Powermatic or General ( finally !!! )

[Robert Bonomi]

That assumes that the triggering _did_ prevent an accident.

Yes, in the case of an _actual_ accident prevention, the expense is "cheap at {bigmultiple} 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. 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."

[Upscale]

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". :)

[Upscale]

One other thing occurred to me. I think most would agree that this is a well built saw, excluding any consideration for the saw-stop function. If, (which appears to be one of your favourite words) as you say it 'false triggers' once in awhile or too much for whatever time period you deem to be appropriate, then you can still turn the saw-stop function off, have a good working saw on hand and not worry anymore about some of your 'false triggers' happening in the future.

It's not as if any 'false-triggers' are going to bankrupt you. It might disappoint you or you might end up with a little bit less of a machine than you wanted, but any way you look it, you'd still own a highly capable, solid piece of woodworking machinery. As far as I'm concerned, that's a win in my books.

[Duane Bozarth]

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.

[LRod]

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?

[Robert Bonomi]

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. 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.

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.

[Edward Krawetz]

no word irregardless

[Edward Krawetz]

no such word

[LRod]

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.

[Upscale]

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.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

The word "irredgardless" is allowed to be used if you have a permit from the Department of Redundancy Department.