Upscale wrote:

So you're fine to accuse me of ridiculous comparisons, but you feel
free to use them yourself? Grow up, you know damned well I suggested
no such comparison.

Costs are costs, regardless of the nature of the health care. And you were
the one that wanted to dance by saying:
"Big difference don't you think with things that can cause definite instant
injury and other things that may cause health difficulties over a long
period"? I was just following your lead.

Let me ask you. Knowing what you know now about increasing diabetes
and cardiovascular disease, if one single mandate could have been
enacted 30 years ago that would effectively and selectively
eliminated the bulk of these conditions, would you still say it was
undesirable? Knowing all the misery and strife that these two
conditions have caused to our society, would you still be sticking to
your "no government involvement"?

I have never said I am against all government involvement, and it is
rhetorically dishonest to try to support your arguments on that kind of
tactic. You seem to be having difficulty with the concept that opposing a
government mandate does not mean you oppose all. However, since you seem
locked into that position, do you support all government involvement since
you seem to support this mandate?


--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Joe Bemier" wrote in message
God, what type of moron are you?

Same kind as me...

I'm not quite sure why, but I think we've all gotten a little heated on this
discussion so let me offer my apologies to anyone that I've offended. I'm
reasonably sure that if any of us met in person and shared our views over a
beer, the discussion would have been much less difficult.

I'll post that picture of the accident I was it, it's mostly a conversation
piece at this point, but I do use it to emphasize the lives that seat belts
save, mine definitely being one of them, so maybe that's why I'm particular
about it.

Dave Moore

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message

I have never said I am against all government involvement, and it is
rhetorically dishonest to try to support your arguments on that kind of
tactic. You seem to be having difficulty with the concept that opposing a
government mandate does not mean you oppose all. However, since you seem
locked into that position, do you support all government involvement since
you seem to support this mandate?

Of course not and I do see your point. I was only trying to illustrate that
government involvement, mandate or whatever does not automatically make it a
bad thing, which is the vibe I seem to be getting from you.

Upscale wrote:

I'm not quite sure why, but I think we've all gotten a little heated
on this discussion so let me offer my apologies to anyone that I've
offended. I'm reasonably sure that if any of us met in person and
shared our views over a beer, the discussion would have been much
less difficult.

If things didn't get heated, then you'd sorta wonder if there was any
passion behind one's position. :-) I think that it was a good discussion and
it was valuable to hear the various viewpoints on this specific issue. Plus,
no one lost any body parts during this thread. I'm not a beer-drinker, but
I'd sip an iced tea with you any day.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:46:04 -0400, Joe Bemier
wrote:

Can we crush this silly, unparallel comparison to seat belt in an
auto.

For the 3rd or 4th time. When I drive out on the streets, I wear a SB
*only* due to the risk posed by other drivers. Safe operation of a TS
is wholly in the hands of the operator.

Bull****. How bout when someone walks up behind you while you are
making a cut and scares the crap out of you? I have had this happen.
What if something big and heavy falls over somewhere in the shop and
scares the crap out of you while you are making a cut? I have not had
this happen during a cut, but I have certainly had things fall over
and make me jump. What if something catches on fire while you are
making a cut? At no time do you ever have complete control of your
environment. You cannot have the factory guard in place for all cuts.
Thus, you can be doing everything by the book and still get injured.

Ah, but I forget you're a perfect driver and perfect saw operator and
will never make a mistake. You will never not notice a patch of black
ice and wreck your car on your own. You will never get caught by sun
glare and wreck your car on your own. You'll never be distracted and
enter a turn too fast and wreck your car on your own. These are all
things that happen to the other guy, not you.

Personally, I'd rather have the safety board decide whether this
should be on all saws, not you. Considering I'm paying their salary
and that's their job and all. Hopefully they are actually
knowledgable people and not just political appointees.


-Leuf

Finding the keyboard operational
Joe Bemier entered:

Yeah, but they were *in the business* because they di the hard work
the old fashion way.
And, we would have to ask *why* is SS a fledgling operation....because
the product is not needed or wanted by the masses. A niche market,
yes. Gass cannot accept that, cannot go out and make the world
understand that his product is superior, to compete in the
marketplace.

SawStop (the product not the saw) has been available for a couple of years.
When Dr. Gass approached the equipment manufacturers, they all passed on it.
And they had every right to. My feeling is that no one manufacturer wanted
to either decrease their margin or increase their price.
Having a product that he believed in, Dr. Gass's company began making their
own saw.
Up to this point I don't think anyone has a problem with what went on.
So then, and here begins the problem, Dr. Gass goes to Washington to appear
in front of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Now everyone gets their
knickers in a twist. As of this minute, no one is telling you that you have
to buy a SawStop equiped table saw. You are still free to buy what ever you
like. In the future saws are going to be equiped with some form of blade
stopping mechanism. Maybe only Dr. Gass's but probably not. Do you really
believe that this whole thing came as a surprise to say Delta? Do you think
that somewhere back in Delta's product development dept. there is someone
working on a blade stopping device of their own?
Now I am not addressing the subject of the individual freedom to do whatever
you want to do. I have a posistion on it. You have a position on it. We can
leave it at that.
Respectfully
Bb
--?
--?
Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
www.moondoggiecoffee.com

Finding the keyboard operational
Joe Bemier entered:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:55:02 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 05:56:21 -0400, Joe Bemier
wrote:


Since this is a "one shot" cartridge I wonder how many people would
be enamoured with it after a couple false triggers and being "down"
until you get a new cartridge. I'm sure there will be a way to
bypass it on the internet but that defeats the whole purpose.

Thats a good point. Around my world I only know of one SS. I heard
-third party- that it misfired once already.


Actually there are two issues that make me oppose the technology-

1) If it adds significant cost
2) If it misfires, and as you say, leaves me stranded. And, then there
is the cost of replacing it. I recently replaced my TS with a Grizzly
12" 5hp. However, if down the road, I need to replace and this
technology is required on all saws, I will disable it if possible.

If you are a commercial operation, you will have to weigh the cost of the
technology vs. any increase of insurance premiums and you probably want to
have a spare cartridge or two around.
As a home user, well as another poster points out, there has been no
reported instance of anyone being injured while following proper procedures.
so make sure you follow them. And as a home user, how many tablesaws are you
going to buy in your life time?
If you read SawStops web site, there is a disable switch. I guess thats a
use at your own risk.
I am not going to address the issue of personal freedom. You have your
posistion and I have mine. We'll leave it at that.
Bob
--?
--?
Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
www.moondoggiecoffee.com

"The Other Funk" wrote in message

SawStop (the product not the saw) has been available for a couple of
years.
When Dr. Gass approached the equipment manufacturers, they all passed on
it.
And they had every right to. My feeling is that no one manufacturer wanted
to either decrease their margin or increase their price.

Having a product that he believed in, Dr. Gass's company began making
their
own saw.

IIRC, wasn't there an interim attempt at using legislation to force the
issue between the times mentioned above?

My take is that a lot of the anger/resistance/teeth gnashing is directly
attritubutable to that previous attempt, which did appear to have a
component of lawyerly arrogance parading as altruism.

In any event ... what you can bet your bottom dollar on is that BIG
insurance will eventually call the shots.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/06

wrote in message

A case could certainly be made that if they had mandatory weight
tresting and rationer food to fat people they would be a lot heathier
... or so the legend goes but that is not the way Americans want to
live.

No, that certainly would not be the North American way. I don't know, I
guess it comes down to what you've experienced growing up. I know that if
I'd not been born in Canada and born in the bulk of other countries around
the world, my health problems would have killed me over 20 years ago. So I
admit it, I feel lucky in some ways and certainly more appreciative of our
society than some. I know that clouds my judgement, but it's who I am. Sure,
there's lots of things I don't like about Canada, especially in the
disability arena, but it's better than most, so for the most part I think
there's been a good combination of personal choice and government
involvement. I do know that I'd feel really stupid for a long time if I cut
some fingers off on a tablesaw. That's something I'd have a really difficult
time getting over.

Finding the keyboard operational
Larry Blanchard entered:

The Other Funk wrote:

No it's not a someone else did it. It's an idea whose time has come.
No legislation is being pushed. Not by a long shot.
Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose and that is what we
are talking about. Why should I support your widow and kids because
you sliced your hand off when there is a safety device to prevent it?

OK, where do you stop?

Is it OK if I go skiing?

Is it OK if I ride my motorcycle or ATV?

Is it OK if I go trapshooting?

Is it OK if I take a bath?
(lots of accidents in bathrooms)

IOW, you're supporting the proverbial slippery slope.

It's ok by me for you to do all of the above. But if tomorrow someone comes
up with a way to keep all these activities fun and to keep you safer, I
would want you to use it. And if the government wants to make it manditory,
I would expect you to either write your senators and congressman.to protest
or not, as you wish.
BTW, I scuba dive. I make sure my gear is up to date and maintained. I also
follow all the proper procedures. I am not against activities that have a
risk associated with them, I just don't like cleaning up after people who
take irresponsible ones
Bob
--?
--?
Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
www.moondoggiecoffee.com

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:48:50 -0400, Leuf
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:46:04 -0400, Joe Bemier
wrote:

Can we crush this silly, unparallel comparison to seat belt in an
auto.

For the 3rd or 4th time. When I drive out on the streets, I wear a SB
*only* due to the risk posed by other drivers. Safe operation of a TS
is wholly in the hands of the operator.

Bull****. How bout when someone walks up behind you while you are
making a cut and scares the crap out of you? I have had this happen.
What if something big and heavy falls over somewhere in the shop and
scares the crap out of you while you are making a cut? I have not had
this happen during a cut, but I have certainly had things fall over
and make me jump. What if something catches on fire while you are
making a cut? At no time do you ever have complete control of your
environment. You cannot have the factory guard in place for all cuts.
Thus, you can be doing everything by the book and still get injured.

Ah, but I forget you're a perfect driver and perfect saw operator and
will never make a mistake. You will never not notice a patch of black
ice and wreck your car on your own. You will never get caught by sun
glare and wreck your car on your own. You'll never be distracted and
enter a turn too fast and wreck your car on your own. These are all
things that happen to the other guy, not you.

You're getting carried away. I wear m a seatbelt and that is not the
debate. My point is that the two are hardly comparable. Thats the
point Leuf, that operation of a TS is not subject to other parties.
Unless of course you cannot find a reasonable argument and so want to
talk about black ice.

Personally, I'd rather have the safety board decide whether this
should be on all saws, not you. Considering I'm paying their salary
and that's their job and all. Hopefully they are actually
knowledgable people and not just political appointees.



-Leuf

Upscale wrote:

........I know
that if I'd not been born in Canada and born in the bulk of other
countries around the world, my health problems would have killed me
over 20 years ago.

It's the Poutine, dammit; blame the Poutine. :-)

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Finding the keyboard operational
Dave Bugg entered:

The Other Funk wrote:

Dave Bugg entered:

Where is it written that any manufacturer is obligated to
incorporate any specific technology into their product? Saw
manufacturers are certainly entitled to take a pass on Sawstop,
regardless of reason. Wow, big conspiracy.

Seat belts, air bags and catalytic converters on cars. Burst disks on
pressurized gas tanks. GFIs on portable air conditioners. Deadman
devices on lawnmowers. Childproof caps on medicines.
That's all I could come up with in 5 minutes.

Bob, the argument was centered around the obligation of a
manufacturer to purchase a non-mandated technology from a developer.
I wasn't arguing that the government had never required the
implementation of a technology by an industry. I'm afraid that you
misread the context of my post :-)

Missed that Dave. My apologies. And I don't have an example.
Bob

--?
--?
Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
www.moondoggiecoffee.com

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:40:17 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote:

"Joe Bemier" wrote in message
I find it hard to understand how you're so down on Gass who might be
attempting to mandate his product which will save people from injury,
while
at the same time, you're supporting the collection of manufacturers who
initially refused to endorse his product because it would cost them
profits
even though injuries will continue. What you're saying is that it's ok for
manufacturer's to make profit even though more injuries are being caused,
but not ok for Gass to make a profit while preventing injuries. Is that
it?
You're supporting injuries to continue because you don't like how someone
goes about making a profit?


I have heard several times in these debates that manufacturers don't
want this technology because it will hurt their profits. I don't
understand. If everyone had to redesign their equipment, eliminate
their low end saws and install sawstops on the rest, why would profits
drop. They would simply ALL raise their prices sifficient to ensure
the same proofits continue on lower volume/higher priced sales. There
would clearly be a lot fewer saws sold, those only producing low-end
saws would, by definition, go out of business, but the big boys would
still sell saws just at higher prices with higher individual gross
profit margins and market equalibreum would be reached at the price
point where everyone is satisfied with the level of profits - just
like it is now (you know the law of supply and demand - they will
produce enough saws to meet demand, but demand is based on price and
price must include adequate profit). A lot of people in this group
(like me) who use benchtop saws or BT3000s or Shopsmiths would, once
those wore out, simply quit doing woodworking and take up golf because
we didn't have $1,000 laying around for a low end "safe" saw.

Dave Hall

Now I think that last line says what's just under the surface of this
argument. How many of you will think long and hard about giving up a hobby
that you may be looking forward to enjoying in your retirement years? Oh
sure for now it's just the TS.... but what's next? Your CMS, BS, SC, Router,
Planer,jointer? $100 here $250 there $75 over there. ( amounts pulled out
of a Ballantines bottle). At what $ amount do you give up something you
love to do because some one lobbied the Gov to mandate a product/ products
( as some one else stated he has more SS things for other tools on the back
burner) and in effect financially forced you out of your hobby?
Now I'm sure if all this happens there will still be people that will take
up this hobby/ passion and benefit from these devices, but what about the
ones that are looking forward to enjoying this hobby on a fixed income in
there twilight years but can't because Gov& Ins co's say without it no
coverage? I know this last bit and the following is a stretch and a bit of a
rant on my part..... but then who thought PETA or gun control and their like
would change so much of what our ancestors took for granted. Feel free to
insert the Canadian / USA or any other countries versions of them in the
above. I did. :-

Jim

wrote in message
Bull****. How bout when someone walks up behind you while you are
making a cut and scares the crap out of you? I have had this happen.

I would beat the **** out oif them with whatever I was cutting. Is
this something your "friends" do to you?

You're very apt at answering a question but not really answering it.

wrote in message
It became one of the safest sports in the country and they did it all
themselves.

Another "non" answer. There's no guarantee that the industry will mandate
this new safety feature and considering the history of some of the pencil
pushers in high places of corporate finance, the distinct possibility is
that it could be panned. In the meantime, people suffer.

In the 60s SCUBA was a totally unregulated sport and just
about the time when the government was sticking it's nose in
everything the SCUBA industry itself decided to clean up their act and
did it with ABSOLUTELY ZERO government input.

Doesn't this suggest something to you? Knowing the government was sticking
their nose in things, they decided to clean it up themselves. Can you
honestly say it would have happened if the government hadn't been snooping?

You're going to have to do better than that if you're going to argue this
point.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:49:28 -0400, Joe Bemier
wrote:

You're getting carried away. I wear m a seatbelt and that is not the
debate. My point is that the two are hardly comparable. Thats the
point Leuf, that operation of a TS is not subject to other parties.
Unless of course you cannot find a reasonable argument and so want to
talk about black ice.

You said "I wear a SB *only* due to the risk posed by other drivers."
and that is the same argument you make about the saw. You follow all
the proper procedures all the time and if everyone did like you no one
would ever be injured. That's a fairy tale.

As Nahm says it, learning how to use your power tools properly will
greatly reduce the risk of personal injury. Note how he says greatly
reduce, not eliminate? It's a question of numbers. The odds of
something happening during any given cut is very very small. The
number of cuts made is very very large.

If we can get another line of defense in there for a reasonable cost,
it certainly makes sense to me to at least consider mandating it be on
all saws. And it may be that the board sees it the way you do, that
the current measures are sufficient to provide adequate safety and no
mandate for the device is necessary.

Just out of curiousity, how would you feel about a requirement that
you must pass a safety course covering proper procedures to buy a saw?


-Leuf

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:04:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:48:50 -0400, Leuf
wrote:

Bull****. How bout when someone walks up behind you while you are
making a cut and scares the crap out of you? I have had this happen.
What if something big and heavy falls over somewhere in the shop and
scares the crap out of you while you are making a cut?

I would beat the **** out oif them with whatever I was cutting. Is
this something your "friends" do to you?

My Dad actually, so no, I can't kill him. And I don't mean he
intentionally tries to scare me, it's just that when you're working by
yourself and totally focused on your cut and can't hear anything and
then suddenly there's someone else nearby you get startled.

I had to make sure the saw was pointed at the main door so I could see
him come in. I also keep the lights that are on the main switch off,
supposedly to save electricity because it also turns on all the rest
of the lights in the basement. When that light is on I know to be on
high alert for the wandering tool thief.


-Leuf

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:41:18 -0400, Leuf
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:49:28 -0400, Joe Bemier
wrote:

You're getting carried away. I wear m a seatbelt and that is not the
debate. My point is that the two are hardly comparable. Thats the
point Leuf, that operation of a TS is not subject to other parties.
Unless of course you cannot find a reasonable argument and so want to
talk about black ice.

You said "I wear a SB *only* due to the risk posed by other drivers."
and that is the same argument you make about the saw. You follow all
the proper procedures all the time and if everyone did like you no one
would ever be injured. That's a fairy tale.

Well, over 30 years of nearly daily use and I have not as much as a
nick -honest. I think that might be the issue. Maybe some of you guys
are very intimidated by a TS and thus the feeling you need this
device. And, that is why it should be a consumer option and not a gov
mandate. For my part, I respect the machine and understand how to
reduce my risk to only a freak accident...something in the statistical
neighborhood of a clear sky lightning strike.
You realize that cars could be safer than what we have today. We could
mandate rollcages. What if a small subset of drivers started driving
around w/o seatbelts and getting injured. Would you agree that we
should put roll cages in all cars just because these ppl cannot follow
proper procedure.
I am willing to bet that the very same ppl who are at risk for injury
on a TS are at risk for all kind of other injuries. Put a device on a
TS and these ppl will cut themselves on a chainsaw. Put the device on
the chainsaw and they will decide to have a BBQ in the garage with the
door closed. You can look at the whole firearm picture for some very
good likeness....i.e., guns don't kill ppl, ppl kill ppl.....or
something like that. Same thing- you have thousands upon thousands of
individuals (clearly the larger group by far) who operate a TS w/o
injury.

As Nahm says it, learning how to use your power tools properly will
greatly reduce the risk of personal injury. Note how he says greatly
reduce, not eliminate? It's a question of numbers. The odds of
something happening during any given cut is very very small. The
number of cuts made is very very large.

If we can get another line of defense in there for a reasonable cost,
it certainly makes sense to me to at least consider mandating it be on
all saws. And it may be that the board sees it the way you do, that
the current measures are sufficient to provide adequate safety and no
mandate for the device is necessary.

Just out of curiousity, how would you feel about a requirement that
you must pass a safety course covering proper procedures to buy a saw?
Well, I am never in favor of more bureaucracy. And, as the doc pointed
out many of the injuries he sees are experienced guys. That leads me
to believe that it is not for lack of understanding that these
accidents occur, but rather due to deviation from proper methods.
If ppl were getting hurt while following proper procedure then I would
probably feel different about this device.


Extra Note: In the past few days since this thread heated up I have
taken note of my own actions while using the TS. I have found that my
hands are never beyond the front fence rail while making cuts. I do
this w/o thinking about it. My push sticks are 2-3 feet (long grain)
and I never go for my cut piece or the scrap until the blade has
stopped. I do these things automatically w/o thinking about them.


-Leuf

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:00:07 -0400, Leuf
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:04:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:48:50 -0400, Leuf
wrote:

Bull****. How bout when someone walks up behind you while you are
making a cut and scares the crap out of you? I have had this happen.
What if something big and heavy falls over somewhere in the shop and
scares the crap out of you while you are making a cut?
Frankly, Leuf, those are very weak arguments to put forth in the
interest of Gov mandating a technology that adds significant cost to
the machinery.
Maybe the big heavy thing falling over will do more harm to you than
the TS could.

I would beat the **** out oif them with whatever I was cutting. Is
this something your "friends" do to you?

My Dad actually, so no, I can't kill him. And I don't mean he
intentionally tries to scare me, it's just that when you're working by
yourself and totally focused on your cut and can't hear anything and
then suddenly there's someone else nearby you get startled.

Years ago my wife did something similar and it never happened again as
I sat her down and explained the potential for danger.
On the job can be a challenge at times. Other subs walking behind me,
etc, etc. But its only when I don't pay proper attention to my
environment that things get risky. With all due respect to your Dad,
you need to make some noise with him. Like many other pieces of
equipment in our daily lives, a TS can go from innocuous to dangerous
in a moments notice...as based on the negligence of the operator.

I had to make sure the saw was pointed at the main door so I could see
him come in. I also keep the lights that are on the main switch off,
supposedly to save electricity because it also turns on all the rest
of the lights in the basement. When that light is on I know to be on
high alert for the wandering tool thief.


-Leuf

"Joe Bemier" wrote in message

Well, over 30 years of nearly daily use and I have not as much as a
nick -honest. I think that might be the issue. Maybe some of you guys
are very intimidated by a TS and thus the feeling you need this
device. And, that is why it should be a consumer option and not a gov
mandate. For my part, I respect the machine and understand how to
reduce my risk to only a freak accident...something in the statistical
neighborhood of a clear sky lightning strike.

And that's exactly the type of attitude that will bite you in the butt one
day, that it's unlikely you might have an accident. Would you say there's
quite a few experienced woodworkers on this newsgroup?. Sure most of them
might still have all their fingers, but I wonder how many would admit to
experiencing a kick back, either small or large? I admit to it and I'm
certainly not accident prone.

A warped piece of wood, one that has an unseen split in it and there you go,
a kick back whizzing by your head. That's an accident. How many people are
using contactor saws with a motor hanging out the back of it driven by a
pulley? A falling piece of wood into that spinning rubber pulley and a piece
of wood gets whipped into a wall somewhere. How many might admit to that?
Have you ever once removed your splitter and blade guard to cut a piece of
wood? Automatically, you're open to some type of accident. It's fine that
you're very careful, but it's just not humanely possible to take everything
into account every time. To say otherwise is completely unrealistic.
Considering the huge amount of tablesaws out there, even a small percentage
of injuries adds up to a large amount when you tally them all. It's only
common sense to minimize that amount.

wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:30:06 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote:

A warped piece of wood, one that has an unseen split in it and there you go,
a kick back whizzing by your head.
Gee does the saw stop solve this problem too?

Actually, it does. It has a European style riving knife. Just about
impossible to get a kickback. And that may be a bigger safety improvement
than the brake.

The safety features are great - if I could afford one and had the space for it
I'd buy one. But if the government tells me I have to have that gear, I'm
going to be very upset.

I will ignore any replies from "Upscale" - we all know where he stands :-).

--
It's turtles, all the way down

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 05:58:27 -0400, Joe Bemier
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:41:18 -0400, Leuf
wrote:

Just out of curiousity, how would you feel about a requirement that
you must pass a safety course covering proper procedures to buy a saw?

Well, I am never in favor of more bureaucracy. And, as the doc pointed
out many of the injuries he sees are experienced guys. That leads me
to believe that it is not for lack of understanding that these
accidents occur, but rather due to deviation from proper methods.
If ppl were getting hurt while following proper procedure then I would
probably feel different about this device.

So if the problem isn't awareness of the proper procedures but getting
people to follow them, within reason, all the time - what's the
solution?

We know that many people are out there using saws with no guard on
them at all. We know that for a lot of people it's not because they
are just stupid people who don't understand the risks, it's because
the guard is so poorly designed and made that it is more dangerous to
have it on there. I've used a saw where the guard/splitter was
attached with two set screws on a smooth shaft. Guess how long that
would stay in place before literally falling over when you start the
saw? And you'd like to think that people being intelligent creatures
would take the saw back to the store and find another one with a guard
that does stay in place, even if it costs a bit more. But what they
really do is takethe guard off and it sits there gathering dust. For
twenty years they operate the saw without incident, and firmly believe
that they don't need a guard because they know what they're doing.
They've even replaced that old saw with one that they could use the
guard with, but they never even took it out of the box because they
don't need one. And then one day something happens and they go visit
our doc at the ER. Now you can argue that they had it coming to them.
Or you can do something to help the stubborn little *******, you know
he's never going to do anything to change unless you force it on him.

He certainly gets more benefit from the device than you do. Maybe his
odds of serious injury go down from 1/1000 to 1/100,000. But your
odds go down too, maybe from 1/1,000,000 to 1/10,000,000. You don't
get as much benefit as he does, but you do get some benefit.


-Leuf

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:30:06 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote:

A warped piece of wood, one that has an unseen split in it and there you go,
a kick back whizzing by your head.

The only problem is sawstop only really helps with certain types of
accidents. A kickback that leads to injury is going to do so in a few
ways. It chucks a piece of wood at you really fast - you never
touched the blade so sawstop doesn't care. Or it causes the piece of
wood you were holding, and your hand along with it, to go into the
blade very fast. Sawstop can only stop the blade so quickly, if your
hand is going too fast you will still have a serious injury.

For the most part it only prevents the stupid injuries that you should
have known better.

I do wonder if there are better ways. I mean, waiting until the blade
actually starts cutting you is kind of ridiculous when you think about
it. What about a camera over the saw that tracks the movement of your
hands. Start to do something stupid and it gives an audible warning.
Hand behind the blade - *beep*. Hand within 3 inches of the blade
*beep*. Get closer and it shuts the motor off. Get really close or
it detects your hands moving too fast and it engages an emergency
brake. It would not have to stop as quickly and thus would not have
to be as destructive or require consumable components. There are some
practical problems no doubt.

And beyond that, why fire a pin into the expensive blade? Why not
have a cheap steel toothed disk somewhere else on the shaft and fire
your pin into that? Perhaps the diameter of it would have to be so
large that it would affect the depth of cut.


-Leuf

wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:39:39 -0700, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Actually, it does. It has a European style riving knife. Just about
impossible to get a kickback. And that may be a bigger safety improvement
than the brake.

I guess I don't know about that. Is this a different kind of blade?
It's still a circular blade on a shaft?

A riving knife is a shark-fin shaped piece of metal that is fastened
just behind the blade. It is curved to follow the shape of the blade,
with maybe 1/8" clearance between the blade and the knife.

The main difference between it and a North-American style splitter is
that it travels up and down with the blade, so that you can basically
leave it on the saw at all times, even for non-through cuts.

The only time you'd have to take it off is for dado cuts, since the dado
stack is normally smaller diameter.

Chris

Leuf wrote:

And beyond that, why fire a pin into the expensive blade? Why not
have a cheap steel toothed disk somewhere else on the shaft and fire
your pin into that? Perhaps the diameter of it would have to be so
large that it would affect the depth of cut.

If you stop the shaft rather than the blade itself, the blade will
continue to have inertia. This may be enough to spin the arbour nut
loose--especially when using dado blades.

Chris

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:58:39 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:30:06 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote:

A warped piece of wood, one that has an unseen split in it and there you go,
a kick back whizzing by your head.
Gee does the saw stop solve this problem too?
HA! Beat me to it.....the first thing that entered my mind.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:39:39 -0700, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:30:06 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote:

A warped piece of wood, one that has an unseen split in it and there you go,
a kick back whizzing by your head.
Gee does the saw stop solve this problem too?

Actually, it does. It has a European style riving knife. Just about
impossible to get a kickback. And that may be a bigger safety improvement
than the brake.


I have a knife on my machine. Frankly, I don't see how that related to
this discussion....the kickbacks or the knife. Maybe you could
explain.
But, if the Gov mandated a kife on every machine we would not be
having such an uproar. It's relatively cheap and just sits there doing
its job.

The safety features are great - if I could afford one and had the space for it
I'd buy one. But if the government tells me I have to have that gear, I'm
going to be very upset.

I will ignore any replies from "Upscale" - we all know where he stands :-).

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:36:18 -0600, Chris Friesen
wrote:

Leuf wrote:

And beyond that, why fire a pin into the expensive blade? Why not
have a cheap steel toothed disk somewhere else on the shaft and fire
your pin into that? Perhaps the diameter of it would have to be so
large that it would affect the depth of cut.

If you stop the shaft rather than the blade itself, the blade will
continue to have inertia. This may be enough to spin the arbour nut
loose--especially when using dado blades.

Chris

Yeah. And, I believe the SS device depends on the sharp blade ripping
into the aluminum block as a means of halting the blade.

And that brings me to another thought......

I wonder how many *Stops* a machine can take before the bearings and
other mechanisms are damaged. I run a 5hp machine and am always amazed
at the sheer power of the thing. Stopping that it a fraction of a
second has to have an adverse effect on the arbor shaft, etc.. I guess
the aluminum is the softer aspect so it would take most of the damge
but what if a machine was involved in multiple stops?

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:36:18 -0600, Chris Friesen
wrote:

Leuf wrote:

And beyond that, why fire a pin into the expensive blade? Why not
have a cheap steel toothed disk somewhere else on the shaft and fire
your pin into that? Perhaps the diameter of it would have to be so
large that it would affect the depth of cut.

If you stop the shaft rather than the blade itself, the blade will
continue to have inertia. This may be enough to spin the arbour nut
loose--especially when using dado blades.

Good point. You'd need to have the blade keyed on the shaft.


-Leuf

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:57:31 -0400, Leuf
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 05:58:27 -0400, Joe Bemier
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:41:18 -0400, Leuf
wrote:

Just out of curiousity, how would you feel about a requirement that
you must pass a safety course covering proper procedures to buy a saw?

Well, I am never in favor of more bureaucracy. And, as the doc pointed
out many of the injuries he sees are experienced guys. That leads me
to believe that it is not for lack of understanding that these
accidents occur, but rather due to deviation from proper methods.
If ppl were getting hurt while following proper procedure then I would
probably feel different about this device.

So if the problem isn't awareness of the proper procedures but getting
people to follow them, within reason, all the time - what's the
solution?

We know that many people are out there using saws with no guard on
them at all. We know that for a lot of people it's not because they
are just stupid people who don't understand the risks, it's because
the guard is so poorly designed and made that it is more dangerous to
have it on there. I've used a saw where the guard/splitter was
attached with two set screws on a smooth shaft. Guess how long that
would stay in place before literally falling over when you start the
saw? And you'd like to think that people being intelligent creatures
would take the saw back to the store and find another one with a guard
that does stay in place, even if it costs a bit more. But what they
really do is takethe guard off and it sits there gathering dust. For
twenty years they operate the saw without incident, and firmly believe
that they don't need a guard because they know what they're doing.
They've even replaced that old saw with one that they could use the
guard with, but they never even took it out of the box because they
don't need one. And then one day something happens and they go visit
our doc at the ER. Now you can argue that they had it coming to them.
Or you can do something to help the stubborn little *******, you know
he's never going to do anything to change unless you force it on him.

He certainly gets more benefit from the device than you do. Maybe his
odds of serious injury go down from 1/1000 to 1/100,000. But your
odds go down too, maybe from 1/1,000,000 to 1/10,000,000. You don't
get as much benefit as he does, but you do get some benefit.


-Leuf

I think the difference between your thoughts and mine is that you feel
you should take responsibility for everybody. I am not saying this
device should be deep sixed. I'm not saying it should not be available
to those who want it.
The issue is you and U/S are in favor of having it forced on
everybody, taking away our choice.
*It would be my opinion* that the company has gone this route out of
necessity - sales are might not be as vigorous as hoped. And, if I am
correct, that means it is not a valued device.

"Joe Bemier" wrote in message
But, if the Gov mandated a kife on every machine we would not be
having such an uproar. It's relatively cheap and just sits there doing
its job.

So, a partial truth comes out. It's not so much the possibility of the
government mandating the Sawstop, it's being forced to spend too much money
on this safety feature and the possibility of having to spend additional
funds (replacement cartridge) as time goes on. OK. I can relate to that. I
loath spending money on things when I can avoid it.

"Joe Bemier" wrote in message
A warped piece of wood, one that has an unseen split in it and there you
go,
a kick back whizzing by your head.
Gee does the saw stop solve this problem too?
HA! Beat me to it.....the first thing that entered my mind.

Laugh if you want, but I know that you know I was talking about his general
attitude that an injury will never happen to him because he's too careful.

Joe Bemier wrote:

I have a knife on my machine. Frankly, I don't see how that related to
this discussion....the kickbacks or the knife. Maybe you could
explain.

Someone said the brake didn't stop kickbacks. It doesn't, but the riving
knife does. So they've got that covered as well.

--
It's turtles, all the way down

Finding the keyboard operational
entered:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:45:09 GMT, "The Other Funk"
wrote:

BTW, I scuba dive. I make sure my gear is up to date and maintained.
I also follow all the proper procedures. I am not against
activities that have a risk associated with them, I just don't like
cleaning up after people who take irresponsible ones

You should be the one who agrees the most that government is NOT the
answer. In the 60s SCUBA was a totally unregulated sport and just
about the time when the government was sticking it's nose in
everything the SCUBA industry itself decided to clean up their act and
did it wioth ABSOLUTELY ZERO government input. There is no law about
who can buy compressed air but without a PADI card (or the equivilent)
nobody will fill your tank, you can't get on a dive boat or go out
with a guide.
It became one of the safest sports in the country and they did it all
themselves.
If the saw manufacturers want to develop a safer technology, so be it
but I don't want the government ramming something down our throats
because some little old lady at CPSC who has never seen a table saw
decrees it.
If we want to continue the seat belt analogy I only have to point to
the 1974 cars. Another stupid idea that lasted one year.

My point is that I keep up my equipment for my own safety. Woodworking has a
set of risks and it is my responsibility to manage them.
For the record, I think we will see SawStop or another safety device on a
bunch of equipment with or without government regulation. But I'll bet
dollars to doughnuts that the insurance companies beat the government to the
punch.
Overall I think a device like SawStop is a good idea. Just like a backup
regulator and a buddy. If you don't need the protection, great. I hope I
never need it either. But there are more then enough people that will need
it.
One other thing. It's late and I am headed to bed. What was the deal with
the '74 cars and seatbelts?
Bob

--?
--?
Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
www.moondoggiecoffee.com

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:28:14 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote:

"Joe Bemier" wrote in message
But, if the Gov mandated a kife on every machine we would not be
having such an uproar. It's relatively cheap and just sits there doing
its job.

So, a partial truth comes out. It's not so much the possibility of the
government mandating the Sawstop, it's being forced to spend too much money
on this safety feature and the possibility of having to spend additional
funds (replacement cartridge) as time goes on. OK. I can relate to that. I
loath spending money on things when I can avoid it.


Thats about it Upscale. If it were a $10 chunk of metal that cannot
cause me headaches down the road, I would just accept it and move on.

"Joe Bemier" wrote in message

Thats about it Upscale. If it were a $10 chunk of metal that cannot
cause me headaches down the road, I would just accept it and move on.

Well, if it's any consolation, a few years down the road with competitor
models coming out and improvements in the technology, I expect it to be
close to that. Not $10 of course, but under $100. Someone will come up with
a system that makes it reusable and not destroy the blade in the process of
a firing.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:45:50 GMT, "The Other Funk"
wrote:

Finding the keyboard operational
Dave Bugg entered:

Upscale wrote:

I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth. And, if what I read
about Sawstop's inventor, those were not his first actions. I'm much
more inclined to believe the talk that the manufacturer's attempted
to freeze him out because it would eat into their profits. After
that, anything goes in my books.

Where is it written that any manufacturer is obligated to incorporate
any specific technology into their product? Saw manufacturers are
certainly entitled to take a pass on Sawstop, regardless of reason.
Wow, big conspiracy.


Seat belts, air bags and catalytic converters on cars. Burst disks on
pressurized gas tanks. GFIs on portable air conditioners. Deadman devices on
lawnmowers. Childproof caps on medicines.
That's all I could come up with in 5 minutes.
Bob

Which of these items doubled or tripled the cost of a lower end
version of the equipment they were put onto? Which of these mandates
effectively eliminated the lower end of the product catagory to which
they were mandated? I see no way to continue to sell $100 tablesaws if
a Sawstop device had to be incorporated. His patents on similar
technology for bandsaws, CMS, and other whirling woodworking equipment
would similarly eliminate the low end of those markets as well (in my
opinion of course). When you add up the costs of airbags, seatbelts,
cat converters, crumple zones, padded dashes, etc., etc., etc. you do
in fact add substantially to the cost of a car, but I doubt that 1/2
or so of the cost of the lowest end vehicle out there is made up of
all of these mandated items combined, let alone any one of them - and
I believe that the automobile is one of the more regulated and safety
mandated consumer products around. BTW I can buy medicine in bottles
without childproof caps but few if any manufacturers will use them for
over the counter medications.

Dave Hall

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:59:03 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote:

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message

But, these degenerative disease costs are hitting us now from what was
generated in the past 10 years and before. And the expense, to both
dollars
and productivity, keep occurring now and into the future. Are you saying
that
the cost of say, cardiovascular disease or diabetes, is less today than
the
cost of whirlysharp injuries?

So you're fine to accuse me of ridiculous comparisons, but you feel free to
use them yourself? Grow up, you know damned well I suggested no such
comparison.

Let me ask you. Knowing what you know now about increasing diabetes and
cardiovascular disease, if one single mandate could have been enacted 30
years ago that would effectively and selectively eliminated the bulk of
these conditions, would you still say it was undesirable? Knowing all the
misery and strife that these two conditions have caused to our society,
would you still be sticking to your "no government involvement"?


I have to answer yes to that question. There was and still is a simple
government mandate that would in fact reduce these medical conditions
substantially. Outlaw red meat. Outlaw white bread. Outlaw refined
sugar. It would be fairly simple to identify those food items that
contribute the most to an unhealthy diet and simply outlaw those
items. Death rates would drop. Physical (as opposed to mental) health
would improve. Natrural life expectancy would probably soar. Life
would suck.

It could be taken a little further by mandating limited portion sizes
in restaurants and limiting all patrons to one entree. I guess we
could go whole hog and if someone invented and patented the safe food
(ala soylent green maybe) mandate that all meals must incorporate this
food item.

Dave Hall

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
years ago that would effectively and selectively eliminated the bulk of

Try reading into the response a little more.

substantially. Outlaw red meat. Outlaw white bread. Outlaw refined
sugar. It would be fairly simple to identify those food items that
contribute the most to an unhealthy diet and simply outlaw those
items. Death rates would drop. Physical (as opposed to mental) health
would improve. Natrural life expectancy would probably soar. Life
would suck.

"Effectively and selectively" suggests "what if" it could be done simply and
easily. You've posted three foods that have a wide distribution and
eliminating them "effectively and selectively" could not be done easily.

And as an aside, if the elimination of those three foods from your diet
means that your life would suck, then you lead an extremely limited,
one-sided life.