Thread: Anorexia saws

Originally Posted by Simplicity

I've been debating this issue with my self for awhile now.
I can't seem to see the point of super(anorexic)
Saw plates.
So hopefully someone out there can correct the error in my judgment.
Any saw cut I can think of, and I'm talking hand saws here, has generally a waste side and the side you which not to be cut, ie cut to the line.
If the saw plate is 1 mm or even 2 mm or even more ,you are still having a good side and waste side.
Yes ,sharping a thiner saw is easier to a degree tho generally thiner saw blades have more teeth.
But ,they bring in there own issues.
The flip side to this ,is fatter saw plates are going to wear out the saw file quicker.
So back to my earlier point ,even if we're cutting small little dovetails for a small box.
A saw plate of a 1 mm thickness would do the job.
Now obviously I'm not suggesting to go super bigger here either.
But thiner saw plates to take a degree of caution using then. If you don't which to buckle then.

Is it that super thin is just to sexy or something else.

Am I being to simplistic in my thinking or am I just to simple ?
A few of vintage, antique very old saws that I have ,call them what you will, none are super thin.
All would be classed as fatty in a modern tool box.
But all would be quite capable of doing the finest of work.

So why do we need saw blades approaching microns in thickness.?
Is my thinking all wrong
Should I get a super sexy thin saw

Cheers Matt

Note point
Talking western style bench saws [emoji41]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Hi Matt,

I have a few old saws that have 0.015" thick plates, none however are thinner. The technology for making thin spring steel saws has apparently been available since at least the 1860's or so.
Functionally I don't think that they're much different from saws with thicker plates.

Cheers,
Rob

When the tooth set is kept to a minimum clearance, thinner saw plates can provide an advantage over thicker plates.

Originally Posted by planemaker

When the tooth set is kept to a minimum clearance, thinner saw plates can provide an advantage over thicker plates.

Could you explain what that advantage is Please Stewie

Cheers Matt

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Could you explain what that advantage is Please Stewie

Cheers Matt

W= k_t X [Potatoes/(kerf width X kerf depth X kerf length)] where k_t is the 'wood factor' of the timber.

Interesting formula Rob.

What are some of the benefits of using a thinner saw plate gauge.!!

The kerf width is narrower. As you decrease the width of the kerf you decrease the volume of saw dust generated to form that kerf. As you decrease the amount of saw dust generated you allow yourself the option of using smaller volume tooth gullets. As you decrease the size of the tooth gullets you can increase the tpi count. As you increase the tpi count you gain the benefits of both accuracy of cut and quality within the sawn surface. But you cant just focus on fine tuning the gauge of saw plate and the tpi count without taking into consideration the depth of cut. The greater the depth of cut the higher the heat level generated within the saw plate. Thinner saw plates are more susceptible to high heat transfer when compared to thicker gauge plates. So the choice in determining what size saw plate gauge will best suit any given backsaw should take into account a number of important factors. The desired depth of plate being a predominant factor.

regards;

Matt

I think the answer may come down to a simple word "effort." A saw of say .040" thick in theory will take twice as much effort to push as a saw .020" thick. As you have mentioned, the thinner saw will be easier to sharpen and take less toll on the file as well. So why aren't all saws thin? Well, I think it is because a thinner saw has a greater propensity to kink (and is why the JP saws can be thinner as they are pulled). It is for this reason that typically a full size hand saw (26") will have a saw plate around .039" thick (pretty close to 1mm in the new money) while a panel saw can be down .029"

We can see that in shorter saws the plate thickness is again reduced. So back saws can typically range from .030" to .020", but these have the steel or brass back to stiffen them. Thinner saw plates than this down to .015", such as for dovetail saws, also have a back, but in addition are not deep (probably no more than two inches under the back.)

The larger mitre saws 22" and bigger are back to .039". I also measured my little Simonds Pattern Makers saw (No.166) and although it is only 7 1/2" long and 1 1/4" deep the plate is .030", because it has no back. Incidentally I noticed the other day that Disston had an almost identical saw.

The sawplate thickness is the easiest way to tell if a saw has been cut down because of damage at the toe. If you know the model, the number of saw screws will also be an indicator. The five screw full size saw will have only four screws in the panel versions and four screw versions will be down to three screws for the panel equivalent.

If you are considering salvaging the steel from old sawplates to make smaller saws, there is no real reason why you cannot do this as long as you are mindful of the difference. If you were looking at making a back saw you should probably only consider using the steel from a panel saw and be mindful of the extra complication if it is tapered (not so much of a problem if you use a folded back, but more of an issue if the back is slotted).

Now back to your original question. Do you need a super sexy thin saw? Absolutely you do. You are an obsessive saw buff and need at least one of everything going.

Regards
Paul

Hi Simplicity,
I'm hardly an expert in the field, In fact I know nothing about handsaws other than when it's blunt, chuck it out (or use for cutting nails, i.e., removing window etc) and buy a new one. But I suppose the advantage of a thinner handsaw blade, would be much the same as a circular saw blade. Being that it requires less effort to achieve the same result as a thicker blade because it removes less wood, less waste, less sawdust.

Or have I missed your point?

edit: post above sneaked in ahead and pretty much says the same.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

.....Now back to your original question. Do you need a super sexy thin saw? Absolutely you do. You are an obsessive saw buff and need at least one of everything going.
.....

Naaa, don't you need two, Paul ?

I was wandering around some museum in Italy two years ago and they had some Roman-era saws with bronze blades about 5 mm thick.

You also definitely need a few super thick blades as well, and bronze polishes so much better than steel.


Cheers

raeme

Graeme

I did say "at least," which loosely translated means "a lot".

A while back I did get hold of a stainless steel saw. Disston made their D-55, but this one was a Craftsman. Rumour has it that this is a material entirely unsuited to saws, but I wanted to see for myself. It arrived seeming fairly sharp and of course it was stain free, but I have never got around to trying it in anger. I must dig it out and give it a whirl.

Now I am on the lookout for a bronze saw of almost any thickness.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Matt

I think the answer may come down to a simple word "effort." A saw of say .040" thick in theory will take twice as much effort to push as a saw .020" thick. As you have mentioned, the thinner saw will be easier to sharpen and take less toll on the file as well. So why aren't all saws thin? Well, I think it is because a thinner saw has a greater propensity to kink (and is why the JP saws can be thinner as they are pulled). It is for this reason that typically a full size hand saw (26") will have a saw plate around .039" thick (pretty close to 1mm in the new money) while a panel saw can be down .029"

We can see that in shorter saws the plate thickness is again reduced. So back saws can typically range from .030" to .020", but these have the steel or brass back to stiffen them. Thinner saw plates than this down to .015", such as for dovetail saws, also have a back, but in addition are not deep (probably no more than two inches under the back.)

The larger mitre saws 22" and bigger are back to .039". I also measured my little Simonds Pattern Makers saw (No.166) and although it is only 7 1/2" long and 1 1/4" deep the plate is .030", because it has no back. Incidentally I noticed the other day that Disston had an almost identical saw.

The sawplate thickness is the easiest way to tell if a saw has been cut down because of damage at the toe. If you know the model, the number of saw screws will also be an indicator. The five screw full size saw will have only four screws in the panel versions and four screw versions will be down to three screws for the panel equivalent.

If you are considering salvaging the steel from old sawplates to make smaller saws, there is no real reason why you cannot do this as long as you are mindful of the difference. If you were looking at making a back saw you should probably only consider using the steel from a panel saw and be mindful of the extra complication if it is tapered (not so much of a problem if you use a folded back, but more of an issue if the back is slotted).

Now back to your original question. Do you need a super sexy thin saw? Absolutely you do. You are an obsessive saw buff and need at least one of everything going.

Regards
Paul

I'm thinking of a real good reply guff.
Just need to thinks some more.


Cheers Matt.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Matt, this question came up on another recent thread. I stuck my bib in there to make a coupe of points. The first was that there is a prevailing myth that thin saws cut 'faster'. I assume this means they go deeper in the same bit of wood for the same number of strokes. They don't. I compared three saws which were the same, but each had a different plate thickness and made at least 10 cuts with each, using the same number of strokes, then measured & averaged the cut lengths. I didn't bother doing the stats, there was more variation 'within saws' than between them.

Stewie's point that the thin saw generates less swarf so has more room to store it for a given tooth size is probably true. This should mean a thin-plate saw will cut a wider piece more comfortably, since sawdust-carrying capacity is what limits how wide a cut you can saw efficiently. Something worth investigating, some day, though hard to devise a truly discriminating test, & I suspect the difference may not be enough to have practical value in everyday sawing.

A thin saw has to take less power to cut at the same rate; that's a given. It's something that you really notice on the tablesaw, particularly if you have a rather gutless saw like mine, but I would be very hard-pressed to pick the difference with hand saws in the 'normal' range of plate thickness for a given size of saw. The effort required for say a 15 thou plate saw and a 25 thou plate saw of equal dimensions should be about 66% less, give or take, but the effort is so small anyway, that my arm muscles couldn't reliably pick it. However, I'm sure if you went to extremes & compared 15 thou with a 40 thou or thicker blade, you would certainly notice! You would also notice the increased weight, which would be a confounding factor, because it's putting much more weight on the teeth causing them to 'bite' harder.

So, I 'fess up at this point that my favourite D/T saw has a 225mm blade of 15 thou plate. It also has a 3/16" thick spine, which is 75% thinner than 'average' spines that are usually around 1/4" thick. So it's ultra-thin & ultra-light! The lighter spine seems to be plenty stiff enough for the light-gauge blade, and it keeps the weight of the saw to a minimum, which is one of the main reasons I like it so much. Another reason is the handle, which has a thickness, shape & hang-angle that I arrived at partly by trial & error & mostly by serendipity. But the whole saw represents pure individual preference, I can't come up with a single objective argument as to why this saw is so much better than any other configuration I've made or tried - it just suits me to a 'T'. Most people who try it seem to like it, but a friend who is a very competent woodie & sawyer does not like it at all.

My conclusion is that saw plate thickness is partly a matter of personal preference, and mostly fashion, and the most consistent thing about backsaws is the inconsistency in what people like..........

Cheers,

Originally Posted by planemaker

The kerf width is narrower. As you decrease the width of the kerf you decrease the volume of saw dust generated to form that kerf. As you decrease the amount of saw dust generated you allow yourself the option of using smaller volume tooth gullets.

I can't agree with that. The reduction in sawdust generated is offset by the fact that the gullets also get narrower along with the blade, and if you're taking the same depth with each stroke, your gullet will need to be the same size (same depth).

Originally Posted by Colin62

I can't agree with that. The reduction in sawdust generated is offset by the fact that the gullets also get narrower along with the blade, and if you're taking the same depth with each stroke, your gullet will need to be the same size (same depth).

I agree. There are many other factors at play.

One does not reduce teeth size to match the tooth/gullet size. One can create the same level of effort with a thin saw plate with overly-wide set, and a thicker saw plate with minimal set.

Effort is also a factor of rake: the more vertical the tooth, the greater the effort to push the saw.

Reducing the thickness of the saw plate - with all other factors held constant - will reduce the amount of effort to push the teeth through the wood.

Regards from Perth

Derek