Changed blades from a Forrest 3/32 to 1/8 and now I'm getting woodburn on
the fence side of the cut when ripping. Tried changing feed rate and it
helped to a certain extent but it persists. What's up with this? TIA
Tom

"Tom Cavanagh" writes:
Changed blades from a Forrest 3/32 to 1/8 and now I'm getting woodburn on
the fence side of the cut when ripping. Tried changing feed rate and it
helped to a certain extent but it persists. What's up with this? TIA
Tom



Blade is warped?
Fence isnt' parallel to blade?
Splitter misaligned?

scott

Ripping Cherry?

What Forrest Blade?

Dave

"Tom Cavanagh" wrote in message
...
Changed blades from a Forrest 3/32 to 1/8 and now I'm getting woodburn on
the fence side of the cut when ripping. Tried changing feed rate and it
helped to a certain extent but it persists. What's up with this? TIA
Tom




Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Tom Cavanagh" wrote in message
...
Changed blades from a Forrest 3/32 to 1/8 and now I'm getting woodburn on
the fence side of the cut when ripping. Tried changing feed rate and it
helped to a certain extent but it persists. What's up with this? TIA
Tom

Wood burn in general or with a different kind of wood, like cherry or maple?
Do you get burn with the thin blade and the SAME board? Check the 1/8"
blade run out.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:51:36 -0500, "Tom Cavanagh"
wrote:

Changed blades from a Forrest 3/32 to 1/8 and now I'm getting woodburn on
the fence side of the cut when ripping. Tried changing feed rate and it
helped to a certain extent but it persists. What's up with this? TIA
Tom


I wonder if the thicker blade has too many teeth for the cut
that you're making. I mention that because some of the solutions that
I've seen suggested for burning problems include thinner blades and/or
fewer teeth (especially for ripping).

Increasing the blade height might make a difference, but may
also increase the possibility of kickback.

Also, you might double-check the blade and fence alignment.
The "rear" teeth should just barely touch the wood on the fence side
of the cut. I don't know why any alignment problems would only be
evident with the thicker blade, unless maybe there is a splitter that
was helping to hold the wood off the the rear of the thinner blade.

Is it possible that the teeth have been dulled on the fence
side of the 1/8" blade?

Just some thoughts. Remember, I know even LESS than Sgt.
Schultz!

"Pete Duncan" wrote in message
...
Increasing the blade height might make a difference, but may
also increase the possibility of kickback.


Seems that force applied in a more downward vector, from an elevated blade,
would diminish the possibility of kickback.

Less teeth in contact at any time, too.

Increasing the blade height might make a difference, but may
also increase the possibility of kickback.

Seems that force applied in a more downward vector, from an elevated
blade,
would diminish the possibility of kickback.

Less teeth in contact at any time, too.



Perhaps, but an elevated blade would would have teeth in contact with the
wood further apart (front to back). This geometry would exascerbate the
kickback potential with an out-of-parallel fence.

Also, kickback is caused by wood coming on contact with the back of the
blade, the front is not really an issue. I've had a couple of kickbacks over
the years. If a tooth catches and lifts the rear of the board at all, it's
all over. As the board rises, the vector changes to "directly at you".

-Steve

"Stephen M" wrote in message
...
Increasing the blade height might make a difference, but may
also increase the possibility of kickback.

Seems that force applied in a more downward vector, from an elevated
blade,
would diminish the possibility of kickback.

Less teeth in contact at any time, too.



Perhaps, but an elevated blade would would have teeth in contact with the
wood further apart (front to back). This geometry would exascerbate the
kickback potential with an out-of-parallel fence.

Also, kickback is caused by wood coming on contact with the back of the
blade, the front is not really an issue. I've had a couple of kickbacks
over
the years. If a tooth catches and lifts the rear of the board at all, it's
all over. As the board rises, the vector changes to "directly at you".

Sorry, I guess I assume folks will have their fence parallel or open at the
back. Anyone who doesn't is a fool.

However, the front of the blade can hose you as well, especially if have the
main force forward, rather than down.

Sorry, I guess I assume folks will have their fence parallel or open at
the
back. Anyone who doesn't is a fool.

A fool is in wise. Make room for the ignorant as well.

That said, fence alignment was not how I experienced kickback. I screwed up
with sloppy stick feeding. I was trimming a drawer bottom (the long way) and
failed to apply lateral pressure toward the fence.


However, the front of the blade can hose you as well, especially if have
the
main force forward, rather than down.

How the is a kickback differentiated from the normal forward and downward
forces of a normal cut? Do you never make non-through cuts for a kerf-width
groove? That's as forward a vector as you can get.

"Stephen M" wrote in message
...

How the is a kickback differentiated from the normal forward and downward
forces of a normal cut? Do you never make non-through cuts for a
kerf-width
groove? That's as forward a vector as you can get.



Terminology? It kicks back against the direction of feed. Not that I would
recommend it, but if you ever try freehanding, you'll discover how well the
front of a blade can propel a piece. Poor grip or interference with
register on the miter gage can do it as well.

"George" george@least wrote

"Pete Duncan" wrote in message
...
Increasing the blade height might make a difference, but may
also increase the possibility of kickback.


Seems that force applied in a more downward vector, from an elevated
blade,
would diminish the possibility of kickback.

Less teeth in contact at any time, too.

Quite so! For people interested in following this further, the arguments
about blade height are set out on my web site - Circular Sawbench Safety -
Blades.

Maybe it proves that you can't win, can yer?

Jeff G

--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
email : Username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
www.amgron.clara.net