| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message While I don't want to be flippant about the injury rates
listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every year in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of times a table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean. My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of injuries. I'd also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found them. Of course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend money looking, but if I had cites to back up such claims, I think I'd make them available. So far, I've seen nothing but claims. I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However, someone did provide a source citation for the number of amputations. That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with airbags if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds quite a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250 to $500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it is doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How many fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am not sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am ready to eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want to err on the side of "freedom" in this area. Dave Hall Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over the years have received injuries of one sort or another, everything from blade-changing knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft horse's shoe and, very occasionally, something more serious. If we're at all wise, we learn from the smaller incidents and remain slightly in awe of what the tablesaw can do to us if our attention wanders. If we're not particularly wise, we continue to use unsafe working methods and eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to the inattentive user today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up. Charlie Self "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing." Redd Foxx |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:46:10 GMT, "mark" wrote:
I'll agree with that. And seatbelts on airplanes always seemed kind of ridiculous. Ever hit serious turbulence? The kind where the flight attendants strap in and make funny faces? If you'd ever flown through some of it, you'd change your mind. G We don't even need to get into crashes like UAL 232, where half of the passengers actually survived a DC10 cartwheeling through a corn field. Barry |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ba r r y" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:46:10 GMT, "mark" wrote: I'll agree with that. And seatbelts on airplanes always seemed kind of ridiculous. Ever hit serious turbulence? The kind where the flight attendants strap in and make funny faces? If you'd ever flown through some of it, you'd change your mind. G We don't even need to get into crashes like UAL 232, where half of the passengers actually survived a DC10 cartwheeling through a corn field. Barry Yeah, on a smaller plane it makes sense. I've been in some pretty bad turbulance in that respect. Anything that affects a 737 in that way is enough to make you wish you had a full chest harness like the nascar guys. I know there's a reason for them, it's just that they look woefully inadequate. If you tumble through a cornfield, I guess you're probably not gonna get tossed out the windshield. My bet is you'd be strapped tightly to a chair that was no longer connected to anything.  |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
you gotta balance that with corporate greed. sawstop has the patents for their product, which requires a saw built especially for it- it doesn't work as a retrofit. they tried to make their product mandatory by lobbying for new laws. this would have put all other table saw makers out of business in the US. this for a product that has no track record. Yeah, I'm aware of that and I fully agree with you. Safety is one thing, forcing it on people mainly to make a profit or succeed in business is a whole new ballgame. |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Hank Gillette" wrote in message
If I were cutting off a finger every week, a $100 Forrest blade would be the least of my worries. Hey, no worries. After ten weeks you wouldn't need the sawstop or a new blade anymore. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:13:33 GMT, "mark" wrote:
Yeah, on a smaller plane it makes sense. I've been in some pretty bad turbulance in that respect. I've seen people tossed about a 747-200 in turbulence. Is that what you're calling small? The -400 is bigger, I know... G UAL232 was a DC10 that had the tail engine disintegrate and cut a bunch of hydraulic lines. Through some serious problem solving and the presence of an instructor pilot on the passenger manifest, the plane actually landed. Upon landing, it cartwheeled. Half of the passengers survived. If everyone had been flying around the cabin, not belted in at all, maybe the results might have been different? More info: http://historian.freeservers.com/flight.htm Barry |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:49:00 GMT, "mark"
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email You can't save people from their own stupidity. To me there's a huge differnce between a helmet /seatbelt and a saw stop. A huge percentage of injuries to motorists are caused by somebody else. I would think that an overwhelming percent of saw accidents are caused purely by the operator. I agree. It's a dangerous tool, and you have to be careful using it. But then again, I feel the same way about other legislation that gets in my life, like helmet laws and seatbelt laws. You can't save people from their own stupidity. I would wear a helmet if I rode a motorcycle, and I wear a seatbelt in the car, and I would probably buy a saw with this feature if it were a free or reasonably price option, only because accidents do happen. But I resent the fact that I'm told that it's mandatory by a bunch of lawyers and politicians that want to make it look like they're doing something for their money. ************************************************** *** Dogs are better than people. People are better than dogs for only one purpose. And then it's only half of ofthe people. And _then_ most of them are only ordinary anyway. And then they have a headache......... |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However,
someone did provide a source citation for the number of amputations. That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html I should read my own stuff before posting - that should have been the Federal Consumer Products Safety Commission |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
"cg" wrote in message I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade spinning at 4000 RPM. If a blade is rated at turning 4000 RPM, how fast is it turning while ripping pieces of 12/4 oak? or cutting 1/8" masonite? What if they said it was a quarter of a blade rotation (say a 40T blade for this example) and you show some flesh on 11 teeth. Would that be grounds of a law suite? Are you trying to calculate how far the blade will penetrate your hand? So many possible factors as to feed rate, blade speed, position of our hand, that it would not be easy to give a definitive answer and that would also leave them open to possible legal action. I think the more details they offer the more problems the are going to encounter. Ed |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
It doesn't just stop. It retracts under the table.
David cg wrote: As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths... From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade in less than five (5) milliseconds. Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds. In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round... (that is one part of fifteen). So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop, I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops. Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60 is 20! To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or 1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration... once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds. (So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?) Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little consolation for me! I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade spinning at 4000 RPM. Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like! Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple math... don't they? cg (David Hall) wrote in message . com... (Charlie Self) wrote in message While I don't want to be flippant about the injury rates listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every year in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of times a table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean. My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of injuries. I'd also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found them. Of course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend money looking, but if I had cites to back up such claims, I think I'd make them available. So far, I've seen nothing but claims. I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However, someone did provide a source citation for the number of amputations. That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with airbags if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds quite a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250 to $500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it is doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How many fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am not sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am ready to eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want to err on the side of "freedom" in this area. Dave Hall Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over the years have received injuries of one sort or another, everything from blade-changing knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft horse's shoe and, very occasionally, something more serious. If we're at all wise, we learn from the smaller incidents and remain slightly in awe of what the tablesaw can do to us if our attention wanders. If we're not particularly wise, we continue to use unsafe working methods and eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to the inattentive user today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up. Charlie Self "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing." Redd Foxx |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:27:43 GMT, Tom Veatch
wrote: That doesn't mean I favor legislation requiring this sort of device. Likewise it doesn't mean I oppose legislation requiring this sort of device. I'd like to see the saw for sale on the open market, but NOT legislated as a requirement. Barry |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Charlie Self wrote:
tzipple responds: An old discussion and a slippery slope. Should "buyer beware" apply to all merchandise including food & drugs? All services including banking, insurance, etc? Usually, we are pretty selective about what protections ittitate us. Seatbelt requirements in a car are a big deal, but no one revolts regarding seatbelts on airplanes, for example. The fact is none of us (well, maybe you do, Mark) have time to research all potentially dangerous items that we ourchase, are reluctant to fully trust companies who may have more interest in their bottom line than in reasonably safe products, and we depend on government to apply basic standards to a huge range of items and services in order to to protect us. While one may quibble about particular items or protections, the general principle seems like a good thing to me. I think the irritation is not with the inclusion of the seat belt, or the availability of the safety helmet for motorcyclists, but the making of the use a legal requirement. I use seatbelts. Back when I was still riding motorcycles, I used helmets and at least three times, the helmet saved my life, or my ability to walk. At that time, neither was a legal requirement. I still use seatbelts every time I use a vehicle, but it is NOT because the state and the feds tell me I have to. FWIW, yesterday I was getting on the Interstate and at the onramp there was not one, but three cops doing nothing but checking for seat belt use. Apparently this was done statewide. Really wish that it all came out of the pockets of the politicians. Possibly my biggest objection to these legalities is the way they grow. A few states will make, say, helmets mandatory. Survival statistics improve in those states. The Feds then get a toe in, making state reception of certain road funds dependent on their having helmet use laws that fit a new Federal standard. Whoops. A bit further down the slippery slope to big government, de facto Federal control of a Constitutional state function, using the big stick called bucks. This is actually one of my objections to socialized medicine--once it starts getting expensive the state has an incentive to cut costs by eliminating sources of injury. Starts out with helmets and seat belts but where does it end? Charlie Self "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing." Redd Foxx -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
mark wrote:
"Ba r r y" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:46:10 GMT, "mark" wrote: I'll agree with that. And seatbelts on airplanes always seemed kind of ridiculous. Ever hit serious turbulence? The kind where the flight attendants strap in and make funny faces? If you'd ever flown through some of it, you'd change your mind. G We don't even need to get into crashes like UAL 232, where half of the passengers actually survived a DC10 cartwheeling through a corn field. Barry Yeah, on a smaller plane it makes sense. I've been in some pretty bad turbulance in that respect. Anything that affects a 737 in that way is enough to make you wish you had a full chest harness like the nascar guys. I know there's a reason for them, it's just that they look woefully inadequate. If you tumble through a cornfield, I guess you're probably not gonna get tossed out the windshield. My bet is you'd be strapped tightly to a chair that was no longer connected to anything. If you check the regs you'll find that before that seat comes loose whoever is in it is already dead--the g-load they have to take is beyond the endurance of the human body. -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
tzipple wrote:
I appreciate the point, but I suspect that most people who have worked in a factory appreciate the value of required safety devices on the inherently dangerous devices. It is up to the operator to make them as safe as possible, I agree. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to avoid manufacturing a device that is more dangerous than necessary. If SawStop works as well as the initial reports seem to say, costs an affordable amount, then the definition of "inherent dangerousness" changes. They are less inherantly dangerous if manufactured using safer and available technology. In the shop at Hamilton Standard there was a hydraulic press. It had been there for more than 50 years and there had never been an injury associated with it. Nonetheless, the safety engineers decided that it needed a guard. In the next year there were five injuries caused by the guard. "Required safety devices" don't always add safety. ks wrote: I don't think it will. as pointed out several times, if it is less than 100% foolproof, the liabilities faced would increase manyfold. As an aside, most powertools are inherently dangerous due to their nature. It is really up to the operator to make things as safe as possible "tzipple" wrote in message ... Saw that article this month (Fine Woodworking) on SawStop. With thousands of amputations a year occuring with tablesaw accidents, any bets on how long it takes for this to be a standard feature? It seems to me that it will get hard for manufacturers to avoid it, if for no other reason than to head off lawsuits from people who claim that the manufactures had the option to manufacture a safer saw. And if it works and is reasonable priced, it is probably a good thing to have as standard equipment... like seatbelts, airbags, etc. -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:13:18 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote: FWIW, yesterday I was getting on the Interstate and at the onramp there was not one, but three cops doing nothing but checking for seat belt use. Apparently this was done statewide. According to a cop I know, they find an awful lot besides unbuckled seatbelts a those stops. G Open beers, clouds of pot smoke in the car, expired registrations, emissions violations (CT's old system), defective equipment, OUI, illegal immigrants, unregistered weapons, stolen cars, bail jumpers, you name it. Not to mention, the holy grail, the u-turner or runner. These are the folks who see the checkpoint and either speed right through or pull a u-turn and run. Apparently, many drunk and stoned folks, along with those who can't be bothered to renew registrations and insurance, or show up in court, also don't wear seatbelts. Once you're stopped... The more he told me, the more I realized that the checkpoints have little to do with safety. Barry |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ba r r y wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:13:18 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote: FWIW, yesterday I was getting on the Interstate and at the onramp there was not one, but three cops doing nothing but checking for seat belt use. Apparently this was done statewide. According to a cop I know, they find an awful lot besides unbuckled seatbelts a those stops. G Open beers, clouds of pot smoke in the car, expired registrations, emissions violations (CT's old system), defective equipment, OUI, illegal immigrants, unregistered weapons, stolen cars, bail jumpers, you name it. Not to mention, the holy grail, the u-turner or runner. These are the folks who see the checkpoint and either speed right through or pull a u-turn and run. Apparently, many drunk and stoned folks, along with those who can't be bothered to renew registrations and insurance, or show up in court, also don't wear seatbelts. Once you're stopped... The more he told me, the more I realized that the checkpoints have little to do with safety. Could be but this particular time they said on the news that night that there was a crackdown on seatbelt use in progress. Barry -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:41:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote: Could be but this particular time they said on the news that night that there was a crackdown on seatbelt use in progress. Exactly! G Barry |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:54:41 GMT, Ba r r y wrote:
According to a cop I know, they find an awful lot besides unbuckled seatbelts a those stops. G Open beers, clouds of pot smoke in the car, expired registrations, emissions violations (CT's old system), defective equipment, OUI, illegal immigrants, unregistered weapons, stolen cars, bail jumpers, you name it. (snip) The more he told me, the more I realized that the checkpoints have little to do with safety. Because, of course, the people as mentioned above are driving perfectly safely, is that it? |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 22 Nov 2004 19:11:45 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
Because, of course, the people as mentioned above are driving perfectly safely, is that it? Actually it is possible for an illegal immigrant, fugitive, or a person with expired registration or insurance to drive perfectly safely. Barry |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 21:31:22 GMT, Ba r r y wrote:
On 22 Nov 2004 19:11:45 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote: Because, of course, the people as mentioned above are driving perfectly safely, is that it? Actually it is possible for an illegal immigrant, fugitive, or a person with expired registration or insurance to drive perfectly safely. Sure, but if they're not driving legally, then I really don't have a problem with them getting found doing same. |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
"mark" wrote:
The bottom line for me is that I would not buy a saw with this technology installed, and, I really think it is a bad idea to get the government involved in forcing me to buy one. Regards Dave Mundt I agree. It's a dangerous tool, and you have to be careful using it. But then again, I feel the same way about other legislation that gets in my life, like helmet laws and seatbelt laws. You can't save people from their own stupidity. I would wear a helmet if I rode a motorcycle, and I wear a seatbelt in the car, and I would probably buy a saw with this feature if it were a free or reasonably price option, only because accidents do happen. But I resent the fact that I'm told that it's mandatory by a bunch of lawyers and politicians that want to make it look like they're doing something for their money. That'd be *our* money, not their money. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
cg wrote:
As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths... From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade in less than five (5) milliseconds. Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds. In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round... (that is one part of fifteen). So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop, I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops. Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60 is 20! To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or 1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration... once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds. (So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?) Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little consolation for me! I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade spinning at 4000 RPM. Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like! Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple math... don't they? So how many saw teeth have to go through your finger before your finger comes off? cg (David Hall) wrote in message . com... otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message While I don't want to be flippant about the injury rates listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every year in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of times a table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean. My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of injuries. I'd also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found them. Of course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend money looking, but if I had cites to back up such claims, I think I'd make them available. So far, I've seen nothing but claims. I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However, someone did provide a source citation for the number of amputations. That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with airbags if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds quite a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250 to $500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it is doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How many fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am not sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am ready to eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want to err on the side of "freedom" in this area. Dave Hall Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over the years have received injuries of one sort or another, everything from blade-changing knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft horse's shoe and, very occasionally, something more serious. If we're at all wise, we learn from the smaller incidents and remain slightly in awe of what the tablesaw can do to us if our attention wanders. If we're not particularly wise, we continue to use unsafe working methods and eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to the inattentive user today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up. Charlie Self "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing." Redd Foxx -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... cg wrote: As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths... From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade in less than five (5) milliseconds. Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds. In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round... (that is one part of fifteen). So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop, I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops. Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60 is 20! To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or 1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration... once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds. (So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?) Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little consolation for me! I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade spinning at 4000 RPM. Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like! Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple math... don't they? So how many saw teeth have to go through your finger before your finger comes off? I don't know it it's so much a matter of the number of teeth as it is how far into your finger the teeth can get before the blade stops. -- If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
"TBone" wrote in message From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade in less than five (5) milliseconds. Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds. In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round... (that is one part of fifteen). So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop, I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops. I don't know it it's so much a matter of the number of teeth as it is how far into your finger the teeth can get before the blade stops. -- If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving The calculations above don't mean anything at all in the working of the saw. As for the number of teeth that will pass a given point of an arc, it is correct. What is NOT taken into consideration is the fact that the blade is also dropping down at the same time. Given the arc of the blade, coupled with the downward movement, the teeth are moving away from the contact point at the same time, so that must also be a part of the equation to determine actual contact. The finger (or hot dog) is moving is a straight line at a given speed, the blade outer circumference is moving down at an unknown speed. Thus, the actual contact will be less that what the OP is stating here. If it moves away faster than the lateral motion of the finger (or test kielbasa) there will be minimal contact even if the blade never stopped. .. |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
TBone wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... cg wrote: As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths... From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade in less than five (5) milliseconds. Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds. In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round... (that is one part of fifteen). So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop, I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops. Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60 is 20! To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or 1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration... once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds. (So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?) Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little consolation for me! I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade spinning at 4000 RPM. Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like! Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple math... don't they? So how many saw teeth have to go through your finger before your finger comes off? I don't know it it's so much a matter of the number of teeth as it is how far into your finger the teeth can get before the blade stops. Actually, it's how far into the teeth the finger can get. Any saw that can make good progress in ipe can cut finger as fast as you can feed it. -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, all I know is that when they demonstrate the thing with a hot dog it
stops virtually instantaneously. The dog has just a slight knick in it. -- Jeff P. "A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog can cure depression. The down side is, the minute you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com "J. Clarke" wrote in message ... cg wrote: As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths... From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade in less than five (5) milliseconds. Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds. In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round... (that is one part of fifteen). So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop, I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops. Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60 is 20! To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or 1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration... once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds. (So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?) Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little consolation for me! I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade spinning at 4000 RPM. Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like! Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple math... don't they? So how many saw teeth have to go through your finger before your finger comes off? cg (David Hall) wrote in message . com... otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message While I don't want to be flippant about the injury rates listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every year in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of times a table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean. My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of injuries. I'd also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found them. Of course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend money looking, but if I had cites to back up such claims, I think I'd make them available. So far, I've seen nothing but claims. I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However, someone did provide a source citation for the number of amputations. That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with airbags if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds quite a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250 to $500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it is doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How many fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am not sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am ready to eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want to err on the side of "freedom" in this area. Dave Hall Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over the years have received injuries of one sort or another, everything from blade-changing knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft horse's shoe and, very occasionally, something more serious. If we're at all wise, we learn from the smaller incidents and remain slightly in awe of what the tablesaw can do to us if our attention wanders. If we're not particularly wise, we continue to use unsafe working methods and eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to the inattentive user today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up. Charlie Self "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing." Redd Foxx -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Saw a live demo in Atlanta, he ran that hot dog into the saw blade alot
faster than you would cut any piece of wood. He shoved a sled with the hot dog on it as fast as he could into the blade, not cutting the sled it was already cut the same size as the distance the fence was set from the blade. Hot dog only had a nick like the demo Joe "Jeff P." wrote in message ... Well, all I know is that when they demonstrate the thing with a hot dog it stops virtually instantaneously. The dog has just a slight knick in it. -- Jeff P. "A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog can cure depression. The down side is, the minute you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com "J. Clarke" wrote in message ... cg wrote: As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths... From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade in less than five (5) milliseconds. Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds. In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round... (that is one part of fifteen). So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop, I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops. Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60 is 20! To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or 1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration... once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds. (So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?) Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little consolation for me! I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade spinning at 4000 RPM. Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like! Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple math... don't they? So how many saw teeth have to go through your finger before your finger comes off? cg (David Hall) wrote in message . com... otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message While I don't want to be flippant about the injury rates listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every year in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of times a table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean. My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of injuries. I'd also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found them. Of course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend money looking, but if I had cites to back up such claims, I think I'd make them available. So far, I've seen nothing but claims. I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However, someone did provide a source citation for the number of amputations. That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with airbags if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds quite a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250 to $500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it is doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How many fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am not sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am ready to eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want to err on the side of "freedom" in this area. Dave Hall Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over the years have received injuries of one sort or another, everything from blade-changing knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft horse's shoe and, very occasionally, something more serious. If we're at all wise, we learn from the smaller incidents and remain slightly in awe of what the tablesaw can do to us if our attention wanders. If we're not particularly wise, we continue to use unsafe working methods and eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to the inattentive user today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up. Charlie Self "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing." Redd Foxx -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:37:32 -0500, "Joe" wrote:
Saw a live demo in Atlanta, he ran that hot dog into the saw blade alot faster than you would cut any piece of wood. He shoved a sled with the hot dog on it as fast as he could into the blade, not cutting the sled it was already cut the same size as the distance the fence was set from the blade. Hot dog only had a nick like the demo My question is, would there be adequate protection if all that happened is the blade dropping (or being pulled) below the table? It seems to me that you might actually get pretty close to the same level of protection without a system that destroys your blade and cartridge. Tim Douglass http://www.DouglassClan.com |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jeff P. wrote:
Well, all I know is that when they demonstrate the thing with a hot dog it stops virtually instantaneously. The dog has just a slight knick in it. Well of _course_ it does. How many do you think they would sell if it cut the hot dog in half? The question is not what happens in the sales demonstration, it's what happens in the real world. -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joe wrote:
Saw a live demo in Atlanta, he ran that hot dog into the saw blade alot faster than you would cut any piece of wood. But was it going a lot faster than your hand would be going if you slipped and shoved it into the blade while trying to catch your balance? He shoved a sled with the hot dog on it as fast as he could into the blade, not cutting the sled it was already cut the same size as the distance the fence was set from the blade. Hot dog only had a nick like the demo If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo". Survival 101, never, _ever_ believe the advertising if its being in error could bring you to harm. Joe "Jeff P." wrote in message ... Well, all I know is that when they demonstrate the thing with a hot dog it stops virtually instantaneously. The dog has just a slight knick in it. -- Jeff P. "A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog can cure depression. The down side is, the minute you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com "J. Clarke" wrote in message ... cg wrote: As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths... From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade in less than five (5) milliseconds. Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds. In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round... (that is one part of fifteen). So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop, I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops. Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60 is 20! To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or 1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration... once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds. (So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?) Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little consolation for me! I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade spinning at 4000 RPM. Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like! Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple math... don't they? So how many saw teeth have to go through your finger before your finger comes off? cg (David Hall) wrote in message . com... otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message While I don't want to be flippant about the injury rates listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every year in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of times a table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean. My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of injuries. I'd also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found them. Of course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend money looking, but if I had cites to back up such claims, I think I'd make them available. So far, I've seen nothing but claims. I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However, someone did provide a source citation for the number of amputations. That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with airbags if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds quite a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250 to $500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it is doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How many fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am not sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am ready to eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want to err on the side of "freedom" in this area. Dave Hall Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over the years have received injuries of one sort or another, everything from blade-changing knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft horse's shoe and, very occasionally, something more serious. If we're at all wise, we learn from the smaller incidents and remain slightly in awe of what the tablesaw can do to us if our attention wanders. If we're not particularly wise, we continue to use unsafe working methods and eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to the inattentive user today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up. Charlie Self "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing." Redd Foxx -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Douglass wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:37:32 -0500, "Joe" wrote: Saw a live demo in Atlanta, he ran that hot dog into the saw blade alot faster than you would cut any piece of wood. He shoved a sled with the hot dog on it as fast as he could into the blade, not cutting the sled it was already cut the same size as the distance the fence was set from the blade. Hot dog only had a nick like the demo My question is, would there be adequate protection if all that happened is the blade dropping (or being pulled) below the table? It seems to me that you might actually get pretty close to the same level of protection without a system that destroys your blade and cartridge. If there is 3 inches of blade exposed it takes .13 seconds for it to drop below the table assuming it's being dropped by gravity with no friction and no power assist. At that exposure when your finger touches the blade it will be 4.6 inches from the centerline. To reach the centerline with .5 inch of blade still exposed your finger would have to reach the centerline in .11 seconds. That means moving 41 inches per second or 3.48 feet per second or 2.38 miles per hour. While you might not want to move wood that fast, that is less than a slow walking pace, so moving your hand into the blade that fast is _very_ easy to do. Tim Douglass http://www.DouglassClan.com -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes he pushed it that fast, watching him gave me a feeling like he was being
reckless if that saw had failed he would have had a problem. Also the machine it self was a very well built heavy duty machine. They did the demo every hour on the hour for the three days I was there Joe "J. Clarke" wrote in message ... Joe wrote: Saw a live demo in Atlanta, he ran that hot dog into the saw blade alot faster than you would cut any piece of wood. But was it going a lot faster than your hand would be going if you slipped and shoved it into the blade while trying to catch your balance? He shoved a sled with the hot dog on it as fast as he could into the blade, not cutting the sled it was already cut the same size as the distance the fence was set from the blade. Hot dog only had a nick like the demo If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo". Survival 101, never, _ever_ believe the advertising if its being in error could bring you to harm. Joe "Jeff P." wrote in message ... Well, all I know is that when they demonstrate the thing with a hot dog it stops virtually instantaneously. The dog has just a slight knick in it. -- Jeff P. "A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog can cure depression. The down side is, the minute you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com "J. Clarke" wrote in message ... cg wrote: As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths... From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade in less than five (5) milliseconds. Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds. In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round... (that is one part of fifteen). So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop, I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops. Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60 is 20! To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or 1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration... once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds. (So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?) Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little consolation for me! I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade spinning at 4000 RPM. Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like! Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple math... don't they? So how many saw teeth have to go through your finger before your finger comes off? cg (David Hall) wrote in message . com... otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message While I don't want to be flippant about the injury rates listed in the article, I DO want to point out that there are likely millions (or tens of millions) of usages of saws every year in the USA. While taken out of context, the idea of thousands of accidents seems like a lot, in context of the total number of times a table saw is used, it is a drop in the ocean. My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of injuries. I'd also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found them. Of course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend money looking, but if I had cites to back up such claims, I think I'd make them available. So far, I've seen nothing but claims. I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However, someone did provide a source citation for the number of amputations. That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with airbags if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds quite a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250 to $500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it is doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How many fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am not sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am ready to eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want to err on the side of "freedom" in this area. Dave Hall Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over the years have received injuries of one sort or another, everything from blade-changing knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft horse's shoe and, very occasionally, something more serious. If we're at all wise, we learn from the smaller incidents and remain slightly in awe of what the tablesaw can do to us if our attention wanders. If we're not particularly wise, we continue to use unsafe working methods and eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to the inattentive user today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up. Charlie Self "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing." Redd Foxx -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
The "yea but how will it do in the real world?" question comes up
often. Good question, but it's one that SawStop couldn't have answered without engineering the saw conservatively and getting them out in real shops. That's what they've done. There are about 200 in shops right now. There will probably be 1000 by partway through 2005. Now we just give Murphy's Law some time to act. I find SawStop's engineering and testing entirely reasonable. They haven't taught 100 monkeys to cut wood and then studied the accident rates and results, but I don't think they needed to. I take it as obvious that stopping a blade in 1/200 second and dropping it below the table will substantially reduce injury, and is a worthwhile addition to a saw design. FWIW, the same results won't be gotten by just dropping the blade. Look closely at the side view high speed video on the SawStop site. The blade stops before it drops. Also, the drop is effected by the stop. A drop without a stop might take a more complicated mechanism. |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well of _course_ it does. How many do you think they would sell if it cut
the hot dog in half? The question is not what happens in the sales demonstration, it's what happens in the real world. Really now. Would you prefer that one of the sales reps slides his hand into the blade? Will that satisfy you? Personally, I'm not rushing out to buy a Sawstop but it does seem like a very good idea. Just keep waiting, I'm sure we'll have real world data sometime soon if they're actually selling any of these. -- Jeff P. "A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog can cure depression. The down side is, the minute you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Charles Krug wrote:
.... So how does the Sawstop distinguish between cutting wood and cutting a finger? I can't see how it happens that the saw knows the difference. It distinguishes a change in capacitance from the moisture in the flesh...that's why there's the override switch for known really wet wood to avoid spurious discharge--of course, then it's a standard saw. I've not looked for it, but I assume the patent is on file and would be available on the PO site... |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| E-mail from SawStop (long) | Woodworking | |||
| Sawstop cabnet saw nearing reality | Woodworking | |||
| The SawStop, How will you let it affect you? (Long) | Woodworking | |||
Linear Mode
