Splitter on Benchtop table Saw
MatthewSchenker
| Posted in Power Tools and Machinery on
Hi Everyone,
Does anyone know of an aftermarket splitter that is usable on benchtop table saws? I have a Ridgid TS2400 saw, and I have to do a series of 20 repetitive rip cuts on it for a project. Right now, I just have the stock guard/splitter installed. I’m super safety obsessed, so I think this would be a good time to look into a good add-on.
Thanks!
Replies
Matthew, you say your saw has a guard and splitter on it so why are you wanting another splitter? Does the stock splitter and guard combination not work well?
What does your saw blade throat plate look like? Does it have lots of clearance to the sides of the blade or is it a "Zero clearance" type that just barely clears the blade? I ask this because you can make a throat plate with a splitter glued in place that is useful when you don't have your guard in place.
I too am looking for an aftermarket splitter for my ancient Craftsman TS. You mentioned a splitter that is attached to the throat plate. Do you have drawings or plans for something like this. I would be interested.
PAT,
I guess I was worried about whether the splitter/guard that came with the saw are effective. I am super-safety-conscious, so I just wanted to make sure I have the best splitter on the saw.Maybe I'm just worrying too much and should simply use the splitter and guard that came with my saw. It's pretty typical of me to worry too much about these things!
Matthew, I agree with Forestgirl, the production guard and splitter that came with your table saw are the best to use, assuming that they function properly. The AK pawls on the guard/splitter are important - mine have saved me more than once!
Having said that, your splitter may need some tweaking as some splitters are not as thick as the saw blade and they need to be. I modified mine by adding several layers of black electrical tape to both sides of the splitter, wrapping around the front edge to keep it from being peeled off by the stock I am cutting. If you choose to do this, measure the thickness very carefully before running stock thru. Then run a piece of stock thru & take the piece that was against the fence (TS is now off) and push it thru (between the fence & blade) slowly until it begins to contact the modifed splitter and watch carefully to see if the splitter moves sideways away from the fence - it should not move but it should just kiss the stock.
As far as your comment about gaps between rear of blade & stationary splitter goes, the gap between the edge of a stationary splitter and the rear of a lowered blade is not great enough to allow pinching to occur before the stock reaches the splitter.
Hope this helps.
Edited 2/15/2005 9:14 am ET by PAT
Pat,
Thanks for the tip. Of course, I would prefer to just use the splitter that came with the saw. The nice thing about the Ridgid splitter is that it has a very easy alignment method.But there is one thing I noticed. I installed the splitter according to the manual. But looking down onto the splitter, it is set slightly right of center. In other words, the splitter is not directly in the center of the blade -- it's a little more towards the fence. I've heard from some woodworkers that they intentionally align the splitter this way because it offers a slight feather-board effect, pushing the stock into the fence. Do you agree with this?
Matthew, I agree that is probably the reason but I don't agree with the philosophy.
If the splitter is as thick as the blade and directly centered on the blade then the same purpose is accomplished. In addition, with a splitter that is as thick as the blade, the cutoff side is also prevented from pinching the blade.
Does any body remember the discussion here a while back about that nifty aftermarket splitter that can be fitted in a zero clearance insert?It was a round shape, and came with a little jig to fit it into the insert just behind the blade -- plastic, and about the size of a half dollar.I'll see if I can turn it up among my bookmarks if no one else can find it easily.
nikkiwood,
I think you're talking about the Microjig MJ splitter. It's made by the same people who make the GRR-RIPPER. It has received very high regards in the woodworking magazinesHere's the link:
http://www.microjig.com/MJ%20Splitter.htm
RE: micro jig splitterThat's the one ........ also sold on the Lee Valley link provided by KJ. I would think anyone looking for a splitter should consider this one. The reviews I've read have been glowing. It's effective, easy to install, and cheap.
nikkiwood,
I took a look at the Microjig today at my local Woodcraft. They sell it for $14.99.The Microjig is much stiffer than the stock splitter. The stock splitter is pretty "floppy" and if a piece of wood really twisted away from the fence, the splitter might just wimp out and bend out of the way. But the Microjig seems like it would really put a stop to any twisting.Also, the Microjig allows various configurations. The one I think is interesting is the configuration where the splitter is offset a little towards the fence. This philosophy of offsetting the splitter has been discused between Forestgirl, PAT, and myself. Seems there's some difference of opinion about offsetting your splitter. Since I am no expert on this, I am witholding judgement. However, I will say that the offset concept makes sense to me.
does it function more as a riving knife than a splitter?
nikkiwood,
You mean the Microjig? No, it does not function as a riving knife. A riving knife rises up and lowers down with the blade, and it also sits closer to the back of the blade. The Microjig stays in one spot.
Here is a link for an aftermarket splitter from LeeValley. I'm not sure if it's the one you're talking about, but seems to be similar.
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=1&p=51151&cat=1,41080,51225&ap=1
As mentioned earlier, however, I can't see why the stock splitter wouldn't be as safe or safer than this addition.
KJ
Hey Matthew, seems we posted at almost exactly the same time with the same info. You beat me by a few milliseconds though.
KJ
I have never seen anything about aligning the splitter slightly off-center, and also disagree with the "philosophy." The splitter, IMHO, should not be "pushing" the wood at all, but simply keeping it open and, when needed, preventing it from moving into the blade. Nothing on the far side of the blade should be moving the wood laterally.
PS: To align the splitter, take a piece of plywood or Masonite (I like 1/2"+ ply), 4-6" wide, 18" long or so. Put a cut down the center with your table saw, stopping when the far end of the board gets to the far end of the splitter. Stop the saw, use that "template" to set/center your splitter whenever you need to.
Don't know about your saw, but with mine the splitter would occasionally tilt a bit so that it was not 90* to the table. That's one reason I like 1/2-3/4" ply for my splitter-setter, it helps see that a little easier. A square will work too, of course.
forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
Edited 2/15/2005 1:47 pm ET by forestgirl
Matthew,
A zero-clearance throat plate can enhance safety and help produce a cleaner cut. When I make a batch, I glue a shop-made splitter into the kerf immediately behind the blade: kills two birds with one stone, so to speak. Cheap, effective, quick.
Good luck,
-Jazzdogg-
Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right.
Matthew, your stock splitter should be fine, especially if it has anti-kickback pawls along with the splitter. Splitters are not complicated things -- they simply serve to prevent the wood from closing on or moving into the back of the blade. Your stock splitter's AK pawls are an advantage over a splitter that is simply a peg inserted into a zero-clearance throat plate.
For your project, simply make sure your saw is tuned properly, and stay out of the line of fire just in case you do have a kickback incident. If the cuts are for narrow stock, use a push stick or (better) a push block that rides on the fence. Keep your hand "registered" to the fence or to some part of the table so you know it's staying away from the blade.
forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
I cannot use my stock splitter because I added blade stiffeners and they offset the blade so that the splitter no longer lines up with the extended cut line. So, I no longer have a splitter either. I read somwhere that you can extend the saw kerf in a zero clearance plate and then glue in a wooden splitter. I am planning to do that, I just have not yet figured out how. I know the kerf in the base plate will have to be extended or the blade would simply cut the splitter when raised to its full height. I also know the alignment will need to be precise. Has someone done this who could offer suggestions?
Keith
Keith, as far as making your own splitter for your special case:
1. If you have not already maximized the blade slot in the zero clearance throat plate, then do that by clamping a sturdy piece of wood on top of the throat plate to hold it in place (or if it is bolted in place, no lumber needed).
2. Then with the blade lowered fully down, turn on the saw and slowly raise the blade to its max height. This will create the max slot.
3. Then remove the throat plate and put another plate in its place. Position your fence so that the slot in the ZC throat plate is perfectly aligned with the blade. (You can do this with the TS turned off by setting the ZC plate over the blade to allow the blade to extend thru the slot and letting the plate come to rest flat on the table - then adjust the fence up to just kiss the edge of the plate.
4. Lift the ZC plate off and turn on the saw. Run the rear of the plate through the blade until the slot is extended. You will now have an open ended slot in your ZC plate.
5. Fabricate a splitter piece that is the exact thickness of your blade (do not assume that it is exactly 1/8"). Use a caliper or any other method to get it right. The splitter should be tall enough to provide 1.5" - 2" height above the plate plus the thickness of the plate. Taper the front edge to provide "lead-in" for your cutting stock.
6. Glue the splitter in place so that the blade will clear it by about 1/8" when at its max height.
Hope this has been clear.
Thanks Pat. Yes, your instruction is perfectly clear and I can visualise each step as you describe. I also do not have anti-kickback fingers as I mounted a hood over the saw with vacuum hose attached. it works well, but so far I have not figured out an anti kickback mechanism for it. Until I do, my plan is to be VERY carefull and the splitter will help. At least the hood stops the wood from lifting, but it can still kick straight back.
Keith
Take a look at this Google search. There are several shop-made splitter articles here.
You may want to re-think your use of blade stiffeners. With a hi-quality blade, even if it's thin-kerf, you might not need them.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
Thanks for the links you sent on Google. I think I will build several zero clearnce plates so that I can swap them out for diferent jobs. I read with interest the other comments about anti kickback pawls. I hate them, but on the other hand, I had a very close call many years ago when ripping with a radial arm saw. It did have anti kickback but perhaps they were not set correctly. Anyway a long piece cam back with such speed and force that it went through a heavy plate glass window and was moving so fast it did not shatter the window, just lodged in it. It would have gone completely through me if I had been in the way. I sold that saw as soon as posible and got a chop saw for cross cutting to length and a good table saw for everything else. Lucky to be here. I am curious about not needing blade stiiffners. Perhaps I don't, I put them on after reading about how they improve the quality of the cut, but I did not see all that much diference. Have you compared with and without?
Keith
Hi Keith, sounds like you haven't noticed much difference, right? That's a clue <g>. I have never used either the stiffeners or a stabilizer. I use Freud blades, both regular and thin-kerf, and haven't felt the need for them. If I were to try one or the other, it would be the stabilizer (one disc, set on the outside, doesn't change the placement of the blade).
My guess is that these are needed more for older or lower quality blades. The better companies work at reducing vibration as much as possible.
It concerns me that you've removed the splitter (and guard, right?) for the sake of having a theoretically smoother cut. This is very dangerous, IMHO. I used a bench-top for a few months that didn't have a guard/splitter. Consider myself very lucky I didn't have an accident.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
forestgirl,
Speaking of thin-kerf blades...Since we're on the subject of splitters, I have to ask, doesn't the splitter become ineffective with thin-kerf blades? If you're splitter is designed for a .125" blade, how can it help you with a blade that's only .098"? What do you use in place of your splitter when you run a thin-kerf blade?PS: After using the Ridgid TS2400 for a few cuts last night, I am very impressed. It operates very smoothly, and the fence has a solid, substantial feel. The only thing I need now is an outfeed system...
Edited 2/16/2005 7:51 am ET by Matthew Schenker
You're right, Matthew, with some splitters the thin-kerf blades won't work. I have the Merlin splitter on my Jet saw and both my regular and thin-kerf Freud blades work. Have to admit, though, I don't know exactly "how thin" the one TK blade is that I use. It's their 24-tooth ripping blade.
Now that I have an overhead guard, if a TK blade caused a problem, I'd simply stick a splitter post in my throat plate. The other option, if you're desperate, is to stop the saw when you get past the back of it and stick a wedge in the kerf. I've done this when I've had mild reaction wood show up.
Glad you're likin' the saw! Show us some pictures when you get your "surround-a-saw" stock support going. Why mess around with just outfeed, LOL!?forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
Hi Forestgirl! Yes, you are right, I didn't notice a diference, but then I was not doing much at the time, so never really compared either. I just bought a new CMT blade and I think I will go back to the old arrangement and put the stock splitter on and try it, but I also like the idea of a new zero clearance plate with a homemade splitter specific to my current blade thickness as suggested by Pat. I think this will give more precision as the stock splitter is narrower than the kerf. I am going to experiment a bit and will post my results.Right now the best option looks like making a new zero clearance plate with home made splitter glued in front of the old stock splitter. This would re-install the guard, and the anti kickback fingers, give a precision fit for the splitter but will create some clearance problems with the dust hood. I will post a photo when I get it set up. I am going to make the new splitter from Kingboard, a synthetic product I found in the marine industry. It is a synthetic, somwhat like corian but softer, very stable and i have a few pieces left over from a boat project.
Keith
What type of dusthood do you have, Keith. Just curious. I run into some interference with my PSI guard/collector bumping into the Merlin assembly. Still worth it though.
I just discovered the other day that if I locate the dust chute right above the bump in the splitter assembly, I get an extra 1/2" or so closer to the table with the guard. Since I don't have a dust collector yet, it hardly matters (probably wouldn't anyway, LOL!)forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
Goodmorning Forestgirl:
I built the dust hood for my tablesaw from plans in one of the wood magazines. I can't remember which and I don't have the copy. I got it from the library. Anyway, I modified it substantially from the plan. I also built a room air filter and mounted it on the ceiling above the saw, then I made a wooden slide mechanism attached to the filter housing and holding the dust hood directly over the saw. I slotted the holder mechanism so it adjusts up and down as well as sliding to the side so that it can move out of the way for doing tenons etc.Although the dust collector hood hangs from the room air filter, it recieves it's suction from my big dust collector via a flexible hose. No use running all that sawdust through my room air cleaner. This set up is only a part of a major attempt to keep dust out of my lungs.I have exposed myself to dust for years and am now paying a price. I had nose surgery yesterday, don't let it happen to you.
Regards
Keith
Edited 2/18/2005 12:49 pm ET by Keith
forestgirl,
Thanks for the feedback. From my other posts here in Knots, you might know that I've worked about five years without a table saw. This is my first table saw. I've had to do repetitious rip cuts in many projects, but I handled it without a table saw. But this time, I decided I was going to try using a table saw to accomplish it. It's odd, because I'm having to address basic safety questions that I should have addressed five years ago.I've noticed is that some benchtop saws come with a splitter that rises and falls with the blade. The Bosch 4000 and the Dewalt 744 have this feature; the Ridgid TS2400 does NOT. A rising/falling splitter maintains a constant distance from the blade, almost like a riving knife. But a stationary splitter is further away from the blade when cutting sheet goods or 3/4" stock. The rising/falling splitter seems like it would offer more safety. Those aftermarket spliters would have the same problem as a stationary splitter.
"The rising/falling splitter seems like it would offer more safety." No kidding! Aggravates me that the US companies are so backwards with their safety devices. Yep, the aftermarket ones have the same shortcoming (hmmmmmm, how 'bout the Biesemeyer? I'm not sure.) But at least they can be removed and replaced easily, which makes us more likely to use them.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
forestgirl,
Getting to the bottom of this issue could drive you nuts! Before I bought this saw, I compared the Ridgid 2400, the Bosch 4000, and the Dewalt 744. It was down to the Ridgid and the Bosch, and they were so close it was a difficult decision. I went with the Ridgid because its fence is smoother and the saw is heftier over all. But if you break down all the details, each saw has this one thing that's better or that one thing that's better. Ridgid has a blade-height lock, but Bosch has table extensions; Ridgid has T-slots, but Bosch has soft-start motor...The one thing the Bosch had that I saw as a clear advantage was the splitter mechanism, which, as I said, rises and falls with the blade like a riving knife. This is something that even expensive cabinet saws don't offer.
"Your stock splitter's AK pawls are an advantage over a splitter that is simply a peg inserted into a zero-clearance throat plate."FG,We recently decided to remove the anti-kickback pawls from our tablesaws and operate them using only splitters because the anit-kickback pawls interfere with the safe use of push sticks when ripping narrow stock. We were seeing kick-backs because some users (mostly the nervous newbies)would simply let go of the work when the push stick came into conflict with the anti-kickback pawls and they couldn't easily use the push stick to propel the work completely past the blade.In my experience, training people to consistently operate power tools in a safe manner is a far greater challenge than the way the machinery is set up. Personally, I won't rip without a splitter, feather board, or comparable device, but anti-kickback pawls have yet to prove their value.
-Jazzdogg-
Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right.
I agree that the AK pawls can get in the way when ripping narrow strips. I still believe in their contribution to safety, though, and would not work without them. I would rather stall my motor than have a piece of wood kick back, and even in a case where they wouldn't completely stop the wood, they would at least add a millisecond or so to my escape time, LOL
Rather than remove the KB, I would suggest making a proper push device for the narrow strips of wood or add an auxillary fence to make the operation proceed properly with the AK pawls. A very skinny pusher that rides partly on the fence can be made. If that doesn't work, a low auxillary fence can be made that enables the reference surface to snuggle up close to the blade, but keeps the main fence an inch or so away, leaving room for the pusher.
"but anti-kickback pawls have yet to prove their value." Hmmmmm, I'm not sure my guard has "proved it's value" yet either, as I've not had my hand bump up against it on the way to the blade, but "I still believe." <grin>
PS: Are your "nervous newbies" doing a dry run without the blade spinning when they have a new set-up for an operation such as this? I generally do this myself on something that looks "iffy" just to make sure I know what to expect and foresee any problems.
forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
Edited 2/15/2005 1:57 pm ET by forestgirl
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled