Table Saw Blades

Create a review for a woodworking tool that you are familiar with (Shopsmith brand or Non-Shopsmith) or just post your opinion on a specific tool. Head to head comparisons welcome too.

Moderator: admin

charlese
Platinum Member
Posts: 7501
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Lancaster, CA

Re: Table Saw Blades

Post by charlese »

reible wrote:Well I don't know what to say but I disagree with Charlese post. I've been using glue line rip blades for some years now and they have worked fine for me. I no longer take the ripped boards to the jointer. What he said was true some years ago but no longer, well at least in my book....
Ed


Well, Well! With all due respect to Ed and Lover, I will have to back off the absolute condemnation of some special rip saws. But still, my hesitation to use saws for glue joints firmly remains.

My first exposure to glue joints in wood came as a three month college course titled "Wood gluing and physical properties". This was an elective course in my 5 year Forestry Education in Montana. Much of this course was aimed at the construction of wood laminated beams that were popular in the 50s and manufactured locally.

As said, this was in the 50s. Since that time much has changed in the field of glues, but wood is still the same.

Below is a few paragraphs from the USFS Forest Products Labratory's "Wood handbook". If you care to read it, the areas I highlighted are applicable to this discussion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surface Properties of Wood for
Bonding

Because adhesives bond by surface attachment, the physical
and chemical conditions of the wood’s surface are extremely
important to satisfactory bond performance. The surface should be free
of burnishes, exudates, oils, dirt, and other debris that form
a weak boundary between the adhesive and the wood.
Both mechanical and chemical properties of a wood surface
influence the quality of adhesive bonds. Wood whose
surface is highly fractured or crushed cannot form a strong
bond even if the adhesive forms a strong bond with the
surface. The weak wood underneath the surface is the weak
link
in the chain and the location of failure in the bonded assembly.
In other cases, poor bond strength is due to chemical
properties of the surface. Sometimes natural extractives,
overdrying, or chemicals added to modify the wood alter
the surface chemistry enough to harm adhesive bond performance.
Physical deterioration and chemical contamination
interfere with essential wetting, flow, and penetration of
adhesive, and contamination sometimes interferes with the
cure of the adhesive and resulting cohesive strength of the
bond.

Lumber Surfaces
Surfacing or resurfacing the wood within 24 h before bonding
removes extractives and provides a more wettable
surface. Surfacing also removes any unevenness that may
have occurred from changes in moisture content. Parallel
and flat surfaces allow the adhesive to flow freely and form
a uniformly thin layer that is essential to optimal adhesive
performance.

"Experience and testing have proven that a smooth, knife-cut
surface is best for bonding. Surfaces made using saws are
usually rougher than those made using planers and jointers.
However, surfaces sawn with special blades on properly set
straight-line ripsaws are satisfactory for both structural and
nonstructural joints.
Furniture manufacturers commonly use
precision sawing of wood joints rather than two-step sawing
and jointing to reduce costs for labor, equipment, and
material. Unless the saws and feed works are well maintained,
however, joints made with sawed surfaces will be
weaker and less uniform in strength than those made with
sharp planer or jointer knives.
Dull cutting edges of planer
or jointer knives crush and burnish the cells on the wood
surface. Not only are these cells weaker, they also inhibit
adhesive wetting and penetration. Damage to the surface can
be revealed by wiping a very wet rag over a portion of
the surface, waiting for a minute or more, removing any
remaining water with a dry paper towel, and comparing the
roughness of the wet and dry surfaces. If the wetted area
is much rougher than the dry area, then the machining has
damaged the surface. A weak joint results if the adhesive
does not completely penetrate crushed cells to restore their
original strength.
Last edited by charlese on Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Octogenarian's have an earned right to be a curmudgeon.
Chuck in Lancaster, CA
ERLover
Platinum Member
Posts: 3914
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:19 pm
Location: Greenie and Goldie Country not to metion the WI Badgers!

Re: Table Saw Blades

Post by ERLover »

Charlese very informative, but they were from, what I got out of it was for structural beams and bonding them. I think we were talking just regular wood working, not structural supports.
Adhesives and blades have improved from the 50s, but some basics do not change as the grain damage in that I read here.
"However, surfaces sawn with special blades on properly set
straight-line ripsaws are satisfactory for both structural and
nonstructural joints."
A quote from your post, kinda dismisses the first part of the info!!!!! :)
I appreciate the info, PVC glues have came a long way, but still need to be absorbed my the wood grain to make the bond, and from your article I can see how some things could/can affect that.
Remember the Medical Info in the 50s, compared to todays, some was wife tales, some is not. ;)
KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE EQUALS WISDOM. Albert Einstein
The Greatness officially starts :D :D :D :D :D :D
Greenie, Grayling, SS stand alone BS and BS SPT, jointer and belt sander, 3 Ers with Speed Changers. I think those 3 cover my ER needs, and space for them. :)
ERLover
Platinum Member
Posts: 3914
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:19 pm
Location: Greenie and Goldie Country not to metion the WI Badgers!

Re: Table Saw Blades

Post by ERLover »

Charles, an example, a few years ago I bought an aquarium for a salt water reef set up, the tank, rock and water weight basically, weighed 2000lbs, the stand I made for it, 3/4" stock, all was glued jointed one edge, rib blade the other, I had no jointer at that time and pocket screwed for the base cabinet, here is my FU, I made it out of quarter sawn White Oak, Frank Lloyd Wright Mission style to match the rest of my furniture and wanted to stain it liked Fumed Oak.
So I like good wood, sanded it on the Random Orbital to 320 grit, it was silky smooth wood. I aplied the stain as recommended, oil based, final color was way off, too light. Then I read the info on the can, sand to no greater grit then 150 B4 staining, talked to a finisher, said I Burnished the wood/polished no way the stain could be absorbed, as intended.
I can see how machining wood as your article mentioned could prevent glue absorption, which I have read articles on, lack of glue/glue starved joints.
KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE EQUALS WISDOM. Albert Einstein
The Greatness officially starts :D :D :D :D :D :D
Greenie, Grayling, SS stand alone BS and BS SPT, jointer and belt sander, 3 Ers with Speed Changers. I think those 3 cover my ER needs, and space for them. :)
Gene Howe
Platinum Member
Posts: 3219
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:52 pm
Location: Snowflake, AZ

Re: Table Saw Blades

Post by Gene Howe »

Tenryu blades were recommended by my sharpener. That was several years ago. I'm very satisfied with them.
User avatar
reible
Platinum Member
Posts: 11283
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:08 pm
Location: Aurora, IL

Re: Table Saw Blades

Post by reible »

We have access to this book, well the 2010 edition anyway and was I trying to find your quoted sections. Way to many pages to look through so would it be possible for you to post where this came from in a more exacting way.

http://www.woodweb.com/Resources/wood_e ... l_2010.pdf

Let me say also that and I mentioned this before, it has been found that the compression or burnishing happens on our home versions jointers and planers so I feel some of this material might be dated and or relating to commercial machines of which up mere home hobbyist do not have access.

When I took wood shop back in HS the instructor was old school having been a wood worker in Sweden before WWII and schooled in the old country ways which he tried to passed on to us. (I still never set a plane on it sole, it goes on it side.......)

One thing he wanted us to learn was gluing, so much in fact that part of year was spent on leaning to glue up things and part of the final grade was gluing up joints and letting them get broken to see how well you did. I don't think anyone ever failed wood shop but if you wanted a "A" you had to work for it. So long as the wood breaks and not the glue joint itself you were good to go.

Glue can only penetrate so far and it will never be as good as solid wood because of this. The joint when broken will show you the weak spot as the fibers next to the edge braking apart. As such these are not failures but what is to be expected go glue joints.

One of the things that I leaned early on was that doing your own testing is not a bad thing. I often try different methods, or joints or glue or even preparations to see how they fair. Some tests last for years like when I'm checking outdoor glue joints. I enjoy testing things how to see they work before I do projects rather then finding out later that wasn't really a good idea to do it that way.

Now what I was taught and what is reality can be two different things. Times change, glue types and easy of use sure have. Yes wood is pretty much the same but old growth is still different then managed wood. Tools have changed, I think back 50 years ago and what tools we had in our home shop compared to what I have now. Steel blades, yes they ripped the wood and ripped the fibers because that was the nature of the beast. I could never have ripped a board and then even thought about using that edge as it was. You had to plane it to clean it up. Then there was the jointing to get the edges fitting together, often another process.

I remember saving my money to get my first carbide table saw blade. I had heard about them and wanted one for my rockwell table saw. You paid a premium for them back then but I knew it was going to be a major improvement and wanted them in my shop. Well life goes on and when I got my shopsmith in 1976 it came with a steel blade..... I order more steel blades but the prices on carbide was coming down. So when I did get my first one it was soooo much better that I switched over and never looked back. I still have some steel blades, some even unused but they will never get used by me.

It was interesting as I belong to a woodworking club and there were a lot of people who though carbide blades were a fad and too expensive and were not as good as steel. After all at the time the carbide could only be sharpened to a certain point due to grain particle size and other limitations. With in about a year of them making it into the hobby market all that "it will never be as good as..." faded away with almost universal praise.

So when these glue line blades came out most of the group said they would never work. A few people got them and were pretty happy with them. It took me a short while but got one and did some testing. I did some conventional joints and then some glue-line joints. Glued them up and tested. Appearance wise they looked the same, strength wise the wood fibers at the break looked alike and the big difference was the amount of effort need to get to the gluing. Much less effort and no apparent down side, hummmmmm which way to go?

So what can I say, I'm a user and a believer in these blades. If you've got the $60-$70 or so get one and do your own testing. I think you might be pretty happy with the results and in your case suprised. Read the reviews, several companies make these and you have options.

Ed


charlese wrote:
reible wrote:Well I don't know what to say but I disagree with Charlese post. I've been using glue line rip blades for some years now and they have worked fine for me. I no longer take the ripped boards to the jointer. What he said was true some years ago but no longer, well at least in my book....
Ed


Well, Well! With all due respect to Ed and Lover, I will have to back off the absolute condemnation of some special rip saws. But still, my hesitation to use saws for glue joints firmly remains.

My first exposure to glue joints in wood came as a three month college course titled "Wood gluing and physical properties". This was an elective course in my 5 year Forestry Education in Montana. Much of this course was aimed at the construction of wood laminated beams that were popular in the 50s and manufactured locally.

As said, this was in the 50s. Since that time much has changed in the field of glues, but wood is still the same.

Below is a few paragraphs from the USFS Forest Products Labratory's "Wood handbook". If you care to read it, the areas I highlighted are applicable to this discussion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surface Properties of Wood for
Bonding

Because adhesives bond by surface attachment, the physical
and chemical conditions of the wood’s surface are extremely
important to satisfactory bond performance. The wood
surface should be smooth, flat, and free of machine marks
and other surface irregularities, including planer skips and
crushed, torn, or chipped grain.
The surface should be free
of burnishes, exudates, oils, dirt, and other debris that form
a weak boundary between the adhesive and the wood.
Both mechanical and chemical properties of a wood surface
influence the quality of adhesive bonds. Wood whose
surface is highly fractured or crushed cannot form a strong
bond even if the adhesive forms a strong bond with the
surface. The weak wood underneath the surface is the weak
link
in the chain and the location of failure in the bonded assembly.
In other cases, poor bond strength is due to chemical
properties of the surface. Sometimes natural extractives,
overdrying, or chemicals added to modify the wood alter
the surface chemistry enough to harm adhesive bond performance.
Physical deterioration and chemical contamination
interfere with essential wetting, flow, and penetration of
adhesive, and contamination sometimes interferes with the
cure of the adhesive and resulting cohesive strength of the
bond.

Lumber Surfaces
Surfacing or resurfacing the wood within 24 h before bonding
removes extractives and provides a more wettable
surface. Surfacing also removes any unevenness that may
have occurred from changes in moisture content. Parallel
and flat surfaces allow the adhesive to flow freely and form
a uniformly thin layer that is essential to optimal adhesive
performance.

"Experience and testing have proven that a smooth, knife-cut
surface is best for bonding. Surfaces made using saws are
usually rougher than those made using planers and jointers.
However, surfaces sawn with special blades on properly set
straight-line ripsaws are satisfactory for both structural and
nonstructural joints.
Furniture manufacturers commonly use
precision sawing of wood joints rather than two-step sawing
and jointing to reduce costs for labor, equipment, and
material. Unless the saws and feed works are well maintained,
however, joints made with sawed surfaces will be
weaker and less uniform in strength than those made with
sharp planer or jointer knives.
Dull cutting edges of planer
or jointer knives crush and burnish the cells on the wood
surface. Not only are these cells weaker, they also inhibit
adhesive wetting and penetration. Damage to the surface can
be revealed by wiping a very wet rag over a portion of
the surface, waiting for a minute or more, removing any
remaining water with a dry paper towel, and comparing the
roughness of the wet and dry surfaces. If the wetted area
is much rougher than the dry area, then the machining has
damaged the surface. A weak joint results if the adhesive
does not completely penetrate crushed cells to restore their
original strength.
{Knight of the Shopsmith} [Hero's don't wear capes, they wear dog tags]
charlese
Platinum Member
Posts: 7501
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Lancaster, CA

Re: Table Saw Blades

Post by charlese »

reible wrote:We have access to this book, well the 2010 edition anyway and was I trying to find your quoted sections. Way to many pages to look through so would it be possible for you to post where this came from in a more exacting way...
The sections I copied are portions of Chapter 10 in the wood handbook. More exacting - Page 10-2. The following link is for the PDF of the handbook. you have to scroll down to Chapter 10.
http://www.woodweb.com/Resources/wood_e ... l_2010.pdf

Back when I was in forestry school, a hard bound copy of the "Wood Handbook" could be obtained for free by merely asking one of the Senators for it.. It was delivered in a couple weeks. We also asked for and got a copy of the "Grass Handbook". The later most valuable for guys studying range management minor, but also good information.
Octogenarian's have an earned right to be a curmudgeon.
Chuck in Lancaster, CA
jms
Gold Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 3:44 pm
Location: Youngsville, NC

Re: Table Saw Blades

Post by jms »

Wow. This thread was a great read for novice woodworkers such as myself.

Can anyone else comment on the quality of the current lineup of SS branded TS and even BS blades vs the industry leaders? Who actually manufactures the SS blades? For the price I would expect a very high quality blade vs the big box brands but not sure especially vs the higher end brands. Seems to be only very few recommendations to buy the current SS blade lineup vs the industry leading woodworking brands.

Just picked up my first SS Mark V 510 and trying to determine if buying the SS TS blades is a good option vs buying 5/8" arbors and 3rd party blades. Mine came with a very old SS 104T blade that I'm ready to replace. Would rather learn from your trial and error than my own in this case!!

Same question for BS blades.
User avatar
algale
Platinum Member
Posts: 4827
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:13 am

Re: Table Saw Blades

Post by algale »

The Shopsmith table saw blades are terrific. I have a Forrest WWII, and was skeptical that I would like the Shopsmith blades, but I don't think the Shopsmith blades are a step down at all, except for price.

The Shopsmith band saw blades are good. But I think there are better choices, particularly for resawing.
Gale's Law: The bigger the woodworking project, the less the mistakes show in any photo taken far enough away to show the entire project!

jms
Gold Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 3:44 pm
Location: Youngsville, NC

Re: Table Saw Blades

Post by jms »

algale wrote:The Shopsmith table saw blades are terrific. I have a Forrest WWII, and was skeptical that I would like the Shopsmith blades, but I don't think the Shopsmith blades are a step down at all, except for price.

The Shopsmith band saw blades are good. But I think there are better choices, particularly for resawing.
So, after a little more digging in this forum I found where back in 2008 Nick from SS confirmed that Amana now makes the SS blades, and after a little further reading on the internet it seems that Amana makes a very good, very high quality industrial grade blade that compares right up there with the other top names mentioned here. So, it seems for the money that SS is asking for the combination blade for example, that its in all likely hood a very high quality blade at a very reasonable price.

For the BS blades, I've seen some mentions in this forum of Wood Slicer and saw a youtube review of Wood Slicer beating the pants off of a timber wolf blade for resawing -- would others on this forum agree about the wood slicer for a resaw blade?
User avatar
jsburger
Platinum Member
Posts: 6551
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Hooper, UT

Re: Table Saw Blades

Post by jsburger »

jeremysavoy wrote:
algale wrote:The Shopsmith table saw blades are terrific. I have a Forrest WWII, and was skeptical that I would like the Shopsmith blades, but I don't think the Shopsmith blades are a step down at all, except for price.

The Shopsmith band saw blades are good. But I think there are better choices, particularly for resawing.
So, after a little more digging in this forum I found where back in 2008 Nick from SS confirmed that Amana now makes the SS blades, and after a little further reading on the internet it seems that Amana makes a very good, very high quality industrial grade blade that compares right up there with the other top names mentioned here. So, it seems for the money that SS is asking for the combination blade for example, that its in all likely hood a very high quality blade at a very reasonable price.

For the BS blades, I've seen some mentions in this forum of Wood Slicer and saw a youtube review of Wood Slicer beating the pants off of a timber wolf blade for resawing -- would others on this forum agree about the wood slicer for a resaw blade?
I have both here for my SS band saw and I don't agree. I started out with the Timberwolf. Then I saw the Highland video about how great the wood slicer is. So, I bought one to see if what they are saying is true. Is it any better than a Timberwolf? In my opinion, no. I see no difference between them. The Timberwolf blade is less expensive than the wood slicer. Also, if you buy direct from the manufacturer Suffolk Machinery they are even cheaper than any reseller I have found.

I know have a 14" Powermatic BS with the 6" riser block that I use primarily for resawing. I bought a 3/4" Timberwolf blade for it and never considered a wood slicer. Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with a wood slicer. However, it certainly does not "beat the pants off" the Timberwolf IMO.

Timberwolf blades are priced by width and length. They do not charge different prices for TPI or different tooth sets. The 1/2" X 72" wood slicer is 29.99. The 1/2" X 72" Timberwolf is 16.69.
John & Mary Burger
Eagle's Lair Woodshop
Hooper, UT
Post Reply