Replies

1. 
   MikeRooney | Dec 30, 2003 05:18am | #1

     A bandsaw is a lot safer.

    

2. 
   RANGERP75R | Dec 30, 2003 06:01am | #2

   Mack

      Freud 24 tooth TKR206 or Tk206 with stabalizer. If you expect to rip extremely hard wood with it quickly, you will need to do it on someone's 3 HP or 5 HP saw using a 24 flat tooth rip.

      For an every day, all day ripping of hard-wood that thick you need more horse or more time.

   Good Luck...

   sarge..jt

   Proud member of the :  "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>) 

1. 
   Mackwood | Dec 30, 2003 06:32am | #3

   Sarge,

   Will look up Freud on line and see about the blades you rec.  Problem I had on the old saw with the Freud blade (reg. kerf and 20 something tooth) was "buzzing".      The Freud blade would rip a perfect line except where the blade would vibrate or "buzz" in the cut, which was every couple inches in 1 1/2" thick oak. To get better results, feed rate had to be very precise and very slow. When I got the 10 tooth Sys.,  the rips were much better for my purposes and feed rate could be quicker and much less of an issue.

   My logic tells me that less HP needs less teeth in the wood.  Would this seem correct to you?  The HP rating on the newer motors is misleading as well.  I'm told that an older motor of a given HP rating is actually more powerful than a newer one of the same rating.  Is this a myth, nostalgia in action or ?? reality?

   (Edit) I'm a hobbist so speed is not that important, I just don't want to spend all day ripping one four foot board.

   Thanks for responding!

   Mack

   Edited 12/29/2003 10:36:44 PM ET by Mack

1. 
   gpwest | Dec 30, 2003 08:21am | #4

   Mack,

     I have a 2hp Delta TS which sometimes feels slightly underpowered when ripping thick oak  & maple. It has been much more satisfying to use since I began using a thin kerf Forrest combination blade a few yrs ago. The cut it produces is so close to being smooth enough for glue that usually all it needs is one quick pass with a jointer plane.   GP

2. 
   RANGERP75R | Dec 30, 2003 10:07am | #5

   Mack

      What gp said applies. The 1o tooth has more gullet space between teeth which means more removal of waste quicker. The down-side is the fewer teeth, the rougher the cut. If you have a jointer, that shouldn't be an issue.

      HP rating is suspect. I have seen arguments on this forum between electrical engineers and they really never all agreed. The only way I know for you to find the solution is to jump in the pool. Try a freinds blade if possible to see how it responds. The alternative is just bite the bullet and take a chance. The Freud TK206 without teflon is about $34. For what you want to do, I wouldn't go over 24 teeth. That is standard rip #. You could try the Forrest if you want to go out on a limb with the $$.

      Either way I recommend a stiffner, not a stabalizer. A stabalizer is smaller and basically a machining flat set of replacement arbor nuts. They are larger than the standard arbor nuts and thicker, but not as large and thick as the stiffner. They help stiffen, but not as much as a true stiffner which usually just goes on one side of the arbor and is thicker. I prefer the 5" stiffner. I can cut the thicker hard-wood on my saw, but it requires a bit more time. Always let the saw dictate the feed rate. If you rush it, you will get burn and an accident potentially about to happen.

      When I am out-matched, I admit it and go next door to my neighbor who has a PM 66 5 HP. You probably don't have that luxury as I do. All you can do is test and see as there is no magic fix I'm afraid.

   Good Luck...

   sarge..jt

   Proud member of the :  "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>) 

   Edited 12/30/2003 2:10:11 AM ET by SARGE

1. 
   kolson | Jan 02, 2004 12:32am | #20

   Hi,

   The point to all of this,  {all the other little posts of mine], is to ask you why a single stiffener is better than two stabilizers, ie Freud's 2 3.5" nine thirty seconds inch thick set.

      Just  to comment, they are a pain as you have to change all the throat inserts sleds etc.

    I had 5 "  stiffener and  accidetally discovered it was bent, so I threw it out, then I found  the washer on the saw was bent, on a fairly new Unisaw, so I bought this set . I don't know if it helped or if it was getting rid of the other thing but the saw worked a lot better.

   Ken

1. 
   RANGERP75R | Jan 02, 2004 03:38am | #21

   checkmate

      For starters, welcome aboard the "good ship Prozac"!  Another way to get at a personal question is to go the the bottom after you have typed the reply and click on the little square that says e-mail this person or something to that nature. Your computer stays in the box that says to all. As U Dunc and FG pointed out, it's not a major after a individual theard gets covered to just fire away. That rule gets bent in about 90% of most threads. ha.. ha..

      Here goes. A stiffner is the best bet for a Thin Kerf (3/32")blade. The blade is thinner and has more of a tendency to flex than a normal 1/8" blade. The stiffner is thicker than the stabs and cover more of the blade body than the stabalizers. That is going to relate to an over-all stiffer set-up.

      Stabalizers do just that. Stabalize.. Your arbor washers are not usually ground to precision flat-ness. Replacing the normal so-so washers with stabalizers gives you two advantages. First, it does stiffen the blade as they are larger than the normal arbor washers. (Just not as large as a stiffner) Second, they are precision ground flat which relays to a more precise fit to the side of the blade body. This helps eliminate excessive run-out, balance and better grasp. If you move extremely hard stock into a blade turning 3450 rpm there is a sudden torque action. The better grasp will relay to less chance of any slippage and reduction of blade speed if it does slip.  This could produce a burn mark on your stock at the least. It could cause a bog down of the motor also.

     My rule of thumb is to use stiffners and a TK blade on a less than 2 HP saw. The thinner blade has less resistance than a standard 1/8". This helps with us folks with an under-powered saw to get us through thicker hard-woods. The stiffner reduces the extra flex characteristic that the thinner blade produces.

     If you have a Uni-saw, you are probably either running 3 HP or 5 HP. You really don't need a Thin-Kerf blade. You got all the power and torque you need without having to make compromises. Just run a regular 1/8 blade. Stabalizers would be optional in this case. I would run them just to get that precise flat mate most arbor nuts don't have (even Uni-saws ande PM's) for the above mentioned reasons.

     Hope this helps. If additional questions, ask. In your case with a Uni and regular 1/8" blade with the additional stabalizers, "it doesn't get any better than that". We'uns with less power just have to keep finding all the ways to cheat as we can. ha.. ha..

   Regards...

   sarge..jt

   Proud member of the :  "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>) 

2. 
   kolson | Jan 02, 2004 10:41am | #22

   Sarge,

    Thankyou for the helpful and informative reply. It  cleared  up several things for me.

        Thankyou for the welcome. Maybe I should introduce myself by saying my name is Ken, I live in British Columbia, about 240 miles North of Seattle; am about 2years into woodworking, been lurking arbout the forum for a year or so.

   Respectfully,

   Ken

     

3. 
   RANGERP75R | Jan 02, 2004 06:45pm | #23

   Ken

       Your quite welcome and drop my shop any time. I have a lot of customers up in BC. Well, all over Canada actually.

       A two year lurker. Glad to see you jump in the pool after carefully testing the water. Just remember that your opinion is as important as anyone elses.

   Regards from Atlanta GA....

   sarge..jt

   Proud member of the :  "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>) 

   Edited 1/2/2004 10:47:26 AM ET by SARGE

3. 
   charlesm | Dec 30, 2003 08:12pm | #7

   Mack,

   Matching the number of teeth to the stock thickness is most important. There should be 3 ot 5 teeth working in the cut for ripping which means you should opt for no more than 24 teeth. Less teeth will make a coarser cut and more teeth will have the potential to burn. To lessen the load on the saw you can opt for thin kerf or a smaller diameter blade. Assuming power is an issue here are my top two recommendations:

   1. 10" thin kerf rip (LU87R010, TK(R)206 or D1024)

   Or

   2. 8" full kerf rip blade (LM72R008) will require a lot less torque than a 10" and should still cut over 2" thick stock.

   If power is not an issue I would go for the full kerf 18T (LM71M010) or 24T (LM72R010).Charles M

   Freud, Inc.

1. 
   VeniciaL | Dec 30, 2003 09:25pm | #8

   Charles,

   Thanks for that advice. I have been following this thread as I am about to buy some flat top grind Freud ripping blades. You may remember a thread a while back that you responded to.

   I wish there were a flat top thin kerf blade, but I guess the geometry of the thin kerf requires the ATB as the flat top would partially negate the power saving characteristic of the thinner blade.

   I would not have thought to use the smaller diameter blade. Now that's what I'll buy. I need the flat top tooth design as I am producing a run of picture frame molding that uses a visible spline (both decorative and functional) in the miter joints. The ATB blade leaves a "V" in the bottom of the kerf that is unacceptable.

   I've done test runs using a Diablo 10" 24 tooth blade. I am very pleased that there is NO burning on maple stock and the surface is glue-ready. I've had to do no jointing. Now it's on to the industrial-quality FTG blade.

   VL

2. 
   Mackwood | Dec 30, 2003 11:01pm | #9

   Charles,

   Thanks to you, Sarge and everyone else who responded.  I'll invest in a Freud thin kerf rip blade and try it out on both saws.  If I'm not happy I'll relace the 1 1/2 HP motor with a 3 HP and go with the full kerf blade you rec.  Thanks again!

   Mack

1. 
   RANGERP75R | Dec 31, 2003 05:58am | #11

       Good luck, Mack!

   sarge..jtProud member of the :  "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>) 

3. 
   stancalow | Dec 31, 2003 04:44am | #10

   Charles MC,  et al

   I was replacing the Freud blade on my saw (LU84R011) with the a thin kerf model TKR906 and found that the TK blade was about 1/4" wider in diameter than the blade it's to replace.  This is enough to create a problem with my splitter.  Is this normal? 

   Stan

1. 
   charlesm | Dec 31, 2003 06:58am | #12

   Stan,

   There is a difference in the diameters. The TKR906 is 10" but the LU84 is actually 250mm (9.843" or a little under 9-7/8"). I don't understand how this could cause an issue with the splitter on a 10" saw. Could you please elaborate?Charles M

   Freud, Inc.

2. 
   stancalow | Jan 01, 2004 12:01am | #15

   Thanks Charles

   All - apologies for the digression, but suddenly confronted with the problem.  With the new blade on the arbor, there is about a 1/16" overlap with the top of the riving knife.  (attached photo)  I guess I will have to drill and adjust riving knife to accommodate, but was surprised that this ws the case since original blade was also 10". 

   
3. 
   charlesm | Jan 01, 2004 12:21am | #17

   I can't tell from the picture. Is the saw European (riving knife instead of splitter would suggest this)? If so it likely came with a 250mm blade. Is the knife adjustable?Charles M

   Freud, Inc.

3. 
   Midnight | Dec 30, 2003 01:01pm | #6

   Mack

   Best improvement I've made to date on my saw was fitting a thin kerf Freud combination blade; exceptional cut quality, motor's having to do far less work as the chip limiting design of the blade regulates the feed rate, way easier on the ear and far less mess too... They're a touch on the expencive side, but worth it in reduced time spent jointing.

   Mike Wallace

   Stay safe....Have fun

4. 
   kolson | Dec 31, 2003 07:49pm | #13

   Hi

   May I jump in on your thread to ask questions to one of the people who replied to you?

   I am a beginner here, obviously.

   Thanks

   Ken

1. 
   UncleDunc | Dec 31, 2003 10:51pm | #14

   Welcome to Knots!

   Digressions have a long and honorable history here. The notion of the originator "owning" a thread just doesn't seem to be part of the culture. Of course Mack may disagree with me. :)

   The only reason I can think of to not change the subject is that some of the people who could answer your question may have already given up on this thread. Not all of us have the stamina to read ever message on every topic.

   Edited 12/31/2003 2:54:36 PM ET by Uncle Dunc

1. 
   kolson | Jan 02, 2004 12:13am | #18

   Hi,

   Thankyou for your reply and the "welcome'

   Ken

1. 
   eddiefromaustralia | Jan 18, 2004 09:40am | #24

   Ken,

   I sent a response to your email but the address in the taunton system is unknown by the shaw.ca server and it bounced.

   Could you check your profile email address please?  I'll try to send again tomorrow

   Regards,

   eddie

2. 
   forestgirl | Jan 01, 2004 12:08am | #16

   Mack, generally no one will complain if you piggy-back a question that is at least remotely related to the original subject of the thread, especially if the thread's been going for awhile and the original question's been addressed. 

   "Jumping in" sometimes becomes "hi-jacking" which I've occasionally been chastised for :-)    It's really funny when someone gets on my case about hijacking my own thread!

   PS:  Welcome to the forum!forestgirl Another proud member of the  "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)  you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)

1. 
   kolson | Jan 02, 2004 12:15am | #19

   Hi,

     Thanks,

   I have a lot to learn,Ken