An idiot and his table saw...

Page 1 of 8  
This guy purposely caused kickback on his table saw to prove a point.
Make sure you watch what happens at 4:20 into the video.
He agrees with anyone who calls him an idiot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7sRrC2Jpp4

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/03/2012 01:18 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

That made me cringe. I won't argue the merits of calling the fellow an idiot, but hopefully his video will drive home the point about using a table saw properly.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Excellent vid, valuable lesson. He's not an idiot, he just didn't have the control over the situation as he expected. Shit happens, even with good intentions.
He proly would not have lost a digit or part thereof (as in a RAS), but he certainly came close to requiring a lot of stitches, and poss. nerve damage -- which can be almost as bad as losing a digit.
How does a riving knife work? Never saw one before this.
--
EA




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/4/2012 8:11 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote: ...

AFAIK there's no data available from SawStop on the number of false positives (and, of course there's no data on how many users turn the bypass control on to be sure to avoid any chance of same when working with wet wood such as PT).
The best one can tell from the patent is
"In many of the exemplary embodiments and implementations described above and in the references incorporated herein, detection subsystem 22 relies on the inherent electrical capacitance and/or resistance of the user's body to modify the effective capacitance and/or resistance of the cutting tool or operative structure."
The patent is (as are all well-constructed ones) written to cover not only the actual "embodiment" but every possible variation of it that the applicant can manage to stretch the colorful language to cover. In early interviews it was pretty clear that it is capacitive coupling that was used at least in the initial product and I presume it is likely still the same fundamental technology used in the current saws w/ some improvements owing to the experience factor. It's the same idea as the "touch switches" on table lamps, etc. -- the body has much higher capacitance owing to the water content than does dry lumber and if the blade monitor sees a drop it presumes that's not good and fires.
It's a clever technology and worthwhile--my complaint w/ Gass is his attempt to now force it on the market to make a bundle by legislative/mandatory means rather than by winning the competitive battle in the marketplace.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/4/2012 12:33 PM, dpb wrote: ...

I was going to add that it will be _most_ interesting when the first failure to actuate when needed occurs and the ensuing lawsuit forces him/SawStop to rely on the same arguments to try to defend his bottom line as they used against the present manufacturers of inherently unsafe... :)
It _will_ happen eventually; no technology is completely failure-proof either from a simple failure of the mechanics to fire when demanded or the electrical sensor system fails or whatever.
Or, the doofus operator like the one that got Hitachi(?) who has no knowledge of the operation and doesn't know the override is on and then sues because the saw should've known that and not let him...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dpb" wrote in message
On 12/4/2012 12:33 PM, dpb wrote: ...

I was going to add that it will be _most_ interesting when the first failure to actuate when needed occurs and the ensuing lawsuit forces him/SawStop to rely on the same arguments to try to defend his bottom line as they used against the present manufacturers of inherently unsafe... :)
It _will_ happen eventually; no technology is completely failure-proof either from a simple failure of the mechanics to fire when demanded or the electrical sensor system fails or whatever.
Or, the doofus operator like the one that got Hitachi(?) who has no knowledge of the operation and doesn't know the override is on and then sues because the saw should've known that and not let him... =========================================================================Or the guy that has it turned off because he doesn't want an accidental trip, hurts himself and then sues, claiming that it was on.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Red Green wrote:

1946 Movie, 'Little Giant'

Hercules

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bear in mind that the override is a one-shot. You have to set it every time you power up the saw and it resets to the default mode when you turn off the switch.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/4/2012 12:45 PM, Existential Angst wrote: ...

...
Actually, I have seen a demo of Gass w/ a hotdot on a stick and swinging it pretty quickly. It didn't get more than a nick that at most a stitch or two would take care of.
As for the VW, sure--it was nothing but a tin can on wheels then...otoh, a 1975 Buick weighed probably 25% more than the largest one you could manage to equip today and that's pretty much true on the overall US fleet average. Has had to happen because of the EPA fleet-average mileage rules...
The cost differential on the SawStop is owing imo to brand identification and uniqueness in the field as well as to the actual production cost differential between that saw and the same one w/o the actuator mechanism--that really is a meaningless comparison as there isn't any such thing as the Sawstop cartridge mechanism must be designed into the saw from the git-go--it can't be retrofitted into a conventionally designed/built saw.
Just as PM and Delta get a premium over Jet for only moderately better performing saws--they get it because of the reputation they've built over the years (whether it still deserves the same respect is immaterial as long as they can command the differential it's a real effect).
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/3/2012 10:46 PM, Existential Angst wrote:

Am I the only one who would never work with the blade that far above the wood?
I normally have only a quarter to 3/8 inch of the blade above the piece of wood. (Higher for harder wood)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/4/2012 2:35 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote: ...

Gullet should be at the surface cut or just tad proud for crosscutting/ripping, granted.
As for "never", well, every rule has its exception. If I'm cutting for a notch, I may well set the blade at its maximum height to have the least angle possible and thereby the shortest possible undercut on the back side of the piece...
But, in general, the point is good one...excessive blade exposure is to be avoided.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RE: Subject
The ambulance chasers are beginning to advertise on daytime TV here in SoCal for tablesaw accident victims.
Like the smell of blood draws some, money attracts the vultures.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HD proly took note. It's amazing the saws in their lumber dept can cut wood at all....
--
EA


>
> Lew
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/4/2012 1:36 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

Theoretically, one could get close enough to the blade to trigger it w/o actually touching it. That scenario is mentioned in the patent background since the detection circuit is capacitively coupled there doesn't have to be actual contact if the disturbance of the capacitance field is sufficient the actuator logic will think "something's bad" and trigger.
At least initially there was a manual override switch that one could use to disable the detection circuitry and I presume there still is altho I haven't searched the current sales lit thoroughly. It was (is) there for the express purpose of preventing a false positive trip if the saw were being used for, say, wet PT lumber or some other product that had a high-enough capacitance to cause actuation. If the operator thinks it isn't needed for a given cut or forgets to flip the switch, that's a second category (albeit one could claim that one is operator error only, not a false positive, still, the effect is the same).
Similar to that is the possibility of an embedded metallic object (a nail, iow) that happens to also be in contact w/ the table at the time it's hit by the blade--that will almost certainly trigger it even though SS says just a nail if not grounded likely won't be large enough to.
There is always then the chance failure--stuff happens; no technology is perfect. Undoubtedly small, but still has to be finite and positive.
I notice now that SS has a submittal form for "saves" that says if you ship them the cartridge/blade and they can determine it actually was flesh that caused the trip they'll provide a replacement cartridge. That doesn't cover the cost of either repairing an expensive blade or replacing one, but it is something. Of course, in that case the avoided cost of the medical bills likely otherwise probably overshadow the repair costs significantly.
There is no information at all on the SS site on actual statistics of any value to do any estimation at all of either type of actuation--needed or false. There _is_ a (to me) blatant use of the scare stories and a big countdown clock of "time to next saw accident" that's just tacky, but then that's me...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That close would have to be a tiny fraction of an inch, so close that you're almost touching it. In which case, I would not call that a false trip because there isn't any valid reason to be that close to the blade.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/5/2012 7:18 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:
...

Well, unless you actually _did_ touch (and teeth, not just the smooth blade side), there wasn't an actual required need to trip as there was not any damage inflicted. That's the definition of a false positive.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That may be your definition, but it's not mine, nor do I think it's a reasonable one. Being 1mm away from a spinning blade tripping it works for me as a valid need to stop the saw. And from the video, even when tripped by actual contact, there was no damage inflicted.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/5/2012 8:36 AM, dpb wrote:

Regardless of what you put on a swirling blade, whether on a table saw, RAS, mitre saw, etc. there is nothing that can be put on it to prevent accidents. There will always be some fool who tries to make an adjustment to the saw with the blade running or some other dumb thing. Will the SS prevent this person from being damaged when the glove he is wearing (suggested previously) snags in the saw and causes and accident? Would the accident then be blamed on the glove and someone initiate a campaign to use snag less gloves?
In one of these post some one suggested replacing a table saw with a Circular Saw. Has any body seen someone who is damaged with a circular saw? They are the most vicious things in existence.
I had my first table saw accident about two weeks ago, because I DID SOMETHING STUPID. It was not the fault of any design flaw in the saw, it was plan stupidity on my part. After it happened and I realized the extent of the damage, my next though was I don't have SS and have to repair the saw to finish the job. While what I did was stupid, the damage was minimal BECAUSE when I started, I set the saw up properly.
"Something stupid" is a variations on the hardest words to say in the any language I MADE A MISTAKE. No one is willing to take the responsibility for their own actions they always must be a victim of some one else s mistakes. Every one from obama who is still blaming President Bush for his failures to the man working in his garden.
This discussion reminds me of a safety manager I knew many years ago. In the lab we did a lot of work with 2 ml screw top bottles. These were used in a plastic bag to protect that sample in a Nitrogen atmosphere. We got a batch of bad bottles that crumbled when you put the top on to tight.
The safety manager required us to use HEAVY Rubber gloves for protection from cuts if the bottle broke. The safety equipment prevented us from doing our job as the gloves made it impossible to handle the tiny bottles. Is side the Nitrogen bag it was impossible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

From all that I've seen so far, it would. Blade cuts through glove then touches finger just as it would with no glove. As soon as it goes through the glove, the saw stops. What do you have to suggest that it would not prevent an injury with a glove on?

Which is why if a similar feature could be put into a circular saw it would be a good thing, no?

Most accidents caused by doing something stupid, being careless, not having your full attention on the job at hand? That's why we call them accidents, not "on-purposes". What does that have to do with anything?

This has nothing to do with people not taking responsibility for their own actions. Let's go where you seem to want to go. Let's look at conservatives who believe in personal responsibility. Do you think none of them have accidents with a table saw because they are perfect, flawless? MAYBE they have a lower incidence of accidents than the general population. But suppose it's 25% less accidents, which I think is a reach. That still leaves a hell of a lot of cut off fingers, $20,000 hospital bills, etc. Now, if a new safety feature works, can prevent that at reasonable cost, I think it's a very good thing. I'd want it in a product I buy and I'm a conservative.

Nothing I've seen so far suggests the SawStop prevents you from doing what you want to do with the saw.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It was Keith that dragged Obama blaming Bush and not accepting responsibility into this, not me. That is what seems a giant leap to me. And sorry, but his whole post is in fact based on ideology, which is simply a set of beliefs. Apparently he believes that accepting personal responsibility somehow negates the need for safety protection devices. That doesn't compute in my world and all I did was point it out.
>If you don't

As I replied to Keith, what does any of that have to do with the usefulness of SawStop on a table saw? It's not an issue of personal responsibility. It's an issue of safety and the fact that accidents happen to everyone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.