Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: United States
First Name: Jerry
| ||LinkBack||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
<<Written while you where writing post number 2, but we came up with the same conclusion:>>
Info from Micro Jig:
SP-G-P3, Green, Standard width replacement splitters A & B, 8.95.
SP-Y-P3, Yellow, Thinkerf width replacement splitters A & B, 8.95.
Free shipping and handling on both.
Heck, a complete kit each is only $24.95... Combo kit with both sizes is $44.95. Looks like since they have a combo-kit, that they imply it works with either.
If you do the math- You have a left-tilt saw. When you have a .116" blade in and the splitter is .105", you have .005" on each side. You put in a splitter .025" thinner and use a .025" thinner blade... If used in the same insert, it would be better if they molded the pieces offset to the arbor flange side, so that they were directional and sided up to the arbor flange side as constant... but even if they didn't, being they are just plastic and have some flex, they will work.
But since you now found out that your thin kerf blade would work better with a pair of stabilizers and would have to make another insert to use your thin kerf blade with an offset caused by that... Isn't that leaning towards making another zero clearance insert for your thin kerf blade offset (offset right the thickness of one of the two stiffener halves) and then buying a thin kerf MJ Splitter kit for thin kerf blades, to install in that new thin kerf blade zero clearance insert?
Did you speak to the R.O. of the arbor, if you did I must have missed it.
Yes I did. But if you measured 0.003" runout at 9" out on your blade <-> you have very little runout at the arbor flange.
Any runout at the arbor flange would increase as it went further out, unless the blade was turned on the arbor to offset that by any blade runout.)
Most people say that 0.005" ro at the arbor is acceptable. I usually try to true the arbor flange to less that 0.001" (0.02mm). Takes lots of time and patience and has to be done on the saw. (I use a jig, router and abrasive bit.)
I must provide a lot of laughs to the members of this forum as I skip along with my learning curve. Anyway I'm learning, but as I said, I must provide some of you at least with an abundance of chuckles. The good part is that I laugh at myself too and that is O.K.
My remark about the amount of material that is removed by a blade during a cut was not clear. Let me see if I can ask it or express my thinking a little better. What I am wondering is this, if an arbor if has excessive R.O. will the cut made by a blade that is installed on that arbor be wider due the excessive R.O. than it would have been with minimal or no R,O. It's seems to me that the consequences of excessive Rl.O. of the arbor would show up in the wider cut. Are we on the same page on this matter, my opinion is purely coming from my head and not from experience and/or better knowledge sof such matters.
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Troy-Bilt Safety alert: log splitter||Bogydave||Lobby||11||01-24-2013 07:55 PM|
|Big thanks to Mike||CGM0427||General Routing||5||06-30-2012 06:56 PM|
|Safety equipment bites me back :(||DerekO||Shop Safety||20||03-10-2010 11:16 AM|
|Welcome back||Dr.Zook||Lobby||1||03-13-2005 09:19 AM|