On 12/5/2012 1:07 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
wrote in message ...
....

There's a very big societal cost in the higher injury/death rates owing to
folks not being individually responsible-enough to use them.

Well, then, technically, I remain correck:
Gummint don't give a **** about an indivdual's safety, they're concerned
about their own bottom line.
....

Well, fundamentally they're the same...and should be concerned about
"their" bottom line since again, fundamentally, that's us.

--

" wrote:

You do realize that turning off the saw via the switch is
very different from a power failure, right? Using the
switch there is still power available to the protection
circuitry. During a power failure there is not.


A relay with it's coil across the power line when the switch is on
will stop it, if the power fails. Or configure it with the common
on/off power buttons as a simple motor controller.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Somebody wrote:

A modification can be made to table saws with induction or split
phase motors. You change the power switch from SPST to SPDT, add a
diode & electrolytic capacitor that charges when the motor is
running.
When you switch the motor off, the capacitor discharges through the
motor, causing a rapid braking effect. This can't be done with
universal motors, since they will run on DC.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Otherwise known as dynamic braking.

Usually involves a DC power supply and a mechanically interlocked
motor starter and a DC contactor along with a time delay relay.

Normally used on three phase motors and requires a motor designed
for the application.

Will usually rip the stator out of the housing of a standard NEMA,
Design B motor without additional pegging.

An expensive solution at best, have never seen one on a single phase
motor, doubt a capacitor large enough to stop a single phase load
would even come close to offering a cost effective solution.


You are ignoring the field inductance and that it doesn't discharge
the cap instantly. You don't need to stop it in a fraction of a turn,
but the DC can slow it to a stop in a fraction of a second without
damaging the motor. The motor comes up to full speed in that same time
frame. I;ve seen construction progects about adding braking to existing
power tools, but no longer have them.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
On 12/5/2012 1:07 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
wrote in message
...
...

There's a very big societal cost in the higher injury/death rates owing
to
folks not being individually responsible-enough to use them.

Well, then, technically, I remain correck:
Gummint don't give a **** about an indivdual's safety, they're
concerned
about their own bottom line.
...

Well, fundamentally they're the same...and should be concerned about
"their" bottom line since again, fundamentally, that's us.

Mebbe, but I would still maintain coincidentally so.....

And I do believe in "the Pubic good".... just that, when Conmen (read:
CONgress; and re-read: Lobbyists) are in charge of that Pubic Good, ****
never quite turns out right. 'tis what 'tis.... I guess this is what
happens when you (we) ****ed away our right to referendum....
--
EA



--

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 12/5/2012 8:47 AM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 12/4/2012 11:38 PM, Leon wrote:
On 12/4/2012 4:56 PM, Red Green wrote:
dpb wrote in :

On 12/4/2012 12:33 PM, dpb wrote:


[snip]


Let's see, power goes out, lights go out, hand reduces down/forward
pressure, wood kicks, fingers hit hot dog blade that's spinnning
full bore, ooops! no electricity to sense, fingers splat on back
wall. Wonder if hot dog man has that one covered?


If the saw was running, it will stop if there is a loss of power.
Yes the stop will work if the saw is turned off.

Capacitor


Do you know that for a fact, Leon or is that speculation? Yes, a
capacitor could be used to discharge the SawStop mechanism but I'm
wondering if it's also set up (assuming that this is NOT a
speculative solution) to power the sensing circuitry.

In any event, strike your phrase "if the saw is turned off" as
erroneous and/or misleading. If the saw is turned off, how would you
ever change the blade without the device triggering. Better to say
"even with a loss of power" (if such is truly the case).



It was fact 10 or so years ago, I questioned SawStop about the
possibility and or being cut after the was was turned off.

There is more than one switch on the saw.

But to be sure nothing has changed I have e-mailed SawStop with the
question. I'll provide the answer when I get it.




Somebody needs to kill the power and toss a hot dog on the blade to
settle this Q.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:50:01 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/5/2012 12:24 PM, Leon wrote:
...

A simple $5 multi thousand volt capacitor would hold the charge and melt
the fuse wire.

Perhaps but I doubt it's there...

if the motor was changed to 3ph and a VFD used to control it..stopping
time can be in fractions of a second.

When I can stop a Hardinge HC motor. spindle and a heavy 6" chuck in
1 second or less..Id think that a small blade and smaller motor could
be stopped very quickly. Then one only needs to add some sort of meat
sensor.


Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

In article , says...

On 12/4/2012 12:33 PM, dpb wrote:
...

It's a clever technology and worthwhile--my complaint w/ Gass is his
attempt to now force it on the market to make a bundle by
legislative/mandatory means rather than by winning the competitive
battle in the marketplace.

I was going to add that it will be _most_ interesting when the first
failure to actuate when needed occurs and the ensuing lawsuit forces
him/SawStop to rely on the same arguments to try to defend his bottom
line as they used against the present manufacturers of inherently
unsafe...

It _will_ happen eventually; no technology is completely failure-proof
either from a simple failure of the mechanics to fire when demanded or
the electrical sensor system fails or whatever.

Or, the doofus operator like the one that got Hitachi(?) who has no
knowledge of the operation and doesn't know the override is on and then
sues because the saw should've known that and not let him...

Bear in mind that the override is a one-shot. You have to set it every
time you power up the saw and it resets to the default mode when you
turn off the switch.

In article , says...

On 12/5/2012 11:59 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
...

Ditto seatbelts, helmet laws. There's no fukn safety safety concern for the
public in seatbelt laws....

Well, that isn't so, in reality, no.

There's a very big societal cost in the higher injury/death rates owing
to folks not being individually responsible-enough to use them. It's
kinda' like the class staying after school because of one somebody threw
a spitball...we all pay for the sins of the few.

The thing is we're all paying through the nose for airbags all over the
place that were originally sold to Congress on the basis that they made
seat belts unnecessary, and now the reason we have to wear seat belts is
to protect us from the damned airbags.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:44:47 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/5/2012 11:59 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
...

Ditto seatbelts, helmet laws. There's no fukn safety safety concern for the
public in seatbelt laws....

Well, that isn't so, in reality, no.

There's a very big societal cost in the higher injury/death rates owing
to folks not being individually responsible-enough to use them. It's
kinda' like the class staying after school because of one somebody threw
a spitball...we all pay for the sins of the few.

That "logic" can be applied to any/all of our freedoms. You really do
want government to own you rather than the other way 'round.

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:00:50 -0500, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
...
On 12/5/2012 12:19 PM, wrote:


If you don't
believe that people do not want to accept responsibility for their own
actions, and prefer to be victims of others, just take a look at the
Hitachi
contractor's saw lawsuit. Or, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. Or...
As I replied to Keith, what does any of that have to do
with the usefulness of SawStop on a table saw? It's not
an issue of personal responsibility. It's an issue of safety
and the fact that accidents happen to everyone.



What has this to do with personally responsibility? If you are stupid
enough to put a cup of near boiling hot coffee between your legs, the
company that made the coffee hot like you told them you want should not be
held responsible for your stupidity.

I am as safe as any one. The stupid mistake I made with my table saw is
the first I have made in the 50 years of using the saw. Should I have the
right to sue the manufacture because I was stupid?

The nanny state can not continue to require some safety device for every
stupid action that someone makes. If someone does something stupid and
looses a finger, it will be (or not be)there to remind them to be safer in
the future.

Regardless of how many safety devices are places on a saw or anything else
you use, they will not make you safe unless you accept the responsibility
for your own safety. If you do not know enough about the saw or whatever
device you are using to KNOW what is an unsafe act, you should not be
using it.

Maybe the next step is for our nanny state is to regulate the use of table
saws, and only allow you to use it after you have passed a test and paid
the government money for a license. Because government licenses we now
have no auto death or injuries.



I can deal with a nanny-state, but not a nanny-state that also sodomizes me
economically.

You can't have one without the other. Either you own the government
or the government owns you. There is no middle ground.

You can't be my parent AND **** me....

But the government can be your parent and **** you. ...and it will do
both if you let it, which seems to please you.

Trader4 can mebbe deal wit dat, but Moi cannot.... lol

Except that it's clear that you are OK with that.

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:23:38 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 4, 10:51*pm, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 12/4/2012 1:36 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:





On Dec 4, 9:38 am, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 12/4/2012 8:28 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Dec 4, 9:11 am, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
* *Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 12/3/2012 10:46 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
"Existential Angst" wrote in message
...
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
This guy purposely caused kickback on his table saw to prove a point.

Make sure you watch what happens at 4:20 into the video.

He agrees with anyone who calls him an idiot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7sRrC2Jpp4

Excellent vid, valuable lesson.
He's not an idiot, he just didn't have the control over the situation as
he expected. ***** happens, even with good intentions.

He proly would not have lost a digit or part thereof (as in a RAS), but he
certainly came close to requiring a lot of stitches, and poss. nerve
damage -- which can be almost as bad as losing a digit.

How does a riving knife work? *Never saw one before this.

Apropos of this, the SawStop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiYoB...endscreen&NR=1

He claims sumpn like 3600 accidents a year, all severed digits? *I doubt it.
Table saws, iiuc, don't nec'ly sever digits -- RAS's do. *So I'm sure plenty
of people get deep cuts on table saws, but not nec'ly severings.
He may have also been lumping RAS accidents with table saw accidents --
assholes aren't nec'ly careful with stats.

But, this demo was ess'ly bogus. *If the saw stop didn't work, he would have
gotten a bit of a nick (MAYBE), before his nervous system kicked in -- ESP
the way his finger was glued to the table..... *sheeit, I'da done that
WITHOUT a saw stop.... gimme a fukn break with that bull****.....

Now, let him put his system on a RAS, and test DAT with his finger, cutting
in climb.... *yeah, I'll hold effing breath....

Finally, the fuknCOST of this system.... *holy ****.... * God help the home
woodworker if this thing ever becomes mandatory. *Which could happen, given
that they now make crawling helmets for toddlers:
http://www.amazon.com/Thudguard-Baby.../dp/B001OWCOTS
Even insufferable Manhattan Yupsters have a tough time swallowing this one.
Trader4 and Terrel would proly buy a crawling helmet, tho....

I'd love to see the system! *I wonder if it could be adapted to shapers,
routers and other cutting machines. *It would help a lot with OSHA
problems where guards make production next to impossible.

The problem with SawStop has been that each false alarm requires
replacing various mechanical components, which takes time and money. *It
doesn't make too many false alarms to make guards more economical.

My recollection is that the sensor measures resistance (not capacitance)
between saw blade and ground, so it won't work with wet wood or metal
stock. *The patents should tell the tale.

Joe Gwinn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you have any figures that indicate that "false alarms" are an
issue?

I agree that "each false alarm requires replacing various mechanical
components" but if there aren't any false alarms, then it's a moot
point.

My only point being that using the words "each false alarm" might make
the reader think that they happen often enough to negate the value of
the device. That is not something I have read or heard about the Saw
Stop device, but the info might be out there somewhere.

False trips have never been proven to be of any fault of the saw. *I
have read about the SawStop having an issue with an older electonic
digital watch but Sawstop isolated the problem and took care of the expense.

That said if you are having false trips it may very well be likely that
you are doing something wrong and probably the perfect candidate for a
SawStop, you are probably going to benefit from it. *I know of no one
and have read of no one that has actually purchased a Sawstop having
this problem with out a reasonable solution. *Users are not complaining.

...

The only people complaining about the perceived SawStop problems are
those that are uneducated on the product.

That's what I thought and that's why I asked.

However, something you said needs some clarification, at least to me.

You said: *"That said if you are having false trips it may very well
be likely that you are doing something wrong and probably the perfect
candidate for a SawStop, you are probably going to benefit from it."

What could a user be doing that would cause "false trips"? If there
are no documented false trip issues, then wouldn't any trips caused by
someone doing something wrong actually be *real*?

Cutting wet wood and not over riding the system. *Just for starters.
No fault of the saw. *I see a false trip as something that should not
have happened and is the fault of the saw.- Hide quoted text -



The question then becomes, what exactly is "wet" wood?
To trip a capacitance/resistance sensor probably doesn't
require the wood to be dripping wet. There would be a
whole range of how much moisture a piece of wood might
have. Everything from wood that has been kept inside
in a heated shop, to a piece of wood that has been laying around
at a job site under a tarp, to a piece that was rained on
two days ago, etc....

AIUI, wood has to be almost dripping wet for the SS mechanism to
false-trip. It's a great technology that I might even buy if it
weren't for that horse's ass Gass. I'd pay a couple of hundred for
the *option* but I wouldn't (didn't) pay double ($1500).

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 10:15:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Leon wrote:

10+ years ago before the SawStop was in production I questioned Gass
about this. My TS accident happened after I finished a cut and had
turned the saw off. The blade was coasting down to a stop when I was
cut. I wanted to know back then it those bases were covered also.


A modification can be made to table saws with induction or split
phase motors. You change the power switch from SPST to SPDT, add a
diode & electrolytic capacitor that charges when the motor is running.
When you switch the motor off, the capacitor discharges through the
motor, causing a rapid braking effect. This can't be done with
universal motors, since they will run on DC.

Yes, miter saws use a similar scheme as a blade brake. I'm really
surprised that table saws don't do this. It's almost free. Hell, all
you have to do is short the motor, the capacitor and such is just
trimming.

The only time I've come anywhere close to having an "issue" with my
table saw was when it was coasting down. It's (relatively) quiet and
I can't see the blade spinning so it takes a conscious effort to keep
the finnners out of the machinery.

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 09:46:12 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 5, 10:15*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Leon wrote:

10+ years ago before the SawStop was in production I questioned Gass
about this. *My TS accident happened after I finished a cut and had
turned the saw off. *The blade was coasting down to a stop when I was
cut. *I wanted to know back then it those bases were covered also.

* *A modification can be made to table saws with induction or split
phase motors. *You change the power switch from SPST to SPDT, add a
diode & electrolytic capacitor that charges when the motor is running.
When you switch the motor off, the capacitor discharges through the
motor, causing a rapid braking effect. *This can't be done with
universal motors, since they will run on DC.


Even if this could work, it would have to be one hell
of a huge cap to hold enough energy to stop a spinning motor
and saw blade in the time to prevent injury. The cap might
be bigger than the saw. And I have my
doubts about it working at all, ie simply feeding DC into an
AC motor that has lost power being effective at braking.

It does work. You're not trying to turn the rotor backwards, just
stop it. The DC source isn't even needed, just short the thing. This
is how dynamic braking is done in diesel-electric trains, and such,
though hey use resistor banks to change the braking characteristics.

But beyond that, why on earth would you? The energy
that it would take to keep the SawStop system active for
a minute during spin-down following loss of power has
to be tiny compared to what it would take for the electric
motor braking approach.

Firing the SawStop mechanism is a one-shot event. After you clean
your shorts, you get to replace the mechanism and the blade. Dynamic
braking is a freebie and can be done every power cycle.

In article ,
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Or, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

Uh, I'd venture that 99.9% of the people who bring this up as a supposed
example of a frivolous lawsuit, actually have never heard the real
story.

Fact 1: The woman received THIRD DEGREE burns. The coffee was FAR hotter
than any reasonable restaurant ever serves it. This was a deliberate
ploy to reduce requests for refills, as the stuff couldn't even be
sipped for 10-15 minutes.

Fact 2: The woman asked McD's to pay her medical bills, which IIRC were
a couple of hundred dollars.

Fact 3: She brought suit only AFTER McD refused to pay the paltry
medical bills.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:21:55 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Or, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

Uh, I'd venture that 99.9% of the people who bring this up as a supposed
example of a frivolous lawsuit, actually have never heard the real
story.

Fact 1: The woman received THIRD DEGREE burns.

Bull****.

The coffee was FAR hotter
than any reasonable restaurant ever serves it. This was a deliberate
ploy to reduce requests for refills, as the stuff couldn't even be
sipped for 10-15 minutes.

180F *is* appropriate for coffee. Dunkin' Donuts required that their
coffee be served at 180F +/- 3F, at that time. What she did is not
appropriate for a cup of coffee. BEcause of this nonsense it's
difficult to find a decent cup of coffee anymore.

Fact 2: The woman asked McD's to pay her medical bills, which IIRC were
a couple of hundred dollars.

Irrrelevant.

Fact 3: She brought suit only AFTER McD refused to pay the paltry
medical bills.

Irelevant.

On 12/5/12 11:21 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Or, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

Uh, I'd venture that 99.9% of the people who bring this up as a supposed
example of a frivolous lawsuit, actually have never heard the real
story.

Fact 1: The woman received THIRD DEGREE burns. The coffee was FAR hotter
than any reasonable restaurant ever serves it. This was a deliberate
ploy to reduce requests for refills, as the stuff couldn't even be
sipped for 10-15 minutes.

Fact 2: The woman asked McD's to pay her medical bills, which IIRC were
a couple of hundred dollars.

Fact 3: She brought suit only AFTER McD refused to pay the paltry
medical bills.


There's even more to that lawsuit. McD's had years of memos showing
many, many complaints and burned customers yet they decided the money
paid in potential lawsuits would be less than lost revenue from people
not buying their coffee if they decided to lower the serving temperature.

The judge in the case decided to make it hurt.... even if just a little.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 12/5/12 11:35 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:21:55 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Or, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

Uh, I'd venture that 99.9% of the people who bring this up as a supposed
example of a frivolous lawsuit, actually have never heard the real
story.

Fact 1: The woman received THIRD DEGREE burns.

Bull****.


No, it's not. She required skin grafts in her crotch. This is all
easily obtained information. There's a documentary on netflix that
spells it all out.


The coffee was FAR hotter
than any reasonable restaurant ever serves it. This was a deliberate
ploy to reduce requests for refills, as the stuff couldn't even be
sipped for 10-15 minutes.

180F *is* appropriate for coffee. Dunkin' Donuts required that their
coffee be served at 180F +/- 3F, at that time. What she did is not
appropriate for a cup of coffee. BEcause of this nonsense it's
difficult to find a decent cup of coffee anymore.


I'd like to see you try to drink 180 degree water.
160degree is palatable, but hot. 180 will burn you.
Go get an accurate thermometer and drink some 180 degree water.
Just please video record it so I can enjoy the results.


Fact 2: The woman asked McD's to pay her medical bills, which IIRC were
a couple of hundred dollars.

Irrrelevant.

Fact 3: She brought suit only AFTER McD refused to pay the paltry
medical bills.

Irelevant.


If you think those issues are irrelevant to the lawsuit, you are grossly
misinformed.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:50:01 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/5/2012 12:24 PM, Leon wrote:
...

A simple $5 multi thousand volt capacitor would hold the charge and melt
the fuse wire.

Perhaps but I doubt it's there...

if the motor was changed to 3ph and a VFD used to control it..stopping
time can be in fractions of a second.

When I can stop a Hardinge HC motor. spindle and a heavy 6" chuck in
1 second or less..Id think that a small blade and smaller motor could
be stopped very quickly. Then one only needs to add some sort of meat
sensor.
================================================== ===========================
Please post pictures of the Hardinge. I'm a big Hardinge fan. Great
machines.

Smitty Two wrote:

In article ,
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Or, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

Uh, I'd venture that 99.9% of the people who bring this up as a supposed
example of a frivolous lawsuit, actually have never heard the real
story.

Fact 1: The woman received THIRD DEGREE burns. The coffee was FAR hotter
than any reasonable restaurant ever serves it. This was a deliberate
ploy to reduce requests for refills, as the stuff couldn't even be
sipped for 10-15 minutes.

Fact 2: The woman asked McD's to pay her medical bills, which IIRC were
a couple of hundred dollars.

Fact 3: She brought suit only AFTER McD refused to pay the paltry
medical bills.


Fact 4: She stuck it between her legs in her car. Who in their right
mind does that?

On 12/6/2012 1:20 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:

In article ,
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Or, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

Uh, I'd venture that 99.9% of the people who bring this up as a supposed
example of a frivolous lawsuit, actually have never heard the real
story.

Fact 1: The woman received THIRD DEGREE burns. The coffee was FAR hotter
than any reasonable restaurant ever serves it. This was a deliberate
ploy to reduce requests for refills, as the stuff couldn't even be
sipped for 10-15 minutes.

Fact 2: The woman asked McD's to pay her medical bills, which IIRC were
a couple of hundred dollars.

Fact 3: She brought suit only AFTER McD refused to pay the paltry
medical bills.


Fact 4: She stuck it between her legs in her car. Who in their right
mind does that?


Who in their right mind thinks someone THAT stupid should be rewarded
for suffering the consequences because THEY ARE THAT STUPID? O_o

TDD

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:21:55 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Or, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

Uh, I'd venture that 99.9% of the people who bring this up as a supposed
example of a frivolous lawsuit, actually have never heard the real
story.

Fact 1: The woman received THIRD DEGREE burns. The coffee was FAR hotter
than any reasonable restaurant ever serves it. This was a deliberate
ploy to reduce requests for refills, as the stuff couldn't even be
sipped for 10-15 minutes.

Fact 2: The woman asked McD's to pay her medical bills, which IIRC were
a couple of hundred dollars.

Fact 3: She brought suit only AFTER McD refused to pay the paltry
medical bills.

Third degree burns from coffee that was at the maximum...221F?

Really?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:09:28 -0800, "CW" wrote:



"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:50:01 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/5/2012 12:24 PM, Leon wrote:
...

A simple $5 multi thousand volt capacitor would hold the charge and melt
the fuse wire.

Perhaps but I doubt it's there...

if the motor was changed to 3ph and a VFD used to control it..stopping
time can be in fractions of a second.

When I can stop a Hardinge HC motor. spindle and a heavy 6" chuck in
1 second or less..Id think that a small blade and smaller motor could
be stopped very quickly. Then one only needs to add some sort of meat
sensor.
================================================= ============================
Please post pictures of the Hardinge. I'm a big Hardinge fan. Great
machines.

http://www.omniturn.com/bin/16C_Retrofit.htm

http://www.omniturn.com/bin/Attachments.htm

https://picasaweb.google.com/104042282269066802602


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:12:15 -0500, "Existential Angst"
Gass is a hustler, and he's proven it. The fact that he's hustling LEGALLY
is a technical detail. He shouldn't be rewarded for these tactics.

Right! The US is one of the most avarice oriented countries on this
planet. Your laws support that concept and many of your citizens
follow that concept religiously.

Yet, you want to limit someone from doing exactly what your
constitution and personal rights have guaranteed.

You might just as well add a 10% personal tax onto your top 2%
wealthiest citizens and curtail that fiscal cliff you're about to
topple over.

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:12:15 -0500, "Existential Angst"
Gass is a hustler, and he's proven it. The fact that he's hustling
LEGALLY is a technical detail. He shouldn't be rewarded for these
tactics.

Right! The US is one of the most avarice oriented countries on this
planet. Your laws support that concept and many of your citizens
follow that concept religiously.


We are not! We are avaricious.


--

-Mike-

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 02:20:18 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
Fact 4: She stuck it between her legs in her car. Who in their right
mind does that?

Probably many, many, more that you know. It's exactly the same thing
as people texting while walking or driving. You've heard the old
saying ~ Stupid is as stupid does. Nothing new there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl0JojWH1rQ

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:03:45 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
And when you admit to learning sumpn, or being wrong, or whatever, then he
calls you an idiot. Which speaks volumes about his character.

May I ask if you ever intend to talk about a wood working project or do
you just have time on your hands and like to bitch?

If I didn't know better, aside form the swearing, I'd say it was Tim
Daneliuk using an alias to bitch and complain while never discussing
anything woodworking related.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Or, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

Uh, I'd venture that 99.9% of the people who bring this up as a
supposed example of a frivolous lawsuit, actually have never heard
the real story.

Fact 1: The woman received THIRD DEGREE burns. The coffee was FAR
hotter than any reasonable restaurant ever serves it. This was a
deliberate ploy to reduce requests for refills, as the stuff couldn't
even be sipped for 10-15 minutes.

You don't need caps to emphasize your point. Most people here can read just
fine. But - since we are talking about facts, the coffee in that case was
not far hotter than most restaurants serve it - it was simply hotter. It
was within (at the high end, but within) the temperature range that is
considered proper for coffee - especially to go, for proper flavor.
Indeed - it was hot and MacDonalds had settled previous claims out of court
that were not so dissimilar to this one.



Fact 2: The woman asked McD's to pay her medical bills, which IIRC
were a couple of hundred dollars.


Nope. The fact is that she initially sought something in the neighborhood
of $20,000. That was to cover he medical costs at that time, lost wages,
and anticipated additional medial costs. McD's refused to go more than
$800.


Fact 3: She brought suit only AFTER McD refused to pay the paltry
medical bills.

That's close enough not to dispute.

Your point is well enough taken, but it would serve better in a different
argument. In this case, the lady put a styrofoam cup with a plastic lid
between her legs - one that she knew was as hot as it was, and attempted to
remove the lid to add cream and sugar. A risky proposition at best, since
the possibility of crushing or deforming a styrofoam cup is higher than the
possibility of not doing so.

I raised that incident with reference to people doing things and then
casting the blame for the results on others. She did a bonehead thing and
McD paid for it - although not as much as the original jury award.

--

-Mike-

Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Fact 4: She stuck it between her legs in her car. Who in their right
mind does that?

Worse than that - she stuck it between her legs and then removed the lid so
she could put in the cream and sugar. Dumb? Very!

--

-Mike-

On 12/6/2012 12:21 AM, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Or, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

Uh, I'd venture that 99.9% of the people who bring this up as a supposed
example of a frivolous lawsuit, actually have never heard the real
story.

Fact 1: The woman received THIRD DEGREE burns. The coffee was FAR hotter
than any reasonable restaurant ever serves it. This was a deliberate
ploy to reduce requests for refills, as the stuff couldn't even be
sipped for 10-15 minutes.

Fact 2: The woman asked McD's to pay her medical bills, which IIRC were
a couple of hundred dollars.

Fact 3: She brought suit only AFTER McD refused to pay the paltry
medical bills.

That does not change the fact that she was responsible for her own
burns. If she had a car wreck with the coffee between her legs would she
have included the expense for that in her suit?

to paraphrase SHE IS THE MASTER OF HER FATE, THE CAPTAIN OF HER SOUL.

On Dec 5, 9:18*am, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

Now before you assume that the blade will grab the glove and pull you
in, the glove is going to cut cleanly just like wood. *Yes I know this
because I have pushed a glove into a running TS blade to see what
actually happens. *It cut cleanly.


So was that a leather glove, a kevlar glove, a cotton glove with
little dots on it, or a stainless mesh glove?

Dan

On Dec 5, 9:18*am, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:


Jeez think about what you are saying. *That is like saying it won't work
if you are wearing clothes. *;~)


Since someone posted this to a metalworking group, will this system
work when using a table saw to cut metal? Somehow I think it will
not.

Dan

On 12/6/2012 7:36 AM, wrote:
On Dec 5, 9:18 am, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

Now before you assume that the blade will grab the glove and pull you
in, the glove is going to cut cleanly just like wood. Yes I know this
because I have pushed a glove into a running TS blade to see what
actually happens. It cut cleanly.


So was that a leather glove, a kevlar glove, a cotton glove with
little dots on it, or a stainless mesh glove?

Dan


The typical leather and canvas fingered work glove.

On 12/6/2012 7:44 AM, wrote:
On Dec 5, 9:18 am, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:


Jeez think about what you are saying. That is like saying it won't work
if you are wearing clothes. ;~)


Since someone posted this to a metalworking group, will this system
work when using a table saw to cut metal? Somehow I think it will
not.

Dan


No, as the owners manual indicates, it will not. Then you over ride the
protection.

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:21:55 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Or, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

Uh, I'd venture that 99.9% of the people who bring this up as a supposed
example of a frivolous lawsuit, actually have never heard the real
story.

Fact 1: The woman received THIRD DEGREE burns.

Bull****.

The coffee was FAR hotter
than any reasonable restaurant ever serves it. This was a deliberate
ploy to reduce requests for refills, as the stuff couldn't even be
sipped for 10-15 minutes.

180F *is* appropriate for coffee. Dunkin' Donuts required that their
coffee be served at 180F +/- 3F, at that time. What she did is not
appropriate for a cup of coffee. BEcause of this nonsense it's
difficult to find a decent cup of coffee anymore.

Fact 2: The woman asked McD's to pay her medical bills, which IIRC were
a couple of hundred dollars.

Irrrelevant.

Fact 3: She brought suit only AFTER McD refused to pay the paltry
medical bills.

Irelevant.

Here is the full story: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm.

My home coffeepot brews and serves at 60 C, or 140 F.

Joe Gwinn

On 12/6/2012 6:33 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Fact 1: The woman received THIRD DEGREE burns.

You don't need caps to emphasize your point.

Caps are one way to show emphasis. Nothing at all wrong in showing
emphasis.

Fact 2: The woman asked McD's to pay her medical bills, which IIRC
were a couple of hundred dollars.

Fact 3: She brought suit only AFTER McD refused to pay the paltry
medical bills.

That's close enough not to dispute.

Third degree burns, skin grafts and paltry ($300) shows someone is a
****ing liar as those statements don't work together. As Gunner said:

****
The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form of law
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie
****

I raised that incident with reference to people doing things and then
casting the blame for the results on others. She did a bonehead thing and
McD paid for it - although not as much as the original jury award.

I think they all should be required to sell coffee to go in ceramic
coffee mugs, that way, stupid ****s will not be able to squeeze them
between their legs, and my ceramic coffee mug company will get busy in
this communist economy, along with my saw stop business, once that law
gets passed.

--
Jack
Got Change: Supply and Demand ====== Command and Control!
http://jbstein.com

On Dec 5, 3:21*pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ....
On 12/5/2012 1:07 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
*wrote in message
...
...

There's a very big societal cost in the higher injury/death rates owing
to
folks not being individually responsible-enough to use them.

Well, then, technically, I remain correck:
* * *Gummint don't give a **** about an indivdual's safety, they're
concerned
about their own bottom line. *
...

Well, fundamentally they're the same...and should be concerned about
"their" bottom line since again, fundamentally, that's us.

Mebbe, but I would still maintain coincidentally so..... * *

And I do believe in "the Pubic good".... *just that, when Conmen (read:
CONgress; *and re-read: *Lobbyists) *are in charge of that Pubic Good, ****
never quite turns out right. * 'tis what 'tis.... *I guess this is what
happens when you (we) ****ed away our right to referendum....
--
EA





--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Simple question. You claim you believe in the public good.
Yet you're dismissive of seat belts? Hasn't adding seatbelts
to all vehicles benefitted the public in a significant way by reducing
serious injuries and deaths? Lives saved, disabling injuries
avoided, less productivity lost, hospital $$$ and lifetime care
costs saved? Same question for air bags?

On Dec 5, 1:48*pm, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 12/5/2012 12:19 PM, wrote:



* If you don't
believe that people do not want to accept responsibility for their own
actions, and prefer to be victims of others, just take a look at the Hitachi
contractor's saw lawsuit. *Or, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. Or...
As I replied to Keith, what does any of that have to do
with the usefulness of SawStop on a table saw? *It's not
an issue of personal responsibility. *It's an issue of safety
and the fact that accidents happen to everyone.

What has this to do with personally responsibility? *If you are stupid
enough to put a cup of near boiling hot coffee between your legs, the
company that made the coffee hot like you told them you want should not
be held responsible for your stupidity.

I never suggested suing anyone. The thread isn't about
suing anyone for anything. It's about a device that can stop
a spinning saw to prevent injury. Kind of like seatbelts in
cars and airbags, both of which have proven to have
significant benefits.




I am as safe as any one. *The stupid mistake I made with my table saw is
the first I have made in the 50 years of using the saw. Should I have
the right to sue the manufacture because I was stupid?

Again, the issue was SawStop, not litigation.




The nanny state can not continue to require some safety device for every
stupid action that someone makes. * If someone does something stupid and
looses a finger, it will be (or not be)there to remind them to be safer
in the future.

That kind of Darwinian logic means we should remove
all safety devices from everything and we'd be better off.
Seat belts, air bags, smoke detectors..






Regardless of how many safety devices are places on a saw or anything
else you use, they will not make you safe unless you accept the
responsibility for your own safety. *If you do not know enough about the
saw or whatever device you are using to KNOW what is an unsafe act, you
should not be using it.

Did you watch the video? Even the experienced woodworker
didn't realize how close he came to a serious injury while making
that video. Yes, there is SOME relationship between personal
responsibility and accident rates. But even the most responsible
person can still have an accident. I asked you before. The
conservatives out there are always talking about personal
responsibility. They speak out like you do about it not being
right for someone to sue if they pour hot coffee on themselves.
So, let's look at them. You think they are immune from
accidents? MAYBE they have a somewhat lower accident
rate, but I guarantee you plenty of them have had saw
accidents. It's a SAFETY issue and ACCIDENTS happen]
to everyone. That's why we call them accidents, not
"on purposes".




Maybe the next step is for our nanny state is to regulate the use of
table saws, and only allow you to use it after you have passed a test
and paid the government money for a license. *Because government
licenses we now have no auto death or injuries.

Passing a test would seem to be more in line with your
method, ie making people personally responsible. The only
way I see a 40 year old who isn't responsible possibly
becoming responsible around a saw is via education.
Yeah, I know, you'd prefer he visit the hospital to learn
and have all of us pay for it, right?

On Dec 6, 8:09*am, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 12/6/2012 12:21 AM, Smitty Two wrote:



In article ,
* "Mike Marlow" wrote:

Or, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

Uh, I'd venture that 99.9% of the people who bring this up as a supposed
example of a frivolous lawsuit, actually have never heard the real
story.

Fact 1: The woman received THIRD DEGREE burns. The coffee was FAR hotter
than any reasonable restaurant ever serves it. This was a deliberate
ploy to reduce requests for refills, as the stuff couldn't even be
sipped for 10-15 minutes.

Fact 2: The woman asked McD's to pay her medical bills, which IIRC were
a couple of hundred dollars.

Fact 3: She brought suit only AFTER McD refused to pay the paltry
medical bills.

That does not change the fact that she was responsible for her own
burns. If she had a car wreck with the coffee between her legs would she
have included the expense for that in her suit?

A judge and jury say you're wrong. And having heard the actual
evidence, I'd say their opinion is worth a lot more. Here are some
of the facts:

"Stella Liebeck, 79-years-old, was sitting in the passenger seat of
her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After
the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees
while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding
hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns over 16
percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days,
whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting,
scarring, and disability for more than two years.

Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with
McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle for this
small amount and, in fact, never offered more than $800

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-
mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this
risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on
burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the
specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns
from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was
brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to
no avail;
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many
receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs,
and buttocks;
Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been
burned by McDonald’s scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to
inadvertent spillage by McDonald’s employees;
McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for
consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or
drunk;
McDonald’s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area,
and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees
cooler."


Sounds to me like the jury did the right thing.

On 12/6/12 8:29 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:21:55 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Or, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

Uh, I'd venture that 99.9% of the people who bring this up as a supposed
example of a frivolous lawsuit, actually have never heard the real
story.

Fact 1: The woman received THIRD DEGREE burns.

Bull****.

The coffee was FAR hotter
than any reasonable restaurant ever serves it. This was a deliberate
ploy to reduce requests for refills, as the stuff couldn't even be
sipped for 10-15 minutes.

180F *is* appropriate for coffee. Dunkin' Donuts required that their
coffee be served at 180F +/- 3F, at that time. What she did is not
appropriate for a cup of coffee. BEcause of this nonsense it's
difficult to find a decent cup of coffee anymore.

Fact 2: The woman asked McD's to pay her medical bills, which IIRC were
a couple of hundred dollars.

Irrrelevant.

Fact 3: She brought suit only AFTER McD refused to pay the paltry
medical bills.

Irelevant.

Here is the full story: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm.


Don't let facts get in the way of a good debate. :-)
There's even more to the story...
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Ho...6?locale=en-US


My home coffeepot brews and serves at 60 C, or 140 F.

Joe Gwinn


I'm pretty sure it brews higher than that. 175 is kind of the minimum
for extracting all the good oils. You may be using a "cold brewer"
though, I don't know. No standard production coffee maker brews under
180, to the best of my knowledge. Many brew up past 205 which burns the
coffee.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Dec 5, 8:57*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 09:46:12 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Dec 5, 10:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Leon wrote:

10+ years ago before the SawStop was in production I questioned Gass
about this. My TS accident happened after I finished a cut and had
turned the saw off. The blade was coasting down to a stop when I was
cut. I wanted to know back then it those bases were covered also.

A modification can be made to table saws with induction or split
phase motors. You change the power switch from SPST to SPDT, add a
diode & electrolytic capacitor that charges when the motor is running.
When you switch the motor off, the capacitor discharges through the
motor, causing a rapid braking effect. This can't be done with
universal motors, since they will run on DC.

Even if this could work, it would have to be one hell
of a huge cap to hold enough energy to stop a spinning motor
and saw blade in the time to prevent injury. *The cap might
be bigger than the saw. * And I have my
doubts about it working at all, ie simply feeding DC into an
AC motor that has lost power being effective at braking.

It does work. *You're not trying to turn the rotor backwards, just
stop it. * The DC source isn't even needed, just short the thing. This
is how dynamic braking is done in diesel-electric trains, and such,
though hey use resistor banks to change the braking characteristics.

Sure. It's done in motors that are designed to do it.
Now show us a typical table saw motor that is capable of it.
And show us any motor where you can stop it in around 1 ms, like
the SawStop does, to prevent injury, by just shorting it.
Or even where you can stop it with the proposed addition
of a capacitor. It would have to be one hell of a cap to
stop a saw instantly.





But beyond that, why on earth would you? *The energy
that it would take to keep the SawStop system active for
a minute during spin-down following loss of power has
to be tiny compared to what it would take for the electric
motor braking approach.

Firing the SawStop mechanism is a one-shot event. *After you clean
your shorts, you get to replace the mechanism and the blade. *Dynamic
braking is a freebie and can be done every power cycle.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The proposal as I understood it wasn't to replace the SawStop, but
to supplement it if power fails. But I'll say it again, no
reasonable,
practical dynamic braking is going to stop a table saw in anywhere
near the time it takes to prevent injury. You'd need a huge power
store of some kind.