: > Depends on how you define "work". One key difference is that a true
: > knife moves up and down as the blade is raised and lowered, whereas
: > does not -- and hence your intended faux-riving knife won't either.
: > words, you'll still have to remove it to cut grooves, dados, or
: > And you'll have no blade guard, unless you buy (or build) an
over-arm guard of
: > some sort.
: > Seems to me that your plan combines the disadvantages of both
setups, with few
: > (if any) of the advantages of either.
: Yeah, I suppose that's true - I was looking at this as a slightly
: better option than nothing at all. Most blade guard/splitters on new
: saws are such crap that they are not worth using (yes, that's
: debatable, and I wasn't looking to start that discussion...) Maybe I'd
: be better to phrase this as taking a splitter that would otherwise
: never get used, and reducing it to something smaller/more elegant that
: would still serve to prevent a workpiece from pinching behind the
: blade. A better, although not free, implementation of this would be
: one of the table inserts that has a small splitter.
: Lately, I've been seeing a bunch of saws that have a 'riving knife',
: but one that does not move up/down along with the blade. From what
: I've read, new model saws are going to be required to have a riving
: knife in order to get UL listing. I wonder if the fixed position
: knives are an inexpensive way to comply with the new UL regulation.
If it's "fixed position", then it's not a riving knife and shouldn't
meet UL, or anyone else's, standards for the way a riving knife is
supposed to work.