And So it begin,s

[LCHIEN]

...SawStop "safes" the blade by stopping it and using its own angular momentum to yank it into the saw case so it implements BOTH potential methods to "safe" the blade in my example legislation - good. How does it detect the "unsafe" condition? - I don't know for sure. I think it does it by detecting conductivity from the blade to the operator if I understand it correctly. That requires actual contact, right? Does a SawStop operator have to have a wire connecting him to the saw someplace so that contact with the blade can then be detected- forming a closed loop/circuit? If so... what's to prevent an operator from just leaving that wire off - that's no different than tossing blade guards aside - it won't protect operators that are sloppy/lazy and bypass the safety systems. Instead of detecting continuity, another method is to turn the operator into an antenna of sorts: connect a wire to the operator that broadcasts a radio frequency signal. The saw blade is then used as the receiving antenna... if the operator gets too close the blade will pick up a larger signal. Once the signal reaches a certain threshold the saw can say "too close" and take action... an electrical solenoid can fire, pulling a pin. Without this pin, a big spring yanks the saw blade into the saw body. This would be pretty darn quick; probably nearly as quick as the SawStop method. Or I can design a table saw like a thickness planer: the blade is deep inside the machine where the operator's hands can't reach. Instead I'd put reference lines on the edges of the machine to know where it's going to cut, etc. Such a tool probably wouldn't be as versatile as a table saw... but maybe somebody will have an idea that is as versatile.
...

in fact, contact is required, but no closed loop. e.g. no wire to the operator, no RF signal. The sensing uses the human body capacitance added load to detect contact. So no operator compliance is required, he's always "on". Its harder to bypass than you imagine.

since contact is required, you will be injured. The speed of the system limits the amount of injury.

[tommyt654]

Once again I urge all of you pro or con to contact your Congressman on this matter, not only to protect our rights as citizens to do what we want in our own homes, but to protect these manufacturers from more of these wastful and ludicrous lawsuits that will wind up costing all of us tons of money while the bloodsucking lawyers and Gass try to profit from it. Urgency is needed here so make those calls and e-mails today

[jussi]

But, I recently almost lost a finger myself- and an important one at that.

You mean to tell me you have NON-important fingers?

[Old Lurker]

I'd like to hear Rod's take on this.

Ed

Too bad he wasn't in America, he could have been a millionaire: Recovery continues - WARNING pics may offend!

[BrazosJake]

I could care less as to who invented it or what his intentions were/are. The saw provides a safety factor...period. Are we to assume that the manufacturers of other table saws don't have making money on their minds.

I will grant the theory that accidents are most likely operator error. Ask those that have lost fingers on their table saw, if they would have preferred to have a Saw Stop.
.

You're completely missing the OPs' point, CB: he's not complaining the the SS inventors make a lot of money, it's they're right. But it's outrageous for them to promote their product using civil litigation.

I could understand it if the table saw in question were conspicuously more dangerous than others, but it's not.

So, had "flesh detecting" technology been available, would the plaintiff have paid 10 times as much for a table saw?

He could just as easily have testified "Had the plaintiff left the bladeguard on and not stuck his fingers into the spnning blade, as the manual clearly stated he shouldn't, he would have avoided the accident altogether".

[tommyt654]

What Ryobi and the other saw manufacturers should do is hire Norm Abrams to testify on their behalf, His presence on T.V. and his safety record with a saw without Sawslop technology would probably put an end to it all.

[tommyt654]

Fine Woodworking finally gets in on the act,.., http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/...blesaw-lawsuit

[tommyt654]

And here,s an article with how Gass feels vindicated for his efforts,.., http://www.oregonlive.com/business/i...ety_devic.html

[pelligrini]

The INC. article done in January 2007 is intresting. http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050701...ptor-gass.html It was lnked to by a commentor in the FWW blog.

The last paragraph:

Gass believes that Sullivan's cases are only the tip of the iceberg. "The legal standard says you have to make a product as safe as you reasonably can, and if you fail to do that, you're going to be responsible," he says. While Gass wants SawStop to be successful financially, he also admits that what began as an interesting physics problem in his workshop has become something of a crusade. "This is important to society and that responsibility weighs on me," he says. "It would have been so much easier if the manufacturers had just licensed this. Then, having SawStop would be just like having a stereo with Dolby or running shorts with Gore-Tex." Indeed, Gass still dreams of getting out of manufacturing altogether. He really doesn't want to make the power tools we buy. He just wants to make the power tools we buy better.

Yea.. licensed with your tech! I wonder if he'll be singing the same tune when his patent expires.

[annunaki]

Wow a lot of Legal Quagmires

As previously mentioned , Pending Law suit, possible future ones, Legal precedents may be made, Gov't involvements as per Air Bags, makes me wonder if Gov't Health Care could Ban many current power tools, like our beloved BT3's, Band saws, Drill presses, and many others as potential "Health Hazards" ?