Everything I did in my 1st 10 years of woodworking was done on the RAS
and a wood lathe. I suspended my hobby for about 20 yrs. Started up
about 8 yrs ago and bought a jointer, planer, table saw, bandsaw, belt
sander, etc, etc. Having these in ADDITION to my RAS speeds things up
considerably. The RAS did everything that these do but it took a lot
longer because it was my equivalent of a Shopsmith.

I now use it for all my crosscut work over about 20 inches. Otherwise,
I use my Unisaw. I don't cut at angles any more. It is accurate if
you don't move it from square. If I want to cut 2 x 4's or similar
sizes, I usually use my miter saw. It maintains accuracy when adjusted
to angles. Tools are a real bargan today in comparison to 30 or more
years ago.

wrote:
I'd like to see pictures!

Tom

wrote in
oups.com:

Everything I did in my 1st 10 years of woodworking was done on the RAS
and a wood lathe. I suspended my hobby for about 20 yrs. Started up
about 8 yrs ago and bought a jointer, planer, table saw, bandsaw, belt
sander, etc, etc. Having these in ADDITION to my RAS speeds things up
considerably. The RAS did everything that these do but it took a lot
longer because it was my equivalent of a Shopsmith.

I now use it for all my crosscut work over about 20 inches.
Otherwise, I use my Unisaw. I don't cut at angles any more. It is
accurate if you don't move it from square. If I want to cut 2 x 4's or
similar sizes, I usually use my miter saw. It maintains accuracy when
adjusted to angles. Tools are a real bargan today in comparison to 30
or more years ago.

wrote:
I'd like to see pictures!

Tom


It looks like I'll need to use the RAS to build another bookcase, Thanks
for the links to the literature folks, & thanks for the link to the
forum Rumpty - I'll be spending alot of time going through the postings
there.

I'm having trouble posting pictures Tom, I haven't done it in awhile and
seem to have forgotten how Xnews works.

I spent some time today running through some scrap with the saw & trying
out the blades that came with it. It's definitely a new experience but
so was everything else at one point.

Again, to everyone who responded I appreciate it (I didn't mean to cause
any disagreements with the original post, sorry about that).

Adam

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:25:22 -0400, Robatoy
wrote:


In the hands of a stupid, careless moron, the RAS is an extremely
dangerous piece of ****. Period. Much more so than a TS.

Never seen a hole in a concrete wall behind a tablesaw? I've been
lucky enough to not have one (a hole in the wall, that is) in my shop,
but I've seen a few. They're all dangerous, so it's the operator's
responsibility to use caution. Otherwise, we may as well all wrap
ourselves in bubblewrap and take up knitting (with dull needles, of
course)

And of course, if a stupid, careless moron is using a tool in a
stupid, careless way, they'll learn the hard way. Can't save
everyone, ya know.

In article , Robatoy wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

[snipped]
The guys who crosses-over a left hand to the right of the blade to hold
a small piece and run the blade with their right hand towards their arm.

Stupid. Very stupid. But not the fault of the tool.

*sigh* That was my point. Now try THAT move with a table saw.

Not relevant. It's a stupid thing to do. You can make similar stupid moves on
a table saw. So what? That doesn't mean that radial arm saws are dangerous. It
means that stupidity is dangerous.

[snip]
SawStop aside, please explain how the safety aspect does *not* rest
entirely
on the operator with a table saw. Or with a band saw. Or with any other tool,
for that matter.

I'd be arguing against my own position. Why would I do that?

Perhaps then you could explain what you meant, when you said that the safety
of a RAS rests entirely with the operator.

Have you read ANYHING I wrote?

Indeed I have. Have you? You've been insisting that radial arm saws are
dangerous, and, by implication, more so than other tools. This is a position
based more on prejudice than on evidence.

--
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?

In article ,
Adam wrote:

Again, to everyone who responded I appreciate it (I didn't mean to cause
any disagreements with the original post, sorry about that).

This place thrives on that, Adam. We like it like that.... at least I do.
That's how you extract subtle differences of opinion.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

You've been insisting that radial arm saws are
dangerous, and, by implication, more so than other tools. This is a position
based more on prejudice than on evidence.

What my opinion is based on is personal experience. I feel way more
comfortable with a table saw than with a radial arm saw.

I'm just not big on whirling blades on the end of wobbly little
carriages dangling from floppy arms.

I don't like the concept, lack of accuracy, and inherent danger of a
radial arm saw. I think the whole machine is an answer to the question
nobody asked.

Sliding table-saw... now you're talking. ( ..and yes, you CAN mess
yourself up with one of those as well, if not careful.)

Then again, I'm a huge fan of Onsrud-style overhead pinrouters, so WTF
do I know?

BTW.....just so I can make your day, Doug, you are right often about
many things. I just happen to disagree with you on this issue, although
I have seen large pendulum-style swinging saws with which I don't have a
problem. Go figgur.

In article , Robatoy wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

You've been insisting that radial arm saws are
dangerous, and, by implication, more so than other tools. This is a position
based more on prejudice than on evidence.

What my opinion is based on is personal experience. I feel way more
comfortable with a table saw than with a radial arm saw.

That's not the same as the inherent safety (or lack thereof) of the tool.

I'm just not big on whirling blades on the end of wobbly little
carriages dangling from floppy arms.

Neither am I. If my RAS had a wobbly carriage and a floppy arm, I'd either fix
it, or replace it with one that was more solid.

I don't like the concept, lack of accuracy, and inherent danger of a
radial arm saw. I think the whole machine is an answer to the question
nobody asked.

"Concept" is a matter of opinion, and I won't argue with you over that. We can
agree to disagree there.

"Lack of accuracy" I won't argue with, either. Rumpty may take issue with
this, but IMO they are *not* as accurate as a table saw. And they're more
difficult to set accurately, too.

"Inherent danger" is where you jump off the cliff. Operated with the proper
care, a RAS is no more dangerous than a TS (and IMO safer for most
operations).

--
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?

Rumpty may take issue with this, but IMO they are *not* as accurate as a
table saw.

I'm not getting in the middle of this.....

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , Robatoy
wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

You've been insisting that radial arm saws are
dangerous, and, by implication, more so than other tools. This is a
position
based more on prejudice than on evidence.

What my opinion is based on is personal experience. I feel way more
comfortable with a table saw than with a radial arm saw.

That's not the same as the inherent safety (or lack thereof) of the tool.

I'm just not big on whirling blades on the end of wobbly little
carriages dangling from floppy arms.

Neither am I. If my RAS had a wobbly carriage and a floppy arm, I'd either
fix
it, or replace it with one that was more solid.

I don't like the concept, lack of accuracy, and inherent danger of a
radial arm saw. I think the whole machine is an answer to the question
nobody asked.

"Concept" is a matter of opinion, and I won't argue with you over that. We
can
agree to disagree there.

"Lack of accuracy" I won't argue with, either. Rumpty may take issue with
this, but IMO they are *not* as accurate as a table saw. And they're more
difficult to set accurately, too.

"Inherent danger" is where you jump off the cliff. Operated with the
proper
care, a RAS is no more dangerous than a TS (and IMO safer for most
operations).

--
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?

I've never seen you shy away from a RAS argument before. C'mon...go for it.

Dave

Rumpty wrote:

Rumpty may take issue with this, but IMO they are *not* as accurate as a

table saw.

I'm not getting in the middle of this.....

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

In article , Robatoy

wrote:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:


You've been insisting that radial arm saws are
dangerous, and, by implication, more so than other tools. This is a

position

based more on prejudice than on evidence.

What my opinion is based on is personal experience. I feel way more
comfortable with a table saw than with a radial arm saw.

That's not the same as the inherent safety (or lack thereof) of the tool.

I'm just not big on whirling blades on the end of wobbly little
carriages dangling from floppy arms.

Neither am I. If my RAS had a wobbly carriage and a floppy arm, I'd either

fix

it, or replace it with one that was more solid.

I don't like the concept, lack of accuracy, and inherent danger of a
radial arm saw. I think the whole machine is an answer to the question
nobody asked.

"Concept" is a matter of opinion, and I won't argue with you over that. We

can

agree to disagree there.

"Lack of accuracy" I won't argue with, either. Rumpty may take issue with
this, but IMO they are *not* as accurate as a table saw. And they're more
difficult to set accurately, too.

"Inherent danger" is where you jump off the cliff. Operated with the

proper

care, a RAS is no more dangerous than a TS (and IMO safer for most
operations).

--
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?

Naw, I don't argue, the RAS is more accurate, easier to use, safer, can do
more, but I'm not going to argue.

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"David" wrote in message
...
I've never seen you shy away from a RAS argument before. C'mon...go for
it.

Dave

Rumpty wrote:

Rumpty may take issue with this, but IMO they are *not* as accurate as
a

table saw.

I'm not getting in the middle of this.....

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

In article , Robatoy

wrote:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:


You've been insisting that radial arm saws are
dangerous, and, by implication, more so than other tools. This is a

position

based more on prejudice than on evidence.

What my opinion is based on is personal experience. I feel way more
comfortable with a table saw than with a radial arm saw.

That's not the same as the inherent safety (or lack thereof) of the
tool.

I'm just not big on whirling blades on the end of wobbly little
carriages dangling from floppy arms.

Neither am I. If my RAS had a wobbly carriage and a floppy arm, I'd
either

fix

it, or replace it with one that was more solid.

I don't like the concept, lack of accuracy, and inherent danger of a
radial arm saw. I think the whole machine is an answer to the question
nobody asked.

"Concept" is a matter of opinion, and I won't argue with you over that.
We

can

agree to disagree there.

"Lack of accuracy" I won't argue with, either. Rumpty may take issue
with
this, but IMO they are *not* as accurate as a table saw. And they're
more
difficult to set accurately, too.

"Inherent danger" is where you jump off the cliff. Operated with the

proper

care, a RAS is no more dangerous than a TS (and IMO safer for most
operations).

--
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?

ah, yeah...ok...well at least you kept the ball in play.

Doug?

Dave

Rumpty wrote:

Naw, I don't argue, the RAS is more accurate, easier to use, safer, can do
more, but I'm not going to argue.

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"David" wrote in message
...

I've never seen you shy away from a RAS argument before. C'mon...go for

it.

Dave

Rumpty wrote:


Rumpty may take issue with this, but IMO they are *not* as accurate as

a

table saw.

I'm not getting in the middle of this.....

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...


In article , Robatoy

wrote:


In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:



You've been insisting that radial arm saws are
dangerous, and, by implication, more so than other tools. This is a

position


based more on prejudice than on evidence.

What my opinion is based on is personal experience. I feel way more
comfortable with a table saw than with a radial arm saw.

That's not the same as the inherent safety (or lack thereof) of the

tool.

I'm just not big on whirling blades on the end of wobbly little
carriages dangling from floppy arms.

Neither am I. If my RAS had a wobbly carriage and a floppy arm, I'd

either

fix


it, or replace it with one that was more solid.


I don't like the concept, lack of accuracy, and inherent danger of a
radial arm saw. I think the whole machine is an answer to the question
nobody asked.

"Concept" is a matter of opinion, and I won't argue with you over that.

We

can


agree to disagree there.

"Lack of accuracy" I won't argue with, either. Rumpty may take issue

with

this, but IMO they are *not* as accurate as a table saw. And they're

more

difficult to set accurately, too.

"Inherent danger" is where you jump off the cliff. Operated with the

proper


care, a RAS is no more dangerous than a TS (and IMO safer for most
operations).

--
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?

ah, yeah...ok...well at least you kept the ball in play.

Hey, if youse guys want to keep walking around with your head up in the
clouds thinking the RAS is a worthless POC, be my guest! I make good $ with
mine, and if you walk into my shop don't go looking for the TS because there
ain't none.

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"David" wrote in message
...
ah, yeah...ok...well at least you kept the ball in play.

Doug?

Dave

Rumpty wrote:

Naw, I don't argue, the RAS is more accurate, easier to use, safer, can
do
more, but I'm not going to argue.

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"David" wrote in message
...

I've never seen you shy away from a RAS argument before. C'mon...go for

it.

Dave

Rumpty wrote:


Rumpty may take issue with this, but IMO they are *not* as accurate
as

a

table saw.

I'm not getting in the middle of this.....

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...


In article , Robatoy

wrote:


In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:



You've been insisting that radial arm saws are
dangerous, and, by implication, more so than other tools. This is a

position


based more on prejudice than on evidence.

What my opinion is based on is personal experience. I feel way more
comfortable with a table saw than with a radial arm saw.

That's not the same as the inherent safety (or lack thereof) of the

tool.

I'm just not big on whirling blades on the end of wobbly little
carriages dangling from floppy arms.

Neither am I. If my RAS had a wobbly carriage and a floppy arm, I'd

either

fix


it, or replace it with one that was more solid.


I don't like the concept, lack of accuracy, and inherent danger of a
radial arm saw. I think the whole machine is an answer to the
question
nobody asked.

"Concept" is a matter of opinion, and I won't argue with you over
that.

We

can


agree to disagree there.

"Lack of accuracy" I won't argue with, either. Rumpty may take issue

with

this, but IMO they are *not* as accurate as a table saw. And they're

more

difficult to set accurately, too.

"Inherent danger" is where you jump off the cliff. Operated with the

proper


care, a RAS is no more dangerous than a TS (and IMO safer for most
operations).

--
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?

LOL! Point taken.

Dave

Rumpty wrote:

ah, yeah...ok...well at least you kept the ball in play.


Hey, if youse guys want to keep walking around with your head up in the
clouds thinking the RAS is a worthless POC, be my guest! I make good $ with
mine, and if you walk into my shop don't go looking for the TS because there
ain't none.

In article , David wrote:
ah, yeah...ok...well at least you kept the ball in play.

Doug?

No disagreement here on most of it... but I'd like to see an explanation of
the "more accurate" comment. I don't think so... but it could be that Rumpty
can teach me a few things about setting up a RAS.

Dave

Rumpty wrote:

Naw, I don't argue, the RAS is more accurate, easier to use, safer, can do
more, but I'm not going to argue.

--
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?

but it could be that Rumpty can teach me a few things about setting up a
RAS.

A simple crosscut with the RAS on say a 6' board, pull the tape, mark your
point with your razor knife, slide it up to the fence's cut line and make
your cut. That mark made with your razor knife is split down the middle,
dead on accurate! All made within 10 seconds or so. Do the same with your
TS or CSMS.........


--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , David
wrote:
ah, yeah...ok...well at least you kept the ball in play.

Doug?

No disagreement here on most of it... but I'd like to see an explanation
of
the "more accurate" comment. I don't think so... but it could be that
Rumpty
can teach me a few things about setting up a RAS.

Dave

Rumpty wrote:

Naw, I don't argue, the RAS is more accurate, easier to use, safer, can
do
more, but I'm not going to argue.

--
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?

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in
:

I don't understand what the big deal is with RAS. My first big tool
was a RAS (which in hindsight was a mistake).

snip

Since an RAS is in the list of possible first fixed saws I've been
thinking about, could you please elaborate on this? Thanks.

Kurt

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?

- 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?

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.

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?

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.

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 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.






Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

LOL!! I can't WAIT to see Rumpty's response. The gloves are off! You
go, Tom.

Dave

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?


- 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?

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.

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?

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.

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 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.






Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

"Tom Watson" wrote in message =
news | On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:03:28 GMT, (Doug Miller)
| wrote:
|=20
| I'm always mystified at the prejudice displayed toward RASs by those =
who have=20
| never owned and rarely used one.
|=20
| 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.
|=20
| An interesting claim but one not carefully supported by data.
|=20
| When operating the RAS, one=20
| hand is *always* on the handle of the saw and it is therefore =
impossible to=20
| amputate that hand or any of its digits
|=20
| Are you suggesting that most table saw accidents result in double
| amputation?
|=20
| - and to keep the other hand safe, all=20
| you have to do it put it someplace that isn't in the path of the =
blade, and=20
| keep it there.
|=20
| Well, Golly Gee, isn't that the whole game with any tool?
|
| Kickback is a rare event, and if it occurs, the workpiece is thrown =
*away*=20
| from the operator, not *toward* him as with a TS.
|=20
| 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.
|
| Crosscutting long boards on a table saw is insane by comparison with =
doing the=20
| same on a radial arm saw.
|=20
| Are you not available to the joy and safety of cutting with a sled and
| outfeed table?
|
| Ripping looks scary... but think about it - there's less blade =
exposed during=20
| rip operations on a RAS than on a TS (assuming you haven't done =
something=20
| stupid like removing the guard).
|=20
| 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.
|=20
| 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?
|=20
|
| I know I'm coming perilously close to violating the Usenet Prime =
Directive by=20
| attempting to inject a dose of reality into a discussion
|=20
| Not so far.
|=20
| , but, please, let's=20
| at least attempt to be a little bit objective here.
|=20
|=20
| 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.
|=20
| 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.
|=20
| If radial arm saws had a corkscrew, I might consider putting one back
| in my shop.
|=20
| 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.
|=20
|=20
| 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.
|=20
|=20
|=20
|=20
|=20
|=20
| Tom Watson - WoodDorker
| tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
| http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

Being as objective as one can, I must honestly declare that I have both =
in my shop. I started with a RAS and added a "cabinet" saw shortly =
after I discovered the thrill(?) of a RAS RIP. I later added a slider.

Anyone in the London ON area like a really good, hardly used RAS?

--=20
PDQ

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?

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:48:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

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.

Strike One.


Radial arm saws are WAAAAAY safer than table saws.

An interesting claim but one not carefully supported by data.

Strike Two.


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.

Foul Ball.

- 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.

Another foul. This one tingled the hands a bit.

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.

That one rode the corner. I'll call it a ball, just to keep the AB
going.

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.

OK. Ball Two.

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.

Strike Three. And that wasn't even a good junk pitch.

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.

Don't argue with the ump.


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.

Sigh. Off to the showers with ya.

Don't despair, it's hard to come back from an 0-2 count.


"Have faith my son, remember the great Dimaggio."

(E.H., TOMATS)



Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
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.


HUH????????

In article , Tom Watson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:48:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

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.

Strike One.

So you don't like them. Fine. That does not prove they're unsafe.


Radial arm saws are WAAAAAY safer than table saws.

An interesting claim but one not carefully supported by data.

Strike Two.

Neither can you produce data showing otherwise.


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.

Foul Ball.

Perhaps you'd care to explain how you managed to misunderstand what you
thought I wrote.

- 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.

Another foul. This one tingled the hands a bit.

Apparently you disagree. Perhaps you'd be specific about the reasons.

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.

That one rode the corner. I'll call it a ball, just to keep the AB
going.

IOW you know I'm right but you don't want to admit it.


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.

OK. Ball Two.

I think that means "yes, you're right about that one."

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.

Strike Three. And that wasn't even a good junk pitch.

There isn't any disputing the *fact* that the teeth on the leading edge of an
RAS and a TS move the same direction: down.


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.

Don't argue with the ump.

The ump blew the call.


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.

Sigh. Off to the showers with ya.

Don't despair, it's hard to come back from an 0-2 count.

Your persistent evasion demonstrates ever more clearly that your position is
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?

In article , "George" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
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.


HUH????????

What, do you think the teeth on an RAS spin *up* at the front?



--
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?

The best RAS you can buy is a "used" DeWalt here in the US or a new RAS from
"Original Saw Company" There are no other RAS's worth buying IMHO.

Join us to find out why: Radial Arm Saw Forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start


--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Kurt" wrote in message
...
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in
:

I don't understand what the big deal is with RAS. My first big tool
was a RAS (which in hindsight was a mistake).

snip

Since an RAS is in the list of possible first fixed saws I've been
thinking about, could you please elaborate on this? Thanks.

Kurt

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "George" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...

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.

HUH????????


What, do you think the teeth on an RAS spin *up* at the front?

I, too, read that and wondered what the ....? Then I thought about it
and must presume that George may be one of those who chooses to bring
the RAS all the way out on the carriage and then push it back towards
the fence with the board to be cut between the two.

But then I REALLY re-read it and figured that if perhaps George is
somehow doing a "reverse" RIP on a RAS, maybe he does have a valid point
about the RAS behing inherently dangerous. Just like others have made
the point that the only real danger is the stupidity of the operator.

LOL!,...Well said,...and o-so-true!

Schroeder


"Tom Watson" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:03:28 GMT, (Doug Miller)

In article , Unquestionably Confused wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "George"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
[Tom Watson wrote:]
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.

HUH????????


What, do you think the teeth on an RAS spin *up* at the front?

I, too, read that and wondered what the ....? Then I thought about it
and must presume that George may be one of those who chooses to bring
the RAS all the way out on the carriage and then push it back towards
the fence with the board to be cut between the two.

Perhaps attempting to use a radial arm saw in that manner explains the blind,
unreasoning, panicky shouts of "Unsafe! Unsafe!"

It *is* unsafe when used like that. *Any* tool is, or can be, unsafe when used
incorrectly. And again, we're back to the operator making the difference, not
the tool.

But then I REALLY re-read it and figured that if perhaps George is
somehow doing a "reverse" RIP on a RAS, maybe he does have a valid point
about the RAS behing inherently dangerous. Just like others have made
the point that the only real danger is the stupidity of the operator.

No, that would *not* in *any* way be "a valid point about the RAS being
inherently dangerous" - that would be a demonstration that using a tool
incorrectly is inherently dangerous.

Now, on a "normal" rip on a RAS, the teeth at the leading edge *are* moving
up... but ripping is not the normal mode of use for a RAS. Crosscutting is.
And when crosscutting, the teeth at the leading edge are moving *down*, and
exerting a *downward* force on the workpiece. Despite what George and Tom
think.

Neither is a RAS the best tool for ripping. That would be a TS.


--
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?

When ripping, yes.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...

What, do you think the teeth on an RAS spin *up* at the front?

Doug Miller wrote:
....
There isn't any disputing the *fact* that the teeth on the leading edge of an
RAS and a TS move the same direction: down.
....

Only if you're climb-cutting while ripping on a RAS and that is
dangerous!

When ripping on a RAS, to feed against the rotation direction, the
leading teeth are rotating upwards...

While I use a RAS a fair amount including ripping, it definitely
requires setting the blade guard correctly to serve as the holddown
while ripping...

It is sure more accurate for cutting dados in bookcase sides than a TS sled!

Grant



Doug Miller wrote:

In article , David wrote:
ah, yeah...ok...well at least you kept the ball in play.

Doug?

No disagreement here on most of it... but I'd like to see an explanation of
the "more accurate" comment. I don't think so... but it could be that Rumpty
can teach me a few things about setting up a RAS.

Dave

Rumpty wrote:

Naw, I don't argue, the RAS is more accurate, easier to use, safer, can do
more, but I'm not going to argue.

--
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?

In article . net, "CW" wrote:
When ripping, yes.

True - and that's part of the reason that ripping is better done on a table
saw.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...

What, do you think the teeth on an RAS spin *up* at the front?




--
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?

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
....
There isn't any disputing the *fact* that the teeth on the leading edge of an
RAS and a TS move the same direction: down.
....

Only if you're climb-cutting while ripping on a RAS

or cross-cutting, which is the principal use of the tool

and that is
dangerous!

I won't dispute that.

--
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?

Why do you say that, Grant? I've had no problem with accuracy on my
Unisaw with rips, crosscuts, dados, whatever.

Dave

Grant P. Beagles wrote:

It is sure more accurate for cutting dados in bookcase sides than a TS sled!

Grant



Doug Miller wrote:


In article , David wrote:

ah, yeah...ok...well at least you kept the ball in play.

Doug?

No disagreement here on most of it... but I'd like to see an explanation of
the "more accurate" comment. I don't think so... but it could be that Rumpty
can teach me a few things about setting up a RAS.

Dave

Rumpty wrote:


Naw, I don't argue, the RAS is more accurate, easier to use, safer, can do
more, but I'm not going to argue.

--
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?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "George"
wrote:
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.


HUH????????

What, do you think the teeth on an RAS spin *up* at the front?

YEP. The proper procedure for ripping on every RAS I've seen is into the
climbing teeth. Read the manual. If you've got one that's different, a lot
of us would like to know. It's one reason why folks don't do it much if they
have an alternative. The guard can be rotated forward to limit the lift on
some (those with anti-kickback pawls), but the modern ones benefit more from
a featherboard clamped to the fence, because they've got the semicircular
blade guards.

Speaking of the fence, it is another reason why ripping on the RAS, even if
you move it out from the wall to get better position, can be a bit
troublesome. Too many people don't keep an uncut piece of slick-faced
whatever available to reference. The cuts can trap the board due to a bit
of misalignment, or catch a splinter, stopping the feed. Very frustrating.
Also a temptation to unsafe reaching or forcing....

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:40:38 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
...
There isn't any disputing the *fact* that the teeth on the leading edge of an
RAS and a TS move the same direction: down.
...

Only if you're climb-cutting while ripping on a RAS and that is
dangerous!

When ripping on a RAS, to feed against the rotation direction, the
leading teeth are rotating upwards...

While I use a RAS a fair amount including ripping, it definitely
requires setting the blade guard correctly to serve as the holddown
while ripping...

Unless, of course, you actually use hold-downs attached to your RAS
fence (which I have used in addition to setting the guard properly to
act as a hold-down).

Dave Hall

Doug Miller wrote:

In article . net, "CW" wrote:
When ripping, yes.

True - and that's part of the reason that ripping is better done on a table
saw.

Well, I personally think it matters not a whig as long as one has either
set up properly...I choose to rip on thr RAS precisely because I have
it set up such that it is the most convenient tool for the job in my
shop arrangement...

imo, ymmv, $0.02, etc., ...

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:08:05 GMT, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "George" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...

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.

HUH????????


What, do you think the teeth on an RAS spin *up* at the front?

I, too, read that and wondered what the ....? Then I thought about it
and must presume that George may be one of those who chooses to bring
the RAS all the way out on the carriage and then push it back towards
the fence with the board to be cut between the two.

But then I REALLY re-read it and figured that if perhaps George is
somehow doing a "reverse" RIP on a RAS, maybe he does have a valid point
about the RAS behing inherently dangerous. Just like others have made
the point that the only real danger is the stupidity of the operator.


They are talking about ripping on the RAS, not crosscutting. Usually
in ripping on a RAS you push the board into the blade from behind
where the blade is moving upward when it hits your board. Pushing a
board into the front of a RAS blade set in rip mode will possibily
cause the saw to grab the board and try to suck it into the blade.
This often results in either a stall on an underpowered Craftsman RAS
or "issues" with a more powerful RAS.

Dave Hall

A RAS has the good behavior to sit quietly (most of the time) in one place,
along the wall just waiting to be used. A table saw in use requires enough
space, on both sides of the blade (leading and trailing), for the workpiece
to be pushed through. My Dad was a cabinetmaker for 40 years; his shop was
laid out all around the TS, but it was about 30'x120'. I can't make the
same commitment of floor space in my double garage, so I use a RAS. A lot
of the rips I need to make are less than 30" long, so I use an auxilliary
fence parallel to the blade travel. Clamped to the normal fence it gives a
reliable reference that allows me to rip with the RAS used in its normal
crosscut fashion. As I usually have it set up, I get about 16" of travel;
by flipping the piece and cutting from each end I can make a safe, accurate
cut about 32" long. When that isn't long enough, I usually use the bandsaw
or a circular saw.

Steve

Neither is a RAS the best tool for ripping.

Tsk tsk tsk, not nice to lie!

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , Unquestionably
Confused wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "George"

wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
[Tom Watson wrote:]
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.

HUH????????


What, do you think the teeth on an RAS spin *up* at the front?

I, too, read that and wondered what the ....? Then I thought about it
and must presume that George may be one of those who chooses to bring
the RAS all the way out on the carriage and then push it back towards
the fence with the board to be cut between the two.

Perhaps attempting to use a radial arm saw in that manner explains the
blind,
unreasoning, panicky shouts of "Unsafe! Unsafe!"

It *is* unsafe when used like that. *Any* tool is, or can be, unsafe when
used
incorrectly. And again, we're back to the operator making the difference,
not
the tool.

But then I REALLY re-read it and figured that if perhaps George is
somehow doing a "reverse" RIP on a RAS, maybe he does have a valid point
about the RAS behing inherently dangerous. Just like others have made
the point that the only real danger is the stupidity of the operator.

No, that would *not* in *any* way be "a valid point about the RAS being
inherently dangerous" - that would be a demonstration that using a tool
incorrectly is inherently dangerous.

Now, on a "normal" rip on a RAS, the teeth at the leading edge *are*
moving
up... but ripping is not the normal mode of use for a RAS. Crosscutting
is.
And when crosscutting, the teeth at the leading edge are moving *down*,
and
exerting a *downward* force on the workpiece. Despite what George and Tom
think.

Neither is a RAS the best tool for ripping. That would be a TS.


--
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?