wrote in message
...
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.

You're not only stupid, bu t a liar too
I never made ANY claim about "having some valid alternative "
That's just you pulling ignorant **** out of your ass again
(Did you ever consider cleaning off your head after your pull it out of
your ass ?
That way you won't spread it on Usenet)

# Yet, when asked to explain how it would work,
# starting from the scene of a car crash,
# you just run away.

Don't have to explain something YOU INVENTED whole cloth
Your strawman - you feed it

#
# 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.

Since you don't even know who I am - you have NO CLUE as to what and whom I
donate
Once again, you're just pulling ignorant **** out of your ass.

Go wash your head before you get to your keyboard
The constant flow of **** from you stinks.

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



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.

You are right - it would, But - this particular problem is not the problem
that SawStop is trying to resolve.

--

-Mike-

" wrote:

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.


Is it too late for your parents to demand a full refund of the 25
cents they spent on your 'collage edumicaton'? It is not my fault that
you can't comprehend, or that the only exercise you get is jumping to
conclusions. You also didn't address that some table saws do use
universal motors.

I do apologize, for having never taken a course on how to write for
morons. I wrote technical documents for an ISO-9001 certified
electronics manufacturer, all of which went through the review process
with no changes. This was for the production & testing of $20,000 to
80,000 Telemetry receivers.

My reply followed the part about the still spinning blade, after a
power failure. If I had intended my reply for the first part, I would
have split the paragraph at that point.

How much do they pay you to shill this overpriced junk? Does it
cover the expenses for your seeing eye dog?

"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 06 Dec 2012
02:20:18 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

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?

Where do you put a coffee cup? - on the other seat?
--
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.

pyotr filipivich wrote:


Where do you put a coffee cup? - on the other seat?

Ummmmm... cup holder?

If it really poses that big of a problem, go inside and get your freakin'
coffee and fix it at the counter.

--

-Mike-

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 06 Dec 2012
02:20:18 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

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?

Where do you put a coffee cup? - on the other seat?


In one of thse free paper coffee cup holders, and on the floor.

On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:09:41 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 06 Dec 2012
02:20:18 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

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?

Where do you put a coffee cup? - on the other seat?


You hold it out beyond your knees, with one hand, and pry the cover i[
with the other hand. If (when) it spills, it goes onto the carpet.
It's not rocket science. Or stick it in one of the cupholders.

If they put the drawing on the side of the cup, some dufus would claim
that they turned the cup to read it and burned themselves.

http://cdn2.holytaco.com/wp-content/...n-cleavage.gif

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

If they put the drawing on the side of the cup, some dufus would claim
that they turned the cup to read it and burned themselves.

http://cdn2.holytaco.com/wp-content/...n-cleavage.gif


Shock mounted, no less!

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 06 Dec 2012
02:20:18 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

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?

Where do you put a coffee cup? - on the other seat?


How about a cup holder
Hell they even sell those that hook into your window well

On Dec 7, 3:14*pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
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.

You're not only stupid, bu t a liar too
* * I never made ANY claim about "having some valid alternative "
That's just you pulling ignorant **** out of your ass again
* * (Did you ever consider cleaning off your head after your pull it out of
your ass ?
* * * * That way you won't spread it on Usenet)

# Yet, when asked to explain how it would work,
# starting from the scene of a car crash,
# you just run away.

Don't have to explain something YOU INVENTED whole cloth
* * Your strawman - you feed it


I didn't invent it, it's a common, everyday, real world
occurance. You just refuse to address it because,
well, you can't. You stand on your soap box and claim
to have simple solutions for real world problems. Yet,
obviously you don't.



# 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.

Since you don't even know who I am - you have NO CLUE as to what and whom I
donate
* * Once again, you're just pulling ignorant **** out of your ass.

Go wash your head before you get to your keyboard
* * The constant flow of **** from you stinks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know you're fundamentally dishonest. You put forth
bankrupt ideas that are worthless and when someone exposes
any one of the many obvious holes in it, instead of
being able to answer for youself, you run away like
a child.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

If they put the drawing on the side of the cup, some dufus would claim
that they turned the cup to read it and burned themselves.

http://cdn2.holytaco.com/wp-content/...n-cleavage.gif


Shock mounted, no less!

Instead of an "air ride", it's a "dairy ride"..
smirk

On Dec 7, 3:14*pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
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.

You're not only stupid, bu t a liar too
* * I never made ANY claim about "having some valid alternative "

Well you clearly stated that no one should be forced to
buy health insurance. That it should be their right to go uninsured.
That is one of your core positions, is it not?
When it was explained to you that we are all now paying
for those uninsured people when they wind up injured or
ill at the hospital and asked for what YOUR solution is
for the uninsured guy with serious injuries after a car crash,
the best you could come up with is this:

"You are MORE than welcome to pay for it if you want
Why should I pay for it It's his life, his choice, his responsibility
"

You're right about one thing, it isn't a valid alternative,
but it's the only alternative you've put forth.

Real humanitarian you are, big man. You'd probably go
driving right by yourself, honking the horn:

"That'll teach you!"




That's just you pulling ignorant **** out of your ass again
* * (Did you ever consider cleaning off your head after your pull it out of
your ass ?
* * * * That way you won't spread it on Usenet)

# Yet, when asked to explain how it would work,
# starting from the scene of a car crash,
# you just run away.

Don't have to explain something YOU INVENTED whole cloth
* * Your strawman - you feed it

It's not a strawman it's the real world, it happens everyday.
It's just you have no answer, except a completely heartless
one that you've already put forth, in your own words, above.




#
# 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.

Since you don't even know who I am - you have NO CLUE as to what and whom I
donate
* * Once again, you're just pulling ignorant **** out of your ass.


No I'm not. Your statements are quite clear and there
for all to see. You're incapable of putting forth an argument
that makes sense. You can't even explain your solution
or approach to a guy with no insurance that is seriously
injured in a car crash. That of course is because you don't
want to admit the obvious truth, you'd let them die. Your some
kind of real whack job. Then you want
to preach to us about the perils of seat belt laws leading to
dictatorships? Some world we'd be in if we let you and
your ilk get in charge.

wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 3:14 pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
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.

You're not only stupid, bu t a liar too
I never made ANY claim about "having some valid alternative "
That's just you pulling ignorant **** out of your ass again
(Did you ever consider cleaning off your head after your pull it out of
your ass ?
That way you won't spread it on Usenet)

# Yet, when asked to explain how it would work,
# starting from the scene of a car crash,
# you just run away.

Don't have to explain something YOU INVENTED whole cloth
Your strawman - you feed it

#
# I didn't invent it, it's a common, everyday, real world
# occurance. You just refuse to address it because,
# well, you can't. You stand on your soap box and claim
# to have simple solutions for real world problems. Yet,
# obviously you don't.

yawn
Do you by being an asshole naturally or did you train for the job ?
Let's referesh the MORON's pea-sized brain

Your strawman was
I quote (you)
You claim to have some valid alternative to either
the current system where... "

I made NO such claim
Your scenario was thrown at me based on this LIE

So take your claim
take your scenario
And SHOVE it.

Your strawman
YOU feed it.




# 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.

Since you don't even know who I am - you have NO CLUE as to what and whom
I
donate
Once again, you're just pulling ignorant **** out of your ass.

Go wash your head before you get to your keyboard
The constant flow of **** from you stinks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
#
# I know you're fundamentally dishonest.
#


Considering that:
- you know ****
- yo make wild-ass presumptions about others
- you lie
- then you lie some more when called on it.

You can take your "knowledge" and shove it right back up your ass where you
got it from..


# You put forth bankrupt ideas that are worthless
# and when someone exposes any one of the many
# obvious holes in it, instead of being able to answer
# for yourself, you run away like a child.

The only one "putting forth" anything in this thread, was you, you idiot
Your strawman and presumptions are neither my problem nor my responsibility

Now **** off you stupid ******
Go peddle your lies and presumptions elsewhere

wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 3:14 pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
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.

You're not only stupid, bu t a liar too
I never made ANY claim about "having some valid alternative "
#
# Well you clearly stated that no one should be forced to
# buy health insurance.

BZZZT
And you are the MORON who segued into claimung that was some valid
alternative"
Not my problem you don't have reading skills


# That it should be their right to go uninsured.


# That is one of your core positions, is it not?

Who the **** cares ?
I sure stopped caring about the **** you project on me


snip the rest of the stupid ****, lies, projections and strawman arguments

On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 12:37:23 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

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.

....and McDs and DD brewed (and served if fresh) coffee at that same
180F. Now, thanks to the stupid old bag, one can't get a decent cup
of coffee.

On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 11:45:54 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

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


snip

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

Sounds like they have a couple of filter caps that will carry the
mechanism for a (very) short time. Typical marketeering.

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 15:20:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

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



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.

You are right - it would, But - this particular problem is not the problem
that SawStop is trying to resolve.

Sure, but it solves the problem that bit Leon, better than SS does,
apparently. As I said in another post, that's the only time I've come
close to getting bitten by my table saw. It takes forever to spin
down. IIRC it's a requirement for miter saws.

Leon wrote:

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


What sawblade stops in two seconds without braking, or bad bearings?

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Leon wrote:

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


What sawblade stops in two seconds without braking, or bad
bearings?

A chainsaw.

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Leon wrote:

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


What sawblade stops in two seconds without braking, or bad
bearings?

A chainsaw.


You have one with no chain brake that stops that fast?

On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 22:43:11 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Leon wrote:

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


What sawblade stops in two seconds without braking, or bad bearings?

One that's cutting through 2" oak. ;-)

wrote:

On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 22:43:11 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Leon wrote:

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


What sawblade stops in two seconds without braking, or bad bearings?

One that's cutting through 2" oak. ;-)


Fiber wedged against metal isn't a brake?

On 8 Dec 2012 02:10:52 GMT, wrote:
...and McDs and DD brewed (and served if fresh) coffee at that same
180F. Now, thanks to the stupid old bag, one can't get a decent cup
of coffee.

Shouldn't you be blaming the group of jurors that awarded the stupid
old bag such a large amount?

In article -
september.org, says...

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.

Yeah, we all know the story. A stupid old bat spilled hot coffee in her
lap and looked for somebody other than herself to blame.

If she had cranked up an oxyacetylene torch and applied it to herself
would the maker of the torch be at fault? If she had stuck her finger
in a light socket would the power company be at fault?

She was stupid, she got punished for it, and the courts should have told
her to sod off.

In article ,
says...

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.

Then it is

(a) not in compliance with the ANSI standard for coffee makers.
(b) not in compliance with the SCAA standards for coffee makers
(c) a piece of ****

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 12:37:23 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

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.

...and McDs and DD brewed (and served if fresh) coffee at that same
180F. Now, thanks to the stupid old bag, one can't get a decent cup
of coffee.

Well, actually one can. McD has considerably improved their coffee
since then (has nothing to do with the suit and everything to do with
Starbucks).

The main change that McD made was to put signs all over the place
"warning, coffee is hot".

It's stuff like this that makes me wish I wasn't an atheist. I really
_want_ to believe that there is a Hell in which the Stupid Old Bat and
her lawyer spend all eternity drinking lukewarm coffee.

In article , the-daring-dufas@stinky-
finger.net says...

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? ^_^

At her age I think the prospect of future offspring was a moot point
regardless. As someone once said of Australia, "it's down there, but
nobody cares".

In article ,
says...

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.

Huh? McD most assuredly had been sued before. What makes her unique is
that she won.

Later, somebody tried the same crap on the manufacturer of the coffee
maker that McD uses. Unlike McD, Bunn pulled out the ANSI specification
for coffee makers, showed that theirs were compliant, and that was the
end of that.

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.

In article ,
says...

"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 06 Dec 2012
02:20:18 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

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?

Where do you put a coffee cup? - on the other seat?

You hold it in your hand--she wasn't driving, she was a passenger. Or
you find a place to wedge it--I've never had any trouble finding one in
any car I've owned.

In article ,
says...

"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

The problem with Welfare isn't the people recieving Welfare. The
"leeches" are the ever expanding legions of government bureaucrats who
are there to try to keep anybody from cheating the system.

In its first few years Welfare had a real effect. In the 40 or so years
since the budget has increased radically but the number of people being
helped and the degree to which they are being helped has remained
substantially unchanged.

In article ,
says...

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.

This notion that seat belts or banning tobacco or restricting portion
sizes or the like can reduce the death rate is one of the stupidest
arguments I have ever seen. The death rate is constant--one person, one
death. Everybody dies. The question is not whether, it is when.

Seat belts do not save lives. They may prolong them, which is a
different issue. As to "cost", which costs more, to treat acute trauma
from an automobile accident or to treat Alzheimer's?

On 12/8/2012 5:42 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , the-daring-dufas@stinky-
finger.net says...

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? ^_^

At her age I think the prospect of future offspring was a moot point
regardless. As someone once said of Australia, "it's down there, but
nobody cares".


There is always cloning. ^_^

TDD

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article ,
says...

"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 06 Dec 2012
02:20:18 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

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?

Where do you put a coffee cup? - on the other seat?

You hold it in your hand--she wasn't driving, she was a passenger. Or
you find a place to wedge it--I've never had any trouble finding one in
any car I've owned.

http://www.squidoo.com/car-drink-cup-holder

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

...
On Dec 7, 3:14 pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:



wrote in message

...
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.

You're not only stupid, bu t a liar too
I never made ANY claim about "having some valid alternative "
That's just you pulling ignorant **** out of your ass again
(Did you ever consider cleaning off your head after your pull it out of
your ass ?
That way you won't spread it on Usenet)

# Yet, when asked to explain how it would work,
# starting from the scene of a car crash,
# you just run away.

Don't have to explain something YOU INVENTED whole cloth
Your strawman - you feed it

#
# I didn't invent it, it's a common, everyday, *real world
# occurance. * You just refuse to address it because,
# well, you can't. * You stand on your soap box and claim
# to have simple solutions for real world problems. *Yet,
# obviously you don't.

yawn
Do you by being an asshole naturally or did you train for the job ?
Let's referesh the MORON's pea-sized brain

Your strawman was
I quote (you)
* * You claim to have some valid alternative to either
* * * * the current system where... "


I made NO such claim

Excuse me, but YOU are the one bitching that we should not
require everyone to have healthcare so that they are covered
in the event of an accident or illness that puts them in the
hospital. I asked what YOUR alternate system was. YOU
responded with you have no problem with people donating
to charity. And you also gave a response that indicated
you didn't much care what happened to them. So
apparently now you agree that is not a VALID alternative
and in fact you don't have any workable, real approach.

So, instead of something that could start to address the
problem of us all paying for the guy who has no insurance,
exactly what is going on now, you'd prefer to hang your
hat on empty basic principles. Principles which only
sound great to some fanatic, yet that same fanatic can't
go through a simple example of how it would work
in the real world. You can't because it doesn't work.

A guy with a low paying job has a car crash. He has
serious head injuries. He'a laying on the side of the
road. What should be done? Should be a simple
thing, how would it work? Go ahead, finally answer it
instead of running away.

That is about as intellectually bankrupt as you can get.
And as I said before, in my experience, the whack jobs
like you with alleged simple solutions like, "I shouldn't
have to pay for it, let charity do it", are usually the ones
that actually give nothing to charity.

On Dec 8, 6:49*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...







"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

The problem with Welfare isn't the people recieving Welfare. *The
"leeches" are the ever expanding legions of government bureaucrats who
are there to try to keep anybody from cheating the system.

In its first few years Welfare had a real effect. *In the 40 or so years
since the budget has increased radically but the number of people being
helped and the degree to which they are being helped has remained
substantially unchanged.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh what a pile of total BS. Show us any evidence that
this is true. That the overwhelming percentage of welfare
money is not actually going to recipients. As for the bureaucrats
checking up for fraud, there should be more of them.
When is the last time you saw anyone prosecuted for
welfare fraud?

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 05:12:14 -0800 (PST), "
That is about as intellectually bankrupt as you can get.
And as I said before, in my experience, the whack jobs
like you with alleged simple solutions like, "I shouldn't
have to pay for it, let charity do it", are usually the ones
that actually give nothing to charity.

+1

On Dec 7, 8:56*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.

It started with Leon saying this:

"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. "


The "stop" Leon was talking about was the SawStop.
That was then changed to include normal spin-down,
without a power fail. Whether you had the safety
protection of SawStop in those events. leon was
checking to see what SS does in those cases.
SawStop halts the
saw in 1ms, apparently the timeframe you need to avoid
injury if you're about to hit the blade with your finger.

So, first, absent some extraordinary electromagnetic
braking design, I say you're not going to halt the saw
in the 1ms timeframe, that is fast enough to prevent
an injury if you shove your finger into the spinnng blade.




*Leon wanted to know if they'd
covered this case.

Yes, the case he was talking about was if SawStop would
work in power loss or normal spin-down,




*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.

You're mixing two things here. Again, the case Leon
brought up was if SawStop works under power loss or
spin-down. That can halt the blade even if you're finger
is shoved into the blade, without causing injury.

Michael's proposed solution, is incapable of that.
Do you agree? It's a nice feature that, if it could be
implemented cost effectively, would bring the spinning
saw to a quicker stop. But I say again, absent some
extraordinary system, it's not going to halt that spinning
blade in 1ms.

And if it could, then you would not need the SawStop
at all because you could just use electromagnetic
braking all the time to stop it. It would be better because,
as you say, there is no blown cartridge.






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.

But it was offered "in addition" in the context of SawStop
working during power fail or normal spin-down, implying that
it could offer the same coverage. It could not. Since then,
I think we've learned that SawStop works during normal
saw shut-off (not 100% sure about that) and might work
for a sec or so in the event of power loss.

So, I think we have arrived at the point where if you wanted
to improve the protection SS offers you could easily add some
small power storage to keep it active during spin-down
in a power failure. And you have a possible alternate
feature you could add to a saw that would significantly
reduce the spin-down time using electromagnetic braking
that would work every time the saw is shut off or loses
power. But I don;t see the latter being of much use in saws with
SawStop. Once you have that, you might as well just
rely on it.




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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

See, the above remark is how you so frequently wind up in
nasty spats with so many folks here. Was that necessary?
I have not been anything other than civil to you in this thread.

On Dec 7, 12:26*pm, 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.

That depends on the time between turning off the power and
the saw stopping. And I'm not so sure about the inexpensive
part. I don't buy that all you have to do is disconnect power,
short the leads and the saw stops very quickly. That may
have some effect, but I'd bet to stop it in even a few rotations
requires some external power source.

If anyone has an spec sheets or examples of saws, motors,
etc with that feature I'd be interested in seeing them.



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 bet that it means the remaining power in the power
supply circuitry of the SawStop.



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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Daring Dufas wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

At her age I think the prospect of future offspring was a moot point
regardless. As someone once said of Australia, "it's down there, but
nobody cares".


There is always cloning. ^_^


Isn't there a law against cloning old clowns?

In article ocal,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Yeah, we all know the story.

Apparently you don't, you just think you do. The jury knows the story.
And that story, in sum, is not that the woman refused to accept
responsibility for her actions, but that McD's refused to accept
responsibility for theirs.

Now, you want to throw out the jury system, you're gonna have to go
bigger than usenet.