Need a new TS rip blade.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:35:25 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
.
>>>
>>
>>That is with the assumption that the thin and thick are equal in quality
>>and
>>sharpness. A premium regular kerf will cut better and faster than a
>>mediocre thin kerf blade on the same saw.
>
> True, that assumption was implicit. Why would you favor a dull thin-kerf
> over
> a sharp standard kerf? ...or verse visa.

I did not say dull, not all new blades are equally sharp.

And going a bit farther on the subject, ;~)

I was building several drawers today and got to use my "Kerf Maker", drive
by. Any way it occurred to me again why I have better results with thick
kerf vs. thin kerf. I use 1/4" plywood for the bottoms and cut snug dado's
for them to fit in to. Cheap 1/4" plywood is about 7/32" thick and the
outer and inner blades on a dado set are too wide. So I make two passes
with my thick kerf blade. With a think kerf blade that requires three
passes instead of two and also I recall when I did this long ago with a thin
kerf blade the dado width would not be constant. I suspect that because
only the outer side of the blade is cutting on the final pass the thinner
blades will deflect.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:35:25 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:38:41 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:eefe782e-027d-4a48-9eb5-ddcab7001fc0@x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>>>" I have seen and heard ..."
>>>>
>>>> I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to a
>>>> labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
>>>> alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
>>>> even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
>>>> unsupported.
>>>>
>>>> But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
>>>> sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
>>>> when you bog your saw, etc. etc.
>>>
>>>I used to have a one horsepower tablesaw. Never used thin kerf blades on
>>>it.
>>>Never had any trouble cutting whatever I wanted on it. Blade design and
>>>feed
>>>rate are much more important than blade thickness.
>>
>> Quite obviously a standard kerf blade will use 33% more power than a thin
>> kerf. If the saw has enough power with a standard kerf blade, of course
>> you
>> won't see a difference. If it's marginal thin-kerf is a good idea.
>>
>
>That is with the assumption that the thin and thick are equal in quality and
>sharpness. A premium regular kerf will cut better and faster than a
>mediocre thin kerf blade on the same saw.

True, that assumption was implicit. Why would you favor a dull thin-kerf over
a sharp standard kerf? ...or verse visa.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:55:09 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Aug 19, 6:08 pm, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Where do you get this nonsense from?  Ever see a max kerf size on a motor
>> rating?
>
>Nonsense? Not quite. I would say it is settled science that a thin
>kerf blade requires much less energy to cut the same board. Every
>review and study I have seen published, regardless of the wobble
>issue, shows that lower powered saw can cut boards easily with a thin
>kerf that they cannot cut or only burn bog cut with a full width
>blade. Pretty simpel to visualize removing less material with each
>bite. Ever spend much time on the business end of a shovel?

Don't feed the troll.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:07:07 -0700 (PDT), jtpr <[email protected]>
wrote:

>do you really
>change your blade each time?

As someone said here a few years back: "I don't change my blade until
I can't see the wood through the smoke."

If you are in production mode or do a lot of woodworking then by all
means have a saw for each task. For the rest of us a few compromises
are in order. For me that means that a decent combo blade stays in my
saw and does everything unless I have a pretty big rip or crosscut job
to get done.Although I have a Forrest WWII, I usually have my Frued
TK906 in the saw. If I am doing some serious ripping, either in volume
or in thickness, I switch to a rip blade and the one you show is
pretty decent. If I am doing a lot of fine cross cuts or working in
good plywood I switch to an appropriate dedicated blade. From your
description, you need a good combo blade. There are tons of opinions
on here as to what is a good combo blade, so do a little research. If
you like Frued, their site has some decent info, but beware that they
have some good quality blades and some terribly crappy blades (i.e.
any sold by Lowes) some look them up and order what you want. Amazon
usually has decent prices on Frued blades.


On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:07:07 -0700 (PDT), jtpr <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Aug 18, 4:47 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 8/18/2010 3:32 PM, jtpr wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 18, 4:29 pm, Robatoy<[email protected]>  wrote:
>> >> On Aug 18, 4:27 pm, Robatoy<[email protected]>  wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Aug 18, 4:04 pm, jtpr<[email protected]>  wrote:
>>
>> >>>> On Aug 18, 4:03 pm, Robatoy<[email protected]>  wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> On Aug 18, 4:00 pm, jtpr<[email protected]>  wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> I have been using a Freud, forget which one exactly.  Anyway I've had
>> >>>>>> it for too many years and want a new one.  I have a Woodcraft near me
>> >>>>>> as well as a HD and Lowes.  I need to pick it up before the weekend.
>> >>>>>> Has anybody used the RIDGID 10 In. x 90 Tooth Ultimate Polished Finish
>> >>>>>> Saw Blade?  http://tinyurl.com/2fvoo24
>>
>> >>>>>> Other then that it seems that Woodcraft is my best bet.  I am looking
>> >>>>>> at something in the $75 range, so the Forrest is a bit pricey for me.
>> >>>>>> I liked the look of this one:
>>
>> >>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/3yygjty
>>
>> >>>>>> Any opinions?
>>
>> >>>>>> -Jim
>>
>> >>>>> Yup, great value. In a proper table saw, you won't need a jointer.
>>
>> >>>> Wow, that was quick.  Which one are you referring to?
>>
>> >>>> Jim
>>
>> >>> The Freud Glueline Rip. Ripping is a whole different blade issue and
>> >>> only ripping blades rip. Combo blades make a poor second choice.
>>
>> >> That Ridgid blade you linked to won't rip... it will just burn....well
>> >> you probably will get through some wood..but.
>>
>> > Thank you.  Tell me, what is the difference between a "glue line" rip
>> > blade and just a rip blade?  Just the quality of the cut?  And what
>> > happens if you just leave this in your saw and do occasional cross
>> > cuts with it.  I mean I generally use my Mitre saw for that but when I
>> > do fine mitre cuts on boxes and things I like to use the table saw.
>>
>> "GlueLine Rip" is simply a marketing term and has no technical reference
>> merit.
>>
>> That said, I own a Freud "GlueLine Rip", but a regular kerf, and it does
>> everything its marketing term suggests.
>>
>> An excellent ripping blade for the price.
>>
>> It will do crosscuts, but slower and not optimum cuts. If you're serious
>> about woodworking you really need to use the right tool for the job.
>>
>> On that same note, unless you're just seriously underpowered on your
>> table saw, I feel a thicker blade makes for a more stable blade, with
>> less vibration, and particularly when ripping hardwoods, so I forego the
>> thin kerf variety when ripping for my own use.
>>
>> As always, YMMV ...
>>
>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 4/15/2010
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
>I have Rigid 3650, so not really underpowered (for what I do), but not
>a 3hp either.
>
>I agree with the right tool statement. But if I'm doing a one-off
>project with a few crosscuts, some mitre's and rips, do you really
>change your blade each time? However, if I was doing something where
>I could do all the cross cuts first, then the rips I could see it.
>
>Maybe I need a second table saw...;+}
>
>-Jim

On Aug 20, 10:56=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 11:58 am, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Aug 20, 11:22 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> RicodJour wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 20, 9:33 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 19, 10:25 pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial abou=
t
> >>>>>> it. =A0Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial fo=
rce,
> >>>>>> but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it h=
as
> >>>>>> more drag. =A0There's no simple answer.
> >>>>> No there isn't a simple answer, but everything else being equal, th=
e
> >>>>> increased mass of a blade assists in the cutting action, like a big=
ger
> >>>>> hammer. Surely nobody is interested in too much geek detail, hence =
the
> >>>>> Readers Digest version of my statement. Not only is a more massive
> >>>>> rotational force advantage provable on a physical level, it is well
> >>>>> supported by personal observation and what industrial cutter heads
> >>>>> show to be most effective in their respective environments.
> >>>>> A set of solid 'stiffeners' on a table saw not only 'stiffens' the
> >>>>> blade, the added mass contributes to a better cut as well.
> >>>> Apples and oranges, mon ferret. =A0The stiffeners add rotational mas=
s,
> >>>> but no additional cutting resistance is added. =A0Not the case with =
a
> >>>> wider blade.
> >>> For sawblades kinds of masses, the inertial effects would be minimal =
at
> >>> best and the blade stiffener mass is concentrated near the shaft,
> >>> anyway. Besides, the inertia contained in the motor rotor, etc., is
> >>> multiples of that of the blade owing to the mass differences. =A0Henc=
e,
> >>> even though the blade mass may be sizable fractional difference betwe=
en
> >>> the two, the system mass is essentially constant; ergo, so is the tot=
al
> >>> inertia.
> >>> I have to concur w/ the dominant issue (for equivalent sharpness, too=
th
> >>> geometry, etc.) being that of amount of material cut per tooth far
> >>> overriding any of the other effects.
> >> Right. =A0Except for the stiffeners and blade, the whole system is a
> >> constant, and as you say, the bite size is the predominant,
> >> essentially only, variable.
>
> >> R
>
> > The rotational mass of the motor is decoupled from the rotational mass
> > of the blade due to the elasticity of the belt. The extra mass
> > (regardless of how small it may be as we are not discussing HOW much
> > extra mass) will help smooth out the vibrations set up by the chopping
> > action of the the teeth of the saw blade.
>
> ...
>
> But, a few ounces as compared to the rest of the mass isn't going to be
> noticeable. =A0I've never been able to tell any difference of note betwee=
n
> the two on the PM66. =A0On a small contractor saw one might have a better
> chance...
>
> --

Oh, I know. I was splitting hairs.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:00:36 -0500, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:38:41 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:eefe782e-027d-4a48-9eb5-ddcab7001fc0@x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>>" I have seen and heard ..."
>>>
>>> I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to a
>>> labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
>>> alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
>>> even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
>>> unsupported.
>>>
>>> But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
>>> sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
>>> when you bog your saw, etc. etc.
>>
>>I used to have a one horsepower tablesaw. Never used thin kerf blades on it.
>>Never had any trouble cutting whatever I wanted on it. Blade design and feed
>>rate are much more important than blade thickness.
>
>Quite obviously a standard kerf blade will use 33% more power than a thin
>kerf. If the saw has enough power with a standard kerf blade, of course you
>won't see a difference. If it's marginal thin-kerf is a good idea.

How is blade life on a thin kerf? Don't they heat up and dull a whole
lot more quickly?

I don't have but a couple cuts on the Diablo I bought for the skilsaw,
maybe 5' in total, so I don't know yet.

--
We're all here because we're not all there.

"SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote

Nonsense? Not quite. I would say it is settled science that a thin
kerf blade requires much less energy to cut the same board. Every
review and study I have seen published, regardless of the wobble
issue, shows that lower powered saw can cut boards easily with a thin
kerf that they cannot cut or only burn bog cut with a full width
blade. Pretty simpel to visualize removing less material with each
bite. Ever spend much time on the business end of a shovel?
******************************

All good and well, until you start cutting thick wood, hard wood, wet wood
(treated) of if the blade starts to get dull.

Then they can get hot, and can wobble, flex, and turn into more of a bowl
shape than anything else. I have seen that happen.
--
Jim in NC

"Robatoy" wrote:

> The rotating mass alone gives the thicker blade an advantage....and
yes, assuming relative sharpness and quality of teeth.
------------------------------------
When the mass of the ass,
equals the angle of the dangle,
She is wise to the rise,
In your Levis.

Mass is good, if foretells a comfortable ride.

Lew

On Aug 19, 9:35=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:38:41 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> >>"SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:eefe782e-027d-4a48-9eb5-ddcab7001fc0@x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com.=
..
> >>>" I have seen and heard ..."
>
> >>> I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to =
a
> >>> labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
> >>> alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
> >>> even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
> >>> unsupported.
>
> >>> But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
> >>> sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
> >>> when you bog your saw, etc. etc.
>
> >>I used to have a one horsepower tablesaw. Never used thin kerf blades o=
n
> >>it.
> >>Never had any trouble cutting whatever I wanted on it. Blade design and
> >>feed
> >>rate are much more important than blade thickness.
>
> > Quite obviously a standard kerf blade will use 33% more power than a th=
in
> > kerf. =A0If the saw has enough power with a standard kerf blade, of cou=
rse
> > you
> > won't see a difference. =A0If it's marginal thin-kerf is a good idea.
>
> That is with the assumption that the thin and thick are equal in quality =
and
> sharpness. =A0A premium regular kerf will cut better and faster than a
> mediocre thin kerf blade on the same saw.

The rotating mass alone gives the thicker blade an advantage....and
yes, assuming relative sharpness and quality of teeth.

On Aug 19, 10:25=A0pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:

> You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial about
> it. =A0Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial force,
> but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it has
> more drag. =A0There's no simple answer.

No there isn't a simple answer, but everything else being equal, the
increased mass of a blade assists in the cutting action, like a bigger
hammer. Surely nobody is interested in too much geek detail, hence the
Readers Digest version of my statement. Not only is a more massive
rotational force advantage provable on a physical level, it is well
supported by personal observation and what industrial cutter heads
show to be most effective in their respective environments.
A set of solid 'stiffeners' on a table saw not only 'stiffens' the
blade, the added mass contributes to a better cut as well.

On Aug 20, 8:57=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:00:36 -0500, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:38:41 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>"SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:eefe782e-027d-4a48-9eb5-ddcab7001fc0@x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com.=
..
> >>>" I have seen and heard ..."
>
> >>> I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to =
a
> >>> labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
> >>> alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
> >>> even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
> >>> unsupported.
>
> >>> But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
> >>> sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
> >>> when you bog your saw, etc. etc.
>
> >>I used to have a one horsepower tablesaw. Never used thin kerf blades o=
n it.
> >>Never had any trouble cutting whatever I wanted on it. Blade design and=
feed
> >>rate are much more important than blade thickness.
>
> >Quite obviously a standard kerf blade will use 33% more power than a thi=
n
> >kerf. =A0If the saw has enough power with a standard kerf blade, of cour=
se you
> >won't see a difference. =A0If it's marginal thin-kerf is a good idea. =
=A0
>
> How is blade life on a thin kerf? =A0Don't they heat up and dull a whole
> lot more quickly?

If anything, I'd expect less wear on a thin-kerf. They use less power
to cut, so they shouldn't get as hot. Less mass, too, but the surface
area is the same (and any dissipation through the hub, trunion,....

> I don't have but a couple cuts on the Diablo I bought for the skilsaw,
> maybe 5' in total, so I don't know yet.

I have a Diablo for my 6-1/2" 18V Dewalt cordless circular saw. Nice
blade.

On Aug 20, 8:38=A0am, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 9:33=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 10:25=A0pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial about
> > > it. =A0Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial force=
,
> > > but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it has
> > > more drag. =A0There's no simple answer.
>
> > No there isn't a simple answer, but everything else being equal, the
> > increased mass of a blade assists in the cutting action, like a bigger
> > hammer. Surely nobody is interested in too much geek detail, hence the
> > Readers Digest version of my statement. Not only is a more massive
> > rotational force advantage provable on a physical level, it is well
> > supported by personal observation and what industrial cutter heads
> > show to be most effective in their respective environments.
> > A set of solid 'stiffeners' on a table saw not only 'stiffens' the
> > blade, the added mass contributes to a better cut as well.
>
> Apples and oranges, mon ferret. =A0The stiffeners add rotational mass,
> but no additional cutting resistance is added. =A0Not the case with a
> wider blade.

I have a blade that's wider at the hub than the kerf. Sort of a built-
in stiffener, I suppose. It's a PITA if you forget it's on the saw
and the hub bottoms out on thicker wood (I think it's maximum cut is
about 1-1/4".

On Aug 20, 11:22=A0am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 9:33 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Aug 19, 10:25 pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial about
> >>> it. =A0Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial force=
,
> >>> but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it has
> >>> more drag. =A0There's no simple answer.
> >> No there isn't a simple answer, but everything else being equal, the
> >> increased mass of a blade assists in the cutting action, like a bigger
> >> hammer. Surely nobody is interested in too much geek detail, hence the
> >> Readers Digest version of my statement. Not only is a more massive
> >> rotational force advantage provable on a physical level, it is well
> >> supported by personal observation and what industrial cutter heads
> >> show to be most effective in their respective environments.
> >> A set of solid 'stiffeners' on a table saw not only 'stiffens' the
> >> blade, the added mass contributes to a better cut as well.
>
> > Apples and oranges, mon ferret. =A0The stiffeners add rotational mass,
> > but no additional cutting resistance is added. =A0Not the case with a
> > wider blade.
>
> For sawblades kinds of masses, the inertial effects would be minimal at
> best and the blade stiffener mass is concentrated near the shaft,
> anyway. Besides, the inertia contained in the motor rotor, etc., is
> multiples of that of the blade owing to the mass differences. =A0Hence,
> even though the blade mass may be sizable fractional difference between
> the two, the system mass is essentially constant; ergo, so is the total
> inertia.
>
> I have to concur w/ the dominant issue (for equivalent sharpness, tooth
> geometry, etc.) being that of amount of material cut per tooth far
> overriding any of the other effects.

Right. Except for the stiffeners and blade, the whole system is a
constant, and as you say, the bite size is the predominant,
essentially only, variable.

R

I always hold onto the handle to operate a shovel.


"SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Nonsense? Not quite. I would say it is settled science that a thin
kerf blade requires much less energy to cut the same board. Every
review and study I have seen published, regardless of the wobble
issue, shows that lower powered saw can cut boards easily with a thin
kerf that they cannot cut or only burn bog cut with a full width
blade. Pretty simpel to visualize removing less material with each
bite. Ever spend much time on the business end of a shovel?


On Aug 19, 6:08 pm, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Where do you get this nonsense from? Ever see a max kerf size on a motor
> rating?

Where do you get this nonsense from? Ever see a max kerf size on a motor
rating?


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:38:41 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:

Quite obviously a standard kerf blade will use 33% more power than a thin
kerf. If the saw has enough power with a standard kerf blade, of course you
won't see a difference. If it's marginal thin-kerf is a good idea.

On Aug 19, 10:01=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 9:35=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > Quite obviously a standard kerf blade will use 33% more power than a =
thin
> > > kerf. =A0If the saw has enough power with a standard kerf blade, of c=
ourse
> > > you won't see a difference. =A0If it's marginal thin-kerf is a good i=
dea.
>
> > That is with the assumption that the thin and thick are equal in qualit=
y and
> > sharpness. =A0A premium regular kerf will cut better and faster than a
> > mediocre thin kerf blade on the same saw.
>
> The rotating mass alone gives the thicker blade an advantage....and
> yes, assuming relative sharpness and quality of teeth.

You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial about
it. Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial force,
but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it has
more drag. There's no simple answer.

My take? Cut the least amount of wood you need to cut (thinnest
kerf), and buy the best quality blade you feel you can afford (their
thin kerf blades will be better than a lower quality thicker blade).
The stop worrying about it and start cutting wood.

R

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:38:41 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:eefe782e-027d-4a48-9eb5-ddcab7001fc0@x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>" I have seen and heard ..."
>>
>> I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to a
>> labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
>> alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
>> even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
>> unsupported.
>>
>> But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
>> sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
>> when you bog your saw, etc. etc.
>
>I used to have a one horsepower tablesaw. Never used thin kerf blades on it.
>Never had any trouble cutting whatever I wanted on it. Blade design and feed
>rate are much more important than blade thickness.

Quite obviously a standard kerf blade will use 33% more power than a thin
kerf. If the saw has enough power with a standard kerf blade, of course you
won't see a difference. If it's marginal thin-kerf is a good idea.

On Aug 20, 9:33=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 10:25=A0pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial about
> > it. =A0Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial force,
> > but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it has
> > more drag. =A0There's no simple answer.
>
> No there isn't a simple answer, but everything else being equal, the
> increased mass of a blade assists in the cutting action, like a bigger
> hammer. Surely nobody is interested in too much geek detail, hence the
> Readers Digest version of my statement. Not only is a more massive
> rotational force advantage provable on a physical level, it is well
> supported by personal observation and what industrial cutter heads
> show to be most effective in their respective environments.
> A set of solid 'stiffeners' on a table saw not only 'stiffens' the
> blade, the added mass contributes to a better cut as well.

Apples and oranges, mon ferret. The stiffeners add rotational mass,
but no additional cutting resistance is added. Not the case with a
wider blade.

R

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote

> The rotating mass alone gives the thicker blade an advantage....and
> yes, assuming relative sharpness and quality of teeth.

I like the thick blades too, but as far as momentum of the higher mass thick
blade?

Naa. You can kill that momentum difference in a fraction of a second.

The key that everyone (almost) is missing is the number of teeth, as it is
the KEY factor.

Each tooth uses some HP as it shears, and tears through the wood. If you
have less teeth, it will use less HP to pull the fewer teeth through the
wood.

Plus, fewer teeth means more space between the tooth and the body of the
blade. You need that space for ripping, because the good sharp tooth will
pull the wood fibers out in a longer chip, since it is with the grain.
Cutting across the grain, the chips stay small because the wood separates
between the summer and winter wood as it is sheared off. Ripping is like it
says; it rips (more than shears) a long line of grain out of the stock.

But the key is the number of teeth. Less teeth = less HP required. Simple
rule.

Tell you what. If you have never used an 8 tooth rip blade, find someone to
buy one from that will give you a money back guarantee if you do not like
it. My bet is that you will like it and you will keep it, and mount it and
leave it, or change back to it when you need to rip a quanity of wood.

A plain high-speed-steel blade is fine, also. You can sharpen it yourself
with a dremmel tool and a cutoff blade when it is dull, and re-set the
stagger with a little ball peen hammer and a vice when you need to. It will
be the last rip blade you buy for a long time.
--
Jim in NC

On Aug 20, 11:58=A0am, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 11:22=A0am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > RicodJour wrote:
> > > On Aug 20, 9:33 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Aug 19, 10:25 pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>> You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial about
> > >>> it. =A0Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial for=
ce,
> > >>> but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it ha=
s
> > >>> more drag. =A0There's no simple answer.
> > >> No there isn't a simple answer, but everything else being equal, the
> > >> increased mass of a blade assists in the cutting action, like a bigg=
er
> > >> hammer. Surely nobody is interested in too much geek detail, hence t=
he
> > >> Readers Digest version of my statement. Not only is a more massive
> > >> rotational force advantage provable on a physical level, it is well
> > >> supported by personal observation and what industrial cutter heads
> > >> show to be most effective in their respective environments.
> > >> A set of solid 'stiffeners' on a table saw not only 'stiffens' the
> > >> blade, the added mass contributes to a better cut as well.
>
> > > Apples and oranges, mon ferret. =A0The stiffeners add rotational mass=
,
> > > but no additional cutting resistance is added. =A0Not the case with a
> > > wider blade.
>
> > For sawblades kinds of masses, the inertial effects would be minimal at
> > best and the blade stiffener mass is concentrated near the shaft,
> > anyway. Besides, the inertia contained in the motor rotor, etc., is
> > multiples of that of the blade owing to the mass differences. =A0Hence,
> > even though the blade mass may be sizable fractional difference between
> > the two, the system mass is essentially constant; ergo, so is the total
> > inertia.
>
> > I have to concur w/ the dominant issue (for equivalent sharpness, tooth
> > geometry, etc.) being that of amount of material cut per tooth far
> > overriding any of the other effects.
>
> Right. =A0Except for the stiffeners and blade, the whole system is a
> constant, and as you say, the bite size is the predominant,
> essentially only, variable.
>
> R

The rotational mass of the motor is decoupled from the rotational mass
of the blade due to the elasticity of the belt. The extra mass
(regardless of how small it may be as we are not discussing HOW much
extra mass) will help smooth out the vibrations set up by the chopping
action of the the teeth of the saw blade. The issue here is mechanical
impedance. Then again, the guys at Harley Davidson don't know dick
about decoupling rotational masses either, right? OR the guys at
Thorens.

The more linear the tooth's attack speed is, the better the cut will
be.... and please stop throwing variables as if they're apples and
oranges.
The more mass, the smoother the cut...even though it might be
minuscule in results, it bloody well is a fact. And to bring the width
and the rake of the tooth into the discussion just muddies the waters.
I clearly stated "everything else being equal".
The amount of teeth have nothing to do with the quality of the cut
assuming the feedrate is adjusted accordingly, and if your blade has
only one tooth, best you feed slowly or make that tooth go really
fast. Case in point, I can make a really nice, clean cut with a one-
toothed cutter at 25,000 RPM.

On Aug 19, 6:08=A0pm, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Where do you get this nonsense from? =A0Ever see a max kerf size on a mot=
or
> rating?

Nonsense? Not quite. I would say it is settled science that a thin
kerf blade requires much less energy to cut the same board. Every
review and study I have seen published, regardless of the wobble
issue, shows that lower powered saw can cut boards easily with a thin
kerf that they cannot cut or only burn bog cut with a full width
blade. Pretty simpel to visualize removing less material with each
bite. Ever spend much time on the business end of a shovel?

RicodJour wrote:
> On Aug 20, 9:33 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Aug 19, 10:25 pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial about
>>> it. Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial force,
>>> but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it has
>>> more drag. There's no simple answer.
>> No there isn't a simple answer, but everything else being equal, the
>> increased mass of a blade assists in the cutting action, like a bigger
>> hammer. Surely nobody is interested in too much geek detail, hence the
>> Readers Digest version of my statement. Not only is a more massive
>> rotational force advantage provable on a physical level, it is well
>> supported by personal observation and what industrial cutter heads
>> show to be most effective in their respective environments.
>> A set of solid 'stiffeners' on a table saw not only 'stiffens' the
>> blade, the added mass contributes to a better cut as well.
>
> Apples and oranges, mon ferret. The stiffeners add rotational mass,
> but no additional cutting resistance is added. Not the case with a
> wider blade.

For sawblades kinds of masses, the inertial effects would be minimal at
best and the blade stiffener mass is concentrated near the shaft,
anyway. Besides, the inertia contained in the motor rotor, etc., is
multiples of that of the blade owing to the mass differences. Hence,
even though the blade mass may be sizable fractional difference between
the two, the system mass is essentially constant; ergo, so is the total
inertia.

I have to concur w/ the dominant issue (for equivalent sharpness, tooth
geometry, etc.) being that of amount of material cut per tooth far
overriding any of the other effects.

--

Robatoy wrote:
> On Aug 20, 11:58 am, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 11:22 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> RicodJour wrote:
>>>> On Aug 20, 9:33 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 19, 10:25 pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> You're doing a partial body diagram, and being mighty partial about
>>>>>> it. Yes, the heavier blade has a greater rotational inertial force,
>>>>>> but a heavier-as-in-wider blade also is cutting more wood, so it has
>>>>>> more drag. There's no simple answer.
>>>>> No there isn't a simple answer, but everything else being equal, the
>>>>> increased mass of a blade assists in the cutting action, like a bigger
>>>>> hammer. Surely nobody is interested in too much geek detail, hence the
>>>>> Readers Digest version of my statement. Not only is a more massive
>>>>> rotational force advantage provable on a physical level, it is well
>>>>> supported by personal observation and what industrial cutter heads
>>>>> show to be most effective in their respective environments.
>>>>> A set of solid 'stiffeners' on a table saw not only 'stiffens' the
>>>>> blade, the added mass contributes to a better cut as well.
>>>> Apples and oranges, mon ferret. The stiffeners add rotational mass,
>>>> but no additional cutting resistance is added. Not the case with a
>>>> wider blade.
>>> For sawblades kinds of masses, the inertial effects would be minimal at
>>> best and the blade stiffener mass is concentrated near the shaft,
>>> anyway. Besides, the inertia contained in the motor rotor, etc., is
>>> multiples of that of the blade owing to the mass differences. Hence,
>>> even though the blade mass may be sizable fractional difference between
>>> the two, the system mass is essentially constant; ergo, so is the total
>>> inertia.
>>> I have to concur w/ the dominant issue (for equivalent sharpness, tooth
>>> geometry, etc.) being that of amount of material cut per tooth far
>>> overriding any of the other effects.
>> Right. Except for the stiffeners and blade, the whole system is a
>> constant, and as you say, the bite size is the predominant,
>> essentially only, variable.
>>
>> R
>
> The rotational mass of the motor is decoupled from the rotational mass
> of the blade due to the elasticity of the belt. The extra mass
> (regardless of how small it may be as we are not discussing HOW much
> extra mass) will help smooth out the vibrations set up by the chopping
> action of the the teeth of the saw blade.
...

But, a few ounces as compared to the rest of the mass isn't going to be
noticeable. I've never been able to tell any difference of note between
the two on the PM66. On a small contractor saw one might have a better
chance...

--

Robatoy wrote:
> The issue here is mechanical
> impedance. Then again, the guys at Harley Davidson don't know dick
> about decoupling rotational masses either, right? OR the guys at
> Thorens.

Who ARE those guys, anyway?

> The more mass, the smoother the cut...even though it might be
> minuscule in results, it bloody well is a fact.

There are facts, and there are meaningless facts. Your minuscule fact
is the latter in this instance.

--
Jack
If Guns Kill then Cars Make People Drive Drunk!
http://jbstein.com

"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> There's your proof that thin blades wobble:
>
> Even _Forrest_ makes stabilizers.


Jeez, If had been a snake it would'a bitten us. :~)

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:66e80dd0-ddae-40df-9086-1c33bae2a61d@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> How is blade life on a thin kerf? Don't they heat up and dull a whole
> lot more quickly?

If anything, I'd expect less wear on a thin-kerf. They use less power
to cut, so they shouldn't get as hot. Less mass, too, but the surface
area is the same (and any dissipation through the hub, trunion,....

I suspect equal wear, but where do you get the idea that less power needed
from the motor would equate to "should not get hot"?

Actually I often over heated a thin kerf blade, for what ever reason. It
warped enough to see, as it cooled it straightend back up some what.




> I don't have but a couple cuts on the Diablo I bought for the skilsaw,
> maybe 5' in total, so I don't know yet.

I have a Diablo for my 6-1/2" 18V Dewalt cordless circular saw. Nice
blade.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:05:50 -0500, Gordon Shumway
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:31:10 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>" I have seen and heard ..."
>>
>>I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to a
>>labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
>>alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
>>even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
>>unsupported.
>>
>>But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
>>sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
>>when you bog your saw, etc. etc.
>
>I have to agree with robatoy about hearing and seeing the vibration
>and oscillation even with a stabilizer on a thin kerf blade. And this
>is with a Forrest blade and a Forrest stabilizer.

There's your proof that thin blades wobble:

Even _Forrest_ makes stabilizers.


--
We're all here because we're not all there.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:38:41 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:eefe782e-027d-4a48-9eb5-ddcab7001fc0@x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>>" I have seen and heard ..."
>>>
>>> I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to a
>>> labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
>>> alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
>>> even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
>>> unsupported.
>>>
>>> But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
>>> sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
>>> when you bog your saw, etc. etc.
>>
>>I used to have a one horsepower tablesaw. Never used thin kerf blades on
>>it.
>>Never had any trouble cutting whatever I wanted on it. Blade design and
>>feed
>>rate are much more important than blade thickness.
>
> Quite obviously a standard kerf blade will use 33% more power than a thin
> kerf. If the saw has enough power with a standard kerf blade, of course
> you
> won't see a difference. If it's marginal thin-kerf is a good idea.
>

That is with the assumption that the thin and thick are equal in quality and
sharpness. A premium regular kerf will cut better and faster than a
mediocre thin kerf blade on the same saw.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:02:20 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:35:25 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That is with the assumption that the thin and thick are equal in quality
>>>>and
>>>>sharpness. A premium regular kerf will cut better and faster than a
>>>>mediocre thin kerf blade on the same saw.
>>>
>>> True, that assumption was implicit. Why would you favor a dull
>>> thin-kerf
>>> over
>>> a sharp standard kerf? ...or verse visa.
>>
>>I did not say dull, not all new blades are equally sharp.
>
> Right, but "all things being equal"...
>
>>And going a bit farther on the subject, ;~)
>>
>>I was building several drawers today and got to use my "Kerf Maker", drive
>>by.
>
> Neat tool, eh?
>
>>Any way it occurred to me again why I have better results with thick
>>kerf vs. thin kerf. I use 1/4" plywood for the bottoms and cut snug
>>dado's
>>for them to fit in to. Cheap 1/4" plywood is about 7/32" thick and the
>>outer and inner blades on a dado set are too wide. So I make two passes
>>with my thick kerf blade. With a think kerf blade that requires three
>>passes instead of two and also I recall when I did this long ago with a
>>thin
>>kerf blade the dado width would not be constant. I suspect that because
>>only the outer side of the blade is cutting on the final pass the thinner
>>blades will deflect.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to cut the outsides first and then clean the center?
> I just bought a Freud Glue Line (standard kerf) rip blade. I haven't had
> a
> chance to try it though (too hot!).

You will like it.

On Aug 20, 9:02=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:24:48 -0400, "Morgans"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >But the key is the number of teeth. =A0Less teeth =3D less HP required. =
=A0Simple
> >rule.
>
> JFC! =A0I can't stand it any more. =A0FEWER!, not "less".

Only if you have live horses hitched to the saw.

<...>

<[email protected]> wrote
>
> I'm not buying that at all. The only way this is true is if the feed rate
> is
> proportional to the number of teeth. That is, the amount of work done by
> each
> tooth is the same on different blades. This obviously isn't true because
> a
> blade with more teeth (all else equal) will leave smaller scores in the
> cut
> (smaller bites).
>
> Not buying it.

> If you're sawing raw planks, perhaps.

I have only one question. Have you tried an eight tooth blade for use in
cutting hard to cut wood, so hard to cut that it is close to the limit of
what your saw can cut at decent feed rates?

If the answer is no, you are only guessing about what I have written about.

If you don't buy that, then that is your loss.

I know of what I speak. So do a few others.

So, come back and say you don't buy it after you have tried it. Until then,
well....
--
Jim in NC

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:02:20 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:35:25 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is with the assumption that the thin and thick are equal in quality
>>>and
>>>sharpness. A premium regular kerf will cut better and faster than a
>>>mediocre thin kerf blade on the same saw.
>>
>> True, that assumption was implicit. Why would you favor a dull thin-kerf
>> over
>> a sharp standard kerf? ...or verse visa.
>
>I did not say dull, not all new blades are equally sharp.

Right, but "all things being equal"...

>And going a bit farther on the subject, ;~)
>
>I was building several drawers today and got to use my "Kerf Maker", drive
>by.

Neat tool, eh?

>Any way it occurred to me again why I have better results with thick
>kerf vs. thin kerf. I use 1/4" plywood for the bottoms and cut snug dado's
>for them to fit in to. Cheap 1/4" plywood is about 7/32" thick and the
>outer and inner blades on a dado set are too wide. So I make two passes
>with my thick kerf blade. With a think kerf blade that requires three
>passes instead of two and also I recall when I did this long ago with a thin
>kerf blade the dado width would not be constant. I suspect that because
>only the outer side of the blade is cutting on the final pass the thinner
>blades will deflect.

Wouldn't it be better to cut the outsides first and then clean the center?
I just bought a Freud Glue Line (standard kerf) rip blade. I haven't had a
chance to try it though (too hot!).

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:06:53 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:66e80dd0-ddae-40df-9086-1c33bae2a61d@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>> How is blade life on a thin kerf? Don't they heat up and dull a whole
>>> lot more quickly?
>>
>>If anything, I'd expect less wear on a thin-kerf. They use less power
>>to cut, so they shouldn't get as hot. Less mass, too, but the surface
>>area is the same (and any dissipation through the hub, trunion,....
>>
>>I suspect equal wear, but where do you get the idea that less power needed
>>from the motor would equate to "should not get hot"?
>
> Less power == less heat. Assuming the power needed to turn the saw is
> proportional to the kerf width, the heat generated is also proportional to
> the
> kerf width. The dissipation will be proportional to the surface area and
> the
> dissipation through the bearings is a constant (with temperature), so a
> thin-kerf should run at a *lower* temperature.


Yeah, I ain't buying it, ;~) I agree with some of what you said, but I
still dont agree that less power needed from the motor =''s less heat from
the blade. A thin kerf blade is 1/32" thinner than a regular kerf blade.
Still the teeth have approximately the same side surface area on both sides.
So friction is not really 1/3 less over all, it is 1/3 less on the top of
the tooth. Basically they have the same contact area on the side of the
teeth.

And ture teeth are cut so the sides do not touch the wood under optimum
circumstances but in little time pitch builds up behind the cutting edge of
the tooth and rubs the wood.






>
>>Actually I often over heated a thin kerf blade, for what ever reason. It
>>warped enough to see, as it cooled it straightend back up some what.
>
> Yes, it's understandable that a thin-kerf will warp more easily since it's
> not
> as rigid. That likely goes both ways, though. It'll more likely recover
> than
> a standard kerf.
>

In article <930ba27f-6ac3-4dc2-8034-eee3987dd38e@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Aug 20, 9:02=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:24:48 -0400, "Morgans"
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >But the key is the number of teeth. Less teeth = less HP required. Simple
>> >rule.
>>
>> JFC! I can't stand it any more. FEWER!, not "less".
>
>Only if you have live horses hitched to the saw.

The original should have read "Fewer teeth = less HP required." Happy?

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:02:20 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>I was building several drawers today and got to use my "Kerf Maker", drive
>>by.
>
> Neat tool, eh?

I think I have used it on every project that I have worked on in my shop.
Really, I have used it more that I thought I would.

>
>>Any way it occurred to me again why I have better results with thick
>>kerf vs. thin kerf. I use 1/4" plywood for the bottoms and cut snug
>>dado's
>>for them to fit in to. Cheap 1/4" plywood is about 7/32" thick and the
>>outer and inner blades on a dado set are too wide. So I make two passes
>>with my thick kerf blade. With a think kerf blade that requires three
>>passes instead of two and also I recall when I did this long ago with a
>>thin
>>kerf blade the dado width would not be constant. I suspect that because
>>only the outer side of the blade is cutting on the final pass the thinner
>>blades will deflect.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to cut the outsides first and then clean the center?
> I just bought a Freud Glue Line (standard kerf) rip blade. I haven't had
> a
> chance to try it though (too hot!).

Well, no. Cutting with a regular kerf blade, you do cut the outsides first
so to speak. There is nothing left in the center of a 7/32" dado like there
would be using a thin kerf. Otherwise, yes, with the aid of the KerfMaker
on wider dado's.

When I did this with a thin kerf I would make multiple passes until the
width was correct. If you made the outer two cuts first they had better be
right, the KerfMaker did not exist back then. I found that sneaking up on
the final was less wastful than from unusable results trying to get the two
outer cuts precicely positioned. You really could not set this up in
advance by testing with scraps unless you did not mind the chance of gaps.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:24:48 -0400, "Morgans"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>But the key is the number of teeth. Less teeth = less HP required. Simple
>rule.

JFC! I can't stand it any more. FEWER!, not "less".


>Tell you what. If you have never used an 8 tooth rip blade, find someone to
>buy one from that will give you a money back guarantee if you do not like
>it. My bet is that you will like it and you will keep it, and mount it and
>leave it, or change back to it when you need to rip a quanity of wood.

I've ripped nicely with a B&D 18T Piranha blade. They're great for
demo work, too; tough li'l suckahs.

--
We're all here because we're not all there.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:06:53 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:66e80dd0-ddae-40df-9086-1c33bae2a61d@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>> How is blade life on a thin kerf? Don't they heat up and dull a whole
>> lot more quickly?
>
>If anything, I'd expect less wear on a thin-kerf. They use less power
>to cut, so they shouldn't get as hot. Less mass, too, but the surface
>area is the same (and any dissipation through the hub, trunion,....
>
>I suspect equal wear, but where do you get the idea that less power needed
>from the motor would equate to "should not get hot"?

Less power == less heat. Assuming the power needed to turn the saw is
proportional to the kerf width, the heat generated is also proportional to the
kerf width. The dissipation will be proportional to the surface area and the
dissipation through the bearings is a constant (with temperature), so a
thin-kerf should run at a *lower* temperature.

>Actually I often over heated a thin kerf blade, for what ever reason. It
>warped enough to see, as it cooled it straightend back up some what.

Yes, it's understandable that a thin-kerf will warp more easily since it's not
as rigid. That likely goes both ways, though. It'll more likely recover than
a standard kerf.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:24:48 -0400, "Morgans" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> The rotating mass alone gives the thicker blade an advantage....and
>> yes, assuming relative sharpness and quality of teeth.
>
>I like the thick blades too, but as far as momentum of the higher mass thick
>blade?
>
>Naa. You can kill that momentum difference in a fraction of a second.
>
>The key that everyone (almost) is missing is the number of teeth, as it is
>the KEY factor.
>
>Each tooth uses some HP as it shears, and tears through the wood. If you
>have less teeth, it will use less HP to pull the fewer teeth through the
>wood.

I'm not buying that at all. The only way this is true is if the feed rate is
proportional to the number of teeth. That is, the amount of work done by each
tooth is the same on different blades. This obviously isn't true because a
blade with more teeth (all else equal) will leave smaller scores in the cut
(smaller bites).

>Plus, fewer teeth means more space between the tooth and the body of the
>blade. You need that space for ripping, because the good sharp tooth will
>pull the wood fibers out in a longer chip, since it is with the grain.
>Cutting across the grain, the chips stay small because the wood separates
>between the summer and winter wood as it is sheared off. Ripping is like it
>says; it rips (more than shears) a long line of grain out of the stock.

Now you're comparing totally different operations. Apples and oranges.

>But the key is the number of teeth. Less teeth = less HP required. Simple
>rule.

Not buying it.

>Tell you what. If you have never used an 8 tooth rip blade, find someone to
>buy one from that will give you a money back guarantee if you do not like
>it. My bet is that you will like it and you will keep it, and mount it and
>leave it, or change back to it when you need to rip a quanity of wood.

If you're sawing raw planks, perhaps.

>A plain high-speed-steel blade is fine, also. You can sharpen it yourself
>with a dremmel tool and a cutoff blade when it is dull, and re-set the
>stagger with a little ball peen hammer and a vice when you need to. It will
>be the last rip blade you buy for a long time.

If you work on a British Leylands car every night, you might be able to drive
it to work each morning.

> Perhaps, but saw blade stabilizers weren't invented for nothing,
sir.
>

I have always assumed that stabilizers were invented long before the
modern manufactyring techniques with laser cut reliefs and the nearly
perfectly balanced blades they can manufacture nowadays.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:04:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> A thicker and 'trued' blade, sharpened by a pro is THE way to rip.
>> I find the thin kerf jobbies, even with a set of stabilizers, tend to
>> oscillate like a mofo.
>
>But all the tests done by FWW and others disagree. Thin kerfs do not
>wobble or stray or otherwise bend during even tough cuts, just no
>evidence to say so.

Perhaps, but saw blade stabilizers weren't invented for nothing, sir.

--
We're all here because we're not all there.

In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:04:20 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
<<...snipped...>>
>>But all the tests done by FWW and others disagree. Thin kerfs do not
>>wobble or stray or otherwise bend during even tough cuts, just no
>>evidence to say so.
>
>Perhaps, but saw blade stabilizers weren't invented for nothing, sir.

Sure, they were invented (by marketing dept perhaps?) to make the
blade companies a few more bucks. I've used thin kerf blades with
and without the stabilizers and can't tell the difference. What's more,
I can't really tell the difference in normal use between a thick and
thin kerf blade in my Delta Contractors saw. Not unless I'm say
ripping 8/4 hard wood or similar, anyway. That said, I do prefer a
standard kerf blade, but not for any stability reasons. I just find
it a lot easier to calculate things with 1/8" instead of 3/16.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:04:53 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 8/18/2010 4:07 PM, jtpr wrote:
>> On Aug 18, 4:47 pm, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> It will do crosscuts, but slower and not optimum cuts. If you're serious
>>> about woodworking you really need to use the right tool for the job.
>
>> I agree with the right tool statement. But if I'm doing a one-off
>> project with a few crosscuts, some mitre's and rips, do you really
>> change your blade each time?
>
>The point is ... if I'm going to leave a blade on the saw for one-off's
>like your above, it would not be a rip blade, it would be a combination
>blade like the Forrest WWII.
>
>> Maybe I need a second table saw...;+}
>
>Well, that's something we could all shoot for ... my second "table saw"
>is Festool TS-75 :)

Or Makita SP6000K? <evil grinne>
http://fwd4.me/a7A

--
We're all here because we're not all there.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:31:10 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>" I have seen and heard ..."
>
>I am not citing anicdotal evidence. I am citing the closest thing to a
>labratory experiment available, the FWW labs. They tested thin kerf
>alongside full size and found NO evidence of "wobble" or deflection,
>even specifically on shaving cuts where one side of the blade is
>unsupported.
>
>But no one is stopping you from buying extra metal amd making extra
>sawdust and wearing our your saw motor extra early and burning rips
>when you bog your saw, etc. etc.

I have to agree with robatoy about hearing and seeing the vibration
and oscillation even with a stabilizer on a thin kerf blade. And this
is with a Forrest blade and a Forrest stabilizer.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:39:24 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > Perhaps, but saw blade stabilizers weren't invented for nothing,
>sir.
>>
>
>I have always assumed that stabilizers were invented long before the
>modern manufactyring techniques with laser cut reliefs and the nearly
>perfectly balanced blades they can manufacture nowadays.

If it's on the shelves, it serves a purpose. Unused, unsold hardware
costs money to keep there, so it doesn't last.

My ryoba cuts straight and smooth most of the time, but I've been
bitten a couple times. A knot pushed it 1/4 of an inch from where it
was supposed to go in a porch cover tubasix once. That was fun. I
noticed that it was getting harder to saw with. Thin circular saw
blades are vulnerable to the same forces. I have one thin Freud 7-1/4"
blade on my skilsaw now and find that it doesn't always cut square. If
I put a straightedge from corner to corner on a tubasix, I can see
daylight in the middle.

Gimme a standard blade, please.

--
We're all here because we're not all there.

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:46:29 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> "Morgans" wrote:
>
>>> Have you tried an eight tooth blade for use in
>>> cutting hard to cut wood, so hard to cut that it is close to the limit of
>>> what your saw can cut at decent feed rates?
>>>
>>> If the answer is no, you are only guessing about what I have written about.
>>>
>>> If you don't buy that, then that is your loss.
>>>
>>> I know of what I speak. So do a few others.
>>
>>> So, come back and say you don't buy it after you have tried it. Until then,
>>> well....
>>
>> Go fuck yourself.
>
>In other words, you never tried it.

No, IOW, he can go fuck himself. Can't you read?

>My experience is exactly what Morgan says.

Hardly the point, but you can follow him.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:49:36 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:06:53 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:66e80dd0-ddae-40df-9086-1c33bae2a61d@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>>> How is blade life on a thin kerf? Don't they heat up and dull a whole
>>>> lot more quickly?
>>>
>>>If anything, I'd expect less wear on a thin-kerf. They use less power
>>>to cut, so they shouldn't get as hot. Less mass, too, but the surface
>>>area is the same (and any dissipation through the hub, trunion,....
>>>
>>>I suspect equal wear, but where do you get the idea that less power needed
>>>from the motor would equate to "should not get hot"?
>>
>> Less power == less heat. Assuming the power needed to turn the saw is
>> proportional to the kerf width, the heat generated is also proportional to
>> the
>> kerf width. The dissipation will be proportional to the surface area and
>> the
>> dissipation through the bearings is a constant (with temperature), so a
>> thin-kerf should run at a *lower* temperature.
>
>
>Yeah, I ain't buying it, ;~) I agree with some of what you said, but I
>still dont agree that less power needed from the motor =''s less heat from
>the blade. A thin kerf blade is 1/32" thinner than a regular kerf blade.
>Still the teeth have approximately the same side surface area on both sides.
>So friction is not really 1/3 less over all, it is 1/3 less on the top of
>the tooth. Basically they have the same contact area on the side of the
>teeth.

Think of it this way, all of the power the motor delivers is turned into heat
eventually. Some of it is transferred to the sawdust, some is retained by the
blade. The more power needed for the cut, the more heat needs to be
dissipated elsewhere (some of it by the blade).

>And ture teeth are cut so the sides do not touch the wood under optimum
>circumstances but in little time pitch builds up behind the cutting edge of
>the tooth and rubs the wood.

Sure, that friction against the sides would be independent of the kerf width.
Making more sawdust takes more energy. More energy => more heat

<...>

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:46:29 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> "Morgans" wrote:
>>>> Have you tried an eight tooth blade for use in
>>>> cutting hard to cut wood, so hard to cut that it is close to the limit of
>>>> what your saw can cut at decent feed rates?
>>>>
>>>> If the answer is no, you are only guessing about what I have written about.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't buy that, then that is your loss.
>>>>
>>>> I know of what I speak. So do a few others.
>>>> So, come back and say you don't buy it after you have tried it. Until then,
>>>> well....
>>> Go fuck yourself.

>> In other words, you never tried it.

> No, IOW, he can go fuck himself. Can't you read?

I can read, and your response indicates you never tried an 8 tooth
blade.

>> My experience is exactly what Morgan says.

> Hardly the point,

What is the point then?

but you can follow him.

I guess by this you mean anyone that's used an 8 tooth blade can go fuck
themselves, or, is it that anyone that doesn't agree with you can go
fuck themselves? Whatever, it sure was a fucked up response...

--
Jack
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity!

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 23:53:43 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

>In article <930ba27f-6ac3-4dc2-8034-eee3987dd38e@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Aug 20, 9:02=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:24:48 -0400, "Morgans"
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >But the key is the number of teeth. Less teeth = less HP required. Simple
>>> >rule.
>>>
>>> JFC! I can't stand it any more. FEWER!, not "less".
>>
>>Only if you have live horses hitched to the saw.
>
>The original should have read "Fewer teeth = less HP required." Happy?

Oops. I focused in on ("saw") "less HP". Sorrreeee.

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:26:33 -0400, "Morgans" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>So, come back and say you don't buy it after you have tried it. Until
>>>then,
>>>well....
>>
>> Go fuck yourself.
>
>I don't understand a remark like that.

Why am I not surprised?

>If you are not here to learn something new, they why are you here.

I'm not here for your smug condescension.

>Unless you know-it-all already. I don't.

Quite obviously.

<[email protected]> wrote

>>So, come back and say you don't buy it after you have tried it. Until
>>then,
>>well....
>
> Go fuck yourself.

I don't understand a remark like that.

If you are not here to learn something new, they why are you here.

Unless you know-it-all already. I don't.
--
Jim in NC

[email protected] wrote:
> "Morgans" wrote:

>> Have you tried an eight tooth blade for use in
>> cutting hard to cut wood, so hard to cut that it is close to the limit of
>> what your saw can cut at decent feed rates?
>>
>> If the answer is no, you are only guessing about what I have written about.
>>
>> If you don't buy that, then that is your loss.
>>
>> I know of what I speak. So do a few others.
>
>> So, come back and say you don't buy it after you have tried it. Until then,
>> well....
>
> Go fuck yourself.

In other words, you never tried it.

My experience is exactly what Morgan says.

--
Jack
Got Change: The Individual =======> The Collective!
http://jbstein.com

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:51:22 -0400, "Morgans" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> I'm not buying that at all. The only way this is true is if the feed rate
>> is
>> proportional to the number of teeth. That is, the amount of work done by
>> each
>> tooth is the same on different blades. This obviously isn't true because
>> a
>> blade with more teeth (all else equal) will leave smaller scores in the
>> cut
>> (smaller bites).
>>
>> Not buying it.
>
>> If you're sawing raw planks, perhaps.
>
> I have only one question. Have you tried an eight tooth blade for use in
>cutting hard to cut wood, so hard to cut that it is close to the limit of
>what your saw can cut at decent feed rates?
>
>If the answer is no, you are only guessing about what I have written about.
>
>If you don't buy that, then that is your loss.
>
>I know of what I speak. So do a few others.

>So, come back and say you don't buy it after you have tried it. Until then,
>well....

Go fuck yourself.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:39:50 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:02:20 -0500, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>I was building several drawers today and got to use my "Kerf Maker", drive
>>>by.
>>
>> Neat tool, eh?
>
>I think I have used it on every project that I have worked on in my shop.
>Really, I have used it more that I thought I would.
>
>>
>>>Any way it occurred to me again why I have better results with thick
>>>kerf vs. thin kerf. I use 1/4" plywood for the bottoms and cut snug
>>>dado's
>>>for them to fit in to. Cheap 1/4" plywood is about 7/32" thick and the
>>>outer and inner blades on a dado set are too wide. So I make two passes
>>>with my thick kerf blade. With a think kerf blade that requires three
>>>passes instead of two and also I recall when I did this long ago with a
>>>thin
>>>kerf blade the dado width would not be constant. I suspect that because
>>>only the outer side of the blade is cutting on the final pass the thinner
>>>blades will deflect.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to cut the outsides first and then clean the center?
>> I just bought a Freud Glue Line (standard kerf) rip blade. I haven't had
>> a
>> chance to try it though (too hot!).
>
>Well, no. Cutting with a regular kerf blade, you do cut the outsides first
>so to speak. There is nothing left in the center of a 7/32" dado like there
>would be using a thin kerf. Otherwise, yes, with the aid of the KerfMaker
>on wider dado's.

I meant with the thin-kerf blade, where the dado > 2x the kerf.

>When I did this with a thin kerf I would make multiple passes until the
>width was correct. If you made the outer two cuts first they had better be
>right, the KerfMaker did not exist back then. I found that sneaking up on
>the final was less wastful than from unusable results trying to get the two
>outer cuts precicely positioned. You really could not set this up in
>advance by testing with scraps unless you did not mind the chance of gaps.

Ah, I thought I was the only one who had to sneak up on joints. I thought you
real woodworkers were perfect. ;-) Yes, the Kerf Maker helps a lot. I only
wish it were a bit larger.