Thanks for respecting my opinion so highly.
It has nothing to do with respect, it goes to character. I want to know whether you can actually form an argument. Hell, even a paragraph. You obviously have no clue what to say to back up your opinion, just as you have little clue about how to back up most of your "arguments". It was clear long before this spat about my avatar that you are unable to form coherent paragraphs or arguments.
You couldn't even understand a simple question of mine which I repeated three times (see below)...
MrCrowley wrote:Are there any particular reasons table saws were never made like how you've made yours, Stu?
boyntonstu wrote:
Why are the numbers made, or the money earned your issue?
I wanted a safe saw to use.
I built one.
It is that simple.
Same with my $100 elevator.
I want cheap, effective, and safe.
You?
MrCrowley wrote:Hahahaha Stu you really need to calm down. I wasn't being hostile at all, it was just a question because I literally have no expertise and little experience in the field. I just wondered why there weren't more table saw designs like this if there were no disadvantages but only advantages to your design. Surely you weren't the first person to think of this (although you may have been the first to put it in to practice), perhaps someone found a problem with this particular design.
Take a chill pill.
edit: You'll notice I didn't ask why you built it but why all other table saws aren't built like this.
boyntonstu wrote:
Think back to your High School experience.
If my saw was used, would the accident you described happen?
MrCrowley wrote:No. What does that have to do with all table saws not being made like yours? Do you even understand what I'm asking?
This is a sincere, genuine question: why are all table saws made how they are (saw on the table) and not inverted (saw above the table) like yours? This is not a hostile question and is not meant to demean your invention, if anything it would compliment it. I'm not sure if anyone has so far found a fault with your 'invention' so my question is why all table saws are not made like yours. As for kickback and risk of losing a finger, yours does appear to be safer. Then again, I have very little experience in this field so my thoughts on the matter mean little.
Is it just me or are you having trouble understanding what I'm asking?
boyntonstu wrote:
Look, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
Let's compare TS vs Thingy.
A TS can only tilt in 1 direction, Thingy in 2 directions.
One of the reasons for the Thingy is that I ran into an impossible cut on my TS.
It got me thinking about an ideal saw that could do the cut. Lightbulb! THINGY!
Safety 1: A TS has a dangerous spinning blade that is exposed above the table. Anything can fall onto the blade including fingers.
Thingy: The blade is enclosed and nothing from above can fall onto it.
Safety 2: The operator of a table saw usually stands in line with the blade and the spinning teeth 'see' his face and eyes.
Thingy: Operator stands aside the spinning blade hiding from the spinning teeth.
Safety 3: Kickback: TS-always a danger. Thingy-never a danger.
Should anything kickback with a Thingy, the piece could never hit you.
(I never stand in front of my loaded air cannon, why should I stand in front of a spinning blade?)
There are some additional points, but I hope that you get the point.
Like so many of my inventions, the Thingy is unconventional, and many people are skeptical of new ideas.
Being ahead of the crowd is not exactly the most comfortable place to be, but it has been the story of my life.
I accept it.
Since you obviously fail to understand the question on purpose, I locked the topic due to trolling. Trolling is when you're trying to annoy people on purpose. Either you're ignorant of the question, too arrogant to ask for
further (think three explanations was enough) clarification on the question or you're just trolling.
