Recently acquired a decent 2 hp 110/220a motor, and am now wondering if
it would be too much for my little BS. Has anyone had any experience
with big motors on small bandsaws? Would this be the funny car of the
woodshop?

Regards,
H

On 20 Dec 2004 15:20:28 -0800, wrote:

Recently acquired a decent 2 hp 110/220a motor, and am now wondering if
it would be too much for my little BS.

No such thing as too much power on an electric motor - it won't go any
faster or need throttling, it'll just keep the speed up better under
load. It may even draw _less_ current than a smaller motor that's
having to work at it.

I wouldn't go out and buy a 2HP motor for a 14" bandsaw, but if you've
got it, you've no better use for it, the speed is right and you can
arrange the mountings and pulley, then go for it.

--
Smert' spamionam

Tim Allen would't be pleased with your question.

Shame! Go for it!

Grrrooowwerrrr!

wrote in message
oups.com...
Recently acquired a decent 2 hp 110/220a motor, and am now wondering if
it would be too much for my little BS. Has anyone had any experience
with big motors on small bandsaws? Would this be the funny car of the
woodshop?

Regards,
H


I have a cheap 12" Crapsman, aluminum framed bandsaw. It came with a 1/3 HP
motor. It was not enough! I had a 1-1/2 HP motor laying around that I
slapped into it! Works much better now!
I don't think you can have too much HP!
Greg

"Greg O" wrote in message
I don't think you can have too much HP!
Greg

If all the lights on your block dim when you turn on the saw, you have too
much horsepower.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
m...

"Greg O" wrote in message
I don't think you can have too much HP!
Greg

If all the lights on your block dim when you turn on the saw, you have too
much horsepower.



If all the lights go out, maybe, but just dim? No problem!
Greg

wrote in message
oups.com...
Recently acquired a decent 2 hp 110/220a motor, and am now wondering if
it would be too much for my little BS. Has anyone had any experience
with big motors on small bandsaws? Would this be the funny car of the
woodshop?

An electric motor HP rating is what its capable of putting out. If you do
not stress it, it does not produce any more HP than your existing motor. The
only way to make it produce the full 2HP is to really load it up. So you
are in control. Go for it.

Bob

"Bob" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Recently acquired a decent 2 hp 110/220a motor, and am now wondering if
it would be too much for my little BS. Has anyone had any experience
with big motors on small bandsaws? Would this be the funny car of the
woodshop?

An electric motor HP rating is what its capable of putting out. If you do
not stress it, it does not produce any more HP than your existing motor.
The
only way to make it produce the full 2HP is to really load it up. So you
are in control. Go for it.

Two horse 110 is stretching things, which make me wonder if it's not one of
those 3450 cap start cap run types. If so, remember to change the pulleys.

The belt effectively limits the power available to the tool, but with a
bandsaw's low torque requirements, shouldn't be a problem, just overkill.

wrote:

Recently acquired a decent 2 hp 110/220a motor, and am now wondering if
it would be too much for my little BS. Has anyone had any experience
with big motors on small bandsaws? Would this be the funny car of the
woodshop?

Until it's big enough to break expensive things if something gets hung up
bigger is better with motors. Now if you were talking 200 horsepower,
which is enough to sling the whole saw through the roof if something goes
awry, then I'd say maybe it was too much motor, but 2 should be fine on a
14". If it was one of the little bitty miniature hobbyist jobs I'd be
worried about twisting off the drive axle or slipping the pulley, but a 14"
unless it's a real piece of garbage should have no trouble with 2 HP.

Regards,
H

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Bob wrote:

An electric motor HP rating is what its capable of putting out. If you do
not stress it, it does not produce any more HP than your existing motor. The
only way to make it produce the full 2HP is to really load it up.

I wish my electric meter believed that.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Nova wrote:

Bob wrote:

An electric motor HP rating is what its capable of putting out. If you do
not stress it, it does not produce any more HP than your existing motor. The
only way to make it produce the full 2HP is to really load it up.

I wish my electric meter believed that.




What a testament to the failure of science education in the general
populace (Bob, not you Nova)...

Nova wrote:

Bob wrote:

An electric motor HP rating is what its capable of putting out. If you do
not stress it, it does not produce any more HP than your existing motor.
The only way to make it produce the full 2HP is to really load it up.

I wish my electric meter believed that.

Have you checked it with an ammeter?

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Nova" wrote in message
...

I wish my electric meter believed that.

It does. You just don't believe its telling you the truth.

Bob

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

What a testament to the failure of science education in the general
populace (Bob, not you Nova)...

Are you saying my statement was wrong?

Bob

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 04:13:56 GMT, "BillyBob"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

What a testament to the failure of science education in the general
populace (Bob, not you Nova)...

Are you saying my statement was wrong?

I feel that the quote below is because of two factors (rusty memories
struggle up through the ooze):

- The motor is not running at synchronous spped eve with no load, so a
larger HP motor wil draw fractioannly more.

- The motor will run at near-synchronous until it stall, then it will
start to draw the (much) heavier "starting" current, although it's
failing to do the job. Because it;s running at near-synchronous while
it's working properly, the correctly-matched motor will use less power
even when fully loaded. Less wastage.

However, if I had the choice as a hobbyist between a free 2HP motor
and a $100 1 hp one, I woud use the free one for sure! G

http://www.eng-tips.com/gviewthread..../237/qid/18465

"4.2.2. Efficiency at Low Load
When a motor has a greater rating than the unit it is driving
requires, the motor operates at only partial load. In this state, the
efficiency of the motor is reduced (see Figure 4.2 ). The use of
oversized motors is fairly common because of the following
conditions:"


"Replacement of underloaded motors with smaller motors will allow a
fully loaded smaller motor to operate at a higher efficiency. This
arrangement is generally most economical for larger motors, and
only when they are operating at less than one-third to one-half
capacity, depending on their size"

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...


- The motor is not running at synchronous spped eve with no load, so a
larger HP motor wil draw fractioannly more.

The difference is not that great at no load speed.

- The motor will run at near-synchronous until it stall, then it will
start to draw the (much) heavier "starting" current,

Typical loaded speed is 95% of synchronous speed. I don't know if that's
what you meant by "near-synchronous". However when it gets near stall
(break-down torque), the speed will be significantly slower. Breakdown
torque might typically occurs at 70% of synchronous speed - quite a bit
slower.

"4.2.2. Efficiency at Low Load

Your discussion of efficiency is accurate, but I don't think its relavent to
the context of the OP's question - concern for damage ("too much for my
little band saw"). Basically I was just saying that motor characteristics
are such that it won't hurt the saw, if you don't force the saw to do things
its not designed to withstand.

Bob

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 04:13:56 GMT, "BillyBob"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

hmmmm...having said that I have found a site that shows that motor
efficiency peaks at around 30% of full load. It shows a significant
blip there, then drops off steadily to 100% load / 80% efficiency.

Given that high efficiency motors are now being built using larger
conductors than necessary, Bob may have a point.

????????


"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

What a testament to the failure of science education in the general
populace (Bob, not you Nova)...

Are you saying my statement was wrong?

Bob

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Until it's big enough to break expensive things if something gets hung up
bigger is better with motors. Now if you were talking 200 horsepower,
which is enough to sling the whole saw through the roof if something goes
awry, then I'd say maybe it was too much motor, but 2 should be fine on a
14". If it was one of the little bitty miniature hobbyist jobs I'd be
worried about twisting off the drive axle or slipping the pulley, but a
14"
unless it's a real piece of garbage should have no trouble with 2 HP.

Congratulations J. You clearly stated the case in way that anyone will
understand and my hat is off to you. While some of us are getting tangled
up in engineering design theory, you are came out and said what needs to be
said.

Bob

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...

Bob may have a point.

????????

One of the best writeups on motors I have seen on the internet is from our
very own rec.woodworking FAQ:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/woodworking/motors/

Another good writeup is

http://www.engin.umich.edu/labs/csdl.../ac/induction/


Bob

No problem. 2horspower is still pretty weenie.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Recently acquired a decent 2 hp 110/220a motor, and am now wondering if
it would be too much for my little BS. Has anyone had any experience
with big motors on small bandsaws? Would this be the funny car of the
woodshop?

Regards,
H

Yes.

"BillyBob" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

What a testament to the failure of science education in the general
populace (Bob, not you Nova)...

Are you saying my statement was wrong?

Bob

CW wrote:

No problem. 2horspower is still pretty weenie.

It depends. Most 14" bandsaw have a problem providing enough tension for a
3/4" blade without the frame flexing. Given a situation where a 2 HP motor
would be beneficial, unless the saw was designed to handle that size motor,
the frame of the saw would most likely flex, dropping the tension on the
blade and result in a barreled cut. Hopefully that's the worse that would
happen.

Grizzly's tech support was iffy on a 1.5 HP on my G1019 and had a definite
"no" on a 2 HP.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

In article ,
Nova wrote:

CW wrote:

No problem. 2horspower is still pretty weenie.

It depends. Most 14" bandsaw have a problem providing enough tension for a
3/4" blade without the frame flexing. Given a situation where a 2 HP motor
would be beneficial, unless the saw was designed to handle that size motor,
the frame of the saw would most likely flex, dropping the tension on the
blade and result in a barreled cut. Hopefully that's the worse that would
happen.

Grizzly's tech support was iffy on a 1.5 HP on my G1019 and had a definite
"no" on a 2 HP.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

The only time you really need the power and tension is when you're
resawing, and when you're resawing, there's usually very little material
on one side of the blade. So, it seems to me you could solve the frame
flexing problem by having a removable strut which could be fitted as a
compression member between the upper frame and the table when resawing.

I've never seen such a thing on a bandsaw, but I find it hard to believe
nobody else has thought of it before me. Does such a thing exist?

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:27:06 -0500, Nova
calmly ranted:

CW wrote:

No problem. 2horspower is still pretty weenie.

It depends. Most 14" bandsaw have a problem providing enough tension for a
3/4" blade without the frame flexing. Given a situation where a 2 HP motor
would be beneficial, unless the saw was designed to handle that size motor,
the frame of the saw would most likely flex, dropping the tension on the
blade and result in a barreled cut. Hopefully that's the worse that would
happen.

The motor horsepower shouldn't be of any concern (unless too small.)
I'd think the size of blade and the resultant tension required would
be the limiting factors.


Grizzly's tech support was iffy on a 1.5 HP on my G1019 and had a definite
"no" on a 2 HP.

Did they say why? Were they saying no to the combo or to the larger
motor? My guess is the former, not the latter.

--
"Most Folks Are As Happy As They Make Up Their Minds To Be"
-Abraham Lincoln
-----------------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Happy Website Development

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:27:06 -0500, Nova
calmly ranted:

CW wrote:

No problem. 2horspower is still pretty weenie.

It depends. Most 14" bandsaw have a problem providing enough tension for a
3/4" blade without the frame flexing. Given a situation where a 2 HP motor
would be beneficial, unless the saw was designed to handle that size motor,
the frame of the saw would most likely flex, dropping the tension on the
blade and result in a barreled cut. Hopefully that's the worse that would
happen.

The motor horsepower shouldn't be of any concern (unless too small.)
I'd think the size of blade and the resultant tension required would
be the limiting factors.

Blade friction. When you start resawing lumber where the power is needed a
larger motor, say 2 HP will torque the frame. It will still pull the blade
through the wood but with the flex the blade will "bunch up" above the drag. A
smaller motor will stall before this happens. With my G1019 with the riser i got
the distinct impression from Grizzly's tech support it would be risking snapping
the frame with a 2 HP motor.

Grizzly's tech support was iffy on a 1.5 HP on my G1019 and had a definite
"no" on a 2 HP.

Did they say why? Were they saying no to the combo or to the larger motor? My
guess is the former, not the latter.

If you mean the combo of the G1019 and a 2 HP motor, yes the saw was designed
for a 3/4 HP motor. I don't know if the riser kit figured in, but I imagine it
would. The tech says a 1 HP wouldn't be a problem, 1.5 was questionable and 2
HP was out.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 20:36:43 -0500, Nova
calmly ranted:

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:27:06 -0500, Nova
calmly ranted:

CW wrote:

No problem. 2horspower is still pretty weenie.

It depends. Most 14" bandsaw have a problem providing enough tension for a
3/4" blade without the frame flexing. Given a situation where a 2 HP motor
would be beneficial, unless the saw was designed to handle that size motor,
the frame of the saw would most likely flex, dropping the tension on the
blade and result in a barreled cut. Hopefully that's the worse that would
happen.

The motor horsepower shouldn't be of any concern (unless too small.)
I'd think the size of blade and the resultant tension required would
be the limiting factors.

Blade friction. When you start resawing lumber where the power is needed a
larger motor, say 2 HP will torque the frame. It will still pull the blade
through the wood but with the flex the blade will "bunch up" above the drag. A
smaller motor will stall before this happens. With my G1019 with the riser i got
the distinct impression from Grizzly's tech support it would be risking snapping
the frame with a 2 HP motor.

Blade friction?!? The motor drives the lower wheel which drives the
blade and the upper wheel goes along for the ride. Whether you have
a 0.5 or a 5.0 hp motor should make little difference, since the
weight of the blade and upper wheel will be the same mass no matter
what motor.


Grizzly's tech support was iffy on a 1.5 HP on my G1019 and had a definite
"no" on a 2 HP.

Did they say why? Were they saying no to the combo or to the larger motor? My
guess is the former, not the latter.

If you mean the combo of the G1019 and a 2 HP motor, yes the saw was designed
for a 3/4 HP motor. I don't know if the riser kit figured in, but I imagine it
would. The tech says a 1 HP wouldn't be a problem, 1.5 was questionable and 2
HP was out.

No, I meant the wider blade and higher tension. But did you tell him
you'd be using low-tension Suffolk Timberwolfs? (Or were you?) How
much difference in mass could the longer/wider blade make? 8 ounces?
That slim margin would easily be quintupled by extra tension on the
original bandsaw with the original spring. Inertial mass _can't_ be
it.

--
"Most Folks Are As Happy As They Make Up Their Minds To Be"
-Abraham Lincoln
-----------------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Happy Website Development

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Nova wrote:

Bob wrote:

An electric motor HP rating is what its capable of putting out. If
you do not stress it, it does not produce any more HP than your
existing motor. The only way to make it produce the full 2HP is to
really load it up.

I wish my electric meter believed that.




What a testament to the failure of science education in the general
populace (Bob, not you Nova)...

Well...... ;-) I made it 2/3 rds of the way to a mechanical engineering
degree before switching to computer science. As an "inganeering" student I
lernt alot about "conservation of energy" and the like. ;-)

If you hook up a 1 HP motor and it turns the band saw at "X" FPM, and then
you hook up a 2 HP (or 10 HP or 100 HP or 10M HP) motor and it also turns
the saw at "X" FPM, what is the larger motor doing to consume more
electrons? Radiating heat? Shooting arcs in the air? Writing its
congressperson? It takes the same amount of power to spin the same machine
at the same speed, so if there is a difference in electrons sacrificed by
the different sized motors it has to be due to efficiency differences in the
motors and/or the motors sending the electrons off to do other things.

When my 14" Jet BS is running but not actually cutting wood, I haven't
noticed the motor housing glowing red, or sparks jumping out of the motor,
or letters to congresscritters coming out of the motor. Therefore I have to
conclude that the motor is consuming only enough electrons to keep the the
band saw mechanisms turning at a constanst speed against the forces of
friction in the bearings, the unwillingness of the band saw blade to be bent
and unbent, and the link belt groaning and complaining as it is bent and
straightened. If you ignore internal differences in motors and hook up a
100 HP motor to the same Jet 14" band saw and it also drives the BS at the
same speed, it is impossible for the difference of a single electron to flow
through my electric meter -- unless the larger motor is shunting additional
electrons elsewhere.

When idling at a stoplight, I'll bet a Chevette and a Corvette are
*producing* basically the same HP, even though there is a substantial
difference in their maximum HP. ;-)

-- Mark

P.S. Those who finished engineering degrees are invited to correct my
mis/mal understandings. ;-)

Roy Smith wrote:

The only time you really need the power and tension is when you're
resawing, and when you're resawing, there's usually very little
material on one side of the blade. So, it seems to me you could
solve the frame flexing problem by having a removable strut which
could be fitted as a compression member between the upper frame and
the table when resawing.

I've never seen such a thing on a bandsaw, but I find it hard to
believe nobody else has thought of it before me. Does such a thing
exist?

File the patent. This looks like one of those "Why didn't I think of
that???" things. ;-)

-- Mark

Mark Jerde wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Nova wrote:

Bob wrote:

An electric motor HP rating is what its capable of putting out. If
you do not stress it, it does not produce any more HP than your
existing motor. The only way to make it produce the full 2HP is to
really load it up.

I wish my electric meter believed that.




What a testament to the failure of science education in the general
populace (Bob, not you Nova)...

Well...... ;-) I made it 2/3 rds of the way to a mechanical
engineering
degree before switching to computer science. As an "inganeering" student
I
lernt alot about "conservation of energy" and the like. ;-)

If you hook up a 1 HP motor and it turns the band saw at "X" FPM, and then
you hook up a 2 HP (or 10 HP or 100 HP or 10M HP) motor and it also turns
the saw at "X" FPM, what is the larger motor doing to consume more
electrons? Radiating heat? Shooting arcs in the air? Writing its
congressperson? It takes the same amount of power to spin the same
machine at the same speed, so if there is a difference in electrons
sacrificed by the different sized motors it has to be due to efficiency
differences in the motors and/or the motors sending the electrons off to
do other things.

When my 14" Jet BS is running but not actually cutting wood, I haven't
noticed the motor housing glowing red, or sparks jumping out of the motor,
or letters to congresscritters coming out of the motor. Therefore I have
to conclude that the motor is consuming only enough electrons to keep the
the band saw mechanisms turning at a constanst speed against the forces of
friction in the bearings, the unwillingness of the band saw blade to be
bent and unbent, and the link belt groaning and complaining as it is bent
and
straightened. If you ignore internal differences in motors and hook up a
100 HP motor to the same Jet 14" band saw and it also drives the BS at the
same speed, it is impossible for the difference of a single electron to
flow through my electric meter -- unless the larger motor is shunting
additional electrons elsewhere.

When idling at a stoplight, I'll bet a Chevette and a Corvette are
*producing* basically the same HP, even though there is a substantial
difference in their maximum HP. ;-)

Just picking nits, the Corvette will be consuming more fuel because the
larger engine has more and larger bits rubbing together and thus more
friction. The difference will be small though.

-- Mark

P.S. Those who finished engineering degrees are invited to correct my
mis/mal understandings. ;-)

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Mark Jerde wrote:

Well...... ;-) I made it 2/3 rds of the way to a mechanical engineering
degree before switching to computer science. As an "inganeering" student I
lernt alot about "conservation of energy" and the like. ;-)

If you hook up a 1 HP motor and it turns the band saw at "X" FPM, and then
you hook up a 2 HP (or 10 HP or 100 HP or 10M HP) motor and it also turns
the saw at "X" FPM, what is the larger motor doing to consume more
electrons? Radiating heat? Shooting arcs in the air? Writing its
congressperson? It takes the same amount of power to spin the same machine
at the same speed, so if there is a difference in electrons sacrificed by
the different sized motors it has to be due to efficiency differences in the
motors and/or the motors sending the electrons off to do other things.

snip

Start up current. Have you ever seen a 2 HP motor wired for 110 volts dim the
lights while it spins up? I agree that once the motor spins up the running
current difference is only that needed to keep the more massive armature turning
and overcoming more friction of the larger bearings of the bigger motor, but I
imagine you could run a 1/2 HP motor for 15 minutes on the current drawn by 2 HP
motor on start up alone.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Larry Jaques wrote:

Blade friction?!? The motor drives the lower wheel which drives the
blade and the upper wheel goes along for the ride. Whether you have
a 0.5 or a 5.0 hp motor should make little difference, since the
weight of the blade and upper wheel will be the same mass no matter
what motor.

The blade friction is still there and has to be overcome. Unless the blade slips on
the wheels the torque is taken by the frame. Think of it as pushing a rope which is
the reason for barreled cuts.

Grizzly's tech support was iffy on a 1.5 HP on my G1019 and had a definite
"no" on a 2 HP.

Did they say why? Were they saying no to the combo or to the larger motor? My
guess is the former, not the latter.

If you mean the combo of the G1019 and a 2 HP motor, yes the saw was designed
for a 3/4 HP motor. I don't know if the riser kit figured in, but I imagine it
would. The tech says a 1 HP wouldn't be a problem, 1.5 was questionable and 2
HP was out.

No, I meant the wider blade and higher tension. But did you tell him
you'd be using low-tension Suffolk Timberwolfs? (Or were you?) How
much difference in mass could the longer/wider blade make? 8 ounces?
That slim margin would easily be quintupled by extra tension on the
original bandsaw with the original spring. Inertial mass _can't_ be
it.

I normally use a 1/2" Timberwolf blade which Suffolk recommended for the saw. I
tried there 3/4" and as Suffolk predicted the saw can't handle the tensions produced
by the added blade friction of the extra 1/4" blade width while resawing. It is
especially noticeable when attempting to saw "green" lumber (i.e. milling short logs
into boards) which has more of a tendency to bind the blade.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 03:52:21 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
wrote:

P.S. Those who finished engineering degrees are invited to correct my
mis/mal understandings. ;-)

I think that the difference involved occurs when both are under load.
A bull and a mouse can pull a small toy behind them a the same speed
if the bull takes it slow and easy. If the toy sticks against
something, the mouse will stall. The bull will destroy the toy, the
something, and anything else that gets in the way. It's smart to not
overdo it.

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:49:06 -0500, Nova
calmly ranted:

The blade friction is still there and has to be overcome. Unless the blade slips on
the wheels the torque is taken by the frame. Think of it as pushing a rope which is
the reason for barreled cuts.

I think of it as the wheel pulling the teeth down, into the wood. The
majority of the tension on the blade is between the table and the
bottom wheel on the downward side. Since the wheels are connected,
there may be a very minor amount of "pushing", but the fact that the
band is laying on the -outside- of the wheels precludes much of that.
Any attempt at pushing would simply make space between the blade and
the wheel, and that could come only if there was no tension on the
blade at all. No, it is my understanding that barrel cuts are the
result of insufficient tension on the blade.


No, I meant the wider blade and higher tension. But did you tell him
you'd be using low-tension Suffolk Timberwolfs? (Or were you?) How
much difference in mass could the longer/wider blade make? 8 ounces?
That slim margin would easily be quintupled by extra tension on the
original bandsaw with the original spring. Inertial mass _can't_ be
it.

The only part I can see being stressed by having a larger motor would
be the lower wheel (major) and its bearing (minor). Startup might be
quicker, creating higher initial (and inertial) stress, and it would
be able to do more work when making heavy cuts while resawing. The
upper wheel and frame are merely used as guides for the band.

I just don't buy that C-frame flex thing at all. Wider bands and the
higher tension needed to run them would be the only cause of frame
stress that I can see. No, I take that back. The frame may have more
stress AT the lower wheel bearing mount during heavy cuts. The wheel
being slightly deflected upward up would also result in lower tension
on the blade, with the tension spring attempting to take up that
slack.

Maybe the guy at Griz could expand on his concerns. I'd be very
interested (despite having their old heavy-duty 18" G1012.)


I normally use a 1/2" Timberwolf blade which Suffolk recommended for the saw. I
tried there 3/4" and as Suffolk predicted the saw can't handle the tensions produced
by the added blade friction of the extra 1/4" blade width while resawing. It is
especially noticeable when attempting to saw "green" lumber (i.e. milling short logs
into boards) which has more of a tendency to bind the blade.

Yeah, and they make resaw blades for both green and dried wood,
with different set, hook angles, gullet depth, etc. for each one.

--
"Most Folks Are As Happy As They Make Up Their Minds To Be"
-Abraham Lincoln
-----------------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Happy Website Development

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:49:06 -0500, Nova
calmly ranted:

The blade friction is still there and has to be overcome. Unless the
blade slips on
the wheels the torque is taken by the frame. Think of it as pushing a
rope which is
the reason for barreled cuts.

I think of it as the wheel pulling the teeth down, into the wood. The
majority of the tension on the blade is between the table and the
bottom wheel on the downward side. Since the wheels are connected,
there may be a very minor amount of "pushing", but the fact that the
band is laying on the -outside- of the wheels precludes much of that.
Any attempt at pushing would simply make space between the blade and
the wheel, and that could come only if there was no tension on the
blade at all. No, it is my understanding that barrel cuts are the
result of insufficient tension on the blade.


How about this:

The free-wheeling upper wheel gets ahead of the driven, but loaded lower,
causing the blade to bunch into the gap. Doesn't take much difference in
speed to start the process, which then increases in effect as the bunched
part slows....

George wrote:
....
How about this:

The free-wheeling upper wheel gets ahead of the driven, but loaded lower,
causing the blade to bunch into the gap. Doesn't take much difference in
speed to start the process, which then increases in effect as the bunched
part slows....

The upper wheel isn't free-wheeling, it's driven/pulled by the
blade...the blade makes the wheel move, not the other way round...

Larry Jaques wrote:

....
The only part I can see being stressed by having a larger motor would
be the lower wheel (major) and its bearing (minor). Startup might be
quicker, creating higher initial (and inertial) stress, and it would
be able to do more work when making heavy cuts while resawing. The
upper wheel and frame are merely used as guides for the band.

I just don't buy that C-frame flex thing at all. Wider bands and the
higher tension needed to run them would be the only cause of frame
stress that I can see. No, I take that back. The frame may have more
stress AT the lower wheel bearing mount during heavy cuts. The wheel
being slightly deflected upward up would also result in lower tension
on the blade, with the tension spring attempting to take up that
slack.

You've got it except you're overlooking the fact that the blade is
pulling on the outside of the upper wheel which is applying torque to
the frame...as the motor applies more power to the blade this gets
transferred to a higher load which could in extreme case, cause the
support to fail...

In article ,
Duane Bozarth wrote:
George wrote:
...
How about this:

The free-wheeling upper wheel gets ahead of the driven, but loaded lower,
causing the blade to bunch into the gap. Doesn't take much difference in
speed to start the process, which then increases in effect as the bunched
part slows....

The upper wheel isn't free-wheeling, it's driven/pulled by the
blade...the blade makes the wheel move, not the other way round...

On the other hand, the upper wheel has rotational inertia. It's an
interesting dynamics problem to figure out exactly what happens if you
get the whole system up to speed and then place drag on the
downward-moving blade.

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 11:57:37 -0600, Duane Bozarth
calmly ranted:

Larry Jaques wrote:

...
The only part I can see being stressed by having a larger motor would
be the lower wheel (major) and its bearing (minor). Startup might be
quicker, creating higher initial (and inertial) stress, and it would
be able to do more work when making heavy cuts while resawing. The
upper wheel and frame are merely used as guides for the band.

I just don't buy that C-frame flex thing at all. Wider bands and the
higher tension needed to run them would be the only cause of frame
stress that I can see. No, I take that back. The frame may have more
stress AT the lower wheel bearing mount during heavy cuts. The wheel
being slightly deflected upward up would also result in lower tension
on the blade, with the tension spring attempting to take up that
slack.

You've got it except you're overlooking the fact that the blade is
pulling on the outside of the upper wheel which is applying torque to
the frame...as the motor applies more power to the blade this gets
transferred to a higher load which could in extreme case, cause the
support to fail...

How could the inertial mass of the blade and aluminum wheel (under 10
pounds would be my highest guess) cause any more tension on the frame
than the tension adjustment spring, which is in the hundreds of
pounds? I still don't buy it, but I would like to hear the Griz
tech's explanation.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
Duane Bozarth wrote:
George wrote:
...
How about this:

The free-wheeling upper wheel gets ahead of the driven, but loaded lower,
causing the blade to bunch into the gap. Doesn't take much difference in
speed to start the process, which then increases in effect as the bunched
part slows....

The upper wheel isn't free-wheeling, it's driven/pulled by the
blade...the blade makes the wheel move, not the other way round...

On the other hand, the upper wheel has rotational inertia. It's an
interesting dynamics problem to figure out exactly what happens if you
get the whole system up to speed and then place drag on the
downward-moving blade.

Not a tremendous amount, however, as the mass of the wheel isn't all
that great...

But, you're correct, it's a fairly complex dynamical system if one
accounts for all effects including blade slip, stretch, ...

Larry Jaques wrote:
....
How could the inertial mass of the blade and aluminum wheel (under 10
pounds would be my highest guess) cause any more tension on the frame
than the tension adjustment spring, which is in the hundreds of
pounds? I still don't buy it, but I would like to hear the Griz
tech's explanation.

It's not the inertial mass we're talking about here...it's the extra
torque exerted by the larger motor when more force is exerted
(particularly suddenly) by the blade through the material...