Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that someone had decided
(all safety concerns duly noted) that they were never, ever going to
use the blade guard/splitter assembly that came with their table saw.
Wouldn't it be possible to take the splitter, and with a little
creative work with an angle grinder, reduce it to something resembling
a riving knife?
Of course this would depend upon the mounting setup of the particular
saw, but so long as the front part of the splitter mounted securely to
the saw, this should work, right?
In article
<[email protected]>,
SonomaProducts.com <[email protected]> wrote:
> Haven't seen the RCH reference in a hundred years. Brings back sweet
> memories. I wonder if the kids use that contraction on their IM chats?
Actually, back in my teaching days, I used to teach measurement
increments down to the LRCH level :-)
Joe
aka 10x
> Depends on how you define "work". One key difference is that a true riving
> knife moves up and down as the blade is raised and lowered, whereas a splitter
> does not -- and hence your intended faux-riving knife won't either. In other
> words, you'll still have to remove it to cut grooves, dados, or rabbets.
>
> And you'll have no blade guard, unless you buy (or build) an over-arm guard of
> some sort.
>
> Seems to me that your plan combines the disadvantages of both setups, with few
> (if any) of the advantages of either.
Yeah, I suppose that's true - I was looking at this as a slightly
better option than nothing at all. Most blade guard/splitters on new
saws are such crap that they are not worth using (yes, that's
debatable, and I wasn't looking to start that discussion...) Maybe I'd
be better to phrase this as taking a splitter that would otherwise
never get used, and reducing it to something smaller/more elegant that
would still serve to prevent a workpiece from pinching behind the
blade. A better, although not free, implementation of this would be
one of the table inserts that has a small splitter.
Lately, I've been seeing a bunch of saws that have a 'riving knife',
but one that does not move up/down along with the blade. From what
I've read, new model saws are going to be required to have a riving
knife in order to get UL listing. I wonder if the fixed position
knives are an inexpensive way to comply with the new UL regulation.
On Mar 19, 6:16=A0am, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that someone had decided
> (all safety concerns duly noted) that they were never, ever going to
> use the blade guard/splitter assembly that came with their table saw.
> Wouldn't it be possible to take the splitter, and with a little
> creative work with an angle grinder, reduce it to something resembling
> a riving knife?
>
> Of course this would depend upon the mounting setup of the particular
> saw, but so long as the front part of the splitter mounted securely to
> the saw, this should work, right?
Hey Mike,
It would work as a splitter only but not as a riving knife. I had a
similar discussion with two woodworkers at a local hardwood dealer and
we concluded that the importance of the riving knife is that it keeps
the same distance from the blade regardless of blade height and it not
protrude above the height of the blade. (The latter is for
convenience and not for anti-kickback reasons.) Like most table saws,
the splitter is only close to the blade when the blade is highest.
I'm not familiar with most riving knife saws but the one's I've seen
mount the knife on the trunion/arbor mount/ height adjustment doo-
hickey (fill in the proper term) so the knife moves with the blade.
Marc
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:24:10 GMT, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Len" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>Not trying to hijack the thread but... Just got a subscription
>to Wood magazine given to me by a friend. Reading this months
>Q&A at the back, Wood magazine did a quick check of their
>equipment and *none* of their machines were UL approved. Two
>thirds of ther equipment had *no* certification.
>
>This question came about because a woodworker in NC had an
>electrician add a circuit for an air cleaner and the inspector
>would not let him install the device because of a lack of UL
>cert.
Just as a nit picking point of interest, UL does not "approve." The
laboratory was instituted by a consortium of insurers to test products
for which they would accept liablilty to ensure they had a certain
level of safety. Thus "Underwriters" and "Laboratories."
They test products to verify that they meet a certain standard of
insulation or other safety concerns and publish those meeting the
appropriate standards on a list. Hence, the proper phrase is "UL
Listed."
Back to lurking.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
Haven't seen the RCH reference in a hundred years. Brings back sweet
memories. I wonder if the kids use that contraction on their IM chats?
On Mar 19, 7:49=A0am, Steve Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> >> Depends on how you define "work". One key difference is that a true ri=
ving
> >> knife moves up and down as the blade is raised and lowered, whereas a =
splitter
> >> does not -- and hence your intended faux-riving knife won't either. In=
other
> >> words, you'll still have to remove it to cut grooves, dados, or rabbet=
s.
>
> >> And you'll have no blade guard, unless you buy (or build) an over-arm =
guard of
> >> some sort.
>
> >> Seems to me that your plan combines the disadvantages of both setups, =
with few
> >> (if any) of the advantages of either.
>
> > Yeah, I suppose that's true - I was looking at this as a slightly
> > better option than nothing at all. Most blade guard/splitters on new
> > saws are such crap that they are not worth using (yes, that's
> > debatable, and I wasn't looking to start that discussion...) Maybe I'd
> > be better to phrase this as taking a splitter that would otherwise
> > never get used, and reducing it to something smaller/more elegant that
> > would still serve to prevent a workpiece from pinching behind the
> > blade. A better, although not free, implementation of this would be
> > one of the table inserts that has a small splitter.
>
> > Lately, I've been seeing a bunch of saws that have a 'riving knife',
> > but one that does not move up/down along with the blade. From what
> > I've read, new model saws are going to be required to have a riving
> > knife in order to get UL listing. I wonder if the fixed position
> > knives are an inexpensive way to comply with the new UL regulation.
>
> What kind of saw do you have? =A0Most of the stock "splitters" I've seen
> are made of metal that's much thinner than the blade, and that doesn't
> really do a hell of a lot to prevent binding when the wood is coming
> back together behind the cut. =A0A good splitter or riving knife really
> needs to be a RCH shy of the actual blade thickness to be safe and
> effective.
>
> --
> Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
> sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
> To reply, eat the taco.http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/- Hide quote=
d text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>
> Not trying to hijack the thread but... Just got a subscription
> to Wood magazine given to me by a friend. Reading this months
> Q&A at the back, Wood magazine did a quick check of their
> equipment and *none* of their machines were UL approved. Two
> thirds of ther equipment had *no* certification.
>
> This question came about because a woodworker in NC had an
> electrician add a circuit for an air cleaner and the inspector
> would not let him install the device because of a lack of UL
> cert.
>
> Larry
>
IIRC all saws have to have this standard by a certain future date.
"Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:303beb09-6d9d-4745-a68e-67147f14edd1@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
: > Depends on how you define "work". One key difference is that a true
riving
: > knife moves up and down as the blade is raised and lowered, whereas
a splitter
: > does not -- and hence your intended faux-riving knife won't either.
In other
: > words, you'll still have to remove it to cut grooves, dados, or
rabbets.
: >
: > And you'll have no blade guard, unless you buy (or build) an
over-arm guard of
: > some sort.
: >
: > Seems to me that your plan combines the disadvantages of both
setups, with few
: > (if any) of the advantages of either.
:
: Yeah, I suppose that's true - I was looking at this as a slightly
: better option than nothing at all. Most blade guard/splitters on new
: saws are such crap that they are not worth using (yes, that's
: debatable, and I wasn't looking to start that discussion...) Maybe I'd
: be better to phrase this as taking a splitter that would otherwise
: never get used, and reducing it to something smaller/more elegant that
: would still serve to prevent a workpiece from pinching behind the
: blade. A better, although not free, implementation of this would be
: one of the table inserts that has a small splitter.
:
: Lately, I've been seeing a bunch of saws that have a 'riving knife',
: but one that does not move up/down along with the blade. From what
: I've read, new model saws are going to be required to have a riving
: knife in order to get UL listing. I wonder if the fixed position
: knives are an inexpensive way to comply with the new UL regulation.
If it's "fixed position", then it's not a riving knife and shouldn't
meet UL, or anyone else's, standards for the way a riving knife is
supposed to work.
Len
Jim Weisgram wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 03:16:27 -0700 (PDT), Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that someone had decided
>> (all safety concerns duly noted) that they were never, ever going to
>> use the blade guard/splitter assembly that came with their table saw.
>> Wouldn't it be possible to take the splitter, and with a little
>> creative work with an angle grinder, reduce it to something resembling
>> a riving knife?
>>
>> Of course this would depend upon the mounting setup of the particular
>> saw, but so long as the front part of the splitter mounted securely to
>> the saw, this should work, right?
>
> Should work. There's the "Shark splitter" that goes with the "Shark
> guard" that does something like what you describe.
>
> http://www.leestyron.com/sharksplitter.php
Hey, that guy stole my idea! For years I've been using homemade
splitters on my Unisaw that are similar the one shown in those photos.
But mine are better. :-)
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
To get UL - you have to send SEVERAL machines to them. They run
destructive and non-destructive testing on then and test against known
documentations they have on like equipment.
Big company or tiny product - no real issue. How about taking the
first three off a line and saying bye bye - with money and time and
not see a penny. You might get cleared - you might get a list of things
to fix and re-submit.
Martin
[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:47:22 GMT, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry wrote:
>>> "Len" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>
>>>> If it's "fixed position", then it's not a riving knife and
>>>> shouldn't meet UL, or anyone else's, standards for the way
>>>> a riving knife is supposed to work.
>>>>
>>>> Len
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not trying to hijack the thread but... Just got a subscription
>>> to Wood magazine given to me by a friend. Reading this months
>>> Q&A at the back, Wood magazine did a quick check of their
>>> equipment and *none* of their machines were UL approved. Two
>>> thirds of ther equipment had *no* certification.
>>>
>>> This question came about because a woodworker in NC had an
>>> electrician add a circuit for an air cleaner and the inspector
>>> would not let him install the device because of a lack of UL
>>> cert.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>>
>> What type is inspector? I've never know an electrical inspector to get
>> involve with that is going to be plugged into an outlet.
> Not plugged in, but definitely on a hard-wire.
"Len" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> If it's "fixed position", then it's not a riving knife and
> shouldn't meet UL, or anyone else's, standards for the way
> a riving knife is supposed to work.
>
> Len
>
Not trying to hijack the thread but... Just got a subscription
to Wood magazine given to me by a friend. Reading this months
Q&A at the back, Wood magazine did a quick check of their
equipment and *none* of their machines were UL approved. Two
thirds of ther equipment had *no* certification.
This question came about because a woodworker in NC had an
electrician add a circuit for an air cleaner and the inspector
would not let him install the device because of a lack of UL
cert.
Larry
Nova <[email protected]> wrote in
news:_Vswl.970$6%[email protected]:
> Larry wrote:
>> "Len" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>
>>>If it's "fixed position", then it's not a riving knife and
>>>shouldn't meet UL, or anyone else's, standards for the way
>>>a riving knife is supposed to work.
>>>
>>>Len
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not trying to hijack the thread but... Just got a
>> subscription to Wood magazine given to me by a friend.
>> Reading this months Q&A at the back, Wood magazine did a
>> quick check of their equipment and *none* of their
>> machines were UL approved. Two thirds of ther equipment
>> had *no* certification.
>>
>> This question came about because a woodworker in NC had an
>> electrician add a circuit for an air cleaner and the
>> inspector would not let him install the device because of
>> a lack of UL cert.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>
> What type is inspector? I've never know an electrical
> inspector to get involve with that is going to be plugged
> into an outlet.
>
Apparently the electrical inspector. The homeowner hired the
electrician to install the air cleaner, including the
installation of the new circuit.
Larry wrote:
> "Len" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>If it's "fixed position", then it's not a riving knife and
>>shouldn't meet UL, or anyone else's, standards for the way
>>a riving knife is supposed to work.
>>
>>Len
>>
>
>
> Not trying to hijack the thread but... Just got a subscription
> to Wood magazine given to me by a friend. Reading this months
> Q&A at the back, Wood magazine did a quick check of their
> equipment and *none* of their machines were UL approved. Two
> thirds of ther equipment had *no* certification.
>
> This question came about because a woodworker in NC had an
> electrician add a circuit for an air cleaner and the inspector
> would not let him install the device because of a lack of UL
> cert.
>
> Larry
>
What type is inspector? I've never know an electrical inspector to get
involve with that is going to be plugged into an outlet.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
In article <dba0d7f8-b565-4486-bee0-2014dc2e68e2@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that someone had decided
>(all safety concerns duly noted) that they were never, ever going to
>use the blade guard/splitter assembly that came with their table saw.
>Wouldn't it be possible to take the splitter, and with a little
>creative work with an angle grinder, reduce it to something resembling
>a riving knife?
*Resembling* a riving knife, certainly.
What benefit do you hope to derive from doing this?
>
>Of course this would depend upon the mounting setup of the particular
>saw, but so long as the front part of the splitter mounted securely to
>the saw, this should work, right?
Depends on how you define "work". One key difference is that a true riving
knife moves up and down as the blade is raised and lowered, whereas a splitter
does not -- and hence your intended faux-riving knife won't either. In other
words, you'll still have to remove it to cut grooves, dados, or rabbets.
And you'll have no blade guard, unless you buy (or build) an over-arm guard of
some sort.
Seems to me that your plan combines the disadvantages of both setups, with few
(if any) of the advantages of either.
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:50:41 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>To get UL - you have to send SEVERAL machines to them. They run
>destructive and non-destructive testing on then and test against known
>documentations they have on like equipment.
>
>Big company or tiny product - no real issue. How about taking the
>first three off a line and saying bye bye - with money and time and
>not see a penny. You might get cleared - you might get a list of things
>to fix and re-submit.
Or you change as to what you want from UL. I worked in the explosive
environment lab in North brook. Gould submitted a motor with lead
which barely met the current requirements of the motor it did not pass
as it was a bit hot for a grain elevator environment. They did not
resubmit the motor.
Mark
<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> This question came about because a woodworker in NC had an
>>> electrician add a circuit for an air cleaner and the inspector
>>> would not let him install the device because of a lack of UL
>>> cert.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>>
>>
>>What type is inspector? I've never know an electrical inspector to get
>>involve with that is going to be plugged into an outlet.
> Not plugged in, but definitely on a hard-wire.
That is why the inspector should never be called for a single line like
that. Or have him inspect the line and wire in the appliance later.
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:25:46 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
> Depends on how you define "work". One key difference is that a true
> riving knife moves up and down as the blade is raised and lowered,
> whereas a splitter does not -- and hence your intended faux-riving knife
> won't either. In other words, you'll still have to remove it to cut
> grooves, dados, or rabbets.
I knew there was another reason I liked my antique Delta where the table
goes up and down instead of the blade. Now where can I fasten my
homemade riving knife? Hmmmm....
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:47:22 GMT, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry wrote:
>> "Len" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>
>>>If it's "fixed position", then it's not a riving knife and
>>>shouldn't meet UL, or anyone else's, standards for the way
>>>a riving knife is supposed to work.
>>>
>>>Len
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not trying to hijack the thread but... Just got a subscription
>> to Wood magazine given to me by a friend. Reading this months
>> Q&A at the back, Wood magazine did a quick check of their
>> equipment and *none* of their machines were UL approved. Two
>> thirds of ther equipment had *no* certification.
>>
>> This question came about because a woodworker in NC had an
>> electrician add a circuit for an air cleaner and the inspector
>> would not let him install the device because of a lack of UL
>> cert.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>
>What type is inspector? I've never know an electrical inspector to get
>involve with that is going to be plugged into an outlet.
Not plugged in, but definitely on a hard-wire.
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 03:16:27 -0700 (PDT), Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that someone had decided
>(all safety concerns duly noted) that they were never, ever going to
>use the blade guard/splitter assembly that came with their table saw.
>Wouldn't it be possible to take the splitter, and with a little
>creative work with an angle grinder, reduce it to something resembling
>a riving knife?
>
>Of course this would depend upon the mounting setup of the particular
>saw, but so long as the front part of the splitter mounted securely to
>the saw, this should work, right?
Should work. There's the "Shark splitter" that goes with the "Shark
guard" that does something like what you describe.
http://www.leestyron.com/sharksplitter.php
Mike wrote:
>> Depends on how you define "work". One key difference is that a true riving
>> knife moves up and down as the blade is raised and lowered, whereas a splitter
>> does not -- and hence your intended faux-riving knife won't either. In other
>> words, you'll still have to remove it to cut grooves, dados, or rabbets.
>>
>> And you'll have no blade guard, unless you buy (or build) an over-arm guard of
>> some sort.
>>
>> Seems to me that your plan combines the disadvantages of both setups, with few
>> (if any) of the advantages of either.
>
> Yeah, I suppose that's true - I was looking at this as a slightly
> better option than nothing at all. Most blade guard/splitters on new
> saws are such crap that they are not worth using (yes, that's
> debatable, and I wasn't looking to start that discussion...) Maybe I'd
> be better to phrase this as taking a splitter that would otherwise
> never get used, and reducing it to something smaller/more elegant that
> would still serve to prevent a workpiece from pinching behind the
> blade. A better, although not free, implementation of this would be
> one of the table inserts that has a small splitter.
>
> Lately, I've been seeing a bunch of saws that have a 'riving knife',
> but one that does not move up/down along with the blade. From what
> I've read, new model saws are going to be required to have a riving
> knife in order to get UL listing. I wonder if the fixed position
> knives are an inexpensive way to comply with the new UL regulation.
What kind of saw do you have? Most of the stock "splitters" I've seen
are made of metal that's much thinner than the blade, and that doesn't
really do a hell of a lot to prevent binding when the wood is coming
back together behind the cut. A good splitter or riving knife really
needs to be a RCH shy of the actual blade thickness to be safe and
effective.
--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/