"Todd the wood junkie" wrote in message
oups.com...

There is a very big difference between a demonstration where you have a
scripted and controlled environment, and rigorous, scientific testing
where you explore every possible condition of using the product. I'll
bet that the inventor does the demo exactly the same way every time.
I'd like to see if he would be willing to try the demo differently each
time that simulates all the possible and varied ways people would use
the sawstop. There are different styles, body types, skin types, etc..
How does a pacemaker affect the product? What about if you are
standing in a puddle of water or grease? I'm not an electrical
engineer, but I understand that a product that is claiming to do what
this does better be completely tested.


Yes, there is a difference between a canned demo and an exhaustive
evaluation, but go look at what the claims are by the manufacturer. Read
the FAQ - it clearly states conditions which can overwhelm the capabilities
of the device and result in serious injury. It does not claim to address
every possible condition. It attempts to deliver incremental gain.

This whole thing was beaten up badly a few months ago in threads on this
group. There was a big division between advocates and those with
philosophical problems with the whole thing. Most of the issues really came
down to a lot of us not caring for the heavy handed approach the patent
holders took, in attempt to legislate the use of their product on all saws.
There really was not a lot of objection to the concept of the device in
principle.

As far as standing in a puddle of water, or grease or anything else - those
don't change the electrical capacitance of the human body, which is the
electrical principle that the device works under.

Remember - the product does not suggest it can completely eliminate
injuries. It attempts to address a common form of injury, and bring a
measure of lessened risk. It clearly states that it can be overwhelmed by
certain conditions.

The most annoying aspect of the discussions that took place here in the past
were the arguments that went off on all sorts of assumptions and false
pretenses, and wandered away from the expressed intent of the device.

Whether it's worth the price is up to the individual - for what it's worth,
in my opinion, it's not worth what they get for it, all things considered.
It is a worthwhile effort to examine and to question manufacturer's claims,
but when doing so it's also worthwhile to take a look at what their claims
are, and what they are publishing before throwing the questions on the
floor.

--

-Mike-