teryg

A jig, cutters and templates for the Pin and Crescent joint is available at Woodworker.com
I've used one, and found it to be quite fussy to set up, and you must always have strong and steady control of the tools. The milling operations on the drawer's end grain are prone to tear-out, so it pays to use a series of light passes with a climb cut, in one direction. This joint is not a "slam, bam, thank you ma'am" operation. Be very deliberate, and be very careful during the routing operations.
Like the dovetail, the pin and crescent joint is unmatched for its simple elegance, and it's natural strength. Truly a thing of beauty!

Vern P. Thanks.
Sound design processes utilize self-test / fail-safe modes like that to assure the system is truly "rip-ready"!

However, a simple disabling feature (cut-off switch) for wet wood invites abuse, as well as a whole new generation of litigious insanity!

Same players; same game; same referees; same rules; different opportunities!

Vern P. Thanks.
Sound design processes utilize self-test / fail-safe modes like that to assure the system is truly "rip-ready"!

However, a simple disabling feature (cut-off switch) for wet wood invites abuse, as well as a whole new generation of litigious insanity!

Same players; same game; same referees; same rules; different opportunities!

Market share and risk of liability being what they are, a technology like SawStop will eventually find its way into the mainstream. Meanwhile, there is a golden opportunity for a firm that is long on engineering and manufacturing to design and sell retrofit kits to upgrade the old iron that populates 99% of shops everywhere. Talk about a huge market!

Seems to me that even with SawStop technology, there needs to be a self-test feature that verifies the electronics and the mechanism are intact and capable every time the equipment is turned ON. If not O.K., then the safety feature denies power to the motor to prevent misuse and accidents.
I don't think that's in-place with today's SawStop units.

The safety feature must not only be verifiably "run-ready", it must not be removable. If people can remove riving knives, safety guards, and fences, they can remove any technology unless it is integrated into the equipment's run/don't-run mode.

Any testimonials from Saw Stop owners who have experienced a "saving moment" with it? Hot dog videos are one thing; finger/hands are another.

An award that attaches responsibility and blame properly would have been 65% against the contractor, 35% against Osorio.

Zero against the equipment manufacturer because there is no safety requirement that they ignored. That can, and should, be changed!

Q. What do you call a Harley rider with no helmet?..... A. an organ donor! Q. What do you call a table saw operator without training, oversight, integrated safety equipment, and a dull blade? A. ...an amputee!

There is plenty of stupidity to go round here. Most of it for the contractor, and the operator. A little for the saw company, and the judge & jury. Too bad ignorance is not painful until it's too late!

Taken all together, no amount of safety guards or training can substitute for the implicit safety of an integrated fail-safe mechanism. Only technology that is built-into human operated devices like tablesaws can absolutely 100% prevent ravages to flesh & bone.

True, the price may be unattractive, but the fact remains that to err is human and the price of those errors (missing fingers / hand trauma)is many, many times higher than prevention. To say nothing of the pain, suffering and rehab. Or worse, living with amputated digits.

We willingly accept airbags in our cars & trucks, and smoke & CO detectors in our homes. We require sprinklers in offices and schools and many more such examples. Why fight a massive advance in safety using integrated technology when the old approaches generate 30,000 horror stories each year?

The testimonials from the many who oppose Saw Stop style technology (many with lifetimes of accident free saw use) are mildly interesting, but they fall far short of making a compelling case to deny an integrated, fail-safe approach to safety.

All hail classic design! I hope that Phi and Mr. Fibonacci are explained and utilized. Put me in for this, please.