http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws
--
Jeff

On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:44:00 PM UTC-5, woodchucker wrote:
http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws
--
Jeff

I saw that too. I don't have any objections to having safe table saws. I just cannot figure out how they could require a patented product for this safety. A device with no patent, like seatbelts when they were required in the 70s or whenever, sure. Or airbags and anti lock brakes. Yes, no patents when required. But a patented product while it is still under patent? Unless the safety requirement would remove the existing patent and make it free for anyone to use.

On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker wrote:

http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws

If they mandate a "safer" saw the population will build a better idiot. It's a miracle our forefathers
survive?

woodchucker wrote in
:

http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...new-safety-rul
es-tablesaws

Summary:
CPSC wants new table saws to stop the blade upon contact with flesh.

Response:
A nice idea, but its time isn't here yet. SawStop's tech is protected by
patents and there's no other competitors right now.

Actually, the free market might sort this out if the patent system actually
works. SawStop's patents will eventually expire (I hope!) and the
technology will be freely available. It's a very desireable feature, and
new saws will be built with it as sawmakers try to compete.

Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!

Gordon Shumway wrote in
:

On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker
wrote:

http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...new-safety-rul
es-tablesaws

If they mandate a "safer" saw the population will build a better
idiot. It's a miracle our forefathers survive?

Some of them didn't. We started seeing reasonable safety measures to
keep more people alive. The biggest mistake you can make safety wise is
forgetting or ignoring how the human creature works! Make the thing look
scary and dangerous if it is! Humans will react without even realizing
they did it. Making something dangerous look safe actually increases the
danger.

Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!

In article om,
Puckdropper says...

woodchucker wrote in
:

http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...new-safety-rul
es-tablesaws

Summary:
CPSC wants new table saws to stop the blade upon contact with flesh.

Response:
A nice idea, but its time isn't here yet. SawStop's tech is protected by
patents and there's no other competitors right now.

Actually, the free market might sort this out if the patent system actually
works. SawStop's patents will eventually expire (I hope!) and the
technology will be freely available. It's a very desireable feature, and
new saws will be built with it as sawmakers try to compete.

Puckdropper

Great, this bull**** again. Would the Earth please open up and swallow
Gass and his company?

The official NPRM can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/document?
D=CPSC-2011-0074-1154 and you have until July 26 to comment.

On 5/23/2017 12:29 AM, wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:44:00 PM UTC-5, woodchucker wrote:
http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws
--
Jeff

I saw that too. I don't have any objections to having safe table saws. I just cannot figure out how they could require a patented product for this safety. A device with no patent, like seatbelts when they were required in the 70s or whenever, sure. Or airbags and anti lock brakes. Yes, no patents when required. But a patented product while it is still under patent? Unless the safety requirement would remove the existing patent and make it free for anyone to use.


They don't require a patented product but right now nothing else exists.
What should take place is the other saw makers get together and find
another method. If they pool resources they may all benefit.

On 5/22/2017 9:43 PM, woodchucker wrote:
http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws



What am I missing?

The proposed ruling is only for demo purposes, not actual use, NO?

What was written,

The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger (a hot dog is commonly
used) contacts the spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second.

I think the author missed the point, I read this as a guide line for
demonstration purposes only.

On 5/23/2017 11:22 AM, Leon wrote:
On 5/22/2017 9:43 PM, woodchucker wrote:
http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws




What am I missing?

The proposed ruling is only for demo purposes, not actual use, NO?

What was written,

The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger (a hot dog is commonly
used) contacts the spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second.

I think the author missed the point, I read this as a guide line for
demonstration purposes only.


I did not see that at all. Not that many deomos going ot to prevent
injuries mentioned:
The CPSC says the new rule is necessary to prevent the nearly 55,000
blade-contact injuries that require medical treatment and could save
consumers anywhere from $625 million to about $2.3 billion in reduced
medical payments, insurance claims and lost wages. The agency is
soliciting comments for 75 days before taking further action.

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 10:22:53 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:

What am I missing?

The proposed ruling is only for demo purposes, not actual use, NO?

What was written,

The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger (a hot dog is commonly
used) contacts the spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second..

I think the author missed the point, I read this as a guide line for
demonstration purposes only.

Once again, **** poor writing and expression are at fault. When I read what you post, I re-read the article posted as appearing in Fine Homebuilding once more. I can easily see how it could be read that the proposal is for demonstration purposes only.

But reading the draft of the proposed regulation, it is obvious that the hot dog method is used as a base line testing mechanism, /simulating/ a finger or other human flesh contact. Fine Homebuilding's sloppy ambiguity is just laziness.

However, all should read the reference to the proposed regulation as supplied by J. Clarke. It is comprehensive, considered, well written and seems to cover all aspects of the arguments for and against.

It discusses the notorious Mr. Gass, the length of time on his remaining patents, Bosch and the Axis solution, the lack of competition for this technology, the effects of requiring such technology, and its effect on the table saw market. It addresses Gass' lawsuit against Bosch, unfair advantage within the marketplace since there is actually only one undisputed device that performs a blade stopping action, and even the idea that installing these devices could make the average table saw user more sloppy in his safety practices. And much, much more.

To the point, further explanation within the body of the proposed regulation clearly (to me) spells out the hot dog as the universal test medium used to determine effectiveness. As for the article in the magazine, it was probably put together by the National Enquirer staff.

Robert

On 5/23/2017 11:00 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/23/2017 11:22 AM, Leon wrote:
On 5/22/2017 9:43 PM, woodchucker wrote:
http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws




What am I missing?

The proposed ruling is only for demo purposes, not actual use, NO?

What was written,

The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger (a hot dog is commonly
used) contacts the spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per
second.

I think the author missed the point, I read this as a guide line for
demonstration purposes only.


I did not see that at all. Not that many deomos going ot to prevent
injuries mentioned:
The CPSC says the new rule is necessary to prevent the nearly 55,000
blade-contact injuries that require medical treatment and could save
consumers anywhere from $625 million to about $2.3 billion in reduced
medical payments, insurance claims and lost wages. The agency is
soliciting comments for 75 days before taking further action.


Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
place of a human finger.


Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
story. And or not proofing before publishing.

On 5/23/2017 11:16 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 10:22:53 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:

What am I missing?

The proposed ruling is only for demo purposes, not actual use, NO?

What was written,

The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger (a hot dog is
commonly used) contacts the spinning blade while approaching at 1
meter per second.

I think the author missed the point, I read this as a guide line
for demonstration purposes only.

Once again, **** poor writing and expression are at fault. When I
read what you post, I re-read the article posted as appearing in Fine
Homebuilding once more. I can easily see how it could be read that
the proposal is for demonstration purposes only.

Idiots!



But reading the draft of the proposed regulation, it is obvious that
the hot dog method is used as a base line testing mechanism,
/simulating/ a finger or other human flesh contact. Fine
Homebuilding's sloppy ambiguity is just laziness.


Yes! Click on the links to get to the actual proposal. The author put
the actual proposal as a foot note and not as the thesis of the story.

On 5/23/2017 12:32 PM, Leon wrote:


Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
place of a human finger.


Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
story. And or not proofing before publishing.


It was poorly written in that part. Even the proposal is. They do not
state if the hot dogs can be or should be natural casing. If the test
is done on the Sabbath is an all beef dog required? Lots of detail left
out.

On 5/23/2017 12:23 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/23/2017 12:32 PM, Leon wrote:


Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the
proposal was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a
hot dog, in place of a human finger.


Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a
fantastic story. And or not proofing before publishing.


It was poorly written in that part. Even the proposal is. They do not
state if the hot dogs can be or should be natural casing. If the test
is done on the Sabbath is an all beef dog required?



Lots of detail left
out.


I know, right?

On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker
wrote:

http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws

Capacitance sensing of contact is NOT a new technology - it is simple
and ancieant electrical knowledge. The judge who issued the ruling of
"patent violation" is too technically ignorant to be allowed to judge
anything.

That makes as much sense as the Patent Office giving a patent to
wheelbarrow design when someone designed a new type of dump handle for
the wheelbarrow - yes, they did that.

The judge and the SawStop attorneys should be found in contempt of the
Court of Common Sense and their sentence is 90 days sawing old oak
with a handsaw.

Sounds an awful lot like corporate payments twisting judicial opinion
to get forced purchase of a patented device with only one source.

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 12:23:13 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
..
Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
story. And or not proofing before publishing.


It was poorly written in that part. Even the proposal is. They do not
state if the hot dogs can be or should be natural casing. If the test
is done on the Sabbath is an all beef dog required? Lots of detail left
out.

OK, Ed. Calm down over there. I was surprised that the proposal was as well written as it is now. I have a guy that I smoke cigars with that is a professional "writer" (policy, instruction leaflets,) that expresses other people's thoughts for government dissemination. He can barely spell his own name correctly two times in a row, much less determine what makes an instructive piece.

And if you read between the lines on that piece, there is credit given to another govt panel for determining the successful testing criteria... the F'in hot dog Gass has been using for years!

Robert

On 5/23/2017 11:22 AM, Leon wrote:
On 5/22/2017 9:43 PM, woodchucker wrote:
http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws




What am I missing?

The proposed ruling is only for demo purposes, not actual use, NO?

What was written,

The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger (a hot dog is commonly
used) contacts the spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second.

I think the author missed the point, I read this as a guide line for
demonstration purposes only.
Instead of talking about these stupid proposals, use the time that you
take to write to this newsgroup and send the message where it will do
some good.

www.regulations.gov

In the case of this proposal enter into the search window and complete
number in the search window. CPSC-2011-0074 to get the comment form for
this proposal.

There are enough people reading this newsgroups and their friends that
if every one of you sent a comment through the above link it would make
a difference.


I just submitted my comments, will you?


--
2017: The year we lean to play the great game of Euchre

On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400
woodchucker wrote:

--

if they really stood behind the product and technology they would
use their finger

this hot dog thing tells us that the tech is not 100 percent

and yet again we get toward the papa state

that is laws and technology to prevent one from thinking and where
does it get humanity when so many are incapable of thinking for
themselves

but no doubt it sells more saws so that is the prime objective

but how long will it be until table saws are obsolete


see my previous post but i suspect not too long as cnc is much cheaper
than it was as the motors and servos and computers are vastly improved
and the single board computers are well supported and widely available

also as i get older i start thinking more about a cnc setup in this
regard and would not invest in sawstop


if i screw up i can be far away and just shut off power to cnc

On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:29:00 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:44:00 PM UTC-5, woodchucker wrote:
http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws
--
Jeff

I saw that too. I don't have any objections to having safe table saws. I just cannot figure out how they could require a patented product for this safety. A device with no patent, like seatbelts when they were required in the 70s or whenever, sure. Or airbags and anti lock brakes. Yes, no patents when required. But a patented product while it is still under patent? Unless the safety requirement would remove the existing patent and make it free for anyone to use.

The pertinent patents don't have much longer to run (the broad ones
run out in 1999 or 2000, IIRC). It's going to kill the low-end saws
but I no longer see a big issue with "woodworker's" saws. Time heals
all Gass. ;-)

On Mon, 22 May 2017 23:31:07 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker wrote:

http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws

If they mandate a "safer" saw the population will build a better idiot. It's a miracle our forefathers
survive?

What are they going to do about circular saws? Bandsaws? Box
cutters?

On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:15:13 -0400, ads wrote:

On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker
wrote:

http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws

Capacitance sensing of contact is NOT a new technology - it is simple
and ancieant electrical knowledge. The judge who issued the ruling of
"patent violation" is too technically ignorant to be allowed to judge
anything.

That's completely irrelevant. Right or _wrong_, the USPTO is
considered the expert. The judge having ruled on it, seals it as
fact. It will take every nuke in the world to budge the courts.

That makes as much sense as the Patent Office giving a patent to
wheelbarrow design when someone designed a new type of dump handle for
the wheelbarrow - yes, they did that.

When reading patents, forget everything but the claims section. Often
what is actually being patented has nothing to do with the discussion
that precedes it. I don't know which patent you're referencing but
I've pulled a lot apart that aren't at all what people think they are.

The judge and the SawStop attorneys should be found in contempt of the
Court of Common Sense and their sentence is 90 days sawing old oak
with a handsaw.

Sounds an awful lot like corporate payments twisting judicial opinion
to get forced purchase of a patented device with only one source.

That's the worry. Not sure how valid it is at this point. Insurance
is a more lasting force.

On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:40:42 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 22 May 2017 23:31:07 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker wrote:

http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws

If they mandate a "safer" saw the population will build a better idiot. It's a miracle our forefathers
survive?

What are they going to do about circular saws? Bandsaws? Box
cutters?

Maybe this is a start?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...nHxV0qZaPI0TM:

Or: http://tinyurl.com/lyak5sa

On Tue, 23 May 2017 19:50:04 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:40:42 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 22 May 2017 23:31:07 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker wrote:

http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws

If they mandate a "safer" saw the population will build a better idiot. It's a miracle our forefathers
survive?

What are they going to do about circular saws? Bandsaws? Box
cutters?

Maybe this is a start?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...nHxV0qZaPI0TM:

Don't get it.

Or: http://tinyurl.com/lyak5sa

Good idea but it's not a circular saw.

On Tue, 23 May 2017 21:30:02 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2017 19:50:04 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:40:42 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 22 May 2017 23:31:07 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker wrote:

http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws

If they mandate a "safer" saw the population will build a better idiot. It's a miracle our forefathers
survive?

What are they going to do about circular saws? Bandsaws? Box
cutters?

Maybe this is a start?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...nHxV0qZaPI0TM:

Don't get it.

Or: http://tinyurl.com/lyak5sa

Good idea but it's not a circular saw.

What do you expect for only a few minutes work?

On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:49:04 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2017 21:30:02 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2017 19:50:04 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:40:42 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 22 May 2017 23:31:07 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker wrote:

http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws

If they mandate a "safer" saw the population will build a better idiot. It's a miracle our forefathers
survive?

What are they going to do about circular saws? Bandsaws? Box
cutters?

Maybe this is a start?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...nHxV0qZaPI0TM:

Don't get it.

Or: http://tinyurl.com/lyak5sa

Good idea but it's not a circular saw.

What do you expect for only a few minutes work?

Fair enough.

Seriously, people do some incredibly dumb stuff with circular saw,
like cutting off their leg. They need government to protect them!

On 5/23/2017 9:59 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:49:04 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2017 21:30:02 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2017 19:50:04 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:40:42 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 22 May 2017 23:31:07 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Mon, 22 May 2017 22:43:51 -0400, woodchucker wrote:

http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws

If they mandate a "safer" saw the population will build a better idiot. It's a miracle our forefathers
survive?

What are they going to do about circular saws? Bandsaws? Box
cutters?

Maybe this is a start?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...nHxV0qZaPI0TM:

Don't get it.

Or: http://tinyurl.com/lyak5sa

Good idea but it's not a circular saw.

What do you expect for only a few minutes work?

Fair enough.

Seriously, people do some incredibly dumb stuff with circular saw,
like cutting off their leg. They need government to protect them!


I imagine it is being worked on. Same idea but it has to be made
smaller but it certainly won't be on thr $29.99 model.

On 5/22/2017 10:43 PM, woodchucker wrote:
http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2017...ules-tablesaws



The actual
proposal:https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Pro...017%202017.pdf
, dated January 17,2017.

Quote:
"CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1245
[RIN 3041-AC31]
Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074
Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has determined
preliminarily that there may be an unreasonable risk of blade-contact
injuries associated with table saws. In 2015, there were an estimated
33,400 table saw, emergency department-treated injuries. Of these, CPSC
staff estimates that 30,800 (92 percent) are likely related to the
victim making contact with the saw blade. CPSC staffs review of the
existing data indicates that currently available safety devices, such as
the modular blade guard and riving knife, do not adequately address the
unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on table saws. To address
this risk, the Commission proposes a rule that is based, in part, on
work conducted by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. The proposed rule would
establish a performance standard that requires table saws, when powered
on, to limit the depth of cut to 3.5 millimeters when a test probe,
acting as surrogate for a human body/finger, contacts the spinning blade
at a radial approach rate of 1 meter per second (m/s). The proposed rule
would address an estimated 54,800 medically treated blade-contact
injuries annually. The Commission estimates that the proposed rules
aggregate net benefits on an annual basis could range from about $625
million to about $2,300 million.

Quoting further:

"SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
(petitioners) requested that the CPSC require performance standards for
a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a
table saw. The petitioners are members of SawStop, LLC, and its parent
company, SD3, LLC (collectively, SawStop). On October 11, 2011, the
Commission published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to
consider whether there may be an unreasonable risk of blade-contact
injuries associated with table saws. 76 FR 62678. The ANPR began a
rulemaking proceeding under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). The
Commission received approximately 1,600 public comments. The Commission
is now issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to address an
unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws
that would limit the depth of cut to 3.5 mm or less when a test probe,
acting as surrogate for a human body/finger, contacts the spinning blade
at a radial approach rate of 1 meter per second (m/s)."



I've read only a tiny portion of the 431 pages, but have not yet seen
any mention of restricting the sale or use of existing saws.

On 05/24/2017 9:01 AM, Larry Kraus wrote:
....

I've read only a tiny portion of the 431 pages, but have not yet seen
any mention of restricting the sale or use of existing saws.


Well, I've not read it all but there are two copies in slightly
differing formats so it's "only" about 200+ pp...

AFAICT, this isn't actually the rule; just the background to try to
justify making one.

The rule being proposed appears to just be the hotdog test must be
3.5mm at 1 m/s and while they admit there's nothing now available other
than SS or Bosch that does it, they say since it's only the performance
that they're mandating that doesn't count.

They do then go on to allow as how SS has been aggressive in protecting
what they've claimed as patent infringement by Bosch that if Gass wins
they're providing a monopoly position going forward. Again, that didn't
seem to bother them too much with weasel-words that amount to being
certain SS will "play nice" with their competitors.

The tail end provides a lot of caveats of alternatives on applicability
that _could_ make the rule apply so that a manufacturer would have to
only have one model available that meets the rule or could have tools
intended for professional use that are exempt and several other
alternatives as well...

--

On 5/24/2017 10:01 AM, Larry Kraus wrote:




I've read only a tiny portion of the 431 pages, but have not yet seen
any mention of restricting the sale or use of existing saws.

They won't bother the consumer, but workmans comp insurance companies
have been pressuring commercial shops for a few years already.

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 10:07:07 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

They won't bother the consumer, but workmans comp insurance companies
have been pressuring commercial shops for a few years already.

VERY true. I had a talk with my insurance guy that handles my commercial account, and he told me that "IF" I had a table saw, that didn't have "bladestopping technology", I might be facing higher premiums. Not a problem for me since no one works out of a shop with my business.

But my cabinet man at the time told me his insurance went up because he didn't have any blade stopping mechanism.

My buddy that teaches industrial arts (shop) was required by the district to get a SawStop saw about three years ago. The other saws were deemed to dangerous. Not a bad idea around 15-18 year old knot heads. I had secured the purchase of the existing Delta saw, vintage mid 60s, for a couple of hundred bucks. It was a rebuild in every sense, but I have couple of connections for that. In the end, they didn't sell it to me, but sold the whole thing to a metal scrap yard. The purchaser for the district told me they didn't want the implied liability of selling a tool so dangerous that they were required to get rid of it.

Sigh.

Robert

On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote:
....

Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
place of a human finger.


Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
story. And or not proofing before publishing.

From the CPSC document directly one finds:

"Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance standard
such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth of cut to
3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body/finger,
contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."


The FHB blurb is

"The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger ... contacts the
spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second."

Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is
identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being
out-of-depth for the audience... and threw in the hotdog; it doesn't
show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a "test probe".

--

On 5/24/2017 3:12 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote:
...

Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
place of a human finger.


Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
story. And or not proofing before publishing.

From the CPSC document directly one finds:

"Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance standard
such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth of cut to
3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body/finger,
contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."


The FHB blurb is

"The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger ... contacts the
spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second."

Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is
identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being
out-of-depth for the audience... and threw in the hotdog; it doesn't
show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a "test probe".



Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.

Maybe some blades are flying apart during the demonstration and keeping
the blade low in the cabinet lessens the chance of shrapnel flying out
and hitting some one.

On 5/24/2017 4:23 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/24/2017 3:12 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote:
...

Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
place of a human finger.


Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
story. And or not proofing before publishing.

From the CPSC document directly one finds:

"Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance
standard such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth
of cut to 3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human
body/finger, contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."


The FHB blurb is

"The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger ... contacts the
spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second."

Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is
identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being
out-of-depth for the audience... and threw in the hotdog; it
doesn't show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a "test
probe".



Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.

Maybe some blades are flying apart during the demonstration and keeping
the blade low in the cabinet lessens the chance of shrapnel flying out
and hitting some one.



There have been 32 post to this thread.

Have any of you expressed your concern where it would count?

As posted earlier in the thread:

Instead of talking about these stupid proposals, use the time that you
take to write to this newsgroup and send the message where it will do
some good.

www.regulations.gov

In the case of this proposal enter into the search window and complete
number in the search window. CPSC-2011-0074 to get the comment form for
this proposal.

There are enough people reading this newsgroups and their friends that
if every one of you sent a comment through the above link it would make
a difference.


I just submitted my comments, will you?


--
2017: The year we lean to play the great game of Euchre

On 5/24/2017 3:47 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 5/24/2017 4:23 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/24/2017 3:12 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote:
...

Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
place of a human finger.


Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
story. And or not proofing before publishing.

From the CPSC document directly one finds:

"Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance
standard such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth
of cut to 3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human
body/finger, contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."


The FHB blurb is

"The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger ... contacts the
spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second."

Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is
identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being
out-of-depth for the audience... and threw in the hotdog; it
doesn't show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a
"test probe".



Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.

Maybe some blades are flying apart during the demonstration and
keeping the blade low in the cabinet lessens the chance of shrapnel
flying out and hitting some one.



There have been 32 post to this thread.

Have any of you expressed your concern where it would count?

As posted earlier in the thread:

Instead of talking about these stupid proposals, use the time that you
take to write to this newsgroup and send the message where it will do
some good.

www.regulations.gov

In the case of this proposal enter into the search window and complete
number in the search window. CPSC-2011-0074 to get the comment form for
this proposal.

There are enough people reading this newsgroups and their friends that
if every one of you sent a comment through the above link it would make
a difference.


I just submitted my comments, will you?



Yeah, 32 comments whining about a like or dislike is probably not going
to do any good.

On 05/24/2017 3:47 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
....

Have any of you expressed your concern where it would count?

As posted earlier in the thread:

Instead of talking about these stupid proposals, use the time that you
take to write to this newsgroup and send the message where it will do
some good.

www.regulations.gov

In the case of this proposal enter into the search window and complete
number in the search window. CPSC-2011-0074 to get the comment form for
this proposal.

There are enough people reading this newsgroups and their friends that
if every one of you sent a comment through the above link it would make
a difference.


I just submitted my comments, will you?

Well, not just off-the-cuff, no.

OTOH, I have started to read the proposal in depth and have begun
looking at some of the numbers used to justify the conclusion...I have
some concern that they glossed over what looks to me like a pretty good
downward trend in numbers/rates that they claim isn't a trend; I've yet
to have time to dig into how they finagled the statistical test to
conclude it isn't significant where it looks very much so at first blush.

I'll work on other sections as get to them so that when do comment it
has some substance, hopefully, rather than just "I don't like it!" that
isn't likely to have much influence as Leon says.

If you had time to make serious comments already, "good on ya'!"

--

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 4:24:10 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
On 5/24/2017 3:12 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote:
...

Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
place of a human finger.


Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
story. And or not proofing before publishing.

From the CPSC document directly one finds:

"Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance standard
such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth of cut to
3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body/finger,
contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."


The FHB blurb is

"The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger ... contacts the
spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second."

Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is
identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being
out-of-depth for the audience... and threw in the hotdog; it doesn't
show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a "test probe".



Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.


Maybe I'm missing something but I took the words "depth of cut" to be the depth of
cut on the surrogate finger before the blade stops. 3.5mm is only 0.138". That's not
even a tooth above the table.


Maybe some blades are flying apart during the demonstration and keeping
the blade low in the cabinet lessens the chance of shrapnel flying out
and hitting some one.

In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 5/24/2017 3:47 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 5/24/2017 4:23 PM, Leon wrote:
On 5/24/2017 3:12 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/23/2017 11:32 AM, Leon wrote:
...

Understood but the author right off the bat indicated that the proposal
was for how high the blade must be when using a stand in, a hot dog, in
place of a human finger.


Another case of never letting the facts get in they way for a fantastic
story. And or not proofing before publishing.

From the CPSC document directly one finds:

"Specifically, the proposed rule would establish a performance
standard such that table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth
of cut to 3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a human
body/finger, contacts a spinning blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s."


The FHB blurb is

"The proposal requires that table saws limit the depth of cut to 3.5
millimeters when a stand-in for a human finger ... contacts the
spinning blade while approaching at 1 meter per second."

Can't really blame the FHB person here; the verbiage on cut depth is
identically quoted; just removed "surrogate" as probably being
out-of-depth for the audience... and threw in the hotdog; it
doesn't show up anywhere in the CPSC convoluted description of a
"test probe".



Jeez! You have to wonder why there needs to be a regulation on blade
depth height for demonstration purposes, The brake works at any depth.

Maybe some blades are flying apart during the demonstration and
keeping the blade low in the cabinet lessens the chance of shrapnel
flying out and hitting some one.



There have been 32 post to this thread.

Have any of you expressed your concern where it would count?

As posted earlier in the thread:

Instead of talking about these stupid proposals, use the time that you
take to write to this newsgroup and send the message where it will do
some good.

www.regulations.gov

In the case of this proposal enter into the search window and complete
number in the search window. CPSC-2011-0074 to get the comment form for
this proposal.

There are enough people reading this newsgroups and their friends that
if every one of you sent a comment through the above link it would make
a difference.


I just submitted my comments, will you?



Yeah, 32 comments whining about a like or dislike is probably not going
to do any good.

When I added mine, it became the 11th total.

On 05/24/2017 5:32 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
....

Maybe I'm missing something but I took the words "depth of cut" to be the depth of
cut on the surrogate finger before the blade stops. 3.5mm is only 0.138". That's not
even a tooth above the table.
....


It is; Leon's just funnin' ...

And, of course, it's the retraction of the blade that stops the injury
progression, it doesn't stop until it hits the brake (which on SS is
just a chunk of pretty soft Al that the teeth gouge into.

--

Hope there are more posts to the site. It is easy to do. I can tell you all that someone listens to these sometimes, but if you don't voice your opinion, it will be assumed that the issue is of no importance to you. I would like to have had a bit of time to edit this, but I saw that the surrounding issues around this proposed regulation had already been closed to comments. I wanted to get on it and get it out before I forgot or was too busy.

Here's what I posted:

I have been in the construction trades for 40 years off and on. I have been an owner operator of a small carpentry and woodworking business for about 35 of those years. In my experience there is a great deal of similarity in the observance of safety issues between the home shop worker as well as the professional. In short, the similarity is that both casual user and professional need training and education, not additional safety appliances or devices added to tools. Some of the appartus required over the years have a valid place in both the home shop as well as in a professional setting, but others are removed, ignored or not maintained at an operational level.

I truly believe based on my own personal experience of instructing and overseeing employees and job sites that the saw brake devices will be disabled or wired around to make the saws work without them. Anything that would stop work that would be attributed to the saw brake would cause it to be disabled in some fashion. Doubtful that it would be reset and rearmed for proper function after a job stoppage. Also, the loss of a blade that could cost as much as $300 from the mechanism firing would certainly make any small business man think about rearming the saw brake device. Besides the down time on the job, a firing of the device will require that a qualified technician of some sort reinstall the replacement firing mechanism of the brake. Additionally, there will be a need to purchase and have on hand another firing device, adding not only to the expense of the saw brake device, but putting the contractor at risk of not being able to locate a replacement which would cause more job site down time. NO doubt that occasion would cause the contractor to "wire around" the problem. IF the device ever fired off by accident or by a bad reading, a contractor will be looking at the purchase of a new blade, a new brake stop firing device as well as all the down time for (possibly) several employees while the machine is reequipped and reset. If there is ever a false positive, then certainly a contractor will work hard to permanently disable the saw blade brake. I strongly believe this additional device that adds to the cost of a saw will be seen by most professionals as not only unnecessary, but as an irritant to be disabled at the first opportunity.

My experience with homeowners/non professionals and their saws is different.. Almost all home accidents come from an occurrence known as "kickback". This happens when a saw is used incorrectly. The wood being cut is put in a position that binds the blade against the guiding device (a "fence" or "miter gauge") or the wood is no longer fed in a straight line into the blade causing the saw to aggressively grab the wood rather than cut it. This grab will cause the wood to be removed from the operator's grasp and will often "kickback" the wood towards or into the operator or off the table of the saw. The saw makers and the government have provided different devices to help mitigate this problem, but I very rarely go into a home shop where the recommended table saw safety devices are being used, or used properly. Kickback is a technique issue and rarely happens with proper use of the table saw. it is important to note that a saw braking mechanism will NOT prevent or mitigate the occurrence kickback in any way.

I rarely see hands or digits cut by table saws in a home or professional environment. Very rarely. Most people that use them have a healthy respect for the tool due to its size and power, and using the tool give ther operator a tremendous sense of its power. Almost all operators have a very healthy respect for this tool and use it carefully. I truly believe that if there was an effective blade braking device attached to a table saw then most operators would become overconfident and lazy, knowing that if they have a lapse of judgement of concentration, they wouldn't suffer any risk of injury. In the particular case of the table saw, a very healthy fear of the machine is a great thing and does more to prevent injury than any attached device.

In closing, I hope you can see that while some safety devices are good ideas, the idea of a saw blade brake is not. Not for the hobbyist or the professional. Although for two very different reasons, neither would benefit from it. This is an issue that has been around for years now, and while the saw blade brake technology certainly has its place, most are overwhelmingly against it, and mandating it would be of little or no value to table saw users.

Thank you for your time and attention.

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 7:27:57 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 05/24/2017 5:32 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

Maybe I'm missing something but I took the words "depth of cut" to be the depth of
cut on the surrogate finger before the blade stops. 3.5mm is only 0.138". That's not
even a tooth above the table.
...


It is; Leon's just funnin' ...

And, of course, it's the retraction of the blade that stops the injury
progression, it doesn't stop until it hits the brake (which on SS is
just a chunk of pretty soft Al that the teeth gouge into.


Yeah, I either meant "before the blade retracts" or "before the blade stops cutting".

I don't remember which. :-)