Question? If I put two 10 inch smooth cut blades on a delta table saw and spaced the blades =BD inch apart leaving =BD inch space to the fence, would I be able to rip my Redwood and get three pieces of wood per pass or would it damage the motor. In building fine Redwood planters IM trying to find ways to cut more trim per pass. The shaft allows enough room but figured would ask if anyone has tried this with success. Any feed back will be appreciated.
Redwood is a soft wood and if you are talking about ripping 1/2" strips from 3/4" stock, this would be a good way to do it. It's less wood being removed than many dado cuts. One caveat, because of the tooth set, if you use a spacer of exactly 1/2" between 2 blades, the resulting strip of wood will be somewhat less than 1/2" May or may not be a problem for your project, if it is you can use shims to adjust the width of cut.
Also I feel compelled to add, give some thought to safety issues here, this cut can be made safely but needs some planning. My specific concern would be making sure there was a safe way to continue feeding the stock after the trailing end goes past the leading edge of the blade.
I have heard of using two blades with a spacer to cut tenons, but that is a cut where the part between the two blades stays attached. To me, a loose piece of wood in between two blades is asking for bad things to happen. You could probably come up with some sort of dual splitter arrangement that would work as long as the pieces were long enough. But I think you would be better served with just a good rip blade (24-30 teeth) which will mow through that redwood about as fast as you can feed it.
-Leuf
The hell with the motor, what about damage to yourself?
I would not touch this one with a 20 ft pole.
It will not damage the motor. It is also not likely to give to the repetitive cut offs you require.
Lew
Are you really in that much of a hurry?
Well it might be an excuse to buy a power feeder for pulling the stock through, but after UPS arrived I would be standing behind you with that pole.
Mark (sixoneeight) = 618
Hmmm, sounds like a spear launcher. Try posting to alt.weapons
Isn't that just the same technology as a stacked dado?
Norm
Not quite. A stacked dado has chippers in between the two blades, that turn all the wood in the middle into powder. He's talking about two blades with a spacer in between, that would leave the wood in the middle intact -- basically turning it into a spear. A blunt one, certainly, but a spear nonetheless. This has trouble written all over it. Without a two-gang splitter, hold-downs, and a power feeder, I see a trip to the ER.
I think the better way to rip would be to use one blade. However, try using a 7 1/4 Freud blade that is 1/16" thick. I have used these blades in my tablesaw with a lot of sucess and they waste very little wood. This suggestion was originally from Phil Lowe.
The idea is the similar, but a stacked dado is NOT used for a _through_ cut. This is the key to wherein the danger lies in attempting a "gang rip" on a stock table saw.
There are "table" type saws designed to make gang rips, but I wouldn't attempt it on a stock setup ... the danger is real and almost a certainty.
Longer boards.
Longer boards.
I'm w/ Larry W on this -- easy enough in principle and certainly not too much for the saw. But, a real operational issue -- if you don't have a power feeder to ensure the three pieces are drawn through to clear the blade, you have a potential kickback situation as others noted. That could be solved w/ a customized pushstick apparatus, but not as safe as I'd like if I were doing this routinely. For me it would have a pretty high "pucker factor"... :(
If this is for a routine operation that is continuing as a commercial venture, undoubtedly the Woodmaster or similar ripsaw would be far more effective in terms of safety and throughput and quality of the finished edge to avoid the need for additonal work there as well.
Since the OP was asking if it would damage his saw, I was trying to tell him that the technique was similar enough to something used every day by thousands of craftsmen.
Norm
Duly noted, my apologies ... I was trying to point out the disimilararity, and the fact that it ain't the saw I'd be worrying about. ;)
The problems cited here all stem from this idea that one is limited to using the rather ineffective stick with a notch on the end that people poke at their stock with in hopes of pushing it past their blade. Those are an invitation to disaster and the use of them has contributed much to kickback. With a proper push BLOCK, the stock is completely under control, workpiece and offcut, all the way through the cut. Since they were in such common use, I made one of these pointy sticks with a hook once. After the first use, it became firewood. I have far to much concern with my own safety to be using a kludge like that. With a properly made, and used, pushblock, this cut could be made with no more problem that any other cut.
Steve wrote:
I'm w/ Larry W on this -- easy enough in principle and certainly not too much for the saw. But, a real operational issue -- if you don't have a power feeder to ensure the three pieces are drawn through to clear the blade, you have a potential kickback situation as others noted. That could be solved w/ a customized pushstick apparatus, but not as safe as I'd like if I were doing this routinely. For me it would have a pretty high "pucker factor"... :(
If this is for a routine operation that is continuing as a commercial venture, undoubtedly the Woodmaster or similar ripsaw would be far more effective in terms of safety and throughput and quality of the finished edge to avoid the need for additonal work there as well.
Agreed power stock feeder would make it safer using it to pull the stock past the blades. But then I use a knife my father made from rather large bandsaw blades as a push stick when it is handy and nothing else is (made a nice inside wrench for the table saw from it to) 1 1/2 inch by 1/8 steel.
But a good sharp ripping blade could make the OPs day.
Mark (sixoneeight) = 618
HomeOwnersHub website 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.