In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Dec 8, 11:15 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article -
september.org, says...



In article ocal,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Yeah, we all know the story.

Apparently you don't, you just think you do.

So there's more to the story than was in the trial transcript?

The jury knows the story.

So?

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.

McD had committed no action for which they should "accept
responsibility".
#
# They certainly did. The basic facts:
#
# McDonald?s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its
# coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
#
# Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the
# worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;

Yes but normal sane people do not go around putting cups of hot coffee
between their legs in a car
There is no reason for Macdonals to be responsible for THAT STUPID ACTION
(Except in the minds of children - who are not responsible)

Their manual is in accordance with the ANSI standard for coffee brewing
and with the standards of the Specialty Coffee Association of America.
The simple fact is that certain kinds of food are hot enough to harm
you.

#
# The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-
# mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this
# risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on
# burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the
# specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

And who defined the Chairman of the Dept of Mech Eng. at the U of Texas as
an arbiter of what is acceptable or unacceptable harm ?

And when did he become an expert on coffee?

#
#McDonald?s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns
# from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years ? the risk was
# brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to
# no avail;

And ?


Repeating yourself like a parrot just makes you a parrot

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 06:54:28 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

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?


Statists aren't known for their logic.

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 06:38:57 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

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).

McD's is at least drinkable (Starbucks is not) but it's stone cold.

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

But they lie.

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.

+1

On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 13:47:39 -0800, "Bruce L. Bergman (munged human
readable)" wrote:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 07:48:05 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

You are talking two different problems - a motor brake will cut the
spin-down to 10 seconds instead of over a minute. Not meant to be
instant.

It's a lot faster than that on my miter saw; more like 1 sec. I'd be
happy with five seconds on my table saw, though.

...

On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 00:50:14 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


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?

No more than a guard rail is the brake on a car. ;-)

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 06:19:30 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

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.

No, the back-emf of the motor supplies the power for the brake. There
is probably an ideal resistor (impedance matching exercise) to
dissipate the energy optimally. I'm not a power/motor engineer,
though. It works.

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

Have you ever used a miter saw? Same size blade, or larger, so even
more mass to stop, yet they do in a second. Though they tend to be
direct drive rather than belt drive (don't know if that matters).

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.

Yes, that was explained. Apparently it's just the power left until
the filter caps discharge. Useless.

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 05:43:57 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

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.

....and Leon explained his accident elsewhere. SawStop was *NOT*
needed to save blood.

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.

*NO ONE* said you would. Stop putting words in people's mouths
(something which you're exceedingly good at).



*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,

Wouldn't have saved him in his accident.



*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.

No, you are. Really.

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.

It would have saved Leon's blood *without* an expensive SS mechanism
or blade. THAT was the issue.

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.

Good grief. Try READING and THINKING for once.



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.

A blade brake would have saved Leon a lot of problems without SawStop.

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.


No, it would work INSTEAD of SawStop (which won't) in this case.


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.

Because *YOU* cant *READ*. It really is that simple.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 06:38:57 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

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).

McD's is at least drinkable (Starbucks is not) but it's stone cold.

Not around here it isn't. If it is where you are talk to the manager
and if that doesn't work talk to corporate.

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

But they lie.

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.

+1

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:01:14 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 06:38:57 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

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).

McD's is at least drinkable (Starbucks is not) but it's stone cold.

Not around here it isn't. If it is where you are talk to the manager
and if that doesn't work talk to corporate.

Why would I do that? Just say "no" to McD's coffee. If they want to
make crap they can keep it (and I, my money).

On Dec 9, 4:33*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...







wrote in message
...
On Dec 8, 11:15 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article -
september.org, says...

In article ocal,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Yeah, we all know the story.

Apparently you don't, you just think you do.

So there's more to the story than was in the trial transcript?

The jury knows the story.

So?

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.

McD had committed no action for which they should "accept
responsibility".
#
# They certainly did. *The basic facts:
#
# McDonald?s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its
# coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
#
# Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the
# worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;

Yes but normal sane people do not go around putting cups of hot coffee
between their legs in a car
There is no reason for Macdonals to be responsible for THAT STUPID ACTION
* * (Except in the minds of children - who are not responsible)

Their manual is in accordance with the ANSI standard for coffee brewing
and with the standards of the Specialty Coffee Association of America.
The simple fact is that certain kinds of food are hot enough to harm
you.

#
# The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-
# mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this
# risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on
# burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the
# specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

And who defined the Chairman of the Dept of Mech Eng. at the U of Texas as
an arbiter of what is acceptable or unacceptable harm ?

And when did he become an expert on coffee?



#
#McDonald?s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns
# from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years ? the risk was
# brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to
# no avail;

And ?

Repeating yourself like a parrot just makes you a parrot- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The jury heard ALL the evidence. Including McDonalds own survey
that showed it's competitors were serving coffee that is 30 -40 deg
cooler. And McD own admission at trial that the coffee, as served
was unfit for human consumption. The jury decided. You and
McD lost. Live with it.

On Dec 9, 8:50*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 05:43:57 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
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.

...and Leon explained his accident elsewhere. *SawStop was *NOT*
needed to save blood.

I don't care or know if Leon explained "his" accident
somewhere else. Like most people, I'm not a mind
reader. I just read his post in the context immediately
preceeding it.




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.

*NO ONE* said you would. *Stop putting words in people's mouths
(something which you're exceedingly good at).

Go **** yourself.





*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,

Wouldn't have saved him in his accident.

Again, if he had included "his accident, his parameters",
then we wouldn't be here. He posted in a thread about
SawStop and by context it implied his remarks were in
that regard. He seems to be ok with it? What are you]
now his argumentative little asshole defender?
Why is it that you have to take almost every discussion
that you participate down this kind of path? I explained
my perspective, yet you INSIST that the way YOU happened
to interpret the post is the ONLY acceptable way. WTF
is wrong with you?

wrote:


Again, if he had included "his accident, his parameters",
then we wouldn't be here. He posted in a thread about
SawStop and by context it implied his remarks were in
that regard. He seems to be ok with it? What are you]
now his argumentative little asshole defender?
Why is it that you have to take almost every discussion
that you participate down this kind of path? I explained
my perspective, yet you INSIST that the way YOU happened
to interpret the post is the ONLY acceptable way. WTF
is wrong with you?

Pot... Kettle... Black.

--

-Mike-

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:01:14 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 06:38:57 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

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).

McD's is at least drinkable (Starbucks is not) but it's stone cold.

Not around here it isn't. If it is where you are talk to the manager
and if that doesn't work talk to corporate.

Why would I do that? Just say "no" to McD's coffee. If they want to
make crap they can keep it (and I, my money).

If you aren't willing to address a problem that is unique to your
location then don't complain about it.

On 12/6/12 3:19 PM, wrote:
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.


Yet, you refuse to show a shred of evidence or information to support
your side of the debate. You, instead, choose call me names like an
adolescent child. You have nothing to offer but ignorance and ad hominem
dribble. Congratulations, you win.


--

-MIKE-

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

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

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:39:30 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/6/12 3:19 PM, wrote:
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.


Yet, you refuse to show a shred of evidence or information to support
your side of the debate. You, instead, choose call me names like an
adolescent child. You have nothing to offer but ignorance and ad hominem
dribble.

Moron, others have posted the specifications for brewed coffee. I
suppose you would believe them if I posted them? You didn't
understand the first time so there's little hope you would the tenth.

Congratulations, you win.

Winnning anything from a complete moron isn't very fulfilling.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:30:16 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:01:14 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 06:38:57 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

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).

McD's is at least drinkable (Starbucks is not) but it's stone cold.

Not around here it isn't. If it is where you are talk to the manager
and if that doesn't work talk to corporate.

Why would I do that? Just say "no" to McD's coffee. If they want to
make crap they can keep it (and I, my money).

If you aren't willing to address a problem that is unique to your
location then don't complain about it.

It's *not* unique. ...and no, I have no interest in fixing McD's
problems when it's far easier to avoid them.

On 12/7/12 8:10 PM, wrote:
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.


This explains a lot of you think one can get a "decent" cup of coffee at
those two places.


--

-MIKE-

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

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

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:17:02 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 9, 4:33*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...







wrote in message
...
On Dec 8, 11:15 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article -
september.org, says...

In article ocal,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Yeah, we all know the story.

Apparently you don't, you just think you do.

So there's more to the story than was in the trial transcript?

The jury knows the story.

So?

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.

McD had committed no action for which they should "accept
responsibility".
#
# They certainly did. *The basic facts:
#
# McDonald?s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its
# coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
#
# Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the
# worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;

Yes but normal sane people do not go around putting cups of hot coffee
between their legs in a car
There is no reason for Macdonals to be responsible for THAT STUPID ACTION
* * (Except in the minds of children - who are not responsible)

Their manual is in accordance with the ANSI standard for coffee brewing
and with the standards of the Specialty Coffee Association of America.
The simple fact is that certain kinds of food are hot enough to harm
you.

#
# The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-
# mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this
# risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on
# burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the
# specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

And who defined the Chairman of the Dept of Mech Eng. at the U of Texas as
an arbiter of what is acceptable or unacceptable harm ?

And when did he become an expert on coffee?



#
#McDonald?s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns
# from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years ? the risk was
# brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to
# no avail;

And ?

Repeating yourself like a parrot just makes you a parrot- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The jury heard ALL the evidence. Including McDonalds own survey
that showed it's competitors were serving coffee that is 30 -40 deg
cooler. And McD own admission at trial that the coffee, as served
was unfit for human consumption. The jury decided. You and
McD lost. Live with it.

You're claiming that juries always come to the correct conclusion?
Amazing!


"...were serving coffee that is 30 -40 deg cooler." False. At that
time Dunkin' Donuts was serving coffee at 180F +/- 3F.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:24:00 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 9, 8:50*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 05:43:57 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
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.

...and Leon explained his accident elsewhere. *SawStop was *NOT*
needed to save blood.

I don't care or know if Leon explained "his" accident
somewhere else. Like most people, I'm not a mind
reader. I just read his post in the context immediately
preceeding it.

I was giving you "the rest of the story", since you weren't bright
enough to pick up on it the first time.


....and yes, a blade brake would *COMPLETELY* solve the problem as
stated.

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.

*NO ONE* said you would. *Stop putting words in people's mouths
(something which you're exceedingly good at).

Go **** yourself.

Sorry that you don't like the truth. It is still the truth.



*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,

Wouldn't have saved him in his accident.

Again, if he had included "his accident, his parameters",
then we wouldn't be here. He posted in a thread about
SawStop and by context it implied his remarks were in
that regard. He seems to be ok with it? What are you]
now his argumentative little asshole defender?

I don't have any idea how big is asshole is but you've demonstrated
that you're consumed by yours.

Why is it that you have to take almost every discussion
that you participate down this kind of path? I explained
my perspective, yet you INSIST that the way YOU happened
to interpret the post is the ONLY acceptable way. WTF
is wrong with you?

[..../]
IRONY

Idiot. I was explaining the issue to you and you turned into your
normal assholiness. I expected it and wasn't disappointed.

On 12/10/12 11:53 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:39:30 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/6/12 3:19 PM, wrote:
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.


Yet, you refuse to show a shred of evidence or information to support
your side of the debate. You, instead, choose call me names like an
adolescent child. You have nothing to offer but ignorance and ad hominem
dribble.

Moron, others have posted the specifications for brewed coffee. I
suppose you would believe them if I posted them? You didn't
understand the first time so there's little hope you would the tenth.

Congratulations, you win.

Winnning anything from a complete moron isn't very fulfilling.


Which is why I've grown tired of this debate.


--

-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:

It's a lot faster than that on my miter saw; more like 1 sec. I'd be
happy with five seconds on my table saw, though.


I'll test some ideas on an old Crafstman belt drive table saw when I
can dig it out of the garage & replace a damaged pully.

wrote:

On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 00:50:14 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


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?

No more than a guard rail is the brake on a car. ;-)


it is, as long as you don't go through said guard rail.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:10:17 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/10/12 11:53 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:39:30 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/6/12 3:19 PM, wrote:
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.


Yet, you refuse to show a shred of evidence or information to support
your side of the debate. You, instead, choose call me names like an
adolescent child. You have nothing to offer but ignorance and ad hominem
dribble.

Moron, others have posted the specifications for brewed coffee. I
suppose you would believe them if I posted them? You didn't
understand the first time so there's little hope you would the tenth.

Congratulations, you win.

Winnning anything from a complete moron isn't very fulfilling.


Which is why I've grown tired of this debate.

Because quite obviously you're a complete moron. I'm sure your neuron
is lonely.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:55:43 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/7/12 8:10 PM, wrote:
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.


This explains a lot of you think one can get a "decent" cup of coffee at
those two places.

I see your neuron is still lonely.

wrote:

I see your neuron is still lonely.


Introduce him to Dimbulb. They'll have 1.5 neurons between them.

On 12/10/12 3:08 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:10:17 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/10/12 11:53 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:39:30 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/6/12 3:19 PM, wrote:
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.


Yet, you refuse to show a shred of evidence or information to support
your side of the debate. You, instead, choose call me names like an
adolescent child. You have nothing to offer but ignorance and ad hominem
dribble.

Moron, others have posted the specifications for brewed coffee. I
suppose you would believe them if I posted them? You didn't
understand the first time so there's little hope you would the tenth.

Congratulations, you win.

Winnning anything from a complete moron isn't very fulfilling.


Which is why I've grown tired of this debate.

Because quite obviously you're a complete moron. I'm sure your neuron
is lonely.


You are not only very weak at trolling, but transparently lacking in
self esteem.
I don't know the reasons for that, but I truly feel sorry for you.
Go ahead with your obvious and predictable reply, though.


--

-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

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:30:16 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:01:14 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 06:38:57 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

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).

McD's is at least drinkable (Starbucks is not) but it's stone cold.

Not around here it isn't. If it is where you are talk to the manager
and if that doesn't work talk to corporate.

Why would I do that? Just say "no" to McD's coffee. If they want to
make crap they can keep it (and I, my money).

If you aren't willing to address a problem that is unique to your
location then don't complain about it.

It's *not* unique. ...and no, I have no interest in fixing McD's
problems when it's far easier to avoid them.

Apparently it is because there are four McDonalds mear me and the all
serve decent coffee very hot. If it is being served cold near you then
something is wrong.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:33:37 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/10/12 3:08 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:10:17 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/10/12 11:53 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:39:30 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/6/12 3:19 PM, wrote:
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.


Yet, you refuse to show a shred of evidence or information to support
your side of the debate. You, instead, choose call me names like an
adolescent child. You have nothing to offer but ignorance and ad hominem
dribble.

Moron, others have posted the specifications for brewed coffee. I
suppose you would believe them if I posted them? You didn't
understand the first time so there's little hope you would the tenth.

Congratulations, you win.

Winnning anything from a complete moron isn't very fulfilling.


Which is why I've grown tired of this debate.

Because quite obviously you're a complete moron. I'm sure your neuron
is lonely.


You are not only very weak at trolling, but transparently lacking in
self esteem.
I don't know the reasons for that, but I truly feel sorry for you.
Go ahead with your obvious and predictable reply, though.

More evidence that you're a clueless moron, as if any were needed.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

Apparently it is because there are four McDonalds mear me and the all
serve decent coffee very hot. If it is being served cold near you then
something is wrong.


'Very hot' is meaningless without proper measurement.

"Michael A. Terrell"