The Milwaukee Super Sawzall 6537-22 is what my local hardware store carries
but is there a better one? Would orbital action be better? I'm looking at a
120V corded unit with smooth cuts, minimal vibration, good power and good
reliability. I burn up about 2 reciprocating saws (not Milwaukees) about
every 5 years so heavy duty and reliability is a must.

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:01:08 -0700, Fred wrote:
The Milwaukee Super Sawzall 6537-22 is what my local hardware store carries
but is there a better one? Would orbital action be better? I'm looking at a
120V corded unit with smooth cuts, minimal vibration, good power and good
reliability. I burn up about 2 reciprocating saws (not Milwaukees) about
every 5 years so heavy duty and reliability is a must.

I don't use mine all the time, but my Milwaukee Super-sawzall has been
in use for my entire home construction project, and other than the cord
needing to be re-terminated twice, has been rock solid. The longer
stroke can be hard on blades for the novice user, but sounds like you're
past the "bend blades all the time" stage. If this one ever goes out,
I'll probably replace it with the same thing, I'm quite happy with it.

Hi Fred,
I own a a heavy duty sawzall model 6507 that I got second hand. It's
corded. It sure has come in handy. I usually buy 3rd party blades 'cause
they're cheaper and I've only broken one so far. I use mine for pruning
and hack sawing. I would buy another.
You'll be happy too.
Cheers.
Joe_Stein


Fred wrote:
The Milwaukee Super Sawzall 6537-22 is what my local hardware store carries
but is there a better one? Would orbital action be better? I'm looking at a
120V corded unit with smooth cuts, minimal vibration, good power and good
reliability. I burn up about 2 reciprocating saws (not Milwaukees) about
every 5 years so heavy duty and reliability is a must.

Dave:

Milwaukee just introduced a new, more powerful SawzAll, the 6523-21 Super
SawzAll. It is now 12Amps instead of 7, has a 1-1/4" stroke, and orbital
action at up to 3000 strokes per minute. If my old SawzAll wasn't doing as
well as it is, I'd jump on this in a heartbeat!

Jim Ray, President
McFeely's Square Drive Screws
www.mcfeelys.com

(We do not carry Milwaukee tools, BTW. But if you are looking for Festool,
come see us)

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:01:08 -0700, Fred wrote:
The Milwaukee Super Sawzall 6537-22 is what my local hardware store
carries
but is there a better one? Would orbital action be better? I'm looking at
a
120V corded unit with smooth cuts, minimal vibration, good power and good
reliability. I burn up about 2 reciprocating saws (not Milwaukees) about
every 5 years so heavy duty and reliability is a must.

I don't use mine all the time, but my Milwaukee Super-sawzall has been
in use for my entire home construction project, and other than the cord
needing to be re-terminated twice, has been rock solid. The longer
stroke can be hard on blades for the novice user, but sounds like you're
past the "bend blades all the time" stage. If this one ever goes out,
I'll probably replace it with the same thing, I'm quite happy with it.

If it can help you... I spoke with the Milwaukee representative in
Quebec and he told me there is no need at all to go for the orbital
action or a more powerful model.

Milwaukee do make more powerful models but it has a lot more to do with
catching up with the competition on the specs side than genuine
technical requirement. Just claiming that you've got the "most
powerful" reciprocating saw on the market is usually enough to gain
substancial market shares... so Milwaukee don't want to be left behind.

I have the Super Sawzall 6537-22 and I've been very satisfied with it.
I would buy the same model again tomorrow in a blink of an eye.


Cyberben

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:59:54 -0400, jimbo wrote:
Dave:

Milwaukee just introduced a new, more powerful SawzAll, the 6523-21 Super
SawzAll. It is now 12Amps instead of 7, has a 1-1/4" stroke, and orbital
action at up to 3000 strokes per minute. If my old SawzAll wasn't doing as
well as it is, I'd jump on this in a heartbeat!

If mine ever breaks, I'll consider upgrading, but in all reality I'll
probably just replace-in-kind. More Power, usually equals "heavier and
less manouverable".

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:01:08 -0700, "Fred" wrote:

The Milwaukee Super Sawzall 6537-22 is what my local hardware store carries
but is there a better one? Would orbital action be better? I'm looking at a
120V corded unit with smooth cuts, minimal vibration, good power and good
reliability. I burn up about 2 reciprocating saws (not Milwaukees) about
every 5 years so heavy duty and reliability is a must.


The brand you mention is called the best, and I know of no better.
Even the Sazall has some vibration, and not as smooth of a cut as a
jigsaw. I really like the way the blade is held in place with the
Milwaulkee brands. My Sawzall has been used for 15 years and still
going strong.

"Fred" wrote in message
...
The Milwaukee Super Sawzall 6537-22 is what my local hardware store
carries but is there a better one? Would orbital action be better? I'm
looking at a 120V corded unit with smooth cuts, minimal vibration, good
power and good reliability. I burn up about 2 reciprocating saws (not
Milwaukees) about every 5 years so heavy duty and reliability is a must.

I would go with the Milwaukee but the orbital action is only good for fast
and "rough" cutting. If you want a smooth cut you want to defeat the
orbital action.

There is a reason they are called sawzalls. My kid once went to an old
hardware store in Boston and asked if the Sawzall would cut cast iron pipe.
The grizzled old yankee fart said; "Kid, it ain't a Sawzsomething. It
ain't a Sawzmostthings. It's a SawzALL, now get to work." The kid was
house manager at his frat and now owns his own.
Wilson
"Fred" wrote in message
...
The Milwaukee Super Sawzall 6537-22 is what my local hardware store
carries but is there a better one? Would orbital action be better? I'm
looking at a 120V corded unit with smooth cuts, minimal vibration, good
power and good reliability. I burn up about 2 reciprocating saws (not
Milwaukees) about every 5 years so heavy duty and reliability is a must.

Fred wrote:

The Milwaukee Super Sawzall 6537-22 is what my local hardware store
carries but is there a better one? Would orbital action be better? I'm
looking at a 120V corded unit with smooth cuts, minimal vibration, good
power and good reliability. I burn up about 2 reciprocating saws (not
Milwaukees) about every 5 years so heavy duty and reliability is a must.


The trick IMHO, is the blade, not the saw.

Stick with bi-metal blades or carbide if you cut fiberglass like I do.

Stick a good blade in almost any the the "SawZall" products out there
and you will be happy.

Lew

I've had the Milwaukee Super Sawzall for around 5 years and cut down
everything from walls to small trees. I used the regular Milwaukee
sawzall in construction work years ago and we demolished anything with
it and a sledgehammer.

Top notch and will last forever.

RonT

On one of my early assignements as a Westinghouse field maintenance
engineer, we discovered an electric utility generator that had been
installed incorrectly. This was not your garden variety generator. It
was 500 megawatt capacity and supplied the city of Corpus Christi,
Texas. the fix was to cut three holes through 4" thick steel plate.
We put a crew on it with a Milwaukee sawzall running round the clock
for most of the weekend. In the end the generator was fixed and the
sawzall was still running strong. The name has stuck with me ever
since.

Bob

wrote:
On one of my early assignements as a Westinghouse field maintenance
engineer, we discovered an electric utility generator that had been
installed incorrectly.

Just curious, is circle W still in the electrical apparatus business?


Lew

I don't know authoritatively what businesses they are in and out of
today. They certainly still have a strong presence in nuclear power
and large generators.

wrote:

I don't know authoritatively what businesses they are in and out of
today. They certainly still have a strong presence in nuclear power
and large generators.

But it isn't the same Circle-W--in mid-90s the Nuclear Division was sold
to BNFL plc and although they use the Westinghouse name, what was
Westinghouse has morphed into CBS...there's a timeline at
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/A1a.asp# which documents the demise.
As I recall, somewhere in the early 90s was when all the other
components not associated w/ the nuclear division were parceled off...

While always a competitor, in a way sad to see the loss of a straight
line from George's babies to the present...

Duane Bozarth wrote:

While always a competitor, in a way sad to see the loss of a straight
line from George's babies to the present...


There was no rhyme nor reason to their pricing strategy.

If they needed to fill a factory, they would buy the job.

If they didn't need to fill a factory, they either wouldn't bid or else
bid very high.

You could never predict which way, so you just ignored them.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

While always a competitor, in a way sad to see the loss of a straight
line from George's babies to the present...

There was no rhyme nor reason to their pricing strategy.

If they needed to fill a factory, they would buy the job.

If they didn't need to fill a factory, they either wouldn't bid or else
bid very high.

You could never predict which way, so you just ignored them.

Well, there was a lot of that in the nuclear industry...we (one of the
competitors) considered selling the reactor basically as Gillete thinks
of razors--you could basically give the razor away in order to sell
blades/shaving cream, etc., forever. Refueling and services was
intended to be the long-term cash cow. The only requirement was to not
lose too much money on the nuclear island.

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Well, there was a lot of that in the nuclear industry...

Can't comment on anything having to do with the nuclear industry since
my employer walked away early and left it to people like circle W.

It looks like the electric utility industry is trying to get the public
to pay for the clean up costs which were suppossed to have already been
covered.

Oh well, what else is new?

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

....
It looks like the electric utility industry is trying to get the public
to pay for the clean up costs which were suppossed to have already been
covered.

????

The present problem is one primarily not of the utilities' making...it
was created by government action, Mr Carter having been the prime
instiagator...

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

...
It looks like the electric utility industry is trying to get the public
to pay for the clean up costs which were suppossed to have already been
covered.

There is no one other than the public to pay for it. We either
pay for it now out of ratepayer funds, or pay for it later as a
consequence of using capital that otherwise would be spent
on expansion or improvement, including improvements that would
LOWER future rates.


????

The present problem is one primarily not of the utilities' making...it
was created by government action, Mr Carter having been the prime
instiagator...

I'm not clear on how government action, by Carter or any other
adminstration created a problem the utilities need to clean up.
Perhaps you could explain via email, or followup to an appriate
newsgroup as that would no longer be a woodworking topic.

--

FF

wrote:
....
I'm not clear on how government action, by Carter or any other
adminstration created a problem the utilities need to clean up.

Perhaps you could explain via email, or followup to an appriate
newsgroup as that would no longer be a woodworking topic.

Perhaps I could, but your address doesn't appear to be a valid one so
I'll just post as OT response...I guess if you want to followup you
could go to alt.engineering.nuclear.

Re the question, I wasn't totally clear what was meant either, hence the
multiple question marks. I thought I'd take a chance however and was
alluding to the cessation of consideration for review and ultimate
approval/licensing by the NRC of reprocessing which was one of Mr
Jimmy's edicts and which ultimately ended up in monitored retrieval and
the snafu at spent fuel pools...

As for your apparent wish for an unspecified something else, I'll simply
note the investment in environmental cleanups for fossil isn't
inconsequential, either, and aren't over. That ratepayers will pay for
power costs is a given in a market economy. I'm not sure exactly what
your contention is here in order to actually respond....

There is a convention against setting followups to a newsgroup
not in the newsgroups header so I've crossposted to
alt.engineering.nuclear AND set follows there.

Duane Bozarth wrote:
wrote:
...
I'm not clear on how government action, by Carter or any other
adminstration created a problem the utilities need to clean up.

Perhaps you could explain via email, or followup to an appriate
newsgroup as that would no longer be a woodworking topic.

Perhaps I could, but your address doesn't appear to be a valid one

Then can you post the bounce message so I can investigate?
I have my blacklists set to Tag not block and in any event
they should not be bouncing anything back to you.

so
I'll just post as OT response...I guess if you want to followup you
could go to alt.engineering.nuclear.

Re the question, I wasn't totally clear what was meant either, hence the
multiple question marks. I thought I'd take a chance however and was
alluding to the cessation of consideration for review and ultimate
approval/licensing by the NRC of reprocessing which was one of Mr
Jimmy's edicts and which ultimately ended up in monitored retrieval and
the snafu at spent fuel pools...

Fuel reprocessing creates more readioactive waste, not
less. The fission products and decay daughters, which
are the hottest (highest specific activity) materials
in the fuel rods are not reused and so must then be
disposed of after separation from unspent fuel and U-238.
And since they are no longer contained inside of sealed
control rods the reprossing expands the volume of material
contaminated with those decay daughters.

On the plus side, those are shorter lived than the Uranium
and Plutonium.

As you may recall
Jimmy Carter's stated reason for killing reprocessing was
concern that creating a Plutonium-based nuclear power
economy would necessitate much trasnportaion of Plutonium
which has terrible potential for misuse if diverted to
organizations like Al Queda, or rogue nations like North
Korea or Iraq.

Notably, those nations that have developed the
bomb, aside from Israel, most likely have all done so
without material diverted from US sources.

I do not know what snafu you refer to, could you elaborate
on that now?


As for your apparent wish for an unspecified something else,

You totally lost me here, I do not recall stating a wish for anything
else specified or not.

I'll simply
note the investment in environmental cleanups for fossil isn't
inconsequential, either, and aren't over. That ratepayers will pay for
power costs is a given in a market economy. I'm not sure exactly what
your contention is here in order to actually respond....

My point about ratepayers was in response to the comment
"It looks like the electric utility industry is trying
to get the public to pay for the clean up costs"

My point is, "of course". No matter how the costs are paid
for, the money will be coming from the public via one route
or another. The public will pay for it through taxes, or
rates, or if the utilities are forced to divert investment
capital into clean-up activities THAT will reduce their
investment money for other improvements that would have
kept rates down so the public still pays.

One of my biggest gripes with both utilites and the PUCs
is their short-sightedness. Although utilities ARE very
farsighted IRT reliability, they typically will not commit
investor's money to improvements without an expected return
on investment in nine months. This, for plants with a
40 year design lifetime. Meanwhile the PUCs typically
will not allow ratepayer dollars to be used for capital improvements.

One consequence of
the synergy of these two idiocies is that there were still
coal-fired power plants using volumetric feeders decades
after it was clearly demonstrated that conversion to
gravimetric feeders reduced fuole used by at least
20%. Fuel costs ARE passed straight through
to the ratepayers, so a capital investment that reduces
fuel costs, even if it reduces those costs to ZERO, has
no directly return on investment at all, let alone one
in nine months.

Meanwhile, the PUCs
would not allow the utilities to bill the ratepayers in
the short term for improvements which would save
them quite a bit in the future, plus provide all the
environmental benefits associated with burning less coal.

That is the way it was when I left that industry 20 years
ago. For all I know now, there may STILL be power plants
using volumetric feeders, or there may be better technology
than gravimetric feeders that is not being implimented
for the same reasons.

--

FF