
Why, when making a ZCI is it necessary to allow just the blade width (kerf) to come through for the entire length of exposed blade?
Would it not be just as effective is the kerf cut went only as far as a point even with the arbor opening[half the blade diameter]?
If the point is to reduce tear out, none is occurring after the initial teeth contact. If you are trying to prevent narrow pieces from falling down on either side of the blade. unless the piece is REALLY short (less than the diameter of the blade), wouldn't the support only need to be as far as the mid line of the saw blade so as you push it through the other side of the throat would keep it from dropping.
As far as dust control.... and I am REALLY spitballing here... Would the extra opening (aka what exists now for the standard insert or even more) be better at causing the dust coming out of the blade gullets to stay in the lower area? I ask this because I "think" that the narrower opening of the back of the ZCI might actually cause more of a vacuum action as it pulls the from the back of the blades rotation, therefore causing the dust to stay in the gullet longer (another few revolution ? hundreds of revolutions??) before it is expelled or pushed out by more dust?? Which I would think is causing less effective dust control. Yep, just spitballing, but I am curious.
Why am I curious?? Because I think I have my dado insert modified enough (aka cut the heck out of it




Okay, I will go with "it is just easier to plunge the blade into an insert and not fiddle with anything more, however, if I can... I would just place the ZCI in the leading edge of the opening and let the back end be a larger opening.
As I think of it I am trying to get all the engineers, mentors, gurus and forward thinkers in the group to come up with all the faults in my design before I do any more work!!


Anyway, if anyone of the brain trust wants to weigh in....
Be well,
Ben