Whirlwind Flesh Sensing Technology

[Mike OMelia]

http://www.whirlwindtool.com/2012/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=44

When will this company finally make it available? Argh!

Mike

[Mike Henderson]

That technology has been talked about for years. I'm beginning to doubt if it will ever be released on a product.

Mike

[Joe Angrisani]

http://www.whirlwindtool.com/2012/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=44

When will this company finally make it available? Argh!

Never?

After the "We thank you all" greeting, the very first line under the first heading, "Product Availability", says, "We do not have any hardware products for sale and it is not our goal to sell hardware." They are the inventors, it seems.

[Jim Riseborough]

Personally, I dont want bits and bobs and stuff hanging over my blade where I cant see it.

[Mark Ashmeade]

I hope it does succeed. Then we can have Anti-Whirlwind rant threads too. Might take some heat off the Sawstop!

[Kyle Iwamoto]

I hope it does succeed. Then we can have Anti-Whirlwind rant threads too. Might take some heat off the Sawstop!

LOL! I agree. It's too hard to defend the SS. I gave up trying.

[Jim Underwood]

Kyle,

Just vote with your wallet, and let the naysayers talk. That's what we did. Don't regret it a bit. Sawstop is an excellent saw.

[Mike OMelia]

Well, you would think if Whirlwind were any good at all, they would be running this to market ASAP.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

They didn't run to SawStop either.......

Whirlwind technology was invented by a guy IIRC...who was already retired and was just looking for someone to buy his invention.....he wasn't even looking for investors...just someone to buy the rights to manufacture and market it.

[Jim Underwood]

No they didn't run to SawStop. In fact SawStop went to Powermatic and Delta and they rejected the idea. So SawStop started making their own saws.

[Alan Schaffter]

The last I heard, Whirlwind was trying to license it to a manufacturer, not manufacture it themselves. You will need to ask the saw manufacturers.

[Carl Beckett]

A lot of my career has been spent in IP related product development. For a while I was in position to review incoming patents on 'the next great thing that will revolutionize your industry'. Fact is, there is a lot more than IP that goes into making a product and most inventors grossly over estimate the value of the idea. We have a saying:

"there are no new ideas"

This is pretty true. In the fundamental sense, there are very very few truly unique ideas. They are slices of other ideas put together in a way that is unique to the application. And most times, the person/company that successfully brings it to market isnt the first one to come up with it (and often an inferior design that gets to market!).

I like these sayings also:

"There are very few inventions that I cant put 100 really smart, capable engineers on and within 6 months have an alternative solution that doesnt hold me hostage to your royalty demands".

And:

"ALL technical problems have an economic component"


There was a group up in the Northwest some time ago, that went around buying patents and suing people for infringement. That was their entire business model. They never intended developing anything, didnt invent anything themselves just purchased rights to different IP and then went around suing other trying to get money. I quit following them, but think the USPTO didnt uphold their lawsuits because it was clearly not value added.

Then at the same time, people want to buy drugs from Canada (or other offshore locations), to 'save money'. The drug companies of course argue that these profits are needed to run R&D so we can all have new drugs. This is back to the 'all technical problems have an economic component'. If there isnt money to do the development, not too many scientists will work for free.... and not too many people will purchase those stocks for their portfolios (we all want our 401k's to go up, right?)

There.... that should be enough political fodder for some interesting discussions!

(Im not trying to cause heated discussion - but AM interested in these topics and welcome thoughtful insights!! Fact is, my own position is something along the lines of .... 'it depends'....)

[Mike OMelia]

The last I heard, Whirlwind was trying to license it to a manufacturer, not manufacture it themselves. You will need to ask the saw manufacturers.

I understand that they are trying to license it... but how long will it take? What is the hold up? It's either a good idea or it is not.

[Alan Schaffter]

Carl, I think your post illustrates a lot of what is wrong or broken with current patent law and the USPTO. I have witnessed some of this from the other side.

I don't remember the details, or who said it (Congressman?), but when discussing the need for the creation of the patent office back then it was said that everything worth inventing had been invented already. A quick look at some of the tools and machinery in the woodworking field might lead you to a similar conclusion, however, it is only when you look deeper that you see it really isn't true.

What is sad, as I said in another post, is that it is tough for the small guy to patent things- it gets very expensive because it is nearly impossible for the inventor to file without patent attorneys due to the special and arcane language still being used, the USPTO's relationship with them, and their reluctance to deal with non-lawyer rookies. After spending tens of thousands of dollars the inventor may end up with no patent and no money- nothing paid to the lawyers and the USPTO- is refunded.

As far as no new inventions, I take exception to that. I think the USPTO criteria needs rework. With a much more technically savvy population, it is hard to show something is "non-obvious" and new. Also, on the flip side, I find it incredible that patents have been granted to some items that are clearly "obvious" and were clearly already in the "public domain." When I did a patent search on the I-BOX, I was amazed how many different types of box joint jigs have been patented. In the case of a certain sharpening jig, as best as I can tell, all that was done is they replaced some hardwood with a strip of brass for a jig that has been on multiple WW forums, in multiple configurations, for many years. Now it is being sold as "invented" by someone. Also, like you said, under current patent law and USPTO policies, it seems too easy to design around a patent, except you don't need 100 engineers and 6 months- three technical IP lawyers, one engineer, and a week or two will do!

Many folks are either fooled by or don't know what it means when they see "Patent Pending."

I think the biggest point that is most often overlooked in these discussions is that (according to numerous IP experts and texts), somewhere between 95% and 99% of all good ideas, patented or not, never make it to market- not because they aren't a good idea or don't work, but because they cannot be economically produced. You can invent a totally new, truly fantastic paper clip, but no one will buy or license your idea if it costs $5.00 to produce and must be sold for $10.

[Kyle Iwamoto]

[QUOTE=Carl Beckett;2014721]

"there are no new ideas"

QUOTE]

I disagree, Sawstop has brought a new idea. Many are trying to copy its idea, Whirlwind is not the first one to jump on the blade stopping/hand protecting bandwagon.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I understand that they are trying to license it... but how long will it take? What is the hold up? It's either a good idea or it is not.

Not necessarily. You build something and put it up for sale. I don't think it's worth that or don't want to pay that much. Just because somebody's idea isn't smapped up doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Again ......the major manufacturers turned SawStop down BEFORE SS started manufacturing their own saws.

[Howard Acheson]

I understand that they are trying to license it... but how long will it take? What is the hold up? It's either a good idea or it is not.

The inventor apparently, has not been able to convince manufacturers that his "invention" will perform reliably. There was the same issue with the Saw Stop. Saw manufacturers were concerned that any failure would put them at risk of a lawsuit. They wanted Saw Stop to indemnify them in that event which, of course, Saw Stop wouldn't do.

[Alan Schaffter]

[QUOTE=Carl Beckett;2014721]

"there are no new ideas"

QUOTE]

I disagree, Sawstop has brought a new idea. Many are trying to copy its idea, Whirlwind is not the first one to jump on the blade stopping/hand protecting bandwagon.

But wait- Sawstop, might have come up with a new application and integrated a bunch of existing or modified technologies in a way not done before, but from individual technology standpoint, I'm not sure any of it is really new. Various types of "flesh sensing" technology using the same physics have been around for a long time- all kinds of touch pads in elevators, lamps, etc., etc., etc. Whirlwind uses one and as far as I know hasn't been challenged by SS! Melting wire release mechanisms and spring-loaded actuators (the SS cartridge) have been around for a long time too. So yes, versions of the individual technologies may have indeed been around.

Regardless, the bottom line, however is the Sawstop has been able make enough unique changes to the designs and applications (in Patent terms called "Claims") to convince the USPTO, under current patent law, to issue multiple patents. Once the patents are issued, the only reason they would ever be rescinded is if a challenge from another company can prove they were issued in error which is hard and VERY, VERY, VERY expensive to do. You are essentially challenging both the applicant and USPTO. It is no surprise that Gass, head of SAWSTOP is a physicist AND a patent attorney. Sawstop patents are so wide ranging yet specific that he has essentially made it VERY difficult AND expensive for a competitor to design around them.

[Brian Elfert]

The only way I see a saw manufacturer adding this technology is if customers demand it, or if the competition adds it and customers gravitate to the manufacturer who has the technology. No manufacturer wants to increase manufacturing costs without either selling more units or being able to sell for more money.

I know from posts here that quite a few commercial and school shops are buying Sawstop saws for strictly liability reasons. I've heard some insurance companies are essentially requiring customers to replace table saws with Sawstop to reduce potential claims. You would think Jet/Powermatic/Delta would see all these saw replacements and decide they want in that market. Most of these are saws that are perfectly good and would otherwise not be replaced.

[Jim Underwood]

I know from posts here that quite a few commercial and school shops are buying Sawstop saws for strictly liability reasons. I've heard some insurance companies are essentially requiring customers to replace table saws with Sawstop to reduce potential claims. You would think Jet/Powermatic/Delta would see all these saw replacements and decide they want in that market. Most of these are saws that are perfectly good and would otherwise not be replaced.

Exactly what we did. We just replaced a Powermatic that had been on the floor for longer than I've worked at the cabinet shop. The PM had cut off two or three appendages in that time. Hopefully that's a thing of the past.

The ironic thing is that Sawstop, who is trying to save fingers and hands of the working man, is being vilified by other manufacturs who tried at first to absolve themselves of any liability should they implement the SawStop technology and it failed. They still do nothing to prevent those horrific injuries, but are still not responsible....

See anything wrong with this picture?

[Jim Foster]

Yes, your picture is wrong about why they are vilified. They are being vilified because they are trying to force, via lawsuits and incorrect or old data, the government to come into everyone's shop and make them buy one. there is no question that there are benefits. There are questions about how much of a benefit if you used current data based on current safety devices on new saws.



The ironic thing is that Sawstop, who is trying to save fingers and hands of the working man, is being vilified by other manufacturs who tried at first to absolve themselves of any liability should they implement the SawStop technology and it failed. They still do nothing to prevent those horrific injuries, but are still not responsible....

See anything wrong with this picture?

[Mike Henderson]

Yes, your picture is wrong about why they are vilified. They are being vilified because they are trying to force, via lawsuits and incorrect or old data, the government to come into everyone's shop and make them buy one. there is no question that there are benefits. There are questions about how much of a benefit if you used current data based on current safety devices on new saws.
No one is going to come into your shop and force you to buy a new saw with the SawStop technology. A number of proposals have been made to require flesh sensing technology on new saws, primarily based on the data on the number of injuries caused by table saws. The injury data has been vetted pretty well. And even if the data is off by 50%, there are still a significant number of injuries, resulting is a very big financial number both to the person injured and to society (who generally winds up paying the bill).

There are a number of people opposed to any new safety devices - mostly other saw manufacturers - and if new data was available that showed that the injury rate was decreased by safety devices on new saws (other than flesh sensing technology) they would have put it forward.

Mike

[The only reason for opposition to flesh sensing technology is that the other manufactures do not want to pay royalties. Once the patents expire, they will all be clamoring for legislation requiring flesh sensing technology. But in the intervening years, a lot of people will get seriously injured.]

[Carl Beckett]

Im not sure it takes tens of thousands of dollars to file a patent. A recent conversation:

"The USPTO is piloting a program for small business via the SBIR program. They wont write the patent for you but they will assist with expedited review."

There is a recognition that small businesses are at a disadvantage with patent law. And if you try to write your own, its pretty easy to limit your coverage (I have written many, but before they go out they all get legal review). One fellow entrepreneur did his own and said it cost only a few hundred $ to get the provisional out. Yes, its not for the average person - but entrepreneurship these days requires a breath of abilities (legal, marketing, technical, sales, operation, etc).

Its a Marketers dream to have regulated requirements to purchase your product. And lobbying is all about this. Sometimes its a good thing, sometimes it means spec'ing in product that doesnt make sense. I do know that the fear of lawsuit drives a LOT of behavior here in the US. Once some years ago I read that; "Japan has a lot of engineers..... but the US has 7 times as many lawyers as Japan has Engineers".... (there are some problems with this quote but it made a point - we have been, for some time now, a litigious society and it consumes an incredible amount of resources)

Ideas are cheap. Even good ideas are cheap - there are many of them out there. But if an idea never gets out of the basement of a research lab, then has it really had an impact on the world? (This issue was at the heart of why I migrated out of R&D - tired of nothing ever coming out of it).

I applaud you Alan for coming up with a configuration, patentable at that, and having the savvy to navigate the various aspects and put a concept on the market. Not that many people have done it, and I hope that you regain your full investments and then some. As I am sure you are well aware, there is much more to it than the merits of the idea itself. Distribution often plays a big big role (and Distributors can be very effective at blocking new comers - partnering with an incumbent player who has access to the market can be very valuable).

Once a product has commoditized in the market, there really isnt any incentive to 'improve' it, because - for the majority of their customers, it is 'good enough'. At that point decisions are made primarily on price, and the engineering efforts are to reduce costs and reduce warranty liabilities (notice I didnt say improve reliability - that is not always the goal).

Thanks for the interesting thoughts...

[Jim Underwood]

They are being vilified because they are trying to force, via lawsuits and incorrect or old data, the government to come into everyone's shop and make them buy one.

While I understand that many will object to being forced to comply, I wonder if they also object to helmet and seatbelt laws? Or licensing of drivers?

Or, closer to home, how about guards for belts, saws, chains, and pinch points on machinery? Or perhaps, to take another tack, instead of legislating safe machinery, they should legislate licensing for woodworkers for their own safety?

As well, the objection isn't always about being forced to comply. It's about money for big corporations. They aren't that concerned with worker safety. Just one look at dust collection points on most saws will tell you that. And if they hadn't been forced to put guards in place for belts we might still be getting caught in big flat belts....

[Jim Foster]

I respectfully disagree.
No one is going to come into your shop and force you to buy a new saw with the SawStop technology. A number of proposals have been made to require flesh sensing technology on new saws, primarily based on the data on the number of injuries caused by table saws. The injury data has been vetted pretty well. And even if the data is off by 50%, there are still a significant number of injuries, resulting is a very big financial number both to the person injured and to society (who generally winds up paying the bill).

There are a number of people opposed to any new safety devices - mostly other saw manufacturers - and if new data was available that showed that the injury rate was decreased by safety devices on new saws (other than flesh sensing technology) they would have put it forward.

Mike

[The only reason for opposition to flesh sensing technology is that the other manufactures do not want to pay royalties. Once the patents expire, they will all be clamoring for legislation requiring flesh sensing technology. But in the intervening years, a lot of people will get seriously injured.]

[Jim Underwood]

To what? There were a number of things stated there...

...all of them? :confused:

[Alan Schaffter]

Im not sure it takes tens of thousands of dollars to file a patent. A recent conversation:

"The USPTO is piloting a program for small business via the SBIR program. They wont write the patent for you but they will assist with expedited review."

There is a recognition that small businesses are at a disadvantage with patent law. And if you try to write your own, its pretty easy to limit your coverage (I have written many, but before they go out they all get legal review). One fellow entrepreneur did his own and said it cost only a few hundred $ to get the provisional out. Yes, its not for the average person - but entrepreneurship these days requires a breath of abilities (legal, marketing, technical, sales, operation, etc).

Depending on a few variables like graphics, etc. the actual cost "to file" a Utility Patent Application with the USPTO is less than $2000. The cost rises quickly when you hire a patent firm to help you write, submit, and represent you with USPTO. Depending on the product, that can cost additional thousands to tens of thousands of dollars. After it is filed there can still be a lot of back and forth between USPTO and you/your lawyers to resolve issues with the claims, etc. As of last year it was averaging 2 to 3 years for a patent review to be completed! That comes off the 20 year patent. The other negative of a patent application is that it is published in its entirety (for comment) about 18 months after it is filed- that sure makes it easy for a competitor to get a running start on a re-engineered, patent-avoiding version. I have a friend who owns a small company making woodworking accessories (known to all of you) and the cost of his patents have run between about $8K to over $20K with an average in between. However, just think what a patent law firm might charge you to file and shepherd a patent application on something "similar to" a SAWSTOP? And the real killer- a Utility Patent is only as good as the amount of money you can devote to lawyers to defend it against infringement!

A Provisional Patent Application, a product of the Clinton Administration (for awhile Hillary specialized in patent infringement and intellectual property law), is a totally different animal and does not result in a patent- there is no such thing as a Provisional Patent. I filed one online for $100- it is registered and acknowledged, but NOT reviewed by USPTO unless there is a problem with a subsequent follow-on full Utility Patent Application. It has no specific format, is not published, is only good for a year, and non-renewable. It basically establishes a time marker and also allows you to legally use "Patent Pending." It is of limited use unless followed up by a full Utility Patent Application.


I applaud you Alan for coming up with a configuration, patentable at that, and having the savvy to navigate the various aspects and put a concept on the market. Not that many people have done it, and I hope that you regain your full investments and then some.

Thanks. I get a lot of inquiries from folks who have "good" ideas and want to know how to "sell" them. Most are discouraged by what I tell them. The biggest reason is that unless it is a fantastic design that will make the company millions, no woodworking tool or accessory manufacturer is like to buy it outright, but if they do it won't be for much. It can be costly for them to put a large investment into something that may not return on the investment. That leaves licensing- at the typical licensing royalty rates for woodworking tools and accessories of 0 - 5% of wholesale cost, and typically modest volume sales of these items, you are not going to get rich unless you are licensing an I-"POD/PAD/PHONE" instead of an I-"BOX". When you realize all start-up and long-term expenses (design/engineering work, tooling, materials, labor, packaging, advertizing, distribution, etc. etc.) are being born by the licensee, the licensing fees are reasonable. FYI, according to one book, the highest fees demanded and paid (20%) are for Beatles products.

[Carl Beckett]

Great Insight Alan, and I agree with everything you wrote.

My point on the provisional is that many times it documents your idea at a point in time, which allows you to discuss under CDA and figure out all the other aspects of making a business out of it. Many times by doing this, it puts in perspective the underlying value of the IP component vis a vis the other pieces. I think it's a very useful approach, especially for someone just starting to put the pieces together ( because as you know, simply running out and getting a patent could be a cost with no return)

I use them regularly to buy time for determining if it's worth additional investment.

[Ryan Wood]

I have also started to wonder if they ever will over the gaurd for sale. I like how the blade stoppes befor you hand touches it unlike the saw stop.

[Tom Gerken]

So...how does it stop the blade so quickly? I can't seem to find the answer.

[Alan Schaffter]

So...how does it stop the blade so quickly? I can't seem to find the answer.

I don't recall ever seeing it mentioned but it is done electrically with reverse current, DC (direct current) injection, or similar modification to the motor wiring. That is why it takes so much longer to stop than the mechanical means used by SAWSTOP. The rationale for longer stop time is that your hands don't get near the blade- the "skin sensing" strip is mounted to the blade guard skirt. It is designed to be a retrofit to existing saws as well as supplied with new ones.

[Jim Underwood]

I believe it works like a disc brake. Hard to believe that would actually work.

[Alan Schaffter]

I believe it works like a disc brake. Hard to believe that would actually work.

No, nothing mechanical, not unless they totally changed the design. It uses electric braking.

[Jim Foster]

Since you asked. I disagree with the data. My understanding is it is not segmented in a useful way that takes into account new safety devices like riving knives. I also don't think the manufacturers are opposed to safety devices, I think they are opposed to such a narrow definition of "You need to use a Sawstop device." I also disagree on what will happen if the government mandates the use of flesh sensing technology in table-saws. On the other hand, I do think the industry got a little lazy in product design, and could have worked towards better safety, dust collection, ease of use, etc... many years ago.

I like the Sawstop, I just don't like how they are trying to lobby their technology into an industry monopoly.


To what? There were a number of things stated there...

...all of them? :confused:

[Jim Underwood]

No, nothing mechanical, not unless they totally changed the design. It uses electric braking.

I could have sworn I read something about the brake type on WoodworkingNetwork.com, but I must be wrong. I thought it was a disk brake. They've been awfully cagey about divulging how the brake works.

[Jim Underwood]

Since you asked. I disagree with the data. My understanding is it is not segmented in a useful way that takes into account new safety devices like riving knives.

Interesting. Not disputing your argument. On the other hand there are a lot of injuries from table saws daily. Dave Butler says that there are ten amputations per day from table saws. Obviously something should be done, eh?


I also don't think the manufacturers are opposed to safety devices, I think they are opposed to such a narrow definition of "You need to use a Sawstop device." I also disagree on what will happen if the government mandates the use of flesh sensing technology in table-saws. On the other hand, I do think the industry got a little lazy in product design, and could have worked towards better safety, dust collection, ease of use, etc... many years ago.
Gee, ya think? Instead of giving SawStop such a hard time about it, they shoulda come up with some alternative. I'm not convinced of your first statement simply because of your last statement. If they were interested in worker safety they'd have done lot more than the CYA and safety feature bandaid patching they've been doing for the past 40 years.... some of these safety features tacked on are more dangerous than nothing at all...


I like the Sawstop, I just don't like how they are trying to lobby their technology into an industry monopoly.
Yeah... I look askance at their methods too. On the other hand I sorta think the manufacturers had it coming- I don't have much sympathy for 'em. The biggest question in my mind is how were other safety improvements legislated? For example: blade, belt, chain, and pinch point safety features? If you can agree on the way these things were implemented, perhaps the flesh sensing and saw braking technology can be implemented in a similar manner.

[Alan Schaffter]

I could have sworn I read something about the brake type on WoodworkingNetwork.com, but I must be wrong. I thought it was a disk brake. They've been awfully cagey about divulging how the brake works.

Others were speculating about that but were wrong. It is a quick mod- plug the saw into the "black box", plug the black box into the wall, mount the sensor/blade guard assembly and you are good to go. Here is an excerpt from the Whirlwind website (I added the highlighting):

" . . . . it can be attached to any of millions of existing machines including most woodworking table saws and band saws. The Black Box device controls the electrical power supplied to the machine and can sense the operators flesh coming too close or in contact with a blade enclosure. Upon sensing the danger of the operator’s proximity to the spinning blade, the Black Box stops the machine in a fraction of a second . . .

[Carl Beckett]

Personally, I didnt like the blade guard approach. Coming in contact with the blade guard triggers the disconnect which stops the device (kinda slowly if my fingers were involved).

But its all relative, so as a way to just keep fingers away from the blade this is incremental improvement. (after all, this is what a blade guard is designed to do to begin with - keep the fingers out. shutting down the machine when they get close is an incremental improvement, and someone that is likely to purchase this is more likley to keep the blade guard on the machine - again, incremental gain)

[Jim Foster]

Unfortunately, the discussion around Sawstop is kind of like politics (and I'm probably more guilty than most of pushing my opinion :) ). So, when in doubt look for data. I think Riving Knives became mandatory in 2007 or 2008 for new table-saws in the US. I'd like to compare injury data with and without riving knives that also includes kickback injuries. On this forum, we've seen pictures of some brutal, life threatening kickbacks. I don't think injury data was organized or presented this way when trying to legislate in flesh-sensing technology.



Interesting. Not disputing your argument. On the other hand there are a lot of injuries from table saws daily. Dave Butler says that there are ten amputations per day from table saws. Obviously something should be done, eh?


Gee, ya think? Instead of giving SawStop such a hard time about it, they shoulda come up with some alternative. I'm not convinced of your first statement simply because of your last statement. If they were interested in worker safety they'd have done lot more than the CYA and safety feature bandaid patching they've been doing for the past 40 years.... some of these safety features tacked on are more dangerous than nothing at all...


Yeah... I look askance at their methods too. On the other hand I sorta think the manufacturers had it coming- I don't have much sympathy for 'em. The biggest question in my mind is how were other safety improvements legislated? For example: blade, belt, chain, and pinch point safety features? If you can agree on the way these things were implemented, perhaps the flesh sensing and saw braking technology can be implemented in a similar manner.

[Jim Underwood]

Yeah. I agree. It's a very political topic. Lots of ink and rancor have been spilled over it. I wish it weren't so bad.

The main point to me is that the worker is safe. And right now? The only thing that will stop an amputation in it's tracks is the SawStop. So we bought a SawStop. That should stop injuries of that type. And the SawStop is a very well made machine with a riving knife whose effectiveness and ease of change I would put up against any other saw.... And that will put an end to many kickbacks.

So for me, it was not only the obvious choice, but the only choice. What's more, the insurance industry agrees, but that's just the cherry on the top.

I wish like heck I could pony up $4K of my personal money and get my co-workers thumb back... After 30 years of experience, it only took a second of innattention. The SawStop would have prevented it.

[Mike Henderson]

Unfortunately, the discussion around Sawstop is kind of like politics (and I'm probably more guilty than most of pushing my opinion :) ). So, when in doubt look for data. I think Riving Knives became mandatory in 2007 or 2008 for new table-saws in the US. I'd like to compare injury data with and without riving knives that also includes kickback injuries. On this forum, we've seen pictures of some brutal, life threatening kickbacks. I don't think injury data was organized or presented this way when trying to legislate in flesh-sensing technology.
The data collected was on injuries and amputations from table saw usage (treatment in ER). While some of the injuries could be due to kickbacks, many of the injuries described could only come from contact with the saw blade. Riving knives do nothing to prevent an amputation or serious injury from blade contact. But as I said before, even if you discount the data by 50% - let's say that 50% of the injuries are caused by kickbacks and 50% are caused by blade contact - there are waaaay too many blade contact injuries - injuries that can be essentially eliminated by some type of flesh sensing technology. (Actually, if it's your finger, then one accident is too many:-)

And experience and education are not substitutes. Over and over and over we hear stories of people who have worked with a table saw for 20, 30, or 40 years and cut their finger(s) off.

Blade sensing technology is like an insurance policy - you hope you never have to rely on the insurance but if the worse happens, you're awful glad you have the insurance. But unlike automobile insurance that you have to pay year after year, you only pay one time (when you buy the saw) with a table saw.

Mike

[And no matter what you think of the SawStop inventor, would you cut off your nose to spite your face? Or in this case, cut off your finger?]

[Jim Foster]

I would not try and deter anyone from getting a sawstop machine. It's a good machine, I've seen it in action and have considered buying one myself. I prefer to have choices though.

One article on the data, I suspect many have seen it: www.popularwoodworking.com/article/table-saw-injury-numbers-in-perspective (http://www.popularwoodworking.com/article/table-saw-injury-numbers-in-perspective)


The data collected was on injuries and amputations from table saw usage (treatment in ER). While some of the injuries could be due to kickbacks, many of the injuries described could only come from contact with the saw blade. Riving knives do nothing to prevent an amputation or serious injury from blade contact. But as I said before, even if you discount the data by 50% - let's say that 50% of the injuries are caused by kickbacks and 50% are caused by blade contact - there are waaaay too many blade contact injuries - injuries that can be essentially eliminated by some type of flesh sensing technology. (Actually, if it's your finger, then one accident is too many:-)

And experience and education are not substitutes. Over and over and over we hear stories of people who have worked with a table saw for 20, 30, or 40 years and cut their finger(s) off.

Blade sensing technology is like an insurance policy - you hope you never have to rely on the insurance but if the worse happens, you're awful glad you have the insurance. But unlike automobile insurance that you have to pay year after year, you only pay one time (when you buy the saw) with a table saw.

Mike

[And no matter what you think of the SawStop inventor, would you cut off your nose to spite your face? Or in this case, cut off your finger?]

[Mike OMelia]

I believe it works like a disc brake. Hard to believe that would actually work.

They inject a large DC current into the motor which causes it to stall. That's that funny buzz sound you hear when it engages.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

For the record, electronic brakes work well with motors and have been used quite successfully for decades.

The very first 3rd and 4th generation CT scanners (rotate only) developed over 30 years ago and later slip ring technology used and still use electronic braking on motors moving frames at weights upto and exceeding 2000 pounds at speeds up to 3 revolutions per second. The frames will come to a stop very quickly. When you consider weight involved, it is quite impressive. Some used a disc brake quite successfully too.

[Mike OMelia]

Maybe this is the issue with Whirlwind. The electronic breaking is not new. And technology that senses flesh is not new either. So what does this fellow have? An application of things already patented?