Anybody actually seen this new safety device?

Page 4 of 6  


well the page i saw says "saw stop saws now available". that seemed pretty damn clear. but i also see if you go one page deeper it says 'pre order'. so it looks like they are indeed lying.
randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
xrongor states:

Randy, that's marketing, not lying. There's a difference. Or so the marketing department will tell you.
Charlie Self "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man." H. L. Mencken
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Classic definition of vaporware right there. Kind of like Doom 3, but there's a release date for that now, maybe-ish.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

aren't available.
-- 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

ya thats pretty tricky how they do that <g>
randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mac Cool wrote:

I remember a computer from Zeos that had PCI and Microchannel slots. It was real and _apparently_ worked quite well. It underwent refinement for several years. They never shipped a single solitary one of them. Vaporware.
There once was a little gadget that fit in a 35mm camera replacing the film canister--it has thin extension with a CCD on it that turns the 35mm camera into a digital camera. It was real and _apparently_ worked quite well. It underwent refinement for several years. Then never shipped a single solitary one of them. Vaporware.
Larry Bond and company have a solid track record in the naval simulation game business, with Harpoon and Harpoon II shipping and available. In 1997 they started work on Harpoon IV. It was real and _apparently_ worked quite well. On November 27, 2003 the project was cancelled with no product delivered. Vaporware.
Are you beginning to see a pattern?
The fact that a prototype has been demonstrated does not mean that the product will ever become available commercially.
As for paying $150 to gain almost foolproof protection against losing a finger, would you toss your Unisaw to buy one of theirs?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah. You seem to have an interest in Sawstop failing... why?

I guess we'll have to wait and see. I say they'll come to market.

If I were in the market for a new saw, I would pay an additional $150 for that type of protection. I wouldn't 'toss' a perfectly good Unisaw for the sake of a $150 safety device.
--
Mac Cool

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

I don't give a damn whether they fail or succeed. But I also don't see any product delivered and I do see claims here that more than one person has already had his hand protected from being cut off by this device that has not yet been shipped.

Could be. Do they have decent capitalization?

There's the problem. First, it's not a retrofit and I doubt that anybody's going to buy a new saw just to get that feature, and second if you look at the prices on their site you'll see it's going to cost a lot more than $150 extra to get a saw with their device installed for the foreseeable future. I mean how big a market is there for a $2500 3 horsepower cabinet saw from some outfit that nobody has ever heard of?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
show me one person that DID get their hand cut off even with this system installed. somehow i dont think the hot dog had any special properties about it that makes the demonstration not relevant for a hand.
im not trying to say it should be made mandatory. but if you're saying its all vaporware, i think its YOU that needs to provide some proof. similiar systems have been installed for other things for years and they work. or maybe you're still fighting the seat belt people too.
randy

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

Unrealistic. The unit is not in general release, probably no more than a couple dozen floating around, if that many. How can you compare, especially negatives, when the other systems have millions in use.

Where have they been installed?
Charlie Self "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man." H. L. Mencken
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

im not trying to compare anything. J Clarke claims its vaporware and doesnt work. i'd like to see his evidence and offered up a suggestion as to what credible evidence might be.
as you say, how can you compare? apparantly he has a way....

for one simple example touch lamps. granted it takes a little more sophisticated system for a saw stop, but its still the same basic principle. contact with a conductor (i.e. you) changes the electrical characteristics of the system and can be detected.
im not going to defend saw stop. but im not going to take it on the word of JClarke that it doesnt work either. the theory is sound, and they are either totally faking those demonstrations, or i think its clear that less people would be hurt with them even if it didnt work 100% of the time.
randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
xrongor responds:

I've seen it work---with a hot dog--at least on video. I don't doubt the theory works, but is the application practical. It prevents, primarily, amputation style injuries. How many of those are there a year? Is it worth having every table saw in the U.S. built, or retrofitted, with a device that currently costs about $500 to save 50-60 people from their own misbehavior? If the figure is even that high.
That's what is more likely to cause this to become vaporware than any doubt that it actually works. Economics. A proper crown guard with a splitter will do about 95-90% (my guesstimate) of what the saw stop will do. Total cost is probably about $50, and allows the makers to dump the current crappy splitter/guard assemblies, to reduce costs even more.
Charlie Self "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man." H. L. Mencken
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

i never claimed it should be on every table saw. just that it probably works. sawstop claims 3000 finger amputations per year. dont know if thats a real number. it also seems to me it would prevent at least 10 times as many injuries but im just tossing a number out and have no evidence. is it worth 500 bucks? you decide.
but we're getting into this theory that sawstop is trying hard to make it be forced upon us. while that seems to be a persistant rumor, i have no evidence or opinion either way on that issue. if it makes a statistically significant (which is a number that could be debated) reduction in accidents it should probably be considered.

as explained in another post a few minutes ago, as defined by websters, if you can buy one today, its not vaporware. it may have been vaporware for the time between it being announced and a product being available... sawstop claims they will sell you one today. if the product fails because its too expensive thats another word... i think thats part of why theres so much disagreement in this thread.
vaporware implies a product that doesnt exist or work. that the demo's are pure fakery or at least you arent seeing the whole picture. i see no evidnece of either. yet.
and if the saw companies dump the crappy spllitter/guard assemblies to save money, then the addition of a (assuming it works) sawstop will increase the price less than if they didnt dump the guards.
in any case, i think a splitter is still necessary. sawstop may stop the saw from cutting you but wont stop a board from flying into your face..
randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
xrongor wrote:

<http://www.sawstop.com/We_Need_Your_Help.htm
Where can I buy one?

How do I go about getting them to sell me one today? Not a "non-binding preorder" but an actual purchase?

The product may exist and work and yet never make it to market.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The web site says you can "pre-order" one today.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No rumor. SawStop filed a petition with the Consumer Product Safety Commission requesting that automatic-stop technology be required on all table saws. It's been cussed and discussed to death on this ng at least twice in the last year or so. DAGS and you'll see what I mean.
-- 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

ya i know its been discussed here to death.... but that doesnt mean everything said here is true. there are clearly some people in this group that seem to be against sawstop to the point of hatred. and the key to what i said before is 'trying hard'. for all i know they filed a petition two years ago, it died, and so did that idea. i wouldnt call that trying hard. or maybe they have hostages and intend on making it happen tomorrow. now that would be trying!
randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Yeah. They're talking $150 but that's not the price they're showing for the products for which they're taking preorders. If the thing was a $150 retrofit and didn't get in the way of using the saw I'd order two of them right now. Cheap insurance at that price. Not worth tossing a perfectly good saw just to pay a lot more than it had cost me to buy theirs though.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
xrongor wrote:

I didn't claim it didn't work. "Vaporware" != "doesn't work", "vaporware" "for all practical purposes does not now and never will exist as a commercial product".

Why would one want to have a saw stop on a lamp?

And you are willing to trust the mechanism of a touch lamp to save you from serious bodily harm without further analysis?

So go buy one and tell us how you like it.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sounds like someone trying to prove a negative assuption. Compare this to

Can't be done. It's hard to prove a negative assertion. That's why people are arguing the opposite.
Assertion: Sawstop is a real product. Proof: Find one case where someone bought it and owns it.
If it's been 4 years, and one has not been sold, then there is some design issue that has not been solved. Heck, they could buy a COTS saw, add the device, and re-sell it. Where is it?
I suspect one of the issues is making sure the legal claims are accurate. Lawyers tend to be pessimistic about things like that.
Let's see - false positive - it stops when you don't want it to. False negative - it doesn't stop, and amputates a finger/hand. At least one of these is causing a problem. Or as someone suggested, each "stop" costs money to replace something. The FAQ says the arbor is disengaged. This doesn't sound like a "single-use" mechanism. I'd love to learn more about this...
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
  Click to see the full signature.
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.