Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 11 March 2003 18:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mike Charleston I've come across an ancient unguarded bench tool for honing woodworking chisels that has no guard like those fitted conventionally to bench mounted tool grinders. However, the wheel material (matrix) is extremely fine (as it needs to be for honing); the speed of rotation is only 90 rpm; and there is an integral well for coolant that is filled during use. The machine operates off 240v and is rated at 200 watts. My assessment is that the guard on a conventional bench grinder principally protects the user against flying debris from a fast moving wheel in the event that it breaks. The risk of such an event in this case is not foreseeable. There's no manufacturer named on the machine, so would anybody care to comment before I move on to the next technical challenge? There are one or two waiting in the wings! Mike
Admin  
#2 Posted : 12 March 2003 08:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Helen the grinder is still a rotating tool, which has the potential for entanglement, if it is not properly guarded. Also, if the equipment has the potential to sharpen metal tools, it could also be implied that sparks could be produced. i would suggest that you do provide guarding on this machine.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 12 March 2003 11:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Walker Mike, Is Three quarters of the Wheel guarded? If yes then I would have thought just goggles or similar would be OK for the residual risk of flying particles. If no guard at all, then the entanglement is the prime hazard.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 12 March 2003 12:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis Mike Go back to PUWER 1998 reg. 11 If it is a dangerous part then it must be treated as per 11.1(a) or (b). The duty if the reg applies is a practicable one. Don't forget that caselaw on this currently states that the machine may be rendered unusable in fulfilling a practicable duty but that is no problem for the law. I am aware that some inspectors argue that there are exemptions to allow a piece of equipment to be guarded only to the extent that it allows work but I cannot see a justification for this in the legislation. Bob
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.