Talk:Table saw

Safety Features - Sawstop

I wonder if a new modern technology designed to prevent injury is worth mentioning. There is a saw that can recognize tissue and within milliseconds lock and retract the sawblade thus preventing a user from losing a finger or some other serious injury. The actual company that produces the technology does sell a table saw and I have heard they are in negotiations to license the technology to others as well. Their website is www.sawstop.com.

I didn't add any information because I didn't want it to sound like an advertisement. Perhaps a general statement about the technology would be beneficial if the specific name wasn't mentioned? If anyone has suggestions please discuss. --151.151.73.163 15:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)CostnerM

Your caution about advertising is to be commended. However, I believe Sawstop is the only recent major technology change to table saws since the invention of t-square fences (Biesemeyer, Unifence) and does deserve a mention in the article. So go for it. Come & join us at the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Woodworking. Luigizanasi 15:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a brief paragraph and a direct link to SawStop - hopefully this won't come across the wrong way but I do feel (as you mentioned) that this technology deserves a mention in the article. Sorry it took so long, but I finally got some time to register and came back to this article which refreshed my memory about all of this. Costner 20:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Added reference to Sawstop back after it was removed by 65.93.198.145. The reference should not be confused as spam and if someone disagrees that it should be there please feel free to discuss. Costner (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

rating

I rated this article as B-class... however, I think it is a wonderful article at a glance. I think it should be scanned and proofread, and possibly suggested for peer review. It would be great to have some woodworking articles up for peer review and this one is doing excellently. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 03:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice of import

A copy of this article was moved to wikibooks using the Import tool (with all revisions). If this article was marked for copy to wikibooks or as containing how-to sections, it can now be safely rewritten.

If contributors are interested in expanding on the practical information that was in this article, please do so on the wikibooks side. For pointers on writing wikibooks, see Wikibooks:Wikibooks for Wikipedians.--SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 15:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

IMAGE: NOT A TABLE SAW EXACTLY??

While I might not be the greatest woodworker in the world... It sure looks to me like the image at the head of this article is of an Electric Tile Saw (even though the contributor labeled it as petrol powered table saw) while it DOES have a circular blade, and it DOES have a "table," I'm not really sure that this is what the article is trying to convey as a table saw. This image might be useful, however, over at the Ceramic tile cutter page. 12.163.52.111 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

As a relative woodworking newbie I find myself unsure what the "front" and "rear" of the blade are. Are these in relation to the position relative to the operator, or relative to the motion of a point on the blade through time? Bernd Jendrissek (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Wording

There is a lot of de-weasling to do. Look for "most" or "many" or other overly-general statements. The bit about what kind of fence is most common is an example of weaseling. neffk (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Safety Section

Wow. I was a manager in a small manufacturing plant, then a manager at a Home Depot, now a manager at a Rona. I can tell you, anectodally anyway, that the table saw is by far the most dangerous common woodworking tool. I've overseen accident investigations at two companies where employees have lost fingers or otherwise been injured by table saws. I vote we keep the safety section as it is, unchanged - I learned *a lot* from it and will be implementing these sage guidelines in our operating procedures. Incorporating it in a Wikibook is good, but the weekend warriors who buy table saws and get hurt need all the exposure to the safety rules that they can get. Good job. I vote this an exceptionally informative article - chances are, if someone is looking up "table saw" on Wikipedia, they're considering buying, borrowing, or using one, and aren't really familiar with the tool. Safety should come over editorial constraints of "this reads like a how-to article!". 99.246.98.19 (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The table saw is not the most dangerous common tool around. Anecdote is not fact and the plural of anecdote is still not fact.

I agree with the editor that the safety section should be removed. That is out of scope for wikipedia. Richard Andrews (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richandrews (talk • contribs) 06:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think safe operation is highly relevant to tablesaws. However the section did need a rewrite, I've now done so and hope its much better (Deleting useful information wrongly presented would not be constructive imho.) Tabby (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion given as advice is dangerous

I take issue with quite a lot of the safety issues mentioned in this article, and two in particular.

The first is the assertion that the blade guard can be dangerous and should be removed for short cuts. This is simply a reflection of a very American attitude towards safety. You would not find this attitude in Europe, for example. It is true that is is dangerous to cut a short piece of wood (3" is given as the example, or 75mm to the rest of the world), but the answer is not to remove the guard, making a dangerous operation even more dangerous. The answer is not to use the table saw for this operation, but find an alternative method, such as the bandsaw, which is much safer.

The second is the implication, and illustration, of a full-length rip fence being used for ripping. Whilst it is true that this is common practice, it is not good practice. The rip fence should extend no further than the actual cut, i.e. it should go beyond the front teeth but not as far as top dead centre of the blade. This leaves room to the right of the blade for the workpiece to move into if it bends as a result of stress relief during the cut. It cannot get trapped twixt blade and fence. Again, this illustrates the difference between attitude and common practice on either side of the Atlantic.

I would be happy to modify the article if it would be welcomed. My credentials are that I have been a woodworking journalist for 15 years and have written articles and produced training videos specifically on the subject of tablesaw safety.

Steve Maskery, UK. """" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevemaskery (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)