To say the least, I am somewhat surprised by the views expressed by some contributors in this thread. Members of FOG, in my mind, are knowledgeable people, willing to help others and interested in producing quality products, while using safe approaches and tooling. Hence my suprise with some of the reactions to Derek's post.
From my perspective, the starting point is the presentation by Derek of his approach for improving his handling of workpieces with a view to ensure safety, precision, repeatability and handling. His post allows people to understand his approach and, should they wish to do so, to copy or adapt the product.
As a hobbyist I like to think that I can appreciate the qualtiy, innovation and performance of products offered on the market, without necessarily feeling the need, urge or desire to buy some of those products. Without having had the chance to own or even test products such as those made by Brian Lamb and Mac Campshure (sorry for not including more potential examples), I am nonetheless absolutely sure that they are selling top notch products that I would enjoy owning and using. In spite of this, I will likely never be one of their customers simply because I choose to limit the money I invest into my hobby.?
Then comes Derek with an interesting approach that can help me enjoy my hobby while increasing performance, all the while preserving the safety aspect. What is wrong with that? Should I, or anybody else with my profile, decide to make a version of Derek's parallel guide has no impact/consequence on the financial performance of people selling this type of equipment since I am not a prospective buyer. Therefore why would it be necessary for some to justify their purchase instead of thanking somebody who enthusiastically shares his passion, know-how and creativity thus allowing everybody to get a new perspective?
Diversity of thinking is a widely accepted concept of enhanced performance in any group. Why would this group be any different in that regard?
Regards,
Jacques
