Sawstop - probably a stupid question

If SawStop is such a great product, why doesn't the demonstrator use his
finger
instead of a hot dog? Where is the faith and confidence in his product?

If the manufacturer want to claim he has a real safety device, lets see the
live
body part demos!

Jack

--
"Most Folks Are As Happy As They Make Up Their Minds To Be"
-Abraham Lincoln



"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A good and fair question - but to me the dangers of this device far exceed
> this question. The problem with this device is people becoming dependent
on
> it and being careless, and then at a most inopportune moment, the device
> fails. After all, it is only an electromechanical device, and such
devices
> have certainly been known to fail. It remains that the best safety device
> ever invented is a clear mind and proper technique. And I realize that
the
> SawStop has been thoroughly tested on hot dogs without failure, but
> 1: That certainly doesn't mean that it won't fail. And I believe
that
> they don't guarantee that it won't fail.
> 2. When I want to cut up a hot dog I use a knife instead of my table
> saw anyway.
>
> Regards,
> Fred
>
> "Peter Wells" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The review of the Sawstop system in the latest issue of FWW contains
> > the following: "The braking mechanism springs an aluminum cartridge
> > into the path of the blade as the whole blade assembly drops below the
> > surface of the tabletop, out of harm's way".
> >
> > If the blade drops below the tabletop, what's the point of stopping it
> > ? If it doesn't drop quickly enough to be safe, why drop it at all ?
> >
> >
> > only one p in my real address / un seul p dans ma véritable adresse
>
>

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:37:16 -0500, "John Flatley" <[email protected]>
calmly ranted:

"Most Folks Are As Happy As They Make Up Their Minds To Be"
-Abraham Lincoln

Thanks, John. (Stolen/added to my sig collection!)

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

Have you watched the videos? Sawstop stops and drops the blade so fast you
could not hurt yourself with one if you wanted to! No way you could hook a
pinkie in a tooth of the blade!
Greg

"J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I would think that the blade would stop before the saw drops. However, the
> act of dropping could be a problem in itself. Suppose you slip and your
hand
> goes onto the blade. Thank god the saw blade witll stop spinning
(perhaps),
> but then the blade starts to drop and pulls down. Trapping your little
pinky
> between the tooth of the frozen blade. Suddenly you regret that you made
> that nifty zero clearance plate....
>
> -j
>
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I am guessing here but if the blade drops it is likely the tension on
the
> > belts will lessen also. If the motor is effectively disengaged from the
> > blade via the loose belts the blade momentum would not have the motor
> > momentum added to the force that has to be stopped by the cartridge.
> >
> >
> > "Peter Wells" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > The review of the Sawstop system in the latest issue of FWW contains
> > > the following: "The braking mechanism springs an aluminum cartridge
> > > into the path of the blade as the whole blade assembly drops below the
> > > surface of the tabletop, out of harm's way".
> > >
> > > If the blade drops below the tabletop, what's the point of stopping it
> > > ? If it doesn't drop quickly enough to be safe, why drop it at all ?
> > >
> > >
> > > only one p in my real address / un seul p dans ma véritable adresse
> >
> >
>
>

The Sawstop may be like brakes and airbags in some respects, but I have
not seen airbags that cost more than an entry level car. The SawStop
would eliminate entry level tablesaws completely as you can't add it to
a $200 benchtop. Even if you could somehow manage to fit this thing
into an entry level saw, the base price would have to double or triple
and the cost of it going off would be more than the pre-SawStop cost of
the saw. Incremental safety equipment additions to cars and such have
certainly added to the cost of such items substantially, but they have
not doubled or tripled the entry level price. The cost of an airbag
replacement hasn't yet reached the cost of the rest of the car.
Dave Hall

I saw a Sawstop demo in person 2 yrs ago. From what I remember the rep
saying.... the blade is stopped within 2 or 3 teeth on a blade.
Stopping the blade so fast takes a lot of energy and dropping the blade
helps absorb some of the energy.

I got an e-mail from sawstop saying my cabinet saw is ready to be
shipped to me. I put my name on the mailing list 2 yrs ago at IWF. So
it looks as though there are actually starting production.

Mike

>From my conversations with the rep at IWF 2002....

cost of cartridge was about $80 and replacing it was a DIY project of
very short duration. (they could do it in a few minutes - they did a
demo every hour on the same saw). Sawblades were said to not be
destroyed - maybe loose a couple of carbide teeth. If it were to
happen with my WWII, then I would hang it on the wall as a reminder and
gladly shell out for a new one. (now if it was a misfire, then it
would be a different story)

Since my day job invloves keeping people asleep while the hand surgeons
try to sew fingers back on, I can easily justify this device for my
shop. About once a week I see someone cut off fingers. (My worst week
ever I personally took care of 8 severe hand injuries in 5 days) If
you think a couple hundred dollars is too much for this product, and
that $80 for a cartridge is out of line, then you would really be
shocked at the hospital bill if you ever have the misfortune to have a
bad accident and you and your fingers go to the hospital in different
vehicles. My insurance.... $150 for the ambulance ride, $150 ER
copay, surgery would be free, $40 copay for each specialist, each visit
(think of a couple of months of physical therapy @ $40 a pop), $25 for
each prescription; then add in a pain factor, loss of wages, loss of
use, and the 20% copay that I almost forgot about for several days in
the hospital. Sawstop is pretty cheap insurance after all (IMHO -
YMMV).

and if/when I do get a SS, I'll still be super careful around it - as I
am now with all of my shop tools.

BTW... I keep a picture of a mangled hand right next to the on/off
switch on the TS just as a reminder. (posted to APW or APBW a few
years back)

Neither - I'm an AA-C (Anesthesiologist Assistant)
Closer to a CRNA than an MD. We have about a dozen CRNAs in our group
though, along with about 45 AAs.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:55:46 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Dave Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> The Sawstop may be like brakes and airbags in some respects, but I have
>> not seen airbags that cost more than an entry level car. The SawStop
>> would eliminate entry level tablesaws completely as you can't add it to
>> a $200 benchtop. Even if you could somehow manage to fit this thing
>> into an entry level saw, the base price would have to double or triple
>> and the cost of it going off would be more than the pre-SawStop cost of
>> the saw. Incremental safety equipment additions to cars and such have
>> certainly added to the cost of such items substantially, but they have
>> not doubled or tripled the entry level price. The cost of an airbag
>> replacement hasn't yet reached the cost of the rest of the car.
>> Dave Hall
>>
>
>There's no reason it has to add that kind of cost to a table saw. There's
>nothing in it that costs that much. Granted, it's a capitalist world and
>the owner of the idea is entitled to charge what the market will bear, but
>there's no reason for it to double or triple the cost of a low end saw.


well, it has control electronics, actuators capable of stopping the
blade fast and most importantly it requires a reingineering of the
machine to survive the forces generated. even in a production
environment this is gonna add a hundred dollars or so to a saw's
price. there *are* hundred dollar saws on the market.

"ted harris" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In news:Dave Hinz <[email protected]> typed:
>> WHAT technology, Ted? It doesn't fucking work. They can't ship
>> units. They want to force people to use something that they can't
>> even manufacture.
>
> Man I can't believe this crap...
> Shipping units and having a product that works is two different
> things. First of all, it looks to me like sawstops strategy has
> changed from the initial concept. Now they have to build, market, and
> deliver a new, better product against the will of corporate America.
> Is that supposed to be a hanger? I don't think so...
>
>>> I cannot believe the shit I am reading here...
>>> Sawstop was apparently invented around 1998 or so. This guy and his
>>> employees have been fought around every corner for the last 7 yeays
>>> by skeptical woodworkers, and muscled by the manufacturers.
>>
>> If they can't get a workable product in 7 years, they either don't
>> know what they're doing, or they're trying to do something
>> impossible.
>
> If corporate America has it;s way, it is impossible.
>
>>> Looks to me like
>>> he has devoted his life to getting this thing going. Now, after
>>> almost a decade of rejection, sawstop is delivering saws as we
>>> speak.
>
>> To whom, exactly? All I see on the website is a pre-order form, not
>> a "shipping today" saw. Hand-assembled demo units are all well and
>> good, but where's the beef?
>
> I'm putting my money on Sawstop...any takers?

Just what percentage of the company did they sell you?

No.

You can't stop the car without brakes (unless you're Fred Flintstone).

You can avoid cutting your fingers off without a sawstop.

Renata

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:37:43 GMT, "BobS" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Fred said......
>
>> The problem with this device is people becoming dependent on it and being
>careless, and then at a most inopportune moment, the device fails.
>
>Sorta like brakes on a vehicle then....?
>
-snip-
>
>Bob S.
>

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:37:43 GMT, BobS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred said......
>
>> The problem with this device is people becoming dependent on it and being
> careless, and then at a most inopportune moment, the device fails.
>
> Sorta like brakes on a vehicle then....?

More like an airbag. If it were to go off at the wrong time, that'd be
bad. If it were to not go off when it should, that'd be bad too.
And if you rely on it as a supplimental safety feature and disregard the
primary safety features (seatbelts, paying attention, not being drunk/stoned/
stupid while driving) then you're asking for a world of hurt.

> I believe a lot of the controversy on this subject was not so much the
> technicalities but that the company tried to have legislation introduced
> that would mandate this safety device.

Yes, that and the fact that they keep not being able to produce it. Having
been in both design and manufacturing, I recognize a "we can't make this
reliable enough to ship" situation when I see one, and I see one.

> Like brakes on a vehicle - they've been known to fail also.

But Bob, brakes on a vehicle exist. Much like a retail Sawstop does not.

In news:Dave Mundt <[email protected]> typed:
> The bottom line is that using a tablesaw is a dangerous
> thing to do. I want myself and everyone that DOES use it to
> maintain a cautious nervousness around it, and, not get lulled
> into a false sense of security. That sense of security is
> exactly what ends up with folks in trouble.
> Regards
> Dave Mundt

Yeah, and I use my powermatic 66 and my grizzly 1023Z every single day, bar
none. And I would love to know that if I had an accident and stuck my hand
into the blade that I would be even more protected than I am now. Knowing
this will not make me lackadaisical at all. It is simply another safety
measure. I mean really, it is a no brainer.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:John Flatley <[email protected]> typed:
> If SawStop is such a great product, why doesn't the demonstrator use his
> finger
> instead of a hot dog? Where is the faith and confidence in his product?
>
> If the manufacturer want to claim he has a real safety device, lets see
> the live
> body part demos!
>
> Jack

Steve Gass has stuck his fingers into the blade twice, I believe.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 03:00:12 GMT, Dave Mundt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
> No...actually more like the Automatic Braking System
> included in many cars today.
> It is a device which is added to the basic, perfectly workable
> mechanism, which is designed to replace skill and ability on the part
> of the driver with robotics.

Are you claiming that you can brake better in bad conditions than ABS
can? Can you describe specifically what condition you believe this
to be true for?

> The bottom line is that using a tablesaw is a dangerous
> thing to do. I want myself and everyone that DOES use it to
> maintain a cautious nervousness around it, and, not get lulled
> into a false sense of security. That sense of security is
> exactly what ends up with folks in trouble.

My biggest problem with the SawStop folks is that they continue
to not sell something that they also want to force everyone to use,
while locking others out from making it. That and I'm not convinced
it'll work.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:47:10 -0500, Hank Gillette <[email protected]> wrote:

> As far as forcing everyone to use it, they demonstrated that the
> technology exists and asked for legislation to make such a safety device
> be mandatory on table saws.

But the technology does _not_ exist, except in their demo units. If
they could ship a reliable product, they would be.

> Assuming that such a law was passed, it
> seems reasonable that the manufacturers of table saws could find
> alternate methods of accomplishing the same thing.

Not if the patent is written in such a way as to restrict others
from adapting it.

> If you remember, the
> auto companies claimed that they could not raise gas mileage on their
> vehicles until they were told that they had to.

Actually, all that results from that legislation is a gas-guzzler tax.

> Whether it works or not, only time will tell. If you've seen the videos,
> they are very compelling. Going back to the auto industry, there were a
> lot of doubters about air bags when they were first introduced, but
> their reliability has been remarkably good, and there are a lot of
> people walking around today who would be dead or crippled without them.

And yet, I bet there's someone out there who holds the patent on the
airbag, and they're not trying to have the government force a single-source
for their invention.

Public good is _not_ their motivation. That's fine, really it is, but
pretending it is is what gets me.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:52:46 -0700, Charles Spitzer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Hank Gillette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> Whether it works or not, only time will tell. If you've seen the videos,
>> they are very compelling. Going back to the auto industry, there were a
>> lot of doubters about air bags when they were first introduced, but
>> their reliability has been remarkably good, and there are a lot of
>> people walking around today who would be dead or crippled without them.
>
> and a whole bunch of (usually) kids killed by them.

I've been an EMT for about a dozen years. I have seen a lot more people
hurt very very badly by running into dashboards, windshields, all sorts of
other hard/sharp/non-moving stuff in a car, that they wouldn't have hit
if they had their belt on and had an airbag been between them and what
they hit. The statistics of airbag-related injuries show it's a _very_ small
amount compared to the injuries they prevent.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:54:36 GMT, patrick conroy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Are you claiming that you can brake better in bad conditions than ABS
>> can? Can you describe specifically what condition you believe this
>> to be true for?
>
> Not to jump into the middle of this arg - but IIRC, one of the rags (C&D and
> R&T) had some fun here. They had run across some Driving School where the
> instruction was to "lock 'em up and lock 'em up hard." I think they brought
> in some "semi-pro" drivers and tried to see who could stop shorter with the
> most control. A pro who put the foot down to the limit of locking, or an
> amature who just stomped on the pedal.

Right. I saw a similar study, not sure if it was the same.
>
> The conditions were dry - and the locked up brakes consistently stopped
> shorter.

Well, the ABS "stomp hard on pedal and leave it down" wasn't technically
locking up the brakes.

A very good driver can "threshhold brake", where he applies pressure to
the foot pedal _just_ shy of losing friction. The problem is, he has one
foot pedal, and there are four wheels, each of which are going to have
a maximum braking before they start sliding/skidding. One actuator, four
outputs. He can only be as good as the slippiest wheel.

ABS, on the other hand, detects slip and modulates the brake pressure
to specifially that wheel. It's doing on each of the 4 wheels what the
really really good driver can only do on the slippiest of them at best.
So, for the one wheel with the least grip, it's as good as an expert
driver; for the other 3, it's making adjustments that that driver just
can't get to, because he doesn't have 4 left feet or the response time.

The _only_ situation where ABS can be beat by an expert driver is
in a slush/heavy snow situation, where you _want_ the tires to slide
so the snow gets pushed in the front of the tires as in a snowplow,
but of course you can't steer when that's happening.

> I had driven a lot of miles on ice and snow, and when my first vehicle with
> ABS showed up, I spent several hours in a empty parking lot retraining my
> foot to let the system do it's job.

Fun times. Did the cops stop over to see what you were up to as well?
I explained, and they said "have fun" and left. Being in my 30s helped,
I'm sure, they were probably expecting a 17 year old or something.

> It's still hard to get your head around "I can steer, I can still steer..."

There is some very interesting vector force stuff going on when you're
steering while it's in ABS mode. Saved sheet metal damage for me once
already, I'm certain.

Dave Hinz

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:49:49 -0500, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:54:36 GMT, "patrick conroy"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I had driven a lot of miles on ice and snow, and when my first vehicle with
>>ABS showed up, I spent several hours in a empty parking lot retraining my
>>foot to let the system do it's job.
>
> I do something like that in the winter every time I get another
> car: Buffalo requires a lot of slush & ice driving.

Yes, it does. Hey Patrick, was this the empty parking lot at State Fair
Park, by any chance? ISTR we're both Milwaukee locals.

Dave

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:07:54 -0700, Charles Spitzer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> The _only_ situation where ABS can be beat by an expert driver is
>> in a slush/heavy snow situation, where you _want_ the tires to slide
>> so the snow gets pushed in the front of the tires as in a snowplow,
>> but of course you can't steer when that's happening.
>
> when i was auto-xing, there are LOTS of times i didn't want the abs to kick
> in, mostly when i wanted the rear of the car to step out to turn the car
> faster.

Isn't that what the hand-brake is for? Keep the front (driven) wheels going
with your right foot, pull up on the handbrake, let the ass end slide
around. Works great in a Saab, I suppose if you have RWD you can do
something sort of like that with the throttle?

"left foot steering" is what the Saab rally drivers call it.

Dave Hinz

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:36:00 -0500, Hank Gillette <[email protected]> wrote:
> How do they help sell cars? They're required.

No they're not.

> At least some sort of
> passive restraint system is required,

Ah, there you go.

> and I don't think anyone likes the
> seat belts that wrap themselves around you automatically.

Hence, airbags help sell cars.

> I'm not in favor of requiring safety equipment that hasn't been proven.

You're not? You seemed to be before.

> Nor am I in favor of writing a requirement such that only one company
> can supply it if there are alternative choices, whether it's SawStop or
> Halliburton. I'm just saying that I don't think the SawStop people are
> bad, based on what they've done so far.

They haven't done _shit_ so far, but produce a demo that we've all seen
and promise that they're shipping "real soon now", while lobbying to have
their nonexistant vaporware made mandatory by law. I see this as a
pretty deep hole for them to dig out of before I'd consider buying
their non-product.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:46:49 -0500, Hank Gillette <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Public good is _not_ their motivation. That's fine, really it is, but
>> pretending it is is what gets me.
>
> I don't see any conflict between being interested in the public good and
> wanting to make a profit at the same time.

That's not what I'm saying. If you read their petitions to the government,
they did the "it's for the chillllldrun" method of emotionalizing the
issue as a reason for why they should be given a monopoly. It's disgusting
to me when a company claims they're doing something for one reason, when
really they're just in it for profit. Fine. Be in it for profit, that's
perfectly valid, but be honest about it.

> If the standard is to give
> away anything that would benefit the public, why don't I get my air bags
> for free? Why can't I just walk into the store and walk out with a fire
> extinguisher without paying?

Yes, you're missing my point.

> I _think_ I understand your ire at their attempt to make their device
> mandatory. I guess it just doesn't bug me in the same way. I'd like to
> see the justification from the saw manufacturers as to why they were not
> interested. That has the potential to irritate me much more.

Let's see. It has never shipped a unit to a consumer, and the company
who makes this non-existant product wanted to force everyone to use
their device, which doesn't yet exist. Yeah, I can't see any
reason the manufacturers would tell 'em to go away, can you?

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:31:54 -0800, J <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Hank Gillette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> How do they help sell cars? They're required. At least some sort of
>> passive restraint system is required, and I don't think anyone likes the
>> seat belts that wrap themselves around you automatically.

> I hear ads on the radio touting "side cushion airbags" and other safety
> features in certain european cars. Of course I am making a big assumption
> that the car companies are equiping their cars with them and advertising
> them because they are of economic benefit to the car companies.

Oddly enough, it could actually be because they want their customers
to survive a severe crash so they can live to buy another of their
cars. Not all safety equipment usage is there because it's a direct
monetary gain, either.

>> I'm not in favor of requiring safety equipment that hasn't been proven.
>> Nor am I in favor of writing a requirement such that only one company
>> can supply it if there are alternative choices, whether it's SawStop or
>> Halliburton. I'm just saying that I don't think the SawStop people are
>> bad, based on what they've done so far.
>
> And I do, based on what they tried to do.

Yup.

In news:Mike Marlow <[email protected]> typed:
> There's no reason it has to add that kind of cost to a table saw. There's
> nothing in it that costs that much. Granted, it's a capitalist world and
> the owner of the idea is entitled to charge what the market will bear, but
> there's no reason for it to double or triple the cost of a low end saw.

Here is a direct quote from the FAQ page ont he sawstop website;
http://www.sawstop.com/faq.htm#1

How much will a saw with the SawStop system cost?
We estimate that the retail price of a contractors saw will increase by
approximately $50-100 after a manufacturer retools to add the SawStop system
as original equipment.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Dave Hinz <[email protected]> typed:
<snip>
> Public good is _not_ their motivation. That's fine, really it is, but
> pretending it is is what gets me.

You mean the way the manufacturers that won't use the technology?...

I cannot believe the shit I am reading here...
Sawstop was apparently invented around 1998 or so. This guy and his
employees have been fought around every corner for the last 7 yeays by
skeptical woodworkers, and muscled by the manufacturers. Looks to me like
he has devoted his life to getting this thing going. Now, after almost a
decade of rejection, sawstop is delivering saws as we speak. I wonder how
many times Steve Gass had to borrow money to feed his family and keep the
electricity on? I'll be that even now he is in debt up to his eyeballs. He
believes in this technology so much that he stuck his finger in it twice.
Someday, all you naysayers and the rest of the world will view this
technology as one of the most important advances in rotational cutting
safety. Enough of your ridiculous conspiracy theories!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:34:06 -0800, ted harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> In news:Dave Hinz <[email protected]> typed:
><snip>
>> Public good is _not_ their motivation. That's fine, really it is, but
>> pretending it is is what gets me.
>
> You mean the way the manufacturers that won't use the technology?...

WHAT technology, Ted? It doesn't fucking work. They can't ship units.
They want to force people to use something that they can't even manufacture.

> I cannot believe the shit I am reading here...
> Sawstop was apparently invented around 1998 or so. This guy and his
> employees have been fought around every corner for the last 7 yeays by
> skeptical woodworkers, and muscled by the manufacturers.

If they can't get a workable product in 7 years, they either don't know
what they're doing, or they're trying to do something impossible.

> Looks to me like
> he has devoted his life to getting this thing going. Now, after almost a
> decade of rejection, sawstop is delivering saws as we speak.

To whom, exactly? All I see on the website is a pre-order form, not a
"shipping today" saw. Hand-assembled demo units are all well and good,
but where's the beef?

> I wonder how
> many times Steve Gass had to borrow money to feed his family and keep the
> electricity on? I'll be that even now he is in debt up to his eyeballs. He
> believes in this technology so much that he stuck his finger in it twice.
> Someday, all you naysayers and the rest of the world will view this
> technology as one of the most important advances in rotational cutting
> safety. Enough of your ridiculous conspiracy theories!

There's nothing "conspiracy theory" about saying that to date, Sawstop
is all talk and no product.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:55:48 GMT, patrick conroy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> Yes, it does. Hey Patrick, was this the empty parking lot at State Fair
>> Park, by any chance? ISTR we're both Milwaukee locals.

> No, sorry. This is when I lived in that 'Far North Chicago Suburb' - Lake
> Geneva. Seem to recall it was either the High School or Sentry grocery
> store.

Gotcha. Why did I think you're from MKE then I wonder? Did you used to
have an execpc address?

> Ya know - now that I'm out *here* - they've actually done something pretty
> cool. See: http://www.winterdrive.com/

That _is_ cool. Looks like a lot of fun.

> I came out here, via a long layover in Texas and suggested that most of them
> ought'a invest in the school.

Neve hurts to know how the machine will handle.

Dave

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:09:28 -0500, Hank Gillette <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > I'm not in favor of requiring safety equipment that hasn't been proven.
>>
>> You're not? You seemed to be before.
>
> I'm sorry that I gave that impression. My point was supposed to be that
> mandatory safety equipment is not inherently bad. I also assumed that it
> was a given that it should be proven to work before being required.

Then how do you reconcile this with supporting the Sawstop non-product
folks?

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:47:02 -0500, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>> I have never known or thought a car with ABS would stop shorter and I have
>> the background for working in the automotive industry for 23 years. It
>> simply helps you maintain control of the vehicle particularly when on an
>> inconsistent or slick surface. I have never really heard that ABS makes a
>> car stop shorter.

> Coefficient of static friction is higher than coefficient of sliding
> friction?

Depends on the surface, doesn't it? Ice vs. asphault, for instance?

ABS will thresshold brake on each of the four wheels, independantly. The
best driver can only thresshold brake on the slipperiest of the four
wheels. With ABS you've got 4 times as many inputs/outputs, and faster
reactions on top of it.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:45:20 -0500, Hank Gillette <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Then how do you reconcile this with supporting the Sawstop non-product
>> folks?
>
> Because I don't think they are evil just because the tried for the
> government regulation. I don't know their true motivation. While I'm
> sure that they would have been happy to get the regulation enacted, that
> may not have been their primary motive. They may have been looking for
> the publicity to get their product noticed. In that, they seemed to have
> had some success.

Yes, but now that I've noticed them for this reason, I'm not inclined
to look favorably on them. Even their "waah, we're not shipping yet
because our supplier has several out-of-control processes" letter would
have been enough to turn me off from them, but trying to force me to buy
something that doesn't work, well, I don't like that.

> My assumption was also that the government would not be so stupid as to
> make a requirement for something unless it had been proven to be
> available and reliable,

Google "smart guns" and "legislation" some time. I think your faith in
government not doing stupid things is ...misguided...

> As for their 'non-product' status, they are trying to get a complete
> quality machine made, starting from scratch.

I thought they were outsourcing it to a low-cost country.

> If some of the existing
> manufacturers had decided to license the product, it probably would have
> been available much sooner.

And yet, the people who make a living making saws don't like it either.
Hm.

In news:Dave Hinz <[email protected]> typed:
> Yes, but now that I've noticed them for this reason, I'm not inclined
> to look favorably on them. Even their "waah, we're not shipping yet
> because our supplier has several out-of-control processes" letter would
> have been enough to turn me off from them, but trying to force me to buy
> something that doesn't work, well, I don't like that.

Who says sawstop does not work? You?

> I thought they were outsourcing it to a low-cost country.

As do Delta, Powermatic, Grizzly, and many others? In fact, is there a
single saw made in the US?

> And yet, the people who make a living making saws don't like it either.
> Hm.

Of course not, because it is a better product. And by the looks of the
machinery they are making, it will be a better product as well.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J <[email protected]> typed:
> The saw shown on their website is a typical taiwanese cabinet saw. I'm
> sure if you wanted to order a number of units you could have your name on
> it too. All that sawstop is adding is the control device and some changes
> to the way the blade/motor assembly is put together. The rest is straight
> out of the catalog.
>
> -j

There you go again, telling total white lies...assumptions! You do read the
articles, right?
The website state clearly that it is a bigger, heavier machine than anything
offered today. With heavier bearings, and many other improvements.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Hank Gillette <[email protected]> typed:
> I can understand and empathize with that feeling to a certain extent. I
> have a libertarian streak when it comes to things that are a personal
> choice and do not affect other people. The recreational drug laws in
> this country are (IMO) counter-productive and a restraint on personal
> freedom. They also benefit those companies that sell legal recreational
> drugs (alcohol and tobacco).


Are you implying that tobacco use does not affect other people?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
> Which was my point, WRT ted harris's over-the-top bulls**t.

Have you ever started your own business from nothing more than an idea, that
no one has ever done ever in the entire history of the world?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Dave Hinz <[email protected]> typed:
> WHAT technology, Ted? It doesn't fucking work. They can't ship units.
> They want to force people to use something that they can't even
> manufacture.

Man I can't believe this crap...
Shipping units and having a product that works is two different things.
First of all, it looks to me like sawstops strategy has changed from the
initial concept. Now they have to build, market, and deliver a new, better
product against the will of corporate America. Is that supposed to be a
hanger? I don't think so...

>> I cannot believe the shit I am reading here...
>> Sawstop was apparently invented around 1998 or so. This guy and his
>> employees have been fought around every corner for the last 7 yeays by
>> skeptical woodworkers, and muscled by the manufacturers.
>
> If they can't get a workable product in 7 years, they either don't know
> what they're doing, or they're trying to do something impossible.

If corporate America has it;s way, it is impossible.

>> Looks to me like
>> he has devoted his life to getting this thing going. Now, after almost a
>> decade of rejection, sawstop is delivering saws as we speak.

> To whom, exactly? All I see on the website is a pre-order form, not a
> "shipping today" saw. Hand-assembled demo units are all well and good,
> but where's the beef?

I'm putting my money on Sawstop...any takers?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
> ted harris wrote:
>
>> In news:Hank Gillette <[email protected]> typed:
>>> I can understand and empathize with that feeling to a certain extent. I
>>> have a libertarian streak when it comes to things that are a personal
>>> choice and do not affect other people. The recreational drug laws in
>>> this country are (IMO) counter-productive and a restraint on personal
>>> freedom. They also benefit those companies that sell legal recreational
>>> drugs (alcohol and tobacco).
>>
>>
>> Are you implying that tobacco use does not affect other people?
>
> No, he's implying that if Marijuana was legal it would likely hurt tobacco
> sales and thus the tobacco companies have a vested interest in keeping it
> illegal. Please do try to follow the argument.
>
> I find it interesting that you single out tobacco use as 'affecting other
> people' but seem to ignore the effects of drunk driving.

I find it abolutely unbelievable that you don't understand the SIMPLE FACT
that when you drink, it does not make everyone else around you drunk!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
> ted harris wrote:
>
>> In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
>>> Which was my point, WRT ted harris's over-the-top bulls**t.
>>
>> Have you ever started your own business from nothing more than an idea,
>> that no one has ever done ever in the entire history of the world?
>
> Well, let's see, it took Steve Jobs less time to go from an idea to a
> billion-dollar corporation than it has taken this guy to go from an idea
> to an ad on web site. Maybe he should see if Jobs will consult <eg>.

Steve Jobs had no one fighting him tootj and nail. I'd like to see someone
try to do what he has done today, in a developed computer world. Your
argumnent is quite simply not apples to apples...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> typed:
>> I'm putting my money on Sawstop...any takers?
>
> Just what percentage of the company did they sell you?

I wish I had money to invest...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Well, let's see, it took Steve Jobs less time to go from an idea to a
>>> billion-dollar corporation than it has taken this guy to go from an idea
>>> to
>>> an ad on web site. Maybe he should see if Jobs will consult <eg>.
>>
>> Maybe the drug companies should see Steve Jobs about speeding up
>> development
>> on some of the cures that they have been working on for decades.
>
> Those "cures" require a tremendous amount of cutting edge research and
> then elaborate clinical trials and an extensive government approval
> process. The Sawstop has already been demonstrated, and the only thing the
> government wants to know about it is how much tax the manufacturer owes.
>
>> Some
>> things simply take years to develop, some things take a blink of an eye.
>
> So, you admit that the Sawstop is so flawed that it is going to take years
> of research to make it work adequately if in fact it can be made to do so?
> If not, then what _are_ you suggesting?

It seems to me that he is saying that some things, no matter how simple they
appear, may take longer to develop than something that appears 1000 times
more complicated. Such is the case with Apple computer...he faced no
opposition, no competition, no corporate behemoth, etc.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> typed:
> "ted harris" <[email protected]> writes:
>>In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
>>> ted harris wrote:
>
>>>> Are you implying that tobacco use does not affect other people?
>>>
>>> No, he's implying that if Marijuana was legal it would likely hurt
>>> tobacco sales and thus the tobacco companies have a vested interest in
>>> keeping it illegal. Please do try to follow the argument.
>>>
>>> I find it interesting that you single out tobacco use as 'affecting
>>> other people' but seem to ignore the effects of drunk driving.
>>
>>I find it abolutely unbelievable that you don't understand the SIMPLE FACT
>>that when you drink, it does not make everyone else around you drunk!
>
> And it is a SIMPLE FACT that if you smoke (by yourself, in your car, home
> or workplace) you are only affecting yourself. Again, your analogy
> falls down.

I personally don't care if you smoke and want to kill yourself, that is
fine. If you smoke anywhere in the presence of another person, you are now
affecting them. So how does my analogy fall down?

> (Of course, if you're drunk, and kill someone in a car wreck, you are
> affecting someone else, true?)

Yeah, but then you have to face the law...where are the laws to protect
non-smokers?

This debate is about sawstop, not smoking. Should we debate the smoking
issue as well?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
> ted harris wrote:
>
>> In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
>>> ted harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:Hank Gillette <[email protected]> typed:
>>>>> I can understand and empathize with that feeling to a certain extent.
>>>>> I have a libertarian streak when it comes to things that are a
>>>>> personal choice and do not affect other people. The recreational drug
>>>>> laws in this country are (IMO) counter-productive and a restraint on
>>>>> personal freedom. They also benefit those companies that sell legal
>>>>> recreational drugs (alcohol and tobacco).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you implying that tobacco use does not affect other people?
>>>
>>> No, he's implying that if Marijuana was legal it would likely hurt
>>> tobacco sales and thus the tobacco companies have a vested interest in
>>> keeping it
>>> illegal. Please do try to follow the argument.
>>>
>>> I find it interesting that you single out tobacco use as 'affecting
>>> other people' but seem to ignore the effects of drunk driving.
>>
>> I find it abolutely unbelievable that you don't understand the SIMPLE
>> FACT that when you drink, it does not make everyone else around you
>> drunk!
>
> I find it quite in character that you don't understand the SIMPLE FACT
> that drunk drivers kill other people, not statistically 40 years down the
> road but up close and personal.

One person should not have the right to assault another, no matter the
circumstances.
But, according to your theory, it would be okay for someone to walk into a
public place and shove a needle in your arm, or pour alcohol down their
throat. That clears it up for me...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:04:33 -0800, ted harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> In news:Dave Hinz <[email protected]> typed:
>> Yes, but now that I've noticed them for this reason, I'm not inclined
>> to look favorably on them. Even their "waah, we're not shipping yet
>> because our supplier has several out-of-control processes" letter would
>> have been enough to turn me off from them, but trying to force me to buy
>> something that doesn't work, well, I don't like that.
>
> Who says sawstop does not work? You?

OK Ted, your turn. If Sawstop +works+, why aren't you shipping them?

>> I thought they were outsourcing it to a low-cost country.
>
> As do Delta, Powermatic, Grizzly, and many others? In fact, is there a
> single saw made in the US?

Not the point. In the part you snipped the context was about quality.
I'm making a counterpoint.

>> And yet, the people who make a living making saws don't like it either.
>> Hm.

> Of course not, because it is a better product. And by the looks of the
> machinery they are making, it will be a better product as well.

Right, because their whine letter about, what, rust, wiring problems,
and schedule slips must strike terror into the competition. yawn.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:03:47 -0800, ted harris <[email protected]> wrote:

> I find it abolutely unbelievable that you don't understand the SIMPLE FACT
> that when you drink, it does not make everyone else around you drunk!

Holy shit, Ted said something logical.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:21:30 -0800, ted harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> In news:Dave Hinz <[email protected]> typed:
>> WHAT technology, Ted? It doesn't fucking work. They can't ship units.
>> They want to force people to use something that they can't even
>> manufacture.
>
> Man I can't believe this crap...
> Shipping units and having a product that works is two different things.

Why do you imagine they're not shipping, Ted?

> First of all, it looks to me like sawstops strategy has changed from the
> initial concept. Now they have to build, market, and deliver a new, better
> product against the will of corporate America. Is that supposed to be a
> hanger? I don't think so...

WTF is that supposed to mean? Hanger?

>> If they can't get a workable product in 7 years, they either don't know
>> what they're doing, or they're trying to do something impossible.
>
> If corporate America has it;s way, it is impossible.

Riiiiiight, the man is hodin' me down, is that it? Whe doesn't da man
hode down all the _other_ new tools then? Could it be that those,
oh, I don't know, _work_?

>> To whom, exactly? All I see on the website is a pre-order form, not a
>> "shipping today" saw. Hand-assembled demo units are all well and good,
>> but where's the beef?
>
> I'm putting my money on Sawstop...any takers?

Sure. Escrow, of course? What terms?

In news:Dave Hinz <[email protected]> typed:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:21:30 -0800, ted harris
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In news:Dave Hinz <[email protected]> typed:
>>> WHAT technology, Ted? It doesn't fucking work. They can't ship units.
>>> They want to force people to use something that they can't even
>>> manufacture.
>>
>> Man I can't believe this crap...
>> Shipping units and having a product that works is two different things.
>
> Why do you imagine they're not shipping, Ted?
>
>> First of all, it looks to me like sawstops strategy has changed from the
>> initial concept. Now they have to build, market, and deliver a new,
>> better product against the will of corporate America. Is that supposed
>> to be a hanger? I don't think so...
>
> WTF is that supposed to mean? Hanger?

Hanger=duck, as in shooting a "duck" on the pool table...as in hanging on
the edge and all you have to do is will it and it falls...as in do you think
bringing sawstop to market is easy?

>
>>> If they can't get a workable product in 7 years, they either don't know
>>> what they're doing, or they're trying to do something impossible.
>>
>> If corporate America has it;s way, it is impossible.
>
> Riiiiiight, the man is hodin' me down, is that it? Whe doesn't da man
> hode down all the _other_ new tools then? Could it be that those,
> oh, I don't know, _work_?
>
>>> To whom, exactly? All I see on the website is a pre-order form, not a
>>> "shipping today" saw. Hand-assembled demo units are all well and good,
>>> but where's the beef?
>>
>> I'm putting my money on Sawstop...any takers?
>
> Sure. Escrow, of course? What terms?

I don't know, but I am sure we can work something out. What would you like
the terms to be?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:28:32 -0800, ted harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> In news:Dave Hinz <[email protected]> typed:
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:21:30 -0800, ted harris

>>> First of all, it looks to me like sawstops strategy has changed from the
>>> initial concept. Now they have to build, market, and deliver a new,
>>> better product against the will of corporate America. Is that supposed
>>> to be a hanger? I don't think so...
>>
>> WTF is that supposed to mean? Hanger?
>
> Hanger=duck, as in shooting a "duck" on the pool table...as in hanging on
> the edge and all you have to do is will it and it falls...as in do you think
> bringing sawstop to market is easy?

Apparently it isn't. I'm not sure that that speaks well for Sawstop,
either the technology or the manufacturability.

>>>> To whom, exactly? All I see on the website is a pre-order form, not a
>>>> "shipping today" saw. Hand-assembled demo units are all well and good,
>>>> but where's the beef?
>>>
>>> I'm putting my money on Sawstop...any takers?
>>
>> Sure. Escrow, of course? What terms?
>
> I don't know, but I am sure we can work something out. What would you like
> the terms to be?

We'll have to define a number of things, such as what "available", "shipping",
and "works" mean first, I suppose. how about a nice TS blade?

In news:Dave Hinz <[email protected]> typed:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:28:32 -0800, ted harris
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In news:Dave Hinz <[email protected]> typed:
>>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:21:30 -0800, ted harris
>
>>>> First of all, it looks to me like sawstops strategy has changed from
>>>> the initial concept. Now they have to build, market, and deliver a
>>>> new, better product against the will of corporate America. Is that
>>>> supposed to be a hanger? I don't think so...
>>>
>>> WTF is that supposed to mean? Hanger?
>>
>> Hanger=duck, as in shooting a "duck" on the pool table...as in hanging on
>> the edge and all you have to do is will it and it falls...as in do you
>> think bringing sawstop to market is easy?
>
> Apparently it isn't. I'm not sure that that speaks well for Sawstop,
> either the technology or the manufacturability.
>
>>>>> To whom, exactly? All I see on the website is a pre-order form, not a
>>>>> "shipping today" saw. Hand-assembled demo units are all well and
>>>>> good, but where's the beef?
>>>>
>>>> I'm putting my money on Sawstop...any takers?
>>>
>>> Sure. Escrow, of course? What terms?
>>
>> I don't know, but I am sure we can work something out. What would you
>> like the terms to be?
>
> We'll have to define a number of things, such as what "available",
> "shipping",
> and "works" mean first, I suppose. how about a nice TS blade?

Oops! Guess we are too late! LOLOLOL... Too bad, cause I coulda' used a
nice new saw blade.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

On 13 Dec 2004 16:48:06 GMT, Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I guess my point is this:
>
> 1) Some people are freakin' careless.
> 2) Some people are freakin' dumb as a post.

Cut enough fingers off and they'll stop driving too.

There _are_ people dumb enough
that opposable thumbs are wasted on them.

In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "ted harris" wrote:
[snip]
>>
>>> I wonder how
>>>many times Steve Gass had to borrow money to feed his family and keep the
>>>electricity on?
>>
>> My money is on "zero". The guy's a lawyer, for pete's sake, and the United
>> States isn't exactly overrun with starving lawyers.
>
>You might be surprised. I used to work with an engineer who had passed the
>bar--engineering paid better. [...] "passed the bar" != "well off financially".

And "engineering paid better" != "had to borrow money to feed his family and
keep the electricity on".

Which was my point, WRT ted harris's over-the-top bulls**t.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

If clear cutting is done correctly, it mimics the natural mosaic pattern that
fires create. I'm talking about natural fires in forests that do not have
too much fuel caused by years of over aggressive fire suppression. The
mosaic pattern gives new trees room to mature and also creates wildlife
habitat (for all the furry thing huggers out there!). Unfortunately, there
are many examples where improper clear cutting was done. The usual mosaic
pattern is on the order of a few or less acres in size, not hundreds of acres
that were clear cut in the past. Good forest management allows everyone
(tree huggers, loggers, hunters, animal lovers, etc.) to all benefit from the
same piece of land.

<soapbox mode off>

Grant



GregP wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:01:18 -0500, Hank Gillette
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Timber companies seem
> >to be pretty good about replanting trees these days, but there was a lot
> >of clear-cutting of forests in the past.
>
> Clear-cutting goes on. And I'd say it's more true that
> timber companies are pretty good at convincing people
> that they're replanting these days.

Greetings and Salutations...

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:37:43 GMT, "BobS" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Fred said......
>
>> The problem with this device is people becoming dependent on it and being
>careless, and then at a most inopportune moment, the device fails.
>
>Sorta like brakes on a vehicle then....?
>
No...actually more like the Automatic Braking System
included in many cars today.
It is a device which is added to the basic, perfectly workable
mechanism, which is designed to replace skill and ability on the part
of the driver with robotics.

>> After all, it is only an electromechanical device, and such devices have
>certainly been known to fail. It remains that the best safety device
>> ever invented is a clear mind and proper technique. And I realize that
>the SawStop has been thoroughly tested on hot dogs without failure, but
>> 1: That certainly doesn't mean that it won't fail. And I believe
>that they don't guarantee that it won't fail.
>> 2. When I want to cut up a hot dog I use a knife instead of my table
>saw anyway.
>
>I guess you then don't use the brakes on your vehicle.....?
>
I would not if I had to replace the wheels and tires on
the vehicle every time I hit them to the tune of several hundred
dollars.

>I believe a lot of the controversy on this subject was not so much the
>technicalities but that the company tried to have legislation introduced
>that would mandate this safety device. It would probably greatly minimize
>the potential damage done to skin and bone versus the number of failures it
>may experience but if you're the one it fails on - then you certainly
>wouldn't agree.
>
>Like brakes on a vehicle - they've been known to fail also.
>
>
>Bob S.
>
>
Yea...the end run that the company tried to make to FORCE us
to use this mechanism did not sit well with the consumers that would
be affected by it. However, I had issues with it beyond that, in
that I am part of the group that believes that it would bring an
illusion of safety, causing a decrease in attention and awareness
when using the tablesaw, and, therefore would actually increase the
likelihood that an accident would occur. The fact that the RESULTS
of that accident would be more painful to the wallet than to the
body is of little relevance to me, actually.
Beyond that, there are the issues of cost and reliability that
have yet to be answered in any serious fashion. I should note that
this device DOES have an override that will disable it for "special
cutting circumstances". Want to bet that some woodworkers would
find a way to turn it off permanently and...there is a good chance
that those are exactly the workers that would be taking chances,
working stupid, and, therefore more likely to get hurt? A friend
of mine has a drycleaning shop. The pants presser, which is a large
machine that calmps the pants between two, steam-heated platens to
press out the wrinkles, has a safety interlock requiring the user
to have their hands on separate switches, out of the way, before the
machine will close. The last time one of his workers got burned by
this bad boy (and having your hand clamped in this thing, with
the 250 degree temps and steam is NOT a happy thing), it turned
out that (against company policy) the worker had used some cardboard
to jam one of the safety switches, so they could just step on the
close pedal, while arranging the pants with one hand.
Assuming that this thing will work perfectly EVERY time,
no matter how old the saw is, or how it has been used, there have
been no real data presented on how often it will trigger at the
WRONG time. I suspect that the probability of it hitting a false
positive and destroying the blade will go up as the electronics
age...
The bottom line is that using a tablesaw is a dangerous
thing to do. I want myself and everyone that DOES use it to
maintain a cautious nervousness around it, and, not get lulled
into a false sense of security. That sense of security is
exactly what ends up with folks in trouble.
Regards
Dave Mundt

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, "ted harris"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
>>> ted harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:Hank Gillette <[email protected]> typed:
>>>>> I can understand and empathize with that feeling to a certain
>>>>> extent. I have a libertarian streak when it comes to things that
>>>>> are a personal choice and do not affect other people. The
>>>>> recreational drug laws in this country are (IMO)
>>>>> counter-productive and a restraint on personal freedom. They also
>>>>> benefit those companies that sell legal recreational drugs
>>>>> (alcohol and tobacco).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you implying that tobacco use does not affect other people?
>>>
>>> No, he's implying that if Marijuana was legal it would likely hurt
>>> tobacco sales and thus the tobacco companies have a vested interest
>>> in keeping it illegal. Please do try to follow the argument.
>>>
>>> I find it interesting that you single out tobacco use as 'affecting
>>> other people' but seem to ignore the effects of drunk driving.
>>
>>I find it abolutely unbelievable that you don't understand the SIMPLE
>>FACT that when you drink, it does not make everyone else around you
>>drunk!
>
> OTOH, fatal traffic accidents caused by drivers under the influence of
> tobacco are, as far as I know, extremely rare events.

Not too rare. Ever seen a driver drop a lit ciggie in his lap?

>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
>
>

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ahh, but does it take a hard shove of a finger or just a light touch? From
> the description of the sawstop, it just takes a light touch. With that in
> mind, it's not as unbelievably stupid as one would know they are only
> risking a slight piece of fleshy skin.

I guess with that in mind that is not as unbelievably stupid for a person to
point a loaded gun, with his finger on the trigger, at his foot as to look
down the barrel.

The better way to demonstrate the saw stop is to simply touch the "SIDE" of
the blade. The part with no teeth. ;~)

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:54:36 GMT, "patrick conroy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I had driven a lot of miles on ice and snow, and when my first vehicle with
>ABS showed up, I spent several hours in a empty parking lot retraining my
>foot to let the system do it's job.


I do something like that in the winter every time I get another
car: Buffalo requires a lot of slush & ice driving.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:44:22 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


>Mike be sure and give us blow by blow details about the saw when you get
>it, Please.

.....and we will all chip in amd pay for the new balde and repair of
the sawstop.

BTW. If the SS does go off, do you have to return the saw to SS to get
it repaired?
---
Only worry about the things you can control.

Then you have stuff all to worry about!

In article <[email protected]>, "ted harris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
>> ted harris wrote:
>>
>>> In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
>>>> Which was my point, WRT ted harris's over-the-top bulls**t.
>>>
>>> Have you ever started your own business from nothing more than an idea,
>>> that no one has ever done ever in the entire history of the world?
>>
>> Well, let's see, it took Steve Jobs less time to go from an idea to a
>> billion-dollar corporation than it has taken this guy to go from an idea
>> to an ad on web site. Maybe he should see if Jobs will consult <eg>.
>
>Steve Jobs had no one fighting him tootj and nail.

Neither does SawStop. The existing manufacturers declined to use that product;
that is not the same as "fighting tooth and nail" to prevent it coming to
market.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On 13 Dec 2004 15:12:19 -0800, "Mike S" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I got an e-mail from sawstop saying my cabinet saw is ready to be
>shipped to me. I put my name on the mailing list 2 yrs ago at IWF. So
>it looks as though there are actually starting production.


Would you post details about it ? I'm interested in it.

In article <[email protected]>, "ted harris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In news:Dave Hinz <[email protected]> typed:
><snip>
>> Public good is _not_ their motivation. That's fine, really it is, but
>> pretending it is is what gets me.
>
>You mean the way the manufacturers that won't use the technology?...
>
>I cannot believe the shit I am reading here...

Neither can I.

>Sawstop was apparently invented around 1998 or so. This guy and his
>employees have been fought around every corner for the last 7 yeays by
>skeptical woodworkers, and muscled by the manufacturers.

"Fought around every corner" by the woodworkers, and "muscled by the
manufacturers"? That's a bit over the top, don't you think? How, exactly, does
declining to purchase a product that doesn't exist constitute "fighting"? How,
exactly, does declining to license any particular technology constitute
"muscling"? It's not like the manufacturers of other table saws tried to
prevent SawStop from coming to market; all they did was say "no thanks".

>Looks to me like
>he has devoted his life to getting this thing going.

Looks more like he has devoted his life to making a buck. Nothing wrong with
that, of course, but he's not exactly a philanthropist.

>Now, after almost a
>decade of rejection, sawstop is delivering saws as we speak.

Name one person, just *one*, who actually has one in his shop. I may have
missed it, but I haven't seen any evidence so far that they have yet shipped
any product to customers.

> I wonder how
>many times Steve Gass had to borrow money to feed his family and keep the
>electricity on?

My money is on "zero". The guy's a lawyer, for pete's sake, and the United
States isn't exactly overrun with starving lawyers.

>I'll be that even now he is in debt up to his eyeballs.

You probably lose that bet too.

>He believes in this technology so much that he stuck his finger in it twice.

Granted...

>Someday, all you naysayers and the rest of the world will view this
>technology as one of the most important advances in rotational cutting
>safety.

Keeping my fingers away from the freakin' blade is enough rotational cutting
safety to keep me happy.

>Enough of your ridiculous conspiracy theories!

What "ridiculous conspiracy theories" are you referring to? I mean, besides
"fought around every corner... by skeptical woodworkers" and "muscled by the
manufacturers."

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Dave Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Sawstop may be like brakes and airbags in some respects, but I have
> not seen airbags that cost more than an entry level car. The SawStop
> would eliminate entry level tablesaws completely as you can't add it to
> a $200 benchtop. Even if you could somehow manage to fit this thing
> into an entry level saw, the base price would have to double or triple
> and the cost of it going off would be more than the pre-SawStop cost of
> the saw. Incremental safety equipment additions to cars and such have
> certainly added to the cost of such items substantially, but they have
> not doubled or tripled the entry level price. The cost of an airbag
> replacement hasn't yet reached the cost of the rest of the car.
> Dave Hall
>

There's no reason it has to add that kind of cost to a table saw. There's
nothing in it that costs that much. Granted, it's a capitalist world and
the owner of the idea is entitled to charge what the market will bear, but
there's no reason for it to double or triple the cost of a low end saw.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"ted harris" <[email protected]> writes:
>In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
>> ted harris wrote:

>>> Are you implying that tobacco use does not affect other people?
>>
>> No, he's implying that if Marijuana was legal it would likely hurt tobacco
>> sales and thus the tobacco companies have a vested interest in keeping it
>> illegal. Please do try to follow the argument.
>>
>> I find it interesting that you single out tobacco use as 'affecting other
>> people' but seem to ignore the effects of drunk driving.
>
>I find it abolutely unbelievable that you don't understand the SIMPLE FACT
>that when you drink, it does not make everyone else around you drunk!

And it is a SIMPLE FACT that if you smoke (by yourself, in your car, home
or workplace) you are only affecting yourself. Again, your analogy
falls down.

scott

(Of course, if you're drunk, and kill someone in a car wreck, you are
affecting someone else, true?)

"patrick conroy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:i7r392-
>
> Not to jump into the middle of this arg - but IIRC, one of the rags (C&D
> and
> R&T) had some fun here. They had run across some Driving School where the
> instruction was to "lock 'em up and lock 'em up hard." I think they
> brought
> in some "semi-pro" drivers and tried to see who could stop shorter with
> the
> most control. A pro who put the foot down to the limit of locking, or an
> amature who just stomped on the pedal.
>
> The conditions were dry - and the locked up brakes consistently stopped
> shorter.

I have never known or thought a car with ABS would stop shorter and I have
the background for working in the automotive industry for 23 years. It
simply helps you maintain control of the vehicle particularly when on an
inconsistent or slick surface. I have never really heard that ABS makes a
car stop shorter.

"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>A good and fair question - but to me the dangers of this device far exceed
>this question. The problem with this device is people becoming dependent
>on it and being careless, and then at a most inopportune moment, the device
>fails.

I would think for the other 95% of the population that may use a SawStop
that the fear of a blade spinning at 3500+ RPM may still be the number 1
reason not to become careless. I am one of those people that does not look
down the barrel of a gun because it has a safety unless I have removed the
shell and am cleaning the gun.

GregP <[email protected]> writes:
>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:01:18 -0500, Hank Gillette
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Timber companies seem
>>to be pretty good about replanting trees these days, but there was a lot
>>of clear-cutting of forests in the past.
>
>
> Clear-cutting goes on. And I'd say it's more true that
> timber companies are pretty good at convincing people
> that they're replanting these days.
>

And you base your opinion on what data, exactly?

scott

"Mike S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >From my conversations with the rep at IWF 2002....
>
> cost of cartridge was about $80 and replacing it was a DIY project of
> very short duration. (they could do it in a few minutes - they did a
> demo every hour on the same saw). Sawblades were said to not be
> destroyed - maybe loose a couple of carbide teeth. If it were to
> happen with my WWII, then I would hang it on the wall as a reminder and
> gladly shell out for a new one. (now if it was a misfire, then it
> would be a different story)

Certainly $200 for a new cartridge and blade is EXTREMELY cheap insurance to
guard against a "serious" injury. You or your employeer pay way more than
that monthly for health insurance.

>
> Since my day job invloves keeping people asleep while the hand surgeons
> try to sew fingers back on, I can easily justify this device for my
> shop. About once a week I see someone cut off fingers. (My worst week
> ever I personally took care of 8 severe hand injuries in 5 days) If
> you think a couple hundred dollars is too much for this product, and
> that $80 for a cartridge is out of line, then you would really be
> shocked at the hospital bill if you ever have the misfortune to have a
> bad accident and you and your fingers go to the hospital in different
> vehicles. My insurance.... $150 for the ambulance ride, $150 ER
> copay, surgery would be free, $40 copay for each specialist, each visit
> (think of a couple of months of physical therapy @ $40 a pop), $25 for
> each prescription; then add in a pain factor, loss of wages, loss of
> use, and the 20% copay that I almost forgot about for several days in
> the hospital. Sawstop is pretty cheap insurance after all (IMHO -
> YMMV).

Exactly. And the scary part is that the people that believe that proper use
of your brain is going to prevent these kind of accidents are the ones that
probably need the Saw Stop the most. There are countless ways to be
seriousely injured with a TS while "not" cutting wood and IMHO that is when
your mental guard will be less effective.

Fred said......

> The problem with this device is people becoming dependent on it and being
careless, and then at a most inopportune moment, the device fails.

Sorta like brakes on a vehicle then....?

> After all, it is only an electromechanical device, and such devices have
certainly been known to fail. It remains that the best safety device
> ever invented is a clear mind and proper technique. And I realize that
the SawStop has been thoroughly tested on hot dogs without failure, but
> 1: That certainly doesn't mean that it won't fail. And I believe
that they don't guarantee that it won't fail.
> 2. When I want to cut up a hot dog I use a knife instead of my table
saw anyway.

I guess you then don't use the brakes on your vehicle.....?

I believe a lot of the controversy on this subject was not so much the
technicalities but that the company tried to have legislation introduced
that would mandate this safety device. It would probably greatly minimize
the potential damage done to skin and bone versus the number of failures it
may experience but if you're the one it fails on - then you certainly
wouldn't agree.

Like brakes on a vehicle - they've been known to fail also.


Bob S.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > The inventor of the SawStop actually tested it with his own finger. He
> > said that despite his confidence in the product it was unbelieveably
> > hard to force his finger into the spinning saw blade.
> >
> Despite his confidence in his product, it was an unbelievably stupid thing
> to do.

Ahh, but does it take a hard shove of a finger or just a light touch? From
the description of the sawstop, it just takes a light touch. With that in
mind, it's not as unbelievably stupid as one would know they are only
risking a slight piece of fleshy skin.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:5eCvd.32213
>
> The better way to demonstrate the saw stop is to simply touch the "SIDE"
of
> the blade. The part with no teeth. ;~)

No argument there, but then the demonstration wouldn't have near as much
sales impact and that's the whole purpose by doing it, isn't it?

Hell, if I could float a business advertising campaign by slicing a little
chunk of skin from a finger while recording it for posterity with an on
camera record, then call me crazy, but I'd probably do it. Just don't ask me
to do it repeatedly. :)

From what I've heard of the SS, that might be risky. Doesn't the blade
drop under the table at the same time it stops? If that's true, you
could get cut from the edge of a tooth as it's on it's way down.

David

Leon wrote:

> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Ahh, but does it take a hard shove of a finger or just a light touch? From
>>the description of the sawstop, it just takes a light touch. With that in
>>mind, it's not as unbelievably stupid as one would know they are only
>>risking a slight piece of fleshy skin.
>
>
> I guess with that in mind that is not as unbelievably stupid for a person to
> point a loaded gun, with his finger on the trigger, at his foot as to look
> down the barrel.
>
> The better way to demonstrate the saw stop is to simply touch the "SIDE" of
> the blade. The part with no teeth. ;~)
>
>

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Those "cures" require a tremendous amount of cutting edge research and
> then
> elaborate clinical trials and an extensive government approval process.

No actually many do not. Many are widely available in other countries.
The government slows this process down. I could never figure how the FDA
can claim that it is protecting us from buying the same drug in Canada that
we buy in the U.S.

>> Some
>> things simply take years to develop, some things take a blink of an eye.
>
> So, you admit that the Sawstop is so flawed that it is going to take years
> of research to make it work adequately if in fact it can be made to do so?
> If not, then what _are_ you suggesting?

Nope that is what you said. I made no such statement. I simply think that
some things take longer to bring to market because of lack of funds to speed
the process or the government impedes the progress.

My contractor saw has been on order for a year now. The latest extimate is
March 2005.

David Wilhite

"Mike S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I saw a Sawstop demo in person 2 yrs ago. From what I remember the rep
> saying.... the blade is stopped within 2 or 3 teeth on a blade.
> Stopping the blade so fast takes a lot of energy and dropping the blade
> helps absorb some of the energy.
>
> I got an e-mail from sawstop saying my cabinet saw is ready to be
> shipped to me. I put my name on the mailing list 2 yrs ago at IWF. So
> it looks as though there are actually starting production.
>
> Mike
>
>

"GregP" wrote in message
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:48:32 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:
>
> >>
> >> How much is the maunfacturer's per-unit liability insurance ?
> >
> >How many units?
>
>
> 30,000

Sawstop? ... you're dreaming.

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

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bought _what_? Microsoft owns neither Commodore nor Apple so what the
> Hell
> are you talking about?

Ok, the giant bail out. Apple would probably be gone had Microoft not
dumped millions into Apple.
>
>> Gone. Apple did fine until it had competition.
>
> Apple had competition on the day that they sold their first machine.
> Intel-based S-100 micros were already well established in the
> market--Apple
> with their 6502 was fighting the trend. Successfully. Wasn't until IBM
> came in that Apple ran into a serious competitor, but they've managed to
> maintain market share right along.

No they lost market share. Their share is squat compared to what it was
before the PC came along.

>> Steve Jobs fallacy was
>> his
>> insisting that Apple manufacture everything including the software. It
>> was simply out paced by the enormous number of other choices.
>
> Apple still manufactures everything including much of the software. Seems
> that that strategy actually worked pretty well.

No, there is now hardware and software available for an Apple not produced
by Apple.

In article <[email protected]>, "ted harris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
>> ted harris wrote:
>>
>>> In news:Hank Gillette <[email protected]> typed:
>>>> I can understand and empathize with that feeling to a certain extent. I
>>>> have a libertarian streak when it comes to things that are a personal
>>>> choice and do not affect other people. The recreational drug laws in
>>>> this country are (IMO) counter-productive and a restraint on personal
>>>> freedom. They also benefit those companies that sell legal recreational
>>>> drugs (alcohol and tobacco).
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you implying that tobacco use does not affect other people?
>>
>> No, he's implying that if Marijuana was legal it would likely hurt tobacco
>> sales and thus the tobacco companies have a vested interest in keeping it
>> illegal. Please do try to follow the argument.
>>
>> I find it interesting that you single out tobacco use as 'affecting other
>> people' but seem to ignore the effects of drunk driving.
>
>I find it abolutely unbelievable that you don't understand the SIMPLE FACT
>that when you drink, it does not make everyone else around you drunk!

OTOH, fatal traffic accidents caused by drivers under the influence of tobacco
are, as far as I know, extremely rare events.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I would think that the blade would stop before the saw drops. However, the
> act of dropping could be a problem in itself. Suppose you slip and your
> hand
> goes onto the blade. Thank god the saw blade witll stop spinning
> (perhaps),
> but then the blade starts to drop and pulls down. Trapping your little
> pinky
> between the tooth of the frozen blade. Suddenly you regret that you made
> that nifty zero clearance plate....

In that event even if the saw is off and the blade not turning at all you
are going to get cut. The stationary blade is not going to pull you in as
it drops, it is simply going to cut, not snag and pull.

"ted harris" <[email protected]> writes:
>In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
>> ted harris wrote:
>>
>>> In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
>>>> Which was my point, WRT ted harris's over-the-top bulls**t.
>>>
>>> Have you ever started your own business from nothing more than an idea,
>>> that no one has ever done ever in the entire history of the world?
>>
>> Well, let's see, it took Steve Jobs less time to go from an idea to a
>> billion-dollar corporation than it has taken this guy to go from an idea
>> to an ad on web site. Maybe he should see if Jobs will consult <eg>.
>
>Steve Jobs had no one fighting him tootj and nail. I'd like to see someone
>try to do what he has done today, in a developed computer world. Your
>argumnent is quite simply not apples to apples...

Shall we talk about Dell, or Compaq? Or Extreme Networks and Brocade?

Or Egenera? Fabric 7?

all examples of companies starting in the face of entrenched competitors
but with differentiated product. Most would argue that they were and
are successful at it.

scott

In article <4hMwd.260$1U6.105@trnddc09>, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

>>
>> OTOH, fatal traffic accidents caused by drivers under the influence of
>> tobacco are, as far as I know, extremely rare events.
>
>Not too rare. Ever seen a driver drop a lit ciggie in his lap?

I'm aware of such incidents. But I'm sure you're not contending that they are
anywhere near as common as PI or fatality crashes caused by drunks.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

> In article <4hMwd.260$1U6.105@trnddc09>, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>>>
>>> OTOH, fatal traffic accidents caused by drivers under the influence
>>> of tobacco are, as far as I know, extremely rare events.
>>
>>Not too rare. Ever seen a driver drop a lit ciggie in his lap?
>
> I'm aware of such incidents. But I'm sure you're not contending that
> they are anywhere near as common as PI or fatality crashes caused by
> drunks.

Nor cell phone users, newspaper readers, breakfast eaters, or hairdo
artistes. All of whom I've seen doing 70 or better on freeways.

>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
>
>

"Charles Spitzer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> and a whole bunch of (usually) kids killed by them.


Well a lot of kids but in reality more kids are saved than with out the air
bags. With out air bags more kids would be killed. Even the Flu shot kills
some people.

A good and fair question - but to me the dangers of this device far exceed
this question. The problem with this device is people becoming dependent on
it and being careless, and then at a most inopportune moment, the device
fails. After all, it is only an electromechanical device, and such devices
have certainly been known to fail. It remains that the best safety device
ever invented is a clear mind and proper technique. And I realize that the
SawStop has been thoroughly tested on hot dogs without failure, but
1: That certainly doesn't mean that it won't fail. And I believe that
they don't guarantee that it won't fail.
2. When I want to cut up a hot dog I use a knife instead of my table
saw anyway.

Regards,
Fred

"Peter Wells" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The review of the Sawstop system in the latest issue of FWW contains
> the following: "The braking mechanism springs an aluminum cartridge
> into the path of the blade as the whole blade assembly drops below the
> surface of the tabletop, out of harm's way".
>
> If the blade drops below the tabletop, what's the point of stopping it
> ? If it doesn't drop quickly enough to be safe, why drop it at all ?
>
>
> only one p in my real address / un seul p dans ma véritable adresse