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

151–160 of 206 posts

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#151

Post by Macha »

bluGill wrote: post #138
michaelt wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about apartments, I'm talking about single family homes. If you look at the Google Maps marker for New York and go 90 minutes drive north, you get this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/RY9ebS6vcD5w8cQA6 San Francisco and go 90 minutes north: https://maps.app.goo.gl/wJQx9BV5C2d7C6iR9 You look up Berlin and go 90 minutes north: https://maps.app.goo.gl/7javF29PE1p6F4rb9 Look up Paris and go 90 minutes north: htt…

The space between houses is smaller, and the houses have much smaller garages. However the house themselves are similar size.

They really aren't. My house is a 1250 sq ft 4 bedroom house. It gets comments from friends and family for being relatively large for a 4 br here, since the norm is 1000 sq ft for a 4 bedroom. Similar style houses in the US seem to be about 2000 sq ft from a property search.

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#152

Post by bigstrat2003 »

mlyle wrote: post #6
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…

> 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? Seems like you don't buy into the swiss cheese model of accidents. Because other safety mechanisms and good practices exist, it doesn't mean that there's not reasons to add additional safety. In aviation, we always blamed the pilots for a long time, and it wasn't entirely wrong. Howev…

> Seems like you don't buy into the swiss cheese model of accidents. Because other safety mechanisms and good practices exist, it doesn't mean that there's not reasons to add additional safety.

I think it's reasonable to say "we have done enough" at some point though. We can debate where the point is, but safety is not an unalloyed good. It has a cost, and reasonable people can disagree over whether a particular safety invention has enough ROI to justify its existence.

For example, we wouldn't countenance banning all motor vehicles even though we could eliminate all car related deaths with that one simple trick. We would get a fair bit of payoff, but the cost would just be too high to justify it. Similarly, if we could inflict a very minor cost on everyone in the world to prevent one death per year, that would be too low of a payoff even though the cost is very low.

So yes, we can always add more layers of defense against accidents (or security incidents). But eventually, the juice isn't worth the squeeze and you stop. So I don't think the Swiss cheese model really can justify any particular intervention by itself; you have to evaluate the specifics of whether the particular intervention is worth it.

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#153

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

DannyBee wrote: post #117
Fraterkes wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ive looked at the saw you mention in another comment, and in all honesty Id much rather have a safety precaution that works based on very simple physics (like sawstop) than some black-box ai hand detection algorithm.

To each their own. Computer vision of this kind is not like cutting edge ai. This is pretty standard fare and has been for decades

Optical mice fail with too much dust on the lens. It's risky to depend on a vision system in a machine that is generating dust.

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#154

Post by 1-more »

lukaslalinsky wrote: post #68
mym1990 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very beginner woodworker here, but dados(or any kind of groove are the ones that immediately come to mind. Essentially anything that has the work piece going over the blade, but not cutting through completely.

You can keep the riving knife for those cuts, it causes no issue. just can't use the blade guard. I honestly can't imagine a cut that would require the riving knife off.

Dado stack. It's a smaller diameter than the blade. You'd have to be pretty lazy to not just reinstall the riving knife when you put a normal blade back on, but I could see that happening.

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#155

Post by mym1990 »

1-more wrote: post #154
lukaslalinsky wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can keep the riving knife for those cuts, it causes no issue. just can't use the blade guard. I honestly can't imagine a cut that would require the riving knife off.

Dado stack. It's a smaller diameter than the blade. You'd have to be pretty lazy to not just reinstall the riving knife when you put a normal blade back on, but I could see that happening.

I think people get complacent and if it a cut that one does fairly regularly, I could see someone saying on the 1000th cut "eh lets keep it off for this one time" and then it just becomes a thing.

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#156

Post by [deleted] »

sowbug wrote: post #145
bobsyourbuncle wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are circular saws less prone to injury?

On a circular saw, the hand in motion maneuvers the cutting tool. On a table saw, it pushes the thing being cut. Either saw's blade sometimes grabs the material and kicks it back. If your hand is on that material, it can also be sent in an unexpected direction. (This is just one scenario. Both tools are capable of unwanted removal of body parts.)

[deleted]

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#157

Post by DannyBee »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #153
DannyBee wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To each their own. Computer vision of this kind is not like cutting edge ai. This is pretty standard fare and has been for decades

Optical mice fail with too much dust on the lens. It's risky to depend on a vision system in a machine that is generating dust.

Have you considered that they've thought of this? Seriously.

This is company producing high end sliding table saws that cost tens of thousands. They've been at it for over half a century.

This is not someone producing a 299 saw as cheaply as possible.

They are a German company (ie regulated heavily) and have a ridiculous number of safety standard certifications that test things like "what happens when there is dust"

do you really think they haven’t thought of the obvious basic issues and figure out what to do about them?

if so, what evidence do you have that this is true?

(Also I think you don't understand European requirements on dust extraction and allowed exposure to wood dust. This saw does not produce a meaningful anount of dust)

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#158

Post by RobotToaster »

Freak_NL wrote: post #83

The question that bothers me whenever SawStop comes up: why does it appears as if this isn't much of a thing outside of the US? Or is it and I'm just not seeing it from my Dutch viewpoint? Does anyone know of anyone who has written about this discrepancy with some numbers (emergency room admissions, SawStop sales) backing it?

Table saws are less common in Europe for hobbyists, also things like dado blades are effectively banned, which means we actually use the blade guards that come with saws. We tend to use routers for a lot of the things Americans will use a table saw for.

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#159

Post by mturmon »

hyperbovine wrote: post #125
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…

I'm struggling to imagine a scenario where dadoing <1mm from the fence was a good idea in the first place. I'm assuming you're talking about a miter/crosscut fence but still...

I've stopped myself just in time from triggering my Sawstop while using an aluminum miter gauge.

The scenario is that the gauge was set with reasonable (1cm) clearance at one angle, and then I changed the angle without re-checking the clearance, and the back side of the fence swiveled into the blade path. Pythagorean fail.

Or, perhaps with GP comment, used a setup with reasonable clearance for a regular blade, and then put in a wider dado, which ate into the clearance.

Re: CT Scans of New vs. Used SawStop

#160

Post by DannyBee »

Snoozus wrote: post #72
lazide wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that going to work reliably with sawdust and the like everywhere? Some kind of radar?

two cameras

also, the saws do not produce dust everywhere. these are European saws. Dust extraction is not only required on the saw, It’s required by law in the workplace. This saw will not operate unless the safety + extraction hood is in the proper position and dust extraction is hooked up

I can show you a video of an air quality meter sitting between the cameras and the saw hood if you want. The amount of particle change is minimal

Post reply on HN