Mike Marlow wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:


If you want to trust your personal safety to guesswork be my guest.

I never suggested or stated that I was anxious to trust my safety to
anything outside of myself. In fact, I state exactly otherwise.


Maybe not preventing all serious injury, but quite possibly
reducing the amount of injury.

Or possibly making it more severe as the blade drops below the table with
the clothing entangled?

Perhaps. Like I said, or more accurately, as my position implies, I don't
know, but I'm willing to consider it and to watch for the evidence rather
than demean it absent that evidence.


But then again - they don't claim that it
will prevent serious injury from loose clothing being drawn in.

You're the one who brought that up as a possible scenario.

Yes, but what does that matter? I was speaking to the accuracy of their
claims as objected to by you. Or perhaps as questioned by you.


How fast is one's hand moving while "reaching across the table for a
cutoff"?

Generally, pretty slowly. Somewhere around the speed that it feeds at.
Again - how would the speed of a person's hand be in conflict with what
they are offering?

They state it stops the saw in a certain time--not "instantly" but in a 5
milliseconds. One's hand moves a certain distance in 5 milliseconds. If
it
moves far enough then one loses a finger before the saw stops. I'd have
a lot more confidence in it if it stopped the blade in 50
microseconds--even a major league pitcher or a martial arts expert (both
of whom can move their hands unusually fast) _trying_ to cut himself
wouldn't be able to
get
more than 1/8 inch or so into the blade in that time, but at 5 ms one can
lose a finger at remarkably low speeds.

Yes, they can. As well, they can incur only very minor injuries. The
argument works both ways.

If you are going to rely on slowness of movement for safety then there is no
need for the Sawstop at all. If you move your hand into the blade slowly
enough then you can stop at exactly the same point at which the hot dog is
stopped in the demonstrations.

My only point in entering this discussion was
to point out that they only claimed very specific benefits and the
discussion prior to that was that they weren't meeting other standards of
protection, even though they never claimed to.

And this is not about their claims, it is about the efficacy of their
device.

What one believes and what is true are not always the same.

Quite true, but do you have any more evidence than I do which would
suggest that my beliefs are incorrect?

I don't really care what you personally believe.

Then why throw the comment on the floor that you did? OK... I'm guilty of
a little rhetoric from time to time myself.

Huh? I don't recall stating in any post that I cared the slightest iota
what you thought about the Sawstop. In fact even if I had, your attitude
is making me care less and less.

Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's not.
They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact. Even
if
that type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not an
advertising
error.

Nobody has claimed that it is "an advertising error".

Actually, I took those three words directly from a preceeding post, so
somebody did indeed suggest that.

Well then take it up with them.

I believe I did.

Then why did you take it up with me?

They want me to give
them my money and put up with their potentially annoying and
inconvenient
gadget in order to be more safe. It's their job to answer my
objections.
If they best they can do is "maybe that kind of accident is rare but
we don't really know" then they're not doing so effectively.

What they do want, that I think we both vehamently disagree with is to
force
their proprietary technology on all new saws. In that, I agree with
your
objections, but for a different reason. I object in the name of not
needing a nanny to decide what safety devices I need to have -
especially
when that nanny is the one who stands to benefit soley if such a
requirement came to
be. That said, the claims that they have put on the table seem to be
valid
claims. They haven't claimed to address all forms of accident, only
certain forms.

Do those "certain forms" need to be addressed more urgently than other
forms?

Not unless they're trying to be all things to all people - and they are
not. They are very specifically attempting to address one common form of
injury.

Are they? Is the "form of injury" that they "address" in fact "common"? Or
is that just your uninformed opinion?

It's easy to overlook that and to assign bigger and more
encompassing objectives for them, but the error in that is that neither
you nor I work for them and we don't have the luxury of defining what the
objective of their product is.

If you don't work for them then why are you working so hard at defending
them?

It's really quite simple. The product seems to do a
certain thing that they claim it will do. What it does not do outside of
that scope is irrelevant. Seat belts hold you in place during a sudden
stop. Are they at all worthwhile?

I'm sorry, but you are once again going off on a tangent by assuming without
any proof whatsoever that the circumstance in which the Sawstop is
effective is one that occurs commonly enough to be a matter of concern.

Are there times when they do not
prevent
an injury or even lessen an injury? Do they prevent all other injuries
that
can occur in a car? No. That does not make the use of seatbelts a waste
of
time. All it does is define their application and their benefit.
Remember - the concept is not to eliminate injury, it's to reduce injury.
If sawstop works as it appears to, then it will have accomplished that
objective in the same manner as seat belts contribute to reduced injuries
in cars.

So how many injuries will it "reduce"? Do you have a number? Or just more
hot air?

I'm sorry, but it's clear that you are more concerned with truth in
advertising than with safety. Which is what I expect from an incompetent
salesman who would rather spend time arguing with strangers on the Internet
than serviceing his paying customers. That being the case it is abundantly
clear that you have nothing to say that is worth my time to listen to.
G'day.


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