Dual Saw -- anyone use one?

Page 1 of 2  

Awl --
I haven't, but for the life of me, all I see are *disadvantages* to this gadget.
The first is, of course, cost. This thing is triple the cost of a 7 1/4" circ saw, with blades that are 4-6 times the cost of std circ saw blades. Not to mention the lack of availability.
Next, I can't see that it can do *anything* that a circ saw cannot do. In fact, a lot less, and with a lot less accuracy. The only ""advantage" is that the blade is teeny, so you have lower sfpm, and can get away with cutting rebar, etc -- and I wonder for how long, before the blade goes kaput.
It has no plate for straight cuts, no mitre, it is basically a 4 1/2" grinder with a trim saw blade -- $19 from HF. They never say what the blade size is, but it looks 4.5 - 5".
As always, the infomercial is highly misleading. You cannot do sink-type cutouts without using a jig saw -- pure geometry of a circular blade.
True, it could reduce kickback, in case of a snag, or cutting unsupported "in air", but I never had a problem with that either.
That "spark test" with gasoline was fraud.
Another infomercial hustle, afaict.
But if there are different experiences, do tell.
--
EA



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I had a post about this a few months back in AMC. Its a bust. Maybe Vince(sham-wow, slap chop) can show it off? Got that camera guy?
http://users.cin.net/~milgil/CNC_xmas.jpg
http://users.cin.net/~milgil/Santa_checkup.jpg
--
=AA"=98=A8=A8=AF=AF=A8=A8=98"=AA=A4(=AF`*=95.=B8(=AF`*=95.=B8 Gil=A9 =B8.=
=95*=B4=AF)=B8.=95*=B4=AF)=A4=AA"=98=A8=A8=AF=AF=A8=A8=98"=AA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    "You're gonna love my nuts."

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

Have two of the Little Giant ladders myself. Plus one of the planks. Best ladders I have EVER owned. Makes all the other ladders out there look like crap. I also know of a lot of fire companies that are getting them because of the build quality.
--
Steve W.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:14:04 -0500, "Existential Angst"

Perhaps you didn't notice that this thing has two blades turning in opposite directions. That's a bigggg difference from an angle grinder, and maybe a big difference in performance too.
It seems to me it would make the kerf bigger but make the cut easier to control.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

First, how could one miss this? The infomercial bleats about this almost non-stop.
Second, note that unless one is plunge cutting *straight down*, one blade executes a conventional cut, and the other a "climb" cut. This *immediately* (at least in principle) poses a challenge to the anti-kick/grab claim. Also the fact that these two blades are cutting two different swaths of material (albeit directly adjacent) poses a challenge to this claim.
Altho this would have to be tested, I can see a number of situations where this anti-kick claim becomes handicapped -- IF it is significant to begin with -- for example, in thick, tough material, and as per the above. The only thing those spinning blades truly neutralize is angular momentum -- the gyroscope effect.
I'm betting that in a truly objective test, you might find one or two trivial scenarios where this thing might have an advantage -- like mebbe in cutting thin unsupported branches/rod with an unsupported saw. Haven't seen any tree-cutters with this thing on their belt, tho.
I was hoping someone could identify *useful* situations where this thing actually proved worthwhile. And THEN try to justify cost/benefit ratio....
Didja see, btw, how a *chain saw* was in that pile of saws they wanted you to throw away, cuz of the dual saw?? With it's approx. 1" depth cut?? goodgawd....

You noticed the kerf thing! Not a big deal, but basically double kerf is double the heat, effort, blade-dulling -- and material waste. Which is all moot, given how little most people would use this thing. Indeed, one of the considerations in sawing is to use the thinnest blade that will accomplish the task safely,without breakage.
Remember that stunt in the beginning -- the guy cutting himself out of that flimsy diamond-plate box? First, I wonder if that was even 1/8" material.
Second, my $40 7 1/4" circular with its $5 carbide blade proly coulda cut that opening in 1/4 the time, with a much better cut -- iirc, notice they didn't show closeups of the cut? Dudn't matter, cuz they'd be lying anyway. I'll bet a real demo would have that cut look like someone went at it, blind, with a chainsaw -- or an axe.
I made sliding covers for m'truck out of 1/8 diamond plate, but had it sheared. I have some leftover somewhere, and when I find it, I'll set it aside to eventually do a pass with a circular saw. If it cuts aluminum anywhere *near* now my crappy Craftsman 10" RAS cuts 1" alum plate, I'll think I was cutting balsa.
Utter fraud, imo. I don't believe ANY fire dept uses these things -- with a 1" depth of cut??? Gimme an effing break. Uhhhh, hey, this lady is burning up, WHERE'S THE EXTENSION CORD??????
What fire depts DO use are these gonzo gasoline-powered chop/abrasive saws.
--
EA, loving Merka more and more.

>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I find it most curious that you have such strong opinions on a tool that you have never laid hands on. Your "*immediately* (at least in principal)" translates to "I don't know", as do all of your objections. Amazon and epinions have lots of reviews on the tool - some people like it, some don't. At least they have the good graces to give an opinion after they've used the fookin thing.
If you're taking requests, I'd like to know your detailed opinion - based on your usual surmise and conjecture - about which car I should buy next (I'm in the market). There are so many cars to choose from and, well, your ability to know all about something you've never touched is close to miraculous. I appreciate the help.
Thanks.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I find it most curious that you have such strong opinions on a tool that you have never laid hands on. Your "*immediately* (at least in principal)" translates to "I don't know", as do all of your objections. Amazon and epinions have lots of reviews on the tool - some people like it, some don't. At least they have the good graces to give an opinion after they've used the fookin thing.
If you're taking requests, I'd like to know your detailed opinion - based on your usual surmise and conjecture - about which car I should buy next (I'm in the market). There are so many cars to choose from and, well, your ability to know all about something you've never touched is close to miraculous. I appreciate the help. ================================================= Not a problem. To answer your last Q first: Honda Fit. Which is sort of a "hybrid clairvoyance": I actually own one, but I also happen to know it's better than all the other cars I haven't owned.... go figger, eh? Oh, nearly 50 mpg highway. Incredibly roomy, can haul a lot of stuff.
Next, when you grok the difference between a "conventional cut" and a "climb cut", post back -- maybe then we can have an intelligent conversation.
Next, the number of people who loved their Ab Isolators and Gazelles on epinions et al are uncountable. Which is funny, cuz dats like buying a top-rated Perpetual Motion machine, and swearing it lowered your energy bills. And people WILL swear this!! Ergo, tele-evangelism et al.....
Do I really have to buy one of those and test it out?? The US Patent office don't think so.
There is a balance between conjecture and experiment, to be sure. Which is why I *asked* about usage of this bullshit tool, but didn't get much of a response. You DID notice that there were no challenges to my analyses, except for your knee-jerk bleating.
Why were there no fav responses to this tool?
Because rubes buy it, buzz it once or twice, and never use it. Or, rubes buy it for rubes. No offense to rubes, we all get taken. It just that, for some reason, I still get shocked at the diabolically concerted effort that these companies will go through to pick our pockets. Their use of false innuendo and allusion is nothing short of masterful. Peppered with outright lies. Dissecting all of that can be quite illuminating if you allow it, which you won't, apparently.
Also, most of the people on rcm are sophisticated enough to know this tool is bullshit, and ergo haven't bought one. They may not have beat the concept to death they way I have, but it's already well-known that I tend to get my panties bunched up over shit/fraud like this.
If you would like to make this an intelligent conversation, where you or others could learn a priori instead of ad hoc, thus saving themselves $250-300, then challenge each of my assertions, conjectures, observations, to see if they are reasonable, or me just being a.... well, me being a *you*.
Watching and analyzing these near-criminal infomercials is really interesting, even fun. Even the experienced can scratch their heads for a while, trying to nail down the logical flaws. If you noticed, my posts got more critical as time progressed, because the material/concepts had time to gel, and it becomes more apparent how they commit their fraud.
Here's the deal: Is the Dual Saw a "legitimate" saw? Yes. Does it add anything legitimate to the marketplace? No. Put an effing trim saw blade on an angle grinder, and you've got 99% of a dual saw. So how do they get a 1/2 hour infomercial and website out of something that not only contributes nothing, but sells for 6-15 times the price of a "real" tool? (the 20x would be a HF angle grinder/blade)
Buy hyping an inneresting, but ultimately inconsequentially "different" feature -- masterfully.hyping it These people could sell belly lint.
And it seems like you would buy sed belly lint, or demand double blind studies of the efficacy of belly lint. goodgawd... And, if I'm so wrong, why don't you call up dual saw and buy one?
--
EA







Thanks.

R



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He's just trolling without knowing he's a troll. It happens. His blind spot is in believing that he has information instead of going to look for it. If he'd said that the Dual Saw looks like a piece of crap and asked for input he might have gotten something out of the thread, and I probably would have agreed with him and pointed out the disconcerting number of people who report burning the motor out in short order. Instead he extrapolates to a universal to form his opinion, makes outlandish and erroneous claims, and deftly demonstrates that he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.
There's really nothing new about the technology. I don't recall who said that they didn't see the counter rotating blade technology used in rescue operations, and that if they were, they couldn't be corded, but... http://www.weber.de/wr/en/rettungsgeraete/twin-saw-cre-2326-set.php and for the ICE crowd. http://www.weber.de/wr/en/rettungsgeraete/twin-saw-cdf-4030-set.php
Someone who had seen the Dual Saw infomercial might have recalled that the 'inventor' was a Euro firefighter. The odds of him having seen something similar to the Dual Saw on the job were pretty good, and saying "patented technology" doesn't mean the whole tool is patented. Maybe the guy's contribution was to patent an affordable modification that allowed the expensive tool to be mass-produced for the consumer market.
In any event, the OP didn't bother to look, clearly doesn't understand basic vector physics, and spouts off about something he's never touched. The old saying "throwing the baby out with the bath water" seems to be the OP's standard operating procedure.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

He's just trolling without knowing he's a troll. It happens. His blind spot is in believing that he has information instead of going to look for it. If he'd said that the Dual Saw looks like a piece of crap and asked for input he might have gotten something out of the thread, and I probably would have agreed with him and pointed out the disconcerting number of people who report burning the motor out in short order.
======================================== Yeah, I saw that. Moot, tho. The dualsaw is still near-useless, even with a motor that doesn't burn out. -------------------------------------------
Instead he extrapolates to a universal to form his opinion, makes outlandish and erroneous claims, ================================================== Name one. If anything, I left a lot of shit out, for brevity. So point out one error.
YOU just made one gigantic implicit error by tacitly agreeing with Shitty Two about the climb cut business. I guess you really don't know about climb cutting, and knee-jerk agreed with Shitty, without looking it up. But you did look up the below stuff, not even realizing that what you cite are totally different horses, the difference between a cannon and a firecracker -- even those both use gunpowder. And changes nothing in this debate.
---------------------------------------------------------
and deftly demonstrates that he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.
There's really nothing new about the technology. I don't recall who said that they didn't see the counter rotating blade technology used in rescue operations, and that if they were, they couldn't be corded, but... http://www.weber.de/wr/en/rettungsgeraete/twin-saw-cre-2326-set.php and for the ICE crowd. http://www.weber.de/wr/en/rettungsgeraete/twin-saw-cdf-4030-set.php
Someone who had seen the Dual Saw infomercial might have recalled that the 'inventor' was a Euro firefighter. The odds of him having seen something similar to the Dual Saw on the job were pretty good, and saying "patented technology" doesn't mean the whole tool is patented. Maybe the guy's contribution was to patent an affordable modification that allowed the expensive tool to be mass-produced for the consumer market.
===================================================== Heh, just like Tony Little, who say the Gazelle in a rehab unit for burn victims, and said, Hey, this is great for burn victims who are barely alive, it should be GREAT for healthy people, so they'll never ever EVER ever get fit.
Did you see the SIZE of those saws??? Holy shit.....
Context, dude, context. -----------------------------------------------------
In any event, the OP didn't bother to look, clearly doesn't understand basic vector physics, and spouts off about something he's never touched. The old saying "throwing the baby out with the bath water" seems to be the OP's standard operating procedure. ========================================================= Vector physics? Was it you who stated that the counter-rotating blades result in zero angular momentum, ergo no gyroscopic effect? Hmmm, lessee..... wait a minute.... No, that was ME! Holy shit.....
Hmmm, I guess, hmm, cuz the angular momentum vectors (normal to the plane of rotation) cancel out?? YESSSS, THAT MUST BE IT!!!!
Now, you and Shitty should go back to playing with your wooden blocks, and make sure you don't touch ANY power tools without adult supervision.
Don't forget to point out all my outlandish and erroneous claims.
--
EA







R



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'm loving this. You're the guy who said the people on rec.woodworking didn't know how to use a circular saw, and now you're demonstrating that you don't know that routers and mills are the tools that are capable of climb cuts. Running a circular saw backwards is not a climb cut. But keep digging - it's entertaining.
Thanks.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'm loving this. You're the guy who said the people on rec.woodworking didn't know how to use a circular saw, and now you're demonstrating that you don't know that routers and mills are the tools that are capable of climb cuts. Running a circular saw backwards is not a climb cut. But keep digging - it's entertaining.
================================================== Apparently you are digging a lot faster than I am. But, in defense of your sorry ignerint ass, I see you posted this before Ed H replied.
But it just goes to show you can't think for yourself. You STILL can't see that the concepts of climb vs conventional cutting apply to ANY tangentially-approached device. Wake up, dude. goodgawd.... So much for vector physics, eh?
Heh, we'll see how big of a person you are, by the size of the humble pie you wind up eating -- esp. when you won't be able to cite ANY of my "outlandish or erroneous claims" regarding that effing useless dual saw.
--
EA

Thanks.

R



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Uh, I am *not* going to get into this argument, but climb cutting and conventional cutting apply to many types of cutting tools, including saw blades. In fact, in production woodworking, there are ripping saws that operate in the climb mode for the express purpose of avoiding tear-out. They require fancy hold-downs and feed mechanisms for the workpieces, so they don't go flying out of the saw. I've seen them, and I've written about them, and I've had discussions with the blade makers about the differences in the two types of blades.
--
Ed Huntress



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interesting. I've never heard of such a thing with a saw blade, and DAGS to see if there was such a beast as a circular saw climb cut - the search didn't turn up a single example in the first two pages of results. Can you post a link to a climb cutting machine or something you wrote about it?
In the machines you're talking about, the workpiece/sawblade is moving in the opposite direction to the normal direction of movement. With the Dual Saw type of saws, one of the counter rotating blades is always moving opposite the 'normal' direction of movement - and in fact that that is the primary reason the tool can get away without hold downs and feed mechanisms (equal and opposite canceling and all of that), and the reason that the tool shouldn't grab and kick, it seems to me that the tool isn't climb cutting, so much as just cutting. The adjectives canceled out. So is there really a climb cut in such a tool?
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Interesting. I've never heard of such a thing with a saw blade, and DAGS to see if there was such a beast as a circular saw climb cut - the search didn't turn up a single example in the first two pages of results. Can you post a link to a climb cutting machine or something you wrote about it?
In the machines you're talking about, the workpiece/sawblade is moving in the opposite direction to the normal direction of movement. With the Dual Saw type of saws, one of the counter rotating blades is always moving opposite the 'normal' direction of movement - and in fact that that is the primary reason the tool can get away without hold downs and feed mechanisms (equal and opposite canceling and all of that), and the reason that the tool shouldn't grab and kick, it seems to me that the tool isn't climb cutting, so much as just cutting. The adjectives canceled out. So is there really a climb cut in such a tool? ===================================================== Not only are you an idiot, you are a long-winded pedantic idiot. Goodgawd.....
Can you say " Ray-Dee-All Arm Saw ", boyzngerlz??
--
EA

R



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I knew you'd ask that. <g> It was between 20 and 25 years ago; the story was about using wirecut EDM to shape sinterred diamond compacts on the cutters used in both metalworking (a minor use) and woodworking (the major use), particularly on commercial spindle-shapers and routers. The discussion about saw blades was peripheral to the subject, because EDM isn't used to shape the edges of those.
All I can recall is this: In production rip-sawing, the issue is how the cutter *exits* the cut, rather than how it enters. Apparently -- and this is from memory -- saw blades used in commercial ripping just barely extend through the top of the cut, so the re-entry isn't an issue. On the top side of the work, it's almost the same whether you consider it climb- or conventional-cutting. But it makes a big difference when the blade finally leaves the bottom of the cut. If it's cutting when it comes out of the workpiece, it's going to tear the edges of the cut, as any hobbyist woodworker knows from conventional work with a table saw. In the discussion, running the blade in the reverse direction of what most of us condider the "conventional" one, in which the blade exits the work "not cutting," was what they were calling "climb cutting," and apparently that's the preferred mode for production. It requires friction drive and hold-down rollers; the work is fed under power.
BTW, some commercial saws operate upside-down, with the blade(s) above the work, so you might have to reverse "up" and "down" from this discussion. That may just be for multi-blade ripping of lumber; I've never actually seen one of those saws.
I never got involved in studying production woodworking except for that single application, and it was because I covered tooling for a couple of metalworking magazines and I had a client who made special wire EDMs for that work, when I wasn't a staff editor.
Sorry I can't refer you to my article. That old stuff isn't archived online and I wrote over 350 articles about metalworking and tooling, so I don't remember where it ran.

A good question; I don't know about those saws. I hesitated to jump in here at all, except to point out that there is something that is, or was, called "climb cutting" in production sawing, and that it's similar to what we mean by the term in metalworking, with milling cutters.
I will now go back to my nap. <g>
--
Ed Huntress



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
> A line-by-line analysis of the dual saw infomercial, or any of Tony Little's

You can count me in as a viewer of InfomercialBusters, just like MythBusters. Could be some interesting shit.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To what end? There's no argument that the majority of the stuff you find on infomercials is targeted at insomniacs that are awake in the middle of the night and buying something, anything!, lets them feel like they're doing something useful. But "debunking" an infomercial is an exercise in futility. Watching an infomercial is a waste of time, and MythBusting them would be an even bigger waste.
The angst-ridden one seems to believe that we should be living in a perfect world, and he can fix this one if only people will listen to him. That way lies madness.
Everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Getting upset about the inequity of a _commercial_ seems pretty low on the list of things to get upset about. At least for sane people.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:77d43124-c7df-468a-8ad8-
Everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Getting upset about the inequity of a _commercial_ seems pretty low on the list of things to get upset about. At least for sane people. ========= Two products that live up to the informercial hype, and more. G2 Swivel Sweeper and NuWave Oven. Both terrific products. Two products that are a complete waste of money. Steam Zapper and Perfect Pancake Maker.
Cheri
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Cheri wrote:

I guess Sham-Wows are in the middle?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.