On Dec 5, 2:50*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" 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.

It will stop it in 1 ms? Or at least close enough to instantly
to avoid injury, eh? You sure about that? You should go tell
the SawStop guy what a simple, practical new invention you
have. I say, it just doesn't work.

The Daring Dufas wrote:

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


Not me. She should have been sterilized for being so stupid,
hopefully before she had any idiot offspring.

wrote in message
...
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?

And how much "public good" has come from police doing stops to spot check if
people are wearing their belts
It's just like helmet laws, let the insurance companies punish those who
CHOOSE not to use things like helmets and seat belts.
By giving that much more control to the nanny-state over what you can or
cannot do is NOT a good thing.
Ditto with bad tort laws, which allow people to escape responsibility for
doing stupid things like putting a hot cup of coffee in your crotch and then
removing the cover while the car is in motion

The more we move to nanny-state control over what you can and cannot do, the
less freedom you have to be responsible for yourself, EVEN IF THAT MEANS
DOING STUPID THINGS

" wrote:

On Dec 5, 2:50 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" 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.

It will stop it in 1 ms? Or at least close enough to instantly
to avoid injury, eh? You sure about that? You should go tell
the SawStop guy what a simple, practical new invention you
have. I say, it just doesn't work.


No one claimed that it did, and you just want to whine.

It is useful to stop the blade faster when the power is turned off,
or with a few more parts, when the power fails. A lot of people have no
business around power tools, hot coffee or computers.

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:30:34 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
The more we move to nanny-state control over what you can and cannot do, the
less freedom you have to be responsible for yourself, EVEN IF THAT MEANS
DOING STUPID THINGS

Unfortunately, letting those people doing their stupid things carte
blanche frequently ends up with society paying the cost of that stupid
act. And then, there are those other people injured when the person
does that stupid thing. Society usually ends up paying for those too.

The only solution is to find a happy medium between the nanny state
and the freedom to do stupid stuff state. What that happy medium is
though, I have no idea.

wrote:


What exactly am I stretching? Keith believes in a
Darwinian system, where instead of having safety devices
we rely on people cutting off their fingers, which
according to him teaches them personal responsibility.
That is in fact an ideology. Based on that, we should
rip out all the GFCIs, seatbelts, smoke detectors, etc.
Be careless around the house with a cigarette, you'll
learn by dying in a fire, right? Misuse that hairdryer
and you'll get shocked or killed. That will teach you.


This will be my last reply to you. Keith never made the statements you
ascribe to him above, let alone the conclusion you jump to. You should
limit yourself to conversations just with yourself. You have an uncanny
ability to take one word or thought, and turn it into an entire philosophy.
You could go on for days with just one sentence planted in your mind. Have
at it...

--

-Mike-

On 12/6/2012 10:13 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

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


Not me. She should have been sterilized for being so stupid,
hopefully before she had any idiot offspring.


The hot coffee douche didn't take care of that? ^_^

TDD

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 23:42:26 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

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.

"Third degree burns" are very specific. 180F water doesn't do that
sort of damage.

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.

DOn't be absurd.

160degree is palatable, but hot. 180 will burn you.

So sip it to cool it. The *fact* is that McD's isn't a sit-down
restaurant. People want to take the coffee with them. McD's *DID
NOT* tell her to hold the hot coffee in her crotch. That was all her
idea.

Go get an accurate thermometer and drink some 180 degree water.
Just please video record it so I can enjoy the results.

Good Lord, you're stupid.

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.

They are *TOTALLY* irrelevant to the issue. They may have provoked
her to sue but they should be TOTALLY irrelevant to the issue before
the courts, i.e. whether McD's was at fault.

You really should learn something about logic.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:29:29 -0500, 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.

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

Crap brewer. It's to be expected in this society of lawyers.

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 07:50:18 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 5, 2:50*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" 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.

It will stop it in 1 ms? Or at least close enough to instantly
to avoid injury, eh? You sure about that? You should go tell
the SawStop guy what a simple, practical new invention you
have. I say, it just doesn't work.

Different issue completely.

Gunner on Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:22:02 -0800 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
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.

Also something which McD's had been sued about before - burns from
overly hot coffee.

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?

Tissue destroyed is tissue destroyed - be it by fire, or boiling
water. And in this case, he clothes acted to hold that fluid in
place.
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

On 12/6/12 11:45 AM, wrote:
Go get an accurate thermometer and drink some 180 degree water.
Just please video record it so I can enjoy the results.

Good Lord, you're stupid.


Better than being a stupid asshole.
I'll be waiting the results of your attempt to drink 180 degree water.
Or even 160 degree.


--

-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

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


I'm not sure it would work with damp wood either.

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.

"jeff_wisnia" wrote:


Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.
----------------------------------------------------------
It's been more than a fortnight since I've seen that expression.

As my physics prof was fond of saying.

The answer to any question is 1 "Lew".

Your job is to define 1 "Lew"

Lew

The Daring Dufas wrote:

The hot coffee douche didn't take care of that? ^_^



It was too many years too late. Someone said she had it between her
knees, in the passenger seat, yet it 'ended up in her lap'. I would
hold the driver responsible.

"-MIKE-" wrote in message
...
On 12/6/12 11:45 AM, wrote:
Go get an accurate thermometer and drink some 180 degree water.
Just please video record it so I can enjoy the results.

Good Lord, you're stupid.


Better than being a stupid asshole.
I'll be waiting the results of your attempt to drink 180 degree water. Or
even 160 degree.


Anyone who wants to brew a decent cup of coffee will use water at near
boiling
Presso machines actually use superheated steam

By the time a fresh brewed cup of black coffee gets to you , it's still
closer to boiling than sipping temperature
That's why people pour it into cold cups, add sugar and cream or milk.
To cool or give the coffee time to cool to drinking temp

Most people are smart enough
- to know that a fresh-brewed cup of coffee was brewed with boiling water
- not to stick an open cup with fresh coffee between their knees while
sitting in a car
- accept that if they do such a stupid thing, MacD's didn't put the cup
there = THEY DID

That's why that female extortionist gets so little sympathy from the general
public

On Dec 6, 11:30*am, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
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?

And how much "public good" has come from police doing stops to spot check if
people are wearing their belts


I'm not in favor of police doing stops to check if people are
wearing their seatbelts. But the proponents of such measure
argue that it's been proven to increase compliance. And I'll
bet they have the statistics to prove it. Increased compliance
means more lives saved, less injuries, less lost productivity,
less healthcare costs that are paid by ALL of us. That sure
sounds like public good to me.




It's just like helmet laws, let the insurance companies punish those who
*CHOOSE not to use things like helmets and seat belts.
By giving that much more control to the nanny-state over what you can or
cannot do is NOT a good thing.
Ditto *with bad tort laws, which allow people to escape responsibility for
doing stupid things like putting a hot cup of coffee in your crotch and then
removing the cover while the car is in motion

A person making minimum wage doesn't wear a seat belt.
They have no health insurance.
That's OK with your libertarian Darwinism too, right?
It's a personal choice and they chose not to buy it. They have
a car wreck and are ejected. What could have been relative
minor injuries had they been wearing a seat belt instead
results in 3 months in the hospital. Who pays for that?
They wind up on lifelong disability, who pays for that?
They need lifelong nursing care, who pays for that?

And for those that are paying insurance, do you really
think the cost for a $100,000 hospital stay is just passed
on to the person injured? It would just about negate the
usefullness of insurance.






The more we move to nanny-state control over what you can and cannot do, the
less freedom you have to be responsible for yourself, EVEN IF THAT MEANS
DOING STUPID THINGS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Accidents don't only happen to people doing stupid things.
They can and do happen to everyone at some time.

" wrote in news:e835a6b3-
:

I'm not in favor of police doing stops to check if people are
wearing their seatbelts. But the proponents of such measure
argue that it's been proven to increase compliance. And I'll
bet they have the statistics to prove it. Increased compliance
means more lives saved, less injuries, less lost productivity,
less healthcare costs that are paid by ALL of us. That sure
sounds like public good to me.

Sometimes people get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, even if they
always have been. It's a warning not to ever again exceed the local speed
limit. Like the cop said: "Oh my, we got us a local".

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:04:30 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/6/12 11:45 AM, wrote:
Go get an accurate thermometer and drink some 180 degree water.
Just please video record it so I can enjoy the results.

Good Lord, you're stupid.


Better than being a stupid asshole.

You certainly should know.

I'll be waiting the results of your attempt to drink 180 degree water.
Or even 160 degree.

You really are an illiterate moron.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 11:34:56 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/6/2012 10:13 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

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


Not me. She should have been sterilized for being so stupid,
hopefully before she had any idiot offspring.


The hot coffee douche didn't take care of that? ^_^

I think the 79 years of being a stupid bitch took care of that.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:52:15 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner on Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:22:02 -0800 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
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.

Also something which McD's had been sued about before - burns from
overly hot coffee.

It wasn't. She was careless. Her fault.

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?

Tissue destroyed is tissue destroyed - be it by fire, or boiling
water. And in this case, he clothes acted to hold that fluid in
place.

Lies noted. Case lost.

On Dec 6, 11:41*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" wrote:

On Dec 5, 2:50 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" 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.

It will stop it in 1 ms? * Or at least close enough to instantly
to avoid injury, eh? * You sure about that? *You should go tell
the SawStop guy what a simple, practical new invention you
have. * I say, it just doesn't work.

* *No one claimed that it did, and you just want to whine.


Excuse me, but try to follow the thread. The discussion was
about the SawStop and what happens if power is lost. The
claim was made that it still would work. Then someone claimed
that you could just short the motor and use electromagnetic
braking in case of power loss. The SawStop halts the saw in
1 ms. Something on that order is what is requred to avoid
an injury like you see in the video, where a finger is stuck in
the saw. Ergo, if electromagnetic braking can't stop the saw
in a similar time, it's worthless. And I say absent some
large external power source, it can't.




* *It is useful to stop the blade faster when the power is turned off,
or with a few more parts, when the power fails.

No **** sherlock. You really think so? But that wasn't the
specific issue, though was it? The issue was whether the
SawStop works when there is a power failure, while the saw
is spinning down.

" wrote:

On Dec 6, 11:41 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" wrote:

On Dec 5, 2:50 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" 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.

It will stop it in 1 ms? Or at least close enough to instantly
to avoid injury, eh? You sure about that? You should go tell
the SawStop guy what a simple, practical new invention you
have. I say, it just doesn't work.

No one claimed that it did, and you just want to whine.

Excuse me, but try to follow the thread. The discussion was
about the SawStop and what happens if power is lost. The
claim was made that it still would work. Then someone claimed
that you could just short the motor and use electromagnetic
braking in case of power loss. The SawStop halts the saw in
1 ms.


Excuse yourself. It doesn't do that when the power fails, and you're
in the dark with a stil spinning blade. It's you that can't comprehend
what is happening in this thread. I introduced the magnetic braking to
stop the blade faster when the motor is turned off. I also told how to
do it in the case of a power failure. It's not my fault that your mother
used to let you play with plastic bags over your head, which caused all
that brain damage.

On 12/6/2012 12:10 PM, jeff_wisnia wrote:
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


I'm not sure it would work with damp wood either.

Jeff



Correct

wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 11:30 am, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
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?

And how much "public good" has come from police doing stops to spot check
if
people are wearing their belts
#
#
# I'm not in favor of police doing stops to check if people are
# wearing their seatbelts. But the proponents of such measure
# argue that it's been proven to increase compliance. And I'll
# bet they have the statistics to prove it. Increased compliance
# means more lives saved, less injuries, less lost productivity,
# less healthcare costs that are paid by ALL of us. That sure
# sounds like public good to me.
#

Yes
History is REPLETE with that kind of tradeoff of civil liberty for the
public good
Too bad that it tends to lead to oligarchy and dictatorship with great
regularity.

But then idiots who don't know history are bound to make the same mistakes
as their stupid predecessors.



It's just like helmet laws, let the insurance companies punish those who
CHOOSE not to use things like helmets and seat belts.
By giving that much more control to the nanny-state over what you can or
cannot do is NOT a good thing.
Ditto with bad tort laws, which allow people to escape responsibility for
doing stupid things like putting a hot cup of coffee in your crotch and
then
removing the cover while the car is in motion
#
# A person making minimum wage doesn't wear a seat belt.

They have that choice


# They have no health insurance.

They also have that choice
And it's not just people making minimum wage

# That's OK with your libertarian Darwinism too, right?

That's part of that notion of making choices in your life..


# It's a personal choice and they chose not to buy it.

Indeed.
It they prefer to spend their money on a case of beer or 2 or 3 every
weekend, that is their right
And I should not be held responsible for their bad choices

# They have a car wreck and are ejected.
# What could have been relative
# minor injuries had they been wearing a seat belt instead
# results in 3 months in the hospital. Who pays for that?

They should
Why should I pay for their bad decisions
Letting make bad decisios with no consequences will just encourage them to
continue doing so.


# They wind up on lifelong disability, who pays for that?
# They need lifelong nursing care, who pays for that?

Why should you or I ?
If they choose to take risks, let them assume the consequences.

That's life dummy


And for those that are paying insurance, do you really
think the cost for a $100,000 hospital stay is just passed
on to the person injured? It would just about negate the
usefullness of insurance.






The more we move to nanny-state control over what you can and cannot do,
the
less freedom you have to be responsible for yourself, EVEN IF THAT MEANS
DOING STUPID THINGS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Accidents don't only happen to people doing stupid things.
They can and do happen to everyone at some time.

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:10:25 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 6, 11:41*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" wrote:

On Dec 5, 2:50 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" 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.

It will stop it in 1 ms? * Or at least close enough to instantly
to avoid injury, eh? * You sure about that? *You should go tell
the SawStop guy what a simple, practical new invention you
have. * I say, it just doesn't work.

* *No one claimed that it did, and you just want to whine.


Excuse me, but try to follow the thread. The discussion was
about the SawStop and what happens if power is lost. The
claim was made that it still would work. Then someone claimed
that you could just short the motor and use electromagnetic
braking in case of power loss. The SawStop halts the saw in
1 ms. Something on that order is what is requred to avoid
an injury like you see in the video, where a finger is stuck in
the saw. Ergo, if electromagnetic braking can't stop the saw
in a similar time, it's worthless. And I say absent some
large external power source, it can't.

Different issues. It's doubtful that you want to trigger the SawStop
device just because you lost power. It is *probable* that you want to
shut down the saw quickly on power loss. The fault isn't the same nor
is the timing requirement.

The third issue is just the normal spin-down of the blade. The only
time I've ever come close to making contact (actually have, on it's
side) is when it's spinning down. There is no noise and you can't see
the teeth so it looks like it's stopped. It would be *very* helpful
to have dynamic braking on the blade (and no, I don't want to trigger
a SawStop event every time I turn off the saw). The cost is next to
nothing and *is* done on miter saws.




* *It is useful to stop the blade faster when the power is turned off,
or with a few more parts, when the power fails.

No **** sherlock. You really think so? But that wasn't the
specific issue, though was it? The issue was whether the
SawStop works when there is a power failure, while the saw
is spinning down.

Actually, it was.

In article ,
-MIKE- wrote:

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.

I did measure the temperature of the coffee in the carafe as it brewed,
around the time the McDonalds case was in the news.

Hmm. Perhaps the water pouring onto the grounds is hotter, but this
isn't easily user accessible. Perhaps I will measure it tomorrow.

I don't recall what the coffeepot manual says, if it has one, or if it
says anything. The pot was bought years before the case. Commercial
coffeepots may well serve hotter.

Joe Gwinn

On Dec 6, 7:37*pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 6, 11:30 am, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:



wrote in message

....
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?

And how much "public good" has come from police doing stops to spot check
if
people are wearing their belts

#
#
# I'm not in favor of police doing stops to check if people are
# wearing their seatbelts. * But the proponents of such measure
# argue that it's been proven to increase compliance. *And I'll
# bet they have the statistics to prove it. * Increased compliance
# means more lives saved, less injuries, less lost productivity,
# less healthcare costs that are paid by ALL of us. *That sure
# sounds like public good to me.
#

Yes
History is REPLETE with that kind of tradeoff of civil liberty for the
public good
Too bad that it tends to lead to oligarchy and dictatorship with great
regularity.

Please provide us with an example where a seat belt law
lead to a dictatorship. Geez, talk about an extremist loon.




But then idiots who don't know history are bound to make the same mistakes
as their stupid predecessors.

Provide us with the historical case where a seat belt
law lead to a dictatorship. Should be easy to do, many
countries have adopted seat belt laws.




It's just like helmet laws, let the insurance companies punish those who
CHOOSE not to use things like helmets and seat belts.
By giving that much more control to the nanny-state over what you can or
cannot do is NOT a good thing.
Ditto with bad tort laws, which allow people to escape responsibility for
doing stupid things like putting a hot cup of coffee in your crotch and
then
removing the cover while the car is in motion

#
# A person making minimum wage doesn't wear a seat belt.

They have that choice

# They have no health insurance.

They also have that choice
* * And it's not just people making minimum wage

# That's OK with your libertarian Darwinism *too, right?

That's part of that notion of making choices in your life..

# It's a personal choice and they chose not to buy it.

Indeed.
It they prefer to spend their money on a case of beer or 2 or 3 every
weekend, that is their right
And I should not be held responsible for their bad choices

# They have a car wreck and are ejected.
# What could have been relative
# minor injuries had they been wearing a seat belt instead
# results in 3 months in the hospital. *Who pays for that?

They should
Why should I pay for their bad decisions


Now you're just a dodger. You carefully edited and avoided
the essence of my post. The minimum wage guy buys no
insurance because it's his right. He has a car accident and
spends 3 months in the hospital, is disabled for life, needs
care for the rest of his life. And then you say "He should pay
for it?" It's impossible to have a rational discussion when
you just avoid the essential elements. The guy CAN'T PAY
FOR IT. We, the public, wind up paying for it.

And even if someone has health insurance, they would not
pay for it. We all would. The cost of a month in the hospital
could be $100K. No insurance policy I've ever seen where
they then jack up the rate on you for then next 50 years to
get it back. The cost of insurance for everyone in the pool
goes up.



Letting make bad decisios with no consequences will just encourage them to
continue doing so.

Again, obviously there are consequences aside from
the hospital bill.


# They wind up on lifelong disability, who pays for that?
# They need lifelong nursing care, who pays for that?

Why should you or I ?

Because we live in a civilized society. The vast majority of
us are civilized. We recongize that they can't pay for it
and we can't let them die on the street. I hope you realize
that only a very tiny minority agrees with your views.




If they choose to take risks, let them assume the consequences.

That's life dummy

I'll leave it for others to judge who's the dummy here.
You don't seem to be convincing anyone here with your
nonsensical arguments.




And for those that are paying insurance, do you really
think the cost for a $100,000 hospital stay is just passed
on to the person injured? *It would just about negate the
usefullness of insurance.

Again, no answer to the question that guts your argument.






The more we move to nanny-state control over what you can and cannot do,
the
less freedom you have to be responsible for yourself, EVEN IF THAT MEANS
DOING STUPID THINGS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Accidents don't only happen to people doing stupid things.
They can and do happen to everyone at some time.- Hide quoted text -


And again, accidents don't only happen to irresponsible people.
They can and do happen to all of us at some time. Ergo, your
argument against safety devices is totally bogus.

On Dec 6, 10:39*am, -MIKE- wrote:
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.

--


Right around 200F is the optimum temperature to brew
coffee and extract the flavor. I agree that at 140F, I would
expect crap coffee and I would be surprised to find a
decent coffee maker that brews it at that temp. Also note
that if you measure the temp in the carafe, it's going to
be substantially below the temp where the water is in
contact with the coffee.

I use a french press and an electric kettle to brew mine.
The kettle heats the water to boiling and then that
combined with the coffee and the room temp french press
puts it right around 200F.

On Dec 6, 5:18*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" wrote:

On Dec 6, 11:41 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" wrote:

On Dec 5, 2:50 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" 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.

It will stop it in 1 ms? * Or at least close enough to instantly
to avoid injury, eh? * You sure about that? *You should go tell
the SawStop guy what a simple, practical new invention you
have. * I say, it just doesn't work.

* *No one claimed that it did, and you just want to whine.

Excuse me, but try to follow the thread. *The discussion was
about the SawStop and what happens if power is lost. *The
claim was made that it still would work. *Then someone claimed
that you could just short the motor and use electromagnetic
braking in case of power loss. * The SawStop halts the saw in
1 ms.

* *Excuse yourself. *It doesn't do that when the power fails, and you're
in the dark with a stil spinning blade. *It's you that can't comprehend
what is happening in this thread. I introduced the magnetic braking to
stop the blade faster when the motor is turned off. *I also told how to
do it in the case of a power failure. It's not my fault that your mother
used to let you play with plastic bags over your head, which caused all
that brain damage.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's go back to your first post on this:

Leon:
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.

Michael:
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.



In the first sentence of the post you replied to, Leon said "I
questioned Gass about this." The "this" he was referring to
was the issue if the SawStop still worked in the event of a power
fail. So, that was the context. And in posts before that, others
had suggested adding a cap to the SawStop so that it would
work when power was lost.

So, you replied about using electromagnetic braking. Sorry,
but in that context, it sure appeared that you were talking about
adding that in addition to the SawStop, so that it would stop
it in a similar fashion if the power failed. Or at the very least,
that you were suggesting electromagnetic approach as a safety
device for protection to replace the SawStop.

So, instead of hurling insults, perhaps you should learn
to write less ambiguously.

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 05:29:58 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 6, 5:18*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" wrote:

On Dec 6, 11:41 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" wrote:

On Dec 5, 2:50 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" 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.

It will stop it in 1 ms? * Or at least close enough to instantly
to avoid injury, eh? * You sure about that? *You should go tell
the SawStop guy what a simple, practical new invention you
have. * I say, it just doesn't work.

* *No one claimed that it did, and you just want to whine.

Excuse me, but try to follow the thread. *The discussion was
about the SawStop and what happens if power is lost. *The
claim was made that it still would work. *Then someone claimed
that you could just short the motor and use electromagnetic
braking in case of power loss. * The SawStop halts the saw in
1 ms.

* *Excuse yourself. *It doesn't do that when the power fails, and you're
in the dark with a stil spinning blade. *It's you that can't comprehend
what is happening in this thread. I introduced the magnetic braking to
stop the blade faster when the motor is turned off. *I also told how to
do it in the case of a power failure. It's not my fault that your mother
used to let you play with plastic bags over your head, which caused all
that brain damage.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's go back to your first post on this:

Leon:
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.

Michael:
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.



In the first sentence of the post you replied to, Leon said "I
questioned Gass about this." The "this" he was referring to
was the issue if the SawStop still worked in the event of a power
fail. So, that was the context. And in posts before that, others
had suggested adding a cap to the SawStop so that it would
work when power was lost.

However, Leon's problem came in the spin-down which wouldn't
necessarily require the SS hardware. Leon wanted to know if they'd
covered this case. Michael was noting that this problem could have
been corrected, cheaply, without the expensive SS hardware and without
blowing a SS cartridge and blade when it occurred.

So, you replied about using electromagnetic braking. Sorry,
but in that context, it sure appeared that you were talking about
adding that in addition to the SawStop, so that it would stop
it in a similar fashion if the power failed. Or at the very least,
that you were suggesting electromagnetic approach as a safety
device for protection to replace the SawStop.

Replace? I didn't get that. In addition, sure.

So, instead of hurling insults, perhaps you should learn
to write less ambiguously.

It was perfectly clear to me. I understand the issues involved,
though.

On 12/7/2012 7:56 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 05:29:58 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 6, 5:18 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" wrote:

On Dec 6, 11:41 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" wrote:

On Dec 5, 2:50 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" 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.

It will stop it in 1 ms? Or at least close enough to instantly
to avoid injury, eh? You sure about that? You should go tell
the SawStop guy what a simple, practical new invention you
have. I say, it just doesn't work.

No one claimed that it did, and you just want to whine.

Excuse me, but try to follow the thread. The discussion was
about the SawStop and what happens if power is lost. The
claim was made that it still would work. Then someone claimed
that you could just short the motor and use electromagnetic
braking in case of power loss. The SawStop halts the saw in
1 ms.

Excuse yourself. It doesn't do that when the power fails, and you're
in the dark with a stil spinning blade. It's you that can't comprehend
what is happening in this thread. I introduced the magnetic braking to
stop the blade faster when the motor is turned off. I also told how to
do it in the case of a power failure. It's not my fault that your mother
used to let you play with plastic bags over your head, which caused all
that brain damage.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's go back to your first post on this:

Leon:
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.

Michael:
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.



In the first sentence of the post you replied to, Leon said "I
questioned Gass about this." The "this" he was referring to
was the issue if the SawStop still worked in the event of a power
fail. So, that was the context. And in posts before that, others
had suggested adding a cap to the SawStop so that it would
work when power was lost.

However, Leon's problem came in the spin-down which wouldn't
necessarily require the SS hardware. Leon wanted to know if they'd
covered this case. Michael was noting that this problem could have
been corrected, cheaply, without the expensive SS hardware and without
blowing a SS cartridge and blade when it occurred.

So, you replied about using electromagnetic braking. Sorry,
but in that context, it sure appeared that you were talking about
adding that in addition to the SawStop, so that it would stop
it in a similar fashion if the power failed. Or at the very least,
that you were suggesting electromagnetic approach as a safety
device for protection to replace the SawStop.

Replace? I didn't get that. In addition, sure.

So, instead of hurling insults, perhaps you should learn
to write less ambiguously.

It was perfectly clear to me. I understand the issues involved,
though.


Lol to clear this up. I had turned the saw off. I had just finished
cutting a dado. I reached over the blade to remove the fence and my
thumb came in contact with he blade. No power failure. The SawStop
would have worked.

I contacted SawStop a couple of days ago to learn if the SawStop would
work on a spinning blade if all power was lost. The answer is that it
would for a second or two until the residual power was absorbed. After
that if the blade that is cutting wood is still spinning you would be
unprotected.

I would say that if you have a power failure and the lights go out and
are actually moving your hands toward the blade while cutting wood that
you may or may not be safe depending on how close to the blade your
hands are. If feeding wood the blade is likely to come to a stop rather
quickly simply from the loss of power. It is not like the blade will
continue to spin for 5~6 seconds. The blade will spin for a greater
amount of time if not feeding wood however if not feeding wood it is a
good chance you hands are in a safe location.

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:00:22 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I then simply
posed the question about conservatives. Virtually all of them
extole the virtues of self reliance, taking personal responsibility.
So, none of them have table saw accidents, right?

Everyone has accidents, but not purchasing medical and disability
insurance is a choice. Why should a successful business be punished by
having to cover the deadbeats?

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:00:22 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I then simply
posed the question about conservatives. Virtually all of them
extole the virtues of self reliance, taking personal responsibility.
So, none of them have table saw accidents, right?

Everyone has accidents, but not purchasing medical and disability
insurance is a choice. Why should a successful business be punished by
having to cover the deadbeats?


Because according to the idiots, that would make you bad person

Frankly I don't have a problem with people donating to private charity to
help the needy
But when the government starts picking your pocket to do it, I have a
problem
One only has to look at how UNsuccessfull government is about solving the
problem
All their "welfare" programs are spiraling out of control BECAUSE of ALL the
leaches that are hanging on to the tit.
And these idiots want to attract even more leeches

On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 08:13:24 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/7/2012 7:56 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 05:29:58 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 6, 5:18 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" wrote:

On Dec 6, 11:41 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" wrote:

On Dec 5, 2:50 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" 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.

It will stop it in 1 ms? Or at least close enough to instantly
to avoid injury, eh? You sure about that? You should go tell
the SawStop guy what a simple, practical new invention you
have. I say, it just doesn't work.

No one claimed that it did, and you just want to whine.

Excuse me, but try to follow the thread. The discussion was
about the SawStop and what happens if power is lost. The
claim was made that it still would work. Then someone claimed
that you could just short the motor and use electromagnetic
braking in case of power loss. The SawStop halts the saw in
1 ms.

Excuse yourself. It doesn't do that when the power fails, and you're
in the dark with a stil spinning blade. It's you that can't comprehend
what is happening in this thread. I introduced the magnetic braking to
stop the blade faster when the motor is turned off. I also told how to
do it in the case of a power failure. It's not my fault that your mother
used to let you play with plastic bags over your head, which caused all
that brain damage.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's go back to your first post on this:

Leon:
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.

Michael:
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.



In the first sentence of the post you replied to, Leon said "I
questioned Gass about this." The "this" he was referring to
was the issue if the SawStop still worked in the event of a power
fail. So, that was the context. And in posts before that, others
had suggested adding a cap to the SawStop so that it would
work when power was lost.

However, Leon's problem came in the spin-down which wouldn't
necessarily require the SS hardware. Leon wanted to know if they'd
covered this case. Michael was noting that this problem could have
been corrected, cheaply, without the expensive SS hardware and without
blowing a SS cartridge and blade when it occurred.

So, you replied about using electromagnetic braking. Sorry,
but in that context, it sure appeared that you were talking about
adding that in addition to the SawStop, so that it would stop
it in a similar fashion if the power failed. Or at the very least,
that you were suggesting electromagnetic approach as a safety
device for protection to replace the SawStop.

Replace? I didn't get that. In addition, sure.

So, instead of hurling insults, perhaps you should learn
to write less ambiguously.

It was perfectly clear to me. I understand the issues involved,
though.


Lol to clear this up. I had turned the saw off. I had just finished
cutting a dado. I reached over the blade to remove the fence and my
thumb came in contact with he blade. No power failure. The SawStop
would have worked.

Right. An inexpensive dynamic blade brake would have worked, also.
That's the point I think Michael was making.

I contacted SawStop a couple of days ago to learn if the SawStop would
work on a spinning blade if all power was lost. The answer is that it
would for a second or two until the residual power was absorbed. After
that if the blade that is cutting wood is still spinning you would be
unprotected.

What does "residual power was absorbed" mean?

I would say that if you have a power failure and the lights go out and
are actually moving your hands toward the blade while cutting wood that
you may or may not be safe depending on how close to the blade your
hands are. If feeding wood the blade is likely to come to a stop rather
quickly simply from the loss of power. It is not like the blade will
continue to spin for 5~6 seconds. The blade will spin for a greater
amount of time if not feeding wood however if not feeding wood it is a
good chance you hands are in a safe location.

Which is why I'd like all saws to have dynamic braking on the blade. I
sure wish mine did. Add in a magnetic start switch and this
particular problem is well covered without a SawStop mechanism.

In article
,
" wrote:

On Dec 6, 10:39*am, -MIKE- wrote:
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.

--


Right around 200F is the optimum temperature to brew
coffee and extract the flavor. I agree that at 140F, I would
expect crap coffee and I would be surprised to find a
decent coffee maker that brews it at that temp. Also note
that if you measure the temp in the carafe, it's going to
be substantially below the temp where the water is in
contact with the coffee.

I use a french press and an electric kettle to brew mine.
The kettle heats the water to boiling and then that
combined with the coffee and the room temp french press
puts it right around 200F.

I measured my coffeepot (Krups) this morning - the brew and serve
temperature is 180 F, not the 140 F I recalled. Now that I think about
it, I measured the dishwasher water temperature around the same time,
and it was 140 F for "Normal" wash, so I probably mixed the answers up.

Joe Gwinn

On 12/7/2012 11:26 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 08:13:24 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/7/2012 7:56 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 05:29:58 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 6, 5:18 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" wrote:

On Dec 6, 11:41 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" wrote:

On Dec 5, 2:50 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
" 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.

It will stop it in 1 ms? Or at least close enough to instantly
to avoid injury, eh? You sure about that? You should go tell
the SawStop guy what a simple, practical new invention you
have. I say, it just doesn't work.

No one claimed that it did, and you just want to whine.

Excuse me, but try to follow the thread. The discussion was
about the SawStop and what happens if power is lost. The
claim was made that it still would work. Then someone claimed
that you could just short the motor and use electromagnetic
braking in case of power loss. The SawStop halts the saw in
1 ms.

Excuse yourself. It doesn't do that when the power fails, and you're
in the dark with a stil spinning blade. It's you that can't comprehend
what is happening in this thread. I introduced the magnetic braking to
stop the blade faster when the motor is turned off. I also told how to
do it in the case of a power failure. It's not my fault that your mother
used to let you play with plastic bags over your head, which caused all
that brain damage.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's go back to your first post on this:

Leon:
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.

Michael:
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.



In the first sentence of the post you replied to, Leon said "I
questioned Gass about this." The "this" he was referring to
was the issue if the SawStop still worked in the event of a power
fail. So, that was the context. And in posts before that, others
had suggested adding a cap to the SawStop so that it would
work when power was lost.

However, Leon's problem came in the spin-down which wouldn't
necessarily require the SS hardware. Leon wanted to know if they'd
covered this case. Michael was noting that this problem could have
been corrected, cheaply, without the expensive SS hardware and without
blowing a SS cartridge and blade when it occurred.

So, you replied about using electromagnetic braking. Sorry,
but in that context, it sure appeared that you were talking about
adding that in addition to the SawStop, so that it would stop
it in a similar fashion if the power failed. Or at the very least,
that you were suggesting electromagnetic approach as a safety
device for protection to replace the SawStop.

Replace? I didn't get that. In addition, sure.

So, instead of hurling insults, perhaps you should learn
to write less ambiguously.

It was perfectly clear to me. I understand the issues involved,
though.


Lol to clear this up. I had turned the saw off. I had just finished
cutting a dado. I reached over the blade to remove the fence and my
thumb came in contact with he blade. No power failure. The SawStop
would have worked.

Right. An inexpensive dynamic blade brake would have worked, also.
That's the point I think Michael was making.

I contacted SawStop a couple of days ago to learn if the SawStop would
work on a spinning blade if all power was lost. The answer is that it
would for a second or two until the residual power was absorbed. After
that if the blade that is cutting wood is still spinning you would be
unprotected.

What does "residual power was absorbed" mean?

Not sure... ;~) Here is what Saw Stop indicated,

the cartridge might stay powered for about 1-2 seconds at most
while its internal voltage falls off






I would say that if you have a power failure and the lights go out and
are actually moving your hands toward the blade while cutting wood that
you may or may not be safe depending on how close to the blade your
hands are. If feeding wood the blade is likely to come to a stop rather
quickly simply from the loss of power. It is not like the blade will
continue to spin for 5~6 seconds. The blade will spin for a greater
amount of time if not feeding wood however if not feeding wood it is a
good chance you hands are in a safe location.

Which is why I'd like all saws to have dynamic braking on the blade. I
sure wish mine did. Add in a magnetic start switch and this
particular problem is well covered without a SawStop mechanism.

On Dec 7, 11:59*am, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message

...

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:00:22 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I then simply
posed the question about conservatives. * Virtually all of them
extole the virtues of self reliance, taking personal responsibility.
So, none of them have table saw accidents, right?

Everyone has accidents, but not purchasing medical and disability
insurance is a choice. Why should a successful business be punished by
having to cover the deadbeats?

Because according to the idiots, that would make you *bad person

Frankly I don't have a problem with people donating to private charity to
help the needy
But when the government starts picking your pocket to do it, I have a
problem
One only has to look at how UNsuccessfull government is about solving the
problem
All their "welfare" programs are spiraling out of control BECAUSE of ALL the
leaches that are hanging on to the tit.
* * And these idiots want to attract even more leeches

Still waiting for you answer to a simple question.
A guy making minimum wage, no insurance, has a bad
car accident where he runs off the road and hits a tree.
He has severe head injuries, internal injuries, etc.

What exactly should happen here, step by step
and who will pay for it? Does EMS take him to the
hospital? Does the hospital refuse to care for him
because he has no insurance, no means to pay?
Is there even an EMS at all?

I don't expect real answers, because you've proven
yourself long on some flakey alleged core beliefs.
But either they haven't been thought through or
you are so inhumane that you'd let people like the
above die. But, this is your chance to redeem
yourself, for all to see. So, please, tell us step by
step what should happen in the above everyday situation.

wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 11:59 am, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message

...

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:00:22 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I then simply
posed the question about conservatives. Virtually all of them
extole the virtues of self reliance, taking personal responsibility.
So, none of them have table saw accidents, right?

Everyone has accidents, but not purchasing medical and disability
insurance is a choice. Why should a successful business be punished by
having to cover the deadbeats?

Because according to the idiots, that would make you bad person

Frankly I don't have a problem with people donating to private charity to
help the needy
But when the government starts picking your pocket to do it, I have a
problem
One only has to look at how UNsuccessfull government is about solving the
problem
All their "welfare" programs are spiraling out of control BECAUSE of ALL
the
leaches that are hanging on to the tit.
And these idiots want to attract even more leeches
#
# Still waiting for you answer to a simple question.

Asked and asnwered
Since you didn't like the first answer, you'll be waiting a long time for
one you like
Enjoy

On Dec 7, 1:21*pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 7, 11:59 am, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:



"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message

.. .

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:00:22 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I then simply
posed the question about conservatives. Virtually all of them
extole the virtues of self reliance, taking personal responsibility.
So, none of them have table saw accidents, right?

Everyone has accidents, but not purchasing medical and disability
insurance is a choice. Why should a successful business be punished by
having to cover the deadbeats?

Because according to the idiots, that would make you bad person

Frankly I don't have a problem with people donating to private charity to
help the needy
But when the government starts picking your pocket to do it, I have a
problem
One only has to look at how UNsuccessfull government is about solving the
problem
All their "welfare" programs are spiraling out of control BECAUSE of ALL
the
leaches that are hanging on to the tit.
And these idiots want to attract even more leeches

#
# Still waiting for you answer to a simple question.

Asked and asnwered
Since you didn't like the first answer, you'll be waiting a long time for
one you like
* * Enjoy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I figured as much. You're just intellectually dishonest. You
claim to have some valid alternative to either the current
system where we all wind up paying for healthcare for those
that cannot, or for requiring everyone have mandatory
minimum healthcare coverage. Yet, when asked to explain
how it would work, starting from the scene of a car crash,
you just run away. The most you've said is that you don't
have a problem with people donating to private charity".
Why, how caring and magnanimus of you. That's it?
That is all you've got? And like most of the buffoons that
pretend to stand on such high moral ground, I expect
you'd be among the last to actually donate.