In article , Tom Watson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:03:28 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
I'm always mystified at the prejudice displayed toward RASs by those who have
never owned and rarely used one.
Well, I've owned three of them, used them a lot in the past, and I
think they suck.
Radial arm saws are WAAAAAY safer than table saws.
An interesting claim but one not carefully supported by data.
When operating the RAS, one
hand is *always* on the handle of the saw and it is therefore impossible to
amputate that hand or any of its digits
Are you suggesting that most table saw accidents result in double
amputation?
Obviously not, and I can't even begin to imagine what you might have thought
you read that suggested that.
- and to keep the other hand safe, all
you have to do it put it someplace that isn't in the path of the blade, and
keep it there.
Well, Golly Gee, isn't that the whole game with any tool?
Not quite. On other tools - tablesaws and shapers, for example - the cutter is
stationary, and one's hands move past it. The risk of moving the hand into the
cutter is obviously higher than on a tool such as the RAS, in which the cutter
moves in a straight line on a fixed and unchangeable path. All you gotta do to
avoid a hand injury is to put your hand somewhere that's not in that path, and
keep it put.
Kickback is a rare event, and if it occurs, the workpiece is thrown *away*
from the operator, not *toward* him as with a TS.
It is not the workpiece that must be feared but the whirling blade
that self feeds towards the operator, perhaps not by intent, but
surely by design.
Nonsense. The blade on an RAS is no more to be feared than that on a TS. The
blade is contained in a steel guard attached to the motor housing, which rides
on rails. Yes, it can move, but where it's gonna move isn't exactly a mystery.
Crosscutting long boards on a table saw is insane by comparison with doing the
same on a radial arm saw.
Are you not available to the joy and safety of cutting with a sled and
outfeed table?
I am. I'm also well acquainted with the joy and safety of crosscutting long
and heavy boards without having to deal with their large moment of inertia.
Ripping looks scary... but think about it - there's less blade exposed during
rip operations on a RAS than on a TS (assuming you haven't done something
stupid like removing the guard).
In the act of ripping with a table saw the work is directed down and
towards the table, whereas the work is naturally thrown up when using
a radial arm saw.
Sorry, but you're wrong. In *both* cases, the teeth on the leading edge of the
blade are moving *down* and thus exerting a downward force on the wood.
In what way do you think that having the work directed away from the
table is more safe than having it inherently directed towards it?
I don't think that for a moment. But as I've pointed out, that's not what
happens on a RAS.
I know I'm coming perilously close to violating the Usenet Prime Directive by
attempting to inject a dose of reality into a discussion
Not so far.
, but, please, let's
at least attempt to be a little bit objective here.
I agree totally with Robatoy on this and I will be glad to tell you,
in the spirit of objectivity, that you will never see one of these
widowmaker pieces of **** in a professional shop, excepting the
instances where it is dedicated to crosscutting, usually close to the
lumber rack, so that it can buck things up into rough lengths. And
that is only the case because they already owned the pig and did not
want to sell it for scrap to have a down payment on a SCMS.
Radial Arm Saws are the Swiss Army Knives of the amateur wooddorking
world and suffer from the same affliction as their referent; they
don't do anything well but are often asked to do many things poorly.
If radial arm saws had a corkscrew, I might consider putting one back
in my shop.
I long ago traded a RAS, allegedly capable of cutting 25" in crosscut,
for a 12" SCMS. The reason was that what was alleged did not prove
true, to a usable accurate degree, under daily use, and that work went
back to the TS.
A careful thinking about the geometry and stresses under load of a
contraption such as the RAS would inevitably lead a thoughtful and
prudent person to give theirs away to their dearest enemy.
Careful thinking about the geometry would also lead to correct conclusions
about the direction of the force exerted on the work by the blade.
It's quite clear that your position is, like Robatoy's, the result of
prejudice, and not of logic.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?