Schedule a Meeting · Talk to a real woodworker: +1 937-890-5197 · 8:00AM – 4:30PM ET

Noisy Jointer

JPG

One can ignore the difference between the od and the pitch diameter (assuming equivalent v groove dimensions) unless considering belt linear speed. Unfortunately the OP has already obtained a new motor pulley equal to that originally on it. A more ideal 'solution' would to have obtained a smaller motor pulley so as to achieve more ideal cutter rpm.

DLB

edma194 wrote In a post above, DLB recommends a slightly slower speed for a smaller motor so perhaps the jointer pulley needs to be a little larger to achieve that, but we still don't know the rated HP for that motor.

I was commenting on the max speed limitation of the Power Station, not its power. And suggesting that the OP stay away from the lower end of the speed range and try to get closer to the speed recommended for a Mark mount. IIRC the Power Station is 3/4 HP, same as a Greenie which was adequate in my experience running at ~5500 RPM.

- David

edma194

DLB wrote I was commenting on the max speed limitation of the Power Station, not its power. And suggesting that the OP stay away from the lower end of the speed range and try to get closer to the speed recommended for a Mark mount. IIRC the Power Station is 3/4 HP, same as a Greenie which was adequate in my experience running at ~5500 RPM.

- David

Sorry, when I wrote 'slower speed' I meant 5500 as opposed to 5900, because you mentioned 5500 as adequate.

chapmanruss

garyshell,

You said

With the motor running, the link belt expands a bit to the point that it rubs on the two feet of the eccentric tube mounting base.

Sorry I don't have any direct experience with a power stand. In the picture you posted it shows the hole in the top of the stand being about the same width as the space between the "feet" of the SPT stand. Is this the same on your Power Stand? If so, turning the SPT Stand around will not gain any additional belt clearance. The problem now appears to be the link belt and how it is constructed requiring additional clearance which could be corrected with a conventional V belt. One thing I didn't mention before but there has been a lot of discussion now is pulley diameters. Certainly, smaller pulleys would narrow the needed opening they pass through and still achieve the correct speed. Right now, the most inexpensive change would be to a conventional V belt.

garyshell

JPG wrote One can ignore the difference between the od and the pitch diameter (assuming equivalent v groove dimensions) unless considering belt linear speed. Unfortunately the OP has already obtained a new motor pulley equal to that originally on it. A more ideal 'solution' would to have obtained a smaller motor pulley so as to achieve more ideal cutter rpm.

I am running a 3.5" pulley at the cutter head, the new motor pulley is 5.95" and motor RPM is 3450 giving me a cutter head RPM of 5815. That appears to be within spec,

garyshell

chapmanruss wrote garyshell,

You said

With the motor running, the link belt expands a bit to the point that it rubs on the two feet of the eccentric tube mounting base.
Sorry I don't have any direct experience with a power stand. In the picture you posted it shows the hole in the top of the stand being about the same width as the space between the "feet" of the SPT stand. Is this the same on your Power Stand? If so, turning the SPT Stand around will not gain any additional belt clearance. The problem now appears to be the link belt and how it is constructed requiring additional clearance which could be corrected with a conventional V belt. One thing I didn't mention before but there has been a lot of discussion now is pulley diameters. Certainly, smaller pulleys would narrow the needed opening they pass through and still achieve the correct speed. Right now, the most inexpensive change would be to a conventional V belt.

I don't have the official "Power stand". I have a similar stand that has a more open frame, so the only impediments for the link belt expansion are the "feet" of the eccentric tube base. I'm going to try turning the base around, taking into consideration someone else's (@Majones1) suggestion that the large feet might be on the pulley side to provide support for the downward force of the belt on the pulley.

If that doesn't work I will just go with a standard V belt. The link belts do help reduce vibration but the jointer has so much mass I am not sure the benefits are that pronounced.

garyshell

Had to go with the V belt. Not enough clearance when the support was turned 180 degrees.

I spent some time to get the two pulleys in the same plane. But I have a small issue, the set screw on the cutter head pulley won't stay tight. And I am not sure how much play/deflection there should be in the v belt. I worry I might have it too tight and that might be causing the set screw to not remain tight. I suppose I could just get some lock-tight and put on the screw, but I think that is treating the symptom and not the disease.

I'm getting THIS CLOSE to getting this thing back in service. Thanks much to you fine folks!

garyshell

Final note. I went with some blue loctite since I couldn't find any reason for the set screw coming loose after a few minutes of running.

bill50cal

also IF you have the depth you could stack a second setscrew in the hole to act as a lock

JPG

OR use a longer set screw.

ORRR a nylock set screw.

garyshell

So would the loctite not be sufficient?

chapmanruss

I have never had a pulley set screw come loose and I don't understand why it is but hopefully the Loctite will work. bill50cal and JPG were offering other options. If I was having that problem, I think I would try the nylock set screw option first. Not to say Loctite is not a good option just that a nylock set screw would simply be my preference.

rpd

Regarding the link belt clearance. You could rotate the eccentric tubes 180 deg. so that the offset is towards the opening instead of away from it. That would move the pulley to where the legs on the mounting base are further apart and give you more clearance.

. :)

garyshell

rpd wrote Regarding the link belt clearance. You could rotate the eccentric tubes 180 deg. so that the offset is towards the opening instead of away from it. That would move the pulley to where the legs on the mounting base are further apart and give you more clearance.

. :)

I will take a look at this tonight.

Thanks.

« Previous Page