firstname.lastname@example.org wrote in wrote: >>A few of them are made by other vendors (some might even be
I'm not sure if the Ridgid name is licensed to TTI or to Home
Depot (who in turn contract it to TTI).
But my main point there was that Emerson still makes the
plumbers tools (which was Ridgid's original claim to fame).
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)?
"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
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.
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.
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
The circumference of a disk is directly proportion to the diameter.
12*1750 !000 (*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!
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.
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.