Sa

"SB"

14/11/2004 7:48 AM

Band Sawing in the UK (LAWS)

Hi,

I got an email from [email protected] saying that a bandsaw may be a
good choice for saws.
The main problem at the moment is..

My CDT (woodwork) teacher told the class that we couldn't use the bandsaw
because you had to be over 18 and have a licence. I highly think this was so
that some idiots didn't "accidently" chop peoples fingers off. (You can
imagine it)

Please could you tell me if this is true or not..

SB


This topic has 73 replies

AD

Andy Dingley

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

16/11/2004 11:56 AM

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:42:44 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Andy, I'm a bit confused by this comment. The Freud dado set sold by
>Machine Mart (p. 296) specifically states "NOT to be used on any machine
>with electric braking".

That's the problem. Most saws (all retail size ?) use a left-handed
nut to lock the blade onto the arbor. With a heavy dado set, rapid
braking may cause this to unscrew.

Laws require moderately rapid braking.

Some saws use simple electric braking to achieve this, which is very
quick indeed.

Rapid braking is definitely unsafe with simple LH nuts.

Therefore you can't use a dado set on a simply made saw consistent
with most of the saws complying with PUWER.

You could achieve this safely with an extra arbor lock. If you have a
3 phase saw with a VFD (variable frequency drive) it's possible to
brake more gently at a controlled rate, which would be safe with dado
heads, rather than simple injection braking. Either of these
mechanisms add cost though and I don't know of machines that do it.

UK practice for a large production shop would be to use a moulding
head on a moulder or planer, rather than a dado head in a table saw.
--
Smert' spamionam

MJ

Mark & Juanita

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

14/11/2004 2:13 PM

On 14 Nov 2004 08:00:13 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:

>SB asks:
>
>>I got an email from [email protected] saying that a bandsaw may be a
>>good choice for saws.
>>The main problem at the moment is..
>>
>>My CDT (woodwork) teacher told the class that we couldn't use the bandsaw
>>because you had to be over 18 and have a licence. I highly think this was so
>>that some idiots didn't "accidently" chop peoples fingers off. (You can
>>imagine it)
>>
>>Please could you tell me if this is true or not..
>>
>
>I can't tell you if it's true about licensing and age for bandsaw use in the
>UK, but it sounds like complete BS. The bandsaw is slightly easier to use than
>the tablesaw, and a good deal less dangerous, so if the law exists, it's
>idiotic.
>

Well, this is the same country that has banned selling tablesaws that can
accomodate dado blades.


cC

[email protected] (Charlie Self)

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

14/11/2004 8:00 AM

SB asks:

>I got an email from [email protected] saying that a bandsaw may be a
>good choice for saws.
>The main problem at the moment is..
>
>My CDT (woodwork) teacher told the class that we couldn't use the bandsaw
>because you had to be over 18 and have a licence. I highly think this was so
>that some idiots didn't "accidently" chop peoples fingers off. (You can
>imagine it)
>
>Please could you tell me if this is true or not..
>

I can't tell you if it's true about licensing and age for bandsaw use in the
UK, but it sounds like complete BS. The bandsaw is slightly easier to use than
the tablesaw, and a good deal less dangerous, so if the law exists, it's
idiotic.

Charlie Self
"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of
common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever
ineligible for public office." H. L. Mencken

Mn

"Mel"

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

14/11/2004 10:56 PM


"SB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> I got an email from [email protected] saying that a bandsaw may be a
> good choice for saws.
> The main problem at the moment is..
>
> My CDT (woodwork) teacher told the class that we couldn't use the bandsaw
> because you had to be over 18 and have a licence. I highly think this was so
> that some idiots didn't "accidently" chop peoples fingers off. (You can
> imagine it)
>
> Please could you tell me if this is true or not..
>
> SB
>

My dad is a part time wood turning tutor at an Adult Education college.
He once showed me a machinery guidance manual he was issued with while
on a safety course. It was mainly written for schools, although sadly
most of the rules also apply for adults attending his courses.

As far as I recall it states that responsible students are allowed to use
table top bandsaws like a 3 wheel burgess (subject to proper instruction
/ supervision of course), but should not use floor standing models.
(Personally, I think tabletop bandsaws are probably less safe
than a well designed full sized machine).

I don't know if that is a hard and fast rule, thankfully the advisor
agreed that his adults could use a proper bandsaw once they'd been
shown its correct use.

I think there was also something about qualified adult students
being allowed to use a tablesaw.

If I remember correctly table mounted routers, spindle moulders
and radial arm saws were not permitted.

They also objected to the use of a roughing gouge to remove the
corners from square stock on the lathe, favouring bandsawing
them off as safer. Not something we would agree with.


Mn

"Mel"

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

15/11/2004 12:28 PM


"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:00:31 +0000, Andy Dingley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:13:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, this is the same country that has banned selling tablesaws that can
> >>accomodate dado blades.
> >
> >There is no European or UK ban on the use of or sale of tablesaws with
> >long arbors to take dado sets. Dado blades (Freud) are available from
> >my nearest high street toolshop (for lack of space they don't sell
> >any machines big enough to use them).
>
> My comment is based upon discussions in the newsgroup, for example,
>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=db211059.0210240433.5753385b%40posting.google.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DUK%2B
dado%2Bblade%2Barbor%2Bban%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3Ddb211059.0210240433.5753385b%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D2>
>

I'm not aware of any laws in the UK that restrict saw arbor length.
There's certainly no ban on the sale of dado saws. I wouldn't
say they were widely available, however Machine Mart
now stocks them, including in the EU standard 30mm bore.

http://www.machinemart.co.uk/product.asp?p=060620496


Dado blades don't seem to be popular in industry -
at least I've never seen a set in a liquidation auction.

There could be a problem with recent safety rules requiring
the blade to come to a halt in under 30 seconds. New
saws are electrically braked so I guess there might be a
risk of the dado blade's inertia loosening the nut or
just taking too long to spin down.

(These rules aren't enforced for hobbyists and one
man businesses)

There is a uk Health and Safety sheet on table saws here:-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/wis16.pdf

AW

"Adam Weber"

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

14/11/2004 8:28 PM


"SB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> I got an email from [email protected] saying that a bandsaw may be
a
> good choice for saws.
> The main problem at the moment is..
>
> My CDT (woodwork) teacher told the class that we couldn't use the bandsaw
> because you had to be over 18 and have a licence. I highly think this was
so
> that some idiots didn't "accidently" chop peoples fingers off. (You can
> imagine it)
>
> Please could you tell me if this is true or not..
>
> SB
>
>

This page "suggests" that it's "sorta" true...cf para 4...

http://www.geoffswoodwork.co.uk/page%20six.html

Gg

"George"

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

14/11/2004 7:35 AM

Risk management?

Probably saves on healthcare, but it sound a bit like a rapala hitting the
water.

"SB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> I got an email from [email protected] saying that a bandsaw may be
a
> good choice for saws.
> The main problem at the moment is..
>
> My CDT (woodwork) teacher told the class that we couldn't use the bandsaw
> because you had to be over 18 and have a licence. I highly think this was
so
> that some idiots didn't "accidently" chop peoples fingers off. (You can
> imagine it)
>
> Please could you tell me if this is true or not..
>
> SB
>
>

AD

Andy Dingley

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

16/11/2004 11:48 AM

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:09:08 -0000, "SB" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>So that basically means that maybe he can't let us use it @ skl but there's
>no reason not to use it at home, right?

I think it means it's a per-person decision.

I let under 16s use my bandsaw while I'm watching, and I let a few who
are familiar with using it use it without me watching them. But I'm
in a workshop with maybe two or three people in it, not a busy class.
I'd be very reluctant to let anyone use it, in a school class
environment, but lunchtime "woodwork clubs" and the like would be a
different situation.

Your best way to get bandsaw access is to behave yourself and show
that you can be trusted with the tools you are allowed to use.

--
Smert' spamionam

AD

Andy Dingley

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

15/11/2004 12:00 AM

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:13:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Well, this is the same country that has banned selling tablesaws that can
>accomodate dado blades.

There is no European or UK ban on the use of or sale of tablesaws with
long arbors to take dado sets. Dado blades (Freud) are available from
my nearest high street toolshop (for lack of space they don't sell
any machines big enough to use them).


--
Smert' spamionam

JN

"Jim Northey"

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

14/11/2004 10:58 AM

It sounds kind of odd to me too. With the bandsaw or scrollsaw I've always
gone with the..... if you stop pushing it,it stops cutting your finger
off.... kind of thing. You would have to be trying to cut your finger off
with one of them . With that said ,anyone remember the link someone posted
here a few years ago with pictures of a guy who committed suicide on a
bandsaw?
Jim
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SB asks:
>
> >I got an email from [email protected] saying that a bandsaw may
be a
> >good choice for saws.
> >The main problem at the moment is..
> >
> >My CDT (woodwork) teacher told the class that we couldn't use the bandsaw
> >because you had to be over 18 and have a licence. I highly think this was
so
> >that some idiots didn't "accidently" chop peoples fingers off. (You can
> >imagine it)
> >
> >Please could you tell me if this is true or not..
> >
>
> I can't tell you if it's true about licensing and age for bandsaw use in
the
> UK, but it sounds like complete BS. The bandsaw is slightly easier to use
than
> the tablesaw, and a good deal less dangerous,

AD

Andy Dingley

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

14/11/2004 12:54 PM

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 08:32:04 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I think you need special dispensation or something to use a
>chainsaw now in the UK.

You need a licence to stand _near_to_ someone else using a chainsaw.

This rule is generally observed in woodlands - it's the insurer's
rule, rather than a legal requirement, The HSE rules only extend to
operators, but it's now awkward for your liability cover if you have
anyone who's not a ticket holder anywhere on a site where you're
sawing.

On public "art events" though, where there's some chainsaw carving
going on, even basic safety rules go out of the window. Lots of real
cowboy stuff there, and one day there'll be an accident and the
tabloid papers will go berserk for a "Ban These Evil Machines"
campaign.

There are a series of licences for chainsaw operators, light felling,
heavy felling, and working at height with chainsaws. You're not even
allowed to buy a top-handle chainsaw without the right licence.

As to the actual injury rates, forestry in the UK has a good safety
record. If you hear of an accident, chances are that it's a farmer
with no training, no safety kit, and using an ancient unbraked saw
that was being hard to start.

--
Smert' spamionam

LD

Lobby Dosser

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

14/11/2004 8:32 AM

[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:

> SB asks:
>
>>I got an email from [email protected] saying that a bandsaw
>>may be a good choice for saws.
>>The main problem at the moment is..
>>
>>My CDT (woodwork) teacher told the class that we couldn't use the
>>bandsaw because you had to be over 18 and have a licence. I highly
>>think this was so that some idiots didn't "accidently" chop peoples
>>fingers off. (You can imagine it)
>>
>>Please could you tell me if this is true or not..
>>
>
> I can't tell you if it's true about licensing and age for bandsaw use
> in the UK, but it sounds like complete BS. The bandsaw is slightly
> easier to use than the tablesaw, and a good deal less dangerous, so if
> the law exists, it's idiotic.

It may. I think you need special dispensation or something to use a
chainsaw now in the UK.

>
> Charlie Self
> "It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in
> favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes
> me forever ineligible for public office." H. L. Mencken
>

MM

"Mike Marlow"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

15/11/2004 11:00 PM


"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:16:58 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Are you quite sure about that Andy?
>
> No, because there will always be some other design out there that I've
> not seen. If there's room on the top of the case, then there could
> well be space for another handle, or just more handroom in a longer
> handle.
>
> That would probably be even less safe - it encourages you to use it as
> a two-handled saw, but really you're still only getting a single grip
> on it. It's not the number of hands you're using, it's the distance
> you can get between them.
>
> --
> Smert' spamionam

I looked at the other links that folks posted today and all of the saws I
saw (see saw....) were two handed models. I think you've mistaken the
design. The difference is that some have the handle for the right hand on
top instead of behind the saw. I can see the advantage of this design for
certain applications. For example, bucking up logs at waist height would be
easier with a top handle design than with a rear handle design. Both though
are two handed saws. Both will give plenty of stability and control. Seems
this one handed notion was founded on some mis-information.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

LD

Lobby Dosser

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

14/11/2004 7:22 PM

[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:

> Lobby Dosser responds:
>
>>>>Please could you tell me if this is true or not..
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can't tell you if it's true about licensing and age for bandsaw
>>> use in the UK, but it sounds like complete BS. The bandsaw is
>>> slightly easier to use than the tablesaw, and a good deal less
>>> dangerous, so if the law exists, it's idiotic.
>>
>>It may. I think you need special dispensation or something to use a
>>chainsaw now in the UK.
>>
>
> Quite a difference, though. A chainsaw is one of the most dangerous
> portable power tools around, while a bandsaw is not particularly
> dangerous (given, though, that anything with a blade with teeth and a
> motor driving it can cause considerable damage).

I agree that the chainsaw has far more potential for damage than the
bandsaw, but the UK tends to go overboard when it comes to stuff like
this. IIRC, you need a license to buy a chainsaw now.

They'll get my chainsaw when they pry it from my cold dead hands - no
doubt just after I've cut off a leg. :o)
>
> Charlie Self
> "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he
> would promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken

DB

"Doug Brown"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

14/11/2004 10:47 PM

well I did a quick google search and all the "top handle chainsaws" I found
seem to be one hand only - see
http://www.shindaiwa.com/products/chain_saws/ch357.html and
http://www.asktooltalk.com/home/general/tools/gardening/solo/633.htm for
examples.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:30:05 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >I see the top-handle as offering better control.
> >
> > Then that's not a top-handle chainsaw.
> >
> > All (?) chainsaws have a top handle. Most have a rear handle too. A
> > "top handle" saw _only_ has a top handle. You use it one-handed and
> > you don't have the rear handle to give you an extra couple to try and
> > control any kickback.
>
> Are you quite sure about that Andy? I looked at one on a web site and it
> looked like a two handed saw, just that the right hand grabs a handle that
> is on the top rear portion of the saw instead of the very rear of the saw.
> All the same, it looks to be very much a two handed saw. It certainly
does
> not look as easy to control as a standard configuration.
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>
>

MM

"Mike Marlow"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

16/11/2004 4:29 AM


"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:17:26 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Top handle saws move the rear mounted right hand position up to the top
> >center of the saw - BUT, the left hand remains as in the case of the
> >conventional design. No chainsaw is designed to be used one handed.
>
> http://www.stihl.co.uk/html/default_fr.php?category=product
>
> Here's the type of saw I'm talking about. Ask Stihl where the brake
> controls are. You can work out the rest of the terminology yourself.

Sorry - forgot to include in my other response, I didn't see any mention at
all of one handed operation. I think you're misinformed as to the one
handed intent of these saws.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

cC

[email protected] (Charlie Self)

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

14/11/2004 9:50 AM

Lobby Dosser responds:

>>>Please could you tell me if this is true or not..
>>>
>>
>> I can't tell you if it's true about licensing and age for bandsaw use
>> in the UK, but it sounds like complete BS. The bandsaw is slightly
>> easier to use than the tablesaw, and a good deal less dangerous, so if
>> the law exists, it's idiotic.
>
>It may. I think you need special dispensation or something to use a
>chainsaw now in the UK.
>

Quite a difference, though. A chainsaw is one of the most dangerous portable
power tools around, while a bandsaw is not particularly dangerous (given,
though, that anything with a blade with teeth and a motor driving it can cause
considerable damage).

Charlie Self
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken

TV

Tom Veatch

in reply to [email protected] (Charlie Self) on 14/11/2004 9:50 AM

16/11/2004 9:46 PM

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:02:22 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:

>The heartwood of even an otherwise sound tree is sometimes weak. The feller
>will plunge the saw into the center of the tree, sweeping the nose left and
>right so that the stress of falling won't leave a couple feet of fractured
>heartwood standing proud of the rest of the cut.
>
>These folks call it stump pull.
>http://web.cocc.edu/logging/szlinks/stump_pull.htm
>
Thank you, sir. A cogent, easily understood explanation. Aware of the
phenomenon, but not familiar with the term.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

Gg

"George"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

15/11/2004 7:16 AM

That Solo even _looks_ dangerous. Appears that these actually have two
hand-holds at right angles, however. I'm sure most people use both
simultaneously. Guy who sold me my first saw years ago used to show the
left hand - less index finger - and say "when you're holding both handles,
it can't happen."

Oh yes, never drop-start your chainsaw with the throttle lock engaged.

"Doug Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> well I did a quick google search and all the "top handle chainsaws" I
found
> seem to be one hand only - see
> http://www.shindaiwa.com/products/chain_saws/ch357.html and
> http://www.asktooltalk.com/home/general/tools/gardening/solo/633.htm for
> examples.

Gg

"George"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

16/11/2004 7:18 AM

Brake's the same place, though I also wonder what that extra red toggle up
forward might be. Since the chain brake is designed to bring the chain to a
halt in the event of a kickback, it's located perpendicular to the kickback
vector and in front of the leading part of the operator.

The thing's a close-quarter saw, not a one-hand saw. Imagine the attorney
fees if they were to call it such?


"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:17:26 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Top handle saws move the rear mounted right hand position up to the top
> >center of the saw - BUT, the left hand remains as in the case of the
> >conventional design. No chainsaw is designed to be used one handed.
>
> http://www.stihl.co.uk/html/default_fr.php?category=product
>
> Here's the type of saw I'm talking about. Ask Stihl where the brake
> controls are. You can work out the rest of the terminology yourself.

Gg

"George"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

16/11/2004 7:26 AM

You learned someplace else, I guess.

Rocking the saw, actually tilting the nose up or down alternately, is a
tactic to cope with large logs so that the chain speed can be kept at or
near full. By tilting, less wood is in contact, chips are more easily
ejected, and the whole operation's safer.

The reason the handle mounts around left is for felling.

You'd probably have a cow watching a good woodsman plunge a veneer log to
prevent heart pull.


"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Your right hand does not control kick back. Your left hand does. It's
the
> hand that exerts force downward. The right hand is not supposed to rock
or
> pivot against the tree dogs as a lot of people do. You certainly can do
> that, but the saw is designed to cut straight down through a log.
Pivoting
> the saw is an indication of a dull chain or a novice user. Kick back
occurs
> one way and one way only. The very front of the bar has to come in
contact
> with something. The tip of it. Your left hand is what resists that
> kickback should it occur. Pivoting the right hand can produce kickback if
> the bar is burried in the tree, which is common with trees that are larger
> in diameter than the saw bar. Pivot the bar past 90 degrees and you hit
the
> point where the tip of the bar is the contact point. Guaranteed kickback.
> Not probably - guaranteed.
>
>
> > > They're basically dangerous and uncontrollable.
>
> This is patently untrue.
>
> > > They're only
> > > justifiable if you're working up a tree and need one hand for yourself
> > > - more an arborist's tool than a lumberman's.
>
> Equally untrue. That would be the worst time for an ill managed saw. But
> then again, these are not a design that is inherantly ill managed.
>
> > > If you get a kickback,
> > > the saw _will_ jump up, because you simply can't control it in one
> > > hand. Your only hope of vaguely safe working is to reliably always
> > > know that when it jumps, you aren't where it's going to be heading.
> > > This requires skill and practice.
>
> This is pure bull. The saw is always going to kick back in a consistent
> direction. Unless you're a contortionist and a very strong one at that,
> you'll not be able to get the saw in a position so that kickback is not
> going to bring that saw directly back to you. Skill and practice have
> absolutely nothing to do with it. Nobody learns how to control kickback
and
> put it to some useful purpose. Kickback is something that is avoided at
all
> costs. The only safe way to use a chainsaw is such that you are always in
> the direct path of kickback, so you make it a practice to avoid kickback.
>
> >
> > My, that looks a bit dangerous. With the throttle at the point of
balance
> of
> > the saw the grip is really just a pivot point. Given the choice I think
> I'd
> > rather be taking the limbs off by hand.
> >
>
> The right hand is always just a pivot in that you use it to keep the saw
> level. The saw does not look to be any more dangerous than a conventional
> design and in fact appears that it could be an advantageous design for
some
> applications.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>

Gg

"George"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

16/11/2004 12:48 PM


"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > You learned someplace else, I guess.
>
> From loggers.

I'll stack our UP cutters with the best. The guy who taught me to fell and
cut took a Maple and a polar with a pickup jammed between them down one
night without a twig falling on the two pinned occupants or we two medics.
Good friend in more ways than one! The vehicle moved more from the jaws
than the trees.

>
> >
> > Rocking the saw, actually tilting the nose up or down alternately, is a
> > tactic to cope with large logs so that the chain speed can be kept at or
> > near full. By tilting, less wood is in contact, chips are more easily
> > ejected, and the whole operation's safer.
>
> Yes, like I said rocking is done by people, but with a well sharpened
chain
> there's no need to rock. Watch the real pro's (not a tree service)
> sometime - they lay the saw on the log and let it do the cutting. When
you
> rock you tend to put more force on the saw - pushing it through the wood
> instead of letting it cut through. You really need to look at your cuts
if
> you think that by rocking it you're putting less chain in contact with
wood.
> You are not. Anytime you force a tool the whole operation is not safer.
> That is just a totally bad paragraph.
>

Sorry, go back to your geometry book. Any secant is shorter than the
diameter. And I said "tilt."
How do you force a saw without pushing? Aren't you presuming?

> >
> > The reason the handle mounts around left is for felling.
>
> That's the reason it wraps. It's primary reason is the grip that gives
the
> saw stability. There is no way you could stabilize the saw with just the
> rear handle.
>
> >
> > You'd probably have a cow watching a good woodsman plunge a veneer log
to
> > prevent heart pull.
>
> No, but he knows what chances he's taking. Go ask that "good woodsman" if
> that is or is not the absolute best way to generate a kickback. Generally
> when they plunge, they come in at the tip of the bar, but either just over
> or just under the bar so that they are not plunging in with the tip.
>
He's making money. A heart pull is hundreds of bucks.

Gg

"George"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

16/11/2004 3:58 PM

Under powered? THAT we can agree on. I'm using a Farm boss with a 20"
Oregon, and 20" of maple is more than I should be working. Makes nice
bowls, though. Especially if you tilt the saw when ripping for shaving
clearance.

I get to go to the woods with cruisers, piececutters, and even my former
ambulance partner's husband, who has a few million in automatic harvesting
equipment to play with.

Sometimes I get to go to the woods to pick up those idiots who file the
depth gages off their chains so they can cut faster.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'm sure of that. We have some of the best in the Adirondacks also -
well,
> we used to. I don't doubt for a minute what you say about this fellow,
but
> I'd invite you to show him my comments and ask him if he takes exception
> with them.

If you
> did lift, you're cutting less wood - takes more time to cut. Keep your
> chain sharp and cut straight through and that's the fastest way as well as
> the way that strains the saw the least. Neither one of us probably has
the
> luxurey of getting out and watching the loggers these days, but watch the
> logger games on TV. When they cut the butts cuts for time, look at those
> saws - straight down through and straight up through the wood. If your
saw
> needs lifting to keep the rpm's up it's underpowered, the chain is dull,
or
> you're horsing the saw way too much.

Gg

"George"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

16/11/2004 4:02 PM

The heartwood of even an otherwise sound tree is sometimes weak. The feller
will plunge the saw into the center of the tree, sweeping the nose left and
right so that the stress of falling won't leave a couple feet of fractured
heartwood standing proud of the rest of the cut.

These folks call it stump pull.
http://web.cocc.edu/logging/szlinks/stump_pull.htm

"Tom Veatch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:48:11 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>
> >He's making money. A heart pull is hundreds of bucks.
>
> He said, demonstrating his ignorance for the world to see, "Can anybody,
in
> simple terms, tell me what a 'heart pull' is????"
>
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS USA

Gg

"George"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

17/11/2004 8:03 AM

Limbers often have poor body position, and sometimes even forget their leg
is on the other side of the piece as they reach, and even brace themselves
against the cut. They lose a touch of footing, and the saw's through and
beyond.

As the practice here was to pay by the piece, there were a lot of shortcuts
taken.

Kickback is unaffected by filing, as far as I know. Saw doesn't kick when
it's cutting, just when it's not. Only accident more gruesome than a kick
was the result of drop starting with the throttle lock on. Like we all
haven't done it, right? Lose your grip on the rope and the bar rotates
downward around mid-tibia.

"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:vgxmd.5509$h15.5202@trnddc07...
> George wrote:
>
> > Sometimes I get to go to the woods to pick up those idiots who file
> > the depth gages off their chains so they can cut faster.
>
> I did that once, umm, summer of 1977. When the chain was sharp you could
> bog down and kill the McC. when going through a pine log. Extremely fast
> cutting.
>
> What's the danger? The tip was free so there was never any kickback. I
had
> to hold the saw up somewhat or the engine would die. The volume of
sawdust
> around my right foot was incredible.
>
> -- Mark
>
>

Gg

"George"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

17/11/2004 8:09 AM

I miss my 032, but when his magneto went out, I was able to swap him and
$150 for the farm boss. I don't cut in the woods now, so the "homeowner"
grade doesn't bother me. My wood arrives every year by truck. Ten full
cords, and cash only keeps the price down, and the driver makes sure he's
got enough outsize and oddballs to keep me in turnings.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 034 here with an 18 inch bar. I had a an 040-something with a 22 inch bar
> which was way overkill. Got rid of it and got the 034. When I was
putting
> up 22 cords of wood a year it was a great saw. Now I use it for smaller
> work and I wish I had one of those 020-something saws. The amount of tree
> that I get into these days that really requires an 034 just isn't that
much.
> But... it's been a good saw and I'll keep it forever, I'm sure.
>

MM

"Mike Marlow"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

15/11/2004 10:52 PM


"Doug Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> well I did a quick google search and all the "top handle chainsaws" I
found
> seem to be one hand only - see
> http://www.shindaiwa.com/products/chain_saws/ch357.html

That certainly appears to be a two handed saw to me. The black wrap around
handle on the left is where your left hand goes and the top red handle is
where your right hand goes. One, two.

and
> http://www.asktooltalk.com/home/general/tools/gardening/solo/633.htm for
> examples.

Same thing. In the few web sites I've seen since this discussion started,
I've not seen any mention of one handed operation.

Look at this link - there are two saws pictured. A top loader and a
standard configuration. Both have the same wrap around handle for the left
hand.
http://www.asktooltalk.com/cgi-local/sk_store.cgi?P=tools/gardening/solo/index.html

It would be ridiculously unsafte to operate a chain saw with one hand. I
can't imagine any manufacturer suggesting any such thing. One only has had
to operate a chainsaw one time to realize this.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Sk

"Swingman"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

14/11/2004 2:15 PM

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message

> That is just Darwin at work. When you legislate for the lowest common
> denominator, the rest of the population gets excessive inconvience and
> the gene pool suffers. Pretty soon everyone is the lowest common
> denominator. :o)

IOW, the more you protect someone from their own folly, the more fools you
have.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

MM

"Mike Marlow"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

16/11/2004 4:24 AM


"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:17:26 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Top handle saws move the rear mounted right hand position up to the top
> >center of the saw - BUT, the left hand remains as in the case of the
> >conventional design. No chainsaw is designed to be used one handed.
>
> http://www.stihl.co.uk/html/default_fr.php?category=product
>
> Here's the type of saw I'm talking about. Ask Stihl where the brake
> controls are. You can work out the rest of the terminology yourself.

I don't understand Andy. From the picture (I looked at the MS200T) it
certainly looks like there is a left hand grip wrapping down the left side
of the saw. The chain brake - unless there's something new that is not even
mentioned in the product description is not operated by the operator of the
saw. It's an automatic function if the chain breaks and starts to fly back
toward the operator. Unless you know something that is not highlighted in
the product brief on the web site, there are no brake controls. Clue me in?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

MM

"Mike Marlow"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

16/11/2004 4:49 PM


"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You learned someplace else, I guess.

From loggers.

>
> Rocking the saw, actually tilting the nose up or down alternately, is a
> tactic to cope with large logs so that the chain speed can be kept at or
> near full. By tilting, less wood is in contact, chips are more easily
> ejected, and the whole operation's safer.

Yes, like I said rocking is done by people, but with a well sharpened chain
there's no need to rock. Watch the real pro's (not a tree service)
sometime - they lay the saw on the log and let it do the cutting. When you
rock you tend to put more force on the saw - pushing it through the wood
instead of letting it cut through. You really need to look at your cuts if
you think that by rocking it you're putting less chain in contact with wood.
You are not. Anytime you force a tool the whole operation is not safer.
That is just a totally bad paragraph.

>
> The reason the handle mounts around left is for felling.

That's the reason it wraps. It's primary reason is the grip that gives the
saw stability. There is no way you could stabilize the saw with just the
rear handle.

>
> You'd probably have a cow watching a good woodsman plunge a veneer log to
> prevent heart pull.

No, but he knows what chances he's taking. Go ask that "good woodsman" if
that is or is not the absolute best way to generate a kickback. Generally
when they plunge, they come in at the tip of the bar, but either just over
or just under the bar so that they are not plunging in with the tip.

>
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Your right hand does not control kick back. Your left hand does. It's
> the
> > hand that exerts force downward. The right hand is not supposed to rock
> or
> > pivot against the tree dogs as a lot of people do. You certainly can do
> > that, but the saw is designed to cut straight down through a log.
> Pivoting
> > the saw is an indication of a dull chain or a novice user. Kick back
> occurs
> > one way and one way only. The very front of the bar has to come in
> contact
> > with something. The tip of it. Your left hand is what resists that
> > kickback should it occur. Pivoting the right hand can produce kickback
if
> > the bar is burried in the tree, which is common with trees that are
larger
> > in diameter than the saw bar. Pivot the bar past 90 degrees and you hit
> the
> > point where the tip of the bar is the contact point. Guaranteed
kickback.
> > Not probably - guaranteed.
> >
> >
> > > > They're basically dangerous and uncontrollable.
> >
> > This is patently untrue.
> >
> > > > They're only
> > > > justifiable if you're working up a tree and need one hand for
yourself
> > > > - more an arborist's tool than a lumberman's.
> >
> > Equally untrue. That would be the worst time for an ill managed saw.
But
> > then again, these are not a design that is inherantly ill managed.
> >
> > > > If you get a kickback,
> > > > the saw _will_ jump up, because you simply can't control it in one
> > > > hand. Your only hope of vaguely safe working is to reliably always
> > > > know that when it jumps, you aren't where it's going to be heading.
> > > > This requires skill and practice.
> >
> > This is pure bull. The saw is always going to kick back in a consistent
> > direction. Unless you're a contortionist and a very strong one at that,
> > you'll not be able to get the saw in a position so that kickback is not
> > going to bring that saw directly back to you. Skill and practice have
> > absolutely nothing to do with it. Nobody learns how to control kickback
> and
> > put it to some useful purpose. Kickback is something that is avoided at
> all
> > costs. The only safe way to use a chainsaw is such that you are always
in
> > the direct path of kickback, so you make it a practice to avoid
kickback.
> >
> > >
> > > My, that looks a bit dangerous. With the throttle at the point of
> balance
> > of
> > > the saw the grip is really just a pivot point. Given the choice I
think
> > I'd
> > > rather be taking the limbs off by hand.
> > >
> >
> > The right hand is always just a pivot in that you use it to keep the saw
> > level. The saw does not look to be any more dangerous than a
conventional
> > design and in fact appears that it could be an advantageous design for
> some
> > applications.
> >
> > --
> >
> > -Mike-
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
>
>

MM

"Mike Marlow"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

15/11/2004 3:16 AM


"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:30:05 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I see the top-handle as offering better control.
>
> Then that's not a top-handle chainsaw.
>
> All (?) chainsaws have a top handle. Most have a rear handle too. A
> "top handle" saw _only_ has a top handle. You use it one-handed and
> you don't have the rear handle to give you an extra couple to try and
> control any kickback.

Are you quite sure about that Andy? I looked at one on a web site and it
looked like a two handed saw, just that the right hand grabs a handle that
is on the top rear portion of the saw instead of the very rear of the saw.
All the same, it looks to be very much a two handed saw. It certainly does
not look as easy to control as a standard configuration.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]


MM

"Mike Marlow"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

17/11/2004 12:30 AM


"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Under powered? THAT we can agree on. I'm using a Farm boss with a 20"
> Oregon, and 20" of maple is more than I should be working. Makes nice
> bowls, though. Especially if you tilt the saw when ripping for shaving
> clearance.

034 here with an 18 inch bar. I had a an 040-something with a 22 inch bar
which was way overkill. Got rid of it and got the 034. When I was putting
up 22 cords of wood a year it was a great saw. Now I use it for smaller
work and I wish I had one of those 020-something saws. The amount of tree
that I get into these days that really requires an 034 just isn't that much.
But... it's been a good saw and I'll keep it forever, I'm sure.

>
> I get to go to the woods with cruisers, piececutters, and even my former
> ambulance partner's husband, who has a few million in automatic harvesting
> equipment to play with.

Another point in common. I was a Cardiac/Trauma Medic for 12 years. Both
vol and paid.

>
> Sometimes I get to go to the woods to pick up those idiots who file the
> depth gages off their chains so they can cut faster.

Ummmmm.... errrrrrrr.... I have to admit I've done that before. Cutting
down the rakers makes for a very fast cut, but man oh man, hang on to that
saw. I actually did it because the chippers had been filed away enough that
the rakers were keeping them from cutting. Smart people go buy a new chain
at that point, but I just had to get all the mileage I could out of my
chain. Never really had a problem besides having to develop a much tighter
grip on the saw, but at some point I really did get smarter and started
buying new chains when they got to that point. You actually can file them
down a bit and not cause any problems, but it just isn't worth it. Chains
aren't that expensive.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

LD

Lobby Dosser

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

15/11/2004 6:43 AM

mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:22:36 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>>
>>> Lobby Dosser responds:
>>>
>>>>>>Please could you tell me if this is true or not..
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't tell you if it's true about licensing and age for bandsaw
>>>>> use in the UK, but it sounds like complete BS. The bandsaw is
>>>>> slightly easier to use than the tablesaw, and a good deal less
>>>>> dangerous, so if the law exists, it's idiotic.
>>>>
>>>>It may. I think you need special dispensation or something to use a
>>>>chainsaw now in the UK.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quite a difference, though. A chainsaw is one of the most dangerous
>>> portable power tools around, while a bandsaw is not particularly
>>> dangerous (given, though, that anything with a blade with teeth and
>>> a motor driving it can cause considerable damage).
>>
>>I agree that the chainsaw has far more potential for damage than the
>>bandsaw, but the UK tends to go overboard when it comes to stuff like
>>this. IIRC, you need a license to buy a chainsaw now.
>>
>>They'll get my chainsaw when they pry it from my cold dead hands - no
>>doubt just after I've cut off a leg. :o)
>>>
>>> Charlie Self
>>> "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he
>>> would promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken
>
> or, they're cold and dead because you cut THEM off..
>

Both? I can't think of a way to do that, but I suppose someone's done it.
Seems to be no end to the bizarre 'accidents' possible with tools.

HS

"Henry St.Pierre"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

17/11/2004 10:12 PM

"George" <george@least> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> That Solo even _looks_ dangerous. Appears that these actually have
> two hand-holds at right angles, however. I'm sure most people use
> both simultaneously. Guy who sold me my first saw years ago used to
> show the left hand - less index finger - and say "when you're holding
> both handles, it can't happen."
>
> Oh yes, never drop-start your chainsaw with the throttle lock engaged.
>
> "Doug Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> well I did a quick google search and all the "top handle chainsaws" I
> found
>> seem to be one hand only - see
>> http://www.shindaiwa.com/products/chain_saws/ch357.html and
>> http://www.asktooltalk.com/home/general/tools/gardening/solo/633.htm
>> for examples.
>
>

Drop starting a chain saw makes about as much sense as quick drawing and
cocking a .45.
Hank

MM

"Mike Marlow"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

15/11/2004 11:17 PM


"J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:30:05 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >I see the top-handle as offering better control.
> >
> > Then that's not a top-handle chainsaw.
> >
> > All (?) chainsaws have a top handle. Most have a rear handle too. A
> > "top handle" saw _only_ has a top handle. You use it one-handed and
> > you don't have the rear handle to give you an extra couple to try and
> > control any kickback.
> >

Here's where some confusion comes in. If you've never used a chainsaw, I
guess it's understandable. All chainsaws do not have a top handle.
Conventional design is for a rear handle and a left side handle. Your left
hand grabs the top of the handle, but it protrudes out of the left side and
gives control over the saw body. What they don't have is a top handle.

Top handle saws move the rear mounted right hand position up to the top
center of the saw - BUT, the left hand remains as in the case of the
conventional design. No chainsaw is designed to be used one handed.

Your right hand does not control kick back. Your left hand does. It's the
hand that exerts force downward. The right hand is not supposed to rock or
pivot against the tree dogs as a lot of people do. You certainly can do
that, but the saw is designed to cut straight down through a log. Pivoting
the saw is an indication of a dull chain or a novice user. Kick back occurs
one way and one way only. The very front of the bar has to come in contact
with something. The tip of it. Your left hand is what resists that
kickback should it occur. Pivoting the right hand can produce kickback if
the bar is burried in the tree, which is common with trees that are larger
in diameter than the saw bar. Pivot the bar past 90 degrees and you hit the
point where the tip of the bar is the contact point. Guaranteed kickback.
Not probably - guaranteed.


> > They're basically dangerous and uncontrollable.

This is patently untrue.

> > They're only
> > justifiable if you're working up a tree and need one hand for yourself
> > - more an arborist's tool than a lumberman's.

Equally untrue. That would be the worst time for an ill managed saw. But
then again, these are not a design that is inherantly ill managed.

> > If you get a kickback,
> > the saw _will_ jump up, because you simply can't control it in one
> > hand. Your only hope of vaguely safe working is to reliably always
> > know that when it jumps, you aren't where it's going to be heading.
> > This requires skill and practice.

This is pure bull. The saw is always going to kick back in a consistent
direction. Unless you're a contortionist and a very strong one at that,
you'll not be able to get the saw in a position so that kickback is not
going to bring that saw directly back to you. Skill and practice have
absolutely nothing to do with it. Nobody learns how to control kickback and
put it to some useful purpose. Kickback is something that is avoided at all
costs. The only safe way to use a chainsaw is such that you are always in
the direct path of kickback, so you make it a practice to avoid kickback.

>
> My, that looks a bit dangerous. With the throttle at the point of balance
of
> the saw the grip is really just a pivot point. Given the choice I think
I'd
> rather be taking the limbs off by hand.
>

The right hand is always just a pivot in that you use it to keep the saw
level. The saw does not look to be any more dangerous than a conventional
design and in fact appears that it could be an advantageous design for some
applications.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

md

mac davis

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

15/11/2004 6:21 AM

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:22:36 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>
>> Lobby Dosser responds:
>>
>>>>>Please could you tell me if this is true or not..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can't tell you if it's true about licensing and age for bandsaw
>>>> use in the UK, but it sounds like complete BS. The bandsaw is
>>>> slightly easier to use than the tablesaw, and a good deal less
>>>> dangerous, so if the law exists, it's idiotic.
>>>
>>>It may. I think you need special dispensation or something to use a
>>>chainsaw now in the UK.
>>>
>>
>> Quite a difference, though. A chainsaw is one of the most dangerous
>> portable power tools around, while a bandsaw is not particularly
>> dangerous (given, though, that anything with a blade with teeth and a
>> motor driving it can cause considerable damage).
>
>I agree that the chainsaw has far more potential for damage than the
>bandsaw, but the UK tends to go overboard when it comes to stuff like
>this. IIRC, you need a license to buy a chainsaw now.
>
>They'll get my chainsaw when they pry it from my cold dead hands - no
>doubt just after I've cut off a leg. :o)
>>
>> Charlie Self
>> "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he
>> would promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken

or, they're cold and dead because you cut THEM off..

Jm

"J"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

15/11/2004 11:21 AM

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:30:05 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I see the top-handle as offering better control.
>
> Then that's not a top-handle chainsaw.
>
> All (?) chainsaws have a top handle. Most have a rear handle too. A
> "top handle" saw _only_ has a top handle. You use it one-handed and
> you don't have the rear handle to give you an extra couple to try and
> control any kickback.
>
> They're basically dangerous and uncontrollable. They're only
> justifiable if you're working up a tree and need one hand for yourself
> - more an arborist's tool than a lumberman's. If you get a kickback,
> the saw _will_ jump up, because you simply can't control it in one
> hand. Your only hope of vaguely safe working is to reliably always
> know that when it jumps, you aren't where it's going to be heading.
> This requires skill and practice.

My, that looks a bit dangerous. With the throttle at the point of balance of
the saw the grip is really just a pivot point. Given the choice I think I'd
rather be taking the limbs off by hand.

-j

AD

Andy Dingley

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

16/11/2004 2:48 AM

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:17:26 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Top handle saws move the rear mounted right hand position up to the top
>center of the saw - BUT, the left hand remains as in the case of the
>conventional design. No chainsaw is designed to be used one handed.

http://www.stihl.co.uk/html/default_fr.php?category=product

Here's the type of saw I'm talking about. Ask Stihl where the brake
controls are. You can work out the rest of the terminology yourself.

LD

Lobby Dosser

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

15/11/2004 6:18 AM

Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:30:05 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I see the top-handle as offering better control.
>
> Then that's not a top-handle chainsaw.
>
> All (?) chainsaws have a top handle. Most have a rear handle too. A
> "top handle" saw _only_ has a top handle. You use it one-handed and
> you don't have the rear handle to give you an extra couple to try and
> control any kickback.
>
> They're basically dangerous and uncontrollable. They're only
> justifiable if you're working up a tree and need one hand for yourself
> - more an arborist's tool than a lumberman's. If you get a kickback,
> the saw _will_ jump up, because you simply can't control it in one
> hand. Your only hope of vaguely safe working is to reliably always
> know that when it jumps, you aren't where it's going to be heading.
> This requires skill and practice.

Then I've Never seen them here. Your description may be the reason why
I've never seen them here. Pros I know here use the standard models one
handed while up a tree.
>

MM

"Mike Marlow"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

16/11/2004 6:37 PM


"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > You learned someplace else, I guess.
> >
> > From loggers.
>
> I'll stack our UP cutters with the best. The guy who taught me to fell
and
> cut took a Maple and a polar with a pickup jammed between them down one
> night without a twig falling on the two pinned occupants or we two medics.
> Good friend in more ways than one! The vehicle moved more from the jaws
> than the trees.

I'm sure of that. We have some of the best in the Adirondacks also - well,
we used to. I don't doubt for a minute what you say about this fellow, but
I'd invite you to show him my comments and ask him if he takes exception
with them.

>
> >
> > >
> > > Rocking the saw, actually tilting the nose up or down alternately, is
a
> > > tactic to cope with large logs so that the chain speed can be kept at
or
> > > near full. By tilting, less wood is in contact, chips are more easily
> > > ejected, and the whole operation's safer.
> >
> > Yes, like I said rocking is done by people, but with a well sharpened
> chain
> > there's no need to rock. Watch the real pro's (not a tree service)
> > sometime - they lay the saw on the log and let it do the cutting. When
> you
> > rock you tend to put more force on the saw - pushing it through the wood
> > instead of letting it cut through. You really need to look at your cuts
> if
> > you think that by rocking it you're putting less chain in contact with
> wood.
> > You are not. Anytime you force a tool the whole operation is not safer.
> > That is just a totally bad paragraph.
> >
>
> Sorry, go back to your geometry book. Any secant is shorter than the
> diameter. And I said "tilt."
> How do you force a saw without pushing? Aren't you presuming?

Me - presume???? Banish the thought. 99% of the people who tilt a saw do
not lift either the front or the back while they tilt the saw in order to
lift part of the chain out of the wood. They rock the saw against the dogs
and pry the saw. That results in full chain contact all the time. If you
did lift, you're cutting less wood - takes more time to cut. Keep your
chain sharp and cut straight through and that's the fastest way as well as
the way that strains the saw the least. Neither one of us probably has the
luxurey of getting out and watching the loggers these days, but watch the
logger games on TV. When they cut the butts cuts for time, look at those
saws - straight down through and straight up through the wood. If your saw
needs lifting to keep the rpm's up it's underpowered, the chain is dull, or
you're horsing the saw way too much.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

AD

Andy Dingley

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

15/11/2004 2:42 AM

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:30:05 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I see the top-handle as offering better control.

Then that's not a top-handle chainsaw.

All (?) chainsaws have a top handle. Most have a rear handle too. A
"top handle" saw _only_ has a top handle. You use it one-handed and
you don't have the rear handle to give you an extra couple to try and
control any kickback.

They're basically dangerous and uncontrollable. They're only
justifiable if you're working up a tree and need one hand for yourself
- more an arborist's tool than a lumberman's. If you get a kickback,
the saw _will_ jump up, because you simply can't control it in one
hand. Your only hope of vaguely safe working is to reliably always
know that when it jumps, you aren't where it's going to be heading.
This requires skill and practice.

--
Smert' spamionam

TV

Tom Veatch

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

16/11/2004 8:37 PM

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:48:11 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:

>He's making money. A heart pull is hundreds of bucks.

He said, demonstrating his ignorance for the world to see, "Can anybody, in
simple terms, tell me what a 'heart pull' is????"


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

AD

Andy Dingley

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

15/11/2004 11:54 AM

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:16:58 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Are you quite sure about that Andy?

No, because there will always be some other design out there that I've
not seen. If there's room on the top of the case, then there could
well be space for another handle, or just more handroom in a longer
handle.

That would probably be even less safe - it encourages you to use it as
a two-handled saw, but really you're still only getting a single grip
on it. It's not the number of hands you're using, it's the distance
you can get between them.

--
Smert' spamionam

AD

Andy Dingley

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

14/11/2004 11:44 PM

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:22:36 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:

> IIRC, you need a license to buy a chainsaw now.

No, nor to use one on your own land.

Only if you're looking to buy a top-handle machine (which is a whole
pile more dangerous), or you're looking to do "work" with one.
--
Smert' spamionam

MM

"Mike Marlow"

in reply to Andy Dingley on 14/11/2004 11:44 PM

17/11/2004 8:56 PM


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 00:30:38 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Sometimes I get to go to the woods to pick up those idiots who file the
> >> depth gages off their chains so they can cut faster.
> >
> >Ummmmm.... errrrrrrr.... I have to admit I've done that before. Cutting
> >down the rakers makes for a very fast cut, but man oh man, hang on to
that
> >saw. I actually did it because the chippers had been filed away enough
that
> >the rakers were keeping them from cutting. Smart people go buy a new
chain
> >at that point, but I just had to get all the mileage I could out of my
> >chain. Never really had a problem besides having to develop a much
tighter
> >grip on the saw, but at some point I really did get smarter and started
> >buying new chains when they got to that point. You actually can file
them
> >down a bit and not cause any problems, but it just isn't worth it.
Chains
> >aren't that expensive.
>
>
> you can do it right and take off the same amount as you take from the
> tooth, but to be really consistent about it you'll need a machine...

Yup. I've got the file guide that rides on top of the cutter so that you
don't over file the raker, but I didn't have it back then and since then
I've just gone to replacing my chain when it gets down that far.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

b

in reply to Andy Dingley on 14/11/2004 11:44 PM

17/11/2004 9:28 AM

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 00:30:38 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Sometimes I get to go to the woods to pick up those idiots who file the
>> depth gages off their chains so they can cut faster.
>
>Ummmmm.... errrrrrrr.... I have to admit I've done that before. Cutting
>down the rakers makes for a very fast cut, but man oh man, hang on to that
>saw. I actually did it because the chippers had been filed away enough that
>the rakers were keeping them from cutting. Smart people go buy a new chain
>at that point, but I just had to get all the mileage I could out of my
>chain. Never really had a problem besides having to develop a much tighter
>grip on the saw, but at some point I really did get smarter and started
>buying new chains when they got to that point. You actually can file them
>down a bit and not cause any problems, but it just isn't worth it. Chains
>aren't that expensive.


you can do it right and take off the same amount as you take from the
tooth, but to be really consistent about it you'll need a machine...

MJ

"Mark Jerde"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

17/11/2004 12:51 AM

George wrote:

> Sometimes I get to go to the woods to pick up those idiots who file
> the depth gages off their chains so they can cut faster.

I did that once, umm, summer of 1977. When the chain was sharp you could
bog down and kill the McC. when going through a pine log. Extremely fast
cutting.

What's the danger? The tip was free so there was never any kickback. I had
to hold the saw up somewhat or the engine would die. The volume of sawdust
around my right foot was incredible.

-- Mark

MJ

"Mark Jerde"

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

17/11/2004 4:33 PM

George wrote:

> Only accident more gruesome
> than a kick was the result of drop starting with the throttle lock
> on. Like we all haven't done it, right? Lose your grip on the rope
> and the bar rotates downward around mid-tibia.

BT, DT, got blood on the tee shirt... I learned to ONLY start the saw on
the ground!

-- Mark

LD

Lobby Dosser

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

14/11/2004 7:17 PM

Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Charlie Self) writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
>> Quite a difference, though. A chainsaw is one of the most dangerous
>> portable power tools around, while a bandsaw is not particularly
>> dangerous (given,
>
> Chainsaws alow for some extra dangerous usages. This summer i saw two
> construction workors installing plastic water tubing and cutting the
> tubes with a chainsaw. One worker kneeled on he street holding the
> pipe (~10" diameter) with two hands in front of him, the other kneeled
> on the street facing him and cutting the tube between the first
> workers hands with a chainsaw... Neither wore any protective clothing,
> face shield or ear protection.
>

That is just Darwin at work. When you legislate for the lowest common
denominator, the rest of the population gets excessive inconvience and
the gene pool suffers. Pretty soon everyone is the lowest common
denominator. :o)

JH

Juergen Hannappel

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

14/11/2004 11:35 AM

[email protected] (Charlie Self) writes:


[...]

> Quite a difference, though. A chainsaw is one of the most dangerous portable
> power tools around, while a bandsaw is not particularly dangerous (given,

Chainsaws alow for some extra dangerous usages. This summer i saw two
construction workors installing plastic water tubing and cutting the
tubes with a chainsaw. One worker kneeled on he street holding the
pipe (~10" diameter) with two hands in front of him, the other kneeled
on the street facing him and cutting the tube between the first
workers hands with a chainsaw... Neither wore any protective clothing,
face shield or ear protection.

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

cC

[email protected] (Charlie Self)

in reply to Juergen Hannappel on 14/11/2004 11:35 AM

14/11/2004 3:57 PM

Juergen Hannappel writes:

>> Quite a difference, though. A chainsaw is one of the most dangerous
>portable
>> power tools around, while a bandsaw is not particularly dangerous (given,
>
>Chainsaws alow for some extra dangerous usages. This summer i saw two
>construction workors installing plastic water tubing and cutting the
>tubes with a chainsaw. One worker kneeled on he street holding the
>pipe (~10" diameter) with two hands in front of him, the other kneeled
>on the street facing him and cutting the tube between the first
>workers hands with a chainsaw... Neither wore any protective clothing,
>face shield or ear protection.

Jeez, man. That makes my skin crawl to think of it. I've written books on
chainsaws, dropped a lot of trees, managed to nick a kneecap with one, and have
never even considered doing anything close to that idiotic. When I was doing a
lot of cutting, though, ear protection and protective clothing were hard to
locate. Thirty years changes a bunch of things.

Charlie Self
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken

LD

Lobby Dosser

in reply to Lobby Dosser on 14/11/2004 8:32 AM

15/11/2004 1:30 AM

Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:22:36 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> IIRC, you need a license to buy a chainsaw now.
>
> No, nor to use one on your own land.
>
> Only if you're looking to buy a top-handle machine (which is a whole
> pile more dangerous), or you're looking to do "work" with one.

I think all of our chainsaws in the US are top-handle. Don't remember
seeing anything else. I see the top-handle as offering better control.

hD

[email protected] (David Hall)

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

16/11/2004 6:45 AM

Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 07:48:48 -0000, "SB" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >My CDT (woodwork) teacher told the class that we couldn't use the bandsaw
> >because you had to be over 18 and have a licence.
>
> Here's one education authority's policy document on workshop hazards.
> www.kirklees-ednet.org.uk/subjects/health/docs/policy/1artdesigntechnology.doc
>
> The relevant chunk is on page 16, here's some highlights:
>
> >
> >In general, woodworking machinery presents a variety of safety hazards
> >to the user, including entanglement, trapping etc. However, if
> >precautions are taken and relevant standards and guidance are
> >followed risks can be reduced to an acceptable level.
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >The school should decide which machinery is suitable for use by each
> >group of students. The decision should be based on pupil maturity and
> >competence, the level of supervision, local authority and national
> >guidelines.
> >
> >However, no child of statutory school age would be expected to have
> >sufficient maturity and competence to use high-risk woodworking
> >machinery.
> >
> >A young person (those above the statutory school age but below 18) may
> >during training use the machines if adequately supervised. After
> >training, adequate supervision must still be provided if the young
> >person is not sufficiently mature.
> >
> >[High risk woodworking machinery] Includes any hand-fed woodworking
> >machinery, any sawing machine fitted with a circular blade or saw band,
> >planing machines when used for surfacing, and vertical spindle moulding machines
> >(spindle moulders should not be used in schools).

So, basically if you are 16 or younger you are allowed to use a
sander? Maybe a drill?

BM

Bob Martin

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

16/11/2004 7:42 AM

Andy Dingley wrote:

> There is _no_ UK law against dado sets. There is a law (part of PUWER
> 98) that requires a rapid stop. As this is awkward to achieve with a
> heavy dado set (you'd need to fit electric braking, which is
> expensive), the cheapest fix for new retail machines is to shorten the
> arbor.

Andy, I'm a bit confused by this comment. The Freud dado set sold by
Machine Mart (p. 296) specifically states "NOT to be used on any machine
with electric braking".

Bob Martin

Sa

"SB"

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

16/11/2004 7:09 AM

Cheers Andy,

So that basically means that maybe he can't let us use it @ skl but there's
no reason not to use it at home, right?

SB



"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 07:48:48 -0000, "SB" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >My CDT (woodwork) teacher told the class that we couldn't use the bandsaw
> >because you had to be over 18 and have a licence.
>
> Here's one education authority's policy document on workshop hazards.
>
www.kirklees-ednet.org.uk/subjects/health/docs/policy/1artdesigntechnology.d
oc
>
> The relevant chunk is on page 16, here's some highlights:
>
> >
> >In general, woodworking machinery presents a variety of safety hazards
> >to the user, including entanglement, trapping etc. However, if
> >precautions are taken and relevant standards and guidance are
> >followed risks can be reduced to an acceptable level.
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >The school should decide which machinery is suitable for use by each
> >group of students. The decision should be based on pupil maturity and
> >competence, the level of supervision, local authority and national
> >guidelines.
> >
> >However, no child of statutory school age would be expected to have
> >sufficient maturity and competence to use high-risk woodworking
> >machinery.
> >
> >A young person (those above the statutory school age but below 18) may
> >during training use the machines if adequately supervised. After
> >training, adequate supervision must still be provided if the young
> >person is not sufficiently mature.
> >
> >[High risk woodworking machinery] Includes any hand-fed woodworking
> >machinery, any sawing machine fitted with a circular blade or saw band,
> >planing machines when used for surfacing, and vertical spindle moulding
machines
> >(spindle moulders should not be used in schools).
>
>

AD

Andy Dingley

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

16/11/2004 2:41 AM

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 07:48:48 -0000, "SB" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>My CDT (woodwork) teacher told the class that we couldn't use the bandsaw
>because you had to be over 18 and have a licence.

Here's one education authority's policy document on workshop hazards.
www.kirklees-ednet.org.uk/subjects/health/docs/policy/1artdesigntechnology.doc

The relevant chunk is on page 16, here's some highlights:

>
>In general, woodworking machinery presents a variety of safety hazards
>to the user, including entanglement, trapping etc. However, if
>precautions are taken and relevant standards and guidance are
>followed risks can be reduced to an acceptable level.
>
>[...]
>
>The school should decide which machinery is suitable for use by each
>group of students. The decision should be based on pupil maturity and
>competence, the level of supervision, local authority and national
>guidelines.
>
>However, no child of statutory school age would be expected to have
>sufficient maturity and competence to use high-risk woodworking
>machinery.
>
>A young person (those above the statutory school age but below 18) may
>during training use the machines if adequately supervised. After
>training, adequate supervision must still be provided if the young
>person is not sufficiently mature.
>
>[High risk woodworking machinery] Includes any hand-fed woodworking
>machinery, any sawing machine fitted with a circular blade or saw band,
>planing machines when used for surfacing, and vertical spindle moulding machines
>(spindle moulders should not be used in schools).

AD

Andy Dingley

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

14/11/2004 11:58 PM

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:17:10 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

> and probably because he couldn't buy a new chainsaw since buying a new
>one requires a license

Great justification - shame it's entirely untrue.
--
Smert' spamionam

AD

Andy Dingley

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

14/11/2004 1:16 PM

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 07:48:48 -0000, "SB" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>My CDT (woodwork) teacher told the class that we couldn't use the bandsaw
>because you had to be over 18 and have a licence.

This isn't quite accurate on the details and the attribution, but it's
not all that far from the truth.

(Legally speaking) People under 18 are "young people". Under 16 are
"children". Most rules like this kick in at 16, not 18.

There is no licence for bandsaw use. The employer may have some
responsibility for ensuring that people are "competent" to use the
machine, but this isn't tied to a formal licence. As is general with
most (but not all) UK worshop safety legislation, it's the
responsibility of the workshop operator to judge what is "competent".
There's no test they have to apply beforehand, but if there is an
accident, then they have to justify their decisions in court.

Mind you, as we've seen with railway maintenance operators and the
student at Shoreham dock, a large company can get away with killing
workers quite carelessly, and there's no effective legal redress.

In contrast, the UK has quite good laws on machine safety and the
rules applied to the machine itself (this is easier to inspect than a
workforce). There's a legal requirement for certain sorts of guard,
and for the machines to not carry on spinning for a long time
afterwards.

There are plenty of bandsaws in education, being used by people under
16. If there weren't, Startrite wouldn't have such a good business in
selling vastly over-priced bandsaws with huge yellow guards on them
otherwise.

So really it's the school's rules in effect here. You _could_ use the
bandsaw, but only if the workshop operator feels that they can offer a
suitable level of supervision for the people involved. You might have
a large class there, and I'm sure you have a couple of idiots in it.
Your CDT teacher just can't say "Use the bandsaw" or there _will_ be
accidents.

If you look like you're not an idiot, and if the class isn't busy,
then most CDT teachers become far more flexible about what you can do
in the workshop. When I was at school, a few of us spent all our lunch
hours in the workshop and we used _everything_. It was only a dozen or
so of us though.

>some idiots didn't "accidently" chop peoples fingers off.

A bandsaw is generally a pretty safe machine. It has a blade that
will injure fingers badly and allow you to remove them by pulling your
hand away, but even then you're looking at surgery rather than losing
the finger altogether. Actual amputations with bandsaws are pretty
rare. It's also easy with a bandsaw to see where the nasty bit it -
this is a small area and you can avoid it.

In contrast, jointers and planers have a reputation for not just
taking the finger, but helping themselves to the whole hand. Circular
saws will amputate a finger quicker than you can pull it away and they
also have the lovely risk of "kickback", where they can throw a piece
of timber across the workshop and hit someone else entirely with it.
And spindle moulders are worse.

I have kids (8 and upwards) in my workshop, and I let them use the
machines whilst supervised. The drill press or bandsaw are OK. The
table saw isn't, just because it's big and you need to have long arms
to be able to use it safely. The jointer is on the "dangerous" list,
but the planer is safe because you work that from the other end of the
board. The welding gear is safe to use too, so long as I've set it up
first.

--
Smert' spamionam

JJ

in reply to Andy Dingley on 14/11/2004 1:16 PM

14/11/2004 11:35 PM

Sun, Nov 14, 2004, 1:16pm (EST+5) [email protected]
(Andy=A0Dingley)
<snip> A bandsaw is generally a pretty safe machine. <snip>

Yup, you'd think. But, so is one of those paper cutters, where you
have to use one hand to hold down the clamp, and the other to work the
lever, so it's plysically impossible to get your fingers near the blade
while it's being used. So, one of my clerks, in Germany, was trying to
impress the German secretary from upstairs (a cute female German). So
he offerred to cut the paper for her. And, proceeded to cut the tip of
one of his fingers off.

I'm not real sure how you'd define that little act. An idiot doing
something a genius couldn't pull off, maybe? Definitely no doubt about
the kid being an idiot tho. He was really amazed when he came back to
the office, stands behind me, and says, "Sarge?", kinda worried like.
And, I didn't even look around, just said, "You hurt yourself, didn't
you?". He just couldn't understand how I knew that. I just knew him.
My kids might hurt themselves, but at least they aren't idiots.



JOAT
Any plan is bad which is incapable of modification.
- Publilius Syrus

JJ

in reply to Andy Dingley on 14/11/2004 1:16 PM

14/11/2004 11:48 PM

Sun, Nov 14, 2004, 1:16pm (EST+5) [email protected]
(Andy=A0Dingley)
<snip> Circular saws will amputate a finger <snip>

I knew a guy (friend of my dad) who almost did himself in with a
circular saw. He was cutting something, and pinned the guard back.
And, then proceeded to cut the thick part of his thigh, down to the bone
- nicked it. And, he survived it - after about a 6 month recovery
period. I think he was going to rest it on his leg, forgetting the
blade was pinned back. If he hadn't screwed with it, he probably
wouldn't even have had a nick. Every once in awhile the government, or
whoever, gets things right. Unfortunately, too often, they screw it up
instead. But, whoever thought up that circular saw guard idea was doing
good that day.

This was the same guy who used a piece of cardboard to pattern a
shotgun. And, leaned it against his aluminum fishing boat. He wound up
patching a whole LOT of holes in that boat.



JOAT
Any plan is bad which is incapable of modification.
- Publilius Syrus

cC

[email protected] (Charlie Self)

in reply to [email protected] (J T) on 14/11/2004 11:48 PM

15/11/2004 10:29 AM

JOAT writes:

> I knew a guy (friend of my dad) who almost did himself in with a
>circular saw. He was cutting something, and pinned the guard back.

Fairly common, and stupid, procedure. A few years ago, a guy was trimming the
bottom line of some vertical siding boards for me, using an old gear driven
Skil saw. He pinned his guard back and went about the job. I asked him not to,
but he told me he did it "all the time." I went around the building, because it
made me nervous to watch. He was fine, and probably still is, but the procedure
saves about two seconds a day in such work, and is dangerous as all get out.

Charlie Self
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken

b

in reply to [email protected] (J T) on 14/11/2004 11:48 PM

15/11/2004 12:11 PM

On 15 Nov 2004 10:29:53 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:

>JOAT writes:
>
>> I knew a guy (friend of my dad) who almost did himself in with a
>>circular saw. He was cutting something, and pinned the guard back.
>
>Fairly common, and stupid, procedure. A few years ago, a guy was trimming the
>bottom line of some vertical siding boards for me, using an old gear driven
>Skil saw. He pinned his guard back and went about the job. I asked him not to,
>but he told me he did it "all the time." I went around the building, because it
>made me nervous to watch. He was fine, and probably still is, but the procedure
>saves about two seconds a day in such work, and is dangerous as all get out.
>
>Charlie Self

there are times when pinning the guard is necessary, generally during
things like awkward compound angle cuts where you need one hand to
control the wood and one for the saw and the angle of approach won't
allow the guard to retract via contact with the edge of the board. the
thing is to pin the guard in such a way that it unpins easily and as
automatically as possible. on a skil77 (and most others, too) this can
be achieved with a pencil wedged between the thumb lever (for manually
retracting the guard) and the body of the saw.

there is always a certain amount of pucker factor during such an
operation....

pc

"patrick conroy"

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

15/11/2004 6:00 AM


"SB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

> I got an email from [email protected] saying that a bandsaw may be
> a
> good choice for saws.

Yeah - my thought was, if you're on a budget, I'd be tempted to buy a mini
bandsaw before I bought one of those mini table saws you found.

>
> My CDT (woodwork) teacher told the class that we couldn't use the bandsaw
> because you had to be over 18 and have a licence. I highly think this was
> so

What does he say about a table saw? Is that OK?

MJ

Mark & Juanita

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

14/11/2004 8:37 PM

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:00:31 +0000, Andy Dingley <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:13:31 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Well, this is the same country that has banned selling tablesaws that can
>>accomodate dado blades.
>
>There is no European or UK ban on the use of or sale of tablesaws with
>long arbors to take dado sets. Dado blades (Freud) are available from
>my nearest high street toolshop (for lack of space they don't sell
>any machines big enough to use them).

My comment is based upon discussions in the newsgroup, for example,
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=db211059.0210240433.5753385b%40posting.google.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DUK%2Bdado%2Bblade%2Barbor%2Bban%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3Ddb211059.0210240433.5753385b%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D2>

AD

Andy Dingley

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

15/11/2004 12:02 PM

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:37:17 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>There is no European or UK ban on the use of or sale of tablesaws with
>>long arbors to take dado sets.

>My comment is based upon discussions in the newsgroup,

Well in that case DCs also suffer regular static explosions.

There is _no_ UK law against dado sets. There is a law (part of PUWER
98) that requires a rapid stop. As this is awkward to achieve with a
heavy dado set (you'd need to fit electric braking, which is
expensive), the cheapest fix for new retail machines is to shorten the
arbor.

If you have a long arbor you can still use it.
If you have a long arbor you can still sell it.

If you want to use a machine in a commercial workshop - any age of
machine - it now needs to comply to this spin-down regulation, even if
that requires retrofitting a brake. OTOH, we did get 5 years warning
of this ruling coming into effect.

--
Smert' spamionam

cC

[email protected] (Charlie Self)

in reply to Andy Dingley on 15/11/2004 12:02 PM

15/11/2004 2:38 PM

Andy Dingley responds:

>There is _no_ UK law against dado sets. There is a law (part of PUWER
>98) that requires a rapid stop. As this is awkward to achieve with a
>heavy dado set (you'd need to fit electric braking, which is
>expensive), the cheapest fix for new retail machines is to shorten the
>arbor.
>
>If you have a long arbor you can still use it.
>If you have a long arbor you can still sell it.
>
>If you want to use a machine in a commercial workshop - any age of
>machine - it now needs to comply to this spin-down regulation, even if
>that requires retrofitting a brake. OTOH, we did get 5 years warning
>of this ruling coming into effect.

What's the spin down time. If it isn't instant stop, a la Saw Stop, it seems
useless to me. A hand stuck in a dado blade is going to get chewed up about as
much as possible in 30 seconds as compared to 60 seconds.

Spin down time and the use of electric brakes on power tools have always seemed
to me to more beneficial in stopping the blade quickly so the next operation
can be started, not as a safety measure, though it might also serve as such on
some circular saws (Skil type) and one or two miter saws, always assuming those
don't have guards.

Charlie Self
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken

AD

Andy Dingley

in reply to Andy Dingley on 15/11/2004 12:02 PM

15/11/2004 4:17 PM

On 15 Nov 2004 14:38:42 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:

>What's the spin down time. If it isn't instant stop, a la Saw Stop, it seems
>useless to me.

It's not about stopping it in an accident, it's about avoiding those
old heavyweight machines (chiefly bandsaws and spindle moulders with
iron heads) that carried on turning long after they'd been switched
off and gone quiet.

Here's a useful site:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/woodindx.htm

and here's the relevant link
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/wis38.pdf

--
Smert' spamionam

AD

Andy Dingley

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

16/11/2004 4:41 PM

On 16 Nov 2004 06:45:24 -0800, [email protected] (David Hall)
wrote:

>So, basically if you are 16 or younger you are allowed to use a
>sander? Maybe a drill?

I'm not familiar with CDT these days. But there was a time in the
early '80s when _everything_ was acrylic sheet, scrollsawn, drilled,
heated and bent over a hot-wire line bender, then shaped on big disk
sanders with quadrant guards. "Woodworking" as we think of it
hereabouts to generally involve a lot of solid timber just wasn't part
of it.

I was at school through the '70s. I did a year of woodwork and learned
nothing. We didn't touch any machines. I did a full course of
metalwork (O level) and learned a reasonable bit, mainly turning. I
did far more of either at home, although not much wodworking.

I also heard one of the wisest comments from a teacher I've yet heard.
The metalwork teacher pointed out that almost none of us would end up
in hands-on engineering. Of those few that did, we'd be working 40
hour weeks as apprentices, doing nothing other than engineering.
Compared to an hour or two a week and this "O level" we'd acquired,
we'd do more in a few weeks apprenticeship than we'd done in our whole
school career. I was never an apprentice, but I did spend a few weeks
on a basic industry apprentice's metalworking course (so as to qualify
as a chartered engineer, although I was mainly a physicist). My
teacher was right.

--
Smert' spamionam

MJ

Mark & Juanita

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

14/11/2004 8:29 PM

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:58:57 +0000, Andy Dingley <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:17:10 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> and probably because he couldn't buy a new chainsaw since buying a new
>>one requires a license
>
>Great justification - shame it's entirely untrue.

Based that upon your earlier posting indicating a license was needed to
buy a top-handled chain saw. After your subsequent posting explaining that
the top-handled chain saw is not the same as what we here in the US would
think it to be, I stand corrected.

MJ

Mark & Juanita

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

14/11/2004 2:17 PM

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:54:55 +0000, Andy Dingley <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 08:32:04 GMT, Lobby Dosser
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I think you need special dispensation or something to use a
>>chainsaw now in the UK.
>
>You need a licence to stand _near_to_ someone else using a chainsaw.
>
... snip
>
>There are a series of licences for chainsaw operators, light felling,
>heavy felling, and working at height with chainsaws. You're not even
>allowed to buy a top-handle chainsaw without the right licence.
>
>As to the actual injury rates, forestry in the UK has a good safety
>record. If you hear of an accident, chances are that it's a farmer
>with no training, no safety kit, and using an ancient unbraked saw
>that was being hard to start.


and probably because he couldn't buy a new chainsaw since buying a new
one requires a license which he most likely doesn't have, but he does have
an ancient chainsaw with no safety features.

Law of unintended consequences sucks, doesn't it? ;-)

JH

Juergen Hannappel

in reply to "SB" on 14/11/2004 7:48 AM

15/11/2004 1:41 PM

"Mel" <[email protected]> writes:


[...]


> I'm not aware of any laws in the UK that restrict saw arbor length.
> There's certainly no ban on the sale of dado saws. I wouldn't

AFAIK wobble dados are forbidden.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

cC

[email protected] (Charlie Self)

in reply to Juergen Hannappel on 15/11/2004 1:41 PM

15/11/2004 2:40 PM

Juergen Hannappel writes:

>> I'm not aware of any laws in the UK that restrict saw arbor length.
>> There's certainly no ban on the sale of dado saws. I wouldn't
>
>AFAIK wobble dados are forbidden.

Well, hell, that even makes sense, but has zip to do with safety. They're nasty
tools, hard to adjust, leaving a V shaped groove bottom, and they sound awful.

Now, ask me how I feel about wobble dado sets.

Charlie Self
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken

Gg

"George"

in reply to Juergen Hannappel on 15/11/2004 1:41 PM

15/11/2004 11:56 AM

Not to mention how much sawdust they raise, even at a distance, when they
wind up. Only thing that scares me worse is the molding cutter I once
owned.


"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Juergen Hannappel writes:
>
> >> I'm not aware of any laws in the UK that restrict saw arbor length.
> >> There's certainly no ban on the sale of dado saws. I wouldn't
> >
> >AFAIK wobble dados are forbidden.
>
> Well, hell, that even makes sense, but has zip to do with safety. They're
nasty
> tools, hard to adjust, leaving a V shaped groove bottom, and they sound
awful.
>
> Now, ask me how I feel about wobble dado sets.
>
> Charlie Self
> "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
> promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken


You’ve reached the end of replies