On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 04:07:55 GMT, wrote:


There's another problem here. Technology which is rushed into wide use
by government mandate may not be completely understood and hence not
fully developed. This happened with air bags and produced a lot of
injuries.

I believe that the aspect of the technology that caused
problems *was* understood quite early on. Most of the
injuries and, in the case of infants and very small children,
some deaths occurred because the government bureau-
crats in charge refused to back off on the opening force
requirements to resolve the problem. Personally, I think
that these several individuals should have been prosecuted
for their behavior.

On 16 Dec 2004 10:15:37 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:


Jeez, boy, it doesn't happen that fast for most of us.

Hell, old man, a "lot of us" are DEAD by 66, haven't ya noticed ? :-)

I'm 66 and so far, my
powers have been reduced, but cataract surgery brought the eyesight back
(better than ever), I haven't fallen into a tool yet, and I do things a shade
more slowly--and stay off motorcycles--to make up for slower reaction times.
I'm not as strong as I was 15-20 years ago, but I'm not lifting weights 6 or 8
hours a week any more either.

Woodworking doesn't have a whole lot to do with reaction time unless you screw
up.

Welll, that's part of the problem. Some of us aren't quite as
ambidextrous as some others. Some of us even have problems
walking and chewing gum at the same time. You could argue
that those of us so unendowed should stay away from power tools
altogether, but some of us do like a bit of spice & danger in our
lives. Just not too much....

And the need for strength is over-rated, though I can still walk a 500
pound saw around the shop without much trouble.


In the air, or on the ground ? (I just want to know whether I'll
have to buy wheels for the damn thing in another few years).

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:44:34 -0600, tzipple wrote:

(when you top-post like this, I can't respond to your message with
Doug's as context.)

Doug, do you propose that we eliminate all building codes and let the
"free market" dictate what we build? Eliminate required safety equipment
on autos, airplanes, etc. and simply leave it at "buyer beware? Drop
requirements for standards of care in hospitals and simply let the free
market decide what quality of surgery you get?.... and many other examples?

You are putting up a straw-man argument, assigning to your opponent a
point of view he has not stated so you can drag it back down.

I suspect that many "free market" folks would be at the head of the line
screaming for government help in your world.

I suspect that he will also recognize and reject your use of a cheap
rhetorical tactic.

Dave Hinz

Also, the government mandates a technology, and leaves the companies out to dry
when the technology is rushed into use by law. Airbag suits were not thrown out
when someone was hurt or killed by an airbag that performed exactly in the
mandated manner.

Grant



wrote:


snip

There's another problem here. Technology which is rushed into wide use
by government mandate may not be completely understood and hence not
fully developed. This happened with air bags and produced a lot of
injuries.

See:
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/10/1575

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 04:03:18 GMT, wrote:
On 15 Dec 2004 15:56:00 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Right. The stupid people who aren't wearing seatbelts now "because I has
airbags, yuh see", are the same stupid people who weren't wearing seatbelts
before airbags came along.

Unfortunately the publicity campaign for air bags has given some
people the idea that air bags are a substitute for seat belts. This is
massively untrue, but a lot of people believe it.

Can you point me to a single example of this?

Technology doesn't make stupid people more, or less, stupid. It just
changes what they're going to be stupid about.

True, but PR campaigns that misinform can make even fairly bright
people act in truly stupid ways.

Not hardly. If they make a stupid decision, it's them doing it. Them
misunderstanding "Airbags, as a supplimental restraint system, will make you
safer" doesn't mean they've been misled, it means they don't comprehend
well.

Dave Hinz

On 16 Dec 2004 16:31:32 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:


Arnie Swarzenego is the only one who can do the air thing with 500 pounds.


Guess I should run for governor, eh ?

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:17:40 -0500, GregP wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:20:49 GMT, igor wrote:

...... But base on looking at what US-based
companies bring to market, the _general_ view is that "safety" only sells
to a marginal group.

Su just look at the reaction in this ng.

How so? I drive Saab cars in part because they're so safe. I take
safety precautions, often with extra expense, with many aspects of my
life. But, my adverse reaction to SawStop is that (a) it doesn't
exist as a product I can buy, and (b) they want to force me to buy
an unworkable solution. Maybe in another 5 years they'll get their ****
together and actually be able to sell 'em, and I'll think about buying
one, but don't force me to buy something that doesn't work.

In article , Dave Hinz wrote:

You are putting up a straw-man argument, assigning to your opponent a
point of view he has not stated so you can drag it back down.

I suspect that many "free market" folks would be at the head of the line
screaming for government help in your world.

I suspect that he will also recognize and reject your use of a cheap
rhetorical tactic.


I'm just ignoring him, Dave. g

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:07:28 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz wrote:

I suspect that he will also recognize and reject your use of a cheap
rhetorical tactic.

I'm just ignoring him, Dave. g

That's certainly the easiest way to recognize and reject it, then...

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:07:05 -0500, Allen Epps
wrote:


As someone mentioned it might be a hard sell for the hobbiest. But
think about the pro shop getting an insurance discount for an "Sawstop"
shop. There might be an economic incentive to migrate the tools.

That may well be true.

Much is being read into the fact that Sawstop has not shipped
any machines yet. There are some pretty straightforward issues
here, tho, that have nothing to do with the safety gizmo and all
to do with it being a brand new company in this business. I wonder
how long it took Grizzly to release its first product from the day it
formed itself ?

Do you think it was six years before they shipped anything? Hardly.

-j

J responds:


Much is being read into the fact that Sawstop has not shipped
any machines yet. There are some pretty straightforward issues
here, tho, that have nothing to do with the safety gizmo and all
to do with it being a brand new company in this business. I wonder
how long it took Grizzly to release its first product from the day it
formed itself ?

Do you think it was six years before they shipped anything? Hardly.

Probably more like a month, or the time it took to get tools here after they'd
already been contracted in Taiwan. The owner of Grizzly knew exactly what he's
doing, as he has known pretty much every step of the way since he started back
in '83. Get the product to the customer as fast as possible, at the lowest
possible cost consistent with reasonable quality, and improve the product as
fast as is possible without blowing costs out of sight.

Charlie Self
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir Winston
Churchill

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
I wonder
how long it took Grizzly to release its first product from the day it
formed itself ?

Do you think it was six years before they shipped anything? Hardly.

Probably more like a month, or the time it took to get tools here after
they'd
already been contracted in Taiwan. The owner of Grizzly knew exactly what
he's
doing, as he has known pretty much every step of the way since he started
back
in '83. Get the product to the customer as fast as possible, at the lowest
possible cost consistent with reasonable quality, and improve the product
as
fast as is possible without blowing costs out of sight.

Yep, my point exactly. You can take orders in advance, but you better be
ready to ship within a few months or you are going to end up with unhappy
ex-customers.

-j

On 16 Dec 2004 20:29:05 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

J responds:

Do you think it was six years before they shipped anything? Hardly.


I have no idea how long it took from the day a few people said
"hey, let's sell tools" to the day that the first one was sold to a
customer, but I suspect that it was a good two years. I also have
no idea when the Sawstop people decided to go into the ts
retail business.

Probably more like a month, or the time it took to get tools here after they'd
already been contracted in Taiwan.

That is now, but that is different from what I asked.

ted harris wrote:

In newsoug Miller typed:
It's somewhat less clear that any
government-mandated safety device is a better means of preserving their
digits
than simple responsible safety practices.

Please understand that I am not involved at all in the political side of
this argument. I personally could care less whether or not the government
makes it required or not...all I know is, I will have this system on any
machinery in my shop that it can be put on, when it becomes available.

That's your choice.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

ted harris wrote:

In news:Bruce Barnett typed:
Can't we just say "I'm not personally convinced it's a good idea. I
will wait until I see the numbers before deciding one way of the
other."

Seems like this would eliminate a lot of the flames.

First off, anyone that thinks that having a saw that will reduce an
accident on a saw from one that requires anything from stiches, on up to
amputations to a cut that is 1/32 in depth at a cost of no more than the
cost of a new cartridge and a saw blade is a bad idea, is an absolute
moron not capable of
operating any power tool, IMHO. So no, I don't think the flames will
stop.

They won't stop because people like you take the attitude that anybody who
disagrees with you is "an absolute moron not capable of operating any power
tool". Which leads those who fall into that category to develop toward you
an attitude of "Jo Mama".

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"ted harris" writes:
In newsoug Miller typed:
Well, clearly some three kilopeople annually are in fact not responsible
enough not to work dangerously. It's somewhat less clear that any
government-mandated safety device is a better means of preserving their
digits
than simple responsible safety practices.

Are you implying that none of the 3000 + people that have amputations are
not professional woodworkers?
I know several carpenters and professional woodworkers that have had fingers
disappear, or get serious enough cuts that require them not to work. Don't

I've known several carpenters who couldn't find their way out
of a paper bag. Saw-stop wouldn't save them from their own
stupidity. Next you'll be all gung-ho over a nail-stop device
which attaches to a nail gun and prevents one from shooting oneself
in the head.

scott

GregP responds:


On 16 Dec 2004 20:29:05 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

J responds:

Do you think it was six years before they shipped anything? Hardly.


I have no idea how long it took from the day a few people said
"hey, let's sell tools" to the day that the first one was sold to a
customer, but I suspect that it was a good two years. I also have
no idea when the Sawstop people decided to go into the ts
retail business.

Probably more like a month, or the time it took to get tools here after
they'd
already been contracted in Taiwan.

That is now, but that is different from what I asked.

What did you ask?

SawStop has been sitting on their product for at least four years that I know
of...make that five. I somehow doubt the owner of Grizzly spent anything like
two years putting things together to sell tools, but if he did, he made no
public announcements beforehand about his products.

I've met Mr. Balolia (sp?) a couple times, and one thing I learned about him is
that he does not like wasting time. AFAIK, he's sole owner of Grizzly, so he
would have made the decisions and got things going ASAP, after deciding he was
going to sell imported tools in the U.S. It might have taken him two years to
put the financing together...I have absolutely NO idea about that.

Charlie Self
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir Winston
Churchill

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:17:40 -0500, GregP wrote:

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:20:49 GMT, igor wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:55:13 -0500, Hank Gillette
wrote:

I may be overly suspicious, but I think the saw manufacturers don't want
to put it on their saws because in effect they would be admitting that
their previous saws were unsafe.

Hank -- Assuming that the technology works, then I can see the saw
companies coming to this very conclusion (with a number of twists and turns
in the analysis) as a reason to not go that way.

A lawsuit may come from any direction. You can just as easily
make the argument that a saw company may be sued because
it *could* have installed Sawstop but didn't. So I don't believe
that fear of lawsuits was the primary rationale for turning down
Sawstop. I would bet on cost being the primary reason.


That is what I said later in my same post. Here it is:

"There can be an irony in the law about such things. If the sawstop
technology does work and it catches on, then if a company that does not
sell sawstop is sued for its "plain" TS, the plaintiff can say, "They could
have added this new technology but they refused." OTOH, if the same
company had licensed sawstop and then was sued, the fact that it had added
a sawstop line would not be admissible in court. YMMV, depending on your
state, but that irony exists in many states."

In my experience following such industry developments, in fact suits DO
come from both directions, yet companies generally only predict those
coming from the first direction -- i.e., that a "new safety technology"
will suggest that their existing products are defective. If they can kill
that new tech, then when a lawsuit comes they can say that the technology
was "unproven", "too costly", etc. But if they do not kill it -- i.e., if
their refusal to license it does not prevent it somehow coming to market
eventually -- then they really can end up being hit harder in court.
Please also note my initial caveat: "Assuming the technology works". --
Igor

On 17 Dec 2004 01:52:56 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:


That is now, but that is different from what I asked.

What did you ask?


My starting point was when he decided to sell tools, not
when he decided to add a single product to his line.

SawStop has been sitting on their product for at least four years that I know
of...make that five. I somehow doubt the owner of Grizzly spent anything like
two years putting things together to sell tools, but if he did, he made no
public announcements beforehand about his products.

I've met Mr. Balolia (sp?) a couple times, and one thing I learned about him is
that he does not like wasting time. AFAIK, he's sole owner of Grizzly, so he
would have made the decisions and got things going ASAP, after deciding he was
going to sell imported tools in the U.S. It might have taken him two years to
put the financing together...I have absolutely NO idea about that.


So it sounds like two years, maybe even longer, is realistic.

In news:Bruce Barnett typed:
Can't we just say "I'm not personally convinced it's a good idea. I
will wait until I see the numbers before deciding one way of the
other."

Seems like this would eliminate a lot of the flames.

First off, anyone that thinks that having a saw that will reduce an accident
on a saw from one that requires anything from stiches, on up to amputations
to a cut that is 1/32 in depth at a cost of no more than the cost of a new
cartridge and a saw blade is a bad idea, is an absolute moron not capable of
operating any power tool, IMHO. So no, I don't think the flames will stop.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In newsoug Miller typed:
Well, clearly some three kilopeople annually are in fact not responsible
enough not to work dangerously. It's somewhat less clear that any
government-mandated safety device is a better means of preserving their
digits
than simple responsible safety practices.

Are you implying that none of the 3000 + people that have amputations are
not professional woodworkers?
I know several carpenters and professional woodworkers that have had fingers
disappear, or get serious enough cuts that require them not to work. Don't
you?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In newsoug Miller typed:
It's somewhat less clear that any
government-mandated safety device is a better means of preserving their
digits
than simple responsible safety practices.

Please understand that I am not involved at all in the political side of
this argument. I personally could care less whether or not the government
makes it required or not...all I know is, I will have this system on any
machinery in my shop that it can be put on, when it becomes available.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In typed:
ok, ted, your fingers are worth more than a couple hundred bucks.
granted.

what isn't known is the rate of false positives. that information
*cannot* be known until the machine has been in use in actual workshop
use for some time.

how many times would you pay $180 for a cartridge and blade before you
started thinking about either replacing the saw or just disabling the
thing. a cabinet saw costs about $2000. that's about 11 false
positives. if it does it once a month it's costing you something like
4 new saws a year.

If I was worried about false alarms, I would like to find out what testing
has been done to prove that it will not misfire. I am quite positive that
there are saws somewhere that have been in real woodshops being used in real
working conditions since the day it was invented, not to mention possibly
even some testing center that was hired to test it. Basically, I am saying
that befoe I pursued purchasing the machine I would like to see evidence of
testing, or some sort of proof that misfires are some very small percentage
or even not possible. I would pay it at least once, and then I would have
to figure out whether or not I actually touched the blade, before I pursued
other avenues. If I did not touch the blade, I would be on the phone
talking to Steve Gass. I am quite sure that he is a reasonable man, and
could be convinced one way, cannot be the only way. The reason I know this
is because of his invention of the very system we are debating. The system
would not even exist if he thought that the possiblity for something that
seemed impossible was in fact possible.

how many times HAVE you cut off your fingers on your table saw,
anyway?

Never, but I have touched an alternating tip blade while it was running and
not even received a scratch from it.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:44:19 -0500, Jay Pique
wrote:

wrote:

On 15 Dec 2004 15:56:00 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:52:13 GMT, Mike Marlow wrote:

I keep reading that from people, but how many times have you heard anyone
say that they drive more recklessly because they have an airbag in their
car? Or even really had reason to believe they do? It isn't human nature
to behave that way.

Right. The stupid people who aren't wearing seatbelts now "because I has
airbags, yuh see", are the same stupid people who weren't wearing seatbelts
before airbags came along.

Unfortunately the publicity campaign for air bags has given some
people the idea that air bags are a substitute for seat belts. This is
massively untrue, but a lot of people believe it.

Technology doesn't make stupid people more, or less, stupid. It just
changes what they're going to be stupid about.

True, but PR campaigns that misinform can make even fairly bright
people act in truly stupid ways.

Dude, are you, like, a civil litigator?

JP

No, just an experienced observer.

I was a newspaper and wire service reporter an editor for many years,
including the period when seat belts were first mandated.

Bismarck's old adage about sausage and politics goes double for public
policy.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On 16 Dec 2004 16:35:34 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 04:03:18 GMT, wrote:
On 15 Dec 2004 15:56:00 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Right. The stupid people who aren't wearing seatbelts now "because I has
airbags, yuh see", are the same stupid people who weren't wearing seatbelts
before airbags came along.

Unfortunately the publicity campaign for air bags has given some
people the idea that air bags are a substitute for seat belts. This is
massively untrue, but a lot of people believe it.

Can you point me to a single example of this?

Well, we can start with a 1983 quote from Joan Claybrook, former NHTSA
adminstrator

Air bags, (she insisted on CNN in 1983), are ''much better than seat
belts'' because they ''would protect all front-seat occupants in those
types of crashes where 55 percent of the public is now killed.'' She
called them ''the best solution,'' since ''they fit all different
sizes and types of people, from little children up to ... very large
males. So they really work beautifully and they work automatically and
I think that that gives you more freedom and liberty.''

(I'll note additionally in passing that this contains several major
untruths, whether Claybrook knew they were untrue or not. And as
former NHTSA administrator she should have known they were untrue.)

Or this, from Public Citizen, one of the Naderite groups that spread
the misinformation about air bags.

"Protection of Unbelted Occupants
Original purpose of air bags"

That's from their 1999 fact sheet on air bags at
http://www.citizen.org/autosafety/Ai...es.cfm?ID=6007

And the effect? A lot of people were left with a very false impression
about air bags.

"Survey of Americans Shows Use and Safety of Air Bags Misunderstood"
Is the headline on a 1997 release from the Harvard School of Public
Health.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/re...s03171997.html


Technology doesn't make stupid people more, or less, stupid. It just
changes what they're going to be stupid about.

True, but PR campaigns that misinform can make even fairly bright
people act in truly stupid ways.

Not hardly. If they make a stupid decision, it's them doing it.

If they're acting on widespread misinformation then their
responsibility is at least lessened. People were widely misinformed
about the effects of airbags because their advocates vastly overstated
their case.

Them
misunderstanding "Airbags, as a supplimental restraint system, will make you
safer" doesn't mean they've been misled, it means they don't comprehend
well.

See the examples above. People were told, or as much as told, that air
bags would protect you even if you weren't buckled in. They weren't
told -- until years after air bags were mandated -- that air bags
could also kill you and your children.

Your argument is valid in regards to air bags circa 2004 because of a
massive education campaign in the last five years. (The first public
mention of these dangers from a government source I could find was in
a 1995 release.) Before then it was simply wrong -- because of the
widespread misinformation.


Dave Hinz
--RC
Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:29:57 -0500, GregP
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 04:07:55 GMT, wrote:


There's another problem here. Technology which is rushed into wide use
by government mandate may not be completely understood and hence not
fully developed. This happened with air bags and produced a lot of
injuries.

I believe that the aspect of the technology that caused
problems *was* understood quite early on. Most of the
injuries and, in the case of infants and very small children,
some deaths occurred because the government bureau-
crats in charge refused to back off on the opening force
requirements to resolve the problem. Personally, I think
that these several individuals should have been prosecuted
for their behavior.

While it's a charming suggestion. (I particularly like the idea of
Joan Claybrook in the dock for reckless homicide of dozens of
children) I don't think it goes to the real root of the problem.

In the case of air bags some people certainly understood the dangers.
Early in the campaign for air bags during the Carter administration,
Chrysler Corp. produced a study estimating that air bags would kill
about 200 people a year. (Fortunately that was way too high -- in part
because we developed better sensors before we deployed air bags.) This
information was ignored and derided because it came from an obviously
partisan source.

The problem is not what a few people know, it is building a consensus
that can be acted on. One of the best ways to do that is to conduct
enough research and tests to make sure the technology is fully
understood and appropriately developed.

The next step should be a full, public and careful review of what we
know about the technology and the implications. This simply doesn't
happen under present conditions. Instead new technology is often
mandated on the basis of an inadequate process conducted in a witch
hunt atmosphere.

The third step is to constantly review the regulations and their
underlying premises in the light of new evidence -- and a willingness
to completely change the regulations when it becomes obvious a
different approach gives better results.

Fat chance!

--RC
Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:35:37 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

In typed:
ok, ted, your fingers are worth more than a couple hundred bucks.
granted.

what isn't known is the rate of false positives. that information
*cannot* be known until the machine has been in use in actual workshop
use for some time.

how many times would you pay $180 for a cartridge and blade before you
started thinking about either replacing the saw or just disabling the
thing. a cabinet saw costs about $2000. that's about 11 false
positives. if it does it once a month it's costing you something like
4 new saws a year.

If I was worried about false alarms, I would like to find out what testing
has been done to prove that it will not misfire. I am quite positive that
there are saws somewhere that have been in real woodshops being used in real
working conditions since the day it was invented, not to mention possibly
even some testing center that was hired to test it. Basically, I am saying
that befoe I pursued purchasing the machine I would like to see evidence of
testing, or some sort of proof that misfires are some very small percentage
or even not possible.

Which you could do if you had freedom of choice. You wouldn't if the
government mandated this thing.

I would pay it at least once, and then I would have
to figure out whether or not I actually touched the blade, before I pursued
other avenues. If I did not touch the blade, I would be on the phone
talking to Steve Gass. I am quite sure that he is a reasonable man, and
could be convinced one way, cannot be the only way.

snip

Your faith is touching, but I suspect misplaced. At this point Steve
Gass, no matter how reasonable he might be, is deeply emotionally
committed to SawStop. His very natural inclination would be to explain
away or simply ignore any evidence of problems. So I doubt seriously
you'd get any satisfaction from him -- or indeed anyone else in his
position.

(My personal belief, based on Mr. Gass' actions, is that he is not
nearly as reasonable as you think.)

Financial interest aside, people invest in ideas and once they are
deeply invested it is extremely difficult to change their opinions.

--RC



Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:50:27 -0500, GregP
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:47:19 GMT, "Vic Baron"
wrote:

I'm 67 years
old and have been making noise and sawdust for over 40 years - still have
all ten complete digits.


If I get to 67 - and I'm not that far away - I will see even less
clearly than I do now, my reactions will be even slower,
my strength will have diminshed even further, my thought
processes will be slower, and my sense of balance will
be even worse. So I will assume that the chance that I
will have a digit-subtracting accident will be considerably
higher than when I was 35.

You will also have far more experience, even more ingrained safety
habits and have developed patterns of working to compensate for your
physical and mental failings.

Older age groups famously have fewer accidents than younger ones.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:51:08 -0500, GregP
wrote:

On 16 Dec 2004 20:29:05 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

J responds:

Do you think it was six years before they shipped anything? Hardly.


I have no idea how long it took from the day a few people said
"hey, let's sell tools" to the day that the first one was sold to a
customer, but I suspect that it was a good two years. I also have
no idea when the Sawstop people decided to go into the ts
retail business.

Probably more like a month, or the time it took to get tools here after they'd
already been contracted in Taiwan.

That is now, but that is different from what I asked.

If you really want to know the answer check out the SawStop patent and
look at the filing date. Then count backwards anywhere from six months
to two years.

If you want a more reasonable number, look at when the company was
incorporated. If it's been several years and they're still not
shipping, then there's a problem.

Don't discount the possibility that this is another example of a small
company built around a good story whose primary business is to get
money from investors. There are a lot of those out there.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

I asked a question. I did not assign any point of view. And it is not a
"cheap tactic." It is a fair question to pose to those who argue that an
unfettered free market is a good thing. Let's see if he responds... as
you did not.

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:44:34 -0600, tzipple wrote:

(when you top-post like this, I can't respond to your message with
Doug's as context.)


Doug, do you propose that we eliminate all building codes and let the
"free market" dictate what we build? Eliminate required safety equipment
on autos, airplanes, etc. and simply leave it at "buyer beware? Drop
requirements for standards of care in hospitals and simply let the free
market decide what quality of surgery you get?.... and many other examples?


You are putting up a straw-man argument, assigning to your opponent a
point of view he has not stated so you can drag it back down.


I suspect that many "free market" folks would be at the head of the line
screaming for government help in your world.


I suspect that he will also recognize and reject your use of a cheap
rhetorical tactic.

Dave Hinz

I suppose the best way to avoid subtlety in thought is to avoid
thinking....

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Dave Hinz wrote:


You are putting up a straw-man argument, assigning to your opponent a
point of view he has not stated so you can drag it back down.


I suspect that many "free market" folks would be at the head of the line
screaming for government help in your world.

I suspect that he will also recognize and reject your use of a cheap
rhetorical tactic.



I'm just ignoring him, Dave. g

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:13:26 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

In newsoug Miller typed:
It's somewhat less clear that any
government-mandated safety device is a better means of preserving their
digits
than simple responsible safety practices.

Please understand that I am not involved at all in the political side of
this argument. I personally could care less whether or not the government
makes it required or not...all I know is, I will have this system on any
machinery in my shop that it can be put on, when it becomes available.

And that says a lot about your confidence in your abilities and your
personal cost/benefit ratios - but it really means nothing to some of
us. I've been running power equipment for 30 years or so - since I was
really too young to be doing it. I have developed a great deal of
respect for the tools and make every effort to work in a way that
allows me to stay clear of the sharp parts. I will probably not
purchase a saw with this kind of device because the cost of even a
minor contact is currently high enough to put me out of the shop for
weeks or months until I could afford the new cartridge and blade. As I
have said elsewhere, I suspect that the vast majority of table saw
injuries don't involve amputation or even a trip to the emergency
room. I have witnessed two TS accidents, both direct result of
careless behavior around the saw, both were pretty good cuts, but
neither even required stitches, simply a good bandage. One friend of
mine did cut his thumb, index finger and half the next one off. That
was one of those accidents that involved running the saw when tired
and in a hurry. He probably would have appreciated SawStop at that
moment!

Point is that I will apply a lot of personal controls to reduce the
risk of a major injury rather than pay the premium on a system that
can turn a 2 cent bandage injury into a $150 repair bill on the saw.

It's a calculated risk - but it *is* a *calculated* risk.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:25:30 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

In news:Tim Douglass typed:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:30:13 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:
Actually, Steve Gass of sawstop stated in a post on Sawmill Creek that
"People regularly push three fingers right through the blade before they
can flinch. Human reaction time is about 25-50 times slower than SawStop,
so even if you are going fast, the accident will likely be far less
significant with SawStop than without it."
I am quite sure that if you email him, he will be glad to support any
statement he has made with research, links, proof, etc.

It's a bit misleading, in that he totally ignores all the injuries
that don't involve pushing fingers through the blade. By far the
majority of table saw accidents involving contact with the spinning
blade (the only ones that matter for SS) do *not* involve amputation.
My guess (based on experience of people I know) is that the majority
don't even make it to the doctor or e-room.

Plenty of the other injuries you refer to as the ones that don't matter
would be far less serious as demonstrated in the videos on the sawstop
website.

Sure, but is it worth the cost to reduce a two stitch injury to a
band-aid one? Or a band-aid cut to a smaller band-aid? Remember that
it will cost you at least $75 - $70 for the cartridge and $5 for a HF
blade.

I think that there is some sort of fundamental design issue with SS.
It relies on stopping the blade by interacting with the blade and
drops the blade below the table as a backup. I suspect it would be
quite easy to make a device that uses a similar detection methodology
that employs spring loaded trunnions that will snap the entire
trunnion assembly down into the saw at a touch. If properly designed
it should be easy to make it resettable and the design would then tend
to "fail safe", that is, if the system won't work the blade can't be
locked into the "up" position.

SawStop may be a good product, but I think there are a lot of other
ways to try to solve the problem.

Well then, where is your invention and patent? ..or are you just offering
lip service here...

SawStop has raised the issue. It remains for others to try to innovate
around the concept. I'm not one of those others, but there will be
different approaches tried. Unless....

Because SS holds the patent on using
induction (?) or whatever to detect contact with the blade they have
the industry in a stranglehold. A year or so ago it seems that one of
the saw manufacturers said they were interested in the detection
technology, but wanted to develop their own blade stopping system. SS,
at that time, would only license the right to install SS, not to
develop a different system based on part of the SS patent.

Another perfect example of why the manufacturers greed rules how evolution
of innovation goes. Poor poor manufacturer got beat to the punch. Guess
they were just too busy stufing their pockets with money to worry about
whether or Harry homeowner keeps his fingers or not...what a joke!

The point is that the manufacturers looked at the technology and said
"we can do better on part of this" but SS won't let them try. They
offered an all or nothing approach and ended up with the nothing. If
they had licensed the detection part you might right now be seeing
unisaws with something the equivalent of SawStop - or maybe not - but
SS pretty much guaranteed that no one else will try. This isn't about
correcting a defective tool, it is about adding entirely unproven
technology that would lock them into design changes and tie them
completely to a small, start-up company forever. *No* smart
businessman would take that deal. If SawStop really was interested in
helping woodworkers keep their fingers they would do everything they
could - including licensing parts of their technology - to see that
manufacturers added *some sort* of blade stopping device.

Personally, I do not think that SS is likely the best way to solve
this problem, but I'm afraid that they have sewed things up in such a
way that they are probably going to be the only game in town. If SS
becomes mandatory (especially the way their SPSC petition was written)
it could well be illegal to try to do something else, effectively
stifling innovation. Look at the emissions controls on today's cars
for examples of how legislation can destroy innovation and lock us
into second-best solutions.
Tim Douglass

I don't think it's sawstop that is stifling innovation. In fact, it's the
manufacturers that are stifling it, by not even offering up the idea of
stopping the blade prior to sawstops invention. Oh, how I weep for the
billion dollar machinery industry! LOLOLOL...
The idea of legislating manufacturers into advancement is not such a bad
concept, especially considering that most all of the choices they make are
about appearing to be concerned about safety, while not accomodating an
operable safety system because they did not come up with it first. Maybe
someone else is goign to make a score this time. I personally hope the
little guy wins this one.
Ever since the industrial revolution began, the manufacturers have exploited
the common man. Now the common man has smartened up a bit, andis using the
laws to get better protection. I see nothing wrong with that at all...

Any law that specifies a particular device to solve a problem is a
poor law. Legislation should establish goals and allow the engineers,
etc. to find ways to accomplish those goals. I would accept SawStop's
proposed legislation on only one condition, that they made the design
public domain so that anyone could build it. When the government just
hands a company the keys to the safe bad things happen - see
Halliburton. From where I sit SawStop looks just as greedy and corrupt
as any of the big manufacturers - and just as uninterested in the
fingers of the woodworking crowd.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:27:55 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

In news:Mike Marlow typed:
Ahem... psssssttt... that was (not-so)cleverly disguised sarcasm. You're
expressing my point. Those two - or what ever number (small) though they
may be, are the ones that have been there since the beginning. It's very
suspicious when you hear claims that make it sound like production is up,
things are shipping, stuff in the field and then the only information you
can find points to the same two or three that have been there for a couple
of years. That's getting some mileage out of those units. Credibility
suffers.

Maybe to someone who has absolutely no vision?

Or perhaps to someone who understands how the world works.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:31:58 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

In newsoug Miller typed:
In article , "Mike
Marlow" wrote:

C'mon Doug - didn't Steve Gass say he has two of them in the field... even
as we speak?

I'm really not interested in what Steve Gass claims, as he's hardly an
unbiased source. I'd put much more stock in a statement by someone not
affiliated with SawStop, who says that he actually has one in his shop.

So you would give more stock to a billion dollar industry that is against
implementing the use of a system that clearly provides the operator with
added safety, than you would to some poor schmuck that invented something
better in his garage?

How about some poor schmuck who:
A) thinks he has invented something better, but really hasn't. Or,

B) knows he doesn't have something better but see an opportunity to
make a lot of money out of investors?

Both those scenarios are fairly common as well.

Want to buy a 100 mile per gallon carburetor?

At this point what we have is a lot of hype and a lot of
demonstrations by the inventory. What we don't have is significant
testing by independent third parties. In fact as far as I can
determine, no independent third parties have really tested this thing
at all.

That's suspicious, considering this gadget has been demonstrated by
the inventor since 2001.

And who is the source of information about the industry's motives in
rejecting this invention? The inventor and apparently no one else. At
least the voluminious press reports don't mention any other sources
for the information -- no quotes from saw manufacturerers, etc.

That's also suspicious.

Then there is the repeated claim that SawStop cannot be retrofitted.
Looking at the design, I don't see any reason it cannot be
retrofitted. It would probably require including some new parts,
perhaps an insulated arbor, in the package, but it should be feasible.

If this thing is a developed and foolproof as we are led to believe
such a kit would be the logical next step.

Again, suspicious.

Are we supposed to believe that the manufacturers
have your best interest at heart more than your neighbor.

Mr. Gass isn't my neighbor. He is a patent attorney and inventor who
stands to make a whole lot of money if the industry adopts his brain
child. Are we supposed to believe that someone with such a deep
financial interest in the invention is a completely disinterested
source of information? (The argument from financial interest is
questionable at best, but since you can apparently grasp that level of
sophistication, I'll use it too.)

In your rather paranoid world view, these parties should be equally
suspect.


You don't have much faith in your fellow woodworkers then, huh?

Some of us are suspicious of ideas like this presented in these
terms.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:42:20 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

In news:Scott Lurndal typed:
You mean like your supposition about the reasons that manufacturers
don't put SS on their saws?

Are you really a SS employee? You're certainly pushing them pretty hard
here on the group (and you seem to be the only one, too).

scott

Here it comes...
Yeah I work for sawstop...LOLOLOL! My website, shop, and the fact that I
have been in business for years is all just a setup so that I can come here
to this newsgroup and debate with 10 guys in the month of December in the
year 2004. Hahahahahaha!

What I am pushing here is really not about sawstop. It's about all the
skeptics and naysayers that come out of the woodwork (pardon the pun) when
something better comes along, all the while being unwitting pawns of the
manufacturers. Wake up man!

This presumes that SawStop is indeed better. The evidence that it is
is extremely limited and comes almost entirely from someone who stands
to make millions if it is adopted.


P.S. This debate reminds me of the tobacco manufacturers/smokers
debacle...I mean, we are all addicts too, right!

The debate reminds me of some of the inventors/stock promoters I have
known and the gullible souls who got sucked into their schemes.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

In newsoug Miller typed:
So now you claim to be privy to the manufacturers' decision-making
processes,
and in your omniscience you can state with certainty that their rejection
of
SS was based entirely on lack of concern for safety. Economic reasons had
nothing at all to do with it.

You are finally starting to get it! For the manufacturers who all look at
dollars and cents above all else, they simply put safety and the costs of
rigging to accomodate sawstop on the scale, and lo and behold guess which
one they chose. Let me give you a hint, it ain't safety. Corporate America
chose the dollar over consumer safety yet again. Go figure!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke typed:
J wrote:

Don't try and backpedal to try and make us believe that you did not say
that the saw had to be shipped here or there...? I mean, if you know
that there is a possiblity that the sawstop device is going to be
activated and you don't stock an extra cartridge and blade? Well then,
maybe you shouldn't be allowed to operate ANY power tool?

So really the cost of this device is twice what it appears?
Regulation about who can use tools based on how well supplied with spares
they are...

No, based on the fact that they are so stupid that they would go into an
isolated location without an adequate supply of consumable items.

What a concept. This will reduce the number of contractors in
business by an order of magnitude. On the positive side, no excuse to
head off to the store and then out for a cup of coffee.


Average reaction time when feeding your hand into a saw blade is 2.5
fingers. At that point you might as well throw them into the
garbage.

Is it really? Can you show me where you got this data from, or are you
just making things up?

Actually, Steve Gass of sawstop stated in a post on Sawmill Creek that
"People regularly push three fingers right through the blade before
they can flinch. Human reaction time is about 25-50 times slower than
SawStop, so even if you are going fast, the accident will likely be far
less significant with SawStop than without it."
I am quite sure that if you email him, he will be glad to support any
statement he has made with research, links, proof, etc.

So you base your statement on hearsay from someone who has a substantial
vested interest in the topic? I'm still trying to figure out how the math
works out from what he said to "2.5 fingers". Word problems... what can
you do!

I suspect that one could run a statistical analysis on the Consumer
Product Safety Commission database, however I do not know if he has done
that.

Again, where do you get this idea from? Have you been to their
website and read it thoroughly?

Yes. Perhaps you can show me where it says that the device is
user-serviceable. Just because it is in a cartridge does not mean
that it is user-serviceable. Their site has a fair amount of
speculation to it. It has been that way for a long time. This makes
me think that they are not progressing well. Since you are so
familiar with it, please point out the part where it says they are
user serviceable.
u
-j

You could email them at , instead of speculating
here on the internet, and perpetuating yet another "urban legend" and
find out,

No, you claimed it is user serviceable. Perhaps you can stop speculating
and find out.

The general belief seems to be that it is user serviceable. If you do not
buy the conventional wisdom then it's up to you to disprove it.

My suspicion is that you don't have the balls to man up and do some
research like Steve Gass has, so just keep putting YOUR spin on this
issue, instead of getting the facts.

I'm not interested in the facts.

In that case, plonk

ROTFLMAO!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J typed:
Average reaction time when feeding your hand into a saw blade is
2.5 fingers. At that point you might as well throw them into the
garbage.

Is it really? Can you show me where you got this data from, or are
you just making things up?

Actually, Steve Gass of sawstop stated in a post on Sawmill Creek that
"People regularly push three fingers right through the blade before
they can flinch. Human reaction time is about 25-50 times slower than
SawStop, so even if you are going fast, the accident will likely be
far less significant with SawStop than without it."
I am quite sure that if you email him, he will be glad to support any
statement he has made with research, links, proof, etc.

So you base your statement on hearsay from someone who has a
substantial vested interest in the topic? I'm still trying to figure
out how the math works out from what he said to "2.5 fingers". Word
problems... what can you do!

I suspect that one could run a statistical analysis on the Consumer
Product Safety Commission database, however I do not know if he has done
that.

I am starting to think I'm being trolled. You are the one who stated that
the average reaction time is 2.5 fingers. Now you are saying that no one
really knows. Come on. Stop playing around.

Again, where do you get this idea from? Have you been to their
website and read it thoroughly?

Yes. Perhaps you can show me where it says that the device is
user-serviceable. Just because it is in a cartridge does not mean
that it is user-serviceable. Their site has a fair amount of
speculation to it. It has been that way for a long time. This makes
me think that they are not progressing well. Since you are so
familiar with it, please point out the part where it says they are
user serviceable.
u
-j

You could email them at , instead of
speculating here on the internet, and perpetuating yet another "urban
legend" and find out,

No, you claimed it is user serviceable. Perhaps you can stop
speculating and find out.

The general belief seems to be that it is user serviceable. If you do
not buy the conventional wisdom then it's up to you to disprove it.

No, it is not. Really, this is where I think you are trolling. You imply
it is on their website, so I go there and check it out. It says nothing
of the sort. Then you say write Sawstop and find out.
You are the one speculating that it possesses an attribute which is not
documented anywhere.

I'm tired of being trolled. Show me the facts that back up your argument.

-j

Getting as little rattled are we? Rattled enough to not even know who you
are responding to, huh?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Tim Douglass typed:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:30:13 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:
Actually, Steve Gass of sawstop stated in a post on Sawmill Creek that
"People regularly push three fingers right through the blade before they
can flinch. Human reaction time is about 25-50 times slower than SawStop,
so even if you are going fast, the accident will likely be far less
significant with SawStop than without it."
I am quite sure that if you email him, he will be glad to support any
statement he has made with research, links, proof, etc.

It's a bit misleading, in that he totally ignores all the injuries
that don't involve pushing fingers through the blade. By far the
majority of table saw accidents involving contact with the spinning
blade (the only ones that matter for SS) do *not* involve amputation.
My guess (based on experience of people I know) is that the majority
don't even make it to the doctor or e-room.

Plenty of the other injuries you refer to as the ones that don't matter
would be far less serious as demonstrated in the videos on the sawstop
website.

I think that there is some sort of fundamental design issue with SS.
It relies on stopping the blade by interacting with the blade and
drops the blade below the table as a backup. I suspect it would be
quite easy to make a device that uses a similar detection methodology
that employs spring loaded trunnions that will snap the entire
trunnion assembly down into the saw at a touch. If properly designed
it should be easy to make it resettable and the design would then tend
to "fail safe", that is, if the system won't work the blade can't be
locked into the "up" position.

SawStop may be a good product, but I think there are a lot of other
ways to try to solve the problem.

Well then, where is your invention and patent? ..or are you just offering
lip service here...

Because SS holds the patent on using
induction (?) or whatever to detect contact with the blade they have
the industry in a stranglehold. A year or so ago it seems that one of
the saw manufacturers said they were interested in the detection
technology, but wanted to develop their own blade stopping system. SS,
at that time, would only license the right to install SS, not to
develop a different system based on part of the SS patent.

Another perfect example of why the manufacturers greed rules how evolution
of innovation goes. Poor poor manufacturer got beat to the punch. Guess
they were just too busy stufing their pockets with money to worry about
whether or Harry homeowner keeps his fingers or not...what a joke!

Personally, I do not think that SS is likely the best way to solve
this problem, but I'm afraid that they have sewed things up in such a
way that they are probably going to be the only game in town. If SS
becomes mandatory (especially the way their SPSC petition was written)
it could well be illegal to try to do something else, effectively
stifling innovation. Look at the emissions controls on today's cars
for examples of how legislation can destroy innovation and lock us
into second-best solutions.
Tim Douglass

I don't think it's sawstop that is stifling innovation. In fact, it's the
manufacturers that are stifling it, by not even offering up the idea of
stopping the blade prior to sawstops invention. Oh, how I weep for the
billion dollar machinery industry! LOLOLOL...
The idea of legislating manufacturers into advancement is not such a bad
concept, especially considering that most all of the choices they make are
about appearing to be concerned about safety, while not accomodating an
operable safety system because they did not come up with it first. Maybe
someone else is goign to make a score this time. I personally hope the
little guy wins this one.
Ever since the industrial revolution began, the manufacturers have exploited
the common man. Now the common man has smartened up a bit, andis using the
laws to get better protection. I see nothing wrong with that at all...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com