I'm using a Woodmaster 725 as a gang rip saw running 5 of their 6.5" saw blades and getting good results for my application. I am ripping rough sawn 4/4 & 5/4 hardwoods so I am asking a lot of the machine, but it handles it well at a slower feed rate, 35-40% dialed in on the variable speed control. Of course I want to go faster....so this is where the number of teeth come into play. I have been told that if I have every other tooth removed on the saw blades, I will be able to speed up the feed rate and cut faster.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/44509/55-6inchbladeonly~1.JPG?easyrotate_cache=1492710860)
Here is a factory picture of the blade, it has 18 teeth. What you you guys think, do you agree? If so, do I just remove the carbide tooth or grind out the tooth and whole gullet as well? I would have a saw shop do this so that it would be uniform and balanced.
I know I am limited on my horsepower... I am exchanging the stock 7.5hp motor with a 10 hp single phase as well so that should help. I am not considering 3 phase at this time.
So without substantially increasing my hp, will removing every other tooth help out? I am not overly concerned with the quality of cut, this isn't glueline quality stuff.
What do you all think?? Thanks for the input.
If you remove every other tooth, wont that leave you with a blade that has set on only one side?
Well good question. The blade has carbide teeth so the set comes from the teeth being 0.135" while the saw plate is 0.093". I will have to check and see what grind they have on the teeth - I think it is a atb grind pattern.
It only makes sense to me, works in my chainsaw. But you have to ask why they put so many teeth to begin with. If it's just for cut quality then give it a shot. Any way to try it out on just one first?
Do they make a thin kerf blade for it. I switched the under powered contractors saw I used to own to one and it made a big difference. :)
21incher, I did the same with my contractor's saw and it helped quite a bit as well. Woodmaster doesn't have any thin kerf blades, I asked, they said a thin kerf wouldn't hold up.
Another advantage to remove every other tooth would be then the cutting teeth would be staggered from blade to blade on the shaft. Here is a picture of the saw pack on the shaft.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/44509/20170412_171053.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1492774644)
Because of how they are mounted, you can't rotate the blades on the shaft (that's good) but since they are locked on the shaft with a keyway, all the blades have the same orientation, thus the teeth from all 5 blades are in the cut at the same moment. If they were staggered, I think it would be like a spiral head planer and might be easier on the motor.
Thoughts?
Quote from: SlowJoeCrow on April 21, 2017, 07:34:31 AM
21incher, I did the same with my contractor's saw and it helped quite a bit as well. Woodmaster doesn't have any thin kerf blades, I asked, they said a thin kerf wouldn't hold up.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10125/DSCF8421.JPG?easyrotate_cache=1492824457)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10125/DSCF8424.JPG?easyrotate_cache=1492824539)
I bought two gang rips out of a factory a few years ago just for the motors and parts. One was 20 HP while the other was 5 HP. Pictured is the arbor out of one...can't remember which one. :-[ Think it was the 5 HP one.
Modifying those blades will be expensive with unknown results. Going to 10 HP is not that big of increase but I doubt anything bigger will fit into the cabinet. I know, I'm not much help. I might just make a leap and buy or build a bigger machine. Real machines are 3-phase. ;D
Don't get me wrong, this machine as is has been working great for me, I just want to be able to feed material a little faster since I'm less than 50% on the feed speed now. I'm not industrial...got a long way to go for that. I think 10hp is the largest that I can go without switching to 3 phase. I know, I know, 3 phase is where it's at, but I need to use what I have.
Your limiting factor is most likely the amount of shavings that the gullet can carry out of the cut, so knocking off some teeth will probably not help you with speed and may ruin a perfectly good blade. Rule of thumb I was taught was a minimum of two teeth in the cut at any given time with a rip blade for a quality cut.
If you draw a line across the blade at whatever depth you are cutting I think you will find you have two or three teeth in the cut at one time. Staggering would change where the teeth are in the cut, but I do not think it would have any effect on speed. I would be afraid of ruining what look to be some pretty nice blades.
Maybe I missed it but what diameter blades are those?
Curious to see how this plays out.
They are smaller diameter blades, 6.5" diameter, but very stoutly built for the size. $70 a piece, so $350 for the five that I am running, not a ton of $$ if it doesn't work. I am going to have my saw sharpener look at them this week and see what he thinks.
Thanks for sharing that rule of thumb, I haven't heard that before. I will have to look and see how many teeth are in the cut, I am ripping material 1" to 1 5/16" thick.
The larger ten horse motor should be here this week as well so I want to see what I gain from that extra 2.5 hp before I do anything drastic. I will say that I can safely increase the feed speed substantially when I put a narrow piece of wood in and only 3 or 4 blades are cutting, so the extra hp should help (it better!!).
I stumbled across the arbor out of the 20 hp gang rip yesterday. The blades on it are 10" with 12 teeth. They are thin kerf style. This gang rip was primarily sawing pine. The blades could have been special made as was the gang rip its self.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10125/DSCF9420.JPG?easyrotate_cache=1493230252)
I would guess Woodmaster used 6.5" blades because that's the biggest that will fit between the feed rollers.
That's correct on the Woodmaster saw blades, any bigger and they would cut into the feed rollers. As it is, to use the 6.5's, you have to take off the chip breaker to be able to use them. They also sell 5.5" blades as well that don't require removal of the chip breaker, but they only cut to 1 1/8" thick stock. They would be great for ripping 3/4" stock.
Larry,
Thanks for posting that picture. I am surprised that those blades are thin kerf, I just assumed that a thin kerf tip wouldn't hold up very well in a gang rip application. It's also interesting that they only have 12 teeth on a 10" blade - that would support the idea of fewer teeth cutting faster since most 10" ripping blades for table saws have 24 teeth. The Woodmaster's 6.5" has 18 teeth stock, so I bet taking some off would help. Like I said, I need to talk with my saw sharpener about it. My 10hp motor is coming Friday, so that is great.
I think the theory is that as every tooth on the blade has to slice through all the wood fibres on each pass. So even when you slow the feed, each tooth is still cutting the same amount, just a smaller "bite" and finer sawdust. The load on the engine doesn't decrease with proportional to the feed speed.
My experience is with small Swing Blade sawmills, where you have a saw with a 6-8" depth of cut, and only limited HP. To make the most of that they run blades with only 3 to 8 cutters, depending on the HP available. You do loose some smoothness of the cut, but if you are dealing with rough sawn wood, it's within spec. You don''t expect the same finish off a mill or edger as you do on a table saw with a "finish" blade.
So I can walk my mill though a 2" deep cut, at walking speed, with 4 cutters and 13 hp. The mill is throwing out chips, not sawdust when it's running like that. A one inch cut is really fast, and pretty much throws out "noodles" of wood.
The gullet space does come into play as well, but if you are only talking 1 or 2" cuts, this isn't such an issue, compared to a BIG blade that might be chewing through 18"+ of wood.
Quote from: Ianab on April 28, 2017, 08:09:13 AM
I think the theory is that as every tooth on the blade has to slice through all the wood fibres on each pass. So even when you slow the feed, each tooth is still cutting the same amount, just a smaller "bite" and finer sawdust. The load on the engine doesn't decrease with proportional to the feed speed.
My experience is with small Swing Blade sawmills, where you have a saw with a 6-8" depth of cut, and only limited HP. To make the most of that they run blades with only 3 to 8 cutters, depending on the HP available. You do loose some smoothness of the cut, but if you are dealing with rough sawn wood, it's within spec. You don''t expect the same finish off a mill or edger as you do on a table saw with a "finish" blade.
So I can walk my mill though a 2" deep cut, at walking speed, with 4 cutters and 13 hp. The mill is throwing out chips, not sawdust when it's running like that. A one inch cut is really fast, and pretty much throws out "noodles" of wood.
The gullet space does come into play as well, but if you are only talking 1 or 2" cuts, this isn't such an issue, compared to a BIG blade that might be chewing through 18"+ of wood.
I am a little confused by this statement. With the Woodmaster, the load on the saw motor is certainly dependent on the feed speed. Speed up the feed and you can hear the motor bog down substantially. Slow it down and the saw motor will recover.
Here's an update:
I swapped out the stock 7.5 hp motor with the 10 hp upgrade - those suckers aren't light! Got it up and running again but wasn't able to increase my feed speed at all. >:( >:( In fact after running a few boards through, burn marks were showing up, something I have never seen before with these blades. That to me is a sure sign of dull teeth.
I have been wondering about the sharpness of my blades this whole time... when they were brand new, it obviously cut better and I was able to feed faster. The blades don't feel dull at all, but maybe they are more dull than I realize. My sharpener man came over yesterday and we looked at everything together. We agreed that before we start taking teeth off, let's just sharpen the blades and see what happens.
Right now on each blade, with the stock that I am ripping, there are two teeth in the cut at any given time. The tooth spacing (18 teeth on a 6.5" diameter blade) is about the same distance tooth to tooth as a 24 tooth 10" rip saw blade. That makes sense. He said if I did want to take every other tooth off, he would regrind the remaining teeth to be a flat top grind.
I should get the blades back on Tuesday, we will see how they cut then. He was only going to "face" the carbide (grind the face only) since he agreed that they didn't look or feel very dull. We will see.
I tried to fin a cheap blade with less teeth that could be modified as an experiment and found none, most had 24, some 18.
As I was thinking about this I considered the work the saw is trying to do and compare it to my big saw that is 9hp, and 5" being the sum of what you are cutting is all my saw can cut with a 14" blade. It would be working its butt off to get through anything except maybe pine.
Larry may be right, time for a bigger saw. ;)
I have a machine like that, not sure of brand in the back of the barn that I have never used, tomorrow I will try to remember to go take a look at it. Kinda forgot about it till just now.
Well, it wasn't the blades being dull... ::) ::). Put the freshly sharpened blades on and not much of a difference at all. I think I have it figured out though - belt slippage slowing the shaft speed down under load. Out of the box the machine worked great - brand new belts. After a while, belts are wore in, loosened up a little especially after rolling them on and off the shaft sheave in order to service shaft, etc.
Here is a picture showing the belt setup:
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/44509/20170402_165037.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1493902959)
The belts go straight to the motor shaft sheave, no tensioner.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/44509/20170331_072145.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1493902961)
This is one thing about the Woodmaster 725 that I have - there is no conventional way to tighten up/tension the belts like other machines. I slid the motor horizontally on the motor cross plates in an effort to lengthen the distance between the motor shaft and the saw shaft, thus tightening the belt. It helped a bit but I think it still needs more tension.
Here is a picture I took while swapping the motors:
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/44509/20170429_131727.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1493902965)
The motor just bolts on those cross plates.
I talked to my contact at Woodmaster who has been very helpful. He said to put washers in between the motor cross plates and the angle iron that they are bolted to, thus increasing the distance in between the two sheaves and tightening the belt. Not a very elegant or convenient way to tension the belts, but that is what I will do before I use the machine next.
Increasing belt tension may work but its a band-aid.
The root cause of slippage is the arbor pulley is to small. A 3 HP cabinet saw or planer uses around the same size with three belts.
If it were me, I would change out the pulleys to a size similar to what's on the arbors I pictured. Than I would run BX (cogged) belts.
Another idea. If those belts on your machine are standard belts a change to cogged belts would help and you might not need bigger pulleys.
Automotive style spring loaded belt tensioner. Probably be able to fab a bracket and bolt it on.
Quote from: Crusarius on May 04, 2017, 01:12:09 PM
Automotive style spring loaded belt tensioner. Probably be able to fab a bracket and bolt it on.
Good idea, I had thought the same thing, not sure why Woodmaster doesn't have a better setup for tensioning the belts.
Quote from: Larry on May 04, 2017, 12:39:21 PM
Increasing belt tension may work but its a band-aid.
The root cause of slippage is the arbor pulley is to small. A 3 HP cabinet saw or planer uses around the same size with three belts.
If it were me, I would change out the pulleys to a size similar to what's on the arbors I pictured. Than I would run BX (cogged) belts.
Another idea. If those belts on your machine are standard belts a change to cogged belts would help and you might not need bigger pulleys.
Larry, I was just researching cogged belts.. :D :) Yep, my 3hp planer has three belts - not sure why this machine doesn't. That's also one of the first things that a fellow woodworker/friend said when I was showing him the unit. I would not have known that the arbor pulley is too small, thanks for your input. The only thing about going to a bigger pulley is that would slow the saw blades down unless I went with a bigger motor pulley as well (I think). I have no idea how much that would affect the rip saw performance. I will measure both pulleys to get the diameters.
Thanks all for the great input!
I forgot to mention the stock belts are standard (smooth) so I think first course of action would be to get cogged belts.
Gates says a single v belt with a 3 inch minimum pulley diameter can transmit 2.2 HP. A bigger pulley with more wrap will allow much more and a smaller one will transmit less. It looks like with 10 Hp and a small pulley you may need 4 matched v belts for 10 HP using standard belts. :)
Quote from: SlowJoeCrow on May 04, 2017, 01:30:55 PM
Quote from: Larry on May 04, 2017, 12:39:21 PM
Increasing belt tension may work but its a band-aid.
The root cause of slippage is the arbor pulley is to small. A 3 HP cabinet saw or planer uses around the same size with three belts.
If it were me, I would change out the pulleys to a size similar to what's on the arbors I pictured. Than I would run BX (cogged) belts.
Another idea. If those belts on your machine are standard belts a change to cogged belts would help and you might not need bigger pulleys.
Larry, I was just researching cogged belts.. :D :) Yep, my 3hp planer has three belts - not sure why this machine doesn't. That's also one of the first things that a fellow woodworker/friend said when I was showing him the unit. I would not have known that the arbor pulley is too small, thanks for your input. The only thing about going to a bigger pulley is that would slow the saw blades down unless I went with a bigger motor pulley as well (I think). I have no idea how much that would affect the rip saw performance. I will measure both pulleys to get the diameters.
Thanks all for the great input!
If you went to a bigger pulley on the final drive side you would indeed have to go to a bigger pulley on the motor side to keep the same tooth speed. Upside is more belt wrap so better traction.
Nice table. I use that stuff a lot.
Here is a thought. How far below the table are the blades going, and on the original setup could it get rid of shavings out the bottom of the cut? I'm just wondering if the blades were cutting at a more severe angle out the bottom of the cut if it would not take a lot less power. Know what I mean? If you drop the blades down the saw tooth is in the cut for less time and so has less work to do before ejecting its shavings. Maybe a little less cut quality, but it may conserve some power. Just thinking out loud.
I went out and looked at mine, it is a Belsaw so not the same.
Here is who I use for belt sets. they are always perfect with no vibration inducing lumps, always have what I need even for the Euro machines. http://www.optibelt.com/en/power-transmission/products.html
Quote from: 21incher on May 04, 2017, 04:58:48 PM
Gates says a single v belt with a 3 inch minimum pulley diameter can transmit 2.2 HP. A bigger pulley with more wrap will allow much more and a smaller one will transmit less. It looks like with 10 Hp and a small pulley you may need 4 matched v belts for 10 HP using standard belts. :)
I would agree. All of my machines with 10ish hp other than the shaper have 3-4, and the shaper has 2 with huge pulleys @ 9hp so a lot of belt wrap.
Hey thanks for the replies everyone. I can see I have a lot to learn about belts and pulleys - wow there are so many options out there it is overwhelming.
Here is some info on the stock pulleys and belts:
Motor pulley: 2 groove, taper lock bushing style, roughly 6" o.d., motor has 1 3/8" diameter shaft with keyway.
Arbor pulley: 2 groove, 2 3/4" o.d., 1.5" i.d., 3/8" keyway for 3/8" x 3/8" key stock.
Motor spins at 1740 rpm.
The two belts are 1/2" wide, 4L-570H FF3 is what is marked on them.
The way I see it, I have two main options: replace stock belts with cogged belts and see what happens with stock pulleys (cheap quick option), or replace pulleys with larger diameter, 3 or 4 groove pulleys, and get new belts as well (more involved, definetely better option).
Wow, the more I read, a 4L belt is a fractional horsepower belt, a classical A would be rated much higher and a AX even more so. Sound right? Lots of options.
Don't forget a real tensioner.
BTW, I forgot to mention last night I put washers under the motor mounts thus tightening the belt tension and that helped a lot, so my main problem is definitely power transmission issues.
Now I am looking at rpm's and rim speed of the blades as well. A typical 10" 3hp table saw arbor spins at 4200rpm giving a rim speed of 11000 fpm. I used Grizzly tablesaws as a reference.
This stock Woodmaster set up as a rip saw with 6.5" blades has the arbor spinning at 4000rpm for a rim speed of 6800 fpm, substantially slower. If I wanted 11000fpm on the Woodmaster saw blades, I would need the arbor spinning at 6400 rpm (roughly). Don't know if this is safe or not, time to call Woodmaster. I know whatever I do, I don't want to drop the arbor rpm any lower than it is already.
Quote from: SlowJoeCrow on May 05, 2017, 09:06:52 AM
Wow, the more I read, a 4L belt is a fractional horsepower belt, a classical A would be rated much higher and a AX even more so. Sound right? Lots of options.
I think you have a good understanding of power transmission now. Couple of things to add that you may already know. One reason the X belts transfer more power is the cuts allow the belt to conform to the pulley much better, especially helpful on small pulleys. Some pulleys are made so they can run either A or B belts. The B belts transfer more power and hardly any more cost. They won't run on the smaller pulley's.
If you were to add a belt tensioner, which I don't think is needed, make sure it goes on the slack side.
A lot of science goes into rim speed which is called SFPM (standard feet per minute). When I have any question I try to ask the blade manufacture what they recommend. Calling Woodmaster is a good idea.
Quote from: SlowJoeCrow on May 05, 2017, 09:52:30 AM
Now I am looking at rpm's and rim speed of the blades as well. A typical 10" 3hp table saw arbor spins at 4200rpm giving a rim speed of 11000 fpm. I used Grizzly tablesaws as a reference.
This stock Woodmaster set up as a rip saw with 6.5" blades has the arbor spinning at 4000rpm for a rim speed of 6800 fpm, substantially slower. If I wanted 11000fpm on the Woodmaster saw blades, I would need the arbor spinning at 6400 rpm (roughly). Don't know if this is safe or not, time to call Woodmaster. I know whatever I do, I don't want to drop the arbor rpm any lower than it is already.
I was thinking the same thing when I saw you only use a 1740 rpm motor. The chip load on each tooth will be very critical as you increase the feed speed. Big electric motors are not constant torque at the RPM, they quickly build torque as the load increases so with slipping belts you most likely never get to take advantage of the higher horsepower as the load backs off from slippage. With matched belts the pulley alignment is very critical also. Sounds like woodmaster should get involved to help you work this out before spending anymore money. :)
Well, I have a set of AX belts on the way, I should get them Monday. Larry, I checked, these sheaves won't take the B's unfortunately. If I don't see a substantial difference with them, then I will bite the bullet and go with bigger sheaves and belts. Woodmaster told me the bearings are rated for 4100rpm and they advised against increasing the arbor rpm, said if I did I would wear the bearings out faster, which makes sense. So there's that. Gates has an awesome free software program that I found while researching and learning online today, it's called Design Flex Pro. You give it some parameters like motor hp, rpm, needed shaft rpm, distance between centers, etc and it will calculate solutions for you with type of belt needed, number of belts, sheave sizes, etc. It's pretty cool and immensely helpful. Stay tuned.
Quote from: Just Me on May 04, 2017, 05:00:03 PM
Quote from: SlowJoeCrow on May 04, 2017, 01:30:55 PM
Quote from: Larry on May 04, 2017, 12:39:21 PM
Increasing belt tension may work but its a band-aid.
The root cause of slippage is the arbor pulley is to small. A 3 HP cabinet saw or planer uses around the same size with three belts.
If it were me, I would change out the pulleys to a size similar to what's on the arbors I pictured. Than I would run BX (cogged) belts.
Another idea. If those belts on your machine are standard belts a change to cogged belts would help and you might not need bigger pulleys.
Larry, I was just researching cogged belts.. :D :) Yep, my 3hp planer has three belts - not sure why this machine doesn't. That's also one of the first things that a fellow woodworker/friend said when I was showing him the unit. I would not have known that the arbor pulley is too small, thanks for your input. The only thing about going to a bigger pulley is that would slow the saw blades down unless I went with a bigger motor pulley as well (I think). I have no idea how much that would affect the rip saw performance. I will measure both pulleys to get the diameters.
Thanks all for the great input!
If you went to a bigger pulley on the final drive side you would indeed have to go to a bigger pulley on the motor side to keep the same tooth speed. Upside is more belt wrap so better traction.
Nice table. I use that stuff a lot.
Here is a thought. How far below the table are the blades going, and on the original setup could it get rid of shavings out the bottom of the cut? I'm just wondering if the blades were cutting at a more severe angle out the bottom of the cut if it would not take a lot less power. Know what I mean? If you drop the blades down the saw tooth is in the cut for less time and so has less work to do before ejecting its shavings. Maybe a little less cut quality, but it may conserve some power. Just thinking out loud.
I went out and looked at mine, it is a Belsaw so not the same.
Here is who I use for belt sets. they are always perfect with no vibration inducing lumps, always have what I need even for the Euro machines. http://www.optibelt.com/en/power-transmission/products.html
I know what you mean and I agree, but with this machine, there is a solid cast iron table under that plastic piece...I don't want to modify the machine that much, at least not yet!!!
For non adjustable belts I use this stuff...
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/39553/link_belt~0.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1494028225)
Is that like an older form of the red power twist link belt?
Well, I have my new AX cogged belts and am anxious to put them on. But you see there is a problem that I have: the garden beds that I started to build for the Mrs. last fall didn't finish themselves over the wintertime... and her seeds should be here this week!! :o :D ::) Got to get them finished!!
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/44509/20170507_184712.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1494333168)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/44509/20170507_184736.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1494333182)
Very nice!
How big is your family?? ???
:D :D
Just three munchkins, me & the Mrs. She wanted a bigger garden to can more but we don't have a flat enough spot by the house, hence the beds. A lot of money and a lot of work but it will be worth it in the end (I think). There are 3 garden beds, each 8' x 65' with walkways in between. I said if we are going to build them, might as well build them big! Hopefully we don't regret them being so big.
Quote from: SlowJoeCrow on May 11, 2017, 10:08:38 AM
Just three munchkins, me & the Mrs. She wanted a bigger garden to can more but we don't have a flat enough spot by the house, hence the beds. A lot of money and a lot of work but it will be worth it in the end (I think). There are 3 garden beds, each 8' x 65' with walkways in between. I said if we are going to build them, might as well build them big! Hopefully we don't regret them being so big.
Nice! My garden is 40x70 with a greenhouse/canning kitchen in a fenced in enclosure. Have elk here so did a 6' cyclone fence all the way around it. Do about 200 quarts a year.
Look up Guy Clarks "Home grown tomatoes". Its a song I think you will like, catch myself singing it in the garden when no one is around.
Just for giggles and grins, why not throw together an elevated table for that thing that the blades can go through and see what happens. Just a temporary kind of affair to see if it helps. I know I can tell the difference on my saw when I am just through or when I have the blade a bit above the wood. Cuts better with the blade higher. I know its not safe on a tablesaw, blah, blah, but on your machine it would make no difference, you could even work out some dust collection under the sacrificial table if it was an improvement.
Later, Larry
Thanks for the suggestion, when I get a chance I will experiment with that as well.
For anyone curious what I am using this machine for, here is a stack of boards waiting to be fed in:
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/44509/20170411_170257.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1494553064)
And here they are after being run through:
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/44509/20170506_200020.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1494553292)
I have a WM 718 and just got it setup so I have enjoyed your thread. Nice garden beds. I hope the kids help with the weeding as that can be a full time job... :embarassed:
No shop time at all this weekend, worked on the garden beds. These have been a huge project for me and the end is in sight. I do however need to get back in the shop, the last of my surplus 4' stakes sold last week, need to make more. The Mrs. assured me that if i built them, she and the kids would take care of the rest...like I said earlier, I hope I don't regret making them big!
Well, nothing to do with ripping speed or number of teeth, but I am still working on the garden beds to get them finished. It's slow going when I only have a couple of hours each night. With retaining walls, most of the time and labor is buried, covered up (base, pipe, gravel along the inside of the walls, etc).
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/44509/20170516_185829.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1495022916)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/44509/20170516_185907.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1495022922)
The lowest bed is completely done, still working on the upper two, but I am getting close! The Mrs. has learned not to wait on "Slow Joe Crow", she has seeds in the ground in the lower two beds.
Got the beds 95% complete, complete enough to get back in the shop anyway ;)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/44509/20170528_173517.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1496239229)
Put the cogged AX belts on, they are indeed better. Was ripping stock and in went a knot/weak spot in the wood. The knot or weak spot came loose and CHACHUNK!!!!
It chunked a large piece of wood instead of ripping through it. In the split second that it happened, the rear feed roller (I have the metal serrated rollers) somehow raised enough and contacted my blade pack - yes all five blades. Looking at it afterward, you can't imagine how they would contact, but they did. The saw shaft isn't bent and neither is the feed roller. I have found out using this machine with five blades spaced closely together, the wood you feed in needs to be clear and straight-grained, or bad things will happen. Basically, the blades find that weak spot and tear hunks of wood instead of ripping through it.
I took these blades to a different saw shop for sharpening which I will be using from now on. They are a "cut above" the other saw sharpening service I was using.
After talking to them, they can custom make any kind of saw blade for me and were going to quote me a price for these specialty blades, but with a flat top grind and the keyways and bolt holes on a random stagger so the blade tips wouldn't be lined up in a row. (everything I wanted). A 18 tooth to match these stock blades and a 12 tooth so I could test the theory of less teeth will cut faster.
I thought to myself: "The price will be through the roof!"
Well I got the pricing yesterday: 18 tooth blade-$72, 12 tooth-$62. The stock blades from Woodmaster are $70. When it's time to buy more blades, I will go this route and see how they do. Unfortunately it will be a while as the 10 blades I already have have a lot of life left in them.