Skin Sensing Table Saw

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."

Comments

Re:Interesting Technology

[M-G]

Because safety technology sounds good, but frequently doesn't hold up to heavy use, rough handling, dirt, etc. on the job site. Then the safety device gets in the way of getting work done, and it gets bypassed. And for all of that, you get to pay more for the tool.

Re:Whats the problem?

[LiquidCoooled]

There are benefits and there are drawbacks to this method.

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

[Pontiac]

This guy has been trying to force his invertion on us for years..

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:Interesting Technology

[UbuntuDupe]

That's true, but it's not nearly as malicious as you make it sound. Employers have choices: they can pay to eliminate the hazard, and then have to pay less to get workers to take the less risky job, or they can not eliminate the hazard, and have to pay more to get people to take the more risky job. Economists call this a "compensating differential". It's seen in the difference in pay between regular window washers and high-rise window washers, for example. It can also be negative in jobs that people enjoy doing (i.e., they make less than those of comparable skill and experience because the job is fun, like astronauts).

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?

Re:always two sides to every story

[radtea]

This isn't a David vs. Goliath story.

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.