Much has been said with regards to table saws and tuning.
This past weekend, I installed a machined pulley and link belt kit from
Hartville Tool <http://www.hartvilletool.com/product/10885> on a Delta
Contractor Saw. I'm not associated with the company or product, wanted
to offer them a shameless plug.
While the saw has always been OK; how good can this kit be and can it
really make a differnece?
I must admit changing both pulleys and the belt made the saw perform at
it's best-ever. I re-sawed 1 X 4 inch Oak on 2 passes. With the saw
blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
pulleys) and the smoothness of the link belt, WOW what a clean smooth
cut. Using the same blade as before the upgrade, cross cuts are smooth
as glass. If you are considering an upgrade, for $50 bucks I would
highly recommend this kit.
Of course YMMV, but I think you'll be pleased!
Darwin
DAC wrote:
> Much has been said with regards to table saws and tuning.
>
> >
> I must admit changing both pulleys and the belt made the saw perform
at
> it's best-ever.
The best source for link belts I have found is HF. It's on line. They
don't carry it in the local store. Cast/machined/balanced pulleys are
available at any good bearing supply store. Make your own tune up kit
- do the math first to get the best pulley sizes.
Leon wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > DAC wrote:
> >>
> > ...
> >> blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
> >> pulleys) ...
> >
> > Be careful you're not exceeding rated tip speed of your blades...
> >
> > (rpm/60 x radius-inches/12 = linear-ft/sec)
> >
> > Have you calculated the new arbor rpm?
>
> I think that should be ((RPM/60) x (Radius in inches x 3.14)) /12 = linear
> feet per second.
Sorry, yeah, I accidently deleted the pi by an inadvertent edit to fix
another typo... :(
The possible concern was addressed in the other post where the sizes are
given...
In that regard a 1.2/1.1 ~10% rpm increase from a somewhat slow initial
speed may well be noticeable...
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "DAC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> Snip
>
> > I must admit changing both pulleys and the belt made the saw perform at
> > it's best-ever. I re-sawed 1 X 4 inch Oak on 2 passes. With the saw
> > blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
> > pulleys) and the smoothness of the link belt, WOW what a clean smooth
> > cut. Using the same blade as before the upgrade, cross cuts are smooth
> > as glass. If you are considering an upgrade, for $50 bucks I would
> > highly recommend this kit.
>
> Were the old pullies equal in size to each other and are the new pullies
> equal in size to each other?
>
>
Made me look. I have 2.5 on the arbor, 3.0 on the motor as original - 1.2
* 3450 = 4140
His at 2.25 and 2.5 respectively = 1.1 * 3450 = 3833
Sounds like the "additional rpms" might be illusory.
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In that regard a 1.2/1.1 ~10% rpm increase from a somewhat slow initial
> speed may well be noticeable...
Uh, read the post. His are the 1.1/1 , original to at least my 34-410 are
1.2/1.
Blades are normally rated for an RPM, their diameter being known to the
manufacturer beforehand.
Did the same thing to my Craftsman contractor's TS a while back - I don't
know about all this fuzzy math stuff, but it just seemed to cut so much
better. I also put a Freud blade on it, which also seemed to improve
performance. Cuts were smoother with no bogging down.
I'm putting a link belt on my Delta DP - I'm also going to put them on my
jointer and my bandsaw -
Nick B
"DAC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Much has been said with regards to table saws and tuning.
>
> This past weekend, I installed a machined pulley and link belt kit from
> Hartville Tool <http://www.hartvilletool.com/product/10885> on a Delta
> Contractor Saw. I'm not associated with the company or product, wanted
> to offer them a shameless plug.
>
> While the saw has always been OK; how good can this kit be and can it
> really make a differnece?
>
> I must admit changing both pulleys and the belt made the saw perform at
> it's best-ever. I re-sawed 1 X 4 inch Oak on 2 passes. With the saw
> blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
> pulleys) and the smoothness of the link belt, WOW what a clean smooth
> cut. Using the same blade as before the upgrade, cross cuts are smooth
> as glass. If you are considering an upgrade, for $50 bucks I would
> highly recommend this kit.
>
> Of course YMMV, but I think you'll be pleased!
>
> Darwin
>
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If I'm not wrong, it is the rpm x the circumference. The latter is Pi x
> D(iameter), not Pi x r(adius). Maybe you are thinking pi r squared which
> is for area of a circle.
Yes, And I caught that and corrected that also.
In article <[email protected]>, "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Leon wrote:
>> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>DAC wrote:
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>>blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
>>>>pulleys) ...
>>>
>>>Be careful you're not exceeding rated tip speed of your blades...
>>>
>>>(rpm/60 x radius-inches/12 = linear-ft/sec)
>>>
>>>Have you calculated the new arbor rpm?
>>
>>
>> I think that should be ((RPM/60) x (Radius in inches x 3.14)) /12 = linear
>> feet per second.
>>
>>
>If I'm not wrong, it is the rpm x the
>circumference. The latter is Pi x D(iameter), not
>Pi x r(adius). Maybe you are thinking pi r squared
>which is for area of a circle.
No, you're not wrong. Specifically, the calculation is
(rpm / 60) * (diameter in inches) * 3.14 / 12 = linear feet/sec.
But why does anyone care? I've *never* seen a saw blade marked "max tip speed
xxx linear feet/sec", but I *have* seen *plenty* of blades marked "max RPM
xxx".
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:xPzTd.75342
>>
> Yep, noticed that right after I sent the comment. Sorry.
No need to be sorry, you did what I did. LOL
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I think that should be ((RPM/60) x (Radius in inches x 3.14)) /12 =
> linear feet per second.
CRAP. Should be
((RPM/60) x (diameter in inches x 3.14)) /12 = linear
> feet per second.
or
((RPM/60) x (2 x Radius in inches x 3.14)) /12 = linear
> feet per second.
you gotta add pi in there. :~)
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> But why does anyone care? I've *never* seen a saw blade marked "max tip
> speed
> xxx linear feet/sec", but I *have* seen *plenty* of blades marked "max RPM
> xxx".
Because in the end, the tip speed is the ultimate limiting factor. Simply
staying at or under the rpm indicated on the blade simplifies making sure
the tip speed is not too high.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
> And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Sorry, yeah, I accidently deleted the pi by an inadvertent edit to fix
> another typo... :(
>
> The possible concern was addressed in the other post where the sizes are
> given...
LOL... I corrected you wrong also. See my next comment. ;~)
In article <[email protected]>, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> But why does anyone care? I've *never* seen a saw blade marked "max tip
>> speed
>> xxx linear feet/sec", but I *have* seen *plenty* of blades marked "max RPM
>> xxx".
>
>Because in the end, the tip speed is the ultimate limiting factor. Simply
>staying at or under the rpm indicated on the blade simplifies making sure
>the tip speed is not too high.
Yes, I *know* the tip speed is the limiting factor. But since blades are
labelled to indicate max rpm, *not* max tip speed, what's the point in knowing
the tip speed?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>>
>> Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
>> And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
>
>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Yes, I *know* the tip speed is the limiting factor. But since blades are
> labelled to indicate max rpm, *not* max tip speed, what's the point in
> knowing
> the tip speed?
To be more knowledgeable. ;~)
"DAC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Snip
> I must admit changing both pulleys and the belt made the saw perform at
> it's best-ever. I re-sawed 1 X 4 inch Oak on 2 passes. With the saw
> blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
> pulleys) and the smoothness of the link belt, WOW what a clean smooth
> cut. Using the same blade as before the upgrade, cross cuts are smooth
> as glass. If you are considering an upgrade, for $50 bucks I would
> highly recommend this kit.
Were the old pullies equal in size to each other and are the new pullies
equal in size to each other?
Leon wrote:
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>DAC wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>>blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
>>>pulleys) ...
>>
>>Be careful you're not exceeding rated tip speed of your blades...
>>
>>(rpm/60 x radius-inches/12 = linear-ft/sec)
>>
>>Have you calculated the new arbor rpm?
>
>
> I think that should be ((RPM/60) x (Radius in inches x 3.14)) /12 = linear
> feet per second.
>
>
If I'm not wrong, it is the rpm x the
circumference. The latter is Pi x D(iameter), not
Pi x r(adius). Maybe you are thinking pi r squared
which is for area of a circle.
Leon wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>If I'm not wrong, it is the rpm x the circumference. The latter is Pi x
>>D(iameter), not Pi x r(adius). Maybe you are thinking pi r squared which
>>is for area of a circle.
>
>
> Yes, And I caught that and corrected that also.
>
>
Yep, noticed that right after I sent the comment.
Sorry.
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DAC wrote:
>>
> ...
>> blade operating at additional RPM's than from the factory (resized
>> pulleys) ...
>
> Be careful you're not exceeding rated tip speed of your blades...
>
> (rpm/60 x radius-inches/12 = linear-ft/sec)
>
> Have you calculated the new arbor rpm?
I think that should be ((RPM/60) x (Radius in inches x 3.14)) /12 = linear
feet per second.
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Made me look. I have 2.5 on the arbor, 3.0 on the motor as original -
> 1.2
> * 3450 = 4140
>
> His at 2.25 and 2.5 respectively = 1.1 * 3450 = 3833
>
> Sounds like the "additional rpms" might be illusory.
Yeah I was wondering myself as IIRC both TS's that I have had, had same
diameter pulleys.