wrote:
On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 22:35:14 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

It's your hand moving into the blade once the thing you're pushing
against is gone.
"We're gonna need a bigger stick!"
My thoughts *exactly*!

Yes, I'm grateful to MIKE for refreshing that image in my head. I want
it in my mind before I ever push the ON button.

Bill wrote:
I was looking at parts diagram for a 2002 Unisaw that I located that
didn't have a blade guard or splitter.
The saw made the 5 mile ride home without incident, but, to be honest,
it practically fell over twice (never ALL the way over--but beyond
45-degrees) by the time it was in it's mobile base yesterday! : ) Both
of those were "pretty interesting" moments. In the first one I was alone.

Now I'm looking at *blade guards*.

While exploring some of my options, I noticed that ShopNotes featured an
article on building a "Dust-Free Blade Guard"
in 1997 (Volume 16, Issue 92). It seems to be a pretty popular on the
Internet. Is it possible someone has a version of the article that they
might post to abpw?
I am a subscriber to the magazine but I don't save most copies.

Thanks,
Bill

On 12/16/2013 11:14 PM, Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
I was looking at parts diagram for a 2002 Unisaw that I located that
didn't have a blade guard or splitter.
The saw made the 5 mile ride home without incident, but, to be honest,
it practically fell over twice (never ALL the way over--but beyond
45-degrees) by the time it was in it's mobile base yesterday! : ) Both
of those were "pretty interesting" moments. In the first one I was alone.

Now I'm looking at *blade guards*.

While exploring some of my options, I noticed that ShopNotes featured an
article on building a "Dust-Free Blade Guard"
in 1997 (Volume 16, Issue 92). It seems to be a pretty popular on the
Internet. Is it possible someone has a version of the article that they
might post to abpw?
I am a subscriber to the magazine but I don't save most copies.

Thanks,
Bill
I can help you out on that Bill, I will not post it but would be happy
to pdf you a copy directly to you.

BTY it is a two part article, one for the guard nd a short one for the
guard support.

If you are interested send me an e-mail.

On Monday, December 16, 2013 11:14:43 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote:
Bill wrote: ShopNotes "Dust-Free Blade Guard" in 1997 (Volume 16, Issue 92).


Depending on your download speed, it may take a few minutes to download the whole issue.

http://metosexpo.free.fr/extra/wood_...20Makeover.pdf

Sonny

On 12/17/2013 11:24 AM, Sonny wrote:
On Monday, December 16, 2013 11:14:43 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote:
Bill wrote: ShopNotes "Dust-Free Blade Guard" in 1997 (Volume 16, Issue 92).


Depending on your download speed, it may take a few minutes to download the whole issue.

http://metosexpo.free.fr/extra/wood_...20Makeover.pdf

Sonny


Bill,
I'll see if I can find another article for you. I don't remember what
mag, but if I still have it, I'll scan and send it.
Made of plexiglass or lexan which allows you to see in, and includes a
full 2" vac.. The Shopnotes looks like a crevise tool which I don't
believe would be as good, I could be wrong.

--
Jeff

On 12/17/2013 11:24 AM, Sonny wrote:
On Monday, December 16, 2013 11:14:43 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote:
Bill wrote: ShopNotes "Dust-Free Blade Guard" in 1997 (Volume 16, Issue 92).


Depending on your download speed, it may take a few minutes to download the whole issue.

http://metosexpo.free.fr/extra/wood_...20Makeover.pdf

Sonny


Bill,
I'll see if I can find another article for you. I don't remember what
mag, but if I still have it, I'll scan and send it.
Made of plexiglass or lexan which allows you to see in, and includes a
full 2" vac.. The Shopnotes looks like a crevise tool which I don't
believe would be as good, I could be wrong.

--
Jeff

woodchucker wrote:
On 12/17/2013 11:24 AM, Sonny wrote:
On Monday, December 16, 2013 11:14:43 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote:
Bill wrote: ShopNotes "Dust-Free Blade Guard" in 1997 (Volume 16,
Issue 92).


Depending on your download speed, it may take a few minutes to
download the whole issue.

http://metosexpo.free.fr/extra/wood_...20Makeover.pdf


Sonny
Sonny, Thank you for the download!





Bill,
I'll see if I can find another article for you. I don't remember what
mag, but if I still have it, I'll scan and send it.
Made of plexiglass or lexan which allows you to see in, and includes a
full 2" vac.. The Shopnotes looks like a crevise tool which I don't
believe would be as good, I could be wrong.

Thanks, I'm still in the idea collection stage. I've got some EMT lying
around...and I'm not afraid to bend it! ; )

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:27:16 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote:
Sonny, Thank you for the download!

YW. Having to download 8 issues of ShopNotes, for just a few pages, seems impractical. Then, some of the left edge of the pages (discussion), on that download, were blurred.

Maybe Jeff can find something better, if Leon doesn't beat him to it.

If you wait a bit, after I win the MegaMillions pot, I'll buy you a blade guard of your choice, tomorrow.

Sonny

On 12/17/2013 4:47 PM, Sonny wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:27:16 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote:
Sonny, Thank you for the download!

YW. Having to download 8 issues of ShopNotes, for just a few pages, seems impractical. Then, some of the left edge of the pages (discussion), on that download, were blurred.

Maybe Jeff can find something better, if Leon doesn't beat him to it.

If you wait a bit, after I win the MegaMillions pot, I'll buy you a blade guard of your choice, tomorrow.

Sonny



done deal a few hours ago! ;~)

On 12/17/2013 5:47 PM, Sonny wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:27:16 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote:
Sonny, Thank you for the download!

YW. Having to download 8 issues of ShopNotes, for just a few pages, seems impractical. Then, some of the left edge of the pages (discussion), on that download, were blurred.

Maybe Jeff can find something better, if Leon doesn't beat him to it.

If you wait a bit, after I win the MegaMillions pot,
:-)

I'll buy you a blade guard of your choice, tomorrow.

Sonny



--
Jeff

On 12/17/2013 6:17 PM, woodchucker wrote:
On 12/17/2013 5:47 PM, Sonny wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:27:16 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote:
Sonny, Thank you for the download!

YW. Having to download 8 issues of ShopNotes, for just a few pages,
seems impractical. Then, some of the left edge of the pages
(discussion), on that download, were blurred.

Maybe Jeff can find something better, if Leon doesn't beat him to it.

If you wait a bit, after I win the MegaMillions pot,
:-)

I'll buy you a blade guard of your choice, tomorrow.

Sonny




Bill, while not much better than what Sonny had, I like the hood better.
Not the arm.. I think if you marry Sonny's and this together you would
likely come out with a nice unit.
You might even marry some pvc into the support arm (along with the pipe
for some dust extraction).

See the alt binaries.

--
Jeff

woodchucker wrote:

Bill, while not much better than what Sonny had, I like the hood
better. Not the arm.. I think if you marry Sonny's and this together
you would likely come out with a nice unit.
You might even marry some pvc into the support arm (along with the
pipe for some dust extraction).

See the alt binaries.

I agree that the 2" dust collection is most-surely superior to the "trim
attachment. For former design used 3/8" Lexan too (compared to 1/8").
It seems like it would even work better if the vacuum hose is attached
over the rear of the blade.

Barring a ceiling attachment, it seems like 2 separate configurations
are required to avoid most conflicts (one from the left, and one from
the right). Furthermore, it should be fast and easy to alternate
between them.

And it might use EMT since I have 4 or 5 pieces laying on the floor! : )
Imagine a giant C-Clamp with a "blade guard hood" attached to it. Maybe
the C could just be "swung" out of the way? As many say, "The devil is
in the details...".

Bill

Bill wrote:
woodchucker wrote:

Bill, while not much better than what Sonny had, I like the hood
better. Not the arm.. I think if you marry Sonny's and this together
you would likely come out with a nice unit.
You might even marry some pvc into the support arm (along with the
pipe for some dust extraction).

See the alt binaries.

I agree that the 2" dust collection is most-surely superior to the
"trim attachment. For former design used 3/8" Lexan too (compared to
1/8"). It seems like it would even work better if the vacuum hose is
attached over the rear of the blade.

Barring a ceiling attachment, it seems like 2 separate configurations
are required to avoid most conflicts (one from the left, and one from
the right). Furthermore, it should be fast and easy to alternate
between them.

And it might use EMT since I have 4 or 5 pieces laying on the floor!
: )
Imagine a giant C-Clamp with a "blade guard hood" attached to it.
Maybe the C could just be "swung" out of the way? As many say, "The
devil is in the details...".

Bill

There is some inspiration to be gleaned from the one of this page of
Grizzly's catalog (bottom of page):
http://www.grizzly.com/catalog/2013/Main/13

On 12/17/2013 7:41 PM, Bill wrote:
woodchucker wrote:

Bill, while not much better than what Sonny had, I like the hood
better. Not the arm.. I think if you marry Sonny's and this together
you would likely come out with a nice unit.
You might even marry some pvc into the support arm (along with the
pipe for some dust extraction).

See the alt binaries.

I agree that the 2" dust collection is most-surely superior to the "trim
attachment. For former design used 3/8" Lexan too (compared to 1/8").
It seems like it would even work better if the vacuum hose is attached
over the rear of the blade.
No, most of the dust gets thrown to you, so to the front is better.


Barring a ceiling attachment, it seems like 2 separate configurations
are required to avoid most conflicts (one from the left, and one from
the right). Furthermore, it should be fast and easy to alternate
between them.

You don't need both. Most of the goods you cut will be flat. But when
you are tenoning or cutting splintes the arm will be in the way. The
right side attachment extending to the left is pretty standard for a reason.

And it might use EMT since I have 4 or 5 pieces laying on the floor! : )
Imagine a giant C-Clamp with a "blade guard hood" attached to it. Maybe
the C could just be "swung" out of the way? As many say, "The devil is
in the details...".


Consider large EMT so that it does the dust collection. Not your EMT
that you used to wire the place. That would work for just supporting it,
but consider putting the dust collection through the support just the
way a store bought unit works. Attach an elbow and you are good to go.

Bill


--
Jeff

On 12/17/2013 8:54 PM, Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
woodchucker wrote:

Bill, while not much better than what Sonny had, I like the hood
better. Not the arm.. I think if you marry Sonny's and this together
you would likely come out with a nice unit.
You might even marry some pvc into the support arm (along with the
pipe for some dust extraction).

See the alt binaries.

I agree that the 2" dust collection is most-surely superior to the
"trim attachment. For former design used 3/8" Lexan too (compared to
1/8"). It seems like it would even work better if the vacuum hose is
attached over the rear of the blade.

Barring a ceiling attachment, it seems like 2 separate configurations
are required to avoid most conflicts (one from the left, and one from
the right). Furthermore, it should be fast and easy to alternate
between them.

And it might use EMT since I have 4 or 5 pieces laying on the floor! : )
Imagine a giant C-Clamp with a "blade guard hood" attached to it.
Maybe the C could just be "swung" out of the way? As many say, "The
devil is in the details...".

Bill

There is some inspiration to be gleaned from the one of this page of
Grizzly's catalog (bottom of page):
http://www.grizzly.com/catalog/2013/Main/13


Yes with one exception, the dust collection to the rear of the blade is
useless. Start using your saw, and you will see 20% of the dust heads
toward you, and the rest to the cabinet. I never have any dust thrown
toward the outfeed area.
--
Jeff

woodchucker wrote:

Consider large EMT so that it does the dust collection. Not your EMT
that you used to wire the place. That would work for just supporting
it, but consider putting the dust collection through the support just
the way a store bought unit works. Attach an elbow and you are good to
go.

Keep that positive attitiude! I need to read the stuff the was uploaded
for me today to build my confidence back up! I felt confident for a
while, then I slipped. Time to sleep on it.

Cheers,
Bill

Bill wrote in :

There is some inspiration to be gleaned from the one of this page of
Grizzly's catalog (bottom of page):
http://www.grizzly.com/catalog/2013/Main/13

Dust hose attaches in the wrong place. To do any good at all, the dust hose needs to attach at
the *front* of the blade guard, not the rear.

Doug Miller wrote:
Bill wrote in :

There is some inspiration to be gleaned from the one of this page of
Grizzly's catalog (bottom of page):
http://www.grizzly.com/catalog/2013/Main/13
Dust hose attaches in the wrong place. To do any good at all, the dust hose needs to attach at
the *front* of the blade guard, not the rear.


That makes sense now. How could they have got that wrong (just
rhetorical question)?
Thanks Doug.

Bill

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 19:41:40 -0500, Bill wrote:

Imagine a giant C-Clamp with a "blade guard hood" attached to it. Maybe
the C could just be "swung" out of the way? As many say, "The devil is
in the details...".

Sounds like the overhead guard on my 1948 Delta - but alas, no dust
collection. It does have a dust chute coming out the back but it's
square :-). Take a look at:

http://vintagemachinery.org/photoind...l.aspx?id=3666

--
This message was for rec.woodworking - if it appears in homeownershub
they ripped it off.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 19:41:40 -0500, Bill wrote:

Imagine a giant C-Clamp with a "blade guard hood" attached to it. Maybe
the C could just be "swung" out of the way? As many say, "The devil is
in the details...".
Sounds like the overhead guard on my 1948 Delta - but alas, no dust
collection. It does have a dust chute coming out the back but it's
square :-). Take a look at:

http://vintagemachinery.org/photoind...l.aspx?id=3666

Now, I really appreciate the engineering that went into that! : )
Thanks!

Bill

Woodchucker wrote:

I think if you marry Sonny's and this together you would likely come
out with a nice unit.
You might even marry some pvc into the support arm (along with the
pipe for some dust extraction).

Jeff, I think your idea of using PVC for a dust collecting support arm
has a lot of merit.

One could pick up a few ideas from the support arm of this unit:

http://www.pennstateind.com/library/TSGUARD_ins.pdf

I can imagine getting a support structure in order using a half-a-roll
of duck tape? But maybe that is cheating. ; )

Bill

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 19:41:40 -0500, Bill wrote:

Imagine a giant C-Clamp with a "blade guard hood" attached to it. Maybe
the C could just be "swung" out of the way? As many say, "The devil is
in the details...".
Sounds like the overhead guard on my 1948 Delta - but alas, no dust
collection. It does have a dust chute coming out the back but it's
square :-). Take a look at:

http://vintagemachinery.org/photoind...l.aspx?id=3666


Larry, Thanks for proving I wasn't completely-delusional. After posting
about a "C-clamp" in the first place, I was concerned folks wouldn't
have a clue about what I was talking about (and I could not have blamed
them!)

Bill

Bill wrote in :

Woodchucker wrote:

I think if you marry Sonny's and this together you would likely come
out with a nice unit.
You might even marry some pvc into the support arm (along with the
pipe for some dust extraction).

Jeff, I think your idea of using PVC for a dust collecting support arm
has a lot of merit.

Some merit, anyway. I tried that about a year ago; even 2" PVC is disappointingly flexible
over a span of 4+ feet, and requires overhead support.

:-(

One could pick up a few ideas from the support arm of this unit:

http://www.pennstateind.com/library/TSGUARD_ins.pdf

That's what I modeled mine after (except I put the dust port in front where it belongs). I used
PVC mostly for proof-of-concept, and will probably re-do it some day using EMT or RMC.

Doug Miller wrote:
Bill wrote in :

Woodchucker wrote:

I think if you marry Sonny's and this together you would likely come
out with a nice unit.
You might even marry some pvc into the support arm (along with the
pipe for some dust extraction).

Jeff, I think your idea of using PVC for a dust collecting support arm
has a lot of merit.
Some merit, anyway. I tried that about a year ago; even 2" PVC is disappointingly flexible
over a span of 4+ feet, and requires overhead support.

Well, that is useful to know. I'm becoming sorry I didn't keep the
base from an old halogen lamp. I've got a similar one right next to me,
and it's base seems to be 20 pounds at least. Attaching a 3-foot length
of PVC to that, I might have a structure for a blade guard in short
order. If anyone is worried about safety, please don't, it's too early
for that. I'm just thinking out loud (sort-of).

I have the original equipment blade guard with splitter. But I upgraded
the splitter to a riving knife (and that's how I got to this point).

Bill


One could pick up a few ideas from the support arm of this unit:

http://www.pennstateind.com/library/TSGUARD_ins.pdf
That's what I modeled mine after (except I put the dust port in front where it belongs). I used
PVC mostly for proof-of-concept, and will probably re-do it some day using EMT or RMC.

On 12/18/2013 10:48 AM, Bill wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
Bill wrote in
:

There is some inspiration to be gleaned from the one of this page of
Grizzly's catalog (bottom of page):
http://www.grizzly.com/catalog/2013/Main/13
Dust hose attaches in the wrong place. To do any good at all, the dust
hose needs to attach at
the *front* of the blade guard, not the rear.


That makes sense now. How could they have got that wrong (just
rhetorical question)?
Thanks Doug.

Bill

Well It may not be wrong, SawStop claims extreme efficiency with their
guard and the hose is at the rear. It all depends on the turbulence and
flow inside the guard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJEi_lWGeLs

I have the SawStop but don't use the guard at all, If I was worried
about the little bit that comes out on top of the table I would probably
use the guard but IMHO it is not enough to worry about since you are not
going to get all of it anyway.

But having said all of that, the vast majority of the saw dust goes
down inside the saw. Your sander, if used with out a vacuum, might
produce more dust than the top side of the saw with out guard dust
collection.

Just saying, it might be a lot of trouble to try to catch 10% of the
dust on top.

Leon wrote:
On 12/18/2013 10:48 AM, Bill wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
Bill wrote in
:

There is some inspiration to be gleaned from the one of this page of
Grizzly's catalog (bottom of page):
http://www.grizzly.com/catalog/2013/Main/13
Dust hose attaches in the wrong place. To do any good at all, the dust
hose needs to attach at
the *front* of the blade guard, not the rear.


That makes sense now. How could they have got that wrong (just
rhetorical question)?
Thanks Doug.

Bill

Well It may not be wrong, SawStop claims extreme efficiency with their
guard and the hose is at the rear. It all depends on the turbulence
and flow inside the guard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJEi_lWGeLs

Someone posted in the comments section of that video, that the person in
the video is "standing on the wrong side of the fence". What do you think?



I have the SawStop but don't use the guard at all, If I was worried
about the little bit that comes out on top of the table I would
probably use the guard but IMHO it is not enough to worry about since
you are not going to get all of it anyway.

But having said all of that, the vast majority of the saw dust goes
down inside the saw. Your sander, if used with out a vacuum, might
produce more dust than the top side of the saw with out guard dust
collection.

Just saying, it might be a lot of trouble to try to catch 10% of the
dust on top.

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:31:57 -0500, Bill wrote:

http://vintagemachinery.org/photoind...l.aspx?id=3666

Now, I really appreciate the engineering that went into that! : )
Thanks!

And with some new bearings, mine has absolutely no measurable runout. Of
course, that is easier to accomplish when the blade is mounted rigidly,
the table goes up and down and tilts :-).



--
This message was for rec.woodworking - if it appears in homeownershub
they ripped it off.





--
This message was for rec.woodworking - if it appears in homeownershub
they ripped it off.

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:38:24 -0500, Bill
wrote:

Leon wrote:
On 12/18/2013 10:48 AM, Bill wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
Bill wrote in
:

There is some inspiration to be gleaned from the one of this page of
Grizzly's catalog (bottom of page):
http://www.grizzly.com/catalog/2013/Main/13
Dust hose attaches in the wrong place. To do any good at all, the dust
hose needs to attach at
the *front* of the blade guard, not the rear.


That makes sense now. How could they have got that wrong (just
rhetorical question)?
Thanks Doug.

Bill

Well It may not be wrong, SawStop claims extreme efficiency with their
guard and the hose is at the rear. It all depends on the turbulence
and flow inside the guard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJEi_lWGeLs

Someone posted in the comments section of that video, that the person in
the video is "standing on the wrong side of the fence". What do you think?

It may be the "wrong side" in someone's mind but it sure looks right
to me. If there is a kick-back, he's not going to get bloody. I
*try* to work from that side of the fence.

On 12/18/2013 3:17 PM, Leon wrote:
On 12/18/2013 10:48 AM, Bill wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
Bill wrote in
:

There is some inspiration to be gleaned from the one of this page of
Grizzly's catalog (bottom of page):
http://www.grizzly.com/catalog/2013/Main/13
Dust hose attaches in the wrong place. To do any good at all, the dust
hose needs to attach at
the *front* of the blade guard, not the rear.


That makes sense now. How could they have got that wrong (just
rhetorical question)?
Thanks Doug.

Bill

Well It may not be wrong, SawStop claims extreme efficiency with their
guard and the hose is at the rear. It all depends on the turbulence and
flow inside the guard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJEi_lWGeLs

I have the SawStop but don't use the guard at all, If I was worried
about the little bit that comes out on top of the table I would probably
use the guard but IMHO it is not enough to worry about since you are not
going to get all of it anyway.

But having said all of that, the vast majority of the saw dust goes
down inside the saw. Your sander, if used with out a vacuum, might
produce more dust than the top side of the saw with out guard dust
collection.

Just saying, it might be a lot of trouble to try to catch 10% of the
dust on top.
yes but looking at your guard, it is a front collection that redirects
it back to the rear, probably because it is much easier to lift the
guard if the hose is in the rear. I see a baffle that makes the air
travel to the front of the guard, around , up and then back to the hose.

--
Jeff

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:
:


Well It may not be wrong, SawStop claims extreme efficiency with their
guard and the hose is at the rear. It all depends on the turbulence and
flow inside the guard.

SawStop also has the dust hose connected to a shroud that surrounds the blade, instead of to
a port that's basically just a 4"-diameter hole in the cabinet. I imagine that catches most of the
sawdust.

Bill wrote in :

Leon wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJEi_lWGeLs

Someone posted in the comments section of that video, that the person in
the video is "standing on the wrong side of the fence". What do you think?

I think he's full of baloney; I disagree with virtually everything he wrote.

On 12/18/2013 5:38 PM, Bill wrote:
Someone posted in the comments section of that video, that the person in
the video is "standing on the wrong side of the fence". What do you think?

Here, I'll say it again:

"Awareness of and an unflagging practice of "Safety" in the shop is
unarguably the single most valuable component of a lasting enjoyment of
same. However, too often in the current world of print and bits and
bytes, playing the "safety" card has become a mixture of the tone of
political correctness, a whiff of Wikipedia wisdom, and a nagging fear
of being held accountable, presented in toto with a smug assertiveness
that presupposes the purveyor's superior ken, but, in actuality is
little more than ignorance of underlying issues swept under the shop mat."

As Doug and krw indicated, the commentard fits the above to a "T".

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

I finally finished the article. I really enjoy reading articles like
that one. Here are a few comments:

--The hood having a solid wood front obscures vision too much. It's also
a little too narrow (for my tolerances/comfort zone); he may have built
one before.

--He's got a 1 1/2" diameter conduit beam being supported by just one
mast (bolted to the far right end of his saw).

It bothers me to have that beam hanging... Something is going to
crack, break or sag. I would use 2 masts (some commercial systems use
"nested masts"). In fact, if I had them handy, I might two lamp bases
with a length of EMT between them? Think of the possible lighting! ; )

Yes, we're having fun. I wonder what a Festool Blade Guard would look
like? I guess it would be green. But that's no advantage over having a
solid wood front!

Cheers,
Bill

Swingman wrote:
On 12/18/2013 5:38 PM, Bill wrote:
Someone posted in the comments section of that video, that the person in
the video is "standing on the wrong side of the fence". What do you
think?

Here, I'll say it again:

"Awareness of and an unflagging practice of "Safety" in the shop is
unarguably the single most valuable component of a lasting enjoyment
of same. However, too often in the current world of print and bits and
bytes, playing the "safety" card has become a mixture of the tone of
political correctness, a whiff of Wikipedia wisdom, and a nagging fear
of being held accountable, presented in toto with a smug assertiveness
that presupposes the purveyor's superior ken, but, in actuality is
little more than ignorance of underlying issues swept under the shop
mat."

As Doug and krw indicated, the commentard fits the above to a "T".

Thank you Swingman! But "ken"? I need a dictionary to read your posts!
But hey, you tried to put one past me with "commentard" : ) But like
Gramps says, I grok'ed it!
So much ww-lingo to learn!

Bill

On 12/18/2013 8:21 PM, Bill wrote:

Thank you Swingman! But "ken"? I need a dictionary to read your posts!
But hey, you tried to put one past me with "commentard" : ) But like
Gramps says, I grok'ed it!
So much ww-lingo to learn!

LOL. "d'ye ken?", AKA Scots for: "Do you know?".

Heard the word daily from a good friend, a London Bobby, many years (50)
ago, and it stuck.

From Scotland, I could understand him perfectly until we crossed the
border at Gretna Green to visit his parents in Carluke, a small village
outside of Glasgow, then it might as well have been Gaelic he was
speaking to the locals, when we begged water to fill up the Morris
Minor's radiator, which leaked like a sieve.

Sir Walter Scott, a good read, and user of the word, also ...

I digress.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 12/18/2013 8:11 PM, Bill wrote:

Yes, we're having fun. I wonder what a Festool Blade Guard would look
like? I guess it would be green.

Not to mention costing a TON of greeng


I can see that some folks here have an FS. A Festool-Stop! ; )

On 12/18/2013 8:11 PM, Bill wrote:

Yes, we're having fun. I wonder what a Festool Blade Guard would look
like? I guess it would be green.

Not to mention costing a TON of greeng

On 12/18/2013 5:38 PM, Bill wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 12/18/2013 10:48 AM, Bill wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
Bill wrote in
:

There is some inspiration to be gleaned from the one of this page of
Grizzly's catalog (bottom of page):
http://www.grizzly.com/catalog/2013/Main/13
Dust hose attaches in the wrong place. To do any good at all, the dust
hose needs to attach at
the *front* of the blade guard, not the rear.


That makes sense now. How could they have got that wrong (just
rhetorical question)?
Thanks Doug.

Bill

Well It may not be wrong, SawStop claims extreme efficiency with their
guard and the hose is at the rear. It all depends on the turbulence
and flow inside the guard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJEi_lWGeLs

Someone posted in the comments section of that video, that the person in
the video is "standing on the wrong side of the fence". What do you think?



Well he is out of the line of kick back if that happened. I say stand
out of direct line and where you feel most comfortable with maintaining
control. I am typically on the left side of the blade.

On 12/18/2013 7:01 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:
:


Well It may not be wrong, SawStop claims extreme efficiency with their
guard and the hose is at the rear. It all depends on the turbulence and
flow inside the guard.

SawStop also has the dust hose connected to a shroud that surrounds the blade, instead of to
a port that's basically just a 4"-diameter hole in the cabinet. I imagine that catches most of the
sawdust.



Actually it collects from a 4" port in the cabinet and the smaller one
at the back of the guard. The smaller one "T's" off from the 4" port at
the back of the saw.

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 00:36:45 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/18/2013 5:38 PM, Bill wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 12/18/2013 10:48 AM, Bill wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
Bill wrote in
:

There is some inspiration to be gleaned from the one of this page of
Grizzly's catalog (bottom of page):
http://www.grizzly.com/catalog/2013/Main/13
Dust hose attaches in the wrong place. To do any good at all, the dust
hose needs to attach at
the *front* of the blade guard, not the rear.


That makes sense now. How could they have got that wrong (just
rhetorical question)?
Thanks Doug.

Bill

Well It may not be wrong, SawStop claims extreme efficiency with their
guard and the hose is at the rear. It all depends on the turbulence
and flow inside the guard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJEi_lWGeLs

Someone posted in the comments section of that video, that the person in
the video is "standing on the wrong side of the fence". What do you think?



Well he is out of the line of kick back if that happened. I say stand
out of direct line and where you feel most comfortable with maintaining
control. I am typically on the left side of the blade.

Not to belabor the point but I think this discussion is worth
having...

If you're on the left side of the blade, aren't you tending to pinch
the board into the blade when you're close to the end of a rip? On
the right side of the fence, you're tending to push the side of the
board that's against the fence rather than the side that's against the
blade.