Robatoy wrote:
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.
....

But, a few ounces as compared to the rest of the mass isn't going to be
noticeable. I've never been able to tell any difference of note between
the two on the PM66. On a small contractor saw one might have a better
chance...

--

On Aug 20, 10:56*pm, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
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.

...

But, a few ounces as compared to the rest of the mass isn't going to be
noticeable. *I've never been able to tell any difference of note between
the two on the PM66. *On a small contractor saw one might have a better
chance...

--

Oh, I know. I was splitting hairs.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:49:36 -0500, "Leon" wrote:


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.

Think of it this way, all of the power the motor delivers is turned into heat
eventually. Some of it is transferred to the sawdust, some is retained by the
blade. The more power needed for the cut, the more heat needs to be
dissipated elsewhere (some of it by the blade).

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.

Sure, that friction against the sides would be independent of the kerf width.
Making more sawdust takes more energy. More energy = more heat

...

wrote

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

Go **** yourself.

I don't understand a remark like that.

If you are not here to learn something new, they why are you here.

Unless you know-it-all already. I don't.
--
Jim in NC

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:39:50 -0500, "Leon" wrote:


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.

I meant with the thin-kerf blade, where the dado 2x the kerf.

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.

Ah, I thought I was the only one who had to sneak up on joints. I thought you
real woodworkers were perfect. ;-) Yes, the Kerf Maker helps a lot. I only
wish it were a bit larger.

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:26:33 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


wrote

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

Go **** yourself.

I don't understand a remark like that.

Why am I not surprised?

If you are not here to learn something new, they why are you here.

I'm not here for your smug condescension.

Unless you know-it-all already. I don't.

Quite obviously.

Robatoy wrote:
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.

Who ARE those guys, anyway?

The more mass, the smoother the cut...even though it might be
minuscule in results, it bloody well is a fact.

There are facts, and there are meaningless facts. Your minuscule fact
is the latter in this instance.

--
Jack
If Guns Kill then Cars Make People Drive Drunk!
http://jbstein.com

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
"Morgans" wrote:

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.

In other words, you never tried it.

My experience is exactly what Morgan says.

--
Jack
Got Change: The Individual ======= The Collective!
http://jbstein.com

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:46:29 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

wrote:
"Morgans" wrote:

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.

In other words, you never tried it.

No, IOW, he can go **** himself. Can't you read?

My experience is exactly what Morgan says.

Hardly the point, but you can follow him.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:46:29 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
"Morgans" wrote:
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.

In other words, you never tried it.

No, IOW, he can go **** himself. Can't you read?

I can read, and your response indicates you never tried an 8 tooth
blade.

My experience is exactly what Morgan says.

Hardly the point,

What is the point then?

but you can follow him.

I guess by this you mean anyone that's used an 8 tooth blade can go ****
themselves, or, is it that anyone that doesn't agree with you can go
**** themselves? Whatever, it sure was a ****ed up response...

--
Jack
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity!

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:23:16 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:46:29 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
"Morgans" wrote:
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.

In other words, you never tried it.

No, IOW, he can go **** himself. Can't you read?

I can read, and your response indicates you never tried an 8 tooth
blade.

Either your comprehension or your intelligence is zero.

My experience is exactly what Morgan says.

Hardly the point,

What is the point then?

That he, and apparently you are nothing but low-life assholes.

but you can follow him.

Why would I want to follow an asshole?

I guess by this you mean anyone that's used an 8 tooth blade can go ****
themselves, or, is it that anyone that doesn't agree with you can go
**** themselves? Whatever, it sure was a ****ed up response...

All smug condescending asshole can go **** themselves. Now, go **** yourself.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

but you can follow him.

Then, forgetting what he wrote, responds to hisself:

Why would I want to follow an asshole?

I dunno, you appear to be talking to yourself! Talk about reading
comprehension problem, you take the cake...

I guess by this you mean anyone that's used an 8 tooth blade can go ****
themselves, or, is it that anyone that doesn't agree with you can go
**** themselves? Whatever, it sure was a ****ed up response...

All smug condescending asshole can go **** themselves. Now, go **** yourself.

When you start talking to yourself and answering yourself, you have a
problem. Perhaps you've ****ed yourself one time too many... Don't
worry, few will notice!

--
Jack
If Ignorance is Bliss, You must be One Happy Liberal!
http://jbstein.com

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:53:17 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

wrote:

but you can follow him.

Then, forgetting what he wrote, responds to hisself:

Why?

Why would I want to follow an asshole?

I dunno, you appear to be talking to yourself! Talk about reading
comprehension problem, you take the cake...

Perhaps you shouldn't snip so close. It makes you look like an idiot.

I guess by this you mean anyone that's used an 8 tooth blade can go ****
themselves, or, is it that anyone that doesn't agree with you can go
**** themselves? Whatever, it sure was a ****ed up response...

All smug condescending asshole can go **** themselves. Now, go **** yourself.

When you start talking to yourself and answering yourself, you have a
problem. Perhaps you've ****ed yourself one time too many... Don't
worry, few will notice!

I'm answering you, asshole. ...not that I'd expect you to understand.

If you are in production mode or do a lot of woodworking then by all
means have a saw for each task. For the rest of us a few compromises
are in order. For me that means that a decent combo blade stays in my
saw and does everything unless I have a pretty big rip or crosscut job
to get done.Although I have a Forrest WWII, I usually have my Frued
TK906 in the saw. If I am doing some serious ripping, either in volume
or in thickness, I switch to a rip blade and the one you show is
pretty decent. If I am doing a lot of fine cross cuts or working in
good plywood I switch to an appropriate dedicated blade. From your
description, you need a good combo blade. There are tons of opinions
on here as to what is a good combo blade, so do a little research. If
you like Frued, their site has some decent info, but beware that they
have some good quality blades and some terribly crappy blades (i.e.
any sold by Lowes) some look them up and order what you want. Amazon
usually has decent prices on Frued blades.


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

On Aug 18, 4:47*pm, Swingman wrote:
On 8/18/2010 3:32 PM, jtpr wrote:





On Aug 18, 4:29 pm, *wrote:
On Aug 18, 4:27 pm, *wrote:

On Aug 18, 4:04 pm, *wrote:

On Aug 18, 4:03 pm, *wrote:

On Aug 18, 4:00 pm, *wrote:

I have been using a Freud, forget which one exactly. *Anyway I've had
it for too many years and want a new one. *I have a Woodcraft near me
as well as a HD and Lowes. *I need to pick it up before the weekend.
Has anybody used the RIDGID 10 In. x 90 Tooth Ultimate Polished Finish
Saw Blade? *http://tinyurl.com/2fvoo24

Other then that it seems that Woodcraft is my best bet. *I am looking
at something in the $75 range, so the Forrest is a bit pricey for me.
I liked the look of this one:

http://tinyurl.com/3yygjty

Any opinions?

-Jim

Yup, great value. In a proper table saw, you won't need a jointer.

Wow, that was quick. *Which one are you referring to?

Jim

The Freud Glueline Rip. Ripping is a whole different blade issue and
only ripping blades rip. Combo blades make a poor second choice.

That Ridgid blade you linked to won't rip... it will just burn....well
you probably will get through some wood..but.

Thank you. *Tell me, what is the difference between a "glue line" rip
blade and just a rip blade? *Just the quality of the cut? *And what
happens if you just leave this in your saw and do occasional cross
cuts with it. *I mean I generally use my Mitre saw for that but when I
do fine mitre cuts on boxes and things I like to use the table saw.

"GlueLine Rip" is simply a marketing term and has no technical reference
merit.

That said, I own a Freud "GlueLine Rip", but a regular kerf, and it does
everything its marketing term suggests.

An excellent ripping blade for the price.

It will do crosscuts, but slower and not optimum cuts. If you're serious
about woodworking you really need to use the right tool for the job.

On that same note, unless you're just seriously underpowered on your
table saw, I feel a thicker blade makes for a more stable blade, with
less vibration, and particularly when ripping hardwoods, so I forego the
thin kerf variety when ripping for my own use.

As always, YMMV ...

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

I have Rigid 3650, so not really underpowered (for what I do), but not
a 3hp either.

I agree with the right tool statement. But if I'm doing a one-off
project with a few crosscuts, some mitre's and rips, do you really
change your blade each time? However, if I was doing something where
I could do all the cross cuts first, then the rips I could see it.

Maybe I need a second table saw...;+}

-Jim

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:53:17 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:
but you can follow him.
Then, forgetting what he wrote, responds to hisself:

Why?

Who knows? My guess is you are too dumb to know what you wrote, so are
responding to your own dumb ass statements.

Why would I want to follow an asshole?

I dunno, you appear to be talking to yourself! Talk about reading
comprehension problem, you take the cake...

Perhaps you shouldn't snip so close. It makes you look like an idiot.

I see, it's my fault you respond to your own statements...

I guess by this you mean anyone that's used an 8 tooth blade can go ****
themselves, or, is it that anyone that doesn't agree with you can go
**** themselves? Whatever, it sure was a ****ed up response...
All smug condescending asshole can go **** themselves. Now, go **** yourself.
When you start talking to yourself and answering yourself, you have a
problem. Perhaps you've ****ed yourself one time too many... Don't
worry, few will notice!

I'm answering you, asshole. ...not that I'd expect you to understand.

Oh, I understand alright... You never used an 8 tooth blade, just as I
surmised from your initial, inane, vitriolic responses to both Morgan
and myself.

--
Jack
Fight Socialism.... Buy a Ford!
http://jbstein.com

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:18:50 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:53:17 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:
but you can follow him.
Then, forgetting what he wrote, responds to hisself:

Why?

Who knows? My guess is you are too dumb to know what you wrote, so are
responding to your own dumb ass statements.

Why would I want to follow an asshole?

I dunno, you appear to be talking to yourself! Talk about reading
comprehension problem, you take the cake...

Perhaps you shouldn't snip so close. It makes you look like an idiot.

I see, it's my fault you respond to your own statements...

You really are an idiot.

I guess by this you mean anyone that's used an 8 tooth blade can go ****
themselves, or, is it that anyone that doesn't agree with you can go
**** themselves? Whatever, it sure was a ****ed up response...
All smug condescending asshole can go **** themselves. Now, go **** yourself.
When you start talking to yourself and answering yourself, you have a
problem. Perhaps you've ****ed yourself one time too many... Don't
worry, few will notice!

I'm answering you, asshole. ...not that I'd expect you to understand.

Oh, I understand alright... You never used an 8 tooth blade, just as I
surmised from your initial, inane, vitriolic responses to both Morgan
and myself.

No, you simply can't get it through your thick skull. Now, go **** yourself.