Robert Bonomi wrote:

In article ,
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:

...
The downside to the Sawstop is the _cost_ of an activation. measured both
in time and money, it is non-trivial. circa $80, as I recall, for the
'replacement' cartridge, *plus* whatever damage is done to the blade.

Which would undoubtedly be considerably extended in medical costs and
likely in missed work time, irregardless whether the woodworking is
professional or hobby....

That assumes that the triggering _did_ prevent an accident. grin

In that scenario, yes, obviously that was intended.

Yes, in the case of an _actual_ accident prevention, the expense is
"cheap at {bigmultiple} the price".

In the case of a 'false alarm', it is a totally _unnecessary_ expense.

The trick is differentiating the two cases -- maximizing the former,
and minimizing the latter.

The manufacturer concentrates almost exclusively on the first situation,
and (apparently) totally ignores the latter one.
....

You have shown no evidence to support that claim other than your
hypothesis. I have just as strong evidence (my belief and experience in
product engineering/development) that Type II error would certainly have
been considered by the manufacturer.

....snip stuff on purported difficulties in testing....

While it is true that not every conceivable action can be explicitly
tested, it is certainly possible to analyze and test against quite broad
classes of likely operational and mal-operational conditions. If
exhaustive testing of every possibility were required to make any
product, no products of any complexity would exist, so such claims that
such is required before release of this particular product are simply
specious.