Talk:Table saw

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Woodworking, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WoodworkingWikipedia:WikiProject WoodworkingTemplate:WikiProject WoodworkingWoodworking

Template:WP1.0

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]