Not sure I trust these guys...
John Grossbohlin
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/woodworking/slide_presentation/slide01.html
notbob
> Look at the drawing of this saw carefully... posted ABPW too.
>
> http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/woodworking/slide_presentation/slide01.html
Other than being a really crappy drawing, what's yer point?
nb
Artemus
Art
"John Grossbohlin" <grossbo...@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i9GdnXJj1KqwXZHX...@earthlink.com...
J. Clarke
> Look at the drawing of this saw carefully... posted ABPW too.
>
> http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/woodworking/slide_presentation/slide01.html
Does look like the sort of thing a "safety engineer" who's never actually
_used_ one might come up with.
John Grossbohlin
"Artemus" <jnrg...@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:R04Pl.1381$5F2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Yeah.... you'd probably get your tie stuck in the blade....
Lee Michaels
"Artemus" <jnrg...@invalid.org> wrote
> Adjusting that fence is going to be a stretch.
> Art
>
Imagine using that thing with an outfeed table.
evodawg
> Look at the drawing of this saw carefully... posted ABPW too.
>
>
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/woodworking/slide_presentation/slide01.html
Typical of something only the Government could come up with. Kinda reminds
me of Air Force One fly over. Can't even get a simple picture of a table
saw right and they're going to run health care, God help us!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/
David Nebenzahl
> Look at the drawing of this saw carefully... posted ABPW too.
>
> http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/woodworking/slide_presentation/slide01.html
Hey, dontcha know, it's one of them new back-secured fence units.
Requires a 2nd worker to adjust the rip fence safely from the back.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
Mike O.
<grossbo...@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
>Look at the drawing of this saw carefully... posted ABPW too.
My saw looked a little like that yesterday when I put the blade on
backwards.
Mike O.
Robatoy
> John Grossbohlin wrote:
> > Look at the drawing of this saw carefully... posted ABPW too.
>
>
> Typical of something only the Government could come up with. Kinda reminds
> me of Air Force One fly over. Can't even get a simple picture of a table
> saw right and they're going to run health care, God help us!
Hmmmmmm.. That's been up there since DateTime: 2005/07/28. (Which
means it was commissioned likely a couple of years prior.
Artwork $ 5.00
Silliness factor $ 10.00
Failed attempt to politicize this out of sheer desperation? Priceless
Rusty
use it
"John Grossbohlin" <grossbo...@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i9GdnXJj1KqwXZHX...@earthlink.com...
Lew Hodgett
> My saw looked a little like that yesterday when I put the blade on
> backwards.
That was also my first impression.
Took a 2nd look to realize what was really happening.
Lew
Leon
"John Grossbohlin" <grossbo...@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i9GdnXJj1KqwXZHX...@earthlink.com...
> http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/woodworking/slide_presentation/slide01.html
Another fine example of the government being "way in over it's head".
Leon
"notbob" <not...@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:slrnh0pirg...@bb.nothome.com...
Ummmm did you notice that the fence controls are mounted on the back side of
the saw? I don't know what kind of saw you have but mine has the fence
control/clamping lever on the same side as the hand wheel blade control, the
front side.
Leon
"John Grossbohlin" <grossbo...@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i9GdnXJj1KqwXZHX...@earthlink.com...
> http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/woodworking/slide_presentation/slide01.html
If you think that is funny, click the next button. the next actual photo
shows a guy cutting a thin piece of wood. The describes the what is going
on in the picture, With the hand-fed table saws, the operator adjusts the
height and angle of the blade.
Leon
"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:HMGdndSji6SAxJDX...@giganews.com...
>
It is going to be one of those days, Swingman, how did your eggs crack open
this morning?
> If you think that is funny, click the next button. the next actual photo
> shows a guy cutting a thin piece of wood. The describes the what is going
> on in the picture, With the hand-fed table saws, the operator adjusts the
> height and angle of the blade.
Translated and or should'a typed,
If you think that is funny click the next button. The next actual photo
shows a guy cutting a thin piece of wood. The description below the picture
states, With the hand-fed table saws, the operator adjusts the height and
angle of the blade.
This time, I am going to use the excuse that I stared at the government
site too long and it affected my ability to convey a message. ;~)
Mike Marlow
Ahhh, but it is much safer indeed, since with the lock down lever at the
other end of the table, there is no way you can accidentally bump it with
your hip as you move a piece of stock through the saw. Ingenious...
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
RicodJour
wrote:
>
> Ahhh, but it is much safer indeed, since with the lock down lever at the
> other end of the table, there is no way you can accidentally bump it with
> your hip as you move a piece of stock through the saw. Ingenious...
It makes way more sense with the fence adjustment in the back. I'm
around back of the machine collecting the miss-cut piece before I
realize it's miss-cut. How can you know it's miss-cut until
_afterward_? That means on the backside of the machine. So I'm
standing there at the back of the machine - often wishing I could make
the adjustment for the next miss-cut from back there - I make a mental
note of the amount to miss-cut for the next time, walk around to the
front of the machine, forget the amount to miss-cut, and frequently
why I'm walking around the machine in circles, then wander off to the
refrigerator. Come to think of it, does anyone have plans for
installing a refrigerator in a table saw base?
R
Lee Michaels
"RicodJour" <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote
> Come to think of it, does anyone have plans for
> installing a refrigerator in a table saw base?
>
Kolbalt? The Lowes brand has a big, expensive rolling, stainless steel tool
chest. It has a stereo system and refrigerator built into it.
RicodJour
wrote:
> "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote
I saw that the other day! When it has a built in TV, a composting
toilet, and a blacklight velvet Elvis, I'm buying it.
R
Robatoy
Cool. All you need now is a mirror, some razor blades, a bong and
you're ready to rebuild that 1956 Renault Dauphine.
Nothing is too obscure on the Wreck.
evodawg
Had a customer show me his. He was so proud of it. I asked why there isn't
anything in it except beer. Hasn't got around to it yet. This guy is about
as handy as his wife. I bought a special drill bit for his job and charged
him for it. Then gave it to him and said, "now you have something to put in
that big tool box". He didn't get the fact I was dissing him in my own way.
Tom Veatch
And the 3rd photo show a guy making a miter cut at some angle. I'm
having a hard time seeing a miter gauge in the photo. Surely he's not
making the cut free hand.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
An armed society is a polite society.
Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein
Lee Michaels
"Tom Veatch" <no...@nada.org> wrote
>
> And the 3rd photo show a guy making a miter cut at some angle. I'm
> having a hard time seeing a miter gauge in the photo. Surely he's not
> making the cut free hand.
>
RicodJour
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> > "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote
>
> >> Come to think of it, does anyone have plans for
> >> installing a refrigerator in a table saw base?
>
> > Kolbalt? The Lowes brand has a big, expensive rolling, stainless steel
> > tool
> > chest. It has a stereo system and refrigerator built into it.
>
> Had a customer show me his. He was so proud of it. I asked why there isn't
> anything in it except beer. Hasn't got around to it yet. This guy is about
> as handy as his wife. I bought a special drill bit for his job and charged
> him for it. Then gave it to him and said, "now you have something to put in
> that big tool box". He didn't get the fact I was dissing him in my own way.
When you return to see complete Lie-Neilsen and Bridge City Tool Works
sets in there, he'll be dissing you in his own way. ;)
R
Swingman
Joe
of course, changing the angle wasn't very well thought out...
Nova
How'd you move the height adjustment wheel to the back of the saw? ;-)
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
nov...@verizon.net
alexy
>Look at the drawing of this saw carefully... posted ABPW too.
>
>http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/woodworking/slide_presentation/slide01.html
Slide 20 was interesting. I never liked ripping on my RAS, but maybe I
was doing it wrong. According to OSHA, the RAS is designed to cut DOWN
on the wood, both in crosscut and rip cuts. All this time I had been
pushing the wood into the blade, and having to use hold-downs, pawls,
etc, to keep the blade from lifting the stock as it cut up.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Just Wondering
-MIKE-
> having a hard time seeing a miter gauge in the photo. Surely he's not
> making the cut free hand.
>
> Tom Veatch
>
It's there. I thought so, too.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
-MIKE-
> Very smart design! all the kickbacks get thrown away from you.
>
"Self-feeding."
John Grossbohlin
It was amusing, in a sad kind of way, to look through that site... quite a
number of the captions, images and prescribed practices made me think they'd
never actually used tools.
John
Mike O.
>> My saw looked a little like that yesterday when I put the blade on
>> backwards.
>>
>> Mike O.
>
>How'd you move the height adjustment wheel to the back of the saw? ;-)
>
>--
If you take the four bolts off a UNI and turn the top 180, it would
look just like that! ;-)
Mike O.
evodawg
Not likely, mention that name and he'd think you were talking about some new
German or Scandinavian Beer. But nice try anyway. ;P
Phisherman
<grossbo...@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
>Look at the drawing of this saw carefully... posted ABPW too.
>
>http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/woodworking/slide_presentation/slide01.html
OSHA is a mess.
Mark & Juanita
But people still think government is the answer for all our problems. The
same kind of bureaucrats running OSHA are going to be running your health
care if that goes through. They are already running two of the US car
companies doing such brilliant things as cutting Chrysler's ad budget in
1/2 and shutting down 1000's of dealerships, many of which have been quite
profitable while leaving a number that were doing poorly open. Why is it
with so many examples of screwing things up so badly are people so @#$%'d
willing to turn even more responsibility over to them?
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
PDQ
"Phisherman" <nob...@noone.com> wrote in message news:cqsr151v4q8lp3usq...@4ax.com...
The only thing I ever learned from OSHA is
"Don't drink the whiteout."
P D Q
alexy
Good point. Chrysler was doing so well before government stepped in
and forced them to take taxpayer money. If the feds had only kept
their money rather than forcing it on Chrysler, Chrysler would be
thriving by now.
I don't like the idea of gov't running businesses, but if they are
going to provide capital, it should not be to prop up the status quo
that put the company in need of that gov't money.
Lew Hodgett
> If the feds had only kept
> their money rather than forcing it on Chrysler, Chrysler would be
> thriving by now.
Think if you dig a little deeper you will find Nardelli was brought in
to be the front man for a hedge fund whose primary goal was to get the
credit arm of Chrysler and unload or bleed dry the manufacturing side
of Chrysler, then write it off.
Lew
Mark & Juanita
> Mark & Juanita <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote:
>
>>Phisherman wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:06:36 -0400, "John Grossbohlin"
>>> <grossbo...@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Look at the drawing of this saw carefully... posted ABPW too.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/woodworking/slide_presentation/slide01.html
>>>
>>>
>>> OSHA is a mess.
>>
>> But people still think government is the answer for all our problems.
>> The
>>same kind of bureaucrats running OSHA are going to be running your health
>>care if that goes through. They are already running two of the US car
>>companies doing such brilliant things as cutting Chrysler's ad budget in
>>1/2 and shutting down 1000's of dealerships, many of which have been quite
>>profitable while leaving a number that were doing poorly open. Why is it
>>with so many examples of screwing things up so badly are people so @#$%'d
>>willing to turn even more responsibility over to them?
>
> Good point. Chrysler was doing so well before government stepped in
> and forced them to take taxpayer money.
OK, most of this you are missing my point while making my point. First of
all, the fact that private corporations went to the government for aid is
appalling. I'm not sure what they were expecting, but the fact that they
were willing to take taxpayer money they should have expected government
strings and controls to come with that money. The problem is that the
government does not act is rational fashion and they are proving this with
their "car czar" and "automobile oversight committee".
> If the feds had only kept
> their money rather than forcing it on Chrysler, Chrysler would be
> thriving by now.
>
You're smarter than this
> I don't like the idea of gov't running businesses, but if they are
> going to provide capital, it should not be to prop up the status quo
> that put the company in need of that gov't money.
I don't recall supporting the idea of taxpayer money supporting the status
quo; although, vis a vis the unions, that is in essence what is happening
here. Bondholders got shafted and the UAW got majority ownership.
This is where you miss my point while making my point. Given the fact
that the auto companies accepted taxpayer funding and the accompanying
strings, they are beholden now to the car czar. However, as I stated, the
government never acts rationally when it gets entangled in the market.
Given your statement, I would expect that you would like to see the
government get the automakers back on their feet quickly and get out,
minimizing the amount of our taxpaying dollars used to do so. Given that,
one would rationally think that the way to do that would be to have the car
makers close down unprofitable car lines and models. Given that franchises
are typically privately owned, one would not expect the government to make
any judgments regarding franchises since the car makers are paid upon
delivery and the dealers eat the cost of the inventory. However, if the
government were to get involved to that level, one would expect that the
profitable and high-volume dealerships would be kept and low-volume
under-producers would be cut. Since there is significant angst over car
makers being on the verge of bankruptcy and since so many dealerships are
being closed, one would expect advertising to stay the same or increase so
the consumers would know that the brands are still viable and where to go
buy them.
"Government Motors" is doing none of the above. Instead of closing down
models not selling well and emphasizing models that are; the government is
using this as a chance for social engineering, closing down the large size
vehicles that were generating a profit and pushing the automakers to build
small lawnmowers on wheels that nobody is going to want. Instead of
keeping the franchises making money open, they are losing their franchises
(which may be a violation of contract law and have constitutional issues,
but then this administration has never cared about that) and lower volume,
less or un-profitable dealerships are being kept open. There does not
appear to be any rhyme or reason for who is keeping and who is losing their
franchises -- some are speculating it may be due to which dealers made
political donations to certain parties, but at this time, the sample set is
too small to be certain. Finally, instead of promoting the brands, the
government has dictated that advertsing budgets for Chrysler be cut in
half.
So, as I initially stated, the government is doing all of the wrong things
to return those automakers to profitability and appears to be doing exactly
the opposite.
J. Clarke
I agree that it shouldn't be to "prop up the status quo" but cutting
profitable dealerships in favor of unprofitable ones and cutting the ad
budget are not going to increase sales. If you want to cut the marginal
dealerships and the unprofitable products that's fine. But of course the
unprofitable products are the ones that the Democrats want to force
everybody to buy so cutting _them_is politically untenable.