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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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... :)
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...
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.
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.
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...
Try the "quarter" test. Thinner and a higher center of gravity.
This quarter does not only stand up but does not dance or roll.
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.
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.
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).
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
On 8/11/2015 3:13 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
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.
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.