I just had my second kickback in a couple of months and, since I am a
newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
Gerry
P.S. Only minor damage to chest, knuckle, and garage ceiling. Last
time, the little cut and bruise were mostly hidden by the moustache
although one tooth still feels a little loose.
Why does it sound to me like someone is trying to use a mitergauge and a rip
fence at the same time?
If I am right, remember that a rip fence is not a substitute for a stop
block. You can always clamp on a short stop block that ends before the blade
begins.
-- A
"G.E.R.R.Y." <DON'[email protected]> wrote in message
news:200820031036428007%DON'[email protected]...
> I just had my second kickback in a couple of months and, since I am a
> newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
> the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
> considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
> fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
>
> Gerry
>
> P.S. Only minor damage to chest, knuckle, and garage ceiling. Last
> time, the little cut and bruise were mostly hidden by the moustache
> although one tooth still feels a little loose.
"G.E.R.R.Y." <DON'[email protected]> wrote
: I just had my second kickback in a couple of months and, since I am a
: newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
: the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
: considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
: fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
The answer to this query might be found on my web site - please look at
'Circular Sawbench Safety' - 'Fences'.
Jeff G
"G.E.R.R.Y." <DON'[email protected]> wrote in message
news:230820030017133803%DON'[email protected]...
: In article <[email protected]>, Jeff Gorman
: <[email protected]> wrote:
:
: > The answer to this query might be found on my web site - please look at
: > 'Circular Sawbench Safety' - 'Fences'.
: >
: > Jeff G
:
: What's the URL?
It is in a disguised form at the foot of the posting, as below.
Jeff G
--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
Email address is username@ISP
username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
Website www.username.clara.net
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>He doesn't have quite the earmarks of a troll, I don't believe. All the
>evidence so far suggests that he's just an idiot.
Because, as we all know, all trolls are idiots, but not all idiots are
trolls. Thankfully.
-BAT
In article <[email protected]>, Mortimer
Schnerd, RN <[email protected]> wrote:
> I read his comment to suggest the fence be manufactured 1/8" thinner
> at the last 1/3 of its length, thereby allowing slightly more free
> room there.
That is exactly what I was suggesting.
Another poster thought I might have been using the mitre gauge and the
fence. I know that's a definite no-no.
Another suggested toeing out the back of the fence by 1/64in. Would
that be enough? And how can this be done without causing the fence to
no longer be parallel to the blade?
Could I attach a 1/8in. strip of UHMW (?) to the first two-thirds of
the fence or to roughly the centre of the blade?
Gerry <so little knowledge, so many questions>
In article <[email protected]>, Bay
Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> Since the blade on my Unisaw is exactly parallel to the miter slots,
> I adjust the fence relative to the right miter slot.
Wouldn't that put the fence out of being parallel to the desired cut?
Or am I missing something here?
Gerry
In article <210820030050421969%DON'[email protected]>, G.E.R.R.Y.
<DON'[email protected]> wrote:
> Wouldn't that put the fence out of being parallel to the desired cut?
> Or am I missing something here?
I want to seriously thank all of you for the excellent /and/ /varied/
advice. I can't begin to tell all of you how reassuring it is for a
newbie with no nearby "teacher" available to be able to reach out and
get the benefit of the advice from all of your combined experience.
Thank you all.
However, I'm still unsure about toeing out the rear of the fence even
by as little as 1/64in. Wouldn't that create pieces for a project that
are off just enough that, by the time you have to attach four or six
pieces together, the "off-ness" is compounded to create a poorly fitted
piece of woodworking? I'm still wondering about a "half fence" or a
fence whose back half (third?) is narrower than the front part.
What I have gleaned from the advice offered is that:
I *will* start using a splitter /for/ /the/ /first/ /time/
I *will* get a copy of Mehler's (sp?) book
I *will* make featherboards
I *will* make beefier hold-downs rather than pushsticks.
Those are going to be my New Year's resolutions. Better late than
never. Feel free to tell me of any that you think I've missed. I work
better from lists.
Gerry
In article <[email protected]>, Morgans
<[email protected]> wrote:
> boredom explains my sudden appearance here.
C'mon, Jim, it's not nice to tell people that you're only dropping in
out of boredom. ;-)
Gerry
In article <[email protected]>, Jeff Gorman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> The answer to this query might be found on my web site - please look at
> 'Circular Sawbench Safety' - 'Fences'.
>
> Jeff G
What's the URL?
Gerry
"Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote in message
news:3F4452A3.7706@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com...
> Set it *dead* parallel and use a push board rather than a push stick to
better
> hold the workpiece down. With T-square fence set at an angle, changing
the
> blade height changes the rip width, rendering the scale useless.
Persisely... ;~)
Don't kid yourself about how fast your reflexes are ... they don't even
signify in this situation, as your bruises amply prove.
How about the splitter? Were you using one?
One of the benefits of the wrec is that people can learn from other's
mistakes. Your answer to this question may help someone else avoid injury in
the same manner.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/16/03
"G.E.R.R.Y." wrote in message
> In article <Doug Miller wrote:
>
> > Also, stand off to one side a bit. If you're not in line with the blade,
you
> > won't get hit by stuff that's thrown back.
>
> Both times, I *was* standing to the left. Even though I have very fast
> reflexes, I still got hit. The physical damage was lessened
> considerably because of the relexes. A minor consolation however, my
> eleven-year old son just happened to witness the speed of the
> projectile both times, so, at least, two of us are learning valuable
> safety lessons.
>
> Gerry
"G.E.R.R.Y." wrote in message
If you will answer the question, "Were you using a splitter?", you might get
more information that will help you.
> > I read his comment to suggest the fence be manufactured 1/8" thinner
> > at the last 1/3 of its length, thereby allowing slightly more free
> > room there.
>
> That is exactly what I was suggesting.
Terribly bad idea ... hardly think what the rest of the woodworking world
needs is a tapered fence.
Simple solution: Adjust your methods of use and alignment to those that are
tried and true down through the years and you will be safer, get better
cuts, and more enjoyment out of the tool.
> Another suggested toeing out the back of the fence by 1/64in. Would
> that be enough? And how can this be done without causing the fence to
> no longer be parallel to the blade?
I don't subscribe to the theory, but respect those that do ... and there are
bunch of knowledgeable woodworkers who do toe their fence out 1/64" at the
back.
You need to try it to see if helps your situation ... do this while your are
aligning your saw, but do that FIRST.
>
> Could I attach a 1/8in. strip of UHMW (?) to the first two-thirds of
> the fence or to roughly the centre of the blade?
Again, you would be better off using a splitter if you haven't been;
aligning your saw; not standing in harms way; buying a book on table saw use
and safety; and trying toeing your fence out the recommended amount
Forget all the other stop gap measures and advice ... they are
unsatisfactory and will compound the problem.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/16/03
"G.E.R.R.Y." wrote:
>
> I just had my second kickback in a couple of months and, since I am a
> newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
> the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
> considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
> fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
This is a common technique for ripping thin stock. You put a board along
your
fence such that it only extends from the front of the saw to the back of
the blade.
This becomes the fence that the wood rides against.
This also provides a "relief" gap directly past the blade to help keep
stock from being
trapped between the blade and the fence. I believe I saw this in Mahlers
(sp?)
tablesaw book.
-Bruce
>
> Gerry
>
> P.S. Only minor damage to chest, knuckle, and garage ceiling. Last
> time, the little cut and bruise were mostly hidden by the moustache
> although one tooth still feels a little loose.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Leon wrote:
>
> "G.E.R.R.Y." <DON'[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > Another suggested toeing out the back of the fence by 1/64in. Would
> > that be enough?
>
> IMHO too much. I have always heard the thickness of a dollar bill folded in
> half. I prescribe to a Forrest blade and a properly set up saw with the
> fence as close to dead on parallel as possible. Keep in mind that if you
> toe out the back end of the fence, it does not always mean that the wood
> will follow the fence. The waste side of the cut will then begin rubbing
> the left back side of the blade. What does that really accomplish? I
> prefer for both sides of my cut to be smooth and have as little contact as
> possable with the blade after being cut.
Set it *dead* parallel and use a push board rather than a push stick to better
hold the workpiece down. With T-square fence set at an angle, changing the
blade height changes the rip width, rendering the scale useless.
G.E.R.R.Y. wrote:
> I just had my second kickback in a couple of months and, since I am a
> newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
> the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
> considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
> fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
>
> Gerry
>
===============================
I just finished reading about 20 replies to you post... AND I can not
add anything to the comments made by Doug Miller... BELIEVE HIM !!!!
HOWEVER Doug did not jump on the guy who said stand behind the
saw.. not in front of the saw......I know the OP meant to say stand
off to the side but I was rolling on the floor laughing my ass off on
the behind the saw comment....
Heh heh But I do agree that standing behind the saw, and pulling the
wood thru sure would lessen the chances of getting hit during a kickback...
Bob Griffiths
"G.E.R.R.Y." <DON'[email protected]> wrote in message
news:200820031036428007%DON'[email protected]...
> newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
> the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
> considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
> fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
All the books I've seen give you two options: (1) fence parallel with blade
along entire length and use a good splitter/riving knife or (2) toe-out back
end of fence away from blade by 1/64".
Wider, not narrower.
Suggest you share more with the group on saw specifics; stock specifics;
technique.
"G.E.R.R.Y." <DON'[email protected]> wrote in message
news:200820031224065746%DON'[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Mortimer
> Schnerd, RN <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> That is exactly what I was suggesting.
Oops - sorry then. Misunderstood "narrow" in the context.
>
> Another suggested toeing out the back of the fence by 1/64in. Would
> that be enough? And how can this be done without causing the fence to
> no longer be parallel to the blade?
That's the point - it is not parallel, but the idea is that 1/64" at the
back end of the fence has no discernable effect on the cut. Whether 1/64 is
enough or not, I don't think the answer is cut-n-dried. It probably would be
enough for many potential kick-backs and insufficient for a few.
> Could I attach a 1/8in. strip of UHMW (?) to the first two-thirds of
> the fence or to roughly the centre of the blade?
Again, I think consensus is that you would end the "auxillary fence" about
2" *before* the start of the blade.
To me - I think the best approach is to do what you can to avoid kickback
- fence parallel to the blade
- good splitter
then make sure you're prepared for the event
- concentrate
- keep fingers clear
- stand the hell out of the way
In article <[email protected]>, "tnfkajs" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"G.E.R.R.Y." <DON'[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:200820031036428007%DON'[email protected]...
>> newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
>> the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
>> considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
>> fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
>
>All the books I've seen give you two options: (1) fence parallel with blade
>along entire length and use a good splitter/riving knife or (2) toe-out back
>end of fence away from blade by 1/64".
>
>Wider, not narrower.
He said he thought the *fence* should be narrower, not the gap between the
fence and the blade.
>
>Suggest you share more with the group on saw specifics; stock specifics;
>technique.
>
>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
IME, blade height is less of a factor in most types of kickback than it is
made out to be in this thread.
Buried in one the OP's recent posts appears to be an admission that he was
not using a splitter during either of these occurrence.
I'd bet my entire shop that if you duplicated his situation, with a
splitter, and with the blade cranked to what would be considered an
"excessive" height, the kickbacks would have never occurred.
Use of a splitter is inarguably the best defense against the type of
kickback that caused the bruises.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/16/03
"Morgans" wrote in message
> I agree with most of what he wrote, except the blade height arguement.
>
> Excessive blade height is so much more dangerious, that it should not ever
> be encouraged. In my opinion, if the blade is high, there is more length
of
> the blade exposed, possibly with the sides of the blade in contact with
the
> wood. Especially if it has wild grain, with internal stresses being
> relieved, the wood will ride up on the blade, then shoot out.
>
> Use proper technique, including blade height, and kickback will not be a
> problem.
> --
> Jim in NC--
>
>
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:12:42 -0700, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> >3. Make sure your blade is raised just high enough to cut thru the
>> >material you're working on. An extra 1/2" or so should be plenty.
>>
>> Bad advice. This makes kickback *more* likely, not less. The lower the blade,
>> the shallower the angle at which the teeth contact the wood, and the greater
>> the horizontal component of the force exerted on the wood by the blade. This
>> force is directed back toward the operator.
>>
>That's "pushback", not "kickback" and is much less violent. Kickback is
>where the wood climbs the back of the sawblade and is violently thrown
>forward by the rotation of the blade.
>
>If the bottom of the wood shows tooth marks on its surface that's
>kickback :-).
>
>That said, I've always heard that the blade should be at most high enough
>above the wood that the gullets are clear. That minimizes the depth of
>cut to the operators hand :-).
>
>But the smoothest cut is achieved where the blade is high above the wood
>because of the angle you mention.
>
>So take your pick. Safety or smoothness.
The advice I gave was some general safety advice, Larry...and not
necessarily meant to combat just kickback. In essence, of course,
much of it was personal opinion.
I agree about your gullet advice. As I suggested in my post, a 1/2"
or so above the stock will usually do it.
Bottom line...I think the OP came here for advice...and he's gettin'
plenty of it. lol He'll need to assimilate what he wants to...and
then develop his own style and rules for woodworking.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Cat...the OTHER white meat!
tnfkajs wrote:
>> newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why
>> is the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't
>> there be considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last
>> third of the fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its
>> blade side?
>
> All the books I've seen give you two options: (1) fence parallel with
> blade along entire length and use a good splitter/riving knife or (2)
> toe-out back end of fence away from blade by 1/64".
>
> Wider, not narrower.
I read his comment to suggest the fence be manufactured 1/8" thinner at the last
1/3 of its length, thereby allowing slightly more free room there.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:40:53 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>1/64" is plenty. instead of putting something on the fence, just
>realign it too NOT be parallel (as you suspected) to the blade, but to
>be toed away, at the far end a bit. I set my Biesmeyer fence about .004
>further away and have no problems. Since the blade on my Unisaw is
>exactly parallel to the miter slots, I adjust the fence relative to the
>right miter slot. That's a lot easier than trying to adjust it relative
>to the blade!
>
>dave
I bought the Accuset,
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000223V2/103-9525756-7742207
which claims accuracy of "better than 10/1000 inches". Well, turns out
that it is closer to 15/1000 or 1/64". I found this out by measuring.
Then, I spoke to someone at the company, maybe the boss. The leg for the
outfeed (they have to make an assumption there as to what side the fence is
on) is set 1/64" off so that when the scales line up the thing actually is
not parallel. I never could get an answer I could understand when I asked
how a device with a 1/64" offset could claim 10/1000" accuracy. Returned
it.
In article <[email protected]>, "Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Bob G" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> G.E.R.R.Y. wrote:
>>
>> > I just had my second kickback in a couple of months and, since I am a
>> > newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
>> > the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
>> > considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
>> > fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
>> >
>> > Gerry
>> >
>> ===============================
>> I just finished reading about 20 replies to you post... AND I can not
>> add anything to the comments made by Doug Miller... BELIEVE HIM !!!!
>>
>> HOWEVER Doug did not jump on the guy who said stand behind the
>> saw.. not in front of the saw......I know the OP meant to say stand
>> off to the side but I was rolling on the floor laughing my ass off on
>> the behind the saw comment....
>>
>> Heh heh But I do agree that standing behind the saw, and pulling the
>> wood thru sure would lessen the chances of getting hit during a
>kickback...
>>
>> Bob Griffiths
>>
>I agree with most of what he wrote, except the blade height arguement.
>
>Excessive blade height is so much more dangerious, that it should not ever
>be encouraged. In my opinion, if the blade is high, there is more length of
>the blade exposed, possibly with the sides of the blade in contact with the
>wood. Especially if it has wild grain, with internal stresses being
>relieved, the wood will ride up on the blade, then shoot out.
>
Yes, there's more of the blade exposed if the blade is high, but less of it is
actually in contact with the wood. The sides of the blade should *never* be in
contact wth the wood. If they are, the rip fence is maladjusted or the stock
is not properly prepared.
IMO if the saw is set up properly, and the workpiece is held down properly
against the table, this is not an issue. If the rip fence is adjusted
correctly, and a splitter or riving knife is in use, the teeth at the rear of
the blade will not contact the wood anyway.
I believe the principal danger in excessive blade height is amputation, not
kickback. If the blade projects only 1/8" above the workpiece, it's pretty
hard (though not impossible) to amputate a digit.
>Use proper technique, including blade height, and kickback will not be a
>problem.
I think blade height is probably the least important factor in producing
kickbacks. The "Safety" chapter in Mehler's book devotes five pages to
preventing kickback, and never even mentions blade height.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
In article <[email protected]>, Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 02:17:00 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Trent©
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:36:42 -0400, "G.E.R.R.Y."
>>><DON'[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I just had my second kickback in a couple of months
>>>
>>>1. Make sure the blade is perpendicular to the table.
>>
>>This has absolutely no effect on kickback.
>
>I didn't label my post as anti-kickback measures...and they all
>weren't meant to be. You need to read for comprehension...and quit
>assuming things.
>
He was asking for advice about kickbacks. I think *you* are the one who needs
to read for comprehension.
>>>3. Make sure your blade is raised just high enough to cut thru the
>>>material you're working on. An extra 1/2" or so should be plenty.
>>
>>Bad advice. This makes kickback *more* likely, not less. The lower the blade,
>>the shallower the angle at which the teeth contact the wood, and the greater
>>the horizontal component of the force exerted on the wood by the blade. This
>>force is directed back toward the operator.
>
>Bull. But yer entitled to your opinion.
No, not bull. But you're still wet behind the ears. You'll figure it out
eventually.
>>>5. Consider getting a saw of low horsepower...or adjusting your
>>>present saw...so that the blade will bind instead of throwing out the
>>>material...until you get more experience. This can't be done with
>>>every saw, however.
>>
>>More bad advice. Deliberately bind the saw? What happens if/when it comes
>>free, genius?
>
>I didn't say 'deliberately bind the saw'. You really have a hard time
>with the English language, don't you.
Read what you wrote, dumb-ass. You advised him to adjust the saw so that the
blade will bind. IOW, you advised him to do exactly the thing that will
*create* a kickback. Did you happen to read Leon's response to you, where he
pointed out the same thing? I'm not picking on you. You're giving _dangerous_
advice.
>
>What I DID say...
What you DID say is "consider ... adjusting your present saw so the blade will
bind". This CREATES kickback.
>
>With a low horsepower motor...or with a belt set to that it will slip
>at high resistance...the blade will bind...and stop rotating.
No, that is NOT what you said. Look above. You even quoted it yourself.
In any event, *both* what you said originally, and what you now claim you
said, are very dangerous, extremely bad advice.
>Is this
>a good setup for the average woodworker? Probably not. But its the
>way that many of us learned...the ones who had to BUILD their first
>table saw...as I did...and cut with a 1/4 horse motor.
So why are you advising him to do something that even you admit is "probably
not" "a good setup for the average woodworker"?
>
>What happens when it comes free? You just take the board out! Duh!
>Because by then, you've turned off the motor...so you just gently take
>it out and start again.
No, you idiot, when you take your hand off of it to reach for the motor
switch, it comes flying back in your face because you're not holding it down
anymore. DUH!
>This is NOT recommended advice for most folks.
Correction: it's not recommended advice for ANYONE. What you suggest here is
dangerous. If you want to be a reckless idiot in your own shop, fine with me.
But don't advise others to follow your example.
>But this is the kinda
>saw that I learned on...before every saw had 1-2 hp motors. If you
>didn't feed the stock straight...and at the proper forward
>pressure...the blade would freeze up on you.
Ah, I see. You started out using a cheap POS table saw that wasn't strong
enough to kick a board back. So now you think that you know how to prevent
kickback.
>It was a great learning tool. You should try building your own table
>saw some time.
You obviously didn't learn very much from it. You should stop giving advice on
subjects that you obviously know absolutely nothing about.
>
>>>6. Don't stand behind the saw when you cut.
>>>
>>>7. Make sure the back of the fence is further from the blade than the
>>>front of the blade...to help prevent binding.
>>
>>Unnecessary, as many have pointed out.
>
>Necessary...as many others have pointed out.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
Explain the many posts from people who have set their fences dead parallel to
the blade. If it's "necessary" as you claim to toe the fence away from the
blade, how come these people aren't constantly experiencing kickbacks?
Explain this excerpt from "The Table Saw Book" by Kelly Mehler:
"Every table saw comes with a rip fence, which must be properly aligned for
the blade to cut safely and efficiently. As discussed on p. 56, the rip fence
can be set parallel to the sawblade, or slightly out of parallel (with the
fence a mere 1/64 in. farther from the rear of the sawblade than from the
front of the blade). [Chap. 6, Ripping, page 92] He then goes on to discuss
the pros and cons of each approach.
Or this from "Table Saw Magic" by Jim Tolpin:
"Safe and accurate ripping requires that the rip fence be parallel to the
blade." [page 39]
Or this:
"An easy and accurate way to ensure that the rip fence locks up parallel to
the blade is to align it parallel to one of the miter gauge grooves, which you
have already aligned parallel to the blade as one of the first steps in your
tune-up." [Tolpin, page 43]
Do you consider yourself to be more of an expert on table saws than Tolpin and
Mehler? Maybe you should write your own book.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
In article <[email protected]>, McQualude <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller spaketh...
>
>>>Whew...TOOK ya long enough!
>>
>> It didn't take *me* any time at all to "get it". Have *you* figured
>> out yet that the advice you gave was stupid, dangerous, and not based
>> on any real degree of experience?
>
>Hi Doug, I don't know if anyone pointed this out yet, but you've been
>arguing with a troll or maybe he's just an idiot. I think just about
>everyone else has killfiled him.
He doesn't have quite the earmarks of a troll, I don't believe. All the
evidence so far suggests that he's just an idiot.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
In article <210820030050421969%DON'[email protected]>, "G.E.R.R.Y." <DON'[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Bay
>Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Since the blade on my Unisaw is exactly parallel to the miter slots,
>> I adjust the fence relative to the right miter slot.
>
>Wouldn't that put the fence out of being parallel to the desired cut?
>Or am I missing something here?
>
If the miter slots are parallel to the blade, and the fence is parallel to the
miter slots, the fence is necessarily parallel to the blade as well. If the
fence toes out from the miter slot by a given amount, it necessarily toes out
from the blade by exactly the same amount.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
In article <[email protected]>, Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:39:17 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>>But this is the kinda
>>>saw that I learned on...before every saw had 1-2 hp motors. If you
>>>didn't feed the stock straight...and at the proper forward
>>>pressure...the blade would freeze up on you.
>>
>>Ah, I see. You started out using a cheap POS table saw that wasn't strong
>>enough to kick a board back.
>
>Exactly. Now ya got it.
>
>Whew...TOOK ya long enough!
It didn't take *me* any time at all to "get it". Have *you* figured out yet
that the advice you gave was stupid, dangerous, and not based on any real
degree of experience?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
sometimes when your ripping the stress in the wood can close the saw kerf,
that is why I use a splitter. I was crosscutting plywood when it bound up
and chucked it at me, took a second to realize what happened when I got off
the floor, I now have 12 inch long scar on my stomach and you can count the
layers of plywood in the scar, oh yea that's why I use a splitter
now.....Tony
"G.E.R.R.Y." <DON'[email protected]> wrote in message
news:200820031036428007%DON'[email protected]...
> I just had my second kickback in a couple of months and, since I am a
> newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
> the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
> considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
> fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
>
> Gerry
>
> P.S. Only minor damage to chest, knuckle, and garage ceiling. Last
> time, the little cut and bruise were mostly hidden by the moustache
> although one tooth still feels a little loose.
In article <[email protected]>, Bob G <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>G.E.R.R.Y. wrote:
>
>> I just had my second kickback in a couple of months and, since I am a
>> newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
>> the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
>> considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
>> fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
>>
>> Gerry
>>
>===============================
>I just finished reading about 20 replies to you post... AND I can not
>add anything to the comments made by Doug Miller... BELIEVE HIM !!!!
Thanks, Bob...
>
> HOWEVER Doug did not jump on the guy who said stand behind the
>saw.. not in front of the saw......I know the OP meant to say stand
>off to the side but I was rolling on the floor laughing my ass off on
>the behind the saw comment....
>
I must have missed that. Maybe it came from someone who's already in my "Bozo
Bin". :-)
> Heh heh But I do agree that standing behind the saw, and pulling the
>wood thru sure would lessen the chances of getting hit during a kickback...
Yeah, no kidding. Kind of hard to cut large panels that way, though. :-)
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> 1. Make sure the blade is perpendicular to the table.
What if you want to cut a bevel down the edge of the board???
> 5. Consider getting a saw of low horsepower...or adjusting your
> present saw...so that the blade will bind instead of throwing out the
> material...until you get more experience. This can't be done with
> every saw, however.
Umm the blade binding is exactly what causes kick back.... IMHO more hp
will cause the balde to simply cut through the material rather than bind,
slowdown, catch and throw back the piece. I had many more possible kick
back episodes with a low hp TS than a 3 ho TS.
>
> 7. Make sure the back of the fence is further from the blade than the
> front of the blade...to help prevent binding.
Then, the left, waste side of the board binds against the left back side of
the blade.
How big is the workpiece?
From your injuries, it seems they might be quite small. Small pieces,
especially ones that are nearly square, pose a high risk of kickback due
to the possibility of the piece rotating as it passes between the fence
and blade. A tiny amount of rotation -- even just a few thousandths of an
inch -- can be enough to cause a violent kickback.
A splitter, which can prevent kickback on longer pieces, especially those
with internal stresses, does not protect against this particular type of
kickback. The best solution for cutting small pieces is to use a jig;
often a crosscut sled will suffice.
Cheers!
Jim
I think you're going a far with 1/8th inch. What about the outer edge
of the cut pulling in toward the back of the blade. You know, the
teeth on the blade are NOT flush. Seems like after you make the
cut the outside of the wood goes in toward the body of the blade,
and by the time it reaches the back would be flexing against the
disc, and heading right into back teeth.
Am I crazy?
--
The software said it ran under Windows 98/NT/2000, or better.
So I installed it on Linux...
"G.E.R.R.Y." <DON'[email protected]> wrote in message
news:200820031224065746%DON'[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Mortimer
> Schnerd, RN <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I read his comment to suggest the fence be manufactured 1/8" thinner
> > at the last 1/3 of its length, thereby allowing slightly more free
> > room there.
>
> That is exactly what I was suggesting.
>
> Another poster thought I might have been using the mitre gauge and the
> fence. I know that's a definite no-no.
>
> Another suggested toeing out the back of the fence by 1/64in. Would
> that be enough? And how can this be done without causing the fence to
> no longer be parallel to the blade?
>
> Could I attach a 1/8in. strip of UHMW (?) to the first two-thirds of
> the fence or to roughly the centre of the blade?
>
> Gerry <so little knowledge, so many questions>
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If I understand you correctly, that would give you a greater chance of
kick
> back as it is generally the wood engaging the back of the blade that
causes
> the kick back.
>
> Many recommend toeing the fence out slightly (1/64") at the back ... AWAY
> from the blade.
>
> Sounds like you are not using a splitter ... if not, you should be. Your
two
> kick backs could have more than likely be prevented with one. A poorly
> aligned saw will also give you a greater propensity for kick back.
>
> You need to sit back and figure out what is causing this ... a good book
on
> table saws, like Kelly Mehler's, appears to be in order.
>
> ... and don't stand directly behind the blade.
>
> --
This month's Wood magazine: In the cover picture the saw operator is
standing directly in the plane of the sawblade, one hand on either side of
the blade, ripping what appears to be a piece of soft maple (a guess from
the materials used to make the shop cabinets). Picture is repeated on page
44. Of course, he's using a splitter and safety glasses, so 2 out of 3...
Cheers,
Eric
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 02:17:00 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:36:42 -0400, "G.E.R.R.Y."
>><DON'[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I just had my second kickback in a couple of months
>>
>>1. Make sure the blade is perpendicular to the table.
>
>This has absolutely no effect on kickback.
I didn't label my post as anti-kickback measures...and they all
weren't meant to be. You need to read for comprehension...and quit
assuming things.
>>3. Make sure your blade is raised just high enough to cut thru the
>>material you're working on. An extra 1/2" or so should be plenty.
>
>Bad advice. This makes kickback *more* likely, not less. The lower the blade,
>the shallower the angle at which the teeth contact the wood, and the greater
>the horizontal component of the force exerted on the wood by the blade. This
>force is directed back toward the operator.
Bull. But yer entitled to your opinion.
I never have more blade exposed than is necessary to get a clean cut.
>>5. Consider getting a saw of low horsepower...or adjusting your
>>present saw...so that the blade will bind instead of throwing out the
>>material...until you get more experience. This can't be done with
>>every saw, however.
>
>More bad advice. Deliberately bind the saw? What happens if/when it comes
>free, genius?
I didn't say 'deliberately bind the saw'. You really have a hard time
with the English language, don't you.
What I DID say...
With a low horsepower motor...or with a belt set to that it will slip
at high resistance...the blade will bind...and stop rotating. Is this
a good setup for the average woodworker? Probably not. But its the
way that many of us learned...the ones who had to BUILD their first
table saw...as I did...and cut with a 1/4 horse motor.
What happens when it comes free? You just take the board out! Duh!
Because by then, you've turned off the motor...so you just gently take
it out and start again.
This is NOT recommended advice for most folks. But this is the kinda
saw that I learned on...before every saw had 1-2 hp motors. If you
didn't feed the stock straight...and at the proper forward
pressure...the blade would freeze up on you.
It was a great learning tool. You should try building your own table
saw some time.
>>6. Don't stand behind the saw when you cut.
>>
>>7. Make sure the back of the fence is further from the blade than the
>>front of the blade...to help prevent binding.
>
>Unnecessary, as many have pointed out.
Necessary...as many others have pointed out.
>>>and, since I am a
>>>newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
>>>the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
>>>considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
>>>fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
>>
>>The fence is actually a big T-square, Gerry. If yer gonna make the
>>front part able to ride horizontally along the track...and you want to
>>make the fence tapered to smaller at the far end...then the piece yer
>>CUTTIN' would be tapered, too...since yer running it along the
>>fence...the vertical piece. And a tapered cut is not what you
>>normally want, of course.
>
>He didn't describe a tapered fence. Read it again.
What the hell are you talkin' about NOW?!! lol
>>And don't FORCE the wood thru. Give the saw blade a chance to cut.
>
>Doesn't this contradict your advice in #5 above to bind the blade?
Not at all.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Cat...the OTHER white meat!
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >3. Make sure your blade is raised just high enough to cut thru the
> >material you're working on. An extra 1/2" or so should be plenty.
>
> Bad advice. This makes kickback *more* likely, not less. The lower the blade,
> the shallower the angle at which the teeth contact the wood, and the greater
> the horizontal component of the force exerted on the wood by the blade. This
> force is directed back toward the operator.
>
That's "pushback", not "kickback" and is much less violent. Kickback is
where the wood climbs the back of the sawblade and is violently thrown
forward by the rotation of the blade.
If the bottom of the wood shows tooth marks on its surface that's
kickback :-).
That said, I've always heard that the blade should be at most high enough
above the wood that the gullets are clear. That minimizes the depth of
cut to the operators hand :-).
But the smoothest cut is achieved where the blade is high above the wood
because of the angle you mention.
So take your pick. Safety or smoothness.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> You're right that low blade height increases pushback, but it also increases
> the *risk* of kickback because more of the blade is in contact with the wood,
> and the force exerted by the teeth on the wood has a greater horizontal
> component.
>
Maybe we're saying the same thing in different ways. Would you agree
that the wood has to climb the back of the blade and be flung forward by
the rising teeth in order to get a kickback?
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
If I understand you correctly, that would give you a greater chance of kick
back as it is generally the wood engaging the back of the blade that causes
the kick back.
Many recommend toeing the fence out slightly (1/64") at the back ... AWAY
from the blade.
Sounds like you are not using a splitter ... if not, you should be. Your two
kick backs could have more than likely be prevented with one. A poorly
aligned saw will also give you a greater propensity for kick back.
You need to sit back and figure out what is causing this ... a good book on
table saws, like Kelly Mehler's, appears to be in order.
... and don't stand directly behind the blade.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/16/03
"G.E.R.R.Y." wrote in message
> I just had my second kickback in a couple of months and, since I am a
> newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
> the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
> considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
> fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
>
> Gerry
>
> P.S. Only minor damage to chest, knuckle, and garage ceiling. Last
> time, the little cut and bruise were mostly hidden by the moustache
> although one tooth still feels a little loose.
Another newbie here - I had one when I first started (just a few short
months ago). I think one of the main things is that the blade is set
parallel to the table/mitre grooves. I spent some time adjusting that
and now the saw works much better. It's a fairly low cost Craftsman
($500). I also invested in a better blade ($50) which also helped a
bunch.
>"G.E.R.R.Y." <DON'[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:200820031036428007%DON'[email protected]...
>> I just had my second kickback in a couple of months and, since I am a
>> newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
>> the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
>> considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
>> fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
>>
>> Gerry
>>
>> P.S. Only minor damage to chest, knuckle, and garage ceiling. Last
>> time, the little cut and bruise were mostly hidden by the moustache
>> although one tooth still feels a little loose.
>
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:36:42 -0400, "G.E.R.R.Y."
<DON'[email protected]> wrote:
>I just had my second kickback in a couple of months
1. Make sure the blade is perpendicular to the table.
2. Make sure the front of the blade is the same distance from the
miter slot as the back of the blade. There's specific instructions on
how to measure all this. Make sure you read your manual.
3. Make sure your blade is raised just high enough to cut thru the
material you're working on. An extra 1/2" or so should be plenty.
4. Make sure your blade is clean...and sharp. Learn how to sharpen
it...or have it done professionally occasionally.
5. Consider getting a saw of low horsepower...or adjusting your
present saw...so that the blade will bind instead of throwing out the
material...until you get more experience. This can't be done with
every saw, however.
6. Don't stand behind the saw when you cut.
7. Make sure the back of the fence is further from the blade than the
front of the blade...to help prevent binding.
>and, since I am a
>newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
>the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
>considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
>fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
The fence is actually a big T-square, Gerry. If yer gonna make the
front part able to ride horizontally along the track...and you want to
make the fence tapered to smaller at the far end...then the piece yer
CUTTIN' would be tapered, too...since yer running it along the
fence...the vertical piece. And a tapered cut is not what you
normally want, of course.
I didn't use x-axis and y-axis...but I think you'll get the picture.
>Gerry
>
>P.S. Only minor damage to chest, knuckle, and garage ceiling. Last
>time, the little cut and bruise were mostly hidden by the moustache
>although one tooth still feels a little loose.
Don't be nonchalant when you run a piece thru, Gerry. Use your
strength to hold it down on the table. If you can't hold it down
easily, use a wide push block...maybe made from a piece of 2x4. You
can make one that you can actually run over the blade along with the
piece yer cuttin'...as long as you have your blade height adjusted, of
course.
And don't FORCE the wood thru. Give the saw blade a chance to cut.
Good luck...and be careful!
Oh...as most folks mentioned...get some books...or do some reading on
the Internet.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Cat...the OTHER white meat!
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:39:17 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>>But this is the kinda
>>saw that I learned on...before every saw had 1-2 hp motors. If you
>>didn't feed the stock straight...and at the proper forward
>>pressure...the blade would freeze up on you.
>
>Ah, I see. You started out using a cheap POS table saw that wasn't strong
>enough to kick a board back.
Exactly. Now ya got it.
Whew...TOOK ya long enough!
Now...go play with your bolt! lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Cat...the OTHER white meat!
I attached UHMW to the entire lenth of the fence of the saw. I also
bought a Bies Splitter w/pawls that has never failed me and I have
gotten to see it work. So it saved me at least once. You know, I only
was overjoyed at having spent $125 on that little device. I never
thought "gee, could've saved that money and taken my chances at
dodging that peice of wood". By the way, NEVER put UHMW on the fence
of your miter guage. Most people attach a super fine grit say 400-600
grit sandpaper on the miter guage fence to keep wood from slipping as
they cut it. Don't want anything but a fine grit-more coarse will mean
more sanding later on.
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:24:06 -0400, "G.E.R.R.Y."
<DON'[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Mortimer
>Schnerd, RN <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I read his comment to suggest the fence be manufactured 1/8" thinner
>> at the last 1/3 of its length, thereby allowing slightly more free
>> room there.
>
>That is exactly what I was suggesting.
>
>Another poster thought I might have been using the mitre gauge and the
>fence. I know that's a definite no-no.
>
>Another suggested toeing out the back of the fence by 1/64in. Would
>that be enough? And how can this be done without causing the fence to
>no longer be parallel to the blade?
>
>Could I attach a 1/8in. strip of UHMW (?) to the first two-thirds of
>the fence or to roughly the centre of the blade?
>
>Gerry <so little knowledge, so many questions>
"Bob G" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> G.E.R.R.Y. wrote:
>
> > I just had my second kickback in a couple of months and, since I am a
> > newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
> > the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
> > considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
> > fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
> >
> > Gerry
> >
> ===============================
> I just finished reading about 20 replies to you post... AND I can not
> add anything to the comments made by Doug Miller... BELIEVE HIM !!!!
>
> HOWEVER Doug did not jump on the guy who said stand behind the
> saw.. not in front of the saw......I know the OP meant to say stand
> off to the side but I was rolling on the floor laughing my ass off on
> the behind the saw comment....
>
> Heh heh But I do agree that standing behind the saw, and pulling the
> wood thru sure would lessen the chances of getting hit during a
kickback...
>
> Bob Griffiths
>
I agree with most of what he wrote, except the blade height arguement.
Excessive blade height is so much more dangerious, that it should not ever
be encouraged. In my opinion, if the blade is high, there is more length of
the blade exposed, possibly with the sides of the blade in contact with the
wood. Especially if it has wild grain, with internal stresses being
relieved, the wood will ride up on the blade, then shoot out.
Use proper technique, including blade height, and kickback will not be a
problem.
--
Jim in NC--
>> Yes, there's more of the blade exposed if the blade is high, but less of
it is
> actually in contact with the wood. The sides of the blade should *never*
be in
> contact wth the wood.
Agreed
If they are, the rip fence is maladjusted or the stock
> is not properly prepared.
Or the user has bad technique, or the lumber has converging grain, that once
partially cut, relieves itself of the stress, and gets suddenly very
crooked.
>
> IMO if the saw is set up properly, and the workpiece is held down properly
> against the table, this is not an issue. If the rip fence is adjusted
> correctly, and a splitter or riving knife is in use, the teeth at the rear
of
> the blade will not contact the wood anyway.
>
> I believe the principal danger in excessive blade height is amputation,
Agreed
not
> kickback. If the blade projects only 1/8" above the workpiece, it's pretty
> hard (though not impossible) to amputate a digit.
>
> >Use proper technique, including blade height, and kickback will not be a
> >problem.
>
> I think blade height is probably the least important factor in producing
> kickbacks. The "Safety" chapter in Mehler's book devotes five pages to
> preventing kickback, and never even mentions blade height.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Agreed. It seemed you were advocating raising the blade higer than
necessary, which I could never go along with.
As far as preventing kickback, there is no substitute for good technique. I
have been teaching high schoool carpentry for 12 years, and only had one
incident of kickback, and the student realizied later he was violating one
of the rules. I don't remember now, which one it was.
--
Jim in NC--
P.S. I am at home recovering from back surgery; boredom explains my sudden
appearance here.
In article <200820031224065746%DON'[email protected]>, "G.E.R.R.Y." <DON'[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Mortimer
>Schnerd, RN <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I read his comment to suggest the fence be manufactured 1/8" thinner
>> at the last 1/3 of its length, thereby allowing slightly more free
>> room there.
>
>That is exactly what I was suggesting.
>
>Another poster thought I might have been using the mitre gauge and the
>fence. I know that's a definite no-no.
>
>Another suggested toeing out the back of the fence by 1/64in. Would
>that be enough? And how can this be done without causing the fence to
>no longer be parallel to the blade?
>
Yes, that's enough, maybe even too much.. But IMHO it's unnecessary. Proper
setup and technique are enough to prevent kickback most of the time.
>Could I attach a 1/8in. strip of UHMW (?) to the first two-thirds of
>the fence or to roughly the centre of the blade?
Yes, but again unnecessary IMHO. See my other post in this thread for further
advice. My wife tells me I repeat myself often enough as it is. :-)
>
>Gerry <so little knowledge, so many questions>
Hey, we've all been there at one time or another. Don't worry about it.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
In article <[email protected]>, Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:36:42 -0400, "G.E.R.R.Y."
><DON'[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I just had my second kickback in a couple of months
>
>1. Make sure the blade is perpendicular to the table.
This has absolutely no effect on kickback.
>2. Make sure the front of the blade is the same distance from the
>miter slot as the back of the blade. There's specific instructions on
>how to measure all this. Make sure you read your manual.
>
>3. Make sure your blade is raised just high enough to cut thru the
>material you're working on. An extra 1/2" or so should be plenty.
Bad advice. This makes kickback *more* likely, not less. The lower the blade,
the shallower the angle at which the teeth contact the wood, and the greater
the horizontal component of the force exerted on the wood by the blade. This
force is directed back toward the operator.
>4. Make sure your blade is clean...and sharp. Learn how to sharpen
>it...or have it done professionally occasionally.
>
>5. Consider getting a saw of low horsepower...or adjusting your
>present saw...so that the blade will bind instead of throwing out the
>material...until you get more experience. This can't be done with
>every saw, however.
More bad advice. Deliberately bind the saw? What happens if/when it comes
free, genius?
>6. Don't stand behind the saw when you cut.
>
>7. Make sure the back of the fence is further from the blade than the
>front of the blade...to help prevent binding.
Unnecessary, as many have pointed out.
>>and, since I am a
>>newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
>>the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
>>considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
>>fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
>
>The fence is actually a big T-square, Gerry. If yer gonna make the
>front part able to ride horizontally along the track...and you want to
>make the fence tapered to smaller at the far end...then the piece yer
>CUTTIN' would be tapered, too...since yer running it along the
>fence...the vertical piece. And a tapered cut is not what you
>normally want, of course.
He didn't describe a tapered fence. Read it again.
>
>I didn't use x-axis and y-axis...but I think you'll get the picture.
>
>>Gerry
>>
>>P.S. Only minor damage to chest, knuckle, and garage ceiling. Last
>>time, the little cut and bruise were mostly hidden by the moustache
>>although one tooth still feels a little loose.
>
>Don't be nonchalant when you run a piece thru, Gerry. Use your
>strength to hold it down on the table. If you can't hold it down
>easily, use a wide push block...maybe made from a piece of 2x4. You
>can make one that you can actually run over the blade along with the
>piece yer cuttin'...as long as you have your blade height adjusted, of
>course.
>
>And don't FORCE the wood thru. Give the saw blade a chance to cut.
Doesn't this contradict your advice in #5 above to bind the blade?
>
>Good luck...and be careful!
>
>Oh...as most folks mentioned...get some books...or do some reading on
>the Internet.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
In article <200820031036428007%DON'[email protected]>, "G.E.R.R.Y." <DON'[email protected]> wrote:
>I just had my second kickback in a couple of months and, since I am a
>newbie, I have to ask a question that I've been wondering about. Why is
>the fence the same width from the front to the back? Wouldn't there be
>considerably less chance of kickback/binding if the last third of the
>fence was narrower by say one-eighth of an inch on its blade side?
>
If the saw has been properly adjusted, and you're using it properly, with
properly prepared stock, this isn't an issue.
First off, proper use.
If you're using the rip fence as a length stop for crosscuts, this is the
cause of your kickbacks, when the cutoff binds between the blade and the
fence. Don't do that. Instead, clamp a block to the rip fence, that extends no
farther back than the leading edge of the blade, and use that as your length
stop.
Make sure that the boards you are cutting stay flat against the table at all
times. Use hold-down jigs or featherboards, if necessary, to achieve this. If
the stock comes up from the surface of the table, it's very easy for the teeth
of the blade to catch it and throw it back at you.
*ALWAYS* use a splitter or riving knife for *ALL* cuts that go all the way
through the wood.
Also, stand off to one side a bit. If you're not in line with the blade, you
won't get hit by stuff that's thrown back.
Next, stock preparation.
Wood must be straight and flat before you attempt to rip it on a table saw.
Warped, bowed, twisted, or cupped boards can easily be seized by the blade,
and kicked back. If your wood isn't straight and flat, then either make it so
with a jointer and planer (see the latest issue of Fine Woodworking for a
great article on stock preparation), or use a band saw to cut it.
Finally, proper adjustment.
Set the blade exactly parallel to the miter slots. Your owner's manual will
describe how to do this. (It varies, depending on the type of saw you have, so
I won't attempt to describe it. What works for my saw may not for yours.)
Measuring "exactly parallel" is a *lot* easier with the TS-Aligner or
TS-Aligner Jr (http://www.ts-aligner.com). [I have no connection with the
manufacturer, except as a *very* satisfied customer]
Then set the fence exactly parallel to the blade, or angled *very* slightly
away from the blade toward the rear.
> P.S. Only minor damage to chest, knuckle, and garage ceiling. Last
> time, the little cut and bruise were mostly hidden by the moustache
> although one tooth still feels a little loose.
You can get a face shield at Lowe's for fifteen or twenty bucks. IMO, it's
well worth it. And don't stand directly in line with the blade.
Final recommendation: get a book or two on table saw use. I recommend both
"The Table Saw Book" by Kelly Mehler, and "Table Saw Magic" by Jim Tolpin.
They may be available at your local library.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> You're right that low blade height increases pushback, but it also increases
>> the *risk* of kickback because more of the blade is in contact with the wood,
>
>> and the force exerted by the teeth on the wood has a greater horizontal
>> component.
>>
>Maybe we're saying the same thing in different ways. Would you agree
>that the wood has to climb the back of the blade and be flung forward by
>the rising teeth in order to get a kickback?
>
Yes.
I also contend that the forward-flinging force is greater at lower blade
heights. Clearly the rising force is greater at a higher blade height, but I
believe that it is easier to resist that force; among other things, its
magnitude is less.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)