can someone buy me one of these please

[PeakOakFrames]

On the safety front is the Silverclaw CE certified?

[john the saw]

your right beau i'd happily have either but band resaws seem more expensive.

 

it would be for cutting quarters of trees in to planks. i would also use it for resawing old dry stock which you really need a tct blade to do the work, a sleeper is being cut up in the vid and i buy old baulks of wood that are up to 12" and wish to turn them in to planks.

 

 

 

jon the saw, that saw you have only cuts 9" max and i want something that has a bigger capacity.

those 32" saws should do up to 13" which on quarters of oak would give lovely q sawn boards.

Hi steve,

Yep i understand that you would want a larger cutting capacity so our machine might not be for you. I'm covering the philosophy behind our machine in answers to other posts on this forum. By the by, i've run some 2.5" sq ash (coming out of our kiln end march) in case you still have a problem obtaining some.

Cheers

john

[john the saw]

I can't really see what the Silverclaw offers over a bench rip saw.

 

A 32" rip saw has a larger capacity of cut, is far more solid looking and takes up a third of the space.

 

And yes there are certain safety advantages, and for untrained non professional use it does look a lot safer. But big rip saws, when used by a trained operative are no more dangerous than any other machine in the workshop.

 

Bringing the timber back passed the blade after the cut is dangerous in my eyes, so easy for the blade to pick it up and chuck back at you. I'm sure you have tested it extensively I just don't like the idea, and that is just my opinion and I'm a sceptical git.

 

Also it looks time consuming to use, make cut, bring it back passed the blade, remove waste, reset timber, set clamps, make second cut...... it just seems a little drawn out for my liking. Time is money and I could cut 3 times as much in the same time on my rip saw.

 

But then it is aimed at non professional users I guess so the safety wise it does mean you are far away from the blade and the danger area is covered. And a good design, I assume it all folds down for ease of transport?

 

I think there is a market for it somewhere. I think you just need to try to get the price down a bit. You can get a Woodland bandsaw mill for under half the price which does the same job with a bigger width of cut

 

I don't mean to be negative, I know I sound it but you asked for opinions.... just my thoughts......

 

Hi stompey,

Thanks for your feedback - much appreciated.

Our machine is intended as an entry level mill or as a companion machine to a larger mill. Nothing is all things to all people but we felt that there was a place for an intermediate machine with a range of capabilities. Obviously if someone wants to mill 16" planks then our machine is not for them but i don't think that it's right or fair to correlate smaller available cut-size with non-professionalism. When milling, we step-down ourselves to a smaller table saw once timber is of plank thickness.

I take your point about bringing the timber back past the blade. Our videos were intended to demonstrate one-man operation and you will note that on our video demonstrating the feather-edge cut, we offload from the other end as the piece is quite light at this stage. We have never had a piece thrown back towards the operator even when cutting difficult species. If this did happen however it wouldn't be a problem as the operator is positioned to the side of the machine out of harm's way. The size of the machine is intentional to prevent any access to the blade during operation - nothing safer. A lot of accidents occur when operators pull timber from the 'wrong side', timber snags and is pulled back through the blade along with fingers. Riving knives (the subject of my original offering to this thread) often only offer partial protection as they don't cover full height and are not intended for this function in any event.

With respect to speed, we can process a 10" diameter log into beams and then planks in about 15 minutes start-to-finish which we don't think is too bad. If you're up for a challenge, we would be happy to see you outstrip us by a factor of 3. Of course, we would look to see you perform the same variety of operations as us, to the same degree of accuracy/cleanliness of cut, and safe as houses while you do it.

Returning to the limitations regarding cut-size, the cost of the milling machine is just the starting point when handling large trunks as other expensive machinery is required. Our machine is really intended to process timber that two guys can lift. As i said, nothing is all things to all people but we would hope for broad support as a small british manufacturer, trying to offer a safe, intermediate machine for those who can see the benefit.

With respect to cost, yes we could make our machine cheaper if that is peoples' primary concern but we won't as this can only happen by compromising on quality. There are cheaper alternatives to the Honda GX630 engine (as well as our 3 phase power plant) and we could do all sorts of other things such as use unflanged mild steel fixing nuts and bolts rather than stainless steel but we won't.

Our machine is classified as static although we have borne in mind ease of break-down and set-up in the modular design.

I don't see your comments as negative at all and thank you again for taking the time to provide your feedback.

Best wishes

john - silverclaw

[john the saw]

On the safety front is the Silverclaw CE certified?

 

Hi,

Thanks for your comment and yes it is. I don't know how involved you are/have been with respect to CE marking. When CE marking first came to be, i worked alongside a guy who sat on the comittee that made the rules. I told him that i thought it a bit weak that self-certification through declaration of conformity kind of defeated the object. We now have a situation where many people confuse CE marking with a guarantee of safety and quality. We have all bought or seen items that carry a CE mark, that are neither safe nor are of good quality. At great cost we appointed independent 3rd party certifiers and ensured that we exceeded standards at every turn, rather than aiming for mere compliance.

As a pleasant surprise, we were advised that a new standard would have to be written around our machine as it falls in between various standards covering site saws, construct saws, table saws and saw mills.

I was a bit surprised myself to see sketches of 'typical arrangements' of this type of equipment within BS-ENs showing an operator with hands close to a blade, using a little push stick and only a token top shroud separating him from head-contact oblivion.

A friend asked me to mill some timber for him recently and came over to see it done with his wife (herself a highly qualified engineer) and their 9 year old daughter. Once i had shown them over the machine, i was gratified to see that they were perfectly happy to see their little girl running around while i was milling, with no thought of 'sit down and stay still'. Blade, shafts, pulley, belt contact is simply not possible with our machine and no shroud impedes operation in any way.

Best wishes

john - silverclaw

[Stompy]

Hi stompey,

Thanks for your feedback - much appreciated.

Our machine is intended as an entry level mill or as a companion machine to a larger mill. Nothing is all things to all people but we felt that there was a place for an intermediate machine with a range of capabilities. Obviously if someone wants to mill 16" planks then our machine is not for them but i don't think that it's right or fair to correlate smaller available cut-size with non-professionalism. When milling, we step-down ourselves to a smaller table saw once timber is of plank thickness.

I take your point about bringing the timber back past the blade. Our videos were intended to demonstrate one-man operation and you will note that on our video demonstrating the feather-edge cut, we offload from the other end as the piece is quite light at this stage. We have never had a piece thrown back towards the operator even when cutting difficult species. If this did happen however it wouldn't be a problem as the operator is positioned to the side of the machine out of harm's way. The size of the machine is intentional to prevent any access to the blade during operation - nothing safer. A lot of accidents occur when operators pull timber from the 'wrong side', timber snags and is pulled back through the blade along with fingers. Riving knives (the subject of my original offering to this thread) often only offer partial protection as they don't cover full height and are not intended for this function in any event.

With respect to speed, we can process a 10" diameter log into beams and then planks in about 15 minutes start-to-finish which we don't think is too bad. If you're up for a challenge, we would be happy to see you outstrip us by a factor of 3. Of course, we would look to see you perform the same variety of operations as us, to the same degree of accuracy/cleanliness of cut, and safe as houses while you do it.

Returning to the limitations regarding cut-size, the cost of the milling machine is just the starting point when handling large trunks as other expensive machinery is required. Our machine is really intended to process timber that two guys can lift. As i said, nothing is all things to all people but we would hope for broad support as a small british manufacturer, trying to offer a safe, intermediate machine for those who can see the benefit.

With respect to cost, yes we could make our machine cheaper if that is peoples' primary concern but we won't as this can only happen by compromising on quality. There are cheaper alternatives to the Honda GX630 engine (as well as our 3 phase power plant) and we could do all sorts of other things such as use unflanged mild steel fixing nuts and bolts rather than stainless steel but we won't.

Our machine is classified as static although we have borne in mind ease of break-down and set-up in the modular design.

I don't see your comments as negative at all and thank you again for taking the time to provide your feedback.

Best wishes

john - silverclaw

 

 

Thanks for the well considered reply John.

 

Please don't get me wrong I am not sniping at you or your product in any way, I was and am trying to offer some of my views and thoughts. I am a cabinet maker but do process a lot of my own timber using the kit available to me. I am not a miller and nor do I have near as much knowledge on the subject as many of the guys on this forum but I do know woodworking machinery and the processes involved

 

I certainly do not "correlate smaller available cut-size with non-professionalism", that would be a little naive on my part. I have many saws, both circular and band, of many different sizes and they all perform different tasks. A machine intended to break down timber needs to have a decent depth of cut to make the initial cost viable. As I said there are other machines that do the same task with more capacity for over half the money.

 

To only be able to handle small logs and have limitations on the size of usable timber means the machine has huge limitations that will put a lot of people off..... a 10" log is nothing in the world of timber processing. Surely you can adjust the design to allow for a bigger blade? or adjust the gaurds and clamps to allow double cutting (cut from top and bottom) thus doubling timber capacity?

 

I'm still not convinced that bringing they timber back passed the blade is a good idea but take your word if you say it is safe. You do say a lot of accidents occur when the timber snags and draws back through the blade. Regardless of which direction you are pushing or pulling the timber this can happen and will eventually. Again I'm not digging at you or your product, just from my own experience of many many years, these things can and will happen and when circular saws spit wood out there is no telling where it will go. I would never bring timber back passed the blade.

 

Speed wise ok, maybe 3 times faster was a bit of an over estimation and exaggeration but I reckon twice as fast and just as safe. As I said anyone using a machine who has adequate training is safe in it's use. Someone using a big ripsaw with no training would not be safe but that was not my point.... I was saying from a professional point of view it would not suit my needs as it would be too slow. Let me know log length and I'll find one and let you know how quick I can process it into 1" planks.

 

I know it is UK produced and you are therefore competing with cheap Chinese manufacturing but that is the world today and you need to compete. For the price I would expect the machine to do more. As I said a larger capacity with more depth of cut and able to handle bigger logs would be a great advancement. Offer add ons to allow it to perform more functions like a cross cut sled with mitre stops. Or a attachment to the spindle to allow for horizontal morticing (great for fencing etc.)....... Just make it more useful with more functions to justify the price.

 

I've no doubt the quality and craftsmanship is top notch, after all you are British but people see the price first.

 

I feel like I'm being negative but truly I am trying to help from with my thoughts, from my area of expertise.

 

I wish you all the luck with it all mate.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Stompy

[john the saw]

Thanks for the well considered reply John.

 

Please don't get me wrong I am not sniping at you or your product in any way, I was and am trying to offer some of my views and thoughts. I am a cabinet maker but do process a lot of my own timber using the kit available to me. I am not a miller and nor do I have near as much knowledge on the subject as many of the guys on this forum but I do know woodworking machinery and the processes involved

 

I certainly do not "correlate smaller available cut-size with non-professionalism", that would be a little naive on my part. I have many saws, both circular and band, of many different sizes and they all perform different tasks. A machine intended to break down timber needs to have a decent depth of cut to make the initial cost viable. As I said there are other machines that do the same task with more capacity for over half the money.

 

To only be able to handle small logs and have limitations on the size of usable timber means the machine has huge limitations that will put a lot of people off..... a 10" log is nothing in the world of timber processing. Surely you can adjust the design to allow for a bigger blade? or adjust the gaurds and clamps to allow double cutting (cut from top and bottom) thus doubling timber capacity?

 

I'm still not convinced that bringing they timber back passed the blade is a good idea but take your word if you say it is safe. You do say a lot of accidents occur when the timber snags and draws back through the blade. Regardless of which direction you are pushing or pulling the timber this can happen and will eventually. Again I'm not digging at you or your product, just from my own experience of many many years, these things can and will happen and when circular saws spit wood out there is no telling where it will go. I would never bring timber back passed the blade.

 

Speed wise ok, maybe 3 times faster was a bit of an over estimation and exaggeration but I reckon twice as fast and just as safe. As I said anyone using a machine who has adequate training is safe in it's use. Someone using a big ripsaw with no training would not be safe but that was not my point.... I was saying from a professional point of view it would not suit my needs as it would be too slow. Let me know log length and I'll find one and let you know how quick I can process it into 1" planks.

 

I know it is UK produced and you are therefore competing with cheap Chinese manufacturing but that is the world today and you need to compete. For the price I would expect the machine to do more. As I said a larger capacity with more depth of cut and able to handle bigger logs would be a great advancement. Offer add ons to allow it to perform more functions like a cross cut sled with mitre stops. Or a attachment to the spindle to allow for horizontal morticing (great for fencing etc.)....... Just make it more useful with more functions to justify the price.

 

I've no doubt the quality and craftsmanship is top notch, after all you are British but people see the price first.

 

I feel like I'm being negative but truly I am trying to help from with my thoughts, from my area of expertise.

 

I wish you all the luck with it all mate.

Hi stompey,

I really appreciate you taking the time to give me your comments and opinions.

I've already made some points regarding depth of cut relative to handling difficulties and expense on additional equipment required. There are excellent machines available with greater cutting depth capability if that is what someone requires. I take your point but disagree that there is anything out there with the capabilities of our machine for half the price and you need to take everything into account when making a comparison. For example, you could buy a carriage and strap on a chainsaw which would get you planking for around £1000. Clearly this would not be as safe or accurate, you would spend the day with blue smoke in your face and hours sharpening chains and mixing up 2 stroke. A couple of Polish guys clubbed together and they reckon our machine paid for itself within a fortnight. They were in a remote location with a difficult 3 hour round trip to their lumber suppliers. Their land is smothered with 6 - 8" diameter 60 foot pines which they now mill, use and sell. They don't need a larger depth-of-cut capacity nor any other equipment other than their felling chainsaw. A carpenter specialising in boat fit-out told us that our machine was the first of it's type that he has used where he hasn't needed to plane the timber down afterwards due to the cleanliness of cut and accuracy. He said that he makes a lot of money making beech deck straking alone. I don't think that it is fair to compare 2nd hand machinery prices with new, modern equipment - you would not have been able to buy that lovely Wadkins new for half the price of our machine.

Your comments on what you seem to consider to be simple design modifications to increase the depth of cut, really had me spluttering on my coffee. You would not believe the amount of regulations that we have to take into account for compliance with the Machinery Directive alone, besides all of the things that we have to take into account to ensure safe and optimal operation. To give you an idea i will give you some information on just the blade. Peripheral (rim) speed is critical and can neither be too fast or too slow. The ideal speed is somewhat tricky to determine in view of use variables such as hard or soft wood, wet or dry etc etc but a good compromise is 70 metres per second. The 15HP engine sweet-spot is 3000 rpm and we gear-down 1:1.6 via the drive system to give us a shaft speed of 1875 rpm which gives our 710mm diameter blade a peripheral speed of 69.7 m/s. We worked to university laboratory reports regarding blade speeds because maximum speeds (marked by law on the blade by the manufacturers) are very misleading and we are in touch with the relevant government departments trying to get the criteria changed. The manufacturers quoted maximum speed is the speed at which they consider the blade would fail e.g. TCT teeth brazing etc and is usually 2 or 3 times in excess of the CRT (critical rotational speed i.e. the point at which the blade becomes unstable) which is itself well in excess of the ORS (optimum rotational speed) i.e. the speed at which the blade performs best. Our blade is to our own exclusive design as we also wanted to optimise metal composition, number of teeth, depth of gullets, tooth rake angle, tooth bevel orientation, kerf, body width etc etc. I could go on but i want to get onto our challenge.

As you know from our videos, our machine does more than just produce planks but we are happy to test your claim on this operation alone. We milled a 2.4 metre 10" oak out of the round into 1" thick, square-edged planks in 15 minutes. Now that you have revised your claim from 3 times as fast to twice as fast, this gives you seven and a half minutes - best of luck and let me know how you get on. Incidentally, we were not going for any kind of record and just worked at normal speed. One final thing is that our machine produces a maximum vernier-measured accuracy discrepancy of under 1.0 mm down the length and we would be interested in the comparison. Just to be clear, this doesn't mean that one end is 1.0mm bigger or smaller than the other, but that no measurement taken at any point down the length is plus or minus 1.0mm.

If you used our machine, i am sure that you would be comfortable drawing the wood back as shown in our videos. If not then 3 footsteps allows you to offload the wood from the rear of our machine if you prefer. It is the manufactured accuracy of our machine that allows you to bring the wood back whereas this can be a problem on other equipment as you say.

Finally, we are working on all sorts of add-on equipment to increase the number of possible operations including those that you suggest.

Thanks again my friend and i look forward to hearing from you regarding the seven and a half minute challenge.

Best wishes

john - silverclaw

[se7enthdevil]

they've lowered the price, boy i wish i had 3 phase.

 

 

Large Industrial 32" Robinson EBT Circular Rip Table Saw Bench DC Brake 415v | eBay