Skin Sensing Table Saw 471
killabrew writes "Check out this article from Design News about a new skin sensing table saw technology that is on the verge of becoming a mandatory piece of hardware on every table saw. For years inventor Stephen Gass persevered in the face of legal, corporate and technical foes, he is forcing society to rethink its acceptance of saw blade accidents."
Interesting Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting Technology (Score:3, Insightful)
The most obvious reason is cost. If a company hasn't been hit by an accident in the past, then if (like a lot of companies) they're purely looking at their bottom line, why would they pay more for this saw than the one they've already got...
Re:Interesting Technology (Score:3, Insightful)
Same reason safety is an afterthought in many industries: expense. New technology is always a bit expensive. They need to make this cheap for it to be widely adopted. Otherwise it will only makes its way into the high-end equipment.
Hopefully they will be able to sell a critical mass quantity to bring the price down and make it available to every tool maker.
Re:Interesting Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
It works really well for none conductive materials (uses skin capacitance to make a circuit, then when made retracts the blade), however if your cutting up things which trigger it randomly you will disable the feature (yes its not all the time).
Each time it is triggered the blade is ruined and needs replacing, better make sure the wood you are sawing isn't damp or you will either remove the safety feature (to save money) or get pissed off because you have to spend 10 minutes to change the blade every few planks.
It would be better to concentrate whilst working than making silly mistakes every day, may be good to replace machines with this and for those silly enough to trigger it more than once disable the feature and let them learn a valuable lesson.....
This has been around for years (Score:5, Insightful)
After the saw manufactures refused to pay his unreasonable licensing free (3-8% of the saw sale price)for his patented tchnology he moved on to lobbying for a law to make it mandetory (and still pay his licensing fee)
I have to agree the idea is cool but I don't like having it forced down my throat.
He did go on to start his own saw company and makes one of the best saws on the market...
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
This may have a brighter future in heavy industry and the assembly-line type of stuff, where the material going in is fairly standard and conductive things aren't normally involved, making more sense for the machine to crap itself when something finger-like does find its way in.
testing with hands (Score:3, Insightful)
Dunno about wet wood.
No big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, you're not a carpenter unless you have a few battle scars to show off.
Re:Interesting Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
There is always going to be some level of safety below which people will say, "forget it, it's not worth it, I'd rather just take the cash than make myself 1 in a million less likely to die". For example, would you take a 20% pay cut to halve your risk of death on the job?
I've got no problem with this except... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting Technology (Score:4, Insightful)
or it gets by passed because people are lazy and management looks the other way. For example the meat slicer at a restaurant/deli. I heard horror stories from my friends that started part time jobs in HS before me about how dangerous the slicer was they'd show me the cuts and the missing tips of fingers that would end up in tonight's bread pudding. So when I got a job that required me to use the meat slicer I was very careful and I found that if you would just keep your hand on the grip and behind the "shield" you were ok. I never cut myself or came close to it. So my point is even if the safety device is simple and it doesn't get in the way of proper use people will still find ways to hurt themselves in efforts to expedite their tasks.
Table Saw Safety (Score:5, Insightful)
I was cutting a piece of wood that was way too small for a table saw to cut safely and it got my index finger. An avulsion laceration about 1/8" wide, right across the fleshy pad of the finger, down but not quite to the bone.
My fault, I know. I didn't sue anyone, and wouldn't have thought to even if it took my hand. [For a cut that small and precise, I should have walked out to the workshop and used a band saw or built a jig. But I was lazy...]
This is a great idea, but like another poster said it has to be cheap, and it has to be non-obtrusive. The safety of the device is a trade off against its utility. If the saw stops working because of a faulty safety switch, the safety switch will get removed. If it's expensive to replace, it will probably not be replaced.
For example, my table saw has a kick-guard that goes over and behind the blade. It's an incredible pain in the ass because gets in the way, it's hard to see around, and makes some cuts damned-near impossible. It was removed.
Make it cheap and make it reliable, and then it'll actually save some fingers.
Re:Interesting Technology (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I think your first two are options as well, you forget that not only do employers pay higher cost, if someone does get injured, they pay for the medical expenses related to the injury, likely for the life of the employee.
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good product (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good product (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
The motivation of the management who makes the decisions is one of control and temper. It really does make sense to make things safer. This factory could have saved about $100,000 a week had it improved safety. They just didn't want to do it. You see a worker was only paid about $50,000 a year and as such these people didn't cost management enough to be worth anything to them.
I watched the expensive management employees get protected while the workers got nothing. This was a tire factory. They made $1,350,000 a day even with this injury expense. It may be strange to some but actually the workers were too cheap to be worth anything. The loss of a life about every year or so was an acceptable cost to management. So what if you pay off the family with a damage claim of $500,000 or so. Blow it off. These people are worthless in the eyes of management...
Saving $5,200,000 a year simply didn't enter their mind as worth that much effort. I proposed that we use the medical data to extract which machines should be fixed. I offered to observe the machines and look at what was going on. They had no interest. One major loss to them was hearing losses. The addition of a few minor changes could have nearly silenced the factory. They couldn't care less. Another major loss was loss of hands and fingers and intermittently a person in a machine. Simple design changes in jobs would have improved production and saved lifes. They didn't care because it might "bother" their situation. It was an attitude that the "Free Trade" advocates refuse to recognize. Burried in the true motivations of many rich persons is a hatred of other social classes and a view that they are property not people. This is why they will not embrace safety technology.
Your numbers don't make sense - $100,00 is about 1% of a weeks take (per your numbers) which is usually enough to get a company take notice; which is why I doubt your numbers. Either they are wrong or the required changes were so expensive as to be unaffordable - so when you say:
One major loss to them was hearing losses. The addition of a few minor changes could have nearly silenced the factory.
I have to wonder - silencing an industrial environment is not easy nor cheap - which is why wearing proper hearing protection is generally the best fix (and enforceable as well).
Then again, your last paragraph shows where you are coming from - I sense you had an agenda that was not well received and probably not realistic nor practical.
Re:Whats the problem? (Go here) (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:NPR Covered This in 2004 (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, it would have been like the guy who invented seatbelts requiring a licensing fee of $500 for each car they're installed in (back in the 50s).
Not so great (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't cut green wood (wood that hasn't sat around long enough to get down to 10% water). I've gotten construction grade lumber that would easily have tripped this.
Most accidents on the TS aren't from people accidentally putting their hand in the path of the blade, it's from them either slipping (in which case they are essentially slapping the blade, and will still get a very serious cut), or from kickback. I believe (though I don't have a source) that most accidents are from kickback.
Also, many people take the blade guard that is included with their saw off becuase they think it gets in the way (which I've never really understood). If you were to look at the number of accidents on the TS, I would be willing to bet that most accidents involve a TS without a blade guard.
Most damning though, is that when this unit does go off, your saw blade (that you pay $100 a pop for) is rotated down into a block of aluminum, and gets welded there from the heat. Even if you can extracate the blade from that block, it wouldn't be safe to use it again, so you have to buy a new blade, and a new cartridge.
Table saws have been around for at least 100 years in their various forms and most woodworkers can still count to 10.
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't you drive without a seatbelt, and with a sharp metal spike sticking out from your steering wheel instead of an airbag? That'll definitely help your concentration won't it?
People make mistakes all the time. And sometimes it's you who suffers for someone else's mistake.
As for learning lessons, people still get cut by this saw - just look at the testimonials on their site. Wouldn't it be better that people learn their lessons from a painful nick and the cost of fixing the saw than losing an entire finger (or more)?
The problem I see is lobbying for a law that requires people to license patented technology AND making the license fee expensive. Of course if I hear wrong and it's a reasonable fee, then the saw industry people are the greedy selfish ones.
Re:I've got no problem with this except... (Score:4, Insightful)
This seems to be the new religion - at least in the US. 'The market' isn't some magical cure-all that is going to sort everything out and make the world a better place. Experience shows that free-market capitalism doesn't exist, among other things because every time restrictions are removed from businesses, we get monopolies, kartels and all the other diseases of extreme capitalism; thus, even if there are no restrictions imposed by the state, the free market will quickly be killed off by predatorial companies.
Instead of this pipe-dream about the holy and divine 'free market' there should be simple and clear restrictions in place that would favour the small to medium sized businesses; the bigger companies are simply extremely inefficient in a number of areas; in a small company each employee often has a big stake in the success of the company and will work harder and not waste resources. A big company will tend to extract money from society into some form af passive storage, possibly overseas, whereas in small companies the money tends to get spent in the local area to the benefit of everybody.
So let's put this silly, religious free-market mantra to one side; it won't benefit you or me (unless you happen to be a multibillionaire).
Re:always two sides to every story (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, this is more of a Beavis vs Butthead story, and is fairly typical of the way new technology is introduced.
Part 1: Clever, arrogant guy gets brilliant idea and develops it to the point where he is convinced it'll change the world. That's the science and tech part. Now it's all done, ok? There is no more science or technology in this story after this point. Only politics and monkey psychology.
Part 2: Clever, arrogant guy tries to change the course of history in a year or so, and cash in hugely in the process, by selling his idea or some instantiation thereof to established industry players. He pisses off everyone in the industry in the processes, which is easy to do because they are at least as arrogant and far less clever than he is.
Part 3: A messy, improbably stupid battle of wills ensues as the industry tries to do an end-run around the inventor and the inventor tries to harrass the industry in to buying his tech. This can go on for as long as decades, but if anyone "gave in" it would be a matter of "losing face", and "face" is extremely important to monkeys. If a monkey loses face, he will be demoted in the hierarchy of the troop, and that has all kinds of costs associated with it, including potential mating opportunities. So evolution has pretty much tuned monkeys up to act like arrogant assholes in these situations, because arrogant assholes are what female monkeys are most interested in, because arrogant assholes can command a greater fraction of the troop's resources.
Epilogue: Many years later, the technology is widely adopted and all concerned are hailed for their forward-looking stance and innovative thinking. Companies that fought the tech tooth and nail now tout themselves as early adopters (which they may well be, relative to other companies.) The original inventor, ignoring all the progress that has been made in making his original prototype a practical, manufacturable device, is hailed as a great innovator.
The amazing thing about modern social democratic market societies is that we are actually the most efficient innovators in history, and not by a small fraction.
Re:Who do you sue... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if it is so great and reliable, why are they using hot dogs and not this guys hand?
That's a little like asking why they don't use live people instead of dummies in automobile crash tests. Don't they have any faith in their products?
Anybody with a realistic sense of safety and security understands that even if your safety system is 99.9% reliable, you still don't press it into service UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Why have a 99.9% chance of being okay when you can have a 100% chance of being okay? When using a table saw, your PRIMARY line of safety is not putting your fingers in the fricking saw, NOT some fancy electronic capacitance gizmo. It's great to have that around in case you decide to be an idiot one day, but relying totally on it as an excuse to be a dumbshit is stupid, and if you lose a finger you get what you deserve.
In rock climbing, great pains are taken to make sure the climbers have SOLID ANCHORS to the rock face -- attachments that you could hang a Chevy from. That still doesn't mean you're going to deliberately fall on your protection!
Re:Need a "good samaritan" exemption (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Saw III" (Score:3, Insightful)
I think he means "rated G, for 'Garbage'." :-)
Macho Men (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope that every time a worker loses fingers to a traditional table saw, their employer gets hit with a big lawsuit. Endangering yourself in your home workshop is your choice, but you shouldn't be able to impose that decision on your employees. I have an Uncle who was almost killed by a poorly maintained saw at his workplace. He lost part of one hand. It was pure luck that it didn't cut him in half.
You can't assume that the equipment is in good working condition, and that the operators are properly trained and alert. You have to take active steps to regularly inspect the equipment for problems, perform preventive maintenance, train the operators on how to safely operate it, and make sure that everyone is actually following the safety rules. Any machine that relies solely on operator alertness to prevent an accident is an accident waiting to happen. Real people get distracted and have off days.
Power tool injuries (Score:3, Insightful)
I was very lucky, I did not cut any bone and I only lost a strip of tissue about an inch long, maybe 3/8's of an inch deep and 3/32's of an inch wide out of my thumb. Still it was a sobering experience that left a piece of expensive oak ruined (not to mention the blood rushing out of my thumb). What happened is that I was making numerous identical cuts and I got a bit bored and for just a moment I didn't think.
I try not to be stupid around power tools; I am not a professional, just a hobbyist and am very aware of my relationship to my tools. While I have learned to trust them, I have also learned to distrust them and always try to be as safe as possible. I think that the table saw is probably one of the more dangerous tools in the typical wood shop simply because there are so many times when you have to work with this guard removed or you are tempted to make a fine adjustment with the power on.
I am frankly a bit offended by the industries lack of enthusiasm for this kind of product (although on the flip side, I also understand that it would make every new saw much more expensive). The power tool industry is very aware that their products can cause serious injury (up to and including the loss of life). When they have an opportunity to make their products cheaper, they are morally obliged to do so. While this high-tech solution my have some shortfalls, it is obviously a step in the right direction. I suspect that the industry can find ways of making similar safety devices that work in different ways if they want to or are "encouraged" to. .