I really enjoy how you analyze the aspects of running a sawmill. The fact that you approach running a sawmill from an engineering standpoint is very helpful.
Assuming you have the horespower and larger bandwheels, wide& thicker will cut flatter and can be resharpened longer. For those folks running 1.25in blades w/ minimal horsepower, 20hp or under on 19in wheels, you probably need to stick w/ 1.25in blades and just keep them sharp.
Good subject, Also one must look after good quality blades, in my experience I changed from a local serviced blade to a Bahco bimetal and results are so much better I can't even think on using wider stuff.
As the owner of an HM-126 I can agree with most of your comments, but nobody makes a better 1-1/4” that lasts more than a few logs. The bigger blades are 3 times the life for less than 11% more cost
Amazing! A few days after a post on facebook that generated a lot of comments - and you post an in-deprh, scientific and educational video about the topic. Thank you for the effort of making these videos.
Once again, great video. Emphasis on the Belleville washers & tensioning assembly that are designed to meet the compression of the OEM design vs the "backyard-mechanic-best-idea- ever" design.
I've heard of people using wider and thicker blades. I doubt they measure the cross-section area and scale up the torque appropriately. As you say, this will give you the full benefit of the wider/thicker blade. I think it is best to trust the designer and use blades that are in spec, thus assuring you don't break a weaker link due to over stressing the rest of the mechanical assembly. Excellent job explaining your reasoning! You take the time to explain the science! It's much better than the "Hold my beer and watch this" approach 🤔.
Thickess of blade should have little effect on the cut. Your set could and should be roughly the same on both the 1.25 and 1.5 bands. In my experience its more the shape and weight of the band that is the biggest difference. Iv run both. Stick to 1.25 most of the time
You'd need to confirm you can properly tension the wider blade for it to make sense. I haven't seen definitive proof the WM tensioner is made to handle the higher loads required to do that on wider blades.
@@Lumber_Jack Thanks for the response. I'll ask them, but I know what they will say. They want to sell blades and I don't hink the offer a 1.5 inch blade.
@@Lumber_Jack When you're talking about putting a band saw on the mill. You strain it up to make it tight on the wheels. Technically that's called strain. Tensioning a saw is a saw filer term where the saw metal is stretched. We tension a round saw so that it stands up straight when it comes up to full RPM. Large band saws are tensioned so that both the front edge and the back edge of the saw grip the wheels when the saw is strained up.
@@stevet8121 I've seen it said both ways. Bandsaw tension meters (for example Lennox 62126 or Starrett 682EMZ) measure strain but the dial reads in psi or ksi of tensile stress. Since strain and tensile stress are proportional (by Young's modulus) it really doesn't matter which one you want to think about. If you have one, you have the other. It probably comes down to local preference. At least for hobby sawmills, the use of tension meters gets us speaking of the tensile stress in psi or ksi, which was the focus for this video and previous videos on the topic.
@@Lumber_Jack Thanks for that. I've never been around the small portable sawmills. All my experience has been around the big sawmills. I was a saw filer for 21 years. We had a "strain bar" on the band mills that we actually hung weights on to get the desired strain. The bar would move depending how much stretch the saw went through while cutting. Kind of an automatic tensioner, if you will. I am enjoying your videos along with a few others. Thank you for taking the time to chat. Cheers!
Long story short: wider blade made of thicker stock requires greater tension which your mill's bearings are simply not designed to resist. Use the blade the mill is designed for, tension it as designed, keep them sharp, and change them when they're dull, and the mill will cut flat boards.
I have a 2016 MH126 and the original manual has a torque value of 35 foot pounds for the 1.25X.42 blade do I need to drop the torque down to the 25 foot pound setting used now?
Hello, I have a question about your sawmill shed from your overview video. I hope you read these comments, You mentioned you planned to mill a 25' beam at 6" by 14" for the snowload in your area. I've been looking everywhere but dont know how to find out what size beam I need to make for the front of my shed. Mine will be 22 ft long but I live in British Columbia, I'm assuming I'll need about a 6"/14" pine beam like you mentioned but want to be sure. Thanks
Love your channel and appreciate everything I've learned. I have a question, and maybe I haven't watched enough, but do you ever mill 2 by lumber? Are there particular challenges or problems 2 by presents?
I do a lot of 2-by lumber. I find it easier than sawing boards and I can get good yields of 2-by lumber out of smaller logs. I generally need 2x6 or 2x8 for my projects, and a lot of 2x4. Often, I can get bonus 2x4s out of the cutoffs, especially if some bark is acceptable.
Doesn't the 122 have 16" wheels? Curious about your thoughts about whether a HM130 Max could handle a 1.5" blade at the same thickness of the stock blades (NOT with a thicker kerf, just a wider blade) with the 14 Hp motor and the 19" wheels... I know you can't know for sure or make a recommendation, but would still like to know your thoughts about that.
I've been testing out wider and thicker ripper37 blades on my HM130max. I wanted to see what would give me the flattest, smoothest cuts, and witch would last longest in between sharpening. First I tried the standard size 1.25x.042. I have to say it was definitely better in both smoother cuts and longevity than the standard [Lennox] blade that comes with woodland mills, but also costs more. Then i tried the wider blade 1.50x.042 [standard thickness]. Wow! Nice cuts. Didn't notice any extra load on the engine [14hp], in fact I'd say less stress on the engine because they were cutting so smooth. Worked fine with the flywheel and bearings. Lastly I tried the wider + thicker 1.50x.050 ripper37. Again, super impressed with the finish of the wood, and no noticeable stress on the engine or bearings [yet anyways], but they are a big jump in price. And as far as longevity - you cannot even compare the Lennox blades to the Ripper37 blades. I cut a variety of different wood types at deferent stages of dryness and different size logs, [Cedar, Beech, Birch, Pine, Maple, Ash, even recycled telephone poles]. This wasn't a scientifically timed or charted test - just me playing with my mill. But in conclusion, I am definitely spending the extra money on ripper blades. I'll probably go with the 1.50x.042 as my daily blades, and take out the 1.50x.050 for special occasions.
FINALLY!! Someone actually gets the issue with thicker/ wider blades. Bigger is not always better. Reason #5 would be that a thicker/ wider blade requires more HP just to "bend" around the band wheels; even when not cutting. Great video. Dave
In my opinion: it's like a car. One can put slightly larger wheels (for looks or for practical means) but if to big they hit the suspension/wheelarches and that's not good. Or if you want to pur a flatbed trailer behind your car, don't buy a Honda Civic... Trial and error, a couple of blades at a time...
"set" consideration more important than thicker blade in horse power need ? I think the universal truth is that small diameter wheels are a compromise (cost) vs longer blade life - but I have no practical experience to support larger wheel diameter long term cost benefit.
Love the nature sounds
Well done, very informative. Thanks
I really enjoy how you analyze the aspects of running a sawmill. The fact that you approach running a sawmill from an engineering standpoint is very helpful.
Thanks for taking the time with all the information. It all makes perfect good sense.
All 100% correct, very good info. Thank you.
You do a great job of clearly articulating technical information.👍👍👍
Great video. Very well thought through!
Definitely enjoy your videos, finally somebody that goes in depth of the things I've been thinking about lol. Thankyou
Assuming you have the horespower and larger bandwheels, wide& thicker will cut flatter and can be resharpened longer. For those folks running 1.25in blades w/ minimal horsepower, 20hp or under on 19in wheels, you probably need to stick w/ 1.25in blades and just keep them sharp.
Good subject, Also one must look after good quality blades, in my experience I changed from a local serviced blade to a Bahco bimetal and results are so much better I can't even think on using wider stuff.
As the owner of an HM-126 I can agree with most of your comments, but nobody makes a better 1-1/4” that lasts more than a few logs. The bigger blades are 3 times the life for less than 11% more cost
Amazing! A few days after a post on facebook that generated a lot of comments - and you post an in-deprh, scientific and educational video about the topic. Thank you for the effort of making these videos.
I love this and haven't even watched it yet!!
all of your information is good and correct love it
Once again, great video. Emphasis on the Belleville washers & tensioning assembly that are designed to meet the compression of the OEM design vs the "backyard-mechanic-best-idea- ever" design.
I've heard of people using wider and thicker blades. I doubt they measure the cross-section area and scale up the torque appropriately. As you say, this will give you the full benefit of the wider/thicker blade. I think it is best to trust the designer and use blades that are in spec, thus assuring you don't break a weaker link due to over stressing the rest of the mechanical assembly. Excellent job explaining your reasoning! You take the time to explain the science! It's much better than the "Hold my beer and watch this" approach 🤔.
Thickess of blade should have little effect on the cut. Your set could and should be roughly the same on both the 1.25 and 1.5 bands. In my experience its more the shape and weight of the band that is the biggest difference. Iv run both. Stick to 1.25 most of the time
I have a Woodlamd Mills 130 Max, 14 HP and thinking about moving up to a 1.5 inch wide blade. Your thoughts?
You'd need to confirm you can properly tension the wider blade for it to make sense. I haven't seen definitive proof the WM tensioner is made to handle the higher loads required to do that on wider blades.
@@Lumber_Jack Thanks for the response. I'll ask them, but I know what they will say. They want to sell blades and I don't hink the offer a 1.5 inch blade.
Very informative channel
You must be an engineer
Thanks for the great info!
By tension I think you mean strain.
What part of the video?
@@Lumber_Jack When you're talking about putting a band saw on the mill. You strain it up to make it tight on the wheels. Technically that's called strain. Tensioning a saw is a saw filer term where the saw metal is stretched. We tension a round saw so that it stands up straight when it comes up to full RPM. Large band saws are tensioned so that both the front edge and the back edge of the saw grip the wheels when the saw is strained up.
@@stevet8121 I've seen it said both ways. Bandsaw tension meters (for example Lennox 62126 or Starrett 682EMZ) measure strain but the dial reads in psi or ksi of tensile stress. Since strain and tensile stress are proportional (by Young's modulus) it really doesn't matter which one you want to think about. If you have one, you have the other. It probably comes down to local preference. At least for hobby sawmills, the use of tension meters gets us speaking of the tensile stress in psi or ksi, which was the focus for this video and previous videos on the topic.
@@Lumber_Jack Thanks for that. I've never been around the small portable sawmills. All my experience has been around the big sawmills. I was a saw filer for 21 years. We had a "strain bar" on the band mills that we actually hung weights on to get the desired strain. The bar would move depending how much stretch the saw went through while cutting. Kind of an automatic tensioner, if you will. I am enjoying your videos along with a few others. Thank you for taking the time to chat. Cheers!
Long story short: wider blade made of thicker stock requires greater tension which your mill's bearings are simply not designed to resist. Use the blade the mill is designed for, tension it as designed, keep them sharp, and change them when they're dull, and the mill will cut flat boards.
I have a 2016 MH126 and the original manual has a torque value of 35 foot pounds for the 1.25X.42 blade do I need to drop the torque down to the 25 foot pound setting used now?
I would stick with whatever the original manual says. WM has revised the tensioner design over the years, so 35 was probably correct back in 2016.
excellent info.!!!!
Hello,
I have a question about your sawmill shed from your overview video.
I hope you read these comments,
You mentioned you planned to mill a 25' beam at 6" by 14" for the snowload in your area.
I've been looking everywhere but dont know how to find out what size beam I need to make for the front of my shed.
Mine will be 22 ft long but I live in British Columbia, I'm assuming I'll need about a 6"/14" pine beam like you mentioned but want to be sure.
Thanks
Love your channel and appreciate everything I've learned. I have a question, and maybe I haven't watched enough, but do you ever mill 2 by lumber? Are there particular challenges or problems 2 by presents?
I do a lot of 2-by lumber. I find it easier than sawing boards and I can get good yields of 2-by lumber out of smaller logs. I generally need 2x6 or 2x8 for my projects, and a lot of 2x4. Often, I can get bonus 2x4s out of the cutoffs, especially if some bark is acceptable.
Doesn't the 122 have 16" wheels? Curious about your thoughts about whether a HM130 Max could handle a 1.5" blade at the same thickness of the stock blades (NOT with a thicker kerf, just a wider blade) with the 14 Hp motor and the 19" wheels... I know you can't know for sure or make a recommendation, but would still like to know your thoughts about that.
I think the limit will be the tensioner -- not sure it can provide the higher tension needed.
I've been testing out wider and thicker ripper37 blades on my HM130max. I wanted to see what would give me the flattest, smoothest cuts, and witch would last longest in between sharpening. First I tried the standard size 1.25x.042. I have to say it was definitely better in both smoother cuts and longevity than the standard [Lennox] blade that comes with woodland mills, but also costs more. Then i tried the wider blade 1.50x.042 [standard thickness]. Wow! Nice cuts. Didn't notice any extra load on the engine [14hp], in fact I'd say less stress on the engine because they were cutting so smooth. Worked fine with the flywheel and bearings. Lastly I tried the wider + thicker 1.50x.050 ripper37. Again, super impressed with the finish of the wood, and no noticeable stress on the engine or bearings [yet anyways], but they are a big jump in price. And as far as longevity - you cannot even compare the Lennox blades to the Ripper37 blades. I cut a variety of different wood types at deferent stages of dryness and different size logs, [Cedar, Beech, Birch, Pine, Maple, Ash, even recycled telephone poles]. This wasn't a scientifically timed or charted test - just me playing with my mill. But in conclusion, I am definitely spending the extra money on ripper blades. I'll probably go with the 1.50x.042 as my daily blades, and take out the 1.50x.050 for special occasions.
FINALLY!! Someone actually gets the issue with thicker/ wider blades. Bigger is not always better.
Reason #5 would be that a thicker/ wider blade requires more HP just to "bend" around the band wheels; even when not cutting.
Great video.
Dave
In my opinion: it's like a car. One can put slightly larger wheels (for looks or for practical means) but if to big they hit the suspension/wheelarches and that's not good. Or if you want to pur a flatbed trailer behind your car, don't buy a Honda Civic...
Trial and error, a couple of blades at a time...
"set" consideration more important than thicker blade in horse power need ? I think the universal truth is that small diamater
"set" consideration more important than thicker blade in horse power need ? I think the universal truth is that small diameter wheels are a compromise (cost) vs longer blade life - but I have no practical experience to support larger wheel diameter long term cost benefit.