Saw blade speeds

"Old Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I was going to ask, but found this.
>
---------------
Is this information correct? I ask because according to it my saw is a POS
(which I knew anyway, was going to get a new blade yesterday but figured it
would be like putting lipstick on a pig)

My 7" POS = 4764 SFPM
Makita 7.5" = 9621
DeWalt 7.5" = 7461
Freud 7.25" = 7212
etc

So it seems to me that either my calculations are duff or the information
regarding optimum speed is duff.

"Old Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:06:44 +0800, Old Nick <[email protected]>
>
> Well we appear to be getting nowhere here. Obviously all this was
> simply old hat.
----------------
Not quite sure what you mean by that. Anyway, you found the figures for a
reason and I suppose you used them to calculate whether your saw operates at
optimum. Mine certainly didn't but neither did any of the more reputable
brands.

e.g. Makita 7.5" 5704RK, RPM (No Load) 4900

So:
7.5 x Pi x 4900 / 12 = 9621 SFPM

Which is less than the 15000 SFPM considered optimum for most materials. The
Makita was the nearest of the ones I calculated, all others fell even more
short of the mark. So, if the figures are correct why would manufacturers
not produce saws that operated at optimum?

> I did find the same figures elsewhere.
----------------
That may be so but it still doesn't mean they are correct. And even if they
are - so what. You can't get a saw that runs at that speed.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:53:21 +0100, "gandalf"
<[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

>
>"Old Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:06:44 +0800, Old Nick <[email protected]>
>>
>> Well we appear to be getting nowhere here. Obviously all this was
>> simply old hat.
>----------------
>Not quite sure what you mean by that.

It would appear that aprt from yourself, nobody is interested enough
to say anything.

> Anyway, you found the figures for a
>reason and I suppose you used them to calculate whether your saw operates at
>optimum. Mine certainly didn't but neither did any of the more reputable
>brands.
>
>e.g. Makita 7.5" 5704RK, RPM (No Load) 4900
>
>So:
>7.5 x Pi x 4900 / 12 = 9621 SFPM
>
>Which is less than the 15000 SFPM considered optimum for most materials. The
>Makita was the nearest of the ones I calculated, all others fell even more
>short of the mark. So, if the figures are correct why would manufacturers
>not produce saws that operated at optimum?
>
>> I did find the same figures elsewhere.
>----------------
>That may be so but it still doesn't mean they are correct. And even if they
>are - so what. You can't get a saw that runs at that speed.
>

So what? My saw is belt driven and able to be altered.
*****************************************************
I have decided that I should not be offended by
anybody's behaviour but my own......the theory's
good, anyway.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:23:49 +0100, "gandalf"
<[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Well, I am not sure. Anyone else comment?

It would help if you posted your calculations, I guess. <G>

>
>"Old Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I was going to ask, but found this.
>>
>---------------
>Is this information correct? I ask because according to it my saw is a POS
>(which I knew anyway, was going to get a new blade yesterday but figured it
>would be like putting lipstick on a pig)
>
>My 7" POS = 4764 SFPM
>Makita 7.5" = 9621
>DeWalt 7.5" = 7461
>Freud 7.25" = 7212
>etc
>
>So it seems to me that either my calculations are duff or the information
>regarding optimum speed is duff.


*****************************************************
I have decided that I should not be offended by
anybody's behaviour but my own......the theory's
good, anyway.

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:42:18 +0800, Old Nick <[email protected]>
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

And you cantell from my repetition of that statement Fuck knows how)
that I meant it! <G>

Note: for those PITAS who insist on placing their opinions at others'
bottoms, then displaying those bottoms for the piblic AGAIN, I have
snipped all previous postings.
*****************************************************
I have decided that I should not be offended by
anybody's behaviour but my own......the theory's
good, anyway.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:06:44 +0800, Old Nick <[email protected]>
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


Well we appear to be getting nowhere here. Obviously all this was
simply old hat.

I did find the same figures elsewhere.
*****************************************************
I have decided that I should not be offended by
anybody's behaviour but my own......the theory's
good, anyway.