7" blade on 10" saw?

[Steve B]

Thanks, Al. I am already making things and enjoying it immensely. So nice to be able to make nice straight cuts and everything fits. Just makes me want to do more.

Steve

[Puff Griffis]

It's pure jealousy Steve. They are jealous that they can no longer learn = and others still have the fire. Enough fire to ask questions and learn = new things. Puff

[J. Clarke]

If it doesn't seem to be bogging down I wouldn't worry about it. If it does seem to be, make sure it's getting enough power--that means plugged directly into the wall rather than on an extension cord and with a reasonably short run back to the breaker panel and no other loads on the circuit.

[Al]

Al

[Chris Friesen]

It was a tilting arbor saw, single cast-iron wing. Similar to this one:

[mac davis]

or possibly a very tight belt.. DAMHIKT

Mac

[Steve B]

Yah got that right. In the real world, a stupid question might bring a giggle, a hearty guffaw, rolling eyes expression, some subtle gesture that it may have been a dumb thing to ask. Yet, to me, it all falls back on the teacher. We start off knowing little. We learn by asking. If we get slapped, the first thing we learn is not to ask, or not to ask THAT person. As I have progressed through careers, hobbies, and life experiences, the teachers I remember the most were the patient ones who didn't kick me in the nuts all the time. They were also the ones I learned the most from. And lastly, they were the ones I had the biggest laughs from when we would recap and say,

"Hey, do you remember the time when I (fill in your favorite story)"?

Know it all teachers and know it all students. They both have a way of reaching their own ultimate levels of competency.

Steve

[J. Mohnike]

STEVE REMEMBER THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DUMB QUESTION.

I SAW A DEMO. ABOUT SAW BLADES. IN EXTERME SLOW MOTION. THE 10" BLADE ACTUALLY APPEARED TO "BACK UP" WITH THE INITIAL CONTACT WITH WOOD ESPECIALLY HARD WOOD. THE INTITAL CUT SHOWED CHATTER. THE FILM ALSO SHOWED 9", 8" AND 7" BLADES THE PROBLES WERE REDUCED AS THE DIAMETER REDUCED.

DO NOT BUY "A" NEW BLADE BUY SEVERL "QUALITY " BLADES.

WE ALL GET LAZY FROM TIME TO TIME AND DO NOT CHANGE THE BLADE FOR THE JOB WE ARE DOING, AND LATER COMPLAIN A BOUT THE QUALITY OF THE CUT THE BLADE WAS DOING ITS JOB, WE FAILED TO DO OURS.

[Puckdropper]

mac davis wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Puckdropper

[lwasserm]

I admit to leaving the same blade on my saw most of the time but at least I'm not so "lazy" that I won't use the caps lock & shift keys

[hylourgos]

Leon, by 7" I think the OP means 7-1/4", your standard CS blade (he rounded off I suspect). If that blade can only cut 2" at 90=BA or 1-1/4 at 45=BA, then how do framers manage to cut dimensional lumber using CSs and 7-1/4" blades? On the other hand, maybe you're thinking that some TSs can't bring their arbors up that far, and with some brands that may be true, but my cheapo Ryobi BT3K can cut deeper than my Milwaukee CS, using the same blade, so I'm prone to thinking that the the cutting capacity would be fine as long as you are cutting wood as thick or thinner than dimensional lumber.

Actually (and to address everyone now, not just Leon), I'm a bit taken aback by the overwhelming unanimity of responses condemning the OP's friend's advice. I don't think the friend's reasoning is particularly compelling, but the advice is really good advice in some circumstances, so the eagerness of so many respondents to jump on the bandwagon with clever put-downs comes as a surprise. No one else does this?

In an ideal situation with most any TS, you'd get a decent 10" Forrest or Freud blade [that's traditional wisdom, although a recent WWer's Journal article rated most of the 10" blades and recommended the--gasp!--DeWalt and Rigid blades. Whatever. A good blade makes a world of difference.] and you'd have few regrets if any.

But it is a healthy bit you'll spend for that blade ($50-$120 or so). Freud 7-1/4" blades run about $10. Step up to a Freud 8" and pay $15-20 for a fine blade.

Many respondents also recommended going to a thin-kerf blade. Sometimes with under-power issues that's helpful. But a few years back, when the Wreck was inhabited by far more knowledgeable woodworkers (that's just my impression), the relative merits of thin-kerf blades were debated and condemned because of wobble and flex. Sure, you could put stabilizers on, but then what have you gained over using an 8" thin-kerf except paying more?

Smaller diameter blades are really handy when you want a decent cut but are working with reclaimed lumber--it's easy to be less nervous about ruining a $10 blade than a $100 blade.

On my 12" cabinet saw I keep a high-end 12" blade; on my Ryobi BT3K I pimp a Freud 8" (sometimes a 7-1/4") thin-kerf. Both get a lot of use, but the Ryobi cuts just as well with the 8" as with a good-quality Freud 10". Since it's less than 1/7th the price and I rarely cut anything over 8/4 anyway (and if I need to I have the other saw), the

8" seems like a better choice to me.

Am I missing something? You've all pretty much trashed the idea, but no one has addressed some of the benefits. It might be in the OPs best interest to give it a try.

Regards H

[Bruce Barnett]

[snip all caps message]

TURN YOUR HEARING AID ON. And remember - WE are not deaf. :-)

[Swingman]

aback by the overwhelming unanimity of responses condemning the OP's friend's advice. I don't think the friend's reasoning is particularly compelling, but the advice is really good advice in some circumstances, so the eagerness of so many respondents to jump on the bandwagon with clever put-downs comes as a surprise.<

Except that there are questions where a bit of time spent THINKING before asking would have produced an answer without utterance.

[mac davis]

yeah, but ya know that you can lead a horticulture but not make her think, right?

Mac

[Jeff Gorman]

I fear that this is not very good advice.

From my web site - Circular Sawbench Safety - Blades, I've extracted the following:

Using undersized blades increases the risk of accident because of the inefficient cutting which results from the low peripheral speed of such a blade. Such blades are more inclined to flutter, create a poor finish and/or deflect to one side. It is contrary to the UK factory regulations to use a blade of a diameter less than 60% of the of the sawbench's design size. (The drive of a saw bench is normally designed to give a speed of 3,000 metres/minute (10,000ft/min) with the intended blade).

so I suppose that 7" is within the 60% limit, but much of the above will apply.

Jeff G

[None]

I wouldn't say that a 10" would burn up your saw faster but the smaller blades can be useful. Freud makes a 7 1/4" Diablo Finish Blade D0740X which is very useful when cutting small pieces of wood say for the inside of a desk gallery. I use them when cutting veneer for stringing and making banding. The D0740X has a .59 kerf which save a fair amount per cut which is important when you have some time invested to make the banding block. The blade also leaves a **very** fine cut. You have to make a zero clearance insert to use this type of blade with small material and there are a number of other little trick you can perform to help in cutting small material.

Having said all this the most used blade would be a 10" and of course this blade would be necessary when cutting thicker stock but once you try the smaller blades you may find yourself using them more often then you would have imagined.