On Aug 19, 5:06*am, Nova wrote:
SonomaProducts.com wrote:
A thicker and 'trued' blade, sharpened by a pro is THE way to rip.
I find the thin kerf jobbies, even with a set of stabilizers, tend to
oscillate like a mofo.

But all the tests done by FWW and others disagree. Thin kerfs do not
wobble or stray or otherwise bend during even tough cuts, just no
evidence to say so.

Apparently FWW never used a zero clearence table saw insert with a thin
kerf blade.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA


I don't follow, how does that change things? I use this setup.

-Jim

Apparently FWW never used a zero clearence table saw insert with a thin
kerf blade.

Wow, that is infact a great way to test it. Yeah, if you do get
deflection it will widen the zero clearance.

2 points.

On Aug 19, 12:49*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:
Apparently FWW never used a zero clearence table saw insert with a thin
kerf blade.

Wow, that is infact a great way to test it. Yeah, if you do get
deflection it will widen the zero clearance.

2 points.

Guess mine is good then...

"SonomaProducts.com" wrote in message
...
" I have seen and heard ..."

I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to a
labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
unsupported.

But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
when you bog your saw, etc. etc.

I used to have a one horsepower tablesaw. Never used thin kerf blades on it.
Never had any trouble cutting whatever I wanted on it. Blade design and feed
rate are much more important than blade thickness.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:38:41 -0700, "CW" wrote:


"SonomaProducts.com" wrote in message
...
" I have seen and heard ..."

I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to a
labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
unsupported.

But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
when you bog your saw, etc. etc.

I used to have a one horsepower tablesaw. Never used thin kerf blades on it.
Never had any trouble cutting whatever I wanted on it. Blade design and feed
rate are much more important than blade thickness.

Quite obviously a standard kerf blade will use 33% more power than a thin
kerf. If the saw has enough power with a standard kerf blade, of course you
won't see a difference. If it's marginal thin-kerf is a good idea.

Where do you get this nonsense from? Ever see a max kerf size on a motor
rating?


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:38:41 -0700, "CW" wrote:

Quite obviously a standard kerf blade will use 33% more power than a thin
kerf. If the saw has enough power with a standard kerf blade, of course you
won't see a difference. If it's marginal thin-kerf is a good idea.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:38:41 -0700, "CW" wrote:


"SonomaProducts.com" wrote in message
...
" I have seen and heard ..."

I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to a
labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
unsupported.

But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
when you bog your saw, etc. etc.

I used to have a one horsepower tablesaw. Never used thin kerf blades on
it.
Never had any trouble cutting whatever I wanted on it. Blade design and
feed
rate are much more important than blade thickness.

Quite obviously a standard kerf blade will use 33% more power than a thin
kerf. If the saw has enough power with a standard kerf blade, of course
you
won't see a difference. If it's marginal thin-kerf is a good idea.


That is with the assumption that the thin and thick are equal in quality and
sharpness. A premium regular kerf will cut better and faster than a
mediocre thin kerf blade on the same saw.

On Aug 19, 9:35*pm, "Leon" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:38:41 -0700, "CW" wrote:

"SonomaProducts.com" wrote in message
....
" I have seen and heard ..."

I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to a
labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
unsupported.

But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
when you bog your saw, etc. etc.

I used to have a one horsepower tablesaw. Never used thin kerf blades on
it.
Never had any trouble cutting whatever I wanted on it. Blade design and
feed
rate are much more important than blade thickness.

Quite obviously a standard kerf blade will use 33% more power than a thin
kerf. *If the saw has enough power with a standard kerf blade, of course
you
won't see a difference. *If it's marginal thin-kerf is a good idea.

That is with the assumption that the thin and thick are equal in quality and
sharpness. *A premium regular kerf will cut better and faster than a
mediocre thin kerf blade on the same saw.

The rotating mass alone gives the thicker blade an advantage....and
yes, assuming relative sharpness and quality of teeth.

"Robatoy" wrote

The rotating mass alone gives the thicker blade an advantage....and
yes, assuming relative sharpness and quality of teeth.

I like the thick blades too, but as far as momentum of the higher mass thick
blade?

Naa. You can kill that momentum difference in a fraction of a second.

The key that everyone (almost) is missing is the number of teeth, as it is
the KEY factor.

Each tooth uses some HP as it shears, and tears through the wood. If you
have less teeth, it will use less HP to pull the fewer teeth through the
wood.

Plus, fewer teeth means more space between the tooth and the body of the
blade. You need that space for ripping, because the good sharp tooth will
pull the wood fibers out in a longer chip, since it is with the grain.
Cutting across the grain, the chips stay small because the wood separates
between the summer and winter wood as it is sheared off. Ripping is like it
says; it rips (more than shears) a long line of grain out of the stock.

But the key is the number of teeth. Less teeth = less HP required. Simple
rule.

Tell you what. If you have never used an 8 tooth rip blade, find someone to
buy one from that will give you a money back guarantee if you do not like
it. My bet is that you will like it and you will keep it, and mount it and
leave it, or change back to it when you need to rip a quanity of wood.

A plain high-speed-steel blade is fine, also. You can sharpen it yourself
with a dremmel tool and a cutoff blade when it is dull, and re-set the
stagger with a little ball peen hammer and a vice when you need to. It will
be the last rip blade you buy for a long time.
--
Jim in NC

On Aug 19, 10:01*pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 19, 9:35*pm, "Leon" wrote:
wrote in message

Quite obviously a standard kerf blade will use 33% more power than a thin
kerf. *If the saw has enough power with a standard kerf blade, of course
you won't see a difference. *If it's marginal thin-kerf is a good idea.

That is with the assumption that the thin and thick are equal in quality and
sharpness. *A premium regular kerf will cut better and faster than a
mediocre thin kerf blade on the same saw.

The rotating mass alone gives the thicker blade an advantage....and
yes, assuming relative sharpness and quality of teeth.

You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial about
it. Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial force,
but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it has
more drag. There's no simple answer.

My take? Cut the least amount of wood you need to cut (thinnest
kerf), and buy the best quality blade you feel you can afford (their
thin kerf blades will be better than a lower quality thicker blade).
The stop worrying about it and start cutting wood.

R

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:07:07 -0700 (PDT), jtpr
wrote:

do you really
change your blade each time?

As someone said here a few years back: "I don't change my blade until
I can't see the wood through the smoke."

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:31:10 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
wrote:

" I have seen and heard ..."

I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to a
labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
unsupported.

But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
when you bog your saw, etc. etc.

I have to agree with robatoy about hearing and seeing the vibration
and oscillation even with a stabilizer on a thin kerf blade. And this
is with a Forrest blade and a Forrest stabilizer.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:35:25 -0500, "Leon" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:38:41 -0700, "CW" wrote:


"SonomaProducts.com" wrote in message
...
" I have seen and heard ..."

I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to a
labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
unsupported.

But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
when you bog your saw, etc. etc.

I used to have a one horsepower tablesaw. Never used thin kerf blades on
it.
Never had any trouble cutting whatever I wanted on it. Blade design and
feed
rate are much more important than blade thickness.

Quite obviously a standard kerf blade will use 33% more power than a thin
kerf. If the saw has enough power with a standard kerf blade, of course
you
won't see a difference. If it's marginal thin-kerf is a good idea.


That is with the assumption that the thin and thick are equal in quality and
sharpness. A premium regular kerf will cut better and faster than a
mediocre thin kerf blade on the same saw.

True, that assumption was implicit. Why would you favor a dull thin-kerf over
a sharp standard kerf? ...or verse visa.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:24:48 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Robatoy" wrote

The rotating mass alone gives the thicker blade an advantage....and
yes, assuming relative sharpness and quality of teeth.

I like the thick blades too, but as far as momentum of the higher mass thick
blade?

Naa. You can kill that momentum difference in a fraction of a second.

The key that everyone (almost) is missing is the number of teeth, as it is
the KEY factor.

Each tooth uses some HP as it shears, and tears through the wood. If you
have less teeth, it will use less HP to pull the fewer teeth through the
wood.

I'm not buying that at all. The only way this is true is if the feed rate is
proportional to the number of teeth. That is, the amount of work done by each
tooth is the same on different blades. This obviously isn't true because a
blade with more teeth (all else equal) will leave smaller scores in the cut
(smaller bites).

Plus, fewer teeth means more space between the tooth and the body of the
blade. You need that space for ripping, because the good sharp tooth will
pull the wood fibers out in a longer chip, since it is with the grain.
Cutting across the grain, the chips stay small because the wood separates
between the summer and winter wood as it is sheared off. Ripping is like it
says; it rips (more than shears) a long line of grain out of the stock.

Now you're comparing totally different operations. Apples and oranges.

But the key is the number of teeth. Less teeth = less HP required. Simple
rule.

Not buying it.

Tell you what. If you have never used an 8 tooth rip blade, find someone to
buy one from that will give you a money back guarantee if you do not like
it. My bet is that you will like it and you will keep it, and mount it and
leave it, or change back to it when you need to rip a quanity of wood.

If you're sawing raw planks, perhaps.

A plain high-speed-steel blade is fine, also. You can sharpen it yourself
with a dremmel tool and a cutoff blade when it is dull, and re-set the
stagger with a little ball peen hammer and a vice when you need to. It will
be the last rip blade you buy for a long time.

If you work on a British Leylands car every night, you might be able to drive
it to work each morning.

On Aug 19, 10:25*pm, RicodJour wrote:

You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial about
it. *Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial force,
but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it has
more drag. *There's no simple answer.

No there isn't a simple answer, but everything else being equal, the
increased mass of a blade assists in the cutting action, like a bigger
hammer. Surely nobody is interested in too much geek detail, hence the
Readers Digest version of my statement. Not only is a more massive
rotational force advantage provable on a physical level, it is well
supported by personal observation and what industrial cutter heads
show to be most effective in their respective environments.
A set of solid 'stiffeners' on a table saw not only 'stiffens' the
blade, the added mass contributes to a better cut as well.

On Aug 20, 9:33*am, Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:25*pm, RicodJour wrote:

You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial about
it. *Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial force,
but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it has
more drag. *There's no simple answer.

No there isn't a simple answer, but everything else being equal, the
increased mass of a blade assists in the cutting action, like a bigger
hammer. Surely nobody is interested in too much geek detail, hence the
Readers Digest version of my statement. Not only is a more massive
rotational force advantage provable on a physical level, it is well
supported by personal observation and what industrial cutter heads
show to be most effective in their respective environments.
A set of solid 'stiffeners' on a table saw not only 'stiffens' the
blade, the added mass contributes to a better cut as well.

Apples and oranges, mon ferret. The stiffeners add rotational mass,
but no additional cutting resistance is added. Not the case with a
wider blade.

R

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:00:36 -0500, "
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:38:41 -0700, "CW" wrote:


"SonomaProducts.com" wrote in message
...
" I have seen and heard ..."

I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to a
labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
unsupported.

But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
when you bog your saw, etc. etc.

I used to have a one horsepower tablesaw. Never used thin kerf blades on it.
Never had any trouble cutting whatever I wanted on it. Blade design and feed
rate are much more important than blade thickness.

Quite obviously a standard kerf blade will use 33% more power than a thin
kerf. If the saw has enough power with a standard kerf blade, of course you
won't see a difference. If it's marginal thin-kerf is a good idea.

How is blade life on a thin kerf? Don't they heat up and dull a whole
lot more quickly?

I don't have but a couple cuts on the Diablo I bought for the skilsaw,
maybe 5' in total, so I don't know yet.

--
We're all here because we're not all there.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:24:48 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


But the key is the number of teeth. Less teeth = less HP required. Simple
rule.

JFC! I can't stand it any more. FEWER!, not "less".


Tell you what. If you have never used an 8 tooth rip blade, find someone to
buy one from that will give you a money back guarantee if you do not like
it. My bet is that you will like it and you will keep it, and mount it and
leave it, or change back to it when you need to rip a quanity of wood.

I've ripped nicely with a B&D 18T Piranha blade. They're great for
demo work, too; tough li'l suckahs.

--
We're all here because we're not all there.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:05:50 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:31:10 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
wrote:

" I have seen and heard ..."

I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to a
labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
unsupported.

But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
when you bog your saw, etc. etc.

I have to agree with robatoy about hearing and seeing the vibration
and oscillation even with a stabilizer on a thin kerf blade. And this
is with a Forrest blade and a Forrest stabilizer.

There's your proof that thin blades wobble:

Even _Forrest_ makes stabilizers.


--
We're all here because we're not all there.

RicodJour wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:33 am, Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:25 pm, RicodJour wrote:

You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial about
it. Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial force,
but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it has
more drag. There's no simple answer.
No there isn't a simple answer, but everything else being equal, the
increased mass of a blade assists in the cutting action, like a bigger
hammer. Surely nobody is interested in too much geek detail, hence the
Readers Digest version of my statement. Not only is a more massive
rotational force advantage provable on a physical level, it is well
supported by personal observation and what industrial cutter heads
show to be most effective in their respective environments.
A set of solid 'stiffeners' on a table saw not only 'stiffens' the
blade, the added mass contributes to a better cut as well.

Apples and oranges, mon ferret. The stiffeners add rotational mass,
but no additional cutting resistance is added. Not the case with a
wider blade.

For sawblades kinds of masses, the inertial effects would be minimal at
best and the blade stiffener mass is concentrated near the shaft,
anyway. Besides, the inertia contained in the motor rotor, etc., is
multiples of that of the blade owing to the mass differences. Hence,
even though the blade mass may be sizable fractional difference between
the two, the system mass is essentially constant; ergo, so is the total
inertia.

I have to concur w/ the dominant issue (for equivalent sharpness, tooth
geometry, etc.) being that of amount of material cut per tooth far
overriding any of the other effects.

--

On Aug 20, 11:22*am, dpb wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:33 am, Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:25 pm, RicodJour wrote:

You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial about
it. *Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial force,
but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it has
more drag. *There's no simple answer.
No there isn't a simple answer, but everything else being equal, the
increased mass of a blade assists in the cutting action, like a bigger
hammer. Surely nobody is interested in too much geek detail, hence the
Readers Digest version of my statement. Not only is a more massive
rotational force advantage provable on a physical level, it is well
supported by personal observation and what industrial cutter heads
show to be most effective in their respective environments.
A set of solid 'stiffeners' on a table saw not only 'stiffens' the
blade, the added mass contributes to a better cut as well.

Apples and oranges, mon ferret. *The stiffeners add rotational mass,
but no additional cutting resistance is added. *Not the case with a
wider blade.

For sawblades kinds of masses, the inertial effects would be minimal at
best and the blade stiffener mass is concentrated near the shaft,
anyway. Besides, the inertia contained in the motor rotor, etc., is
multiples of that of the blade owing to the mass differences. *Hence,
even though the blade mass may be sizable fractional difference between
the two, the system mass is essentially constant; ergo, so is the total
inertia.

I have to concur w/ the dominant issue (for equivalent sharpness, tooth
geometry, etc.) being that of amount of material cut per tooth far
overriding any of the other effects.

Right. Except for the stiffeners and blade, the whole system is a
constant, and as you say, the bite size is the predominant,
essentially only, variable.

R

On Aug 20, 8:38*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:33*am, Robatoy wrote:



On Aug 19, 10:25*pm, RicodJour wrote:

You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial about
it. *Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial force,
but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it has
more drag. *There's no simple answer.

No there isn't a simple answer, but everything else being equal, the
increased mass of a blade assists in the cutting action, like a bigger
hammer. Surely nobody is interested in too much geek detail, hence the
Readers Digest version of my statement. Not only is a more massive
rotational force advantage provable on a physical level, it is well
supported by personal observation and what industrial cutter heads
show to be most effective in their respective environments.
A set of solid 'stiffeners' on a table saw not only 'stiffens' the
blade, the added mass contributes to a better cut as well.

Apples and oranges, mon ferret. *The stiffeners add rotational mass,
but no additional cutting resistance is added. *Not the case with a
wider blade.

I have a blade that's wider at the hub than the kerf. Sort of a built-
in stiffener, I suppose. It's a PITA if you forget it's on the saw
and the hub bottoms out on thicker wood (I think it's maximum cut is
about 1-1/4".

On Aug 20, 9:02*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:24:48 -0400, "Morgans"

wrote:
But the key is the number of teeth. *Less teeth = less HP required. *Simple
rule.

JFC! *I can't stand it any more. *FEWER!, not "less".

Only if you have live horses hitched to the saw.

...

On Aug 20, 8:57*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:00:36 -0500, "



wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:38:41 -0700, "CW" wrote:

"SonomaProducts.com" wrote in message
....
" I have seen and heard ..."

I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to a
labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
unsupported.

But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
when you bog your saw, etc. etc.

I used to have a one horsepower tablesaw. Never used thin kerf blades on it.
Never had any trouble cutting whatever I wanted on it. Blade design and feed
rate are much more important than blade thickness.

Quite obviously a standard kerf blade will use 33% more power than a thin
kerf. *If the saw has enough power with a standard kerf blade, of course you
won't see a difference. *If it's marginal thin-kerf is a good idea. *

How is blade life on a thin kerf? *Don't they heat up and dull a whole
lot more quickly?

If anything, I'd expect less wear on a thin-kerf. They use less power
to cut, so they shouldn't get as hot. Less mass, too, but the surface
area is the same (and any dissipation through the hub, trunion,....

I don't have but a couple cuts on the Diablo I bought for the skilsaw,
maybe 5' in total, so I don't know yet.

I have a Diablo for my 6-1/2" 18V Dewalt cordless circular saw. Nice
blade.

On Aug 19, 6:08*pm, "Josepi" wrote:
Where do you get this nonsense from? *Ever see a max kerf size on a motor
rating?

Nonsense? Not quite. I would say it is settled science that a thin
kerf blade requires much less energy to cut the same board. Every
review and study I have seen published, regardless of the wobble
issue, shows that lower powered saw can cut boards easily with a thin
kerf that they cannot cut or only burn bog cut with a full width
blade. Pretty simpel to visualize removing less material with each
bite. Ever spend much time on the business end of a shovel?

I always hold onto the handle to operate a shovel.


"SonomaProducts.com" wrote in message
...
Nonsense? Not quite. I would say it is settled science that a thin
kerf blade requires much less energy to cut the same board. Every
review and study I have seen published, regardless of the wobble
issue, shows that lower powered saw can cut boards easily with a thin
kerf that they cannot cut or only burn bog cut with a full width
blade. Pretty simpel to visualize removing less material with each
bite. Ever spend much time on the business end of a shovel?


On Aug 19, 6:08 pm, "Josepi" wrote:
Where do you get this nonsense from? Ever see a max kerf size on a motor
rating?

wrote

I'm not buying that at all. The only way this is true is if the feed rate
is
proportional to the number of teeth. That is, the amount of work done by
each
tooth is the same on different blades. This obviously isn't true because
a
blade with more teeth (all else equal) will leave smaller scores in the
cut
(smaller bites).

Not buying it.

If you're sawing raw planks, perhaps.

I have only one question. Have you tried an eight tooth blade for use in
cutting hard to cut wood, so hard to cut that it is close to the limit of
what your saw can cut at decent feed rates?

If the answer is no, you are only guessing about what I have written about.

If you don't buy that, then that is your loss.

I know of what I speak. So do a few others.

So, come back and say you don't buy it after you have tried it. Until then,
well....
--
Jim in NC

In article , " wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:02=A0am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:24:48 -0400, "Morgans"

wrote:
But the key is the number of teeth. Less teeth = less HP required. Simple
rule.

JFC! I can't stand it any more. FEWER!, not "less".

Only if you have live horses hitched to the saw.

The original should have read "Fewer teeth = less HP required." Happy?

On Aug 20, 11:58*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Aug 20, 11:22*am, dpb wrote:





RicodJour wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:33 am, Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:25 pm, RicodJour wrote:

You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial about
it. *Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial force,
but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it has
more drag. *There's no simple answer.
No there isn't a simple answer, but everything else being equal, the
increased mass of a blade assists in the cutting action, like a bigger
hammer. Surely nobody is interested in too much geek detail, hence the
Readers Digest version of my statement. Not only is a more massive
rotational force advantage provable on a physical level, it is well
supported by personal observation and what industrial cutter heads
show to be most effective in their respective environments.
A set of solid 'stiffeners' on a table saw not only 'stiffens' the
blade, the added mass contributes to a better cut as well.

Apples and oranges, mon ferret. *The stiffeners add rotational mass,
but no additional cutting resistance is added. *Not the case with a
wider blade.

For sawblades kinds of masses, the inertial effects would be minimal at
best and the blade stiffener mass is concentrated near the shaft,
anyway. Besides, the inertia contained in the motor rotor, etc., is
multiples of that of the blade owing to the mass differences. *Hence,
even though the blade mass may be sizable fractional difference between
the two, the system mass is essentially constant; ergo, so is the total
inertia.

I have to concur w/ the dominant issue (for equivalent sharpness, tooth
geometry, etc.) being that of amount of material cut per tooth far
overriding any of the other effects.

Right. *Except for the stiffeners and blade, the whole system is a
constant, and as you say, the bite size is the predominant,
essentially only, variable.

R

The rotational mass of the motor is decoupled from the rotational mass
of the blade due to the elasticity of the belt. The extra mass
(regardless of how small it may be as we are not discussing HOW much
extra mass) will help smooth out the vibrations set up by the chopping
action of the the teeth of the saw blade. The issue here is mechanical
impedance. Then again, the guys at Harley Davidson don't know dick
about decoupling rotational masses either, right? OR the guys at
Thorens.

The more linear the tooth's attack speed is, the better the cut will
be.... and please stop throwing variables as if they're apples and
oranges.
The more mass, the smoother the cut...even though it might be
minuscule in results, it bloody well is a fact. And to bring the width
and the rake of the tooth into the discussion just muddies the waters.
I clearly stated "everything else being equal".
The amount of teeth have nothing to do with the quality of the cut
assuming the feedrate is adjusted accordingly, and if your blade has
only one tooth, best you feed slowly or make that tooth go really
fast. Case in point, I can make a really nice, clean cut with a one-
toothed cutter at 25,000 RPM.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:55:09 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
wrote:

On Aug 19, 6:08*pm, "Josepi" wrote:
Where do you get this nonsense from? *Ever see a max kerf size on a motor
rating?

Nonsense? Not quite. I would say it is settled science that a thin
kerf blade requires much less energy to cut the same board. Every
review and study I have seen published, regardless of the wobble
issue, shows that lower powered saw can cut boards easily with a thin
kerf that they cannot cut or only burn bog cut with a full width
blade. Pretty simpel to visualize removing less material with each
bite. Ever spend much time on the business end of a shovel?

Don't feed the troll.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:51:22 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


wrote

I'm not buying that at all. The only way this is true is if the feed rate
is
proportional to the number of teeth. That is, the amount of work done by
each
tooth is the same on different blades. This obviously isn't true because
a
blade with more teeth (all else equal) will leave smaller scores in the
cut
(smaller bites).

Not buying it.

If you're sawing raw planks, perhaps.

I have only one question. Have you tried an eight tooth blade for use in
cutting hard to cut wood, so hard to cut that it is close to the limit of
what your saw can cut at decent feed rates?

If the answer is no, you are only guessing about what I have written about.

If you don't buy that, then that is your loss.

I know of what I speak. So do a few others.

So, come back and say you don't buy it after you have tried it. Until then,
well....

Go **** yourself.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 23:53:43 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , " wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:02=A0am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:24:48 -0400, "Morgans"

wrote:
But the key is the number of teeth. Less teeth = less HP required. Simple
rule.

JFC! I can't stand it any more. FEWER!, not "less".

Only if you have live horses hitched to the saw.

The original should have read "Fewer teeth = less HP required." Happy?

Oops. I focused in on ("saw") "less HP". Sorrreeee.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:35:25 -0500, "Leon" wrote:
..


That is with the assumption that the thin and thick are equal in quality
and
sharpness. A premium regular kerf will cut better and faster than a
mediocre thin kerf blade on the same saw.

True, that assumption was implicit. Why would you favor a dull thin-kerf
over
a sharp standard kerf? ...or verse visa.

I did not say dull, not all new blades are equally sharp.

And going a bit farther on the subject, ;~)

I was building several drawers today and got to use my "Kerf Maker", drive
by. Any way it occurred to me again why I have better results with thick
kerf vs. thin kerf. I use 1/4" plywood for the bottoms and cut snug dado's
for them to fit in to. Cheap 1/4" plywood is about 7/32" thick and the
outer and inner blades on a dado set are too wide. So I make two passes
with my thick kerf blade. With a think kerf blade that requires three
passes instead of two and also I recall when I did this long ago with a thin
kerf blade the dado width would not be constant. I suspect that because
only the outer side of the blade is cutting on the final pass the thinner
blades will deflect.

wrote in message
...
How is blade life on a thin kerf? Don't they heat up and dull a whole
lot more quickly?

If anything, I'd expect less wear on a thin-kerf. They use less power
to cut, so they shouldn't get as hot. Less mass, too, but the surface
area is the same (and any dissipation through the hub, trunion,....

I suspect equal wear, but where do you get the idea that less power needed
from the motor would equate to "should not get hot"?

Actually I often over heated a thin kerf blade, for what ever reason. It
warped enough to see, as it cooled it straightend back up some what.




I don't have but a couple cuts on the Diablo I bought for the skilsaw,
maybe 5' in total, so I don't know yet.

I have a Diablo for my 6-1/2" 18V Dewalt cordless circular saw. Nice
blade.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...


There's your proof that thin blades wobble:

Even _Forrest_ makes stabilizers.


Jeez, If had been a snake it would'a bitten us. :~)

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:02:20 -0500, "Leon" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:35:25 -0500, "Leon" wrote:
.


That is with the assumption that the thin and thick are equal in quality
and
sharpness. A premium regular kerf will cut better and faster than a
mediocre thin kerf blade on the same saw.

True, that assumption was implicit. Why would you favor a dull thin-kerf
over
a sharp standard kerf? ...or verse visa.

I did not say dull, not all new blades are equally sharp.

Right, but "all things being equal"...

And going a bit farther on the subject, ;~)

I was building several drawers today and got to use my "Kerf Maker", drive
by.

Neat tool, eh?

Any way it occurred to me again why I have better results with thick
kerf vs. thin kerf. I use 1/4" plywood for the bottoms and cut snug dado's
for them to fit in to. Cheap 1/4" plywood is about 7/32" thick and the
outer and inner blades on a dado set are too wide. So I make two passes
with my thick kerf blade. With a think kerf blade that requires three
passes instead of two and also I recall when I did this long ago with a thin
kerf blade the dado width would not be constant. I suspect that because
only the outer side of the blade is cutting on the final pass the thinner
blades will deflect.

Wouldn't it be better to cut the outsides first and then clean the center?
I just bought a Freud Glue Line (standard kerf) rip blade. I haven't had a
chance to try it though (too hot!).

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:06:53 -0500, "Leon" wrote:


wrote in message
...
How is blade life on a thin kerf? Don't they heat up and dull a whole
lot more quickly?

If anything, I'd expect less wear on a thin-kerf. They use less power
to cut, so they shouldn't get as hot. Less mass, too, but the surface
area is the same (and any dissipation through the hub, trunion,....

I suspect equal wear, but where do you get the idea that less power needed
from the motor would equate to "should not get hot"?

Less power == less heat. Assuming the power needed to turn the saw is
proportional to the kerf width, the heat generated is also proportional to the
kerf width. The dissipation will be proportional to the surface area and the
dissipation through the bearings is a constant (with temperature), so a
thin-kerf should run at a *lower* temperature.

Actually I often over heated a thin kerf blade, for what ever reason. It
warped enough to see, as it cooled it straightend back up some what.

Yes, it's understandable that a thin-kerf will warp more easily since it's not
as rigid. That likely goes both ways, though. It'll more likely recover than
a standard kerf.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:02:20 -0500, "Leon" wrote:

I was building several drawers today and got to use my "Kerf Maker", drive
by.

Neat tool, eh?

I think I have used it on every project that I have worked on in my shop.
Really, I have used it more that I thought I would.


Any way it occurred to me again why I have better results with thick
kerf vs. thin kerf. I use 1/4" plywood for the bottoms and cut snug
dado's
for them to fit in to. Cheap 1/4" plywood is about 7/32" thick and the
outer and inner blades on a dado set are too wide. So I make two passes
with my thick kerf blade. With a think kerf blade that requires three
passes instead of two and also I recall when I did this long ago with a
thin
kerf blade the dado width would not be constant. I suspect that because
only the outer side of the blade is cutting on the final pass the thinner
blades will deflect.

Wouldn't it be better to cut the outsides first and then clean the center?
I just bought a Freud Glue Line (standard kerf) rip blade. I haven't had
a
chance to try it though (too hot!).

Well, no. Cutting with a regular kerf blade, you do cut the outsides first
so to speak. There is nothing left in the center of a 7/32" dado like there
would be using a thin kerf. Otherwise, yes, with the aid of the KerfMaker
on wider dado's.

When I did this with a thin kerf I would make multiple passes until the
width was correct. If you made the outer two cuts first they had better be
right, the KerfMaker did not exist back then. I found that sneaking up on
the final was less wastful than from unusable results trying to get the two
outer cuts precicely positioned. You really could not set this up in
advance by testing with scraps unless you did not mind the chance of gaps.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:06:53 -0500, "Leon" wrote:


wrote in message
...
How is blade life on a thin kerf? Don't they heat up and dull a whole
lot more quickly?

If anything, I'd expect less wear on a thin-kerf. They use less power
to cut, so they shouldn't get as hot. Less mass, too, but the surface
area is the same (and any dissipation through the hub, trunion,....

I suspect equal wear, but where do you get the idea that less power needed
from the motor would equate to "should not get hot"?

Less power == less heat. Assuming the power needed to turn the saw is
proportional to the kerf width, the heat generated is also proportional to
the
kerf width. The dissipation will be proportional to the surface area and
the
dissipation through the bearings is a constant (with temperature), so a
thin-kerf should run at a *lower* temperature.


Yeah, I ain't buying it, ;~) I agree with some of what you said, but I
still dont agree that less power needed from the motor =''s less heat from
the blade. A thin kerf blade is 1/32" thinner than a regular kerf blade.
Still the teeth have approximately the same side surface area on both sides.
So friction is not really 1/3 less over all, it is 1/3 less on the top of
the tooth. Basically they have the same contact area on the side of the
teeth.

And ture teeth are cut so the sides do not touch the wood under optimum
circumstances but in little time pitch builds up behind the cutting edge of
the tooth and rubs the wood.







Actually I often over heated a thin kerf blade, for what ever reason. It
warped enough to see, as it cooled it straightend back up some what.

Yes, it's understandable that a thin-kerf will warp more easily since it's
not
as rigid. That likely goes both ways, though. It'll more likely recover
than
a standard kerf.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:02:20 -0500, "Leon" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:35:25 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:
.


That is with the assumption that the thin and thick are equal in quality
and
sharpness. A premium regular kerf will cut better and faster than a
mediocre thin kerf blade on the same saw.

True, that assumption was implicit. Why would you favor a dull
thin-kerf
over
a sharp standard kerf? ...or verse visa.

I did not say dull, not all new blades are equally sharp.

Right, but "all things being equal"...

And going a bit farther on the subject, ;~)

I was building several drawers today and got to use my "Kerf Maker", drive
by.

Neat tool, eh?

Any way it occurred to me again why I have better results with thick
kerf vs. thin kerf. I use 1/4" plywood for the bottoms and cut snug
dado's
for them to fit in to. Cheap 1/4" plywood is about 7/32" thick and the
outer and inner blades on a dado set are too wide. So I make two passes
with my thick kerf blade. With a think kerf blade that requires three
passes instead of two and also I recall when I did this long ago with a
thin
kerf blade the dado width would not be constant. I suspect that because
only the outer side of the blade is cutting on the final pass the thinner
blades will deflect.

Wouldn't it be better to cut the outsides first and then clean the center?
I just bought a Freud Glue Line (standard kerf) rip blade. I haven't had
a
chance to try it though (too hot!).

You will like it.