inside, builds up the static on the outside of the container.
Or... take a trip to:
http://www.welbecksawmill.com/Dustcollectors.htm
On your way by, stop in and have a coffee.
0?0
Rob
"Et tu, Spongebob?"
I believe that he is talking to me.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, Gus <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
> > whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
> > anything else even remotely relevant.
>
> Who are you talking to? There's this really cool thing called "including
> enough context so people can follow the conversation".
>
On 28 Jan 2005 14:12:32 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Whatever.
>
>You win, LRod!
>
>You da man !!
>
>Now hear this everyone:
>
>LRod hath decreed that there will NEVER, EVER, NEVER be a home shop
>dust explosion. Not EVER. ZERO chance. ZIP, ZILCH. NADA !
>
>Let all Rod's people say AMEN.
>
>You has done converted this wayward sinner, LRod.
>
>Can I get a AMEN ?
>I has SEEN DA LIGHT !
>
>Now everybody shake hands and go make sawdust !
If I've only converted one, it was worthwhile...
Thank you.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2005 07:33:42 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Probabilities are measured on a scale of 0 to 1.
>>
>>Even a "zero" probability is not an indication that an event will never
>>happen.
>>
>
>
> True, see my other post
>
>
>>A zero probability states that an even "almost never" happens. A
>>probability of one states that an event "almost always" happens.
>>
>
>
> This is imprecise and incorrect
>
>
Go back to your basic probability text and recheck your facts.
>>Let me put this another way. Prior to 9/11/2001, most Americans would
>>have said that the probability of two airliners striking both towers of
>>the World Trade Center within minutes of each other and destroying
>>both, was zero.
>>
>>Yet, it DID happen.
>>
>
>
> This is confusing fact and opinion. The answer to the question, do you
> think this will happen and getting the answer, "no" is an opinion. The
> facts were a) the twin towers exist in physical space on Earth, b)
> airliners are capable of flying within the atmospheric envelope and spatial
> area occupied by the twin towers, c) there is no physical barrier to
> airliners and the twin towers spatially intersecting one another. A more
> apt analogy for the impossible event would be, "can airliners strike two
> lunar landing sites within minutes of each other and destroy those historic
> sites?" There, the answer is the impossible event because a) airliners are
> incapable of operation the vacuum of space, and b) airliners do not have
> the sufficient thrust to leave the gravitational field of the earth.
>
>
All of which strays far from the point of dust explosions.
They can and do happen.
The point, again, is to refrain from absolutism.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:59:46 -0500, the inscrutable Steve Decker
<[email protected]> spake:
>LRod wrote:
>> I suggest you checl this link before repeating such blather:
>>
>> http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readarticle.pl?dir=shop&file=articles_221.shtml
>Better safe than sorry, old boy.
>
>Grounding is cheap and easy so why not?
Cosmic shielding is cheap and easy, so why not?
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/links.html
JUST DO IT!
>I realize the subject has been discussed here ad nauseum and I don't
>intend to add to that.
>
>If you don't want to ground then don't.
I didn't and won't.
--
People will occasionally stumble over the truth, but
most of the time they'll pick themselves up and carry on.
--anon
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:35:33 -0500, Steve Decker
<[email protected]> wrote:
http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readarticle.pl?dir=shop&file=articles_221.shtml
>Zero chance?
Laws of physics. Fairly immutable. Read the article. The author was
unable to replicate an explosion with any kind of air/dust/spark
combination in common PVC pipe. So if you can't do it when you're
trying, how is there any chance to do it accidently? Zero chance.
>Obviously you are omniscient as well as a crank.
Obviously. I repeat my challenge: when you can produce evidence of a
single home shop dust explosion in a plastic pipe ducted system, I
will gladly retract my statement.
In the meantime, maybe the tin foil hat will help.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:55:53 -0500, Steve Decker
<[email protected]> wrote:
>All of which strays far from the point of dust explosions.
>
>They can and do happen.
All of which begs the challenge I originally posed: cite a single
example of a dust explosion occuring in a home shop dust collection
system.
With your absolute certainty that they do, it should be dirt simple to
find a cite. Just one. Come on. You know everything. Surely you can
come up with one verifiable example. I'll leave the wreck forever if
you can come up with a single documented instance.
>The point, again, is to refrain from absolutism.
Uh, where does that leave "[t]hey can and do happen"?
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:54:19 GMT, "TBone" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>When I bought into this stuff, I used aluminum tape on the insides of the
>PVC pipes (2 strips on opposite sides) to prevent clogs and wrapped the
>outside with copper wire. It appeared to work since I never got zapped
>touching it (the pipe) but I believe it did little to prevent a fire since
>data clearly shows it to be just about impossible for it to happen anyway.
4" SD pipe comes in 20 ft lengths. how'd you get the tape in there?
On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
>whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
>anything else even remotely relevant.
>
>Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
>bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
>certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
>It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.
his point, though was that the odds of your dust collection system
exploding- in your garage- are about the same as the odds of a bucket
of water exploding -in your garage.
and he's right.
On 24 Jan 2005 10:33:57 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>...dust hose is more difficult to ground than metal. Why ground at all? To
>prevent a possible dust explosion. Nasty business, that.
That was a really great post except for the above. Pure, utter
nonsense.
When you can produce evidence of a single home shop dust explosion in
a plastic pipe ducted system, I will gladly retract my statement.
I suggest you checl this link before repeating such blather:
http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readarticle.pl?dir=shop&file=articles_221.shtml
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
[email protected] wrote:
>
....
> sure, he probably should have goven odds of a few billion to one
> rather than zero. either way, he was closer to truth than you are.
Actually, I've never said anything about the actual numerical value, but
I would assert that it <is> >0 which would put my estimate closer... :)
My chief complaint is the assertion of <no possible> problem in any
system, sight unseen that is implicit in the proposition. The reference
he quotes, in fact, says specifically it can't be totally ruled out, but
is merely highly unlikely for home-shop systems, anyway.. If people say
that, I'll not complain a lick...if the claim the problem is <totally>
non-existent I'll continue to think that unsupportable. :)
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:17:07 -0500, Steve Decker
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
>>>whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
>>>anything else even remotely relevant.
>>>
>>>Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
>>>bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
>>>certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
>>>It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.
>>
>>
>>
>> his point, though was that the odds of your dust collection system
>> exploding- in your garage- are about the same as the odds of a bucket
>> of water exploding -in your garage.
>>
>> and he's right.
>
>
>Not the point
his or yours?
On Friday 28 Jan 2005 3:34 am, Mark & Juanita scribbled:
>
> Note: from (I), P(a) = 0 is a valid probability. For the examples
> stated, "a bucket of water bursting into flame", or "a unit of helium
> bursting into flame", or "conservation of mass in a chemical reaction
> holds" the probability of these events can be stated to be zero.
> Unless you are going to imply that the laws of physics and chemistry
> are muteable --- if that is the case, then the whole fundamental
> fabric of science and
> technology is essentially destroyed. i.e., there is no, zero, zilch,
> zip, nada chance that helium will burn (i.e. oxidize) in an chemical
> reaction -- helium is an inert gas, it cannot combine with oxygen, it
> *will not* burn.
To add to the pedantry, if the quantum effect of neutron decay happened
all at once in the bucket (a negligible but not zero probability), the
helium could be changed into deuterium and/or berillium and/or lithium
and hence burst into flames. Hence, the probability is not zero.
--
Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html
Steve Decker <[email protected]> wrote:
>I don't agree.
>
>You could say "empirical evidence suggests it won't happen" or
>"experience shows us it won't happen".
>
>Stating a probability as exactly identical to zero is inherently incorrect.
Insert "of an empirical event" after the word "probability" in the
last sentence and I agree. Logically false (as opposed to empirically
false) statements do have a zero probability of being true.
"A and B and (A implies not B)" has a zero probability of being true.
But as someone said, we are picking fly specs out of pepper here. I
think LRod cited an interesting article pointing out the baselessness
of concerns about dust explosions from ducting. While he might have
slightly overstated the article's conclusions, those who are reacting
negatively to his absolutism (and I tend to be one who so reacts) are
missing or avoiding the message of the cited article.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> ....
>
> > sure, he probably should have goven odds of a few billion to one
> > rather than zero. either way, he was closer to truth than you are.
>
> Actually, I've never said anything about the actual numerical value, but
> I would assert that it <is> >0 which would put my estimate closer... :)
>
> My chief complaint is the assertion of <no possible> problem in any
> system, sight unseen that is implicit in the proposition. The reference
> he quotes, in fact, says specifically it can't be totally ruled out, but
> is merely highly unlikely for home-shop systems, anyway.. If people say
> that, I'll not complain a lick...if the claim the problem is <totally>
> non-existent I'll continue to think that unsupportable. :)
With all of the dust collectors in use in home shops and the fact that not a
single instance can be found of this happening, this it is safe too say that
it simply will not happen and until even a single instance occurs, anything
else really is nothing more than paranoia.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:34:11 -0700, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
wrote:
... snip
>
> Note: from (I), P(a) = 0 is a valid probability. For the examples
>stated, "a bucket of water bursting into flame", or "a unit of helium
>bursting into flame", or "conservation of mass in a chemical reaction
>holds"
oops, that should have either been the certain event P(a) = 1, or restated
as "conservation of mass in a chemical reaction does not hold" P(a) = 0.
> the probability of these events can be stated to be zero. Unless
>you are going to imply that the laws of physics and chemistry are muteable
>--- if that is the case, then the whole fundamental fabric of science and
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 26 Jan 2005 12:41:18 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Exactly which "laws of physics" cover flaming buckets of water?
>Can you name one or provide a citation ?
Water doesn't burn. Look it up.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
"Luigi Zanasi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Friday 28 Jan 2005 3:34 am, Mark & Juanita scribbled:
>
> >
> > Note: from (I), P(a) = 0 is a valid probability. For the examples
> > stated, "a bucket of water bursting into flame", or "a unit of helium
> > bursting into flame", or "conservation of mass in a chemical reaction
> > holds" the probability of these events can be stated to be zero.
> > Unless you are going to imply that the laws of physics and chemistry
> > are muteable --- if that is the case, then the whole fundamental
> > fabric of science and
> > technology is essentially destroyed. i.e., there is no, zero, zilch,
> > zip, nada chance that helium will burn (i.e. oxidize) in an chemical
> > reaction -- helium is an inert gas, it cannot combine with oxygen, it
> > *will not* burn.
>
> To add to the pedantry, if the quantum effect of neutron decay happened
> all at once in the bucket (a negligible but not zero probability), the
> helium could be changed into deuterium and/or berillium and/or lithium
> and hence burst into flames. Hence, the probability is not zero.
But you just changed the helium into something else so the probability of
HELIUM bursting into flames is still ZERO.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:36:23 -0500, Steve Decker <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
... snip
>>
>I don't agree.
>
>You could say "empirical evidence suggests it won't happen" or
>"experience shows us it won't happen".
>
>Stating a probability as exactly identical to zero is inherently incorrect.
Alright, stepping into the realm of pedantry: From the axiomatic
definitions of probabilty theory (Papoullis, Probability, Random Variables,
and Stochastic Processes),
"The probability of an event a is a number P(a) assigned to this event.
This number obeys the following three postulates:
I. P(a) is positive: P(a) >= 0
II The probability of the certain event equals 1: P(S) = 1
III. If a and b are mutually exclusive, then: P(a + b) = P(a) + P(b)"
[Version I have at home is McGraw-Hill 1965 version, page 7]
Note: from (I), P(a) = 0 is a valid probability. For the examples
stated, "a bucket of water bursting into flame", or "a unit of helium
bursting into flame", or "conservation of mass in a chemical reaction
holds" the probability of these events can be stated to be zero. Unless
you are going to imply that the laws of physics and chemistry are muteable
--- if that is the case, then the whole fundamental fabric of science and
technology is essentially destroyed. i.e., there is no, zero, zilch, zip,
nada chance that helium will burn (i.e. oxidize) in an chemical reaction --
helium is an inert gas, it cannot combine with oxygen, it *will not* burn.
This is more than "empirical evidence", it is a fundamental element of the
chemical nature and properties of elements. If we can say that there is
some non-zero probability that elements will behave willy-nilly contrary to
their fundamental chemical and nuclear properties, we are wasting our time
with science and technology. Thus, in these cases, one can indicate that
the probability of those events occuring P(a) = 0, and in addition, the
probablity of those events occuring are the impossible event. Further,
from II, it is also possible to have a certain event, for which the
probability = 1.
It is also important to note that one must distinguish between the
impossible event, and those events with probability = 0. For example, the
probability P(t = t1) = 0 may be true, but not necessarily an impossible
event. Same is true that even though the probability of an event = 1,
this is not necessarily the certain event. However, for the impossible
event P(a) = 0, and for the certain event P(a) = 1. But this is a side
detour to the original statement. The fact is that it is *not* inherently
incorrect to state that a probability is exactly identical to zero.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:49:52 -0600, Duane Bozarth
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>...
>> his point, though was that the odds of your dust collection system
>> exploding- in your garage- are about the same as the odds of a bucket
>> of water exploding -in your garage.
>>
>> and he's right.
>
>But he masked the point by the assertion of zero for both...which
>probably means some will just write off the message as well as the
>messenger...
if a little enthusiasm for the argument is gonna kill the message,
you'd better shut down usenet right now.
sure, he probably should have goven odds of a few billion to one
rather than zero. either way, he was closer to truth than you are.
[email protected] wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
>>whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
>>anything else even remotely relevant.
>>
>>Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
>>bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
>>certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
>>It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.
>
>
>
> his point, though was that the odds of your dust collection system
> exploding- in your garage- are about the same as the odds of a bucket
> of water exploding -in your garage.
>
> and he's right.
Not the point
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:55:53 -0500, Steve Decker
<[email protected]> wrote
>All of which strays far from the point of dust explosions.
>
>They can and do happen.
but not in home shop dust collection systems from static discharge
from plastic piping.
time to put up or shut up, steve.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:59:46 -0500, Steve Decker
<[email protected]> wrote:
>LRod wrote:
>> On 24 Jan 2005 10:33:57 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>...dust hose is more difficult to ground than metal. Why ground at all? To
>>>prevent a possible dust explosion. Nasty business, that.
>>
>>
>> That was a really great post except for the above. Pure, utter
>> nonsense.
>>
>> When you can produce evidence of a single home shop dust explosion in
>> a plastic pipe ducted system, I will gladly retract my statement.
>>
>> I suggest you checl this link before repeating such blather:
>>
>> http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readarticle.pl?dir=shop&file=articles_221.shtml
>Better safe than sorry, old boy.
Sorry how? "Better-safe-than-sorry" is only reasonable advice when
there is a possibility, even remote possibility of an event occuring.
In the cas of a single home shop dust explosion in a plastic pipe
ducted system there is ZERO chance. In such a case, better safe than
sorry is just a pitiful justification for the ignorant to continue
their ignorance.
>Grounding is cheap and easy so why not?
Because it's unnecessary and unproductive. Do you sprinkle cream of
tartar on your saw before you work? Why not? It's cheap and easy.
>I realize the subject has been discussed here ad nauseum and I don't
>intend to add to that.
Yet you did.
>If you don't want to ground then don't.
That's fine. But people shouldn't be report as gospel a circumstance
when there's no data to support its existance.
>Lighten up
I'll "lighten up" when ignorance on this subject is eradicated. Your
promotion of it necessitates rebuttal. When it's no longer necessary
there'll be no activity of mine up from which to lighten.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
"Gus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Hey Gus - include the text you're replying to will ya? It's
> impossible to
> > follow who you are replying to when you cut the original text and
> just post
> > your reply.
>
>
> Sorry boys, the old quote button was malfunctioning.
>
> I must have violated one of them thar "laws of physics" that LRod is
> always prattling on about.
>
C'mon Gus - none of that stuff now. Hell, there's been enough of folks
taking shots at other folks in replies to others lately. Most unpleasant.
A good shot should always be thrown directly - it says so right in the hand
book. Anyway - thanks for including the text.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Steve Decker wrote:
> LRod wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:59:46 -0500, Steve Decker
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> LRod wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24 Jan 2005 10:33:57 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ...dust hose is more difficult to ground than metal. Why ground at
>>>>> all? To
>>>>> prevent a possible dust explosion. Nasty business, that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That was a really great post except for the above. Pure, utter
>>>> nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> When you can produce evidence of a single home shop dust explosion in
>>>> a plastic pipe ducted system, I will gladly retract my statement.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest you checl this link before repeating such blather:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readarticle.pl?dir=shop&file=articles_221.shtml
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Better safe than sorry, old boy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry how? "Better-safe-than-sorry" is only reasonable advice when
>> there is a possibility, even remote possibility of an event occuring.
>> In the cas of a single home shop dust explosion in a plastic pipe
>> ducted system there is ZERO chance. In such a case, better safe than
>> sorry is just a pitiful justification for the ignorant to continue
>> their ignorance.
>>
>>
>>> Grounding is cheap and easy so why not?
>>
>>
>>
>> Because it's unnecessary and unproductive. Do you sprinkle cream of
>> tartar on your saw before you work? Why not? It's cheap and easy.
>>
>>
>>> I realize the subject has been discussed here ad nauseum and I don't
>>> intend to add to that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yet you did.
>>
>>
>>> If you don't want to ground then don't.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's fine. But people shouldn't be report as gospel a circumstance
>> when there's no data to support its existance.
>>
>>
>>> Lighten up
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll "lighten up" when ignorance on this subject is eradicated. Your
>> promotion of it necessitates rebuttal. When it's no longer necessary
>> there'll be no activity of mine up from which to lighten.
>>
>>
>> - -
>> LRod
>>
>> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>>
>> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>>
>> http://www.woodbutcher.net
>
>
>
> Zero chance?
>
> Obviously you are omniscient as well as a crank.
>
> If you won't lighten up, then get bent.
Sorry about the double posting.
I slipped on the Cream of Tartar.
S
"Homer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LRod wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:23:12 -0600, Duane Bozarth
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>LRod wrote:
> >>...
> >>
> >>>Sorry how? "Better-safe-than-sorry" is only reasonable advice when
> >>>there is a possibility, even remote possibility of an event occuring.
> >>>In the cas of a single home shop dust explosion in a plastic pipe
> >>>ducted system there is ZERO chance. ...
> >>
> >>Well, the conclusion of the article is to quote..
> >>
> >>"...home shop DC explosions are somewhere between extraordinarily rare
> >>and nonexistent."
> >>
> >>That is <not> precisely zero...
> >>
> >>While rare, railing at such extremes is just not warranted...
> >
> >
> > Oh, WELL. I stand corrected.
> >
> > Given, however, that my point was that it was fruitless to expend
> > resources in pursuit of "preventing" an occurance that is "somewhere
> > between extraordinarily rare and nonexistent," it seems I've been
> > vindicated.
> >
> > Picking fly shit out of pepper over whether it's actually zero or just
> > really, really close to it is to obscure the bigger truth.
> >
>
>
> Not really.
>
> Making statements like "zero chance" obscures truth very nicely.
>
> That, and your "bucket of water" example was truly laughable.
Was it, or did you just not understand it? Please give the exact percentage
chance for the said bucket of water bursting into flames.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
LRod wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:35:33 -0500, Steve Decker
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readarticle.pl?dir=shop&file=articles_221.shtml
>
>
>>Zero chance?
>
>
> Laws of physics. Fairly immutable. Read the article. The author was
> unable to replicate an explosion with any kind of air/dust/spark
> combination in common PVC pipe. So if you can't do it when you're
> trying, how is there any chance to do it accidently? Zero chance.
>
>
>>Obviously you are omniscient as well as a crank.
>
>
> Obviously. I repeat my challenge: when you can produce evidence of a
> single home shop dust explosion in a plastic pipe ducted system, I
> will gladly retract my statement.
>
> In the meantime, maybe the tin foil hat will help.
>
> - -
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
You, sir, are a Grade-A jerkweed.
Congratulations.
"Steve Decker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Now as Gus says, I'm going to make some sawdust.
Izzit OK if I bring that bucket of water back in the garage?
TBone wrote:
> "Gus" <[email protected]> blabbered on in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
>>whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
>>anything else even remotely relevant.
>
>
> Starting off with name calling I see. That just shows the strength (or lack
> of) of your argument. Like I said, you simply don't understand. The point
> is GUS, that there are some things that can be said with 100% certainty and
> the bucket of water was an example. Unless the laws of physics are
> different in your world, water in its liquid state cannot burn so there is a
> 100% certanity that a bucket of water sitting in your garage WILL NOT burst
> into flames.
>
>
>>Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
>>bursting into flame. Nor can you.
>
>
> Sure I can. If you actually studied a few facts, you could as well.
>
>
>>Conversely, you cannot state, with
>>certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
>>It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.
>
>
> I guess that the laws of physics don't apply in your world or are you trying
> to justify this crap with the chaos theory of variables. The fact is that
> many of these variables are so rare that they become statistically
> insignificant and are treated as non-existent. Simple facts say clearly
> that a bucket of WATER will never burst into flames and if something were to
> contaminate it and make it flammable, then it is no longer just a bucket of
> water now, is it? The same can be said for explosions in a home shop dust
> collection system. The mixture and conditions simply are not there to cause
> an explosion and if you introduce variables that don't exist in a normal
> home shop, then you are not dealing with a home shop dust collection system
> anymore.
>
I sure wish you and/or LRod would elaborate on these "Laws of Physics"
you're always quoting with such alacrity.
There's all kinds of them, you know, conservation of mass, conservation
of energy.....do a little fact checking yourself, TBone.
Homer
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 06:22:36 -0500, Steve Decker
<[email protected]> wrote:
>You, sir, are a Grade-A jerkweed.
I'm not the one perpetuating the dust-explosion-in-a-home-shop-system
myth. You're going to have to look elsewhere to apply that apellation,
I fear. Start real close.
>Congratulations.
Not at all. The congratulations go to the person who changed the
discussion from an exposition of facts to one of ad hominem attacks.
Again, look real close.
You're obviously one of those "last word" guys, so I'll let you have
it. My work here is concluded.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
On 27 Jan 2005 07:33:42 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Probabilities are measured on a scale of 0 to 1.
>
>Even a "zero" probability is not an indication that an event will never
>happen.
>
True, see my other post
>A zero probability states that an even "almost never" happens. A
>probability of one states that an event "almost always" happens.
>
This is imprecise and incorrect
>Therefore, probability theory would state that, while the probability
>of rolling a 7 is zero, there is still a chance (however small) of it
>occuring.
>
No, in a set consisting of the elements {1,2,3,4,5,6} not only does the
probability of selecting a 7 from that set = 0, it is an impossible event
since 7 is not *in* the set.
>Let me put this another way. Prior to 9/11/2001, most Americans would
>have said that the probability of two airliners striking both towers of
>the World Trade Center within minutes of each other and destroying
>both, was zero.
>
>Yet, it DID happen.
>
This is confusing fact and opinion. The answer to the question, do you
think this will happen and getting the answer, "no" is an opinion. The
facts were a) the twin towers exist in physical space on Earth, b)
airliners are capable of flying within the atmospheric envelope and spatial
area occupied by the twin towers, c) there is no physical barrier to
airliners and the twin towers spatially intersecting one another. A more
apt analogy for the impossible event would be, "can airliners strike two
lunar landing sites within minutes of each other and destroy those historic
sites?" There, the answer is the impossible event because a) airliners are
incapable of operation the vacuum of space, and b) airliners do not have
the sufficient thrust to leave the gravitational field of the earth.
>LRod actually did make a cogent point in one post that he was willing
>to settle for a "reasonable estimate". That is actually a good way of
>explaining the situation.
>
>The lesson to be learned here is to refrain from making absolute
>statements like "zero chance".
>
>Gus
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
LRod wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2005 10:33:57 -0800, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>...dust hose is more difficult to ground than metal. Why ground at all? To
>>prevent a possible dust explosion. Nasty business, that.
>
>
> That was a really great post except for the above. Pure, utter
> nonsense.
>
> When you can produce evidence of a single home shop dust explosion in
> a plastic pipe ducted system, I will gladly retract my statement.
>
> I suggest you checl this link before repeating such blather:
>
> http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readarticle.pl?dir=shop&file=articles_221.shtml
>
>
>
> - -
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
Better safe than sorry, old boy.
Grounding is cheap and easy so why not?
I realize the subject has been discussed here ad nauseum and I don't
intend to add to that.
If you don't want to ground then don't.
Lighten up