xrongor wrote:


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
xrongor writes:
show me one person that DID get their hand cut off even with this system
installed. somehow i dont think the hot dog had any special properties
about it that makes the

Unrealistic. The unit is not in general release, probably no more than a
couple
dozen floating around, if that many. How can you compare, especially
negatives,
when the other systems have millions in use.

im not trying to compare anything. J Clarke claims its vaporware and
doesnt
work. i'd like to see his evidence and offered up a suggestion as to what
credible evidence might be.

I didn't claim it didn't work. "Vaporware" != "doesn't work", "vaporware" =
"for all practical purposes does not now and never will exist as a
commercial product".

as you say, how can you compare? apparantly he has a way....


im not trying to say it should be made mandatory. but if you're saying
its
all vaporware, i think its YOU that needs to provide some proof.
similiar
systems have been installed for other things for years and they work.

Where have they been installed?

for one simple example touch lamps.

Why would one want to have a saw stop on a lamp?

granted it takes a little more
sophisticated system for a saw stop, but its still the same basic
principle. contact with a conductor (i.e. you) changes the electrical
characteristics of the system and can be detected.

And you are willing to trust the mechanism of a touch lamp to save you from
serious bodily harm without further analysis?

im not going to defend saw stop. but im not going to take it on the word
of
JClarke that it doesnt work either. the theory is sound, and they are
either totally faking those demonstrations, or i think its clear that less
people would be hurt with them even if it didnt work 100% of the time.

So go buy one and tell us how you like it.

randy

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

Leon wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:

I'm not sure that that counts as "didn't get their hand cut off".

Well, in the theme of your comment, Please identify one individual who
didn't get their hand cut off because the Sawstop worked. I think we all
know that you were wanting to know of some one that was not using a
substitute for real human flesh to trigger the stop.

Maybe you know that, but I know no such thing. For someone to "not get his
hand cut off" there must be someone who was at risk of getting his hand cut
off. I want to know who that was. If you can't identify someone then you
should not be claiming that such a person exists.

The hand actually
was not cut off during the demonstration with a real human flesh.

I'm sorry, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

If the thing had not triggered would he have really contined to feed his
whole
hand through the saw?

Do you not have the intuition to answer that your self?

If he was not in danger of getting his hand cut off then sawstop did not
"save him from getting his hand cut off". So was he in fact in such
danger?

And would it have prevented someone who really wanted to cut his hand off
from doing so? Note that the saws they are looking to sell have a defeat
switch.

And again I answer with a the question, Do you not have the intuition to
answer that your self?

You're the one who used someone deliberately sticking his hand in the saw as
an example of someone "not getting his hand cut off".

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

Leon wrote:


"xrongor" wrote in message
...

im not trying to say it should be made mandatory. but if you're saying
its
all vaporware, i think its YOU that needs to provide some proof.
similiar
systems have been installed for other things for years and they work. or
maybe you're still fighting the seat belt people too.

I think J.Clarke is bored and likes to argue.

Nope. I just see a lot of hype and little product.

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

Randy notes:

i think there is some confusion about the term 'vaporware' which is defined
as websters as:

"Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or may not
actually take place)"

saw stop claims that you can buy one today. if this is true, its not
vaporware. if its not it is. whether or not somebody actually owns one is
irrelevant.

I think you can order one today. Whether or not that counts as "buying" one, I
don't know, but the bigger question is, are there any in the hands of Joe. Q.
Boardbuster.

Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
xrongor responds:

im not going to defend saw stop. but im not going to take it on the word
of
JClarke that it doesnt work either. the theory is sound, and they are
either totally faking those demonstrations, or i think its clear that
less
people would be hurt with them even if it didnt work 100% of the time.

I've seen it work---with a hot dog--at least on video. I don't doubt the
theory
works, but is the application practical. It prevents, primarily,
amputation
style injuries. How many of those are there a year? Is it worth having
every
table saw in the U.S. built, or retrofitted, with a device that currently
costs
about $500 to save 50-60 people from their own misbehavior? If the figure
is
even that high.

i never claimed it should be on every table saw. just that it probably
works. sawstop claims 3000 finger amputations per year. dont know if thats
a real number. it also seems to me it would prevent at least 10 times as
many injuries but im just tossing a number out and have no evidence. is it
worth 500 bucks? you decide.

but we're getting into this theory that sawstop is trying hard to make it be
forced upon us. while that seems to be a persistant rumor, i have no
evidence or opinion either way on that issue. if it makes a statistically
significant (which is a number that could be debated) reduction in accidents
it should probably be considered.


That's what is more likely to cause this to become vaporware than any
doubt
that it actually works. Economics. A proper crown guard with a splitter
will do
about 95-90% (my guesstimate) of what the saw stop will do. Total cost is
probably about $50, and allows the makers to dump the current crappy
splitter/guard assemblies, to reduce costs even more.

as explained in another post a few minutes ago, as defined by websters, if
you can buy one today, its not vaporware. it may have been vaporware for
the time between it being announced and a product being available...
sawstop claims they will sell you one today. if the product fails because
its too expensive thats another word... i think thats part of why theres so
much disagreement in this thread.

vaporware implies a product that doesnt exist or work. that the demo's are
pure fakery or at least you arent seeing the whole picture. i see no
evidnece of either. yet.

and if the saw companies dump the crappy spllitter/guard assemblies to save
money, then the addition of a (assuming it works) sawstop will increase the
price less than if they didnt dump the guards.

in any case, i think a splitter is still necessary. sawstop may stop the
saw from cutting you but wont stop a board from flying into your face..

randy

"xrongor" wrote in message
...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Frank Ketchum wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Please identify one individual who didn't get their hand cut off
because
the
Sawstop worked.


It is not a widely used product yet. How can you demand results from
something not being used yet? He is saying if the thing is ramrodded
down
our throats then there will most certainly eventually be people who
benefit
from it by not being injured. He is quite correct about that, there
is
no
doubt. That doesn't mean, however that it should be a requirement any
machinery.

He _said_
"for every fool that thinks they are invincible and may get hurt due to
lack of respect, there are others (more people) that didnt get their
hand
cut off because the sawstop worked."

I'm merely attempting to ascertain the actual corporeal existence of at
least one of these "others". Perhaps he meant something other than what
he
said. If so, he should have recognized that his phrasing was the source
of
my confusion and clarified.

Frank

you arent trying to ascertain anything. you are stating as fact that
sawstop doesnt work and doesnt exist. and ducking proving by trying to
put
me on the defensive.

what i was responding to was a question about whether or not more injuries
would occur because people put too much trust in the system. which i
think
is false. im not claiming any actual hands were saved or cut off. im
just
saying that just because people use safety goggles and splitters it doesnt
cause more accidents because they become complacent, and same with the
sawstop. go back and check it out if you dont believe me. i think had
you
bothered to read the thread as it played out, it would be clear. it took
quite a stretch to get us this far frank.. lets see how much further you
can
stretch it g

randy

oops, i didnt look clearly and put the wrong name, not you frank, jclarke i
mean.

randy

"xrongor" wrote in message
...

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Mac Cool" wrote in message

I heard Kelly Mehler talk about Sawstop and it isn't vaporware.

Who do you know that owns one?


i think there is some confusion about the term 'vaporware' which is
defined
as websters as:

"Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or may not
actually take place)"

saw stop claims that you can buy one today. if this is true, its not
vaporware. if its not it is. whether or not somebody actually owns one
is
irrelevant.

Well you can *order* one, or at least get on a list. It seems as though
it's been a couple of years now that you could *order* one. To my
knowledge, none have been delivered to the public. Per the definition you
cite, it certainly appears to be vaporware. It's been discussed in this
newsgroup now since 2000. It makes one wonder why it hasn't gone to market
yet. If you want to say it isn't ready, then fine, but why take preorders
for two years? Doesn't seem to be the way to make people happy by putting
them on a 2 or 3 or forever year waiting list.

todd

xrongor wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Frank Ketchum wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Please identify one individual who didn't get their hand cut off
because
the
Sawstop worked.


It is not a widely used product yet. How can you demand results from
something not being used yet? He is saying if the thing is ramrodded
down
our throats then there will most certainly eventually be people who
benefit
from it by not being injured. He is quite correct about that, there is
no
doubt. That doesn't mean, however that it should be a requirement any
machinery.

He _said_
"for every fool that thinks they are invincible and may get hurt due to
lack of respect, there are others (more people) that didnt get their hand
cut off because the sawstop worked."

I'm merely attempting to ascertain the actual corporeal existence of at
least one of these "others". Perhaps he meant something other than what
he
said. If so, he should have recognized that his phrasing was the source
of
my confusion and clarified.

Frank

you arent trying to ascertain anything. you are stating as fact that
sawstop doesnt work and doesnt exist. and ducking proving by trying to
put me on the defensive.

In what post did I state that it does not work? In what post did I state
that it does not exist?

You appear to be trying to attribute to me a position that I do not hold for
the purpose of advancing your own agenda whatever that might be.

what i was responding to was a question about whether or not more injuries
would occur because people put too much trust in the system. which i
think
is false. im not claiming any actual hands were saved or cut off. im
just saying that just because people use safety goggles and splitters it
doesnt cause more accidents because they become complacent, and same with
the
sawstop. go back and check it out if you dont believe me. i think had
you
bothered to read the thread as it played out, it would be clear. it took
quite a stretch to get us this far frank.. lets see how much further you
can stretch it g

I did read the thread. Are you familiar with a phenomenon called "thread
drift"?

randy

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

xrongor wrote:


"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Mac Cool" wrote in message

I heard Kelly Mehler talk about Sawstop and it isn't vaporware.

Who do you know that owns one?


i think there is some confusion about the term 'vaporware' which is
defined as websters as:

"Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or may not
actually take place)"

saw stop claims that you can buy one today. if this is true, its not
vaporware. if its not it is. whether or not somebody actually owns one
is irrelevant.

Where does Sawstip claim that you can buy one today? They have a page where
it is possible to place a "non-binding preorder" for one of two models,
which will be shipped if they ever actually have a product. I'm still
waiting for the Zeos PCI/Microchannel motherboard that I preordered back in
'87 or thereabouts.

The fact that they will take an order does not mean that they will ever
deliver the product that you ordered. Until they _deliver_ product it's
vaporware.

randy

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

Mac Cool wrote:

"J. Clarke" said:

Are you beginning to see a pattern?

Yeah. You seem to have an interest in Sawstop failing... why?

I don't give a damn whether they fail or succeed. But I also don't see any
product delivered and I do see claims here that more than one person has
already had his hand protected from being cut off by this device that has
not yet been shipped.

The fact that a prototype has been demonstrated does not mean that the
product will ever become available commercially.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. I say they'll come to market.

Could be. Do they have decent capitalization?

As for paying $150 to gain almost foolproof protection against losing a
finger, would you toss your Unisaw to buy one of theirs?

If I were in the market for a new saw, I would pay an additional $150 for
that type of protection. I wouldn't 'toss' a perfectly good Unisaw for the
sake of a $150 safety device.

There's the problem. First, it's not a retrofit and I doubt that anybody's
going to buy a new saw just to get that feature, and second if you look at
the prices on their site you'll see it's going to cost a lot more than $150
extra to get a saw with their device installed for the foreseeable future.
I mean how big a market is there for a $2500 3 horsepower cabinet saw from
some outfit that nobody has ever heard of?

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

Charlie Self wrote:

xrongor responds:

im not going to defend saw stop. but im not going to take it on the word
of
JClarke that it doesnt work either. the theory is sound, and they are
either totally faking those demonstrations, or i think its clear that less
people would be hurt with them even if it didnt work 100% of the time.

I've seen it work---with a hot dog--at least on video. I don't doubt the
theory works, but is the application practical. It prevents, primarily,
amputation style injuries. How many of those are there a year? Is it worth
having every table saw in the U.S. built, or retrofitted, with a device
that currently costs about $500 to save 50-60 people from their own
misbehavior? If the figure is even that high.

Yeah. They're talking $150 but that's not the price they're showing for the
products for which they're taking preorders. If the thing was a $150
retrofit and didn't get in the way of using the saw I'd order two of them
right now. Cheap insurance at that price. Not worth tossing a perfectly
good saw just to pay a lot more than it had cost me to buy theirs though.

That's what is more likely to cause this to become vaporware than any
doubt that it actually works. Economics. A proper crown guard with a
splitter will do about 95-90% (my guesstimate) of what the saw stop will
do. Total cost is probably about $50, and allows the makers to dump the
current crappy splitter/guard assemblies, to reduce costs even more.

Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended
from man."
H. L. Mencken

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

xrongor wrote:


"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
xrongor responds:

im not going to defend saw stop. but im not going to take it on the
word
of
JClarke that it doesnt work either. the theory is sound, and they are
either totally faking those demonstrations, or i think its clear that
less
people would be hurt with them even if it didnt work 100% of the time.

I've seen it work---with a hot dog--at least on video. I don't doubt the
theory
works, but is the application practical. It prevents, primarily,
amputation
style injuries. How many of those are there a year? Is it worth having
every
table saw in the U.S. built, or retrofitted, with a device that currently
costs
about $500 to save 50-60 people from their own misbehavior? If the figure
is
even that high.

i never claimed it should be on every table saw. just that it probably
works. sawstop claims 3000 finger amputations per year. dont know if
thats
a real number. it also seems to me it would prevent at least 10 times as
many injuries but im just tossing a number out and have no evidence. is
it
worth 500 bucks? you decide.

but we're getting into this theory that sawstop is trying hard to make it
be
forced upon us. while that seems to be a persistant rumor, i have no
evidence or opinion either way on that issue. if it makes a statistically
significant (which is a number that could be debated) reduction in
accidents it should probably be considered.

http://www.sawstop.com/We_Need_Your_Help.htm

That's what is more likely to cause this to become vaporware than any
doubt
that it actually works. Economics. A proper crown guard with a splitter
will do
about 95-90% (my guesstimate) of what the saw stop will do. Total cost is
probably about $50, and allows the makers to dump the current crappy
splitter/guard assemblies, to reduce costs even more.

as explained in another post a few minutes ago, as defined by websters, if
you can buy one today, its not vaporware.

Where can I buy one?

it may have been vaporware for
the time between it being announced and a product being available...
sawstop claims they will sell you one today.

How do I go about getting them to sell me one today? Not a "non-binding
preorder" but an actual purchase?

if the product fails because
its too expensive thats another word... i think thats part of why theres
so much disagreement in this thread.

vaporware implies a product that doesnt exist or work. that the demo's
are
pure fakery or at least you arent seeing the whole picture. i see no
evidnece of either. yet.

The product may exist and work and yet never make it to market.

and if the saw companies dump the crappy spllitter/guard assemblies to
save money, then the addition of a (assuming it works) sawstop will
increase the price less than if they didnt dump the guards.

in any case, i think a splitter is still necessary. sawstop may stop the
saw from cutting you but wont stop a board from flying into your face..

randy

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

Todd Fatheree responds:


Well you can *order* one, or at least get on a list. It seems as though
it's been a couple of years now that you could *order* one. To my
knowledge, none have been delivered to the public. Per the definition you
cite, it certainly appears to be vaporware. It's been discussed in this
newsgroup now since 2000. It makes one wonder why it hasn't gone to market
yet. If you want to say it isn't ready, then fine, but why take preorders
for two years? Doesn't seem to be the way to make people happy by putting
them on a 2 or 3 or forever year waiting list.


Yes. They're still taking only pre-orders. I first saw this thing at the 2000
IWWF. They started taking pre-orders at the next IWWF, if memory serves. That
was almost two years ago, now. It seems just a little bit like the boy who
cried wolf, doesn't it?

And I would very much like to know where they get the figure of 30,000 injuries
on table saws.

Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken

"Todd Fatheree" said:

It makes one wonder why it hasn't gone to market
yet.

My understanding is that the goal is/was to stop the blade as soon as it
made contact with a person without destroying the blade. It took some
testing to achieve both goals.

--
Mac Cool

Charlie Self wrote:

Todd Fatheree responds:


Well you can *order* one, or at least get on a list. It seems as though
it's been a couple of years now that you could *order* one. To my
knowledge, none have been delivered to the public. Per the definition you
cite, it certainly appears to be vaporware. It's been discussed in this
newsgroup now since 2000. It makes one wonder why it hasn't gone to
market
yet. If you want to say it isn't ready, then fine, but why take preorders
for two years? Doesn't seem to be the way to make people happy by putting
them on a 2 or 3 or forever year waiting list.


Yes. They're still taking only pre-orders. I first saw this thing at the
2000 IWWF. They started taking pre-orders at the next IWWF, if memory
serves. That was almost two years ago, now. It seems just a little bit
like the boy who cried wolf, doesn't it?

And I would very much like to know where they get the figure of 30,000
injuries on table saws.

If you go to http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html you can query the
Consumer Product Safety Commission database. The database has actual
results from a sample set of hospitals, which is used to estimate the
national statistics, if they get enough reports to allow an estimate to be
calculated. It also has case histories online and will show up to 30 of
them for each query.

It shows an estimate of 33,000 table-saw related injuries requiring a
hospital visit in 2002. They estimate 3503 amputations, all of which were
of one or more fingers. They estimate 22,105 lacerations and 3595
fractures. An estimated 28,271 of the injuries of any kind were to
fingers. 24,498 occurred in a home, 7612 occurred in an "unknown locale",
they have no estimate for the number that occured in an "industrial
place"--they had _one_ reported--a 77 year old man lost his left thumb.
They had no estimate for the number that occured in a school--they had 13
reported, only two of which were amputations, one "partial" of two fingers
and the other the tip of the left ring finger, the rest were lacerations or
fractures except for one kid who got something in his eye.



Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended
from man."
H. L. Mencken

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

"Mac Cool" wrote in message
...
"Edwin Pawlowski" said:

I heard Kelly Mehler talk about Sawstop and it isn't vaporware.

Who do you know that owns one?

I know who Kelly Mehler is and he's seen one. I don't know you.
--
Mac Cool

"Seen one" and "own one" are different. May prototypes are seen and
demonstrated, but never reach the marketplace.

I'd truly like to see the product hit the market and become accepted and the
cost lowered in mass production. Has not happened yet and the Saw Stop web
site does not give any solid information about delivery. Nor has it for the
past year or so. The Tucker was ahead of its time too.
Ed

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 02:22:56 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Mac Cool" wrote in message
...
"Edwin Pawlowski" said:

I heard Kelly Mehler talk about Sawstop and it isn't vaporware.

Who do you know that owns one?

I know who Kelly Mehler is and he's seen one. I don't know you.
--
Mac Cool

"Seen one" and "own one" are different. May prototypes are seen and
demonstrated, but never reach the marketplace.

I'd truly like to see the product hit the market and become accepted and the
cost lowered in mass production. Has not happened yet and the Saw Stop web
site does not give any solid information about delivery. Nor has it for the
past year or so. The Tucker was ahead of its time too.
Ed

word is, it's prone to false positives, and each one costs you $75.00.

Where does Sawstip claim that you can buy one today? They have a page
where
it is possible to place a "non-binding preorder" for one of two models,
which will be shipped if they ever actually have a product. I'm still
waiting for the Zeos PCI/Microchannel motherboard that I preordered back
in
'87 or thereabouts.

The fact that they will take an order does not mean that they will ever
deliver the product that you ordered. Until they _deliver_ product it's
vaporware.

well the page i saw says "saw stop saws now available". that seemed pretty
damn clear. but i also see if you go one page deeper it says 'pre order'.
so it looks like they are indeed lying.

randy

xrongor states:

well the page i saw says "saw stop saws now available". that seemed pretty
damn clear. but i also see if you go one page deeper it says 'pre order'.
so it looks like they are indeed lying.

Randy, that's marketing, not lying. There's a difference. Or so the marketing
department will tell you.

Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken

writes:

word is, it's prone to false positives, and each one costs you $75.00.

Do you mean, that it's like airbags - the safety system works ONCE,
and something has to be replaced afterwards for $75. Sheesh!


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

"xrongor" writes:

im not trying to compare anything. J Clarke claims its vaporware
and doesnt work. i'd like to see his evidence and offered up a
suggestion as to what credible evidence might be.

Sounds like someone trying to prove a negative assuption.
Compare this to

X claims that the Tooth Fairy its vaporware and doesnt exist.
i'd like to see his evidence.

Can't be done.
It's hard to prove a negative assertion. That's why people are arguing
the opposite.

Assertion: Sawstop is a real product.
Proof: Find one case where someone bought it and owns it.

If it's been 4 years, and one has not been sold, then there is some
design issue that has not been solved. Heck, they could buy a COTS
saw, add the device, and re-sell it. Where is it?

I suspect one of the issues is making sure the legal claims are accurate.
Lawyers tend to be pessimistic about things like that.


Let's see - false positive - it stops when you don't want it to.
False negative - it doesn't stop, and amputates a finger/hand. At
least one of these is causing a problem. Or as someone suggested, each
"stop" costs money to replace something. The FAQ says the arbor is
disengaged. This doesn't sound like a "single-use" mechanism. I'd love
to learn more about this...




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

"xrongor" writes:

as explained in another post a few minutes ago, as defined by websters, if
you can buy one today, its not vaporware.


The web site says you can "pre-order" one today.




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

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 22:43:21 -0600, xrongor wrote:

well the page i saw says "saw stop saws now available". that seemed pretty
damn clear. but i also see if you go one page deeper it says 'pre order'.
so it looks like they are indeed lying.

Classic definition of vaporware right there. Kind of like Doom 3, but
there's a release date for that now, maybe-ish.

Bruce Barnett wrote:

writes:

word is, it's prone to false positives, and each one costs you $75.00.

Do you mean, that it's like airbags - the safety system works ONCE,
and something has to be replaced afterwards for $75. Sheesh!

Yep. They'll take preorders for the replacement modules as well. Also, you
need to change the module if you use an 8" or 6" dado (different module for
each). Presumably one of the features of their saw is some way to detect
an undersized blade and not run if the incorrect module is installed. Or
maybe working that out is one of the reasons they haven't shipped a product
yet.

Thinking about this a bit, I wonder how it would handle the planer and
shaper attachments often used on radial arm saws? The planer doesn't have
anything for their pin to catch in and it wouldn't surprise me if trying to
stop the shaper by shoving a pin in the way of the blades caused it to
throw a knife.

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

Bruce Barnett wrote:

"xrongor" writes:

im not trying to compare anything. J Clarke claims its vaporware
and doesnt work. i'd like to see his evidence and offered up a
suggestion as to what credible evidence might be.

Sounds like someone trying to prove a negative assuption.
Compare this to

X claims that the Tooth Fairy its vaporware and doesnt exist.
i'd like to see his evidence.

Can't be done.
It's hard to prove a negative assertion. That's why people are arguing
the opposite.

Assertion: Sawstop is a real product.
Proof: Find one case where someone bought it and owns it.

If it's been 4 years, and one has not been sold, then there is some
design issue that has not been solved. Heck, they could buy a COTS
saw, add the device, and re-sell it. Where is it?

I suspect one of the issues is making sure the legal claims are accurate.
Lawyers tend to be pessimistic about things like that.


Let's see - false positive - it stops when you don't want it to.
False negative - it doesn't stop, and amputates a finger/hand. At
least one of these is causing a problem. Or as someone suggested, each
"stop" costs money to replace something. The FAQ says the arbor is
disengaged. This doesn't sound like a "single-use" mechanism. I'd love
to learn more about this...

Go to http://www.sawstop.com/features.htm and move the mouse pointer over
"cartridge system" and you'll find their statement that "The system's brake
is housed in a cartridge that is easily replaced should the system ever be
triggered. These replaceable cartridges enable the system to be quickly
adapted for use with different sizes and types of saw blades. " I believe
that the disengaging arbor is intended to avoid damaging the motor. Now
though I'm wondering about this worm gear they mention. I'm having trouble
visualizing how that works and they don't show the mechanism clearly enough
in their pictures for me to be able to figure it out.





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

In article , "xrongor" wrote:

you arent trying to ascertain anything. you are stating as fact that
sawstop doesnt work and doesnt exist. and ducking proving by trying to put
me on the defensive.

Nobody said it doesn't work; in fact, the consensus of Da Wreck's previous
discussions of SawStop is that it *does* work, and is pretty damn impressive
besides.

Nobody said it doesn't exist, either. However, it *is* a fact that this
machine is not yet (or is only *very* recently) in actual production.

what i was responding to was a question about whether or not more injuries
would occur because people put too much trust in the system. which i think
is false. im not claiming any actual hands were saved or cut off.

Excuse me -- you *did* claim *exactly* that: "for every fool that thinks they
are invincible and may get hurt due to lack of respect, there are others (more
people) that didnt get their hand cut off because the sawstop worked"


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , "xrongor" wrote:
well the page i saw says "saw stop saws now available". that seemed pretty
damn clear. but i also see if you go one page deeper it says 'pre order'.
so it looks like they are indeed lying.

That page has said "now available" for about two years now. And they still
aren't available.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , "xrongor" wrote:

but we're getting into this theory that sawstop is trying hard to make it be
forced upon us. while that seems to be a persistant rumor, i have no
evidence or opinion either way on that issue. if it makes a statistically
significant (which is a number that could be debated) reduction in accidents
it should probably be considered.

No rumor. SawStop filed a petition with the Consumer Product Safety Commission
requesting that automatic-stop technology be required on all table saws. It's
been cussed and discussed to death on this ng at least twice in the last year
or so. DAGS and you'll see what I mean.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Bruce Barnett asks:

writes:

word is, it's prone to false positives, and each one costs you $75.00.

Do you mean, that it's like airbags - the safety system works ONCE,
and something has to be replaced afterwards for $75. Sheesh!

Ayup. And they say $150 up front cost (if installed on the assembly line) and a
$75 cartridge replacement cost, but say nothing of the strain on the arbor and
trunnions when the assembly instantly drops below the table and is jammed to a
stop.

Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:04:10 GMT, Lobby Dosser
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

The sawstop will work when no power is applied to the MOTOR.
If you change blades with power applied to SAW the you deserve what
you get.


Ever tried changing a blade without moving it?

Presumably if you pull the power cord, you'd shut it down.

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 16:12:29 -0400, "J. Clarke"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


If he was not in danger of getting his hand cut off then sawstop did not
"save him from getting his hand cut off". So was he in fact in such
danger?

Ya nearly had me til there....

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
gy.com...
In article , "xrongor"
wrote:

you arent trying to ascertain anything. you are stating as fact that
sawstop doesnt work and doesnt exist. and ducking proving by trying to
put
me on the defensive.

Nobody said it doesn't work; in fact, the consensus of Da Wreck's previous
discussions of SawStop is that it *does* work, and is pretty damn
impressive
besides.

Nobody said it doesn't exist, either. However, it *is* a fact that this
machine is not yet (or is only *very* recently) in actual production.

what i was responding to was a question about whether or not more
injuries
would occur because people put too much trust in the system. which i
think
is false. im not claiming any actual hands were saved or cut off.

Excuse me -- you *did* claim *exactly* that: "for every fool that thinks
they
are invincible and may get hurt due to lack of respect, there are others
(more
people) that didnt get their hand cut off because the sawstop worked"


and you are only posting the part of the discussion you need to make
yourself correct. let me put the whole thing back in context without some
creative snipping. you're the second person to take the word NO off the
front which makes what i said into a blind statement not the answer to
someones specific question.:

(start here)
(the question i was responding to was
Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
*increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?

(my answer was)

no. for every fool that thinks they are invincible and may get hurt due to
lack of respect, there are others (more people) that didnt get their hand
cut off because the sawstop worked. in fact in many cases it would probably
even save the fool.

not to mention anyone who thinks the safety device is a substitute for
thinking is gonna get hurt no matter what eventually...

(stop here)

i was speaking in context of answering that question. i think all but the
most hardheaded can see clearly that i wasnt actually claiming any hands cut
off or not cut. just making a comment on whether or not safety devices
cause accidents by making people complacent.

now step off please.

randy

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
gy.com...
In article , "xrongor"
wrote:

but we're getting into this theory that sawstop is trying hard to make it
be
forced upon us. while that seems to be a persistant rumor, i have no
evidence or opinion either way on that issue. if it makes a
statistically
significant (which is a number that could be debated) reduction in
accidents
it should probably be considered.

No rumor. SawStop filed a petition with the Consumer Product Safety
Commission
requesting that automatic-stop technology be required on all table saws.
It's
been cussed and discussed to death on this ng at least twice in the last
year
or so. DAGS and you'll see what I mean.


ya i know its been discussed here to death.... but that doesnt mean
everything said here is true. there are clearly some people in this group
that seem to be against sawstop to the point of hatred. and the key to what
i said before is 'trying hard'. for all i know they filed a petition two
years ago, it died, and so did that idea. i wouldnt call that trying hard.
or maybe they have hostages and intend on making it happen tomorrow. now
that would be trying!

randy

Ever tried changing a blade without moving it?

I don't generally turn on the power in order to do it. Geez, it's the
21st
century--kitchen appliances have more processing power than a '60s
mainframe--how hard do you think it is to program a control so that "if
power has been turned on and off and blade is moving and skin touches it
activate, if blade has stopped and moves again and power has not been
turned on then do not activate".

Presumably if you pull the power cord, you'd shut it down.

How much power do you think it draws? I suspect that it has some kind of
backup power source with enough juice to keep it armed until the saw quits
turning. That's the way I'd design it.


now YOU know how it feels when someone takes what you said and twists it to
come to the stupidest possible conclusion...

randy

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
gy.com...
In article , "xrongor"
wrote:
well the page i saw says "saw stop saws now available". that seemed
pretty
damn clear. but i also see if you go one page deeper it says 'pre
order'.
so it looks like they are indeed lying.

That page has said "now available" for about two years now. And they still
aren't available.


ya thats pretty tricky how they do that g

randy

xrongor wrote:

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

xrongor writes:

show me one person that DID get their hand cut off even with this system
installed. somehow i dont think the hot dog had any special properties
about it that makes the

Unrealistic. The unit is not in general release, probably no more than a

couple

dozen floating around, if that many. How can you compare, especially

negatives,

when the other systems have millions in use.


im not trying to compare anything. J Clarke claims its vaporware and doesnt
work. i'd like to see his evidence and offered up a suggestion as to what
credible evidence might be.

as you say, how can you compare? apparantly he has a way....


im not trying to say it should be made mandatory. but if you're saying

its

all vaporware, i think its YOU that needs to provide some proof.

similiar

systems have been installed for other things for years and they work.

Where have they been installed?


for one simple example touch lamps. granted it takes a little more
sophisticated system for a saw stop, but its still the same basic principle.
contact with a conductor (i.e. you) changes the electrical characteristics
of the system and can be detected.

im not going to defend saw stop. but im not going to take it on the word of
JClarke that it doesnt work either. the theory is sound, and they are
either totally faking those demonstrations, or i think its clear that less
people would be hurt with them even if it didnt work 100% of the time.

randy


touch lamps don't work 100% of the time when touched. If
THAT'S the SawStop's technology, NO THANK YOU!

dave

xrongor wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
gy.com...
In article , "xrongor"
wrote:

you arent trying to ascertain anything. you are stating as fact that
sawstop doesnt work and doesnt exist. and ducking proving by trying to
put
me on the defensive.

Nobody said it doesn't work; in fact, the consensus of Da Wreck's
previous discussions of SawStop is that it *does* work, and is pretty
damn
impressive
besides.

Nobody said it doesn't exist, either. However, it *is* a fact that this
machine is not yet (or is only *very* recently) in actual production.

what i was responding to was a question about whether or not more
injuries
would occur because people put too much trust in the system. which i
think
is false. im not claiming any actual hands were saved or cut off.

Excuse me -- you *did* claim *exactly* that: "for every fool that thinks
they
are invincible and may get hurt due to lack of respect, there are others
(more
people) that didnt get their hand cut off because the sawstop worked"


and you are only posting the part of the discussion you need to make
yourself correct. let me put the whole thing back in context without some
creative snipping. you're the second person to take the word NO off the
front which makes what i said into a blind statement not the answer to
someones specific question.:

(start here)
(the question i was responding to was
Gotta wonder, though... will this type of technology actually
*increase* injuries because of a reduction in respect for the tool?

(my answer was)

no. for every fool that thinks they are invincible and may get hurt due
to lack of respect, there are others (more people) that didnt get their
hand
cut off because the sawstop worked. in fact in many cases it would
probably even save the fool.

not to mention anyone who thinks the safety device is a substitute for
thinking is gonna get hurt no matter what eventually...

(stop here)

i was speaking in context of answering that question. i think all but the
most hardheaded can see clearly that i wasnt actually claiming any hands
cut
off or not cut. just making a comment on whether or not safety devices
cause accidents by making people complacent.

No, it's not clear at all _what_ you intended. Try "No. For every fool who
thinks he is invincible and may get hurt due to lack of respect there would
be others that didn't get their hand cut off because the sawstop worked."

now step off please.

randy

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

Charlie Self wrote:

Bruce Barnett asks:
SNIP
Ayup. And they say $150 up front cost (if installed on the assembly line) and a
$75 cartridge replacement cost, but say nothing of the strain on the arbor and
trunnions when the assembly instantly drops below the table and is jammed to a
stop.

Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken



Think about what you're saying here. IF it works, I'm wondering if I
ran my fingers into the blade and it snapped my arbor and trunnions -
destroyed my saw - but didn't leave me fingerless, would I feel I'd
rather have lost my fingers (or arm or...) than the saw? I don't know
of any piece of machinery anywhere that I'd trade for any body part.

Keith

No, it's not clear at all _what_ you intended. Try "No. For every fool
who
thinks he is invincible and may get hurt due to lack of respect there
would
be others that didn't get their hand cut off because the sawstop worked."

you want me to cut your steak for you to g

randy