Charles Krug wrote: ...
It distinguishes a change in capacitance from the moisture in the flesh...that's why there's the override switch for known really wet wood to avoid spurious discharge--of course, then it's a standard saw.
I've not looked for it, but I assume the patent is on file and would be available on the PO site...
So how does the Sawstop distinguish between cutting wood and cutting a finger? I can't see how it happens that the saw knows the difference.
Just curious John - I'm not understanding the point you're trying to relay with this argument. I don't question the argument itself, but it's purpose. I've read the sawstop articles, seen the web site, etc. and I've never heard a claim that it will prevent every conceivable form of table saw accident, guaranteed, 100%. That one can define a set of circumstances under which one can overwhelm the advantages of the machine does not do much to disupte the otherwise admitable benefits of that machine. At best, it only defines the limitations.
Well, as a sales guy, I know first hand the benefits of demos. Though not exhaustive and typically not designed to point out the weakness or limitations of a product, they do give clear and appropriate evidence of the intended benefits. It is as much incumbant upon the viewer to realize the intention of the demo as it is for the demonstrator to articulate that intention.
That's the point I'm questioning in your position John - where is the advertising in error? Or even misleading?
Take a trip to their web site. It's explained there.
SawStop has been very careful to be accurate in their representation of the machine. The blade brake acts to reduce the severity of injury that occurs when an operator's body contacts the spinning blade. Anyone who has witnessed the demo - and it's worth noting that independent parties such as the FWW staff have tested the brake and found it to work as claimed - understands that this "reduction in severity" is substantial. SawStop cannot, however, make specific performance claims for several reasons:
-- Claim a maximum depth cut of 1/16" (the actual max. typical cut that they mentioned in early product development discussion) and then they get sued if someone gets cut 3/32" deep.
-- Claim a maximum depth cut of 1/4" and people say "what's the point?".
-- How fast the blade stops depends on blade material, tooth count, tooth geometry, blade body coatings, sharpness, and other factors. They can't guarantee a particular performance. If they did there would be plenty of lawyers with high speed cameras waiting to figure out some qualification they forgot to list and then sue them.
You may be thinking "why buy the product if they can't be held accountable?" Believe me...there is plenty in the Owner's Manual for which they will be accountable. They have set up the saw so it won't operate (unless in Bypass Mode) unless configured properly and the brake is fully functional. If the spinning blade touches a person and the brake doesn?t release then SawStop will have plenty of responsibility. That's good enough for me, and was part of my logic in buying the saw.
Anyone out there have an owners manual for their car that claims exact airbag sensing and activation speed? How about claims for how fast the car can be moving, or what it can hit, without injury to the driver? They just say that the airbag will activate and may reduce injury. I don't think they could say more, and I find SawStop's similar approach honest and straightforward.
But Mike, you're not going to calmly and deliberately run your finger into the blade, you're going to hit the blade _because_ something went wrong.
Well, I'm not John, but it seems to me it's an example of showing that it'll protect against something that isn't the situation where it'll really be needed.
Well, since the website _still_ says "SawStop is now taking preorders...", you couldn't buy one if you wanted to.
Electrical conductivity. Dry wood won't conduct as well as your finger will.
No question, even with the blade brake it's a very dangerous saw. The rear suspension on my friend's pickup still looks a tad low and off center after hauling it to my shop. I picked up a splinter while uncrating it. Almost caught a finger between the front rail and a block while lifting it for the mobile base. Got a bruise on one hip from bumping while walking too close around it. Nicked a knuckle tightening one of the setscrews inside the cabinet. So far the greatest harm, however, has been to my wallet. Ouch!
actually
Well, since the website _still_ says "SawStop is now taking preorders...", you couldn't buy one if you wanted to.[/quote:13afcdffce]
Well...I suppose someone could buy mine from me if they offered enough.
Indeed Dave, but without any sort of statistical evidence on my side, I would intuitively believe that most accidents with a table saw are the result of the operator losing focus on the job and getting into the blade at normal feed speeds, getting loose clothing drawn in, or doing too many things at once and getting into a blade while reaching across the table for a cutoff, and not by other accidents such as falling.
That's the part I'm not so sure of Dave. As I said, I would believe that most accidents do happen more in the wood cutting process than by falls, etc. Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's not. They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact. Even if that type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not an advertising error. Worst case would be that it would be a device that really didn't have much of a market.
I'm sorry, but I don't see your point. Whether the sales rep uses his hand or your hand or a hot dog or somebody's weenie is irrelevant. He's not going to give a demo that makes his product look bad. The fact that it looks good in a demo has little relevance to its functioning in the real world unless the use to which it is going to be put is _exactly_ that that was demonstrated.
And Sawstop does not "define the limitations" or even suggest that there are any. Nor do they provide any evidence that their device will actually be effective in the majority of real accidents.
As a consumer I know not to trust sales guys.
The thing is, this device is supposed to prevent accidents that can be maiming or life-threatening. The fact that it can protect a hot dog in a canned demonstration does not mean that it will actually prevent such accidents.
Regardless, I am "realizing the intention of the demo" and you seem to be berating me for it.
I did not claim that it was in error or misleading. I stated that one should not, as a matter of principle, trust advertising if the advertising being incorrect can bring one to harm. It's up to the advertiser to prove that his advertising is accurate, not up to the consumer to disprove it.
Will the Sawstop be effective in preventing serious injuries resulting from "getting loose clothing drawn in"?
How fast is one's hand moving while "reaching across the table for a cutoff"?
What one believes and what is true are not always the same.
Nobody has claimed that it is "an advertising error". They want me to give them my money and put up with their potentially annoying and inconvenient gadget in order to be more safe. It's their job to answer my objections. If they best they can do is "maybe that kind of accident is rare but we don't really know" then they're not doing so effectively.
Bingo.
I don't know. I'd guess it could - just based on the way it works otherwise. Maybe not preventing all serious injury, but quite possibly reducing the amount of injury. But then again - they don't claim that it will prevent serious injury from loose clothing being drawn in.
Generally, pretty slowly. Somewhere around the speed that it feeds at. Again - how would the speed of a person's hand be in conflict with what they are offering?
Quite true, but do you have any more evidence than I do which would suggest that my beliefs are incorrect?
Actually, I took those three words directly from a preceeding post, so somebody did indeed suggest that.
What they do want, that I think we both vehamently disagree with is to force their proprietary technology on all new saws. In that, I agree with your objections, but for a different reason. I object in the name of not needing a nanny to decide what safety devices I need to have - especially when that nanny is the one who stands to benefit soley if such a requirement came to be. That said, the claims that they have put on the table seem to be valid claims. They haven't claimed to address all forms of accident, only certain forms.
That's where we probably disagree in principle. I don't believe they are under any obligation to define the limitations or suggest there are any. They advertise and demonstrate it in a very specific way. That is the extent of their claim. Anything, no... everything has limitations, yet how often do you see an exhaustive list of them in a product advertisement? There's no need to. When the advertising and demonstrations of a product make clear what its intent is, then it's kind of simple. Of course, once the liability lawyers get done with this there will be all sorts of disclaimors, but that's because we live in a world of stupid people who are smart enough to sue over their own stupidity.
That's a funny statement.
Berating? Geeze, I only made one comment and that was in direct response to your comment.
I misunderstood your previous comment. Sorry.
Well then, I guess you shouldn't buy one. Not that they'll ever be for sale anyway! The demo's I've seen are proof enough of it's effectiveness. That being said, I won't ever get one anyway.
I've been seeing a lot about this lately, some thoughts:
Parting shot (refer to number 1.) - "If your design something that is idiot proof, they will build a better idiot!"
John C
If you want to trust your personal safety to guesswork be my guest.
Or possibly making it more severe as the blade drops below the table with the clothing entangled?
You're the one who brought that up as a possible scenario.
They state it stops the saw in a certain time--not "instantly" but in a 5 milliseconds. One's hand moves a certain distance in 5 milliseconds. If it moves far enough then one loses a finger before the saw stops. I'd have a lot more confidence in it if it stopped the blade in 50 microseconds--even a major league pitcher or a martial arts expert (both of whom can move their hands unusually fast) _trying_ to cut himself wouldn't be able to get more than 1/8 inch or so into the blade in that time, but at 5 ms one can lose a finger at remarkably low speeds.
I don't really care what you personally believe.
Well then take it up with them.
Do those "certain forms" need to be addressed more urgently than other forms?
This is not about the legal obligations of advertisers. They've made a claim. I don't buy their claim. If you do that's your business.
Says the sales guy with the vested interest in being trusted. How does one say "screw you" in Salesmanese? "Trust me".
HomeOwnersHub website 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.