That system has been around for several years.
An objection to it whien it originally came out was that the wood you
were cutting had to be really dry or it could have enough conductivity
to trip the mechanism. Perhaps they've improved on that now somehow.
That hot dog thing reminded me of something I saw maybe 40 years ago.
Our worker's compensation insurance company sent a safety guy to the
plant I was working in to check the place out out and lecture us about
He had a package of hot dogs with him and started squishing them in the
die sets in punch presses and cutting them up under power shears.
I swear me and everyone watching him had our arms behind our backs with
our fists clenched before he left. <G>
Remember the joke about the guy who got his Johnson stuck in the pickle
slicer? They fired him.......and that girl who sliced pickles too.
On Apr 12, 1:07 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Has been active topic on rec.woodworking for ages. Last reports I
recall there were that number of false positives are quite low. I
seem to recall that at least at one point there was an allowance from
Sawstop for a true false positive trigger event as they were most
interested in following up on them to learn what caused them in the
The comment about a bypass is accurate -- for certain materials like
wet pressure-treated construction lumber, for example -- the safety
mechanism must be switched off. I don't think an individual nail for
something as light as the foil-backing on insulation board is
sufficient to trigger it, though.
The one comment in that regard, however, is that a false positive is
still far cheaper than the emergency room bill.
There was the negative reaction to the attempt by the principals of
Sawstop to make the technology mandatory by the FSC which seemed "over
the top". I do not know where this stands at the moment -- I've not
heard anything more about it for quite some time so I presume it's
pretty much a dead issue. I know they were extremely frustrated by
their inability to make licensing arrangements with the major
manufacturers and I suspect that rankled enough with them to want to
try to somehow get a measure of "even". While I can understand the
frustration, I also understand the reluctance on the other
manufacturers' part to use a licensed technology and what I think a
lot of them saw was opening themselves to potential liability on the
converse side of lawsuits over failure to actuate when needed (that
is, Type I, not Type II error) without adequate operating data.
Consequently, they ended up producing the saw themselves. By all
accounts, they are building a very good quality saw and I have seen
uniformly good reviews. FWW did an in-depth article some time back on
it -- probably a couple of years ago now. I'm sure a search of the
Taunton site would turn it up...
For a new production shop, it would be high on my list simply as a
liability reduction issue (plus, it is a quality saw, there's little
downside other than the cartridge cost, so it's not like one is making
a sacrifice in operation). For a home shop, if were going to buy the
Unisaw or Powermatic, it would be a consideration. If budget is the
Grizzly or contractor saw, not in the same categories...
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.