Anyone out there notice any bogging down since they've switched over to
either a spiral cutterhead or one with carbide inserts? The laws of
physics dicatate that since something is ALWAYS in contact with the
wood that you'd need more POWAH. Am I right, or am I right?

JP
*****************
I'll tell ya' later.

Jay Pique wrote:
Anyone out there notice any bogging down since they've switched over to
either a spiral cutterhead or one with carbide inserts? The laws of
physics dicatate that since something is ALWAYS in contact with the
wood that you'd need more POWAH. Am I right, or am I right?

Maybe not.

In the straight case, you have a free spin, then a "whomp" as the whole
blade bites at once.

In the spiral case, you have a continuous but narrower cut.

Likely the total amount of work is similar. You might even need less
power on the spiral cutter as it is a more even load.

Chris

Chris Friesen wrote:
Jay Pique wrote:
Anyone out there notice any bogging down since they've switched over to
either a spiral cutterhead or one with carbide inserts?

Likely the total amount of work is similar. You might even need less
power on the spiral cutter as it is a more even load.

I asked the question because I was at a tool dealer today who said that
he doesn't sell any tools with spiral inserts because the companies
don't upgrade their motors when they include the spiral heads - and
that they should because those with such an upgrade really need 30%
MORE power than their straight-bladed counterparts. Sounded fishy to
me.

JP
*******************************
He carries Delta and General Int'l.

"Jay Pique" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chris Friesen wrote:
Jay Pique wrote:
Anyone out there notice any bogging down since they've switched over to
either a spiral cutterhead or one with carbide inserts?

Likely the total amount of work is similar. You might even need less
power on the spiral cutter as it is a more even load.

I asked the question because I was at a tool dealer today who said that
he doesn't sell any tools with spiral inserts because the companies
don't upgrade their motors when they include the spiral heads - and
that they should because those with such an upgrade really need 30%
MORE power than their straight-bladed counterparts. Sounded fishy to
me.


Seems to me there was a discussion about this just a few days ago, the
"consensus" being the spiral does NOT need more power.

--
Nahmie
Stupidity is not considered a handicap, park elsewhere.

"Jay Pique" wrote in
oups.com:


Chris Friesen wrote:
Jay Pique wrote:
Anyone out there notice any bogging down since they've switched
over to either a spiral cutterhead or one with carbide inserts?

Likely the total amount of work is similar. You might even need less
power on the spiral cutter as it is a more even load.

I asked the question because I was at a tool dealer today who said
that he doesn't sell any tools with spiral inserts because the
companies don't upgrade their motors when they include the spiral
heads - and that they should because those with such an upgrade really
need 30% MORE power than their straight-bladed counterparts. Sounded
fishy to me.

JP
*******************************
He carries Delta and General Int'l.



Sales fellows spin all sorts of tales, for all sorts of reasons, in almost
every field.

Patriarch

It takes more power to drive the carbide inserts than steel blades.

"Jay Pique" wrote in message
ups.com...
Anyone out there notice any bogging down since they've switched over to
either a spiral cutterhead or one with carbide inserts? The laws of
physics dicatate that since something is ALWAYS in contact with the
wood that you'd need more POWAH. Am I right, or am I right?

JP
*****************
I'll tell ya' later.

"Jay Pique" wrote in message
ups.com...
Anyone out there notice any bogging down since they've switched over to
either a spiral cutterhead or one with carbide inserts? The laws of
physics dicatate that since something is ALWAYS in contact with the
wood that you'd need more POWAH. Am I right, or am I right?


The laws of physics may dictate that something that is always in contact
with the wood would need more power however the laws of physics also dictate
that a shearing action will require less power than a non shearing action.

Perhaps feed rate should be slowed to offset the amount of waste being
generated. Oddly single flute carbide bits cut better and or faster than
double flute bits as there is more room for the waste chips.

A review in a recent woodworking magazine said that the spiral cutters used
LESS power than the conventional cutters.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"Jay Pique" wrote in message
ups.com...
Anyone out there notice any bogging down since they've switched over to
either a spiral cutterhead or one with carbide inserts? The laws of
physics dicatate that since something is ALWAYS in contact with the
wood that you'd need more POWAH. Am I right, or am I right?

JP
*****************
I'll tell ya' later.

In article . com,
Jay Pique wrote:
Anyone out there notice any bogging down since they've switched over to
either a spiral cutterhead or one with carbide inserts? The laws of
physics dicatate that since something is ALWAYS in contact with the
wood that you'd need more POWAH. Am I right, or am I right?

Know anything about calculus?

Where you arrive at an answer for the 'whole', by breaking the matter
down into a bunch of smaller pieces, figuring out each piece, and then
"add 'em up" to get the answer for the 'whole' thing.

Apply the same approach to the planer knife. consider the straight
blade as a bunch of little pieces all lined up in a row.

Now, consider the same bunch of little pieces, offset into a spiral.

Is there _any_ difference in the amount/duration of blade contact with
the wood?

"A numerical answer is left as an exercise for the student."

(I've always wanted to say THAT!! grin )

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Jay Pique wrote:
Anyone out there notice any bogging down since they've switched over to
either a spiral cutterhead or one with carbide inserts? The laws of
physics dicatate that since something is ALWAYS in contact with the
wood that you'd need more POWAH. Am I right, or am I right?

Know anything about calculus?

Where you arrive at an answer for the 'whole', by breaking the matter
down into a bunch of smaller pieces, figuring out each piece, and then
"add 'em up" to get the answer for the 'whole' thing.

Apply the same approach to the planer knife. consider the straight
blade as a bunch of little pieces all lined up in a row.

Now, consider the same bunch of little pieces, offset into a spiral.

If you do that, there will be little gaps between the little pieces. You'd
have to add up all those and subtract them from the total.

Is there _any_ difference in the amount/duration of blade contact with
the wood?

Is there any difference in the length of the spiral curve as compared to the
length of the straight blade?

"A numerical answer is left as an exercise for the student."

Not enough numerical input data to compute.

- Owen -

In article ,
Owen Lawrence wrote:
"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Jay Pique wrote:
Anyone out there notice any bogging down since they've switched over to
either a spiral cutterhead or one with carbide inserts? The laws of
physics dicatate that since something is ALWAYS in contact with the
wood that you'd need more POWAH. Am I right, or am I right?

Know anything about calculus?

Where you arrive at an answer for the 'whole', by breaking the matter
down into a bunch of smaller pieces, figuring out each piece, and then
"add 'em up" to get the answer for the 'whole' thing.

Apply the same approach to the planer knife. consider the straight
blade as a bunch of little pieces all lined up in a row.

Now, consider the same bunch of little pieces, offset into a spiral.

If you do that, there will be little gaps between the little pieces. You'd
have to add up all those and subtract them from the total.

Is there _any_ difference in the amount/duration of blade contact with
the wood?

Is there any difference in the length of the spiral curve as
compared to the
length of the straight blade?

for a true spiral blade, where the cutting edge is at an angle to
the direction of travel of the wood, the energy required is proportional
to the cosine of the angle of the blade to the direction of travel,
multiplied by the blade dimension.

Now, it just happens that said cosine dimension is the same as the
straight-line measure that a straight blade would require for the same
cut.



"A numerical answer is left as an exercise for the student."

Not enough numerical input data to compute.

Actually, there *is.* *everything* cancels out. you end up with a 1==1
result. grin

Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
Owen Lawrence wrote:
"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message

"A numerical answer is left as an exercise for the student."

Not enough numerical input data to compute.

Actually, there *is.* *everything* cancels out. you end up with a 1==1
result. grin

Does this translate into reality? I mean, at the end of the day, will
a jointer with a spiral head have enough power to do the job?

JP

"Jay Pique" wrote in message
oups.com...
Does this translate into reality? I mean, at the end of the day, will
a jointer with a spiral head have enough power to do the job?


Oh.. a Jointer... I was picturing a spiral router bit. Humm.... LOL...
Did you see the article in the latest Wood magazine on 8" jointers? About
half of them were with some type of spiral head cutter. I do not recall any
complaints about power problems but there was a section that addressed the
cuts that were less than perfect when compared to the standard straight
knife cutter heads. Apparently the manufacturers are aware that the
straight knife leaves a smoother and more uniform surface.