Mike Marlow wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Happened upon this school website
> >
> > http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/woodworking.htm
> >
> > Can YOU pick out all the safety hazards in these photos?
> >
> > Check out all the router table action with no push blocks or
sticks,
> > hands inches from the bit.
> >
>
> You scare me Larry. I didn't see a picture there where they were
doing
> anything unsafe. Push sticks on a router table is not one of the
best ideas
> I've ever heard. Hands inches from the bit? Yeah - it's called
> woodworking. It requires control in order to be safe. Look at what
they
> are routing and suggest a safer alternative.
You guys serious? I'd shake your hand if you had any fingers left.
You don't think this is a problem?
http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Fish%20Tank/doors%20plain%20Dylan.jpg
http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Plaques%20and%20frames/plaque%20(Tabitha).JPG
??
> As to the photos, neither you nor I know what number 44 is shaping.
He has
> a solid hold on his stock and that mitigates more potential problems
than
> anything you're going to do with a push stick. If he's just doing
edge work
> on that shaper his hands are perfectly safe where they are. What are
you
> seeing that is such a concern?
>
> The young lady, likewise has a good hold on her stock and her hands
are well
> clear of the cutter. She has control. What are you seeing wrong
with her
> picture?
The problem isn't when the person has control of their stock, it's what
happens to their body if they lose control of their stock. Kickback
has happened to all of us at one time or another, and the girl trying
to control that short piece is asking for an accident.
A push block like ones used in a jointer would make that operation much
more safe, IMO.
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
> Well, this is this century Sandman. What existed 100 years ago is hardly
> relevant to the conversation at hand. Everything being discussed is being
> discussed in the context of today, not 100 years ago. This was after all,
> modern day shop class we saw the pictures of.
Where in the hell did 100 years ago come from?
You were disagreeing with what Andy said about an instructor of his when he
was in school, in a different time and place of which you have no knowledge.
That _was_ the "context" and you just didn't snap to the change ... and just
how old do you think he is?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
"Knothead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I particularly like the overhead router on/off switch hanging loose by
some
> wirenuts
>
>
Ouch - I didn't see that one the first time around.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
Your title reminded me of the old railroad ditty:
Uphill slow, downhill fast,
Tonnage first, safety last.
--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description
[email protected] wrote:
> Can YOU pick out all the safety hazards in these photos?
The only thing that made me wince was seeing all those kids running banshees
(routahs) with no hearing protection.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
Andy Dingley wrote:
>
...
> One of the smartest comments I ever heard at school was from my
> metalwork teacher. He pointed out that metalwork as a school subject
> was basically pointless. Very few of us would ever handle a hacksaw
> again. Of the few that went on to engineering apprentices, or
> whatever, they'd be working 40 hour weeks. The couple of hours a week
> we'd spent in the workshop during all our years at school would be
> outweighed in no time at all. He was right.
I disagree and think on the contrary he was totally wrong...
Swingman wrote:
...
> Both of you guys are, wrongly IMO, applying your 20th century American
> values to a situation that existed in another country, at another time.
>
> Instead of "sanctimonious" or "condescending", I'll use the word
> "provincial" to describe this type of thinking .. folks from elsewhere in
> this, an International forum, may not be so charitable in their thoughts.
Say <what>!!?? I ken not of which you speaketh... :(
What in the world is wrong w/ having at least an acquaintanceship w/ any
particular arena of learning whether it is/is not going to be a long
term career?
Methinks somehow you've misunderstood the complaint....
Swingman wrote:
...
> I doubt seriously that you have experienced a strong apprenticeship program
> in this country, or the class distinction that still existed into the middle
> of the last century, unless you were born early in that century.
>
> Having lived and worked a factory job in the UK, where Andy is, some 40
> years ago, when the apprentice system was still strong and class distinction
> subtle, but present, I'd say Andy precisely described what my take would
> have been at the time.
Well, it may have been a common opinion of the time although I don't
think I would have agreed even then, but, I'll grant I'm not a Brit so
have strange upstart ideas of "place"... :)
What's wrong w/ <any> person, of any perceived class having an
acquaintanceship of/with <any> particular field of occuption/study?
Just because they may (a) be retrained in further depth, or (b), not use
it for a profession doesn't make it "wrong" in my book...(a) may be a
less-than-optimum useage of time for those who do, indeed follow on, but
I'm not even positive of that--repetition is of benefit, too. And, we
are at least, I assume, talking of a present attitude...
Swingman wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
>
> > are at least, I assume, talking of a present attitude...
>
> IMO, that assumption was what you got off the track ... for the time and
> place that Andy was speaking of, I would say not.
But what I was responding to was that his post reflected that is still
his attitude...
If not, then I <did> misread the post.
Swingman wrote:
>
...
> I am saying: Who are you to say that he (the instructor) was wrong for the
> time and place?
OK, so perhaps I could have made my complaint more explicit in that what
I was really conveying my opinion that what Andy was saying was that
because this previous instructor of his said what he said that Andy
meant it is a waste of time to be teaching industrial arts now in
general (and to those particular students in general)...if that was not
his intent, then I did misunderstand.
How's that for obuscation... :)
...
> BTW, I enjoyed your "farm life" postings ... brought back memories. My
> earliest are of cattle and rice. We raised cattle for gravy to put on the
> rice.
:)
Thanks, at least one person wasn't totally, bored...hopefully someone
may have learned just a little or get a slight change in viewpoint as
well... :)
Swingman wrote:
>
...
> First you must imagine a workplace attitude and culture where "tools of the
> trade" are not to be used by anyone who has not gone through the appropriate
> apprenticeship, and you can then begin to understand why the instructor's
> comments may not have been "totally wrong, as you stated.
>
...snip...
Oh, I understand the background (jest becuz i are Amurricun dont meen I
cain't reed gud nor travle), I just fail to see how that applies in the
context in which Andy quoted his instructor...
But, we can agree to disagree...
Shaper was the only one that really bothered me, too. I'm a stick and
featherboard guy.
Overarm router should have a pin underneath to follow the pattern, limiting
the danger.
I really like the middleschoolers' stuff. They've got a lot of enthusiasm
at that age, and they really like a quick project. Always a challenge to
get some sort of result quickly. I liked box-jointed boxes for the first
one. Teaches square and same size pieces, about a third of any woodworking
project.
"RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:xGWxd.19418$F25.18692@okepread07...
> I guess I am missing the reason for alarm. Yeah, I see a couple of pics
> that make me a little nervous but snapshots don't always catch the action.
> If the router example is the young lady in Orange, I can't imagine
> controlling that block she is routing with a push stick - she has her
hands
> in a defensive position and unengaged fingers raised. The young fellow
> using the shaper does bother me but I don't know if the right hand crossed
> over the knife path or he just put it there.
>
> It is easy to pick a shop class apart from a few pics. If you look at all
> of them there appear to be some pretty well-trained hands and eyes among
> that group.
>
>
"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
> Andy Dingley wrote:
> >
> ...
> > One of the smartest comments I ever heard at school was from my
> > metalwork teacher. He pointed out that metalwork as a school subject
> > was basically pointless. Very few of us would ever handle a hacksaw
> > again. Of the few that went on to engineering apprentices, or
> > whatever, they'd be working 40 hour weeks. The couple of hours a week
> > we'd spent in the workshop during all our years at school would be
> > outweighed in no time at all. He was right.
>
> I disagree and think on the contrary he was totally wrong...
For which country was he "totally wrong"?
I doubt seriously that you have experienced a strong apprenticeship program
in this country, or the class distinction that still existed into the middle
of the last century, unless you were born early in that century.
Having lived and worked a factory job in the UK, where Andy is, some 40
years ago, when the apprentice system was still strong and class distinction
subtle, but present, I'd say Andy precisely described what my take would
have been at the time.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
Tue, Dec 21, 2004, 5:11am (EST-3) [email protected] says:
Happened upon this school website <snip>
I suspect none of the machines were turned on when the pictures
were taken.
JOAT
Sanity is vastly over-rated.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
> >
> > "Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
> >
> > > Andy Dingley wrote:
> > > >
> > > ...
> > > > One of the smartest comments I ever heard at school was from my
> > > > metalwork teacher. He pointed out that metalwork as a school subject
> > > > was basically pointless. Very few of us would ever handle a hacksaw
> > > > again. Of the few that went on to engineering apprentices, or
> > > > whatever, they'd be working 40 hour weeks. The couple of hours a
week
> > > > we'd spent in the workshop during all our years at school would be
> > > > outweighed in no time at all. He was right.
> > >
> > > I disagree and think on the contrary he was totally wrong...
> >
> > By this instructor's logic, most of us should not have taken Biology,
> > Chemistry, and in the south... English.
>
> Both of you guys are, wrongly IMO, applying your 20th century American
> values to a situation that existed in another country, at another time.
>
> Instead of "sanctimonious" or "condescending", I'll use the word
> "provincial" to describe this type of thinking .. folks from elsewhere in
> this, an International forum, may not be so charitable in their thoughts.
>
Well, this is this century Sandman. What existed 100 years ago is hardly
relevant to the conversation at hand. Everything being discussed is being
discussed in the context of today, not 100 years ago. This was after all, a
modern day shop class we saw the pictures of.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 21 Dec 2004 13:28:20 -0800, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >You don't think this is a problem?
> >
>
>http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Fish%20Tank/doors%20plain%2
0Dylan.jpg
> >
>
>http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Plaques%20and%20frames/plaq
ue%20(Tabitha).JPG
>
> I hadn't noticed those two yet - nasty.
>
> The first machine is probably illegal to operate in the UK in a
> commercial workshop and is _certainly_ so in a school workshop.
>
> In fact the first one just isn't something _I'd_ do. That's the most
> common table-mounted router accident requiring a hospital visit
> (according to the HSE's figures) - a blind emerging cut, where the
> pushing hand goes straight into the unseen cutter.
Through 3" of wood? I think not.
>
>
> The second picture is one I'd cheerfully do, but I'd never let kids do
> it. _I_ have some idea of where my fingers are, where the bit is, and
> how far to separate them. Kids can't reliably do that.
>
I have to respectfully disagree Andy. My own kids are proof of that and
I've had a few other kids that were either neighborhood kids or the kids of
friends, who over the years I've taught a bit of wood working to, or have
for one reason or another, have done wood working in my garage. I assure
you - not all and even *most* kids that are interested in this stuff are not
the absent minded air heads you typically find in the shopping malls.
There's a world of bright, attentive kids out there. If you haven't crossed
paths with them, then that's truly a shame, because it does your heart good
to work with them. They can indeed reliably function in a wood working
shop.
I've read more stuff here that concerns me than what I've seen and
experienced with the attentiveness and capability of the kids I've worked
with.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:15:12 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Well, he does still have all his fingers,
This one doesn't appear to
<http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Trellis/Mortising%20-trellis(Ryan&Tars).JPG>
Nasty kickback risk on this one, even with that riving knife.
http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/TV%20Console%20Project/tv%20console%20TABLESAWING%202.jpg
The inverted sander isn't good practice
<http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Plaques%20and%20frames/Pix%20frames%20ll%20(Ryan).jpg>
although the worst hazard is clearly the terrible electrical fault -
look at what it's done to his hair !
This should have a push board to feed the board through - can't see if
there is one.
http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/ww%205th%20hour%20class/R.Meridith(Bread%20board-sanding).JPG
I'd like to see more earmuffs too.
--
Smert' spamionam
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
> No, neither Duane nor I disagreed with what he said about an instructor of
> his, we disagreed with what the instructor said as being applicable to the
> wood shop site we all viewed on the internet, and the propriety of kids
> working that sort of work. There's a big difference there.
Yes, there is a big difference ... unfortunately, and as I have said
repeatedly, it appears you missed the point, as well as the context, of
Andy's reply to your post. You need to go back and read it in it's entirety
with an open, instead of argumentative, mind.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:15:12 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Well, he does still have all his fingers,
>
> This one doesn't appear to
>
<http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Trellis/Mortising%20-trelli
s(Ryan&Tars).JPG>
Or... is his finger bent - like the second finger is?
>
> Nasty kickback risk on this one, even with that riving knife.
>
http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/TV%20Console%20Project/tv%20console%20TABLESAWING%202.jpg
Oh please. You're stretching on this one Andy. Is there any cut on a table
saw that the kickback police don't nail as a kickback hazard? That is a
perfectly reasonable cut to make on a table saw.
>
> The inverted sander isn't good practice
>
<http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Plaques%20and%20frames/Pix%
20frames%20ll%20(Ryan).jpg>
Now that one is... shall we say... novel. Not a horrible safety risk since
it's just a vibrating sander, but I can't imagine how wobbly that must have
been.
>
> This should have a push board to feed the board through - can't see if
> there is one.
>
http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/ww%205th%20hour%20class/R.Meridith(Bread%20board-sanding).JPG
I'd really be concerned if there was a push stick in the picture. Note that
the board is not yet past the edge of the bed. You'd suggest a push stick
on a board that is not fully secured on the bed? It's time to quit looking
for boogy men in everything on this site. His hands aren't near the
business end of the machine and his hands offer far better control than a
push stick. So - what is the safety advantage of a push stick?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> Suppose that the block the girl is routing does get kicked back. What do
> you believe is going to happen to her that a push block would prevent?
>
> However I think you grossly overestimate the potential for kickback from a
> router table.
>
That's precisely the point John. There is too much talk about kickback and
push tools, and too little consideration for whether kickback is a real
potential. It's a far more dangerous woodworker who does not understand
these dynamics than the one who is accused of not following every
conceivable safety measure.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Snip
>
> But he must be doing something more or less pleasing to the powers that be
> ... he's on TV and we're not (although I am convinced there is a real
> woodworker hiding somewhere off camera). ;>)
Yeah he has to know something... I guess he rushes through the projects to
show more of what can be done.
I was thinking I might swing by and see you some time next week,
Wednesdayish. Will be be around?
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 11/06/04
>
>
"RonB" wrote in message
> I guess I am missing the reason for alarm. Yeah, I see a couple of pics
> that make me a little nervous but snapshots don't always catch the action.
"Dylan" on the shaper, and "Tabatha" routing that small piece, were the only
ones that really made me want to say "be careful there". But the pictures
certainly may not give a proper perspective.
Pretty impressive work, though.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The problem isn't when the person has control of their stock, it's what
> happens to their body if they lose control of their stock. Kickback
> has happened to all of us at one time or another, and the girl trying
> to control that short piece is asking for an accident.
>
> A push block like ones used in a jointer would make that operation much
> more safe, IMO.
>
That's where we disagree Larry. The push block or push stick put your hands
more in the clear is something does go wrong or they keep your hands more in
the clear in the case of tight cuts like up against the rip fence, but they
do not offer more stability to the work. They can remove control. They are
an extension to your hand and as such they are a somewhat flexible
extension. I do use them and I do not want to sound like I don't advocate
them, but every tool in its place. Likewise, do not critique a perfectly
safe procedure simply because you can. To use a push block on a piece the
size she is using is going to result in less control, and probably an
increase in likelihood of kickback. How is that possibly safer?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Leon" wrote in message
>
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> >> Can YOU pick out all the safety hazards in these photos?
> >
> >
> > Bruce Johnson's alma mater?
>
> Is he still on TV or did OSHA require the DIY channel to remove him? ;~)
Well, he does still have all his fingers, but I wonder if the bookies in the
UK are taking bets yet?
He scares SWMBO and she doesn't know a router from a table saw. I don't know
why I continue to record his show as I just FF over the first few minutes
and erase it almost immediately.
Once, I did see him build a nice little oak bookshelf, with very nice lines,
that was put together correctly, but most of his stuff is cheesy DIY to the
max, IMO.
But he must be doing something more or less pleasing to the powers that be
... he's on TV and we're not (although I am convinced there is a real
woodworker hiding somewhere off camera). ;>)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 01:36:53 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Geeze Andy - did you see the work they produced?
>
> Wasn't even looking - that's not the point.
That statement ignores the degree of accomplishment these kids have
achieved. It presumes they are absolute beginners. If they were, you would
have a more valid point, to a degree, but since they clearly are not, your
point loses all of its validity.
>
> >These guys aren't the
> >untrained, unskilled, off the street kids.
>
> They're inexperienced. They're schoolkids - they can't be anything
> _but_ (they just haven't had the time).
You don't need years of time under your belt to have developed the necessary
understandings and appreciations of certain things. I think I'm hearing
some eliteist stuff coming through. I find that hard to believe based on a
lot of other postings I've read from you, but I can't figure out what else
it would be.
>
> One of the smartest comments I ever heard at school was from my
> metalwork teacher. He pointed out that metalwork as a school subject
> was basically pointless. Very few of us would ever handle a hacksaw
> again. Of the few that went on to engineering apprentices, or
> whatever, they'd be working 40 hour weeks. The couple of hours a week
> we'd spent in the workshop during all our years at school would be
> outweighed in no time at all. He was right.
I'd agree with that but what does it have to do with the discussion at hand?
Most of us do a number of things on a very part time or occassional basis.
That does not prevent us from doing them with all of the appropriate safety.
Nor does it imply that we need to go overboard trying to implement every
conceivable measure that might be considered a safety consideration in spite
of perfectly acceptable procedures.
>
>
>
> >> You're not trying to make stuff here, you're primarily
> >> trying to teach good techniques andd good habits for the future.
> >
> >I think you need to look at the site completely Andy. They're making
> >things. Nice things. This is not first semister wood shop.
>
> They are indeed making nice things. That's rewarding, and good on them
> for doing it -- but it's still _incidental_ to a vocational course,
> because that has to focus on what you learn to make afterwards. Of
> course the best way to encourage this can be through the reward of
> present achievements, but you still have to
Our discussion was not about whether they are pursuing a vocational
education.
>
>
> >> A workshop like this has crosscut sleds to hand, and you use them
> >> whenever you _can_, not whenever you _must_.
> >
> >Wrong. Badly wrong. You use tools, adjuncts, and procedures when they
are
> >appropriate, not just for the sake of proving something. This is the
> >perfect example of taking it too far.
>
> So what's wrong with using a sled ?
Nothing. It's a great adjunct - in its place. It's just not necessary to
use it all of the time. There are a ton of cuts on the table saw that do
not require or even benefit from the use of it. To state that a perfectly
safe cut on a saw without one is unsafe just because they didn't use one is
wrong and that's what I commented on.
>
> This is an entirely appropriate cut to do on a sled. Doing it against
> the fence like this is borderline for being in the proportions where
> it becomes hazardous (neither of us can really tell from that
> picture).
Wrong. There is plenty of support along the fence. It only requires a
glance to see that. This is not a small piece of wood he's trimming. It's
a matter of stability against the fence. He was only trimming an inch or so
off of a piece of wood that approached a foot in length. Please explain how
that proportion is boarderline to becoming hazardous. That's the problem
with blanket statements like one commonly finds here at the wreck - they
become mantras and ignore the fundamental principles. The cut he was doing
is one which a table saw does well and poses no problems to the operator.
The fellow in the picture was far from reaching any point of wood protruding
beyond the blade to be of concern.
>
> >A push block or any other device that lessens the control that the
> >operator's hands exert over the work piece would be flat out wrong.
>
> Of course - but a block doesn't (a stick would).
It sure as hell would when the wood is still not fully on the bed.
>
> I'm assuming that the "bed" here is actually a powered feed belt. If
> it isn't, or if that belt slips, then you have the workpiece coming
> back towards you. You need to control that, and you can't control it
> with your fingers for the last part of the pass (at least not without
> getting your fingers too close to the drum).
>
Andy - you're looking too hard for things to find wrong. Again, look at the
picture. He is providing the highest possible degree of control over his
workpiece. That's what it's about - it's not about gadgets and things. He
is not at the end of the push, he's at the beginning.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
I personally don't see a problem in any of these pics. At least the
operator appears to be concentrating on the task at hand. In fact, the only
time i ever use a push stick is for ripping narrow pieces with a TS. I
would rather guide things with my hands if possible, but i run WW machinery
for a living, and am comfortable with that. I DO pay careful attention to
where my fingers are in relation to the danger areas.BTW, I still have all
my fingers attached and intact! --dave
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Happened upon this school website
>> >
>> > http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/woodworking.htm
>> >
>> > Can YOU pick out all the safety hazards in these photos?
>> >
>> > Check out all the router table action with no push blocks or
> sticks,
>> > hands inches from the bit.
>> >
>>
>> You scare me Larry. I didn't see a picture there where they were
> doing
>> anything unsafe. Push sticks on a router table is not one of the
> best ideas
>> I've ever heard. Hands inches from the bit? Yeah - it's called
>> woodworking. It requires control in order to be safe. Look at what
> they
>> are routing and suggest a safer alternative.
>
> You guys serious? I'd shake your hand if you had any fingers left.
> You don't think this is a problem?
>
> http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Fish%20Tank/doors%20plain%20Dylan.jpg
>
> http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Plaques%20and%20frames/plaque%20(Tabitha).JPG
> ??
>
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:02:13 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> These are kids though. _Not_ the best and most skilled workers. Don't
> make it any harder for them.
Geeze Andy - did you see the work they produced? These guys aren't the
untrained, unskilled, off the street kids. Their work practices make it
clear that they know what they're doing.
>
> There's also the far more important point that this isn't a workshop,
> it's an instructional workshop. You don't just do what's needed, you
> do what you _ought_ to do, for any forseeable variation on that
> operation.
You can take this to the point of looking for problems that don't exist.
Not everything done in the name of safety is really safer. A good example
is using a push stick as has been suggested by more than one poster. The
operations in question were in fact being performed much safer by hand.
> You're not trying to make stuff here, you're primarily
> trying to teach good techniques andd good habits for the future.
I think you need to look at the site completely Andy. They're making
things. Nice things. This is not first semister wood shop.
>
> A workshop like this has crosscut sleds to hand, and you use them
> whenever you _can_, not whenever you _must_.
Wrong. Badly wrong. You use tools, adjuncts, and procedures when they are
appropriate, not just for the sake of proving something. This is the
perfect example of taking it too far.
>
>
> >I'd really be concerned if there was a push stick in the picture.
>
> So would I. But I said push _board_, not push stick. A piece of scrap
> board of appropriate width and thinner than the workpiece. For a
> single drum sander you really do need one, and even for a machine like
> a thickness planer it's a good idea to have one handy, in case the
> powered feed roller stalls or slips. These things do happen from time
> to time, and prior preparation removes the slightest incentive to
> stick your fingers somewhere unholy.
Again Andy - take a look at the picture. The stock is not even fully on the
bed yet. A push block or any other device that lessens the control that the
operator's hands exert over the work piece would be flat out wrong.
Dangerous. It isn't about contriving safety rules, it's about smart, common
sense, practical procedures. Procedures that will ensure against accidents,
not invite them.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
> Methinks somehow you've misunderstood the complaint....
To the contrary ... I am thinking you misunderstood the context of the post
you replied to, both in place and time.
You did clearly say:
"I disagree and think on the contrary he was totally wrong..."
I am saying: Who are you to say that he (the instructor) was wrong for the
time and place?
Since you have pretty well demonstrated in other posting that you have not
experienced that particular time and place, I would have to say that your
opinion on the matter is just that, and imminently subject to argument ...
which is being provided. :)
BTW, I enjoyed your "farm life" postings ... brought back memories. My
earliest are of cattle and rice. We raised cattle for gravy to put on the
rice.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
> > >
> > > "Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Andy Dingley wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > > One of the smartest comments I ever heard at school was from my
> > > > > metalwork teacher. He pointed out that metalwork as a school
subject
> > > > > was basically pointless. Very few of us would ever handle a
hacksaw
> > > > > again. Of the few that went on to engineering apprentices, or
> > > > > whatever, they'd be working 40 hour weeks. The couple of hours a
> week
> > > > > we'd spent in the workshop during all our years at school would be
> > > > > outweighed in no time at all. He was right.
> > > >
> > > > I disagree and think on the contrary he was totally wrong...
> > >
> > > By this instructor's logic, most of us should not have taken Biology,
> > > Chemistry, and in the south... English.
> >
> > Both of you guys are, wrongly IMO, applying your 20th century American
> > values to a situation that existed in another country, at another time.
> >
> > Instead of "sanctimonious" or "condescending", I'll use the word
> > "provincial" to describe this type of thinking .. folks from elsewhere
in
> > this, an International forum, may not be so charitable in their
thoughts.
> >
>
> Well, this is this century Sandman. What existed 100 years ago is hardly
> relevant to the conversation at hand. Everything being discussed is being
> discussed in the context of today, not 100 years ago. This was after all,
a
> modern day shop class we saw the pictures of.
> --
Argh!!! Make that *Swingman*. Sorry about that.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Can YOU pick out all the safety hazards in these photos?
>
>
> Bruce Johnson's alma mater?
Is he still on TV or did OSHA require the DIY channel to remove him? ;~)
"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't know if she's safe or not, but I'm a devout coward...
> I use a slide jig that holds the work against the fence and makes it
> really, really hard to get my fingers in the way
Just for the record - don't take my comments on this topic wrong mac... and
others. If that's what makes you comfortable, then fine. After all, for a
lot of us this is more of a sideline than a career, and it should be fun and
relaxing. (Maybe someday the relaxing part will really happen... at least
more often). The point being, do what makes you comfortable. My comments
are only directed at those which precede them, and which sought to find
fault where there was none. Those comments took on a nature of witch hunt
and ignored what the pictures themselves showed. Heck - just look at the
title of this thread.
Sometimes we who only do this stuff occasionally will adopt practices that
are beyond the required level, simply because we only do it occasionally,
and we either need or want an extra margin of safety or assurance. That's
fine. The problem comes in when we start to apply that universally and
become critical in our view of what others are doing, and that what they do
does not match up to what we do. We forget that we have adopted our
measures based more on what we feel comfortable with than what is really
necessary.
My little banner in this thread has not been one which flies in the face of
safety, but more so one which flies in the face of contrived safety. Some
topics like kickback have lost their meaning completely. My discussion with
Andy is a good example of that. We discussed the matter of the fellow
trimming a piece of wood on the table saw without a sled. The mantra of
"use a sled" has led to a point where the physics of the cut have been lost.
A perfectly safe cut is now deemed to be unsafe - because of a mantra.
There is a point where "better to be too safe" actually is not better. Once
we get to the point where we're looking for what we can see wrong all around
us, we've hit the point where our focus is on finding things, and not on
acceptable practices. That does not really benefit anyone.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Happened upon this school website
> > >
> > > http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/woodworking.htm
> > >
> > > Can YOU pick out all the safety hazards in these photos?
> > >
> > > Check out all the router table action with no push blocks or
> sticks,
> > > hands inches from the bit.
> > >
> >
> > You scare me Larry. I didn't see a picture there where they were
> doing
> > anything unsafe. Push sticks on a router table is not one of the
> best ideas
> > I've ever heard. Hands inches from the bit? Yeah - it's called
> > woodworking. It requires control in order to be safe. Look at what
> they
> > are routing and suggest a safer alternative.
>
> You guys serious? I'd shake your hand if you had any fingers left.
> You don't think this is a problem?
>
>
http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Fish%20Tank/doors%20plain%20Dylan.jpg
>
>
http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Plaques%20and%20frames/plaque%20(Tabitha).JPG
> ??
>
No, and no. I prefer the safety and control of my hands on a piece of wood
than the instability of a push stick used for the wrong task. Yes, I have
all of my fingers and I've been woodworking for over 35 years. Maybe you
have also, and I don't suggest you abandon procedures that make you
comfortable, but the level of pure asinine safety talk here is absurd. Most
of it is nothing more than people repeating things they've heard or read and
it becomes mantra, rather than being based on anything substantial. There
are too many people here who do nothing more than look for what they can
point out as a safety issue, just for the sake of passing wind.
As to the photos, neither you nor I know what number 44 is shaping. He has
a solid hold on his stock and that mitigates more potential problems than
anything you're going to do with a push stick. If he's just doing edge work
on that shaper his hands are perfectly safe where they are. What are you
seeing that is such a concern?
The young lady, likewise has a good hold on her stock and her hands are well
clear of the cutter. She has control. What are you seeing wrong with her
picture?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Happened upon this school website
>
> http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/woodworking.htm
>
> Can YOU pick out all the safety hazards in these photos?
>
> Check out all the router table action with no push blocks or sticks,
> hands inches from the bit.
>
You scare me Larry. I didn't see a picture there where they were doing
anything unsafe. Push sticks on a router table is not one of the best ideas
I've ever heard. Hands inches from the bit? Yeah - it's called
woodworking. It requires control in order to be safe. Look at what they
are routing and suggest a safer alternative.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 01:36:53 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Geeze Andy - did you see the work they produced?
Wasn't even looking - that's not the point.
>These guys aren't the
>untrained, unskilled, off the street kids.
They're inexperienced. They're schoolkids - they can't be anything
_but_ (they just haven't had the time).
One of the smartest comments I ever heard at school was from my
metalwork teacher. He pointed out that metalwork as a school subject
was basically pointless. Very few of us would ever handle a hacksaw
again. Of the few that went on to engineering apprentices, or
whatever, they'd be working 40 hour weeks. The couple of hours a week
we'd spent in the workshop during all our years at school would be
outweighed in no time at all. He was right.
>> You're not trying to make stuff here, you're primarily
>> trying to teach good techniques andd good habits for the future.
>
>I think you need to look at the site completely Andy. They're making
>things. Nice things. This is not first semister wood shop.
They are indeed making nice things. That's rewarding, and good on them
for doing it -- but it's still _incidental_ to a vocational course,
because that has to focus on what you learn to make afterwards. Of
course the best way to encourage this can be through the reward of
present achievements, but you still have to
To be honest, a non-vocational course doesn't need to teach you much
beyond the fact it's _possible_ to make stuff. You can pick the rest
up later. Sadly the current UK system ignores this completely and
we're spawning a generation of mall-rats fit for nothing other than
entirely passive consumption. Things are made in factories full of
robots and you get them by going to a shop -- the idea that you could
_make_ something yourself just doesn't occur any more 8-(
>> A workshop like this has crosscut sleds to hand, and you use them
>> whenever you _can_, not whenever you _must_.
>
>Wrong. Badly wrong. You use tools, adjuncts, and procedures when they are
>appropriate, not just for the sake of proving something. This is the
>perfect example of taking it too far.
So what's wrong with using a sled ?
This is an entirely appropriate cut to do on a sled. Doing it against
the fence like this is borderline for being in the proportions where
it becomes hazardous (neither of us can really tell from that
picture).
>A push block or any other device that lessens the control that the
>operator's hands exert over the work piece would be flat out wrong.
Of course - but a block doesn't (a stick would).
I'm assuming that the "bed" here is actually a powered feed belt. If
it isn't, or if that belt slips, then you have the workpiece coming
back towards you. You need to control that, and you can't control it
with your fingers for the last part of the pass (at least not without
getting your fingers too close to the drum).
--
Smert' spamionam
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:39:47 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 01:36:53 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
... snip
>>
>> >> A workshop like this has crosscut sleds to hand, and you use them
>> >> whenever you _can_, not whenever you _must_.
>> >
>> >Wrong. Badly wrong. You use tools, adjuncts, and procedures when they
>are
>> >appropriate, not just for the sake of proving something. This is the
>> >perfect example of taking it too far.
>>
>> So what's wrong with using a sled ?
>
>Nothing. It's a great adjunct - in its place. It's just not necessary to
>use it all of the time. There are a ton of cuts on the table saw that do
>not require or even benefit from the use of it. To state that a perfectly
>safe cut on a saw without one is unsafe just because they didn't use one is
>wrong and that's what I commented on.
>
Looking at the piece being cut, I'm not at all sure most cross-cut sleds
would be able to safely hold that piece between the blade and the fence at
the start of the cut without the sled having to be pulled back such that it
was tipping off of the back of the saw or the panel almost engaging the
blade at the start of the cut - this would require raising the guard and
placing the panel under the guard prior to starting.
>>
>> This is an entirely appropriate cut to do on a sled. Doing it against
>> the fence like this is borderline for being in the proportions where
>> it becomes hazardous (neither of us can really tell from that
>> picture).
>
>Wrong. There is plenty of support along the fence. It only requires a
>glance to see that. This is not a small piece of wood he's trimming. It's
>a matter of stability against the fence. He was only trimming an inch or so
>off of a piece of wood that approached a foot in length. Please explain how
>that proportion is boarderline to becoming hazardous. That's the problem
>with blanket statements like one commonly finds here at the wreck - they
>become mantras and ignore the fundamental principles. The cut he was doing
>is one which a table saw does well and poses no problems to the operator.
>The fellow in the picture was far from reaching any point of wood protruding
>beyond the blade to be of concern.
>
[email protected] wrote:
>> As to the photos, neither you nor I know what number 44 is shaping.
> He has
>> a solid hold on his stock and that mitigates more potential problems
> than
>> anything you're going to do with a push stick. If he's just doing
> edge work
>> on that shaper his hands are perfectly safe where they are. What are
> you
>> seeing that is such a concern?
>>
>> The young lady, likewise has a good hold on her stock and her hands
> are well
>> clear of the cutter. She has control. What are you seeing wrong
> with her
>> picture?
>
> The problem isn't when the person has control of their stock, it's what
> happens to their body if they lose control of their stock. Kickback
> has happened to all of us at one time or another, and the girl trying
> to control that short piece is asking for an accident.
>
> A push block like ones used in a jointer would make that operation much
> more safe, IMO.
Suppose that the block the girl is routing does get kicked back. What do
you believe is going to happen to her that a push block would prevent?
However I think you grossly overestimate the potential for kickback from a
router table.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>
> > Well, this is this century Sandman. What existed 100 years ago is
hardly
> > relevant to the conversation at hand. Everything being discussed is
being
> > discussed in the context of today, not 100 years ago. This was after
all,
> > modern day shop class we saw the pictures of.
>
> Where in the hell did 100 years ago come from?
My bad Swingman - I was responding to the "another century" from your
previous post. It's not likely that such a term would be meant to express
what existed in 1999. It's more likely that such a comment would express
what existed a long time back in the past century, which by itself was
reflective of older conventions.
>
> You were disagreeing with what Andy said about an instructor of his when
he
> was in school, in a different time and place of which you have no
knowledge.
> That _was_ the "context" and you just didn't snap to the change ... and
just
> how old do you think he is?
>
No, neither Duane nor I disagreed with what he said about an instructor of
his, we disagreed with what the instructor said as being applicable to the
wood shop site we all viewed on the internet, and the propriety of kids
working that sort of work. There's a big difference there. It does not
matter what the instructor said 40 or 50 or 80 years ago, it's not today.
It's not relevant to what was being discussed and it's not relevant to the
school under discussion.
How old do I think Andy is? I really don't know. I often get surprised
when I see pics of folks and find that they are either younger or older than
I had imagined. I simply take Andy as I see him - a pretty well thought
out contributor who seems to have a pretty broad base of experiences he
speaks from. Like everyone else here, he's not always dead right with
everything but also like a lot of folks here, he often has some good stuff
to add to the mix.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:15:26 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> A blind emerging cut 1/4" high with a 3 1/2" high workpiece is considered
>hazardous?
I can't see how big the workpiece is from that picture. Maybe it's not
really that hazardous.
It's certainly _considered_ hazardous - the HSE are having a real
thing about emerging cuts. Looking at the actual stats for hand
injuries, they seem to have a point. We might all just be careless
drunks working with our eyes shut, but that's when the injuries are
happening.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/wis18.pdf
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/woodindx.htm
> Just how would one make such a roundover in the UK?
Same way as in the picture - but not feeding it with your fingers.
For a commercial workshop there's a strong pressure to fit tunnel
guards for this find of work
To be honest, you're going to find no (UK) school workshops and very
few colleges with spindle moulders.
> Surely a
>hand-held router would be considered even more dangerous
Depends on circumstances. There's a good working principle in PUWER
which says that works should be done on the least-risk machine - which
means the fixed vertical spindle, if you have one. However spindle
moulders have a bad reputation in the UK and many people avoid having
one altogether - leaving them with the free router.
> I think you are underestimating young teens.
I'm probably underestimating that one, but deliberately so. You have
to plan around the worst behaved and least attentive of the group.
This is also the one most likely to whine "But _Siirr_, you let Sammy
Maloof use the bandsaw!"
If you can filter the group, perhaps a woodworking club, then you can
achieve a lot more. Your best pupils are still the same, but you don't
have to account for the less able or committed to the same extent.
--
Smert' spamionam
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:02:13 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Oh please. You're stretching on this one Andy. Is there any cut on a table
>saw that the kickback police don't nail as a kickback hazard? That is a
>perfectly reasonable cut to make on a table saw.
It's a borderline cut. You'd do it, I'd probably do it. It's also a
poor photo angle and the real situation might have been much better or
much worse than we know.
These are kids though. _Not_ the best and most skilled workers. Don't
make it any harder for them.
There's also the far more important point that this isn't a workshop,
it's an instructional workshop. You don't just do what's needed, you
do what you _ought_ to do, for any forseeable variation on that
operation. You're not trying to make stuff here, you're primarily
trying to teach good techniques andd good habits for the future. I
often use my saw (cabinet or bandsaw) without earmuffs, because
they're both quiet machines. But if there are kids around I _always_
wear them, because as a general rule "cabinet saws are noisy and you
wear earmuffs".
A workshop like this has crosscut sleds to hand, and you use them
whenever you _can_, not whenever you _must_.
>I'd really be concerned if there was a push stick in the picture.
So would I. But I said push _board_, not push stick. A piece of scrap
board of appropriate width and thinner than the workpiece. For a
single drum sander you really do need one, and even for a machine like
a thickness planer it's a good idea to have one handy, in case the
powered feed roller stalls or slips. These things do happen from time
to time, and prior preparation removes the slightest incentive to
stick your fingers somewhere unholy.
--
Smert' spamionam
On 21 Dec 2004 13:28:20 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Mike Marlow wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Happened upon this school website
>> >
>> > http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/woodworking.htm
>> >
>> > Can YOU pick out all the safety hazards in these photos?
>> >
>> > Check out all the router table action with no push blocks or
>sticks,
>> > hands inches from the bit.
>> >
>>
>> You scare me Larry. I didn't see a picture there where they were
>doing
>> anything unsafe. Push sticks on a router table is not one of the
>best ideas
>> I've ever heard. Hands inches from the bit? Yeah - it's called
>> woodworking. It requires control in order to be safe. Look at what
>they
>> are routing and suggest a safer alternative.
>
>You guys serious? I'd shake your hand if you had any fingers left.
>You don't think this is a problem?
>
>http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Fish%20Tank/doors%20plain%20Dylan.jpg
He's standing clear of any kickback, from the look of the workpiece, it
appears the operation is a simple roundover, the stock is sufficiently
large that his hand is not near the roundover bit as it moves the stock,
what is your concern?
>
>http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Plaques%20and%20frames/plaque%20(Tabitha).JPG
>??
No hearing protection -- not a good idea.
Router bit in fence -- seems OK. It's a short piece that she is working,
use of a push stick would appear to me to be more dangerous than the
operation as she is performing it. If something grabs, she is out the the
way of any kickback, there is noone behind her. Her fingers are again well
clear of the bit, her eyes and attention appear to be firmly on the work.
I would probably have clamped a guard board over the exposed portion of the
bit at board height. A push block, particularly with an edged surface
would have the potential for tipping the workpiece.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> First you must imagine a workplace attitude and culture where "tools of
the
> trade" are not to be used by anyone who has not gone through the
appropriate
> apprenticeship, and you can then begin to understand why the instructor's
> comments may not have been "totally wrong, as you stated.
I understand those cultural nuances Swingman, and I've experienced
environments different from what we enjoy here at home, as well. There is a
difference though between what was allowed as a part of the job, on the work
floor, even back then, and what really existed in people's lives. Even back
then, kids worked with tools outside of the workplace, albeit they hadn't
completed any apprenticship. The whole conversation has not been about the
rules of closed shops and shop rules, it's been about kids learning and
doing. I agree with Duane that the instructor was wrong in what he said,
regarless of the cultural environment at the time. Beyond that, this is
2004 and not some other time in history when things were different.
>
> Different "classes" of workers back in those days ... and woe betide me if
I
> had attempted to pick up a hacksaw out on the factory floor.
>
Not so different from union shops today.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:42:01 +0000, Andy Dingley <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 21 Dec 2004 13:28:20 -0800, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You don't think this is a problem?
>>
>>http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Fish%20Tank/doors%20plain%20Dylan.jpg
>>
>>http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Plaques%20and%20frames/plaque%20(Tabitha).JPG
>
>I hadn't noticed those two yet - nasty.
>
>The first machine is probably illegal to operate in the UK in a
>commercial workshop and is _certainly_ so in a school workshop.
>
>In fact the first one just isn't something _I'd_ do. That's the most
>common table-mounted router accident requiring a hospital visit
>(according to the HSE's figures) - a blind emerging cut, where the
>pushing hand goes straight into the unseen cutter.
>
A blind emerging cut 1/4" high with a 3 1/2" high workpiece is considered
hazardous? Just how would one make such a roundover in the UK? Surely a
hand-held router would be considered even more dangerous (free-spinning
unguarded bit along with chance for router kickback if the person forgets
the proper feed direction -- see your comment below regarding kids).
>
>The second picture is one I'd cheerfully do, but I'd never let kids do
>it. _I_ have some idea of where my fingers are, where the bit is, and
>how far to separate them. Kids can't reliably do that.
I think you are underestimating young teens. I know that when my dad
taught me how to use power tools, the single most important comment he made
was, "that blade doesn't know the difference between your finger and a
piece of wood -- know where it is at all times. Seeing how that girl's
concentration as she is making the cut, it appears she has been similarly
admonished.
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:49:47 -0600, "RonB" <[email protected]> wrote:
>BTW - Did anyone notice the PROJECTS these kids were building? Pretty
>impressive.
>
I'm impressed that they even have a SHOP, or a class for it..
They haven't had shop classes in Calif. forbears, that I know of..
Kids hear you talking about high school shop class and think you're
talking about training mall rats..
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>
> "Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
>
> > Andy Dingley wrote:
> > >
> > ...
> > > One of the smartest comments I ever heard at school was from my
> > > metalwork teacher. He pointed out that metalwork as a school subject
> > > was basically pointless. Very few of us would ever handle a hacksaw
> > > again. Of the few that went on to engineering apprentices, or
> > > whatever, they'd be working 40 hour weeks. The couple of hours a week
> > > we'd spent in the workshop during all our years at school would be
> > > outweighed in no time at all. He was right.
> >
> > I disagree and think on the contrary he was totally wrong...
>
> By this instructor's logic, most of us should not have taken Biology,
> Chemistry, and in the south... English.
Both of you guys are, wrongly IMO, applying your 20th century American
values to a situation that existed in another country, at another time.
Instead of "sanctimonious" or "condescending", I'll use the word
"provincial" to describe this type of thinking .. folks from elsewhere in
this, an International forum, may not be so charitable in their thoughts.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
On 21 Dec 2004 11:01:10 -0800, "foggytown" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Chetandra sanding her yo-yo" is one caption which might have been
>reconsidered. :)
"Ryan using a vibrator..."
I have to agree with others here, other than the photographer running
around doing flash photography while the kids are in the middle of
operations I don't see anything to get in a twist about. I hope they
warned them a flash was coming before they fired up the machine.
-Leuf
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andy Dingley wrote:
> >
> ...
> > One of the smartest comments I ever heard at school was from my
> > metalwork teacher. He pointed out that metalwork as a school subject
> > was basically pointless. Very few of us would ever handle a hacksaw
> > again. Of the few that went on to engineering apprentices, or
> > whatever, they'd be working 40 hour weeks. The couple of hours a week
> > we'd spent in the workshop during all our years at school would be
> > outweighed in no time at all. He was right.
>
> I disagree and think on the contrary he was totally wrong...
By this instructor's logic, most of us should not have taken Biology,
Chemistry, and in the south... English.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 21 Dec 2004 13:28:20 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>You don't think this is a problem?
>
>http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Fish%20Tank/doors%20plain%20Dylan.jpg
>
>http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Plaques%20and%20frames/plaque%20(Tabitha).JPG
I hadn't noticed those two yet - nasty.
The first machine is probably illegal to operate in the UK in a
commercial workshop and is _certainly_ so in a school workshop.
In fact the first one just isn't something _I'd_ do. That's the most
common table-mounted router accident requiring a hospital visit
(according to the HSE's figures) - a blind emerging cut, where the
pushing hand goes straight into the unseen cutter.
The second picture is one I'd cheerfully do, but I'd never let kids do
it. _I_ have some idea of where my fingers are, where the bit is, and
how far to separate them. Kids can't reliably do that.
On 21 Dec 2004 18:28:34 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> As to the photos, neither you nor I know what number 44 is shaping.
>He has
>> a solid hold on his stock and that mitigates more potential problems
>than
>> anything you're going to do with a push stick. If he's just doing
>edge work
>> on that shaper his hands are perfectly safe where they are. What are
>you
>> seeing that is such a concern?
>>
>> The young lady, likewise has a good hold on her stock and her hands
>are well
>> clear of the cutter. She has control. What are you seeing wrong
>with her
>> picture?
>
>The problem isn't when the person has control of their stock, it's what
>happens to their body if they lose control of their stock. Kickback
>has happened to all of us at one time or another, and the girl trying
>to control that short piece is asking for an accident.
>
>A push block like ones used in a jointer would make that operation much
>more safe, IMO.
I don't know if she's safe or not, but I'm a devout coward...
I use a slide jig that holds the work against the fence and makes it
really, really hard to get my fingers in the way..
"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
> Swingman wrote:
> >
> > "Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
> >
> > > are at least, I assume, talking of a present attitude...
> >
> > IMO, that assumption was what you got off the track ... for the time and
> > place that Andy was speaking of, I would say not.
>
> But what I was responding to was that his post reflected that is still
> his attitude...
>
> If not, then I <did> misread the post.
First you must imagine a workplace attitude and culture where "tools of the
trade" are not to be used by anyone who has not gone through the appropriate
apprenticeship, and you can then begin to understand why the instructor's
comments may not have been "totally wrong, as you stated.
My first job with a cabinet maker in England in the early 60's, I was
forbidden to use anything but the claw end of a hammer. It was a couple of
months before I convinced him that I could use a handsaw accurately and to
good effect. He _very_ grudgingly allowed that due to being short on
apprentices far enough along to get that particular job done.
My second job was in an aircraft factory where I was on "staff", wore a coat
and tie, had tea served to me on a table with a table cloth, all right next
to coverall attired "floor" workers, who had to fetch their own tea, sip it
on a bare table adjacent to mine ... and made twice the money I did.
Different "classes" of workers back in those days ... and woe betide me if I
had attempted to pick up a hacksaw out on the factory floor.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:15:12 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Well, he does still have all his fingers,
>
> This one doesn't appear to
> <http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Trellis/Mortising%20-trellis(Ryan&Tars).JPG>
>
I guess he had that finger reattached for this picture
http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/Fish%20Tank/cabinent%20inside%20corner%20Tars.jpg
Frank
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:27:40 GMT, "Lawrence L'Hote" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Happened upon this school website
>>>
>>> http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/woodworking.htm
>>>
>>> Can YOU pick out all the safety hazards in these photos?
>>
>> You scare me Larry. I didn't see a picture there where they were doing
>> anything unsafe. Push sticks on a router table is not one of the best
>> ideas
>> I've ever heard. Hands inches from the bit? Yeah - it's called
>> woodworking. It requires control in order to be safe. Look at what they
>> are routing and suggest a safer alternative.
>
>I too don't see any glaring safety hazards. Some of the kids in the
>background(s) didn't have their safety glasses on...but I'm sure they've
>been told umteen times. Table saw guards and spliters in place. No long
>sleeves or long hair evident. I noticed some have hearing aides but one
>might wonder why they don't wear the muffs to preserve what little hearing
>they might still have.
>
I suspect the power tools have a lower noise level than the
cars-turned-into-boom-boxes in which they drive around. :-(
>Larry(...not the original poster)
>
"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tue, Dec 21, 2004, 5:11am (EST-3) [email protected] says:
> Happened upon this school website <snip>
>
> I suspect none of the machines were turned on when the pictures
> were taken.
>
Some were - you can see the wood chips flying.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Happened upon this school website
>>
>> http://www.msd.k12.mo.us/vocational/woodworking/woodworking.htm
>>
>> Can YOU pick out all the safety hazards in these photos?
>
> You scare me Larry. I didn't see a picture there where they were doing
> anything unsafe. Push sticks on a router table is not one of the best
> ideas
> I've ever heard. Hands inches from the bit? Yeah - it's called
> woodworking. It requires control in order to be safe. Look at what they
> are routing and suggest a safer alternative.
I too don't see any glaring safety hazards. Some of the kids in the
background(s) didn't have their safety glasses on...but I'm sure they've
been told umteen times. Table saw guards and spliters in place. No long
sleeves or long hair evident. I noticed some have hearing aides but one
might wonder why they don't wear the muffs to preserve what little hearing
they might still have.
Larry(...not the original poster)
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:39:47 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 01:36:53 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... snip
>
> >>
> >> >> A workshop like this has crosscut sleds to hand, and you use them
> >> >> whenever you _can_, not whenever you _must_.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. Badly wrong. You use tools, adjuncts, and procedures when
they
> >are
> >> >appropriate, not just for the sake of proving something. This is the
> >> >perfect example of taking it too far.
> >>
> >> So what's wrong with using a sled ?
> >
> >Nothing. It's a great adjunct - in its place. It's just not necessary
to
> >use it all of the time. There are a ton of cuts on the table saw that do
> >not require or even benefit from the use of it. To state that a
perfectly
> >safe cut on a saw without one is unsafe just because they didn't use one
is
> >wrong and that's what I commented on.
> >
>
> Looking at the piece being cut, I'm not at all sure most cross-cut sleds
> would be able to safely hold that piece between the blade and the fence at
> the start of the cut without the sled having to be pulled back such that
it
> was tipping off of the back of the saw or the panel almost engaging the
> blade at the start of the cut - this would require raising the guard and
> placing the panel under the guard prior to starting.
>
Given that the cut being made was a rip, it's even more inappropriate to
suggest the use of a sled.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
I guess I am missing the reason for alarm. Yeah, I see a couple of pics
that make me a little nervous but snapshots don't always catch the action.
If the router example is the young lady in Orange, I can't imagine
controlling that block she is routing with a push stick - she has her hands
in a defensive position and unengaged fingers raised. The young fellow
using the shaper does bother me but I don't know if the right hand crossed
over the knife path or he just put it there.
It is easy to pick a shop class apart from a few pics. If you look at all
of them there appear to be some pretty well-trained hands and eyes among
that group.
"Leon" wrote in message
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > But he must be doing something more or less pleasing to the powers that
be
> > ... he's on TV and we're not (although I am convinced there is a real
> > woodworker hiding somewhere off camera). ;>)
>
> Yeah he has to know something... I guess he rushes through the projects
to
> show more of what can be done.
>
> I was thinking I might swing by and see you some time next week,
> Wednesdayish. Will be be around?
I'll make a point of it. Give me a holler e-mail.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04