Raygear Face Shield and Woodturning PPE

[Rob Wallace]

I would like to provide my opinion that the 'Raygear Face Shield" being sold as personal protection equipment should NOT BE USED for woodturning activities. Despite its apparent ANSI Z87+ puncture rating for the plastic used, the design of the face shield obviously can not provide significant energy dissipation following impact of any wood or other larger fragments capable of being thrown into it during woodturning operations. I have not used (and will not use) this or any such device as PPE for woodturning, given its severe limitations on providing impact energy dissipation (I can foresee broken noses or worse if people rely on this for protection from fragmenting turning blanks.) This design *may* be acceptable for some of the listed applications (e.g. splash protection, blood/body fluid borne pathogens, lawn care particulates, etc.) that do not require energy dissipation or impact resistance, but my hope is that woodturners would not rely on (or trust) this form of PPE for woodturning activities. I disagree that it is useful for "any task where you need to protect your eyes and face" because not all tasks can be accommodated by light duty, non-energy-absorbing designs of face shields. PLEASE do not use this for woodturning!! (Ask yourself if you would like to be hit in the face directly on your eyeglass-style goggles with a flying chunk of wood from a spinning lathe.... )

http://www.ptreeusa.com/edirect_090514.htm

 

[Douglas Ladendorf]

I got the Peachtree email today too and had the same response. I tried to imagine a large chunk hitting that and what it would do. Primarily it looks like it would spread the impact over the whole face after breaking the nose. I'd like a bit more from my face mask thank you very much.

Doug

 

[Bill Boehme]

Rob, FYI none of the ANSI Z87 faceshields have any energy absorbing capability beyond small particles and even then, wearing goggles is recommended (required for industrial eye and face protection from particles). If you think about it, where is the energy absorption going to come from when an almost weightless faceshield is being supported by your cranium -- it's supposed to protect your head by being fastened to your head. It amazes me that so many woodturners believe that any faceshield has energy absorbing capability of any consequence. To absorb energy, you need mass -- and lots of it -- too much for anything that can be worn although helmet type faceshields are a tiny bit better than the simple visors.

 

[Shawn Pachlhofer]

I saw these at SWAT and agree - not for me. Looks like a sizeable impact would be absorbed in the nosepiece

 

[hockenbery]

We used a few of these face shields for pen turning at a woodworking show.

They are not suitable for woodturning.

What face shields protect us from are trips to the hospital from flying wood that would cut us and from some breakage of facial bones and teeth.
They offer little protection from concussion and more severe brain trauma which can result from being hit by a large block of wood.

I consider a face shield an essential piece of gear.
I also stay out of the line of fire, inspect my blanks carefully, listen and watch for cracks, use secure holding methods and inspect them during the turning, use appropriate lathe speed, and don't turn sizes of wood beyond my capability.

Get hit by 1 pound of wood while wearing a face shield and you will likely not be hurt.
Get hit by a forty pound block while wearing a face shield, or suit of armor and you may suffer lethal brain trauma.

It's like wearing a motorcycle helmet. It will save your life in a whole lot of crashes but hit a bridge or tree straight on and it won't save you.

Have fun
Be safe,
Al

 

[W Jack Young]

I also stay out of the line of fire, inspect my blanks carefully, listen and watch for cracks, use secure holding methods and inspect them during the turning, use appropriate lathe speed, and don't turn sizes of wood beyond my capability.

Have fun
Be safe,
Al[/QUOTE

RULES TO STAY ALIVE BY!

 

[Steve Worcester]

I got the Peachtree email today too and had the same response. I tried to imagine a large chunk hitting that and what it would do. Primarily it looks like it would spread the impact over the whole face after breaking the nose. I'd like a bit more from my face mask thank you very much.

Doug

I saw these at SWAT and agree - not for me. Looks like a sizeable impact would be absorbed in the nosepiece

Wish I would have seen it so I could have a talk with them.

 

[Shawn Pachlhofer]

If you come to the Woodworking Show in October (Conroe) - I bet they'll be there.

 

[Sergio Villa]

Protection from a flying object can came from pure mass to absorb the impact and then you can get a big concussion. Much better is a shield of enough resistance that can deflect the object and them you might have been saved without consequences. I do not know the shield in question. Mine is just a general observation. If mass would be the only factor in absorbing the flying object no bullet proof vests would be wearable.

 

[Hu Lowery]

crumple zone

My nose has already been used as a crumple zone too many times to have any liking for that rig. The eyeglass style ear pieces to keep the faceguard on are equally questionable. I hate to pile on but my first impulse when I saw this gear was just to laugh and shake my head. Obviously the degree of impact protection varies with the size and strength of the wearer's nose!

Good quality headgear suspension on a face shield increases protection a good bit but obviously none of the gear can protect against a big piece of wood coming with speed. Have to hope the safety gear between our ears does it's job.

Hu

 

[Odie]

Rob, FYI none of the ANSI Z87 faceshields have any energy absorbing capability beyond small particles and even then, wearing goggles is recommended (required for industrial eye and face protection from particles). If you think about it, where is the energy absorption going to come from when an almost weightless faceshield is being supported by your cranium -- it's supposed to protect your head by being fastened to your head. It amazes me that so many woodturners believe that any faceshield has energy absorbing capability of any consequence. To absorb energy, you need mass -- and lots of it -- too much for anything that can be worn although helmet type faceshields are a tiny bit better than the simple visors.

I would like to provide my opinion that the 'Raygear Face Shield" being sold as personal protection equipment should NOT BE USED for woodturning activities. Despite its apparent ANSI Z87+ puncture rating for the plastic used, the design of the face shield obviously can not provide significant energy dissipation following impact of any wood or other larger fragments capable of being thrown into it during woodturning operations. I have not used (and will not use) this or any such device as PPE for woodturning, given its severe limitations on providing impact energy dissipation (I can foresee broken noses or worse if people rely on this for protection from fragmenting turning blanks.) This design *may* be acceptable for some of the listed applications (e.g. splash protection, blood/body fluid borne pathogens, lawn care particulates, etc.) that do not require energy dissipation or impact resistance, but my hope is that woodturners would not rely on (or trust) this form of PPE for woodturning activities. I disagree that it is useful for "any task where you need to protect your eyes and face" because not all tasks can be accommodated by light duty, non-energy-absorbing designs of face shields. PLEASE do not use this for woodturning!! (Ask yourself if you would like to be hit in the face directly on your eyeglass-style goggles with a flying chunk of wood from a spinning lathe.... )

http://www.ptreeusa.com/edirect_090514.htm

I agree with your assessment, Rob

This Raygear faceshield is downright useless for protecting against injury from flying objects. I also concur with Bill's statement about what kind of protection virtually all traditional face shields are designed to absorb......

I normally wear safety glasses under my face shield, but even so.....won't really stop a block of wood traveling at high speed.

The following is my opinion, and what I've come up with for a flying block of wood about the same size and speed as a fastball from a major league pitcher......something like what a catcher would wear!

This is a "fielder's softball mask" that I've brazed a couple additional crosspieces for extra protection. It's not quite as heavy and solid as a catcher's mask, but light enough to wear under the traditional face shield. It does give me a certain "comfort level" when I do decide to wear it. I don't wear it all the time, but I do wear it occasionally when I feel the threat is possible/probable.

ooc

 

[Sergio Villa]

Speed is the real danger. Many threads about it.
If a piece is 6/8 inch by 2/3 inch there is very little danger but with thin or faulty pieced speed is the min reason accidents happen.
Above 1000rpm a piece my fly but at less then, let say 500rpm the same piece falls.
Here is a good solution for the speeders.

 

[Odie]

Speed is the real danger. Many threads about it.
If a piece is 6/8 inch by 2/3 inch there is very little danger but with thin or faulty pieced speed is the min reason accidents happen.
Above 1000rpm a piece my fly but at less then, let say 500rpm the same piece falls.
Here is a good solution for the speeders.

We used a few of these face shields for pen turning at a woodworking show.

They are not suitable for woodturning.

What face shields protect us from are trips to the hospital from flying wood that would cut us and from some breakage of facial bones and teeth.
They offer little protection from concussion and more severe brain trauma which can result from being hit by a large block of wood.

I consider a face shield an essential piece of gear.
I also stay out of the line of fire, inspect my blanks carefully, listen and watch for cracks, use secure holding methods and inspect them during the turning, use appropriate lathe speed, and don't turn sizes of wood beyond my capability.

Get hit by 1 pound of wood while wearing a face shield and you will likely not be hurt.
Get hit by a forty pound block while wearing a face shield, or suit of armor and you may suffer lethal brain trauma.

It's like wearing a motorcycle helmet. It will save your life in a whole lot of crashes but hit a bridge or tree straight on and it won't save you.

Have fun
Be safe,
Al

Al and Sergio have significant contributions to thought.......

Lower rpm's and staying out of the "line of fire" will definitely reduce the likelihood of an accident and/or injury. Following these rules is the best advice when safety is more important than results.

However, ultimate safety procedures and reality aren't in harmony with the best results.

Some turners believe the best quality of cut can be had regardless of speed, but I'm not one who subscribes to that because there is more to the equation than a tool edge slicing wood cleanly. Certainly, a good clean cut is an important aspect, but "form", or the resulting profile created when that cut starts, and when it ends, is an equally important aspect of the effort. The higher rpm's allow a faster cut, and a faster cut promotes smoother body transitions through the entire cut.

By restricting the speed of rpm, and in combination with staying out of the "line of fire", what happens is it places limitations on where your body can be, and how smooth body motion through a curve is possible. Harnessing capability is what enables the best results, and limiting capability will be opposed to it.

I have come to an understanding that there is a distinct difference between absolute safety, and absolute best overall results. We can't ignore safety, but pushing it to the limit benefits with increased quality of the end result. These rules and applications change as a turner transitions between rank newbie, and someone who has accumulated some experience. The difference is in the acquisition of knowledge, which results in benefiting the turner in knowing where the boundaries are, if he is willing to use it.....and, those boundaries become clearer and more defined in a direct relationship to the amount of experience......it is not a constant, but a progressive acquisition.

If you are an inexperienced turner reading this, it's best to adhere to the basic rules that have been established. If you have accumulated some experience, then at some point you are very likely going to realize the benefits of taking things to the next level. Some never do make the realization, and some aren't willing to see where their wings will take them.....but, only those who have, will understand why.

ooc

 

[Mark Mandell]

Ppe

When this exploded on my lathe at about 1,200rpm, pieces put dents in the HVAC duct over head and flew 20' across the shop at something approaching light-speed.

I escaped without a scratch.

Did my trusty $15 flip-up face shield save my life? No.

What did was my choice to stand outside of the kill zone!

The single most effective piece of Personal Protection Equipment anyone has is not over or in front of their ears, but rather between them. Delegate the task of protecting yourself to someone or something else, and you're asking for a hard lesson from which you might not live to be the wiser.


PS: The shattered platter, CA'd together, hangs on my shop wall as a reminder.

 

[Sergio Villa]

You made my point. After 1000rpm objects may fly. That platter seems also thin. I will never run something like that at that speed. And it is not necessary with a good tool and a steady hand.
13x41/2 inch had maple bowl turned semi green
13 inch butternut dish turned dry less than 1/4 thick.
Both turned at less than 400rpm

 

[Mark Mandell]

That platter seems also thin.

It was 5/32 out to 3/32 at the rim. I had finished sanding it but wanted to trim a bit on the foot. Since it was too thin to use a jam chuck (my vacuum pump was down) I tried to trim a bit from the headstock side using a fresh tool steel cutter (can do that on a Stubby) and scraper cuts. The increased speed made the light scraper cuts near the foot easier as they were only about 2" from the center. On the last pass the cutter caught and the piece went ballistic with a WHAM! Memsahib came pounding down the stairs hoping not to find me in a pool of blood. Black ash is not my favorite turning wood but the piece had worked rather nicely and would have been a nice platter.

PS: I'm not usually a "high speed" turner except when doing spindle work were 1,400 rpm works well.

 

[Betty Scarpino]

Rob, FYI none of the ANSI Z87 faceshields have any energy absorbing capability beyond small particles and even then, wearing goggles is recommended (required for industrial eye and face protection from particles). If you think about it, where is the energy absorption going to come from when an almost weightless faceshield is being supported by your cranium -- it's supposed to protect your head by being fastened to your head. It amazes me that so many woodturners believe that any faceshield has energy absorbing capability of any consequence. To absorb energy, you need mass -- and lots of it -- too much for anything that can be worn although helmet type faceshields are a tiny bit better than the simple visors.

Thank you Bill. This new faceshield design looks as unsafe as it is. But, if I use my traditional, regular woodturning faceshield, will my face withstand an impact any better than this new design? Ask Lynne Yamaguchi and she would say absolutely not. Her research was extensive. She wrote an article for the journal and gave a paper at the AAW symposium. She convinced me that a regular faceshield does not offer adequate impact protection. Lynne now uses a riot shield, something that will withstand an impact. Odie's solution looks like it might protect properly.

Rob's warning .... is it valid? Or, is this warning a bit of a misdirection? It seems Rob is saying that regular faceshields will offer adequate impact protection, so buy one of those instead of this new design.

Betty Scarpino

 

[Odie]

Thank you Bill. This new faceshield design looks as unsafe as it is. But, if I use my traditional, regular woodturning faceshield, will my face withstand an impact any better than this new design? Ask Lynne Yamaguchi and she would say absolutely not. Her research was extensive. She wrote an article for the journal and gave a paper at the AAW symposium. She convinced me that a regular faceshield does not offer adequate impact protection. Lynne now uses a riot shield, something that will withstand an impact. Odie's solution looks like it might protect properly.

Rob's warning .... is it valid? Or, is this warning a bit of a misdirection? It seems Rob is saying that regular faceshields will offer adequate impact protection, so buy one of those instead of this new design.

Betty Scarpino

Here's an interesting riot helmet/shield with steel guard:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-TR1001G...250?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f3b172922

A riot face shield is something I hadn't considered. I did some searching this morning, and it looks like all the riot face shields are intended to attach to a helmet. Not sure what Lynne Yamaguchi is using, or if she is now wearing a helmet. It's possible one of the riot face shields could be adapted to a regular face shield headband. I'm not sure I'd be interested in wearing the helmet.

I'm not sure what the impact resistance is.....in real terms. Numbers don't mean much, but stopping a baseball or whack from a hockey stick, gives me a sense real-world understanding of the impact resistance, and how that relates to the hazards of woodturning.

My first attempt at solving this problem was an ice hockey helmet. It would have done the job very well, but I just didn't want to deal with the helmet. See photo:

Bottom line is: Not all of us turners will need extra face protection. If you're working with good solid wood the need is very minimal. The danger is mostly related to highly figured, spalted, rotten, bark inclusions, cracks, and other things that may influence structural stability. I don't wear my "softball fielder's mask" all the time, but I'm very satisfied with it......and am very pleased that it fits right underneath my regular face shield (with some adjustment to the band). It's comforting to know I can have that extra measure of safety when I choose to......

I have decided I'm going to purchase one of the riot face shields, and try to adapt it to a regular face shield headband. That would be the best solution for everyday, all day use.....but, I don't think it will provide anywhere near the kind of protection the fielder's mask will.......so, I'll still be using that when I feel the necessity exists. Stay tuned, and I'll let you know how that works out......

ooc

 

[Rob Wallace]

Rob's warning .... is it valid? Or, is this warning a bit of a misdirection? It seems Rob is saying that regular faceshields will offer adequate impact protection, so buy one of those instead of this new design.

If you read carefully what Rob wrote, he mentioned nothing about a "regular" face shield, because there is no such thing as a 'regular' face shield. My intent of starting this thread was to opine that the design of the Raygear "Face Shield" is inherently poor, and actually is WORSE than a "regular" face shield (whatever that is...) because essentially ANY impact into the front of this shield (and at any place on it) would necessarily concentrate the impact force into the bridge area sitting upon the nose, and would transfer that energy into the inter-orbital region of the skull, which is full of relatively thin, fragile bones. You probably couldn't design a better way to fracture this area of the skull, short of making a conical point just above the bridge, directed toward the inter-orbital area to focus the impact forces onto a smaller area for even more damage. Smacks of Medieval torture implements.....

My comments were in no way meant as an endorsement of a specific "regular" face shield (....whatever that is...), particularly since there are so many styles of face shield sold, some of them as poor as those with very lightweight headbands and a thin slab of acetate plastic "lens" (....even Craft Supplies sells a crappy $10 face shield), and some (such as the Bionic) have a bit more substantial headgear mounting and lower face protection. If a turner is only going to spend $30-$40 for PPE, they would be better served to spend that money on a face shield that has better supporting headgear than an eyeglass-style mounting, and some modicum of full face protection (including that of the lower face/jaw). Most "hang-down-plastic-lens" face shields do not adequately cover the lower face/jaw/neck; my understanding is that the splash-shields with the metal band support around the edge of the lens are actually even more dangerous than those without, due to the cutting effects of sharp metal interacting with face, skin, musculature, etc. as a result of an impact.

Obviously a "regular" face shield still will not completely absorb energy from larger projectiles at high velocity, and as noted, some turners are moving to more 'serious' forms of PPE, re-purposed from other disciplines of endeavor.

There is no misdirection in my statements, and I wonder where the conclusion was drawn that "regular face shields will offer adequate impact protection" - Where did that come from? I made no such statement, and simply noted that this particular version of a face shield should not be used for woodturning, given its very poor design. Period. I will say that there are other designs of face shields for the same money that will provide somewhat better protection (albeit suboptimal) than the Raygear being sold. Nowhere did I mention anything about "adequate protection"...... Betty's comment (reading between the lines of something I didn't state initially) "so buy one of those instead of this new design" might apply here, but again I mentioned nothing about "adequate". At equal price, I would choose a Bionic Face Shield over a Raygear in a heartbeat, given the poor design of the latter, even though the Bionic still provides suboptimal "protection". That doesn't mean it is adequate; just better, given this choice. Everyone needs to determine for themselves how much they spend on some form of PPE, what higher quality protection is worth to them, and how much risk they are willing to take.

Good discussion about various solutions for providing better secondary protection with PPE - as has been stated, the primary form of protection is behavioral and technique-based. Recall the unfortunate turner from New Jersey a year or two ago that suffered skull and brain injury even though he was wearing a Trend Air Shield....the fragmenting blank smashed right through the helmet portion of the Trend, and into his skull. You still have to have your wits about you while turning and THINK FIRST, regardless of what kind of PPE you have.

I agree with Mark that: "The single most effective piece of Personal Protection Equipment anyone has is not over or in front of their ears, but rather between them. Delegate the task of protecting yourself to someone or something else, and you're asking for a hard lesson from which you might not live to be the wiser."

Rob Wallace

 

[Ian Thorn]

After checking it out on Robs link I would have to agree it is useless for protection but also it is vented so any dust goes straight up the nose as there is no room for a dust mask of any kind other than 2 bits of cotton wool up the nose. It is no good as a splash shield ether with the vents .

 

[Bill Boehme]

Thank you Bill. This new faceshield design looks as unsafe as it is. But, if I use my traditional, regular woodturning faceshield, will my face withstand an impact any better than this new design? Ask Lynne Yamaguchi and she would say absolutely not. Her research was extensive. She wrote an article for the journal and gave a paper at the AAW symposium. She convinced me that a regular faceshield does not offer adequate impact protection. Lynne now uses a riot shield, something that will withstand an impact. Odie's solution looks like it might protect properly.

Rob's warning .... is it valid? Or, is this warning a bit of a misdirection? It seems Rob is saying that regular faceshields will offer adequate impact protection, so buy one of those instead of this new design.

Betty Scarpino

As an engineer with a background in kinetic energy, it has been my experience from commenting on this several times in the past is that folks don't want to hear somebody saying that their favorite piece of safety gear doesn't provide the degree of protection that they would like to believe that it does. What seems so obvious to me may not necessarily seem that way to most people. Read the information that comes with the 3M Tekk Professional Faceshield and we discover that it also requires the user to wear safety goggles or glasses with side shields ... at least in an industrial environment. We also see that the type of protection it provides is against small high speed particles that have very low kinetic energy. From actual experience most of us would also say that it does an good job against flying bark chunks when we start roughing out a piece of log. There's something about the chunks of bark that most of us haven't considered -- at that stage of the turning process, we are probably running the lathe at a fairly slow speed. The kinetic energy contained in a moving object is the product of mass and velocity squared (in other words, KE = m · v[SUP]2[/SUP], in vector notation). Two examples in layman's terms:

• Doubling the mass while keeping the velocity constant doubles the kinetic energy. This sounds intuitive to most of us.
• Doubling the velocity while keeping the mass constant quadruples the kinetic energy. This is the part that may come as a surprise to most of us. Suppose that we start roughing out our split log at 300 RPM and pieces of bark, wood, bugs, and sap are impacting the faceshield and we are very happy that the faceshield is doing its job. Suppose that we get in a hurry and decide to crank the speed up to 600 RPM. Now everything flying at us has four times as much kinetic energy. We might feel like we got caught in a hailstorm. But, what if we got in a really big hurry and cranked the speed up to 1200 RPM? Well, now each chunk of bark and other stuff has sixteen times as much kinetic energy as when we were turning at 300 RPM. Those little pieces of bark are probably starting to hurt. Will it be enough to knock your faceshield cattywompus if not completely off? I'll let somebody else try it. Well, heck 1200 RPM isn't too fast ... suppose that we are hell bent for leather to finish this turning and crank the speed up to 2400 RPM? Good idea, while ducking for cover, I'll just mention that each chunk of bark now has sixty-four times as much energy as when turning at 300 RPM.

Al mentioned getting hit [in the faceshield] by a one pound piece of wood:

.... Get hit by 1 pound of wood while wearing a face shield and you will likely not be hurt....

Stating the mass without mentioning velocity tells us nothing about the kinetic energy, but I would bet that even at slow velocity you are likely to get a broken nose and a nice purple bruise ... maybe even a mild concussion. Mass really does matter and, of course, velocity is the killer. If we assume that a typical piece of bark weigh about an ounce, then at 300 RPM, the piece of wood would have 16 times as much KE as the bark. At 600 RPM, the piece of wood would have sixty-four times the KE of bark at 300 RPM. At 1200 RPM, the one pound piece of wood would have 256 times as much KE as the piece of bark at 300 RPM. And, at the insane speed of 2400 RPM, the piece of wood would have 1024 times as much KE as the piece of bark at 300 RPM. Looking at big numbers doesn't give us something that we can wrap our head around (I'm speaking figuratively), but we ought to at least recognize that we're talking about lots of energy -- far in excess of what the faceshield can handle without collapsing into our face.

I have heard some people speculate that a faceshield distributes the impact over a wider area -- maybe if our face were shaped like a faceshield -- since it isn't, our human "crumple zone" would be the nose, teeth, cheekbones, and cranium. Pieces that come flying off the lathe generally aren't nicely shaped and smooth like the things that we turn -- they are usually jagged and have sharp edges. I like Odie's solution, but in any case, our heads wind up absorbing the energy of an impact. The nice thing about Odie's solution is that it has some mass and stiff cushioning that has the effect of distributing the total energy over a longer period of time. By spreading the energy out over a longer time, it is equivalent to a lower impulse of energy.

I was turning a very large mesquite bowl about 16 inches in diameter when a piece that weighed about 8 ounces suddenly flew off. I think that I had about a half second of warning -- not enough time to do anything if I had been standing in the wrong place. It hit the brick wall behind me, bounced off and hit my truck about twenty feet away, flew back and bounced off the wall behind me again, and finally came to rest wedged under one of the tires of my truck. The piece had a scary resemblance to an axe head and was at least as sharp.

I think that Rob's warning was spot on. It is very obvious that the Raygear is a horrible idea. Is the thing really certified or are they just blowing smoke? I think the latter. If the price wasn't so absurd, I would buy one just to see if it is as bad as it appears to be. I don't believe that Rob really said anything about "regular" faceshields other than implying they are much better than the Raygear and I would have to agree with that. I think that it was probably my previous post about faceshields, in general, that might have influenced your interpretation of what Rob said. So, blame me for sidetracking the discussion, but I don't think that I will apologize for opening this can of worms.

Obviously, a better solution would be something that doesn't require us to use our heads to absorb the energy of an impact. The best solution that I have seen is the cage that comes with Powermatic lathes and that nobody uses. Maybe it is not the optimal design for the type of turning that we do (I think that the cage was probably designed with spindle turning in mind), but I am sure that something more user friendly could be designed that is anchored to the lathe and fits between the spinning wood and turner.

 

[Betty Scarpino]

I have heard some people speculate that a faceshield distributes the impact over a wider area -- maybe if our face were shaped like a faceshield -- since it isn't, our human "crumple zone" would be the nose, teeth, cheekbones, and cranium. Pieces that come flying off the lathe generally aren't nicely shaped and smooth like the things that we turn -- they are usually jagged and have sharp edges. I like Odie's solution, but in any case, our heads wind up absorbing the energy of an impact. The nice thing about Odie's solution is that it has some mass and stiff cushioning that has the effect of distributing the total energy over a longer period of time. By spreading the energy out over a longer time, it is equivalent to a lower impulse of energy.

............

Obviously, a better solution would be something that doesn't require us to use our heads to absorb the energy of an impact. The best solution that I have seen is the cage that comes with Powermatic lathes and that nobody uses. Maybe it is not the optimal design for the type of turning that we do (I think that the cage was probably designed with spindle turning in mind), but I am sure that something more user friendly could be designed that is anchored to the lathe and fits between the spinning wood and turner.

We can see that the Raygear would not protect against much except maybe a sliver flying at it. Rob's warning is spot on, but by saying don't buy Raygear, what message does that send? What should a turner use to truly be safe? The AAW okays a variety of faceshield designs for use at their symposium by demonstrators, but do those regularly-used types actually offer sufficient protection? By only going after Raygear, is that tacit approval of all other brands of faceshields we turners regularly use?

Betty Scarpino

 

[Mark Mandell]

We can see that the Raygear would not protect against much except maybe a sliver flying at it. Rob's warning is spot on, but by saying don't buy Raygear, what message does that send? What should a turner use to truly be safe? The AAW okays a variety of faceshield designs for use at their symposium by demonstrators, but do those regularly-used types actually offer sufficient protection? By only going after Raygear, is that tacit approval of all other brands of faceshields we turners regularly use?

Betty Scarpino

Seems like AAW is due for some "disclaimer" noticing, Betty, to limit reliance of users on the "recommended" face shields used at Symposia

 

[Odie]

We can see that the Raygear would not protect against much except maybe a sliver flying at it. Rob's warning is spot on, but by saying don't buy Raygear, what message does that send? What should a turner use to truly be safe? The AAW okays a variety of faceshield designs for use at their symposium by demonstrators, but do those regularly-used types actually offer sufficient protection? By only going after Raygear, is that tacit approval of all other brands of faceshields we turners regularly use?

Betty Scarpino

Betty.......

Some of us assumed that Rob meant the common flip-up style face shields mounted to an adjustable headband are satisfactory. He has since corrected his meaning to state he only meant that the Raygear is not satisfactory without inferring anything else was.

The discussion progressed, based on an incorrect assumption.

BTW: I placed an order for a riot face shield, and will attempt to mount it to my faceshield's headband. At this point, I don't know if that will work out ok, or not. I'm assuming the riot faceshield will absorb more of a blow to the facial area than the original one supplied. I see it's a bit thicker and made of polycarbonate. This is the same material that motorcycle windshields are made from, and they will hold up well to road debris and rocks........we'll see how this experiment works out.

How about Lynne Yamaguchi's presentation? Can we see that anywhere?

ooc

 

[Bill Dalton]

Welp, since everyone hates the Raygear, I might as well say my 2 cents worth...I have two and use one of them when doing demos with SGs. While I never use it when doing "real" turning only teaching and demos. When I saw them at the Tampa Woodworking show, I thought they were cool, but didn't like the fact that the impact absorption area is the bridge of the nose and inside of the orbital areas. I asked the guy at the booth about this and he assured me they had been tested and would not cause broken bones. I don't believe that. But I also know that most guys (including myself) demonstrating don't use anything or those stupid plastic eye protectors, so in my opinion these are better than nothing. I use (prescription) safety glasses with I wear this shield and feel it gives me better protection then just my safety glasses and shows the viewer that I do take safety seriously. I use the Bionic when I'm turning at home and safety glasses and stay out of the line of fire...well most of the time. I like the riot helmet, but I can't see using one in my shop during the summer, I think my head would melt. Oh the second one I bought covers more of the forehead, it's not very comfortable to wear.

 

[Betty Scarpino]

Rob has since corrected his meaning to state he only meant that the Raygear is not satisfactory without inferring anything else was.

The discussion progressed, based on an incorrect assumption.

*************

How about Lynne Yamaguchi's presentation? Can we see that anywhere?

ooc

It is a serious matter when an AAW Board member publicly critiques a woodturning product, singling that specific one out from all the rest (which perhaps are equally non-protective). I happen to agree with Rob's opinion about the Raygear, but if the manufacturer chooses to object to this publicly posted negative critique by an official of the AAW, are the standards the AAW has in place adequate to withstand a negative responsive from Raygear?

Send me an email if you want a copy of Lynne's article from the journal. editorscarpino@gmail.com I don't think Lynne's talk was recorded, but you could ask her for a copy of the paper -- she might be willing to share that -- it is more comprehensive than her article in the journal.

Betty Scarpino

 

[Bill Boehme]

...... but by saying don't buy Raygear, what message does that send?

..... uh, don't buy Raygear? I just sort of took it at face value. I stopped searching for deeper meaning as soon as I got a passing grade in English Lit. That's the way we engineers are, I suppose.

...... What should a turner use to truly be safe?

Sergio posted a picture of protective body gear although I am not so sure that it was all that effective. Seriously, don't count on anything where we depend on our body to be the shock absorber -- we can only absorb so many shocks before we've reach our saturation point. I would favor having something else be the shock absorber -- something attached to the lathe or solid earth.

...... The AAW okays a variety of faceshield designs for use at their symposium by demonstrators, but do those regularly-used types actually offer sufficient protection?

The intentions are obviously good and anything, including the Raygear, would be better than nothing for the purposes of a demo although, if demonstrating, I would be hesitant to use what I consider to be the bottom feeder of personal protective gear. It might be adequate for the particular situation, but anything that an "expert" does in a demonstration will be mimicked by at least a few turners who are there to soak up information on the ways that the pros do things. I think for starters that the AAW needs to stress what degree of protection a faceshield does provide without making any presumptuous statements based on personal experience. The trouble with testing standards is trying to make them translate into real world situations. That is an impossible task, but the latest revision was aimed at making the test results somewhat more easily translatable into real world conditions applicable to industrial users.

...... By only going after Raygear, is that tacit approval of all other brands of faceshields we turners regularly use?

Is doing a product review anything other than an assessment of the suitability of that particular product? Are we talking about a comparison of two different products or a review of one?

Seems like AAW is due for some "disclaimer" noticing, Betty, to limit reliance of users on the "recommended" face shields used at Symposia

Somebody left the screen door open.

... I'm assuming the riot faceshield will absorb more of a blow to the facial area than the original one supplied. I see it's a bit thicker and made of polycarbonate. This is the same material that motorcycle windshields are made from, and they will hold up well to road debris and rocks...

The one thing to keep in mind is that the motorcycle windshield is attached to the motorcycle. Polycarbonate (AKA, Lucite[SUP]®[/SUP] or polymethyl methacrylate) is pretty tough stuff and can take a severe hit without breaking. If a really large object hits the windshield, you can probably "feel" the shock even in a large heavy motorcycle. Suppose for a moment that nobody had thought of mounting a windshield to the motorcycle frame and instead windshields were attached to the rider. Sounds silly, but ... just saying ... isn't that what we are doing?

 

[Mark Mandell]

It is one thing to post a public warning about the perceived deficiency of a particular product which was clearly Rob's intent from what he posted here and on WoodCentral's turning board. Nowhere (that I saw) was he endorsing any other face shield product. It is quite another to imply that he was somehow required to write a detailed analysis of every other product currently being marketed for the same use and then impute some sort of approval for any product he didn't post a warning about. Such a position is patently absurd. His warning was for a particular product that was being marketed in a way that would foster its use well beyond its design parameters presenting a clear and present danger to potential purchaser/users. The product in question might be useful to protect the face and eyes from splattering liquids, but marketing it as an impact protective device for woodturners was grossly negligent, and the vendor should have been called out on it immediately. If tool merchants won't take the care in how they present their wares, everyone of us needs to be willing to step up (or "in") to help protect the rest of us.

Rob is being criticized for others assumptions for which he was not responsible under any set of facts. That is improper and truly counterproductive to open channels of communication.

 

[Bill Boehme]

I would be interested in seeing the Raygear test report. I am wondering if much of it was qualified by similarity, a situation where a design is sufficiently similar to an existing design that actual testing can be claimed to be unnecessary. It seems to me that splash protection is very suspect given the open louvered design. From a user's perspective, how comfortable is something that sits on the nose and ears as opposed to a headband? Claiming to exceed the requirements of the testing standards is BS because the standard sets minimum performance requirements with pass/fail criteria -- in order to pass, the performance has to be better than the threshold requirement. The end result would be that the faceshield is certified to carry the ANSI Z87+ marking that it meets the requirements. There is no such thing as exceeds the requirement and making such a statement implies nothing. Does the faceshield actually have the certification mark stamped on it? Or, are they just implying .....? I don't think that their certification could withstand a challenge.

 

[Betty Scarpino]

Rob is being criticized for others assumptions for which he was not responsible under any set of facts. That is improper and truly counterproductive to open channels of communication.

Okay, fair enough ... I apologize if my assumptions were improper.


Betty Scarpino

 

[Sergio Villa]

I still believe, as in my previous post have said and the sling shot of David demonstrated, that speed is the major factor in accidents. I also believe that excessive speed is not necessary with a good tool and a good hand: it is just a matter of going slower with the tool to have the same number of rotations for unit of time. Same when one uses a table or other saw: less teeth imply slower feed of the wood given the same speed of blade rotation.
I also believe that deflection is a major factor in reducing the impact of a flying object unless impossible bunkers are used. That is why the shape of military helmets have been changed between first and second war. Polycarbonate is the strongest transparent material known. It is used in anti projectile windows.
Having a grid in front of the face does absolutely nothing when a small sharp piece of wood flys in between the metal grid.
Having the possibility of working comfortably has a safety advantage over cumbersome military type of shields.
Demonstrators that show how fast they can make a cutting pass on a bowl, usually green, should be instructed not to do so. Also because usually a green rough out must be returned and that demonstration become useless. There is a difference between teaching and a narcissistic exhibition.
In conclusion, the first safety is the active safety, followed the passive one.
[SUB][/SUB]

 

[Odie]

The one thing to keep in mind is that the motorcycle windshield is attached to the motorcycle. Polycarbonate (AKA, Lucite[SUP]®[/SUP] or polymethyl methacrylate) is pretty tough stuff and can take a severe hit without breaking. If a really large object hits the windshield, you can probably "feel" the shock even in a large heavy motorcycle. Suppose for a moment that nobody had thought of mounting a windshield to the motorcycle frame and instead windshields were attached to the rider. Sounds silly, but ... just saying ... isn't that what we are doing?

I would think the polycarbonate shield would be better than the original, more flexible shield, regardless whether it's attached to the user. Besides that, it would seem that some of the impact would also be absorbed by the headband. I don't consider the polycarbonate riot shield a total solution......only a little better than a standard common faceshield.

ooc

 

[Bill Boehme]

I would think the polycarbonate shield would be better than the original, more flexible shield, regardless whether it's attached to the user. Besides that, it would seem that some of the impact would also be absorbed by the headband. I don't consider the polycarbonate riot shield a total solution......only a little better than a standard common faceshield.

ooc

Essentially no energy absorbed in the headband except perhaps in the Bionic face shield which seems to have a more substantial suspension than other faceshields (actually the energy isn't absorbed in the headband -- it just get spread out over a longer period of time). The more flexible shield is also polycarbonate. The characteristic that makes polycarbonate tough is its ability to flex without breaking under high speed impact. Having a thick rigid shield may not be as good as having a thinner more flexible shield. An instantaneous transfer of energy from a rigid shield to the wearer can be severe, but if the total energy can be spread out over time with a flexible shield, the peak energy level could be substantially reduced.

One problem area that I see with faceshields and supporting structure is that they do not have a rigid stop for the down position. They will pivot right into your face with almost no effort at all. Is the Bionic different in this respect?

 

[Odie]

Essentially no energy absorbed in the headband except perhaps in the Bionic face shield which seems to have a more substantial suspension than other faceshields (actually the energy isn't absorbed in the headband -- it just get spread out over a longer period of time). The more flexible shield is also polycarbonate. The characteristic that makes polycarbonate tough is its ability to flex without breaking under high speed impact. Having a thick rigid shield may not be as good as having a thinner more flexible shield. An instantaneous transfer of energy from a rigid shield to the wearer can be severe, but if the total energy can be spread out over time with a flexible shield, the peak energy level could be substantially reduced.

One problem area that I see with faceshields and supporting structure is that they do not have a rigid stop for the down position. They will pivot right into your face with almost no effort at all. Is the Bionic different in this respect?

I'm having a hard time agreeing with your opinion, Bill......

I believe the headband is certainly going to take up some of the impact, and a less flexible shield will be better than one that bends easily....but, regardless, I'm doing some hands on experimenting with this. It's possible I won't be able to mount the riot shield, or some other problems with the conversion.....don't know at this point. It's not an expensive experiment, in any case.

ooc

 

[Andy Chen]

.....

The one thing to keep in mind is that the motorcycle windshield is attached to the motorcycle. Polycarbonate (AKA, Lucite[SUP]®[/SUP] or polymethyl methacrylate) is pretty tough stuff and can take a severe hit without breaking. If a really large object hits the windshield, you can probably "feel" the shock even in a large heavy motorcycle. Suppose for a moment that nobody had thought of mounting a windshield to the motorcycle frame and instead windshields were attached to the rider. Sounds silly, but ... just saying ... isn't that what we are doing?

Bill,

I am not going to argue on the point of different face shields here. I just wanted to point out a technical error in your post here as quoted.

Polycarbonate (PC) is not aka Lucite or poly (methy methacrylate). If you want to use the trade name, PC is Lexan, invented almost simultaneously by Bayer and GE (but Lexan is registered by GE). Lucite is acrylic, originally developed by Dow Chemicals. Although they look the same, they differ in chemical structure as well as physical properties. Among other properties, PC has a greater refractive index than acrylic and is much more impact and scratch resistant and that is why modern eye glasses are made of PC (so are those 5-gal water jugs and your storm widows, for its strength, not RI). Because of its impact resistance, PC is used for face shields as well.

 

[dbonertz]

Question for the engineer types out there. At what speed would a 5lb. 10lb 20lb 40lb blanks take flight (fly up towards the face of a person standing at a lathe). When I rough turn I would not be telling the truth if I said that I have never had a blank come off the lathe (I am out of the line of fire when roughing). These blanks weigh in the neighbor hood of 20 to 40 pounds. I rough turn from 200rpm to maybe 700rpm depending on where I am in the process, blank true-ness and etc. I have never had a blank this size take flight meaning go up. They all just dropped off the lathe and roll off somewhere (this hasn't happened in a very long time now but when I was experimenting with holding methods). If a chunk comes off from say a ring check it may fly up but I think they are well under 5lb. I guess my point is a face shield may not stop a 40lb blank but they don't take flight anyway. The conversation of face shields should stay relevant to reality so we can decide which to where for safety otherwise this conversation is useless. All bets are off if the turner is turning at excessive speeds which again isn't relative to a face shield conversation - that is a safe speed conversation. A good face shield (like bionic) does its job for the designed purpose. Nothing more nothing less. One should be worn at all times for those designed purpose incidents.

 

[Mark Mandell]

I'm having a hard time agreeing with your opinion, Bill......

I believe the headband is certainly going to take up some of the impact, and a less flexible shield will be better than one that bends easily....but, regardless, I'm doing some hands on experimenting with this. It's possible I won't be able to mount the riot shield, or some other problems with the conversion.....don't know at this point. It's not an expensive experiment, in any case.

ooc

Careful with that research, Odie. Only way you'll reach valuable conclusions is with a repeatable test routine that gives the same results from flying chunks of wood off a lathe. First rule I ever learned in Kendo: "Never offer your head as a target."

Possible to contact the Mythbusters guys and borrow their crash-test dummy? Absent that, a store manikin might work. Either way, way better than dancing in the Kill Zone

 

[Bill Boehme]

Bill,

I am not going to argue on the point of different face shields here. I just wanted to point out a technical error in your post here as quoted.

Thanks for the correction! Andy. Lexan is what I meant, but obviously had a senior moment.

 

[Bill Boehme]

I'm having a hard time agreeing with your opinion, Bill......

Possible to contact the Mythbusters guys and borrow their crash-test dummy? Absent that, a store manikin might work. Either way, way better than dancing in the Kill Zone

Or ...... see if the high speed test track at Hollaman AFB is available. For those who aren't familiar with it, the high speed test track is the world's longest rocket powered sled. We used it for bird strike studies against aircraft canopies and radomes. The nose section of the aircraft was mounted on the sled and while it was being rocketed down the track, a specially designed cannon at the other end of the track fired a partially thawed out Tyson chicken at the approaching canopy to simulate a strike with a large bird such as a such as a goose or heron or vulture. By the time that the two met, the chicken was fully thawed. If we could convince Odie that the rocket powered sled is like an amusement park ride .... (Just working on ideas for a repeatable test structure -- assuming we could convince Odie or anybody else to do that ride more than once).

 

[Bill Boehme]

Question for the engineer types out there. At what speed would a 5lb. 10lb 20lb 40lb blanks take flight (fly up towards the face of a person standing at a lathe). When I rough turn I would not be telling the truth if I said that I have never had a blank come off the lathe (I am out of the line of fire when roughing). These blanks weigh in the neighbor hood of 20 to 40 pounds.

My opinion is that a blank that comes off the lathe is more or less balanced and other than continuing to spin will more likely be a hazard from landing on you foot or hitting you in the gizzard as it rattles around on the lathe before taking off rolling and bouncing around the shop. Forty pounds on the foot would be rather painful.

The real problem with high speed flying projectiles comes from things coming apart on the lathe -- things like hidden flaws and loose knots. I also turn at fairly low speed. For me, 1000 RPM is really high speed turning. Most of my turning is probably no faster than about 600 RPM.