seasoning equipment

Page 2 of 3  
On 8/15/2015 8:01 AM, dpb wrote:

I find shipping weights to be confusing when determining the weights of the saws. For instance the shipping weight for the PM2000 is 540 lbs, saw only. And 604lbs gross. the SS shipping weight is 640 saw only.
When considering weights assembled weight and shipping weight have different meanings. Shipping weight is important for how much each packged unit is going to weigh for freight reasons. For instance with the SS the left wing, a crank, miter gauge, wrenches, packing material, and pallet are all considered.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/15/2015 10:18 AM, Leon wrote: ...

That's essentially identical, then; the 540 is listed as _NET_, 604 _GROSS_
That leaves 64 lb tare wt for the packing for the base saw only; the wings, etc., are separate as it is noted as saw only...
Again, I agree the SS is a fine saw; however, no need to try to make it into more than it is comparatively to others and I grok the decision to get the SS technology on a new purchase.
I am, convinced the PM2000 and old Model 66 both are essentially identical in heft and, yes, PM now has everything that I'm aware of assembled in US from at least mostly Taiwanese parts...I believe that switch began in the 1990s in earnest and the McMinnville facility closed entirely in 2000 or 2001.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/15/2015 12:25 PM, dpb wrote:

I was not trying to go there. And while I was comparing weight, and basically mentioned IIRC for smoothness, most of the weight is in the robust trunnion on the SS. So where I was going was the SS working/moving parts that affect cut quality long term make up a lot more of the saws weight than the 2000.
https://www.google.com/search?q=PM+2000&rlz 1CHUE_enUS575US575&espv=2&biw36&bihx3&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved AcQ_AUoAmoVChMI-pbIkY2sxwIVwVqICh3U_wzR#tbm=isch&q=powermatic+2000&imgdii=Pt-w92h7I9XEhM%3A%3BPt-w92h7I9XEhM%3A%3B417PFL645P13DM%3A&imgrc=Pt-w92h7I9XEhM%3A
or
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/8635558850/in/dateposted-public/

If I was in the market and if the 66 was still being manufactured as it was, I would still prefer it over the 2000. Most manufacturers Like PM would boast the use of Baldor motors, and rightfully so. I don't think that is so with the 2000. And while mine does not have the Baldor either I would prefer that it did.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/15/2015 5:57 PM, Leon wrote: ...

I'd have to dissassemble and weigh to be able to actually judge that as being true or not...the PM66 passes the nickel test just fine, too...
From having looked at the SS on the floor in Wichita vis a vis having the PM 66 for 30+ yr, I'd say there's little to choose one form the other on the saw itself; the only significant advantage the SS would have and reason to choose over the other is the technology.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/15/2015 7:31 PM, dpb wrote:

The other point is that the SS has to be able to handle the tremendous reaction forces of the brake if/when actuated--the others don't have that load so that they may have as much or even more "long term cut quality" in the design as the SS even with less actual material because they don't have the loading so the margin to the actual loading is as good (or maybe even better). Insufficient engineering data to tell; my empirical evidence of 50+ yr of PM Model 66's in the field indicates they were built plenty stout enough, thank you very much! :)
In all the reviews I've seen on the PM2000 I've no reason to believe it isn't at least up to the standards of the 66.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/15/2015 8:08 PM, dpb wrote:

Yeah! BUT LOL,,,, the key components are bigger on the SS. And I'm sure that is all due to what the saw has to with stand if/when it triggers a brake. The arbor shaft is main bearing has an inside diameter of 30mm and or 1-3/16" and the secondary is 25mm or about 1".

I'll agree that the 2000 reviews favorably but I if you compared your 66 to the 2000 I would bet on your saw. FWIW my Jet Exacta cabinet saw compared well to the better know brands in 1999.. ;~) And it think it would be interesting to see how the new Unisaw compares to the older Unisaws from the 90's and back.
This was fun! ;~)
BTW does your 66 have the serpentine belt?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/15/2015 9:38 PM, Leon wrote:

No three matched-set; originals still after some 30+ yr...
--



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/16/2015 6:31 AM, dpb wrote:

When I was first shopping in 1999, IIRC, PM had already switched to the serpentine belt. I believe most everything else had the 3 belts. The SS has 2 serpentine belts and not side by side. Only one of the belts drives the arbor and the other is driven by the motor. There is power transfer pulley somewhere in the middle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/16/2015 9:13 AM, Leon wrote:

I think they're a product in search of a problem...and marketing for a reason to switch.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/15/2015 9:38 PM, Leon wrote:

However, that may be, I'm unwilling to take that as prima facie evidence that the other saw(s) are under-designed for _their_ design loads and won't be just as accurate for just as long as the SS. (As noted above, I believe the track record of the 66 is clear evidence of its minimum adequacy of design having been well exceeded.)
Given the advent of the capabilities in FEA since the original Model 66 design, it's not at all surprising to me that refined engineering analysis could get even more stiffness than the original from less casting. Again, there's insufficient data publicly available and I'm certainly not going to take the time to do a full-blown FEA model for comparison (even if one were able to get sufficient detail on the designs which would only be able to do by actual disassembly and measurement as the vendors aren't going to release engineering drawings), but given that there's essentially the same mass in both PM I'd give pretty good odds the owners of current new models will still be being pleased with their performance years from now just as the owners of Model 66's have been with theirs.
That's not to say the SS owners won't be also; altho I'd worry somewhat with them with regards to that long-term reliability of the electronics without, at least, key component replacements/updates--the double-edged sword of electronics.
Not sure how much "fun", but certainly pointless... :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/16/2015 7:09 AM, dpb wrote: ...

And, again, just to complete the thought, the real power of FEA available to current designers is that besides just purely stiffness/strength, they can also look at and tune out resonance effects and such with minute modifications to produce quieter and smoother-running equipment. It's the kind of thing we did routinely in design of test gear in a former life and I'd be quite unsurprised if it didn't happen w/ PM as well as at SS and the other "high-priced spreads" manufacturers--it's what keeps them just a little cut above the offshore and I'd guess where at least a fair fraction of that higher cost goes...
Mostly conjecture, granted, but based on experience w/ other manufacturing and knowing as having done competitor product evaluation amd patent "engineering workarounds" (otherwise known as "reverse engineering" :) ) in a former life it's the kind of things we'd see in the lower-cost competition and that we could demonstrate with lab testing where our products excelled in comparison...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/16/2015 7:09 AM, dpb wrote: ...

Now that there's (finally!) been an apparent retraction on the tablesaw question, re: the above query/concern--
Is there a test mode I presume for the electronics or a power-on test that the brake detector circuitry is operational?
What sort of warranty and maintenance schedule is given for the electronics outside of the saw mechanicals, any?
Wonder what sort of failure rate there's been in the field; they've been out approach 10-yr now or so?
On the subject in the other subthread regarding "patent-infringement-avoidance" engineering, I first heard of the SS patent and brouhaha with the established manufacturers while still employed in the new product development section (before dad passed away that was the impetus for the move back to the family farm). Being as such non-contacting measurements were our forte albeit in other fields of application and that was a moderately avid woodworker, it intrigued me personally about whether could manage to work around their patents if it were to come to it. I did have a couple of ideas, one of which did make a lab prototype of the detection circuitry that did function that I think could be developed to do the job. It's not quite up to the "neatness" factor of the SS technology, but convinced me the other manufacturers could, if they were to choose to do so, build a similar capability and circumvent the SS patent. I expect they all have something similar in their development labs and are simply waiting to see what, if anything, actually comes out of CPSC rulings first.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/17/2015 2:43 PM, dpb wrote:

what?

Yes, in fact the brake has to warm up to a minimum set temp before the saw motor can be turned on. There is a boot sequence much like a computer has. When the main switch is turned off and back on you must wait for the solid green light minus the blinking red light before you can power up the motor.

Warranty IIRC is 2 years. No maintenance schedule other than replacing a brake if it fails the boot test.

Early on I heard of several that were linked to the environment. As I understand it SS worked with the owners to resolve the issue. IIRC one involved a particular type watch the operator was wearing.

There are actually 2~3 other methods of preventing injury being experimented with and in fact Bosch has a TS now that works in a similar manner but does not damage the blade. Another has some type proximity sensor that stops the blade. IIRC Bosch is suppose to be introduced some time this year. Technically a bench top sized saw Like the latest SS and about $100 more than the new SS.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/home/bosch-reaxx-table-saw/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/15/2015 7:31 PM, dpb wrote:

OK, keep in mind that I am not trying to out do the 66. It was the standard AFAIWC, when it was still being built. The 2000 is IMHO not the same and probably would not hold up in a production factory setting like the 66.
But to let this pissing contest continue. ROTFL... Nickel schnickel! Try the "quarter" test. Thinner and a higher center of gravity. This quarter does not only stand up but does not dance or roll.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/8687517178/in/dateposted-public/
Ain't this fun??

I would agree, maybe the 66 would be better as it has a longer track record, if not considering the safety aspect. The 66 had a lot more mass under the top than the current 2000, the link I provided a picture to.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/13/2015 10:51 AM, Electric Comet wrote:

The company that owns Jet, owns Powermatic. Some parts will interchange. FWIW you can do a lot worse than Jet and avoiding Jet for that sake is often a waste of money simply to have a different color and name on the tool.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Apparently the expansion and contraction is beneficial in working the stresses out. They used to say you couldn't properly season castings in the south because the winters weren't cold enough (there are very few foundrys in the south, altho I doubt that's the reason).
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RE: Subject
Just finished reseasoning my cast iron chicken fryer.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/11/2015 4:13 PM, Electric Comet wrote:

And yes, otherwise it would not be true. Most all get machined once the parts have settled down.
--
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have a metal lathe that is lab quality. 60+ years old - Dad and I bought it together one day.
If you want to use it - check out the ways for level all around.
If you move it - plan on leveling 2 or 3 times. As the steel and joints find their position.
My shop thermally moves 20 or 30 degrees a day. Metal expands and contracts and expands again. Best to check level if good work is to be done.
Martin
On 8/11/2015 3:13 PM, Electric Comet wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The top post seems to be missing from my thread download...
Anyhow, the title should probably read "seasoning cast iron" rather than "seasoning equipment." In addition to the seasoning another traditional step in working castings is to pickle the casting either by immersion in a sulfuric acid/water bath for a short time, or by dripping the pickling solution on the surface and allowing it to run off. This is done until the surface scale is loosened and can be brushed or ground away. In both cases the goal is to remove the scale, which can be harder than files, so that the soft cast iron surface is exposed and available for machining/filing.
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.