On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 10:22:53 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:

What am I missing?

The proposed ruling is only for demo purposes, not actual use, NO?

What was written,

The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger (a hot dog is commonly
used) contacts the spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second..

I think the author missed the point, I read this as a guide line for
demonstration purposes only.

Once again, **** poor writing and expression are at fault. When I read what you post, I re-read the article posted as appearing in Fine Homebuilding once more. I can easily see how it could be read that the proposal is for demonstration purposes only.

But reading the draft of the proposed regulation, it is obvious that the hot dog method is used as a base line testing mechanism, /simulating/ a finger or other human flesh contact. Fine Homebuilding's sloppy ambiguity is just laziness.

However, all should read the reference to the proposed regulation as supplied by J. Clarke. It is comprehensive, considered, well written and seems to cover all aspects of the arguments for and against.

It discusses the notorious Mr. Gass, the length of time on his remaining patents, Bosch and the Axis solution, the lack of competition for this technology, the effects of requiring such technology, and its effect on the table saw market. It addresses Gass' lawsuit against Bosch, unfair advantage within the marketplace since there is actually only one undisputed device that performs a blade stopping action, and even the idea that installing these devices could make the average table saw user more sloppy in his safety practices. And much, much more.

To the point, further explanation within the body of the proposed regulation clearly (to me) spells out the hot dog as the universal test medium used to determine effectiveness. As for the article in the magazine, it was probably put together by the National Enquirer staff.

Robert