On 5/24/2017 5:32 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 4:24:10 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
On 5/24/2017 3:12 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote:
...

Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
place of a human finger.


Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
story. And or not proofing before publishing.

From the CPSC document directly one finds:

"Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance standard
such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth of cut to
3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body/finger,
contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."


The FHB blurb is

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

Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is
identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being
out-of-depth for the audience... and threw in the hotdog; it doesn't
show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a "test probe".



Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.


Maybe I'm missing something but I took the words "depth of cut" to be the depth of
cut on the surrogate finger before the blade stops. 3.5mm is only 0.138". That's not
even a tooth above the table.

Maybe one of us is.

"Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance standard
such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth of cut to
3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body/finger,
contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s.


This specifically states that the limit of the cut must be limited to
3.5mm WHEN A TEST PROBE, ACTING AS A SURROGATE contacts the spinning blade.


The way you see it which is contrary to what was actually stated does
make much much much more sense than the way I see it and how it was
actually written.

Most likely what they meant to say was what you said, although it did
not say that. LOL

I seriously thought that the power hungry committees wanted to regulate
how any and all saws must be capable of being used for demonstrations
vs. actually being used.

They should have said that the blade can not cut more than 3.5mm into
the operator during normal use.