SawStop

philski responds:
>
>> Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With
>> thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any
>> bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to
>> me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other
>> reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the
>> manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works
>> and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as
>> standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc.
>Thousands of Amputations? Damn. Can you site some official figures of
>those "thousands" of amputees? I ain't buyin' it...

Me either. I searched for facts and figures on this a couple, three months ago
when Saw Stop came up for the 32nd or so time. Nothing definitive, lots of
guesswork, so my guess of amputations in the low dozens is as good as any.

I first saw the demo video of the SS back in 2000, IIRC, at IWF in Atlanta. It
was, and remains, impressive, but IMHO what would be more impressive is a
total, simple, solution to kickback that is low in cost. Rough guess: there are
100 times as many injuries from kickback as there are from sticking a body part
into the saw blade.

And I have to wonder, too, if figures exist do they count such "amputations" as
one an uncle of mine got a decade or so ago. He ran his finger tip over the
1/8" or so of blade above the wood, and lost about 1/8" of the fingertip.
Hurts. Bleeds a lot. Amputation or cut?

Charlie Self
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> And I have to wonder, too, if figures exist do they count such
"amputations" as
> one an uncle of mine got a decade or so ago. He ran his finger tip over
the
> 1/8" or so of blade above the wood, and lost about 1/8" of the fingertip.
> Hurts. Bleeds a lot. Amputation or cut?

A fingertip probably qualifies. The dictionary defines it as "cut off part
of body: to cut off a limb or other appendage of the body, especially in a
surgical operation". I'd guess if it was something that doesn't grow back,
then it qualifies as being amputated.

According to the article in fine Woodworking, kickback as a source of
injury seemed to be about twice as common as amputation.

By the way, the SawStop has a riving knife, a better kickback solution
than usually found on US saws..

Charlie Self wrote:

> philski responds:
>
>>>Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With
>>>thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any
>>>bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to
>>>me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other
>>>reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the
>>>manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works
>>>and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as
>>>standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc.
>>
>>Thousands of Amputations? Damn. Can you site some official figures of
>>those "thousands" of amputees? I ain't buyin' it...
>
>
> Me either. I searched for facts and figures on this a couple, three months ago
> when Saw Stop came up for the 32nd or so time. Nothing definitive, lots of
> guesswork, so my guess of amputations in the low dozens is as good as any.
>
> I first saw the demo video of the SS back in 2000, IIRC, at IWF in Atlanta. It
> was, and remains, impressive, but IMHO what would be more impressive is a
> total, simple, solution to kickback that is low in cost. Rough guess: there are
> 100 times as many injuries from kickback as there are from sticking a body part
> into the saw blade.
>
> And I have to wonder, too, if figures exist do they count such "amputations" as
> one an uncle of mine got a decade or so ago. He ran his finger tip over the
> 1/8" or so of blade above the wood, and lost about 1/8" of the fingertip.
> Hurts. Bleeds a lot. Amputation or cut?
>
> Charlie Self
> "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
> promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:36:21 -0600, tzipple <[email protected]>
wrote:

>According to the article in fine Woodworking, kickback as a source of
>injury seemed to be about twice as common as amputation.
>
>By the way, the SawStop has a riving knife, a better kickback solution
>than usually found on US saws..

now this sounds interesting. we may finally have a US source for
riving knives for taiwan unisaw knockoffs.

Dave Mundt notes:

snip of sensible responses

>The bottom line is that the only way that a table saw can
>be a "safe" tool is for the operator to remain alert and slightly
>nervous about the consequences of a screw-up.

That's an absolute.

> While I don't want to be flippant about the injury rates
>listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are
>likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every year
>in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of
>accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of times a
>table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean.

My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of injuries. I'd
also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found them. Of
course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend money looking, but
if I had cites to back up such claims, I think I'd make them available. So far,
I've seen nothing but claims.

Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over the years
have received injuries of one sort or another, everything from blade-changing
knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft horse's shoe and, very
occasionally, something more serious. If we're at all wise, we learn from the
smaller incidents and remain slightly in awe of what the tablesaw can do to us
if our attention wanders. If we're not particularly wise, we continue to use
unsafe working methods and eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to
the inattentive user today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up.

Charlie Self
"Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of
nothing."
Redd Foxx

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 12:13:44 GMT, "snowdog"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Lets put it this way. If you are on top of a tall building and you are
>close to the edge, you will have a tendency to much more careful about what
>you do if a railing is not there. Oddly enough the railing doesn't even
>have to be strong enough to keep you from going over the edge, just the fact
>that it is there is enough to cause you to be less attentive than if it was
>not there are all. If you put a device on a saw that will (hopefully) stop
>the blade if you touch it, you will have a tendency to do things you
>normally would not do on the table saw. Perhaps not use that pushstick that
>is just out of reach, or cut a piece that is way too small without the
>proper support. It is part of the human condition to get "lazy" when the
>percieved level of danger decreases.


I hate high places: I have a hard time standing in front of a
floor-to-ceiling window when I'm up in a tall hotel, tho I used to
paint houses for a living, including very large Victorians...
the need to eat overcame the fear of heights .....

You may be right, there is likely to be a subconscious influence
on how scared you are of the saw with the device on it. But I
wonder about how much that will weigh on someone willing
to lay out the money for this saw. I almost always wear a seat
belt when in a car and my van has airbags. I really don't think
that I drive more carelessly because I know I am safer and
I go slower as I get older. I think that people who are likely
to take more risks - as I was when I was younger - are the ones
most likely to be careless. But I don't think that they are likely
to buy this saw in the first place.

>>
>> Right there you've listed another reason to keep thinking:
>> you're going to lose at least $150 if you goof, plus maybe
>> a nice chunk of wood.
>
>I am not goin to argue that in the (unlikely) event a person does make
>contact with the blade, the cost of the blade and safety device becomes
>trivial, of course it does. However, when you weigh the cost vs. the risk,
>I don't believe the risk in this case is great enough to justify the cost.

What I meant was that the image in my mind of not being
careful resulting in the loss of a sawblade and a cartridge
for $150 or so would make me be more careful, even if
I thought that the device would make me invulnerable.

>The makers of this device have petitioned the Federal Government to make
>this device mandatory on all tablesaws (I won't argue with you on specific
>sizes of saws, suffice it to say that is there ultimate goal). This is
>equivalent to forcing it on the general populace.

I don't know if I will buy this saw. I decided to get a band saw
first and get by with it and miter and circular saws for a year or
so before buying a table saw, if ever. If I do, I'd like to consider
this one but I won't if they're still pursuing this regulation.

Saw a live demo in Atlanta, he ran that hot dog into the saw blade alot
faster than you would cut any piece of wood. He shoved a sled with the hot
dog on it as fast as he could into the blade, not cutting the sled it was
already cut the same size as the distance the fence was set from the blade.
Hot dog only had a nick like the demo

Joe

"Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, all I know is that when they demonstrate the thing with a hot dog it
> stops virtually instantaneously. The dog has just a slight knick in it.
>
> --
> Jeff P.
>
> "A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
> can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
> you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno
>
>
> Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com
>
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > cg wrote:
> >
> > > As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast
> > > this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths...
> > >
> > > From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade
> > > in less than five (5) milliseconds.
> > > Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds.
> > > In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round...
> > > (that is one part of fifteen).
> > >
> > > So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop,
> > > I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full
> > > rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops.
> > >
> > > Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would
> > > expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had
> > > been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60
> > > is 20!
> > >
> > > To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or
> > > 1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration...
> > > once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it
> > > is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds.
> > > (So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?)
> > >
> > > Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and
> > > for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little
> > > consolation for me!
> > >
> > > I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like
> > > these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the
> > > rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms
> > > of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same
> > > in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade
> > > spinning at 4000 RPM.
> > > Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement
> > > compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm
> > > with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like!
> > >
> > > Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple
math...
> > > don't they?
> >
> > So how many saw teeth have to go through your finger before your finger
> > comes off?
> >
> > > cg
> > >
> > >
> > > [email protected] (David Hall) wrote in message
> > > news:<[email protected]>...
> > >> [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message > > While
I
> > >> don't want to be flippant about the injury rates
> > >> > >listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are
> > >> > >likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every
year
> > >> > >in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of
> > >> > >accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of
times
> a
> > >> > >table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean.
> > >> >
> > >> > My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of
> injuries.
> > >> > I'd also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found
> > >> > them. Of course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend
> > >> > money looking, but if I had cites to back up such claims, I think
I'd
> > >> > make them available. So far, I've seen nothing but claims.
> > >>
> > >> I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However,
> > >> someone did provide a source citation for the number of amputations.
> > >> That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See
> > >> http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html
> > >>
> > >> I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with
airbags
> > >> if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds quite
> > >> a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250 to
> > >> $500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it is
> > >> doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How many
> > >> fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically
> > >> participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am not
> > >> sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am ready
to
> > >> eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want
to
> > >> err on the side of "freedom" in this area.
> > >>
> > >> Dave Hall
> > >>
> > >> > Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over
the
> > >> > years have received injuries of one sort or another, everything
from
> > >> > blade-changing knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft
horse's
> > >> > shoe and, very occasionally, something more serious. If we're at
all
> > >> > wise, we learn from the smaller incidents and remain slightly in
awe
> of
> > >> > what the tablesaw can do to us if our attention wanders. If we're
not
> > >> > particularly wise, we continue to use unsafe working methods and
> > >> > eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to the inattentive
> user
> > >> > today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up.
> > >> >
> > >> > Charlie Self
> > >> > "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
> dying
> > >> > of nothing."
> > >> > Redd Foxx
> >
> > --
> > --John
> > Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
>

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:53:34 -0500, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> But was it going a lot faster than your hand would be going if you slipped
>> and shoved it into the blade while trying to catch your balance?
>
> Just curious John - I'm not understanding the point you're trying to relay
> with this argument. I don't question the argument itself, but it's purpose.
> I've read the sawstop articles, seen the web site, etc. and I've never heard
> a claim that it will prevent every conceivable form of table saw accident,
> guaranteed, 100%.

But Mike, you're not going to calmly and deliberately run your finger
into the blade, you're going to hit the blade _because_ something went
wrong.

> That's the point I'm questioning in your position John - where is the
> advertising in error? Or even misleading?

Well, I'm not John, but it seems to me it's an example of showing that
it'll protect against something that isn't the situation where it'll really
be needed.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:02:12 GMT, Jeff P. <[email protected]> wrote:

> Really now. Would you prefer that one of the sales reps slides his hand
> into the blade? Will that satisfy you? Personally, I'm not rushing out to
> buy a Sawstop but it does seem like a very good idea. Just keep waiting,
> I'm sure we'll have real world data sometime soon if they're actually
> selling any of these.

Well, since the website _still_ says "SawStop is now taking preorders...",
you couldn't buy one if you wanted to.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> cg wrote:
>
> > As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast
> > this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths...
> >
> > From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade
> > in less than five (5) milliseconds.
> > Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds.
> > In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round...
> > (that is one part of fifteen).
> >
> > So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop,
> > I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full
> > rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops.
> >
> > Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would
> > expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had
> > been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60
> > is 20!
> >
> > To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or
> > 1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration...
> > once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it
> > is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds.
> > (So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?)
> >
> > Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and
> > for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little
> > consolation for me!
> >
> > I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like
> > these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the
> > rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms
> > of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same
> > in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade
> > spinning at 4000 RPM.
> > Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement
> > compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm
> > with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like!
> >
> > Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple math...

> > don't they?
>
> So how many saw teeth have to go through your finger before your finger
> comes off?
>


I don't know it it's so much a matter of the number of teeth as it is how
far into your finger the teeth can get before the blade stops.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message > > While I don't want to be flippant about the injury rates
> >listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are
> >likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every year
> >in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of
> >accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of times a
> >table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean.
>
> My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of injuries. I'd
> also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found them. Of
> course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend money looking, but
> if I had cites to back up such claims, I think I'd make them available. So far,
> I've seen nothing but claims.

I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However,
someone did provide a source citation for the number of amputations.
That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html

I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with airbags
if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds quite
a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250 to
$500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it is
doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How many
fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically
participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am not
sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am ready to
eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want to
err on the side of "freedom" in this area.

Dave Hall

> Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over the years
> have received injuries of one sort or another, everything from blade-changing
> knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft horse's shoe and, very
> occasionally, something more serious. If we're at all wise, we learn from the
> smaller incidents and remain slightly in awe of what the tablesaw can do to us
> if our attention wanders. If we're not particularly wise, we continue to use
> unsafe working methods and eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to
> the inattentive user today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of
> nothing."
> Redd Foxx

[email protected] (David Hall) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with airbags
> if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds quite
> a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250 to
> $500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it is
> doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How many
> fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically
> participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am not
> sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am ready to
> eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want to
> err on the side of "freedom" in this area.
>
> Dave Hall
>

The other side effect to consider is that eliminating low end saws
will not eliminate the use of saws by users who would otherwise use
those low end saws. So the weekend warrier cannot get a table saw.
What does she do? Why, uses or mis-uses a hand held circular saw.
Which is more dangerous: Ripping a 2x4 down on a low end table saw or
trying to halfway hold it on a couple of saw horses or a work-mate
while forcing a circular saw into a bind?

My biggest gripe is that the SawStop folks are trying to get a
government mandated monopoly. If they were pushing for liability
reform to make it more feasible to get vendors to adopt the technology
that would be fine.

hex
-30-

As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast
this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths...

From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade
in less than five (5) milliseconds.
Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds.
In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round...
(that is one part of fifteen).

So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop,
I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full
rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops.

Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would
expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had
been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60
is 20!

To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or
1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration...
once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it
is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds.
(So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?)

Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and
for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little
consolation for me!

I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like
these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the
rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms
of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same
in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade
spinning at 4000 RPM.
Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement
compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm
with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like!

Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple math...
don't they?

cg


[email protected] (David Hall) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message > > While I don't want to be flippant about the injury rates
> > >listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are
> > >likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every year
> > >in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of
> > >accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of times a
> > >table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean.
> >
> > My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of injuries. I'd
> > also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found them. Of
> > course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend money looking, but
> > if I had cites to back up such claims, I think I'd make them available. So far,
> > I've seen nothing but claims.
>
> I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However,
> someone did provide a source citation for the number of amputations.
> That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See
> http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html
>
> I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with airbags
> if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds quite
> a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250 to
> $500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it is
> doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How many
> fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically
> participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am not
> sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am ready to
> eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want to
> err on the side of "freedom" in this area.
>
> Dave Hall
>
> > Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over the years
> > have received injuries of one sort or another, everything from blade-changing
> > knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft horse's shoe and, very
> > occasionally, something more serious. If we're at all wise, we learn from the
> > smaller incidents and remain slightly in awe of what the tablesaw can do to us
> > if our attention wanders. If we're not particularly wise, we continue to use
> > unsafe working methods and eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to
> > the inattentive user today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up.
> >
> > Charlie Self
> > "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of
> > nothing."
> > Redd Foxx

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> Will the Sawstop be effective in preventing serious injuries resulting
from
> "getting loose clothing drawn in"?

I don't know. I'd guess it could - just based on the way it works
otherwise. Maybe not preventing all serious injury, but quite possibly
reducing the amount of injury. But then again - they don't claim that it
will prevent serious injury from loose clothing being drawn in.

>
> How fast is one's hand moving while "reaching across the table for a
> cutoff"?

Generally, pretty slowly. Somewhere around the speed that it feeds at.
Again - how would the speed of a person's hand be in conflict with what they
are offering?

>
> What one believes and what is true are not always the same.

Quite true, but do you have any more evidence than I do which would suggest
that my beliefs are incorrect?

>
> > Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's not.
> > They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact. Even if
> > that type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not an
> > advertising
> > error.
>
> Nobody has claimed that it is "an advertising error".

Actually, I took those three words directly from a preceeding post, so
somebody did indeed suggest that.

> They want me to give
> them my money and put up with their potentially annoying and inconvenient
> gadget in order to be more safe. It's their job to answer my objections.
> If they best they can do is "maybe that kind of accident is rare but we
> don't really know" then they're not doing so effectively.

What they do want, that I think we both vehamently disagree with is to force
their proprietary technology on all new saws. In that, I agree with your
objections, but for a different reason. I object in the name of not needing
a nanny to decide what safety devices I need to have - especially when that
nanny is the one who stands to benefit soley if such a requirement came to
be. That said, the claims that they have put on the table seem to be valid
claims. They haven't claimed to address all forms of accident, only certain
forms.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Well, all I know is that when they demonstrate the thing with a hot dog it
stops virtually instantaneously. The dog has just a slight knick in it.

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com


"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> cg wrote:
>
> > As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast
> > this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths...
> >
> > From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade
> > in less than five (5) milliseconds.
> > Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds.
> > In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round...
> > (that is one part of fifteen).
> >
> > So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop,
> > I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full
> > rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops.
> >
> > Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would
> > expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had
> > been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60
> > is 20!
> >
> > To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or
> > 1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration...
> > once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it
> > is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds.
> > (So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?)
> >
> > Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and
> > for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little
> > consolation for me!
> >
> > I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like
> > these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the
> > rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms
> > of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same
> > in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade
> > spinning at 4000 RPM.
> > Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement
> > compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm
> > with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like!
> >
> > Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple math...
> > don't they?
>
> So how many saw teeth have to go through your finger before your finger
> comes off?
>
> > cg
> >
> >
> > [email protected] (David Hall) wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message > > While I
> >> don't want to be flippant about the injury rates
> >> > >listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are
> >> > >likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every year
> >> > >in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of
> >> > >accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of times
a
> >> > >table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean.
> >> >
> >> > My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of
injuries.
> >> > I'd also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found
> >> > them. Of course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend
> >> > money looking, but if I had cites to back up such claims, I think I'd
> >> > make them available. So far, I've seen nothing but claims.
> >>
> >> I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However,
> >> someone did provide a source citation for the number of amputations.
> >> That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See
> >> http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html
> >>
> >> I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with airbags
> >> if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds quite
> >> a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250 to
> >> $500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it is
> >> doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How many
> >> fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically
> >> participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am not
> >> sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am ready to
> >> eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want to
> >> err on the side of "freedom" in this area.
> >>
> >> Dave Hall
> >>
> >> > Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over the
> >> > years have received injuries of one sort or another, everything from
> >> > blade-changing knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft horse's
> >> > shoe and, very occasionally, something more serious. If we're at all
> >> > wise, we learn from the smaller incidents and remain slightly in awe
of
> >> > what the tablesaw can do to us if our attention wanders. If we're not
> >> > particularly wise, we continue to use unsafe working methods and
> >> > eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to the inattentive
user
> >> > today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up.
> >> >
> >> > Charlie Self
> >> > "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
dying
> >> > of nothing."
> >> > Redd Foxx
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> >
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Mike Marlow wrote:
> >>
> >> And Sawstop does not "define the limitations" or even suggest that
there
> > are
> >> any. Nor do they provide any evidence that their device will actually
be
> >> effective in the majority of real accidents.
> >
> > That's where we probably disagree in principle. I don't believe they
are
> > under any obligation to define the limitations or suggest there are any.
> > They advertise and demonstrate it in a very specific way. That is the
> > extent of their claim. Anything, no... everything has limitations, yet
> > how often do you see an exhaustive list of them in a product
> > advertisement?
> > There's no need to. When the advertising and demonstrations of a
product
> > make clear what its intent is, then it's kind of simple. Of course,
once
> > the liability lawyers get done with this there will be all sorts of
> > disclaimors, but that's because we live in a world of stupid people who
> > are smart enough to sue over their own stupidity.
>
> This is not about the legal obligations of advertisers. They've made a
> claim. I don't buy their claim. If you do that's your business.

You are certainly entitled not to buy their claim. But... it was you that
raised the strawman argument obligations and advertising. Reference you
quote above where you state that sawstop does not state their limitations,
or even suggest there are any. Throughout this, I've never suggested or
stated that I buy any of their claims, that I believe in their product or
anything of the like. All I have done is question initially, why you seemed
to hold such a contrary opinion of the product and then subesequently, I
responded to a series of red herrings and strawmen that you threw out. So
far, you've really presented a pretty unconvincing argument, but that's ok
because I don't believe you were actually trying to convince anyone else not
to buy a sawstop saw. Good thing.

>
> >> >> If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo".
> >> >
> >> > Well, as a sales guy,
> >>
> >> As a consumer I know not to trust sales guys.
> >
> > That's a funny statement.
>
> Says the sales guy with the vested interest in being trusted. How does
one
> say "screw you" in Salesmanese? "Trust me".

Don't know much about sales do you? But then again, it's always easier to
hang on some cliche - it has more rhetorical value.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Well then, I guess you shouldn't buy one. Not that they'll ever be for sale
anyway! The demo's I've seen are proof enough of it's effectiveness. That
being said, I won't ever get one anyway.
--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com


"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeff P. wrote:
>
> >> Well of _course_ it does. How many do you think they would sell if it
> >> cut
> >> the hot dog in half? The question is not what happens in the sales
> >> demonstration, it's what happens in the real world.
> >
> > Really now. Would you prefer that one of the sales reps slides his hand
> > into the blade? Will that satisfy you? Personally, I'm not rushing out
> > to
> > buy a Sawstop but it does seem like a very good idea. Just keep
waiting,
> > I'm sure we'll have real world data sometime soon if they're actually
> > selling any of these.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't see your point. Whether the sales rep uses his
hand
> or your hand or a hot dog or somebody's weenie is irrelevant. He's not
> going to give a demo that makes his product look bad. The fact that it
> looks good in a demo has little relevance to its functioning in the real
> world unless the use to which it is going to be put is _exactly_ that that
> was demonstrated.
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

You're right. I'm going to start a petition to have all airbags and
seatbelts removed from cars. All guards should be removed from all
machinery. All warning signs in places of danger should be removed. People
should know when something is dangerous and act accordingly.

"snowdog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Lets put it this way. If you are on top of a tall building and you are
> close to the edge, you will have a tendency to much more careful about
what
> you do if a railing is not there. Oddly enough the railing doesn't even
> have to be strong enough to keep you from going over the edge, just the
fact
> that it is there is enough to cause you to be less attentive than if it
was
> not there are all. If you put a device on a saw that will (hopefully)
stop
> the blade if you touch it, you will have a tendency to do things you
> normally would not do on the table saw. Perhaps not use that pushstick
that
> is just out of reach, or cut a piece that is way too small without the
> proper support. It is part of the human condition to get "lazy" when the
> percieved level of danger decreases.
>

"Herman Family" <[email protected]/without_any_s/> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

>
> I don't think it should be a mandatory item. I think it should be
> readily available at a reasonable price. I don't have a problem with
> someone else cutting their fingers off. I just want to save mine as well
as
> those of anyone who uses my shop.
>

I agree that it should not be mandatory. I don't have any idea how
effective it will be in the long run, but I'm willing to see as time plays
out. I don't however see any correlation between an individual not using
sawstop, and the loss of fingers. Too many people have been using table
saws for too many years, with all of their fingers still intact. It's about
more than just a gadget mounted on the saw.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

> Well of _course_ it does. How many do you think they would sell if it cut
> the hot dog in half? The question is not what happens in the sales
> demonstration, it's what happens in the real world.

Really now. Would you prefer that one of the sales reps slides his hand
into the blade? Will that satisfy you? Personally, I'm not rushing out to
buy a Sawstop but it does seem like a very good idea. Just keep waiting,
I'm sure we'll have real world data sometime soon if they're actually
selling any of these.

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com

"snowdog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:15:10 GMT, "snowdog"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>1. Historically, if you build something that takes away the need to
>>>think
>>>about what you are doing, people will stop thinking.
>>
>> It's hard to imagine running wood through a table saw
>> without "the need to think." Maybe you're capable of
>> that and there may be others like you. But I suspect
>> that you're in a small minority.
>

I suppose this has the same level of moral hazard as a seat belt. You
don't really need them until you need them, and that one moment of not
thinking does you in. I suppose we all have some pretty good stories about
near misses that we've had or seen along the way. Perhaps from not
thinking. Perhaps from being tired. Possibly from being distracted for a
moment. Maybe from inexperience.



> Lets put it this way. If you are on top of a tall building and you are
> close to the edge, you will have a tendency to much more careful about
> what you do if a railing is not there. Oddly enough the railing doesn't
> even have to be strong enough to keep you from going over the edge, just
> the fact that it is there is enough to cause you to be less attentive than
> if it was not there are all. If you put a device on a saw that will
> (hopefully) stop the blade if you touch it, you will have a tendency to do
> things you normally would not do on the table saw. Perhaps not use that
> pushstick that is just out of reach, or cut a piece that is way too small
> without the proper support. It is part of the human condition to get
> "lazy" when the percieved level of danger decreases.
>
>>>
>>>2. If don't feel comfortable with a device, that if it misfires, is
>>>going
>>>to destroy my $100+ saw blade, the safety device itself, and possibly
>>>damage the saw. ....
>>
>> Right there you've listed another reason to keep thinking:
>> you're going to lose at least $150 if you goof, plus maybe
>> a nice chunk of wood.
>>
>
And if it fires correctly will save $30,000 in hospital bills, months of
rehabilitation, and an SWMBO from selling every last tool in the shop.


> I am not goin to argue that in the (unlikely) event a person does make
> contact with the blade, the cost of the blade and safety device becomes
> trivial, of course it does. However, when you weigh the cost vs. the
> risk, I don't believe the risk in this case is great enough to justify the
> cost. This is no different than other decisions made in the wood shop,
> there are those who will argue you must wear a dust mask at all times in
> the shop, because the risk of inhaling the dust that you will generate
> justifies the need for the mask. There are others who will only wear a
> mask (or respirator) only when working with certain types of wood or other
> products. It is a decision each person has to make for himself (or
> herself).
>
>>>4. I mean no offense to those who will feel safer having a saw that is
>>>equipped with one of these devices, more power to you, just don't force
>>>it
>>>on the rest of us.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know of anyone who has posted in this n.g. who has
>> the wherewithal or the will to force this saw on you. Do you ?
>
> The makers of this device have petitioned the Federal Government to make
> this device mandatory on all tablesaws (I won't argue with you on specific
> sizes of saws, suffice it to say that is there ultimate goal). This is
> equivalent to forcing it on the general populace. I will grant you that
> they probably do not post on this n.g., though I am pretty sure that they
> (or someone in their organization) lurk here.
>

I don't think it should be a mandatory item. I think it should be
readily available at a reasonable price. I don't have a problem with
someone else cutting their fingers off. I just want to save mine as well as
those of anyone who uses my shop.



> John C.
>>
>
>

Michael

"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:15:10 GMT, "snowdog"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>1. Historically, if you build something that takes away the need to think
>>about what you are doing, people will stop thinking.
>
> It's hard to imagine running wood through a table saw
> without "the need to think." Maybe you're capable of
> that and there may be others like you. But I suspect
> that you're in a small minority.

Lets put it this way. If you are on top of a tall building and you are
close to the edge, you will have a tendency to much more careful about what
you do if a railing is not there. Oddly enough the railing doesn't even
have to be strong enough to keep you from going over the edge, just the fact
that it is there is enough to cause you to be less attentive than if it was
not there are all. If you put a device on a saw that will (hopefully) stop
the blade if you touch it, you will have a tendency to do things you
normally would not do on the table saw. Perhaps not use that pushstick that
is just out of reach, or cut a piece that is way too small without the
proper support. It is part of the human condition to get "lazy" when the
percieved level of danger decreases.

>>
>>2. If don't feel comfortable with a device, that if it misfires, is going
>>to destroy my $100+ saw blade, the safety device itself, and possibly
>>damage the saw. ....
>
> Right there you've listed another reason to keep thinking:
> you're going to lose at least $150 if you goof, plus maybe
> a nice chunk of wood.
>

I am not goin to argue that in the (unlikely) event a person does make
contact with the blade, the cost of the blade and safety device becomes
trivial, of course it does. However, when you weigh the cost vs. the risk,
I don't believe the risk in this case is great enough to justify the cost.
This is no different than other decisions made in the wood shop, there are
those who will argue you must wear a dust mask at all times in the shop,
because the risk of inhaling the dust that you will generate justifies the
need for the mask. There are others who will only wear a mask (or
respirator) only when working with certain types of wood or other products.
It is a decision each person has to make for himself (or herself).

>>4. I mean no offense to those who will feel safer having a saw that is
>>equipped with one of these devices, more power to you, just don't force it
>>on the rest of us.
>>
>
> I don't know of anyone who has posted in this n.g. who has
> the wherewithal or the will to force this saw on you. Do you ?

The makers of this device have petitioned the Federal Government to make
this device mandatory on all tablesaws (I won't argue with you on specific
sizes of saws, suffice it to say that is there ultimate goal). This is
equivalent to forcing it on the general populace. I will grant you that
they probably do not post on this n.g., though I am pretty sure that they
(or someone in their organization) lurk here.

John C.
>

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> But was it going a lot faster than your hand would be going if you slipped
> and shoved it into the blade while trying to catch your balance?

Just curious John - I'm not understanding the point you're trying to relay
with this argument. I don't question the argument itself, but it's purpose.
I've read the sawstop articles, seen the web site, etc. and I've never heard
a claim that it will prevent every conceivable form of table saw accident,
guaranteed, 100%. That one can define a set of circumstances under which
one can overwhelm the advantages of the machine does not do much to disupte
the otherwise admitable benefits of that machine. At best, it only defines
the limitations.

>
> If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo".

Well, as a sales guy, I know first hand the benefits of demos. Though not
exhaustive and typically not designed to point out the weakness or
limitations of a product, they do give clear and appropriate evidence of the
intended benefits. It is as much incumbant upon the viewer to realize the
intention of the demo as it is for the demonstrator to articulate that
intention.

>
> Survival 101, never, _ever_ believe the advertising if its being in error
> could bring you to harm.
>

That's the point I'm questioning in your position John - where is the
advertising in error? Or even misleading?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:53:34 -0500, Mike Marlow
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> But was it going a lot faster than your hand would be going if you
slipped
> >> and shoved it into the blade while trying to catch your balance?
> >
> > Just curious John - I'm not understanding the point you're trying to
relay
> > with this argument. I don't question the argument itself, but it's
purpose.
> > I've read the sawstop articles, seen the web site, etc. and I've never
heard
> > a claim that it will prevent every conceivable form of table saw
accident,
> > guaranteed, 100%.
>
> But Mike, you're not going to calmly and deliberately run your finger
> into the blade, you're going to hit the blade _because_ something went
> wrong.

Indeed Dave, but without any sort of statistical evidence on my side, I
would intuitively believe that most accidents with a table saw are the
result of the operator losing focus on the job and getting into the blade at
normal feed speeds, getting loose clothing drawn in, or doing too many
things at once and getting into a blade while reaching across the table for
a cutoff, and not by other accidents such as falling.

>
> > That's the point I'm questioning in your position John - where is the
> > advertising in error? Or even misleading?
>
> Well, I'm not John, but it seems to me it's an example of showing that
> it'll protect against something that isn't the situation where it'll
really
> be needed.
>

That's the part I'm not so sure of Dave. As I said, I would believe that
most accidents do happen more in the wood cutting process than by falls,
etc. Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's not.
They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact. Even if that
type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not an advertising
error. Worst case would be that it would be a device that really didn't
have much of a market.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

It doesn't just stop. It retracts under the table.

David

cg wrote:

> As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast
> this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths...
>
> From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade
> in less than five (5) milliseconds.
> Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds.
> In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round...
> (that is one part of fifteen).
>
> So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop,
> I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full
> rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops.
>
> Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would
> expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had
> been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60
> is 20!
>
> To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or
> 1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration...
> once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it
> is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds.
> (So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?)
>
> Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and
> for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little
> consolation for me!
>
> I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like
> these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the
> rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms
> of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same
> in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade
> spinning at 4000 RPM.
> Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement
> compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm
> with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like!
>
> Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple math...
> don't they?
>
> cg
>
>
> [email protected] (David Hall) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message > > While I don't want to be flippant about the injury rates
>>
>>>>listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are
>>>>likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every year
>>>>in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of
>>>>accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of times a
>>>>table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean.
>>>
>>>My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of injuries. I'd
>>>also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found them. Of
>>>course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend money looking, but
>>>if I had cites to back up such claims, I think I'd make them available. So far,
>>>I've seen nothing but claims.
>>
>>I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However,
>>someone did provide a source citation for the number of amputations.
>>That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See
>>http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html
>>
>>I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with airbags
>>if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds quite
>>a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250 to
>>$500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it is
>>doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How many
>>fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically
>>participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am not
>>sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am ready to
>>eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want to
>>err on the side of "freedom" in this area.
>>
>>Dave Hall
>>
>>
>>>Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over the years
>>>have received injuries of one sort or another, everything from blade-changing
>>>knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft horse's shoe and, very
>>>occasionally, something more serious. If we're at all wise, we learn from the
>>>smaller incidents and remain slightly in awe of what the tablesaw can do to us
>>>if our attention wanders. If we're not particularly wise, we continue to use
>>>unsafe working methods and eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to
>>>the inattentive user today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up.
>>>
>>>Charlie Self
>>>"Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of
>>>nothing."
>>>Redd Foxx

"TBone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >
>> > From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade
>> > in less than five (5) milliseconds.
>> > Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds.
>> > In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round...
>> > (that is one part of fifteen).
>> >
>> > So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop,
>> > I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full
>> > rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops.

>
>
> I don't know it it's so much a matter of the number of teeth as it is how
> far into your finger the teeth can get before the blade stops.
> --
> If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

The calculations above don't mean anything at all in the working of the saw.
As for the number of teeth that will pass a given point of an arc, it is
correct. What is NOT taken into consideration is the fact that the blade is
also dropping down at the same time. Given the arc of the blade, coupled
with the downward movement, the teeth are moving away from the contact point
at the same time, so that must also be a part of the equation to determine
actual contact. The finger (or hot dog) is moving is a straight line at a
given speed, the blade outer circumference is moving down at an unknown
speed. Thus, the actual contact will be less that what the OP is stating
here. If it moves away faster than the lateral motion of the finger (or
test kielbasa) there will be minimal contact even if the blade never
stopped.


.

cg wrote:

> As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast
> this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths...
>
> From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade
> in less than five (5) milliseconds.
> Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds.
> In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round...
> (that is one part of fifteen).
>
> So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop,
> I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full
> rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops.
>
> Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would
> expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had
> been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60
> is 20!
>
> To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or
> 1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration...
> once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it
> is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds.
> (So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?)
>
> Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and
> for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little
> consolation for me!
>
> I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like
> these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the
> rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms
> of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same
> in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade
> spinning at 4000 RPM.
> Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement
> compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm
> with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like!
>
> Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple math...
> don't they?

So how many saw teeth have to go through your finger before your finger
comes off?

> cg
>
>
> [email protected] (David Hall) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message > > While I
>> don't want to be flippant about the injury rates
>> > >listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are
>> > >likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every year
>> > >in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of
>> > >accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of times a
>> > >table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean.
>> >
>> > My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of injuries.
>> > I'd also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found
>> > them. Of course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend
>> > money looking, but if I had cites to back up such claims, I think I'd
>> > make them available. So far, I've seen nothing but claims.
>>
>> I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However,
>> someone did provide a source citation for the number of amputations.
>> That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See
>> http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html
>>
>> I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with airbags
>> if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds quite
>> a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250 to
>> $500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it is
>> doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How many
>> fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically
>> participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am not
>> sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am ready to
>> eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want to
>> err on the side of "freedom" in this area.
>>
>> Dave Hall
>>
>> > Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over the
>> > years have received injuries of one sort or another, everything from
>> > blade-changing knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft horse's
>> > shoe and, very occasionally, something more serious. If we're at all
>> > wise, we learn from the smaller incidents and remain slightly in awe of
>> > what the tablesaw can do to us if our attention wanders. If we're not
>> > particularly wise, we continue to use unsafe working methods and
>> > eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to the inattentive user
>> > today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up.
>> >
>> > Charlie Self
>> > "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying
>> > of nothing."
>> > Redd Foxx

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

TBone wrote:

>
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> cg wrote:
>>
>> > As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast
>> > this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths...
>> >
>> > From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade
>> > in less than five (5) milliseconds.
>> > Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds.
>> > In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round...
>> > (that is one part of fifteen).
>> >
>> > So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop,
>> > I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full
>> > rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops.
>> >
>> > Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would
>> > expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had
>> > been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60
>> > is 20!
>> >
>> > To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or
>> > 1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration...
>> > once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it
>> > is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds.
>> > (So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?)
>> >
>> > Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and
>> > for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little
>> > consolation for me!
>> >
>> > I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like
>> > these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the
>> > rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms
>> > of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same
>> > in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade
>> > spinning at 4000 RPM.
>> > Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement
>> > compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm
>> > with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like!
>> >
>> > Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple
>> > math...
>
>> > don't they?
>>
>> So how many saw teeth have to go through your finger before your finger
>> comes off?
>>
>
>
> I don't know it it's so much a matter of the number of teeth as it is how
> far into your finger the teeth can get before the blade stops.

Actually, it's how far into the teeth the finger can get. Any saw that can
make good progress in ipe can cut finger as fast as you can feed it.

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

Joe wrote:

> Saw a live demo in Atlanta, he ran that hot dog into the saw blade alot
> faster than you would cut any piece of wood.

But was it going a lot faster than your hand would be going if you slipped
and shoved it into the blade while trying to catch your balance?

> He shoved a sled with the hot
> dog on it as fast as he could into the blade, not cutting the sled it was
> already cut the same size as the distance the fence was set from the
> blade. Hot dog only had a nick like the demo

If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo".

Survival 101, never, _ever_ believe the advertising if its being in error
could bring you to harm.

> Joe
>
> "Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Well, all I know is that when they demonstrate the thing with a hot dog
>> it
>> stops virtually instantaneously. The dog has just a slight knick in it.
>>
>> --
>> Jeff P.
>>
>> "A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
>> can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
>> you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno
>>
>>
>> Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com
>>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > cg wrote:
>> >
>> > > As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast
>> > > this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths...
>> > >
>> > > From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade
>> > > in less than five (5) milliseconds.
>> > > Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds.
>> > > In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round...
>> > > (that is one part of fifteen).
>> > >
>> > > So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop,
>> > > I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full
>> > > rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops.
>> > >
>> > > Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would
>> > > expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had
>> > > been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60
>> > > is 20!
>> > >
>> > > To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or
>> > > 1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration...
>> > > once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it
>> > > is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds.
>> > > (So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?)
>> > >
>> > > Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and
>> > > for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little
>> > > consolation for me!
>> > >
>> > > I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like
>> > > these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the
>> > > rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms
>> > > of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same
>> > > in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade
>> > > spinning at 4000 RPM.
>> > > Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement
>> > > compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm
>> > > with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like!
>> > >
>> > > Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple
> math...
>> > > don't they?
>> >
>> > So how many saw teeth have to go through your finger before your finger
>> > comes off?
>> >
>> > > cg
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > [email protected] (David Hall) wrote in message
>> > > news:<[email protected]>...
>> > >> [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message > > While
> I
>> > >> don't want to be flippant about the injury rates
>> > >> > >listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are
>> > >> > >likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every
> year
>> > >> > >in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of
>> > >> > >accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of
> times
>> a
>> > >> > >table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of
>> injuries.
>> > >> > I'd also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't
>> > >> > found them. Of course, I don't have a marketing impetus to
>> > >> > actually spend money looking, but if I had cites to back up such
>> > >> > claims, I think
> I'd
>> > >> > make them available. So far, I've seen nothing but claims.
>> > >>
>> > >> I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However,
>> > >> someone did provide a source citation for the number of amputations.
>> > >> That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See
>> > >> http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html
>> > >>
>> > >> I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with
> airbags
>> > >> if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds
>> > >> quite
>> > >> a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250 to
>> > >> $500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it is
>> > >> doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How many
>> > >> fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically
>> > >> participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am
>> > >> not sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am
>> > >> ready
> to
>> > >> eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want
> to
>> > >> err on the side of "freedom" in this area.
>> > >>
>> > >> Dave Hall
>> > >>
>> > >> > Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over
> the
>> > >> > years have received injuries of one sort or another, everything
> from
>> > >> > blade-changing knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft
> horse's
>> > >> > shoe and, very occasionally, something more serious. If we're at
> all
>> > >> > wise, we learn from the smaller incidents and remain slightly in
> awe
>> of
>> > >> > what the tablesaw can do to us if our attention wanders. If we're
> not
>> > >> > particularly wise, we continue to use unsafe working methods and
>> > >> > eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to the inattentive
>> user
>> > >> > today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Charlie Self
>> > >> > "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
>> dying
>> > >> > of nothing."
>> > >> > Redd Foxx
>> >
>> > --
>> > --John
>> > Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>> > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>
>>

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

Jeff P. wrote:

> Well, all I know is that when they demonstrate the thing with a hot dog it
> stops virtually instantaneously. The dog has just a slight knick in it.

Well of _course_ it does. How many do you think they would sell if it cut
the hot dog in half? The question is not what happens in the sales
demonstration, it's what happens in the real world.

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

Tim Douglass wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:37:32 -0500, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Saw a live demo in Atlanta, he ran that hot dog into the saw blade alot
>>faster than you would cut any piece of wood. He shoved a sled with the hot
>>dog on it as fast as he could into the blade, not cutting the sled it was
>>already cut the same size as the distance the fence was set from the
>>blade. Hot dog only had a nick like the demo
>
> My question is, would there be adequate protection if all that
> happened is the blade dropping (or being pulled) below the table? It
> seems to me that you might actually get pretty close to the same level
> of protection without a system that destroys your blade and cartridge.

If there is 3 inches of blade exposed it takes .13 seconds for it to drop
below the table assuming it's being dropped by gravity with no friction and
no power assist. At that exposure when your finger touches the blade it
will be 4.6 inches from the centerline. To reach the centerline with .5
inch of blade still exposed your finger would have to reach the centerline
in .11 seconds. That means moving 41 inches per second or 3.48 feet per
second or 2.38 miles per hour. While you might not want to move wood that
fast, that is less than a slow walking pace, so moving your hand into the
blade that fast is _very_ easy to do.
>
> Tim Douglass
>
> http://www.DouglassClan.com

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

Jeff P. wrote:

>> Well of _course_ it does. How many do you think they would sell if it
>> cut
>> the hot dog in half? The question is not what happens in the sales
>> demonstration, it's what happens in the real world.
>
> Really now. Would you prefer that one of the sales reps slides his hand
> into the blade? Will that satisfy you? Personally, I'm not rushing out
> to
> buy a Sawstop but it does seem like a very good idea. Just keep waiting,
> I'm sure we'll have real world data sometime soon if they're actually
> selling any of these.

I'm sorry, but I don't see your point. Whether the sales rep uses his hand
or your hand or a hot dog or somebody's weenie is irrelevant. He's not
going to give a demo that makes his product look bad. The fact that it
looks good in a demo has little relevance to its functioning in the real
world unless the use to which it is going to be put is _exactly_ that that
was demonstrated.

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

Mike Marlow wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> But was it going a lot faster than your hand would be going if you
>> slipped and shoved it into the blade while trying to catch your balance?
>
> Just curious John - I'm not understanding the point you're trying to relay
> with this argument. I don't question the argument itself, but it's
> purpose. I've read the sawstop articles, seen the web site, etc. and I've
> never heard a claim that it will prevent every conceivable form of table
> saw accident,
> guaranteed, 100%. That one can define a set of circumstances under which
> one can overwhelm the advantages of the machine does not do much to
> disupte
> the otherwise admitable benefits of that machine. At best, it only
> defines the limitations.

And Sawstop does not "define the limitations" or even suggest that there are
any. Nor do they provide any evidence that their device will actually be
effective in the majority of real accidents.

>> If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo".
>
> Well, as a sales guy,

As a consumer I know not to trust sales guys.

> I know first hand the benefits of demos. Though not
> exhaustive and typically not designed to point out the weakness or
> limitations of a product, they do give clear and appropriate evidence of
> the
> intended benefits. It is as much incumbant upon the viewer to realize the
> intention of the demo as it is for the demonstrator to articulate that
> intention.

The thing is, this device is supposed to prevent accidents that can be
maiming or life-threatening. The fact that it can protect a hot dog in a
canned demonstration does not mean that it will actually prevent such
accidents.

Regardless, I am "realizing the intention of the demo" and you seem to be
berating me for it.

>> Survival 101, never, _ever_ believe the advertising if its being in error
>> could bring you to harm.
>>
>
> That's the point I'm questioning in your position John - where is the
> advertising in error? Or even misleading?

I did not claim that it was in error or misleading. I stated that one
should not, as a matter of principle, trust advertising if the advertising
being incorrect can bring one to harm. It's up to the advertiser to prove
that his advertising is accurate, not up to the consumer to disprove it.

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

Mike Marlow wrote:

>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:53:34 -0500, Mike Marlow
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> But was it going a lot faster than your hand would be going if you
> slipped
>> >> and shoved it into the blade while trying to catch your balance?
>> >
>> > Just curious John - I'm not understanding the point you're trying to
> relay
>> > with this argument. I don't question the argument itself, but it's
> purpose.
>> > I've read the sawstop articles, seen the web site, etc. and I've never
> heard
>> > a claim that it will prevent every conceivable form of table saw
> accident,
>> > guaranteed, 100%.
>>
>> But Mike, you're not going to calmly and deliberately run your finger
>> into the blade, you're going to hit the blade _because_ something went
>> wrong.
>
> Indeed Dave, but without any sort of statistical evidence on my side, I
> would intuitively believe that most accidents with a table saw are the
> result of the operator losing focus on the job and getting into the blade
> at normal feed speeds, getting loose clothing drawn in,

Will the Sawstop be effective in preventing serious injuries resulting from
"getting loose clothing drawn in"?

> or doing too many
> things at once and getting into a blade while reaching across the table
> for a cutoff,

How fast is one's hand moving while "reaching across the table for a
cutoff"?

> and not by other accidents such as falling.
>
>>
>> > That's the point I'm questioning in your position John - where is the
>> > advertising in error? Or even misleading?
>>
>> Well, I'm not John, but it seems to me it's an example of showing that
>> it'll protect against something that isn't the situation where it'll
> really
>> be needed.
>>
>
> That's the part I'm not so sure of Dave. As I said, I would believe that
> most accidents do happen more in the wood cutting process than by falls,
> etc.

What one believes and what is true are not always the same.

> Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's not.
> They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact. Even if
> that type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not an
> advertising
> error.

Nobody has claimed that it is "an advertising error". They want me to give
them my money and put up with their potentially annoying and inconvenient
gadget in order to be more safe. It's their job to answer my objections.
If they best they can do is "maybe that kind of accident is rare but we
don't really know" then they're not doing so effectively.

> Worst case would be that it would be a device that really didn't
> have much of a market.

Bingo.

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

Mike Marlow wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> Will the Sawstop be effective in preventing serious injuries resulting
> from
>> "getting loose clothing drawn in"?
>
> I don't know. I'd guess it could - just based on the way it works
> otherwise.

If you want to trust your personal safety to guesswork be my guest.

> Maybe not preventing all serious injury, but quite possibly
> reducing the amount of injury.

Or possibly making it more severe as the blade drops below the table with
the clothing entangled?

> But then again - they don't claim that it
> will prevent serious injury from loose clothing being drawn in.

You're the one who brought that up as a possible scenario.

>> How fast is one's hand moving while "reaching across the table for a
>> cutoff"?
>
> Generally, pretty slowly. Somewhere around the speed that it feeds at.
> Again - how would the speed of a person's hand be in conflict with what
> they are offering?

They state it stops the saw in a certain time--not "instantly" but in a 5
milliseconds. One's hand moves a certain distance in 5 milliseconds. If it
moves far enough then one loses a finger before the saw stops. I'd have a
lot more confidence in it if it stopped the blade in 50 microseconds--even
a major league pitcher or a martial arts expert (both of whom can move
their hands unusually fast) _trying_ to cut himself wouldn't be able to get
more than 1/8 inch or so into the blade in that time, but at 5 ms one can
lose a finger at remarkably low speeds.

>> What one believes and what is true are not always the same.
>
> Quite true, but do you have any more evidence than I do which would
> suggest that my beliefs are incorrect?

I don't really care what you personally believe.

>> > Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's not.
>> > They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact. Even if
>> > that type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not an
>> > advertising
>> > error.
>>
>> Nobody has claimed that it is "an advertising error".
>
> Actually, I took those three words directly from a preceeding post, so
> somebody did indeed suggest that.

Well then take it up with them.

>> They want me to give
>> them my money and put up with their potentially annoying and inconvenient
>> gadget in order to be more safe. It's their job to answer my objections.
>> If they best they can do is "maybe that kind of accident is rare but we
>> don't really know" then they're not doing so effectively.
>
> What they do want, that I think we both vehamently disagree with is to
> force
> their proprietary technology on all new saws. In that, I agree with your
> objections, but for a different reason. I object in the name of not
> needing a nanny to decide what safety devices I need to have - especially
> when that nanny is the one who stands to benefit soley if such a
> requirement came to
> be. That said, the claims that they have put on the table seem to be
> valid
> claims. They haven't claimed to address all forms of accident, only
> certain forms.

Do those "certain forms" need to be addressed more urgently than other
forms?

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

Mike Marlow wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>> And Sawstop does not "define the limitations" or even suggest that there
> are
>> any. Nor do they provide any evidence that their device will actually be
>> effective in the majority of real accidents.
>
> That's where we probably disagree in principle. I don't believe they are
> under any obligation to define the limitations or suggest there are any.
> They advertise and demonstrate it in a very specific way. That is the
> extent of their claim. Anything, no... everything has limitations, yet
> how often do you see an exhaustive list of them in a product
> advertisement?
> There's no need to. When the advertising and demonstrations of a product
> make clear what its intent is, then it's kind of simple. Of course, once
> the liability lawyers get done with this there will be all sorts of
> disclaimors, but that's because we live in a world of stupid people who
> are smart enough to sue over their own stupidity.

This is not about the legal obligations of advertisers. They've made a
claim. I don't buy their claim. If you do that's your business.

>> >> If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo".
>> >
>> > Well, as a sales guy,
>>
>> As a consumer I know not to trust sales guys.
>
> That's a funny statement.

Says the sales guy with the vested interest in being trusted. How does one
say "screw you" in Salesmanese? "Trust me".

>> Regardless, I am "realizing the intention of the demo" and you seem to be
>> berating me for it.
>
> Berating? Geeze, I only made one comment and that was in direct response
> to your comment.
>
>>
>> >> Survival 101, never, _ever_ believe the advertising if its being in
> error
>> >> could bring you to harm.
>> >>
>> >
>> > That's the point I'm questioning in your position John - where is the
>> > advertising in error? Or even misleading?
>>
>> I did not claim that it was in error or misleading. I stated that one
>> should not, as a matter of principle, trust advertising if the
>> advertising
>> being incorrect can bring one to harm. It's up to the advertiser to
>> prove that his advertising is accurate, not up to the consumer to
>> disprove it.
>
> I misunderstood your previous comment. Sorry.


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

Mike Marlow wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> >>
>> >> And Sawstop does not "define the limitations" or even suggest that
> there
>> > are
>> >> any. Nor do they provide any evidence that their device will actually
> be
>> >> effective in the majority of real accidents.
>> >
>> > That's where we probably disagree in principle. I don't believe they
> are
>> > under any obligation to define the limitations or suggest there are
>> > any.
>> > They advertise and demonstrate it in a very specific way. That is the
>> > extent of their claim. Anything, no... everything has limitations, yet
>> > how often do you see an exhaustive list of them in a product
>> > advertisement?
>> > There's no need to. When the advertising and demonstrations of a
> product
>> > make clear what its intent is, then it's kind of simple. Of course,
> once
>> > the liability lawyers get done with this there will be all sorts of
>> > disclaimors, but that's because we live in a world of stupid people who
>> > are smart enough to sue over their own stupidity.
>>
>> This is not about the legal obligations of advertisers. They've made a
>> claim. I don't buy their claim. If you do that's your business.
>
> You are certainly entitled not to buy their claim. But... it was you that
> raised the strawman argument obligations and advertising. Reference you
> quote above where you state that sawstop does not state their limitations,
> or even suggest there are any.

I'm sorry, but you're the one raising the strawman--do yourself a favor and
don't waste your time trying to sell me anything--I don't respond to that
approach.

I did not say that they were "obligated" to do anything, I said that they
had not done certain things. It is you who are twisting that into some
kind of argument about "obligation".

> Throughout this, I've never suggested or
> stated that I buy any of their claims, that I believe in their product or
> anything of the like. All I have done is question initially, why you
> seemed to hold such a contrary opinion of the product

Contrary to what? I hold a _negative_ opinion of the product. That is only
"contrary" if the majority opinion is positive, which it does not appear to
be, at least not in this community.

> and then
> subesequently, I
> responded to a series of red herrings and strawmen that you threw out.

Please quote these "red herrings and strawmen". The thing is being marketed
as being a safety device. That being the case it is legitimate to question
its effectiveness in that role.

> So
> far, you've really presented a pretty unconvincing argument,

I haven't presented any "argument" at all. I've questioned its utility.
And rather than addressing any question of utility you have kept on about
the obligations of advertisers. If anyone is presenting "red herrings and
straw men" it is you.

Let me reiterate--I don't give a hoot in Hell what they advertise or whether
they are obligated to advertise anything. I care whether the damned thing
works well enough to be useful. And their advertising has not made a
convincing case for this.

> but that's ok
> because I don't believe you were actually trying to convince anyone else
> not
> to buy a sawstop saw. Good thing.

If you want to buy one be my guest. But don't come crying to me when you
lose your hand in it.

>> >> >> If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo".
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, as a sales guy,
>> >>
>> >> As a consumer I know not to trust sales guys.
>> >
>> > That's a funny statement.
>>
>> Says the sales guy with the vested interest in being trusted. How does
> one
>> say "screw you" in Salesmanese? "Trust me".
>
> Don't know much about sales do you?

More than you clearly. Because if the approach you are using is what you
call "salesmanship" then, well, if you had been in my office trying to sell
me something then about three posts back I would have made sure the door
hit you in the ass on the way out.

Another one you haven't learned. Don't argue with the customer. If he has
a low opinion of salesmen and your behavior reinforces that opinion, which
your behavior is doing, then you are _not_ going to get the sale.

> But then again, it's always easier to
> hang on some cliche - it has more rhetorical value.

Trust me.

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

Mike Marlow wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>
>> If you want to trust your personal safety to guesswork be my guest.
>
> I never suggested or stated that I was anxious to trust my safety to
> anything outside of myself. In fact, I state exactly otherwise.
>
>>
>> > Maybe not preventing all serious injury, but quite possibly
>> > reducing the amount of injury.
>>
>> Or possibly making it more severe as the blade drops below the table with
>> the clothing entangled?
>
> Perhaps. Like I said, or more accurately, as my position implies, I don't
> know, but I'm willing to consider it and to watch for the evidence rather
> than demean it absent that evidence.
>
>>
>> > But then again - they don't claim that it
>> > will prevent serious injury from loose clothing being drawn in.
>>
>> You're the one who brought that up as a possible scenario.
>
> Yes, but what does that matter? I was speaking to the accuracy of their
> claims as objected to by you. Or perhaps as questioned by you.
>
>>
>> >> How fast is one's hand moving while "reaching across the table for a
>> >> cutoff"?
>> >
>> > Generally, pretty slowly. Somewhere around the speed that it feeds at.
>> > Again - how would the speed of a person's hand be in conflict with what
>> > they are offering?
>>
>> They state it stops the saw in a certain time--not "instantly" but in a 5
>> milliseconds. One's hand moves a certain distance in 5 milliseconds. If
> it
>> moves far enough then one loses a finger before the saw stops. I'd have
>> a lot more confidence in it if it stopped the blade in 50
>> microseconds--even a major league pitcher or a martial arts expert (both
>> of whom can move their hands unusually fast) _trying_ to cut himself
>> wouldn't be able to
> get
>> more than 1/8 inch or so into the blade in that time, but at 5 ms one can
>> lose a finger at remarkably low speeds.
>
> Yes, they can. As well, they can incur only very minor injuries. The
> argument works both ways.

If you are going to rely on slowness of movement for safety then there is no
need for the Sawstop at all. If you move your hand into the blade slowly
enough then you can stop at exactly the same point at which the hot dog is
stopped in the demonstrations.

> My only point in entering this discussion was
> to point out that they only claimed very specific benefits and the
> discussion prior to that was that they weren't meeting other standards of
> protection, even though they never claimed to.

And this is not about their claims, it is about the efficacy of their
device.

>> >> What one believes and what is true are not always the same.
>> >
>> > Quite true, but do you have any more evidence than I do which would
>> > suggest that my beliefs are incorrect?
>>
>> I don't really care what you personally believe.
>
> Then why throw the comment on the floor that you did? OK... I'm guilty of
> a little rhetoric from time to time myself.

Huh? I don't recall stating in any post that I cared the slightest iota
what you thought about the Sawstop. In fact even if I had, your attitude
is making me care less and less.

>> >> > Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's not.
>> >> > They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact. Even
> if
>> >> > that type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not an
>> >> > advertising
>> >> > error.
>> >>
>> >> Nobody has claimed that it is "an advertising error".
>> >
>> > Actually, I took those three words directly from a preceeding post, so
>> > somebody did indeed suggest that.
>>
>> Well then take it up with them.
>
> I believe I did.

Then why did you take it up with me?

>> >> They want me to give
>> >> them my money and put up with their potentially annoying and
> inconvenient
>> >> gadget in order to be more safe. It's their job to answer my
> objections.
>> >> If they best they can do is "maybe that kind of accident is rare but
>> >> we don't really know" then they're not doing so effectively.
>> >
>> > What they do want, that I think we both vehamently disagree with is to
>> > force
>> > their proprietary technology on all new saws. In that, I agree with
> your
>> > objections, but for a different reason. I object in the name of not
>> > needing a nanny to decide what safety devices I need to have -
> especially
>> > when that nanny is the one who stands to benefit soley if such a
>> > requirement came to
>> > be. That said, the claims that they have put on the table seem to be
>> > valid
>> > claims. They haven't claimed to address all forms of accident, only
>> > certain forms.
>>
>> Do those "certain forms" need to be addressed more urgently than other
>> forms?
>
> Not unless they're trying to be all things to all people - and they are
> not. They are very specifically attempting to address one common form of
> injury.

Are they? Is the "form of injury" that they "address" in fact "common"? Or
is that just your uninformed opinion?

> It's easy to overlook that and to assign bigger and more
> encompassing objectives for them, but the error in that is that neither
> you nor I work for them and we don't have the luxury of defining what the
> objective of their product is.

If you don't work for them then why are you working so hard at defending
them?

> It's really quite simple. The product seems to do a
> certain thing that they claim it will do. What it does not do outside of
> that scope is irrelevant. Seat belts hold you in place during a sudden
> stop. Are they at all worthwhile?

I'm sorry, but you are once again going off on a tangent by assuming without
any proof whatsoever that the circumstance in which the Sawstop is
effective is one that occurs commonly enough to be a matter of concern.

> Are there times when they do not
> prevent
> an injury or even lessen an injury? Do they prevent all other injuries
> that
> can occur in a car? No. That does not make the use of seatbelts a waste
> of
> time. All it does is define their application and their benefit.
> Remember - the concept is not to eliminate injury, it's to reduce injury.
> If sawstop works as it appears to, then it will have accomplished that
> objective in the same manner as seat belts contribute to reduced injuries
> in cars.

So how many injuries will it "reduce"? Do you have a number? Or just more
hot air?

I'm sorry, but it's clear that you are more concerned with truth in
advertising than with safety. Which is what I expect from an incompetent
salesman who would rather spend time arguing with strangers on the Internet
than serviceing his paying customers. That being the case it is abundantly
clear that you have nothing to say that is worth my time to listen to.
G'day.


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

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> More than you clearly. Because if the approach you are using is what you
> call "salesmanship" then, well, if you had been in my office trying to
sell
> me something then about three posts back I would have made sure the door
> hit you in the ass on the way out.

Not to worry John - the stuff I sell requires that I meet with people who
can conduct an inteligent discussion and actually know something.
Confrontational people like you are best left to the competition.

>
> Another one you haven't learned. Don't argue with the customer. If he
has
> a low opinion of salesmen and your behavior reinforces that opinion, which
> your behavior is doing, then you are _not_ going to get the sale.

You really should not try to teach sales courses John. First you have to
actually understand something about the field.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:27:43 GMT, Tom Veatch <[email protected]>
wrote:
>That doesn't mean I favor legislation requiring this sort of device. Likewise it
>doesn't mean I oppose legislation requiring this sort of device.

I'd like to see the saw for sale on the open market, but NOT
legislated as a requirement.

Barry

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> >
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Mike Marlow wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> What one believes and what is true are not always the same.
> >> >
> >> > Quite true, but do you have any more evidence than I do which would
> >> > suggest that my beliefs are incorrect?
> >>
> >> I don't really care what you personally believe.
> >
> > Then why throw the comment on the floor that you did? OK... I'm guilty
of
> > a little rhetoric from time to time myself.
>
> Huh? I don't recall stating in any post that I cared the slightest iota
> what you thought about the Sawstop. In fact even if I had, your attitude
> is making me care less and less.

My attitude? What exactly is "my attitude"? Througout this discourse you
are the one who has thrown sarcasm in. I merely left your sarcasm in the
included text in order to address the point or lack thereof that you posed.

>
> >> >> > Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's
not.
> >> >> > They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact.
Even
> > if
> >> >> > that type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not
an
> >> >> > advertising
> >> >> > error.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nobody has claimed that it is "an advertising error".
> >> >
> >> > Actually, I took those three words directly from a preceeding post,
so
> >> > somebody did indeed suggest that.
> >>
> >> Well then take it up with them.
> >
> > I believe I did.
>
> Then why did you take it up with me?

Have you looked at the included text? It was your comment. It was included
in my reply.


> >
> > Not unless they're trying to be all things to all people - and they are
> > not. They are very specifically attempting to address one common form of
> > injury.
>
> Are they? Is the "form of injury" that they "address" in fact "common"?
Or
> is that just your uninformed opinion?

Tag, you're it. I've already admitted that I had no statistical evidence on
my side and was only speaking from what I believed to be the case. Now -
you opinion is somehow more informed?

>
> > It's easy to overlook that and to assign bigger and more
> > encompassing objectives for them, but the error in that is that neither
> > you nor I work for them and we don't have the luxury of defining what
the
> > objective of their product is.
>
> If you don't work for them then why are you working so hard at defending
> them?

I'm not - why are you working so hard to defame something you no nothing of
and have yet to present a credible argument against?

>
> > It's really quite simple. The product seems to do a
> > certain thing that they claim it will do. What it does not do outside
of
> > that scope is irrelevant. Seat belts hold you in place during a sudden
> > stop. Are they at all worthwhile?
>
> I'm sorry, but you are once again going off on a tangent by assuming
without
> any proof whatsoever that the circumstance in which the Sawstop is
> effective is one that occurs commonly enough to be a matter of concern.

Your evidence? Besides your assertion, that is. You may have it for all I
know and if you do, I will be the first to acknowledge that and credit you
for being educated in that area. But... so far you haven't presented any,
just an objection to the product based on nothing.

>
> > Are there times when they do not
> > prevent
> > an injury or even lessen an injury? Do they prevent all other injuries
> > that
> > can occur in a car? No. That does not make the use of seatbelts a
waste
> > of
> > time. All it does is define their application and their benefit.
> > Remember - the concept is not to eliminate injury, it's to reduce
injury.
> > If sawstop works as it appears to, then it will have accomplished that
> > objective in the same manner as seat belts contribute to reduced
injuries
> > in cars.
>
> So how many injuries will it "reduce"? Do you have a number? Or just
more
> hot air?

You are just being difficult John. I entered this discussion hoping for a
reasonable adult discussion and it's really clear from your contributions
that you don't share that hope. Go ahead, keep throwing a bunch of
irrelevant side tracks out there, all it does is demonstrate that you really
don't have anything to say, you just want to be difficult.

>
> I'm sorry, but it's clear that you are more concerned with truth in
> advertising than with safety. Which is what I expect from an incompetent
> salesman who would rather spend time arguing with strangers on the
Internet
> than serviceing his paying customers. That being the case it is
abundantly
> clear that you have nothing to say that is worth my time to listen to.
> G'day.

Clearly no clue. And just what are you doing? John, you have presented
yourself to be a complete ass in this entire discussion. You would shit to
know how successful I've been. You'd just hate salesmen all the more
because you'd have something more to be jealous of and resentful of. For
all of your "concern for safety", I didn't see your name on any patents for
safety devices. Yeah - all hot air and distractions, that's all you've
presented here. You're right - Good day.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]
>
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:15:10 GMT, "snowdog"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>1. Historically, if you build something that takes away the need to think
>about what you are doing, people will stop thinking.

It's hard to imagine running wood through a table saw
without "the need to think." Maybe you're capable of
that and there may be others like you. But I suspect
that you're in a small minority.
>
>2. If don't feel comfortable with a device, that if it misfires, is going
>to destroy my $100+ saw blade, the safety device itself, and possibly
>damage the saw. ....

Right there you've listed another reason to keep thinking:
you're going to lose at least $150 if you goof, plus maybe
a nice chunk of wood.

>4. I mean no offense to those who will feel safer having a saw that is
>equipped with one of these devices, more power to you, just don't force it
>on the rest of us.
>

I don't know of anyone who has posted in this n.g. who has
the wherewithal or the will to force this saw on you. Do you ?

I've been seeing a lot about this lately, some thoughts:

1. Historically, if you build something that takes away the need to think
about what you are doing, people will stop thinking. Case in point - when
airbags were first put into cars, there were people who stopped wearing
seatbelts (because the airbag will save me, right?). The last thing anyone
needs to do around a table saw (or router, etc...) is get complacent and
stop paying attention to what is going on, because they are "confident" that
the machine will save them if they do something stupid.

2. If don't feel comfortable with a device, that if it misfires, is going
to destroy my $100+ saw blade, the safety device itself, and possibly
damage the saw. All in the name of protecting me from what is,
statistically, a very very low risk. Even though the consequences of this
type of accident are catastrophic, the risk of occurrence is low to justify
the cost. Besides there are two devices already on the market which protect
against this type of accident: one comes with almost every saw made and
sits over the spinning blade to prevent your touching it, and the other
every woodworker is already equipped with it is located between your ears.

3. I've seen a number of those demonstrations. If the damn thing is so
effective and perfectly reliable how about a demo where the sales guy runs
is hand into the blade, I don't care if it prevents the saw from cutting
hotdogs. After all, I have seen demo's of body armor where the guy actually
takes a bullet, in my view a bullet to the chest is a lot more risky that
running your finger into the saw blade.

4. I mean no offense to those who will feel safer having a saw that is
equipped with one of these devices, more power to you, just don't force it
on the rest of us.

Parting shot (refer to number 1.) - "If your design something that is idiot
proof, they will build a better idiot!"

John C

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeff P. wrote:
>
>> Well, all I know is that when they demonstrate the thing with a hot dog
>> it
>> stops virtually instantaneously. The dog has just a slight knick in it.
>
> Well of _course_ it does. How many do you think they would sell if it cut
> the hot dog in half? The question is not what happens in the sales
> demonstration, it's what happens in the real world.
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> And Sawstop does not "define the limitations" or even suggest that there
are
> any. Nor do they provide any evidence that their device will actually be
> effective in the majority of real accidents.

That's where we probably disagree in principle. I don't believe they are
under any obligation to define the limitations or suggest there are any.
They advertise and demonstrate it in a very specific way. That is the
extent of their claim. Anything, no... everything has limitations, yet how
often do you see an exhaustive list of them in a product advertisement?
There's no need to. When the advertising and demonstrations of a product
make clear what its intent is, then it's kind of simple. Of course, once
the liability lawyers get done with this there will be all sorts of
disclaimors, but that's because we live in a world of stupid people who are
smart enough to sue over their own stupidity.

>
> >> If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo".
> >
> > Well, as a sales guy,
>
> As a consumer I know not to trust sales guys.

That's a funny statement.

>
> Regardless, I am "realizing the intention of the demo" and you seem to be
> berating me for it.

Berating? Geeze, I only made one comment and that was in direct response to
your comment.

>
> >> Survival 101, never, _ever_ believe the advertising if its being in
error
> >> could bring you to harm.
> >>
> >
> > That's the point I'm questioning in your position John - where is the
> > advertising in error? Or even misleading?
>
> I did not claim that it was in error or misleading. I stated that one
> should not, as a matter of principle, trust advertising if the advertising
> being incorrect can bring one to harm. It's up to the advertiser to prove
> that his advertising is accurate, not up to the consumer to disprove it.

I misunderstood your previous comment. Sorry.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>
> If you want to trust your personal safety to guesswork be my guest.

I never suggested or stated that I was anxious to trust my safety to
anything outside of myself. In fact, I state exactly otherwise.

>
> > Maybe not preventing all serious injury, but quite possibly
> > reducing the amount of injury.
>
> Or possibly making it more severe as the blade drops below the table with
> the clothing entangled?

Perhaps. Like I said, or more accurately, as my position implies, I don't
know, but I'm willing to consider it and to watch for the evidence rather
than demean it absent that evidence.

>
> > But then again - they don't claim that it
> > will prevent serious injury from loose clothing being drawn in.
>
> You're the one who brought that up as a possible scenario.

Yes, but what does that matter? I was speaking to the accuracy of their
claims as objected to by you. Or perhaps as questioned by you.

>
> >> How fast is one's hand moving while "reaching across the table for a
> >> cutoff"?
> >
> > Generally, pretty slowly. Somewhere around the speed that it feeds at.
> > Again - how would the speed of a person's hand be in conflict with what
> > they are offering?
>
> They state it stops the saw in a certain time--not "instantly" but in a 5
> milliseconds. One's hand moves a certain distance in 5 milliseconds. If
it
> moves far enough then one loses a finger before the saw stops. I'd have a
> lot more confidence in it if it stopped the blade in 50 microseconds--even
> a major league pitcher or a martial arts expert (both of whom can move
> their hands unusually fast) _trying_ to cut himself wouldn't be able to
get
> more than 1/8 inch or so into the blade in that time, but at 5 ms one can
> lose a finger at remarkably low speeds.

Yes, they can. As well, they can incur only very minor injuries. The
argument works both ways. My only point in entering this discussion was to
point out that they only claimed very specific benefits and the discussion
prior to that was that they weren't meeting other standards of protection,
even though they never claimed to.

>
> >> What one believes and what is true are not always the same.
> >
> > Quite true, but do you have any more evidence than I do which would
> > suggest that my beliefs are incorrect?
>
> I don't really care what you personally believe.

Then why throw the comment on the floor that you did? OK... I'm guilty of a
little rhetoric from time to time myself.

>
> >> > Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's not.
> >> > They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact. Even
if
> >> > that type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not an
> >> > advertising
> >> > error.
> >>
> >> Nobody has claimed that it is "an advertising error".
> >
> > Actually, I took those three words directly from a preceeding post, so
> > somebody did indeed suggest that.
>
> Well then take it up with them.

I believe I did.

>
> >> They want me to give
> >> them my money and put up with their potentially annoying and
inconvenient
> >> gadget in order to be more safe. It's their job to answer my
objections.
> >> If they best they can do is "maybe that kind of accident is rare but we
> >> don't really know" then they're not doing so effectively.
> >
> > What they do want, that I think we both vehamently disagree with is to
> > force
> > their proprietary technology on all new saws. In that, I agree with
your
> > objections, but for a different reason. I object in the name of not
> > needing a nanny to decide what safety devices I need to have -
especially
> > when that nanny is the one who stands to benefit soley if such a
> > requirement came to
> > be. That said, the claims that they have put on the table seem to be
> > valid
> > claims. They haven't claimed to address all forms of accident, only
> > certain forms.
>
> Do those "certain forms" need to be addressed more urgently than other
> forms?

Not unless they're trying to be all things to all people - and they are not.
They are very specifically attempting to address one common form of injury.
It's easy to overlook that and to assign bigger and more encompassing
objectives for them, but the error in that is that neither you nor I work
for them and we don't have the luxury of defining what the objective of
their product is. It's really quite simple. The product seems to do a
certain thing that they claim it will do. What it does not do outside of
that scope is irrelevant. Seat belts hold you in place during a sudden
stop. Are they at all worthwhile? Are there times when they do not prevent
an injury or even lessen an injury? Do they prevent all other injuries that
can occur in a car? No. That does not make the use of seatbelts a waste of
time. All it does is define their application and their benefit.
Remember - the concept is not to eliminate injury, it's to reduce injury.
If sawstop works as it appears to, then it will have accomplished that
objective in the same manner as seat belts contribute to reduced injuries in
cars.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 17 Nov 2004 12:50:31 -0800, [email protected] (cg) wrote:

>As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast
>this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths...
>
<snip>

Some more simple math - ignoring the retraction of the blade and the angle of
the leading edge of the blade WRT direction of feed.

Assume a feed rate of 1 foot per second - a pretty brisk but not unreasonable
feed for thin soft stock. In .005 seconds (5 milliseconds) the stock would
travel .060 inches. Therefore you could expect the blade to cut into your
hand/finger/whatever approximately 1/16 of an inch before the blade came to a
stop. That depth of cut is independent of the number of teeth or rotational
speed of the blade.

A 1/8" wide and 1/16" deep dado cut in your finger may not be a pleasant
experience but it would more likely require a Band-Aid instead of a trip to the
ER.

That doesn't mean I favor legislation requiring this sort of device. Likewise it
doesn't mean I oppose legislation requiring this sort of device.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

"cg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like
> these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the
> rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms
> of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same
> in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade
> spinning at 4000 RPM.

If a blade is rated at turning 4000 RPM, how fast is it turning while
ripping pieces of 12/4 oak? or cutting 1/8" masonite?

What if they said it was a quarter of a blade rotation (say a 40T blade for
this example) and you show some flesh on 11 teeth. Would that be grounds of
a law suite?

Are you trying to calculate how far the blade will penetrate your hand? So
many possible factors as to feed rate, blade speed, position of our hand,
that it would not be easy to give a definitive answer and that would also
leave them open to possible legal action. I think the more details they
offer the more problems the are going to encounter.
Ed

On 16 Nov 2004 11:38:15 -0800, [email protected] (David Hall) wrote:

><snip>

>I am not
>sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am ready to
>eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want to
>err on the side of "freedom" in this area.


Kinda got to vote with David on this. To put a little finer (?) point on it, I
see a place for regulatory interest in areas where the danger is insidious
and/or non-apparent. I don't like the idea of government acting _in loco
parentis_ or trying to protect me from myself in the presence of obvious danger.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:37:32 -0500, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Saw a live demo in Atlanta, he ran that hot dog into the saw blade alot
>faster than you would cut any piece of wood. He shoved a sled with the hot
>dog on it as fast as he could into the blade, not cutting the sled it was
>already cut the same size as the distance the fence was set from the blade.
>Hot dog only had a nick like the demo

My question is, would there be adequate protection if all that
happened is the blade dropping (or being pulled) below the table? It
seems to me that you might actually get pretty close to the same level
of protection without a system that destroys your blade and cartridge.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Yes he pushed it that fast, watching him gave me a feeling like he was being
reckless if that saw had failed he would have had a problem. Also the
machine it self was a very well built heavy duty machine. They did the demo
every hour on the hour for the three days I was there
Joe
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Joe wrote:
>
> > Saw a live demo in Atlanta, he ran that hot dog into the saw blade alot
> > faster than you would cut any piece of wood.
>
> But was it going a lot faster than your hand would be going if you slipped
> and shoved it into the blade while trying to catch your balance?
>
> > He shoved a sled with the hot
> > dog on it as fast as he could into the blade, not cutting the sled it
was
> > already cut the same size as the distance the fence was set from the
> > blade. Hot dog only had a nick like the demo
>
> If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo".
>
> Survival 101, never, _ever_ believe the advertising if its being in error
> could bring you to harm.
>
> > Joe
> >
> > "Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Well, all I know is that when they demonstrate the thing with a hot dog
> >> it
> >> stops virtually instantaneously. The dog has just a slight knick in
it.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jeff P.
> >>
> >> "A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
> >> can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
> >> you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno
> >>
> >>
> >> Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com
> >>
> >>
> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > cg wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast
> >> > > this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths...
> >> > >
> >> > > From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade
> >> > > in less than five (5) milliseconds.
> >> > > Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds.
> >> > > In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round...
> >> > > (that is one part of fifteen).
> >> > >
> >> > > So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop,
> >> > > I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full
> >> > > rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops.
> >> > >
> >> > > Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would
> >> > > expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had
> >> > > been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60
> >> > > is 20!
> >> > >
> >> > > To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or
> >> > > 1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration...
> >> > > once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it
> >> > > is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds.
> >> > > (So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?)
> >> > >
> >> > > Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and
> >> > > for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little
> >> > > consolation for me!
> >> > >
> >> > > I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like
> >> > > these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the
> >> > > rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms
> >> > > of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same
> >> > > in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade
> >> > > spinning at 4000 RPM.
> >> > > Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement
> >> > > compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200
cfm
> >> > > with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like!
> >> > >
> >> > > Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple
> > math...
> >> > > don't they?
> >> >
> >> > So how many saw teeth have to go through your finger before your
finger
> >> > comes off?
> >> >
> >> > > cg
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > [email protected] (David Hall) wrote in message
> >> > > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> > >> [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message > >
While
> > I
> >> > >> don't want to be flippant about the injury rates
> >> > >> > >listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are
> >> > >> > >likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every
> > year
> >> > >> > >in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands
of
> >> > >> > >accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of
> > times
> >> a
> >> > >> > >table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of
> >> injuries.
> >> > >> > I'd also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't
> >> > >> > found them. Of course, I don't have a marketing impetus to
> >> > >> > actually spend money looking, but if I had cites to back up such
> >> > >> > claims, I think
> > I'd
> >> > >> > make them available. So far, I've seen nothing but claims.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However,
> >> > >> someone did provide a source citation for the number of
amputations.
> >> > >> That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See
> >> > >> http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with
> > airbags
> >> > >> if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds
> >> > >> quite
> >> > >> a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250
to
> >> > >> $500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it
is
> >> > >> doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How
many
> >> > >> fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically
> >> > >> participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am
> >> > >> not sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am
> >> > >> ready
> > to
> >> > >> eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would
want
> > to
> >> > >> err on the side of "freedom" in this area.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Dave Hall
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws
over
> > the
> >> > >> > years have received injuries of one sort or another, everything
> > from
> >> > >> > blade-changing knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft
> > horse's
> >> > >> > shoe and, very occasionally, something more serious. If we're at
> > all
> >> > >> > wise, we learn from the smaller incidents and remain slightly in
> > awe
> >> of
> >> > >> > what the tablesaw can do to us if our attention wanders. If
we're
> > not
> >> > >> > particularly wise, we continue to use unsafe working methods and
> >> > >> > eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to the
inattentive
> >> user
> >> > >> > today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Charlie Self
> >> > >> > "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in
hospitals
> >> dying
> >> > >> > of nothing."
> >> > >> > Redd Foxx
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > --John
> >> > Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> >> > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

tzipple states:

>Fine Woodworking's current issue has an article on the StopSaw, now
>being sold. Very positive initial article. The number that they use is,
>I believe, 3500+ amputations. I do not find that hard to believe if you
>count all accidents resulting in finger amputations. I have met enough
>woodworkers with 9 1/2 fingers to see this as credible.

I haven't. This is a woodworking area, both personally and professionally, with
three furniture factories (small) in town, and what used to be more (Lane) 40
miles away, and most of the U.S. furniture industry within about three hours
easy drive. There are some amputations around, but far fewer than you'd expect.
I've seen a lot more stub fingers on farmers than I have on woodworkers, and,
while I've seen plenty of both, I've seen a lot more woodworkers.

Charlie Self
"Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of
nothing."
Redd Foxx

tzipple responds:

>An old discussion and a slippery slope. Should "buyer beware" apply to
>all merchandise including food & drugs? All services including banking,
>insurance, etc? Usually, we are pretty selective about what protections
>ittitate us. Seatbelt requirements in a car are a big deal, but no one
>revolts regarding seatbelts on airplanes, for example.
>
>The fact is none of us (well, maybe you do, Mark) have time to research
>all potentially dangerous items that we ourchase, are reluctant to fully
>trust companies who may have more interest in their bottom line than in
>reasonably safe products, and we depend on government to apply basic
>standards to a huge range of items and services in order to to protect
>us. While one may quibble about particular items or protections, the
>general principle seems like a good thing to me.

I think the irritation is not with the inclusion of the seat belt, or the
availability of the safety helmet for motorcyclists, but the making of the use
a legal requirement. I use seatbelts. Back when I was still riding motorcycles,
I used helmets and at least three times, the helmet saved my life, or my
ability to walk. At that time, neither was a legal requirement. I still use
seatbelts every time I use a vehicle, but it is NOT because the state and the
feds tell me I have to.

Possibly my biggest objection to these legalities is the way they grow. A few
states will make, say, helmets mandatory. Survival statistics improve in those
states. The Feds then get a toe in, making state reception of certain road
funds dependent on their having helmet use laws that fit a new Federal
standard. Whoops. A bit further down the slippery slope to big government, de
facto Federal control of a Constitutional state function, using the big stick
called bucks.

Charlie Self
"Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of
nothing."
Redd Foxx

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:54:41 GMT, Ba r r y <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> According to a cop I know, they find an awful lot besides unbuckled
> seatbelts a those stops. <G>

> Open beers, clouds of pot smoke in the car, expired registrations,
> emissions violations (CT's old system), defective equipment, OUI,
> illegal immigrants, unregistered weapons, stolen cars, bail jumpers,
> you name it.
(snip)
> The more he told me, the more I realized that the checkpoints have
> little to do with safety.

Because, of course, the people as mentioned above are driving perfectly
safely, is that it?