Bruce Barnett wrote:

"xrongor" writes:

im not trying to compare anything. J Clarke claims its vaporware
and doesnt work. i'd like to see his evidence and offered up a
suggestion as to what credible evidence might be.

Sounds like someone trying to prove a negative assuption.
Compare this to

X claims that the Tooth Fairy its vaporware and doesnt exist.
i'd like to see his evidence.

Can't be done.
It's hard to prove a negative assertion. That's why people are arguing
the opposite.

Assertion: Sawstop is a real product.
Proof: Find one case where someone bought it and owns it.

If it's been 4 years, and one has not been sold, then there is some
design issue that has not been solved. Heck, they could buy a COTS
saw, add the device, and re-sell it. Where is it?

I suspect one of the issues is making sure the legal claims are accurate.
Lawyers tend to be pessimistic about things like that.


Let's see - false positive - it stops when you don't want it to.
False negative - it doesn't stop, and amputates a finger/hand. At
least one of these is causing a problem. Or as someone suggested, each
"stop" costs money to replace something. The FAQ says the arbor is
disengaged. This doesn't sound like a "single-use" mechanism. I'd love
to learn more about this...

Go to http://www.sawstop.com/features.htm and move the mouse pointer over
"cartridge system" and you'll find their statement that "The system's brake
is housed in a cartridge that is easily replaced should the system ever be
triggered. These replaceable cartridges enable the system to be quickly
adapted for use with different sizes and types of saw blades. " I believe
that the disengaging arbor is intended to avoid damaging the motor. Now
though I'm wondering about this worm gear they mention. I'm having trouble
visualizing how that works and they don't show the mechanism clearly enough
in their pictures for me to be able to figure it out.





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