On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 03:28:34 GMT, "BigJoe"
<[email protected]>Crawled out of the shop and said. . .:
>Sure. Currently I've been using a 7¼" blade designed for cutting sheet metal
>to cut plexiglas.
what brand you using, and what kind of results do you get?
Traves
Leon wrote:
>
> "Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
> >
> > "V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]..
> > > Huh? If the blade is secure on the arbor, all distances from the center
> > > spin at the arbor speed.
> >
> > Not really. The very center doesn't move at all.
> > -- Ernie
>
> Actually the very center does move. Not in a circle but turns on its axis.
> If the center did not move, the blade would not move either.
1800 RPM. Zero IPM.
"V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm afraid on this one, we disagree. Let's assume that Pluto and Earth
> rotate around the Sun at the same speed. I know, based on the original
> question, that makes Pluto moving like hell, anyway - lets further assume
> that the starting point puts Earth and Pluto on opposite sides of the Sun.
> I belive the Pluto goes around Earth as well as the Sun even though it
never
> sees us, with your line of thought, it does not - correct?
>
> Another example going back to the saw blade. Put a dot with a marker very
> close to the arbor but still on the blade. The other dot goes on the
other
> side of the arbor but clear out toward the teeth. Your viewpoint is that
> the outside dot does not go around the inside dot. I think that it does.
>
> Re-reading this, you'd think I'd have something more constructive to do
> today, but my shop material hasn't been delivered and it's just too hot
out
> today in Iowa.
>
Where in Iowa are you? I am in Des Moines.
Digger
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
In rec.woodworking
Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>But, if you take a 2" pulley and a 8" pulley...and put them both on
>the same shaft turning 3,000 RPM, they will both turn at 3,000 RPM.
>
>And ALL parts of both pulleys will turn at 3,000 RPM...both the inner
>edge and the outer edge.
Are you trying to be pedantic or are you just stupid? This is a serious
question.
Bruce responds:
>In rec.woodworking
>Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>But, if you take a 2" pulley and a 8" pulley...and put them both on
>>the same shaft turning 3,000 RPM, they will both turn at 3,000 RPM.
>>
>>And ALL parts of both pulleys will turn at 3,000 RPM...both the inner
>>edge and the outer edge.
>
>Are you trying to be pedantic or are you just stupid? This is a serious
>question.
Sure it is. It's right up there with the philosophical question about how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Charlie Self
"On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation
in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does."
Will Rogers
In rec.woodworking
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>>Are you trying to be pedantic or are you just stupid? This is a serious
>>question.
>
>Sure it is. It's right up there with the philosophical question about how many
>angels can dance on the head of a pin.
No, I'm trying to determine whether he understands that the farther from
center the blade circumerence is, the faster the teeth move. Obviously,
since the blade is a solid object, the rotational speed is the same.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:26:51 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>>
>>If you wish to coin some definition of outer-edge speed, please do so.
>>But the RPM's...on the same plane anywhere on the blade...are at the
>>same speed...the same RPM's.
>>
>Do you really not understand that the linear speed of the edge of a 10" saw
>blade is greater than the linear speed of a 7" blade spinning at the same RPM?
>
>Which one is bigger around?
There ya go! Finally! Linear speed. See...I knew ya could do it!
lol
>>Larger blades are thicker for a reason. They produce more centrifugal
>>force at the other edge...and need to be thicker to handle air
>>currents against the larger total surface, etc.
>
>ROTFLMAO! Do you *really* think that air resistance has anything to do with
>10" blades being thicker than 7" blades?
Yup! You don't think there's air present before you put your piece
thru?...and that it causes friction on the blade? I was just giving
an example. The air deflection isn't gonna be noticed when you
cut...but aerodynamics sure plays a part in the design.
>Larger-diameter blades are thicker for stiffness and stability, so that they
>will resist deflection *under load*.
Agreed...and for other reasons also.
>>>Are you trying to be pedantic or are you just stupid? This is a serious
>>>>>question.
>>
>>Did you mean 'stupid'?...or 'ignorant'? This is a serious question.
>>Some people are too stupid to know the difference.
>>
>You're the same guy that tried to tell me a couple of months ago in
>alt.home.repair that grass doesn't have leaves.[1] I'll leave it to others to
>judge which is true in your case.
>
>[1] Google alt.home.repair on "trent grass leaves" if you're curious. Trent's
>posts aren't archived, but my responses (which quote his) are. The thread
>appeared in early May.
You exhibit the signs of a real troll...that can't seem to get his
idea across...so brings up old shit...even in a different GROUP. Nice
one, troll.
I don't usually try to remember the individual poster, Dougie...but
I'll try to remember you in the future.
Last post by me on this subject. I've gotta go outside and trim the
dead leaves off my grass! lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There ya go! Finally! Linear speed. See...I knew ya could do it!
> lol
Feeble attempt to turn things around and not look so much like an idiot.
>but aerodynamics sure plays a part in the design.
Wrong. Your back to being an idiot.
On 27 Jul 2003 06:34:19 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Bruce responds:
>
>>In rec.woodworking
>>Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>But, if you take a 2" pulley and a 8" pulley...and put them both on
>>>the same shaft turning 3,000 RPM, they will both turn at 3,000 RPM.
>>>
>>>And ALL parts of both pulleys will turn at 3,000 RPM...both the inner
>>>edge and the outer edge.
>>
>>Are you trying to be pedantic or are you just stupid? This is a serious
>>question.
>
>Sure it is. It's right up there with the philosophical question about how many
>angels can dance on the head of a pin.
>Charlie Self
Or...
If God can do anything, can he create a stone so large that he can't
lift it?! lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
In article <[email protected]>, Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:32:00 GMT, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
>
>>In rec.woodworking
>>[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>>
>>>>Are you trying to be pedantic or are you just stupid? This is a serious
>>>>question.
>>>
>>>Sure it is. It's right up there with the philosophical question about how
> many
>>>angels can dance on the head of a pin.
>>
>>No, I'm trying to determine whether he understands that the farther from
>>center the blade circumerence is, the faster the teeth move. Obviously,
>>since the blade is a solid object, the rotational speed is the same.
>
>The SPEED of any blade attached to a motor is measured the same as the
>MOTOR...in RPM's.
>
>And the inner part of the blade turns at the same rate as the outer
>part of the blade.
>
>If you wish to coin some definition of outer-edge speed, please do so.
>But the RPM's...on the same plane anywhere on the blade...are at the
>same speed...the same RPM's.
>
Do you really not understand that the linear speed of the edge of a 10" saw
blade is greater than the linear speed of a 7" blade spinning at the same RPM?
Which one is bigger around?
>Larger blades are thicker for a reason. They produce more centrifugal
>force at the other edge...and need to be thicker to handle air
>currents against the larger total surface, etc.
ROTFLMAO! Do you *really* think that air resistance has anything to do with
10" blades being thicker than 7" blades?
Larger-diameter blades are thicker for stiffness and stability, so that they
will resist deflection *under load*.
>>Are you trying to be pedantic or are you just stupid? This is a serious
>>>>question.
>
>Did you mean 'stupid'?...or 'ignorant'? This is a serious question.
>Some people are too stupid to know the difference.
>
You're the same guy that tried to tell me a couple of months ago in
alt.home.repair that grass doesn't have leaves.[1] I'll leave it to others to
judge which is true in your case.
[1] Google alt.home.repair on "trent grass leaves" if you're curious. Trent's
posts aren't archived, but my responses (which quote his) are. The thread
appeared in early May.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
In article <[email protected]>, Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>If God can do anything, can he create a stone so large that he can't
>lift it?! lol
>
It's been known since the time of Archimedes that there is no such thing as a
stone that can't be lifted. (Ever heard of a lever?)
Now I'm *sure* you were an English major.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:32:00 GMT, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
>In rec.woodworking
>[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>
>>>Are you trying to be pedantic or are you just stupid? This is a serious
>>>question.
>>
>>Sure it is. It's right up there with the philosophical question about how many
>>angels can dance on the head of a pin.
>
>No, I'm trying to determine whether he understands that the farther from
>center the blade circumerence is, the faster the teeth move. Obviously,
>since the blade is a solid object, the rotational speed is the same.
The SPEED of any blade attached to a motor is measured the same as the
MOTOR...in RPM's.
And the inner part of the blade turns at the same rate as the outer
part of the blade.
If you wish to coin some definition of outer-edge speed, please do so.
But the RPM's...on the same plane anywhere on the blade...are at the
same speed...the same RPM's.
Larger blades are thicker for a reason. They produce more centrifugal
force at the other edge...and need to be thicker to handle air
currents against the larger total surface, etc.
>Are you trying to be pedantic or are you just stupid? This is a serious
>>>question.
Did you mean 'stupid'?...or 'ignorant'? This is a serious question.
Some people are too stupid to know the difference.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message > Or...
>
> If God can do anything, can he create a stone so large that he can't
> lift it?! lol
>
>
I am afraid that no living being on earth has the mental aptitude to
understand the answer to that question.
And BTY, GOD can do anything, not if.
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 02:22:46 GMT, McQualude <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Trent© spaketh...
>
>> The SPEED of any blade attached to a motor is measured the same as the
>> MOTOR...in RPM's.
>>
>> And the inner part of the blade turns at the same rate as the outer
>> part of the blade.
>>
>> If you wish to coin some definition of outer-edge speed, please do so.
>> But the RPM's...on the same plane anywhere on the blade...are at the
>> same speed...the same RPM's.
>
>Trent, that is only one way to measure speed. Many cars have gauges to
>measure both engine RPM and the rate at which you cover a predefined
>distance (miles or kilometers). A sawblade can be measured both ways
>also. The rotational speed can be measured and the distance that a tooth
>travels in a given time can be measured. We all agree the RPM will be
>consistant from arbor to tooth, suppose we measure the distance the tooth
>travels in MPH; we then measure the MPH of a dot one inch from the arbor.
>You will find the tooth is going 'faster' in MPH than the dot.
>
>At this point, you either understand you or don't. Not everyone is
>mechanically inclined, not everyone is a poet.
Actually, I *DO* understand! lol
My point...and this is my final post to ANYBODY on this subject !!
LOL...is that most tools are rated by the speed of their motor...in
RPM's.
And the speed NEAR the center of a saw blade...I'm not gettin' my feet
into THAT debate LOL!) ...is the same as on the outer edge of the
blade. The blade does not turn any faster on the outer edge than it
does near the center.
However, the distance traveled and/or speed at any particular
circumference will vary...and is measured and described in various
different terms...miles per hour, feet per minute, etc.
That's what I understand...and I think I'm correct in what I
understand.
Anyway...thanks for the relatively CALM reply! lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
In rec.woodworking
Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>Where did I tell you that?
>
>I said that to someone else...but I don't recall telling that to you.
>
>But...I am now! lol
Wanna argue over the definition of a thread now?
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Huh? If the blade is secure on the arbor, all distances from the
center
> > > spin at the arbor speed.
> >
> > Not really. The very center doesn't move at all.
> > -- Ernie
>
>
> Actually the very center does move. Not in a circle but turns on its
axis.
> If the center did not move, the blade would not move either.
Not the very, very center. Think about it. There has to be a point where the
rotary motion changes direction. Just ahead of that there has to be a point
where it doesn't move at all. In Zen it's called the "still point of the
turning wheel."
-- Ernie
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:19:04 -0400, Trent© wrote:
> Sure they are. The outer edge of the blade...and the inner part of
> the blade...both move at the same speed of the arbor/motor.
Same frequency/revolutions - yes. Same speed - no.
The speed will increase in direct proportion to the distance from the
center of rotation(radius) as long as the frequency(RPMs) remain constant.
The teeth on a 7.25" circular saw blade will travel at 72.5% of the speed
of the teeth on a 10" circular saw blade when spinning at the same
frequency(RPM).
-Doug
In article <[email protected]>, Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:21:10 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, "Mark Chandler"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>I just bought a 10" table saw and was wondering if safe to use a 7 1/4"
>>>blade on it.
>>>
>>Probably -- check the maximum rpm listed on the blade, then compare to the
>>speed of your table saw. Most likely the table saw is slower than the maximum
>>for the 7 1/4" blade.
>>
>>The quality of the cut is not going to be as good as you'd get from a decent
>>10" table saw blade because (a) the teeth aren't moving as fast on a small
>>blade as they would be on a large blade spinning at the same speed,
>
>Sure they are. The outer edge of the blade...and the inner part of
>the blade...both move at the same speed of the arbor/motor.
>
You must've been an English major.
The circumference of a 7-1/4" blade is 7.25 * 3.14 = 22.77".
The circumference of a 10" blade is 10 * 3.14 = 31.4".
On a 7-1/4" blade spinning at 3500 rpm, the tips of the teeth move at 22.77 *
3500 = 79,695 inches per minute.
On a 10" blade spinning at 3500 rpm, the tips of the teeth move at 31.4 * 3500
= 109,900 inches per minute
>> and (b)
>>table saw blades are generally better made than blades for portable circular
>>saws (better balanced, finer-grained carbide on the teeth, better sharpened).
>
>I don't believe any of that...sorry.
>
OK, show me a 7-1/4" blade that's the equivalent to a Forrest WoodWorker II,
or any of the better blades from Freud or Oldham.
When you gain more experience, you'll understand the difference.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
Trolling. Most trolls, though, are not very bright.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:45:21 -0500, "V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > The center of the blade...and the outer edge of the blade...all turn
> > at the speed of the motor.
>
> No they don't. They turn at the same RPM, but the outer edge travels a
> greater distance and greater speed to match the RPM of the of the center.
If
> you think otherwise, then you're pretty dumb or you're trolling just for
the
> hell of it.
>
>
Here's a coincidence: A news story from this week about how the Earth
revolves around the Earth -- even by your definition, if I get that
correctly.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=96&e=1&u=/space/101amazingearthfacts
Look at "Amazing Earth Facts" #51: "Does all of Earth spin at the same
rate? The solid inner core -- a mass of iron comparable to the size of the
Moon -- spins faster than the outer portion of the iron core, which is
liquid. ... The [Earth's] inner core makes a complete revolution with
respect to the rest of Earth in about 400 years."
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:37:17 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>New concrete floor for the new TS? The DeWalt? That is hard and heavy work
>too...
>Keep us informed on your progress and the arrival of the saw.
>
Thanks for asking. Yes. DeWalt 746. Probably pick it up next weekend.
Still deciding on the DC. Planned on the 1HP Delta but read some reviews
that were not great -- including stuff getting caught because there is a
cross bar at the 4" inlet of the DC. (Then again, the 746 has a 2.5" DC
hookup, but who knows -- maybe some day I'll get a planer.) Then I figured
the 1HP Grizzly would be good -- good reviews and about the same price,
though the specs are listed as lower (more honest?). But, for about $35
more, delivered, I can get the Jet 1HP which everyone seems to like. Jet
is probably the choice. Already ordered the hoses, etc., from Grizzly.
And the plastic cyclone garbage can lid.
What I am most looking forward to is making and using jigs. They are
gadgets without the (unfair) negative connotation.
If the budgeting holds up, I will be getting a digital camera and then can
try to post some stuff -- if they look post-worthy. Frankly, I have been,
well in advance, quite humbled by the many website postings others have
made and linked from here. Not just the depicted shops themselves, but the
detail about the install and the projects. I have been helped and inspired
immensely by these sites. Not only with how-tos, but how-not-tos and so
many proper warnings about safety. I recently bought a face shield (works
better than expected).
It's a stupid argument generally posed by less than bright people trying to
make others believe that they are thinking on some higher plane. Do you work
for the news media by chance?
"JackD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> ???
> Nice little unprovoked outburst of hostility there Clinton.
> What happened? Did you zip before you tucked?
>
> -Jack
>
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:JcjVa.3168$YN5.4169@sccrnsc01...
> > What a load of crap. A bit geometrically challenged, eh?
> > "JackD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >
> > > "McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > me spaketh...
> > > >
> > > > > Draw it and you will see that you are correct - at least from the
> > > > > trees viewpoint.
> > > >
> > > > nope
> > > > --
> > > > McQualude
> > >
> > > Nope? Why do you say that?
> > >
> > > Take a look at the following drawing:
> > >
> > > http://jd.mbz.org/.pics/TreeAndSquirrel.jpg
> > >
> > > You will note that the red line (your path)
> > > completely encircles the squirrel (blue path)
> > >
> > > So you did indeed go around the squirrel.
> > >
> > > -Jack
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
You guys have way too much time on your hands.....It's easy if you are
hunting squirrel and it is behind the tree, you throw a rock on the opposite
side, the squirrel will come out away from the rock and you have an easy
head shot. You don't have to move.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Huh? If the blade is secure on the arbor, all distances from the
center
> > > spin at the arbor speed.
> >
> > Not really. The very center doesn't move at all.
> > -- Ernie
>
>
> Actually the very center does move. Not in a circle but turns on its
axis.
> If the center did not move, the blade would not move either.
>
>
Sure. Currently I've been using a 7¼" blade designed for cutting sheet metal
to cut plexiglas.
--
Be sure to check out Joe's and Betty's webpages...
http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/kb8qlrjoe/index.html
"Mark Chandler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I just bought a 10" table saw and was wondering if safe to use a 7 1/4"
> blade on it.
>
> Thanks
>
>
"V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Huh? If the blade is secure on the arbor, all distances from the center
> spin at the arbor speed.
Not really. The very center doesn't move at all.
-- Ernie
Sorry Clinton,
I did not realize that the problem of the squirrel and the tree was of such
great concern to you.
I'm completely unfamiliar with the arguments generally posed about it.
In fact I had never known that this problem existed until this time.
I'm afraid I'm much less worldly than you.
I can't recall ever seeing a news article about this, but I'll look for them
in the future.
-Jack
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ADjVa.1859$uu5.470@sccrnsc04...
> It's a stupid argument generally posed by less than bright people trying
to
> make others believe that they are thinking on some higher plane. Do you
work
> for the news media by chance?
> "JackD" <[email protected]> wrote in message ...
> > ???
> > Nice little unprovoked outburst of hostility there Clinton.
> > What happened? Did you zip before you tucked?
> >
> > -Jack
> >
> > "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:JcjVa.3168$YN5.4169@sccrnsc01...
> > > What a load of crap. A bit geometrically challenged, eh?
> > > "JackD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > me spaketh...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Draw it and you will see that you are correct - at least from
the
> > > > > > trees viewpoint.
> > > > >
> > > > > nope
> > > > > --
> > > > > McQualude
> > > >
> > > > Nope? Why do you say that?
> > > >
> > > > Take a look at the following drawing:
> > > >
> > > > http://jd.mbz.org/.pics/TreeAndSquirrel.jpg
> > > >
> > > > You will note that the red line (your path)
> > > > completely encircles the squirrel (blue path)
> > > >
> > > > So you did indeed go around the squirrel.
> > > >
> > > > -Jack
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
"Igor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here's a coincidence: A news story from this week about how the Earth
> revolves around the Earth -- even by your definition, if I get that
> correctly.
>
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=96&e=1&u=/space/101amazingearthfacts
>
> Look at "Amazing Earth Facts" #51: "Does all of Earth spin at the same
> rate? The solid inner core -- a mass of iron comparable to the size of the
> Moon -- spins faster than the outer portion of the iron core, which is
> liquid. ... The [Earth's] inner core makes a complete revolution with
> respect to the rest of Earth in about 400 years."
I think I saw that story and or 101 facts about the earth you never knew...
Apparently the earth is molten 50 down from the surface until the inner core
is reached and the solid crust is about 41 miles thinck..
> >
> Thanks for asking. Yes. DeWalt 746. Probably pick it up next weekend.
> Still deciding on the DC. Planned on the 1HP Delta but read some reviews
> that were not great -- including stuff getting caught because there is a
> cross bar at the 4" inlet of the DC. (Then again, the 746 has a 2.5" DC
> hookup, but who knows -- maybe some day I'll get a planer.) Then I
figured
> the 1HP Grizzly would be good -- good reviews and about the same price,
> though the specs are listed as lower (more honest?). But, for about $35
> more, delivered, I can get the Jet 1HP which everyone seems to like. Jet
> is probably the choice. Already ordered the hoses, etc., from Grizzly.
> And the plastic cyclone garbage can lid.
I still use the fan at my back blowing rowards the open double wide garage
door method of dust collection. ;~)
I have however had my eye on the New Jet canister models of DCers. I like
the idea of being able to throw away the bottom bag instead if sturing up
all that dust trying to empty the cloth bag. And then again a cyclone set
up would be nice but it may take up more precious room in my case.
>
> What I am most looking forward to is making and using jigs. They are
> gadgets without the (unfair) negative connotation.
Yeah I have quite a few jigs myself. I have one design that I came up with
myself about 2 years ago. It lets you cut dados with your router. You use
the material that will fit into the dado to set the jig up for for a perfect
fit. I sent the design into WoodSmith about a year ago....ironically they
featured a very similar jig in their latest issue. Mine is rather compact
compared to their version.
> If the budgeting holds up, I will be getting a digital camera and then can
> try to post some stuff -- if they look post-worthy. Frankly, I have been,
> well in advance, quite humbled by the many website postings others have
> made and linked from here. Not just the depicted shops themselves, but
the
> detail about the install and the projects. I have been helped and
inspired
> immensely by these sites. Not only with how-tos, but how-not-tos and so
> many proper warnings about safety. I recently bought a face shield (works
> better than expected).
Speaking of being humbled...;~) Have you seen Tom Plamanns web page? Tom
visits this news group regularly. He has the shop and does the work that we
all aspire to. Have a look here if you have not seen his site. You will be
impressed. The opening page will knock your socks off... ;~)
http://www.plamann.com/sys-tmpl/door/
"JackD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> ???
> Nice little unprovoked outburst of hostility there Clinton.
> What happened? Did you zip before you tucked?
Ouuuuuwwwwoooo... Only did that one time when I was about 6. LOL
What a load of crap. A bit geometrically challenged, eh?
"JackD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > me spaketh...
> >
> > > Draw it and you will see that you are correct - at least from the
> > > trees viewpoint.
> >
> > nope
> > --
> > McQualude
>
> Nope? Why do you say that?
>
> Take a look at the following drawing:
>
> http://jd.mbz.org/.pics/TreeAndSquirrel.jpg
>
> You will note that the red line (your path)
> completely encircles the squirrel (blue path)
>
> So you did indeed go around the squirrel.
>
> -Jack
>
>
"Igor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:45:05 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >If the squirrel continues to face you at all times, You do not go around
the
> >squirrel. You go around the location that the squirrel is at. Until you
> >are Have gone around all sides of the squirrel, you have not gone around
the
> >squirrel. Had you truly gone around the squirrel and there was no tree
to
> >block your view, you would have been able to see his back side. To go
> >around an object, you have to be expose yourself to all its sides.
> >
> So, if there were no tree and you did not move but the squirrel did a
> pirouette, then your would have gone around the squirrel? Oh, you have to
> move? Well, if moving is required, then in relation to what?
No, the squirel simply truned in a circle and you stood still. For YOU to
circle the "squirel", and not simply the location that the squirel is at you
have to move around all sides of the squirel.
>
> (Do you have to flash the squirrel, to "expose yourself to all its
sides"?)
>
> OTOH, does a geosynchronous satellite "go around" the Earth?
If you are refering to a satelite that remains in the same position above
the earth such as one that a dish antenna gets it signal from 24 hours a
day, NO, the satelite does not go around the earth. It never sees the other
side of the earth. It simply goes in circles along the earths orbit but
never circles the earth itself.
>
> BTW, a propos the saw blade speed questions: At the equator, Earth travels
> at approx 1000 MPH, while the geo satellites must travel at approx 7K MPH
> to keep up. So, maybe these sats do not go around the earth. Yet, their
> positions are often described in terms of their orbits. So, what, if
> anything, are they "orbiting"?
They obit the earths path but not the earth. To make that easier to
visualize, imagine a circle that goes around the sun that represents the
Earths path. Now leaving that visual circle in place but removing the Earth
altogether, what is the satelite circling?. The circle that represents the
Earths path. If they truely orbited the "Earth", contact with the satelite
from any one specific receiver or transmitter would be lost at some point in
the orbit.
> As with many things, it's all a matter of definitions.
Yes and or the wrong words used to describe an event and or situation.
Sure does.
"Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Huh? If the blade is secure on the arbor, all distances from the center
> > spin at the arbor speed.
>
> Not really. The very center doesn't move at all.
> -- Ernie
>
>
If the squirrel continues to face you at all times, You do not go around the
squirrel. You go around the location that the squirrel is at. Until you
are Have gone around all sides of the squirrel, you have not gone around the
squirrel. Had you truly gone around the squirrel and there was no tree to
block your view, you would have been able to see his back side. To go
around an object, you have to be expose yourself to all its sides.
"D. J. Dorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ok, I concede after thinking about it a little. The fact is that the
teeth
> move at the same RPM as the arbor regardless of diameter which resulted in
> my post, but the larger the blade, the faster the teeth have to move to
> accomplish it. Got it.
>
> Here is another that makes you think(at least it did for me). Your
squirrel
> hunting in the woods and one sees you before you see it. It takes refuge
> behind a large tree so you can't see it. As you move around the tree
facing
> it, the squirrel moves accordingly to stay completely opposite and hidden
> from you. You eventually circle the tree but of course never see it. Did
> you go around the squirrel? I say that you do, but the question has
become
> a source of debate among many.
>
> Don
>
> "McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > V.E. Dorn spaketh...
> >
> > > Huh? If the blade is secure on the arbor, all distances from the
> > > center spin at the arbor speed.
> >
> > So many were waiting for someone to say it.
> >
> > In addition to what others have said... the farther from the arbor the
> > teeth are, the faster they have to travel in the same amount of time to
> > 'keep up', so while the teeth are moving at the same RPM as the arbor,
> they
> > are moving faster because they have farther to go.
> >
> > That what you get for shooting spitwads instead of listening to the
> teacher
> > <g>.
> > --
> > McQualude
>
>
"Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Huh? If the blade is secure on the arbor, all distances from the center
> > spin at the arbor speed.
>
> Not really. The very center doesn't move at all.
> -- Ernie
Actually the very center does move. Not in a circle but turns on its axis.
If the center did not move, the blade would not move either.
"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > (a) the teeth aren't moving as fast on a small
> >blade as they would be on a large blade spinning at the same speed,
>
> Sure they are. The outer edge of the blade...and the inner part of
> the blade...both move at the same speed of the arbor/motor.
They are turning the same RPM,. but not moving at the same speed.
Follow one tooth on the blade. At 4000 rpm, the 7 1/4" blade tooth will
travel 1.43 miles in a minute, or about 86 mph. The tooth of a 10" blade
will travel 1.98 miles/minute at a speed of 118.9 mph.
>
> > and (b)
> >table saw blades are generally better made than blades for portable
circular
> >saws (better balanced, finer-grained carbide on the teeth, better
sharpened).
>
> I don't believe any of that...sorry.
I'd say maybe. If you compare a Skil blade for cutting 2 x 4's to a Forrest
WWII they are better. The intended end result from a circular saw differs
from a saw designed for fine woodworking, thus different choices. You can
get 10" crap also.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
???
Nice little unprovoked outburst of hostility there Clinton.
What happened? Did you zip before you tucked?
-Jack
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:JcjVa.3168$YN5.4169@sccrnsc01...
> What a load of crap. A bit geometrically challenged, eh?
> "JackD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > "McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > me spaketh...
> > >
> > > > Draw it and you will see that you are correct - at least from the
> > > > trees viewpoint.
> > >
> > > nope
> > > --
> > > McQualude
> >
> > Nope? Why do you say that?
> >
> > Take a look at the following drawing:
> >
> > http://jd.mbz.org/.pics/TreeAndSquirrel.jpg
> >
> > You will note that the red line (your path)
> > completely encircles the squirrel (blue path)
> >
> > So you did indeed go around the squirrel.
> >
> > -Jack
> >
> >
>
>
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 05:24:05 GMT, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
>In rec.woodworking
>Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>But, if you take a 2" pulley and a 8" pulley...and put them both on
>>the same shaft turning 3,000 RPM, they will both turn at 3,000 RPM.
>>
>>And ALL parts of both pulleys will turn at 3,000 RPM...both the inner
>>edge and the outer edge.
>
>Are you trying to be pedantic or are you just stupid? This is a serious
>question.
Are you saying the RPM's would be different? lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:17:39 GMT, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
>In rec.woodworking
>Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The speed of the blade is 3500 RPM...both at the inner core and at the
>>outer edge.
>
>Apparently, you want to be pedantic.
Not really. I don't think this is being pedantic. Its simply being
as accurate as possible...with definitions.
> If so, you should use terms that are
>well defined. Speed is arbitrary and ambiguous and had no definition in
>physics. Velocity on the other hand does. Velocity is a change of
>position over time.
I think speed of many mechanical devices is pretty well defined. Its
represented as Revolutions Per Minute (RPM's). Drills, table saw
motors, etc. are rated in RPM's...sometimes along with other ratings.
>Draw a straight line from the center of the blade to the outer edge. Every
>point on that line travels at a successively faster VELOCITY as you move
>along the line from the center to the outer diameter.
Every point along that line moves at the exact same speed...measured
in RPM's. A manufacturer of that device has no way of knowing the
size of the device that you'll attach to it.
>To say that each line travels at the same RPM is not only meaningless,
MEANINGLESS? LOL
I use a lot of caution when I put a router bit in a device that can go
30,000 RPM. Its not only NOT meaningless, its the standard used when
purchasing router bits, saw blades, etc.
>but
>drives the point of the higher velocity home. Since each point is covering
>a greater distance over the same time, by the physics definitions creatd by
>Newton over 400 years ago, they are traveling at a faster velocity.
But at the same speed.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:45:21 -0500, "V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Huh? If the blade is secure on the arbor, all distances from the center
> >spin at the arbor speed.
> >
>
> Exactly correct. You should not back down from this statement.
The problem with his statement was that it did not pertain to what the
other poster was referring to. The other poster was referring to outer rim
speed of the 2 different sized blades, not RPM. What he had not considered
was that the tooth speed on the 2 different sized blades would be different
although the Rpm's were the same.
"Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not the very, very center. Think about it. There has to be a point where
the
> rotary motion changes direction. Just ahead of that there has to be a
point
> where it doesn't move at all. In Zen it's called the "still point of the
> turning wheel."
> -- Ernie
IMHO, the very very center as you describe it would have to be floating to
not move. Perhaps on the atomic level when looking at the center atom and
the electrons circling the nucleus. But then perhaps the nucleus is
spinning also...
Now consider this, blade is spinning and directly connected to the arbor.
The very very center still must have sides. Any real object will have
sides. With the blade spinning along with the arbor, how does the center
and its sides stay still?
What we may be quibbling about here is the definition of movement. Does
movement require a distance to be traveled or simply to change direction
although it remains at the same point?
"Igor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> OT-enough?
>
> Now, back to laying the new concrete floor in my basement for the arriving
> TS. What a messy job.
My statement, Yes and or the wrong words used to describe an event and or
situation, was meant to infer that some statements and stories such as the
squirrel story can be worded to lead one to think in one way but actually
not make enough true statements to justify its direction that it may lead
you.... HUH? LOL
Like in geometry, and I saw the squirrel story as a geometry puzzle, for
certain conclusions there have to be absolute qualifiers. While the story
indicated that there was rotation around an area, a second needed element
was missing to prove a condition.
I was not referring to know it all.. LOL I was using common definitions
for the words in that story.
New concrete floor for the new TS? The DeWalt? That is hard and heavy work
too...
Keep us informed on your progress and the arrival of the saw.
"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:45:21 -0500, "V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> The center of the blade...and the outer edge of the blade...all turn
> at the speed of the motor.
No they don't. They turn at the same RPM, but the outer edge travels a
greater distance and greater speed to match the RPM of the of the center. If
you think otherwise, then you're pretty dumb or you're trolling just for the
hell of it.
In article <[email protected]>,
Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Huh? If the blade is secure on the arbor, all distances from the center
>> > spin at the arbor speed.
>>
>> Not really. The very center doesn't move at all.
>> -- Ernie
>
>
>Actually the very center does move. Not in a circle but turns on its axis.
>If the center did not move, the blade would not move either.
>
>
Don't you guys know *NUTHIN*?!! That's why there's a _hole_ in the middle
of the blade. There is *no* center, so the rest of the blade _can_ move.
<muffled guffaw>
"V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm afraid on this one, we disagree. Let's assume that Pluto and Earth
> rotate around the Sun at the same speed. I know, based on the original
> question, that makes Pluto moving like hell, anyway - lets further assume
> that the starting point puts Earth and Pluto on opposite sides of the Sun.
> I belive the Pluto goes around Earth as well as the Sun even though it
never
> sees us, with your line of thought, it does not - correct?
No. Pluto and Earth both rotate or circle the sun but Pluto does not
circles the earth. It Circles the earths orbit which is an entirely
different thing.
>
> Another example going back to the saw blade. Put a dot with a marker very
> close to the arbor but still on the blade. The other dot goes on the
other
> side of the arbor but clear out toward the teeth. Your viewpoint is that
> the outside dot does not go around the inside dot. I think that it does.
No, the outer dot goes around the inner dots path or orbit not the inner
dot. Since both dots rotate in an exact relationship to each other neither
rotates the other. The orientation of both dots is always exactly the same
to each other. In order for one dot to circle the other, it has to be
exposed on all sides of the other dot at some point.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:51:59 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Igor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> As with many things, it's all a matter of definitions.
>
>Yes and or the wrong words used to describe an event and or situation.
>
What branch of science or math or what school of thought are you relying on
for that statement? Or, are you making some claim on a true meaning of the
English language -- that body of work that never changes and has no shades?
I may not know much about birthin' no babies or even about woodworking, but
language has long made my world go around.
Consider that in normal discourse, a "plane" is flat. In some branches of
science, planes are not flat -- well, at least not as "flat" is understood
in normal, vulgar discourse. So, right and wrong usage depends on the
context.
Consider that in the US Senate it is possible for May 15 to be the
"legislative day" of March 10. Yet, outside the context of the US Senate,
if I walked up to you on May 15 and insisted -- without more -- that it was
truly "March 10", I'd be out of order, and even arguably incorrect.
Alternatively, if I explained the context, I'd be correct and (in order)
even if you remained confused.
Since satellites in geosynchronous orbit are (1) described as being so many
miles above/relative to the _surface_ of the Earth, not its axis, and (2)
described as being in _orbit_ at such altitude, then such satellites can be
seen as orbiting/revolving around the _Earth_.
In sum, the only part of what you have written with which I disagree (if I
understand you correctly) is the part that says that there is no reasonable
understanding of the English language that can be employed to state
logically that satellites in geosynchronous orbit actually orbit the
_Earth_. Within the confines of the definitions you are implicitly
employing, what you have written about "going around" makes some sense.
You are saying that "revolution" requires "X", "X" is not present, so there
has been no revolution. QED. While I can see that approach being used for
the sake of a discussion in order to prove some additional point, I think
it is a silly point of view standing alone. Yet, again, it is logical
within the confines of your use of the language.
OT-enough?
Now, back to laying the new concrete floor in my basement for the arriving
TS. What a messy job.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:45:21 -0500, "V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Huh? If the blade is secure on the arbor, all distances from the center
>spin at the arbor speed.
>
Exactly correct. You should not back down from this statement.
The center of the blade...and the outer edge of the blade...all turn
at the speed of the motor.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:10:43 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:21:10 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, "Mark Chandler"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>I just bought a 10" table saw and was wondering if safe to use a 7 1/4"
>>>>blade on it.
>>>>
>>>Probably -- check the maximum rpm listed on the blade, then compare to the
>>>speed of your table saw. Most likely the table saw is slower than the maximum
>>>for the 7 1/4" blade.
>>>
>>>The quality of the cut is not going to be as good as you'd get from a decent
>>>10" table saw blade because (a) the teeth aren't moving as fast on a small
>>>blade as they would be on a large blade spinning at the same speed,
>>
>>Sure they are. The outer edge of the blade...and the inner part of
>>the blade...both move at the same speed of the arbor/motor.
>>
>You must've been an English major.
>
>The circumference of a 7-1/4" blade is 7.25 * 3.14 = 22.77".
>The circumference of a 10" blade is 10 * 3.14 = 31.4".
>
>On a 7-1/4" blade spinning at 3500 rpm, the tips of the teeth move at 22.77 *
>3500 = 79,695 inches per minute.
>
>On a 10" blade spinning at 3500 rpm, the tips of the teeth move at 31.4 * 3500
>= 109,900 inches per minute
The speed of the blade is 3500 RPM...both at the inner core and at the
outer edge.
>>> and (b)
>>>table saw blades are generally better made than blades for portable circular
>>>saws (better balanced, finer-grained carbide on the teeth, better sharpened).
>>
>>I don't believe any of that...sorry.
>>
>
>OK, show me a 7-1/4" blade that's the equivalent to a Forrest WoodWorker II,
>or any of the better blades from Freud or Oldham.
Two different size blades...from the same manufacturer...and one is
purposely not sharpened as well as the other?...because of its size?
Have a nice week...
Trent
Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:06:46 -0500, "HarryM" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>No, the larger blade will develop a greater rim speed. Otherwise, pulley
>size would not make any difference in speed on machines. harrym
Its the material passing OVER the pulley that makes the difference,
Harry. This is not the same thing as RPM.
The larger the circumference of the pulley, the longer it will take
something (belt) to transverse its entire perimeter.
But, if you take a 2" pulley and a 8" pulley...and put them both on
the same shaft turning 3,000 RPM, they will both turn at 3,000 RPM.
And ALL parts of both pulleys will turn at 3,000 RPM...both the inner
edge and the outer edge.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:45:05 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>If the squirrel continues to face you at all times, You do not go around the
>squirrel. You go around the location that the squirrel is at. Until you
>are Have gone around all sides of the squirrel, you have not gone around the
>squirrel. Had you truly gone around the squirrel and there was no tree to
>block your view, you would have been able to see his back side. To go
>around an object, you have to be expose yourself to all its sides.
>
So, if there were no tree and you did not move but the squirrel did a
pirouette, then your would have gone around the squirrel? Oh, you have to
move? Well, if moving is required, then in relation to what?
(Do you have to flash the squirrel, to "expose yourself to all its sides"?)
OTOH, does a geosynchronous satellite "go around" the Earth?
BTW, a propos the saw blade speed questions: At the equator, Earth travels
at approx 1000 MPH, while the geo satellites must travel at approx 7K MPH
to keep up. So, maybe these sats do not go around the earth. Yet, their
positions are often described in terms of their orbits. So, what, if
anything, are they "orbiting"?
As with many things, it's all a matter of definitions. (Ask Bill Clinton.)
What matters is the purpose of a conversation and that there are certain
agreed-upon terms -- if there is a common interest in resolving an issue.
For example, will we use English or French or Farsi or Thai?
If I want to say that "A going around B means this ...", then it can mean
that. Or not.
In article <[email protected]>, "Mark Chandler" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I just bought a 10" table saw and was wondering if safe to use a 7 1/4"
>blade on it.
>
Probably -- check the maximum rpm listed on the blade, then compare to the
speed of your table saw. Most likely the table saw is slower than the maximum
for the 7 1/4" blade.
The quality of the cut is not going to be as good as you'd get from a decent
10" table saw blade because (a) the teeth aren't moving as fast on a small
blade as they would be on a large blade spinning at the same speed, and (b)
table saw blades are generally better made than blades for portable circular
saws (better balanced, finer-grained carbide on the teeth, better sharpened).
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
>Here is another that makes you think(at least it did for me). Your squirrel
>hunting in the woods and one sees you before you see it. It takes refuge
>behind a large tree so you can't see it. As you move around the tree facing
>it, the squirrel moves accordingly to stay completely opposite and hidden
>from you. You eventually circle the tree but of course never see it. Did
>you go around the squirrel? I say that you do, but the question has become
>a source of debate among many.
Let's say that the tree was a glass cylinder.
For me to go around the squrrel, I would have to see his left side,
his back, his right side and his belly.
If he goes around the glass cylinder as I did, I would never see those
sides.
Works for me.
Maybe RPM but feet per second (fps) is GREATLY increased and that is
what we want.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:45:21 -0500, "V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Huh? If the blade is secure on the arbor, all distances from the center
>spin at the arbor speed.
>
>dj
>
>> The quality of the cut is not going to be as good as you'd get from a
>decent
>> 10" table saw blade because (a) the teeth aren't moving as fast on a small
>> blade as they would be on a large blade spinning at the same speed, and
>(b)
>> table saw blades are generally better made than blades for portable
>circular
>> saws (better balanced, finer-grained carbide on the teeth, better
>sharpened).
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>>
>> Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
>
>
Huh? If the blade is secure on the arbor, all distances from the center
spin at the arbor speed.
dj
> The quality of the cut is not going to be as good as you'd get from a
decent
> 10" table saw blade because (a) the teeth aren't moving as fast on a small
> blade as they would be on a large blade spinning at the same speed, and
(b)
> table saw blades are generally better made than blades for portable
circular
> saws (better balanced, finer-grained carbide on the teeth, better
sharpened).
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
Ok, I concede after thinking about it a little. The fact is that the teeth
move at the same RPM as the arbor regardless of diameter which resulted in
my post, but the larger the blade, the faster the teeth have to move to
accomplish it. Got it.
Here is another that makes you think(at least it did for me). Your squirrel
hunting in the woods and one sees you before you see it. It takes refuge
behind a large tree so you can't see it. As you move around the tree facing
it, the squirrel moves accordingly to stay completely opposite and hidden
from you. You eventually circle the tree but of course never see it. Did
you go around the squirrel? I say that you do, but the question has become
a source of debate among many.
Don
"McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> V.E. Dorn spaketh...
>
> > Huh? If the blade is secure on the arbor, all distances from the
> > center spin at the arbor speed.
>
> So many were waiting for someone to say it.
>
> In addition to what others have said... the farther from the arbor the
> teeth are, the faster they have to travel in the same amount of time to
> 'keep up', so while the teeth are moving at the same RPM as the arbor,
they
> are moving faster because they have farther to go.
>
> That what you get for shooting spitwads instead of listening to the
teacher
> <g>.
> --
> McQualude
I'm afraid on this one, we disagree. Let's assume that Pluto and Earth
rotate around the Sun at the same speed. I know, based on the original
question, that makes Pluto moving like hell, anyway - lets further assume
that the starting point puts Earth and Pluto on opposite sides of the Sun.
I belive the Pluto goes around Earth as well as the Sun even though it never
sees us, with your line of thought, it does not - correct?
Another example going back to the saw blade. Put a dot with a marker very
close to the arbor but still on the blade. The other dot goes on the other
side of the arbor but clear out toward the teeth. Your viewpoint is that
the outside dot does not go around the inside dot. I think that it does.
Re-reading this, you'd think I'd have something more constructive to do
today, but my shop material hasn't been delivered and it's just too hot out
today in Iowa.
Don
Leon <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If the squirrel continues to face you at all times, You do not go around
the
> squirrel. You go around the location that the squirrel is at. Until you
> are Have gone around all sides of the squirrel, you have not gone around
the
> squirrel. Had you truly gone around the squirrel and there was no tree to
> block your view, you would have been able to see his back side. To go
> around an object, you have to be expose yourself to all its sides.
>
>
> "D. J. Dorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Ok, I concede after thinking about it a little. The fact is that the
> teeth
> > move at the same RPM as the arbor regardless of diameter which resulted
in
> > my post, but the larger the blade, the faster the teeth have to move to
> > accomplish it. Got it.
> >
> > Here is another that makes you think(at least it did for me). Your
> squirrel
> > hunting in the woods and one sees you before you see it. It takes
refuge
> > behind a large tree so you can't see it. As you move around the tree
> facing
> > it, the squirrel moves accordingly to stay completely opposite and
hidden
> > from you. You eventually circle the tree but of course never see it.
Did
> > you go around the squirrel? I say that you do, but the question has
> become
> > a source of debate among many.
> >
> > Don
> >
> > "McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > V.E. Dorn spaketh...
> > >
> > > > Huh? If the blade is secure on the arbor, all distances from the
> > > > center spin at the arbor speed.
> > >
> > > So many were waiting for someone to say it.
> > >
> > > In addition to what others have said... the farther from the arbor the
> > > teeth are, the faster they have to travel in the same amount of time
to
> > > 'keep up', so while the teeth are moving at the same RPM as the arbor,
> > they
> > > are moving faster because they have farther to go.
> > >
> > > That what you get for shooting spitwads instead of listening to the
> > teacher
> > > <g>.
> > > --
> > > McQualude
> >
> >
>
>
Ok, I respect the opinion, but have one small wrench to throw in as long as
we're not doing anything more constructive. If the
Earth rotates on it's axis faster than does Pluto, then Pluto would in fact
go around the Earth by your defintion because all sides of Earth would be
exposed to Pluto before it completes it's outer orbit - right? The mere
fact that the Sun sits between us is simply an obaqe object obstructiong the
view. My last post on the subject, you get the last word. I just wanted to
spur a little imagination this morning. On to woodworking again.
Don
Leon <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I'm afraid on this one, we disagree. Let's assume that Pluto and Earth
> > rotate around the Sun at the same speed. I know, based on the original
> > question, that makes Pluto moving like hell, anyway - lets further
assume
> > that the starting point puts Earth and Pluto on opposite sides of the
Sun.
> > I belive the Pluto goes around Earth as well as the Sun even though it
> never
> > sees us, with your line of thought, it does not - correct?
>
> No. Pluto and Earth both rotate or circle the sun but Pluto does not
> circles the earth. It Circles the earths orbit which is an entirely
> different thing.
>
>
> >
> > Another example going back to the saw blade. Put a dot with a marker
very
> > close to the arbor but still on the blade. The other dot goes on the
> other
> > side of the arbor but clear out toward the teeth. Your viewpoint is
that
> > the outside dot does not go around the inside dot. I think that it
does.
>
> No, the outer dot goes around the inner dots path or orbit not the inner
> dot. Since both dots rotate in an exact relationship to each other
neither
> rotates the other. The orientation of both dots is always exactly the
same
> to each other. In order for one dot to circle the other, it has to be
> exposed on all sides of the other dot at some point.
>
>
>
>
No, the larger blade will develop a greater rim speed. Otherwise, pulley
size would not make any difference in speed on machines. harrym
"V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Huh? If the blade is secure on the arbor, all distances from the center
> spin at the arbor speed.
>
> dj