My opinion is that the test is a valuable datapoint. While a significant effort was made to reduce confounding variables?by the use of a sanding machine (more on this in a moment) to control for pressure and time, a limitation of the test results was that they can really only be applicable for?one type of wood. The effect on different hardness ?of wood types, as well as grain orientation, might deliver different results.
Further, the test results focus on only one element of sanding, which is amount of waste. This is similar to video of woodworkers taking gorgeous, gossamer shavings with a handplane, which are then held up for ¡°proof¡± of the performance of the plane or blade. The real test is the quality of the surface on the wood which is left behind in association with the stated grit along with the time to do this and the distance the paper can go.?This kind of result requires a prodigious amount of experimentation and experimentation time. Consequently, what we have here is a partial data point for the wood involved.
The other interesting factor for me was the way the machine moved. The pattern is familiar to me as I use this, having learned to do so from car detailers using polishing machines on the bodies of cars to buff paint. The ¡°criss cross¡± pattern ensures even coverage. I do wonder how many woodworkers who sand regularly do this as well.
I should point out that, while I have been sanding wood for 40 years, my go-to is a handplane (better surface and more efficient). I do have sanders from both Festool and Mirka, and my preferred paper is Mirka Abranet. What I like about Abranet is that the mesh permits maximum dust extraction, and that this reduces dust scratches, and so improves both efficiency and surface quality.?
Regards from Perth
Derek
