Whirlwind--Competitor to Sawstop?

[Paul Wunder]

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/02/149843351/fixing-the-cutting-edge-innovation-meets-table-saw

NPR radio did the above piece today on a blade safety device called the Whirlwind which the inventor claims can be retrofitted to just about any existing table saw. The inventor is a retired engineer/hobby woodworker. Just as with the SawStop, the inventor says that the manufacturers of table saws have shown little interest in his device. NPR closed the piece by stating that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is in the process of writing new rules on table saw safety.

Paul

[Ron Natalie]

He's been around a while. When you press him for details he gets cagey. It involves a lot of fiddly stuff you're forced to do to get the saw on. It then relies on the fact that your hand goes under the oversized blade guard long enough to get his motor brake to stop the blade to avoid injury.

http://www.whirlwindtool.com/

[frank shic]

that's an interesting strategy although i would imagine that the injuries are much more common from not having the blade guard in place. i'd still go with the sawstop technology if i could do it all over again.

[Bruce Page]

Please leave the politics out of the discussion.

Thanks

[Michael Peet]

I remember reading about this some time ago. From the website:

"STOPS the saw blade in 1/8 OF A SECOND"

At a speed of 3500 RPM with a 40-tooth blade, 291 teeth go by in 1/8 of a second. Just sayin'.

Mike

[frank shic]

rule #1 use a blade guard
rule #2 don't shove your hand or fingers under the blade guard

those two have prevented me from losing my fingers over the years although they didn't prevent kickback...

[Van Huskey]

I remember reading about this some time ago. From the website:

"STOPS the saw blade in 1/8 OF A SECOND"

At a speed of 3500 RPM with a 40-tooth blade, 291 teeth go by in 1/8 of a second. Just sayin'.

Mike

Not arguing the merits but just pointing out the idea of this approach seems to rely on starting the blade stopping procedure BEFORE hand meets blade. This would reduce the number of teeth meeting flesh by how much certainly depends on a lot of factors.

[Dave Lewis]

He's been around a while. When you press him for details he gets cagey. It involves a lot of fiddly stuff you're forced to do to get the saw on. It then relies on the fact that your hand goes under the oversized blade guard long enough to get his motor brake to stop the blade to avoid injury.

http://www.whirlwindtool.com/

Ron:

I heard that NPR piece this afternoon and agree it seems to be complicated after briefly reviewing the site - thanks for the link.

It also seems doubtful that this product could be sold retail as "desert" - i.e. w/o the main (machinery) course.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Not arguing the merits but just pointing out the idea of this approach seems to rely on starting the blade stopping procedure BEFORE hand meets blade. This would reduce the number of teeth meeting flesh by how much certainly depends on a lot of factors.

Bingo! I'm surprised others didn't catch that!

[Ken Fitzgerald]

With all due respect to everybody, if I had a device I was trying to market to large corporations or patent..or both......I'd be cagey too. Why would anyone provide somebody else with enough information to possibly decide to go into competition?

[Mike Henderson]

With all due respect to everybody, if I had a device I was trying to market to large corporations or patent..or both......I'd be cagey too. Why would anyone provide somebody else with enough information to possibly decide to go into competition?
Generally, you have one year after publication (meaning demonstrating or telling people about the product without a non-disclosure agreement) to file a patent. Once you tell people about the product, you just as well tell all because you're going to be protected by a patent, assuming you file for a patent. If you don't file for a patent, anyone can legally copy the product and you'd probably fail in the market.

You can't sell your product without telling people the details about the product - no rational buyer would buy the product if they didn't understand the basics of how it worked and were convinced that it would do the job. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to ask for more details about the product. And if the inventor does not wish to disclose additional details, he should simply say so (giving a reason would be a nice extra touch) and not attack a potential buyer for the word choice used.

Mike

[Note that SawStop gave pretty complete details of how their system works, and will answer detailed technical questions about the system. It's not unreasonable to ask a SawStop competitor to do the same.]

[Van Huskey]

Ken, thats twice in the same thread we have been of one mind.

[Van Huskey]

You can't sell your product without telling people the details about the product - no rational buyer would buy the product if they didn't understand the basics of how it worked and were convinced that it would do the job. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to ask for more details about the product. And if the inventor does not wish to disclose additional details, he should simply say so (giving a reason would be a nice extra touch) and not attack a potential buyer for the word choice used.

Mike

[Note that SawStop gave pretty complete details of how their system works, and will answer detailed technical questions about the system. It's not unreasonable to ask a SawStop competitor to do the same.]

He isn't trying to sell the product to end users currently unless his business model has changed recently, if he were I would agree 100%. The word "cagey" has perjorative implications and "could" be construed as a personal attack which is not allowed here. I think a more apropo adjective would be savvy, then again taken out of the context used cagey means cautious and prudent which I think is fair.

I agree SS gives a lot of details as to how their system works BUT I do not remember them doing this BEFORE they had a product on the market but maybe right before its introduction. Even if competition was a non-issue the fact that design changes for what ever reason while bringing the product to market might change operating aspects and might leave a bad taste in some peoples mouth.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Generally, you have one year after publication (meaning demonstrating or telling people about the product without a non-disclosure agreement) to file a patent. Once you tell people about the product, you just as well tell all because you're going to be protected by a patent, assuming you file for a patent. If you don't file for a patent, anyone can legally copy the product and you'd probably fail in the market.

You can't sell your product without telling people the details about the product - no rational buyer would buy the product if they didn't understand the basics of how it worked and were convinced that it would do the job. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to ask for more details about the product. And if the inventor does not wish to disclose additional details, he should simply say so (giving a reason would be a nice extra touch) and not attack a potential buyer for the word choice used.

Mike

[Note that SawStop gave pretty complete details of how their system works, and will answer detailed technical questions about the system. It's not unreasonable to ask a SawStop competitor to do the same.]

Mike.....You might release details to potential buyers but not to every Tom, Dick or Harry. You don't know how far along SawStop was before they released any details. Since the owner/inventor of SS is a patent lawyer, you can bet he was protected before he released anything.

I can tell you that in diagnostic imaging equipment, when I was in management, I saw medical imaging devices that were experimental, going through trials and no information was released and when we were given the tour, we were instucted to keep it to ourselves. It's not unusual to keep detailed information close and private.

Furthermore, I fail to see why someone not releasing details about a device is a bad thing or warrants being criticized.....I don't see being "cagey" as a bad thing. It's his device. At his website he says he won't sell you one....even his prototypes aren't for sale. If you go to the site, the guy says he's retired, not interested in starting a company to produce them and is looking to sell the device. It's his device and he has a right to not give any information about it. Gass tried to sell the rights to SS. It was only after he was rejected by the major manufacturers that he decided to go into production himself.

If someone is serious about the device, has the financial means and is interested, I'm sure their lawyer could contact the guy, and that person would get the details.

[frank shic]

welcome david and thank you for trying to make the table saw a safer device!

[ian maybury]

It's pretty clear from the website that he's at the stage of having a demonstrator available, and seeking to sell the technology. The unfortunate reality from what I've seen is that it's (in the general sense) very often the case that inventions at this stage get 'borrowed' by seemingly respectable manufacturers, it's no wonder he's cautious. It's a hard road that he's on - lots of stress and frustration if he's invested heavily to get this far.

ian

[Keith Outten]

Gentlemen,

David is not allowed to post in this thread, our TOS prohibits him from being involved in any conversation that he has a commercial interest.

Posts made by Members with direct commercial affiliation, and with the apparent intent of using SawMill Creek for the sole purpose of promoting a product or service will be subject to removal. Members with direct commercial affiliation are defined to be those Members who stand to benefit financially from such a promotion.

[Russ Ambrose]

given where it appears the CPSC and California are headed (i.e., requiring blade brake technology on future table saws), i'm surprised that one of the big tool manufacturers doesn't just buy Whirlwind lock, stock, and barrel for themselves. if it's everything the guy says it is, the company that purchases it would appear to then have a potential leg up on their non-SawStop competitors. they would own a technology that they will be required to include with their equipment and then can either license it to their competitors or shut them out completely (see SawStop).

i realize that my comment assumes many things, not the least of which is what Whirlwind is trying to accomplish (i.e., sell the technology or simply license it) and how much it wants for such. i also realize that there are many aspects of the table saw business that i am, shall we say, less than expert in. nevertheless, i find this to be an interesting topic and would love to hear from others that are smarter and more knowledgeable than myself about this.

[Will Blick]

Russ, nice set of disclaimers :-), very wise.....

To get a product from conception, prototype to commercial production is often so long, the patents can expire, and this assumes the inventor will be granted a patent. If a patent is granted, just how enforceable is the patent? Does he have the avg. $600k to defend a patent? It's rare small inventors today can prevail in the patent game, although in this case, the inventor has no other market to pursue, unless he will be SS II. Its rare you find someone like Steve who took SS from conception to a viable manufacturer, he was well funded, and driven beyond 99.9% of the business population. Entering the TS business when he did was surely a major risk, even with his innovative safety technology. Had he could have license his technology, it would have been a cleaner approach to success, but as many have learned from these threads, that was a terrible failure. A mix of "value assessment", egos, legal, market share, prevented major makers from adapting SS technology. This is commonplace in the business world...

There is many ways to skin a cat.... you can be assured all the major makers have been diligently pursuing their own TS safety methods. SS demonstrated a market exists for safer TS's, the big makers don't want to loose market share....to that end, I am sure we will be seeing new introductions of safety features from the big TS makers in the years to come.

[Mike Henderson]

Mike.....You might release details to potential buyers but not to every Tom, Dick or Harry. You don't know how far along SawStop was before they released any details. Since the owner/inventor of SS is a patent lawyer, you can bet he was protected before he released anything.

I can tell you that in diagnostic imaging equipment, when I was in management, I saw medical imaging devices that were experimental, going through trials and no information was released and when we were given the tour, we were instucted to keep it to ourselves. It's not unusual to keep detailed information close and private.

Furthermore, I fail to see why someone not releasing details about a device is a bad thing or warrants being criticized.....I don't see being "cagey" as a bad thing. It's his device. At his website he says he won't sell you one....even his prototypes aren't for sale. If you go to the site, the guy says he's retired, not interested in starting a company to produce them and is looking to sell the device. It's his device and he has a right to not give any information about it. Gass tried to sell the rights to SS. It was only after he was rejected by the major manufacturers that he decided to go into production himself.

If someone is serious about the device, has the financial means and is interested, I'm sure their lawyer could contact the guy, and that person would get the details.
While I made the point that once you announce a produce, you need to be willing to talk about it, my other point was that when responding to a potential buyer, you'll create more good will for yourself if you address the other person respectfully and in an open manner, rather than attacking them for their word choice.

Mike

[Thomas Pender]

Patent law changed in the past year. First to file now gets the patent, which is consistent with the European model. If you do not patent it and someone beats you to filing a patenting for something that is quite similar to what you want to do, it is easy to be out of luck.

In addition, patent prosecution, the art of registering patents at the USPTO, is expensive and for pros, not something to be done lightly.

Not sure if cagey is pejorative or not, but I would be downright silent unti I filed my patent and had a receipt on the filing. You also don't know what, if anything, his patent lawyer may have told him (presuming he is bright enough to have one).

I also point out that the SS technology causes the blade to drop once it makes skin contact. A friend of mine who represents school systems says it is only a matter of time before all the lovely old yellow machines disappear and get offered as surplus.

[Russ Ambrose]

Will,

the difficulties you describe are why, to me, it would make sense for Whirlwind to just sell the whole kit-n-kaboodle to a tool manufacturer. again, i realize that may not be something Whirlwind is seeking to do. moreover, i would think that the lesson from SawStop is to embrace the changing world or get run over by it. i'm not as convinced as you seem to be that the non-SawStop mfgs are seriously pursuing blade-brake (or similar) technology. if they weren't astute enough to get on board before why should i believe that these folks have "seen the light" and are willing or able to undertake such a dramatic shift in their thinking and manufacturing?

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Mike,

Do you know that the poster referring to the inventor as "cagey" is or was a potential buyer? I suggest the inventor was just responding to what he considered an insult.

In today's world, the internet is the largest instrument of misinformation in the world. To discuss detailed, proprietary information with anyone who called you on telephone could result in instantaneous misinformation circling the world and doom the future sale of the product.

"Cagey" to me isn't an insult. It's wise to hold such information close to one's self unless it's with a serious potential buyer.

[Neil Brooks]

Of COURSE, the real issue is what the writer meant, and what the reader thought, but ... no ... it is NOT an inherently derogatory term, IMHO:

ca·gey also ca·gy (khttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifjhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif)adj. ca·gi·er, ca·gi·est
1. Wary; careful: a cagey avoidance of a definite answer.
2. Crafty; shrewd: a cagey lawyer.


That said, when I first learned of the Whirlwind, I did the above math, and decided that a few too many ATB carbide teeth were going to rip into me, for my tastes.

An eighth of a second ... could be an eternity.

This is Gen 1 stuff, though. Improvements are sure to follow ... from one source or another.

[Mike Henderson]

Mike,

Do you know that the poster referring to the inventor as "cagey" is or was a potential buyer? I suggest the inventor was just responding to what he considered an insult.

In today's world, the internet is the largest instrument of misinformation in the world. To discuss detailed, proprietary information with anyone who called you on telephone could result in instantaneous misinformation circling the world and doom the future sale of the product.

"Cagey" to me isn't an insult. It's wise to hold such information close to one's self unless it's with a serious potential buyer.
When you sell things, you have to treat everyone as a potential buyer. That's basic marketing. Many people who eventually buy start out as doubters (in fact, that's a good attitude for all buyers to take - require the seller to address your concerns and questions).

I don't think the word "cagey" is an insult either, but apparently the inventor did. But when you're selling, you have to have a thick hide. Potential buyers will challenge you. It goes with the territory.

Mike

[John Coloccia]

I don't think the word "cagey" is an insult either, but apparently the inventor did. But when you're selling, you have to have a thick hide. Potential buyers will challenge you. It goes with the territory.

Mike

That's confused me too, and really knocked this way off track. There's nothing insulting about the word cagey.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Neil,

This doesn't work like SS. It trips when you violate the blade guard BEFORE you make contact with the blade and it doesn't damage the blade. An eighth of a second might be enough under those conditions. Don't know if that is enough time and won't waste time investigating or arguing it. I just wanted to point that defining difference out.

[Mike Henderson]

Neil,

This doesn't work like SS. It trips when you violate the blade guard BEFORE you make contact with the blade and it doesn't damage the blade. An eighth of a second might be enough under those conditions. Don't know if that is enough time and won't waste time investigating or arguing it. I just wanted to point that defining difference out.
That's a very good selling point. If it works well, it would avoid even the small cut that you have to sustain with the SawStop to get the brake to activate. But as you point out, Ken, that claim needs to be investigated in more detail.

Mike

[Andrew Joiner]

Will,

the difficulties you describe are why, to me, it would make sense for Whirlwind to just sell the whole kit-n-kaboodle to a tool manufacturer. again, i realize that may not be something Whirlwind is seeking to do. moreover, i would think that the lesson from SawStop is to embrace the changing world or get run over by it. i'm not as convinced as you seem to be that the non-SawStop mfgs are seriously pursuing blade-brake (or similar) technology. if they weren't astute enough to get on board before why should i believe that these folks have "seen the light" and are willing or able to undertake such a dramatic shift in their thinking and manufacturing?

It might be a hard sell. Big tool companies may not want to even meet the inventor for a sales presentation.

In fact , wasn't that one reason Ryobi lost. In court I think Sawstop said Ryobi had an opportunity to buy the design ,but turned it down. The court saw that as Ryobi having an opportunity to PREVENT the accident.

I'm not trying to get political. Just saying this as a frustrated inventor myself. The Whirlwind inventor may be up against a bunch of issues.

[Neil Brooks]

Neil,

This doesn't work like SS. It trips when you violate the blade guard BEFORE you make contact with the blade and it doesn't damage the blade. An eighth of a second might be enough under those conditions. Don't know if that is enough time and won't waste time investigating or arguing it. I just wanted to point that defining difference out.

You're right, Ken, and ... it's been so long since I looked at this design that I HAD forgotten about that.

So ....

You have to hope you don't have momentum (falling toward the blade), because that 1/8 second might still be an eternity, and ....

There's that silly "blade guard" thing, again ;)

I'll be anxious to see if it gets into production, and -- if it does -- what people think of it.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

That's a very good selling point. If it works well, it would avoid even the small cut that you have to sustain with the SawStop to get the brake to activate. But as you point out, Ken, that claim needs to be investigated in more detail.

Mike

Think about that.....no more nicked hot dogs.........LOL

[Russ Ambrose]

Andrew,

Your point is well taken and why i tried to make clear that i knew nothing of what attempts Whirlwind had/has made to sell/market its technology. i'm certainly not trying to take sides or criticize anybody (and if appears otherwise i apologize). i just find this topic (e.g., the process and difficulty of introducing/selling/marketing technological or potential technological improvements into the marketplace, etc) very interesting.

considering the hard-headedness and "old" thinking of so many mfgs, i probably wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Butler's overtures were simply rejected out of hand as you suggest might have been the case. reading this thread and thinking about this a little more, makes me even more impressed with what SawStop has been able to accomplish in terms of basically doing an end-run around the established tool mfgs so as to be able to bring his product to the marketplace. when you consider the amount of regulation and litigation (as well as poor business practice) in this country, it's a wonder sometimes that any innovation occurs.

[Ron Natalie]

Since I seem to be the one that the banned poster's vitriole was directed to, I feel necessary to answer.
When he came announcing his stuff over on woodnet, I watched all his videos and other information on the site. I had basic questions that anybody is going to ask (and some have been asked here again). If you're going to make press releases and publicize things, and if you one can believe what you are saying (which in fact, is legally actionable if you're misrepresenting) that patents are pending, there should be no reason not to answer basic questions. These will be disclosed anyhow in the patent discourse anyhow and you have to honestly expect that people are going to ask "How does it stop the motor" and the like.

The questions were neither hostile nor an attempt to appropriate the intellectual properties but merely questions as a consumer to evaluate this technology compared to the alternatives (whether it be SawStop or just relying on passive techniques such as riving knives, blade guards, and best work practices). When such questions are met with evasion, they can properly be summed up as I did in my original article.

[Mike Henderson]

It might be a hard sell. Big tool companies may not want to even meet the inventor for a sales presentation.
We had the same problem in the company I worked in - we might be working on the same technology. If we meet with the inventor, the inventor may later claim that we stole his/her idea. So there was some really strong documents that we required the inventor to sign before we'd meet with him/her. Most didn't want to sign them so we didn't meet with them.

The reality of technology is that good ideas usually appear in multiple places. It's very rare for someone to come up with a really unique idea that hasn't been considered by someone else "skilled in the arts".

Mike

[Andrew Joiner]

when you consider the amount of regulation and litigation (as well as poor business practice) in this country, it's a wonder sometimes that any innovation occurs.

I totally agree.

[Ben Hatcher]

An old friend of mine is an established patent attorney. I wanted to patent something I invented and was advised that the best course was to find a buyer, then get the patent. The reason was that patents were very expensive to obtain and the only reason for them is to protect the comercial value of your idea. If you can't find a buyer, there's no reason to spend the money on the patent. I presume that the inventor is following/followed a similar course. I'm glad that people are looking at ways to make power tools safer. This looks like another good attempt at doing so and may help save a lot of people from serious injury who might no otherwise be able to afford the SS solution. I wish him luck in getting it to market.

[harry hood]

I totally agree.
Unlike in Europe whose tools are kicking the stuffing out of North American designed (and mostly Asian built) ones. Oh wait....

[Andrew Joiner]

An old friend of mine is an established patent attorney. I wanted to patent something I invented and was advised that the best course was to find a buyer, then get the patent. The reason was that patents were very expensive to obtain and the only reason for them is to protect the comercial value of your idea. If you can't find a buyer, there's no reason to spend the money on the patent. I presume that the inventor is following/followed a similar course. I'm glad that people are looking at ways to make power tools safer. This looks like another good attempt at doing so and may help save a lot of people from serious injury who might no otherwise be able to afford the SS solution. I wish him luck in getting it to market.

Right Ben. Even If you can afford to make and distribute your product, you have to DEFEND your patent in court if you get copied. Defending is the expensive part.

60 minutes did a story on the inventor of the weed eater 40 years ago. He had solid patents on his totally new and unique product. He was about to ship his first order, when he saw a copy in the store made by a huge lawn care manufacturer. His lawyer started the process of getting the copier to stop. A short time later he saw another copy by another lawn care manufacturer for sale at his local store. Now he has 2 lawsuits to pay for before he even makes a dime on the patented product! He spent years and lots of money defending his patents.

That's the problem. Only totally new and unique designs are worth patenting. But if it's totally new and unique the big boys will copy you and say go ahead fight me. The one with biggest pockets wins.

[Peter Aeschliman]

Regarding the 1/8th of a second issue, I think that's plenty of time to stop the blade in the simple use case of somebody accidentally pushing their hand into the blade. But I don't think it's nearly fast enough in the case of kickback... and I also suspect (and have absolutely no data to support this!) that most amputations happen due to kickback.

If a user has his/her hand behind or next to the blade while feeding when a kickback occurs, his/her hand could get pulled back into the blade faster than an eighth of a second.

People who haven't experienced a real kickback often don't really get how instantaneously it happens. When I took a kickback to my forehead, I literally did not see the workpiece before it hit me. It was like a gunshot... I'm not exaggerating.

So in the case of kickback, the blade guard on this saw needs to be designed in such a way that there are no gaps around the workpiece or between the guard and the table. It needs to be impossible for your hand to encroach. But once you've designed a blade guard that iron-clad, why do you even need a brake?