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?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:57:03 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

In news:J typed:

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

-j

Okay, but Grizzly did not spen several years developing anything either, nor
did they spend several years to market their product to manufacturers. And
I believe that Grizzly had its finances in order. And Grizzly was not going
against the "powers that be!" And, by the way the website looks to me,
sawstops original intent was not to make machiery, only the sawstop. It
also looks like the only way that the inventor could bring this to market
was enter into the machinery design and distribution business. Not really
an easy task for a guy that already has acareer and has a family, huh?
Sounds to me like sawstop worked their ass off to get to this point. I find
it to be an inspiring chase for the American Dream.

I'm glad you're inspired, but ask yourself this question: Why did
SawStop choose to announce it was manufacturing its own saws months --
at least -- before they would start shippng?

This is unusual behavior in the woodworking industry to say the least.
Most products are announced at trade shows about the time they are
available for order by retailers and that's usually within 90 days of
shipping the first units.

One explanation for this behavior is that it is a common method of
sucking investors into a project. Sometimes that's a legitimate, if
risky, strategy. Sometimes it's the mark of a smoke-and-mirrors
artist.

You might want to stop romanticizing these guys and apply some of the
same skepticism to them you like to show to the 'powers that be.'

The more I look at this the more questions I have.

--RC


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

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? Are we supposed to believe that the manufacturers
have your best interest at heart more than your neighbor. You don't have
much faith in your fellow woodworkers then, huh?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

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!

P.S. This debate reminds me of the tobacco manufacturers/smokers
debacle...I mean, we are all addicts too, right!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:52:14 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

In news:Tim Douglass typed:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:13:26 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:
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.

Everyone else in this conversation has chosen not to make this a personal
issue about each others woodworking skills, except you...
My confidence level is just fine, thank you. Woodworking is what I do for a
living. To my knowledge, there is no one else here that does what I do.
There are less than 200 people in the world that chose my profession. I
have never cut myself on a saw, or any machine while utilizing a rotational
cutting blade...I have been doing it for 13 years as a living...and I mean
full time...prolly average 60 or more hours a week...but that does not mean
that accidents can't happen. We are, only human after all.

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


A two cent bandage injury is what you get when you have sawstop.

So they claim, anyway. In fact some of the people who have actually
looked closely at the product have some serious doubts. Look at the
CPSC filings and pay particular attention to the reports of the
technical experts SawStop attached to its petition.

Why does this whole argument remind me in a nasty way of the debate
over airbags?

--RC

P.S. Just my two cents...

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

In news:J typed:

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

-j

Okay, but Grizzly did not spen several years developing anything either, nor
did they spend several years to market their product to manufacturers. And
I believe that Grizzly had its finances in order. And Grizzly was not going
against the "powers that be!" And, by the way the website looks to me,
sawstops original intent was not to make machiery, only the sawstop. It
also looks like the only way that the inventor could bring this to market
was enter into the machinery design and distribution business. Not really
an easy task for a guy that already has acareer and has a family, huh?
Sounds to me like sawstop worked their ass off to get to this point. I find
it to be an inspiring chase for the American Dream.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

"ted harris" wrote in message
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

Yeah, you should see me. Spittle dripping out of the corner of my mouth as I
utter in a guttural croak "damn that pool cue repair guy"
Really, really, really rattled. uh... right.

-j

"ted harris" wrote:

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,

Beamed up? Abducted? Ransom demands? Argentinian death squads?

or get serious enough cuts that require them not to
work. Don't you?

"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.

You might want to wait until they come out with 'Hand Stop'; stops your
hands from going near anything sharp or pointy.

"ted harris" wrote:

In news:J. Clarke typed:
Yeah, but now there are 6 billion people on this rock, and half of them
have an IQ of 100 or less...

I once met a fellow who had two Nobel Prizes in Physics. One time some
psychology department or other decided to evaluate his IQ. According to
him it was 96.

Yasser Arafat had a Nobel Prize as well...

And all his fingers.

"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.

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...

It's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!!!

In news:Tim Douglass typed:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:13:26 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:
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.

Everyone else in this conversation has chosen not to make this a personal
issue about each others woodworking skills, except you...
My confidence level is just fine, thank you. Woodworking is what I do for a
living. To my knowledge, there is no one else here that does what I do.
There are less than 200 people in the world that chose my profession. I
have never cut myself on a saw, or any machine while utilizing a rotational
cutting blade...I have been doing it for 13 years as a living...and I mean
full time...prolly average 60 or more hours a week...but that does not mean
that accidents can't happen. We are, only human after all.

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


A two cent bandage injury is what you get when you have sawstop.

P.S. Just my two cents...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke typed:
Yeah, but now there are 6 billion people on this rock, and half of them
have an IQ of 100 or less...

I once met a fellow who had two Nobel Prizes in Physics. One time some
psychology department or other decided to evaluate his IQ. According to
him it was 96.

Yasser Arafat had a Nobel Prize as well...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

GregP responds:

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.

Maybe. But it's conjecture, not reality, and does not face the fact that he
didn't publicly announce his products before he could supply them.

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

In article , tzipple wrote:
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.

Indeed it is... but I did not argue that an unfettered free market is a good
thing. That's *your* strawman. I said no such thing.

--
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.

In article , "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? Are we supposed to believe that the manufacturers
have your best interest at heart more than your neighbor. You don't have
much faith in your fellow woodworkers then, huh?

Next time, maybe you oughta read what you're responding to before that knee
jerks quite so hard. We weren't talking about safety issues here, only whether
SawStop is actually shipping product or not.

--
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.

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.

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.

You beat your head against a wall long enough and you finally quit trying.
Sawstop probably wouldn't have been possible 20 years ago. And most
manufacturers likely gave up looking for a way to stop the blade instantly
on contact 40 years ago.

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.

If the legislation says "shall stop the blade within x fractions of a
revolution upon skin contact" or words to that effect, then it might be OK.
If it says "must use Sawstop" then it's not.

Now, Sawstop is supposed to be bringing saws to market. If this is so all
fired important to most woodworkers, then Sawstop will put Delta, Jet,
Grizzly, Craftsman, and all the rest out of the sawmaking business. I
predict that the market is going to just go *yawn*. And of course you are
going to respond that we are all too stupid to look out for our own
interest and so must be forced to do so by the government.

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...

It's seldom "the common man" who "is using the laws to get better
protection". It is usually the squeaky wheel getting the grease. I don't
want a car with airbags, but the choice is that or an antique. I don't
want the 5 mph bumpers that cost $2000 to fix if they get hit at 5.5 mph or
at any other angle but square on and that add weight for precious little
benefit. But I don't have a choice there either. I always wear a helmet
when riding a motorcycle--I have no problem with the government setting
safety standards for motorcycle helmets except that the Snell standards,
which were around for years before the government got into the act and
which any knowledgeable rider recognized are better researched and more
stringent and at times have been in conflict with the government
standards--but I don't like being told that I'm going to get a ticket if I
decide one day not to for some reason (like for example last night some
******* stole it and I'm on the way to the store to get a new one). I
always wear seat belts, but I resent the laws that say that if one day, on
just one trip, I forget to buckle up, I can get stopped and searched and
otherwise harassed by the police. If you ask "the common man" he'll
generally tell you the same thing. But we _don't_ get asked, and when we
vote out the *******s who enacted these idiotic laws the new *******s don't
deliver on their promises and repeal them, instead they just pass their own
bunch of idiotic laws. And so we have a body of statute law that even the
lawyers can't keep up with, but "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Go down to the library. Look at your state laws and the US Code sitting on
the shelf. Ask yourself what's wrong with this picture.

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

Lobby Dosser wrote:

"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.

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...

It's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!!!

Fnord.

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

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!

So have you ordered your Sawstop saw?

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!

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

Huh? I don't smoke, but I resent being told that I can't. Again, it
shouldn't be your choice what I do. This business of "no smoking in bars"
is just going to end up encouraging organized crime. Even with a
Constitutional amendment they couldn't stop drinking in bars, all that's
going to happen is illegal "smokeasys" are going to start opening, and when
they do that, since the proprietors are criminals anyway for allowing
smoking on the premises they'll probably say to Hell with the whole body of
law, then organized crime will step in and you've just created a new source
of income for the mob. If people don't like smoking in bars they should go
to different bars. Nobody ever died for not going to a bar--it's not like
anybody is forced to go out and get drunk. But nonetheless we have those
laws on the books. Further, I find it ludicrous that tobacco companies are
forced now to pay for airtime to say what the government tells them to say
and forbidden equal time to give their own side of the argument. And even
with all this the anti-smoking zealots want more. Personally I got turned
off on the whole anti-smoking thing ages ago.

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

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? Are we supposed to believe that the manufacturers
have your best interest at heart more than your neighbor. You don't have
much faith in your fellow woodworkers then, huh?

Geezus H. Christ did they hire you from the anti-smoking lobby? He says
that he'd trust the opinion of "a fellow woodworker who actually has one"
over the opinion of some guy who stands to make millions selling the thing,
and you spin that to "you'd take the word of someone who makes millions
selling saws over that of a fellow woodworker".

Look, you buy one, when it arrives you tell us where you're keeping it,
we'll all come look at it and you can show us how reliably it stops and how
easy it is to change the cartridge and then maybe we'll be impressed, O
Fellow Woodworker.



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

wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:57:03 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

In news:J typed:

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

-j

Okay, but Grizzly did not spen several years developing anything either,
nor
did they spend several years to market their product to manufacturers.
And
I believe that Grizzly had its finances in order. And Grizzly was not
going
against the "powers that be!" And, by the way the website looks to me,
sawstops original intent was not to make machiery, only the sawstop. It
also looks like the only way that the inventor could bring this to market
was enter into the machinery design and distribution business. Not really
an easy task for a guy that already has acareer and has a family, huh?
Sounds to me like sawstop worked their ass off to get to this point. I
find it to be an inspiring chase for the American Dream.

I'm glad you're inspired, but ask yourself this question: Why did
SawStop choose to announce it was manufacturing its own saws months --
at least -- before they would start shippng?

This is unusual behavior in the woodworking industry to say the least.
Most products are announced at trade shows about the time they are
available for order by retailers and that's usually within 90 days of
shipping the first units.

One explanation for this behavior is that it is a common method of
sucking investors into a project. Sometimes that's a legitimate, if
risky, strategy. Sometimes it's the mark of a smoke-and-mirrors
artist.

You might want to stop romanticizing these guys and apply some of the
same skepticism to them you like to show to the 'powers that be.'

The more I look at this the more questions I have.

He may be having trouble raising venture capital. But that means that the
venture capitalists are smelling a rat.


--RC


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

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

ted harris wrote:

In news:J. Clarke typed:
Yeah, but now there are 6 billion people on this rock, and half of them
have an IQ of 100 or less...

I once met a fellow who had two Nobel Prizes in Physics. One time some
psychology department or other decided to evaluate his IQ. According to
him it was 96.

Yasser Arafat had a Nobel Prize as well...

Not in physics he didn't. And not two of them.

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

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,

Where did he get the saws? It can't be retrofitted, after all, so he
couldn't have modified an existing saw. So he must have had one designed
and hand built "on the day it was invented".

not to mention
possibly
even some testing center that was hired to test it.

So where's the test report?

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.

Huh? What are you expecting him to do about it? Redesign the whole system
because you don't like the way it works? Give everybody who bought one
their money back? Free cartridges for the rest of your life?

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.

I don't think it ever "seemed impossible". Just that most people were
looking for an American-style fix and he found a Japanese-style fix.

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.

You would have paid the price of a cartridge for that if it had a Sawstop.

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

In article , "ted harris" wrote:

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!

Whether SawStop is, in fact, "something better" still remains to be seen.
Time will tell. *IF* the company ever starts shipping product, that is.

--
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.

In article , "ted harris" wrote:

Sounds to me like sawstop worked their ass off to get to this point. I find
it to be an inspiring chase for the American Dream.

Oh, bulls**t. Since when does the American Dream include petitioning the
government to make your product mandatory after it fails in the marketplace?

Sounds like the Attorney Dream to me.

--
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 Fri, 17 Dec 2004 02:51:30 GMT, igor wrote:

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.

I can see that. Sounds a lot like stuff we've been hearing
for years from the US auto industry.

Right on the money!

"J. Clarke" wrote:

It's seldom "the common man" who "is using the laws to get better
protection". It is usually the squeaky wheel getting the grease. I don't
want a car with airbags, but the choice is that or an antique. I don't
want the 5 mph bumpers that cost $2000 to fix if they get hit at 5.5 mph or
at any other angle but square on and that add weight for precious little
benefit. But I don't have a choice there either. I always wear a helmet
when riding a motorcycle--I have no problem with the government setting
safety standards for motorcycle helmets except that the Snell standards,
which were around for years before the government got into the act and
which any knowledgeable rider recognized are better researched and more
stringent and at times have been in conflict with the government
standards--but I don't like being told that I'm going to get a ticket if I
decide one day not to for some reason (like for example last night some
******* stole it and I'm on the way to the store to get a new one). I
always wear seat belts, but I resent the laws that say that if one day, on
just one trip, I forget to buckle up, I can get stopped and searched and
otherwise harassed by the police. If you ask "the common man" he'll
generally tell you the same thing. But we _don't_ get asked, and when we
vote out the *******s who enacted these idiotic laws the new *******s don't
deliver on their promises and repeal them, instead they just pass their own
bunch of idiotic laws. And so we have a body of statute law that even the
lawyers can't keep up with, but "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Go down to the library. Look at your state laws and the US Code sitting on
the shelf. Ask yourself what's wrong with this picture.

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

On 16 Dec 2004 16:39:02 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

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. ....

That makes sense. But a fair number of the objections
here boiled down to I've never been hurt and I never
will get hurt; only careless people have accidents;
and exaggerating the negatives, such as you have to
ship your saw back if the safety device "fires."

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:52:14 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

In news:Tim Douglass typed:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:13:26 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:
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.

Everyone else in this conversation has chosen not to make this a personal
issue about each others woodworking skills, except you...

I said nothing about your woodworking skills, thank you. I didn't
express my thought well, but what I said was that based on what you
perceive the risks and benefits of SawStop to be, you consider it a
worthwhile purchase.

My confidence level is just fine, thank you. Woodworking is what I do for a
living. To my knowledge, there is no one else here that does what I do.
There are less than 200 people in the world that chose my profession. I
have never cut myself on a saw, or any machine while utilizing a rotational
cutting blade...I have been doing it for 13 years as a living...and I mean
full time...prolly average 60 or more hours a week...but that does not mean
that accidents can't happen. We are, only human after all.

Again, I'm not making a point about skill levels, merely trying to
establish that I have sufficient experience running a table saw to
have reason to trust my techniques and safety practices. As a
professional you probably run a TS as much in a day as I do in a
month, maybe even more than that. Consider how that affects your
perception of SawStop. If I were running a shop I might consider it as
well - although only after it had established a solid track record in
the market - I just don't care for being an unpaid beta tester.

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


A two cent bandage injury is what you get when you have sawstop.

P.S. Just my two cents...

I think you still miss my point. SawStop can turn a major injury into
an insignificant one, but it can also turn a minor injury into a major
expense. Minor injuries are, I suspect (but can't prove), much more
common than major ones, therefore SS will normally be a net financial
cost to the owner rather than saving thousands in e-room costs etc.
The issue of pain and trauma is left up to the personal opinions of
the operators.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

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,

more to the point is the time from when the tools were advertised for
sale and when they were delivered.





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.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:06:59 -0800, "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.


ted harris, I think you are a moron. and a sheep. and a shill. maybe
even a sock puppet.

so there. nyaah nyaah.

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.

from rcooks post:


7) According to the power tool manufacturers, saw makers who tested
SawStop reported an unacceptably large number of false responses --
both false positives (tripping unnecessarily) and false negatives (not
tripping when it should. They also found a lot of other design issues
and pointed out the SawStop would have particular problems with
direct-drive or geared saws.


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,


his behavior so far would seem to indicate the opposite.




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.

like a fein multimaster?

"ted harris" wrote:

In news:Lobby Dosser typed:
It's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!!!

That's the most well thought out and best executed post you've made so
far...signs of intelligence!

Glad to see you have a sense of humor. I was beginning to wonder.

On a more serious note:

I consider the chainsaw far more dangerous than the tablesaw, but don't use
it as frequently. Wonder if the SawStop sensor mechanism would work on a
chainsaw? All they'd have to do is shut down the motor.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:15:51 -0500, GregP wrote:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 02:51:30 GMT, igor wrote:

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.

I can see that. Sounds a lot like stuff we've been hearing
for years from the US auto industry.

yup!

"ted harris" writes:
In typed:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:06:59 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

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, I think you are a moron. and a sheep. and a shill. maybe
even a sock puppet.

so there. nyaah nyaah.

So it's okay for the naysayers to debate the issue, but someone that
disagrees whith what YOU believe is a moron, a shill, and maybe even a sock
puppet. Can you say "hypocrite?" Good luck to you sir!

Uh Ted, he was just parroting your own words back at you; I quote:

"First off, anyone ... is an absolute moron ...".


scott

In typed:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:06:59 -0800, "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.


ted harris, I think you are a moron. and a sheep. and a shill. maybe
even a sock puppet.

so there. nyaah nyaah.

So it's okay for the naysayers to debate the issue, but someone that
disagrees whith what YOU believe is a moron, a shill, and maybe even a sock
puppet. Can you say "hypocrite?" Good luck to you sir!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Lobby Dosser typed:
"ted harris" wrote:

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,

Beamed up? Abducted? Ransom demands? Argentinian death squads?

LOLOLOL...thanks for bringing a little humor into this debate.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke typed:
Never, but I have touched an alternating tip blade while it was running
and not even received a scratch from it.

You would have paid the price of a cartridge for that if it had a Sawstop.

That's okay with me, because if I had touched it an inch closer, well you
know the rest of the story...
You buy insurance don' you? Isn't insurance speculation as well?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In typed:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:35:37 -0800, "ted harris"
7) According to the power tool manufacturers, saw makers who tested
SawStop reported an unacceptably large number of false responses --
both false positives (tripping unnecessarily) and false negatives (not
tripping when it should. They also found a lot of other design issues
and pointed out the SawStop would have particular problems with
direct-drive or geared saws.

Duh! Is there any other possibility?

Never, but I have touched an alternating tip blade while it was running
and not even received a scratch from it.

like a fein multimaster?

LOLOLOL...a grizzly 1023Z with a Ridge Carbide TS 2000...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Lobby Dosser typed:
"ted harris" wrote:

In news:J. Clarke typed:
Yeah, but now there are 6 billion people on this rock, and half of them
have an IQ of 100 or less...

I once met a fellow who had two Nobel Prizes in Physics. One time some
psychology department or other decided to evaluate his IQ. According to
him it was 96.

Yasser Arafat had a Nobel Prize as well...

And all his fingers.

....peeing my pants!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com