US Government is About to Change Table Saws FOREVER!

[RFGuy]

Thanks JPG. It may not have been clear up above, but my intent is not to debate the patent system and all of its pluses and minuses. Since I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough on all of those areas, I called myself Switzerland and will leave that for others to discuss if they so choose. After this I proceeded to share what info I do know and my own personal perspective of patents and how it relates to the content of this thread. You may be right on all of this regarding the SawStop inventor and I appreciate you sharing this. There are two sides to every story...think of Armstrong vs. De Forest, Tesla vs. Edison, etc., etc. This is just to say that I don't have all of the info and you may be 100% correct on all of this. I have no personal experience with a SawStop in operation so my perception based on woodworker feedback online is very favorable of it. Not just talking about marketing videos from the company. Now, is that a false perception and false sense of security? I can't say. My point throughout this thread is more that safety technology on all power equipment is a bonus IMHO. Should there still be versions of the same equipment without this safety gear? Also, perhaps. Keep in mind not all woodworkers are skilled as many start from nothing and work their way up. I was like this as a teenager when I was learning woodworking for the first time. Also, keep in mind that no matter how smart or skilled or experienced one is as a woodworker, we all make mistakes from time to time. This is what a SawStop type technology is there for. Mandate it for everyone is more of the question we should be asking in my mind, but that is just how I see things. Lastly, not to sound elitist, but there are those on the lower percentiles of the bell curve distribution for IQ that can and will use power tool equipment. It IS the governments job to selectively regulate to protect the most vulnerable portions of society, such as them. Otherwise, you risk injury to them or need to mandate they can't use a product. Which lower percentiles of IQ do you want to block from using power tools (rhetorical question) ???

P.S. Societies have always needed protectors, those who would protect those who need it the most. Think mothers & fathers, warriors/soldiers, leaders & yes even bureaucrats. Despite the many flaws in our government, we still need functions like the CPSC to protect those parts of society that are most vulnerable. We can debate how to best protect them, but hopefully everyone understands that someone doesn't deserve to have a horrible TS accident just because they didn't receive formal training, or because they are not as smart as the next woodworker, or because they got distracted in the moment. Is AIM required to do this, maybe not, but perhaps better passive safety tech needs to be mandated and updated across the industry. There are many ways to implement a better system and it doesn't have to be a copy of SawStop's system. JMO.

[JPG]

'Debating' was not my intent either.

[rogersk]

<snip>

My opinion is that much has been perceived that this will eliminate injury by inadvertent contact with a circular saw blade rotating at greater than 3000 rpm. All the hoopla demonstrates it performing with gradual contact by tentatively advancing with an object (numbed finger, hot dog, fried chicken). IMO that demonstrates the potential to prevent some injuries(and definitely to minimize subsequent injury) but what about more speedy advances? I dare say no one advances a work piece so gingerly as done in the demonstrations. I think if one does so as slowly as the demos they would perceive initial contact by using their personal nerve system. Granted their response may not be as fast as Sawstop's, but it would result in far less damage to the saw blade(and a hobbyist's budget).

Finally, there is the detail of whether it is the guvmnt's purview to protect one from their own ignorance/stupidity.

Here is a link to a video showing a hotdog being thrust at high speed into the blade on a Sawstop. It's at about 4 minutes into the video. This video also shows a dado blade being stopped and the force created appears to shatter the teeth of the blade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYLAi4jwXcs

[RFGuy]

'Debating' was not my intent either.

JPG,

No, I agree and didn't think you were debating it. I just wanted to make it more clear what I said in the previous post. There are flaws in any system, whether it is government agencies like the CPSC or the patent system. I choose not to debate them here. I just wanted to share my experience and what I think I know about the SawStop related patents and your information shared may be more accurate and/or complete than mine. I just wanted to add the caveat that every story has a 2nd side and hopefully you recognize the 4 storied names in engineering & patent fights that I cited above and understand the relevance. I have spoken what little I know on all of this and I recognize there is a lot more to the story. If you have more to add or anyone else, I am open to listen as always. Don't take my future lack of response as me being uninterested in the conversation.

[JPG]

Yes I recognized the 4 names. IMO Tesla's 'ideas' won out even if they were not beneficial to him, but unquestionably we all benefit from them today. Tis a sad tale fer sure and a lesson re powerful 'figures'.

My knowledge of De Forest/Armstrong is essentially nil but I think it had to do with broadcasting.

Getting a bit off subject but the parallel is pertinent.

[RFGuy]

Yes I recognized the 4 names. IMO Tesla's 'ideas' won out even if they were not beneficial to him, but unquestionably we all benefit from them today. Tis a sad tale fer sure and a lesson re powerful 'figures'.

My knowledge of De Forest/Armstrong is essentially nil but I think it had to do with broadcasting.

Getting a bit off subject but the parallel is pertinent.

Close, but think more broadly (wordplay intended). They are largely credited with the invention of radio, or more specifically the superheterodyne receiver. There were other people contributing during this time and of course others want to give credit to them as well. My screen name is RFGuy here, so Radio Frequency and wireless communications are kind of important to me. Very off topic, except related to the patent discussion...always 2 sides to a story related to a patent and sometimes more than 2 sides as was the case with Armstrong vs. De Forest vs et al.

[JPG]

Superhet - a definite game changer! ! ! !

[RFGuy]

Superhet - a definite game changer! ! ! !

AMEN!!! Unfortunately, much of wireless communications today has reverted back to the homodyne architecture thanks to zero/low IF (direct conversion) type architectures. Data converter (and semiconductor) technology has advanced tremendously permitting this return to an earlier radio architecture - how often does that happen in engineering where forward progress (?) requires reversion??? Ponder that for the rest of today. I still miss superhet architectures. Then, there is also SDR (Software Defined Radio) emerging in more recent years. Light reading for anyone interested who wants to understand and know more:

https://www.rfwireless-world.com/Termin ... eiver.html
https://www.mwrf.com/technologies/embed ... ars-part-1
https://www.mwrf.com/technologies/embed ... ars-part-2
https://www.analogictips.com/radio-rece ... -zero-sdr/



P.S. Apologies for veering far off topic and thanks for indulging me.

[JPG]

Fear Not I appreciate it! ! !

A certain individual will say such off topic shenanigans are a reason the forum is not 'Good".

[edma194]

The patent system has inherent problems but that shouldn't be surprising because it's a body of law meant to regulate ownership of ideas that have not yet been thought of. In my opinion the Sawstop patent is overly broad by claiming any method of detecting contact between a saw blade and human flesh is protected by their patent. That includes methods not specified in the patent, and not yet known. There may be no practical method possible that wouldn't be covered by the technique specified in their patent, and that's just the way the ball bounces. Patents are supposed to protect original ideas, but not to to the extent they hamper the development of better ideas.