In news:Tim Douglass typed:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:30:13 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:
Actually, Steve Gass of sawstop stated in a post on Sawmill Creek that
"People regularly push three fingers right through the blade before they
can flinch. Human reaction time is about 25-50 times slower than SawStop,
so even if you are going fast, the accident will likely be far less
significant with SawStop than without it."
I am quite sure that if you email him, he will be glad to support any
statement he has made with research, links, proof, etc.

It's a bit misleading, in that he totally ignores all the injuries
that don't involve pushing fingers through the blade. By far the
majority of table saw accidents involving contact with the spinning
blade (the only ones that matter for SS) do *not* involve amputation.
My guess (based on experience of people I know) is that the majority
don't even make it to the doctor or e-room.

Plenty of the other injuries you refer to as the ones that don't matter
would be far less serious as demonstrated in the videos on the sawstop
website.

I think that there is some sort of fundamental design issue with SS.
It relies on stopping the blade by interacting with the blade and
drops the blade below the table as a backup. I suspect it would be
quite easy to make a device that uses a similar detection methodology
that employs spring loaded trunnions that will snap the entire
trunnion assembly down into the saw at a touch. If properly designed
it should be easy to make it resettable and the design would then tend
to "fail safe", that is, if the system won't work the blade can't be
locked into the "up" position.

SawStop may be a good product, but I think there are a lot of other
ways to try to solve the problem.

Well then, where is your invention and patent? ..or are you just offering
lip service here...

Because SS holds the patent on using
induction (?) or whatever to detect contact with the blade they have
the industry in a stranglehold. A year or so ago it seems that one of
the saw manufacturers said they were interested in the detection
technology, but wanted to develop their own blade stopping system. SS,
at that time, would only license the right to install SS, not to
develop a different system based on part of the SS patent.

Another perfect example of why the manufacturers greed rules how evolution
of innovation goes. Poor poor manufacturer got beat to the punch. Guess
they were just too busy stufing their pockets with money to worry about
whether or Harry homeowner keeps his fingers or not...what a joke!

Personally, I do not think that SS is likely the best way to solve
this problem, but I'm afraid that they have sewed things up in such a
way that they are probably going to be the only game in town. If SS
becomes mandatory (especially the way their SPSC petition was written)
it could well be illegal to try to do something else, effectively
stifling innovation. Look at the emissions controls on today's cars
for examples of how legislation can destroy innovation and lock us
into second-best solutions.
Tim Douglass

I don't think it's sawstop that is stifling innovation. In fact, it's the
manufacturers that are stifling it, by not even offering up the idea of
stopping the blade prior to sawstops invention. Oh, how I weep for the
billion dollar machinery industry! LOLOLOL...
The idea of legislating manufacturers into advancement is not such a bad
concept, especially considering that most all of the choices they make are
about appearing to be concerned about safety, while not accomodating an
operable safety system because they did not come up with it first. Maybe
someone else is goign to make a score this time. I personally hope the
little guy wins this one.
Ever since the industrial revolution began, the manufacturers have exploited
the common man. Now the common man has smartened up a bit, andis using the
laws to get better protection. I see nothing wrong with that at all...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com