Shopsmith Forums

edma194 wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 10:04 am

RFGuy wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 10:01 am

edma194 wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 9:57 am Don't know why you would doubt this would happen.

Because I don't believe everything I read on the internet or see on someone's YT channel.

So you don't believe in momentum? Any other physical properties of the universe you think are urban myths?

Wanna see momentum in action? Spin a steel sanding disc at saw joint speed and turn it off.

JPG wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 10:03 am Blade dropping solutions ignore the arbor etc. on a SS.

The arbor has to be connected to the spindle with a clutch to do it. I'm not saying it's at all practical, but not impossible. Another factor Scott mentioned is that Shopsmith and other manufacturers don't want to roll over and accept the SawStop claim that table saws are inherently so dangerous without their system or that much safer with it.

edma194 wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 10:04 am So you don't believe in momentum? Any other physical properties of the universe you think are urban myths?

We had an interesting discussion until you ignored everything I said about how an electric brake might work for the PowerPro. Then you bring up an anecdote I choose not to believe. I never said stopping a spinning saw blade would not be calamitous. I do dispute it being to the level to flip a Mark V. Even Bosch, a 3rd tier woodworking company today, can get this right on a contractor TS and without it flipping upside down apparently.

Going back into lurker mode now. Enjoy.

BOSCH REAXX: you have to watch really close to see the saw flip itself over when blade detection is activated!!! Sooo much momentum. Egads.

Frankly I think the presently patented detection system should be reexamined. I think the patent was flawed. The method used is like being able to patent a door opening as method of entry detection. It is the nature of electronics that this detection method is using not an invention. In my opinion the patent should have never been issued and probably would not be if applied for today.

However I do agree the present day table saw is very dangerous, but rather than trying to make it safer I think the search should be for a better way to cut wood. I think the comparison of a safer saw and car seat belts is also nonsense. One is essential to everyday modern life and the other is totally optional at best and probably can be shown to be unneeded for use by the public.

Can a Shopsmith be made risk free? I doubt it at least with any concept offered so far. In fact I doubt any table saw can be made risk free. In my opinion games are being played in the name of safety and if one would sit back and really analyzed it they would see certain things have a inherent risk that can not be fully eliminated and the cost to even reduce them is prohibitive.

As for flipping the Shopsmith, has no one ever stalled the Shopsmith in table saw mode? Something will slip (belts) and the machine won't flip.

As for how to make a blade brake work on the Shopsmith, we just need to think INSIDE the box. Rather than mounting the saw arbor directly to the headstock's spindle, what's needed is an adapter, which I will call the "Magic Box", that on one end connects to the headstock spindle and on the other end has an output spindle to accept the saw arbor. This would be similar to how the current speed reducer/speed increaser mounts, except that rather than the middle section containing gearing mechanisms as in the speed reducer/speed increaser, the middle of the Magic Box would contain (1) the sensor technology, (2) a mechanism to immediately disconnect the driving force between headstock spindle and the new output spindle that the saw arbor is mounted to, and (3) a brake mechanism that applied either to the blade directly (car disc brake?) or somehow arrested the Magic Box output spindle.

Disclaimer: I'm no engineer, so I have no idea how these things would actually be accomplished inside the Magic Box. But there is precedent for putting things on the headstock spindle like the speed reducer/increaser.

"Safety" minded folks who 'think' everything can be made risk free are ignoring the purpose of those dangerous tools. They are also overlooking the necessary detail of the human operator being the usual cause as well as the victim of 'accidents'.

'Accidents' occur due to unanticipated events( unanticipated includes ignoring the obvious possibility).

I put the onus on the operator who ignores the obvious as the cause of 'accidents'.

Saws(powered) are intended to cut wood and in the case of a chain saw do so very violently. To do their task they must have clear access to the thing being sawn and the operator needs to be able to see what is happening.

If one wants total protection from injury, stay in that imaginary bubble that is risk free(or do not engage in activity that requires operator intelligence and acute observation and anticipation of potential misfunction).

JPG wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 11:05 am "Safety" minded folks who 'think' everything can be made risk free are ignoring the purpose of those dangerous tools. They are also overlooking the necessary detail of the human operator being the usual cause as well as the victim of 'accidents'.

'Accidents' occur due to unanticipated events( unanticipated includes ignoring the obvious possibility).

I put the onus on the operator who ignores the obvious as the cause of 'accidents'.

Saws(powered) are intended to cut wood and in the case of a chain saw do so very violently. To do their task they must have clear access to the thing being sawn and the operator needs to be able to see what is happening.

If one wants total protection from injury, stay in that imaginary bubble that is risk free(or do not engage in activity that requires operator intelligence and acute observation and anticipation of potential misfunction).

I don't think anyone here is saying "everything can be made risk free." But some dangerous things can be made safer without sacrificing intended use/operation, and sometimes notwithstanding either (1) deficient safety equipment between the ears of the operator or (2) a momentary lapse in attention/judgment.

No not here, but I perceive that mind set in the CPSC.

They exist to protect noobs from themselves.

Responsible, yes, necessary, unfortunately.

JPG wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 11:57 am No not here, but I perceive that mind set in the CPSC.

It looks that way. In a link from the video containing a letter from CPSC commissioner Rich Trumka are the snippets below. In contrast to his statements here is a report from NIH Library of Science. Instead of 65,000 injuries per year cited by the CPSC they state less than half that number, and 2/3 of the injuries are simply lacerations. It also includes statistics that separate occupational and non-occupational injuries, and that 15% of the injuries are not related to blade contact. I have more of the CPSC material to go over but it sounds like this CPSC commissioner is for some reason motivated to paint a less than accurate picture of table saw accidents favoring required use of SawStop technology to change. Since the majority of these accidents are occupational I don't see how CPSC should be involved instead of OSHA and insurance companies. The NIH report also states that despite requirements for riving knives, anti-kickback protection and blade guards in place for a number of years the accident rate remains stable, and that is clearly because users don't use the safety equipment. SawStops can have the safety feature turned off for use with green wood and special blades but I assume it's quite easy to turn back on, giving it one clear advantage over guards and the like, but I'm sure SawStop users fail to use the riving knive and blade guard as often as users of other saws. I think a careful analysis of the injuries would make it difficult to justify the high cost of SawStop type technology, although much of that cost would be related to the rather simple and inexpendive blade contact detection technology that would have to be licensed from SawStop.

The NIH report shows a small but consistent number of injuries to minors in school shop classes. I would have no problem with regulations requiring SawStop technology to be required for use by minors at schools. But again, not a matter for the CPSC.

Rich Trumka, CPSC Commissioner wrote: Now that I work at CPSC, I see that my concerns are backed by tragic statistics. Table
saws injure over 50,000 people a year. And these are gruesome injuries like fractures and finger
amputations. The Civil War was responsible for 60,000 amputations. Table Saws are
responsible for more: 65,000 amputations…and that’s just since we were petitioned to fix the
issue.

Rich Trumka, CPSC Commissioner wrote: But today, we advanced a rule to save those fingers. To stop those amputations.
Technology exists that could prevent table saws from cutting more than 3.5 millimeters into skin.
That turns an ER trip to a trip to the medicine cabinet for a band aid. And our rule would require
that level of safety. In doing so, the rule would provide the greatest net benefit to society of any
rule in the agency’s history that I’m aware of—up to a $2.32 billion net benefit every year.
It’s troubling that it took this long. An inventor created a solution to this problem a
quarter century ago, back in 1999. And he petitioned this agency to require that level of safety
on table saws in 2003. We’ve wasted 20 years. In the time it’s taken this agency to act on this
petition, table saws have injured one million people.

Rich Trumka, CPSC Commissioner wrote: The one place where I draw issue with the proposal is that it would require us to wait for
three more years before the rule goes into effect. That would mean agreeing to severely injure
150,000 more innocent people—people we should instead be protecting.

See, this is the bureaucrat mindset in action: "Table Saws are responsible for more than 65,000 amputations..."

No, peoples' carelessness, inattentiveness and foolishness are responsible - for 99 percent. The last 1 percent might be poor design.

I like the Sawstop idea, but don't force it on me by legislation.

Ya know, when the minority yanks the majority around, it's not a Democracy any more, its a Minocracy.

"Democracy" is the dictatorship of the numerical majority. The majority have not governed America for generations.