On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:13:49 -0700, Winston
wrote:

Lateral blade movement. It waggles in the kerf and
can appear to be a much wider blade than it actually is.
Bingo, we have a bind. One can also induce lateral blade
movement via insufficient base pressure against the
workpiece. (excessive vertical separation).


Wait a minute,
you just said "workpiece and blade". How is that happening? If it's
sliding up against the side of the blade, it will begin oscillation.

Yup. The end of the blade is totally unconstrained so it'll
break into oscillation if it taps itself against the inside
of the workpiece kerf once or a few times.

It should be kept in contact with the uncut portion of the workpiece.
That would keep it centered.


Gitfiddle wire'll fix 'er right up, overcoming that tendency.

If I were gonna do that, I'd figure out how to power a
hacksaw blade instead. Can't beat that for cheap and easy to
locate.
http://treadleit.info/sites/default/files/mainsite/OLDfiles/Scrollsaw-MillersFall-1886A.jpg
They will sell like hotcakes!

Them's electricalified nowadays and they call 'em "scrollsaws".


With 'His Stockiness' holding the saw conventionally, there
does not appear to be enough relative movement to cause
much oscillation, so very little grabbing results.

How thick was the additional table when you tried it upside down?
I don't think you addressed that.

I vaguely recall it was 3/4" ply clamped in a Workmate.

That would probably be the problem. You lost a whole lot of
reinforcement by extending the cut portion to the outer end of the
blade.


(...)

Drill the tip of the blade, run a guitar wire through it, and support
it at the top. It should end your troubles. Use the beaded end on top
so you can drop a holey piece on it for further cutting.

It just might, with enough vertical pressure.

I doubt it would take more than a dozen pounds. Give 'er a try.

Much cheaper and faster to put a transmission on my existing
band saw. I *know* that'll work.

True. An extra set of external pulleys would be easier.
Then watch the tires disintegrate from the swarf.



More highly paid men than you have tried that one, Larry!
They had to answer several Embarrassing Questions.

Oh! The Somesheimers Question, eh?

Exactly. Not all. Some.

When are visiting hours?


I Can Over - Complicate Anything!

Talk to Bill over on the Wreck. He's one up on ya.

There are *two* of us? OMG.

Scary, isn't it?


This just in...
--snip--
HELL EXPLAINED

The following is an actual question given on a University of Arizona
chemistry mid term, and an actual answer turned in by a student.

The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared
it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now
have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic
(absorbs heat)?



Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law
(gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some
variant.



One student, however, wrote the following:



First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So
we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the
rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely.. I think that we
can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave.
Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering
Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world
today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their
religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these
religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we
can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as
they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase
exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in
Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and
pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand
proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which
souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will
increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls
in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell
freezes over. So which is it?


If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman
year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,'
and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then
number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic
and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that
since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any
more souls and is therefore, extinct...... ...leaving only Heaven,
thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why,
last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'



THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+
--snip--

--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus