Shopsmith Forums

shipwright wrote:OK, 1.666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666667http://www.shopsmith.net/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif
How do you get those little faces top work?
Paul M

Wrong DIRECTION!!!!!!!

Re Smiley face -

OK this is about the sander.
However my calculator does say that 700/6= 116. all those sixes.
(and I figured out the faces)
Now can we discuss the sander?

Paul M

Paul,

I downloaded the model and took a quick look. Over the years I have had to learn several 3D modeling programs and I find Sketchup a bit frustrating. It may well be that the commands I'm not finding are there but it seems awfully limited. Perhaps a bit unfair considering it is free.

A few thoughts.
1. You might want to add another spring tensioned roller at the rear of the unit to help hold the work against the conveyor belt. Seems like slippage may be a problem otherwise.

2. A little more cover with a dust collector port. Perhaps you had this planned but left it out for clarity?

3. I understand your desire to have the unit driven entirely by your Shopsmith but think a separate motor driving the conveyor belt would be more sensible. As mentioned, something like that used on the thickness planer. Sherline makes a nice motor with controller that works well, I have my watchmaker's lathes set up with these motors and am impressed. This would allow you to finely alter the feed rate without changing the drum speed. If you are dead set on driving the whole thing from the SS then a stepped pulley arrangement (Ex. drill press) would allow you to make these changes in fixed increments.

It is a good idea that addresses what I have always seen as shortcomings in the sand flee and I think ultimately a much more useful tool.

Troy

Thanks Troy.
1) Excellent point. It would have become obvious during construction. It wouldn't need to be driven because the belt is, but rather just increase the traction, right?
2) Yes as I said in the initial post covers, bearings and a lot of other stuff is not included as this is sheerly concept stage.
3) The whole idea here is to see what one can do with just a SS. Also keeping a very low budget. Belts,pulleys and bearings are cheap. As for variable speed, I 'd be happy with a single feed speed as I could vary the cut to accommodate wider pieces etc. My main use would be in flattening marquetry substrates and then the marquetry afterwards. It's very light work I think this could do much heavier work.

As an exercise in what can be done cheaply and with a shopsmith alone, I think I like it. I may even build one.

Thanks again for the thoughts and ideas.

Paul M

shipwright wrote:Thanks Troy.
1) Excellent point. It would have become obvious during construction. It wouldn't need to be driven because the belt is, but rather just increase the traction, right?

Exactly right.

shipwright wrote: 2) Yes as I said in the initial post covers, bearings and a lot of other stuff is not included as this is sheerly concept stage.

My goof, it has been a long day. Nevermind...

shipwright wrote: 3) The whole idea here is to see what one can do with just a SS. Also keeping a very low budget. Belts,pulleys and bearings are cheap. As for variable speed, I 'd be happy with a single feed speed as I could vary the cut to accommodate wider pieces etc. My main use would be in flattening marquetry substrates and then the marquetry afterwards. It's very light work I think this could do much heavier work.

As an exercise in what can be done cheaply and with a shopsmith alone, I think I like it. I may even build one.

Thanks again for the thoughts and ideas.

Paul M

OK, I just had to throw that out there again as I think it would be an enhancement. It is my job to be difficult and argumentative whenever possible, or at least annoying.

Belts and pulleys it is. I do think you will find that that the ability to change the feed rate will be worthwhile as you work with different grits and types of wood. This is based on my experience with the sanding drum my dad made, I think the idea came from PTWFE. Adding the stepped pulleys and a tensioning lever would be a minor modification and wouldn't alter the size of the tool by much. Something to consider.

Troy

Back when I bought my 5 HP Foley-Belsaw planer/molder/ripsaw I bought one of these "Tri-sand sanding kits with it. I have had it for years but have never used the Tri-Sand kit, too much setup work to bother with.
http://store.cbtoolgroup.com/belsaw-tri-sand-abrasive-surfacing-system-p3518.aspx
Someone else (RBI or Woodmaster???) later came out with a planer with a quick change drum that would be a better system. I have considered buying a used Foley Belsaw planer only with the smaller 3 HP motor and none of the extra bells and whistles which is cheaper to acquire and just set it up as a dedicated power feed drum sander using the Tri-sand kit. It would also then give me a backup planer that I "could" if needed badly enough switch back to planer mode.

.

horologist wrote:
OK, I just had to throw that out there again as I think it would be an enhancement. It is my job to be difficult and argumentative whenever possible, or at least annoying.

Belts and pulleys it is. I do think you will find that that the ability to change the feed rate will be worthwhile as you work with different grits and types of wood. This is based on my experience with the sanding drum my dad made, I think the idea came from PTWFE. Adding the stepped pulleys and a tensioning lever would be a minor modification and wouldn't alter the size of the tool by much. Something to consider.

Troy

It's a good point (and I don't find you annoying or even argumentative) just not part of the original premise.

I thought of the stacked pulley system as in drill presses and I'm still thinking about it. It would only add a couple of inches in width and would add flexibility. That said I have a big dual drum sander at home and I almost never use the feed speed adjustment, mostly vary the cut.

Thanks for the input, it's what I posted this for.

Paul M

Troy,
I just went back to install the stepped pulley system and realized why I didn't do it before. Without adding another whole tier of reduction (another belt) all it would accomplish would be to give me the ability to speed the feed up and that's not likely the direction I would want to go. If I want slower feed speed I'd have to go to larger than 9" pulleys or three tiers of reduction. Adding a third tier and stepped pulleys would start getting pretty wide.

What's your thinking?

Paul M

I looked at your Sketchup model and i like the idea and will be staying tuned to see your progress............Full steam ahead Shippy I think you got a great idea if you can make it work I for one would love to build it.

shipwright wrote:Troy,
I just went back to install the stepped pulley system and realized why I didn't do it before. Without adding another whole tier of reduction (another belt) all it would accomplish would be to give me the ability to speed the feed up and that's not likely the direction I would want to go. If I want slower feed speed I'd have to go to larger than 9" pulleys or three tiers of reduction. Adding a third tier and stepped pulleys would start getting pretty wide.

What's your thinking?

Paul M

I have a friend with a custom millwork business who builds a lot of his special machines from scratch. A couple of his molding units have power feed fed through simple and fairly small riding lawnmower transmissions. Most are belt driven into the transmissions then small roller chain drive to the feed rollers. His machines are not very polished but his end products are.


.