/* php CFW-239 */ ?>
seamusday: Biesemeyer used to catalog a splitter for your saw. Not sure they still do after being acquired by Delta. But check on eBay, they sometimes show up there.
CaptainSkinnyBeard: The RAS isn't dangerous when ripping if set up correctly, But 99.99% of users set them up wrong, because almost all manuals tell them to do it wrong. Two things need to change:
First, you have to realize that the table on a RAS is sacrificial. Once you realize that you bury the blade in the table as deep as you can, and still pass the stock under the motor. There is very little potential for kickback, because the part of the blade that can generate kick back can't get to the wood.
Second, the feed direction should be so that the blade is pushing the wood down onto the table on the leading edge, just like on a crosscut. All the manuals show it the other way. Which can and frequently does cause kickback.
Onto the table saw: Raise the blade as high as it will go when ripping. I'm not sure where the notion that adjusting the blade height to just clear the wood became prevalent. My guess is someone who doesn’t understand physics, wrote it in a book before WW-I, and it became gospel with no real thought to the physics. With the blade as high as you can get it, the force at the front where the wood is feeding into the blade is mostly down into the table, there is very little pushing back against the cut. At the back, the wood could theoretically be raised by the blade and get to the top where it could kickback. But, since the kerf is already cut there isn't much working to generate the force required. Also, with a fixed splitter, (not a riving knife), the distance to the splitter from the back of the blade is minimized. Thus it is harder for the wood to hit the back of the blade and get lifted if it does pinch or rotate. On my Delta, with a Biesemeyer splitter installed, the distance from the back of the blade to the splitter at full blade height is about 5/16-inch. With the blade at 1-inch height, there is over an inch between the splitter and the back of the blade.
The only time I've come close to kickback on a table saw was ripping a 2X10 that had been bought "green", and stored in my unconditioned shop in Las Vegas, where the humidity was in the single digits, and the temperatures in the 140-degree range. The wood had rapidly dropped from above 30% moisture to less than 8%, and become case hardened and reactionary. It tried to close down on the blade, and the splitter stopped it. But the surface of the wood on both sides of the kerf had burn marks from where it was barely touching the blade.
So, just give it to me already.
I think it is as safe as most other methods.
I'm not sure why people think this could cause kickback.
Think this through folks: In order for something to kick back the blade has to catch something and propel it forward. With this method, how much, of what, can the blade catch, and how far can it push it? There is minimal potential for kickback.
Personally, I don't make the shoulder cut first. Just start nibbling. The only place I can think of where there is a potential to bind the piece against the blade is when making the shoulder cut with the piece trapped against the fence.
The wrong entity was sued. The guy was using a saw provided by his employer. Employers are responsible for their safety decisions.
The employer made the decsion, to select a saw that had a less than ideal safety system. And, the employers is ultimatley responsible for the decision.
Ryobi's guards, while not state of the art, were upto industry standards.
I'm not sure how, Ryobi even got drug into this suit.
And, there currently isn't a single jobsite/portable saw, that does have the "flesh sensing" brake. And due to cost concerns, there probably won't be one anytime soon.
I have one of the Large format tablets, (notebook with a swiveling screen), which I thought about using in the shop but didn't because of worries about the dust. And, I'm still thinking about building an environmental case for my old computer.
I just don't see any great advantage to the smaller devices in the shop. The primary purpose I would have, the ability to zoom in to drawings for greater detail, would be severely limited by the small screen.
And, if I am relaxing with a book of magazine article; I find the recliner in my den far more comfortable than any piece of furniture in the shop. Particularly since the only furniture in the shop, is a drafting stool.
Nearly all furniture design is derivative in nature. The only exception being those design elements made possible by, new materials, and methods of production.
The work of the Eames was truly original. But, only because the advent of plywood, and the mechanisms required to produce the thin sliced wood it required, coupled with modern adhesives, and pressure forming equipment, made ti possible for them to work in a new medium.
So long as we work with solid woods, and join it together, we can't do anything that isn't derivative of those who went before us.
Like 6-string, I like and own quite a bit of americanized "Danish Modern". Most of mine is from Lane's Acclaim line made from 1959 to the mid sixties. I started buying it in the late seventies when I moved out of my folk's house and could find it in thrift stores for less then I could by plywood, and cinder blocks to make a book case. A twenty dollar dining room hutch with the glass sliders, and doors pulled off has served me well for thirty years now. The contrast of oak and walnut, influences much of what I build myself. To read a bit on the Acclaim line, try this link: http://www.jetsetmodern.com/lane.htm My ex hated the stuff until the kids started toddling, and then she realized that those rounded corners and edges, were as kid friendly as any hard furniture could be.
The other "Danish Modern" lines I have are: chairs designed by Ib Kofod Larsen for Stellig, and imported in about the same time frame; and, a wall full of shelves and cabinets designed by Poul Cadovius, for Royal Systems, in the early fifties.
While I like, and have built a few other styles for others, my personal favorite is Danish Modern. It is the clean simple lines, exposed woods, and simple ornamentation, that make all of these works attractive to me, (and more satisfying for me to build). I think that this simplicity, and unadorned use of woods, that makes Danish Modern a definitive part of our "modern" culture. And, what will keep it a dynamic part of furniture into this century.
Subscribe now and save up to 56%
© 2017 The Taunton Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Become a member and get instant access to thousands of videos, how-tos, tool reviews, and design features.
Start your subscription today and save up to 56%