Category: Saw Stop Task

Safer Saws- muggastackz

Source 1: In the article, popularmechanics.com/…673/bosch-reaxx-saw, Roy Berendsohn, author for Popular Mechanics talks about how the safer saw works and how Bosch originally created the saw.

Whether Bosch’s design is too similar is a matter for the courts. There’s no way to know for now how the case will play out. What we can tell you is that testing a saw that won’t cut through your finger is a pretty amazing experience.

We can see that this is an evaluative/proposal claim. The author writes about the experience of safer saws. He evaluates that testing the safe allows the people buying know that this safe is very useful and safe while using the tool.

Source 2: In this article, arstechnica.com/…/patent-disputes-stand-in-the-way-of-radically-safer-table-saws, author Timothy B Lee, talks about how the safer saw adapted and how new rules are being created for the tool. Also, he writes about how safer saw creators are facing lawsuits.

But established makers of power tools vehemently object. They say the mandate could double the cost of entry-level table saws and destroy jobs in the power-tool industry. They also point out that Gass holds dozens of patents on the technology. If the CPSC makes the technology mandatory for table saws, that could give Gass a legal monopoly over the table-saw industry until at least 2021, when his oldest patents expire.

This is a factual claim. The text explains that technology will start to expand and become mandatory in a couple of years. More people will find that the safe is very safe and get rid of their older saws to get the safer saws. The author also gives an evaluative/hypothetical claim that Gass could have a legal monopoly over the saw industry until at least 2021.

Source 3: In this article, cpsc.gov/…es/123115/tenenbaum10052011.pdf, this is a statement from Chairman Inez Tenenbaum of the CPSC regarding the rulemaking for reducing safer saw injuries.

Based on the injury data obtained in the 2007 and 2008 CPSC special study, our staff’s injury cost model projected that consumers suffered approximately 67,300 medically treated blade contact injuries annually in 2007 and 2008—with an associated injury cost of $2.36 billion dollars in each of those two years.

This is a factual numerical claim. This refers to all of the injuries over a year long from the safe. 67,300 were medically treated from the contact within a year apart. The claim helped generates that people are getting hurt and money is being spent to help treat the people.

Source 4: In this article, https://fcir.org/2013/05/16/power-tool-industry-circles-the-wagons-as-disabling-saw-injuries-mount/, the author writes about all of the financial bills that are happening because of the safer saw.

They say the market for popular, lightweight saws costing as little as $100 to $200 would be destroyed by the added expense of SawStop. They note that under some circumstances, SawStop can stop a blade without skin contact–such as when the blade touches conductive materials like metal or very wet wood. In such cases, the owner usually has to replace the blade and an electronic cartridge.

The claim that the numbers of injuries made by table saws and the financial costs. This is an opinionated claim because they think that Gass is ruining other business and tools because the safe-saw would be a high profited item and will be around for a long-term.

Source 5: In this article, https://www.schmidtlaw.com/table-saw-amputation-lawyer/,  this discussion all of the lawsuits dealing with safe saws. They try to explain ways to refrain from using the saw.

Since 2000, a safety device called the “SawStop” has existed that could prevent nearly all table saw amputations, but manufacturers have refused to voluntarily place the safety devices on their products, citing an unreasonable increase in price (about $100 per table saw).

 

This is a factual claim, its main focus of the statement is to make sure people prevent saw amputations. The claim is ethical/moral claim because it blames the creators on why people are getting injuries from the saw. There are strict guidelines in using the saw so the manufacturers shouldn’t be blamed for the victim’s wrongdoings.

 

 

Safer Saws- Peter Bomersbach

Customer

A: “I have read a lot of reviews on this saw with people complaining about the price. I can tell you that the money is nothing compared to an accident. I was hurt in 2012 and lost a couple years of work, had 5 surgeries and endless hours of therapy. all told we are talking about several hundred thousand dollars.” – Chuck C

B: this customer wrote a review on Amazon explaining how ell this saw performs over his other counterparts and a incident that had occurred in his past which might influence others to buy as well.

C: This Claim is an opinion because he states his opinion an the saw and past events.

D: The claim has phrases and events brought up by the customer himself about the product. He gives his two cents in on how well the saw performs when he uses it in the shop. He also recommends anyone to buy it if they want to save money from going to the hospital from a saw accident.

E: I completely agree with this claim because I used a sawstip back in wood shop during high school and it made me feel much safer than if I did not have one.

Review

A: “The first and most obvious thing many people like the most is certainly the safety system. Even though many other models can be considered quite safe, this one is near the top.”

B: This website reviewed the sawstip system and provided feedback on what that likes and disliked about the setup.

C: This is an opinion claim

D: It is an opinion claim because whoever write the review used their opinion on what they liked and disliked about the product. One thing they mentioned was their enhanced safety system.

E: I agree with this claim because it shows their side of what they think of the product, if it is with it or not.

Why I Bought A SawStop

A: “The issue was simple; was the risk I took using my old saw worth the money I save by not buying a SawStop? Again, the two voices chimed in immediately. One asked what would be the cost of dismemberment. While the other would tell me that I’ve worked on table saws for over 30 years and the only accident of consequence resulted in a small scar on my thumb.”

B: This website Woodworkers Guild of America, had a post by a woodworker named David Munkittrick which talked about his dilemma of buying the SawStop and the incidents that may accur without one. He has experience with woodwork for 30 years and the SawStop is life changing.

C: This is an opinion claim because it is discussed by a customer on his thoughts of the product.

D: It is an opinion claim because the customer had written his thoughts on a post about his adventure to buying a new saw and the accident it can prevent if he buys one.

Reply to a Customer

A: “My mind was made up for me after an accident that put me in a wheel chair. I am so pleased with the quality, just as you are. It operates so smooth and is very accurate. My wife is also happy that I am now more safe.”

B: This was a reply to the article about Buying A SawStop by Larry. He had an accident that put him in a wheel chair which caused him to buy a SawStop to prevent further injuries and buying a SawStop to make his wife more comfortable.

C: This is an opinion claim because the customer owns a SawStop which he likes as he stated in the quote.

D: The claim is supported by the fact that it was a decision by a customer who had an injury on a saw that had no protection and once he reviewed what everyone else had to say he made up his mind that he wanted one to prevent further injuries.

Better Saw Than Most

A:  “I worked with various table saw brands thru out the years, the one brand I always liked was the Powermatic, I owned a few starting with the 66 model and always enjoyed this brand, but, lately, due to safety concerns having children around the shop, I decided it is time to look into the Saw Stop brand and, of course after a little research, I decided that it would be in my best interest to go with the ICS 5hp single phase.”

B: This quote explains how this customer ended up buying a version of the SawStop after  years of experience. He had kids near the tools so the SawStop was something that took his interest.

C: This is an opinion claim

D: It is an opinion claim because the customer put his thoughts on why the SawStop was something he needed to buy with the environment he was in and the experience he had.

E: I agree with his opinion on why he had to buy one with his kids around the shop to make it feel safer.

 

 

Saw Stop- D2Forsaken

The Saw That Won’t Cut Off Your Fingers Has Arrived

A: Roy Berendsohn author of “The Saw That Won’t Cut Off Your Fingers Has Arrived” says that “About midway through the cut, when the blade moved from the wood’s dry exterior into the moist interior, there was a loud bang … The blade vanished.”
B: This quote shows that through testing of object is that the saw works and stops when it senses wet items.
C: The quote is an evaluation since it was just them testing to see if the sensor on the saw actually worked.
D: The quote isn’t to accurate because they never specified how many tests they did exactly and wether or not they tested it on human limbs. They only claimed that it worked on wood which is different then a human arm or hand.
E: I agree with the quote that it vanished quickly but it doesn’t show that if this test was done on a human it would react the same way.

Injury Lawyer Perspective

A: The Schmidt Firm which is a National Law Firm claims that, “Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than 4,000 amputations. Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool. Although SawStop safety technology has been around for more than ten years, not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it.”
B: This quote shows the danger of those who don’t use the saw stop technology and the consequences.
C: The quote is a factual claim using statistics of those hurt without a saw stop table saw.
D: I’m not sure of where this fact was taken from or even if these are the numbers. The numbers might be higher then usual to scare people into buying the technology. It could even me lower then that to say to people that this isn’t really needed.
E: I’m not sure if I can agree with the facts shown because it doesn’t say where they got there info from.

Power tool industry to powerful to regulate?

A: Myron Levin author of “Power tool industry to powerful to regulate?” says that” SawStop still makes the only saws with skin-sensing technology, and it accounts for a tiny fraction of sales.”
B: This quote shows that people either don’t believe in the technology or think they are better then that and it will never happen to them.
C: The quote shows the Power tool industry refusing to use these safety regulations.
D: The quote seems to show how industries don’t want to invest the money in such a thing that you have to replace the blade every “incident”. Yes it better then getting a limb cut off but if someone is safe who wants to keep buying the blade.
E: I agree with this quote because a lot of people believe it will never happen to them and that is the mentality they live with.

Feds might force table-saw makers to adopt radically safer technology

A: Author Timothy Lee says that “Before the invention of the SawStop technology, power-tool makers could argue that table saws were just an inherently dangerous product, and customers accepted the risk when they chose to buy and operate them.”
B: This quote could show how table-saw makers don’t care about the safety of their customers since no one ever has to agree to the terms and conditions about the risks of the table saw.
C: The quote is just a “reason” for table saw makers to not incorporate safety regulations.
D: People know and understand the risk of buying table saws but it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have safety regulations. Things happen you can’t avoid and without the saw stop these accidents happen and you might end in the hospital.
E: This quote is true how people know the risks but it doesn’t mean there safety should be in there own hands.

Bosch Tools SawStop LawSuit

A: Clint DeBoer author of “Bosch Tools SawStop LawSuit” says that “Besides that, his injury would also have been prevented by properly following existing safety procedures that are well documented and clearly were violated in this instance. You can’t cut off your fingers if they don’t get near the blade.”
B: This quote says that the company really believe in that if you follow the regulations that come with a table saw then injuries like this won’t happen to you.
C: This is an opinion from the company of the table saw since there is possibility of slip ups even with following all of their regulations:
D: Accidents happen and some of them you can’t prevent so even if all regulations are followed things are bound to happen. No matter how safe you are, your finger could get close and get cut or the item you are cutting could be kicked back and hit you in the gut.
E: I don’t believe in this quote because accidents happen and some times you can’t avoid them Safety regulations lower the amount of injuries, they don’t eliminate them.

Safer Saws– Namaste Bean

 

1A

I spent two days earlier this month at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), listening to the pros and cons of setting a mandatory safety standard for table saws. Ten people every day – according the CPSC’s own data – have their fingers amputated in power saw accidents. 10 a day!

10 amputations a day: the need for a safer table saw

1B As stated in the title, the claim is being made that there must be a safer table saw due to ten people having their fingers amputed every year in power saw accidents.

1C  The first sentence is a defintive claim. The rest of the quotation is a quantative claim.

1D Using the information from the CPSC data finding that ten people every day are  being amputatad by these out dated table saws is a good way to have readers grasp the severity of the problem.

They’ve argued that injury numbers have been inflated and that the government’s estimate of $2.36 billion in annual costs to society from table saw accidents—including medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering—is exaggerated.

Power Tool Industry Defends Table Saw Safety as Disabling Injury Increase

2B The power tool idustry is making the claim that the annual medicall costs, as well as the number of accidents is exaggerated.

2C This seems to be a categorical claim, as well as an evaluative claim, since the numbers are belived to be exaggerated.

2D This claim is not yet fully supported and is therefore not factual. There is no evidence of the costs and injuries being exaggerated, so I do not think this is a very good argument.

 

Table saws cause more than 40,000 injuries every year. Approximately 10% of those injuries, or 4,000, result in amputations every year. Fingers, hands, and arms are the most common parts of the body that are amputated. Only 20% of the injuries occur in people who are on the job, where injuries are usually covered by workplace accident insurance.

Table Saw Amputation Lawyer

3B  There are a couple of claims being made here. The first being that a majority of saw table accidents result in amputation, mostly fingers, hands, and arms. The next claim is. that most people who are injured are not on the job, therfore not recieving medical insurance.

3C All are evaluative. The first sentece is a quantative claim, while the second sentence is a causal claim; 4,000 injuries result in amputations. The third sentence is a cateogorical claim. The last sentence appears to also be a quantative claim.

3D There is no telling if these claims are true based just on this passage, but I would have to say the many different quantative claims used do help shed light on the issue.

‘Between the 8% fee and the additional hardware costs, your typical $400 jobsite saw would potentially rise in cost to around $625.

Bosch Tools SawStop Lawsuit

4B The claim is being made the sawstop will now be unafforable to consumers, with the added safety material.

4C Evaluative Numerical claim

4D I do no think this is a very persuasive claim. Safety is more important than cost, in my opinion.

By giving his blade a slight electric charge, his saw is able to detect contact with a human hand and stop spinning in a few milliseconds.

5B Making the claim that the saw is able to detect contact with a human hand and wil stop spinnining.

5C Evaluative causal claim.

5D There is no evidence in the accuracy of this claim.

 

Safer Saws- misterfries19

1A. Schmidt Law Firm– Outraged Plaintiff- On the website for Schmidt Law Firm, a post regarding injuries due to table saws reads “Although SawStop safety technology has been around for more than ten years, not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it.”

1B. The Law Firm is making the claim that manufacturers are well aware of a new and advanced technology that can be used to prevent injuries when using table saws, but have neglected to adopt it. SawStop flesh-detecting technology gives the saw the ability to stop completely in 1/200th of a second, if it touches human flesh, which would prevent any damage or injury. But, it has not been widely accepted.

1C. The Law Firm is making an Evaluative claim about the manufacturers. After evaluating the technology available and the amount of manufacturer’s using the technology, the firm makes it’s claim that not all manufacturers have adopted the technique.

1D. This is a reasonable claim that doesn’t portray all manufacturers unfairly, but calls out the minority that have yet to adopt such an obvious improvement. It is effect enough because in all honesty, this is the kind of technology that all table saw companies should utilize. Although most already do, I still find myself offended that a few do not.

2A. Amputation Lawyer– Again we visit the Schmidt Law Firm website, where they also deal with amputations as a result of table saw accidents. The site claims “Approximately 10% of those injuries, or 4,000, result in amputations every year.”

2B. The Law Firm is making the claim that out of all injuries due to table saws, 10% result in amputations every year.

2C. The Schmidt Law Firm is making a numerical claim when they say that 10% or 1/10 of all annual injuries due to table saws result in amputations.

2D. The claim is most likely not inaccurate, as it is backed up with actual numbers that aren’t outrageous, but it is not backed up with a source for the statistics. However, while the claim doesn’t portray the amputations as being unbelievably common, they do show that they do indeed happen, and you are not alone in seeking help.

3A. Rules Mandating Safe Laws are Likely to Pass- In relation to the probability that mandating safe power tool laws is inevitable, ToolGuyd.com states that “There’s been no mass media attention to this. No outcry by the Power Tool Institute urging bloggers and woodworkers to object to this.”

3B. The claim basically states that, in regards to the possibility that power tool manufacturers will be mandated to use safer techniques, there has been no type of reaction from power tool enthusiasts to combat these mandates.

3C. The claim is evaluative, but it is almost an ethical/moral claim as well. It is evaluating the situation and quantifying how many people did not speak out against the probable new mandates, claiming that nobody has brought attention to this. The tone in which he says this intends to invoke a sense of guilt from the media and Power Tool Institute, which questions their morals.

3D. This claim is not backed up by any source, but it is possible that the claim is not untrue because, well, having regulated safety technology that can save lives and injuries is a progressive idea that the media wouldn’t want to halt.

4A. Power Tool Industry Too Powerful- “However, SawStop still makes the only saws with skin-sensing technology, and it accounts for a tiny fraction of sales.” 

4B. This is claiming that SawStop is the only manufacturer with this finger-saving tool in the industry, and it still doesn’t really sell.

4C. This is a comparative claim. By saying that SawStop makes the only saws with this technology, they are being separated from other companies in the industry, and their capabilities are being compared.

4D. This is an effective claim that makes the reader cast doubt over what it is that people aren’t seeing about the SawStop saws. Coming off of a lot of talk about how much help the SawStop saws may be, this sentence grabs the reader and makes them ask themselves “why?”

5A. Government Action Pending – In a statement pertaining to the proposal of mandated rules for power tool safety, Chairman Inez Tanenbaum stated“Despite my public urging for the power tool industry to make progress voluntarily on preventing these injuries, no meaningful revisions to the voluntary standard were made.”

5B. Inez Tanenbaum makes the claim that he had previously urged for legislation regarding safety with power tools, and when he did, nothing was done about it.

5C. Tanenbaum makes an evaluative claim about the reaction people had from his initial Moral/ethical claim, where he called for people to move towards more safety provisions. In this sentence, he is making an evaluative claim, but he is referencing a moral claim.

5D. This is a smart, self-serving claim that serves to better the image of Tanenbaum in light of the probable laws being passed. In the context of the article, Tanenbaum is happy that the changes are finally being made, and he cites a time when he called for the changes in the first place as a sort of triumphant reminder.

Safer Saws – eaglessb52

Source 1:Feds might force table-saw makers to adopt radically safer technology

 

But established makers of power tools vehemently object. They say the mandate could double the cost of entry-level table saws and destroy jobs in the power-tool industry. They also point out that Gass holds dozens of patents on the technology. If the CPSC makes the technology mandatory for table saws, that could give Gass a legal monopoly over the table-saw industry until at least 2021, when his oldest patents expire.

1.This is a claim is made by industry spokespeople. They are making an opinionated claim that the saws have a negative impact on the product and manufacturing costs. There is no evidence to back the claim that this new mandate could destroy jobs in the power-tool industry.

They further it with a factual claim that Gass has dozens of patents for the technology used to make is saws safer (but with a revolutionary idea like that why wouldn’t you).

The author then adds an evaluative/hypothetical claim that Gass could have a legal monopoly over the table saw industry until 2021 at least.

At the same time, table-saw related injuries cost society billions every year. The CPSC predicts switching to the safer saw design will save society $1,500 to $4,000 per saw sold by reducing medical bills and lost work.

“You commissioners have the power to take one of the most dangerous products ever available to consumers and make it vastly safer,” Gass said at a CPSC public hearing on Wednesday.

2. The top claim is made by The Consumer Product Safety Commission which is an organization dedicated to, well, consumer safety. They make an evaluative claim by stating that up to $4,000 could be saved per saw sold. Hospital bills are expensive and losing a guy on the job for a serious injury could cost the companies money.

3. The article then follows up with a claim by Gass stating that the CPSC has the power to make an extremely dangerous product and make it vastly safer. It is an evaluative claim. It could also be an opinion depending on what other consumer products you’re measuring it with.

Source 2: Power Tool Industry Defends Table Saw Safety as Disabling Injuries Increase

 

Over the years, top saw makers and the Power Tool Institute, their trade group, have defended the design of their saws and the decision to snub SawStop.

They’ve argued that injury numbers have been inflated and that the government’s estimate of $2.36 billion in annual costs to society from table saw accidents—including medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering—is exaggerated. They say the market for popular, lightweight saws costing as little as $100 to $200 would be destroyed by the added expense of SawStop. They note that under some circumstances, SawStop can stop a blade without skin contact–such as when the blade touches conductive materials like metal or very wet wood. In such cases, the owner usually has to replace the blade and an electronic cartridge.

4. The claim that the numbers of injuries made by table saws and the financial costs of accidents are inflated were made both by table saw manufacturers and the trade group, the Power Tool Institute. This is an opinionated claim because they believe that Gass is destroying the market for lightweight saws. They also believe that the cost of replacing a blade and an electronic cartridge further increases the long term cost of the SawStop.

According to testimony by David Peot, Ryobi’s former director of advanced technologies: “There certainly was a feeling that if a single company invents or improves a product that could have an effect on product liability, then other manufacturers could be at a disadvantage if they don’t have that on their product.”

5. This claim was made by a former Ryobi director of advanced technologies. His opinion is that if one company has an innovative design that improves product liability then any other saw manufacturer is at a disadvantage. Which ties into the point from earlier that it could cause massive financial loss for other companies if one company owned the technology given that Gass’ patents are lasting up until 2021 at the least.

Safer Saws – ivonid12

Source 1

In the article “If Table Saws Can Be Safer, Why Aren’t They?”, it is explained why most people don’t want to buy a safer table saw, considering how expensive it will be with the new SawStop technology.

“Young says consumers won’t want to pay for the SawStop technology, which could add $100 – $300 in costs”

This is a opinionated claim, as people would rather bet on themselves, than pay more money for something they feel like they can prevent.

Source 2

In the article “SawStop Sues Bosch over new ReaXX Table Saw and its Flesh-Detection and Blade Braking Tech”, the post claims how SawStop is suing other companies for possible trademark and patent infringement. It also details their previous  failures.

“First, Gass tried to get power tool brands to license their technology, but they declined to. ”

“Then, since manufacturers wouldn’t license SawStop’s technology voluntarily, Gass lobbied for federal regulations that would force power tool manufacturers to do so.”

“Then SawStop sued brands for allegedly boycotting his technology.”

These are all factual claims as they all state the process that SawStop has been through for people to use their technology.

Source 3

In the article “Bosch Tools SawStop Lawsuit”, the article provides the reasons to why SawStop isn’t favored by companies, as there are many business reasons as to why.

  • The additional cost to manufacturers to implement this technology is estimated to be between $150-$200 per product, an amount that will be passed on to the consumer.
  • Gass (SawStop) is asking for 8 percent licensing/royalties on the wholesale price of each saw sold, a figure that many manufacturers view as near-extortion and monopoly position. This fee would also be passed on to consumers.
  • “False positives” or “nuisance trips” produce downtime and expenses. False positives can trip on common materials such as moist wood (think freshly delivered pressure treated lumber).
  • A false trip mandates replacement of the brake mechanism which is an expensive piece (~$59)
  • A false trip mandates replacement of the saw blade, since it is unknown whether the carbide teeth may be jarred or broken loose – creating a hazard. As most pros know, blades can be upwards of $100 each
  • During a braking event, carbide teeth could be thrown through the blade opening
  • Existing Underwriters Laboratories document ANSI/UL 987 includes provisions for maintaining safe distance from saw blades and instructions for proper use.
  • The “court is out” on how a high-impact braking mechanism will affect smaller jobsite table saws.
  • Consumer choice can dictate whether this technology, and its associated potential issues and added cost, will gain widespread acceptance by consumers
  • A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.

This is a factual claim, as the reasons are clearly stated as to why companies do not like safety requirements on their products.

Source 4

In the source “Table Saw Injury Lawyer”, is provides sources to where you can seek legal help for any table saw injury including SawStop. They also provide stats to how many are injured per year.

“Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than 4,000 amputations. Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.”

This is a factual claim, as they provide a clear statistic as to how many people get injured per year.

Source 5 

In the source, “Table Saw Facts at a Glance”, offers information about current table saws, as well as SawStop such as technology price and where to find them.

    • SawStop introduced a saw for the benchtop table saw market in March of 2015. The saw weighs 79 pounds and retails for $1299, compared to other benchtop table saws of similar size, weight and features, (but for the injury mitigation system) selling for $500 – $600
    • SawStop saws are currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase them.
    • SawStop technology mitigates the hazard of a spinning saw blade when a human hand or finger touches the blade by jamming a braking pawl into the saw blade, thus stopping the blade in milliseconds and destroying the blade.

Safer Saws – WaywardSundial

  •  1A. In an article regarding the created of SawStop technology suing Bosch, “SawStop, and their owner Stephen Gass, who happens to be a lawyer, issued a press release about their lawsuit against Bosch. They contend that Bosch, and their new ReaXX table saw, which also features flesh-detection and blade brake technology, is infringing on SawStop’s patented inventions.”
  • 1B. Stephen Gass wants to sue Bosch because he believes they are using the same technology he used in his SawStop patent.
  • 1C. This is an evaluation fact because it is evaluating the situation at hand, regarding Gass and his obvious belief that Bosch stole his technology, and wants to sue them. It is not a factual claim because although this is whats happening, the quote is merely stating what is going on and the beliefs of the parties involved, rather than saying that “Bosch stole Gass’ technology and is being sued because of it.” it is merely evaluating what is going on in this quote.
  • 1D. This quote is pretty much self explanatory, as it is observing and telling about the situation that Bosch and Gass felt. It also includes a link to a website involving Bosch’s new table saw that mimics Gass’. The quote is very straightforward, although it still is persuading the reader to think about how or if Bosch should be sued simply based on the rudimentary information about the entire deal that was shown in the quote.
  • 1E. I do not disagree with this quote as it is just saying what happened regarding the lawsuit.

 

  • 2A. A quote regarding a man who wished to sue Bosch for not having sawstop technology in their miter blades, “Besides that, his injury would also have been prevented by properly following existing safety procedures that are well documented and clearly were violated in this instance. You can’t cut off your fingers if they don’t get near the blade.”
  • 2B. The quote talks about a man wishing to sue for Bosch for not having safety procedures in their saws, even though he wouldn’t need the technology if he practiced safe saw etiquette.
  • 2C. This is a factual quote as it is simply stating that if the man followed the procedures on the saw, and did not have his saw near the blade, he simply would not have chopped off his finger.
  • 2D. This quote has a somewhat mocking tone,as obviously the man would not have cut off his finger if he was practicing safety, and even more so if his finger was not near the blade. Also, the man was suing for a blade that didn’t even have sawstop in any model from any company which I feel the author is mocking in the tone he talks about the man.
  • 2E. I entirely agree with the quote

 

  • 3A. In a quote about how the sawstop works, “The SawStop and other table saw safety devices are actually very simple. They run an electrical current through the saw blade that is attached to a current monitor. When the blade is cutting wood (a poor conductor of electricity) the electrical current in the blade remains constant. If the blade touches flesh (a relatively good conductor of electricity) the current in the blade drops. The current monitor senses this drop, and triggers a brake mechanism that immediately stops the blade and retracts it into the machine. The blade can be retracted within 3-5 milliseconds, resulting in a 1/8-inch cut on a single finger, instead of a catastrophic amputation of fingers and limbs.”
  • 3B. The quote talks about how the sawstop detects flesh and stops the blade from amputating limbs and fingers.
  • 3C. This is a factual claim, as it simply is giving the fact about how the sawstop works
  • 3D. It is persuading the reader to understand the technical nature of sawstop technology, and to be familiar with how it stops amputations.
  • 3E. I find it hard to disagree with an explanation of how a machine works.

 

  • 4A. In a quote about what Gass would like to happen, “In this particular SawStop Vs Bosch Reaxx lawsuit, the victory could have serious consequences for Reaxx owners. Not only is SawStop looking to block the import and sale of the Reaxx, but also the sale of the cartridges. That would mean Reaxx owners would be unable to replace cartridges. This is a component required for use. Certainly Bosch will work hard to ensure that doesn’t happen, but it will ultimately be up to the courts or a settlement between the two to decide.”
  • 4B. The writer talks about what the owner of sawstop would want happen to the ripoff that Bosch made called Reaxx.
  • 4C. This is an evaluative claim as it is reviewing the situation, and although the cartridge is not technically “required” for use as the write claims, it is necessary for the blade to stop if it came in contact with flesh.
  • 4D. The writer is trying to persuade the reader to understand the situation, as well as be aware as to where to look next for the result of the disagreement, such as the court settlement.
  • 4E. I agree with this quote, as it simply talks about the issue and evaluates both sides of the problem.

 

  • 5A. In a work about the implications of the dangers of power saws, “Now these manufacturers are facing dozens of lawsuits brought forth by people whose injuries could have been prevented had SawStop or similar safety mechanisms been in place. People who have lost fingers, hands, and arms to table saws have been devastated by their injuries, multiple surgeries, and medical bills they may never be able to pay so long as they are unable to work.”
  • 5B. This quote talks about how technology like sawstop could stop many amputations and injuries.
  • 5C. This is an opinionated claim as it is saying how injuries that “could” have been prevented, not injuries that would have been prevented. It seems as if the author views the sawstop in high esteem and believes it to be the end of amputations from power saws.
  • 5D. This quote is trying to persuade the viewer that sawstop technology, or similar technologies, could potentially save many people from pain and amputations and I believe does a good, concise job in moving the statement about it forward.
  • 5E. I agree with this quote as it not only talks about a potential possibility for sawstop, it also brings how people are affected that didn’t have this technology and how useful it can be for future potential accidents.

Saw Stop- Wildwood

Source1

In the article “SawStop Sues Bosch over new ReaXX Table Saw and its Flesh-Detecting Blade-Braking Technology,” the author takes a strong stance on the fact that the owner and create\or of “SawStop,” Stephen Grass, is actively bullying table saw manufactures by throwing a lawsuit at anything that resembles his product and see if it sticks, which so far has not been working.

“First, Gass tried to get power tool brands to license their technology, but they declined to. None of the other brands wanted to pay to implement SawStop’s flesh-detection and blade braking technology into their table saws.”

This factual claim adds context to the article and the authors feeling of Grass attempting to corner the table saw market with little reinforcement. It is a factual claim because there would clearly be evidence of a lawsuit by Grass towards other manufactures. The article goes on to discuss the fact that there were at least 22 other lawsuits regarding Grass’s technology and other table saw companies. The purpose of this claim is an attempted plea to the readers and trying to get them to understand where the author comes from when he addressed Grass as a bully. This is the beginning of where Grass feels entitled to sue other manufactures for infringement of her patent.

Source 2

In the writing piece, “Table Saw Amputation Lawyer,” the article discusses how the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) prolonged a deadline regarding regulated safety features in all table saws currently in production. The author writes:

“Since 2000, a safety device called the “SawStop” has existed that could prevent all table saw amputations, but manufacturers have refused to voluntarily place the safety devices on their products, citing an unreasonable increase in price (about $100 per table saw).”

This is a factual claim due to the fact that it is directly stating this piece of technology could save peoples fingers, hands and arms. This indirectly implies that if not on the job when the injury occurs, could significantly impact the victim’s wallet, causing stress on the family. The quote also speaks to the cost of the addition of the technology to the saws, implying companies will in fact lose money due to the higher prices of the saws. The companies do not necessarily care if the user gets hurt, as long as they are not liable. Manufactures only care about moving their product to the consumer.

Source 3

 In an article titled, “SawStop Vs Bosch Reaxx Lawsuit: It’s Not Over Yet – UPDATED,” particularly focuses on the legal battle between the creator and owner of the patent of the SawStop and the company Bosch who attempted to better the technology. They claim that they advanced the technology by allowing the saw stop to be utilized twice, instead of once, making it much more cost effective. After a legal battle resulting in favor of Stephen Grass’s SawStop, Bosch released a statement overall defending their product.

“Bosch has vigorously defended, and will continue to defend, its ability to make REAXX table saws available in the United States. In addition, Bosch will continue to pursue its own claim of patent infringement against the competitor filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.”

This quote from Bosch claims that they do not agree with the court’s decision that ruled against their product. They defend their position and defend their product after being told they copied off of another inventor’s product.

 

Source 4

In “Power tools Industry Defends Table Saw Safety as Disabling Injuries Increase,” begins by going back to when the topic of discussion, the SawStop, was first introduced. The writing then quickly fast forward to present time and brings up personal recollections to when table saw operators did not have the technology equipped.

“Bravo!” a man named Frank Oslick emailed SawStop, explaining that he had lost two fingers and part of his thumb in a table saw accident when he was 14. “I have not lived a single day without regretting that accident,” he wrote. “If your device prevents even one person from going through what I have gone through it is a world class accomplishment.”

This is an emotional claim by bringing personal tragedies into the article and hoping to get the reader on emotion. The fact that the author uses a direct quote from a person whose life is forever effected Frank, the man who lost fingers as a result of not having the SawStop, states how much he regrets what happened and would give anything to go back and get the technology.

 

Source 5

In“Feds might force table-saw makers to adopt radically safer technology,” this particular article goes on to talk about the legal battle between the originator of the SawStop and the newcomer to the table, Bosch’s Reaxx.
“Despite these differences, SawStop accused Bosch of infringing its patents. In January, the International Trade Commission sided with SawStop and blocked sale of the Bosch table saw.

This is a factual claim and goes onto explain on how the Trade Commission views the Reaxx. The Commission sees the Reaxx as a copycat device that does not advance the technology enough to deem is as new. This is an unbiased, opinion free statement that does not attempt to coerce the reader, yet states factual evidence and sheds more light into the years long court battle.

 

 

 

 

 

Safer Saws- beachgirl6

Source 1: SawStop Sues Bosch over new ReaXX Table Saw and its Flesh-Detection and Blade-Braking Tech

  1. First, Gass tried to get power tool brands to license their technology, but they declined to. None of the other brands wanted to pay to implement SawStop’s flesh-detection and blade braking technology into their table saws. Then, since manufacturers wouldn’t license SawStop’s technology voluntarily, Gass lobbied for federal regulations that would force power tool manufacturers to do so.

  2. Companies didn’t want to pay Gass for his SawStop technology in their tools so tried to get regulations made that would force these companies to do so.
  3. This is a causal claim because it shows what Gass tried to do and the effects of it. Since he couldn’t get a license, the effect was that he wanted companies to pay him. Since this didn’t work, he wanted regulations to be made that would make these companies use his technologies. This did not work either.
  4. I feel conflicted about this. On one end, I feel as though Gass is trying to force these companies to pay him, even though his technology can be life changing. But he has a right to try to force them as he created something so unique.

 

Source 2: Bosch Tools SawStop Lawsuit

  1. The potential for unintended consequences are immense – including manufacturers who may stop making more dangerous products or compromising in other areas (quality) in order to meet the price requirements of incorporating this particular technology. On top of all this, in terms of table saw safety, kickbacks are certainly more dangerous, and cause far more injuries each year, than cutting off fingers.

  2. Prices are so high now to make the new technology that companies are now making their tools in different and unsafe ways
  3. This is an evaluative claim because it questions whether companies should change how they make their tools in order to meet the price of what they need to pay for it, as if they pay more, the quality of their product decreases,
  4. I think this is dangerous because more people could get hurt if the tools they are using isn’t the safest.

 

Source 3: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum

  1. Despite my public urging for the power tool industry to make progress voluntarily on preventing these injuries, no meaningful revisions to the voluntary standard were made.

  2. There were no changes made initially to make Gass’s technology safer.
  3. This is an evaluative claim the chairman wanted changes to be made, but nothing happened. This isn’t right because if there were conerns in the first place, solutions should have been made on what to do as soon as the safety of the technology was questioned.
  4. This angers me because the safety of people who would use this SawStop technology everyday should be the main conern of the Commission. To know that something could have been done to make the technology safer, earlier, makes me upset.

 

Source 4: Table Saw Injury Lawyer

  1. Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than 4,000 amputations. Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.

  2. Steven Gass’s technology has caused many injuries every year.
  3. This is a quantitatve evaluative claim because the amount of injuries casued by Gass’s technology is more than other tools.
  4. I think this is very danergour but informative because it warns others with statsitics about the dangers of the Sawstop technology.

 

Source 5: The Saw That Won’t Cut Off Your Fingers Has Arrived

  1. Where SawStop’s technology jammed the saw by running a piece of aluminum into it, wrecking the blade, Bosch’s cartridge system can save the saw blade. Whether Bosch’s design is too similar is a matter for the courts.

  2. Bosch’s technology is still in question over how similar it is to Steven Gass’s technology.
  3. This is an evaluative claim as there is still question over whether Bosch is copying SawStop. Even though it has its own advantages, it is still very similar to Gass’s technology.
  4. I think that the more important concern is the safety of the product. Instead of focusing on if Bosch is copying SawStop, maybe there should be more concern on if it is safer, and which one will prevent more injuries.