Author Topic: Any one want a 2.4mm curf (96 thou) swinger or would 3.5mm do??? (Read 1512 times)

doublecut · « **on:** July 10, 2005, 11:02:47 am »

we are near to having our MiniMill ready. Just need to know blade size. We are using a 305mm diameter blade but the design needs the curf we are going to use. Big difference from 3.5 to 2.4mm in the actual design of the hub/boss.
results will depend on how much more we spend on R&D.
The mill is aimed as a second mill or for those weekenders.
all thoughts welcome
doublecut

Kirk_Allen · « **Reply #1 on:** July 10, 2005, 11:15:11 am »

I would suspect the smaller kerf would be better and more desireable. By staying under 1/8" (.130) Kerf has a great marketing appeal, provided the saw works well and the blade is stiff enough.

Shamus · « **Reply #2 on:** July 10, 2005, 01:02:49 pm »

I'm thinking 3.5 mm (1/8") is plenty thin for a cut, especially if it is marketed as a weekender. If thinner kerf is a big priority, a bandsaw is likely the way to go. Thin kerf is great on any mill, but not at the expense of blade maintenance/durability issues. A slabbing attachment with thin kerf for a circle mill would be sweet.

doublecut · « **Reply #3 on:** July 10, 2005, 08:36:25 pm »

Hey shamus did you get some new glasses

i know i will pay or that one
doublecut

DanG · « **Reply #4 on:** July 10, 2005, 10:05:25 pm »

I know that kerf size is an important marketing point, but I wouldn't sacrifice ANY depth of cut to achieve it on a blade that size. Depth is gonna be your biggest marketing handicap, IMHO.

Good luck on the project! I think you're onto something, there!

Shamus · « **Reply #5 on:** July 10, 2005, 10:32:52 pm »

Them are my reading glasses.

I need a powerful prescription on the FF. These posts are blurry enough to begin with!

doublecut · « **Reply #6 on:** July 10, 2005, 10:46:45 pm »

doublecut

Haytrader · « **Reply #7 on:** July 10, 2005, 11:22:28 pm »

Shamus,

I need glasses on occasion too, so don't let anyone give ya any static .
What I wanna know is how long did it take to tame those possum babies?

Shamus · « **Reply #8 on:** July 10, 2005, 11:51:55 pm »

Never said they was trained. They just like being up high, makes the little critters feel safe.

Arthur · « **Reply #9 on:** July 13, 2005, 05:45:03 am »

DanG

Blade depth is only what we want it to be. The reason for a 4" or 5" depth is to limit the weekender to smaller lumber and make the mill smaller, lighter, cheaper and more in the 'I want one' category of purchases. The max. size log will be 500mm or maybe 600mm and lessthan 4m long.

If you want the larger cuts and logs then you need to spend the money on a larger mill. The smaller mill also will help the novice to learn and love milling with a higher degree of safety.

The problem with small curf blades on a swinger is there is NO meat in the blade for the countersunk screws to hold the blase safely without special modifications to the blades. This is why Lindsay is asking what size as its critical for the swingers swing.

arthur

woodbowl · « **Reply #10 on:** July 13, 2005, 09:49:38 am »

Lindsey,
For the benifit of understanding non metrics, 3.5mm is only .013 thousands more than 1/8". Hardly any at all. Even though my band blades have a total kerf of .091 (just under 3/32) I still wonder if it takes out a bit more because of other conditions within the cut.--------I don't know how this affects circle blades. I'm not sure if this really applys to what your doing. 1/32 may be a huge difference in performance, but then there are the blade mods. If it is not too much trouble, having both worlds seems to be the best but then again, too many choices causes more problems. (at least it does with my sawing customers.)-----"Keep it simple" has got to be the best buisness advise I've ever heard.

doublecut · « **Reply #11 on:** July 13, 2005, 10:33:05 am »

Thanks woodbowl.
i have to agree . 1/32 won't make that big of differnence but the thinner you go the harder it is to handle too depernding on the depth of cut. We were just looking for a blade that was off the shelf and oddly enough the 2.4 mm kerf is more popular. The other is out there for sure but not as popular.

Keep it simple" . That is my dad's favorite saying the KISS Method.I thought shamus made a good point as we amied this for the weekender, then i don't think it matters to one about that issue. Just wanting to use that off the shelf blade for simplicity.
doublecut

woodbowl · « **Reply #12 on:** July 13, 2005, 12:06:33 pm »

Just out of curiosity, what kind of mods would it take to make the 2.4 run? More screw holes to hold it, or is the disadvantage mainly in the handling because of the thinness?

doublecut · « **Reply #13 on:** July 13, 2005, 01:50:37 pm »

It is in the thin plate of the saw.It's hard to get a counter sink into the plate as there isn't enough metal there to do it properly .
doublecut

woodbowl · « **Reply #14 on:** July 13, 2005, 08:06:32 pm »

Lindsey,
That's why I mentioned more screws. (smaller screws) Several small nails will hold a board better than a few big nails. It's the velcro syndrom. Lots of little hooks working together to hold a big load. Many counter sunk screws working together would have the power of................

Also, how deep can the 2.4 cut before it starts getting squirly? Does the 2.4 come with 6 teeth?

Timo · « **Reply #15 on:** July 14, 2005, 12:00:03 am »

Frankly, I fail to see the rational for a thinner blade on such a mill from a recovery perspective. You have to be a pretty good miller (and spend the time!) and have good logs to see any substantial difference in recovery even between a band mill and a 1/4 inch kerf circular blade. A hobby/ part time mill? Should be simple, durable, safe, and not require much complicated setup or maintenance.

I suppose that there could be an argument made for the reduced resistence/ power required for a thinner blade, making the smaller engine go further - but this is a production issue, and if depth of cut, durability of blades, safety or other factors are at all sarificed for this, I think it is out of the market....

Just my two cents

Arthur · « **Reply #16 on:** July 14, 2005, 07:29:43 pm »

Timo

Mainly production.

We don want to just aim at the weekender but as a second mill for the professional. We therefore need to manufacture for the professional and the weekender gets what he gets.

The thinner blade will get the professional a better recovery but also the smaller engine should cut at the same rate as one twice the size. Ideal for getting into the backyard of these customers with tiny logs.

At NO time will safety or durability be effected. The mill can be setup and running in 10 minutes even for the novice and we hope that being a novice they will partake of our expensive training before using their mill.

I have one running now but we need to refine before we think of production.

arthur

HORSELOGGER · « **Reply #17 on:** July 14, 2005, 11:18:34 pm »

I'm thinkin you meant EXTENSIVE training, not EXPENSIVE eh?

woodbowl · « **Reply #18 on:** July 15, 2005, 01:07:04 am »

Arthur,
What is the official name for the mini mill? Will it swing 180 degrees like the Eco-pro? I don't find any info on your site about this.

Arthur · « **Reply #19 on:** July 15, 2005, 04:08:50 am »

Quote from: HORSELOGGER on July 14, 2005, 11:18:34 pm

I'm thinkin you meant EXTENSIVE training, not EXPENSIVE eh?

Yes both.

some say education is expensive and to some we are. Its all relative to you income but worth every penny for those who need it.

arthur

News:

Author Topic: Any one want a 2.4mm curf (96 thou) swinger or would 3.5mm do??? (Read 1512 times)

Kirk_Allen