I was at my least favorite store today - the orange one. They have 10" TS
saw blades, and some say "thin kerf".

But are they realy thin kerf, or is that just marketing hype? None of them
list their actual thickness, so I am little skeptical about buying one
unless I know that it really thin kerf. When I stack one against a regular
blade, they seem pretty much the same to me.

"Perry Aynum" wrote in message
news
I was at my least favorite store today - the orange one. They have 10" TS
saw blades, and some say "thin kerf".

But are they realy thin kerf, or is that just marketing hype? None of
them list their actual thickness, so I am little skeptical about buying
one unless I know that it really thin kerf. When I stack one against a
regular blade, they seem pretty much the same to me.


IMHO Thin kerf is NOT a desirable feature. Typically a thin kerf blade is
one that is narrower than 1/8" thick. Think kerf blades are inherently less
stable than a regular kerf blades. The ONLY advantage to a thin kerf blade
is that it requires less power to cut with. That is not necessarily a
reason to buy thin kerf. I bought my last thin kerf blade over 20 years ago
and it shall remain that way.

I have a Freud Diablo on my table saw. All these Diablo blades are
painted red. It has a noticeably thinner kerf.

I don't know if it would meet the standard that Leon needs, but I
think there's been an improvement since the one he tried.

Unless someone here can recommend a better blade in the same price
range, I'll get one for the RAS next time it needs one (or next time I
find an excuse to just get one). Some of them are pricey. I think I
paid about $30 a few years ago.

I use blade stabilizers on both machines.

"Perry Aynum" wrote in message
news
I was at my least favorite store today - the orange one. They have 10" TS
saw blades, and some say "thin kerf".

But are they realy thin kerf, or is that just marketing hype? None of
them list their actual thickness, so I am little skeptical about buying
one unless I know that it really thin kerf. When I stack one against a
regular blade, they seem pretty much the same to me.


A standard blade is 1/8" (usually), and a thin-kerf is 3/32" (usually).

The latest issue of Fine Woodworking has a good article on thin-kerf blades,
and they generally approve of them.

They're good for lower-powered saws, and good for wasting less wood when
you're doing multiple rips on the same piece of stock and, according to the
writer of the article, they don't seem to have any bad habits.

Tom Dacon

On Feb 16, 7:02*pm, "Perry Aynum" wrote:
I was at my least favorite store today - the orange one. *They have 10" TS
saw blades, and some say "thin kerf".

But are they realy thin kerf, or is that just marketing hype? *None of them
list their actual thickness, so I am little skeptical about buying one
unless I know that it really thin kerf. *When I stack one against a regular
blade, they seem pretty much the same to me.

I bought a couple to help out on the low-powered portable Ridgid saw.
I since sold that saw but kept the blades which I have used on my
Delta Hybrid. They work great as long as I use a set of stabilizers.
BUT.... I like my Royce-Ayr 0.126 blades much better.

"Perry Aynum" wrote in message
news |I was at my least favorite store today - the orange one. They have 10" TS
| saw blades, and some say "thin kerf".
|
| But are they realy thin kerf, or is that just marketing hype? None of
them
| list their actual thickness, so I am little skeptical about buying one
| unless I know that it really thin kerf. When I stack one against a
regular
| blade, they seem pretty much the same to me.
|

If you were in the same brand of orange store I frequent when I'm desperate,
they have many rulers and other measuring devices hanging on pegs near the
saw blades. A "standard" blade has a kerf around 1/8" and you should be
able to at least eyeball how much less any particular blade is than that.

Norm

Tom Dacon wrote:
The latest issue of Fine Woodworking has a good article on thin-kerf blades,
and they generally approve of them.

They're good for lower-powered saws, and good for wasting less wood when
you're doing multiple rips on the same piece of stock and, according to the
writer of the article, they don't seem to have any bad habits.

Tom Dacon


Fine Woodworking also said that the quality of cut depends on the
general quality of brand. Thus, I would expect a Forrest blade would
yield better results than those sold at the "orange" store. Given that,
the thin-kerf blades are a good option for the huge population of us
wood-butchers that haven't been able to afford expensive cabinet saws.

Scritch

"scritch" wrote in message
...




Fine Woodworking also said that the quality of cut depends on the general
quality of brand. Thus, I would expect a Forrest blade would yield better
results than those sold at the "orange" store. Given that, the thin-kerf
blades are a good option for the huge population of us wood-butchers that
haven't been able to afford expensive cabinet saws.

Scritch


Actually you do not need a cabinet saw to get better results from a regular
kerf blade. I used thin kerf up until about 1988 on a 1 hp Craftsman TS. I
was not very happy with the flatness of the cuts that I was getting and I
was getting burn marks on some cuts. My local sharpening service suggested
switching to a Systematic regular kerf combo blade. I was very skeptical
but he promised that I would not be disappointed. I never looked back. I
continued to use "that" regular kerf blade until I upgraded to a cabinet saw
about 12 years later.

With all this in mind and with any blade, proper saw set up is essential to
good results.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:11:05 -0600, Leon wrote:

"scritch" wrote in message
...




Fine Woodworking also said that the quality of cut depends on the
general quality of brand. Thus, I would expect a Forrest blade would
yield better results than those sold at the "orange" store. Given
that, the thin-kerf blades are a good option for the huge population of
us wood-butchers that haven't been able to afford expensive cabinet
saws.

Scritch


Actually you do not need a cabinet saw to get better results from a
regular kerf blade. I used thin kerf up until about 1988 on a 1 hp
Craftsman TS. I was not very happy with the flatness of the cuts that I
was getting and I was getting burn marks on some cuts. My local
sharpening service suggested switching to a Systematic regular kerf
combo blade. I was very skeptical but he promised that I would not be
disappointed. I never looked back. I continued to use "that" regular
kerf blade until I upgraded to a cabinet saw about 12 years later.


I recently put a Freud Fusion blade on my antique Delta saw. I was
impressed. Crosscuts look like they've been polished and plywood cuts
have no splintering. Haven't done any ripping yet, but if it turns out
bad I'll post that info.

Freud claims the Fusion blade is as good or better than the Forrest. So
far, I haven't seen any evidence to disprove that claim.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

The latest issue of Fine Woodworking has a good article on thin-kerf
blades, and they generally approve of them.



Yes, that's why I started looking into them. I have an under-powered TS.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:11:05 -0600, Leon wrote:

I recently put a Freud Fusion blade on my antique Delta saw. I was
impressed. Crosscuts look like they've been polished and plywood cuts
have no splintering. Haven't done any ripping yet, but if it turns out
bad I'll post that info.

Freud claims the Fusion blade is as good or better than the Forrest. So
far, I haven't seen any evidence to disprove that claim.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw


My problem was not so much with a rough or unsmooth cut when using a thin
kerf. The problem I had was mostly from the blade flexing and not making a
"flat" cut. If your stock is not perfectly straight a board van cause a
think kerf to not spin true when ripping.

"Norm Dresner" wrote in message
...
"Perry Aynum" wrote in message
news |I was at my least favorite store today - the orange one. They have 10"
TS
| saw blades, and some say "thin kerf".
|
| But are they realy thin kerf, or is that just marketing hype? None of
them
| list their actual thickness, so I am little skeptical about buying one
| unless I know that it really thin kerf. When I stack one against a
regular
| blade, they seem pretty much the same to me.
|

If you were in the same brand of orange store I frequent when I'm
desperate,
they have many rulers and other measuring devices hanging on pegs near the
saw blades. A "standard" blade has a kerf around 1/8" and you should be
able to at least eyeball how much less any particular blade is than that.

Norm

According to the Fine Woodworking article referenced earlier, a typical kerf
would be just a hair over 1/8" and a thin kerf could be about 7/64"

"Dick Snyder" wrote in message
...

"Norm Dresner" wrote in message
...
"Perry Aynum" wrote in message
news |I was at my least favorite store today - the orange one. They have 10"
TS
| saw blades, and some say "thin kerf".
|
| But are they realy thin kerf, or is that just marketing hype? None of
them
| list their actual thickness, so I am little skeptical about buying one
| unless I know that it really thin kerf. When I stack one against a
regular
| blade, they seem pretty much the same to me.
|

If you were in the same brand of orange store I frequent when I'm
desperate,
they have many rulers and other measuring devices hanging on pegs near
the
saw blades. A "standard" blade has a kerf around 1/8" and you should be
able to at least eyeball how much less any particular blade is than that.

Norm

According to the Fine Woodworking article referenced earlier, a typical
kerf would be just a hair over 1/8" and a thin kerf could be about 7/64"

I guess another big advantage to using a 1/8" kerf blade is during lay out
planning. It is pretty easy to figure an additional 1/8" here and an
additional 1/8" there when trying to determine if you can get so many pieces
out of a piece of wood while ripping. The typical 3/32" kerf almost
requires the use of a calculator. 7/64" here and there and here again would
be a royal PIA. I mean what does 1.25" plus 1.25" plus 1.25", plus 1.25"
plus 7/64" plus 7/64" plus 7/64" add up to? If the blade was 1/8" kerf the
answer would be 5-3/8", yes that S4S 1 x 6 will work.
Fortunately my software takes that all into consideration but if you only
need to cut a few pieces from a single board out of a stack of various
width boards, let me stick with 1/8"

I have an old delta contractor's saw. I have a WWII 0.125" kerf blade.
The cut has a lot of burning and drag when used on thick lumber (which
of course includes bevel cuts on 3/4" stock). I bought a freud thin
kerf 24 tooth rip blade specifically for ripping. Maybe the cut of
the Freud isn't polished smooth, but it flies thru the wood with zero
burning. Being lazy, I frequently use the rip blade for cross cutting
when a small amount of tear out is tolerable. I only use the WWII for
plywood and 3/4" stock or thinner. If I had to do it over, I'd try the
WWII thin kerf with 30 teeth.

I have a nice set as well. Lets look at the design

For a given motor system (saw) a given blade if rigid
will provide back pressure (resistance) in the process
of cutting. The motor is turning the face of the cutter
as hard as it can. If the same motor has 1/2 the area
to cut, the cut will be clean and better than the wider blade.

It is like driving a small diameter sharp nail into a board.
Then take a nail of 2x diameter and drive it.

The larger one will likely chip and compress. The small one shears.

Martin

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:11:05 -0600, Leon wrote:

"scritch" wrote in message
...



Fine Woodworking also said that the quality of cut depends on the
general quality of brand. Thus, I would expect a Forrest blade would
yield better results than those sold at the "orange" store. Given
that, the thin-kerf blades are a good option for the huge population of
us wood-butchers that haven't been able to afford expensive cabinet
saws.

Scritch

Actually you do not need a cabinet saw to get better results from a
regular kerf blade. I used thin kerf up until about 1988 on a 1 hp
Craftsman TS. I was not very happy with the flatness of the cuts that I
was getting and I was getting burn marks on some cuts. My local
sharpening service suggested switching to a Systematic regular kerf
combo blade. I was very skeptical but he promised that I would not be
disappointed. I never looked back. I continued to use "that" regular
kerf blade until I upgraded to a cabinet saw about 12 years later.


I recently put a Freud Fusion blade on my antique Delta saw. I was
impressed. Crosscuts look like they've been polished and plywood cuts
have no splintering. Haven't done any ripping yet, but if it turns out
bad I'll post that info.

Freud claims the Fusion blade is as good or better than the Forrest. So
far, I haven't seen any evidence to disprove that claim.

I had the same exerience when I had a craftsmen, and found getting rid
of the stabalizers and going with a better blade, also a systematic
cured a lot of problems especially after a tune up. If the blade
isn't perfect the stabilizers when torqued down may make it worse.

Mike M

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:11:05 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:


"scritch" wrote in message
...




Fine Woodworking also said that the quality of cut depends on the general
quality of brand. Thus, I would expect a Forrest blade would yield better
results than those sold at the "orange" store. Given that, the thin-kerf
blades are a good option for the huge population of us wood-butchers that
haven't been able to afford expensive cabinet saws.

Scritch


Actually you do not need a cabinet saw to get better results from a regular
kerf blade. I used thin kerf up until about 1988 on a 1 hp Craftsman TS. I
was not very happy with the flatness of the cuts that I was getting and I
was getting burn marks on some cuts. My local sharpening service suggested
switching to a Systematic regular kerf combo blade. I was very skeptical
but he promised that I would not be disappointed. I never looked back. I
continued to use "that" regular kerf blade until I upgraded to a cabinet saw
about 12 years later.

With all this in mind and with any blade, proper saw set up is essential to
good results.

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
I have a nice set as well. Lets look at the design

For a given motor system (saw) a given blade if rigid
will provide back pressure (resistance) in the process
of cutting. The motor is turning the face of the cutter
as hard as it can. If the same motor has 1/2 the area
to cut, the cut will be clean and better than the wider blade.


Consider however that both will make the same amount of contact with the
remaining wood, given both are of the same grind, sharpness and tooth count.
The wider kerf blade may infact compress 1/3 more material however that will
be only on the waste material.
The solution is simply to push slower with the wider kerf blade. That will
effectively make the blade, any blade, cut as though it had more teeth and
naturally produce a smoother cut.

"MB" wrote in message
...
I have an old delta contractor's saw. I have a WWII 0.125" kerf blade.
The cut has a lot of burning and drag when used on thick lumber (which
of course includes bevel cuts on 3/4" stock). I bought a freud thin
kerf 24 tooth rip blade specifically for ripping. Maybe the cut of
the Freud isn't polished smooth, but it flies thru the wood with zero
burning. Being lazy, I frequently use the rip blade for cross cutting
when a small amount of tear out is tolerable. I only use the WWII for
plywood and 3/4" stock or thinner. If I had to do it over, I'd try the
WWII thin kerf with 30 teeth.


Which particular WWII were you using, the 30 or 40 tooth count blade. The
30 count is recommended for cuts in stock 2" or thicker.

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:170220092241355228%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article , Leon
wrote:

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
I have a nice set as well. Lets look at the design

For a given motor system (saw) a given blade if rigid
will provide back pressure (resistance) in the process
of cutting. The motor is turning the face of the cutter
as hard as it can. If the same motor has 1/2 the area
to cut, the cut will be clean and better than the wider blade.


Consider however that both will make the same amount of contact with the
remaining wood, given both are of the same grind, sharpness and tooth
count.
The wider kerf blade may infact compress 1/3 more material however that
will
be only on the waste material.
The solution is simply to push slower with the wider kerf blade. That
will
effectively make the blade, any blade, cut as though it had more teeth
and
naturally produce a smoother cut.

But can cause increased burning in some wood.

That is true.

On my delta contract saw with forest blade, besides adding link belt I
wired it for 220 and made all the difference in the world ripping
think hardwood. No more blown circuits etc.

"henry" wrote in message
...
On my delta contract saw with forest blade, besides adding link belt I
wired it for 220 and made all the difference in the world ripping
think hardwood. No more blown circuits etc.

My 12+ year old JET contractor began popping the reset button on the motor
even when cutting plywood, much more so ripping 2Xs. After 12 years of
running it on 115v I finally wired it for 240v. It hasn't tripped since.
Additionally, I put the 24t thin-kerf rip blade back (vs. the Jesada 50t
General) on (sans stabilizers) just to rip a bunch of 2X.. The lack of
stabilizers was noticeable in the cut quality.

Dave in Houston

There is an article on thin kerf at

http://www.carbideprocessors.com/tec...lade_index.htm

Tom

On Feb 16, 4:02*pm, "Perry Aynum" wrote:
I was at my least favorite store today - the orange one. *They have 10" TS
saw blades, and some say "thin kerf".

But are they realy thin kerf, or is that just marketing hype? *None of them
list their actual thickness, so I am little skeptical about buying one
unless I know that it really thin kerf. *When I stack one against a regular
blade, they seem pretty much the same to me.

"Dave in Houston" wrote in message
...

"henry" wrote in message
...
On my delta contract saw with forest blade, besides adding link belt I
wired it for 220 and made all the difference in the world ripping
think hardwood. No more blown circuits etc.

My 12+ year old JET contractor began popping the reset button on the motor
even when cutting plywood, much more so ripping 2Xs. After 12 years of
running it on 115v I finally wired it for 240v. It hasn't tripped since.
Additionally, I put the 24t thin-kerf rip blade back (vs. the Jesada 50t
General) on (sans stabilizers) just to rip a bunch of 2X.. The lack of
stabilizers was noticeable in the cut quality.

Dave in Houston
Could it be that the windings that were used at 120V were damaged from 12
years of use and the windings used ay 240V are still good?
IMO, there is no doubt that then kerf blade uses less energy. Also, my
experience is that a rip blade uses less energy than my WWII.
I carelessly let sawdust plug the ventilation slots on my motor and while
ripping the posts on a pencil post bed, damaged my motor. Maybe I will put
it back to 120V to see if it makes a difference.
I'm thinking about putting a 2hp motor I salvaged from a compressor that I
had and see how it runs on my Delta CS.

"Lowell Holmes" wrote in message
...

"Dave in Houston" wrote in message
...

"henry" wrote in message
...
On my delta contract saw with forest blade, besides adding link belt I
wired it for 220 and made all the difference in the world ripping
think hardwood. No more blown circuits etc.

My 12+ year old JET contractor began popping the reset button on the
motor even when cutting plywood, much more so ripping 2Xs. After 12
years of running it on 115v I finally wired it for 240v. It hasn't
tripped since. Additionally, I put the 24t thin-kerf rip blade back (vs.
the Jesada 50t General) on (sans stabilizers) just to rip a bunch of 2X..
The lack of stabilizers was noticeable in the cut quality.

Dave in Houston
Could it be that the windings that were used at 120V were damaged from 12
years of use and the windings used ay 240V are still good?
IMO, there is no doubt that then kerf blade uses less energy. Also, my
experience is that a rip blade uses less energy than my WWII.
I carelessly let sawdust plug the ventilation slots on my motor and while
ripping the posts on a pencil post bed, damaged my motor. Maybe I will put
it back to 120V to see if it makes a difference.
I'm thinking about putting a 2hp motor I salvaged from a compressor that I
had and see how it runs on my Delta CS.

I hope not. I took the motor to a small electric motor shop here in
northwest Houston to have him go through it.

Dave in Houston

In article ,
Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
I have a nice set as well. Lets look at the design

For a given motor system (saw) a given blade if rigid
will provide back pressure (resistance) in the process
of cutting.
Resistance will vary with design and sharpness of blade.

The motor is turning the face of the cutter
as hard as it can.
Not necessarily, this doesn't happen unless feed rate is high enough
to bog down the saw.

If the same motor has 1/2 the area
to cut, the cut will be clean and better than the wider blade.
Why is that? What is the reasoning behind this assertion?


It is like driving a small diameter sharp nail into a board.
Then take a nail of 2x diameter and drive it.

The larger one will likely chip and compress. The small one shears.

OK then, how about a 2" long 18 gauge brad compared to a 2" long 15 gauge
finish nail? If driven with a hammer, which is more likely to go straight
into the wood?


Martin


All that aside, my own experience with a 1.5hp contractor saw (Delta)
is better cuts with a regular than a thin kerf blade. However, for me,
the biggest attaction of a regular kerf blade is simply that the cut is
1/8" wide instead of 3/32 or some metric or arbitrary fraction as some
I've seen.


--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

cleaned the bearings and got the sawdust out of the fan.
might have changed the bearings from open to closed just
so you don't come back with a new problem.

The 120 winding is two windings in parallel. In 220, the
windings are in series.

Martin

Dave in Houston wrote:
"Lowell Holmes" wrote in message
...
"Dave in Houston" wrote in message
...
"henry" wrote in message
...
On my delta contract saw with forest blade, besides adding link belt I
wired it for 220 and made all the difference in the world ripping
think hardwood. No more blown circuits etc.
My 12+ year old JET contractor began popping the reset button on the
motor even when cutting plywood, much more so ripping 2Xs. After 12
years of running it on 115v I finally wired it for 240v. It hasn't
tripped since. Additionally, I put the 24t thin-kerf rip blade back (vs.
the Jesada 50t General) on (sans stabilizers) just to rip a bunch of 2X..
The lack of stabilizers was noticeable in the cut quality.

Dave in Houston
Could it be that the windings that were used at 120V were damaged from 12
years of use and the windings used ay 240V are still good?
IMO, there is no doubt that then kerf blade uses less energy. Also, my
experience is that a rip blade uses less energy than my WWII.
I carelessly let sawdust plug the ventilation slots on my motor and while
ripping the posts on a pencil post bed, damaged my motor. Maybe I will put
it back to 120V to see if it makes a difference.
I'm thinking about putting a 2hp motor I salvaged from a compressor that I
had and see how it runs on my Delta CS.

I hope not. I took the motor to a small electric motor shop here in
northwest Houston to have him go through it.

Dave in Houston

Leon wrote:



I guess another big advantage to using a 1/8" kerf blade is during lay out
planning. It is pretty easy to figure an additional 1/8" here and an
additional 1/8" there when trying to determine if you can get so many pieces
out of a piece of wood while ripping. The typical 3/32" kerf almost
requires the use of a calculator. 7/64" here and there and here again would
be a royal PIA. I mean what does 1.25" plus 1.25" plus 1.25", plus 1.25"
plus 7/64" plus 7/64" plus 7/64" add up to? If the blade was 1/8" kerf the
answer would be 5-3/8", yes that S4S 1 x 6 will work.
Fortunately my software takes that all into consideration but if you only
need to cut a few pieces from a single board out of a stack of various
width boards, let me stick with 1/8"

If you went metric it would do away with those problems and you could go
back to simple mental arithmetic what ever the kerf width. ;-)

--
replace spamblock with my family name to e-mail me
Pics at http://www.meekings.net/diving/index.shtml
and http://www.meekings.net/photo-groups/nui/index.shtml

Jerome Meekings wrote:
Leon wrote:



I guess another big advantage to using a 1/8" kerf blade is during
lay out planning. It is pretty easy to figure an additional 1/8"
here and an additional 1/8" there when trying to determine if you
can get so many pieces out of a piece of wood while ripping. The
typical 3/32" kerf almost requires the use of a calculator. 7/64"
here and there and here again would be a royal PIA. I mean what
does 1.25" plus 1.25" plus 1.25", plus 1.25" plus 7/64" plus 7/64"
plus 7/64" add up to? If the blade was 1/8" kerf the answer would
be 5-3/8", yes that S4S 1 x 6 will work.
Fortunately my software takes that all into consideration but if you
only need to cut a few pieces from a single board out of a stack of
various width boards, let me stick with 1/8"

If you went metric it would do away with those problems and you could
go back to simple mental arithmetic what ever the kerf width. ;-)

Yeah, making it 3.175 millimeters is going to be a BIG help.

"Jerome Meekings" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:



I guess another big advantage to using a 1/8" kerf blade is during lay
out
planning. It is pretty easy to figure an additional 1/8" here and an
additional 1/8" there when trying to determine if you can get so many
pieces
out of a piece of wood while ripping. The typical 3/32" kerf almost
requires the use of a calculator. 7/64" here and there and here again
would
be a royal PIA. I mean what does 1.25" plus 1.25" plus 1.25", plus
1.25"
plus 7/64" plus 7/64" plus 7/64" add up to? If the blade was 1/8" kerf
the
answer would be 5-3/8", yes that S4S 1 x 6 will work.
Fortunately my software takes that all into consideration but if you only
need to cut a few pieces from a single board out of a stack of various
width boards, let me stick with 1/8"

If you went metric it would do away with those problems and you could go
back to simple mental arithmetic what ever the kerf width. ;-)



How would 5.556 mm be easier to do in your head? ;~)

"Leon" wrote in message
...


How would 5.556 mm be easier to do in your head? ;~)

Isn't that .223 [cal.]?

Dave in Houston

On Feb 17, 11:42*pm, "Leon" wrote:
"MB" wrote in message

...

I have an old delta contractor's saw. I have a WWII 0.125" kerf blade.
The cut has a lot of burning and drag when used on thick lumber (which
of course includes bevel cuts on 3/4" stock). I bought a freud thin
kerf 24 tooth rip blade specifically for ripping. Maybe the cut *of
the Freud isn't polished smooth, but it flies thru the wood with zero
burning. Being lazy, I frequently use the rip blade for cross cutting
when a small amount of tear out is tolerable. I only use the WWII for
plywood and 3/4" stock or thinner. If I had to do it over, I'd try the
WWII thin kerf with 30 teeth.

Which particular WWII were you using, the 30 or 40 tooth count blade. *The
30 count is recommended for cuts in stock 2" or thicker.

I have the 40 tooth WWII. It was definitely a mistake. I am utterly
amazed at how much faster the
thin kerf 24T freud blade cuts with zero burn.

It might be my imagination, but I think the easier cutting contributes
to a straighter cut. If you have to
use more force, the whole blade/wood geometry gets strained which can
cause a bad cut. I've noticed this
doing a miter cut on wood hand held to the miter gauge (as opposed to
clamped to a sled).

Mitch

"MB" wrote in message
...
On Feb 17, 11:42 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"MB" wrote in message


I have the 40 tooth WWII. It was definitely a mistake. I am utterly
amazed at how much faster the
thin kerf 24T freud blade cuts with zero burn.


After 30 years of doing this seriousely, I'll keep my 40 thooth for 99% of
my cuts.



It might be my imagination, but I think the easier cutting contributes
to a straighter cut. If you have to
use more force, the whole blade/wood geometry gets strained which can
cause a bad cut. I've noticed this
doing a miter cut on wood hand held to the miter gauge (as opposed to
clamped to a sled).

For a typical cut the think kerf may in deed yield good results, probably
not better than a regular kerf blade, all things being equal. Start making
compound miter cuts through 2" thick stock and you will probably see the
advantage of regular kerf vs. thin.

thin kerf blades help on an underpowered saw... use a blade stabiliser
with it... I use a forrest thin kerf wwii, and a forrest stabiliser -
it's a superflat disc. do NOT use the stabiliser "cups" - they're
awful

shelly

and keep your carbide blade tips and sawblade clean

Philski
wrote in message
...
thin kerf blades help on an underpowered saw... use a blade stabiliser
with it... I use a forrest thin kerf wwii, and a forrest stabiliser -
it's a superflat disc. do NOT use the stabiliser "cups" - they're
awful

shelly

This is one of those "hot-button" things like religion and politics.
My heretical advice to anyone considering a thin-kerf (~3/32) blade
is, "Go ahead and try it. If you like the results, ignore the
nay-sayers and enjoy. If you don't, then stop using it. Simple as
that!"

I've never used anything but thin-kerf blades on my 3HP cabinet saw
which I don't consider to be "underpowered" in the least. Have never
used a blade stabilizer other than the standard issue arbor washer. On
my well aligned saw with a jointed edge against the fence, I can make
glue-line quality cuts all day. Don't see how a thicker blade can
improve on that.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA