On Dec 15, 9:40*am, Smitty Two wrote:
*"Existential Angst" wrote:

Next, when you grok the difference between a "conventional cut" and a "climb
cut", post back -- maybe then we can have an intelligent conversation.

Something you clearly don't, EA. Those terms apply to end mills when
using the side of the cutter. Applied to a circular saw blade, they're
just meaningless technobabble used to weakly obfuscate your ignorance.

He's just trolling without knowing he's a troll. It happens. His
blind spot is in believing that he has information instead of going to
look for it. If he'd said that the Dual Saw looks like a piece of
crap and asked for input he might have gotten something out of the
thread, and I probably would have agreed with him and pointed out the
disconcerting number of people who report burning the motor out in
short order. Instead he extrapolates to a universal to form his
opinion, makes outlandish and erroneous claims, and deftly
demonstrates that he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.

There's really nothing new about the technology. I don't recall who
said that they didn't see the counter rotating blade technology used
in rescue operations, and that if they were, they couldn't be corded,
but...
http://www.weber.de/wr/en/rettungsge...e-2326-set.php
and for the ICE crowd.
http://www.weber.de/wr/en/rettungsge...f-4030-set.php

Someone who had seen the Dual Saw infomercial might have recalled that
the 'inventor' was a Euro firefighter. The odds of him having seen
something similar to the Dual Saw on the job were pretty good, and
saying "patented technology" doesn't mean the whole tool is patented.
Maybe the guy's contribution was to patent an affordable modification
that allowed the expensive tool to be mass-produced for the consumer
market.

In any event, the OP didn't bother to look, clearly doesn't understand
basic vector physics, and spouts off about something he's never
touched. The old saying "throwing the baby out with the bath water"
seems to be the OP's standard operating procedure.

R