Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote in news:nmejmk$qpb$1
@dont-email.me:
> was looking at an orbital air sander and the claim was that it did a
> better job then similar electric sander
>
> the only thing i could think of that would be different was that it was
> higher rpms but my electric goes plenty fast
>
>
> marketing claim or is there really something to it
American Woodworker did a review of palm sanders years ago,
and included 2 or 3 air models in their selection.
As I recall, they found the air sanders, to be lighter, easier
on the hands because of less vibration, and more powerful.
They also noted the possibility of getting lube oil on the
work from the air exhaust (I guess they had an in-line oiler
in the air system they were using).
John
On 7/17/2016 9:44 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote in news:nmejmk$qpb$1
> @dont-email.me:
>
>> was looking at an orbital air sander and the claim was that it did a
>> better job then similar electric sander
>>
>> the only thing i could think of that would be different was that it was
>> higher rpms but my electric goes plenty fast
>>
>>
>> marketing claim or is there really something to it
>
> American Woodworker did a review of palm sanders years ago,
> and included 2 or 3 air models in their selection.
>
> As I recall, they found the air sanders, to be lighter, easier
> on the hands because of less vibration, and more powerful.
> They also noted the possibility of getting lube oil on the
> work from the air exhaust (I guess they had an in-line oiler
> in the air system they were using).
>
> John
>
I would imagine that for the average woodworker with out a 60 gallon
plus compressor tank that the volume necessary for an air sander would
be out of reach except for a few seconds of use at a time.
Air consumption of one of the Mirka air sanders is 475 l/min. IMHO a 25
gallon compressor is not going to be able to keep up.
On 7/21/2016 11:14 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 7/17/2016 2:48 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>> I would imagine that for the average woodworker with out a 60 gallon
>> plus compressor tank that the volume necessary for an air sander would
>> be out of reach except for a few seconds of use at a time.
>>
>> Air consumption of one of the Mirka air sanders is 475 l/min. IMHO a 25
>> gallon compressor is not going to be able to keep up.
>
> I have a 30 gallon and it can't keep up with my (old) Milwaukee air
> sander. I guess it depends more on the compressor than the tank though.
> Has no dust collection either, so it never, ever gets any use.
Precicely, I kinda lumped them all in the same type category. It is all
about the CFM of the pump and not so much the tank size. But for the
most part the bigger the tank the less the pump has to recharge.
I once bought an 80 gallon compressor from a garage sale, it had a tiny
single piston pump. It literally took approximately 45 minutes to fill
from no pressure. Obviously it was a "piece it together" affair. I was
glad to sell it and downsize to a "New" compressor 20 years ago. LOL
Electric Comet wrote:
> was looking at an orbital air sander and the claim was that it did a
> better job then similar electric sander
>
> the only thing i could think of that would be different was that it was
> higher rpms but my electric goes plenty fast
>
>
> marketing claim or is there really something to it
>
>
It's the size of the swirls it cuts.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 7/17/2016 2:48 PM, Leon wrote:
> I would imagine that for the average woodworker with out a 60 gallon
> plus compressor tank that the volume necessary for an air sander would
> be out of reach except for a few seconds of use at a time.
>
> Air consumption of one of the Mirka air sanders is 475 l/min. IMHO a 25
> gallon compressor is not going to be able to keep up.
I have a 30 gallon and it can't keep up with my (old) Milwaukee air
sander. I guess it depends more on the compressor than the tank though.
Has no dust collection either, so it never, ever gets any use.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com