Need a new TS rip blade.

Page 3 of 5  

snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

In other words, you never tried it.
My experience is exactly what Morgan says.
--
Jack
Got Change: The Individual =======> The Collective!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, IOW, he can go fuck himself. Can't you read?

Hardly the point, but you can follow him.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:24:48 -0400, "Morgans"

JFC! I can't stand it any more. FEWER!, not "less".

I've ripped nicely with a B&D 18T Piranha blade. They're great for demo work, too; tough li'l suckahs.
-- We're all here because we're not all there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Only if you have live horses hitched to the saw.
<...>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The original should have read "Fewer teeth = less HP required." Happy?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 23:53:43 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Oops. I focused in on ("saw") "less HP". Sorrreeee.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial about it. Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial force, but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it has more drag. There's no simple answer.
My take? Cut the least amount of wood you need to cut (thinnest kerf), and buy the best quality blade you feel you can afford (their thin kerf blades will be better than a lower quality thicker blade). The stop worrying about it and start cutting wood.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No there isn't a simple answer, but everything else being equal, the increased mass of a blade assists in the cutting action, like a bigger hammer. Surely nobody is interested in too much geek detail, hence the Readers Digest version of my statement. Not only is a more massive rotational force advantage provable on a physical level, it is well supported by personal observation and what industrial cutter heads show to be most effective in their respective environments. A set of solid 'stiffeners' on a table saw not only 'stiffens' the blade, the added mass contributes to a better cut as well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Apples and oranges, mon ferret. The stiffeners add rotational mass, but no additional cutting resistance is added. Not the case with a wider blade.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

For sawblades kinds of masses, the inertial effects would be minimal at best and the blade stiffener mass is concentrated near the shaft, anyway. Besides, the inertia contained in the motor rotor, etc., is multiples of that of the blade owing to the mass differences. Hence, even though the blade mass may be sizable fractional difference between the two, the system mass is essentially constant; ergo, so is the total inertia.
I have to concur w/ the dominant issue (for equivalent sharpness, tooth geometry, etc.) being that of amount of material cut per tooth far overriding any of the other effects.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right. Except for the stiffeners and blade, the whole system is a constant, and as you say, the bite size is the predominant, essentially only, variable.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The rotational mass of the motor is decoupled from the rotational mass of the blade due to the elasticity of the belt. The extra mass (regardless of how small it may be as we are not discussing HOW much extra mass) will help smooth out the vibrations set up by the chopping action of the the teeth of the saw blade. The issue here is mechanical impedance. Then again, the guys at Harley Davidson don't know dick about decoupling rotational masses either, right? OR the guys at Thorens.
The more linear the tooth's attack speed is, the better the cut will be.... and please stop throwing variables as if they're apples and oranges. The more mass, the smoother the cut...even though it might be minuscule in results, it bloody well is a fact. And to bring the width and the rake of the tooth into the discussion just muddies the waters. I clearly stated "everything else being equal". The amount of teeth have nothing to do with the quality of the cut assuming the feedrate is adjusted accordingly, and if your blade has only one tooth, best you feed slowly or make that tooth go really fast. Case in point, I can make a really nice, clean cut with a one- toothed cutter at 25,000 RPM.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

But, a few ounces as compared to the rest of the mass isn't going to be noticeable. I've never been able to tell any difference of note between the two on the PM66. On a small contractor saw one might have a better chance...
--





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, I know. I was splitting hairs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Who ARE those guys, anyway?

There are facts, and there are meaningless facts. Your minuscule fact is the latter in this instance.
--
Jack
If Guns Kill then Cars Make People Drive Drunk!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have a blade that's wider at the hub than the kerf. Sort of a built- in stiffener, I suppose. It's a PITA if you forget it's on the saw and the hub bottoms out on thicker wood (I think it's maximum cut is about 1-1/4".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote:

------------------------------------ When the mass of the ass, equals the angle of the dangle, She is wise to the rise, In your Levis.
Mass is good, if foretells a comfortable ride.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True, that assumption was implicit. Why would you favor a dull thin-kerf over a sharp standard kerf? ...or verse visa.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I did not say dull, not all new blades are equally sharp.
And going a bit farther on the subject, ;~)
I was building several drawers today and got to use my "Kerf Maker", drive by. Any way it occurred to me again why I have better results with thick kerf vs. thin kerf. I use 1/4" plywood for the bottoms and cut snug dado's for them to fit in to. Cheap 1/4" plywood is about 7/32" thick and the outer and inner blades on a dado set are too wide. So I make two passes with my thick kerf blade. With a think kerf blade that requires three passes instead of two and also I recall when I did this long ago with a thin kerf blade the dado width would not be constant. I suspect that because only the outer side of the blade is cutting on the final pass the thinner blades will deflect.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right, but "all things being equal"...

Neat tool, eh?

Wouldn't it be better to cut the outsides first and then clean the center? I just bought a Freud Glue Line (standard kerf) rip blade. I haven't had a chance to try it though (too hot!).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.