Belt/Disk sander reviews

[Lew Hodgett]

------------------------------------------------------ That's to be expected after about the tenth response.

Lew

[Bill]

My dad used a sanding disk attached to the end of a corded drill. Having tried it myself as a youngster, I remember it making a cloud of dust! : )

[Leon]

Na Na Na Na, I'm just pulling your leg. Can't believe I did not get involved in this before now. :~)

[krw]

You can judge...

Could be. As I said the market is really convoluted.

[krw]

I'm not convinced. It's better that there is a consolidation than all of these companies disappearing. The market isn't huge.

[krw]

[..../] IRONY

Sure beats the incessant gas price postings.

[Bill]

Several of Delta's products seems to have virtually (and absolutely) disappeared since they got consolidated. I've noticed the absence of their 8" jointer and a couple of their sanders, and there is most-likely more.

I have Not observed the presence of a Festool OSS! : ) (especially one that wasn't plastic!)

Carvers, if you used an OSS to "cut close" would you expect the sand paper to leave grit in the wood and dull your carving tools (just curious)?

Bill

[Bill]

From a brief search, the answer to that last question seems to be Yes. Though several use a toothbrush and air compressor or shopvac to remove the embedded abrasives.

[Bill]

"Stupid" disk sander question (this thread seems like a good place for it).

Are there wood sanding applications where a smaller, less powerful disk sander works better than a larger more powerful one?

For instance, 9" 3/4-HP, versus 12" 1 HP.

I know sandpaper would be cheaper for the smaller one, but that's not what I'm talking about. Clearly the larger disk gives you more working room, but is there a downside to it (besides the higher cost per sheet of abrasives)?

I'm sure in this case that the 12" unit is built to higher standards: has a nicer table and is "industrial strength". But that's sort of a different question. They probably make industrial strength 3/4hp 9" disk sanders too; I just haven't seen them where I shop.

Bill

[dadiOH]

Well, the outside three inches will be moving farther in a given time but I don't know if that is a benefit or vice versa.

Most disk sanders seem to be about 3500 rpm; at that speed, it is easy to burn wood, need to have a light touch which is easy enough to do. Still, I'd rather have one that is doing 1750 rpm; trouble is, they charge more for them, no idea why.

Somewhere in this thread - I think it was this thread, I've sorta lost track :) - someone mentioned the nuisance factor of changing grit on a disk sander. True. The solution is, put on an 80 grit disk and never change it until it is worn out then stick on a new 80 grit, on top of the old one or on the plate, your choice.

[Bill]

All of the 12" ones I saw said 1725-1750 RPM, except Jet didn't list the RPM (I would expect the same). The 9" one I was looking at (part of a belt/disk combo unit) said 3100 RPM. Interesting. The circumference of a disk is directly proportion to the diameter.

12*1750 =21000 (*3.14) feet per minute, at the edge. 9*3100 = 27900 (*3.14) feet per minute at the edge, so these numbers are NOT different by factor of 2, like it appears at first glance. More like 25% difference. And the 1 HP number probably has more integrity.

Thanks for making me think! Bill

[John McCoy]

"dadiOH" wrote in news:m6p49e$l6u$ [e-mail]:

More expensive to make a 1750 rpm motor. A motor with two poles will turn at 3600 rpm on 60Hz AC line (unloaded, the loaded speed will be around 3450 rpm). A motor with four poles will run 1800 rpm (unloaded, around 1750 loaded). None too surprisingly, it takes more material and effort to make a 4-pole motor (altho not a whole lot more). So

2-pole motors are the most widely available and cheapest.

John

[dadiOH]

Thanks, John, always nice to know stuff.

[krw]

More evidence that the market can't support all of the existing brands.