I mostly agree with you're take on the legislation of safety products except
for one thing. It isn't only the victim that has to pay for their mistakes.
It's society that pays for the medical cost of repairing your injury and
pays for the long term rehabilitation that people need because they weren't
smart enough to wear a seat belt, helmet or other safety device. You might
claim that not using those devices often results in death and society won't
pay much in that regard, but the reality is that more individuals end up
loving and need radically expensive long term therapy that's a constant
drain on the resources that our collective society provides.
As far as I'm concerned, it's human nature for people to attempt to get away
with whatever they can and that instinct needs to be contained in some way.
Show me a way to do that without legislation and I'll consider it. Until
then, legislation is mostly the only way to stop much of our society from
becoming a drain on itself.
you gotta balance that with corporate greed. sawstop has the patents
for their product, which requires a saw built especially for it- it
doesn't work as a retrofit. they tried to make their product mandatory
by lobbying for new laws. this would have put all other table saw
makers out of business in the US. this for a product that has no track
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
To me there's a huge differnce between a helmet /seatbelt and a saw
stop. A huge percentage of injuries to motorists are caused by
somebody else. I would think that an overwhelming percent of saw
accidents are caused purely by the operator.
Dogs are better than people.
People are better than dogs for only one purpose. And
then it's only half of ofthe people. And _then_ most
of them are only ordinary anyway. And then they have a
My big gripe is the use of the word "amputations" in place of injuries. I'd
also know where they get their statistics. I sure haven't found them. Of
course, I don't have a marketing impetus to actually spend money looking, but
if I had cites to back up such claims, I think I'd make them available. So far,
I've seen nothing but claims.
Most of us who have been fooling and fiddling with tablesaws over the years
have received injuries of one sort or another, everything from blade-changing
knicks to kickback bruises the size of a draft horse's shoe and, very
occasionally, something more serious. If we're at all wise, we learn from the
smaller incidents and remain slightly in awe of what the tablesaw can do to us
if our attention wanders. If we're not particularly wise, we continue to use
unsafe working methods and eventually get hurt worse. It may not catch up to
the inattentive user today, tomorrow or even next year, but it will catch up.
"Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of
firstname.lastname@example.org (Charlie Self) wrote in message > > While I don't want to
be flippant about the injury rates
I am certainly not a big fan of this type of regulations. However,
someone did provide a source citation for the number of amputations.
That was the Federal Consumer Safety Protection Commission. See
I also understand that there would be few affordable cars with airbags
if they were not required and that deployment of an airbag adds quite
a bit to smaller accident repair costs. On the other hand a $250 to
$500 Sawstop will pretty much eliminate the $200 tablesaw and it is
doubtful one could be put onto a cheap tabletop saw anyhow. How many
fewer people are simply not going to be able to realistically
participate in the hobby if something like this is mandated. I am not
sure that, even though I consider myself a conservative, I am ready to
eliminate all regulartory aspects of government - I just would want to
err on the side of "freedom" in this area.
On 16 Nov 2004 11:38:15 -0800, email@example.com (David Hall) wrote:
Kinda got to vote with David on this. To put a little finer (?) point on it, I
see a place for regulatory interest in areas where the danger is insidious
and/or non-apparent. I don't like the idea of government acting _in loco
parentis_ or trying to protect me from myself in the presence of obvious danger.
Wichita, KS USA
As no one offered a little more explanation on how fast
this saw-stop really stops, I would present some simple maths...
From their website they say they can stop a 4000 rpm blade
in less than five (5) milliseconds.
Now, the blade normally takes 60 seconds for 4000 rounds.
In one millisecond, the blade would rotate 1/15 round...
(that is one part of fifteen).
So, if the sawstop mechanism takes 5 milliseconds to stop,
I would expect at most 5 x (1/15) ,that is, one-third of a full
rev of the blade to plough thru before it stops.
Say, I'm ripping with a 24 teeth blade. In 1/3 rev, I would
expect no more than 8 of those teeth to bite me. If I had
been using a 60 teeth cuutoff blade, watch out! 1/3 of 60
To be honest, I would reduce the fraction from 1/3 to 1/4 or
1/5 because I have not taken into account the deceleration...
once the brake is applied, the blade is spinning down and it
is not rotating at 4000 RPM during the entire 5 milliseconds.
(So, how long it takes for brake shoes to engage? 1 millisec?)
Even then, for a 24 teeth ripper, 1/5 is 4+ teeth and
for a 60 teeth cutoff, 1/5 is 12 teeth. Little
consolation for me!
I wish the sawstop folks could give out details like
these. In particular, they must already have exact figures for the
rotation before complete stoppage. Instead of telling in terms
of time (like milliseconds) it would be better to state the same
in terms of percentage of a full rev of a 10" standard kerf blade
spinning at 4000 RPM.
Although I must agree there is more truth in their statement
compared to claims like 3.25 HP routers on 115v, or 12" SP/ 1200 cfm
with a 10" impeller 2 HP DC, and the like!
Afterall, they certainly have the brain to see through my simple math...
firstname.lastname@example.org (David Hall) wrote in message
(Charlie Self) wrote in message > > While I don't want
to be flippant about the injury rates
If a blade is rated at turning 4000 RPM, how fast is it turning while
ripping pieces of 12/4 oak? or cutting 1/8" masonite?
What if they said it was a quarter of a blade rotation (say a 40T blade for
this example) and you show some flesh on 11 teeth. Would that be grounds of
a law suite?
Are you trying to calculate how far the blade will penetrate your hand? So
many possible factors as to feed rate, blade speed, position of our hand,
that it would not be easy to give a definitive answer and that would also
leave them open to possible legal action. I think the more details they
offer the more problems the are going to encounter.
On 17 Nov 2004 12:50:31 -0800, email@example.com (cg) wrote:
Some more simple math - ignoring the retraction of the blade and the angle of
the leading edge of the blade WRT direction of feed.
Assume a feed rate of 1 foot per second - a pretty brisk but not unreasonable
feed for thin soft stock. In .005 seconds (5 milliseconds) the stock would
travel .060 inches. Therefore you could expect the blade to cut into your
hand/finger/whatever approximately 1/16 of an inch before the blade came to a
stop. That depth of cut is independent of the number of teeth or rotational
speed of the blade.
A 1/8" wide and 1/16" deep dado cut in your finger may not be a pleasant
experience but it would more likely require a Band-Aid instead of a trip to the
That doesn't mean I favor legislation requiring this sort of device. Likewise it
doesn't mean I oppose legislation requiring this sort of device.
Wichita, KS USA
The calculations above don't mean anything at all in the working of the saw.
As for the number of teeth that will pass a given point of an arc, it is
correct. What is NOT taken into consideration is the fact that the blade is
also dropping down at the same time. Given the arc of the blade, coupled
with the downward movement, the teeth are moving away from the contact point
at the same time, so that must also be a part of the equation to determine
actual contact. The finger (or hot dog) is moving is a straight line at a
given speed, the blade outer circumference is moving down at an unknown
speed. Thus, the actual contact will be less that what the OP is stating
here. If it moves away faster than the lateral motion of the finger (or
test kielbasa) there will be minimal contact even if the blade never
Saw a live demo in Atlanta, he ran that hot dog into the saw blade alot
faster than you would cut any piece of wood. He shoved a sled with the hot
dog on it as fast as he could into the blade, not cutting the sled it was
already cut the same size as the distance the fence was set from the blade.
Hot dog only had a nick like the demo
(Charlie Self) wrote in message > > While
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.