Porcelain Tile Blade Suggestions

[Mark Smith]

Bryce,
The t3 blade is .050" wide. If you started using the blue and black blade your thickness just went up to .085" hence the slower/ milling blade effect.

[szw21]

The Zoom porcelain has a thicker core and thicker segments than the T3, and even our own red Terminator tile blade. The Zoom is a solid core (non silent) and designed to handle granite, porcelain tile, recycled glass slabs, and not wander on the stone. We have our red tile blade that is made just like the T3 which is a continuous blade and laser welded with laser relief cuts in the body. The Zoom Porcelain has segments that are hand welded and hence the slight variations you see in the appearance, but is always side and top dressed and then we paint it. I hope the testing goes well. Keep us posted.

Thanks for the explanation about the blade. I will keep this thread updated with the testing.

[szw21]

Okay so I finally have got to the floor part of the project so I made the first two cuts with the two different blades in order to do the comparison.

The tiles being cut are 16X16 tiles (Dome series) from Arizona tile (manufactured by Cerindustries SpA- Italy). The tiles are either Dome Noche or Dome Walnut - cannot recall exactly.

Tiles are being cut on an MK-101 tile saw.

Install - T3 installed without any issues. The Zoom was a bit tricky to install. With the guard raised the edge of the blade kept hitting the back of the guard. After messing with it a bit and rocking it back and forth I finally got it on the saw. When I remove the blade I will measure the diameters of both but I suspect the Zoom has a slightly larger diameter leading to this.



Cutting performance.

Straightness of cut. Both blades performed well and I was not able to detect any bowing or wonder on the cut when checked against a straightedge.

Chipping - The Zoom chipped more than the T3. I was expecting that since the Zoom is more of a segmented blade than the T3.

Ease of Cut - Surprisingly the T3 came out ahead of the Zoom on this - I was expecting the opposite. I had to use more force to push the tile through the saw with the Zoom compared to the T3.

I'm attaching photos of the cut edges of the tile with the T3 and Zoom. It is hard to get a closeup shot in macro mode without the flash overpowering the photo. Unfortunately I don't own a macro flash. Hopefully the photos are clear enough.

Zoom



T3



Both seem like decent blades but from the first test I would say the T3 has the edge.

I will repeat the test again to see if the results are consistent.

[Matt Lansing]

Nice write up Ravin!

I'm not sure if your project will be large enough to get into checking the wear on the blade or how well the diamonds will stay open on either but those are also traits that will be important to a purchaser of either blade.

Thanks again!

[kevinp]

Matt, That's the reason we switched to T3's, they kept cutting good until there's nothing left.

[szw21]

Matt - unfortunately blade life will not probably be measurable on this since the job (actually two jobs - second one later this year) is bathroom floors so it's not a large area. I did have a lot of cutting for the shower part of the project but since that was travertine I was using an Alpha Libero blade which I have to say has turned out to be a very good blade. I have done a lot of cutting for the shower with that - for example cutting the inlay tiles out of the big tiles and also cutting the small floor tiles out of the big tiles also and it's still going and may even last the second project. Good quality cuts too with minimal chipping.

I would recommend that blade for travertine work.

[Mark Smith]

Bryce,
The t3 blade is .050" wide. If you started using the blue and black blade your thickness just went up to .085" hence the slower/ milling blade effect.

Ravin,
In response to your ease of cut findings. .050" vs. .085".

[MRDIAMONDTOOL]

Actually .50 vs .085 may or may not be the determining factor for chipping. The diamond size grit, quality of the diamond and the concentration of diamond as well as the bond all need to be taken into consideration; i.e. when cutting glass the grit of diamond must be very fine, perhaps 150/200 grit size to reduce the risk of chipping. As far as then "milling" effect; the same factors above may apply as diamond blades actually grind and do not cut which is normally presumed.

One other thing not commonly know while we are on the subject; sometimes having too much diamond concentration in segments/rims can actually make a blade cut slower. Other factors always prevalent with diamond tools are RPM, amount of water (sometimes too much is worse) and horsepower. I know diamond tools appear to have a mind of their own......

[Mark Smith]

I never implied it had anything to do with chipping but rather "ease of cut".

[szw21]

I'm also not clear why the thicker blade should automatically imply a slower cut. Assuming a similar concentration of diamonds on the front of the blade I would assume the wider surface would be abraded at the same rate as the narrower one. I can see it being an issue if the motor was getting bogged down but that's not the case here.

[Ken Lago]

Ravin I assume its because the thicker blade needs to remove more stone to make the cut.

[szw21]

Ken - yes there is more stone to be removed but the thicker blade should/will have more diamonds to take care of that. In general I think JC Collins is correct - there are many factors which could result in this such as diamond density, bond type etc rather than just attributing to a single factor such as blade thickness.

[Dan R.]

JC does a a little experience in this field.

[MRDIAMONDTOOL]

Mark -

I first addressed the chipping factor of the blade and then at the end of the paragraph I spoke of the milling effect. I was Not attacking your comment, it was good. I don't have a vast amount of knowledge (but some) about sinks, chemicals and other areas in Stone fabrication; but with my experience of being in Product Management for a diamond tool manufacturing company for 20+ years (15 in Stone Tool specific) but do with most diamond tools and wanted to just pass some general knowledge amongst the group. There are many different theories and assumptions about the how's and why's of diamond tools i.e. segmented, continuous, lazer cut, soft bond, hard bond and the likes but too much to discuss here. However in the past I have given several seminars (with MIA) at Stonexpo - Coverings and the likes.

Anyone can feel to contact me for if they want for an opinion.

Have a great day and may the stone Gods be with you.

[Mark Smith]

No worries JC!

[Camzl1]

Ravin, thanks for the update. The photos do show a difference of the T3 being less chippy. One of the differences of a thin close segment blade as previously mentioned is that being hand welded it acts just like a bridge sawblade and needs to be opened up like one, unlike the T3 that is laser welded from a continuous one piece segment. Meaning once the cutting area and sides tru up the chippiness will get better. The only way to do this is to run it. It's my fault I didn't find out more info of your testing project as Terminator makes our very own continuous rim porcelain blade just for porcelain tile, but here is where the zoom really shines. It will cut tile, granite, onyx, recycled glass, and precious quartzite materials cleanly and not walk on these difficult materials throughout the life of the blade. Unlike a continuous rim blade it is a one blade solution for all of the difficult materials. If you want to see for yourself keep running it and let me know if you don't see the difference.

[Nick]

Can we have a non company biased blade thread started someplace? I love learning the small details that most fabricators(me especially) probably think they know a lot about, but there is so much to learn. I find it fascinating and would like to know more.

Edit-great job Ravin! Good thread

[Dan R.]

Non company biased information. From who, the diamond fairy?

[szw21]

Well you will be getting an unbiased review from me - no on has attempted to "influence" my review yet

Okay so it seems like now have even more blades to review. Mark Hilbrand of Diamax stopped off today and dropped 3 of their Cyclone blades for review.

I did an initial visual inspection of the three blades and found no obvious visual defects.

The 0206 is a continuous rim blade for cutting Porcelain, Marble and Granite tile according to the packaging.



The DMX0626 is a segmented blade with a thicker inner core. It looks very similar to the T3. Again the packaging states it is designed for cutting Porcelain, Marble and Granite.



The DMX1004 has a smaller but thicker inner core compared to the DMX0626 as well as the T3. Ideally I would liked to have measured the thickness but the jaws of my digital calipers do not reach that far. The blade is described as a porcelain turbo blade. The diamonds form an interesting mesh pattern. it is hard to describe to I'm attaching a close up.





The first two blades measure 9-13/16" in diameter and the last one aboout 9-7/8". The thicker inner core on the 0626 roughly measures 7-1/2" and on the 1004 about 4"

I will be testing these blades against the other two as well as each other and post the results. I should probably get more scientific with the "ease of cut" parameter, maybe a force gauge and a stopwatch would work well. Need to think about it.

[szw21]

Ravin, thanks for the update. The photos do show a difference of the T3 being less chippy. One of the differences of a thin close segment blade as previously mentioned is that being hand welded it acts just like a bridge sawblade and needs to be opened up like one, unlike the T3 that is laser welded from a continuous one piece segment. Meaning once the cutting area and sides tru up the chippiness will get better. The only way to do this is to run it. It's my fault I didn't find out more info of your testing project as Terminator makes our very own continuous rim porcelain blade just for porcelain tile, but here is where the zoom really shines. It will cut tile, granite, onyx, recycled glass, and precious quartzite materials cleanly and not walk on these difficult materials throughout the life of the blade. Unlike a continuous rim blade it is a one blade solution for all of the difficult materials. If you want to see for yourself keep running it and let me know if you don't see the difference.

Eric thanks for the clarifications. Sorry for the confusion although the title and the first post should have indicated I was after the best blade for Porcelain specifically. I can continue cutting with the Zoom and see if things get better. Minor chipping is not an issue for me on many of the cuts as the edges will be hidden by trim.

You can also consider sending you porcelain only blade for the test if you feel it will provide a better comparison against the blades being tested.

[Camzl1]

Thanks again Ravin. I think you will be happy with the zoom porcelain and it looks like you already have a lot of testing to do. As a tester myself I know how difficult it can be and take away from work so we appreciate your honest input and ultimately want you to be happy. If you decide to do a porcelain blade shootout with just porcelain tiles then let us know as I we will get the zoom porcelain back and send you the red terminator continuous rim blade. If you are going to do a shootout and throw every type of material, looking for clean cuts and ease of cutting, then keep and use it until you decide on what to do with it, as ultimately you are the judge and the jury and only I can offer suggestions at this point. Take Care and good luck.

[Mark Smith]

JC, you have me beat with your 20 years by 4 years

Just to clarify some misinformation on the t3. The t3 is "sintered" as one unit in a furnace not laser welded. The black/ blue blade is "silver soldered" manually hence the segments not perfectly centered on the landings.

Nick, some added info for you since you are interested. That segment on the blue/ black blade can't be laser welded because it is too soft. It has to be silver soldered. As JC said a lot has to do with diamond grit, concentration and bonds. Especially when it comes to how a segment is attached to a blade core. An unbiased thread is a good idea as well.

[Matt Lansing]

Love it!

I should probably get more scientific with the "ease of cut" parameter, maybe a force gauge and a stopwatch would work well.

I would expect nothing less from you Ravin.

[Camzl1]

Thanks for the clarification Mark on the T3 then it is made pretty much like a turbo blade in a furnace and one piece. Good Post.

[szw21]

Sadly I have not been able to locate a cheap strain/force gauge and so for now it's still the unscientific method for the ease of cut parameter

Wanted to update the thread with more testing results.

I also got a Diamax 5" porcelain turbo blade to test. This blade is very similar to the red 10" blade in the photo with a similar patterned cutting edge. I used that blade for making cutouts in the floor tile for going around the door frames.

I can recommend this blade based on what I saw. It cuts the tile easily and virtually no chipping. Good for making any cutouts for plumbing fixtures etc. I ran the blade dry but of course it can also be run wet as it is a wet/dry blade.

I also ran the 10" red Diamax blade. It had comparable chipping to the Zoom (not as good as the T3) but it did cut easily which is what I would have expected from a turbo blade. Based on what I saw it probably would be best used for quick cutting where chipping would not be a major factor (which as when being covered by trim). For some reason I saw less chipping on the 5" blade than the 10" blade. The 5" blade yielded very clean cuts.

When I dismounted the Zoom I measured the blade diameter and found it to be greater than 10" - about 10-1/8" Since all the other blades are under 10" this would probably explain why installing and removing the blade on the saw was a bit of a challenge. I wanted to feed this info back to Eric in the event that Terminator decides to redesign this blade to take into account this issue.