Powermatic or General ( finally !!! )

Page 2 of 3  

wrote:

But if you turn the saw stop function off, and you're left with a saw whose functionaity is no different than any other cabinet saw on the market, but its price is at or very near the top of the list and it's been on the market for less than a year (raising questions of durability, company longevity, etc.), how is that a win?
--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A win (maybe not a big win admittedly) to me is when something doesn't function as well as expected, but is still entirely useable under any other circumstance. As well, owning a good, solid cabinet saw is a win as far as I'm concerned. And don't forget, we're only discussing turning off the saw-stop feature in the event of a number of false-triggers. I'd guess that it will happen under certain circumstances, but until it does and there's a measure of information out there to refer to, all that can be done for now is to project apprehension on a still relatively unproven technology. Much as I've been hassling Robert, he's right, this is a product that is going to have to prove itself very well before it becomes widely accepted.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Bonomi wrote:

...
Which would undoubtedly be considerably extended in medical costs and likely in missed work time, irregardless whether the woodworking is professional or hobby....

...
Well, the rate could be pretty well predicted on the basis of extensive testing which I would presume they would have quite a bit of...I'm unaware of them having published any data from which to draw any conclusions on either side. I would suspect they will have a pretty good idea before they commit to production, however.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That assumes that the triggering _did_ prevent an accident. <grin>
Yes, in the case of an _actual_ accident prevention, the expense is "cheap at the price".
In the case of a 'false alarm', it is a totally _unnecessary_ expense.
The trick is differentiating the two cases -- maximizing the former, and minimizing the latter.
The manufacturer concentrates almost exclusively on the first situation, and (apparently) totally ignores the latter one.

Obviously you're not aware that the saw *IS* in production. <grin> They've been delivering since last fall.
And that "lack of published data" is _precisely_ the point. Emphasis on the word "PUBLISHED". If the manufacturer knows, they're *not*talking*. Which leads one to ask "why _not_?"
I can think of only _two_ possible answers to that -- 1) they do *not* have comprehensive false-triggering data. 2) the data shows an 'unacceptably high' rate of false-triggering, and disclosing it would adversely affect their marketing.
I do *NOT* have any reason to believe that #2 is the case.
I strongly suspect that #1 -is- true. It is *very* difficult to test for 'unexpected' circumstances. It may seem trite, but if you can think of it happening and test for it, then it is _not_, by definition, an 'unexpected' situation.
One kind of a "silly" example:
You're making a zero-clearance insert, from some plastic 'scraps' obtained from a local manufacturer. You trim to size, put it in the table, turn on the saw, and start to raise the blade.
*BANG*
It turns out that that piece of plastic was sufficiently *conductive* to trigger the protective mechanism.
_Could_ that happen? *You*betcha*! How likely is it? *GOOD* question! I don't have the data to begin making an estimate.
Is there any _rational_ way for the manufacturer to _test_ for it? And, if they do, what does it show?
There is a saying in the Q.A business: "For every fool-proof system there exists a *sufficiently*determined* fool capable of breaking it."
*NOTHING* can substitute for a few million hours of actual use by the afore- mentioned "sufficiently determined" types.
"Discovered bugs, are finite in number. *UNDISCOVERED* bugs, on the other hand, are, by definition. _infinite_ in number."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Consider this. People are much more likely to complain problems with a product than they are to compliment a product. Would to agree to that? If so, then considering that it *has* been in production since last fall, I have yet to see anyone complaining about one of your "false-positives" happening to them. I imagine that if there were any, someone would have been yelling wide and long by now and everybody here would know about it.
How does that affect all your "if's" you've been proposing? Seems to me so far, your "ifs" have succumbed to a few "has nots" or "has not yets". :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Bonomi wrote:

In that scenario, yes, obviously that was intended.

...
You have shown no evidence to support that claim other than your hypothesis. I have just as strong evidence (my belief and experience in product engineering/development) that Type II error would certainly have been considered by the manufacturer.
...snip stuff on purported difficulties in testing....
While it is true that not every conceivable action can be explicitly tested, it is certainly possible to analyze and test against quite broad classes of likely operational and mal-operational conditions. If exhaustive testing of every possibility were required to make any product, no products of any complexity would exist, so such claims that such is required before release of this particular product are simply specious.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The facts are self-evident. There is *NO* published information available to consult. This does *NOT* necessarily mean that there _is_ an 'objectionably high' rate of false triggering. It *DOES* mean the _potential_ customers "don't know" what the risk is.
"Don't know", and _can't_find_out_.
The more 'unknowns' there are about an object, the "riskier" the purchase of that object is.

Whether or not the _manufacturer_ 'considered' it is irrelevant to the point under discussion.
*NO* data is available to the prospective _purchaser_, to evaluate the likelihood of such an occurrence -- which *will* cost the purchaser money.
There is a tacit admission by the manufacturer that the system _will_ false-trigger under some circumstances. They provide a means for disabling the 'stop' capability.o
But _what_ those circumstances are, and how frequently they are likely to occur -- who knows? The company isn't telling.
Of course, after purchasing, customers can find out -- the hard way. *BANG* and another $80-200 out the window.

And it is -guaranteed- that the 'sufficiently determined' customers will come up with "hundreds, if not thousands" of situations that were not tested for.
I have _personal_ experience *being* that 'sufficiently determined',uh, "party" that breaks systems *without*deliberate*effort* --
Many years ago, I made an _inadvertent_ mistake in producing *one* control card in a job deck to be fed to an IBM mainframe. As a result, that machine was *totally* out of commission for more than a week. Because of that incident, IBM did an emergency _hardware_ modification to every similar installed system _world-wide_. (I grabbed a card that was already partly punched, without realizing it -- and what resulted was _not_ what I had intended. Unfortunately that which resulted _was_ comprehensible to the machine.)
It 'broke' the system because the directive was *SO*STUPID*, and so non- sensical, that nobody in their right mind would ever do it, and thus the system was not protected against that particular form of idiocy. It had simply never occurred to the designers this particular kind of thing might happen.
The consequences of that little error were *staggering*. Among other things, _payroll_ was late. Sending payroll deductions to the Gov't was delayed. Not just for that company, but for 28 _other_ agencies that they acted as 'service bureau' for.
In later years, I had a couple of clients who retained me specifically as a 'tester' for their software products. They would send me a product, and I would try what 'seemed reasonable' to me, in using it. They figured if it survived 24 hours in my hands, it was safe to ship to customers. <grin> The _really_ funny part is that I did _not_ set out to deliberately try and break the software, either. It was 'reasonable, but un-conventional' use that broke things every time. I got things like software that wouldn't even _install_ on my MS test-bed platform -- it couldn't cope with _local_ hard-drive X: as the install destination, for one example.

Now go back and _read_ what I wrote. <grin>
I *never* claimed that any such 'exhaustive testing' is necessary. In fact, I meant to suggest that 'exhaustive testing' is =not= practical. That there is *no* real substitute for a few million hours of 'hands on' in the care of 'sufficiently determined' fools.
Disclosure of _what_kinds_ of realistically-encountered situations could cause false triggering -- so that potential customers could evaluate the likelihood of experiencing =that= kind of event -- is something that seems to be missing from the manufacturer's materials.
Well, not *quite* entirely. It is well documented that you can't use it for slicing up hot dogs. <grin>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
no word irregardless
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:58:01 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (Edward Krawetz) wrote:

Well, there might be, but since "ir" means without (as in irrespective, or irresponsibile), and "less" also means without (as in senseless, painless), a fantasy word such as irregardless would mean "without without regard."
That's PFS, in my book.
--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The word "irredgardless" is allowed to be used if you have a permit from the Department of Redundancy Department.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
no such word
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That is all okay with me, the cost of the cylinder and all... I would use the saw carefully as possible and buy a new one every other month, build up an arsenal of them over time. That safety factor is too good for my nervous system. Not gonna buy the saw though.
--
Alex - newbie_neander in woodworking
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Although, I can imagine false triggerings occuring through wet wood... ay?
But if the system is warrenteed, guarenteed, has undergone years of devel- opment and perfected all along the way, shouldn't be a problem, but I would take more concern into all they have discovered in possibilities.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AAvK wrote:

My understanding is there's a bypass mechanism provided for such usage--of course, using it defeats the whole purpose of the saw, but apparently there are some instances where the technology just isn't suitable...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why would anyone be cutting wet wood on a table saw?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 23 May 2005 15:54:26 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Because you needed to make that rip cut on your Home Depot treated deck board to complete your deck installation?
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah I'd still say that safety factor is mighty strong argument tho...too good. Plenty of beloved saws are Chinese. It's what I'd have to do considering my nerve conditions. But that's just me.
--
Alex - newbie_neander in woodworking
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I like smooth adjustments and minimal vibration. Has anyone a/b tested both saws?
Also... General has something called the Millineum right now. Is it worth $2069 ? What model is the best General to get? Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 20 May 2005 23:15:35 GMT, "Matt Zack"

What's both?
You mention a General and nothing else.
I own a General 650 and have used PM66's, new and old Unisaws, the JTAS-10, and a Grizzly Z-series cabinet saw. I didn't specifically test any saw head to head. My individual feelings:
The PM66 & 350/650 are identical in quality. I like the way General installs the wings at the factory, but I like the PM66's polished table. Both are super 10" saws. I cannot see a difference in use between the two.
I think the Jet and current Unisaw are good, but have too many cheaper plastic parts. The Grizz is a quality saw, with fit and finish a small notch below Jet and Delta, but Delta and Jet are quickly sliding down the slippery slope, while Grizzly is getting better.
I think all five are beyond what is needed in a one man shop, hobbyist or pro. They will all cut accurately, and last a good long time. The two more expensive saws have nicer feeling cranks, etc.. but the functions are the same. Personally, I'd look for a used PM, General, or Unisaw. I don't list Grizz or Jet as used candidates, as some of their older stuff was a bit rough.
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The differences between the top line saws are not nearly as important as the differences between the dealers and/or distibutors from whom you can or will purchase the saw.
Availability, shipping, setup, knowing who has the current 'hot deal', who has stock at a good price and wants to move it, who has the accessories that you may need, whose repair services match your needs...
You've said nothing about where you live, so I can't recommend a dealer near you.
It is rumoured that the first production Unisaw built is still in regular service.
http://groups- beta.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/browse_frm/thread/ba3c2ac47f80f84/aba 2fa46b0954aa4?q=el+guapo+unisaw&rnum=1&hl=en#aba2fa46b0954aa4
With Delta's current changes, picking either the Powermatic or the General is an excellent choice.
Patriarch
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.