Do all the 18″ and up bandsaws have drift. What can be done to stop it. I want a bandsaw for resawing and ripping using the fence.
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
This is a subject that generates a lot of discussion. I had several postings in the old forum on this subject,but here goes again.
Stop to think. If a bandsaw blade cuts the same on both sides,why would it lead?
If the blade is sharpened by filing,both sides of the set teeth will never be exactly the same length,
Even in a filing machine ,as the file traverses the teeth,it is cutting with the grain on one tooth and against the grain on the other.There will be a slight difference in the length of the teeth on one side of the bade as compared with the teeth on the other side.This difference in tooth length is,in my opinion,the cause for what is called "lead"
I only use hard edged precision blades made for the metal working industry.I set my fence and push the board thru.I have never noticed a lead problem since I quit using fileable blades and sharpening them my self. FWIW¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬PAT¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
I don't have any significant experience with this, but I have noticed on my 14" bandsaw that drift will be much worse if I don't get the tension on the blade high enough. If you work on eliminating as many contributing factors as possible, and still have some drift, you can set the fence to accomodate for that drift.
forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
forestgirl,
I've seen the same effect here. If you move to a scroll saw blade (typically stamped), you can see it even more as you vary the tension. I suspect the flex and a slight crowning is allowing the unbalanced teeth to apply force further from the centerline, causing more drift. In both cases, a properly balanced blade that normally runs true will often exhibit some drift if the tension is too low (because nothing is perfect).
I found that even with the Suffolk "low tension" (see--even _they_ say tension, which is a particular direction of strain:-) blades, too high a feed rate will cause crowning and blade lead, and you may need to up the tension. Here I mean "too high" a rate to be too fast for chip clearance and tension.
Gerry
Gerry:
I have a real problem with commercially available bandsaw blades. For the most part I consider them to be the most improperly designed woodworking tooling foisted upon our industry. The technology for making thin bandsaw blades has probably not changed in over 100 years and may not have significantly changed in the last 150 years.
The current design of blades, in my opinion, creates a situation that wastes (cummulatively) incredible amounts of wood and produces a cut so rough that extensive machining is generally required to rectify the situation (read as sanding).
I sincerely doubt if Suffolk or the other thin bandsaw blade manufacturers spend even .1% of their gross sales on R&D to try to make a better product for us the consumers. I also feel that they are not doing anything to educate their clientel. These combined realities, I consider to be representative of a level of callousness and disregard toward the consumer. And if 99.9% of this clientel is satisfied (or unknowledgeable), why rock the boat? If you the consumer does not care about proper terminology, why should they? When ignorance is bliss, caveat emptor reigns supreme (to the benefit of the seller).
And not to pick on you, I just more or less ranting (which I will occasionally do), but I really don't understand your explanation. The gullet should clear only when it is through the cut. If you overfeed a blade, a tooth (as it is a wedge) will be driven deeper into the wood, therein moving it forward on the wheels and further increasing tooth bite until the point that it is literally pulled forward off the wheels.
Niemiec1,
I agree on when the gullet clears. However, I maintain that feeding too fast will have other effects long before you've pushed the blade off the wheel. I suggest you'll feel the feed slowing then jumping forward repeatedly, because you've overflowed the gullet and clogged the kerf. A better indicator is a test piece where you start slow then increase the feed rate. If I examine the ridges left by the blade, I can usually see the higher feed rate left ridges that are both larger and whose spacing varies. This may not be as evident on a small piece, the case in point involved a 3/4-3tpi blade and 10-inch hardwood.
On your other comments about commercially available blades, I've got to agree. While learning about veneer slicing I contacted Suffolk and others, and was surprised at how little they knew. Just try getting their spec for edge alignment. Ummm...maybe you can help me with the term here...if I lay a blade on a jointer table and check with a feeler guage, I found over .030. This was causing the blade to oscillate back-and-forth when cutting. I think a typical industrial spec is <.008, but they didn't even know what theirs was.
As for your comments on current design, I fully agree. I'd be interested in hearing any further thoughts you have on this.
Gerry
Gerry:
I think you misunderstood or misread my comments about overfeeding a bandsaw blade. You do not push the blade off the wheels but rather with overfeeding, the tooth will dive into the cut and come forward off the wheels.
It is very difficult to get a feel for how the blade is cutting especially if you are resawing ring porous woods. The density variation between early wood and latewood in hardwoods and among the hard pines can render accurate feeling almost impossible.
I think the measurement you are trying to describe is side clearance. Side clearance is the distance between the side of the plate and the edge of the tooth (which also can be describe as the amount of set). If set is unequal side to side, well I talked about that earlier. I realistically doubt if there is even set in most bandsaw blades that you buy off the shelf. An equally bad problem can exist if there is a lot of variation in set on any given side.
One problem that exists with blades with alternating set is the pull and vibration it induces on the blade. One tooth is going one way and the next tooth is going the other way. I would hate to imagine the twisting in the blade this induces. Further that with these set, thin blades, it is entirely possible that two sequential teeth are cutting wood of different density. This couple with the change in density as it cuts down and forward must create some really interesting stresses and harmonics.
If you truly overfill the gullet the friction and packing of the sawdust/chip will really heat up the front edge of the blade really fast. The most likely effect of this will be a snakey cut or a real quick change in direction.
As you increase feed speed, the distance between tooth marks should increase correspondingly. More than likely the tooth marks you are witnessing are not from successive teeth but rather those teeth with excessive variation in set/side clearance. Its too late tonight but tomorrow I will calculate the number of teeth per second that are moving by on my Rockwell/Delta/Porter Cable/whatever they call it 14" saw.
As I said earlier, if I were doing a lot of resawing, I would get a Laguna Stellite tipped blade. The stellite for low moisture content wood is unnecessary unless it is the only way they could tip the blade that would allow for a formed tooth that cuts the full kerf width. Being side ground, I bet they could provide some figures about side clearance (if you can get to the actual people who are preparing the blade),
The whole issue of "cabinet shop" bandsaw blades is totally absurd. I have been in mills where they are operating a 14" wide bandsaw blade that is > than 60' in length, traveling at about 9000 feet per minute and cutting logs at feed speeds unimaginable to small shop can have a consistent sawing variation of less than 0.050". This is in material that can approach 4-5 feet in diameter and with lengths up to 26'.
I sincerely doubt a small shop bandsaw, using the best possible fence, guides and the most careful feed could produce that level of sawing variation on a piece of wood 3" thick and 4 feet long. Yes there are problems with bandsaw machine centers but I contend that most of the sawing variation is due to the lousy blades that are currently available. It is like the manufactures don't know about gullet capacities or the interrelationship between bite, feed speed, tooth spacing and blade speed.
It can get so bad that it becomes ridiculus. I know of an operation that invested $25,000 in a portable band saw (not to mention the additional money for roll casing etc) and nobody gave one thought to the interrelationship I mentioned above. When I called the manufacturer to find out about different blade options, I was amazed by the BS they tried to lay on me. The end result is that this operation cannot attain any reasonable level of sawing accuracy and the feed rates are abysmally slow.
time for bed!
NIEMIEC1,
About overfeeding, yes I knew that I misunderstood, since the thrust bearing would obviously be in the way, but didn't want to ask as yet. In my (limited) testing, the only diving effect I've seen is due to changes in either feed rate or wood density. It didn't leave the wheel, but came pretty close.
On the cutting feel, I'll stand by my statement. I didn't say the feeling was accurate, but more of a "too fast" indicator. With the same feed pressure, the density variations you mentioned can cause the feed rate to vary, but I don't care about that. It's only the smooth and consistant "feel" that I look for. A similar feedback is from doing raised panels on the router table. If the wood density or grain changes so that my feed's too fast for the cut depth, I can feel the difference and know that I'm going to see it later.
On the measurement, no, it's not side clearance. This is a planar measurement, i.e. when laid on a flat surface, does the entire blade sit in one plane? There are several causes for problems here, the most common being too short a fixture when welding the blade. Just as jointing a longer board needs a jointer with a longer bed, the same applies to longer blades, and what they used for this 105" was not enough. Since I measure the deviation from planar being centered around the weld, I'd say that was the cause.
Tests in the same wood with three same blades having different planar errors showed a visible difference in surface roughness. That sorta surprised me at the time, since I hadn't thought of it. That difference also won't be visible unless everything else is okay.
When I examined the blade cutting physics, your comment on the impact of the alternating set hits dead center on the limiting issue. Continuing your comment, as the tpi decreases, the increased spacing between alternating teeth allows more distance for the blade to flex.
On overfulling the gullet, I agree on the rapid heating. However, this will be more than the front edge, since you've lost your kerf and have friction with the body. You suggested the most likely effect of this will be a snakey cut, and the increase in roughness I describe could be taken as the start of just that.
You seemed to doubt a small shop holding <0.050 in a 3" thick/4-foot long board. Not sure here which way you're cutting. I've taken 3-foot / 10-inch wide boards and resawed them to 0.032 +/- 0.006, except that the ridges are somewhat greater, maybe 0.012 max.This seems to be about the limit in accuracy, and those ridges are the only issue, but one that has to be solved to make this useable (or buy a wide belt sander).
BTW, do you know of anybody who makes a swage tooth 105" 3/4-3tpi blade? I suspect that'll be much-much cleaner than the spring tooth (opinion?). I'd rather not pay for a stellite, however.
Gerry
Please note that I have gone through these calculations several times and I would most certainly like to have an error pointed out to me. Something must be wrong for me to be getting the following numbers (which sound incredibly absurd) ! ! !
I have a 14" Rockwell Bandsaw that now has on it a 3/8" 3TPI blade alternating tooth with no raker.
The plate thickness is 0.024".
The kerf width is approximately 0.051". (Average of 3 measurements)
Tooth set varies between 0.010" and 0.014". (5 measurements)
Pitch is 0.25" (3 TPI).
The motor rotates at 1725 RPM.
Motor pulley is 2" diameter (OD)
Lower wheel pulley is 4" diameter (OD).
Pulley reduction ratio = 0.5
Bottom wheel RPM = 862.5 (1725 x .5)
Bottom wheel has a 14" diameter.
Bottom wheel circumference is 43.98" (14 x 3.141527)
Bottom wheel rim speed = 37934.73"/minute or 3161.23'/minute
- - - (43.98" per revolution x 862.5 RPM)
Blade speed = rim speed
Blade speed = 632.25 inches per second (37934.73 / 60)
Teeth per second = 1896.74 (3 x 632.25)
If desired bite is ½ of tooth thickness (plate thickness of a set tooth) then desired bite per tooth equals 0.012" (.5 x 0.024"). To attain this level of bite, I will calculate the necessary feed speed as follows given the ratio of:
Bite is to feed speed as pitch is to blade speed -- or similiarily
Feed speed is to bite as blade speed is to pitch
Feed speed = {(blade speed x bite)/(pitch)} or
Feed speed =(37934.73 inches per minute x 0.012")/0.25"
Feed speed (for a 0.012" bite) = 1820.9 inches per minute or 151.7 feet per minute
Feed speed = {(blade speed x bite)/(pitch)} or
Feed speed =(37934.73 inches per minute x 0.012")/0.25"
At first glance, 3 teeth/in yields 1/3 in/tooth = 0.333... = pitch. Got to read some bedtime stories now; will look again later.
You're right, your numbers are absurd.
I do not know how you determined the bite number but it must be incorrect and, I suspect, it is much too high by a very large factor. What you have missed here is the rate of feed for what material. Veneer or a 6" maple resaw? There is a big difference between the two and your formulae do not take into account the dimensions of the material being cut. Nor is consideration given to material composition - balsa feed rate will be much different than a tropical hardwood.
If each bite is, as you claim, about 0.012" and there are 18 teeth in that 6" resaw at any one time, then from the time a tooth enters until it leaves the material, the cut must advance 0.2160" (18x0.012") This equates to about 3/16". The time it takes for a tooth to move through the 6" is about 1/100th of a second using your blade speed numbers. Your blade speed numbers do appear to be correct.
3/16" in 1/100th of a second! Is this maple or semi-melted butter? If you can accomplish this, you people south of the border must have super turbo charged bandsaws that we do not have here in Canada.
I do not have a MS - Penn State 79 ( or any other year for that matter) nor am I attempting to educate the folks here but I do think you need to go back to the drawing board on this one.
Paul and others:
Thank you for your affirmation that my blade speed numbers are correct.
TDKPE was correct regarding my erroneousTPI number. I measured the distance from tooth to tooth and got a dimension of 0.25". That makes the number of TPI 4 instead of 3. As such, the number of teeth per second should be increased to 2529 (instead of the originally calculated value of 1896.74). I always want to avoid the confusion of the difference between points per inch and teeth per inch; there is alway one less tooth per inch than points per inch and I guess I subtracted one when I shouldn't have.
I did make another error in the assumptions I made with later calculations. It takes two teeth with an alternative set blade to make a complete cut. This however still does not change the number of teeth per second going by especially if my blade speed numbers are correct.
There is a rule of thumb among the filers at the sawmills in the Pacific Northwest that bite should be about 1/2 of tooth width. If the saw was making an ideal chip in cutting, it would be the width of the tooth (in this case a plate thickness of 0.024"). A bite of 0.012" is half of that. The purpose of the gullet is to retain the chip in the cut and then dump that material as it exits the wood. You don't want spillage from the gullet because spillage will push the blade to one side or the other. The set/side clearance on my blade is between 0.010" to 0.014". That means that any chip with a lesser dimension could spill and therein deflect the blade. Suppose you reduce feed speed to one-tenth of the 150+ feet I computed. In that case, the bite would be 0.0012". I would guess that almost none of this sized material would remain in the gullet and it will be virtually impossible to make a straight cut -- it would be too simple to get equal spillage to each side of the blade.
The bite/feed speed:pitch/blade speed ratio is not the only factor in determining blade/tooth geometry. The depth of cut should determine gullet capacity. A gullet will hold about 60% of its total area/volume. So with deeper cuts, gullet size needs to increase. Unfortunately none of the commerially available thin band saw blades give you the choice of differing gullet sizes/capacity.
The density/hardness/strength of the wood is not a function of bite et.al. As wood density increases cutting forces must increase and you compensate for this in two ways. The first is to increase power source horsepower (eg get a bigger motor). The other way to compensate is to have less teeth in the cut. A saw tooth passing through wood has two forces acting on it -- frictional forces due to rubbing and the cutting forces. By reducing the number of teeth,, you decrease the baseline power requirements associated with rubbing and also reduce the power requirements proportionally with the change in the number of teeth.
The power relationship described in the above paragraph is for a fixed depth of cut. If you increase the depth of cut, more teeth will be rubbing and more teeth will be cutting, so with deeper cuts, more horsepower is required.
The other issue relating to wood hardness is the strength of the tooth. If cutting forces exceed the strength of the metal, you can shear off teeth. You can increase tooth strength by increasing plate thickness and by increasing the sharpness angle and by the way the clearance angle/back of the tooth is ground. This will result in a change in gullet shape.
There are plenty of discussions in this forum about the nuances of this and that hand plane. For the most part these tools are designed much better than bandsaw blades. If people can acceptedly search for the perfect hand plane, I think I should be entitled to search for a better bandsaw blade. And Gerry, if I knew where I could get thin bandsaw blades with swaged teeth, I would already be getting them (and complaining less about how abysmally horrible the current offerings are).
Niemiec1,
You wrote "
And Gerry, if I knew where I could get thin bandsaw blades with swaged teeth, I would already be getting them (and complaining less about how abysmally horrible the current offerings are)." -----OKAY, OKAY, but you can't blame a guy for trying!
General agreement, with a couple of nits:
Niemiec1 - "Suppose you reduce feed speed to one-tenth of the 150+ feet I computed. In that case, the bite would be 0.0012". I would guess that almost none of this sized material would remain in the gullet and it will be virtually impossible to make a straight cut -- it would be too simple to get equal spillage to each side of the blade."
Firstly, this implies a large change in chip size from a feed rate change. While I do believe that is correct, I suspect you'll see only a small portion of that variation when hand-feeding: you simply don't make enough of a speed change. Also, I don't believe that most of a reduced chip size would spill out. The gullet design includes a turbulence and drag effect that will deliver the chips. The side of the blade body has neither, so chips there will move relatively slowly, compared to those in the gullet. Further, spillage of very small chips would tend to be fairly equal on both sides, only increasing friction. I believe the bigger problem is when you exceed the 60% capacity you quoted for the gullet.
Also, when I reduce the number of teeth, don't I typically find a large increase in the size of each tooth? I thought the purpose for doing so was far more for chip clearance than to reduce the cutting force needed.
Gerry
NIEMIEC1,
I came into this all a little late (just now) and do appreciate the information. In your opinion, do we have alternatives to the blades we purchase from (largely) woodworker-hobbyist-type sources? I know someone in England who uses an approx. 3/4 inch, 3 tpi stainless meat and fish blade with a very small amount of set. Without commenting exactly on what this one person is doing (I also may not be completely accurate on dimensions, either) can you comment on the general topic of improvement through alternatives?
Cheers,
Greg
this is something I've been tinkering with on my Jet 14" bandsaw. First and foremost, I am going to refer to it as 'tension' (you know, being uneducated and all that).
I had to resaw some 11" red birch boards recently, and blade drift and bow was something I tried to get worked out before I started. For reference, I'm using 3/4 Timberwolf blades.
My first pass through a test piece was aweful, so I figured I'd change blades to a new one just to be safe. While I was taking the blade out of the package I read the 'flutter test' instructions on the back (imagine that, read the instructions... what a novel concept). So rather than just crank down the tension to get as little deflection as possible, I tested out the flutter method. After a little fine tuning I was good to do and sure enough, a much better cut was the result. I'm not sure how much of that was due to having a new blade, and how much to the flutter method.
I had to resaw about 40' of the red birch into 3/8" boards, it was miserable (tough wood, fine dust)! But I got through it with very little waste.
Of course, feed rate is always going to be an issue, but I'm going to keep using the flutter method and see what the results are like on future projects.
Edited 5/14/2002 10:41:53 PM ET by JEFFN7
Jeffn7,
Firstly, I'm using the same saw and blade. Once everything else was well tuned, I couldn't see any difference in the smoothness between their flutter method and higher tension. However, I did find that it was much more sensitive to feed rate, and you had to go slower with the lower tension. From what they say, the biggest difference is the blade life (and less stress on the machine).
You might also measure the flatness on their weld. As a quick check, spin the upper wheel by hand, and measure the front-back movement of the blade with a dial indicator. Check both blades and compare. They had a problem here some time ago, and I've got some blades that cut much smoother than others due to this.
Gerry
Pat is correct concerning the concept of lead. His explanation provides one of the causes. There are several other causes/solutions as well.
Forestperson talks about tensioning the blade; FP has the concept correct but is using incorrect terminology. When you pull the blade tighter over the wheels, the correct term for that is strain. Strain is an important factor because like a violin or guitar string, a band sawblade can vibrate. Depending on both the frequency and amplitude of those vibrations, sometimes lead can develop.
Poor set (ie the side clearance of spring set teeth) can also be a contributory factor. If the side clearance is greater on one side than the other, it will create a larger gap on one side of the blade than the other. If that side clearance gap is sufficiently large, sawdust will spill from the gullet and literally push the blade to the opposite side of the kerf. If one side has longer teeth as Pat indicated, that can contribute to unbalanced forces on opposite sides of the blade which can contribute to pulling. If one side of the blade is duller than the other (nicks, dings or excessive wear/dulling) the blade forces will again be unequally distributed.
Spillage can also develop when you have too small gullet capacity or are not taking a sufficient bite (so that the sawdust "chip" is smaller than the side clearance). In deep cuts, gullet capacity is critical. Too fine a pitch (the distance between teeth) and too narrow a gullet will significantly decrease gullet capacity. This is almost counterintuitive but a 1" pitch may produce a smoother cut than a blade with a pitch of 0.25" (3 TPI)
On the very large band mills in saw mills, they need to consider guide pressure. These guides are only on one side of the blade (the inside/wheel side) and they literally push the blade outward. In part this adds an extra amount of strain but it also reduces blade harmonics/vibration nodes. It also compensates to a certain degree the centrifical forces that "throw" the blade away/out from the top wheel. The significance of this is that if guides are set on a non-moving blade, it may not necessarily mean that those guide positions are the optimum/best postion for an operating blade.
Another way to compensate for lead is by putting more back in the blade. This actually means that the back side of the blade is slightly longer than the tooth side. You therein create a situation where the blade becomes a section of a cone rather than a section of a cylinder. In the cut, friction produces heat (more on the tooth side than the back side). By adding back, when the metal on the tooth side expanses from the heat, it does not become longer than the back side of the blade. If the front expanses more than the back side (very easy to do with cylinrical sections, the front of the blade will loose its strain and will go anywhere it damn well wants to.
If I were doing a lot of resawing, I would get a formed tooth blade (swaged or tipped) so that the face of the tooth was perpendicular to the blade plate. These teeth are also side ground so it is more likely that the side clearance is equal on both sides. As the tooth is cutting the entire width of the kerf, there is no uneven loading.
Unfortunately the only source I have ever run across for narrow formed tooth bandsaw blades is Laguana Tool in California. They have a stellite tipped one that is pretty spending; the last I checked they were about $11 or $12 dollars per foot but then again I was pricing 2" wide blades.
This may seem like a lot of money but if you can reduce kerf and sawing variation in even moderately priced woods, it won't take very long to recoup that money due to less planer waste or by increasing the number of boards you yield from a given billet.
If you want to get scientific the relationship is bite is to feed speed as pitch is to blade speed. Actual gullet capacity is about 60% of gullet size. As a target, I would start with a bite that is one-half of saw tooth width.
Niemiec1, hi. As always, I appreciate the technical knowledge you have, and am glad you are willing to take the time to share it with us! I must lodge a couple of small protests here though [ with a :-) ]
Although I appreciate the spirit behind your addressing me as "Forestperson" I am, in fact, Forestgirl -- there is a spiritual and historic significance to the moniker as I have adopted it! Besides, it has fewer letter to type than your variation has.
Although I've no doubt you are correct about the technical name for what we do to bandsaw blades when we "tighten" them, the commonly accepted term is "tension" and this is the terminology that probably 99.9% of the readers here will accept and identify with. Again, not to slight the value of your information!
'Nuf said.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Forestgirl: Regarding your moniker, I stand corrected and will henseforth use what you ask regarding it.
There is a particular reason for my use of the term "strain" that justifies my continued use of it rather than bowing to popular "demand". Tensioning refers to the stretching of metal in specific areas of the blade (originally done by hammering but now almost exclusively done with metal rollers). This stretching pre-stresses the blade and allows it to run true. Any round saw blade over about 8" requires tensioning.
They also tension bandsaw blades; not the little ones and not the ones that run on rubber wheels but rather bandsaw blades that are >3" or so that run on iron wheels. Filers will expand the metal in the center of the blade so that only the back edge and part of the front edge just behind the teeth run on the wheel. By doing this, they can minimized strain forces and allow the blade to track better. The tensioning also creates a "spring" like condition in the center of the blade that will slightly flex during the cut so that if a tooth encounters something like a hard knot or if the sawyer overfeeds the saw, the blade does not immediately dive into the cut and come off the wheels (which generally will wreck a blade).
As I am a Wood Technologist (M.S. - Penn St. '79) and because I worked with a wide variety of folk during my employment in the Forest Products Department at Oregon State Univ., I use words with specific meaning. I would hope that forum readers would respect my expertise and learn something from my writings. Besides it becomes very confusing if I have to use one term for one group and another term for a different group. As far as I am concerned learning impliments change; if I am to respect your request regarding your preferred terminology, you can respect my request for mine.
Blade tensioning and strain are really too differnt things as well as Forest Girl and a Forest Person are also two very different things. Scientific knowledge has its place on this board but I think you are correct f_g and that in this case the improper term is the correct term since it is how manufacturers refer to the function of straining the blade.
Niemiec1: The requirement to speak in multiple languages to socialize with varying walks of life is a skill that, if ever perfected, opens up completely new worlds of knowledge and information. I appreciate your ability to respond with educated authority but I often blow past your posts because I don't need all that info and sometimes it makes me feel inferior. You might consider taking time to read many of the posts here. That would give you the tone of the general conversations and you could use that to set the tone of your own posts.
Steve - in Northern California
Edited 5/16/2002 6:10:09 PM ET by Steve Schefer
Edited 5/16/2002 6:10:56 PM ET by Steve Schefer
I'm not sure I agree Steve. When Stanley said strain, he surely meant strain, not tension. It's not his fault that people are ignorant of correct terminology through lack of knowledge, specific training or study. Likewise, if I say mullion, I don't mean muntin, I mean mullion, and when I say mortise and tenon, I mean mortise and tenon, not hole and sticky-out bit. Isn't your current or previous line of work artificial intelligence machines? You know, those grey box thingies attached to a television screen with a finger toucher that makes words. Right now I think mine might have a bacteria picked up over the telephone. What do professional grey box workers recommend for bacteria?
Is there a differnce between a hydrogen bomb and a nuclear bomb. They are both just big bangers to me. Let's call all of those bomb things bangers. Does it matter? Not to me maybe, but it matters a lot to physicists and engineers. And why don't I just call every cut-out in a piece of timber a hole? It could cover a multitude of things, and I won't have to spend time learning the difference between a rebate, a rabbet, a mortice, a slot, a groove, a trench, a seat, a channel, a slit, a housing, a dado, a mortice, or whatever. Now they're all just holes, and I've saved myself some effort. The fact that those in the trade haven't got a clue what I'm talking about when I say 'hole in wood' is now their problem, not mine. Slainte, RJ.
Link to RJFurniture site.
Edited 5/16/2002 9:13:14 PM ET by Sgian Dubh
Your comments regarding terminology are right on the money.
As for the level of detail in Mr. Nemic's posts, I really look forward to the opportunity to become better educated. If I see a discussion that is not of interest, I don't read it. I don't see any difference between a post from Mr. Nemic that has more detail than some people want and a personal post between individuals. His content, although more technical than some, is without question appropriate for a woodworking discussion site.
"You might consider taking time to read many of the posts here. That would give you the tone of the general conversations and you could use that to set the tone of your own posts."
There seems to be almost no other use of KNOTS for what would seem more appropriate for instant messaging. No offense intended, but there are not enough days to the hour and some of the discussions would be much shorter without the personal back and forth.
LOL..... No ROFLOL...Man did I have a comeback for you! Well, no sense in carrying this on, I know when I'm right and don't you ever try to correct me again. I have no need to learn because I already know everything.
BTW ---- In case you aren't already laughing, you should be because this is intended to be funny. Sorry if its not.Steve - in Northern California
LOL, somehow "a Forest Person" makes me think of Star Wars. Oh well, it's almost the end of the week! Tee Hee.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Yeah, I kinda got that vision too.. LOL...Steve - in Northern California
As I mentioned earlier in passing, I don't see what you're arguing here. If I look them up, I find the following. This indicates that strain is general, and that tension, compression and others are specific variations or types of strain. Frankly, as long as you clearly define what you're talking about, I don't care what you choose to use.
Strain Definition: A measure of the extent to which a body is deformed when it is subjected to a stress. The linear strain or tensile strain is the ratio of the change in length to the original length. The bulk strain or volume strain is the ratio of the change in volume to the original volume. The shear strain is the angular distortion in radians of a body subjected to a shearing force.
Tension
The act of stretching or the condition of being stretched; a force tending to produce slongation or extension.
Gerry<!--Pronunciation: -->View Image
--><!-- Also Known As: --><!--Examples: --><!--Alternate Spellings: --><!--Common Misspellings: --><!--
Related Resources:
--><!--
Elsewhere on the Web:
-->
Phayes:
The thread seems to have "drifted" a bit from your original question. You asked if there is any 18" bandsaw which doesn't have drift. As you can imply from the posts, drift is a funtion of the bandsaw blade and not the bandsaw. In my experince all 1/2" or less blades have drift, the narrower the blade the more they have.
When I resaw, compensating for drift is just one of the preliminary steps of setting up and is no big deal. I measure the drift on a piece of scrap with a bevel gauge and set my homemade high fence to that angle. Go slow, plenty of tension, and make sure you have good contact against the fence. You should get good results.
Some people prefer a single point fence so they can micro mange the angle. Mark Duginske in his "Bandsaw Handbook" shows several homemade sample of these. I've never seen the need as I have gotten good results with my high fence.
be safe,
Dennis
The only luck I've had with a fence is to use half of a dowel rod positioned vertically beside the blade. This is tacked to the side of a block which is clamped to the bed. I mark the piece to be resawn and then use the dowel as the guide. This allows me to pivot the board when it starts to wander off. The main thing the dowel does it to help keep the board vertical and the proper distance of the edge from the blade.
PlaneWood by Mike_in_Katy
PlaneWood
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled