CPSC Proposes New Safety Rule for Tablesaws

On 5/29/2017 9:49 AM, Jack wrote:

>>
>> What are they going to do about circular saws? Bandsaws? Box
>> cutters?
>>
> Don't forget, cars KILL 40,000 here every year. Table saws kill no one.

Chop saw can though.
http://www.hobby-machinist.com/threads/saw-kickback-causes-death.52311/

Massachusetts worker killed after saw hits him in throat
AP,

November 21, 2016
DUXBURY, Mass. (AP) — Authorities have identified a construction worker
who was killed in Massachusetts when a power saw he was using kicked
back and hit him in the throat.

The Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office says 28-year-old Jason
Sanderson, of Carver, and another worker had been excavating an
underground water line in a trench when the incident happened Saturday
afternoon in Duxbury.

Investigators say they believe the chop saw he was using “became bound”
and jolted back at him, making contact with his neck.

Sanderson was pronounced dead at a hospital. Authorities say foul play
is not suspected.

On 5/26/2017 12:15 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 4:27:36 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>
>> Wow Robert, you really are not familiar with the SS at all it would seem.
>> Replacing the brake takes a couple of minutes. Have you not seen a demo?
>> As far as not having a spare replacement brake goes, why would you not have
>> one on hand? Would you drive out of town with out a spare tire? :-)
>
> OK, leave you alone for one day and look what happens. You personalized my post to the gov and made it your own. Leon...

LOL
>
> I never (at least to my memory)referred to "SawStop" in my diatribe to the government. Rereading it, I didn't see SawStop mentioned by name. My references were generic, and the braking systems were referred to as "devices", "mechanisms", and "apparatus".

NO! you did not mention SS and I figured you were speaking figuratively.
More in terms of the possibility of other styles of safety "add ons"
that may be prone to be problematic. And to that I agree totally.



>
> INTENTIONALLY, I did not want to limit the intent of my scribblings to be directed at SawStop only, but rather intended the post to express my distaste for ALL blade braking systems that would be required by the government. If this regulation passes, there will be a certain amount of time that passes, and Gass' patents will in at least part expire. But since he is aggressively trying to block anyone from developing or marketing a blade brake device, we have no idea what is in development now from other companies. No doubt he would beg, borrow, or steal information that would allow him to block or slow its development or presentation.
>
> I think the group ethos of being blinded by the asshat Gass keeps the bigger picture from being seen. We don't need the government adding more cost, a device of doubtful value to some, and more bureaucracy to our way of doing business. I think that a consumer should have a choice, and I think the government should stop looking for small problems that need to be fixed.

Totally agreed! Let the consumer make the decision.



>
> Other devices will be introduced if this becomes a mandate, rest assured. Retro devices will be, too. Soon, all insurance companies will require that any company with a saw will be required to have a blade brake or they will be denied coverage as the machine is deemed unsafe. Believe me, it will spread to the home shop as well. If it is found that the home shop (just thinking if we know anyone like that...!) is used for commercial enterprise you must follow the rules of the insurance company. If you are manufacturing goods for sale at your home, you must inform your insurance company to maintain valid coverage. How soon will it be that a question pops up on your application for homeowners insurance asking that?

Well, I'm covered. :~) BUT I did make my old and current agents aware
of my status and neither were concerned at all that I was a smalllll
business.

>
> And why just table saws? I am reminded of a line from one of my favorite movies, "Outlaw Josie Wales". "Doin' good ain't got no end". Band saws (especially the big boys) are pretty damn dangerous, so no doubt future regulations will protect us from them, too. And why not tighten up the requirements of blade brakes on other saws? Two of my miter saws have them, one doesn't, and the other has one but it doesn't work (worn out). So do I start leaving the ones without blade brakes at home?


>
> Nope. I am a bigger picture guy and that was the intent of my post. I don't want more regulation as it is a slippery slope employed by civil servants that needs to constantly find new things to regulate in order to keep their job. It has to be self sustaining or it "could" go away. So regulation leads to more regulation.
>
> The generic references to braking device were to express that I don't want more regulation, leading to more regulation, which leads to more business cost, then enforcement cost of new regulation as well as compliance costs. I am looking at this situation as to how it will affect my business now, but also how other regulations have affected it over the last decades.
>
> I don't care how long it takes to change the mechanism is a SawStop saw. It could fix itself and in context of my comments to the govt, it has no bearing. I don't care what it takes to reset the Bosch machine, anything that DeWalt, Hitachi, Ridgid or anyone else comes us with. I don't want to start that ball rolling.

Agreed.

>
> So a couple of last things. First, I have used the SawStop saw and it is a completely superior product. I have scribbled here many times how valuable I think the technology is, and if I have the scratch when I buy my next table saw it will indeed be a SawStop. In the last 40 years, almost every single time I have been hurt on the job it has been because I am over tired, pushing to get things finished, and it is at the end of a string of long days. Others have the luxury of saying "well, when you get to that point you should stop", and "if you are that tired it takes twice as long to do the job so you might as well quit and rest, hit it hard tomorrow" and horseshit like that. Not the way it works in a service business. At least not for long, anyway. Regardless of mitigating conditions, people want their work done as THEY think it should be done.

And more to the point, the customer does not think you should take
longer when you get tired. We don't have that luxury.

>
> Last thing, it makes me laugh think that job site guys won't "get the job done". When I had an old table saw (110V) that had a broken off/on switch on it, I replaced it. The switch had some kind of surge protecting device to keep the saw from overloading the power, and if it thought you were pulling too much power the saw would switch off. A 20amp outdoor light switch from he lumberyard fixed that switch just fine.
>
> When I was out working in the country on a ranch house, my only saw on the job had the trigger burn up. Now I have me and a crew of three with no saw. I had an old 25' extension cord that had a bad female side on it, so I clipped it off, direct wired the saw and my helper had to plug it in when I wanted it to run. As an experienced saw man, it wasn't too bad. I would line up 10-15 cuts, let the guys nail why I marked out the next cuts.
>
> Years ago, my big compressor was a 220V SpeedAire monster. No one had the plug configuration we need on the 220V as it was out in a subdivision and they only used the clothes dryer style recepticles as that is all they had on the electrician's trucks. I bought the receptacle we needed, got some ten gauge wire, hooked up the receptcale to the wires and put it in a 220V handy box. On the other end, I stripped back the wires about and inch, folded them back on themselves, and pounded the copper flat enough that it would fit in the job site plugs. Used that device for about 2 years, every single work day (we only had one compressor).
>
> The point is, there is always a way around a problem, whether it is real or perceived. NEVER, ever, rely on your employees (me included, apparently...) to do the "right" thing.
>
> Logically,
>

LOL...... The last kitchen job that Swingman and I worked together on
was the straw bale house out in the country. The guy that was sanding
the floors with his 240 volt floor sander had a "deluxe" extension cord.
I don't recall what the wall end of the cord looked like, I could not
take my eyes off of the extension cord connection to the sander cord.

The extension was stiff Romex with bare wires sticking out and twisted
to the bare wires on the end of the sander cord. Not even wire nuts to
cover the connections. The safety steps he took was spreading the ends
of the connections as far apart as they would go...


Anyway I don't like the way things are coming about with regulations. I
do like the SS but we are probably at a point of no return and that was
probably several years ago and in some cases, decades ago. Regardless
of how all of this plays out I will not be refusing to buy brands
because of how the public feels about the company.

On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:40:42 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 22 May 2017 23:31:07 -0500, Gordon Shumway
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017/05/15/cpsc-proposes-new-safety-rules-tablesaws
>>
>>If they mandate a "safer" saw the population will build a better idiot. It's a miracle our forefathers
>>survive?
>
>What are they going to do about circular saws? Bandsaws? Box
>cutters?

Maybe this is a start?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1194&bih=730&q=circular+saw+%22with+saw+stop%22&oq=circular+saw+%22with+saw+stop%22&gs_l=img.12...3748.3748.0.6297.3.3.0.0.0.0.63.63.1.1.0....0...1.2.64.img..2.0.0.0.eEd_fUi8dmg#imgrc=5nHxV0qZaPI0TM:

Or: http://tinyurl.com/lyak5sa

On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:44:00 PM UTC-5, woodchucker wrote:
> http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017/05/15/cpsc-proposes-new-safety-rules=
-tablesaws
> --=20
> Jeff

I saw that too. I don't have any objections to having safe table saws. I =
just cannot figure out how they could require a patented product for this s=
afety. A device with no patent, like seatbelts when they were required in =
the 70s or whenever, sure. Or airbags and anti lock brakes. Yes, no paten=
ts when required. But a patented product while it is still under patent? =
Unless the safety requirement would remove the existing patent and make it =
free for anyone to use.

[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hope there are more posts to the site. It is easy to do. I can tell you
> all that someone listens to these sometimes, but if you don't voice your
> opinion, it will be assumed that the issue is of no importance to you. I
> would like to have had a bit of time to edit this, but I saw that the
> surrounding issues around this proposed regulation had already been
> closed to comments. I wanted to get on it and get it out before I forgot or was too busy.
>
> Here's what I posted:
>
> I have been in the construction trades for 40 years off and on. I have
> been an owner operator of a small carpentry and woodworking business for
> about 35 of those years. In my experience there is a great deal of
> similarity in the observance of safety issues between the home shop
> worker as well as the professional. In short, the similarity is that
> both casual user and professional need training and education, not
> additional safety appliances or devices added to tools. Some of the
> appartus required over the years have a valid place in both the home shop
> as well as in a professional setting, but others are removed, ignored or
> not maintained at an operational level.
>
> I truly believe based on my own personal experience of instructing and
> overseeing employees and job sites that the saw brake devices will be
> disabled or wired around to make the saws work without them. Anything
> that would stop work that would be attributed to the saw brake would
> cause it to be disabled in some fashion. Doubtful that it would be reset
> and rearmed for proper function after a job stoppage. Also, the loss of
> a blade that could cost as much as $300 from the mechanism firing would
> certainly make any small business man think about rearming the saw brake
> device. Besides the down time on the job, a firing of the device will
> require that a qualified technician of some sort reinstall the
> replacement firing mechanism of the brake. Additionally, there will be a
> need to purchase and have on hand another firing device, adding not only
> to the expense of the saw brake device, but putting the contractor at
> risk of not being able to locate a replacement which would cause more job
> site down time. NO doubt that occasion would cause the contractor to
> "wire around" the problem. IF the device ever fired off by accident or
> by a bad reading, a contractor will be looking at the purchase of a new
> blade, a new brake stop firing device as well as all the down time for
> (possibly) several employees while the machine is reequipped and reset.
> If there is ever a false positive, then certainly a contractor will work
> hard to permanently disable the saw blade brake. I strongly believe this
> additional device that adds to the cost of a saw will be seen by most
> professionals as not only unnecessary, but as an irritant to be disabled
> at the first opportunity.
>
> My experience with homeowners/non professionals and their saws is
> different. Almost all home accidents come from an occurrence known as
> "kickback". This happens when a saw is used incorrectly. The wood being
> cut is put in a position that binds the blade against the guiding device
> (a "fence" or "miter gauge") or the wood is no longer fed in a straight
> line into the blade causing the saw to aggressively grab the wood rather
> than cut it. This grab will cause the wood to be removed from the
> operator's grasp and will often "kickback" the wood towards or into the
> operator or off the table of the saw. The saw makers and the government
> have provided different devices to help mitigate this problem, but I very
> rarely go into a home shop where the recommended table saw safety devices
> are being used, or used properly. Kickback is a technique issue and
> rarely happens with proper use of the table saw. it is important to note
> that a saw braking mechanism will NOT prevent or mitigate the occurrence
> kickback in any way.
>
> I rarely see hands or digits cut by table saws in a home or professional
> environment. Very rarely. Most people that use them have a healthy
> respect for the tool due to its size and power, and using the tool give
> ther operator a tremendous sense of its power. Almost all operators have
> a very healthy respect for this tool and use it carefully. I truly
> believe that if there was an effective blade braking device attached to a
> table saw then most operators would become overconfident and lazy,
> knowing that if they have a lapse of judgement of concentration, they
> wouldn't suffer any risk of injury. In the particular case of the table
> saw, a very healthy fear of the machine is a great thing and does more to
> prevent injury than any attached device.
>
> In closing, I hope you can see that while some safety devices are good
> ideas, the idea of a saw blade brake is not. Not for the hobbyist or the
> professional. Although for two very different reasons, neither would
> benefit from it. This is an issue that has been around for years now,
> and while the saw blade brake technology certainly has its place, most
> are overwhelmingly against it, and mandating it would be of little or no
> value to table saw users.
>
> Thank you for your time and attention.
>

Wow Robert, you really are not familiar with the SS at all it would seem.
Replacing the brake takes a couple of minutes. Have you not seen a demo?
As far as not having a spare replacement brake goes, why would you not have
one on hand? Would you drive out of town with out a spare tire? :-)

On 5/23/2017 12:23 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 5/23/2017 12:32 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the
>> proposal was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a
>> hot dog, in place of a human finger.
>>
>>
>> Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a
>> fantastic story. And or not proofing before publishing.
>>
>
> It was poorly written in that part. Even the proposal is. They do not
> state if the hot dogs can be or should be natural casing. If the test
> is done on the Sabbath is an all beef dog required?



Lots of detail left
> out.


I know, right?

On 5/23/2017 12:32 PM, Leon wrote:

>
> Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
> was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
> place of a human finger.
>
>
> Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
> story. And or not proofing before publishing.
>

It was poorly written in that part. Even the proposal is. They do not
state if the hot dogs can be or should be natural casing. If the test
is done on the Sabbath is an all beef dog required? Lots of detail left
out.

On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 12:40:28 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:

> Bosch system doing the least damage to the blade and having the lowest=20
> cost to reset.

Well, someone got the ball rolling in the right direction!

> I think also it is going to be difficult to get past the wording on his=
=20
> patent concerning how the devise is triggered, being touched.
>=20
> FWIW the Bosch does not ruin the blade.

Always the intent. Patents, copyrights, and other protected "stuff" are on=
ly as good as the language that protects them. So the language is intention=
ally specific but broad as well. Specific enough to protect the "stuff", b=
ut broad enough to discourage copy.

BTW Leon, I read you description of the guy with the sander out on Karl's j=
ob. I literally laughed so hard I thought I was going to drop my laptop. =
Hilarious and so true. The picture painted was perfect, down to observing =
the basic OSHA rule of keep the two hots on a 220V separated. Classic job =
site situation.

Robert

On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 8:15:52 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
=20
> As noted above, the key item I got from the other vendor comments on the=
=20
> negotiations was not the licensing itself nearly as much as the concern=
=20
> of having their corporate liability riding on the outside party product.=
=20
> Think of Toyota and the Takata airbag for a very similar type of=20
> situation of a safety device which had serious repercussions to the=20
> parent company by the failure of a vendor part. These outfits, while=20
> large, aren't the size of a Toyota.

And that makes perfect sense. Gass may have created an agreement that requ=
ired such "hold harmless" language that it was unpalatable to all. I would=
if I were him. I wouldn't want to have responsibility for the installation=
of my product in a Chinese factory that is cost/production conscious over =
QC. Regardless of quality of his product, he can't be there in China to wo=
rk the production lines inspecting every saw after the product goes to full=
production.

>=20
> > Again, I am with Leon. I am not going to keep the court of public
> > opinion keep me from buying a SawStop product. I am certain that if we
> > were able to peek behind the curtains of many of today's companies we
> > wouldn't like the people we see. Those guys are there to make money for
> > their companies, shareholders and themselves. Some are pretty nasty, no
> > doubt.
>=20
> But, you very clearly also stated you want that to be _YOUR_ decision,=20
> not one foisted on you by the federal gov't at essentially the behest of =
SS.
>=20
> I'm all in favor of him being as successful as he can be, _standing on=20
> his own two feet_, but not by using the CPSC as a club.
>=20
> Gass himself may be the proverbial anatomical part that comprises an=20
> appropriate portion of his name but that's ok by me, too. It's not him=
=20
> but his action and the complicity of CPSC in going along that's got me=20
> riled (as you, apparently as well, given the letter you wrote on the=20
> subject)

All true. At this point SawStop is my first look to purchase when in marke=
t for a saw. But I will do all I can to keep from having someone else make=
my decisions for me. After reading the proposal brief, it is obvious that=
the govt is thinking that they are addressing this issue as consumer safet=
y issue. Gass and company have obviously caused enough of a ruckus to be m=
entioned by name, but then again, so is Bosch. But in the body of the docum=
ent they do actually address the concern that there could be a monopoly if =
they pass some type of regulation requiring a blade brake.

I would bet anything that there are competing technologies that are ready f=
or production, but with Gass' history of lawsuits, it is easier to wait for=
his patents to run out than to fight him. I seriously doubt that no one, =
not one company hasn't developed their own technology, not based on anythin=
g Gass has done, that works well. It sounds like Gass is shooting in the da=
rk, filing for patents for mechanisms that may or may not be built by him, =
but close enough to any prevailing trend to enable him to file a lawsuit an=
d get an injunction against manufacture. Then the similarities (or differe=
nces) would be decided by a jury. He could keep a competitor's product off=
the market for years and years.

I think Gass designed a great product, probably at the time of its release =
and some time after, the best of its kind. But the natural evolution of te=
chnology and engineering eventually render most manufactured goods obsolete=
. Since his strategy to pound the SS up our own Gassholes has failed, he i=
s simply trying a new strategy. The game will be over for Gass when a devi=
ce is introduced to the public that you can reset (like you do an overheate=
d electric motor) and doesn't ruin $300 Forester blades when it fires.

Robert

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 4:24:10 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> On 5/24/2017 3:12 PM, dpb wrote:
> > On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
> >> was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
> >> place of a human finger.
> >>
> >>
> >> Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
> >> story. And or not proofing before publishing.
> >
> > From the CPSC document directly one finds:
> >
> > "Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance standard
> > such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth of cut to
> > 3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body/finger,
> > contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."
> >
> >
> > The FHB blurb is
> >
> > "The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
> > millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger ... contacts the
> > spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second."
> >
> > Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is
> > identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being
> > out-of-depth for the audience... :) and threw in the hotdog; it doesn't
> > show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a "test probe".
>
>
>
> Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
> depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.
>

Maybe I'm missing something but I took the words "depth of cut" to be the depth of
cut on the surrogate finger before the blade stops. 3.5mm is only 0.138". That's not
even a tooth above the table.


> Maybe some blades are flying apart during the demonstration and keeping
> the blade low in the cabinet lessens the chance of shrapnel flying out
> and hitting some one.

>>>
>>> Wow Robert, you really are not familiar with the SS at all it would
>>> seem.
>>> Replacing the brake takes a couple of minutes. Have you not seen a
>>> demo?
>>> As far as not having a spare replacement brake goes, why would you
>>> not have
>>> one on hand? Would you drive out of town with out a spare tire? :-)
>>
>> I'll take a shot at that:
>>
>> Job site saws will be used by workers who may not know how to, and aren't
>> responsible for, fixing equipment when it breaks down. The job site
>> could be
>> a workshop or a construction site.
>>
>> In the case of a construction site, it's easy to imagine that the
>> replacment parts
>> and/or qualified personnel may not always be readily available.
>>
>> In either case, the replacment parts had better be under lock and key
>> or they are
>> going to be stolen by the workers who have brake-mandated table saws
>> at home.
>>
>>
>
> You all make good points. I've seen many safety devices disconnected
> and procedures ignored. You may open a safety gate to slick out a piced
> of crap in a mold, but I've never seen anyone lock out and tag out to
> do that, as required. There will be a lot of problems in independent
> shops, but you will get good compliance in utilities and places that are
> hard ass on safety and compliance.
>
> The independent shops will comply after the first saw accident,
> especially if OSHA is notified.

Uh Huh.

On 5/25/2017 5:55 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hope there are more posts to the site. It is easy to do. I can tell you
>>> all that someone listens to these sometimes, but if you don't voice your
>>> opinion, it will be assumed that the issue is of no importance to you. I
>>> would like to have had a bit of time to edit this, but I saw that the
>>> surrounding issues around this proposed regulation had already been
>>> closed to comments. I wanted to get on it and get it out before I forgot or was too busy.
>>>
>>> Here's what I posted:
>>>
>>> I have been in the construction trades for 40 years off and on. I have
>>> been an owner operator of a small carpentry and woodworking business for
>>> about 35 of those years. In my experience there is a great deal of
>>> similarity in the observance of safety issues between the home shop
>>> worker as well as the professional. In short, the similarity is that
>>> both casual user and professional need training and education, not
>>> additional safety appliances or devices added to tools. Some of the
>>> appartus required over the years have a valid place in both the home shop
>>> as well as in a professional setting, but others are removed, ignored or
>>> not maintained at an operational level.
>>>
>>> I truly believe based on my own personal experience of instructing and
>>> overseeing employees and job sites that the saw brake devices will be
>>> disabled or wired around to make the saws work without them. Anything
>>> that would stop work that would be attributed to the saw brake would
>>> cause it to be disabled in some fashion. Doubtful that it would be reset
>>> and rearmed for proper function after a job stoppage. Also, the loss of
>>> a blade that could cost as much as $300 from the mechanism firing would
>>> certainly make any small business man think about rearming the saw brake
>>> device. Besides the down time on the job, a firing of the device will
>>> require that a qualified technician of some sort reinstall the
>>> replacement firing mechanism of the brake. Additionally, there will be a
>>> need to purchase and have on hand another firing device, adding not only
>>> to the expense of the saw brake device, but putting the contractor at
>>> risk of not being able to locate a replacement which would cause more job
>>> site down time. NO doubt that occasion would cause the contractor to
>>> "wire around" the problem. IF the device ever fired off by accident or
>>> by a bad reading, a contractor will be looking at the purchase of a new
>>> blade, a new brake stop firing device as well as all the down time for
>>> (possibly) several employees while the machine is reequipped and reset.
>>> If there is ever a false positive, then certainly a contractor will work
>>> hard to permanently disable the saw blade brake. I strongly believe this
>>> additional device that adds to the cost of a saw will be seen by most
>>> professionals as not only unnecessary, but as an irritant to be disabled
>>> at the first opportunity.
>>>
>>> My experience with homeowners/non professionals and their saws is
>>> different. Almost all home accidents come from an occurrence known as
>>> "kickback". This happens when a saw is used incorrectly. The wood being
>>> cut is put in a position that binds the blade against the guiding device
>>> (a "fence" or "miter gauge") or the wood is no longer fed in a straight
>>> line into the blade causing the saw to aggressively grab the wood rather
>>> than cut it. This grab will cause the wood to be removed from the
>>> operator's grasp and will often "kickback" the wood towards or into the
>>> operator or off the table of the saw. The saw makers and the government
>>> have provided different devices to help mitigate this problem, but I very
>>> rarely go into a home shop where the recommended table saw safety devices
>>> are being used, or used properly. Kickback is a technique issue and
>>> rarely happens with proper use of the table saw. it is important to note
>>> that a saw braking mechanism will NOT prevent or mitigate the occurrence
>>> kickback in any way.
>>>
>>> I rarely see hands or digits cut by table saws in a home or professional
>>> environment. Very rarely. Most people that use them have a healthy
>>> respect for the tool due to its size and power, and using the tool give
>>> ther operator a tremendous sense of its power. Almost all operators have
>>> a very healthy respect for this tool and use it carefully. I truly
>>> believe that if there was an effective blade braking device attached to a
>>> table saw then most operators would become overconfident and lazy,
>>> knowing that if they have a lapse of judgement of concentration, they
>>> wouldn't suffer any risk of injury. In the particular case of the table
>>> saw, a very healthy fear of the machine is a great thing and does more to
>>> prevent injury than any attached device.
>>>
>>> In closing, I hope you can see that while some safety devices are good
>>> ideas, the idea of a saw blade brake is not. Not for the hobbyist or the
>>> professional. Although for two very different reasons, neither would
>>> benefit from it. This is an issue that has been around for years now,
>>> and while the saw blade brake technology certainly has its place, most
>>> are overwhelmingly against it, and mandating it would be of little or no
>>> value to table saw users.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your time and attention.
>>>
>>
>> Wow Robert, you really are not familiar with the SS at all it would seem.
>> Replacing the brake takes a couple of minutes. Have you not seen a demo?
>> As far as not having a spare replacement brake goes, why would you not have
>> one on hand? Would you drive out of town with out a spare tire? :-)
>
> I'll take a shot at that:
>
> Job site saws will be used by workers who may not know how to, and aren't
> responsible for, fixing equipment when it breaks down. The job site could be
> a workshop or a construction site.

First off the triggering of a SawStop brake does not require a repair.
It is designed to have the brake trigger and to be removed and replaced
multiple time a day. I do this on my SawStop sometimes 4 times a day.

In the case of the SawStop, brake replacement is simpler than changing
the blade, AND no tools are required to replace the brake. The only
tool needed is a wrench to take the nut off of the arbor to remove the
blade. If your crew can't do that you have other problems.


> In the case of a construction site, it's easy to imagine that the replacment parts
> and/or qualified personnel may not always be readily available.

Well, a qualified person with a SawStop could be your 10 year old
daughter. If you are skilled enough to replace the blade or turn on the
saw you are qualified to replace the brake.
A replacement brake and maybe a blade is all you would need. If you go
to a job site with out spare blades that is a problem in itself. If you
use a job site saw with a replaceable brake and do not have a spare that
is also a problem in itself, not a saw issue. Would you go to a job site
with only one trash bag or would you carry spares? AND I wonder how many
contractors carry a spare arbor nut? Those get dropped and lost more
often than you think.

I can see your argument and the concerns but right now these are not
issues that exist. The only saws available with safety features to stop
or drop the blade are simple to perform the replace of the mechanisms.


>
> In either case, the replacment parts had better be under lock and key or they are
> going to be stolen by the workers who have brake-mandated table saws at home.
>
No more likely to be stolen than any other item, like a circular saw,
drill, spare blades, etc. And for that matter the brakes are quite
small and can easily be hidden in a vehicle or locked in a tool box like
any other tools that you don't want to walk off. The brakes for a
SawStop are smaller than a small box of drill bits or two packs of
cigarettes.

Now having said all of this I have 4 years experience with owning and
operating a SawStop. None of these worries have been an issue.
I will also say that I have triggered my dado set brake and that was my
own fault, and the saw was well out of warranty. No damage was done to
the dado set but SawStop replaced the brake at no cost to me anyway. I
did have a spare however, now I have more spares. To detail that a bit
more, I had switched from a normal blade brake to a dado set brake. The
air gap needs to be set when changing from 10" to 8" blades. This is a
matter of turning a hex head bolt two complete turns, that hex head bolt
is painted yellow and you look right at it when you remove the table
insert. I am clueless why I did not do it this time.

Yes this could happen on the job site too but that was operator error
and the blade brake is intended to protect the worker from operator
error. It is more likely the worker would do something to trigger the
brake that would cause an injury.

And I realize that many or at least a few feel that they do not need the
protection. I am not one of them, I cut half of my thumb off 28 years
ago because I did not have this technology available. The accident was
my fault but happened after I finished my cut and turned the saw off.
The SawStop would have prevented it.

And maybe on the job site you have a trigger during a cut, and you don't
have a spare brake. 99% of the time that is not going to be a big deal
as missing 4-5 hours getting another brake is much better than the time
spent going to the ER and later possibly rehab and certainly workmans
comp going up.

Food for thought. It's 1895 and you are walking out of the general
store to load your wagon with the dry goods you just purchased. As you
are unhitching your horse you hear Mr. Bigshot coming down the muddy
street in his new fangeled horseless carriage. Hold on to your horse so
that he does not get spooked and dart out into the path of Mr. Bigshot.
Damn that machine, it makes a lot of noise, belches out smoke, and does
not stop short for anyone. The contraption is a menace to society.

Three years later, same circumstances, except this time Mr. Bigshot is
driving his new "automobile". It is so much better than the one he was
driving just a few years ago, the new one has brakes!

Imagine driving vehicles today with out brakes because some one way back
when thought that they could control their vehicle and bring it to a
stop with out brakes.

On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]> wrote:

>http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017/05/15/cpsc-proposes-new-safety-rules-tablesaws

If they mandate a "safer" saw the population will build a better idiot. It's a miracle our forefathers
survive?

woodchucker <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017/05/15/cpsc-proposes-new-safety-rul
> es-tablesaws

Summary:
CPSC wants new table saws to stop the blade upon contact with flesh.

Response:
A nice idea, but its time isn't here yet. SawStop's tech is protected by
patents and there's no other competitors right now.

Actually, the free market might sort this out if the patent system actually
works. SawStop's patents will eventually expire (I hope!) and the
technology will be freely available. It's a very desireable feature, and
new saws will be built with it as sawmakers try to compete.

Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!

Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017/05/15/cpsc-proposes-new-safety-rul
>>es-tablesaws
>
> If they mandate a "safer" saw the population will build a better
> idiot. It's a miracle our forefathers survive?

Some of them didn't. We started seeing reasonable safety measures to
keep more people alive. The biggest mistake you can make safety wise is
forgetting or ignoring how the human creature works! Make the thing look
scary and dangerous if it is! Humans will react without even realizing
they did it. Making something dangerous look safe actually increases the
danger.

Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


> When I added mine, it became the 11th total.
>
>

I put my two cents in. The site only asked for your comment and first and
last name, plus simple classification so they know from whence you comment.
Most of us will probably be Individual/Consumer.

Nice to see I didn't have to create an account.

Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!

On 5/27/2017 1:28 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 05/27/2017 11:48 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> ...
>
>> And that makes perfect sense. Gass may have created an agreement that
>> required such "hold harmless" language that it was unpalatable to all. I
>> would if I were him. I wouldn't want to have responsibility for the
>> installation of my product in a Chinese factory that is cost/production
>> conscious over QC. Regardless of quality of his product, he can't be
>> there in China to work the production lines inspecting every saw after
>> the product goes to full production.
>
> Then again, the Toyota can't know that product _they're_ being supplied
> actually meets the spec, either...I'd suspect in this case the worry was
> on the other foot about accepting the liability, not in their QC in
> using the technology but relying on the technology itself to be faultless.

FWIW Tanaka makes air bags for a lot of major manufacturers, and that
is part of the problem in getting all the suspect bags replaced in a
timely manner. Toyota is in good company and probably could not be
singled out for being negligent for using Tanaka.



>
> Remember, at that time there were none of these on the market, only the
> demo units Gass had. There's no information on whether during
> negotiations he ever turned units over to the manufacturers for them to
> evaluate independently; one would presume for competitive purposes he
> wouldn't have.
>
> It'd be a pretty big leap of faith just putting self in the other shoes.
>
> ...
>
>> All true. At this point SawStop is my first look to purchase when in
>> market for a saw. But I will do all I can to keep from having someone
>> else make my decisions for me. After reading the proposal brief, it is
>> obvious that the govt is thinking that they are addressing this issue as
>> consumer safety issue. Gass and company have obviously caused enough of
>> a ruckus to be mentioned by name, but then again, so is Bosch. But in
>> the body of the document they do actually address the concern that there
>> could be a monopoly if they pass some type of regulation requiring a
>> blade brake.
>
> Well, "the government" here is CPSC and that's the only purview they
> have is a "consumer" product. There's a broad brush that since some
> TS's are sold to individuals that then gives them the right to regulate
> every saw on the market whether to individual or business. Don't know
> that interpretation has ever been litigated or not.
>
> SS/Gass were the ones who initiated the whole process by filing the
> original appeal that the product should be protected; if it weren't for
> that filing it's highly unlikely CPSC would have ever picked up the
> issue. It's simply not a widespread consumer tragedy that would hit the
> radar screen from news stories or public outcry methinks.
>
> Their "addressing the concern" basically boils down to an expressed
> wish/opinion that Gass/SS will "play nice" with those with hat in hand
> followed up with the observation that TS's are only a very small
> fraction of their business overall for most manufacturers so if they
> just choose to quit building TS it "won't hurt much". I didn't find
> anything in that section of the report comforting at all...
>
>> I would bet anything that there are competing technologies that are
>> ready for production, but with Gass' history of lawsuits, it is easier
>> to wait for his patents to run out than to fight him. I seriously doubt
>> that no one, not one company hasn't developed their own technology, not
>> based on anything Gass has done, that works well. ...
>
> That I don't know, but I'm not nearly so confident in that regards.
> Given the few independent manufacturers out there and their relatively
> thin staff sizes, I don't know just how much basic R&D budget there is.
>
> Delta now is Delta PEC, totally Chinese-owned albeit with facilities in
> Spartanburg, SC, but there's no manufacturing there at all; only
> distribution says they've got a total of 40 engineering staff members
> and one has to wonder just how many are "pie-in-the-sky" types as
> opposed to just production/QC/scheduling/etc., ... I'd wager not many.

I was under the impression that the tiny SC plant was manufacturing a
few tools, specifically the new Unisaw, I watched a tour of the plant.
Did that change?



>
> Powermatic and Jet are now all in a conglomerate as well with similar
> structures it appears. It seems Performax has been abandoned; couldn't
> seem to find their brand left at all any more, either.

Performax disappeared shortly after I bought mine quite a few years ago.
The Jet version is/was identical. IIRC Performax was owned by the
same as Jet and Powermatic.

On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 3:04:04 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
=20
> Maybe, but there's where the lack of being in on the discussions leads=20
> to insufficient knowledge as to have a real reading. The limited=20
> discussions I saw from folks at Powermatic, etc., had a lot to do with=20
> liability issues and indemnification from the 2nd-party vendor for a=20
> product they didn't develop as I understood it, and it appeared Gass=20
> wanted all the royalty but none of the liability if there were a=20
> failure. Typical lawyer-talk.
>=20
> But, I wasn't there; that's just partially what I've read and then=20
> partially inferred from what wasn't said or how things were couched in=20
> those interviews and that not a single vendor bit is, in my mind, quite=
=20
> telling that the terms really were onerous/unacceptable.
>=20
> Where I _really_ have a beef with Gass/SS is in using CPSC to be the=20
> bully in the lunchroom for him; sure he took the risk in forming=20
> SS--bully on him for doing so and he's got a fine product and seems to=20
> be doing well.
>=20
> But to use the club of the US gov't to get a monopoly--not kosher in my=
=20
> book.

Great post, sir. We DON'T know the details, so all we really know is the b=
its and pieces we get from the smut and rumor mill. Sadly, I still know peo=
ple that think the internet is /reliable/ source of information. Without b=
eing in the negotiations, presentations,and product demos with all the play=
ers, all we really have is our conjecture.

Honestly, I have never read one good thing about Gass, so I wouldn't be sur=
prised if his personality had at least something to do with the difficulty =
of getting any interest in his product.

Again, I am with Leon. I am not going to keep the court of public opinion k=
eep me from buying a SawStop product. I am certain that if we were able to =
peek behind the curtains of many of today's companies we wouldn't like the =
people we see. Those guys are there to make money for their companies, shar=
eholders and themselves. Some are pretty nasty, no doubt. =20

Robert

On 5/24/2017 6:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2017 15:23:56 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2017 3:12 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
>>>> was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
>>>> place of a human finger.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
>>>> story. And or not proofing before publishing.
>>>
>>> From the CPSC document directly one finds:
>>>
>>> "Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance standard
>>> such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth of cut to
>>> 3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body/finger,
>>> contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."
>>>
>>>
>>> The FHB blurb is
>>>
>>> "The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
>>> millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger ... contacts the
>>> spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second."
>>>
>>> Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is
>>> identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being
>>> out-of-depth for the audience... :) and threw in the hotdog; it doesn't
>>> show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a "test probe".
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
>> depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.
>
> I read it as the saw must only cut your weenie to a depth of 3.5mm.

LOL, That is exactly what it said...

On 5/24/2017 5:32 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 4:24:10 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>> On 5/24/2017 3:12 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
>>>> was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
>>>> place of a human finger.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
>>>> story. And or not proofing before publishing.
>>>
>>> From the CPSC document directly one finds:
>>>
>>> "Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance standard
>>> such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth of cut to
>>> 3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body/finger,
>>> contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."
>>>
>>>
>>> The FHB blurb is
>>>
>>> "The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
>>> millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger ... contacts the
>>> spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second."
>>>
>>> Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is
>>> identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being
>>> out-of-depth for the audience... :) and threw in the hotdog; it doesn't
>>> show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a "test probe".
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
>> depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.
>>
>
> Maybe I'm missing something but I took the words "depth of cut" to be the depth of
> cut on the surrogate finger before the blade stops. 3.5mm is only 0.138". That's not
> even a tooth above the table.

Maybe one of us is.

"Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance standard
such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth of cut to
3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body/finger,
contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s.


This specifically states that the limit of the cut must be limited to
3.5mm WHEN A TEST PROBE, ACTING AS A SURROGATE contacts the spinning blade.


The way you see it which is contrary to what was actually stated does
make much much much more sense than the way I see it and how it was
actually written.

Most likely what they meant to say was what you said, although it did
not say that. LOL

I seriously thought that the power hungry committees wanted to regulate
how any and all saws must be capable of being used for demonstrations
vs. actually being used.

They should have said that the blade can not cut more than 3.5mm into
the operator during normal use.

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 7:27:57 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
> On 05/24/2017 5:32 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> ...
>
> > Maybe I'm missing something but I took the words "depth of cut" to be the depth of
> > cut on the surrogate finger before the blade stops. 3.5mm is only 0.138". That's not
> > even a tooth above the table.
> ...
>
>
> It is; Leon's just funnin' ...
>
> And, of course, it's the retraction of the blade that stops the injury
> progression, it doesn't stop until it hits the brake (which on SS is
> just a chunk of pretty soft Al that the teeth gouge into.
>

Yeah, I either meant "before the blade retracts" or "before the blade stops cutting".

I don't remember which. :-)

On 5/26/2017 6:31 PM, Leon wrote:


>
> Wow 11" What are you comparing that too? ;~)
> What vehicle is that on.
>
> We have looked at an RX350 and that had a large display.
>
> We drove a Grand Touring MX9 with a heads-up display, pretty cool.
> I was surprised that the display looked like it was 6' in front of the
> grill.
>
>

Ooops, the 11" was the instrument section. Display is 9.2" This is a
Genesis Ultra.

Like a lot of nav systems, as you approach a highway exit it shows the
lanes, the lane you should be in and even the signs overhead. I can go
for weeks and never use it around normal local travel but we did 3700
miles in two weeks earlier this month. Sure was nice to have and I used
it much of the time.

What is also nice, i can use BlueLink on the computer to find
destinations, hotels, etc. Then I send it to the car and next day it is
there, no typing on on the dash. You ca plan an entire trip and have
all the destinations under "google send to car" when you want them.

BTW, I know you know your way around a dealership from experience but I
got the best deal using TrueCar.com I did not buy from the TrueCar
dealership but got the same price and saved a lot of the BS negotiating.

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hope there are more posts to the site. It is easy to do. I can tell you
> > all that someone listens to these sometimes, but if you don't voice your
> > opinion, it will be assumed that the issue is of no importance to you. I
> > would like to have had a bit of time to edit this, but I saw that the
> > surrounding issues around this proposed regulation had already been
> > closed to comments. I wanted to get on it and get it out before I forgot or was too busy.
> >
> > Here's what I posted:
> >
> > I have been in the construction trades for 40 years off and on. I have
> > been an owner operator of a small carpentry and woodworking business for
> > about 35 of those years. In my experience there is a great deal of
> > similarity in the observance of safety issues between the home shop
> > worker as well as the professional. In short, the similarity is that
> > both casual user and professional need training and education, not
> > additional safety appliances or devices added to tools. Some of the
> > appartus required over the years have a valid place in both the home shop
> > as well as in a professional setting, but others are removed, ignored or
> > not maintained at an operational level.
> >
> > I truly believe based on my own personal experience of instructing and
> > overseeing employees and job sites that the saw brake devices will be
> > disabled or wired around to make the saws work without them. Anything
> > that would stop work that would be attributed to the saw brake would
> > cause it to be disabled in some fashion. Doubtful that it would be reset
> > and rearmed for proper function after a job stoppage. Also, the loss of
> > a blade that could cost as much as $300 from the mechanism firing would
> > certainly make any small business man think about rearming the saw brake
> > device. Besides the down time on the job, a firing of the device will
> > require that a qualified technician of some sort reinstall the
> > replacement firing mechanism of the brake. Additionally, there will be a
> > need to purchase and have on hand another firing device, adding not only
> > to the expense of the saw brake device, but putting the contractor at
> > risk of not being able to locate a replacement which would cause more job
> > site down time. NO doubt that occasion would cause the contractor to
> > "wire around" the problem. IF the device ever fired off by accident or
> > by a bad reading, a contractor will be looking at the purchase of a new
> > blade, a new brake stop firing device as well as all the down time for
> > (possibly) several employees while the machine is reequipped and reset.
> > If there is ever a false positive, then certainly a contractor will work
> > hard to permanently disable the saw blade brake. I strongly believe this
> > additional device that adds to the cost of a saw will be seen by most
> > professionals as not only unnecessary, but as an irritant to be disabled
> > at the first opportunity.
> >
> > My experience with homeowners/non professionals and their saws is
> > different. Almost all home accidents come from an occurrence known as
> > "kickback". This happens when a saw is used incorrectly. The wood being
> > cut is put in a position that binds the blade against the guiding device
> > (a "fence" or "miter gauge") or the wood is no longer fed in a straight
> > line into the blade causing the saw to aggressively grab the wood rather
> > than cut it. This grab will cause the wood to be removed from the
> > operator's grasp and will often "kickback" the wood towards or into the
> > operator or off the table of the saw. The saw makers and the government
> > have provided different devices to help mitigate this problem, but I very
> > rarely go into a home shop where the recommended table saw safety devices
> > are being used, or used properly. Kickback is a technique issue and
> > rarely happens with proper use of the table saw. it is important to note
> > that a saw braking mechanism will NOT prevent or mitigate the occurrence
> > kickback in any way.
> >
> > I rarely see hands or digits cut by table saws in a home or professional
> > environment. Very rarely. Most people that use them have a healthy
> > respect for the tool due to its size and power, and using the tool give
> > ther operator a tremendous sense of its power. Almost all operators have
> > a very healthy respect for this tool and use it carefully. I truly
> > believe that if there was an effective blade braking device attached to a
> > table saw then most operators would become overconfident and lazy,
> > knowing that if they have a lapse of judgement of concentration, they
> > wouldn't suffer any risk of injury. In the particular case of the table
> > saw, a very healthy fear of the machine is a great thing and does more to
> > prevent injury than any attached device.
> >
> > In closing, I hope you can see that while some safety devices are good
> > ideas, the idea of a saw blade brake is not. Not for the hobbyist or the
> > professional. Although for two very different reasons, neither would
> > benefit from it. This is an issue that has been around for years now,
> > and while the saw blade brake technology certainly has its place, most
> > are overwhelmingly against it, and mandating it would be of little or no
> > value to table saw users.
> >
> > Thank you for your time and attention.
> >
>
> Wow Robert, you really are not familiar with the SS at all it would seem.
> Replacing the brake takes a couple of minutes. Have you not seen a demo?
> As far as not having a spare replacement brake goes, why would you not have
> one on hand? Would you drive out of town with out a spare tire? :-)

I'll take a shot at that:

Job site saws will be used by workers who may not know how to, and aren't
responsible for, fixing equipment when it breaks down. The job site could be
a workshop or a construction site.

In the case of a construction site, it's easy to imagine that the replacment parts
and/or qualified personnel may not always be readily available.

In either case, the replacment parts had better be under lock and key or they are
going to be stolen by the workers who have brake-mandated table saws at home.

On 5/26/2017 9:11 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 05/26/2017 8:00 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 5/26/2017 12:44 AM, dpb wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just curious if there were a way to do as Robert suggested of
>>> disabling the system to keep going...
> ...
>
>> Doubt it. SS is owned/run by a lawyer.
>
> Yeah, we see that emphasized over and over in their filing of over a
> hundred patents as well as the aggressive pursuit of Bosch.
>
> Gass has pontificated about how he's all worried about safety but his
> actions clearly indicate it's really all about the money.
>
> I also think he has a personal vendetta against the large manufacturers
> that wouldn't kowtow to his demands on licensing originally before he
> finally did form SS and now he's been out to make their existence
> miserable ever since; using the CPSA as a tool/pawn is just a road to
> that goal. I wonder how much they've greased palms inside the agency
> there to get them to come in line with essentially providing them the
> monopoly position he's been working towards by government fiat.
>
> --
>
>

I think to be fair, Gass is in this to make money, we all work to make
money, that is our society.

When you watch a commercial about a local cancer treatment center or a
family physicians group, dental group, they all talk about your care and
well being. None of them would be there if they were not being paid and
if some one infringed on a protected right they would be going after
that party too.

Apple has countless times gone after Samsung for patent infringement.

Anyway, at least Gass has introduced and implemented a significant
"safety" to the industry. AND he offered the technology to all of the
big players before producing his saw. Sure he was in it for the money
but at least he was also offering a safety innovation that would prevent
thousands of injuries.

While some look at buying in at the offering as too much money, I look
at this way. Those companies that turned Gass down, for what ever
reason, chose to compromise their future customers safety because the
cost would cut into their bottom line too much. It was all about the
money for them also, they chose to not offer a safer product because it
would cost them extra money and affect their bottom line.

With 20/20 hind sight, I wonder how they would look at the offerings
today considering their bottom lines today. Obviously Bosch has looked
and have decided to go for that market after the fact and Gass rightly
so is protecting his investment. Considering the fact that many, and a
really big hitter like Delta was, are almost gone, they not looking out
for our safety was a bad business decision. I can't tell you the last
time I saw a Delta TS in a store.

Also consider that Gass did not have a manufacturing company or
facility, his expenses and risk were going to be much greater than any
of the other guys and the other guy fought tooth and nail for him to fail.

Yes, Gass is in it for the money but the other guys are not innocent of
this fact either.

I see the competitors like vultures circling the food waiting for the
patents to run out so that they can again have a chance to "look out"
for their future customers safety.

I totally respect every ones views on this subject. Every one has a
different perspective.

FWIW I believe Gass has been a woodworker most of his life and is
actually a patent attorney. If the competition did not look into his
back ground and realize he would probably have iron clad patents they
did not do enough research before turning him down.

On 5/27/2017 12:51 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 12:40:28 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>
>> Bosch system doing the least damage to the blade and having the lowest
>> cost to reset.
>
> Well, someone got the ball rolling in the right direction!

LOL,
Consider this, a mechanism that teaches you a lesson too.
Still the problem will be the triggering method, you touching the blade,
I think the patents are on that too.

BUTTTTT picture this. ;~)

You touch the blade or maybe even only get close to the blade and a
boxing glove located at head height, that is spring loaded, triggers and
smacks you in the face thusly throwing you sever feet away from the saw.
No need for any fancy schmancey brakes on the saw.

Product tested by Wiley Coyote.

We can call it the M. Tyson TS safety device.

Lesson learned?

On 5/25/2017 1:17 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 05/25/2017 10:08 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> ...
>
>> ... Some like me have only got a finger
>> against the blade once in 50 years. In that case a saw stop would have
>> only complicated the problem, as it was a STUPID mistakes. I cut the
>> finger on the blade and did not cut it off.
>
> I'm hard pressed to understand the above...how would having SS have
> complicated the problem, operator stupidity or not?
>
> If the saw weren't running at the time and just gashed against a tooth,
> sure, it wouldn't have made any difference in the result but how would
> it complicate?
>
> If it were running (and my understanding is the brake/sensor is active
> even during coastdown, right, Leon?)

Correct, I confirmed that with SS before ordering.

On 5/23/2017 12:29 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:44:00 PM UTC-5, woodchucker wrote:
>> http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017/05/15/cpsc-proposes-new-safety-rules-tablesaws
>> --
>> Jeff
>
> I saw that too. I don't have any objections to having safe table saws. I just cannot figure out how they could require a patented product for this safety. A device with no patent, like seatbelts when they were required in the 70s or whenever, sure. Or airbags and anti lock brakes. Yes, no patents when required. But a patented product while it is still under patent? Unless the safety requirement would remove the existing patent and make it free for anyone to use.
>

They don't require a patented product but right now nothing else exists.
What should take place is the other saw makers get together and find
another method. If they pool resources they may all benefit.

On 5/25/2017 5:35 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 05/25/2017 2:07 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 5/25/2017 1:17 PM, dpb wrote:
> ...
>
>>> If it were running (and my understanding is the brake/sensor is active
>>> even during coastdown, right, Leon?)
>>
>> Correct, I confirmed that with SS before ordering.
>
> One other operational scenario came to mind... :)
>
> I know there's a bypass mode for very green wood that otherwise shorts
> out the system; if one were to use up the brake cartridge on hand, will
> the saw operate in bypass mode?
>
> --
>
>

I have not tried it but the purpose for the "key" operated bypass is to
prevent the brake from triggering. I do not think the saw will operate
with no brake. The brake is part of the boot process. LOL, Yes you
can't just walk up and turn it on if it is completely shut down. There
are 3 switches that have to be turned on for the saw to operate.

There is the master switch near the bottom on the saw, it can be locked
in the off position, then the boot switch which runs diagnostics and
"warms up the brake". When the lights stop blinking and the green light
remains on you can then turn on the saw. In the winter it takes longer
to boot as the brake has to be warmed more.
I leave the main and boot switches on during the day so that the saw
actually turns on immediately when I want.

With all that behind me, I have cut wet treated lumber, once, and forgot
to run the bypass. The blade began to cut but the motor shut off and
the blade stopped spinning. There was no brake trigger but trouble
codes blinked until I removed the wood. I thought surely the brake
would trigger, as an after thought. I guess the saw can differentiate
between meat and wet wood. ;~) I'm not sure I would want to test that
again.

On 5/25/2017 10:08 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 5/25/2017 10:48 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>> First off the triggering of a SawStop brake does not require a repair.
>> It is designed to have the brake trigger and to be removed and
>> replaced multiple time a day. I do this on my SawStop sometimes 4
>> times a day.

Wow you really made me look like the town fool by taking my comment out
of context.

FWIW that is when I change the brake out 4 times a day.

If you had re-posted the part where I mentioned that you have to switch
brakes when changing from a 10" to 8" blade....

You would not be looking like the fool.





> If you are getting your finger in the blade four times per day
> triggering the saw stop, you are the person this thing is designed for.
> I would suggest you stop and read the safety manual and pay more
> attention to what you are doing when around a saw of any kind.
>
> Most of us have been using table saws for many years, some have never
> got their finger in the blade. Some like me have only got a finger
> against the blade once in 50 years. In that case a saw stop would have
> only complicated the problem, as it was a STUPID mistakes. I cut the
> finger on the blade and did not cut it off.
>
You said,

Most of us have been using table saws for many years, "some" have never
got their finger in the blade. "Some" like you have only got a finger
against the blade in 50 years.

Thank goodness the rest of the "many" did not make the mistake you made.
You Sir, are a candidate for a Saw Stop. It happened once, it can
happen again.

On 5/23/2017 11:16 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 10:22:53 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>
>> What am I missing?
>>
>> The proposed ruling is only for demo purposes, not actual use, NO?
>>
>> What was written,
>>
>> The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
>> millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger (a hot dog is
>> commonly used) contacts the spinning blade while approaching at 1
>> meter per second.
>>
>> I think the author missed the point, I read this as a guide line
>> for demonstration purposes only.
>
> Once again, piss poor writing and expression are at fault. When I
> read what you post, I re-read the article posted as appearing in Fine
> Homebuilding once more. I can easily see how it could be read that
> the proposal is for demonstration purposes only.

Idiots!


>
> But reading the draft of the proposed regulation, it is obvious that
> the hot dog method is used as a base line testing mechanism,
> /simulating/ a finger or other human flesh contact. Fine
> Homebuilding's sloppy ambiguity is just laziness.


Yes! Click on the links to get to the actual proposal. The author put
the actual proposal as a foot note and not as the thesis of the story.

On 5/26/2017 4:32 PM, Leon wrote:

> My wife and I have been shopping new cars lately and there is something
> going on there too. Apple is showing up in a lot of new cars these days
> and I understood manufacturers were reluctant to add the Apple "Car
> Play" systems to their infotainment systems. I recall when there were
> only about 5 car companies that offered this feature. Now this is
> offered in brands that I have never heard of. I can see a stink coming
> from the big suppliers of GPS software that car manufacturers have been
> using. With Apple Car Play you no longer need to buy GPS. Your Apple
> Phone will display the Apple Map application on the big radio display
> and steer you most anywhere you want to go.
>
> Anyway
>
> What you said was well said and an excellent point of view!

Not just Apple. Some are using Android and the maps in mine are
provided by Google.

My car has an 11" display on the dash and also shows the next turn in
the Heads Up Display. Much nicer than any phone or small GPS can show.

On 5/26/2017 6:07 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> @swbelldotnet says...
>>
>> On 5/26/2017 3:04 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> On 05/26/2017 2:50 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> I think to be fair, Gass is in this to make money, we all work to make
>>>> money, that is our society.
>>>
>>> I have no issue with that.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> .
>>>> While some look at buying in at the offering as too much money, I look
>>>> at this way. Those companies that turned Gass down, for what ever
>>>> reason, chose to compromise their future customers safety because the
>>>> cost would cut into their bottom line too much. It was all about the
>>>> money for them also, they chose to not offer a safer product because it
>>>> would cost them extra money and affect their bottom line.
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Maybe, but there's where the lack of being in on the discussions leads
>>> to insufficient knowledge as to have a real reading. The limited
>>> discussions I saw from folks at Powermatic, etc., had a lot to do with
>>> liability issues and indemnification from the 2nd-party vendor for a
>>> product they didn't develop as I understood it, and it appeared Gass
>>> wanted all the royalty but none of the liability if there were a
>>> failure. Typical lawyer-talk.
>>>
>>> But, I wasn't there; that's just partially what I've read and then
>>> partially inferred from what wasn't said or how things were couched in
>>> those interviews and that not a single vendor bit is, in my mind, quite
>>> telling that the terms really were onerous/unacceptable.
>>>
>>> Where I _really_ have a beef with Gass/SS is in using CPSC to be the
>>> bully in the lunchroom for him; sure he took the risk in forming
>>> SS--bully on him for doing so and he's got a fine product and seems to
>>> be doing well.
>>>
>>> But to use the club of the US gov't to get a monopoly--not kosher in my
>>> book.
>>>
>>> --
>> I'm certain that a lot of this goes on in other industries but because
>> we are affected with our woodworking tools it is more more of a touchy
>> subject.
>>
>> If you will recall the crap that Microsoft went through for giving away
>> their web browser... That was considered an unfair business practice.
>>
>> My wife and I have been shopping new cars lately and there is something
>> going on there too. Apple is showing up in a lot of new cars these days
>> and I understood manufacturers were reluctant to add the Apple "Car
>> Play" systems to their infotainment systems. I recall when there were
>> only about 5 car companies that offered this feature. Now this is
>> offered in brands that I have never heard of. I can see a stink coming
>> from the big suppliers of GPS software that car manufacturers have been
>> using. With Apple Car Play you no longer need to buy GPS. Your Apple
>> Phone will display the Apple Map application on the big radio display
>> and steer you most anywhere you want to go.
>>
>> Anyway
>>
>> What you said was well said and an excellent point of view!
>
> FWIW my new car has Microsoft Sync. It stinks, but it's a three year old
> version and the new one may be better. In any case there is clearly
> competition in that arena.
>
I understand that Ford finally got it right with the Sync 3.

On 5/27/2017 2:35 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 5/26/2017 6:31 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Wow 11" What are you comparing that too? ;~)
>> What vehicle is that on.
>>
>> We have looked at an RX350 and that had a large display.
>>
>> We drove a Grand Touring MX9 with a heads-up display, pretty cool.
>> I was surprised that the display looked like it was 6' in front of the
>> grill.
>>
>>
>
> Ooops, the 11" was the instrument section. Display is 9.2" This is a
> Genesis Ultra.
>
> Like a lot of nav systems, as you approach a highway exit it shows the
> lanes, the lane you should be in and even the signs overhead. I can go
> for weeks and never use it around normal local travel but we did 3700
> miles in two weeks earlier this month. Sure was nice to have and I used
> it much of the time.
>
> What is also nice, i can use BlueLink on the computer to find
> destinations, hotels, etc. Then I send it to the car and next day it is
> there, no typing on on the dash. You ca plan an entire trip and have
> all the destinations under "google send to car" when you want them.
>
> BTW, I know you know your way around a dealership from experience but I
> got the best deal using TrueCar.com I did not buy from the TrueCar
> dealership but got the same price and saved a lot of the BS negotiating.

Good to know, especially about TrueCar. It is always good to know other
sources. Thanks

In article <[email protected]>,
Puckdropper says...
>
> woodchucker <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017/05/15/cpsc-proposes-new-safety-rul
> > es-tablesaws
>
> Summary:
> CPSC wants new table saws to stop the blade upon contact with flesh.
>
> Response:
> A nice idea, but its time isn't here yet. SawStop's tech is protected by
> patents and there's no other competitors right now.
>
> Actually, the free market might sort this out if the patent system actually
> works. SawStop's patents will eventually expire (I hope!) and the
> technology will be freely available. It's a very desireable feature, and
> new saws will be built with it as sawmakers try to compete.
>
> Puckdropper

Great, this bullshit again. Would the Earth please open up and swallow
Gass and his company?

The official NPRM can be found at <https://www.regulations.gov/document?
D=CPSC-2011-0074-1154> and you have until July 26 to comment.

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 5/24/2017 3:47 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> > On 5/24/2017 4:23 PM, Leon wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2017 3:12 PM, dpb wrote:
> >>> On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>> Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
> >>>> was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
> >>>> place of a human finger.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
> >>>> story. And or not proofing before publishing.
> >>>
> >>> From the CPSC document directly one finds:
> >>>
> >>> "Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance
> >>> standard such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth
> >>> of cut to 3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human
> >>> body/finger, contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The FHB blurb is
> >>>
> >>> "The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
> >>> millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger ... contacts the
> >>> spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second."
> >>>
> >>> Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is
> >>> identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being
> >>> out-of-depth for the audience... :) and threw in the hotdog; it
> >>> doesn't show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a
> >>> "test probe".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
> >> depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.
> >>
> >> Maybe some blades are flying apart during the demonstration and
> >> keeping the blade low in the cabinet lessens the chance of shrapnel
> >> flying out and hitting some one.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > There have been 32 post to this thread.
> >
> > Have any of you expressed your concern where it would count?
> >
> > As posted earlier in the thread:
> >
> > Instead of talking about these stupid proposals, use the time that you
> > take to write to this newsgroup and send the message where it will do
> > some good.
> >
> > www.regulations.gov
> >
> > In the case of this proposal enter into the search window and complete
> > number in the search window. CPSC-2011-0074 to get the comment form for
> > this proposal.
> >
> > There are enough people reading this newsgroups and their friends that
> > if every one of you sent a comment through the above link it would make
> > a difference.
> >
> >
> > I just submitted my comments, will you?
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, 32 comments whining about a like or dislike is probably not going
> to do any good.

When I added mine, it became the 11th total.

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 5/26/2017 9:11 AM, dpb wrote:
> > On 05/26/2017 8:00 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> On 5/26/2017 12:44 AM, dpb wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Just curious if there were a way to do as Robert suggested of
> >>> disabling the system to keep going...
> > ...
> >
> >> Doubt it. SS is owned/run by a lawyer.
> >
> > Yeah, we see that emphasized over and over in their filing of over a
> > hundred patents as well as the aggressive pursuit of Bosch.
> >
> > Gass has pontificated about how he's all worried about safety but his
> > actions clearly indicate it's really all about the money.
> >
> > I also think he has a personal vendetta against the large manufacturers
> > that wouldn't kowtow to his demands on licensing originally before he
> > finally did form SS and now he's been out to make their existence
> > miserable ever since; using the CPSA as a tool/pawn is just a road to
> > that goal. I wonder how much they've greased palms inside the agency
> > there to get them to come in line with essentially providing them the
> > monopoly position he's been working towards by government fiat.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
>
> I think to be fair, Gass is in this to make money, we all work to make
> money, that is our society.
>
> When you watch a commercial about a local cancer treatment center or a
> family physicians group, dental group, they all talk about your care and
> well being. None of them would be there if they were not being paid and
> if some one infringed on a protected right they would be going after
> that party too.
>
> Apple has countless times gone after Samsung for patent infringement.
>
> Anyway, at least Gass has introduced and implemented a significant
> "safety" to the industry. AND he offered the technology to all of the
> big players before producing his saw. Sure he was in it for the money
> but at least he was also offering a safety innovation that would prevent
> thousands of injuries.
>
> While some look at buying in at the offering as too much money, I look
> at this way. Those companies that turned Gass down, for what ever
> reason, chose to compromise their future customers safety because the
> cost would cut into their bottom line too much. It was all about the
> money for them also, they chose to not offer a safer product because it
> would cost them extra money and affect their bottom line.
>
> With 20/20 hind sight, I wonder how they would look at the offerings
> today considering their bottom lines today. Obviously Bosch has looked
> and have decided to go for that market after the fact and Gass rightly
> so is protecting his investment. Considering the fact that many, and a
> really big hitter like Delta was, are almost gone, they not looking out
> for our safety was a bad business decision. I can't tell you the last
> time I saw a Delta TS in a store.
>
> Also consider that Gass did not have a manufacturing company or
> facility, his expenses and risk were going to be much greater than any
> of the other guys and the other guy fought tooth and nail for him to fail.
>
> Yes, Gass is in it for the money but the other guys are not innocent of
> this fact either.
>
> I see the competitors like vultures circling the food waiting for the
> patents to run out so that they can again have a chance to "look out"
> for their future customers safety.
>
> I totally respect every ones views on this subject. Every one has a
> different perspective.
>
> FWIW I believe Gass has been a woodworker most of his life and is
> actually a patent attorney. If the competition did not look into his
> back ground and realize he would probably have iron clad patents they
> did not do enough research before turning him down.

I'm fine with him being in it for the money. I'm not fine with him wanting
an unregulated monopoly.

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 5/26/2017 3:04 PM, dpb wrote:
> > On 05/26/2017 2:50 PM, Leon wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> I think to be fair, Gass is in this to make money, we all work to make
> >> money, that is our society.
> >
> > I have no issue with that.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > .
> >> While some look at buying in at the offering as too much money, I look
> >> at this way. Those companies that turned Gass down, for what ever
> >> reason, chose to compromise their future customers safety because the
> >> cost would cut into their bottom line too much. It was all about the
> >> money for them also, they chose to not offer a safer product because it
> >> would cost them extra money and affect their bottom line.
> > ...
> >
> > Maybe, but there's where the lack of being in on the discussions leads
> > to insufficient knowledge as to have a real reading. The limited
> > discussions I saw from folks at Powermatic, etc., had a lot to do with
> > liability issues and indemnification from the 2nd-party vendor for a
> > product they didn't develop as I understood it, and it appeared Gass
> > wanted all the royalty but none of the liability if there were a
> > failure. Typical lawyer-talk.
> >
> > But, I wasn't there; that's just partially what I've read and then
> > partially inferred from what wasn't said or how things were couched in
> > those interviews and that not a single vendor bit is, in my mind, quite
> > telling that the terms really were onerous/unacceptable.
> >
> > Where I _really_ have a beef with Gass/SS is in using CPSC to be the
> > bully in the lunchroom for him; sure he took the risk in forming
> > SS--bully on him for doing so and he's got a fine product and seems to
> > be doing well.
> >
> > But to use the club of the US gov't to get a monopoly--not kosher in my
> > book.
> >
> > --
> I'm certain that a lot of this goes on in other industries but because
> we are affected with our woodworking tools it is more more of a touchy
> subject.
>
> If you will recall the crap that Microsoft went through for giving away
> their web browser... That was considered an unfair business practice.
>
> My wife and I have been shopping new cars lately and there is something
> going on there too. Apple is showing up in a lot of new cars these days
> and I understood manufacturers were reluctant to add the Apple "Car
> Play" systems to their infotainment systems. I recall when there were
> only about 5 car companies that offered this feature. Now this is
> offered in brands that I have never heard of. I can see a stink coming
> from the big suppliers of GPS software that car manufacturers have been
> using. With Apple Car Play you no longer need to buy GPS. Your Apple
> Phone will display the Apple Map application on the big radio display
> and steer you most anywhere you want to go.
>
> Anyway
>
> What you said was well said and an excellent point of view!

FWIW my new car has Microsoft Sync. It stinks, but it's a three year old
version and the new one may be better. In any case there is clearly
competition in that arena.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 8:15:52 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
>
> > As noted above, the key item I got from the other vendor comments on the
> > negotiations was not the licensing itself nearly as much as the concern
> > of having their corporate liability riding on the outside party product.
> > Think of Toyota and the Takata airbag for a very similar type of
> > situation of a safety device which had serious repercussions to the
> > parent company by the failure of a vendor part. These outfits, while
> > large, aren't the size of a Toyota.
>
> And that makes perfect sense. Gass may have created an agreement that required such "hold harmless" language that it was unpalatable to all. I would if I were him. I wouldn't want to have responsibility for the installation of my product in a Chinese factory that is cost/production conscious over QC. Regardless of quality of his product, he can't be there in China to work the production lines inspecting every saw after the product goes to full production.
>
> >
> > > Again, I am with Leon. I am not going to keep the court of public
> > > opinion keep me from buying a SawStop product. I am certain that if we
> > > were able to peek behind the curtains of many of today's companies we
> > > wouldn't like the people we see. Those guys are there to make money for
> > > their companies, shareholders and themselves. Some are pretty nasty, no
> > > doubt.
> >
> > But, you very clearly also stated you want that to be _YOUR_ decision,
> > not one foisted on you by the federal gov't at essentially the behest of SS.
> >
> > I'm all in favor of him being as successful as he can be, _standing on
> > his own two feet_, but not by using the CPSC as a club.
> >
> > Gass himself may be the proverbial anatomical part that comprises an
> > appropriate portion of his name but that's ok by me, too. It's not him
> > but his action and the complicity of CPSC in going along that's got me
> > riled (as you, apparently as well, given the letter you wrote on the
> > subject)
>
> All true. At this point SawStop is my first look to purchase when in market for a saw. But I will do all I can to keep from having someone else make my decisions for me. After reading the proposal brief, it is obvious that the govt is thinking that they are addressing this issue as consumer safety issue. Gass and company have obviously caused enough of a ruckus to be mentioned by name, but then again, so is Bosch. But in the body of the document they do actually
address the concern that there could be a monopoly if they pass some type of regulation requiring a blade brake.
>
> I would bet anything that there are competing technologies that are ready for production, but with Gass' history of lawsuits, it is easier to wait for his patents to run out than to fight him. I seriously doubt that no one, not one company hasn't developed their own technology, not based on anything Gass has done, that works well. It sounds like Gass is shooting in the dark, filing for patents for mechanisms that may or may not be built by him, but close enough to any
prevailing trend to enable him to file a lawsuit and get an injunction against manufacture. Then the similarities (or differences) would be decided by a jury. He could keep a competitor's product off the market for years and years.
>
> I think Gass designed a great product, probably at the time of its release and some time after, the best of its kind. But the natural evolution of technology and engineering eventually render most manufactured goods obsolete. Since his strategy to pound the SS up our own Gassholes has failed, he is simply trying a new strategy. The game will be over for Gass when a device is introduced to the public that you can reset (like you do an overheated electric motor) and
doesn't ruin $300 Forester blades when it fires.
>
> Robert

I'm wondering about the possibility of a windfall profits tax on
government-mandated safety devices. Basically let Gass charge all he wants
to for the things but make sure that no matter how much he charges he ends
up losing money on the licenses.

In article <%[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On 5/29/2017 9:49 AM, Jack wrote:
>
> >>
> >> What are they going to do about circular saws? Bandsaws? Box
> >> cutters?
> >>
> > Don't forget, cars KILL 40,000 here every year. Table saws kill no one.
>
> Chop saw can though.
> http://www.hobby-machinist.com/threads/saw-kickback-causes-death.52311/
>
> Massachusetts worker killed after saw hits him in throat
> AP,
>
> November 21, 2016
> DUXBURY, Mass. (AP) ? Authorities have identified a construction worker
> who was killed in Massachusetts when a power saw he was using kicked
> back and hit him in the throat.
>
> The Plymouth County District Attorney?s Office says 28-year-old Jason
> Sanderson, of Carver, and another worker had been excavating an
> underground water line in a trench when the incident happened Saturday
> afternoon in Duxbury.
>
> Investigators say they believe the chop saw he was using ?became bound?
> and jolted back at him, making contact with his neck.
>
> Sanderson was pronounced dead at a hospital. Authorities say foul play
> is not suspected.

I'm having trouble picturing the geometry there. Unless something broke.
Or "chop saw" means something other than what I think it means.

On 5/26/2017 5:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 5/26/2017 4:32 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>> My wife and I have been shopping new cars lately and there is
>> something going on there too. Apple is showing up in a lot of new
>> cars these days and I understood manufacturers were reluctant to add
>> the Apple "Car Play" systems to their infotainment systems. I recall
>> when there were only about 5 car companies that offered this feature.
>> Now this is offered in brands that I have never heard of. I can see a
>> stink coming from the big suppliers of GPS software that car
>> manufacturers have been using. With Apple Car Play you no longer need
>> to buy GPS. Your Apple Phone will display the Apple Map application
>> on the big radio display and steer you most anywhere you want to go.
>>
>> Anyway
>>
>> What you said was well said and an excellent point of view!
>
> Not just Apple. Some are using Android and the maps in mine are
> provided by Google.
>
> My car has an 11" display on the dash and also shows the next turn in
> the Heads Up Display. Much nicer than any phone or small GPS can show.

Wow 11" What are you comparing that too? ;~)
What vehicle is that on.

We have looked at an RX350 and that had a large display.

We drove a Grand Touring MX9 with a heads-up display, pretty cool.
I was surprised that the display looked like it was 6' in front of the
grill.

On 5/27/2017 12:51 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 12:40:28 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>
>> Bosch system doing the least damage to the blade and having the lowest
>> cost to reset.
>
> Well, someone got the ball rolling in the right direction!
>
>> I think also it is going to be difficult to get past the wording on his
>> patent concerning how the devise is triggered, being touched.
>>
>> FWIW the Bosch does not ruin the blade.
>
> Always the intent. Patents, copyrights, and other protected "stuff" are only as good as the language that protects them. So the language is intentionally specific but broad as well. Specific enough to protect the "stuff", but broad enough to discourage copy.
>
> BTW Leon, I read you description of the guy with the sander out on Karl's job. I literally laughed so hard I thought I was going to drop my laptop. Hilarious and so true. The picture painted was perfect, down to observing the basic OSHA rule of keep the two hots on a 220V separated. Classic job site situation.
>
> Robert
>


That was funny, huh?

On 5/27/2017 12:44 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 05/27/2017 12:40 PM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> I think the big advantage Gass has is that he has a redundant system, it
>> works in two different ways.
>
> How dat? I've never heard that before...

The Bosch triggers, and then the arbor/blade carriage assembly
immediately drops below the table surface, AND I believe the blade then
coasts down to a stop. completely below the table surface. No damage to
the blade.

The SS triggers the brake and it jams into the blade. That energy is
transferred to a trip lever and causes the arbor/blade carriage assembly
to drop below the surface immediately after. Blade damaged.

If for some reason there was interference, a small piece of cut off
material dropped into the saw and later restricts the path of the
arbor/blade such that it restricts the arbor/blade carriage assembly
from dropping I believe the Bosch will still cut you.

If there is interference similar to what I mentioned above but on the
SS, the arbor/blade also may not drop, but the SS still engages the
brake into the blade and stops the blade.

Could debris restrict the brake on the SS from engaging?
I don't see how. The brakes moving parts are self contained and no
debris can enter into the brake mechanism. The brake "shoe" has an air
gap of about 1/8" between itself and the teeth of the blade. The
spinning blade would keep this gap clear.


The SS arbor/blade carriage has to be reset on the SS, and probably the
Bosch, along with replacing the brake. After removing the blade and
brake you simply grab the arbor and lift the arbor/carriage until you
hear a click and it stays in the normal raised position.


Some saws with riving knives have a larger opening behind the knife that
can allow small pieces of wood to enter.




>
> ...
>
>> I think also it is going to be difficult to get past the wording on his
>> patent concerning how the devise is triggered, being touched.
> ...
>
> Not all patent claims are defensible...
>
> --
>

On 5/26/2017 3:04 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 05/26/2017 2:50 PM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> I think to be fair, Gass is in this to make money, we all work to make
>> money, that is our society.
>
> I have no issue with that.
>
> ...
>
> .
>> While some look at buying in at the offering as too much money, I look
>> at this way. Those companies that turned Gass down, for what ever
>> reason, chose to compromise their future customers safety because the
>> cost would cut into their bottom line too much. It was all about the
>> money for them also, they chose to not offer a safer product because it
>> would cost them extra money and affect their bottom line.
> ...
>
> Maybe, but there's where the lack of being in on the discussions leads
> to insufficient knowledge as to have a real reading. The limited
> discussions I saw from folks at Powermatic, etc., had a lot to do with
> liability issues and indemnification from the 2nd-party vendor for a
> product they didn't develop as I understood it, and it appeared Gass
> wanted all the royalty but none of the liability if there were a
> failure. Typical lawyer-talk.
>
> But, I wasn't there; that's just partially what I've read and then
> partially inferred from what wasn't said or how things were couched in
> those interviews and that not a single vendor bit is, in my mind, quite
> telling that the terms really were onerous/unacceptable.
>
> Where I _really_ have a beef with Gass/SS is in using CPSC to be the
> bully in the lunchroom for him; sure he took the risk in forming
> SS--bully on him for doing so and he's got a fine product and seems to
> be doing well.
>
> But to use the club of the US gov't to get a monopoly--not kosher in my
> book.
>
> --
I'm certain that a lot of this goes on in other industries but because
we are affected with our woodworking tools it is more more of a touchy
subject.

If you will recall the crap that Microsoft went through for giving away
their web browser... That was considered an unfair business practice.

My wife and I have been shopping new cars lately and there is something
going on there too. Apple is showing up in a lot of new cars these days
and I understood manufacturers were reluctant to add the Apple "Car
Play" systems to their infotainment systems. I recall when there were
only about 5 car companies that offered this feature. Now this is
offered in brands that I have never heard of. I can see a stink coming
from the big suppliers of GPS software that car manufacturers have been
using. With Apple Car Play you no longer need to buy GPS. Your Apple
Phone will display the Apple Map application on the big radio display
and steer you most anywhere you want to go.

Anyway

What you said was well said and an excellent point of view!

On 5/24/2017 3:47 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 5/24/2017 4:23 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 5/24/2017 3:12 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
>>>> was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
>>>> place of a human finger.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
>>>> story. And or not proofing before publishing.
>>>
>>> From the CPSC document directly one finds:
>>>
>>> "Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance
>>> standard such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth
>>> of cut to 3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human
>>> body/finger, contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."
>>>
>>>
>>> The FHB blurb is
>>>
>>> "The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
>>> millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger ... contacts the
>>> spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second."
>>>
>>> Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is
>>> identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being
>>> out-of-depth for the audience... :) and threw in the hotdog; it
>>> doesn't show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a
>>> "test probe".
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
>> depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.
>>
>> Maybe some blades are flying apart during the demonstration and
>> keeping the blade low in the cabinet lessens the chance of shrapnel
>> flying out and hitting some one.
>>
>>
>>
> There have been 32 post to this thread.
>
> Have any of you expressed your concern where it would count?
>
> As posted earlier in the thread:
>
> Instead of talking about these stupid proposals, use the time that you
> take to write to this newsgroup and send the message where it will do
> some good.
>
> www.regulations.gov
>
> In the case of this proposal enter into the search window and complete
> number in the search window. CPSC-2011-0074 to get the comment form for
> this proposal.
>
> There are enough people reading this newsgroups and their friends that
> if every one of you sent a comment through the above link it would make
> a difference.
>
>
> I just submitted my comments, will you?
>
>

Yeah, 32 comments whining about a like or dislike is probably not going
to do any good.

On 5/23/2017 11:22 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 5/22/2017 9:43 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>> http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017/05/15/cpsc-proposes-new-safety-rules-tablesaws
>>
>>
>
>
> What am I missing?
>
> The proposed ruling is only for demo purposes, not actual use, NO?
>
> What was written,
>
> The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
> millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger (a hot dog is commonly
> used) contacts the spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second.
>
> I think the author missed the point, I read this as a guide line for
> demonstration purposes only.


I did not see that at all. Not that many deomos going ot to prevent
injuries mentioned:
The CPSC says the new rule is necessary to prevent the nearly 55,000
blade-contact injuries that require medical treatment and could save
consumers anywhere from $625 million to about $2.3 billion in reduced
medical payments, insurance claims and lost wages. The agency is
soliciting comments for 75 days before taking further action.

dpb <[email protected]> writes:
>On 05/26/2017 9:15 AM, Leon wrote:
>...
>
>> Hard to say if disabling would be reasonably possible.
>> I do know this, if I were the one responsible for anyone that may get
>> hurt I would not allow anyone to bypass the system. Considering the
>> issue that Ryobi, had with the law suite and loosing to the guy that cut
>> his fingers off a few years ago, I think the jury might burn the guilty
>> party at the stake if someone had bypassed the braking system.
>
>Oh, certainly in today's litigation-prone climate, "fer shure, good buddy!"
>
>There's no explaining stupidity/ignorance/emotion over reason with a
>jury other than siding against "deep pockets" even in the case of
>absolutely rampant stupidity by the plaintiff in doing what they did to
>cause the injury.
>
>About as stupid as the McDonald's coffee between the legs.
>

There was just another one of these in the news recently:

https://www.eater.com/2017/5/19/15662790/starbucks-hot-coffee-lawsuit-florida-100k

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 4:27:36 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
=20
> Wow Robert, you really are not familiar with the SS at all it would seem.=
=20
> Replacing the brake takes a couple of minutes. Have you not seen a demo?
> As far as not having a spare replacement brake goes, why would you not ha=
ve
> one on hand? Would you drive out of town with out a spare tire? :-)

OK, leave you alone for one day and look what happens. You personalized my =
post to the gov and made it your own. Leon...

I never (at least to my memory)referred to "SawStop" in my diatribe to the =
government. Rereading it, I didn't see SawStop mentioned by name. My refer=
ences were generic, and the braking systems were referred to as "devices", =
"mechanisms", and "apparatus".

INTENTIONALLY, I did not want to limit the intent of my scribblings to be d=
irected at SawStop only, but rather intended the post to express my distast=
e for ALL blade braking systems that would be required by the government. =
If this regulation passes, there will be a certain amount of time that pass=
es, and Gass' patents will in at least part expire. But since he is aggress=
ively trying to block anyone from developing or marketing a blade brake dev=
ice, we have no idea what is in development now from other companies. No d=
oubt he would beg, borrow, or steal information that would allow him to blo=
ck or slow its development or presentation.

I think the group ethos of being blinded by the asshat Gass keeps the bigge=
r picture from being seen. We don't need the government adding more cost, =
a device of doubtful value to some, and more bureaucracy to our way of doin=
g business. I think that a consumer should have a choice, and I think the =
government should stop looking for small problems that need to be fixed. =
=20

Other devices will be introduced if this becomes a mandate, rest assured. =
Retro devices will be, too. Soon, all insurance companies will require tha=
t any company with a saw will be required to have a blade brake or they wil=
l be denied coverage as the machine is deemed unsafe. Believe me, it will =
spread to the home shop as well. If it is found that the home shop (just t=
hinking if we know anyone like that...!) is used for commercial enterprise =
you must follow the rules of the insurance company. If you are manufacturi=
ng goods for sale at your home, you must inform your insurance company to m=
aintain valid coverage. How soon will it be that a question pops up on you=
r application for homeowners insurance asking that?

And why just table saws? I am reminded of a line from one of my favorite m=
ovies, "Outlaw Josie Wales". "Doin' good ain't got no end". Band saws (esp=
ecially the big boys) are pretty damn dangerous, so no doubt future regulat=
ions will protect us from them, too. And why not tighten up the requiremen=
ts of blade brakes on other saws? Two of my miter saws have them, one does=
n't, and the other has one but it doesn't work (worn out). So do I start l=
eaving the ones without blade brakes at home?

Nope. I am a bigger picture guy and that was the intent of my post. I don=
't want more regulation as it is a slippery slope employed by civil servant=
s that needs to constantly find new things to regulate in order to keep the=
ir job. It has to be self sustaining or it "could" go away. So regulation=
leads to more regulation.

The generic references to braking device were to express that I don't want =
more regulation, leading to more regulation, which leads to more business c=
ost, then enforcement cost of new regulation as well as compliance costs. =
I am looking at this situation as to how it will affect my business now, bu=
t also how other regulations have affected it over the last decades.

I don't care how long it takes to change the mechanism is a SawStop saw. I=
t could fix itself and in context of my comments to the govt, it has no bea=
ring. I don't care what it takes to reset the Bosch machine, anything that=
DeWalt, Hitachi, Ridgid or anyone else comes us with. I don't want to sta=
rt that ball rolling.

So a couple of last things. First, I have used the SawStop saw and it is a=
completely superior product. I have scribbled here many times how valuabl=
e I think the technology is, and if I have the scratch when I buy my next t=
able saw it will indeed be a SawStop. In the last 40 years, almost every si=
ngle time I have been hurt on the job it has been because I am over tired, =
pushing to get things finished, and it is at the end of a string of long da=
ys. Others have the luxury of saying "well, when you get to that point you=
should stop", and "if you are that tired it takes twice as long to do the =
job so you might as well quit and rest, hit it hard tomorrow" and horseshit=
like that. Not the way it works in a service business. At least not for =
long, anyway. Regardless of mitigating conditions, people want their work =
done as THEY think it should be done.

Last thing, it makes me laugh think that job site guys won't "get the job d=
one". When I had an old table saw (110V) that had a broken off/on switch o=
n it, I replaced it. The switch had some kind of surge protecting device t=
o keep the saw from overloading the power, and if it thought you were pulli=
ng too much power the saw would switch off. A 20amp outdoor light switch f=
rom he lumberyard fixed that switch just fine.

When I was out working in the country on a ranch house, my only saw on the =
job had the trigger burn up. Now I have me and a crew of three with no saw=
. I had an old 25' extension cord that had a bad female side on it, so I c=
lipped it off, direct wired the saw and my helper had to plug it in when I =
wanted it to run. As an experienced saw man, it wasn't too bad. I would l=
ine up 10-15 cuts, let the guys nail why I marked out the next cuts.

Years ago, my big compressor was a 220V SpeedAire monster. No one had the =
plug configuration we need on the 220V as it was out in a subdivision and t=
hey only used the clothes dryer style recepticles as that is all they had o=
n the electrician's trucks. I bought the receptacle we needed, got some ten=
gauge wire, hooked up the receptcale to the wires and put it in a 220V han=
dy box. On the other end, I stripped back the wires about and inch, folded=
them back on themselves, and pounded the copper flat enough that it would =
fit in the job site plugs. Used that device for about 2 years, every singl=
e work day (we only had one compressor).=20

The point is, there is always a way around a problem, whether it is real or=
perceived. NEVER, ever, rely on your employees (me included, apparently..=
.) to do the "right" thing.

Logically,

On Wed, 24 May 2017 15:23:56 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 5/24/2017 3:12 PM, dpb wrote:
>> On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
>>> was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
>>> place of a human finger.
>>>
>>>
>>> Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
>>> story. And or not proofing before publishing.
>>
>> From the CPSC document directly one finds:
>>
>> "Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance standard
>> such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth of cut to
>> 3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body/finger,
>> contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."
>>
>>
>> The FHB blurb is
>>
>> "The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
>> millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger ... contacts the
>> spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second."
>>
>> Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is
>> identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being
>> out-of-depth for the audience... :) and threw in the hotdog; it doesn't
>> show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a "test probe".
>
>
>
>Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
>depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.

I read it as the saw must only cut your weenie to a depth of 3.5mm.

>Maybe some blades are flying apart during the demonstration and keeping
>the blade low in the cabinet lessens the chance of shrapnel flying out
>and hitting some one.
>
>

Hope there are more posts to the site. It is easy to do. I can tell you a=
ll that someone listens to these sometimes, but if you don't voice your opi=
nion, it will be assumed that the issue is of no importance to you. I woul=
d like to have had a bit of time to edit this, but I saw that the surroundi=
ng issues around this proposed regulation had already been closed to commen=
ts. I wanted to get on it and get it out before I forgot or was too busy.

Here's what I posted:

I have been in the construction trades for 40 years off and on. I have bee=
n an owner operator of a small carpentry and woodworking business for about=
35 of those years. In my experience there is a great deal of similarity i=
n the observance of safety issues between the home shop worker as well as t=
he professional. In short, the similarity is that both casual user and pro=
fessional need training and education, not additional safety appliances or =
devices added to tools. Some of the appartus required over the years have =
a valid place in both the home shop as well as in a professional setting, b=
ut others are removed, ignored or not maintained at an operational level.

I truly believe based on my own personal experience of instructing and over=
seeing employees and job sites that the saw brake devices will be disabled =
or wired around to make the saws work without them. Anything that would st=
op work that would be attributed to the saw brake would cause it to be disa=
bled in some fashion. Doubtful that it would be reset and rearmed for prop=
er function after a job stoppage. Also, the loss of a blade that could cos=
t as much as $300 from the mechanism firing would certainly make any small =
business man think about rearming the saw brake device. Besides the down t=
ime on the job, a firing of the device will require that a qualified techni=
cian of some sort reinstall the replacement firing mechanism of the brake. =
Additionally, there will be a need to purchase and have on hand another fi=
ring device, adding not only to the expense of the saw brake device, but pu=
tting the contractor at risk of not being able to locate a replacement whic=
h would cause more job site down time. NO doubt that occasion would cause=
the contractor to "wire around" the problem. IF the device ever fired off=
by accident or by a bad reading, a contractor will be looking at the purch=
ase of a new blade, a new brake stop firing device as well as all the down =
time for (possibly) several employees while the machine is reequipped and r=
eset. If there is ever a false positive, then certainly a contractor will =
work hard to permanently disable the saw blade brake. I strongly believe t=
his additional device that adds to the cost of a saw will be seen by most p=
rofessionals as not only unnecessary, but as an irritant to be disabled at =
the first opportunity.

My experience with homeowners/non professionals and their saws is different=
. Almost all home accidents come from an occurrence known as "kickback". =
This happens when a saw is used incorrectly. The wood being cut is put in =
a position that binds the blade against the guiding device (a "fence" or "m=
iter gauge") or the wood is no longer fed in a straight line into the blade=
causing the saw to aggressively grab the wood rather than cut it. This gr=
ab will cause the wood to be removed from the operator's grasp and will oft=
en "kickback" the wood towards or into the operator or off the table of the=
saw. The saw makers and the government have provided different devices to=
help mitigate this problem, but I very rarely go into a home shop where th=
e recommended table saw safety devices are being used, or used properly. =
Kickback is a technique issue and rarely happens with proper use of the tab=
le saw. it is important to note that a saw braking mechanism will NOT prev=
ent or mitigate the occurrence kickback in any way. =20

I rarely see hands or digits cut by table saws in a home or professional en=
vironment. Very rarely. Most people that use them have a healthy respect =
for the tool due to its size and power, and using the tool give ther operat=
or a tremendous sense of its power. Almost all operators have a very healt=
hy respect for this tool and use it carefully. I truly believe that if the=
re was an effective blade braking device attached to a table saw then most =
operators would become overconfident and lazy, knowing that if they have a =
lapse of judgement of concentration, they wouldn't suffer any risk of injur=
y. In the particular case of the table saw, a very healthy fear of the mac=
hine is a great thing and does more to prevent injury than any attached dev=
ice.

In closing, I hope you can see that while some safety devices are good idea=
s, the idea of a saw blade brake is not. Not for the hobbyist or the profe=
ssional. Although for two very different reasons, neither would benefit f=
rom it. This is an issue that has been around for years now, and while the=
saw blade brake technology certainly has its place, most are overwhelmingl=
y against it, and mandating it would be of little or no value to table saw =
users.

Thank you for your time and attention.

On Tue, 23 May 2017 19:50:04 -0500, Gordon Shumway
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:40:42 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 May 2017 23:31:07 -0500, Gordon Shumway
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017/05/15/cpsc-proposes-new-safety-rules-tablesaws
>>>
>>>If they mandate a "safer" saw the population will build a better idiot. It's a miracle our forefathers
>>>survive?
>>
>>What are they going to do about circular saws? Bandsaws? Box
>>cutters?
>
>Maybe this is a start?
>
>https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1194&bih=730&q=circular+saw+%22with+saw+stop%22&oq=circular+saw+%22with+saw+stop%22&gs_l=img.12...3748.3748.0.6297.3.3.0.0.0.0.63.63.1.1.0....0...1.2.64.img..2.0.0.0.eEd_fUi8dmg#imgrc=5nHxV0qZaPI0TM:

Don't get it.

>Or: http://tinyurl.com/lyak5sa

Good idea but it's not a circular saw.

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 12:23:13 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
.=20
> > Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic=
=20
> > story. And or not proofing before publishing.
> >=20
>=20
> It was poorly written in that part. Even the proposal is. They do not=
=20
> state if the hot dogs can be or should be natural casing. If the test=20
> is done on the Sabbath is an all beef dog required? Lots of detail left=
=20
> out.

OK, Ed. Calm down over there. I was surprised that the proposal was as we=
ll written as it is now. I have a guy that I smoke cigars with that is a p=
rofessional "writer" (policy, instruction leaflets,) that expresses other p=
eople's thoughts for government dissemination. He can barely spell his own =
name correctly two times in a row, much less determine what makes an instru=
ctive piece.

And if you read between the lines on that piece, there is credit given to a=
nother govt panel for determining the successful testing criteria... the F'=
in hot dog Gass has been using for years!

Robert

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 10:22:53 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
=20
> What am I missing?
>=20
> The proposed ruling is only for demo purposes, not actual use, NO?
>=20
> What was written,
>=20
> The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5=20
> millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger (a hot dog is commonly=20
> used) contacts the spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second=
.
>=20
> I think the author missed the point, I read this as a guide line for=20
> demonstration purposes only.

Once again, piss poor writing and expression are at fault. When I read wha=
t you post, I re-read the article posted as appearing in Fine Homebuilding =
once more. I can easily see how it could be read that the proposal is for =
demonstration purposes only.

But reading the draft of the proposed regulation, it is obvious that the ho=
t dog method is used as a base line testing mechanism, /simulating/ a finge=
r or other human flesh contact. Fine Homebuilding's sloppy ambiguity is ju=
st laziness.

However, all should read the reference to the proposed regulation as suppli=
ed by J. Clarke. It is comprehensive, considered, well written and seems t=
o cover all aspects of the arguments for and against.

It discusses the notorious Mr. Gass, the length of time on his remaining pa=
tents, Bosch and the Axis solution, the lack of competition for this techno=
logy, the effects of requiring such technology, and its effect on the table=
saw market. It addresses Gass' lawsuit against Bosch, unfair advantage wi=
thin the marketplace since there is actually only one undisputed device tha=
t performs a blade stopping action, and even the idea that installing these=
devices could make the average table saw user more sloppy in his safety pr=
actices. And much, much more.

To the point, further explanation within the body of the proposed regulatio=
n clearly (to me) spells out the hot dog as the universal test medium used =
to determine effectiveness. As for the article in the magazine, it was pro=
bably put together by the National Enquirer staff.

Robert

On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
wrote:

>http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017/05/15/cpsc-proposes-new-safety-rules-tablesaws

Capacitance sensing of contact is NOT a new technology - it is simple
and ancieant electrical knowledge. The judge who issued the ruling of
"patent violation" is too technically ignorant to be allowed to judge
anything.

That makes as much sense as the Patent Office giving a patent to
wheelbarrow design when someone designed a new type of dump handle for
the wheelbarrow - yes, they did that.

The judge and the SawStop attorneys should be found in contempt of the
Court of Common Sense and their sentence is 90 days sawing old oak
with a handsaw.

Sounds an awful lot like corporate payments twisting judicial opinion
to get forced purchase of a patented device with only one source.

On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:49:04 -0500, Gordon Shumway
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 May 2017 21:30:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 May 2017 19:50:04 -0500, Gordon Shumway
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:40:42 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 22 May 2017 23:31:07 -0500, Gordon Shumway
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017/05/15/cpsc-proposes-new-safety-rules-tablesaws
>>>>>
>>>>>If they mandate a "safer" saw the population will build a better idiot. It's a miracle our forefathers
>>>>>survive?
>>>>
>>>>What are they going to do about circular saws? Bandsaws? Box
>>>>cutters?
>>>
>>>Maybe this is a start?
>>>
>>>https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1194&bih=730&q=circular+saw+%22with+saw+stop%22&oq=circular+saw+%22with+saw+stop%22&gs_l=img.12...3748.3748.0.6297.3.3.0.0.0.0.63.63.1.1.0....0...1.2.64.img..2.0.0.0.eEd_fUi8dmg#imgrc=5nHxV0qZaPI0TM:
>>
>>Don't get it.
>>
>>>Or: http://tinyurl.com/lyak5sa
>>
>>Good idea but it's not a circular saw.
>
>What do you expect for only a few minutes work?

Fair enough.

Seriously, people do some incredibly dumb stuff with circular saw,
like cutting off their leg. They need government to protect them!

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 10:07:07 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
=20
> They won't bother the consumer, but workmans comp insurance companies=20
> have been pressuring commercial shops for a few years already.

VERY true. I had a talk with my insurance guy that handles my commercial a=
ccount, and he told me that "IF" I had a table saw, that didn't have "blade=
stopping technology", I might be facing higher premiums. Not a problem for=
me since no one works out of a shop with my business.

But my cabinet man at the time told me his insurance went up because he did=
n't have any blade stopping mechanism.

My buddy that teaches industrial arts (shop) was required by the district t=
o get a SawStop saw about three years ago. The other saws were deemed to d=
angerous. Not a bad idea around 15-18 year old knot heads. I had secured =
the purchase of the existing Delta saw, vintage mid 60s, for a couple of hu=
ndred bucks. It was a rebuild in every sense, but I have couple of connect=
ions for that. In the end, they didn't sell it to me, but sold the whole t=
hing to a metal scrap yard. The purchaser for the district told me they di=
dn't want the implied liability of selling a tool so dangerous that they we=
re required to get rid of it.

Sigh.

Robert

On Wed, 24 May 2017 11:07:05 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 5/24/2017 10:01 AM, Larry Kraus wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> I've read only a tiny portion of the 431 pages, but have not yet seen
>> any mention of restricting the sale or use of existing saws.
>
>They won't bother the consumer, but workmans comp insurance companies
>have been pressuring commercial shops for a few years already.

That's understandable. If there truly is a problem, insurance
companies will know how to mitigate their exposure. The consumer has
a choice. The problem comes when government bureaucrats make rules
they have no skin in.

On 5/25/2017 6:55 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:27:36 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hope there are more posts to the site. It is easy to do. I can tell you
>>> all that someone listens to these sometimes, but if you don't voice your
>>> opinion, it will be assumed that the issue is of no importance to you. I
>>> would like to have had a bit of time to edit this, but I saw that the
>>> surrounding issues around this proposed regulation had already been
>>> closed to comments. I wanted to get on it and get it out before I forgot or was too busy.
>>>
>>> Here's what I posted:
>>>
>>> I have been in the construction trades for 40 years off and on. I have
>>> been an owner operator of a small carpentry and woodworking business for
>>> about 35 of those years. In my experience there is a great deal of
>>> similarity in the observance of safety issues between the home shop
>>> worker as well as the professional. In short, the similarity is that
>>> both casual user and professional need training and education, not
>>> additional safety appliances or devices added to tools. Some of the
>>> appartus required over the years have a valid place in both the home shop
>>> as well as in a professional setting, but others are removed, ignored or
>>> not maintained at an operational level.
>>>
>>> I truly believe based on my own personal experience of instructing and
>>> overseeing employees and job sites that the saw brake devices will be
>>> disabled or wired around to make the saws work without them. Anything
>>> that would stop work that would be attributed to the saw brake would
>>> cause it to be disabled in some fashion. Doubtful that it would be reset
>>> and rearmed for proper function after a job stoppage. Also, the loss of
>>> a blade that could cost as much as $300 from the mechanism firing would
>>> certainly make any small business man think about rearming the saw brake
>>> device. Besides the down time on the job, a firing of the device will
>>> require that a qualified technician of some sort reinstall the
>>> replacement firing mechanism of the brake. Additionally, there will be a
>>> need to purchase and have on hand another firing device, adding not only
>>> to the expense of the saw brake device, but putting the contractor at
>>> risk of not being able to locate a replacement which would cause more job
>>> site down time. NO doubt that occasion would cause the contractor to
>>> "wire around" the problem. IF the device ever fired off by accident or
>>> by a bad reading, a contractor will be looking at the purchase of a new
>>> blade, a new brake stop firing device as well as all the down time for
>>> (possibly) several employees while the machine is reequipped and reset.
>>> If there is ever a false positive, then certainly a contractor will work
>>> hard to permanently disable the saw blade brake. I strongly believe this
>>> additional device that adds to the cost of a saw will be seen by most
>>> professionals as not only unnecessary, but as an irritant to be disabled
>>> at the first opportunity.
>>>
>>> My experience with homeowners/non professionals and their saws is
>>> different. Almost all home accidents come from an occurrence known as
>>> "kickback". This happens when a saw is used incorrectly. The wood being
>>> cut is put in a position that binds the blade against the guiding device
>>> (a "fence" or "miter gauge") or the wood is no longer fed in a straight
>>> line into the blade causing the saw to aggressively grab the wood rather
>>> than cut it. This grab will cause the wood to be removed from the
>>> operator's grasp and will often "kickback" the wood towards or into the
>>> operator or off the table of the saw. The saw makers and the government
>>> have provided different devices to help mitigate this problem, but I very
>>> rarely go into a home shop where the recommended table saw safety devices
>>> are being used, or used properly. Kickback is a technique issue and
>>> rarely happens with proper use of the table saw. it is important to note
>>> that a saw braking mechanism will NOT prevent or mitigate the occurrence
>>> kickback in any way.
>>>
>>> I rarely see hands or digits cut by table saws in a home or professional
>>> environment. Very rarely. Most people that use them have a healthy
>>> respect for the tool due to its size and power, and using the tool give
>>> ther operator a tremendous sense of its power. Almost all operators have
>>> a very healthy respect for this tool and use it carefully. I truly
>>> believe that if there was an effective blade braking device attached to a
>>> table saw then most operators would become overconfident and lazy,
>>> knowing that if they have a lapse of judgement of concentration, they
>>> wouldn't suffer any risk of injury. In the particular case of the table
>>> saw, a very healthy fear of the machine is a great thing and does more to
>>> prevent injury than any attached device.
>>>
>>> In closing, I hope you can see that while some safety devices are good
>>> ideas, the idea of a saw blade brake is not. Not for the hobbyist or the
>>> professional. Although for two very different reasons, neither would
>>> benefit from it. This is an issue that has been around for years now,
>>> and while the saw blade brake technology certainly has its place, most
>>> are overwhelmingly against it, and mandating it would be of little or no
>>> value to table saw users.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your time and attention.
>>>
>>
>> Wow Robert, you really are not familiar with the SS at all it would seem.
>> Replacing the brake takes a couple of minutes. Have you not seen a demo?
>> As far as not having a spare replacement brake goes, why would you not have
>> one on hand? Would you drive out of town with out a spare tire? :-)
>
> I'll take a shot at that:
>
> Job site saws will be used by workers who may not know how to, and aren't
> responsible for, fixing equipment when it breaks down. The job site could be
> a workshop or a construction site.
>
> In the case of a construction site, it's easy to imagine that the replacment parts
> and/or qualified personnel may not always be readily available.
>
> In either case, the replacment parts had better be under lock and key or they are
> going to be stolen by the workers who have brake-mandated table saws at home.
>
>

You all make good points. I've seen many safety devices disconnected
and procedures ignored. You may open a safety gate to slick out a piced
of crap in a mold, but I've never seen anyone lock out and tag out to
do that, as required. There will be a lot of problems in independent
shops, but you will get good compliance in utilities and places that are
hard ass on safety and compliance.

The independent shops will comply after the first saw accident,
especially if OSHA is notified.

On 5/25/2017 11:44 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 05/25/2017 10:44 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 5/25/2017 5:35 PM, dpb wrote:
> ...
>
>>> I know there's a bypass mode for very green wood that otherwise shorts
>>> out the system; if one were to use up the brake cartridge on hand,
>>> will the saw operate in bypass mode?
> ...
>
>> There is the master switch near the bottom on the saw, it can be locked
>> in the off position, then the boot switch which runs diagnostics and
>> "warms up the brake". When the lights stop blinking and the green light
>> remains on you can then turn on the saw. ...
>
>
> So other than a direct complete external bypass to the motor itself it
> wouldn't run is what I get out of that...so the complaint that if didn't
> have a spare on hand one's out of business until get one is so.
>
> Just curious if there were a way to do as Robert suggested of disabling
> the system to keep going...
>
> --
>
Hard to say if disabling would be reasonably possible.
I do know this, if I were the one responsible for anyone that may get
hurt I would not allow anyone to bypass the system. Considering the
issue that Ryobi, had with the law suite and loosing to the guy that cut
his fingers off a few years ago, I think the jury might burn the
guilty party at the stake if someone had bypassed the braking system.

On 5/27/2017 1:37 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 05/27/2017 1:21 PM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> If for some reason there was interference, a small piece of cut off
>> material dropped into the saw and later restricts the path of the
>> arbor/blade such that it restricts the arbor/blade carriage assembly
>> from dropping I believe the Bosch will still cut you.
> ...
>
> Haven't actually seen one, but I'd venture that's a stretch... :)

You say that but I have often considered this possibility.
Yesterday I was trimming some small pieces of oak decorative trim.
I was trimming 8 pieces, removing pieces that were 1/4" wide, 1/8" thick
and 3.5" long. The first three fell in the slot behind the riving knife
slot before I noticed that they were not falling off behind the saw.
Long story short I fished 5 pieces out of the saw. Most were sitting
just above the brake. 2 pieces are still unaccounted for....

Those small pieces of wood are still pretty stout.


>
> The two actions aren't independent so it's a different definition of
> "redundant" than thinking.
>
> The Bosch activation is akin to an airbag deployment; the location below
> the arbor would have to have something pretty solid to support any
> cutoff so think is remote chance at best...

Understood and it is highly unlikely but many think that it is highly
unlikely that they will ever benefit from this type safety device.
Shit Happens. ;~)


>
> Has Gass sold SS stock, Leon? :)

LOL. I do not think SS is a public company.

On Tue, 23 May 2017 21:30:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

>On Tue, 23 May 2017 19:50:04 -0500, Gordon Shumway
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:40:42 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 May 2017 23:31:07 -0500, Gordon Shumway
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017/05/15/cpsc-proposes-new-safety-rules-tablesaws
>>>>
>>>>If they mandate a "safer" saw the population will build a better idiot. It's a miracle our forefathers
>>>>survive?
>>>
>>>What are they going to do about circular saws? Bandsaws? Box
>>>cutters?
>>
>>Maybe this is a start?
>>
>>https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1194&bih=730&q=circular+saw+%22with+saw+stop%22&oq=circular+saw+%22with+saw+stop%22&gs_l=img.12...3748.3748.0.6297.3.3.0.0.0.0.63.63.1.1.0....0...1.2.64.img..2.0.0.0.eEd_fUi8dmg#imgrc=5nHxV0qZaPI0TM:
>
>Don't get it.
>
>>Or: http://tinyurl.com/lyak5sa
>
>Good idea but it's not a circular saw.

What do you expect for only a few minutes work?

On 5/22/2017 10:43 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017/05/15/cpsc-proposes-new-safety-rules-tablesaws
>


The actual
proposal:https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Proposed%20Rule%20-%20Safety%20Standard%20for%20Blade-Contact%20Injuries%20on%20Table%20Saws%20-%20January%2017%202017.pdf
, dated January 17,2017.

Quote:
"CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1245
[RIN 3041-AC31]
Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074
Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has determined
preliminarily that there may be an unreasonable risk of blade-contact
injuries associated with table saws. In 2015, there were an estimated
33,400 table saw, emergency department-treated injuries. Of these, CPSC
staff estimates that 30,800 (92 percent) are likely related to the
victim making contact with the saw blade. CPSC staff’s review of the
existing data indicates that currently available safety devices, such as
the modular blade guard and riving knife, do not adequately address the
unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on table saws. To address
this risk, the Commission proposes a rule that is based, in part, on
work conducted by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. The proposed rule would
establish a performance standard that requires table saws, when powered
on, to limit the depth of cut to 3.5 millimeters when a test probe,
acting as surrogate for a human body/finger, contacts the spinning blade
at a radial approach rate of 1 meter per second (m/s). The proposed rule
would address an estimated 54,800 medically treated blade-contact
injuries annually. The Commission estimates that the proposed rule’s
aggregate net benefits on an annual basis could range from about $625
million to about $2,300 million.

Quoting further:

"SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
(petitioners) requested that the CPSC require performance standards for
a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a
table saw. The petitioners are members of SawStop, LLC, and its parent
company, SD3, LLC (collectively, SawStop). On October 11, 2011, the
Commission published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to
consider whether there may be an unreasonable risk of blade-contact
injuries associated with table saws. 76 FR 62678. The ANPR began a
rulemaking proceeding under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). The
Commission received approximately 1,600 public comments. The Commission
is now issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to address an
unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws
that would limit the depth of cut to 3.5 mm or less when a test probe,
acting as surrogate for a human body/finger, contacts the spinning blade
at a radial approach rate of 1 meter per second (m/s)."



I've read only a tiny portion of the 431 pages, but have not yet seen
any mention of restricting the sale or use of existing saws.

On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:15:13 -0400, ads wrote:

>On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017/05/15/cpsc-proposes-new-safety-rules-tablesaws
>
>Capacitance sensing of contact is NOT a new technology - it is simple
>and ancieant electrical knowledge. The judge who issued the ruling of
>"patent violation" is too technically ignorant to be allowed to judge
>anything.

That's completely irrelevant. Right or _wrong_, the USPTO is
considered the expert. The judge having ruled on it, seals it as
fact. It will take every nuke in the world to budge the courts.
>
>That makes as much sense as the Patent Office giving a patent to
>wheelbarrow design when someone designed a new type of dump handle for
>the wheelbarrow - yes, they did that.

When reading patents, forget everything but the claims section. Often
what is actually being patented has nothing to do with the discussion
that precedes it. I don't know which patent you're referencing but
I've pulled a lot apart that aren't at all what people think they are.
>
>The judge and the SawStop attorneys should be found in contempt of the
>Court of Common Sense and their sentence is 90 days sawing old oak
>with a handsaw.
>
>Sounds an awful lot like corporate payments twisting judicial opinion
>to get forced purchase of a patented device with only one source.

That's the worry. Not sure how valid it is at this point. Insurance
is a more lasting force.

On 5/27/2017 11:48 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 8:15:52 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
>
>> As noted above, the key item I got from the other vendor comments on the
>> negotiations was not the licensing itself nearly as much as the concern
>> of having their corporate liability riding on the outside party product.
>> Think of Toyota and the Takata airbag for a very similar type of
>> situation of a safety device which had serious repercussions to the
>> parent company by the failure of a vendor part. These outfits, while
>> large, aren't the size of a Toyota.
>
> And that makes perfect sense. Gass may have created an agreement that required such "hold harmless" language that it was unpalatable to all. I would if I were him. I wouldn't want to have responsibility for the installation of my product in a Chinese factory that is cost/production conscious over QC. Regardless of quality of his product, he can't be there in China to work the production lines inspecting every saw after the product goes to full production.
>
>>
>>> Again, I am with Leon. I am not going to keep the court of public
>>> opinion keep me from buying a SawStop product. I am certain that if we
>>> were able to peek behind the curtains of many of today's companies we
>>> wouldn't like the people we see. Those guys are there to make money for
>>> their companies, shareholders and themselves. Some are pretty nasty, no
>>> doubt.
>>
>> But, you very clearly also stated you want that to be _YOUR_ decision,
>> not one foisted on you by the federal gov't at essentially the behest of SS.
>>
>> I'm all in favor of him being as successful as he can be, _standing on
>> his own two feet_, but not by using the CPSC as a club.
>>
>> Gass himself may be the proverbial anatomical part that comprises an
>> appropriate portion of his name but that's ok by me, too. It's not him
>> but his action and the complicity of CPSC in going along that's got me
>> riled (as you, apparently as well, given the letter you wrote on the
>> subject)
>
> All true. At this point SawStop is my first look to purchase when in market for a saw. But I will do all I can to keep from having someone else make my decisions for me. After reading the proposal brief, it is obvious that the govt is thinking that they are addressing this issue as consumer safety issue. Gass and company have obviously caused enough of a ruckus to be mentioned by name, but then again, so is Bosch. But in the body of the document they do actually address the concern that there could be a monopoly if they pass some type of regulation requiring a blade brake.
>
> I would bet anything that there are competing technologies that are ready for production, but with Gass' history of lawsuits, it is easier to wait for his patents to run out than to fight him. I seriously doubt that no one, not one company hasn't developed their own technology, not based on anything Gass has done, that works well. It sounds like Gass is shooting in the dark, filing for patents for mechanisms that may or may not be built by him, but close enough to any prevailing trend to enable him to file a lawsuit and get an injunction against manufacture. Then the similarities (or differences) would be decided by a jury. He could keep a competitor's product off the market for years and years.
>
> I think Gass designed a great product, probably at the time of its release and some time after, the best of its kind. But the natural evolution of technology and engineering eventually render most manufactured goods obsolete. Since his strategy to pound the SS up our own Gassholes has failed, he is simply trying a new strategy. The game will be over for Gass when a device is introduced to the public that you can reset (like you do an overheated electric motor) and doesn't ruin $300 Forester blades when it fires.
>
> Robert

I think the big advantage Gass has is that he has a redundant system, it
works in two different ways. The Bosch only uses one of the ways that
the SawStop uses.
That in itself may be what the "powers that be" are more interested in
seeing.
IMHO with both systems working correctly both get the job done, with the
Bosch system doing the least damage to the blade and having the lowest
cost to reset.
I think also it is going to be difficult to get past the wording on his
patent concerning how the devise is triggered, being touched.

FWIW the Bosch does not ruin the blade.

On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:29:00 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:44:00 PM UTC-5, woodchucker wrote:
>> http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017/05/15/cpsc-proposes-new-safety-rules-tablesaws
>> --
>> Jeff
>
>I saw that too. I don't have any objections to having safe table saws. I just cannot figure out how they could require a patented product for this safety. A device with no patent, like seatbelts when they were required in the 70s or whenever, sure. Or airbags and anti lock brakes. Yes, no patents when required. But a patented product while it is still under patent? Unless the safety requirement would remove the existing patent and make it free for anyone to use.

The pertinent patents don't have much longer to run (the broad ones
run out in 1999 or 2000, IIRC). It's going to kill the low-end saws
but I no longer see a big issue with "woodworker's" saws. Time heals
all Gass. ;-)

On Mon, 29 May 2017 13:47:02 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 5/29/2017 1:29 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 5/29/2017 10:36 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <%[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> On 5/29/2017 9:49 AM, Jack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are they going to do about circular saws? Bandsaws? Box
>>>>>> cutters?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Don't forget, cars KILL 40,000 here every year. Table saws kill no
>>>>> one.
>>>>
>>>> Chop saw can though.
>>>> http://www.hobby-machinist.com/threads/saw-kickback-causes-death.52311/
>>>>
>>>> Massachusetts worker killed after saw hits him in throat
>>>> AP,
>>>>
>>>> November 21, 2016
>>>> DUXBURY, Mass. (AP) ? Authorities have identified a construction worker
>>>> who was killed in Massachusetts when a power saw he was using kicked
>>>> back and hit him in the throat.
>>>>
>>>> The Plymouth County District Attorney?s Office says 28-year-old Jason
>>>> Sanderson, of Carver, and another worker had been excavating an
>>>> underground water line in a trench when the incident happened Saturday
>>>> afternoon in Duxbury.
>>>>
>>>> Investigators say they believe the chop saw he was using ?became bound?
>>>> and jolted back at him, making contact with his neck.
>>>>
>>>> Sanderson was pronounced dead at a hospital. Authorities say foul play
>>>> is not suspected.
>>>
>>> I'm having trouble picturing the geometry there. Unless something broke.
>>> Or "chop saw" means something other than what I think it means.
>>>
>> Probably something like this.
>>
>> Typically "chop saws" are not used for cutting wood.
>>
>> http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_200474166_200474166?cm_mmc=Google-pla&utm_source=Google_PLA&utm_medium=Construction%20%3E%20Concrete%20Saws%20%2B%20Blades%20%3E%20Concrete%20Saws&utm_campaign=Husqvarna&utm_content=21251&gclid=CjwKEAjwja_JBRD8idHpxaz0t3wSJAB4rXW53goYpAYIR1S8kNFZovHI4FVg6u2UU9DiKRouz5JeHRoCJzTw_wcB
>>
>>
>>
>
>We know that but most new reporters don't. Anything that cuts they call
>a chop saw it seems. It sounds like the saw, not material being cut
>kicked back so it could be saw like you show here.
>
>Most any tool can kill you if improperly used or unusual circumstances.

That's the whole point. It's government's job to protect you because
"we" know you're an idiot who can't take care of himself. Just send
us all your money and "we" will make sure you have enough bubble wrap
for life.

On 5/23/2017 11:22 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 5/22/2017 9:43 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>> http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017/05/15/cpsc-proposes-new-safety-rules-tablesaws
>>
>>
>
>
> What am I missing?
>
> The proposed ruling is only for demo purposes, not actual use, NO?
>
> What was written,
>
> The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
> millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger (a hot dog is commonly
> used) contacts the spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second.
>
> I think the author missed the point, I read this as a guide line for
> demonstration purposes only.
Instead of talking about these stupid proposals, use the time that you
take to write to this newsgroup and send the message where it will do
some good.

www.regulations.gov

In the case of this proposal enter into the search window and complete
number in the search window. CPSC-2011-0074 to get the comment form for
this proposal.

There are enough people reading this newsgroups and their friends that
if every one of you sent a comment through the above link it would make
a difference.


I just submitted my comments, will you?


--
2017: The year we lean to play the great game of Euchre