Reply to Better than a cast saw.
Paul Farber
Description
Collection
Title:
Reply to Better than a cast saw.
Creator:
Paul Farber
Text:
Over the last few days there has appeared a Tech Tip about the use of
various methods of removing vacu-formed molds from casts in the central fab.
It was suggested that a cast saw could be readily replaced in the laboratory
by using a reciprocating saw or die grinder, and in doing so you could save
money.
I would like to suggest that some important facts have been left out .
To begin, any pneumatic tool requires compressed air for power. If you
are not currently using a reciprocating air saw in your laboratory, be aware
that most require 14-17 cubic feet per minute of air at 90-100 pounds per
square inch of pressure. Unless you have a compressor equipped with a 45-50
gallon reservoir tank, you may find that these tools do not run for very long
,or very well. The total cost of installation might well approach $2000 or
more, with air lines, electrical 230vlt/40amp dedicated line and circuit
breakers, in-line oilers and partical separators.So it isn't quite as simple
as going out to purchase a $90 saw at the home center. Your total cost might
be thousands of dollars to fully install everything you would need to use
this recip saw. And if the tool actually does only cost $90, I would be
concerned about it's long term durability in a profession as demanding of
tools as O&P. Tools in this price range can turn out to be toys, designed for
the home mechanic, not to be the mainstay of professional artisans. The adage
You get what you pay for, applies here. But the one key feature here that
I really wanted to bring to the forefront ,is SAFETY. The cast saw, whether
it be air powered or electric ,is the safest power tool ever devised. It was
originally designed NOT to cut skin, during the cast removal process. So it
is inherently safe. A die grinder is inherently dangerous, and can be
unweildy under the best conditions. It can also accelerate and discharge
particles of plastic at high velocity, presenting a risk to both operator and
bystanders alike. Will it do the job? Probably. But not without significant
risks ;risks you should not be willing to take .
So, as I see it, an electric cast saw is still the most in-expensive and
safe modality to use in the cast room or laboratory. And the pneumatic cast
saw is the most propitious version if throughput, durability and safety is
what you seek in the central fab.
Use the correct blade; make sure it's not worn out, and let the cast saw
do the work ! Respectfully,
Paul Farber
Cast Room Systems
various methods of removing vacu-formed molds from casts in the central fab.
It was suggested that a cast saw could be readily replaced in the laboratory
by using a reciprocating saw or die grinder, and in doing so you could save
money.
I would like to suggest that some important facts have been left out .
To begin, any pneumatic tool requires compressed air for power. If you
are not currently using a reciprocating air saw in your laboratory, be aware
that most require 14-17 cubic feet per minute of air at 90-100 pounds per
square inch of pressure. Unless you have a compressor equipped with a 45-50
gallon reservoir tank, you may find that these tools do not run for very long
,or very well. The total cost of installation might well approach $2000 or
more, with air lines, electrical 230vlt/40amp dedicated line and circuit
breakers, in-line oilers and partical separators.So it isn't quite as simple
as going out to purchase a $90 saw at the home center. Your total cost might
be thousands of dollars to fully install everything you would need to use
this recip saw. And if the tool actually does only cost $90, I would be
concerned about it's long term durability in a profession as demanding of
tools as O&P. Tools in this price range can turn out to be toys, designed for
the home mechanic, not to be the mainstay of professional artisans. The adage
You get what you pay for, applies here. But the one key feature here that
I really wanted to bring to the forefront ,is SAFETY. The cast saw, whether
it be air powered or electric ,is the safest power tool ever devised. It was
originally designed NOT to cut skin, during the cast removal process. So it
is inherently safe. A die grinder is inherently dangerous, and can be
unweildy under the best conditions. It can also accelerate and discharge
particles of plastic at high velocity, presenting a risk to both operator and
bystanders alike. Will it do the job? Probably. But not without significant
risks ;risks you should not be willing to take .
So, as I see it, an electric cast saw is still the most in-expensive and
safe modality to use in the cast room or laboratory. And the pneumatic cast
saw is the most propitious version if throughput, durability and safety is
what you seek in the central fab.
Use the correct blade; make sure it's not worn out, and let the cast saw
do the work ! Respectfully,
Paul Farber
Cast Room Systems
Citation
Paul Farber, “Reply to Better than a cast saw.,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 7, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/219878.
