Someone recently suggested that I invest in a blade stabilizer to improve the quality of my crosscuts. Seeing one from Freud the other day for only $15 I decided what the heck and bought it. It arrived today, and I am confused as to why there are two pieces. I had thought that there would only be one. It was my understanding that one was to go between the blade and the nut. If I try to put one on each side of the blade it will no longer line up with my splitter, and that is a whole different problem. Does anyone know the proper way to install these stabilizers?
Thanks,
Scott
Replies
Scott,
Blade stabilizers (I emphasize the plural) are precision-ground washers that are larger than the standard washers that come with most saws. They stabilize the blade due to their larger size and precise grinding. Yes, they move the blade from the original plane, and riving knives and splitters must be adjusted.
A blade stiffiner is a larger, single disk that goes on the outboard side of the arbor and does not change the blade's position.
I believe you expected a stiffiner.
VL
Look carefully at your Freud Stabilizers. You will note that each has a raised outer machined surface on one side. This raised surface grips the blade from both sides to act as a flattener and stablilizer. If you use only one stabilizer, you will distort and warp the blade. Not only will this permanently damage the blade, it will decrease the quality of the cut.
Some stabilizers such as the Forrest are just precision flat disks that add spinning mass smoothing the rotation of the blade.
IMO there is no reason to use either type of stablilizer if you are using a quality blade from any of the top manufacturers.
Howie,
Re: "IMO there is no reason to use either type of stablilizer if you are using a quality blade from any of the top manufacturers"
I'm glad you said that. I've always thought I was remiss in not using a stabilizer, or that I just wasn't observant enough to detect the problems that it reduces.
I am running several "low end" blades from Freud and Dewalt. They are thin-kerf blades and I experience no problems with them. They oscillate a little coming up to speed or when winding down. That's probably as much a part of the drive belts and motors as the blades. But they seem to run true at speed and give me the cuts that I expect.
From time to time I operate machines other than mine. They have stabilizers, giving me reason to contemplate installing my own.
I think I'll put away that nagging thought that I need to add stabilizers or stiffiners to my setups.
VL
The woodworking club I belonged to tested a number of blades both with and without stabilizers. We tested both the single flat plate type and the two part gripper style. Neither improved the cut of Freud, CMT, Jesada or Forrest full kerf blades. We were not able to detect any improvement in thin kerf blades from the same manufactures.
Freud will even say that their stabilizer is for marketing only. They say that neither their full kerf or thin kerf blade require the stabilizer.
Edited 1/4/2004 2:33:48 PM ET by Howie
"We tested both the single flat plate type and the two part gripper style." So as not to confuse any lurkers out there, definitions:
A stabilizer is a single flat disc used on one side of the blade
Stiffeners come as a pair, one used on each side of the blade
Using these terms interchangeably, or using one to cover both devices, only leads to confusion.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 ;-)
Venicia
Try your thin kerf blade on a 1 1/2 HP saw ripping some lignum vitae or black locust without a stiffner. Then try it with one and see if you can detect a difference. The wobble you see coming up to speed is a clue.
Regards...
sarge..jtProud member of the : "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
Sarge,
I don't have any lignum or black locust to cut. Now, or any time soon. But I have been cutting a lot of hard maple and everything seems to be OK. I'm switching over to a full kerf FTG Freud blade for ripping.
I should qualify by saying that I don't do "full scale" ripping on the table saw. I really hate to rip on the table saw. I rip to rough dimension on the bandsaw only. My ripping operations on the TS are almost always to take off the final 1/16" or so of width, or for running a groove to accept gluing splines and such. And in these operations, I am getting glue line surfaces without burning.
The wobble coming up to speed is at a much lower speed than the blade ever runs while cutting. Without exaggeration, I think I push the wood through the blade as fast as I can, and the blade's not slowing nor wobbling. I can't physically exceed their optimum feed rate, although I'm sure someone larger and stronger could. Believe me, I remember the days of non-carbide blades and blades laboring in the wood.
Those old blades would dull in the first 5 minutes of use. And they weren't all that good in the first 5 minutes either. Even with 3 and 5 hp saws, it was unpleasant. I've been using several Dewalt and Freud blades for several months now, and since starting with them I CANNOT see any wear. They run very true at speed and seem to love having the wood "thrown" at them.
VL
I was just interested in this subject and wanted to see what a major blade manufacture has to say...found this from forrest.
http://www.forrestblades.com/dampner.htm
Seems they say for noise and vibration are why they use them.
Jim
Jim
Thanks... As with most things, I'm curious also. I hope that Charles Mac from Freud replys too. I'm sure that the manufactures have run test to avoid false advertising. If they haven't, I would be dis-appointed. ha.. ha..
Regards...
sarge..jtProud member of the : "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
I could be wrong, but I know of no other blade manufacturer who recommends a stabilizer or a stiffener on their blades. A few offer them but that, I suspect, is just because they want to have something to sell if their customer wants one. Of the six points used by Forrest to market their product, only one deals with cut line quality. The Forrest blade is the noisiest in my shop because they do not have the same high tech equipment as other do that cut sound and vibration dampening slots into their blades. A well tuned saw will not have either their belts or motors transmit vibration to the blade tips.
Personally, all the issues about observed vibration coming up to speed are just a "straw man" in my opinion. The only issue is the quality of the cut. Testing this is not a big deal. First tune up your saw. Cut some hard maple, using a good blade both with and without the stiffener or stablilizer. See if you can see ANY difference in the cutline. We're not talking high tech here.
Keep in mind that perfectly acceptable "invisable glue lines" can be cut with any good sharp rip blade and a tuned up saw. Good glue lines do not require glass-like, burnished surfaces. In fact, a burnished surface may actually be less strong when glued.
Don't get me wrong, Forrest makes a good blade and I do not knock their product. Their marketing goes a little too far down the road IMO.
Edited 1/5/2004 11:32:55 AM ET by Howie
Venicia
I'm just guessing from your post that you do some type of production. What HP saw do you run? I think there are a lot of variables that might affect whether a stiffner or stabalizers might or might not be useful. For a 3 + HP saw using a regular 1/8" blade, I don't personally see the necessity at all.
For a 2 HP or less, I find that a 5" stiffner helps to eliminate burn when into harder woods over 4/4. As you noted, a TK blade ossililates (wobbles coming up to speed). I have put both a 3/32" and 1/8" blade in a vise and have flexed them with my body weight. Having been around car restoration I know that a steel wheel on your car flexes when you hit a pot-hole. You can't see it, but it is a fact.
I find the stiffner reduces the wobble coming up to speed. The fact that I get less burn on thick stock when it is on the blade tells me that it has helped. Even when getting a sudden torque as when the blade meets locust or any harder wood. Thicker clutch plates are used on racing type cars to handle the extra torque produced by 700 + HP engines. Same with placing steel spacers between springs to stiffen them at higher speeds in the curves.
A regular blade is not going to flex as much as a thinner one. A 3 HP + motor is not going to lose as much power when friction is met. Therefore I don't feel the need here. But with an under-powered saw and harder wood, I think the stiffer set-up increases efficiency.
This is all based on my obsrvations and experiences. I have done no extensive testing and am curious if the manufactures have. I rely on my logic till I can see otherwise. Jim posted the Forrest version of why. The 6 points they give are enough to convince me that I will keep the stiffner on till someone can come up with convincing evidence I'm wasting my time.
That's why I mentioned to try one and see for yourself. I think we might all interupt the results of a personal test differently. And what you cut, how thick you cut, what HP your using and the general machined tolerances of your TS components will come into play IMO. So a broad statement of it doesn't help should be countered with, under what conditions were the test run to conclude that.
Still, I think the best thing to do is try it personally and you make the call. Nothing to lose and something to potentially gain.
Regards...
sarge..jtProud member of the : "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
Sarge,
Yes, I am running a (very tiny) production of maple picture frames. It's a LOT of sawing for us, but is miniscule in terms of real production of this kind of thing. We have 2 10" contractors saws, 1.5 hp set up for this task, a Grizzly and a Delta. Pretty low tech. All the "prototyping" was done with thin kerf blades simply because that's what was on the saws. Now we're switching over to full kerf 8" blades, primarilly because we need the FTG design.
We really aren't taxing the saws much at all with the rip cuts. They are used to final dimension the stock by shaving off the last rough 1/16" to 1/8" of board width (1.25" thickness) after band saw ripping, jointing and planing. Then we rip saw 3 cuts 1/8", 1/4" and 3/4" deep to create the frame profile. Easy stuff.
I used to have an Inca 10" table saw that I loved. Everything about it said precision and power. Maybe in about a year I'll be able to get a machine in that class again. In any case, it will be a cabinet saw with 5 hp. Really good equipment is a joy to use. These contractors saws are toys compared to the Inca. But they seem to really be value for the money, especially the Grizzly which I bought new for just under $300. The Grizzly does just about anything I ask of it. They're fitted with link belts and other than the very brief vibration on spin up these are very satisfactory machines.
VL
Venicia
I think the amount your taking off the edges would keep you in prespective of the 1 1/2 HP saw. And the fact that you are having no problem without a stiffner would suggest that, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Unless you get into thicker stock and longer lenghts, you sound "good to go". The use of your BS as the intial ripper is a sound and clever idea.
I run an old heavily modified Ryobi we re-structured from junk. It has a 2 HP Delta Marathon motor and three short belts that run from motor shaft directly to the arbor shaft. We set it up similar to a cab saw with the two shafts only about 6" apart. This allows little loss of enery as on a much longer contractor type belt. I use belts which further reduce vibration and elimuinate slippage as the twist type do.
With TK blades and stiffner, I am capable of cutting most stock. With really thick stuff, it does require a bit more patience but time is on my side. Not much I can't do, but when I meet it's match, the neighbor has a PM 66 that is available. With proper set-up and planning most can be accomplished on a contractor saw even though that old Ryobi is closer to a cab set-up.
Is it hard maple or soft maple your using? Irrelevant, but just curious? Sounds kind of interesting. Is it just a side-line or are you slowly progressing into a larger scale? You sound as if you've got the finishing part "down pat". I have picked up several pointers from your post on that end, along with many others.
This whole subject is kind of interesting. I am curious to see what the manufacturers and others have to say. I still believe there are a lot of variables and each individual has their own unique playing field depending on what they have to accomplish. And that is enough to keep things from getting boring. ha.. ha..
Regards...
sarge..jtProud member of the : "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
Sarge,
My dealer calls the maple "hard." I believe it is, but I can put a barely discernable dent in it with the "thumbnail test." I have no idea how reliable that is.
This is a project that started out as a curiosity to me - picture frames with sound woodworking techniques - splined miters instead of V nails, backs closed with a finished maple plywood panel instead of paper.
Around the beginning of November I had the bright idea that I could make all my Christmas presents by framing my photography (graphic design/photography is my real day job) with these frames. I thought I could get all the frames done in a few weeks. Ha!
The job quickly balooned into 40 frames and went from an interesting exercise in design to a mad dash to finish in time to get them in the mail. I literally finished the last one the night before we flew to the mainland for a big family Christmas. I FedEx'ed most of them, but we packed some in our luggage.
No one knew they were getting them. They were very well received. I got the best compliment a woodworker can receive. Almost without exception the recipient held the framed picture, exclaiming, "Ooooh," and almost unconsciously ran his or her fingers over the wood, (for a long time) sometimes saying, "I like the way this feels!" (They liked the images, too)
I had to stop the design at an intermediate point just to get them done. They are the "prototypes" of a better design that I will now turn out for a few small galleries. This has really been a labor of love. The cost would have been prohibitive the way I made them. But I'm getting the workflow ironed out so that they may become economically viable.
VL
And now I have utterly hijacked this thread.
Edited 1/3/2004 4:01:09 PM ET by Venicia L
Venicia
Thanks for the reply. I had a feeling that you might be making them at this point for personal use as you mentioned limited production. I had noticed in your profile that you were into art, etc. Even an "old blind squirrel gets an acorn every once in awhile". ha..ha..
They sound very nice and high quality from the way you made them. The "labor of love" tells another story. You enjoyed making them. That's the key when not directly involved with dead-line production. Sounds like a compliment to your graphics and photography. I admire the folks in that department at my part-time work. What they can do with camera's and computers is amazing to me. If I were ever serious about getting decent pictures, I would take it to them.
Good luck if you decide to take the commercial plunge with the frames. Demand may be there, but for me it takes the pleasure away when dead-lines have to be met. Already been there (another arena other than WW) when I had my own company. It's just relaxation and "labor of love" for me. That word popped up again. Sounds contagious! ha.. ha..
Regards for a pleasant evening on the island...
sarge..jtProud member of the : "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
If you plan to turn out any more than a few picture frames, you might want to seriously consider getting a double miter saw to cut the corners. I have one which I bought used several years ago, made by IOMega. I can cut the miters in the pre-made stock for 40 picture frames in 20 minutes or less. They fit together dead straight, and with no gaps. I use it to make display cases for dolls, die-cast model cars, and what-have-you.
When I go to a show, I can always spot the woodworkers who come by my booth. The first thing they look at is the mitered corners, and I can almost see the wheels turning in their heads as they wonder how I cut them so straight.
The saw itself is a serious piece of gear, and new ones cost upwards of $6K, but if you find a framing shop that is going out of business, or maybe look on e-bay, you can generally find one for less money.
Hope this helps,
Enery
'Enery,
What's a double miter saw?
The most labor intesive part of my frame project was milling and profiling the solid maple "molding."
I cut the miters on the TS on a dedicated cross-cut sled with a fixed fence at 45 deg. The joints "fit together dead straight, no gaps." After cutting the miter at one end, I set up stop blocks to miter and cut the frame pieces to length. Dead on. Very fast.
VL
Venicia,
Freud considers stabilizers to be the mated pair of oversized collars and stiffeners as the single ground plate that sisters with the blade. Both can be useful in some situations but should only be considered for use with a Freud blade when all other methods to improve the cut quality have been attempted. For instance, if you experience wandering in a rip cut in very strong grained wood and verifying the saw alignment and changing feed rate and blade height have no effect you might consider using one of these. As to their purpose, although they use different methods they have the same basic intent; they are designed to stabilize the blade, thereby reducing vibration and making the blade stiffer, more resistant to flex. These same benefits are already engineered into Freud blades so using the accessory will only help in extreme circumstances.
Here's a link to info about double miter saws:
http://www.framingsupplies.com/Pistorius/PistoriusDoubleMiterCut_OffSaws.htm
Jamie,
Thanks for bringing this thread to my attention!Charles M
Freud, Inc.
Charles,
Thanks for the link to the Pistorius machine. I am familiar with their presence in the framing industry, but had never seen that particular machine before.
VL
Sarge,
The Ryobi BT 3000 is a unique saw, there is little else like it at any price. It has several features that I love and a few that I don't, one of the annoyances being its high speed motor. I have contemplated swapping out the saw's universal motor for an induction motor but it obvoiusly requires some major engineering. You, apparently have done so, and I'm very curious about how you did it. I have three questions:
1. Did you preserve the blade tilt function? This would seem to be the most challenging difficulty when switching to a much larger and heavier motor.
2. Did you keep the blade height adjustment at least partially?
3. Were you able to reuse the arbor shaft and what type of belt system did you use to connect it to the new motor?
Of course, any other details would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
John W.
John
I will answer your questions in order and then give you the details as best as possible.
(1) Preserve the blade tilt function? Yes...
(2) Preserve blade height adjustment? Yes...
(3) Re-use original arbor shaft? No...
John, my role in the modification was minor compared to that of T. James and my BIL and his chronies. I simply designed a maple base cabinet to recieve the top unit, designed the various extentions, designed the riving knife replacement for the original one and built a home-made crown gaurd and adjustable Euro short fence. I also ground the top to flat.
The mechanical design changes were done by T.J. who is one of my best freinds. I approached him with what I was looking to do and he "did". He is a mechanical engineer via Ga. Tech. My BIL is one of the shop foreman's at Delta Air Lines and has a small machine shop at home and access to some very high dollar equipment there.
I can't give details as requested by TJ as he may want to use the design in the future, but I will give some hints that he did approve. The motor shaft is in approximately the same position as the original but a cradle is involved in securing the motor. The shaft was replaced or extended (?) by a machined one to allow 3 serpentine belts instead of the original two. He managed to keep the tilt and height adjustment in the same position. The dust shroud has been modified slightly. The bearing on the sliding tables and lock downs for the table have been beefed. (Added by edit) I almost forgot to mention that the sheet metal sides were replaced by plate steel. I will reveal that the originals would not have been sturdy enough in relation to the cradle (lack of better word) I mentioned that the motor depends on.
The machining was done by my BIL who also custom made a 3/32" and a 1/8" riving knife for use with both regular and TK blade. I designed the crown gaurd from what few I had ever seen at the time. I also designed the sliding Euro fence from looking at Sgain Dubhs after seeing a picture he posted. I had never seen on before that.
I will agree that the Ryobi gets a bad rap. People laugh at the word, but some have paid attention to the fact that they were thinking when they built it. If they had beefed it, it would be a major contender. Sad they are going where they are going instead of pursuing what they had started. I think the market and survival played a role in that also. You have to do what you have to do to survive economically these days.
Hope that gives you some ideas to consider...
sarge..jt
Proud member of the : "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
Edited 1/3/2004 6:34:01 PM ET by SARGE
Sarge,
Thanks for the reply on your saw's modifications. As I suspected, remotoring a BT 3000 would be a major piece of engineering if all of the saw's tilt and height adjustment range was going to be retained. It sounds like you really only salvaged a third of the original saw.
I had hoped that the newer model of the saw would have been beefier while still keeping the saws unique design but sadly the new version is almost identical to the older model.
Thanks again, John W.
John W
Interestingly, my first name is John and the middle initial is W. Yep, they didn't go the direction a few were hoping. Norm from Fujina was hoping the same. He is also very heavy into the BT 3000. I could not have pulled off the modification without the aid of my comrades.
The good news is it will do more than most contractors saws even without the beef. Many will laugh at that, but the "proofs in the puddin'". A lot of bang for the buck. I wouldn't get rid of mine for anything less than Rojek or a Sedgwick.
Regards...
sarge..jtProud member of the : "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
I had a problem with my Freud thin kerf blade wobbling during rip cuts. I had the blade set too high which was contributing to the problem. By reducing the tooth height to just above the stock, the cuts have cleaned up considerably.
I use a set of blade stiffeners from Lee Valley and the only reeason I use them is because my old saws washer was bent and this seem to work much better than any thing else I could find. I still use them on my new saw because they seem to be better than the stamped steel ones supplied.
View Image
Scott C. Frankland
Scott's WOODWORKING Website
"This all could have been prevented if their parents had just used birth control"
Scott,
Thanks for the info. Do you use your splitter with the stiffners? If so, how did you modify the receiver where the splitter "hooks in".
Thanks,
Scott
Scott I don't use a any factory made splitter. I am in the process of building a new one that will sort of work like the riving knife on euro saws. I am getting a collar made that will clamp onto the arbor casting and then mount a bracket that will run to the back edge of the blade where the knife will be attached. Up until now I am just using a insert in my shop made blade insert. It is a 1/8" strip of maple that stands about a 1" off the table. But if you wanted to use a factory setup then just use a spacer block to move the splitter out ot where it needs to be.Scott C. Frankland
Scott's WOODWORKING Website"This all could have been prevented if their parents had just used birth control"
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled