SawStop?

Usually vaporware does not exist even in prototype. This is more like
beta testing...

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 19:20:15 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Let me guess - they did a demo, and said it's shipping "real soon now",
>>>right? 5 years ago when I first saw that, it was exciting. Now, it's
>>>just another piece of vaporware, until I see one I can buy.
>>
>>Here you go. There is a click-to-order link right on this page:
>>http://www.sawstop.com/Contractor_Price_List.htm
>
>
> But is it shipping to consumers?
>
>
>>Actually, on the NPR piece they interviewed at least one or two
>>people who had them in use.
>
>
> Yes, I understand that prototypes exist. Unless something changed
> very recently, that's _all_ that's out there. This is the very
> definition of "vaporware".
>

> You misspelled sugar-coated. After nobody wanted it, they tried to
get
> regulations enacted which would mandate their product. Nice way to do
> business.



>I've heard that, but never seen an actual cite for it. If you could
>point me to one, I'd be happy to loathe them for ethical reasons as
>well as my current dislike of them for marketing and development
reasons.

Go to the original poster's reference, the NPR story, below. Once
there, look on the left side of the page for a sidebar that talks about
the Sawstop company's filing with the Government to mandate its usage.
They even convieniently link you to the actual filings. You can begin
loathing now.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4182602

Daver Hall

Has anyone read how this technology works? In a nutshell, it detects
the electrical signal of your finger using the blade as a conductor. I
wonder if this means that HSS is in, and carbide is out since the
adhesive and the carbide may insulate the signal.
http://www.sawstop.com/howworks.htm

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:13:45 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>What is your objection to letting people decide how
>much safety they want in their lives?

None. I object to people pretending that US auto
manufacturers would have made them standard
in automobiles any time soon.

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:52:54 GMT, "Dave Jackson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Dont laugh to much, but i used my band saw to cut up all the sugar pumpkins
>SWMBO and I grew into small pieces to make fresh pumpkin pies this year.
>Pumpkins are difficult to cut up, even with a large sharp knife, band saw
>took minutes, and a few minutes afterward to clean the goop off the blade
>and table! --dave

I've bandsawed hard squashes in half, slots in tennis balls, foam
rubber into custom case linings, cardboard, milk crates, CDs, hard
drives... You name it!

Barry

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:01:07 -0500, Hank Gillette
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yup. It's clear that Sawstop's motivation is for other than the public
>> good. Hell, one could argue that by patenting it and failing to provide
>> a product, they're _preventing_ public good, since they won't allow
>> competant manufacturers to build 'em.
>
>He offered to license it to the manufacturers and they blew him off. How
>is that not letting them build them?


that's his side of the story. we aready know that sawstop is ready to
play dirty to get their way.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:40:35 -0500, GregP <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:11:35 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>About as much as there is now. A good deal of what is thought of as
>>government regulated safety is government regulated hassle. Not to scoff at
>>safety, but the government gets a lot of credit for things it did not bring
>>about. The government is much better at creating cumbersome regulations
>>than it is at really effecting safety.
>
>
> US corporations get credited for things that were rammed
> down their throats, including seat belts, passenger compartment
> protections, and disc brakes. Claiming that seat belts would
> have become standard issue in a few years without gov't
> intervention is good old Soviet-style revisionist history.

It's speculative, of course, since it didn't happen. But it's hardly
revisionist history. The fact is that seat belts were becoming
increasingly common, both as aftermarket items and as options on some
cars. If you follow the trend it's easy to see that seatbelts were on
the verge of being widely adopted.

Nor is it true that seat belts were generally regarded as wimpy. To my
knowledge one of the first groups to adopt them were pilots. In fact I
knew several who had installed aircraft harnesses in their cars.

The objections to seat belts were already being addressed by insurance
companies and others concerned with traffic safety who were conducting
public information campaigns.

As for disc brakes -- they were common on automobiles long before
government regulation. They were more common in European vehicles, but
they were spreading fairly quickly to US automobiles because they were
seen as a 'sporty' prestige item.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:15:20 -0600, Darin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Did anyone else catch the NPR piece on the SawStop TS yesterday? Any
> thoughts?

Let me guess - they did a demo, and said it's shipping "real soon now",
right? 5 years ago when I first saw that, it was exciting. Now, it's
just another piece of vaporware, until I see one I can buy.

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 02:55:18 +0000, Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:15:20 -0600, Darin
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Did anyone else catch the NPR piece on the SawStop TS yesterday?
>
> Bizarrely, there was a posting in alt.obituaries about it

What's even more bizarre, is that Andy is apparently watching alt.obituaties.

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:57:57 +0000, Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2004 16:28:15 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>What's even more bizarre, is that Andy is apparently watching alt.obituaties.
>
> Better to be on the outside, looking in

So, just trying to plan your day then? If you're in there, no point
in making that 10:15 meeting?

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 19:20:15 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Let me guess - they did a demo, and said it's shipping "real soon now",
>> right? 5 years ago when I first saw that, it was exciting. Now, it's
>> just another piece of vaporware, until I see one I can buy.
>
> Here you go. There is a click-to-order link right on this page:
> http://www.sawstop.com/Contractor_Price_List.htm

But is it shipping to consumers?

> Actually, on the NPR piece they interviewed at least one or two
> people who had them in use.

Yes, I understand that prototypes exist. Unless something changed
very recently, that's _all_ that's out there. This is the very
definition of "vaporware".

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 22:09:42 -0600, tzipple <[email protected]> wrote:
> Usually vaporware does not exist even in prototype. This is more like
> beta testing...

Tell that to Microsoft, Oracle, Blizzard, etc etc etc.

Awful long beta test...

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:52:54 GMT, Dave Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dont laugh to much, but i used my band saw to cut up all the sugar pumpkins
> SWMBO and I grew into small pieces to make fresh pumpkin pies this year.
> Pumpkins are difficult to cut up, even with a large sharp knife, band saw
> took minutes, and a few minutes afterward to clean the goop off the blade
> and table! --dave

Spade bits work well for making round eyes in jack-o-lanterns, as well.
Makes a hella mess, which adds to the fun for the kids.

Dave Hinz

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:28:50 GMT, Ba r r y <[email protected]> wrote:

> When I dispose of an old computer, I just want to be SURE the data is
> unrecoverable. <G> Platters in multiple pieces, disposed in multiple
> places can help.

Not quite up to DOD standards (molten slag due to thermite), but close
enough for _my_ data disposal needs.

Dave Hinz

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:02:44 -0800, J <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Merle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> The report from FWW last month explained the delay. 3-4 years ago
>> (don't think it was 5) the inventor tried to market it to conventional
>> saw designers to include as an option on normal saws. It didn't sell.
>
> You misspelled sugar-coated. After nobody wanted it, they tried to get
> regulations enacted which would mandate their product. Nice way to do
> business.

I've heard that, but never seen an actual cite for it. If you could
point me to one, I'd be happy to loathe them for ethical reasons as
well as my current dislike of them for marketing and development reasons.

> They would be willing to sell it anywhere. Unfortunately they have not been
> successful at attracting buyers or delivering product.

Yabut, there's an "order now" button on the website I hear... probably
no ship date, but you can order one.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:18:55 -0800, J <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I've heard that, but never seen an actual cite for it. If you could
>> point me to one, I'd be happy ...
>
> Be happy:
> http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-17327.htm

This akamaized URL does not work. The content versioning part of the URL
has been changed because gpo.gov's site has superceded that version. In
almost every case, you can get the information anyway by shortening the
URL by taking the Akamai-specific stuff out of the URL and starting
with edocket.... in this case.

Yup, verified it, and it works. (I brought Akamai to our company's
web delivery systems, so I'm very comfortable making that statement).

Right. "We want you to make this mandatory to help the people
(but oh by the way we hold the patent)". Lovely.

You know, it's interesting. Saab patented dual-diagonal hydraulic
brakes and 3-point seat belts. Mercedes patented "crumple zones",
a way of having the car body absorb impact so the person's body
doesn't have to. Both these companies _freely allow_ others to use
their technology, to save lives. I can't help but think that SawStop's
mission is other than just to help people.

> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA03/brief/Tablesaw.pdf

Nice pics. Too bad it's not a color document. Ah well.

>> Yabut, there's an "order now" button on the website I hear... probably
>> no ship date, but you can order one.
>
> It has been there for a few years.

Indeed. And maybe some year, there will be a sawstop-enabled saw
somewhere that someone can walk in with money and walk out with a
saw. If their letter about why their outsourced production problems
are stopping them from shipping product is any indication, it won't
happen any time soon.

Great idea, though. Maybe they could allow others to engineer and
build based on their idea, like Saab and Mercedes did with their life-saving
developments.

Dave "...but I doubt it..." Hinz

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:10:59 -0500, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Little known fact--the antiskid braking system used on many cars these days
> is based on a Mercedes-Benz patent that Mercedes placed in the public
> domain for the good of society.

Mercedes did the same thing with their "crumple zone" impact absorbing
technology, as Saab did decades ago with their dual-diagonal hydraulic
braking patents.

> He'd be much more impressive if he did something like that. And since
> nobody wants to make the damn thing but him anyway, his financial risk is
> small unless it takes off in which case he's going to be rich anyway if he
> doesn't screw up.

Yup. It's clear that Sawstop's motivation is for other than the public
good. Hell, one could argue that by patenting it and failing to provide
a product, they're _preventing_ public good, since they won't allow
competant manufacturers to build 'em.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:59:23 -0500, Hank Gillette <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Little known fact--the antiskid braking system used on many cars these days
>> is based on a Mercedes-Benz patent that Mercedes placed in the public
>> domain for the good of society.
>
> Of course if he gives up the patents and it takes off, the current saw
> manufacturers would simply add it to their product line and he'd be
> totally left out.

Google for "licensing". He could let others manufacture it and take a cut
from each sale, nothing new or novel there.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:01:07 -0500, Hank Gillette <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yup. It's clear that Sawstop's motivation is for other than the public
>> good. Hell, one could argue that by patenting it and failing to provide
>> a product, they're _preventing_ public good, since they won't allow
>> competant manufacturers to build 'em.
>
> He offered to license it to the manufacturers and they blew him off. How
> is that not letting them build them?

Was that before, or after, he tried to force all of them to put the
device on their saws? If after, I can see why they'd tell him to
pound sand.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:05:26 -0500, Hank Gillette <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> makesawdust <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Improvements in safety technology are generally a good thing, until the
>> goverment starts mandating their use.
>>
>
> How many cars would have air bags or seat belts today, if the government
> hadn't made them mandatory? In fact, the air bag technology languished
> for several years, essentially unused until they were made mandatory?

Airbag technology was implemented in the US before it was ready. Seat
belts, on the other hand, were in use in the 1940s by some, but weren't
mandated until much later. Some European makes had 3-point belts in all
4 seating positions back in the early '60s, which wasn't mandated in the
US until at least 15 years later.

Car companies who felt that safety was a valid design requirement
were using these things before they were mandatory. I'm not sure your
point holds water.

> It's a nice thought that the market will support safety devices on their
> own merits, but history has shown that not to be the case. If not for
> the government regulations, how much safety would there be in the
> average commercial wood shop?

Nobody forces me to wear eye and ear protection when using certain
machines, but I do. So, I'd say "quite a bit;what's your point"?

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:09:55 -0500, Hank Gillette <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Nobody forces me to wear eye and ear protection when using certain
>> machines, but I do. So, I'd say "quite a bit;what's your point"?
>
> Are you talking about your home shop or your workplace (they may be the
> same, I don't know)?

Home shop(s). But you seemed to be saying that people don't take
precautions unless forced to by governmental decree, and I think that
the fact that it's a home shop shows even more so that they will.

> If it's a shop where you work as an employee, how much say do you have
> in how good a dust collection system is installed? Does your employer
> take input from employees on emergency exits and whether they are
> unlocked during working hours? The number of fire extinguishers
> available and how often they are certified?

When I worked in manufacturing, the employers most certainly did listen
to that sort of suggestion. One, a tiny company, the other a huge
international mega-corp whose name rhymes with, say, "GE".

> You really don't have to look too hard to see that employee safety and
> the public good are not very high on the priority list of most
> companies.

My personal experience differs profoundly with your statement.

> You can have the great majority of mining companies dedicated
> to protecting the environment and employee safety, but if those things
> aren't regulated, they are going to have trouble competing with the
> companies that don't care, because people are going to gravitate for the
> most part to the best price. It's hard to justify paying more for a load
> of coal (or whatever) when you don't see the dead miners or live near
> the polluted streams.

If you say so.

> To bring this back to the specific from the general, I don't know if the
> SawStop (or a similar technology) should be mandatory, but I don't
> dismiss it out of hand. I see too many areas where companies don't have
> my best interests at heart.

Right now, they can't even make it _work_ so why should I be forced to
buy one for all of my saws?

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:14:45 -0500, Hank Gillette <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Airbag technology was implemented in the US before it was ready. Seat
>> belts, on the other hand, were in use in the 1940s by some, but weren't
>> mandated until much later. Some European makes had 3-point belts in all
>> 4 seating positions back in the early '60s, which wasn't mandated in the
>> US until at least 15 years later.
>
> And until it was mandated, the chances of getting seat belts on an entry
> level car was pretty much nil.

Was it? My dad put seatbelts in the back of our 1964 Ford Falcon,
maybe the fronts too. Just because it doesn't ship with them doesn't
mean you can't install them properly and safely.

> This is not a perfect analogy, because the SawStop technology is a much
> higher percentage of the price of the product than seat belts or
> airbags. But I remember that one of the arguments against airbags was
> that the cost would be prohibitive. Putting them in every car lowered
> the unit cost considerably. It's reasonable to assume that the same
> thing would happen with the SawStop.

Lets let 'em get a working model first. Demo units do not equal
a product.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:22:10 -0500, Hank Gillette <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Lets let 'em get a working model first. Demo units do not equal
>> a product.
>
> I don't disagree with that. I'd like to see some production models and
> statistics before I'd be in favor of it being required equipment.

I'd like to see some production models and statistics before they should
even bring up it being mandatory. "You must use this crap that doesn't
work!" isn't a good way to build a userbase.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:28:00 -0500, Hank Gillette <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Home shop(s). But you seemed to be saying that people don't take
>> precautions unless forced to by governmental decree, and I think that
>> the fact that it's a home shop shows even more so that they will.
>
> That wasn't my intent to say that. My intent was to say that it's not
> always that high a priority with a company.

Companies have more incentive to have a safe environment than Joe Woodshop
has. You've heard of OSHA, I assume? They don't put up with the crap
that was going on in, say, the Triangle Shirt Factory.

>> When I worked in manufacturing, the employers most certainly did listen
>> to that sort of suggestion. One, a tiny company, the other a huge
>> international mega-corp whose name rhymes with, say, "GE".
>>
>> > You really don't have to look too hard to see that employee safety and
>> > the public good are not very high on the priority list of most
>> > companies.
>>
>> My personal experience differs profoundly with your statement.
>
> So GE dumped all of those PCBs in the Hudson River for the public good?

That would be the PCBs that, at the time, weren't known to be a problem,
that independant scientists agree are better left _undisturbed_ than
stirred up, and that people who feel about things rather than think about them
want dug up anyways, those PCBs?

I also notice you just morphed the issue from "employee safety" to
"seeing into the future to avoid environmental problems", was that
intentional?

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:32:16 GMT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Nor are air bags as effective as seat belts. The whole rationale
> behind air bags was that they would protect the people who were too
> stupid to wear seat belts.

Absolutely wrong. Airbags are a _supplimental_ restraint. They are
only effective if you're in the position you're expected to be in, and
if you're not wearing seatbelts, you won't be. You'll either be too
close and get a very in-your-face airbag experience, or you'll be half-way
out the window when you roll the car or whatever. The airbag is to cushion
the impact for a passenger who is in the expected location, and if you're
elsewhere, it won't work well for you. It has never been advertised as
a replacement for seatbelts, nor is it effective as such.

> Which doesn't change the fact that SawStop is a kluge. There are
> undoubtedly better ways to do the same thing -- ways that don't
> destroy the saw blade for example. But if the government mandates
> SawStop, those methods will never be developed.

The thing is, if it can stop a blade that fast, that's an _awful_ lot
of energy getting dissipated into something, very fast. Heat will build
up somewhere, and sharpened steel things sometimes don't like heat. I'm
not sure if that's avoidable.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:59:07 -0500, Hank Gillette <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ignoring for the moment that there's not a chance in hell that the Bush
> administration is going to make it a requirement, why do you believe
> that the regulation would be written so that only SawStop would meet the
> requirements? As far as I know, they don't have any friends in high
> places.

Do you really think that SawStop's patent lawyers didn't think of that?

> There may indeed be better ways to do the same thing (although stopping
> a 10 inch saw blade running at full speed within a fraction of a second
> without damaging seems to me to be a non-trivial problem), but I don't
> see any sign that anyone else is working on or even interested in doing
> it.

There could be at least 3 reasons for that. Think hard.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:37:22 -0500, Hank Gillette <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That would be the PCBs that, at the time, weren't known to be a problem,
>> that independant scientists agree are better left _undisturbed_ than
>> stirred up, and that people who feel about things rather than think about them
>> want dug up anyways, those PCBs?
>>
>
> Those would be the ones. While they may have not known that they were a
> problem, I doubt GE actually thought they were doing anyone a favor
> (other than themselves) by dumping them in the river.

Lots of industrial processes involve wastewater going into the local river
or creek. If not there, into the municipal wastewater system which eventually
goes to...anyone? Anyone?

> As to whether they are better off left undisturbed, a cursory look on
> the Internet indicates that GE might have distorted the kind of dredging
> that would be done. The final order from the EPA came during the George
> W. Bush administration, and dredging was supported by Governor Pataki.

I suspect that neither you I know enough actual facts on said situation
to make an informed judgement.

>> I also notice you just morphed the issue from "employee safety" to
>> "seeing into the future to avoid environmental problems", was that
>> intentional?
>
> No, I didn't morph anything. I said earlier that "You really don't have
> to look too hard to see that employee safety and the public good are not
> very high on the priority list of most companies." It's just easier to
> point out the cases where the public good is involved, because they get
> more publicity.

And yet, without knowing that a byproduct of whatever process will,
_in the future_ be found to be a hazard, it's impossible to consider
use of said chemical to be a disregard for public good. If we discover
tomorrow that Peanut Butter causes, oh, I dunno, wombat cancer, are you
going to say that Jif, in the 1970s, wasn't concerned about public safety?

> As far as looking in the future, do you really believe that GE thought
> PCBs were totally benign? Or was it just cheaper for them to look the
> other way and dump their waste into the river as long as they could get
> away with it?

GE: "Hey, any problem with this?"
EPA: "Nope, not that we know of."
GE: "Okey-dokey then."
(years pass)
EPA "Um, hey, how's it going. About that process...we need to talk..."

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:13:45 -0500, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> GregP wrote:
>
>> US corporations get credited for things that were rammed
>> down their throats, including seat belts, passenger compartment
>> protections, and disc brakes.
>
> Huh? Who "rammed disk brakes down their throat"? There is no government
> regulation requiring disk brakes, at least not in the US.

I've also not heard of disk brakes being mandatory. There are handling
and engineering reasons to prefer them; less unsprung weight and rotating
mass, easier servicing, and probably lower cost as well. Common in the
1960s at least on some makes.

On 16 Dec 2004 11:04:35 -0800, Todd the wood junkie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Has anyone read how this technology works? In a nutshell, it detects
> the electrical signal of your finger using the blade as a conductor. I
> wonder if this means that HSS is in, and carbide is out since the
> adhesive and the carbide may insulate the signal.

Brass and tungsten carbide conduct well, I think. Unless your TS blade
has the teeth epoxied in or something?

In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
> GregP wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:19:04 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When you start requiring school bus drivers to do this (and don't give me
>>>that crap about how the buses are designed to not hurt the kids when they
>>>run into a bridge abutment), then perhaps you'll find people other than
>>>professional busybodies agreeing that parents should be required to do
>>>it. Of course the professional busybodies have an effective lobby and so
>>>parents are already required by law to do this and a good deal more, some
>>>of which is intended to protect the kids in their government-approved
>>>child safety seats from the government-required airbags which, when they
>>>strike a child in such a seat, with deplorable regularity kill him.
>>
>>
>> You are a prime example of why we have seat belt laws for kids.
>
> I see that since you don't have a refutation for the argument you instead
> resort to a personal attack. Thank you for letting me know the depth of
> your commitment to reasoned discourse.

Okay then how's this for discourse...
That's the reason why your not supposed to put children in a child seat
facing the airbags, or not put them in the front seat at all...but you
probably knew this already, right?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

On 15 Dec 2004 20:25:44 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:32:16 GMT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Nor are air bags as effective as seat belts. The whole rationale
>> behind air bags was that they would protect the people who were too
>> stupid to wear seat belts.
>
>Absolutely wrong.
Okay, I overstated my case. The 'whole' rationale for air bags was not
that they would protect people not wearing seat belts. However it was
a major rationale for air bags in the debate about them. And, rather
surprisingly, it is still commonly used.

(And, BTW, since 1997 you are not allowed to use alternative passive
restraint devices.)

> Airbags are a _supplimental_ restraint. They are
>only effective if you're in the position you're expected to be in, and
>if you're not wearing seatbelts, you won't be. You'll either be too
>close and get a very in-your-face airbag experience, or you'll be half-way
>out the window when you roll the car or whatever. The airbag is to cushion
>the impact for a passenger who is in the expected location, and if you're
>elsewhere, it won't work well for you.

All absolutely true.

>It has never been advertised as
>a replacement for seatbelts,

Uh, wrong. That was one of the major rationales for requiring air
bags, at least in the public discussion of the time. Now if you read
carefully you could find people who put the argument correctly, but
the overall tone of the pro-airbag people was that airbags would
handle the problem of people who wouldn't fasten their seatbelts.

In fact this is still used as an argument for air bags by NHTSA, at
least by implication. Take a look at:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/airbags/factsheets/numbers.html

Especially the stuff at the bottom. If you don't read carefully you
come away from this page with the notion that air bags are more
effective than seatbelts. Nowhere on this page of stuff does the NHTSA
actually come out and say that air bags are designed to be used in
conjunction with seat belts.

Now look at the this from one of the 'public interest' groups that
pushed so hard and spread so much misinformation in an effort to get
air bags mandated.

http://www.citizen.org/autosafety/Air_Bags/articles.cfm?ID=6007

Notice especially the claim:
Protection of Unbelted Occupants
Original purpose of air bags

Progressive Insurance is much more honest in its page on seat belts
and air bags.
http://www.progressive.com/RC/DSafety/rc_airbags.asp
But of course an auto insurance company has a major interest in
preventing injuries and deaths in auto accidents. Unlike a government
agency whose main interest is likely to be in defending a bureaucratic
decision.

> nor is it effective as such.
Again, quite correct. In fact there have been several studies showing
that air bags are much less effective than seat belts in saving lives.
See for example, this one by the Canadian equivalent of DOT:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/tp2436/rs200103/menu.htm

Now, ask 100 people on the street if they think air bags are safer
than seat belts. The misinformation persists.

Seat belts would have come into use without government regulation. Air
bags are a much less likely proposition because they are so much less
effective.

In fact even if you completely buy the arguments for air bags it is
now obvious that they were rushed into production by government
mandate far too soon and quite a number of people have died or been
injured because of that. (Including my mother in law, who had the skin
ripped off her face by an air bag -- and yes, she was wearing a seat
belt.) The main problem was that the government rules set the
deployment forces too low.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/10/1575


>> Which doesn't change the fact that SawStop is a kluge. There are
>> undoubtedly better ways to do the same thing -- ways that don't
>> destroy the saw blade for example. But if the government mandates
>> SawStop, those methods will never be developed.
>
>The thing is, if it can stop a blade that fast, that's an _awful_ lot
>of energy getting dissipated into something, very fast. Heat will build
>up somewhere, and sharpened steel things sometimes don't like heat. I'm
>not sure if that's avoidable.

The energy involved is indeed a consideration. But there should be
ways to handle that that are less destructive than SawStop's approach.
But if SawStop had been mandated into law, we probably never would
have found out.

--RC
Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

Darin wrote:
>
> Did anyone else catch the NPR piece on the SawStop TS yesterday? Any
> thoughts? Here's the link to it:
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4182602

I read about this in Tools of the Trade about a year ago. The
inventor (Steve Gass) actually put his own finger into a saw blade
to prove its effectiveness. Said he only got a scratch.

I have many times looked at my TS blade while it was running and
thought about that. That is faith in your equipment.

I have never been cut by a table saw. If I could use the
technology, I think I would rather have it on my miter saw. I have
my hands much closer to the blade on that than anything else.

Another thing to think about: What if you needed to rip some ball
park franks sometime? Could you disable it?

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

GregP wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:09:48 GMT, Robert Allison
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >I have never been cut by a table saw. If I could use the
> >technology, I think I would rather have it on my miter saw. I have
> >my hands much closer to the blade on that than anything else.
>
> But it looks like the key point here is that the blade withdraws.

No, it does not withdraw, it stops the blade instantaneously
(almost). It is like a super fast brake. It has been a while since
I saw the article, but IIRC the device has to be replaced once it
has been activated. That may have changed.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

Ba r r y wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:59:50 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Ba r r y wrote:
> >
> >> I've bandsawed . . . hard drives...
> >
> >Inquiring minds want to know more! Sounds like there is a story here! <g>
> >
> > -- Mark
>
> When I dispose of an old computer, I just want to be SURE the data is
> unrecoverable. <G> Platters in multiple pieces, disposed in multiple
> places can help.
>
> Barry

They are great for skeet shooting.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

A lot of safety issues were brought about through union demands. The government
bowed down to labor and legislated safety as an afterthought. (and no! I am
not a union man)

Grant



"J. Clarke" wrote:

> Hank Gillette wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Probably about as much as there is. What specifically is (a) there
> >> because the government has mandated it and (b) wouldn't be there
> >> regardless and (c) actually improves safety?
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > Guard rails
>
> Guard rails for _what_?
>
> > Accessible exits
>
> Necessary to get stuff out when you go to deliver it. I've never heard of
> exiting from a woodshop being any kind of problem.
>
> > Limits on noise exposure
>
> ROF,L. You've never actually watched "safety engineers" work, have you? I
> remember a couple of them spending about $15K out of my budget to tell me
> that I didn't need a $20 set of earmuffs.
>
> > Limits on exposure to dangerous volatile chemicals
>
> So to which "dangerous and volatile chemicals" is the exposure in a tyhpical
> wood shop "limited"?
>
> > Eye and face protection
>
> See "noise exposure" above.
>
> > Guards around belts and pulleys
>
> I don't recall there being very many unguarded belts and pulleys anywhere
> that anybody was likely to bump into them before OSHA. Somebody getting
> caught in the machinery generally caused a work stoppage and spoiled
> whatever work they bled all over, so there was an economic incentive to do
> this.
>
> > Disconnect (panic) switches
>
> Again, I don't recall any paucity of big read buttons before OSHA.
>
> > Saw guards
>
> Ditto.
>
> > Limit to number of hours worked and mandated breaks
>
> That's funny, I thought the _union_ got _that_.
>
> >
> > You find a lot more at:
> >
> > <http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owastand.display_standard_group?p_toc_le
> > vel=1&p_part_number=1910>
>
> Which doesn't tell us that they've changed anything, just that they've
> justified their existence by releasing a flood of paper.
>
> > Specific woodworking machine requirements are at:
> >
> > <http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&
> > p_id=9837>
>
> More paper. Paper doesn't impress me.
>
> > It's reasonable to assume that many if not most of the regulations are
> > there because some shops or manufacturers were not meeting the standard.
>
> It's reasonable to assume that most of the regulations are there because
> some bureaucrat, possibly one who had never been within 50 miles of an
> actual working shop, decided that they were a good idea.
>
> > I think it's easy to look at things the way they are now and assume that
> > they've always been that way or would have happened without being
> > required.
> >
> > As to whether any particular thing does not improve safety, I'd be
> > surprised if there weren't some. What do you have in mind in particular?
>
> My favorite, in a different context, was a big press at a Fortune 500
> aerospace contractor. It was installed before WWII, and there had never
> been an injury associated with its use. Nonetheless, the safety people
> decided that it needed a guard to comply with OSHA regs (the same safety
> people that spent $15K to save the cost of a set of earmuffs). So they put
> a guard on it, approved by the safety people. In the next year there were
> four injuries caused by the guard.
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article <[email protected]>, Hank Gillette <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ignoring for the moment that there's not a chance in hell that the Bush
>administration is going to make it a requirement, why do you believe
>that the regulation would be written so that only SawStop would meet the
>requirements? As far as I know, they don't have any friends in high
>places.

Their petititon requested that the regulation be written in such a manner.

--
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.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:17:00 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Hank Gillette wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> makesawdust <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Improvements in safety technology are generally a good thing, until the
>>> goverment starts mandating their use.
>>>
>>
>> How many cars would have air bags or seat belts today, if the government
>> hadn't made them mandatory? In fact, the air bag technology languished
>> for several years, essentially unused until they were made mandatory?
>
>They tried to push it to the FAA but the FAA didn't bite.
The FAA did a cost-benefit study and unlike Congress, they listened to
the results.

> It's amazing that
>they were successful with Congress. However even there, airbags are not
>mandatory--it's a "supplemental restraint system" and airbags are
>apparently just the easiest way to do it.
>
>As for seat belts, the public didn't want seat belts.

Untrue. The public had a growing demand for seatbelts, both as after
market equipment and installed in cars. Later the Naderites used
Ford's marketing failure to claim that people wouldn't buy safety
equipment unless the government forced them to.

> Ford tried them and
>people perceived that Fords must be dangerous if they need seat belts so
>sales went down.

Ford sales went down because the 1956 and 1957 Fords were outdone by
their rivals from GM. They were essentially early-50s concepts and GM
had already shifted to late-50s style. Also Ford was in the middle of
one of its periodic spells of ineptness. After it was all over a few
people tried to excuse Ford's failures by claiming 'safety doesn't
sell'. Considering what was going on at Ford this was lame at best.

> So Ford stopped making them standard.
They were not standard. They were options.
http://www.lovefords.org/56ford/options.htm

> Later when they were mandated it put all the manufacturers on an equal footing, which was
>the main benefit of the legislation.

The main benefit of the legislation was that it speeded up the general
adoption of seatbelts by a few years.

> But still, a lot of people resented
>the government intruding into their lives to that extent.
>
>> It's a nice thought that the market will support safety devices on their
>> own merits, but history has shown that not to be the case. If not for
>> the government regulations, how much safety would there be in the
>> average commercial wood shop?
>
>Probably about as much as there is. What specifically is (a) there because
>the government has mandated it and (b) wouldn't be there regardless and (c)
>actually improves safety?

I think you're generally correct there.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:43:02 GMT, Robert Allison
<[email protected]> wrote:
>GregP wrote:

>>
>> But it looks like the key point here is that the blade withdraws.
>
>No, it does not withdraw, it stops the blade instantaneously
>(almost).

It does both, destroying the blade in the process.

Watch the video:
<http://www.sawstop.com/howworks.htm>

Barry

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:14:45 -0500, Hank Gillette
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Airbag technology was implemented in the US before it was ready. Seat
>> belts, on the other hand, were in use in the 1940s by some, but weren't
>> mandated until much later. Some European makes had 3-point belts in all
>> 4 seating positions back in the early '60s, which wasn't mandated in the
>> US until at least 15 years later.
>
>And until it was mandated, the chances of getting seat belts on an entry
>level car was pretty much nil.

Actually no. Seat belts were widely available in the aftermarket and
were beginning to appear in all kinds of cars. The process was in the
early stages so naturally OEM seat belts were more readily available
in higher end cars. But they were easy to install as an accessory.

I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're repeating a piece of
Naderite propaganda that was concocted out of the experience Ford had
in 1956 when it offered seat belts and better door locks as part of a
very expensive 'safety package' on its cars. Ford advertised the
features heavily, but its pricing was so far out of line that the
features didn't sell well. Nader and his ilk jumped on the situation
and proclaimed that "safety doesn't sell" and that car makers wouldn't
make safer cars


>
>This is not a perfect analogy, because the SawStop technology is a much
>higher percentage of the price of the product than seat belts or
>airbags. But I remember that one of the arguments against airbags was
>that the cost would be prohibitive. Putting them in every car lowered
>the unit cost considerably.

Well, not exactly. What really lowered the cost was the development of
a new kind of sensor which was much, much cheaper.

And air bags are NOT cheap. Try repairing a car after the air bags
deploy and you'll see what I mean. What air bags are is subject to
jiggered economics that let the manufacturer push most of the cost off
onto the customer who needs one replaced.

You would never get away with desiging an engine the way air bags are
designed.

Nor are air bags as effective as seat belts. The whole rationale
behind air bags was that they would protect the people who were too
stupid to wear seat belts.

> It's reasonable to assume that the same
>thing would happen with the SawStop.

Which doesn't change the fact that SawStop is a kluge. There are
undoubtedly better ways to do the same thing -- ways that don't
destroy the saw blade for example. But if the government mandates
SawStop, those methods will never be developed.

(And don't kid yourself about how the specification will be drawn. It
may not say 'SawStop' but it will be written so only SawStop
technology can meet it -- no matter how superior other approaches may
be.)

--RC


Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:19:04 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>When you start requiring school bus drivers to do this (and don't give me
>that crap about how the buses are designed to not hurt the kids when they
>run into a bridge abutment), then perhaps you'll find people other than
>professional busybodies agreeing that parents should be required to do it.
>Of course the professional busybodies have an effective lobby and so
>parents are already required by law to do this and a good deal more, some
>of which is intended to protect the kids in their government-approved child
>safety seats from the government-required airbags which, when they strike a
>child in such a seat, with deplorable regularity kill him.


I continue to be amazed by the apparent perception of so many people that
"government is omniscient".

"Government" is a legal entity that knows nothing and does nothing except
through the knowledge and actions of people. People who, in the vast majority,
are faceless and anonymous to the general public. Elected officials are so
grossly outnumbered by the appointed and/or otherwise employed functionaries
that they, the elected, could almost be considered insignificant. No, I don't
have numbers readily available, but I think you'd agree that the number of
elected officials in this country divided by the total number of government
employees is a very small fraction.

The point to this is, why should I automatically substitute the judgment of
those faceless, anonymous people - a mix of good, bad, indifferent, competent
and incompetent people - for my own judgment? I have not been certified as
legally incompetent by a court of law. At least, not yet.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:39:22 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Again, disc brakes were well on their way to becoming standard because
>they offered significant design advantages, no appreciable increase in
>cost and they had a very positive public image.

Disc brakes "were well on their way to becoming standard" because
of the European manufacturers. The Detroit folks dragged up the rear
as usual.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:59:50 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ba r r y wrote:
>
>> I've bandsawed . . . hard drives...
>
>Inquiring minds want to know more! Sounds like there is a story here! <g>
>
> -- Mark

When I dispose of an old computer, I just want to be SURE the data is
unrecoverable. <G> Platters in multiple pieces, disposed in multiple
places can help.

Barry

"Robert Allison" wrote in message

> If I could use the
> technology, I think I would rather have it on my miter saw. I have
> my hands much closer to the blade on that than anything else.

My sentiments, exactly.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:11:35 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>About as much as there is now. A good deal of what is thought of as
>government regulated safety is government regulated hassle. Not to scoff at
>safety, but the government gets a lot of credit for things it did not bring
>about. The government is much better at creating cumbersome regulations
>than it is at really effecting safety.


US corporations get credited for things that were rammed
down their throats, including seat belts, passenger compartment
protections, and disc brakes. Claiming that seat belts would
have become standard issue in a few years without gov't
intervention is good old Soviet-style revisionist history.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:19:04 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>When you start requiring school bus drivers to do this (and don't give me
>that crap about how the buses are designed to not hurt the kids when they
>run into a bridge abutment), then perhaps you'll find people other than
>professional busybodies agreeing that parents should be required to do it.
>Of course the professional busybodies have an effective lobby and so
>parents are already required by law to do this and a good deal more, some
>of which is intended to protect the kids in their government-approved child
>safety seats from the government-required airbags which, when they strike a
>child in such a seat, with deplorable regularity kill him.


You are a prime example of why we have seat belt laws for kids.

On 9 Dec 2004 16:28:15 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>What's even more bizarre, is that Andy is apparently watching alt.obituaties.

Better to be on the outside, looking in

Dave Jackson wrote:
> Dont laugh to much, but i used my band saw to cut up all the sugar
> pumpkins SWMBO and I grew into small pieces to make fresh pumpkin
> pies this year. Pumpkins are difficult to cut up, even with a large
> sharp knife, band saw took minutes, and a few minutes afterward to
> clean the goop off the blade and table! --dave

"A Prarie Home Companion" of a few years back had guys making cinnamon rolls
on their lathes.

-- Mark

"Hank Gillette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yup. It's clear that Sawstop's motivation is for other than the public
> > good. Hell, one could argue that by patenting it and failing to provide
> > a product, they're _preventing_ public good, since they won't allow
> > competant manufacturers to build 'em.
>
> He offered to license it to the manufacturers and they blew him off. How
> is that not letting them build them?
>

What you and I don't know though Hank, is at what cost did he offer to
license it to the manufacturers? It's one thing for Gass to make that
statement, but it does not tell the whole story.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Ba r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:43:02 GMT, Robert Allison
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >GregP wrote:
>
> >>
> >> But it looks like the key point here is that the blade withdraws.
> >
> >No, it does not withdraw, it stops the blade instantaneously
> >(almost).
>
> It does both, destroying the blade in the process.
>
> Watch the video:
> <http://www.sawstop.com/howworks.htm>
>
> Barry

IIRC, due to the material used in the brake and the speed of the blade, the
two actually fuse.

Joe

John <[email protected]> wrote:

> That plus the fact that many folks saw other things than just wood on
> their table saw makes one wonder if this is going to prevent me from
> using my table saw to cut something like aluminum track with my table
> saw
>

Carving the Christmas Goose is out!

Dont laugh to much, but i used my band saw to cut up all the sugar pumpkins
SWMBO and I grew into small pieces to make fresh pumpkin pies this year.
Pumpkins are difficult to cut up, even with a large sharp knife, band saw
took minutes, and a few minutes afterward to clean the goop off the blade
and table! --dave


"Joe Wells" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 07:15:40 +0000, wrote:
>
>> Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> Another thing to think about: What if you needed to rip some ball park
>>> franks sometime? Could you disable it?
>>>
>>>
>> Isn't that why you need a bandsaw?
>
> Nah, you don't need anything that big for hot dogs. A scrollsaw will do
> nicely. You only need the bandsaw for the Thanksgiving turkey and
> Christmas ham.
>
> --
> Joe Wells
>

"Hank Gillette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> makesawdust <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Improvements in safety technology are generally a good thing, until the
> > goverment starts mandating their use.
> >
>
> How many cars would have air bags or seat belts today, if the government
> hadn't made them mandatory? In fact, the air bag technology languished
> for several years, essentially unused until they were made mandatory?

All of them. In fact, what the Germans and the Japanese did with FM radios
as standard equipement in automobiles is precisely what would have taken
place with airbags and seatbelts. They would have introduced them to their
"niche" crowd as standard equipement, they would have been recognized as
value added, and the American automotive industry would have followed suit
to remain competitive. The market would have succeeded again - without
government help.

>
> It's a nice thought that the market will support safety devices on their
> own merits, but history has shown that not to be the case.

Not true. It just takes recognition that there is a market.

> If not for
> the government regulations, how much safety would there be in the
> average commercial wood shop?
>

About as much as there is now. A good deal of what is thought of as
government regulated safety is government regulated hassle. Not to scoff at
safety, but the government gets a lot of credit for things it did not bring
about. The government is much better at creating cumbersome regulations
than it is at really effecting safety.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

<snip>
> Another thing to think about: What if you needed to rip some ball
> park franks sometime? Could you disable it?
>

Isn't that why you need a bandsaw?

Patriarch

Apparently the SawStop folks, when the saw makers decided to NOT jump
on board, then went to the Consumer Safety Commision to try and get
the inclusion of THEIR product on ALL tablesaws, claiming that all
tablesaws WITHOUT their device were inherently unsafe and a life and
limb hazard to owners.

Although the idea and even this solution has appeal, that attitude of
if the market didn't want their product, they would cram it down
everyone's throat by manipulating the govbernment produced a massive
backlash, making myself and many folks state that it would be a cold
day in hell before I would even think about buying/using their product

That plus it costs you a bunch to get your saw back up and running
once the SawStop fires, and they have NO long term statistics on this
thing firing when it is NOT needed makes a strong case against it

That plus the fact that many folks saw other things than just wood on
their table saw makes one wonder if this is going to prevent me from
using my table saw to cut something like aluminum track with my table
saw

Bottom line, I certainly will NOT look at this product due to their
(in my opinion) unethical conduct in trying to generate sales by
forcing it down the consumer's throat via regulation/legislation

John

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:33:01 -0500, Merle <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:15:20 -0600, Darin <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > Did anyone else catch the NPR piece on the SawStop TS yesterday? Any
>> > thoughts?
>>
>> Let me guess - they did a demo, and said it's shipping "real soon now",
>> right? 5 years ago when I first saw that, it was exciting. Now, it's
>> just another piece of vaporware, until I see one I can buy.
>
>The report from FWW last month explained the delay. 3-4 years ago
>(don't think it was 5) the inventor tried to market it to conventional
>saw designers to include as an option on normal saws. It didn't sell.
>Conspiracy theorists might suspect that by placing this protection on
>*some* saws, hen manufacturers would be admitting that unequipped saws
>are dangerous, raising their liability level. The SawStop company gave
>up and set up manufacturing themselves, though I believe they still
>would be willing to market the components to other manufacturers.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:01:33 -0500, Hank Gillette
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:

>In article <[email protected]>, "J" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> I think I read it here that the Saw Stop folks are lawyers by trade. And
>> that there is more than one.
>
>The main guy is a patent lawyer with a PhD in physics.

I'll be their first thousand (or ten) replacement mechanisms go to
people for false-activation (people who sawed wet wood or otherwise
touched a safe part of the blade, etc.) and the lawsuits start the
moment the things get into people's shops. It eats the blade and
the mechanism whenever it's triggered. Tell that to the guy who
accidentally loses TWO Forrest WWII blades in one day, eh? the
SawStop is an almost-good idea with an expensive appetite. No
thanks. I won't even be looking at them, especially at that really
exhorbitant price.

--
"Most Folks Are As Happy As They Make Up Their Minds To Be"
-Abraham Lincoln
-----------------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Happy Website Development

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:15:20 -0600, Darin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Did anyone else catch the NPR piece on the SawStop TS yesterday? Any
> > thoughts?
>
> Let me guess - they did a demo, and said it's shipping "real soon now",
> right? 5 years ago when I first saw that, it was exciting. Now, it's
> just another piece of vaporware, until I see one I can buy.

The report from FWW last month explained the delay. 3-4 years ago
(don't think it was 5) the inventor tried to market it to conventional
saw designers to include as an option on normal saws. It didn't sell.
Conspiracy theorists might suspect that by placing this protection on
*some* saws, hen manufacturers would be admitting that unequipped saws
are dangerous, raising their liability level. The SawStop company gave
up and set up manufacturing themselves, though I believe they still
would be willing to market the components to other manufacturers.

"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:xVOtd.11824
> Saw stop has been the subject of much discussion around these parts.
There is no doubt that
> the device works. I doubt if it will ever become law, however.
>
> Frank

Does No ONE care about the thousands of hot dogs that have been slaughtered
by this device?!
You people are so insensitive.

-j

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:15:20 -0600, Darin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Did anyone else catch the NPR piece on the SawStop TS yesterday? Any
> > thoughts?

> Let me guess - they did a demo, and said it's shipping "real soon now",
> right? 5 years ago when I first saw that, it was exciting. Now, it's
> just another piece of vaporware, until I see one I can buy.

Here you go. There is a click-to-order link right on this page:
http://www.sawstop.com/Contractor_Price_List.htm

Actually, on the NPR piece they interviewed at least one or two
people who had them in use.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

"Merle" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> The report from FWW last month explained the delay. 3-4 years ago
> (don't think it was 5) the inventor tried to market it to conventional
> saw designers to include as an option on normal saws. It didn't sell.

You misspelled sugar-coated. After nobody wanted it, they tried to get
regulations enacted which would mandate their product. Nice way to do
business.

> Conspiracy theorists might suspect that by placing this protection on
> *some* saws, hen manufacturers would be admitting that unequipped saws
> are dangerous, raising their liability level.

Or maybe they just realized it was a bad idea when you really think about
it.

> The SawStop company gave up

and took up lobbying the safety commissions.

> and set up manufacturing themselves,

And outsourced the manufacture to some taiwanese company

> though I believe they still would be willing to market the components to
other manufacturers.

They would be willing to sell it anywhere. Unfortunately they have not been
successful at attracting buyers or delivering product.

-j

> I've heard that, but never seen an actual cite for it. If you could
> point me to one, I'd be happy ...

Be happy:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-17327.htm
http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA03/brief/Tablesaw.pdf
http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA03/petition/Bladesawpt1.pdf
http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA03/petition/Bladesawpt2.pdf

Also try groups.google.com
It has been covered in detail here a number of times.

> > They would be willing to sell it anywhere. Unfortunately they have not
been
> > successful at attracting buyers or delivering product.
>
> Yabut, there's an "order now" button on the website I hear... probably
> no ship date, but you can order one.

It has been there for a few years.
-j

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 19:20:15 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, on the NPR piece they interviewed at least one or two
> > people who had them in use.

> Yes, I understand that prototypes exist. Unless something changed
> very recently, that's _all_ that's out there. This is the very
> definition of "vaporware".

The people interviewed who had them were contractors and/or
cabinet shops. The impression I got was they had bought
them and were using them. Now a couple were waiting for
delivery also, so I don't know if there are truly more
than a few early production/prototypes out there or what.
I don't really care, but it *sounded* like they were in
production.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

--
'
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:18:55 -0800, J <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I've heard that, but never seen an actual cite for it. If you could
> >> point me to one, I'd be happy ...
> >
> > Be happy:
> >
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-17327.htm
>
> This akamaized URL does not work.

It does for me. Just checked it and it still does. I clicked on it so I'm
very comfortable making that statement.

The content versioning part of the URL
> has been changed because gpo.gov's site has superceded that version. In
> almost every case, you can get the information anyway by shortening the
> URL by taking the Akamai-specific stuff out of the URL and starting
> with edocket.... in this case.
>
> Yup, verified it, and it works. (I brought Akamai to our company's
> web delivery systems, so I'm very comfortable making that statement).
>
> Right. "We want you to make this mandatory to help the people
> (but oh by the way we hold the patent)". Lovely.

If it weren't for the please give us a monopoly so we can make you safer
part I think they would be held in higher regard. As it is, their true
colors shine through.

-j

[email protected] wrote:

> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:15:20 -0600, Darin
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Did anyone else catch the NPR piece on the SawStop TS yesterday? Any
>> > thoughts?
>
>> Let me guess - they did a demo, and said it's shipping "real soon now",
>> right? 5 years ago when I first saw that, it was exciting. Now, it's
>> just another piece of vaporware, until I see one I can buy.
>
> Here you go. There is a click-to-order link right on this page:
> http://www.sawstop.com/Contractor_Price_List.htm

And if you check the link that gets you there, it says "preorder". In other
words you give the guy your money and maybe he'll send you a saw one day
and maybe he'll send himself to Rio instead.

> Actually, on the NPR piece they interviewed at least one or two
> people who had them in use.
>
> Bill Ranck
> Blacksburg, Va.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

[email protected] wrote:

> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 19:20:15 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Actually, on the NPR piece they interviewed at least one or two
>> > people who had them in use.
>
>> Yes, I understand that prototypes exist. Unless something changed
>> very recently, that's _all_ that's out there. This is the very
>> definition of "vaporware".
>
> The people interviewed who had them were contractors and/or
> cabinet shops. The impression I got was they had bought
> them and were using them. Now a couple were waiting for
> delivery also, so I don't know if there are truly more
> than a few early production/prototypes out there or what.
> I don't really care, but it *sounded* like they were in
> production.

Well of course it did. Snake oil salesmen are good at making things sound
better than they are.

>
> Bill Ranck
> Blacksburg, Va.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J wrote:

>
>
> '
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:18:55 -0800, J <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've heard that, but never seen an actual cite for it.  If you could
>> >> point me to one, I'd be happy ...
>> >
>> > Be happy:
>> >
>
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-17327.htm
>>
>> This akamaized URL does not work.
>
> It does for me. Just checked it and it still does. I clicked on it so I'm
> very comfortable making that statement.
>
> The content versioning part of the URL
>> has been changed because gpo.gov's site has superceded that version.  In
>> almost every case, you can get the information anyway by shortening the
>> URL by taking the Akamai-specific stuff out of the URL and starting
>> with edocket.... in this case.
>>
>> Yup, verified it, and it works.  (I brought Akamai to our company's
>> web delivery systems, so I'm very comfortable making that statement).
>>
>> Right.  "We want you to make this mandatory to help the people
>> (but oh by the way we hold the patent)".  Lovely.
>
> If it weren't for the please give us a monopoly so we can make you safer
> part I think they would be held in higher regard. As it is, their true
> colors shine through.

Little known fact--the antiskid braking system used on many cars these days
is based on a Mercedes-Benz patent that Mercedes placed in the public
domain for the good of society.

He'd be much more impressive if he did something like that. And since
nobody wants to make the damn thing but him anyway, his financial risk is
small unless it takes off in which case he's going to be rich anyway if he
doesn't screw up.
>
> -j

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Ba r r y wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:59:50 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Ba r r y wrote:
>>
>>> I've bandsawed . . . hard drives...
>>
>>Inquiring minds want to know more! Sounds like there is a story here!
>><g>
>>
>> -- Mark
>
> When I dispose of an old computer, I just want to be SURE the data is
> unrecoverable. <G> Platters in multiple pieces, disposed in multiple
> places can help.

I'd chuck 'em in the lathe or drill press and apply 40 grit to the platters
until there was no trace of coating left.

> Barry

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

GregP wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:09:48 GMT, Robert Allison
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>I have never been cut by a table saw. If I could use the
>>technology, I think I would rather have it on my miter saw. I have
>>my hands much closer to the blade on that than anything else.
>
>
> But it looks like the key point here is that the blade withdraws.

On the table saws it does but the key point is that it stops almost
instantaneously. He's touting the thing for all saws, not just table saws.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> He'd be much more impressive if he did something like that. And since
> nobody wants to make the damn thing but him anyway, his financial risk is
> small unless it takes off in which case he's going to be rich anyway if he
> doesn't screw up.
> >
> > -j

I think I read it here that the Saw Stop folks are lawyers by trade. And
that there is more than one.

-j

Hank Gillette wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Little known fact--the antiskid braking system used on many cars these
>> days is based on a Mercedes-Benz patent that Mercedes placed in the
>> public domain for the good of society.
>>
>> He'd be much more impressive if he did something like that. And since
>> nobody wants to make the damn thing but him anyway, his financial risk is
>> small unless it takes off in which case he's going to be rich anyway if
>> he doesn't screw up.
>
> Of course if he gives up the patents and it takes off, the current saw
> manufacturers would simply add it to their product line and he'd be
> totally left out.

Not necessarily. If he's tooled up to produce the parts for the whole
industry then he's likely to be able to sell them for less than any
individual saw manufacturer can make them, so most would end up buying his
kit instead of reinventing the wheel.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Hank Gillette wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> makesawdust <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Improvements in safety technology are generally a good thing, until the
>> goverment starts mandating their use.
>>
>
> How many cars would have air bags or seat belts today, if the government
> hadn't made them mandatory? In fact, the air bag technology languished
> for several years, essentially unused until they were made mandatory?

They tried to push it to the FAA but the FAA didn't bite. It's amazing that
they were successful with Congress. However even there, airbags are not
mandatory--it's a "supplemental restraint system" and airbags are
apparently just the easiest way to do it.

As for seat belts, the public didn't want seat belts. Ford tried them and
people perceived that Fords must be dangerous if they need seat belts so
sales went down. So Ford stopped making them standard. Later when they
were mandated it put all the manufacturers on an equal footing, which was
the main benefit of the legislation. But still, a lot of people resented
the government intruding into their lives to that extent.

> It's a nice thought that the market will support safety devices on their
> own merits, but history has shown that not to be the case. If not for
> the government regulations, how much safety would there be in the
> average commercial wood shop?

Probably about as much as there is. What specifically is (a) there because
the government has mandated it and (b) wouldn't be there regardless and (c)
actually improves safety?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Hank Gillette wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Airbag technology was implemented in the US before it was ready. Seat
>> belts, on the other hand, were in use in the 1940s by some, but weren't
>> mandated until much later. Some European makes had 3-point belts in all
>> 4 seating positions back in the early '60s, which wasn't mandated in the
>> US until at least 15 years later.
>
> And until it was mandated, the chances of getting seat belts on an entry
> level car was pretty much nil.

The chance of getting seat belts on just about any American car from 1960 or
so on was almost 100%, _if_ you ordered them or asked the dealer to install
them. All of them that I remember had the hard points in place.

> This is not a perfect analogy, because the SawStop technology is a much
> higher percentage of the price of the product than seat belts or
> airbags. But I remember that one of the arguments against airbags was
> that the cost would be prohibitive. Putting them in every car lowered
> the unit cost considerably. It's reasonable to assume that the same
> thing would happen with the SawStop.

Or not as the case may be.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Hank Gillette wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Probably about as much as there is. What specifically is (a) there
>> because the government has mandated it and (b) wouldn't be there
>> regardless and (c) actually improves safety?
>
> How about:
>
> Guard rails

Guard rails for _what_?

> Accessible exits

Necessary to get stuff out when you go to deliver it. I've never heard of
exiting from a woodshop being any kind of problem.

> Limits on noise exposure

ROF,L. You've never actually watched "safety engineers" work, have you? I
remember a couple of them spending about $15K out of my budget to tell me
that I didn't need a $20 set of earmuffs.

> Limits on exposure to dangerous volatile chemicals

So to which "dangerous and volatile chemicals" is the exposure in a tyhpical
wood shop "limited"?

> Eye and face protection

See "noise exposure" above.

> Guards around belts and pulleys

I don't recall there being very many unguarded belts and pulleys anywhere
that anybody was likely to bump into them before OSHA. Somebody getting
caught in the machinery generally caused a work stoppage and spoiled
whatever work they bled all over, so there was an economic incentive to do
this.

> Disconnect (panic) switches

Again, I don't recall any paucity of big read buttons before OSHA.

> Saw guards

Ditto.

> Limit to number of hours worked and mandated breaks

That's funny, I thought the _union_ got _that_.

>
> You find a lot more at:
>
> <http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owastand.display_standard_group?p_toc_le
> vel=1&p_part_number=1910>

Which doesn't tell us that they've changed anything, just that they've
justified their existence by releasing a flood of paper.

> Specific woodworking machine requirements are at:
>
> <http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&
> p_id=9837>

More paper. Paper doesn't impress me.

> It's reasonable to assume that many if not most of the regulations are
> there because some shops or manufacturers were not meeting the standard.

It's reasonable to assume that most of the regulations are there because
some bureaucrat, possibly one who had never been within 50 miles of an
actual working shop, decided that they were a good idea.

> I think it's easy to look at things the way they are now and assume that
> they've always been that way or would have happened without being
> required.
>
> As to whether any particular thing does not improve safety, I'd be
> surprised if there weren't some. What do you have in mind in particular?

My favorite, in a different context, was a big press at a Fortune 500
aerospace contractor. It was installed before WWII, and there had never
been an injury associated with its use. Nonetheless, the safety people
decided that it needed a guard to comply with OSHA regs (the same safety
people that spent $15K to save the cost of a set of earmuffs). So they put
a guard on it, approved by the safety people. In the next year there were
four injuries caused by the guard.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Hank Gillette wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Of course if he gives up the patents and it takes off, the current saw
>> > manufacturers would simply add it to their product line and he'd be
>> > totally left out.
>>
>> Not necessarily. If he's tooled up to produce the parts for the whole
>> industry then he's likely to be able to sell them for less than any
>> individual saw manufacturer can make them, so most would end up buying
>> his kit instead of reinventing the wheel.
>
> That's possible. But he's not tooled up, he's contracting it out to
> Taiwan or China, the same as the major tool companies. Without the
> patent protection, what's to keep them from contracting with the same
> Asian manufacturers? It's hard to believe that they couldn't get it made
> cheaper without having to pay a patent license.

A Taiwanese shop tooled up to produce 10,000 of something can still sell
them for less than ten Taiwanese shops tooled up to produce 1,000 each.
Sure, the tool manufacturers could each have a shop tool up to make their
lot, but one that has a contract with Sawstop would likely have a
non-compete clause in the contract.

> And, if they would buy it from him anyway, then there's no reason for
> him to put his patents in the public domain.

Of course there is. It's called a "symbolic gesture" or "act of good
faith".

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Hank Gillette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Necessary to get stuff out when you go to deliver it. I've never heard
of
> > exiting from a woodshop being any kind of problem.
> >
>
> I've certainly heard of deaths in factories because the emergency exits
> were locked.
>
> --
> Hank Gillette

Factories or woodshops?
Legal or illegal labor?
I've heard of deaths in nightclubs...

-j

> Ignoring for the moment that there's not a chance in hell that the Bush
> administration is going to make it a requirement, why do you believe
> that the regulation would be written so that only SawStop would meet the
> requirements? As far as I know, they don't have any friends in high
> places.

Because the draft proposal was clearly written so that it matched the
SawStop patents.
We believe it because we saw it with our own eyes. No one is making that
stuff up.

-j

Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> writes:

> I'll be their first thousand (or ten) replacement mechanisms go to
> people for false-activation (people who sawed wet wood


Good point. I'm in the "wait and see" catagory.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Grant P. Beagles wrote:

> A lot of safety issues were brought about through union demands. The
> government
> bowed down to labor and legislated safety as an afterthought. (and no! I
> am not a union man)

Is safety legislation in fact the result of lobbying by the labor unions?
Usually they handle things by contract.

> Grant
>
>
>
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> Hank Gillette wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Probably about as much as there is. What specifically is (a) there
>> >> because the government has mandated it and (b) wouldn't be there
>> >> regardless and (c) actually improves safety?
>> >
>> > How about:
>> >
>> > Guard rails
>>
>> Guard rails for _what_?
>>
>> > Accessible exits
>>
>> Necessary to get stuff out when you go to deliver it. I've never heard
>> of exiting from a woodshop being any kind of problem.
>>
>> > Limits on noise exposure
>>
>> ROF,L. You've never actually watched "safety engineers" work, have you?
>> I remember a couple of them spending about $15K out of my budget to tell
>> me that I didn't need a $20 set of earmuffs.
>>
>> > Limits on exposure to dangerous volatile chemicals
>>
>> So to which "dangerous and volatile chemicals" is the exposure in a
>> tyhpical wood shop "limited"?
>>
>> > Eye and face protection
>>
>> See "noise exposure" above.
>>
>> > Guards around belts and pulleys
>>
>> I don't recall there being very many unguarded belts and pulleys anywhere
>> that anybody was likely to bump into them before OSHA. Somebody getting
>> caught in the machinery generally caused a work stoppage and spoiled
>> whatever work they bled all over, so there was an economic incentive to
>> do this.
>>
>> > Disconnect (panic) switches
>>
>> Again, I don't recall any paucity of big read buttons before OSHA.
>>
>> > Saw guards
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>> > Limit to number of hours worked and mandated breaks
>>
>> That's funny, I thought the _union_ got _that_.
>>
>> >
>> > You find a lot more at:
>> >
>> >
<http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owastand.display_standard_group?p_toc_le
>> > vel=1&p_part_number=1910>
>>
>> Which doesn't tell us that they've changed anything, just that they've
>> justified their existence by releasing a flood of paper.
>>
>> > Specific woodworking machine requirements are at:
>> >
>> >
<http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&
>> > p_id=9837>
>>
>> More paper. Paper doesn't impress me.
>>
>> > It's reasonable to assume that many if not most of the regulations are
>> > there because some shops or manufacturers were not meeting the
>> > standard.
>>
>> It's reasonable to assume that most of the regulations are there because
>> some bureaucrat, possibly one who had never been within 50 miles of an
>> actual working shop, decided that they were a good idea.
>>
>> > I think it's easy to look at things the way they are now and assume
>> > that they've always been that way or would have happened without being
>> > required.
>> >
>> > As to whether any particular thing does not improve safety, I'd be
>> > surprised if there weren't some. What do you have in mind in
>> > particular?
>>
>> My favorite, in a different context, was a big press at a Fortune 500
>> aerospace contractor. It was installed before WWII, and there had never
>> been an injury associated with its use. Nonetheless, the safety people
>> decided that it needed a guard to comply with OSHA regs (the same safety
>> people that spent $15K to save the cost of a set of earmuffs). So they
>> put
>> a guard on it, approved by the safety people. In the next year there
>> were four injuries caused by the guard.
>>
>> --
>> --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)

GregP wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:11:35 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>About as much as there is now. A good deal of what is thought of as
>>government regulated safety is government regulated hassle. Not to scoff
>>at safety, but the government gets a lot of credit for things it did not
>>bring
>>about. The government is much better at creating cumbersome regulations
>>than it is at really effecting safety.
>
>
> US corporations get credited for things that were rammed
> down their throats, including seat belts, passenger compartment
> protections, and disc brakes.

Huh? Who "rammed disk brakes down their throat"? There is no government
regulation requiring disk brakes, at least not in the US.

> Claiming that seat belts would
> have become standard issue in a few years without gov't
> intervention is good old Soviet-style revisionist history.

Really depends on whether people wanted them or not. If people bought cars
with them in preference to cars without them then they would have
eventually become standard across the board. If people went the other way
then they would not. What is your objection to letting people decide how
much safety they want in their lives?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Todd the wood junkie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Has anyone read how this technology works? In a nutshell, it detects
> the electrical signal of your finger using the blade as a conductor. I
> wonder if this means that HSS is in, and carbide is out since the
> adhesive and the carbide may insulate the signal.
> http://www.sawstop.com/howworks.htm

Carbide is usually brazed to the sawblade. Last time I checked bronze
conducted electricity.
I believe tungsten carbide does as well. But it won't work for blades with
big diamond teeth.

-j

Todd the wood junkie wrote:

> Has anyone read how this technology works? In a nutshell, it detects
> the electrical signal of your finger using the blade as a conductor. I
> wonder if this means that HSS is in, and carbide is out since the
> adhesive and the carbide may insulate the signal.
> http://www.sawstop.com/howworks.htm

I thought he was using a carbide blade when he demostrated it. If it won't
work with a carbide blade then it's worthless.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

GregP wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:13:45 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Huh? Who "rammed disk brakes down their throat"? There is no government
>>regulation requiring disk brakes, at least not in the US.
>>
>
> I apologize, I mixed that up with something else.
>
>>What is your objection to letting people decide how
>>much safety they want in their lives?
>
> I do think that parents should be required to seatbelt
> their children.

When you start requiring school bus drivers to do this (and don't give me
that crap about how the buses are designed to not hurt the kids when they
run into a bridge abutment), then perhaps you'll find people other than
professional busybodies agreeing that parents should be required to do it.
Of course the professional busybodies have an effective lobby and so
parents are already required by law to do this and a good deal more, some
of which is intended to protect the kids in their government-approved child
safety seats from the government-required airbags which, when they strike a
child in such a seat, with deplorable regularity kill him.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

GregP wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:19:04 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>When you start requiring school bus drivers to do this (and don't give me
>>that crap about how the buses are designed to not hurt the kids when they
>>run into a bridge abutment), then perhaps you'll find people other than
>>professional busybodies agreeing that parents should be required to do it.
>>Of course the professional busybodies have an effective lobby and so
>>parents are already required by law to do this and a good deal more, some
>>of which is intended to protect the kids in their government-approved
>>child safety seats from the government-required airbags which, when they
>>strike a child in such a seat, with deplorable regularity kill him.
>
>
> You are a prime example of why we have seat belt laws for kids.

I see that since you don't have a refutation for the argument you instead
resort to a personal attack. Thank you for letting me know the depth of
your commitment to reasoned discourse.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Also, WHO are you going to SUE when it doesn't work and you lose a
finger anyway, OR get more than the tiny cut they show with the wiener
demos?? Of course, right NOW the only one who is open for that
lawsuit is going to be SawStop. Wonder what their liability insurance
is running them per saw??

If it is NOT going ot be 100% then it is going to be a MAJOR liability
source, I can just see the lawyers flocking to class action suits when
the first failure with injury occurs - and I sincerely doubt that any
waivers they require folks to sign are going to be worth the paper
they are printed on

John

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:25:02 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> That plus it costs you a bunch to get your saw back up and running
>> once the SawStop fires, and they have NO long term statistics on this
>> thing firing when it is NOT needed makes a strong case against it
>
>That is a potential problem If it save a finger, I'll gladly pay may times
>the cost of a blade and cartridge. OTOH, if it goes off for no good reason,
>I'd be red with rage at them.
>
>False activation was a concern with air bags years ago. They've proven
>themselves over many years now. My guess is the SawStop will take a few
>years of a good track record to become a consideration for the masses. I
>can also see down the road that OSHA and workman's comp insurance companies
>would demand such a thing once the technology has proven itself if it truly
>does.
>Ed
>

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:32:16 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Which doesn't change the fact that SawStop is a kluge. There are
>undoubtedly better ways to do the same thing -- ways that don't
>destroy the saw blade for example. But if the government mandates
>SawStop, those methods will never be developed.


Sawstop should not be mandated, but the argument that
"there are undoubtedly better ways to do the same thing"
is irrelevant, since millions of table saws have been built,
all without undoubtedly better ways to do the same thing.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:13:45 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Huh? Who "rammed disk brakes down their throat"? There is no government
>regulation requiring disk brakes, at least not in the US.
>

I apologize, I mixed that up with something else.

>What is your objection to letting people decide how
>much safety they want in their lives?

I do think that parents should be required to seatbelt
their children.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:28:00 -0500, Hank Gillette
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Home shop(s). But you seemed to be saying that people don't take
>> precautions unless forced to by governmental decree, and I think that
>> the fact that it's a home shop shows even more so that they will.
>
>
>That wasn't my intent to say that. My intent was to say that it's not
>always that high a priority with a company.
>
>> > If it's a shop where you work as an employee, how much say do you have
>> > in how good a dust collection system is installed? Does your employer
>> > take input from employees on emergency exits and whether they are
>> > unlocked during working hours? The number of fire extinguishers
>> > available and how often they are certified?
>>
>> When I worked in manufacturing, the employers most certainly did listen
>> to that sort of suggestion. One, a tiny company, the other a huge
>> international mega-corp whose name rhymes with, say, "GE".
>>
>> > You really don't have to look too hard to see that employee safety and
>> > the public good are not very high on the priority list of most
>> > companies.
>>
>> My personal experience differs profoundly with your statement.
>
>So GE dumped all of those PCBs in the Hudson River for the public good?

In a manner of speaking.

GE was using PCBs in the first place as a safety measure. They were
used in electrical equipment such are large transformers and
capacitors as a fire retardant. In fact they were considered such an
essential safety measure that there was no market for products that
didn't contain PCBs. (The modern replacements are inferior.)

Nor were PCBs generally considered a dangerous contaminant during
almost all the period GE was discharging wash water with PCBs as an
accidential contaminant. (AFIK there was no deliberate dumping of
quantities of PCBs. At least I can't find any reference to it in a
quick search of the literature.)

You're badly overstating your case.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:50:48 -0500, GregP <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:13:45 -0500, "J. Clarke"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>What is your objection to letting people decide how
>>much safety they want in their lives?
>
> None. I object to people pretending that US auto
> manufacturers would have made them standard
> in automobiles any time soon.

And your proof that they would not have become standard is. . .?

Again, disc brakes were well on their way to becoming standard because
they offered significant design advantages, no appreciable increase in
cost and they had a very positive public image.

While manufacturers undoubtedly do take credit for government mandated
safety features, it is a fallacy to conclude from that that such
safety features would not exist without government intervention.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

In article <[email protected]>, "J" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I think I read it here that the Saw Stop folks are lawyers by trade. And
> that there is more than one.

The main guy is a patent lawyer with a PhD in physics.

--
Hank Gillette

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> Which doesn't change the fact that SawStop is a kluge. There are
> undoubtedly better ways to do the same thing -- ways that don't
> destroy the saw blade for example. But if the government mandates
> SawStop, those methods will never be developed.
>
> (And don't kid yourself about how the specification will be drawn. It
> may not say 'SawStop' but it will be written so only SawStop
> technology can meet it -- no matter how superior other approaches may
> be.)

Ignoring for the moment that there's not a chance in hell that the Bush
administration is going to make it a requirement, why do you believe
that the regulation would be written so that only SawStop would meet the
requirements? As far as I know, they don't have any friends in high
places.

There may indeed be better ways to do the same thing (although stopping
a 10 inch saw blade running at full speed within a fraction of a second
without damaging seems to me to be a non-trivial problem), but I don't
see any sign that anyone else is working on or even interested in doing
it.

--
Hank Gillette

In article <[email protected]>,
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Of course if he gives up the patents and it takes off, the current saw
> > manufacturers would simply add it to their product line and he'd be
> > totally left out.
>
> Not necessarily. If he's tooled up to produce the parts for the whole
> industry then he's likely to be able to sell them for less than any
> individual saw manufacturer can make them, so most would end up buying his
> kit instead of reinventing the wheel.

That's possible. But he's not tooled up, he's contracting it out to
Taiwan or China, the same as the major tool companies. Without the
patent protection, what's to keep them from contracting with the same
Asian manufacturers? It's hard to believe that they couldn't get it made
cheaper without having to pay a patent license.

And, if they would buy it from him anyway, then there's no reason for
him to put his patents in the public domain.

--
Hank Gillette

In article <[email protected]>,
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Probably about as much as there is. What specifically is (a) there because
> the government has mandated it and (b) wouldn't be there regardless and (c)
> actually improves safety?

How about:

Guard rails
Accessible exits
Limits on noise exposure
Limits on exposure to dangerous volatile chemicals
Eye and face protection
Guards around belts and pulleys
Disconnect (panic) switches
Saw guards
Limit to number of hours worked and mandated breaks

You find a lot more at:

<http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owastand.display_standard_group?p_toc_le
vel=1&p_part_number=1910>

Specific woodworking machine requirements are at:

<http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&
p_id=9837>

It's reasonable to assume that many if not most of the regulations are
there because some shops or manufacturers were not meeting the standard.
I think it's easy to look at things the way they are now and assume that
they've always been that way or would have happened without being
required.

As to whether any particular thing does not improve safety, I'd be
surprised if there weren't some. What do you have in mind in particular?

--
Hank Gillette

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

> Airbag technology was implemented in the US before it was ready. Seat
> belts, on the other hand, were in use in the 1940s by some, but weren't
> mandated until much later. Some European makes had 3-point belts in all
> 4 seating positions back in the early '60s, which wasn't mandated in the
> US until at least 15 years later.

And until it was mandated, the chances of getting seat belts on an entry
level car was pretty much nil.

This is not a perfect analogy, because the SawStop technology is a much
higher percentage of the price of the product than seat belts or
airbags. But I remember that one of the arguments against airbags was
that the cost would be prohibitive. Putting them in every car lowered
the unit cost considerably. It's reasonable to assume that the same
thing would happen with the SawStop.

--
Hank Gillette

In article <[email protected]>,
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:

> What you and I don't know though Hank, is at what cost did he offer to
> license it to the manufacturers? It's one thing for Gass to make that
> statement, but it does not tell the whole story.

That's very true. Since none of the saw manufacturers have said that
they would like to license it, but that the cost was prohibitive, it
doesn't really seem likely that that is the reason. But it could be.

--
Hank Gillette

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

> > So GE dumped all of those PCBs in the Hudson River for the public good?
>
> That would be the PCBs that, at the time, weren't known to be a problem,
> that independant scientists agree are better left _undisturbed_ than
> stirred up, and that people who feel about things rather than think about them
> want dug up anyways, those PCBs?
>

Those would be the ones. While they may have not known that they were a
problem, I doubt GE actually thought they were doing anyone a favor
(other than themselves) by dumping them in the river.

As to whether they are better off left undisturbed, a cursory look on
the Internet indicates that GE might have distorted the kind of dredging
that would be done. The final order from the EPA came during the George
W. Bush administration, and dredging was supported by Governor Pataki.

> I also notice you just morphed the issue from "employee safety" to
> "seeing into the future to avoid environmental problems", was that
> intentional?

No, I didn't morph anything. I said earlier that "You really don't have
to look too hard to see that employee safety and the public good are not
very high on the priority list of most companies." It's just easier to
point out the cases where the public good is involved, because they get
more publicity.

As far as looking in the future, do you really believe that GE thought
PCBs were totally benign? Or was it just cheaper for them to look the
other way and dump their waste into the river as long as they could get
away with it?

--
Hank Gillette

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

> Home shop(s). But you seemed to be saying that people don't take
> precautions unless forced to by governmental decree, and I think that
> the fact that it's a home shop shows even more so that they will.


That wasn't my intent to say that. My intent was to say that it's not
always that high a priority with a company.

> > If it's a shop where you work as an employee, how much say do you have
> > in how good a dust collection system is installed? Does your employer
> > take input from employees on emergency exits and whether they are
> > unlocked during working hours? The number of fire extinguishers
> > available and how often they are certified?
>
> When I worked in manufacturing, the employers most certainly did listen
> to that sort of suggestion. One, a tiny company, the other a huge
> international mega-corp whose name rhymes with, say, "GE".
>
> > You really don't have to look too hard to see that employee safety and
> > the public good are not very high on the priority list of most
> > companies.
>
> My personal experience differs profoundly with your statement.

So GE dumped all of those PCBs in the Hudson River for the public good?

--
Hank Gillette

In article <[email protected]>,
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Little known fact--the antiskid braking system used on many cars these days
> is based on a Mercedes-Benz patent that Mercedes placed in the public
> domain for the good of society.
>
> He'd be much more impressive if he did something like that. And since
> nobody wants to make the damn thing but him anyway, his financial risk is
> small unless it takes off in which case he's going to be rich anyway if he
> doesn't screw up.

Of course if he gives up the patents and it takes off, the current saw
manufacturers would simply add it to their product line and he'd be
totally left out.

--
Hank Gillette

In article <[email protected]>,
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Necessary to get stuff out when you go to deliver it. I've never heard of
> exiting from a woodshop being any kind of problem.
>

I've certainly heard of deaths in factories because the emergency exits
were locked.

--
Hank Gillette

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Lets let 'em get a working model first. Demo units do not equal
> a product.

I don't disagree with that. I'd like to see some production models and
statistics before I'd be in favor of it being required equipment.

--
Hank Gillette

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yup. It's clear that Sawstop's motivation is for other than the public
> good. Hell, one could argue that by patenting it and failing to provide
> a product, they're _preventing_ public good, since they won't allow
> competant manufacturers to build 'em.

He offered to license it to the manufacturers and they blew him off. How
is that not letting them build them?

--
Hank Gillette

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

> Google for "licensing". He could let others manufacture it and take a cut
> from each sale, nothing new or novel there.

Didn't he offer to do that, without any takers?

--
Hank Gillette

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

> > It's a nice thought that the market will support safety devices on their
> > own merits, but history has shown that not to be the case. If not for
> > the government regulations, how much safety would there be in the
> > average commercial wood shop?
>
> Nobody forces me to wear eye and ear protection when using certain
> machines, but I do. So, I'd say "quite a bit;what's your point"?

Are you talking about your home shop or your workplace (they may be the
same, I don't know)?

If it's a shop where you work as an employee, how much say do you have
in how good a dust collection system is installed? Does your employer
take input from employees on emergency exits and whether they are
unlocked during working hours? The number of fire extinguishers
available and how often they are certified?

You really don't have to look too hard to see that employee safety and
the public good are not very high on the priority list of most
companies. You can have the great majority of mining companies dedicated
to protecting the environment and employee safety, but if those things
aren't regulated, they are going to have trouble competing with the
companies that don't care, because people are going to gravitate for the
most part to the best price. It's hard to justify paying more for a load
of coal (or whatever) when you don't see the dead miners or live near
the polluted streams.

To bring this back to the specific from the general, I don't know if the
SawStop (or a similar technology) should be mandatory, but I don't
dismiss it out of hand. I see too many areas where companies don't have
my best interests at heart.

--
Hank Gillette

In article <[email protected]>,
makesawdust <[email protected]> wrote:

> Improvements in safety technology are generally a good thing, until the
> goverment starts mandating their use.
>

How many cars would have air bags or seat belts today, if the government
hadn't made them mandatory? In fact, the air bag technology languished
for several years, essentially unused until they were made mandatory?

It's a nice thought that the market will support safety devices on their
own merits, but history has shown that not to be the case. If not for
the government regulations, how much safety would there be in the
average commercial wood shop?

--
Hank Gillette

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:59:07 -0500, Hank Gillette
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Which doesn't change the fact that SawStop is a kluge. There are
>> undoubtedly better ways to do the same thing -- ways that don't
>> destroy the saw blade for example. But if the government mandates
>> SawStop, those methods will never be developed.
>>
>> (And don't kid yourself about how the specification will be drawn. It
>> may not say 'SawStop' but it will be written so only SawStop
>> technology can meet it -- no matter how superior other approaches may
>> be.)
>
>Ignoring for the moment that there's not a chance in hell that the Bush
>administration is going to make it a requirement, why do you believe
>that the regulation would be written so that only SawStop would meet the
>requirements?

Experience with the way government regulations are written makes me
believe that. This is reinforced by the fact that the guys running
SawStop are lawyers, which means they know how to influence the
process -- or enough to hire lawyers who know how to influence the
process.

> As far as I know, they don't have any friends in high
>places.

Presumably that would be somewhat different if there was a chance the
regulation would be adopted. However this isn't a matter of bribery --
exactly.

Jiggering the rules for your benefit is a complex, sophisticated
process but it's a well known art. In part it depends on defining the
problem to the regulators, in part it depends on the fact that the
people writing the draft rules are usually surprisingly ignorant of
the details of the industries they are regulating, and in part it
depends on hiring the right people to argue your case for you. You
can take it as given that anyone with enough sophistication to get
something to the stage of drafting a proposed rule knows how to play
the system like a pinball machine.

I could write a long dissertation on how it's done, based on how I've
seen it done at both the state and federal level, but for now let's
leave it at that.

>There may indeed be better ways to do the same thing (although stopping
>a 10 inch saw blade running at full speed within a fraction of a second
>without damaging seems to me to be a non-trivial problem),

It is a _very_ non-trivial problem. Which is why it hasn't been done
before.

> but I don't
>see any sign that anyone else is working on or even interested in doing
>it.

Because one thing SawStop is very good at is getting publicity. Things
like capacitance switches and fast machine brakes aren't exactly new
technology.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:09:48 GMT, Robert Allison
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I have never been cut by a table saw. If I could use the
>technology, I think I would rather have it on my miter saw. I have
>my hands much closer to the blade on that than anything else.


But it looks like the key point here is that the blade withdraws.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 07:48:15 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I see that since you don't have a refutation for the argument you instead
>resort to a personal attack. Thank you for letting me know the depth of
>your commitment to reasoned discourse.

I don't see a reasoned discourse in your post, more
of a Rushian-style diatribe. If there is some substance
behind it, good, but it sounds very much like afternoon
talk show noise.

Darin Wrote:
> Did anyone else catch the NPR piece on the SawStop TS yesterday? Any
> thoughts? Here's the link to it:
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4182602

I'd might be really peeved if I did something stupid and ended up wit
a chuck of aluminum welded to an expensive carbide tipped blade...bu
then, I probably wouldn't be worrying about the blade much as
scrambled to find half of my finger in the bag of my dust collector!

Improvements in safety technology are generally a good thing, until th
goverment starts mandating their use.

One day, all that is legislated to protect us from ourselves is goin
to upset the delicate balance of natural selection

--
makesawdust

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:25:02 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:


>That is a potential problem If it save a finger, I'll gladly pay may times
>the cost of a blade and cartridge. OTOH, if it goes off for no good reason,
>I'd be red with rage at them.

Me too, so I'd like someone else to work out the bugs before I buy
one. <G>

Barry

Hmmmm... Indeed there is. Serves me right for waiting so long to look at
the latest issue :-P

Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "Darin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Did anyone else catch the NPR piece on the SawStop TS yesterday? Any
>>thoughts? Here's the link to it:
>>
>>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4182602
>
>
> Saw stop has been the subject of much discussion around these parts. It is
> also the subject of an article in the latest Fine Woodworking magazine. The
> video on the page you've linked to is impressive. There is no doubt that
> the device works. I doubt if it will ever become law, however.
>
> Frank
>
>

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:39:22 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>
>And your proof that they would not have become standard is. . .?


I didn't say that they would not become standard, only
that it would be a long time before they would have,
as opposed to the idiotic claim that they would have
been within 2 years.

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 07:15:40 +0000, wrote:

> Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> <snip>
>> Another thing to think about: What if you needed to rip some ball park
>> franks sometime? Could you disable it?
>>
>>
> Isn't that why you need a bandsaw?

Nah, you don't need anything that big for hot dogs. A scrollsaw will do
nicely. You only need the bandsaw for the Thanksgiving turkey and
Christmas ham.

--
Joe Wells

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:52:54 +0000, Dave Jackson wrote:

> Dont laugh to much, but i used my band saw to cut up all the sugar
> pumpkins SWMBO and I grew into small pieces to make fresh pumpkin pies
> this year. Pumpkins are difficult to cut up, even with a large sharp
> knife, band saw took minutes, and a few minutes afterward to clean the
> goop off the blade and table!

...and the wheels and the guides and the belt and inside the wheel covers
and...

--
Joe Wells

Ba r r y wrote:

> I've bandsawed . . . hard drives...

Inquiring minds want to know more! Sounds like there is a story here! <g>

-- Mark

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:56:54 -0500, GregP <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:39:22 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>>Again, disc brakes were well on their way to becoming standard because
>>they offered significant design advantages, no appreciable increase in
>>cost and they had a very positive public image.
>
> Disc brakes "were well on their way to becoming standard" because
> of the European manufacturers.

Yep. Competition at work. Ain't it wonderful?

Actually both European and American automakers were pretty much
isolated from each other during the 40s and the 50s and both of them
produced sub-optimal products as a result.

>The Detroit folks dragged up the rear as usual.

That perception is the result of a limited (American-centric)
perspective. In the 60s and 70s there was a lot of cross-fertilization
as imports on both sides of the Atlantic opened these worlds to each
other. Cars all around the free world vastly improved as a result.

I remember reading in the British press in the late 60s wondering
articles about American engines that could cruise 'flat out' all day
without seizing up or overheating. That was an exaggeration, of
course, but the fact is that British and European engines benefited
enormously when the public in those countries were exposed to American
technology.

Sadly, we lost a lot of that in the 1970s and 80s when American
government regulation pretty much closed the US market to European
cars not specifically designed for export to the US.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:37:22 -0500, Hank Gillette
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > So GE dumped all of those PCBs in the Hudson River for the public good?
>>
>> That would be the PCBs that, at the time, weren't known to be a problem,
>> that independant scientists agree are better left _undisturbed_ than
>> stirred up, and that people who feel about things rather than think about them
>> want dug up anyways, those PCBs?
>>
>
>Those would be the ones. While they may have not known that they were a
>problem, I doubt GE actually thought they were doing anyone a favor
>(other than themselves) by dumping them in the river.

They had no inkling they were doing any harm. And again, please note,
GE was not 'dumping' PCBs in the conventional sense. The problem
stemmed from contaminated wash water, not dumping the stuff directly
in the river.

<snip>

>As far as looking in the future, do you really believe that GE thought
>PCBs were totally benign?

In the quantities they were putting into the water, definitely yes.
Remember for most of that time the only known health risk from PCBs
was chloracne in workers who were exposed to large amounts of the
chemical.

GE was simply letting waste water from floor washing (and occasionally
from washing out capacitors damaged in floods ) flow down the drain.
There was no reason to think this was a problem for anyone.

It wasn't until the end of this period that the possibility of other
dangers was raised and it's worthwhile to note that it's hard to get
agreement on just what the dangers of PCBs in the environment actually
are. Originally it was thought to be a serious carcinogen, but more
recent work (including studies not financed by GE -- a fact some
people like to leave out) have found this apparently isn't so. Now the
danger is claimed to be an estrogen-like effect that messes up growth
and reproduction. The jury's still out on that one, much less the
doses that cause the problem.

(Note that the standards for PCB exposure were set under the
impression that it was both a powerful carcinogen and was causing
eggshell thinning in birds -- neither of which is now thought to be
true. They bear little or no relationship to the currently perceived
'problem' with the stuff.)

The other thing to keep in mind is that for most of the period we
couldn't even measure the bio-accumulation of PCBs. It wasn't until
the 1960s that we even had instruments sensitive enough to measure
that.

The big problem with PCBs, and the reason everyone agrees it's a good
idea to control them, is that they do bio-accumulate, especially in
species toward the top of the food chain. But again, this wasn't
discovered until the end of the period in question.

> Or was it just cheaper for them to look the
>other way and dump their waste into the river as long as they could get
>away with it?

Only if you assume the people at GE were able to see the future and
detect possible problems decades before they were discovered by
scientists.

--RC



Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

"Hank Gillette" wrote in message

> How many cars would have air bags or seat belts today, if the government
> hadn't made them mandatory?

Nope. The "government" didn't make them mandatory, the people did.

Problem is, for every action there's a reaction. We've now proven that the
more you protect fools from themselves, the more fools you will have.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 03:53:58 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Okay, I overstated my case. The 'whole' rationale for air bags was not
>that they would protect people not wearing seat belts. However it was
>a major rationale for air bags in the debate about them. And, rather
>surprisingly, it is still commonly used.

The "whole" rationale for refusing auto makers to back
off on the firing force of the air bags was to protect people
not wearing seat belts and several gov't people refused
to back off on that in spite of the fact that children were
being killed by it.

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:15:20 -0600, Darin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Did anyone else catch the NPR piece on the SawStop TS yesterday?

Bizarrely, there was a posting in alt.obituaries about it

"Darin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Did anyone else catch the NPR piece on the SawStop TS yesterday? Any
> thoughts? Here's the link to it:
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4182602

Saw stop has been the subject of much discussion around these parts. It is
also the subject of an article in the latest Fine Woodworking magazine. The
video on the page you've linked to is impressive. There is no doubt that
the device works. I doubt if it will ever become law, however.

Frank

Dave Hinz wrote:

>> Usually vaporware does not exist even in prototype. This is more like
>> beta testing...
>
> Tell that to Microsoft, Oracle, Blizzard, etc etc etc.
>
> Awful long beta test...

(I heard this yesterday... <g>)

ORACLE --
"O"ne
"R"eal
"A"**hole
"C"alled
"L"arry
"E"llison

-- Mark

"John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> That plus it costs you a bunch to get your saw back up and running
> once the SawStop fires, and they have NO long term statistics on this
> thing firing when it is NOT needed makes a strong case against it

That is a potential problem If it save a finger, I'll gladly pay may times
the cost of a blade and cartridge. OTOH, if it goes off for no good reason,
I'd be red with rage at them.

False activation was a concern with air bags years ago. They've proven
themselves over many years now. My guess is the SawStop will take a few
years of a good track record to become a consideration for the masses. I
can also see down the road that OSHA and workman's comp insurance companies
would demand such a thing once the technology has proven itself if it truly
does.
Ed