Suppose you have a perfectly square board, is it still wrong to use a
ripfence to cut across grain? How about plywood, is it a no no to cut
across the shorter dimension of plywood using the rip fence? What if the
short dimension is 14 inches? Is it grain direction and aspect ratio of the
board that determines whether or not to rip?
"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote
> Suppose you have a perfectly square board, is it still wrong to use a
> ripfence to cut across grain? How about plywood, is it a no no to cut
> across the shorter dimension of plywood using the rip fence? What if the
> short dimension is 14 inches? Is it grain direction and aspect ratio of
the
> board that determines whether or not to rip?
On my web site is an attempt to explain the situation that can arise when
using the long fence as a /stop/ when cross cutting narrow workpieces.
Please look under Circular Sawbench Safety - Fences.
Jeff G
--
Jeff Gorman - West Yorkshire - UK
Username for email is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
Website - amgron.clara.net
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 06:52:26 -0400, "George" <george@least> wrote:
|Reverse the miter gage.
Exactly.
My panel/crosscut sled is "reversed" too and I run it on the right
side of the blade. It's feels more comfortable to me and I don't have
to skid the whole thing across the saw when I'm crosscutting an inch
and a half wide stile.
Wes
|
|"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
|news:[email protected]...
|>
|> What if you have a glued up panel that is 13" x 24". You want to end up
|> with 13" x 22". Given the 13" dimension, you can't use the miter
|because
|> the end is off the table. You know you should be using a panel sled, but
|> you don't have one.
|>
|> Do you make the cross cut along the fence? Do you set the fence to cut
|off
|> 2 inches or to cut off 22 inches?
|>
|> What if the panel was 13" x 48" and you want 13" x 46"? Still feel safe
|> doing it that way?
|>
|>
|
Know to very good cutters who both had their sticks kicked back at
them when x-cutting against the fence. One guy was black & blue for
weeks, contusion was
rectangle 1 x 12.
DO this on the bandsaw, a fun, friendly, quiet tool that will not kick
back.
Http://www.patwarner.com (Routers)
*****************************************************************
> Suppose you have a perfectly square board, is it still wrong to use a
> ripfence to cut across grain? How about plywood, is it a no no to cut
> across the shorter dimension of plywood using the rip fence? What if the
> short dimension is 14 inches? Is it grain direction and aspect ratio of the
> board that determines whether or not to rip?
Marc wrote:>Suppose you have a perfectly square board, is it still wrong to use
a
>ripfence to cut across grain? How about plywood, is it a no no to cut
>across the shorter dimension of plywood using the rip fence? What if the
>short dimension is 14 inches? Is it grain direction and aspect ratio of the
>board that determines whether or not to rip?
>
>
Make yourself a sled for all those "iffy" cuts. You'll love it. Don't use the
fence. Tom
Work at your leisure!
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > What? If you're using the mitre, the 24" side is against the miter and
> > you're trimming it to 22". Same for your 48" below.
>
> > Unless I am missing something, it seems simple to me.
> >
> > LD
>
> Thee is a reason I chose 13" for the example. Most saws are 11 1/2" or less
> from the table front to saw blade. Thus, the miter will be off the table
> starting out maiking a rather difficult cut. OK, so yo can do 13" on your
> saw, what if it was 14"? Point being you can't safely u se the miter.
> Ed
No arguments about how to do the cuts. But is it really true that
most table saws only have 11-1/2" in front of the blade. I have
pretty limited exposure to a variety of saws but my old Craftsman
(from my dad) has 15 + inches in front and my radial arm saw will cut
a 15" wide pannel that is 1" thick. I'm not considering a new saw,
but if I were I wouldn't have looked at that dimension until now.
BTW, I've seen hints that for wide pannels you simply reverse the
mitre in the slot. (as a note: with my mitre and saw I would also
have to change from the right slot to the left slot to avoid hitting
the miter with the blade. Is there some objection to reversing the
miter? Of course you can't cut all the way through a wide pannel but
at least you could cut the first 10" and then continue with the miter
in the normal position. In my case this would work for a 25" wide
pannel, but I couldn't be assure of a really straight cut, so I always
use a circular saw and a straight edge for anything over 15" wide.
George Cawthon asks:
>> > What? If you're using the mitre, the 24" side is against the miter and
>> > you're trimming it to 22". Same for your 48" below.
>>
>> > Unless I am missing something, it seems simple to me.
>> >
>> > LD
>>
>> Thee is a reason I chose 13" for the example. Most saws are 11 1/2" or
>less
>> from the table front to saw blade. Thus, the miter will be off the table
>> starting out maiking a rather difficult cut. OK, so yo can do 13" on your
>> saw, what if it was 14"? Point being you can't safely u se the miter.
>> Ed
>
>No arguments about how to do the cuts. But is it really true that
>most table saws only have 11-1/2" in front of the blade. I have
>pretty limited exposure to a variety of saws but my old Craftsman
>(from my dad) has 15 + inches in front and my radial arm saw will cut
>a 15" wide pannel that is 1" thick. I'm not considering a new saw,
>but if I were I wouldn't have looked at that dimension until now.
>
That must be a really old Craftsman. My current Craftsman has 12", which is
unusually wide. My Unisaw had, IIRC, 11-3/4". Both of those are measured, not
claimed, but I don't recall where I stored the Unisaw measurements, so that's
memory, which is a tricky thing these days. Reverse your gauge and you get
about 22" with some stability to start, and more than that in 3/4" thick wood
as the blade doesn't need to be all the way up, thus doesn't reach the end of
the insert slot.
A sled is really a better bet for accuracy, but some of those I've seen will
create as many problems, because of weight, as they cure.
I've seen some smaller saws--some of the job site types, for example--that have
as little as 5" in front of the fully raised blade. And take about 40 turns to
get the blade all the way up.
Charlie Self
"Give me golf clubs, fresh air and a beautiful partner, and you can keep the
clubs and the fresh air." Jack Benny
Charlie Self wrote:
>
> George Cawthon asks:
>
> >> > What? If you're using the mitre, the 24" side is against the miter and
> >> > you're trimming it to 22". Same for your 48" below.
> >>
> >> > Unless I am missing something, it seems simple to me.
> >> >
> >> > LD
> >>
> >> Thee is a reason I chose 13" for the example. Most saws are 11 1/2" or
> >less
> >> from the table front to saw blade. Thus, the miter will be off the table
> >> starting out maiking a rather difficult cut. OK, so yo can do 13" on your
> >> saw, what if it was 14"? Point being you can't safely u se the miter.
> >> Ed
> >
> >No arguments about how to do the cuts. But is it really true that
> >most table saws only have 11-1/2" in front of the blade. I have
> >pretty limited exposure to a variety of saws but my old Craftsman
> >(from my dad) has 15 + inches in front and my radial arm saw will cut
> >a 15" wide pannel that is 1" thick. I'm not considering a new saw,
> >but if I were I wouldn't have looked at that dimension until now.
> >
> That must be a really old Craftsman. My current Craftsman has 12", which is
> unusually wide. My Unisaw had, IIRC, 11-3/4". Both of those are measured, not
> claimed, but I don't recall where I stored the Unisaw measurements, so that's
> memory, which is a tricky thing these days. Reverse your gauge and you get
> about 22" with some stability to start, and more than that in 3/4" thick wood
> as the blade doesn't need to be all the way up, thus doesn't reach the end of
> the insert slot.
>
> A sled is really a better bet for accuracy, but some of those I've seen will
> create as many problems, because of weight, as they cure.
>
> I've seen some smaller saws--some of the job site types, for example--that have
> as little as 5" in front of the fully raised blade. And take about 40 turns to
> get the blade all the way up.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Give me golf clubs, fresh air and a beautiful partner, and you can keep the
> clubs and the fresh air." Jack Benny
It's a 10 inch bench model 113.29991. I don't know when he bought it
probabaly between 1952 and 1958, so it is old but not ancient. The
exact measure is 15-3/8" from the mitre face (about 1/16" onto the
table and the blade raised to 1" cutting height. Heck, I could switch
to an 8" blade and get another inch.
George Cawthorn writes:
>It's a 10 inch bench model 113.29991. I don't know when he bought it
>probabaly between 1952 and 1958, so it is old but not ancient. The
>exact measure is 15-3/8" from the mitre face (about 1/16" onto the
>table and the blade raised to 1" cutting height. Heck, I could switch
>to an 8" blade and get another inch.
OK. The measurement is usually taken from table edge (not fence rail edge) to
the tip of the first tooth on a fully raised blade. I won't have time today,
but if I remember, I'll check the difference on the current saw. It should be
at least 2" more that way, possibly more than that.
Charlie Self
"Give me golf clubs, fresh air and a beautiful partner, and you can keep the
clubs and the fresh air." Jack Benny
Charlie Self wrote:
>
> George Cawthorn writes:
>
> >It's a 10 inch bench model 113.29991. I don't know when he bought it
> >probabaly between 1952 and 1958, so it is old but not ancient. The
> >exact measure is 15-3/8" from the mitre face (about 1/16" onto the
> >table and the blade raised to 1" cutting height. Heck, I could switch
> >to an 8" blade and get another inch.
>
> OK. The measurement is usually taken from table edge (not fence rail edge) to
> the tip of the first tooth on a fully raised blade. I won't have time today,
> but if I remember, I'll check the difference on the current saw. It should be
> at least 2" more that way, possibly more than that.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Give me golf clubs, fresh air and a beautiful partner, and you can keep the
> clubs and the fresh air." Jack Benny
Fence rail edge? I measured 1/16 in from the table edge because there
is no way I would start a dut without the flat of miter slightly on
the table. Didn't know there was a standard, that's why I gave gave
the height of the blade. Fully raised (which is 3 inches) the
distance from the edge of the table to the first tooth is 13.5
inches. By the way, fully raise is a piss poor standard, since
neithier I, nor many others would ever cut a 3 inch thick pannel.
Distance at multiple heights such as 1/2", 1", and 2" blade raise
would be more useful .
George Cawthorn responds:
>Fence rail edge? I measured 1/16 in from the table edge because there
>is no way I would start a dut without the flat of miter slightly on
>the table.
Edge of table measurement is simply to give a starting place. Reversing the
miter gauge lets you get a start without losing anything at all.
>Didn't know there was a standard, that's why I gave gave
>the height of the blade. Fully raised (which is 3 inches) the
>distance from the edge of the table to the first tooth is 13.5
>inches.
It's only a standard for comparison purposes: most 10" table saws cut to
3-1/8", give or take a touch or two. But fully-raised is fully-raised, no
matter the depth of the final cut, so you have some basis for comparison. The
multiple height idea is a good addition, though, and one I'll keep in mind for
the next test. It might well be the kind of thing, though, that works almost as
easily from extrapolation: that is, if the person who looks the saw over sees
it will cut to 12" at full height, he (or she) knows it will cut a considerably
wider piece at a lower height.
You might be surprised, by the way, at how many people do at least some table
saw resawing of woods that require full depth cuts and a flip to finish.
Charlie Self
"Inanimate objects are classified scientifically into three major categories -
those that don't work, those that break down and those that get lost." Russell
Baker
Charlie Self wrote:
>
>
> You might be surprised, by the way, at how many people do at least some table
> saw resawing of woods that require full depth cuts and a flip to finish.
Ah but that would be ripping; the piece would be against the fence so
the table edge to saw blade distance wouldn't be limiting except for
long boards. Whew! resawing a 3/4" thick board with the blade fully
raised would scare the hell out of me even if I had a high fence.
> Charlie Self
> "Inanimate objects are classified scientifically into three major categories -
> those that don't work, those that break down and those that get lost." Russell
> Baker
On 02 Aug 2004 20:38:08 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
|That must be a really old Craftsman. My current Craftsman has 12", which is
|unusually wide. My Unisaw had, IIRC, 11-3/4". Both of those are measured, not
|claimed, but I don't recall where I stored the Unisaw measurements, so that's
|memory, which is a tricky thing these days. Reverse your gauge and you get
|about 22" with some stability to start, and more than that in 3/4" thick wood
|as the blade doesn't need to be all the way up, thus doesn't reach the end of
|the insert slot.
My Unisaw has 12 1/8" from the flat side of the chamfer on the edge of
the table to the leading tooth of the fully raised blade. My neighbor
works nights or I would go over to his place and measure my old
Craftsman. But by *my* tricky memory, it's about the same distance.
Wes
If the miter gage will fit between the fence and the blade, it's also safe
to use. As with the stop block method, you must feed with miter gage only.
There are zones of uncertainty between miter gage cutting, using my panel
cutter and going to the fence and treating as sheet goods.
My comfort level seems to fall at 9" for miter gage, 18" for sled, and above
that, fence.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Suppose you have a perfectly square board, is it still wrong to use a
> > ripfence to cut across grain? How about plywood, is it a no no to cut
> > across the shorter dimension of plywood using the rip fence? What if
the
> > short dimension is 14 inches? Is it grain direction and aspect ratio of
> the
> > board that determines whether or not to rip?
> >
> >
>
> It is perfectly fine to use a rip fence to cut across the grain. Just
don't
> use a rip fence and a miter gauge at the same time unless you use a block
so
> that the wood is not touching the fence at all while the cut is being
made.
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>
Reverse the miter gage.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> What if you have a glued up panel that is 13" x 24". You want to end up
> with 13" x 22". Given the 13" dimension, you can't use the miter
because
> the end is off the table. You know you should be using a panel sled, but
> you don't have one.
>
> Do you make the cross cut along the fence? Do you set the fence to cut
off
> 2 inches or to cut off 22 inches?
>
> What if the panel was 13" x 48" and you want 13" x 46"? Still feel safe
> doing it that way?
>
>
It is not inherently wrong to crosscut with a rip fence. The trick is you
must have sufficient depth to have control over the wood. A thin piece will
twist easily and become a dangerous projectile, especially on a wide cut. I
frequently do it on stuff too wide for my miter saw; anything narrower would
probably be a mistake.
With that firmly in mind, practice and see what you can and can't do; but
understand that kickback is always possible.
Yes, a sled is much better, for those with a shop big enough to have a sled.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> Maybe we're taling about different things. With a long narrow board you
are
> ripping with the board held firmly along the fence. Maybe 48" of it is in
> conact and at least 12" at any given time. Now, by cross cutting with the
> fence, do you man taking that same board and cutting a few inches off the
> end? If so, it is very difficult to run that narrow end along the fence
and
> hold it square. As soon as it gets off of 90 degrees, it may contact the
> back of the blade and end up in your face.
Thank you Ed. From the way I understood the original post which has
generated the discussion in this thread the stock was fairly near square,
yet people have been saying that it is dangerous to crosscut along a rip
fence. I've been walking through each response and posting questions like
the one you replied to in order to try to understand why anyone would say
this because it is patently untrue. A table saw is just a safe ripping
along a rip fence or cross cutting along a rip fence. The direction of the
grain is completely immaterial. I guessed that maybe the advocates that it
is dangerous might be thinking of a long narrow piece of stock and the
operator trying to run it the wide way through, but that is contrary to the
original post. Next I thought there might be a little bit of the "this is
what everyone says, so I'm going to say it too" thing happening here. It's
pretty common for people to jump on the party line especially if it makes
them sound authoritative in matters like this and I thought I'd take a stab
at pointing out an error in the company line if that was the case.
Finally - and with equal probability, I could have been missing something
key to what people were trying to say.
To clarify my position - crosscutting is cutting against the grain and it
has nothing to do with the size of a piece of wood. Ripping is cutting with
the grain and it has nothing to do with the size a piece of wood. Either as
just as safe or just as dangerous on a table saw. Cutting techniques
prevail in all cases, but they don't relate to one type of cut any more than
another.
>
> So, you figure to hold it with the miter gauge and run it along the fence.
> Same thing can happen.
This is what I pointed out several posts back as a bad practice - or at
least I attempted to. I think another poster stated the warning better than
I did, but our point was the same. The issue here is not an issue of cross
cutting though.
I'm wondering which one of all of us are using the wrong term? Possibly
some are using the term cross cutting to refer to cutting through the narrow
direction of a board, or to put it another way cutting across its width. In
contrast, to those people ripping would be cutting down the length of a
board. This would explain a lot of the confusion in this thread - wrong use
of terms.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Liam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> When cross cutting along the length of a narrow piece you can clamp a
block
> to your fence behind the point/line where the piece will contact the blade
> as sort of a surrogate fence. Using the miter then you have the proper
> distance to the fence up to the point where the piece contacts the blade.
> This eliminates jamming the piece between the blade and the fence but
still
> gives you consistent accuracy for your cut or multiple cuts.
You are right with many cases, but let's do a "what if" here.
What if you have a glued up panel that is 13" x 24". You want to end up
with 13" x 22". Given the 13" dimension, you can't use the miter because
the end is off the table. You know you should be using a panel sled, but
you don't have one.
Do you make the cross cut along the fence? Do you set the fence to cut off
2 inches or to cut off 22 inches?
What if the panel was 13" x 48" and you want 13" x 46"? Still feel safe
doing it that way?
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I'm wondering which one of all of us are using the wrong term?
> Possibly some are using the term cross cutting to refer to cutting
> through the narrow direction of a board, or to put it another way
> cutting across its width. In contrast, to those people ripping would
> be cutting down the length of a board. This would explain a lot of
> the confusion in this thread - wrong use of terms.
>
>
IIRC, it started with a square sheet of plywood. Given the nature of
plywood, any cut is simultaneously a rip and a crosscut. In practice I run
the long side against the fence. If I have to cut at 90 degrees to the long
side, I put the long side against the mitre gauge but do not let it touch
the fence. Unless your fence and miter gauge are dead nuts on, using both
at the same time almost guarantees a problem - usually nasty.
LD
So there is really no hard definition of a crosscut, it is more of a
judgement call, correct?
"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It is not inherently wrong to crosscut with a rip fence. The trick is you
> must have sufficient depth to have control over the wood. A thin piece
will
> twist easily and become a dangerous projectile, especially on a wide cut.
I
> frequently do it on stuff too wide for my miter saw; anything narrower
would
> probably be a mistake.
> With that firmly in mind, practice and see what you can and can't do; but
> understand that kickback is always possible.
>
> Yes, a sled is much better, for those with a shop big enough to have a
sled.
>
>
Marc states:
>So there is really no hard definition of a crosscut, it is more of a
>judgement call, correct?
>
>"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> It is not inherently wrong to crosscut with a rip fence. The trick is you
>> must have sufficient depth to have control over the wood. A thin piece
>will
>> twist easily and become a dangerous projectile, especially on a wide cut.
>I
>> frequently do it on stuff too wide for my miter saw; anything narrower
>would
>> probably be a mistake.
>> With that firmly in mind, practice and see what you can and can't do; but
>> understand that kickback is always possible.
>>
>> Yes, a sled is much better, for those with a shop big enough to have a
>sled.
Not so. A crosscut runs across the grain. Period.
The technique you use to make a crosscut might use other tools with different
names, but if the cut is still across the grain, it is a crosscut.
Charlie Self
"Did you know that the White House drug test is multiple choice?" Rush Limbaugh
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > What would be unsafe about crosscutting along a rip fence?
> >
>
>
> If the board is very wide in respect to the length, you may get away with
> it. If you crosscut a narrow board and try to run it along the fence, it
is
> very easy for it to cock and give you a kickback.
>
>
How would this be any different than ripping a narrow board with a rip
fence?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Liam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> When cross cutting along the length of a narrow piece you can clamp a
> block
>> to your fence behind the point/line where the piece will contact the
>> blade as sort of a surrogate fence. Using the miter then you have
>> the proper distance to the fence up to the point where the piece
>> contacts the blade. This eliminates jamming the piece between the
>> blade and the fence but
> still
>> gives you consistent accuracy for your cut or multiple cuts.
>
> You are right with many cases, but let's do a "what if" here.
>
> What if you have a glued up panel that is 13" x 24". You want to end
> up with 13" x 22". Given the 13" dimension, you can't use the
> miter because the end is off the table. You know you should be using
> a panel sled, but you don't have one.
What? If you're using the mitre, the 24" side is against the miter and
you're trimming it to 22". Same for your 48" below.
If you are trimming the 13" to 12", the 24" side goes against the fence
and you cut off (cutoff on opposite side of blade from fence) the 1".
Unless I am missing something, it seems simple to me.
LD
>
> Do you make the cross cut along the fence? Do you set the fence to
> cut off 2 inches or to cut off 22 inches?
>
> What if the panel was 13" x 48" and you want 13" x 46"? Still feel
> safe doing it that way?
>
>
>
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> What? If you're using the mitre, the 24" side is against the miter
>> and you're trimming it to 22". Same for your 48" below.
>
>> Unless I am missing something, it seems simple to me.
>>
>> LD
>
> Thee is a reason I chose 13" for the example. Most saws are 11 1/2"
> or less from the table front to saw blade. Thus, the miter will be off
> the table starting out maiking a rather difficult cut. OK, so yo can
> do 13" on your saw, what if it was 14"? Point being you can't safely
> u se the miter. Ed
OK. On mine I can do pretty close to 18" in front of the blade using the
sliding table. At some point I'm going to reach a panel size that is just
too dangerous to use either the fence or the mitre. Then I'd use the panel
saw - If I had one. :o)
LD
>
>
>
>
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> What would be unsafe about crosscutting along a rip fence?
>
If the board is very wide in respect to the length, you may get away with
it. If you crosscut a narrow board and try to run it along the fence, it is
very easy for it to cock and give you a kickback.
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> What? If you're using the mitre, the 24" side is against the miter and
> you're trimming it to 22". Same for your 48" below.
> Unless I am missing something, it seems simple to me.
>
> LD
Thee is a reason I chose 13" for the example. Most saws are 11 1/2" or less
from the table front to saw blade. Thus, the miter will be off the table
starting out maiking a rather difficult cut. OK, so yo can do 13" on your
saw, what if it was 14"? Point being you can't safely u se the miter.
Ed
"Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 21:00:35 GMT, "Marc"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Suppose you have a perfectly square board, is it still wrong to use a
> >ripfence to cut across grain? How about plywood, is it a no no to cut
> >across the shorter dimension of plywood using the rip fence? What if the
> >short dimension is 14 inches? Is it grain direction and aspect ratio of
the
> >board that determines whether or not to rip?
> >
>
> It is not wrong, but it is not a safe thing to do especially without
> the blade guard properly in place. Use a panel cutter or miter.
What would be unsafe about crosscutting along a rip fence?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:05:28 GMT, "Marc"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>So there is really no hard definition of a crosscut, it is more of a
>judgement call, correct?
a crosscut is made across the grain of a board. it's a bit of a
misnomer to apply the term to sheet goods at all. PB and MDF are
grainless, and plywood has layers with the grain alternating, so all
cuts are both rips and crosscuts
so forget about the word crosscut when working with plywood. what is
relevant is aspect ratio. if the distance from the blade to the fence
is much greater than the amount of the wood touching the fence you're
getting into a danger zone. the longer and skinnier the piece you're
whacking in half the short way the more likely you are to have
kickback.
This is originally what I was asking because table saw manuals usually
refers to ripping and crosscutting interchangeably with the aspect ratio of
the board. Ripping being displayed as cutting along the long side of a long
board and crosscutting as cutting through the short side of a long board.
Obviously it is unsafe to use the rip fence for a cut across the 2 inch side
of a 2X20 inch board. But I was wondering if grain had anything to do with
it. Apparently not, the degree of safety when using a rip fence is
determined by the aspect ratio of the board but even still there is no
generally accepted rule of safety.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe we're taling about different things. With a long narrow board you
> are
> > ripping with the board held firmly along the fence. Maybe 48" of it is
in
> > conact and at least 12" at any given time. Now, by cross cutting with
the
> > fence, do you man taking that same board and cutting a few inches off
the
> > end? If so, it is very difficult to run that narrow end along the fence
> and
> > hold it square. As soon as it gets off of 90 degrees, it may contact
the
> > back of the blade and end up in your face.
>
> Thank you Ed. From the way I understood the original post which has
> generated the discussion in this thread the stock was fairly near square,
> yet people have been saying that it is dangerous to crosscut along a rip
> fence. I've been walking through each response and posting questions like
> the one you replied to in order to try to understand why anyone would say
> this because it is patently untrue. A table saw is just a safe ripping
> along a rip fence or cross cutting along a rip fence. The direction of
the
> grain is completely immaterial. I guessed that maybe the advocates that
it
> is dangerous might be thinking of a long narrow piece of stock and the
> operator trying to run it the wide way through, but that is contrary to
the
> original post. Next I thought there might be a little bit of the "this is
> what everyone says, so I'm going to say it too" thing happening here.
It's
> pretty common for people to jump on the party line especially if it makes
> them sound authoritative in matters like this and I thought I'd take a
stab
> at pointing out an error in the company line if that was the case.
> Finally - and with equal probability, I could have been missing something
> key to what people were trying to say.
>
> To clarify my position - crosscutting is cutting against the grain and it
> has nothing to do with the size of a piece of wood. Ripping is cutting
with
> the grain and it has nothing to do with the size a piece of wood. Either
as
> just as safe or just as dangerous on a table saw. Cutting techniques
> prevail in all cases, but they don't relate to one type of cut any more
than
> another.
>
> >
> > So, you figure to hold it with the miter gauge and run it along the
fence.
> > Same thing can happen.
>
> This is what I pointed out several posts back as a bad practice - or at
> least I attempted to. I think another poster stated the warning better
than
> I did, but our point was the same. The issue here is not an issue of
cross
> cutting though.
>
> I'm wondering which one of all of us are using the wrong term? Possibly
> some are using the term cross cutting to refer to cutting through the
narrow
> direction of a board, or to put it another way cutting across its width.
In
> contrast, to those people ripping would be cutting down the length of a
> board. This would explain a lot of the confusion in this thread - wrong
use
> of terms.
>
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>
"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This is originally what I was asking because table saw manuals usually
> refers to ripping and crosscutting interchangeably with the aspect ratio
of
> the board. Ripping being displayed as cutting along the long side of a
long
> board and crosscutting as cutting through the short side of a long board.
> Obviously it is unsafe to use the rip fence for a cut across the 2 inch
side
> of a 2X20 inch board. But I was wondering if grain had anything to do
with
> it. Apparently not, the degree of safety when using a rip fence is
> determined by the aspect ratio of the board but even still there is no
> generally accepted rule of safety.
>
Correct Marc. I can probably refine your last assumption though, ("but even
still there is no
generally accepted rule of safety"). Consider the following to be true...
if it kicksback, you probably did it wrong.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
When cross cutting along the length of a narrow piece you can clamp a block
to your fence behind the point/line where the piece will contact the blade
as sort of a surrogate fence. Using the miter then you have the proper
distance to the fence up to the point where the piece contacts the blade.
This eliminates jamming the piece between the blade and the fence but still
gives you consistent accuracy for your cut or multiple cuts.
"POP_Server=pop.clara.net" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Marc" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > Suppose you have a perfectly square board, is it still wrong to use a
> > ripfence to cut across grain? How about plywood, is it a no no to cut
> > across the shorter dimension of plywood using the rip fence? What if
the
> > short dimension is 14 inches? Is it grain direction and aspect ratio of
> the
> > board that determines whether or not to rip?
>
> On my web site is an attempt to explain the situation that can arise when
> using the long fence as a /stop/ when cross cutting narrow workpieces.
>
> Please look under Circular Sawbench Safety - Fences.
>
> Jeff G
>
> --
> Jeff Gorman - West Yorkshire - UK
> Username for email is amgron
> ISP is clara.co.uk
> Website - amgron.clara.net
>
>
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 21:00:35 GMT, "Marc"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Suppose you have a perfectly square board, is it still wrong to use a
>ripfence to cut across grain? How about plywood, is it a no no to cut
>across the shorter dimension of plywood using the rip fence? What if the
>short dimension is 14 inches? Is it grain direction and aspect ratio of the
>board that determines whether or not to rip?
>
It is not wrong, but it is not a safe thing to do especially without
the blade guard properly in place. Use a panel cutter or miter.
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:51:51 GMT, "Marc"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>One of the reasons I am asking is because I have been in this hobby for two
>years now, first with a $250 craftsman benchtop table saw and now with a
>delta unisaw and I have never experienced a kickback episode. I don't want
>to be lulled into the feeling that it will never happen. So I am trying to
>find out exactly how this occurs before it occurs. I really hate injuries
>and bad experiences that tend to take the fun out a hobby.
>
>I was discussing with a woodcraft employee that I normally don't use a
>splitter or guard and he showed me a wicked looking scare on his palm where
>a kickback episode sent a piece of wood into his hand. Since then I
>installed one of those pricy biesmeyer splitters that is easy to remove, I
>used it for a while but I find myself falling back into the habit of not
>using it. I prefer "the gripper", plastic feather boards (lock into miter
>slot), a magnetic feather board (forgot what it is called), and push sticks.
>I also have an osbourne eb3 which solves alot of those questionable cuts,
>the stock miter is too small and temps you into using the fence. I've
>considered board buddies but I don't want to drill into my fence.
>
>Marc
kickback happens when the wood engages the upward moving teeth at the
back of the saw. it doesn't take much for the wood to wander over
there and once the blade grabs it things happen fast. splitters are
pretty good at preventing kickback, but not infallible. my feeling is
that heavier, more solid machines with more horsepower are less likely
to kick back than lightweight underpowered ones, but the consequences
of having a 5hp motor flinging wood at you are scary to think about.
I have a pin in the throat plate on my saw. it works, and is easy to
change in or out- just switch throat plates.
you're right to be concerned. kickback really sucks.
safety equipment is *always* imperfect. some of it creates more hazard
than it solves, and all of it adds to the complexity of operating the
machine. simple is good, easy to use, adjust and change is good. no
guard can replace common sense or good work practice. that said,
keeping a splitter on your saw is probably the easiest way to prevent
kickback.
thing is, you get used to having the splitter in there and get a
little sloppy... then you have to remove it for a dado cut or
something, and forget to put it back in, and whammo....
the stock miter gauges that come with most saws are close to useless.
build a sled.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > > What would be unsafe about crosscutting along a rip fence?
> > >
> >
> >
> > If the board is very wide in respect to the length, you may get away
with
> > it. If you crosscut a narrow board and try to run it along the fence, it
> is
> > very easy for it to cock and give you a kickback.
> >
> >
>
> How would this be any different than ripping a narrow board with a rip
> fence?
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
Maybe we're taling about different things. With a long narrow board you are
ripping with the board held firmly along the fence. Maybe 48" of it is in
conact and at least 12" at any given time. Now, by cross cutting with the
fence, do you man taking that same board and cutting a few inches off the
end? If so, it is very difficult to run that narrow end along the fence and
hold it square. As soon as it gets off of 90 degrees, it may contact the
back of the blade and end up in your face.
So, you figure to hold it with the miter gauge and run it along the fence.
Same thing can happen.
Or have I not understood the question?
Ed
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Reverse the miter gage.
>
You have to love a simple answer
Ed
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> What if you have a glued up panel that is 13" x 24". You want to end up
> with 13" x 22". Given the 13" dimension, you can't use the miter
because
> the end is off the table. You know you should be using a panel sled, but
> you don't have one.
>
> Do you make the cross cut along the fence? Do you set the fence to cut
off
> 2 inches or to cut off 22 inches?
2 inches. Simple and effective.
>
> What if the panel was 13" x 48" and you want 13" x 46"? Still feel safe
> doing it that way?
>
I'd use my circular saw. Simple and effective.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Suppose you have a perfectly square board, is it still wrong to use a
> ripfence to cut across grain? How about plywood, is it a no no to cut
> across the shorter dimension of plywood using the rip fence? What if the
> short dimension is 14 inches? Is it grain direction and aspect ratio of
the
> board that determines whether or not to rip?
>
>
It is perfectly fine to use a rip fence to cut across the grain. Just don't
use a rip fence and a miter gauge at the same time unless you use a block so
that the wood is not touching the fence at all while the cut is being made.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
One of the reasons I am asking is because I have been in this hobby for two
years now, first with a $250 craftsman benchtop table saw and now with a
delta unisaw and I have never experienced a kickback episode. I don't want
to be lulled into the feeling that it will never happen. So I am trying to
find out exactly how this occurs before it occurs. I really hate injuries
and bad experiences that tend to take the fun out a hobby.
I was discussing with a woodcraft employee that I normally don't use a
splitter or guard and he showed me a wicked looking scare on his palm where
a kickback episode sent a piece of wood into his hand. Since then I
installed one of those pricy biesmeyer splitters that is easy to remove, I
used it for a while but I find myself falling back into the habit of not
using it. I prefer "the gripper", plastic feather boards (lock into miter
slot), a magnetic feather board (forgot what it is called), and push sticks.
I also have an osbourne eb3 which solves alot of those questionable cuts,
the stock miter is too small and temps you into using the fence. I've
considered board buddies but I don't want to drill into my fence.
Marc
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > This is originally what I was asking because table saw manuals usually
> > refers to ripping and crosscutting interchangeably with the aspect ratio
> of
> > the board. Ripping being displayed as cutting along the long side of a
> long
> > board and crosscutting as cutting through the short side of a long
board.
> > Obviously it is unsafe to use the rip fence for a cut across the 2 inch
> side
> > of a 2X20 inch board. But I was wondering if grain had anything to do
> with
> > it. Apparently not, the degree of safety when using a rip fence is
> > determined by the aspect ratio of the board but even still there is no
> > generally accepted rule of safety.
> >
>
> Correct Marc. I can probably refine your last assumption though, ("but
even
> still there is no
> generally accepted rule of safety"). Consider the following to be true...
> if it kicksback, you probably did it wrong.
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>