On Dec 4, 4:03*pm, dpb wrote:
On 12/4/2012 1:36 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Dec 4, 9:38 am, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet *wrote:

...

The only people complaining about the perceived SawStop problems are
those that are uneducated on the product.

That's what I thought and that's why I asked.

However, something you said needs some clarification, at least to me.

You said: *"That said if you are having false trips it may very well
be likely that you are doing something wrong and probably the perfect
candidate for a SawStop, you are probably going to benefit from it."

What could a user be doing that would cause "false trips"? If there
are no documented false trip issues, then wouldn't any trips caused by
someone doing something wrong actually be *real*?

Theoretically, one could get close enough to the blade to trigger it w/o
actually touching it. *That scenario is mentioned in the patent
background since the detection circuit is capacitively coupled there
doesn't have to be actual contact if the disturbance of the capacitance
field is sufficient the actuator logic will think "something's bad" and
trigger.

That close would have to be a tiny fraction of an inch,
so close that you're almost touching it. In which case,
I would not call that a false trip because there isn't any
valid reason to be that close to the blade.