Talk:Micro Sawmill - Revision history

John at 12:59, 1 June 2011

2011-06-01T12:59:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:59, 1 June 2011
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Note that there are videos on YouTube and elsewhere of old saws built on exactly this principle. There might be useful ideas there.		Note that there are videos on YouTube and elsewhere of old saws built on exactly this principle. There might be useful ideas there.

	I'm sure Daniel is right that the power cube is on a different scale, but that is a feature rather than a bug. A saw like this can run on very little power, a small electric motor, micro-~~hyro~~, even human power. I saw a comment somewhere by a guy who said his ran on Snickers bars...		I'm sure Daniel is right that the power cube is on a different scale, but that is a feature rather than a bug. A saw like this can run on very little power, a small electric motor, micro-hydro, even human power. I saw a comment somewhere by a guy who said his ran on Snickers bars...

John at 12:58, 1 June 2011

2011-06-01T12:58:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:58, 1 June 2011
Line 6:		Line 6:

	: * The power cube is an entirely different power scale (40 hp) vs 0.1-0.5 hp for this sawmill. A reciprocating design this size would be torn apart by an engine that powerful. [[User:DanielRavenNest\|DanielRavenNest]] 11:12, 16 May 2011 (PDT)		: * The power cube is an entirely different power scale (40 hp) vs 0.1-0.5 hp for this sawmill. A reciprocating design this size would be torn apart by an engine that powerful. [[User:DanielRavenNest\|DanielRavenNest]] 11:12, 16 May 2011 (PDT)

			-----

			This is a great idea. (As an aside, I think the whole project needs more simple projects which can serve as a complete solution in small niches or as a stepping stone to build larger capacity. In many cases the improvement in efficiency and effectiveness from no tool to a basic tool is greater than from a basic tool to a highly refined one. )

			Point of terminology: "Bow saw" is used in much of the midwestern US (at least) as a term for an 18" to 48" lightweight cross cut saw usually used for cutting firewood while "frame saw" is used for a variety of more capable saws used in wood working. In other contexts the terminology is different. The reason I raise the point is that if you were to purchase a "bow saw blade" for this purpose where I live you would get a very light weight cross-cut blade which would not work in this application. I have actually burned up those blades using them too fast as a two man cross cut saw. .5 horse power is probably too much for them.

			Here's something closer to the blade you'd need:
			http://www.adriatools.com/ece/saws/bowsaw.html (first one "rip saw")

			Note that there are videos on YouTube and elsewhere of old saws built on exactly this principle. There might be useful ideas there.

			I'm sure Daniel is right that the power cube is on a different scale, but that is a feature rather than a bug. A saw like this can run on very little power, a small electric motor, micro-hyro, even human power. I saw a comment somewhere by a guy who said his ran on Snickers bars...

DanielRavenNest at 18:12, 16 May 2011

2011-05-16T18:12:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:12, 16 May 2011
Line 5:		Line 5:
	I love this idea. While the [[Sawmill]] is also of interest, I really like the lo-tek approach to mechanizing a simple bow saw. Bow saw blades are very in expensive and are available in a variety of tooth count, size, shape, etc. Granted it would be substantially slower than a circular or band saw design, but in many cases, that just doesn't matter. I also think that this design is FAR safer to operate than either the circular or band saws. Finally, instead of an electric motor, we can use a hydraulic motor and drive it off of a power cube (or better still, the steam engine. - [[Mark J Norton]]		I love this idea. While the [[Sawmill]] is also of interest, I really like the lo-tek approach to mechanizing a simple bow saw. Bow saw blades are very in expensive and are available in a variety of tooth count, size, shape, etc. Granted it would be substantially slower than a circular or band saw design, but in many cases, that just doesn't matter. I also think that this design is FAR safer to operate than either the circular or band saws. Finally, instead of an electric motor, we can use a hydraulic motor and drive it off of a power cube (or better still, the steam engine. - [[Mark J Norton]]

	:The power cube is an entirely different power scale (40 hp) vs 0.1-0.5 hp for this sawmill. A reciprocating design this size would be torn apart by an engine that powerful. [[User:DanielRavenNest\|DanielRavenNest]] 11:12, 16 May 2011 (PDT)		: * The power cube is an entirely different power scale (40 hp) vs 0.1-0.5 hp for this sawmill. A reciprocating design this size would be torn apart by an engine that powerful. [[User:DanielRavenNest\|DanielRavenNest]] 11:12, 16 May 2011 (PDT)

DanielRavenNest at 18:12, 16 May 2011

2011-05-16T18:12:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:12, 16 May 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:
	-----		-----

	I love this idea. While the [[~~Saw Mill~~]] is also of interest, I really like the lo-tek approach to mechanizing a simple bow saw. Bow saw blades are very in expensive and are available in a variety of tooth count, size, shape, etc. Granted it would be substantially slower than a circular or band saw design, but in many cases, that just doesn't matter. I also think that this design is FAR safer to operate than either the circular or band saws. Finally, instead of an electric motor, we can use a hydraulic motor and drive it off of a power cube (or better still, the steam engine. - [[Mark J Norton]]		I love this idea. While the [[Sawmill]] is also of interest, I really like the lo-tek approach to mechanizing a simple bow saw. Bow saw blades are very in expensive and are available in a variety of tooth count, size, shape, etc. Granted it would be substantially slower than a circular or band saw design, but in many cases, that just doesn't matter. I also think that this design is FAR safer to operate than either the circular or band saws. Finally, instead of an electric motor, we can use a hydraulic motor and drive it off of a power cube (or better still, the steam engine. - [[Mark J Norton]]

			:The power cube is an entirely different power scale (40 hp) vs 0.1-0.5 hp for this sawmill. A reciprocating design this size would be torn apart by an engine that powerful. [[User:DanielRavenNest\|DanielRavenNest]] 11:12, 16 May 2011 (PDT)

Mjn at 17:29, 16 May 2011

2011-05-16T17:29:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:29, 16 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Good. Are you considering a Dimensional Sawmill like we are? Email me if you'd like to manage the project - Marcin.		Good. Are you considering a Dimensional Sawmill like we are? Email me if you'd like to manage the project - Marcin.

			-----

			I love this idea. While the [[Saw Mill]] is also of interest, I really like the lo-tek approach to mechanizing a simple bow saw. Bow saw blades are very in expensive and are available in a variety of tooth count, size, shape, etc. Granted it would be substantially slower than a circular or band saw design, but in many cases, that just doesn't matter. I also think that this design is FAR safer to operate than either the circular or band saws. Finally, instead of an electric motor, we can use a hydraulic motor and drive it off of a power cube (or better still, the steam engine. - [[Mark J Norton]]

Marcin: Created page with "Good. Are you considering a Dimensional Sawmill like we are? Email me if you'd like to manage the project - Marcin."

2011-05-16T16:44:07Z

Created page with "Good. Are you considering a Dimensional Sawmill like we are? Email me if you'd like to manage the project - Marcin."

New page

Good. Are you considering a Dimensional Sawmill like we are? Email me if you'd like to manage the project - Marcin.