pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on tue 22 jun 04
Hi Bonnie,
I would not expect a wetting agent or surfactant to
eliminate the 'Bubble' concerns...in a 'hookah' or in a
'wetvac'...
But I would expect that having layers of Cloth or fine mesh
of some kind, would. ( I do not know what kind of room is in
one of these 'Rainbow' Vacuums, but most older 'serious'
Shop Vacuums of the 'wet-or-dry' kind or of the 'hookah'
kind, had room for such a modification if one wanted to do
it...)
Too, the best arrangement of all, if one may, would be to
have the Vacuum apparatis 'outside', and only the intake
hose coming inside. That way, no one should care about
such-n-such a 'micron' or it's siblings, getting through the
darned thing...or that is to say, it is unlikely anyone
would care that it did...
I have run an old 4 inch Hose, Shop Vacuum (as was not a
'wet' kind, but could be made into one I suppose,) as
normally sets on a 55 Gallon drum...I have run it with about
35 or 40 feet of Hose sometimes, and the pressure did not
fall off too bad. I expect that one could do similar with
other kinds of Vacuums, if they have any spunk to begin
with, and, if they don't, then maybe get one as does...that
is, if a longish Hose is the concern of having one
'outside'...
Phil
el ve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bonnie Staffel"
> In my research on the Internet, I found this URL
> http://www.ilpi.com/genchem/demo/tension/
> where there was an experiment about how sulfur, which
normally floats on
> water, could be made to sink to the bottom by the
addition of a few drops
> of a wetting agent. It seems to me that the wetting agent
would eliminate
> the bubble that surrounds a particle of dust (sulfur in
the experimental
> case) thus allowing the material to sink.
>
> In the case of the Rainbow Vacuum cleaner, perhaps there
is more dust being
> "inhaled" by the vacuum cleaner than there is surface
water to accept it,
> thus releasing the dust into the air by bypassing the
water. If there was
> sufficient wetting agent in the water, would it follow
that the dust would
> be allowed to sink at a faster rate? Or the design of the
vacuum cleaner
> could be revised to eliminate the loose dust. I am
thinking about adding
> some water to the Shop Vac, add the wetting agent and give
it a test myself.
> I just started to think about this process so any
suggestions from those who
> might have some ideas, I would love to hear about them.
>
> Lots of times, there are simple solutions to big problems
but the dust one
> is a whopper for potters. There are many potters who are
working in
> situations where the investment of an outside exhaust
vacuum cleaner is
> prohibitive, both physically and financially. Now, the
studio furnace is
> also a recycler of studio dust. One has to be right on
top of changing the
> filters, but are those filters fine enough for the job?
Then there might be
> fans operating during the summer months. One doesn't
vacuum every hour.
> Those fans are moving the fines around also. One wears
the clay apron or
> clothing all day, with dust coming from those objects as
well. Dust is
> everywhere all the time.
>
> I have been fortunate to have lived this long without
most problems
> associated with being a potter. In the early days of my
career I used lead
> glazes, knowing the dust was dangerous, but not the fuming
in firing. My
> kiln was in my basement. Then I have used barium glazes
for many years. My
> studio cat lived to be 19 cleaning herself of the
accumulation of glaze
> dusts. I was no housekeeper, but did use the vacuum
cleaner once in a
> while. I guess I have been lucky.
>
> Any comments would be most welcome if you have something
to share.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Bonnie Staffel
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached
at melpots@pclink.com.
Hendrix, Taylor J. on tue 22 jun 04
Okay Bonnie:
Here are my thoughts (for what they are worth).
A wetting agent will certainly help water wet solids more quickly. The
problem still remains that as the vac is sucking dust into the canister
and forcing it through the water (that is what is happening right, not
the shopvac type system that just blows air into a container full of
water?) the smallest and more harmful particles are still floating about
in the bubble of air that is rising through the water. Wetting agent
won't help to dissolve those bubbles; they will still contain dust laden
air. Does the water/wetting agent have enough time to capture those
particles that touch the 'surface' of the bubbles? I dunno. I think
Phil's idea of having some kind of screen suspended in the water above
the air inlet and below the surface of the water is a great idea. This
will cause the bubbles to be broken up into smaller sizes increasing the
surface area to volume ra......blah blah blah. Can you rig up a bubble
sieve? Maybe even just tie some plastic window screen to the hose in
the water. Let us know how it appears to be working.
I'm watching this thread with interest.
Taylor
Waco, TX
http://www3.baylor.edu/~Taylor_Hendrix/tjpots.htm =20
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Bonnie
Staffel
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:05 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Surface Tension Rainbow Vacuum
In my research on the Internet, I found this URL
http://www.ilpi.com/genchem/demo/tension/
where there was an experiment about how sulfur, which normally floats on
water, could be made to sink to the bottom by the addition of a few
drops
of a wetting agent. It seems to me that the wetting agent would
eliminate
the bubble that surrounds a particle of dust (sulfur in the experimental
case) thus allowing the material to sink.
...
Dave Finkelnburg on tue 22 jun 04
Dear Bonnie,
I have been involved in the construction and operation of some
industrial dust scrubbers that operate by gas-liquid contact, which is
basically what you have pulling air through a tank of water in the vacuum
cleaner.
The efficiency of dust removal from a gas stream bubbled through a
liquid is a function mainly of the bubble diameter, and next the length of
time the bubble is in the liquid. Large bubbles let a lot of dust escape
from the water. Fine bubbles permit a lot more dust to be collected by the
liquid. The longer the bubbles are in the water, the more solids are wetted
and collected. Certainly a wetting agent will help dust collection
efficiency.
The real issue, though, is collection efficiency of any such "scrubber"
is highest for coarse particles and lowest for the finest particles. So,
sadly, the most dangerous dust, the submicron particles, tend to be the
hardest to capture in the water.
I think that triple wet-mopping, as potters like Mark Issenberg do, is
really the best way to clean a studio floor. If a vacuum is used, it really
should exhaust outdoors. Even the Rainbow vac would be better if its
exhaust could be ducted out of the studio.
With warm regards,
Dave Finkelnburg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bonnie Staffel"
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 10:05 AM
> In my research on the Internet, I found this URL
> http://www.ilpi.com/genchem/demo/tension/
> where there was an experiment about how sulfur, which normally floats on
> water, could be made to sink to the bottom by the addition of a few drops
> of a wetting agent. It seems to me that the wetting agent would eliminate
> the bubble that surrounds a particle of dust (sulfur in the experimental
> case) thus allowing the material to sink.
Bonnie Staffel on tue 22 jun 04
In my research on the Internet, I found this URL
http://www.ilpi.com/genchem/demo/tension/
where there was an experiment about how sulfur, which normally floats on
water, could be made to sink to the bottom by the addition of a few drops
of a wetting agent. It seems to me that the wetting agent would eliminate
the bubble that surrounds a particle of dust (sulfur in the experimental
case) thus allowing the material to sink.
In the case of the Rainbow Vacuum cleaner, perhaps there is more dust being
"inhaled" by the vacuum cleaner than there is surface water to accept it,
thus releasing the dust into the air by bypassing the water. If there was
sufficient wetting agent in the water, would it follow that the dust would
be allowed to sink at a faster rate? Or the design of the vacuum cleaner
could be revised to eliminate the loose dust. I am thinking about adding
some water to the Shop Vac, add the wetting agent and give it a test myself.
I just started to think about this process so any suggestions from those who
might have some ideas, I would love to hear about them.
Lots of times, there are simple solutions to big problems but the dust one
is a whopper for potters. There are many potters who are working in
situations where the investment of an outside exhaust vacuum cleaner is
prohibitive, both physically and financially. Now, the studio furnace is
also a recycler of studio dust. One has to be right on top of changing the
filters, but are those filters fine enough for the job? Then there might be
fans operating during the summer months. One doesn't vacuum every hour.
Those fans are moving the fines around also. One wears the clay apron or
clothing all day, with dust coming from those objects as well. Dust is
everywhere all the time.
I have been fortunate to have lived this long without most problems
associated with being a potter. In the early days of my career I used lead
glazes, knowing the dust was dangerous, but not the fuming in firing. My
kiln was in my basement. Then I have used barium glazes for many years. My
studio cat lived to be 19 cleaning herself of the accumulation of glaze
dusts. I was no housekeeper, but did use the vacuum cleaner once in a
while. I guess I have been lucky.
Any comments would be most welcome if you have something to share.
Warm regards,
Bonnie Staffel
http://pws.chartermi.net/~bstaffel/default.html
http://www.vasefinder.com/
Potters Council member
| |
|
