On 12/14/2005 4:34 PM Leon mumbled something about the following:
"Bob S" wrote in message
...
Wow... 3 misfires, 3 cartridges and 3 new blades - that's starting to get
expensive.

Bob S.


No kidding and hopefully Joe is correct in his observation of the misfire.
Do you remember back in the 60's when certain people could not wear wrist
watches as the watch would not keep correct time but did just fine on some
else's wrist? Or was that an Urban Legend? Anyway I wonder if it is
possible for some one to carry enough static electricity that he may set the
cartridge off by discharge?



Not urban legend. I screw up watches when I wear them. I did actually
purchase a $19 Timex in 98 that kept perfect time for 5 years until I
had to replace the battery. It never kept time after than (tried 3
different batteries).

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:37:45 -0500, alexy wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Imagine my surprise. I wonder if anyone in this group tried to point
out the obvious design problems before they went to production.

Is that what is behind the vehemence of the anti sawstop feeling of a
few here?

In part, yes.

I think sawstop is a cool idea if:
1) it (or a future refinement of it) proves itself not to have
problems like the OP was citing,

Yup. Lots of variables in relying on electrical means to determine if
flesh is in contact with the blade, and wood and flesh aren't all that
different, sometimes.

2) the cost of the feature comes down, and
3) big brother doesn't suddenly get the idea of protecting me from
myself by requiring such technology.

That's the biggest problem I see with their approach. They started out
with their regulatory approach rather than making a good product that
works well.

If there were design problems some folks pointed out, I'd have to ask
if those pointing out the problems were arm-chair engineers, or folks
who really understood the technology very well.

In my case, I've designed and implemented commercial systems using
electrical current measurements to determine the positions of materials,
so I'd say I'm a bit beyond "armchair" on the topic. The problems
inherent in the situation are immense, not the least of which being
leakage current issues...in a difficult environement...

Even if the latter, is
it just bruised egos of having the advice ignored that is causing this
reaction, or is there something more that might explain such a strong
reaction?

Well, Leon or whatever his name is, isn't the easiest person to talk to,
which never helps when trying to shill for a product.

I don't own a saw stop, nor will I in the foreseeable future. I just
want to show some appreciation for all you 'beta' testers out there
helping to mature the technology. I think it's a great idea, and if it
can be proven to not misfire 99.9999 percent of the time, I would
certainly get one on my next table saw, 100 years from now.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:34:07 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Bob S" wrote in message
. ..
Wow... 3 misfires, 3 cartridges and 3 new blades - that's starting to get
expensive.

Bob S.


No kidding and hopefully Joe is correct in his observation of the misfire.
Do you remember back in the 60's when certain people could not wear wrist
watches as the watch would not keep correct time but did just fine on some
else's wrist? Or was that an Urban Legend?

Pretty much an urban legend, but tempered with enough facts to make
analysis tricky. In nearly every case I have seen, the watch was out
of adjustment, so it runs OK at ambient temp, but runs fast or slow
when on a wrist with a higher temp. Or, the battery had been
"replaced" in a not-so-tradesmanlike manner, or the wearer/owner was
incredibly rough on watches (and just about everthing else for that
mattter)


Anyway I wonder if it is possible for some one to carry enough static electricity that he may set the
cartridge off by discharge?

Quite possible, BUT protection against electrostatic events is
relatively easy to design in, and, it MUST be extensively tested to
demonstrate it's immmunity. To not do these things would be stupid and
just asking for it. The same applies for immunity from RF fields, such
as nearby cellphones, 2 way radios, arc welders,etc. Given that it's
going into an uncontrolled industrial environment, it's reasonable to
expect a high degree of immunity designed in, and tested for.

"Todd the wood junkie" wrote in message
I don't own a saw stop, nor will I in the foreseeable future. I just
want to show some appreciation for all you 'beta' testers out there
helping to mature the technology. I think it's a great idea, and if it
can be proven to not misfire 99.9999 percent of the time, I would
certainly get one on my next table saw, 100 years from now.

Tell me, aside from a few calculations on your computer, what do you own
that is 99.9999% effective? Name one thing.

"Upscale" wrote in message
.. .
"Todd the wood junkie" wrote in message
I don't own a saw stop, nor will I in the foreseeable future. I just
want to show some appreciation for all you 'beta' testers out there
helping to mature the technology. I think it's a great idea, and if it
can be proven to not misfire 99.9999 percent of the time, I would
certainly get one on my next table saw, 100 years from now.

Tell me, aside from a few calculations on your computer, what do you own
that is 99.9999% effective? Name one thing.

there's a lot of things that effective. that's only about 30 seconds/year of
downtime. i've seen lots of computers do that easily. of course, i work for
http://stratus.com. most common household objects are effective in that
range, lots are more effective.

Charles Spitzer said:


"Upscale" wrote in message
. ..
"Todd the wood junkie" wrote in message
I don't own a saw stop, nor will I in the foreseeable future. I just
want to show some appreciation for all you 'beta' testers out there
helping to mature the technology. I think it's a great idea, and if it
can be proven to not misfire 99.9999 percent of the time, I would
certainly get one on my next table saw, 100 years from now.

Tell me, aside from a few calculations on your computer, what do you own
that is 99.9999% effective? Name one thing.

there's a lot of things that effective. that's only about 30 seconds/year of
downtime. i've seen lots of computers do that easily. of course, i work for
http://stratus.com. most common household objects are effective in that
range, lots are more effective.

Shoot, If I own something that _isn't_ that effective - it goes into
the land fill/recycle bin in short order. Of course, I don't own too
many _really new_ devices - and that's why.


Greg G.

Upscale wrote:

Tell me, aside from a few calculations on your computer, what do you own
that is 99.9999% effective? Name one thing.

Bookshelves, tables, desks...oh wait, did you mean they should have
moving parts?

Chris

"Charles Spitzer" wrote in message

there's a lot of things that effective. that's only about 30 seconds/year
of
downtime. i've seen lots of computers do that easily. of course, i work
for
http://stratus.com. most common household objects are effective in that
range, lots are more effective.

99.9999% is 1/10,000th. Name one thing that has worked perfectly every time,
failing only one time in 10,000?

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:36:41 -0500, Upscale wrote:
"Charles Spitzer" wrote in message

there's a lot of things that effective. that's only about 30 seconds/year
of
downtime. i've seen lots of computers do that easily. of course, i work
for
http://stratus.com. most common household objects are effective in that
range, lots are more effective.

99.9999% is 1/10,000th. Name one thing that has worked perfectly every time,
failing only one time in 10,000?

My refrigerator has had zero seconds of downtime in about 8 years.
Likewise my pencil sharpener; it always works. And so on. 6 nines
isn't remarkable for uncomplicated machinery.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message

My refrigerator has had zero seconds of downtime in about 8 years.
Likewise my pencil sharpener; it always works. And so on. 6 nines
isn't remarkable for uncomplicated machinery.

You've converted 99.9999% into a few seconds of time as balanced against a
year. To me being effective means how many times has it been used and
maintained that effectiveness.

And face it, we're talking about a Sawstop which is considerably more
complicated than anything you'd label as uncomplicated machinery. If it fell
into that category, my guess is that it would have been on the market years
ago.

"Upscale" wrote in message

99.9999% is 1/10,000th. Name one thing that has worked perfectly every
time,
failing only one time in 10,000?

Hey, that's getting kind of personal. And that one time I was really tired
having worked a long day.
Ed

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:22:23 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:

"Todd the wood junkie" wrote in message
I don't own a saw stop, nor will I in the foreseeable future. I just
want to show some appreciation for all you 'beta' testers out there
helping to mature the technology. I think it's a great idea, and if it
can be proven to not misfire 99.9999 percent of the time, I would
certainly get one on my next table saw, 100 years from now.

Tell me, aside from a few calculations on your computer, what do you own
that is 99.9999% effective? Name one thing.


Critical components in aerospace applications are required to be a LOT
more reliable that a mere 99.9999%

I worked with a company that made internetworking backbone equipment.
Our customers demanded a better level of reliability than that. And
these devices are a LOT more complex than a Sawstop.

I have a 50 year old tractor that seems that reliable. And it sits on
a very, very, old concrete pad that is at least 99.9999% effective and
reliable.

I'm sure the Sawstop electronics and mechanism can be made reliable,
however, if the fundamental concept is flawed, (ie, it cannot reliably
discriminate between wet woood and dry hands) then it has a bigger
problem)

In the event of spurious tripping, do they offer free cartridges and
new blades forever? I could be interested then.

Barry Lennox

On Fri 16 Dec 2005 04:36:41p, "Upscale" wrote in
news
99.9999% is 1/10,000th. Name one thing that has worked perfectly every
time, failing only one time in 10,000?

No offense meant, Upscale, but in the context we're talking here, I think
the possibility that my tablesaw will eat my tablesaw blade is about .0001
percent. I can't prove it but I'm operating on that assumption.

If I thought the percentage was higher, I think I'd sell my tablesaw.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
t...
failing only one time in 10,000?

Hey, that's getting kind of personal. And that one time I was really
tired having worked a long day.
Ed


Whew and I thought I was the only one that happened to. LOL

"Upscale" writes:

Tell me, aside from a few calculations on your computer, what do you own
that is 99.9999% effective? Name one thing.

Look into "6 Sigma" - here's a FAQ:

http://www.isixsigma.com/sixsigma/six_sigma.asp

to achieve 6 sigma quality, you need 3.4 defects per 6 million
opportunities.

Thousands of businesses are using this data-driven methodology to
improve quality and profit.

GE, for instance, claims to have saved $10 billion because of this.
They really needed to, because their quality was low at the time. I
heard of a story where some city was going to buy a $5 million
generator, and when the boss found out that they were planning to by a
GE generator - he said "No way. My wife bought a GE refrigerator, and
it was a piece of crap."


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Upscale wrote:
snip

99.9999% is 1/10,000th. Name one thing that has worked perfectly every time,
failing only one time in 10,000?

Shouldn't that be one in a million?

R,
Tom Q.
--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:52:23 -0500, Upscale wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message

My refrigerator has had zero seconds of downtime in about 8 years.
Likewise my pencil sharpener; it always works. And so on. 6 nines
isn't remarkable for uncomplicated machinery.

You've converted 99.9999% into a few seconds of time as balanced against a
year. To me being effective means how many times has it been used and
maintained that effectiveness.

I'm pointing out that measurement statistics are useless when you can
just change the unit of measure to shift the digits around.

And face it, we're talking about a Sawstop which is considerably more
complicated than anything you'd label as uncomplicated machinery. If it fell
into that category, my guess is that it would have been on the market years
ago.

I'd say it's about as complicated as a refrigerator, maybe less so.
That's why I chose that and not, say, a yard stick.

On 17 Dec 2005 12:20:42 GMT, Bruce Barnett wrote:
"Upscale" writes:

Tell me, aside from a few calculations on your computer, what do you own
that is 99.9999% effective? Name one thing.

Look into "6 Sigma" - here's a FAQ:
http://www.isixsigma.com/sixsigma/six_sigma.asp

Six sigma is a good set of tools, but again, change your definition of
"opportunity for defect", and you can skew it by several orders of
magnitude.

to achieve 6 sigma quality, you need 3.4 defects per 6 million
opportunities.
Thousands of businesses are using this data-driven methodology to
improve quality and profit.

Yes, the analysis tools that come along with it are valuable.

GE, for instance, claims to have saved $10 billion because of this.

They've actually backed off quite a bit. It was turning into a cult,
which turned off quite a lot of people there, and impeded progress
substantially in many cases.

They really needed to, because their quality was low at the time.

Right, because every GE business is exactly the same, is that it?

I
heard of a story where some city was going to buy a $5 million
generator, and when the boss found out that they were planning to by a
GE generator - he said "No way. My wife bought a GE refrigerator, and
it was a piece of crap."

Yeah, because appliances and power systems are, you know, exactly the
same thing. But, managers make bad decisions for a variety of reasons,
no surprise there, I guess.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
I
heard of a story where some city was going to buy a $5 million
generator, and when the boss found out that they were planning to by a
GE generator - he said "No way. My wife bought a GE refrigerator, and
it was a piece of crap."

Yeah, because appliances and power systems are, you know, exactly the
same thing. But, managers make bad decisions for a variety of reasons,
no surprise there, I guess.

Many companies have whored reputable brand names into other aspects of
business to make a quick buck. Not a surprise that in some cases it could
backfire. Once people have an association, it can be difficult to change,
no mater how wrong it may be.

Dave Hinz writes:

Right, because every GE business is exactly the same, is that it?

No. I don't believe that.

Yeah, because appliances and power systems are, you know, exactly the
same thing.


No I don't know. But you are welcome to your own opinion.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
...
Dave Hinz writes:

Right, because every GE business is exactly the same, is that it?

No. I don't believe that.

Yeah, because appliances and power systems are, you know, exactly the
same thing.


No I don't know. But you are welcome to your own opinion.

Such a waste of good sarcasm.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:06:14 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
...
Dave Hinz writes:

Yeah, because appliances and power systems are, you know, exactly the
same thing.

No I don't know. But you are welcome to your own opinion.

Such a waste of good sarcasm.

Indeed.

"Edwin Pawlowski" writes:

No I don't know. But you are welcome to your own opinion.

Such a waste of good sarcasm.

In general I've found that politeness is the best response to a
sarcastic asshole.

Not that I needed to use it this time.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

On 18 Dec 2005 13:15:51 GMT, Bruce Barnett wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" writes:

No I don't know. But you are welcome to your own opinion.

Such a waste of good sarcasm.

In general I've found that politeness is the best response to a
sarcastic asshole.

Pointing out that GE is made up of many businesses, which vary greatly
in management, criticality, and quality, is being a sarcastic asshole?
Funny, I thought I was speaking from direct personal experience based on
more than a dozen years working there.

Or was it my point that managers make arbitrary bad decisions for a
variety of reasons? Maybe that hit close to home or something? (shrug)

Dave Hinz writes:

In general I've found that politeness is the best response to a
sarcastic asshole.

Pointing out that GE is made up of many businesses, which vary greatly
in management, criticality, and quality, is being a sarcastic asshole?


If you said it that way - I would have not problems with it. I
deliberately worded my response to be middle of the road, neither
saying 6-sigma was great, or saying it was a crock. If you wanted to
agree with me or disagree with me, fine.

But you chose the sarcastic tone as a response, implying I was stupid.

Funny, I thought I was speaking from direct personal experience based on
more than a dozen years working there.

So that automatically make you right? And this supposed superiority
of yours grants you the privilege of being sarcastic instead of being civil?

Or was it my point that managers make arbitrary bad decisions for a
variety of reasons? Maybe that hit close to home or something? (shrug)

And now a personal attack?

I stand by my comment.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

On 19 Dec 2005 12:24:23 GMT, Bruce Barnett wrote:
Dave Hinz writes:

In general I've found that politeness is the best response to a
sarcastic asshole.

Pointing out that GE is made up of many businesses, which vary greatly
in management, criticality, and quality, is being a sarcastic asshole?

If you said it that way - I would have not problems with it. I
deliberately worded my response to be middle of the road, neither
saying 6-sigma was great, or saying it was a crock. If you wanted to
agree with me or disagree with me, fine.

I, likewise, didn't make a judgement call on six-sigma. It's a great
set of tools but was initially implemented in a heavy-handed,
obstructive way at GE.

But you chose the sarcastic tone as a response, implying I was stupid.

Actually, that just implies that I'm sarcastic. Which I acknowledge.

Funny, I thought I was speaking from direct personal experience based on
more than a dozen years working there.

So that automatically make you right? And this supposed superiority
of yours grants you the privilege of being sarcastic instead of being civil?

Hell, you can get the same information reading the annual report. It's
even online.

Or was it my point that managers make arbitrary bad decisions for a
variety of reasons? Maybe that hit close to home or something? (shrug)

And now a personal attack?

You seem awfully touchy, Bruce. I thought that that might be one
logical reason that you took it so personally when I commented about bad
decision-making by managers.

I stand by my comment.

Glad to hear it. As do I.

With all due respect. 99.9999% quality says that out of one million
tries, you get 1 catastrophic (on the order of a sawstop misfire)
failure, not one in ten-thousand as you state. Right now, I NEVER,
EVER expect my current tablesaw to suddenly stop and mangle it's own
blade and be generally unavailable for an uncertain amount of time.
With the current SAWSTOP I am certain the chances are much better than
1 in a million of a misfire.

I consider myself a modestly careful woodworker. If I get that funny
feeling in my gut. I will stop and take an extra couple of hours to
make a jig for safety sake. I value my digits more than my time,
because my real job requires them, and I don't have Lloyds insurance to
feed my family if I can't work.

What I am saying is that I am willing to go from NEVER EVER, to perhaps
1 chance in a million of having a mangled blade. That is all
contingent that this thing truely does what it implies it will do. I
don't think it has been tested on live fingers, in every possible
working condition (only on chickens and hotdogs). It's certainly not as
hard as testing nukes, but it's another one of those inventions you
can't really truely 'test' in the lab (at least without human rights
issues).

I also question the ethics of an inventer who goes from: "this
technology will save your fingers", to: "the goverment needs to mandate
this because I say it's safe".

Todd the wood junkie wrote:
I
don't think it has been tested on live fingers, in every possible
working condition (only on chickens and hotdogs).

I saw it demoed with a frozen hotdog. The demonstrator said that the
inventor demos it at woodworking shows using his fingers.

Chris

What is the latest from joe, his followup is missing here..

Unless there is some more information could this be a troll?

arw01 wrote:

Unless there is some more information could this be a troll?

Wow, I'm suspected of being a troll. That's a first for me...

I saw the sawstop demoed at the local woodworking expo. Some wiseguy in
the audience suggested that the exibitor use his finger. He refused but
said that the inventor does indeed demo it with his finger.

Chris

Chris Friesen wrote:

arw01 wrote:

Unless there is some more information could this be a troll?


Wow, I'm suspected of being a troll. That's a first for me...

I saw the sawstop demoed at the local woodworking expo. Some wiseguy in
the audience suggested that the exibitor use his finger. He refused but
said that the inventor does indeed demo it with his finger.

Chris

From what I've heard the exhibitor is smart; the hotdogs they have used
have been nicked, indicating a finger coming into contact with a Sawstop
equipped blade would be left bleeding. IIRC, I've even seen one picture
of a nicked up finger somewhere online, but I might be wrong on that.

Dave

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message

I saw the sawstop demoed at the local woodworking expo. Some wiseguy in
the audience suggested that the exibitor use his finger. He refused but
said that the inventor does indeed demo it with his finger.

Well, if I was the inventor, I'd be willing to do the real finger test for
the purposes of marketing the Sawstop. I wouldn't have the courage to move
my finger into the blade fast enough to be capable of taking it off, but I'd
be willing do it slowly with the possibility of nicking the finger. Hell, I
don't think I've ever built anything without coming away with a nick
somewhere or a splinter or stubbing a body part or something like that.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:05:44 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:

I wouldn't have the courage to move
my finger into the blade fast enough to be capable of taking it off, but I'd
be willing do it slowly with the possibility of nicking the finger

I would think that anyone with the smarts to invent the SawStop is
also smart enough not to touch the SHARP, POINTY part of the spinning
blade, but the smooth side, which will probably not result in a cut
(maybe a slight friction burn) but give the same desired result.

Matt

Matt Stachoni wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:05:44 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:

I wouldn't have the courage to move
my finger into the blade fast enough to be capable of taking it off, but I'd
be willing do it slowly with the possibility of nicking the finger

I would think that anyone with the smarts to invent the SawStop is
also smart enough not to touch the SHARP, POINTY part of the spinning
blade, but the smooth side, which will probably not result in a cut
(maybe a slight friction burn) but give the same desired result.

I'd like to see someone push their hand into it in a manner simulating
a "worst case scenario". How do we *know* it will work with an actual
hand?

JP

I've found it best not to test the effectiveness of a safety device. You
stay in better shape that way.

"Jay Pique" wrote in message
oups.com...

I'd like to see someone push their hand into it in a manner simulating
a "worst case scenario". How do we *know* it will work with an actual
hand?

JP

"Upscale" writes:

Well, if I was the inventor, I'd be willing to do the real finger test for
the purposes of marketing the Sawstop.


Didn't the inventor of the GFI also put "life and limb" on the line in
his marketing? Or rather - put his son at risk?
I tried a google search, and didn't find anything.

Perhaps I just heard a urban legend.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...
arw01 wrote:

snip

I saw the sawstop demoed at the local woodworking expo. Some wiseguy in
the audience suggested that the exibitor use his finger. He refused but
said that the inventor does indeed demo it with his finger.

Chris

Hi Chris -

I can't put my finger on it... but I'm pretty sure there's been a contact
"incident" in the installed base of saws already....and it functioned
properly.

We will take (or have taken ) delivery of our first Sawstop saw.... we will
eventually (as soon as we can get 'em) replace every table/cabinet saw we
have.... something like 13-15 saws...

From an employer's perspective - there's virtually no choice but to adopt
the most stringent safety standards as soon as practical. With an
organisation our size.... the incidence of certain types of injuries
approaches a certainty.... what's 1 in 2000 odds for the average joe is 1 in
2 odds for us....or better!

If it prevents 1 injury, it'll be worth it. We've had 1 injury already....
and it was a guy with decades of experience. It just takes a second....

Cheers -

Rob

There is a very big difference between a demonstration where you have a
scripted and controlled environment, and rigorous, scientific testing
where you explore every possible condition of using the product. I'll
bet that the inventor does the demo exactly the same way every time.
I'd like to see if he would be willing to try the demo differently each
time that simulates all the possible and varied ways people would use
the sawstop. There are different styles, body types, skin types, etc..
How does a pacemaker affect the product? What about if you are
standing in a puddle of water or grease? I'm not an electrical
engineer, but I understand that a product that is claiming to do what
this does better be completely tested.

"Todd the wood junkie" wrote in message

standing in a puddle of water or grease? I'm not an electrical
engineer, but I understand that a product that is claiming to do what
this does better be completely tested.

You'd do better claiming not to be a lawyer.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05