Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

lumafield.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 206 posts

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#101

Post by WillAdams »

wat10000 wrote: post #9
WillAdams wrote: post #2

Does making tools more expensive really benefit anyone other than the companies which own the patents which make them more expensive? Of these 30,000 injuries per year, how many happen when the blade guards are removed? How many happen when a push stick is not used? How many happen when a person stands in the direction that a piece of wood will be thrown by kickback? Once all those are subtracted are there enough inj…

Are you suggesting that injuries don’t count if the operator’s actions contributed to them and they’re not worth preventing?

I'm suggesting that people should have a sense of personal responsibility when operating potentially dangerous equipment, and that a person should not be required to pay extra for a business or hobby just because some well-to-do patent lawyer has come up with a business model which has an end-game of requiring that patents from his company be required in products.

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#102

Post by beAbU »

orbital-decay wrote: post #74
MaxikCZ wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess the stopping will happen in comparable time it takes to start it. So, no?

Much faster if you send the peak current, though.

The start-up current of large table saws are truly massive. As in multiples of it's nominal "peak" operating current.

So to bring the blade to a complete standstill, in significantly less time than start-up, is probably not feasible, unless you have a massive bank of capacitors with stored energy so that you can dump all that current in the motor without burning your building's wiring. But that will probably vaporize the motor.

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#103

Post by thelastparadise »

ejs wrote: post #90

I love my sawstop, it's a great machine. Often times when a product has some patent-protected feature, the product itself is substandard, but I have not found that case with sawstop. It's one of my highest quality tools. It would be nice if the mechanism wasn't so destructive. I accidentally had an aluminum fence just a fraction of a mm too close, and it touched the blade. I was using a dado stack, and it did a numbe…

[flagged]

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#104

Post by Spooky23 »

antihero wrote: post #81
AlotOfReading wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every tradesman knows people that actively refuse to use PPE and other safety equipment. There's are huge social stigmas against it in most crews.

Does that mean decorating helmets with union stuff is actually a great marketing win for safety?

Totally. It’s also evidence that the control has been accepted and incorporated into the workers identity/image.

You see it in utilities. Gas workers will helmet up swapping out a meter head.

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#105

Post by formerly_proven »

jasode wrote: post #87

>, I have an altendorf handguard sliding table saw, which will stop as fast as the sawstop, The alternative approaches from other industrial saw manufacturers that are "non-contact non-destructive" are interesting: - cameras and machine learning used by Altendorf "Hand Guard": https://www.altendorfgroup.com/en-us/machines/altendorf-hand... - inductive proximity (same science as Theremin[1]) used by Felder "PCS Preven…

I don’t see the point of a Sawstop-type system for an Altendorf-style panel saw. The whole point of that saw design is that your hands are nowhere near the blade!

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#106

Post by Spooky23 »

WillAdams wrote: post #101
wat10000 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that injuries don’t count if the operator’s actions contributed to them and they’re not worth preventing?

I'm suggesting that people should have a sense of personal responsibility when operating potentially dangerous equipment, and that a person should not be required to pay extra for a business or hobby just because some well-to-do patent lawyer has come up with a business model which has an end-game of requiring that patents from his company be required in products.

Your way of thinking is why things like safety glass, headrests, and seatbelts were kept of of cars for so long.

It’s a fine principled argument, but stay the hell away from product management.

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#107

Post by Spooky23 »

WillAdams wrote: post #100
dyauspitr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s terrible though. You can’t make knife manufacturers responsible for everything a knife does.

Have you checked recent legal cases against gun manufacturers? Some are not too far removed from suing a battery manufacturer because someone took the acid from a battery and used it in an attack? Traveled to New York City or the U.K. recently? Check your pocket for a locking blade, or an assisted opening knife before-hand.

The difference there is they funneled a lot of marketing dollars into pseudo education and astroturfing campaigns to create a sense of hysteria that the boogeyman was coming for the guns, specifically the now dizzying array of AR-15 derivatives and pistols.

That essentially contributed to a gun buying bubble and solider cosplay.

This

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#108

Post by manfre »

thelastparadise wrote: post #103
ejs wrote: post #90

I love my sawstop, it's a great machine. Often times when a product has some patent-protected feature, the product itself is substandard, but I have not found that case with sawstop. It's one of my highest quality tools. It would be nice if the mechanism wasn't so destructive. I accidentally had an aluminum fence just a fraction of a mm too close, and it touched the blade. I was using a dado stack, and it did a numbe…

[flagged]

The feature is equivalent to crumple zones on cars. The car destroys itself to lessen the damage to the operator.

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#109

Post by danielheath »

stavros wrote: post #88
DannyBee wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually not. My handguard saw will do as well as the sawstop non-destructively (independently tested and verified, so you don't have to take their word for it). They do it (basically) by predicting whether your hand will touch the blade, rather than waiting until it does touch the blade. If you wait until someone actually touches the blade, then yes, you have to operate very very fast. That is unavoidable due to phy…

But what can happen that will mean that your finger will touch the blade in a quarter of a second? I can't think of anything, short of dropping a person on the saw.

Holding a piece of wood and sliding it along a table saw (to cut it) is the canonical method for losing a finger, and you could definitely pick that out with a relatively simple bit of computer vision.

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#110

Post by stavros »

danielheath wrote: post #109
stavros wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what can happen that will mean that your finger will touch the blade in a quarter of a second? I can't think of anything, short of dropping a person on the saw.

Holding a piece of wood and sliding it along a table saw (to cut it) is the canonical method for losing a finger, and you could definitely pick that out with a relatively simple bit of computer vision.

Yes but there's no way for me to not be able to pull my hand back in a quarter of a second for that.
Post reply on HN