I have a low end Grizzly table saw which has a arbor speed of 4700. I
switched the motor and arbor pulleys so that the smaller one is now on the
motor. The saw now seems to cut much smoother and has more power. I don't
know what the arbor speed is now with the pulleys switched. Is there any
reason I should not keep the lower speed arrangement?

Lew Hodgett wrote:
....

... I don't know what the arbor speed is now with the pulleys
switched. ...

If you knew it originally, then the new speed is the ratio of the
diameter changes between the original sizes and the new times that.

--

"Neal" wrote in message
...
I have a low end Grizzly table saw which has a arbor speed of 4700. I
switched the motor and arbor pulleys so that the smaller one is now on the
motor. The saw now seems to cut much smoother and has more power. I don't
know what the arbor speed is now with the pulleys switched. Is there any
reason I should not keep the lower speed arrangement?

Ultimately you gained more power. If you are happy with it you are fine.

dpb wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
...

... I don't know what the arbor speed is now with the pulleys
switched. ...

If you knew it originally, then the new speed is the ratio of the
diameter changes between the original sizes and the new times that.

Dang...sorry for the reply wrong place...thought was/intended to be at
the OP's posting.

--

Neal wrote:
I have a low end Grizzly table saw which has a arbor speed of 4700. I
switched the motor and arbor pulleys so that the smaller one is now on
the motor. The saw now seems to cut much smoother and has more power.
I don't know what the arbor speed is now with the pulleys switched....

I realize I inadvertently replied while reading Lew's response so try
again...

As noted there, the speedup/slowdown between two shafts is proportional
to the pulley diameters. To clarify the calculation you need, since you
swapped pulleys, the ratio of speeds is the square of the smaller:larger
diameter since it was a speedup of L/S and is now a slowdown of S/L.

Algebraically, the new speed is S/L/(L/S) -- S/L*S/L -- (S/L)^2

As a rough approximation example using easy numbers, if S = 3" and L =
4" and motor rpm were 3450, originally you had 4/3*3450 = 4600 rpm
blade speed, roughly what you said is supposed to be.

After you swap, it 3/4*3450 = 2600 (approx)

Note that 2600/4600 = .57 which is square of the 3/4 ratio of 0.75.

--

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Neal" wrote in message
...
I have a low end Grizzly table saw which has a arbor speed of 4700. I
switched the motor and arbor pulleys so that the smaller one is now on the
motor. The saw now seems to cut much smoother and has more power. I don't
know what the arbor speed is now with the pulleys switched. Is there any
reason I should not keep the lower speed arrangement?

Ultimately you gained more power. If you are happy with it you are fine.

No he didn't. His saw has the same power as before - the HP of the motor.
To gain more power you have to put a motor on which has higher HP rating.
He did gain more torque at the blade, at the expense of lower rpm, and as you
stated if he is happy ...
Art

On Mar 13, 11:29*pm, "Neal" wrote:
I have a low end Grizzly table saw which has a arbor speed of 4700. *I
switched the motor and arbor pulleys so that the smaller one is now on the
motor. *The saw now seems to cut much smoother and has more power. *I don't
know what the arbor speed is now with the pulleys switched. *Is there any
reason I should not keep the lower speed arrangement?

Higher speed gives a smoother finish. Lower speed helps your
saw chew through harder lumber, like 4 x 4 cocobolo -- albeit
at a lower feed rate. You can argue either way -- if your saw
works better with the pulleys swapped, keep them swapped.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:32:15 -0500, dpb wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
...

... I don't know what the arbor speed is now with the pulleys
switched. ...

If you knew it originally, then the new speed is the ratio of the
diameter changes between the original sizes and the new times that.


I would think you want your sawblade teeth moving within a certain
range. A faster speed for less dense wood, and a slower speed for the
harder woods.

"Artemus" wrote in message
...


No he didn't. His saw has the same power as before - the HP of the motor.
To gain more power you have to put a motor on which has higher HP rating.
He did gain more torque at the blade, at the expense of lower rpm, and as
you
stated if he is happy ...
Art


Well thank you for pointing that out. But I think everyone will agree that
the saw will be less likely to stall, similar to a saw with a higher hp
motor.

"Father Haskell" wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 11:29 pm, "Neal" wrote:
I have a low end Grizzly table saw which has a arbor speed of 4700. I
switched the motor and arbor pulleys so that the smaller one is now on the
motor. The saw now seems to cut much smoother and has more power. I don't
know what the arbor speed is now with the pulleys switched. Is there any
reason I should not keep the lower speed arrangement?

Higher speed gives a smoother finish. Lower speed helps your
saw chew through harder lumber, like 4 x 4 cocobolo -- albeit
at a lower feed rate. You can argue either way -- if your saw
works better with the pulleys swapped, keep them swapped.

You can effectively creat a smoother cut with a slower speed if you use a
balde with more teeth. The slower you cut the wood the smoother the cut.

On Mar 15, 11:27*am, "Leon" wrote:
"Father Haskell" wrote in message

...
On Mar 13, 11:29 pm, "Neal" wrote:

I have a low end Grizzly table saw which has a arbor speed of 4700. I
switched the motor and arbor pulleys so that the smaller one is now on the
motor. The saw now seems to cut much smoother and has more power. I don't
know what the arbor speed is now with the pulleys switched. Is there any
reason I should not keep the lower speed arrangement?

Higher speed gives a smoother finish. *Lower speed helps your
saw chew through harder lumber, like 4 x 4 cocobolo -- albeit
at a lower feed rate. *You can argue either way -- if your saw
works better with the pulleys swapped, keep them swapped.

You can effectively creat a smoother cut with a slower speed if you use a
balde with more teeth. *The slower you cut the wood the smoother the cut.

On Mar 15, 5:13*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
On 3/15/2010 4:28 PM, Father Haskell wrote:





On Mar 15, 11:27 am, *wrote:
"Father *wrote in message

....
On Mar 13, 11:29 pm, *wrote:

I have a low end Grizzly table saw which has a arbor speed of 4700. I
switched the motor and arbor pulleys so that the smaller one is now on the
motor. The saw now seems to cut much smoother and has more power. I don't
know what the arbor speed is now with the pulleys switched. Is there any
reason I should not keep the lower speed arrangement?

Higher speed gives a smoother finish. *Lower speed helps your
saw chew through harder lumber, like 4 x 4 cocobolo -- albeit
at a lower feed rate. *You can argue either way -- if your saw
works better with the pulleys swapped, keep them swapped.

You can effectively creat a smoother cut with a slower speed if you use a
balde with more teeth. *The slower you cut the wood the smoother the cut.

Which means less power to each tooth, defeating the
purpose of slowing the blade to gain torque.

For ultrahard lumber like coke, I'd be more interested
in getting it sawn than surface quality. *A plane or a scraper
will handle that detail quickly enough.

Torque is a function of diameter, not a function of the number of teeth.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Torque is also a function of force. Diameter (radius, actually)
is only half of the equation.

On Mar 15, 6:04*pm, Upscale wrote:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:40:05 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:

For ultrahard lumber like coke, I'd be more interested
coke?

Maybe he's referring to Cocobolo.

Right. Everyone screws the spelling. Better to use a
shorthand name.

On 3/15/10 7:51 PM, Father Haskell wrote:
On Mar 15, 6:04 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:40:05 -0500,
wrote:

For ultrahard lumber like coke, I'd be more interested
coke?

Maybe he's referring to Cocobolo.

Right. Everyone screws the spelling. Better to use a
shorthand name.


How could anyone screw up the spelling of Cocabollo?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Father Haskell" wrote in message
...
On Mar 15, 6:04 pm, Upscale wrote:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:40:05 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:

For ultrahard lumber like coke, I'd be more interested
coke?

Maybe he's referring to Cocobolo.

Right. Everyone screws the spelling. Better to use a
shorthand name.

Would not the short hand name be Coco? as in Cocobolo vs Coke as in
CocaCola? :~)

On Mar 16, 1:59*pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Father Haskell" wrote in message

...
On Mar 15, 6:04 pm, Upscale wrote:

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:40:05 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:

For ultrahard lumber like coke, I'd be more interested
coke?

Maybe he's referring to Cocobolo.

Right. *Everyone screws the spelling. *Better to use a
shorthand name.

Would not the short hand name be Coco? *as in Cocobolo vs Coke as in
CocaCola? *:~)

See? You'll *never* hear people wasting arguments
over rosewood or lignum vitae.