about buying a sander to refinish a good sized dresser and the consensus was
a Porter Cable random-orbit sander. There are two models that I am looking
at, the 333 and 334. There are two differences, one is hook and loop and the
other is adhesive backed and the hook and loop is $10.00 cheaper at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=tools&field-keywor
ds=porter%20cable%20quicksand&field-browse=228013&search-type=ss&bq=1&store-
name=hi/ref=xs_ap_l_xgl60/102-0246416-6451371.
How would I go about weighing the differences between hook and loop and
adhesive backing? Just to make sure, the dresser measures 72"W/24"D/36"H,
will one of these sanders be sufficient for this project? Any other advice
would help. Thanks in advance.
xyz789 wrote:
> about buying a sander to refinish a good sized dresser and the consensus was
> a Porter Cable random-orbit sander. There are two models that I am looking
> at, the 333 and 334. There are two differences, one is hook and loop and the
> other is adhesive backed and the hook and loop is $10.00 cheaper at
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=tools&field-keywor
> ds=porter%20cable%20quicksand&field-browse=228013&search-type=ss&bq=1&store-
> name=hi/ref=xs_ap_l_xgl60/102-0246416-6451371.
After comparing the cost of the sanding disks in the long run the cost of the
sander in minor. With the PSA disks being quite a bit less expensive (and the
cost of replacing the hook and loop pad when too much pressure is applied and
the loops melt) I opted to purchase two sanders both using the PSA disks. I use
one for 120 grit and one with 180 grit. Finer grit sanding is done with a
in-line finishing sander.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
Thanks everybody!
"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> xyz789 wrote:
>
> > about buying a sander to refinish a good sized dresser and the consensus
was
> > a Porter Cable random-orbit sander. There are two models that I am
looking
> > at, the 333 and 334. There are two differences, one is hook and loop and
the
> > other is adhesive backed and the hook and loop is $10.00 cheaper at
> >
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=tools&field-keywor
> >
ds=porter%20cable%20quicksand&field-browse=228013&search-type=ss&bq=1&store-
> > name=hi/ref=xs_ap_l_xgl60/102-0246416-6451371.
>
> After comparing the cost of the sanding disks in the long run the cost of
the
> sander in minor. With the PSA disks being quite a bit less expensive (and
the
> cost of replacing the hook and loop pad when too much pressure is applied
and
> the loops melt) I opted to purchase two sanders both using the PSA disks.
I use
> one for 120 grit and one with 180 grit. Finer grit sanding is done with a
> in-line finishing sander.
>
> --
> Jack Novak
> Buffalo, NY - USA
> (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
>
>
>
Sorry but the link is not working correctly.
"xyz789" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c%[email protected]...
> about buying a sander to refinish a good sized dresser and the consensus
was
> a Porter Cable random-orbit sander. There are two models that I am looking
> at, the 333 and 334. There are two differences, one is hook and loop and
the
> other is adhesive backed and the hook and loop is $10.00 cheaper at
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=tools&field-keywor
>
ds=porter%20cable%20quicksand&field-browse=228013&search-type=ss&bq=1&store-
> name=hi/ref=xs_ap_l_xgl60/102-0246416-6451371.
>
> How would I go about weighing the differences between hook and loop and
> adhesive backing? Just to make sure, the dresser measures 72"W/24"D/36"H,
> will one of these sanders be sufficient for this project? Any other advice
> would help. Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:44:04 +0000, xyz789 wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> other is adhesive backed and the hook and loop is $10.00 cheaper at
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=tools&field-keywor
>> ds=porter%20cable%20quicksand&field-browse=228013&search-type=ss&bq=1&store-
>> name=hi/ref=xs_ap_l_xgl60/102-0246416-6451371.
> Sorry but the link is not working correctly.
Yeah, that's one of the worst cases of link-wrap that I've seen in a
while. Try this:
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index%3Dtools%26field-keywords%3Dporter%20cable%20quicksand%26field-browse%3D228013%26search-type%3Dss%26bq%3D1%26store-name%3Dhi/ref%3Dxs%5Fap%5Fl%5Fxgl60/102-6617504-2983353>
or this:
http://tinyurl.com/3ydk7
--
Joe Wells
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 01:08:38 +0000, xyz789 wrote:
> Not to get off the subject but how did you do that and what did I do
> wrong? Thanks again.
Neither you, nor the person who posted the long URL did anything wrong.
What happened was that your newsreader automatically wrapped it on to
multiple lines. Mine did too, so I just took the fragments, stitched them
back together, tested it to make sure it worked, and reposted it. Many
newsreaders will not wrap text located between <> symbols, so I inserted
the URL between a pair. As for the other, shorter URL, you can check that
out at http://tinyurl.com.
--
Joe Wells
Not to get off the subject but how did you do that and what did I do wrong?
Thanks again.
"Joe Wells" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:44:04 +0000, xyz789 wrote:
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >> other is adhesive backed and the hook and loop is $10.00 cheaper at
> >>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=tools&field-keywor
> >>
ds=porter%20cable%20quicksand&field-browse=228013&search-type=ss&bq=1&store-
> >> name=hi/ref=xs_ap_l_xgl60/102-0246416-6451371.
>
> > Sorry but the link is not working correctly.
>
> Yeah, that's one of the worst cases of link-wrap that I've seen in a
> while. Try this:
>
>
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index%3Dtools%26field-k
eywords%3Dporter%20cable%20quicksand%26field-browse%3D228013%26search-type%3
Dss%26bq%3D1%26store-name%3Dhi/ref%3Dxs%5Fap%5Fl%5Fxgl60/102-6617504-2983353
>
>
> or this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3ydk7
>
> --
> Joe Wells
>
>
The hook and loop is a good choice if you will be changing grits often
before wearing out a piece of paper as you can reapply and reuse this type
of sand paper. PSA or pressure sensitive adhesive, "adhesive backing",
paper is more economical and if you use mostly the same grit and or wear
out the paper before removing it, is probably the better choice. It sticks
once.
I use an aggressive PC right angle ROS with 120 grit paper all the time and
use a PC SpeedBloc finish sander with 180 grit almost all the time. I use
PSA paper with both sanders.
I personally believe that you may get better results using a GOOD finishing
sander like the PC SpeedBloc vs. a ROS on this particular application as
your surface is already smooth enough. A ROS sander is a good all around
sander but has difficulty in areas that finish sanders excel at. A ROS does
not get in to tight spots and or corners. Most any finish sander will take
you there. Also many factory or production built furniture pieces have
veneers that can be thin. If care is not taken and because a ROS can be
aggressive it can sand through that veneer quite easily and quickly.
x
yz789" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c%[email protected]...
> about buying a sander to refinish a good sized dresser and the consensus
was
> a Porter Cable random-orbit sander. There are two models that I am looking
> at, the 333 and 334. There are two differences, one is hook and loop and
the
> other is adhesive backed and the hook and loop is $10.00 cheaper at
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=tools&field-keywor
>
ds=porter%20cable%20quicksand&field-browse=228013&search-type=ss&bq=1&store-
> name=hi/ref=xs_ap_l_xgl60/102-0246416-6451371.
>
> How would I go about weighing the differences between hook and loop and
> adhesive backing? Just to make sure, the dresser measures 72"W/24"D/36"H,
> will one of these sanders be sufficient for this project? Any other advice
> would help. Thanks in advance.
>
>