So because the government has already overstepped its Constitutional authority a thousand times, it's OK for it to do so again? I think not.
Trouble is, you're advocating that government *remove* that freedom of choice from me.
Then go buy one. But don't demand that the rest of us give up our freedom to make the same choice.
You don't have to sacrifice having a choice. Go buy one. Now. Then shut up, and let the rest of us decide _for_ourselves_ whether we want one too.
Yeah, it would be a great example if it were true, but it's not. This account is absolute nonsense. The initiative to ban chlorofluorocarbons started with ecologists and organic chemists, not with refrigerant manufacturers. And that's what it was at the beginnig, too -- an attempt to ban *all* CFCs, not just one or two specific refrigerants, because they *do* destroy the ozone layer. Recapture of the new refrigerants is required by law for protection of the atmosphere, not mechanics. Why not let it escape? Because it's destructive of the ozone layer *too*, just not *as* destructive as the old stuff -- and now that we know what's breaking down the ozone layer, we'd better stop pumping more of that crap into the air.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
That is the Tooth Fairy School of Regulation, IMHO. These folks will do all they can to make SURE there is no real competition. Though 95% of a captive market would no doubt be enough to make them beat the bushes for a fake competitor to hold up during Congressional hearings.
It's cheaper to buy legislators than to create a saw factory, isn't it?
You're contradicting yourself, you know. All along, you have maintained quite strenuously that the available safety features should be mandated by the government, and not left to the purchaser's discretion.
Think for a moment or two. It's gonna take a pretty stout pin to stop a blade driven by a 3HP motor, and spinning at 4000 rpm.
Nobody needs to lose that choice. The product is available *now*, and everyone has the choice. If you want it, buy it.
The problem I see is that I don't want it, not at the current price, but *you* think that I should be *forced* to buy it next time I buy a table saw. Tell you what: since you think it's so important for me to have one, you can buy it for me. How's that sound?
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
I think LEON thinks if he stays REALLY close to the operators of SawStop by carrying their water here, they might give him one for free.
Except his very loudness in here makes it MORE difficult for that to happen - cuz it'd look too much like what it is: a reward for carrying their dirty water.
Leon needs to figure out where he can earn enough money to have his lips surgically removed from SawStop's ASS.
Water quality is clearly a public health issue (e.g.
formatting link
AFAIK, table saw injuries are not contagious, and thus do not pose the sort of threat to public health that justifies government intervention.
The National Electrical Code was developed by the National Fire Protection Association
formatting link
a nonprofit group founded by insurance industry representatives. It has *no* connection to any governmental agencies except in an advisory capacity.
Obviously the freedom to choose a table saw that is not equipped with $aw$top
*will* be lost if the company gets its way. DUH.
And nobody here has said that you don't (or shouldn't) have the freedom to voice your opinion on the matter. We're telling you you're wrong, and we think you should shut up. I would never dream of asking the government to *force* you to.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
I've been burning their ears off at SawStop. The first email I sent to them attacking their tactics was greeted with their standard form letter, to which I responded:
Here are the facts: Your company is attempting to get a private market legislated and rammed down the throats of the consumer whether we want to buy your product or not.
The patents held by your company are comprehensive and leave little room for another company to field a competing product without infringing upon your patent rights. As such, competition is restricted.
For the CPSC to attempt to institute a regulation requiring your product to be installed on saws is to create an illegal monopoly, thereby instantaneously putting your company's operations within the realm covered by federal antitrust laws. If this should happen, I hope that you ARE charged with violating those federal antitrust laws.
I also resist, in the absolute strongest of terms, any attempt to FORCE me to purchase a safety device as part of a product that I might buy. I have no problem with being able to purchase such a device as an option, but to be forced to buy it, especially when there is only ONE supplier of such an item?
No way in hell.
I was much in favor of your devices as a smart option for installation in saws that I might purchase. But this blatant attempt to ram your product up my backside whether I want to buy it or not, and without even a choice of competing products, has caused me to turn completely against your company for its unscrupulous operations.
I'd expect this kind of thinking from politicians. BAD ones.
If I ever end up with a product that has one of your devices in it, I will go to great lengths to remove that device and throw it in the trash where it belongs. It's not because of a problem with the device, it's because of your company's blatant attempt to acquire an exclusive and mandatory market by means of legislative action.
I wouldn't feel this way if the device were an option that was made readily available for purchase, IF DESIRED, by the consumer. But if you try to ram it down my throat, don't be surprised when I gag on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just a couple of points. First, we are offering to license our technology to all manufacturers. Thus, if the CPSC adopts our proposed regulation, there will be competition. Second, it is the patent system that will restrict competition and that may grant us a "monopoly," not a regulation from the CPSC. It sounds like your fundamental disagreement is with the patent system. Third, our proposed regulation would only "force" you to purchase our technology to the extent that similar regulations "force" you to buy a blade guard when you buy a saw, "force" you to buy a car with seat belts, or "force" you to buy a certain kind of bike helmet for your kids. Your statements sound like you disapprove of a government entity like the CPSC, which has the authority to mandate safety standards for consumer products. Finally, ask yourself whether a manufacturer's "freedom" to make and your "freedom" to buy unsafe saws is really worth one high school kid losing a finger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK, I'll take apart your arguments one line at a time, if necessary.
So of course, you get a royalty for each system produced under license. In any event, as your patents are fairly comprehensive, it would be difficult to design a competitive safety system that operates on the same concept of removing and/or stopping the blade on contact with flesh.
You won't hear me argue that it's not a good design. In fact, it's an incredible feat and for that by itself, I have nothing but praise for you.
But if you succeed in ramming a mandatory equipment regulation down our throats, you have removed our freedom of choice as to what we buy and whom we do business with. As there IS no competitive product to SawStop and probably won't be due to your patents, I would be FORCED to hand you some of my money whether I wanted to or not, if I had to buy any new saws. (I will NOT, if the CPSC adopts such a regulation! I will buy USED tools and refurbish them myself rather than be FORCED to give you any of my money!)
NO, there will NOT. Your patents are pretty comprehensive, as mentioned before, and as for licensed products, you still make money on products made under license.
Splitting hairs and it makes no difference. A monopoly is a monopoly, period. And I won't voluntarily do business with a monopoly if I don't have to do so for my survival.
No. I never thought that. Still don't. It's all well and good that you MIGHT have a product that would be hard to follow without patent infringement, but my issue is with being FORCED to buy ANYTHING without a choice.
This is a VERY poor analogy as there are SEVERAL manufacturers of seatbelts, airbags, blade guards, bike helmets, etc. And though I still don't like having no choice but to buy cars that have airbags and seatbelts, purely on principle, I DO have a choice of manufacturers of cars and if I care to do so, I can select cars that have different brands of equipment in them. No single company is getting ALL the business by a CPSC mandate. To me, that's the important part.
1: Yes, I do disapprove of a "nanny state" and the agencies that enact rules that can restrict my freedom of choice.
2: It would be fairly easy to show that once you get past a certain range of price and features in power tools, you're well within the market of PROFESSIONAL woodworkers and not mere CONSUMERS. Just as cars built for professional racing do not have to have certain safety features that a passenger vehicle is required to have, woodworking tools built for professionals are usually being operated by people who know and live by their safety standards, for the most part. They are people who would usually CHOOSE to buy a tool with your safety device installed if it's available that way anyway.
It's completely unnecessary to try to FORCE me to buy your product by mandate.
So you're in favor of a nanny state? Should everything have a safety device on it? Are you your brother's keeper?
Working with any highly energetic machine involves a certain amount of risk. We can't control all risk factors and even your product isn't foolproof. If you think it is, slap a running sawblade as fast as you can and see how tiny the nick is. I'll watch but first let me get a first aid kit ready.
I don't object to your product. I object to your attempt to ram it down my throat without my consent or any choice in the matter.
And I strenuously object to the incredible money-grubbing attitude of you and your company for trying to get rich by a forced monopoly. I won't play.
I glanced over the petition but have not read it. My comment was based on openions made about the petition. The openions seem to be rather broad based and and non specific. The lack of specific indicators mentioned lead me to my comment. While that was probably not a good thing to do and contrubutes to the " he said she said" chatter concerning the petition.
Well Jack I dont want to reveal all my secrets... LOL.. It was just a suggested avenue to explore. The disk and caliper method would be an easier solution and that could be followed with a back up pin locking in to insure absolute imobility. Something like applying the parking brake after putting the transmission in park on an automobile.
I wonder if the insert were to raise from the table with a shield around it to encase the blade with out dropping the blade would be in violation?
Well Jack, like I dont know all the details of the petition, you dont know all the details of my professional working career. But to put some clairity on my career,
From the time I was a senior in HS and attended college 1972-1976 I worked for Ameron Automitive Centers. I was eventually promoted to store manager in 1976. In 1977 a better position was offered with BF Goodrich as an assistant manager. Again in 1978 I was offered a better job opportunity as Parts Manager of a new Oldsmobile franchise in Houston. I was 23. This was also the year that I started taking woodworking more seriously. This was a start from scratch company. The dealership was Ray Hewitt Oldsmobile. One year later the franchise was sold and became Rice Menger Oldsmobile. I advanced to Service Sales Manager in 1983. In 1985 I was promoted to Parts Coordinator of the Oldsmobile and Isuzu Dealerships. In 1987 I was offered a position as General Manager of a AC/Delco 3M wholesale distributor. This was a relative small company that was very profitable while I was employeed there. The retirement plan was extremely attractive and afforded me the opportunity to retire in 1995 at age 40. One of the owners that was my age retired 5 years later as a millionaire. In 1997 I started my own Woodworking business so that I could do what I wanted to do and make money in the process. From year 1 I have been profitable and work at my leasure.
So from 1978 to the present I have been involved in woodworking. That is about 25 years. I was in the Automotive field from 1972 untill 1995 when I retired at age
That is about 23 years. Since 1997 I have been self employeed to keep my self busy. That has been about 7 years. I will be 49 next month.
Now, I can assure you I have absolutely no financial interest in SawStop unless my mutual funds portfolio include SawStop. To tell you the truth there are hundreds of companies that my mutual funds invest in and I could not name one company off the top of my head. As far as being a troll, No, not a troll, I have been a very active participant in this news group since early 1999 maybe 2000 IIRC. I doubt any one would consider me a troll. That said, the poster of this SawStop thread posted this thread under another thread started by Jim Mc. If there is a troll, it would be Gary Milliorn. He is the one that has dropped this piece of bait that started this OT conversation under another thread and has yet to mention a peep since his original post as far as I can see.
(you have claimed both) and with
Well certainly not broke and certainly not rich but very comfortably retired at 48. I can certainly afford the SawStop brand saw now but like I have run businesses and run my business now I choose not to buy a whole new saw now when my current saw is 3 years old. When I do replace my saw I will go for stop system similar to the one we are talking about. I did not retire at 40 by spending frivolously.
The physics of bringing a blade to a stop quickly enough to avoid serious injury pretty much dictate that you will destroy the mechanism and probably the blade in the process. Any shaft-braked system would put so much force into the stopping mechanism it would likely break the shaft, as you beef up the shaft to get around that problem you are increasing the rotating mass that you have to stop. It is also imperative that any system disengage the motor in the same instant, and it really needs to be a positive disengage, not merely slacking a belt because there is plenty of drag from even a loose belt.
The biggest challenge is that there is really no system other than the one SawStop uses that is acceptable for detecting contact with a finger or something. The use of that technology in that application seems to be part of their patent.
Were I running SawStop I'd license the technology to any manufacturer who wanted it for $5.00 a saw. All I would have to do then is sit back and cash checks, something that even I could do. If the license fee is low enough and the perceived benefit high enough the manufacturers will diddle the technology to make it cheaper and more efficient. Everybody wins until someone actually comes up with a system that works as well and is outside the original patent.
Sorry I just can t help myself when I see everyone else having fun with him i just couldn't stop.
I would love to have something like this on my saw but I want to pick it out of a group of choices.
In my thinking if this passes their will only be one saw made by many companys or no saws made by anyone because their is not any way to change them and still be compliant ?
I have not seen one of these does it work that well? during cut after cut and reaching in does it make a diferance?
Don't really know, but I'd be much more inclined to buy the thing if one of the $aw$top weenies would demonstrate the effecctiveness with their own weenie rather than an Oscar-Mayer. I also keep wondering what's next - circular saws, bandsaws, recprocating saws, radial arm saws, CMS/SCMS? Also wonder about dado stacks, molding heads, sanding discs, etc.?
I thought it was 50.... Gee s are you bored... Ha...
No, I am not making a crusade at all.... I blows me away to think that my very own thoughts on the subject are so threatening to every one. Am I really presenting that good of an argument in my beliefs that most every one is so damn scared that it will happen? I really do not have any monetary interest in the Saw Stop. Dont kill the messenger.....
Unfortunately I have to stay away from the TS, I tried to tilt the blade without taking out the zero clearance insert and well, that blade is on its way to Forrest and an new one is on its way to its new home. Tick Tock.... Every one does have their opinion and right to voice it.. Its that freedom of speech thing.... Cracks me up the with all the name calling....
So if I may put it in a nutshell... because everything is going smoothly for you personally, erosion of everyone's personal freedom doesn't worry you in the least.
You are contemptible.
Contradicting yourself again, I see.
This thread begain with Gary Milliorn's post describing $aw$top's action. Your first post in the thread was an immediate, one-word followup: "Cool."
You continue to argue that this device should be made mandatory, a position equivalent to demanding that others give up their freedom to choose whether to buy it or not.
No, I'm not trying to make your decisions for you -- just pointing out the logical consequences of your position, which you apparently haven't taken the time to think through very carefully.
Mid-80s is a decade late. Concerns were raised about the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer as early as 1974.
There's a reliable source of scientific information, I'm sure...
Not true at all. The ecologists and chemists knew what was going on. It took ten or fifteen years before any of the politicians would listen to them.
That's because the law didn't require recovery of *any* refrigerant at the time that R-12 was in use. AFAIK, there _never_was_ a time during which the law required recovery of the new refrigerants but allowed release of R-12. The law which requires refrigerant recovery does not distinguish between types.
So's Freon.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
That too. But Mercedes and BMW and my 97 Chev PU have governed top speeds. This is done through RPM restrictions in top gear in particular. My 97 and my friends 96 ChevPU would only go strongly to about 95 mph and then stall out until the vehicle speed reached about 90. Change out the PROM and that limit can be defeated.
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.