A device that stops a blade within 5 ms of contact with human flesh.
Videos of operation at http://www.sawstop.com/home.htm (this site may
be 'slashdotted', so check back in a day or so if you can't see it).
This device was introduced in 2001, and was supposed to be
commercially available by 2003. The device is supposed to add about
$150 to the cost of a consumer-grade table saw or bandsaw.
Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
*increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
---
Howard Lee Harkness
Insurance for H1-Bs: http://www.H1Bins.com
Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://www.AFFHC.com
Medigap insurance information: http://medigap.supremesite.net
"RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:kMDEc.22559$rn1.10518@okepread07...
> My son-in-law is a woodworker and a family practice physician. He has
seen
> the demo and is concerned this is going to cut in on his business.
>
> Seriously, I know nothing about it. I do know I got cut pretty bad a few
> years ago after the saw was turned off. I walked back to the machine to
> pick up a piece of cutoff and didn't notice the blade was still spinning.
I
> doubt if this would protect us from this kind of stupidity.
I did the almost same thing almost 16 years ago. I e-mailed the Saw Stop
people a couple of years ago and they indicated that the device will work
even if the power to the motor has been turned off.
If there are cat parts in a weenie your push stick should automatically be
ruled out. ;~)
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > A device that stops a blade within 5 ms of contact with human flesh.
>
> I don't recall them stipulating human flesh, and this is one reason I
won't
> buy one. I am afraid my cat pushsticks would trip the stupid thing.
>
> Frank
>
>
Howard wrote:
> A device that stops a blade within 5 ms of contact with human flesh.
> Videos of operation at http://www.sawstop.com/home.htm (this site may
> be 'slashdotted', so check back in a day or so if you can't see it).
>
> This device was introduced in 2001, and was supposed to be
> commercially available by 2003. The device is supposed to add about
> $150 to the cost of a consumer-grade table saw or bandsaw.
>
> Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
> *increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
>
> ---
> Howard Lee Harkness
> Insurance for H1-Bs: http://www.H1Bins.com
> Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://www.AFFHC.com
> Medigap insurance information: http://medigap.supremesite.net
The number one safety feature of any device is the one between your ears.
--
Christian Groth
Nothing is fool-proof;
Fools are just too dang creative.
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 22:43:21 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> well the page i saw says "saw stop saws now available". that seemed pretty
> damn clear. but i also see if you go one page deeper it says 'pre order'.
> so it looks like they are indeed lying.
Classic definition of vaporware right there. Kind of like Doom 3, but
there's a release date for that now, maybe-ish.
Howard wrote:
>
> A device that stops a blade within 5 ms of contact with human flesh.
> Videos of operation at http://www.sawstop.com/home.htm (this site may
> be 'slashdotted', so check back in a day or so if you can't see it).
>
> This device was introduced in 2001, and was supposed to be
> commercially available by 2003. The device is supposed to add about
> $150 to the cost of a consumer-grade table saw or bandsaw.
>
> Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
> *increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
>
> ---
> Howard Lee Harkness
> Insurance for H1-Bs: http://www.H1Bins.com
> Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://www.AFFHC.com
> Medigap insurance information: http://medigap.supremesite.net
saw this on a TV show about tools years ago... they used a hot
dog(weiner) to show how it worked... and it did stop... the hot dog only
had a nick on it... better than loosing a finger(just a nick)...
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 02:22:56 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Mac Cool" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> said:
>>
>> >> I heard Kelly Mehler talk about Sawstop and it isn't vaporware.
>> >
>> > Who do you know that owns one?
>>
>> I know who Kelly Mehler is and he's seen one. I don't know you.
>> --
>> Mac Cool
>
>"Seen one" and "own one" are different. May prototypes are seen and
>demonstrated, but never reach the marketplace.
>
>I'd truly like to see the product hit the market and become accepted and the
>cost lowered in mass production. Has not happened yet and the Saw Stop web
>site does not give any solid information about delivery. Nor has it for the
>past year or so. The Tucker was ahead of its time too.
>Ed
>
word is, it's prone to false positives, and each one costs you $75.00.
"Mac Cool" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> said:
>
> >> I heard Kelly Mehler talk about Sawstop and it isn't vaporware.
> >
> > Who do you know that owns one?
>
> I know who Kelly Mehler is and he's seen one. I don't know you.
> --
> Mac Cool
"Seen one" and "own one" are different. May prototypes are seen and
demonstrated, but never reach the marketplace.
I'd truly like to see the product hit the market and become accepted and the
cost lowered in mass production. Has not happened yet and the Saw Stop web
site does not give any solid information about delivery. Nor has it for the
past year or so. The Tucker was ahead of its time too.
Ed
In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>well the page i saw says "saw stop saws now available". that seemed pretty
>damn clear. but i also see if you go one page deeper it says 'pre order'.
>so it looks like they are indeed lying.
>
That page has said "now available" for about two years now. And they still
aren't available.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A device that stops a blade within 5 ms of contact with human flesh.
> Videos of operation at http://www.sawstop.com/home.htm (this site may
> be 'slashdotted', so check back in a day or so if you can't see it).
>
> This device was introduced in 2001, and was supposed to be
> commercially available by 2003. The device is supposed to add about
> $150 to the cost of a consumer-grade table saw or bandsaw.
>
> Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
> *increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
>
> ---
> Howard Lee Harkness
> Insurance for H1-Bs: http://www.H1Bins.com
> Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://www.AFFHC.com
> Medigap insurance information: http://medigap.supremesite.net
Nope. Never heard of it.
todd
Or paper?
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:42:40 -0400, "Mike G"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
>> *increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
>>
>
>Only for very very stupid people and they'd probably find a way to cut them
>selves on a pencil sharpener.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Please identify one individual who didn't get their hand cut off because
the
> Sawstop worked.
>
It is not a widely used product yet. How can you demand results from
something not being used yet? He is saying if the thing is ramrodded down
our throats then there will most certainly eventually be people who benefit
from it by not being injured. He is quite correct about that, there is no
doubt. That doesn't mean, however that it should be a requirement any
machinery.
Frank
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >you arent trying to ascertain anything. you are stating as fact that
> >sawstop doesnt work and doesnt exist. and ducking proving by trying to
put
> >me on the defensive.
>
> Nobody said it doesn't work; in fact, the consensus of Da Wreck's previous
> discussions of SawStop is that it *does* work, and is pretty damn
impressive
> besides.
>
> Nobody said it doesn't exist, either. However, it *is* a fact that this
> machine is not yet (or is only *very* recently) in actual production.
> >
> >what i was responding to was a question about whether or not more
injuries
> >would occur because people put too much trust in the system. which i
think
> >is false. im not claiming any actual hands were saved or cut off.
>
> Excuse me -- you *did* claim *exactly* that: "for every fool that thinks
they
> are invincible and may get hurt due to lack of respect, there are others
(more
> people) that didnt get their hand cut off because the sawstop worked"
and you are only posting the part of the discussion you need to make
yourself correct. let me put the whole thing back in context without some
creative snipping. you're the second person to take the word NO off the
front which makes what i said into a blind statement not the answer to
someones specific question.:
(start here)
(the question i was responding to was:)
> Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
> *increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
(my answer was)
no. for every fool that thinks they are invincible and may get hurt due to
lack of respect, there are others (more people) that didnt get their hand
cut off because the sawstop worked. in fact in many cases it would probably
even save the fool.
not to mention anyone who thinks the safety device is a substitute for
thinking is gonna get hurt no matter what eventually...
(stop here)
i was speaking in context of answering that question. i think all but the
most hardheaded can see clearly that i wasnt actually claiming any hands cut
off or not cut. just making a comment on whether or not safety devices
cause accidents by making people complacent.
now step off please.
randy
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> I did the almost same thing almost 16 years ago. I e-mailed the Saw
>> Stop people a couple of years ago and they indicated that the device
>> will work even if the power to the motor has been turned off.
>>
>
> You're kidding, right? This thing will fire if you touch the blade
> after power has been removed from the motor? How in the hell are you
> supposed to change blades without this thing going off?
>
> Frank
>
>
>
With great difficulty and a lot of time.
In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>you arent trying to ascertain anything. you are stating as fact that
>sawstop doesnt work and doesnt exist. and ducking proving by trying to put
>me on the defensive.
Nobody said it doesn't work; in fact, the consensus of Da Wreck's previous
discussions of SawStop is that it *does* work, and is pretty damn impressive
besides.
Nobody said it doesn't exist, either. However, it *is* a fact that this
machine is not yet (or is only *very* recently) in actual production.
>
>what i was responding to was a question about whether or not more injuries
>would occur because people put too much trust in the system. which i think
>is false. im not claiming any actual hands were saved or cut off.
Excuse me -- you *did* claim *exactly* that: "for every fool that thinks they
are invincible and may get hurt due to lack of respect, there are others (more
people) that didnt get their hand cut off because the sawstop worked"
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A device that stops a blade within 5 ms of contact with human flesh.
> Videos of operation at http://www.sawstop.com/home.htm (this site may
> be 'slashdotted', so check back in a day or so if you can't see it).
>
> This device was introduced in 2001, and was supposed to be
> commercially available by 2003. The device is supposed to add about
> $150 to the cost of a consumer-grade table saw or bandsaw.
>
> Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
> *increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
>
> ---
> Howard Lee Harkness
> Insurance for H1-Bs: http://www.H1Bins.com
> Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://www.AFFHC.com
> Medigap insurance information: http://medigap.supremesite.net
The problem with this new device is that all table saws made previously are
defective in the eyes of greedy lawyers. They will demand table saw
manufacturers incorporate this device on all new saws and provide recalls to
retrofit old saws. Also, what about the thousands who have lost fingers to
the evil table saw. They will demand compensation because their saw did not
have this safety feature. It's all about sucking the money out of the evil
corporations and there is no personal responsibility.
Not being negative about the safety device. It has to prove it's worth (cost
vs. benefit). It's just that someone else is always deciding this for us
idiots who can't do anything without hurting ourselves.
no. for every fool that thinks they are invincible and may get hurt due to
lack of respect, there are others (more people) that didnt get their hand
cut off because the sawstop worked. in fact in many cases it would probably
even save the fool.
not to mention anyone who thinks the safety device is a substitute for
thinking is gonna get hurt no matter what eventually...
randy
> Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
> *increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did the almost same thing almost 16 years ago. I e-mailed the Saw
>>>> Stop people a couple of years ago and they indicated that the device
>>>> will work even if the power to the motor has been turned off.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're kidding, right? This thing will fire if you touch the blade
>>> after power has been removed from the motor? How in the hell are you
>>> supposed to change blades without this thing going off?
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> With great difficulty and a lot of time.
>
> Most likely it shuts itself down when the blade stops moving.
Ever tried changing a blade without moving it?
Presumably if you pull the power cord, you'd shut it down.
>
In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No, it's not clear at all _what_ you intended. Try "No. For every fool
>who
>> thinks he is invincible and may get hurt due to lack of respect there
>would
>> be others that didn't get their hand cut off because the sawstop worked."
>
>you want me to cut your steak for you to <g>
>
In "On Writing Well" William Zinsser wrote "the purpose of writing is not to
make oneself understood; rather, it is to make it impossible to be
misunderstood."
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
show me one person that DID get their hand cut off even with this system
installed. somehow i dont think the hot dog had any special properties
about it that makes the demonstration not relevant for a hand.
im not trying to say it should be made mandatory. but if you're saying its
all vaporware, i think its YOU that needs to provide some proof. similiar
systems have been installed for other things for years and they work. or
maybe you're still fighting the seat belt people too.
randy
> > no. for every fool that thinks they are invincible and may get hurt due
> > to lack of respect, there are others (more people) that didnt get their
> > hand
> > cut off because the sawstop worked.
>
> Please identify one individual who didn't get their hand cut off because
the
> Sawstop worked.
>
> Put not your faith in vaporware.
>
> > in fact in many cases it would probably even save the fool.
> >
> > not to mention anyone who thinks the safety device is a substitute for
> > thinking is gonna get hurt no matter what eventually...
> >
> > randy
> >
> >> Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
> >> *increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
xrongor writes:
>show me one person that DID get their hand cut off even with this system
>installed. somehow i dont think the hot dog had any special properties
>about it that makes the
Unrealistic. The unit is not in general release, probably no more than a couple
dozen floating around, if that many. How can you compare, especially negatives,
when the other systems have millions in use.
>im not trying to say it should be made mandatory. but if you're saying its
>all vaporware, i think its YOU that needs to provide some proof. similiar
>systems have been installed for other things for years and they work.
Where have they been installed?
Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> xrongor writes:
> >show me one person that DID get their hand cut off even with this system
> >installed. somehow i dont think the hot dog had any special properties
> >about it that makes the
>
> Unrealistic. The unit is not in general release, probably no more than a
couple
> dozen floating around, if that many. How can you compare, especially
negatives,
> when the other systems have millions in use.
im not trying to compare anything. J Clarke claims its vaporware and doesnt
work. i'd like to see his evidence and offered up a suggestion as to what
credible evidence might be.
as you say, how can you compare? apparantly he has a way....
>
> >im not trying to say it should be made mandatory. but if you're saying
its
> >all vaporware, i think its YOU that needs to provide some proof.
similiar
> >systems have been installed for other things for years and they work.
>
> Where have they been installed?
for one simple example touch lamps. granted it takes a little more
sophisticated system for a saw stop, but its still the same basic principle.
contact with a conductor (i.e. you) changes the electrical characteristics
of the system and can be detected.
im not going to defend saw stop. but im not going to take it on the word of
JClarke that it doesnt work either. the theory is sound, and they are
either totally faking those demonstrations, or i think its clear that less
people would be hurt with them even if it didnt work 100% of the time.
randy
xrongor responds:
>im not going to defend saw stop. but im not going to take it on the word of
>JClarke that it doesnt work either. the theory is sound, and they are
>either totally faking those demonstrations, or i think its clear that less
>people would be hurt with them even if it didnt work 100% of the time.
I've seen it work---with a hot dog--at least on video. I don't doubt the theory
works, but is the application practical. It prevents, primarily, amputation
style injuries. How many of those are there a year? Is it worth having every
table saw in the U.S. built, or retrofitted, with a device that currently costs
about $500 to save 50-60 people from their own misbehavior? If the figure is
even that high.
That's what is more likely to cause this to become vaporware than any doubt
that it actually works. Economics. A proper crown guard with a splitter will do
about 95-90% (my guesstimate) of what the saw stop will do. Total cost is
probably about $50, and allows the makers to dump the current crappy
splitter/guard assemblies, to reduce costs even more.
Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >but we're getting into this theory that sawstop is trying hard to make it
be
> >forced upon us. while that seems to be a persistant rumor, i have no
> >evidence or opinion either way on that issue. if it makes a
statistically
> >significant (which is a number that could be debated) reduction in
accidents
> >it should probably be considered.
>
> No rumor. SawStop filed a petition with the Consumer Product Safety
Commission
> requesting that automatic-stop technology be required on all table saws.
It's
> been cussed and discussed to death on this ng at least twice in the last
year
> or so. DAGS and you'll see what I mean.
ya i know its been discussed here to death.... but that doesnt mean
everything said here is true. there are clearly some people in this group
that seem to be against sawstop to the point of hatred. and the key to what
i said before is 'trying hard'. for all i know they filed a petition two
years ago, it died, and so did that idea. i wouldnt call that trying hard.
or maybe they have hostages and intend on making it happen tomorrow. now
that would be trying!
randy
xrongor wrote:
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> xrongor responds:
>>
>> >im not going to defend saw stop. but im not going to take it on the
>> >word
> of
>> >JClarke that it doesnt work either. the theory is sound, and they are
>> >either totally faking those demonstrations, or i think its clear that
> less
>> >people would be hurt with them even if it didnt work 100% of the time.
>>
>> I've seen it work---with a hot dog--at least on video. I don't doubt the
> theory
>> works, but is the application practical. It prevents, primarily,
> amputation
>> style injuries. How many of those are there a year? Is it worth having
> every
>> table saw in the U.S. built, or retrofitted, with a device that currently
> costs
>> about $500 to save 50-60 people from their own misbehavior? If the figure
> is
>> even that high.
>
> i never claimed it should be on every table saw. just that it probably
> works. sawstop claims 3000 finger amputations per year. dont know if
> thats
> a real number. it also seems to me it would prevent at least 10 times as
> many injuries but im just tossing a number out and have no evidence. is
> it
> worth 500 bucks? you decide.
>
> but we're getting into this theory that sawstop is trying hard to make it
> be
> forced upon us. while that seems to be a persistant rumor, i have no
> evidence or opinion either way on that issue. if it makes a statistically
> significant (which is a number that could be debated) reduction in
> accidents it should probably be considered.
<http://www.sawstop.com/We_Need_Your_Help.htm>
>> That's what is more likely to cause this to become vaporware than any
> doubt
>> that it actually works. Economics. A proper crown guard with a splitter
> will do
>> about 95-90% (my guesstimate) of what the saw stop will do. Total cost is
>> probably about $50, and allows the makers to dump the current crappy
>> splitter/guard assemblies, to reduce costs even more.
>
> as explained in another post a few minutes ago, as defined by websters, if
> you can buy one today, its not vaporware.
Where can I buy one?
> it may have been vaporware for
> the time between it being announced and a product being available...
> sawstop claims they will sell you one today.
How do I go about getting them to sell me one today? Not a "non-binding
preorder" but an actual purchase?
> if the product fails because
> its too expensive thats another word... i think thats part of why theres
> so much disagreement in this thread.
>
> vaporware implies a product that doesnt exist or work. that the demo's
> are
> pure fakery or at least you arent seeing the whole picture. i see no
> evidnece of either. yet.
The product may exist and work and yet never make it to market.
> and if the saw companies dump the crappy spllitter/guard assemblies to
> save money, then the addition of a (assuming it works) sawstop will
> increase the price less than if they didnt dump the guards.
>
> in any case, i think a splitter is still necessary. sawstop may stop the
> saw from cutting you but wont stop a board from flying into your face..
>
> randy
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Charlie Self wrote:
> xrongor responds:
>
>>im not going to defend saw stop. but im not going to take it on the word
>>of
>>JClarke that it doesnt work either. the theory is sound, and they are
>>either totally faking those demonstrations, or i think its clear that less
>>people would be hurt with them even if it didnt work 100% of the time.
>
> I've seen it work---with a hot dog--at least on video. I don't doubt the
> theory works, but is the application practical. It prevents, primarily,
> amputation style injuries. How many of those are there a year? Is it worth
> having every table saw in the U.S. built, or retrofitted, with a device
> that currently costs about $500 to save 50-60 people from their own
> misbehavior? If the figure is even that high.
Yeah. They're talking $150 but that's not the price they're showing for the
products for which they're taking preorders. If the thing was a $150
retrofit and didn't get in the way of using the saw I'd order two of them
right now. Cheap insurance at that price. Not worth tossing a perfectly
good saw just to pay a lot more than it had cost me to buy theirs though.
> That's what is more likely to cause this to become vaporware than any
> doubt that it actually works. Economics. A proper crown guard with a
> splitter will do about 95-90% (my guesstimate) of what the saw stop will
> do. Total cost is probably about $50, and allows the makers to dump the
> current crappy splitter/guard assemblies, to reduce costs even more.
>
> Charlie Self
> "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended
> from man."
> H. L. Mencken
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"xrongor" <[email protected]> writes:
> as explained in another post a few minutes ago, as defined by websters, if
> you can buy one today, its not vaporware.
The web site says you can "pre-order" one today.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> xrongor responds:
>
> >im not going to defend saw stop. but im not going to take it on the word
of
> >JClarke that it doesnt work either. the theory is sound, and they are
> >either totally faking those demonstrations, or i think its clear that
less
> >people would be hurt with them even if it didnt work 100% of the time.
>
> I've seen it work---with a hot dog--at least on video. I don't doubt the
theory
> works, but is the application practical. It prevents, primarily,
amputation
> style injuries. How many of those are there a year? Is it worth having
every
> table saw in the U.S. built, or retrofitted, with a device that currently
costs
> about $500 to save 50-60 people from their own misbehavior? If the figure
is
> even that high.
i never claimed it should be on every table saw. just that it probably
works. sawstop claims 3000 finger amputations per year. dont know if thats
a real number. it also seems to me it would prevent at least 10 times as
many injuries but im just tossing a number out and have no evidence. is it
worth 500 bucks? you decide.
but we're getting into this theory that sawstop is trying hard to make it be
forced upon us. while that seems to be a persistant rumor, i have no
evidence or opinion either way on that issue. if it makes a statistically
significant (which is a number that could be debated) reduction in accidents
it should probably be considered.
>
> That's what is more likely to cause this to become vaporware than any
doubt
> that it actually works. Economics. A proper crown guard with a splitter
will do
> about 95-90% (my guesstimate) of what the saw stop will do. Total cost is
> probably about $50, and allows the makers to dump the current crappy
> splitter/guard assemblies, to reduce costs even more.
as explained in another post a few minutes ago, as defined by websters, if
you can buy one today, its not vaporware. it may have been vaporware for
the time between it being announced and a product being available...
sawstop claims they will sell you one today. if the product fails because
its too expensive thats another word... i think thats part of why theres so
much disagreement in this thread.
vaporware implies a product that doesnt exist or work. that the demo's are
pure fakery or at least you arent seeing the whole picture. i see no
evidnece of either. yet.
and if the saw companies dump the crappy spllitter/guard assemblies to save
money, then the addition of a (assuming it works) sawstop will increase the
price less than if they didnt dump the guards.
in any case, i think a splitter is still necessary. sawstop may stop the
saw from cutting you but wont stop a board from flying into your face..
randy
In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>but we're getting into this theory that sawstop is trying hard to make it be
>forced upon us. while that seems to be a persistant rumor, i have no
>evidence or opinion either way on that issue. if it makes a statistically
>significant (which is a number that could be debated) reduction in accidents
>it should probably be considered.
No rumor. SawStop filed a petition with the Consumer Product Safety Commission
requesting that automatic-stop technology be required on all table saws. It's
been cussed and discussed to death on this ng at least twice in the last year
or so. DAGS and you'll see what I mean.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
xrongor wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>xrongor writes:
>>
>>>show me one person that DID get their hand cut off even with this system
>>>installed. somehow i dont think the hot dog had any special properties
>>>about it that makes the
>>
>>Unrealistic. The unit is not in general release, probably no more than a
>
> couple
>
>>dozen floating around, if that many. How can you compare, especially
>
> negatives,
>
>>when the other systems have millions in use.
>
>
> im not trying to compare anything. J Clarke claims its vaporware and doesnt
> work. i'd like to see his evidence and offered up a suggestion as to what
> credible evidence might be.
>
> as you say, how can you compare? apparantly he has a way....
>
>
>>>im not trying to say it should be made mandatory. but if you're saying
>
> its
>
>>>all vaporware, i think its YOU that needs to provide some proof.
>
> similiar
>
>>>systems have been installed for other things for years and they work.
>>
>>Where have they been installed?
>
>
> for one simple example touch lamps. granted it takes a little more
> sophisticated system for a saw stop, but its still the same basic principle.
> contact with a conductor (i.e. you) changes the electrical characteristics
> of the system and can be detected.
>
> im not going to defend saw stop. but im not going to take it on the word of
> JClarke that it doesnt work either. the theory is sound, and they are
> either totally faking those demonstrations, or i think its clear that less
> people would be hurt with them even if it didnt work 100% of the time.
>
> randy
>
>
touch lamps don't work 100% of the time when touched. If
THAT'S the SawStop's technology, NO THANK YOU!
dave
xrongor wrote:
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> xrongor writes:
>> >show me one person that DID get their hand cut off even with this system
>> >installed. somehow i dont think the hot dog had any special properties
>> >about it that makes the
>>
>> Unrealistic. The unit is not in general release, probably no more than a
> couple
>> dozen floating around, if that many. How can you compare, especially
> negatives,
>> when the other systems have millions in use.
>
> im not trying to compare anything. J Clarke claims its vaporware and
> doesnt
> work. i'd like to see his evidence and offered up a suggestion as to what
> credible evidence might be.
I didn't claim it didn't work. "Vaporware" != "doesn't work", "vaporware" =
"for all practical purposes does not now and never will exist as a
commercial product".
> as you say, how can you compare? apparantly he has a way....
>
>>
>> >im not trying to say it should be made mandatory. but if you're saying
> its
>> >all vaporware, i think its YOU that needs to provide some proof.
> similiar
>> >systems have been installed for other things for years and they work.
>>
>> Where have they been installed?
>
> for one simple example touch lamps.
Why would one want to have a saw stop on a lamp?
> granted it takes a little more
> sophisticated system for a saw stop, but its still the same basic
> principle. contact with a conductor (i.e. you) changes the electrical
> characteristics of the system and can be detected.
And you are willing to trust the mechanism of a touch lamp to save you from
serious bodily harm without further analysis?
> im not going to defend saw stop. but im not going to take it on the word
> of
> JClarke that it doesnt work either. the theory is sound, and they are
> either totally faking those demonstrations, or i think its clear that less
> people would be hurt with them even if it didnt work 100% of the time.
So go buy one and tell us how you like it.
> randy
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"xrongor" <[email protected]> writes:
> im not trying to compare anything. J Clarke claims its vaporware
> and doesnt work. i'd like to see his evidence and offered up a
> suggestion as to what credible evidence might be.
Sounds like someone trying to prove a negative assuption.
Compare this to
>X claims that the Tooth Fairy its vaporware and doesnt exist.
> i'd like to see his evidence.
Can't be done.
It's hard to prove a negative assertion. That's why people are arguing
the opposite.
Assertion: Sawstop is a real product.
Proof: Find one case where someone bought it and owns it.
If it's been 4 years, and one has not been sold, then there is some
design issue that has not been solved. Heck, they could buy a COTS
saw, add the device, and re-sell it. Where is it?
I suspect one of the issues is making sure the legal claims are accurate.
Lawyers tend to be pessimistic about things like that.
Let's see - false positive - it stops when you don't want it to.
False negative - it doesn't stop, and amputates a finger/hand. At
least one of these is causing a problem. Or as someone suggested, each
"stop" costs money to replace something. The FAQ says the arbor is
disengaged. This doesn't sound like a "single-use" mechanism. I'd love
to learn more about this...
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
Bruce Barnett wrote:
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> im not trying to compare anything. J Clarke claims its vaporware
>> and doesnt work. i'd like to see his evidence and offered up a
>> suggestion as to what credible evidence might be.
>
> Sounds like someone trying to prove a negative assuption.
> Compare this to
>
>>X claims that the Tooth Fairy its vaporware and doesnt exist.
>> i'd like to see his evidence.
>
> Can't be done.
> It's hard to prove a negative assertion. That's why people are arguing
> the opposite.
>
> Assertion: Sawstop is a real product.
> Proof: Find one case where someone bought it and owns it.
>
> If it's been 4 years, and one has not been sold, then there is some
> design issue that has not been solved. Heck, they could buy a COTS
> saw, add the device, and re-sell it. Where is it?
>
> I suspect one of the issues is making sure the legal claims are accurate.
> Lawyers tend to be pessimistic about things like that.
>
>
> Let's see - false positive - it stops when you don't want it to.
> False negative - it doesn't stop, and amputates a finger/hand. At
> least one of these is causing a problem. Or as someone suggested, each
> "stop" costs money to replace something. The FAQ says the arbor is
> disengaged. This doesn't sound like a "single-use" mechanism. I'd love
> to learn more about this...
Go to <http://www.sawstop.com/features.htm> and move the mouse pointer over
"cartridge system" and you'll find their statement that "The system's brake
is housed in a cartridge that is easily replaced should the system ever be
triggered. These replaceable cartridges enable the system to be quickly
adapted for use with different sizes and types of saw blades. " I believe
that the disengaging arbor is intended to avoid damaging the motor. Now
though I'm wondering about this worm gear they mention. I'm having trouble
visualizing how that works and they don't show the mechanism clearly enough
in their pictures for me to be able to figure it out.
>
>
>
>
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A device that stops a blade within 5 ms of contact with human flesh.
> Videos of operation at http://www.sawstop.com/home.htm (this site may
> be 'slashdotted', so check back in a day or so if you can't see it).
>
> This device was introduced in 2001, and was supposed to be
> commercially available by 2003. The device is supposed to add about
> $150 to the cost of a consumer-grade table saw or bandsaw.
This has been talked about here for quite a while, 3 or 4 yeare IIRC.
>
> Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
> *increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
Only for those that can find a way to get hurt by a saw that is not plugged
in. Does the safety on a gun make it more dangerous because it will
encourage you to look down the barrel of a loaded gun? If you are tye type
person that would not have some fear of a 3400 rpm blade because you know
that it will stop turning if you touch it, something else is going to get
you long bedor the saw will. Pedestrians always have the right of way on
the street. Those that practice that right over better judgement get hit by
cars. Like anything else in life, there are dangers all around us all the
time. The Saw Stop is designed to lessen the results of an accident, not
prevent the accident. If you think that it would make you less careful
around the saw, perhaps you should not be around the saw to start with.
"C.Groth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Howard wrote:
> The number one safety feature of any device is the one between your ears.
Exactly, and it even makes mistakes. Note the first line of your line
below.
> --
>
> Christian Groth
>
>
> Nothing is fool-proof;
> Fools are just too dang creative.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that that counts as "didn't get their hand cut off".
Well, in the theme of your comment, Please identify one individual who
didn't get their hand cut off because the Sawstop worked. I think we all
know that you were wanting to know of some one that was not using a
substitute for real human flesh to trigger the stop. The hand actually was
not cut off during the demonstration with a real human flesh.
>If the thing had not triggered would he have really contined to feed his
whole
> hand through the saw?
Do you not have the intuition to answer that your self?
> And would it have prevented someone who really wanted to cut his hand off
from doing so? Note that the saws they are looking to sell have a defeat
switch.
And again I answer with a the question, Do you not have the intuition to
answer that your self?
> > Ever tried changing a blade without moving it?
>
> I don't generally turn on the power in order to do it. Geez, it's the
21st
> century--kitchen appliances have more processing power than a '60s
> mainframe--how hard do you think it is to program a control so that "if
> power has been turned on and off and blade is moving and skin touches it
> activate, if blade has stopped and moves again and power has not been
> turned on then do not activate".
>
> > Presumably if you pull the power cord, you'd shut it down.
>
> How much power do you think it draws? I suspect that it has some kind of
> backup power source with enough juice to keep it armed until the saw quits
> turning. That's the way I'd design it.
now YOU know how it feels when someone takes what you said and twists it to
come to the stupidest possible conclusion...
randy
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >well the page i saw says "saw stop saws now available". that seemed
pretty
> >damn clear. but i also see if you go one page deeper it says 'pre
order'.
> >so it looks like they are indeed lying.
> >
> That page has said "now available" for about two years now. And they still
> aren't available.
>
ya thats pretty tricky how they do that <g>
randy
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> said:
> Please identify one individual who didn't get their hand cut off
> because the Sawstop worked.
>
> Put not your faith in vaporware.
I heard Kelly Mehler talk about Sawstop and it isn't vaporware. It's real
and apparently it works quite well. The device has been undergoing
refinement for several years. I would pay an additional $150 to gain
almost fullproof protection against losing a finger.
--
Mac Cool
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> said:
>> I heard Kelly Mehler talk about Sawstop and it isn't vaporware.
>
> Who do you know that owns one?
I know who Kelly Mehler is and he's seen one. I don't know you.
--
Mac Cool
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> said:
> Are you beginning to see a pattern?
Yeah. You seem to have an interest in Sawstop failing... why?
> The fact that a prototype has been demonstrated does not mean that the
> product will ever become available commercially.
I guess we'll have to wait and see. I say they'll come to market.
> As for paying $150 to gain almost foolproof protection against losing a
> finger, would you toss your Unisaw to buy one of theirs?
If I were in the market for a new saw, I would pay an additional $150 for
that type of protection. I wouldn't 'toss' a perfectly good Unisaw for the
sake of a $150 safety device.
--
Mac Cool
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> said:
> It makes one wonder why it hasn't gone to market
> yet.
My understanding is that the goal is/was to stop the blade as soon as it
made contact with a person without destroying the blade. It took some
testing to achieve both goals.
--
Mac Cool
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> xrongor wrote:
> Please identify one individual who didn't get their hand cut off because
the
> Sawstop worked.
Contact Saw Stop, the demonstration did at least once or twice include a
live connected human hand part. Apparently between being tired of being
nicked or working up the nerve to do this limited this persuasive
demonstration.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I did the almost same thing almost 16 years ago. I e-mailed the Saw Stop
> people a couple of years ago and they indicated that the device will work
> even if the power to the motor has been turned off.
>
You're kidding, right? This thing will fire if you touch the blade after
power has been removed from the motor? How in the hell are you supposed to
change blades without this thing going off?
Frank
> Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
> *increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
>
Only for very very stupid people and they'd probably find a way to cut them
selves on a pencil sharpener.
--
Mike G.
Heirloom Woods
[email protected]
www.heirloom-woods.net
"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A device that stops a blade within 5 ms of contact with human flesh.
> Videos of operation at http://www.sawstop.com/home.htm (this site may
> be 'slashdotted', so check back in a day or so if you can't see it).
>
> This device was introduced in 2001, and was supposed to be
> commercially available by 2003. The device is supposed to add about
> $150 to the cost of a consumer-grade table saw or bandsaw.
>
> ---
> Howard Lee Harkness
> Insurance for H1-Bs: http://www.H1Bins.com
> Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://www.AFFHC.com
> Medigap insurance information: http://medigap.supremesite.net
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> im not trying to say it should be made mandatory. but if you're saying
its
> all vaporware, i think its YOU that needs to provide some proof. similiar
> systems have been installed for other things for years and they work. or
> maybe you're still fighting the seat belt people too.
I think J.Clarke is bored and likes to argue.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >> No, it's not clear at all _what_ you intended. Try "No. For every
fool
> >who
> >> thinks he is invincible and may get hurt due to lack of respect there
> >would
> >> be others that didn't get their hand cut off because the sawstop
worked."
> >
> >you want me to cut your steak for you to <g>
> >
> In "On Writing Well" William Zinsser wrote "the purpose of writing is not
to
> make oneself understood; rather, it is to make it impossible to be
> misunderstood."
which is, impossible.
randy
xrongor wrote:
> no. for every fool that thinks they are invincible and may get hurt due
> to lack of respect, there are others (more people) that didnt get their
> hand
> cut off because the sawstop worked.
Please identify one individual who didn't get their hand cut off because the
Sawstop worked.
Put not your faith in vaporware.
> in fact in many cases it would probably even save the fool.
>
> not to mention anyone who thinks the safety device is a substitute for
> thinking is gonna get hurt no matter what eventually...
>
> randy
>
>> Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
>> *increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>> I did the almost same thing almost 16 years ago. I e-mailed the Saw
>>> Stop people a couple of years ago and they indicated that the device
>>> will work even if the power to the motor has been turned off.
>>>
>>
>> You're kidding, right? This thing will fire if you touch the blade
>> after power has been removed from the motor? How in the hell are you
>> supposed to change blades without this thing going off?
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>
> With great difficulty and a lot of time.
Most likely it shuts itself down when the blade stops moving.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>>> "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did the almost same thing almost 16 years ago. I e-mailed the Saw
>>>>> Stop people a couple of years ago and they indicated that the device
>>>>> will work even if the power to the motor has been turned off.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're kidding, right? This thing will fire if you touch the blade
>>>> after power has been removed from the motor? How in the hell are you
>>>> supposed to change blades without this thing going off?
>>>>
>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> With great difficulty and a lot of time.
>>
>> Most likely it shuts itself down when the blade stops moving.
>
> Ever tried changing a blade without moving it?
I don't generally turn on the power in order to do it. Geez, it's the 21st
century--kitchen appliances have more processing power than a '60s
mainframe--how hard do you think it is to program a control so that "if
power has been turned on and off and blade is moving and skin touches it
activate, if blade has stopped and moves again and power has not been
turned on then do not activate".
> Presumably if you pull the power cord, you'd shut it down.
How much power do you think it draws? I suspect that it has some kind of
backup power source with enough juice to keep it armed until the saw quits
turning. That's the way I'd design it.
>>
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Mac Cool wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> said:
>
>> Please identify one individual who didn't get their hand cut off
>> because the Sawstop worked.
>>
>> Put not your faith in vaporware.
>
> I heard Kelly Mehler talk about Sawstop and it isn't vaporware. It's real
> and apparently it works quite well. The device has been undergoing
> refinement for several years. I would pay an additional $150 to gain
> almost fullproof protection against losing a finger.
I remember a computer from Zeos that had PCI and Microchannel slots. It was
real and _apparently_ worked quite well. It underwent refinement for
several years. They never shipped a single solitary one of them.
Vaporware.
There once was a little gadget that fit in a 35mm camera replacing the film
canister--it has thin extension with a CCD on it that turns the 35mm camera
into a digital camera. It was real and _apparently_ worked quite well. It
underwent refinement for several years. Then never shipped a single
solitary one of them. Vaporware.
Larry Bond and company have a solid track record in the naval simulation
game business, with Harpoon and Harpoon II shipping and available. In 1997
they started work on Harpoon IV. It was real and _apparently_ worked quite
well. On November 27, 2003 the project was cancelled with no product
delivered. Vaporware.
Are you beginning to see a pattern?
The fact that a prototype has been demonstrated does not mean that the
product will ever become available commercially.
As for paying $150 to gain almost foolproof protection against losing a
finger, would you toss your Unisaw to buy one of theirs?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Leon wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> xrongor wrote:
>
>> Please identify one individual who didn't get their hand cut off because
> the
>> Sawstop worked.
>
> Contact Saw Stop, the demonstration did at least once or twice include a
> live connected human hand part. Apparently between being tired of being
> nicked or working up the nerve to do this limited this persuasive
> demonstration.
I'm not sure that that counts as "didn't get their hand cut off". If the
thing had not triggered would he have really contined to feed his whole
hand through the saw? And would it have prevented someone who really
wanted to cut his hand off from doing so? Note that the saws they are
looking to sell have a defeat switch.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
xrongor wrote:
> show me one person that DID get their hand cut off even with this system
> installed. somehow i dont think the hot dog had any special properties
> about it that makes the demonstration not relevant for a hand.
Fine, I'll rephrase the question so that maybe even you can understand it.
When has there ever been an _opportunity_ for someone to get his hand cut
off or be saved from getting his hand cut off by this system?
> im not trying to say it should be made mandatory. but if you're saying
> its
> all vaporware, i think its YOU that needs to provide some proof. similiar
> systems have been installed for other things for years and they work. or
> maybe you're still fighting the seat belt people too.
Fine, tell me how I can get one.
>
> randy
>
>> > no. for every fool that thinks they are invincible and may get hurt
>> > due to lack of respect, there are others (more people) that didnt get
>> > their hand
>> > cut off because the sawstop worked.
>>
>> Please identify one individual who didn't get their hand cut off because
> the
>> Sawstop worked.
>>
>> Put not your faith in vaporware.
>>
>> > in fact in many cases it would probably even save the fool.
>> >
>> > not to mention anyone who thinks the safety device is a substitute for
>> > thinking is gonna get hurt no matter what eventually...
>> >
>> > randy
>> >
>> >> Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
>> >> *increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Frank Ketchum wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Please identify one individual who didn't get their hand cut off because
> the
>> Sawstop worked.
>>
>
> It is not a widely used product yet. How can you demand results from
> something not being used yet? He is saying if the thing is ramrodded down
> our throats then there will most certainly eventually be people who
> benefit
> from it by not being injured. He is quite correct about that, there is no
> doubt. That doesn't mean, however that it should be a requirement any
> machinery.
He _said_
"for every fool that thinks they are invincible and may get hurt due to
lack of respect, there are others (more people) that didnt get their hand
cut off because the sawstop worked."
I'm merely attempting to ascertain the actual corporeal existence of at
least one of these "others". Perhaps he meant something other than what he
said. If so, he should have recognized that his phrasing was the source of
my confusion and clarified.
> Frank
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Leon wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure that that counts as "didn't get their hand cut off".
>
> Well, in the theme of your comment, Please identify one individual who
> didn't get their hand cut off because the Sawstop worked. I think we all
> know that you were wanting to know of some one that was not using a
> substitute for real human flesh to trigger the stop.
Maybe you know that, but I know no such thing. For someone to "not get his
hand cut off" there must be someone who was at risk of getting his hand cut
off. I want to know who that was. If you can't identify someone then you
should not be claiming that such a person exists.
> The hand actually
> was not cut off during the demonstration with a real human flesh.
I'm sorry, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.
>>If the thing had not triggered would he have really contined to feed his
> whole
>> hand through the saw?
>
> Do you not have the intuition to answer that your self?
If he was not in danger of getting his hand cut off then sawstop did not
"save him from getting his hand cut off". So was he in fact in such
danger?
>> And would it have prevented someone who really wanted to cut his hand off
> from doing so? Note that the saws they are looking to sell have a defeat
> switch.
>
> And again I answer with a the question, Do you not have the intuition to
> answer that your self?
You're the one who used someone deliberately sticking his hand in the saw as
an example of someone "not getting his hand cut off".
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Leon wrote:
>
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> im not trying to say it should be made mandatory. but if you're saying
> its
>> all vaporware, i think its YOU that needs to provide some proof.
>> similiar
>> systems have been installed for other things for years and they work. or
>> maybe you're still fighting the seat belt people too.
>
> I think J.Clarke is bored and likes to argue.
Nope. I just see a lot of hype and little product.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
xrongor wrote:
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Mac Cool" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> > I heard Kelly Mehler talk about Sawstop and it isn't vaporware.
>>
>> Who do you know that owns one?
>
>
> i think there is some confusion about the term 'vaporware' which is
> defined as websters as:
>
> "Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or may not
> actually take place)"
>
> saw stop claims that you can buy one today. if this is true, its not
> vaporware. if its not it is. whether or not somebody actually owns one
> is irrelevant.
Where does Sawstip claim that you can buy one today? They have a page where
it is possible to place a "non-binding preorder" for one of two models,
which will be shipped if they ever actually have a product. I'm still
waiting for the Zeos PCI/Microchannel motherboard that I preordered back in
'87 or thereabouts.
The fact that they will take an order does not mean that they will ever
deliver the product that you ordered. Until they _deliver_ product it's
vaporware.
> randy
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
xrongor wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> Please identify one individual who didn't get their hand cut off
> because
>> > the
>> >> Sawstop worked.
>> >>
>> >
>> > It is not a widely used product yet. How can you demand results from
>> > something not being used yet? He is saying if the thing is ramrodded
> down
>> > our throats then there will most certainly eventually be people who
>> > benefit
>> > from it by not being injured. He is quite correct about that, there is
> no
>> > doubt. That doesn't mean, however that it should be a requirement any
>> > machinery.
>>
>> He _said_
>> "for every fool that thinks they are invincible and may get hurt due to
>> lack of respect, there are others (more people) that didnt get their hand
>> cut off because the sawstop worked."
>>
>> I'm merely attempting to ascertain the actual corporeal existence of at
>> least one of these "others". Perhaps he meant something other than what
> he
>> said. If so, he should have recognized that his phrasing was the source
> of
>> my confusion and clarified.
>>
>> > Frank
>
> you arent trying to ascertain anything. you are stating as fact that
> sawstop doesnt work and doesnt exist. and ducking proving by trying to
> put me on the defensive.
In what post did I state that it does not work? In what post did I state
that it does not exist?
You appear to be trying to attribute to me a position that I do not hold for
the purpose of advancing your own agenda whatever that might be.
> what i was responding to was a question about whether or not more injuries
> would occur because people put too much trust in the system. which i
> think
> is false. im not claiming any actual hands were saved or cut off. im
> just saying that just because people use safety goggles and splitters it
> doesnt cause more accidents because they become complacent, and same with
> the
> sawstop. go back and check it out if you dont believe me. i think had
> you
> bothered to read the thread as it played out, it would be clear. it took
> quite a stretch to get us this far frank.. lets see how much further you
> can stretch it <g>
I did read the thread. Are you familiar with a phenomenon called "thread
drift"?
>
> randy
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Mac Cool wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> said:
>
>> Are you beginning to see a pattern?
>
> Yeah. You seem to have an interest in Sawstop failing... why?
I don't give a damn whether they fail or succeed. But I also don't see any
product delivered and I do see claims here that more than one person has
already had his hand protected from being cut off by this device that has
not yet been shipped.
>> The fact that a prototype has been demonstrated does not mean that the
>> product will ever become available commercially.
>
> I guess we'll have to wait and see. I say they'll come to market.
Could be. Do they have decent capitalization?
>> As for paying $150 to gain almost foolproof protection against losing a
>> finger, would you toss your Unisaw to buy one of theirs?
>
> If I were in the market for a new saw, I would pay an additional $150 for
> that type of protection. I wouldn't 'toss' a perfectly good Unisaw for the
> sake of a $150 safety device.
There's the problem. First, it's not a retrofit and I doubt that anybody's
going to buy a new saw just to get that feature, and second if you look at
the prices on their site you'll see it's going to cost a lot more than $150
extra to get a saw with their device installed for the foreseeable future.
I mean how big a market is there for a $2500 3 horsepower cabinet saw from
some outfit that nobody has ever heard of?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
[email protected] writes:
> word is, it's prone to false positives, and each one costs you $75.00.
Do you mean, that it's like airbags - the safety system works ONCE,
and something has to be replaced afterwards for $75. Sheesh!
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
Bruce Barnett asks:
>[email protected] writes:
>
>> word is, it's prone to false positives, and each one costs you $75.00.
>
>Do you mean, that it's like airbags - the safety system works ONCE,
>and something has to be replaced afterwards for $75. Sheesh!
Ayup. And they say $150 up front cost (if installed on the assembly line) and a
$75 cartridge replacement cost, but say nothing of the strain on the arbor and
trunnions when the assembly instantly drops below the table and is jammed to a
stop.
Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken
Charlie Self wrote:
> Bruce Barnett asks:
<SNIP>
> Ayup. And they say $150 up front cost (if installed on the assembly line) and a
> $75 cartridge replacement cost, but say nothing of the strain on the arbor and
> trunnions when the assembly instantly drops below the table and is jammed to a
> stop.
>
> Charlie Self
> "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
> man."
> H. L. Mencken
>
>
>
Think about what you're saying here. IF it works, I'm wondering if I
ran my fingers into the blade and it snapped my arbor and trunnions -
destroyed my saw - but didn't leave me fingerless, would I feel I'd
rather have lost my fingers (or arm or...) than the saw? I don't know
of any piece of machinery anywhere that I'd trade for any body part.
Keith
Krow responds:
>> Ayup. And they say $150 up front cost (if installed on the assembly line)
>and a
>> $75 cartridge replacement cost, but say nothing of the strain on the arbor
>and
>> trunnions when the assembly instantly drops below the table and is jammed
>to a
>> stop.
>>
>> Charlie Self
>> "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended
>from
>> man."
>> H. L. Mencken
>>
>>
>>
>Think about what you're saying here. IF it works, I'm wondering if I
>ran my fingers into the blade and it snapped my arbor and trunnions -
>destroyed my saw - but didn't leave me fingerless, would I feel I'd
>rather have lost my fingers (or arm or...) than the saw? I don't know
>of any piece of machinery anywhere that I'd trade for any body part.
Ah, well...why would you "run your fingers" into the blade.
First, that's not the only choice, and it is almost an incidental one as minor
table saw accidents far outnumber even single digit amputations. Second, if
you're so bloody nervous about running your fingers into the saw blade, buy a
Brett Guard or one of the others on the market. Very effective, easy to use, no
false positives, a great addition to any table saw, with proven technology that
even adds a dust collector point to the top of your table saw blade, where it's
really needed.
The trade is not necessarily a body part for a destroyed PM 66. It's more
likely to be a moderate cut for the same PM 66. Or a false reading when you're
10' away from the saw.
Your hands. Your money.
Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip>
> We know the Saw Stop is effective if you drop your
> lunch but will the Brett Guard protect my wiener from a tragic end if it
> falls on the saw table during lunch?
I'm sorry. It's late and I can't come up with a response that will give
this setup justice. Anyone else?
todd
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> But what about hot dogs? We know the Saw Stop is effective if you drop
your
> lunch but will the Brett Guard protect my wiener from a tragic end if it
> falls on the saw table during lunch?
If the Brett Guard is working properly, your wiener will not be detached and
there fore will not fall of the table saw. LOL
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Second, if
> you're so bloody nervous about running your fingers into the saw blade,
buy a
> Brett Guard or one of the others on the market. Very effective, easy to
use, no
> false positives, a great addition to any table saw, with proven technology
that
> even adds a dust collector point to the top of your table saw blade, where
it's
> really needed.
But what about hot dogs? We know the Saw Stop is effective if you drop your
lunch but will the Brett Guard protect my wiener from a tragic end if it
falls on the saw table during lunch?
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> writes:
> But what about hot dogs?
I don't relish the thought of the puns that will follow. I expect the
crowd will mustard replacements and try to catchup in the run-on
puns. Will they have to go to the Mayo clinic for surgery.
(pre-emptive strike.)
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
[email protected] wrote:
> nobody is gonna argue that saving a finger from amputation is worth
> more than a machine.
ISTR a football player who lost a part of a finger to play in a
Superbowl/Playoff game. He could have not played and had the part of the
finger reattached but instead chose the glory of the gridiron over
completeness of body parts. I don't recall the name but it wasn't Steve
DeBerg.
-- Mark
Leon wrote:
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>so you are WILLING to use poorly thought-out technology that
>>self-destructs instead of voting with your dollars to demand
>>that any mfgr. who wants a piece of the "safe" table saw
>>market make a unit that works WITHOUT SELF-DESTRUCTING??
>
>
>
> I suppose you have documentation that indicates that the saw self destructs.
>
>
no! I was foolishly relying on what another poster
mentioned about the operation of the SawStop. WHAT WAS I
THINKING???!! :)
Leon, I don't have enough interest in the SawStop to
investigate their various claims. I've given it a cursory
look-see and dismissed it. My Unisaw will most likely be my
last TS. Not that it MIGHT be a worthwhile investment for
someone in the market for an overpriced TS.
dave
Krow wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> Bruce Barnett asks:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> Ayup. And they say $150 up front cost (if installed on the assembly
>> line) and a
>> $75 cartridge replacement cost, but say nothing of the strain on the
>> arbor and
>> trunnions when the assembly instantly drops below the table and is
>> jammed to a
>> stop.
>>
>> Charlie Self
>> "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has
>> descended from
>> man."
>> H. L. Mencken
>>
>>
>>
> Think about what you're saying here. IF it works, I'm wondering if I
> ran my fingers into the blade and it snapped my arbor and trunnions -
> destroyed my saw - but didn't leave me fingerless, would I feel I'd
> rather have lost my fingers (or arm or...) than the saw? I don't know
> of any piece of machinery anywhere that I'd trade for any body part.
>
> Keith
so you are WILLING to use poorly thought-out technology that
self-destructs instead of voting with your dollars to demand
that any mfgr. who wants a piece of the "safe" table saw
market make a unit that works WITHOUT SELF-DESTRUCTING??
dave
[email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:17:13 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> nobody is gonna argue that saving a finger from amputation is worth
>>> more than a machine.
>>
>>ISTR a football player who lost a part of a finger to play in a
>>Superbowl/Playoff game. He could have not played and had the part of the
>>finger reattached but instead chose the glory of the gridiron over
>>completeness of body parts. I don't recall the name but it wasn't Steve
>>DeBerg.
>>
>> -- Mark
Ronnie Lott. Hall of Fame Free safety, SF 49er's. Otherwise, an
apparently sane individual, who was also a hell of a pro football player.
Re: Saw Stop: Let the market decide.
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:17:13 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> nobody is gonna argue that saving a finger from amputation is worth
>> more than a machine.
>
>ISTR a football player who lost a part of a finger to play in a
>Superbowl/Playoff game. He could have not played and had the part of the
>finger reattached but instead chose the glory of the gridiron over
>completeness of body parts. I don't recall the name but it wasn't Steve
>DeBerg.
>
> -- Mark
>
okay, I should have said... few will argue.....
bite me.
Leon wrote:
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> so you are WILLING to use poorly thought-out technology that
>> self-destructs instead of voting with your dollars to demand
>> that any mfgr. who wants a piece of the "safe" table saw
>> market make a unit that works WITHOUT SELF-DESTRUCTING??
>
>
> I suppose you have documentation that indicates that the saw self
> destructs.
Whether the saw self-destructs is one thing, the device itself
self-destructing is quite well established. Brush finger against side of
blade, saw stops. You're dead in the water until the can send you a new
cartridge.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Leon wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>> Whether the saw self-destructs is one thing, the device itself
>> self-destructing is quite well established. Brush finger against side of
>> blade, saw stops. You're dead in the water until the can send you a new
>> cartridge.
>
> Yeah I am sure no one would have the fore site to get an extra cartridge
> when they buy the saw.
How often does the thing false? If it does it often you might use up a lot
of cartridges at 75 bucks a pop.
> This whole thread on this matter is the republicans against the democrats.
> Neither side is completely wrong.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> so you are WILLING to use poorly thought-out technology that
> self-destructs instead of voting with your dollars to demand
> that any mfgr. who wants a piece of the "safe" table saw
> market make a unit that works WITHOUT SELF-DESTRUCTING??
I suppose you have documentation that indicates that the saw self destructs.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 20:16:32 GMT, Krow <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Charlie Self wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bruce Barnett asks:
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>>Ayup. And they say $150 up front cost (if installed on the assembly line) and a
>>>$75 cartridge replacement cost, but say nothing of the strain on the arbor and
>>>trunnions when the assembly instantly drops below the table and is jammed to a
>>>stop.
>>>
>>>Charlie Self
>>>"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
>>>man."
>>>H. L. Mencken
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Think about what you're saying here. IF it works, I'm wondering if I
>>ran my fingers into the blade and it snapped my arbor and trunnions -
>>destroyed my saw - but didn't leave me fingerless, would I feel I'd
>>rather have lost my fingers (or arm or...) than the saw? I don't know
>>of any piece of machinery anywhere that I'd trade for any body part.
>>
>>Keith
>
>
>
>
> nobody is gonna argue that saving a finger from amputation is worth
> more than a machine.
>
> what is not acceptable is having a system foisted off on us in the
> name of safety that randomly disables your table saw until you
> replace a $75 part that is available from only one vendor, who has so
> far a track record of being unable to deliver *anything* when they
> promise to, who believes their path to economic success in the
> marketplace is to hire lawyers to pass legislation that makes
> *everyone* with a saw buy their product. fuck that.
>
> what will happen is that after a few false trips and a few hundred
> dollars pissed away most people will override the damn thing. then you
> will have a bunch of machines in use with NO safety equipment.... sort
> of like every table saw I've ever used. guess what? I still have all
> of my fingers, and I've been using tablesaws professionally for over
> 20 years.
so IF you override the safety is there a big red warning
flag that pops ups to alert all users that it is now just a
"regular" TS??
dave
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 20:16:32 GMT, Krow <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> Bruce Barnett asks:
><SNIP>
>> Ayup. And they say $150 up front cost (if installed on the assembly line) and a
>> $75 cartridge replacement cost, but say nothing of the strain on the arbor and
>> trunnions when the assembly instantly drops below the table and is jammed to a
>> stop.
>>
>> Charlie Self
>> "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
>> man."
>> H. L. Mencken
>>
>>
>>
>Think about what you're saying here. IF it works, I'm wondering if I
>ran my fingers into the blade and it snapped my arbor and trunnions -
>destroyed my saw - but didn't leave me fingerless, would I feel I'd
>rather have lost my fingers (or arm or...) than the saw? I don't know
>of any piece of machinery anywhere that I'd trade for any body part.
>
>Keith
nobody is gonna argue that saving a finger from amputation is worth
more than a machine.
what is not acceptable is having a system foisted off on us in the
name of safety that randomly disables your table saw until you
replace a $75 part that is available from only one vendor, who has so
far a track record of being unable to deliver *anything* when they
promise to, who believes their path to economic success in the
marketplace is to hire lawyers to pass legislation that makes
*everyone* with a saw buy their product. fuck that.
what will happen is that after a few false trips and a few hundred
dollars pissed away most people will override the damn thing. then you
will have a bunch of machines in use with NO safety equipment.... sort
of like every table saw I've ever used. guess what? I still have all
of my fingers, and I've been using tablesaws professionally for over
20 years.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
> Whether the saw self-destructs is one thing, the device itself
> self-destructing is quite well established. Brush finger against side of
> blade, saw stops. You're dead in the water until the can send you a new
> cartridge.
Yeah I am sure no one would have the fore site to get an extra cartridge
when they buy the saw.
This whole thread on this matter is the republicans against the democrats.
Neither side is completely wrong.
Bruce Barnett wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>
>> word is, it's prone to false positives, and each one costs you $75.00.
>
> Do you mean, that it's like airbags - the safety system works ONCE,
> and something has to be replaced afterwards for $75. Sheesh!
Yep. They'll take preorders for the replacement modules as well. Also, you
need to change the module if you use an 8" or 6" dado (different module for
each). Presumably one of the features of their saw is some way to detect
an undersized blade and not run if the incorrect module is installed. Or
maybe working that out is one of the reasons they haven't shipped a product
yet.
Thinking about this a bit, I wonder how it would handle the planer and
shaper attachments often used on radial arm saws? The planer doesn't have
anything for their pin to catch in and it wouldn't surprise me if trying to
stop the shaper by shoving a pin in the way of the blades caused it to
throw a knife.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
xrongor wrote:
>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >you arent trying to ascertain anything. you are stating as fact that
>> >sawstop doesnt work and doesnt exist. and ducking proving by trying to
> put
>> >me on the defensive.
>>
>> Nobody said it doesn't work; in fact, the consensus of Da Wreck's
>> previous discussions of SawStop is that it *does* work, and is pretty
>> damn
> impressive
>> besides.
>>
>> Nobody said it doesn't exist, either. However, it *is* a fact that this
>> machine is not yet (or is only *very* recently) in actual production.
>> >
>> >what i was responding to was a question about whether or not more
> injuries
>> >would occur because people put too much trust in the system. which i
> think
>> >is false. im not claiming any actual hands were saved or cut off.
>>
>> Excuse me -- you *did* claim *exactly* that: "for every fool that thinks
> they
>> are invincible and may get hurt due to lack of respect, there are others
> (more
>> people) that didnt get their hand cut off because the sawstop worked"
>
>
> and you are only posting the part of the discussion you need to make
> yourself correct. let me put the whole thing back in context without some
> creative snipping. you're the second person to take the word NO off the
> front which makes what i said into a blind statement not the answer to
> someones specific question.:
>
> (start here)
> (the question i was responding to was:)
>> Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
>> *increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
>
> (my answer was)
>
> no. for every fool that thinks they are invincible and may get hurt due
> to lack of respect, there are others (more people) that didnt get their
> hand
> cut off because the sawstop worked. in fact in many cases it would
> probably even save the fool.
>
> not to mention anyone who thinks the safety device is a substitute for
> thinking is gonna get hurt no matter what eventually...
>
> (stop here)
>
> i was speaking in context of answering that question. i think all but the
> most hardheaded can see clearly that i wasnt actually claiming any hands
> cut
> off or not cut. just making a comment on whether or not safety devices
> cause accidents by making people complacent.
No, it's not clear at all _what_ you intended. Try "No. For every fool who
thinks he is invincible and may get hurt due to lack of respect there would
be others that didn't get their hand cut off because the sawstop worked."
> now step off please.
>
> randy
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A device that stops a blade within 5 ms of contact with human flesh.
I don't recall them stipulating human flesh, and this is one reason I won't
buy one. I am afraid my cat pushsticks would trip the stupid thing.
Frank
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 16:12:29 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>If he was not in danger of getting his hand cut off then sawstop did not
>"save him from getting his hand cut off". So was he in fact in such
>danger?
Ya nearly had me til there....
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Mac Cool" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > > I heard Kelly Mehler talk about Sawstop and it isn't vaporware.
> >
> > Who do you know that owns one?
>
>
> i think there is some confusion about the term 'vaporware' which is
defined
> as websters as:
>
> "Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or may not
> actually take place)"
>
> saw stop claims that you can buy one today. if this is true, its not
> vaporware. if its not it is. whether or not somebody actually owns one
is
> irrelevant.
Well you can *order* one, or at least get on a list. It seems as though
it's been a couple of years now that you could *order* one. To my
knowledge, none have been delivered to the public. Per the definition you
cite, it certainly appears to be vaporware. It's been discussed in this
newsgroup now since 2000. It makes one wonder why it hasn't gone to market
yet. If you want to say it isn't ready, then fine, but why take preorders
for two years? Doesn't seem to be the way to make people happy by putting
them on a 2 or 3 or forever year waiting list.
todd
Todd Fatheree responds:
>
>Well you can *order* one, or at least get on a list. It seems as though
>it's been a couple of years now that you could *order* one. To my
>knowledge, none have been delivered to the public. Per the definition you
>cite, it certainly appears to be vaporware. It's been discussed in this
>newsgroup now since 2000. It makes one wonder why it hasn't gone to market
>yet. If you want to say it isn't ready, then fine, but why take preorders
>for two years? Doesn't seem to be the way to make people happy by putting
>them on a 2 or 3 or forever year waiting list.
>
Yes. They're still taking only pre-orders. I first saw this thing at the 2000
IWWF. They started taking pre-orders at the next IWWF, if memory serves. That
was almost two years ago, now. It seems just a little bit like the boy who
cried wolf, doesn't it?
And I would very much like to know where they get the figure of 30,000 injuries
on table saws.
Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken
Charlie Self wrote:
> Todd Fatheree responds:
>
>>
>>Well you can *order* one, or at least get on a list. It seems as though
>>it's been a couple of years now that you could *order* one. To my
>>knowledge, none have been delivered to the public. Per the definition you
>>cite, it certainly appears to be vaporware. It's been discussed in this
>>newsgroup now since 2000. It makes one wonder why it hasn't gone to
>>market
>>yet. If you want to say it isn't ready, then fine, but why take preorders
>>for two years? Doesn't seem to be the way to make people happy by putting
>>them on a 2 or 3 or forever year waiting list.
>>
>
> Yes. They're still taking only pre-orders. I first saw this thing at the
> 2000 IWWF. They started taking pre-orders at the next IWWF, if memory
> serves. That was almost two years ago, now. It seems just a little bit
> like the boy who cried wolf, doesn't it?
>
> And I would very much like to know where they get the figure of 30,000
> injuries on table saws.
If you go to <http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html> you can query the
Consumer Product Safety Commission database. The database has actual
results from a sample set of hospitals, which is used to estimate the
national statistics, if they get enough reports to allow an estimate to be
calculated. It also has case histories online and will show up to 30 of
them for each query.
It shows an estimate of 33,000 table-saw related injuries requiring a
hospital visit in 2002. They estimate 3503 amputations, all of which were
of one or more fingers. They estimate 22,105 lacerations and 3595
fractures. An estimated 28,271 of the injuries of any kind were to
fingers. 24,498 occurred in a home, 7612 occurred in an "unknown locale",
they have no estimate for the number that occured in an "industrial
place"--they had _one_ reported--a 77 year old man lost his left thumb.
They had no estimate for the number that occured in a school--they had 13
reported, only two of which were amputations, one "partial" of two fingers
and the other the tip of the left ring finger, the rest were lacerations or
fractures except for one kid who got something in his eye.
>
> Charlie Self
> "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended
> from man."
> H. L. Mencken
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Millions of hotdogs are resting easier all over the world tonight....
"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A device that stops a blade within 5 ms of contact with human flesh.
> Videos of operation at http://www.sawstop.com/home.htm (this site may
> be 'slashdotted', so check back in a day or so if you can't see it).
>
> This device was introduced in 2001, and was supposed to be
> commercially available by 2003. The device is supposed to add about
> $150 to the cost of a consumer-grade table saw or bandsaw.
>
> Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
> *increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
>
> ---
> Howard Lee Harkness
> Insurance for H1-Bs: http://www.H1Bins.com
> Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://www.AFFHC.com
> Medigap insurance information: http://medigap.supremesite.net
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:04:10 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
The sawstop will work when no power is applied to the MOTOR.
If you change blades with power applied to SAW the you deserve what
you get.
>Ever tried changing a blade without moving it?
>
>Presumably if you pull the power cord, you'd shut it down.
>>
My son-in-law is a woodworker and a family practice physician. He has seen
the demo and is concerned this is going to cut in on his business.
Seriously, I know nothing about it. I do know I got cut pretty bad a few
years ago after the saw was turned off. I walked back to the machine to
pick up a piece of cutoff and didn't notice the blade was still spinning. I
doubt if this would protect us from this kind of stupidity.
"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A device that stops a blade within 5 ms of contact with human flesh.
> Videos of operation at http://www.sawstop.com/home.htm (this site may
> be 'slashdotted', so check back in a day or so if you can't see it).
>
> This device was introduced in 2001, and was supposed to be
> commercially available by 2003. The device is supposed to add about
> $150 to the cost of a consumer-grade table saw or bandsaw.
>
> Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
> *increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
>
> ---
> Howard Lee Harkness
> Insurance for H1-Bs: http://www.H1Bins.com
> Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://www.AFFHC.com
> Medigap insurance information: http://medigap.supremesite.net
In article <[email protected]>, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> You're kidding, right? This thing will fire if you touch the blade after
>> power has been removed from the motor? How in the hell are you supposed
>to
>> change blades without this thing going off?
>
>
>A person being concerned about safety and his well being would probably
>UNPLUG the saw.
>
Which I never bothered doing, until seeing a thread here a year or so back
about a Unisaw that turned on by itself (apparently a defective switch).
Figuring that mid-blade-change is a bad time for this to occur, I _always_
unplug now before changing blades. It takes only a few seconds.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did the almost same thing almost 16 years ago. I e-mailed the
>>>>>> Saw Stop people a couple of years ago and they indicated that the
>>>>>> device will work even if the power to the motor has been turned
>>>>>> off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're kidding, right? This thing will fire if you touch the
>>>>> blade after power has been removed from the motor? How in the
>>>>> hell are you supposed to change blades without this thing going
>>>>> off?
>>>>>
>>>>> Frank
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With great difficulty and a lot of time.
>>>
>>> Most likely it shuts itself down when the blade stops moving.
>>
>> Ever tried changing a blade without moving it?
>
> I don't generally turn on the power in order to do it. Geez, it's the
> 21st century--kitchen appliances have more processing power than a
> '60s mainframe--how hard do you think it is to program a control so
> that "if power has been turned on and off and blade is moving and skin
> touches it activate, if blade has stopped and moves again and power
> has not been turned on then do not activate".
>
>> Presumably if you pull the power cord, you'd shut it down.
>
> How much power do you think it draws? I suspect that it has some kind
> of backup power source with enough juice to keep it armed until the
> saw quits turning. That's the way I'd design it.
Ah, but you sound like you know what you're doing. How many electronic or
electrical gadgets do you own or use that are 'perfect'? This keyboard
fer instance ....
>>>
>
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Frank Ketchum wrote:
>
> >
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> Please identify one individual who didn't get their hand cut off
because
> > the
> >> Sawstop worked.
> >>
> >
> > It is not a widely used product yet. How can you demand results from
> > something not being used yet? He is saying if the thing is ramrodded
down
> > our throats then there will most certainly eventually be people who
> > benefit
> > from it by not being injured. He is quite correct about that, there is
no
> > doubt. That doesn't mean, however that it should be a requirement any
> > machinery.
>
> He _said_
> "for every fool that thinks they are invincible and may get hurt due to
> lack of respect, there are others (more people) that didnt get their hand
> cut off because the sawstop worked."
>
> I'm merely attempting to ascertain the actual corporeal existence of at
> least one of these "others". Perhaps he meant something other than what
he
> said. If so, he should have recognized that his phrasing was the source
of
> my confusion and clarified.
>
> > Frank
you arent trying to ascertain anything. you are stating as fact that
sawstop doesnt work and doesnt exist. and ducking proving by trying to put
me on the defensive.
what i was responding to was a question about whether or not more injuries
would occur because people put too much trust in the system. which i think
is false. im not claiming any actual hands were saved or cut off. im just
saying that just because people use safety goggles and splitters it doesnt
cause more accidents because they become complacent, and same with the
sawstop. go back and check it out if you dont believe me. i think had you
bothered to read the thread as it played out, it would be clear. it took
quite a stretch to get us this far frank.. lets see how much further you can
stretch it <g>
randy
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You're kidding, right? This thing will fire if you touch the blade after
> power has been removed from the motor? How in the hell are you supposed
to
> change blades without this thing going off?
A person being concerned about safety and his well being would probably
UNPLUG the saw.
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Frank Ketchum wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >>
> > >> Please identify one individual who didn't get their hand cut off
> because
> > > the
> > >> Sawstop worked.
> > >>
> > >
> > > It is not a widely used product yet. How can you demand results from
> > > something not being used yet? He is saying if the thing is ramrodded
> down
> > > our throats then there will most certainly eventually be people who
> > > benefit
> > > from it by not being injured. He is quite correct about that, there
is
> no
> > > doubt. That doesn't mean, however that it should be a requirement any
> > > machinery.
> >
> > He _said_
> > "for every fool that thinks they are invincible and may get hurt due to
> > lack of respect, there are others (more people) that didnt get their
hand
> > cut off because the sawstop worked."
> >
> > I'm merely attempting to ascertain the actual corporeal existence of at
> > least one of these "others". Perhaps he meant something other than what
> he
> > said. If so, he should have recognized that his phrasing was the source
> of
> > my confusion and clarified.
> >
> > > Frank
>
> you arent trying to ascertain anything. you are stating as fact that
> sawstop doesnt work and doesnt exist. and ducking proving by trying to
put
> me on the defensive.
>
> what i was responding to was a question about whether or not more injuries
> would occur because people put too much trust in the system. which i
think
> is false. im not claiming any actual hands were saved or cut off. im
just
> saying that just because people use safety goggles and splitters it doesnt
> cause more accidents because they become complacent, and same with the
> sawstop. go back and check it out if you dont believe me. i think had
you
> bothered to read the thread as it played out, it would be clear. it took
> quite a stretch to get us this far frank.. lets see how much further you
can
> stretch it <g>
>
> randy
oops, i didnt look clearly and put the wrong name, not you frank, jclarke i
mean.
randy
"Mac Cool" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I heard Kelly Mehler talk about Sawstop and it isn't vaporware.
Who do you know that owns one?
> Where does Sawstip claim that you can buy one today? They have a page
where
> it is possible to place a "non-binding preorder" for one of two models,
> which will be shipped if they ever actually have a product. I'm still
> waiting for the Zeos PCI/Microchannel motherboard that I preordered back
in
> '87 or thereabouts.
>
> The fact that they will take an order does not mean that they will ever
> deliver the product that you ordered. Until they _deliver_ product it's
> vaporware.
well the page i saw says "saw stop saws now available". that seemed pretty
damn clear. but i also see if you go one page deeper it says 'pre order'.
so it looks like they are indeed lying.
randy
xrongor states:
>well the page i saw says "saw stop saws now available". that seemed pretty
>damn clear. but i also see if you go one page deeper it says 'pre order'.
>so it looks like they are indeed lying.
Randy, that's marketing, not lying. There's a difference. Or so the marketing
department will tell you.
Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mac Cool" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > I heard Kelly Mehler talk about Sawstop and it isn't vaporware.
>
> Who do you know that owns one?
i think there is some confusion about the term 'vaporware' which is defined
as websters as:
"Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or may not
actually take place)"
saw stop claims that you can buy one today. if this is true, its not
vaporware. if its not it is. whether or not somebody actually owns one is
irrelevant.
randy
Randy notes:
>i think there is some confusion about the term 'vaporware' which is defined
>as websters as:
>
>"Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or may not
>actually take place)"
>
>saw stop claims that you can buy one today. if this is true, its not
>vaporware. if its not it is. whether or not somebody actually owns one is
>irrelevant.
I think you can order one today. Whether or not that counts as "buying" one, I
don't know, but the bigger question is, are there any in the hands of Joe. Q.
Boardbuster.
Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken
Do a search on this group for that device and you will find all kinds of
info and opinions.
"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A device that stops a blade within 5 ms of contact with human flesh.
> Videos of operation at http://www.sawstop.com/home.htm (this site may
> be 'slashdotted', so check back in a day or so if you can't see it).
>
> This device was introduced in 2001, and was supposed to be
> commercially available by 2003. The device is supposed to add about
> $150 to the cost of a consumer-grade table saw or bandsaw.
>
> Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
> *increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?
>
> ---
> Howard Lee Harkness
> Insurance for H1-Bs: http://www.H1Bins.com
> Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://www.AFFHC.com
> Medigap insurance information: http://medigap.supremesite.net