
Originally Posted by
Don Burch
I would hold the Oneida have a position of some prominence in this area and should go above and beyond to ensure the product description is beyond reproach.]
Agree, this is why I said they should be clearer.
[The weblink you introduced (Engineers Edge) was quite clear on both points you question:]
You missed my point entirely. I had no problem finding sources that spoke authoratatively and with apparently good credentials (like the below), what I did have trouble finding is these sources consistantly saying the same thing!
A second category also is comprised of single-use, disposable filters called HEPA filters. By definition, a HEPA filter is a throwaway, extended-medium, dry-type filter with: (1) a minimum particle removal efficiency of no less than 99.97 percent for 0.3-m particles, (2) a maximum resistance, when clean, of 1.0 inches water gauge (in.wg) when operated at 1,000 cfm, and (3) a rigid casing that extends the full depth of the medium [Note: Filters of different flows and resistances are allowable by the AG-1 Code. 2 A filter of identical construction and appearance, but having a filtering medium with a retention of 99.9995 percent for 0.1 m particles, is referred to as an ultra-low penetration aerosol filter (ULPA). The filtering medium of HEPA filters is thinner and more compressed, and contains smaller diameter fibers than HVAC filters. HEPA filters are widely used throughout industry.
As I said before, HEPA is absolute. There is minimum. I have not come across one reference which gives a minimum of greater than .3 micron. Not one. Neither did I!
If you look at my description of the confusion, I ALSO quoted the same minimum you did, so it appears you didn't realize we agree. My point was: some sources (not all referenced in my post) describe the standard as capturing 99.97% of all particles between 0.3 and 0.5, instead of 99.97% of 0.3 particles, and still again other sources saying 99.97% of particles greater than 0.3m. This can translate into very different capture rates of the 0.3m particles which are understood to be some of the most dangerous.
As far as cleaning goes, I have no idea, I only read this from your original reference. If you posted a resource link without reading its contents, you shouldn't. If you're going to be a smart a$$, at least make sure you've thought it through, or you just make youself look bad. You brought up the cleaning subject, not me and seemed to draw grand (questionable) conclusions from their claims of cleanability. In fact there is no discussion of cleaning in the "original reference" link to the particular product referenced in the OP, so I'm not sure what you think I didn't read.
Again, if you read my post, my struggle was never whether or not they were "throw away" in the sence that they were not repairable, but with the notion of equating "throw away" with "uncleanable". You also seemed to consider that since Oneida claimed they were cleanable, then that must mean they could not be HEPA and Oneida was full of crap. My question was not whether or not Oneida claimed they were cleanable (as an Oneida owner, I am fully aware that they do state that some of their HEPA filters are cleanable!) but whether or not your apparent insinuation that "throw away" equating to "uncleanable" is a valid jump.
Hard to tell if GE is the manufacturer or the certifier. It isn't clear. Why the vagueness?
I do not accept the claim based on what I have read.H ad you presented an off shore option I would offer the same cautions. You are almost suggesting that the solution being discussed is better because it isn't as bad. I will hold Oneida to a higher standard.
I wouldn't hold your reticence against you, it's your perrogative, but I am saying that I am more comfortable with the documentation backing up Oneida's claims, than I am with the documentation backing up the any of the claims made by most other manufactureres or sellers of canister filters that I have looked into.......usually because there has been none available, and for other reasons stated as well! I would be really surprised in today's litigation happy world that they would make these claims so publically, without being legit. It's quite clear that I also feel there is room for improvement on Oneida's side. Their other product sheets refer to third party testing of their HEPA filters, but the documentation provided is pretty sparse, should be more professional looking and we shouldn't have to go asking for it. That being said, it is possable that Oneida has us all duped, and their filters are nothing more than recycled long john material stuffed into a fancy holder with a HEPA sticker thrown on the side.
My point remains that if all of your tools are puking dust past the collection point and into the air, your HEPA filter accomplishes nothing. The OSHA standard for workplace dust (not including western red cedar) exposure is 15mg/cu meter for all dust and 5mg/cu meter for the respirable fraction. NiOSH exposure limit is 1 mg/cu meter in a 10 hour day.
Get a 1 cu meter bag, put 15 mg of normal shop dust in it a shake it up. That is how much dust you can have in a commercial workshop at any given time. So if you have that much dust not being captured by your cyclone, industry says you are at risk.
You need to focus on trapping all of that dust first. Your cyclone, with a good .5 micron element, should catch the rest.
It is no different than spewing all kinds of dust past your face, but feeling safe because you have an air cleaner 2 feet above hanging from the ceiling.
I agree......most of this goes without saying (except for your 0.5 micron limit, that's debatable) , but is beyond the scope of the original discussion around whether or not the Oneida product was a real HEPA filter or not.
'nuff said.
Don