I bought a stainless steel protractor. You've probably seen the like. It
has a scale engraved onto a rectangular piece with a moving rule that ends
in an angle indicator marking. I don't have the manufacturer in front of
me, but it was made in the USA, and it seems to be a well-made little tool.
I attempted to use this thing to see if saw blade is really set at 90 to the
table, after doing my absolute best to dial it in using my square. It came
in at 89+ on one side, and 91- on the other side. I checked my square, and
it came in at 89+.
I checked two other squares, and both of them came in at 89+ too. One is
Johnson combination square, another is a Stanley combination, and the last
is a Stanley, um, whatever you call an L shaped piece of metal kind of
square with no moving parts.
So do I trust the protractor or the squares? All were made in the USA, and
all have been well-treated.
If I go buy a Starret (sp?) or comparable anal $BIGNUM square, will it read
90.0 on this protractor?
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
In article <[email protected]>, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
> So do I trust the protractor or the squares?
It's pretty easy to check a square.
Scribe a line. Flip the square. Does the line match?
djb
--
Is it time to change my sig line yet?
In article <[email protected]>, Doug
Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> This method presumes that the edge you're holding the square against is
> straight.
Yup.
> Unless you know that it is, you can't trust the results.
Yup.
--
Is it time to change my sig line yet?
That's what the professionals do. View it with a light behind the cut.
Bernard R
"John Grossbohlin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I bought a stainless steel protractor. You've probably seen the like.
It
> > has a scale engraved onto a rectangular piece with a moving rule that
ends
> > in an angle indicator marking. I don't have the manufacturer in front
of
> > me, but it was made in the USA, and it seems to be a well-made little
> tool.
> >
> > I attempted to use this thing to see if saw blade is really set at 90 to
> the
> > table, after doing my absolute best to dial it in using my square. It
> came
> > in at 89+ on one side, and 91- on the other side. I checked my square,
> and
> > it came in at 89+.
> >
> > I checked two other squares, and both of them came in at 89+ too. One
is
> > Johnson combination square, another is a Stanley combination, and the
last
> > is a Stanley, um, whatever you call an L shaped piece of metal kind of
> > square with no moving parts.
> >
> > So do I trust the protractor or the squares? All were made in the USA,
> and
> > all have been well-treated.
> >
> > If I go buy a Starret (sp?) or comparable anal $BIGNUM square, will it
> read
> > 90.0 on this protractor?
>
>
> I'd forgo the "questionable" tools all-together. Why not just cut a board
> that is close to the maximum depth of cut in thickness and after the cut
> flip one of the pieces over, butt the cut ends up against each other while
> they lay on the table, and see if they match up square... if they don't
then
> the blade isn't perpendicular to the table. Since the maximum depth of is
> typically a bit over 3" on a 10" saw it shouldn't be too difficult to see
> any deviation from square. I suggest running a pencil line down the length
> of the board on one side to help keep track of the flip.
>
> John
>
>
>
mine is painted black and is from around the mid 70's.
dave
Bob S. wrote:
> Au contraire there Dave. There was an article last year in one of the
> trades where the Stanley was actually rated very highly - if it's the yellow
> bodied one. The article also showed how to true and tighten them up. I was
> surprised at how accurate they said some of the lower cost versions were.
>
> Bob S.
>
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Doug, I've got one of the worlds LEAST accurate combo squares; a
>>Stanley. I should probably toss it into the recycle bin. I sure as
>>heck won't use it on a WW project. It's a LITTLE less accurate than
>>0.00955 degrees! :)
>>
>>dave
>>
>
>
>
Outcome based woodworking.
Once I got the outcome I wanted, I checked my squares against the blade.
Both turned out to be right on, which I sort of thought they were, because
when set on a flat surface, there was no light between the uprights.
I can now use them if I want to to check the limit screw on the saw for 90.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:qry1c.26499$%[email protected]...
> Exactly... I seldom use a square at all.
>
>
>
Geez, if it isn't square, make it so. I've filed a bit on my "Japanese"
combination square so it matches, and ditto some lumps on speedsquares. You
talk all the time about fettling planes, why shy from squares?
The first square I can remember, an old metal Stanley from dad's 50's shop
is now square, and in use at my house. I have a feeling dad never used it
much after the many drops it suffered from me.
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> well, I'm glad you included the Incra, as that's MY "guaranteed square".
> 'twas a X-mas gift that I ask for when folks asked for ideas. I got
> the 5" one so that I can place it next to the BS blade to set the table
> perpendicular. Not that that's the only thing I use it for, of course.
>
> dave
>
> Doug Miller wrote:
> If the
> > Starrett says something is square, it's square. Same goes for Incra.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
> >
> > For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
> > send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> >
> >
>
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Silvan" writes:
>
> > I bought a stainless steel protractor.
> <snip>
>
> > I attempted to use this thing to see if saw blade is really set at 90 to
> the
> > table, after doing my absolute best to dial it in using my square.
> <snip>
>
> Why bother? Life is too short to clutter it up with a bunch of toys IMHO.
>
> (BTW, my sail boat also reflects this simple approach to life.)
>
> A square miter gage and a piece of scrap plywood is all that is needed to
> determine if a saw blade is square with the table.
>
> Extend the blade to full height, stand the plywood on edge (vertical) and
> make a cut using the left table slot.
>
> Rotate the piece 180 degrees, put the miter gage in the right table slot and
> run the plywood thru again centering the first cut over the saw blade.
>
> The sides of this double cut are now parallel indicating a square cut or
> they are not parallel indicating adjustments are needed.
>
> Works for me, YMMV.
>
> Lew
Now, how does he know if his miter gage is square? Somewhere along the
road you need at least one square that you are comfortable is square
within your tolerances. The scribibg a line on a board with a known
straight edge method proves squareness sufficient for my tolerences.
Of course, a $2 plastic 30/60 drafting square is commonly recognised
as quite square. One of these can be used to test that protractor at
90, 60 and 30 degrees.
Dave Hall
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
> (It came to $2,000. OUCH! It's a lot of money to spend to get someone to
> torture you. It would have been cheaper and far less painful to hit
myself
> in the nuts a couple good times with a sledge hammer.)
You could have done the same job with a pair of pliers and a bottle of
whiskey. See how much money you could have saved? :)
Au contraire there Dave. There was an article last year in one of the
trades where the Stanley was actually rated very highly - if it's the yellow
bodied one. The article also showed how to true and tighten them up. I was
surprised at how accurate they said some of the lower cost versions were.
Bob S.
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug, I've got one of the worlds LEAST accurate combo squares; a
> Stanley. I should probably toss it into the recycle bin. I sure as
> heck won't use it on a WW project. It's a LITTLE less accurate than
> 0.00955 degrees! :)
>
> dave
>
In article <[email protected]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>A bit late but I just caught this...
>
>Lesee, a computer geek away from his 'puter 9 hours....nahhhhh.... Withdrawl
>symptoms start at 4 hrs and are unbearble after six. At 9 hours - you're
>not breathing anymore so it musta been closer to 8 hours...
>
:-)
Yeah, it prolly was more like 7. Couldn't be helped though: time in the shop,
then go pick up the kids from school, run one of them over to baseball
practice, fix supper, eat supper, prayer service at church with SWMBO, pick up
kid from baseball practice... time flies.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
well, I'm glad you included the Incra, as that's MY "guaranteed square".
'twas a X-mas gift that I ask for when folks asked for ideas. I got
the 5" one so that I can place it next to the BS blade to set the table
perpendicular. Not that that's the only thing I use it for, of course.
dave
Doug Miller wrote:
If the
> Starrett says something is square, it's square. Same goes for Incra.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
> send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>
>
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I bought a stainless steel protractor. You've probably seen the like. It
> has a scale engraved onto a rectangular piece with a moving rule that ends
> in an angle indicator marking. I don't have the manufacturer in front of
> me, but it was made in the USA, and it seems to be a well-made little
tool.
>
> I attempted to use this thing to see if saw blade is really set at 90 to
the
> table, after doing my absolute best to dial it in using my square. It
came
> in at 89+ on one side, and 91- on the other side. I checked my square,
and
> it came in at 89+.
>
> I checked two other squares, and both of them came in at 89+ too. One is
> Johnson combination square, another is a Stanley combination, and the last
> is a Stanley, um, whatever you call an L shaped piece of metal kind of
> square with no moving parts.
>
> So do I trust the protractor or the squares? All were made in the USA,
and
> all have been well-treated.
>
> If I go buy a Starret (sp?) or comparable anal $BIGNUM square, will it
read
> 90.0 on this protractor?
I'd forgo the "questionable" tools all-together. Why not just cut a board
that is close to the maximum depth of cut in thickness and after the cut
flip one of the pieces over, butt the cut ends up against each other while
they lay on the table, and see if they match up square... if they don't then
the blade isn't perpendicular to the table. Since the maximum depth of is
typically a bit over 3" on a 10" saw it shouldn't be too difficult to see
any deviation from square. I suggest running a pencil line down the length
of the board on one side to help keep track of the flip.
John
In article <lgR1c.123418$%[email protected]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>I take it then by the no response Doug, that square really isn't square if
>its a Starrett. But I won't dog you on this as you did me over the word
>"must" since I knew what your intent was and I don't have to *prove* I was
>right...;-)
>
Not a case of "no response", Bob -- I haven't been near the computer for 8 or
9 hours. See my other post in this thread.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
A bit late but I just caught this...
Lesee, a computer geek away from his 'puter 9 hours....nahhhhh.... Withdrawl
symptoms start at 4 hrs and are unbearble after six. At 9 hours - you're
not breathing anymore so it musta been closer to 8 hours...
Bob S.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <lgR1c.123418$%[email protected]>, "Bob S."
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >I take it then by the no response Doug, that square really isn't square
if
> >its a Starrett. But I won't dog you on this as you did me over the word
> >"must" since I knew what your intent was and I don't have to *prove* I
was
> >right...;-)
> >
> Not a case of "no response", Bob -- I haven't been near the computer for 8
or
> 9 hours. See my other post in this thread.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
> send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>
>
Silvan,
Don't confuse made in the USA with being accurate. There are many POS items
made in the USA. The same way there are many highly accurate items not made
in the USA.
Use the draw two lines method other have mentioned here. Us a marking knive
to get a very thin line and see which one lines up.
About every 6 months or so, I get out all my squares and make sure they
still agree. I have a couple of fixed squares that I use for setup in the
shop and they get banged around sometimes, So I check them against the
square that stay in the toolbox. If everyone agrees, them I'm good. If there
is a disagreement, then I use the double line method to find out who got
bent.
I also recommend that you check your rulers against each other. I got some
hook rules one time that were 1/16" off. Not back unless you plan on doing
some fine woodworking, hahaha.
Bernie
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I bought a stainless steel protractor. You've probably seen the like. It
> has a scale engraved onto a rectangular piece with a moving rule that ends
> in an angle indicator marking. I don't have the manufacturer in front of
> me, but it was made in the USA, and it seems to be a well-made little
tool.
>
> I attempted to use this thing to see if saw blade is really set at 90 to
the
> table, after doing my absolute best to dial it in using my square. It
came
> in at 89+ on one side, and 91- on the other side. I checked my square,
and
> it came in at 89+.
>
> I checked two other squares, and both of them came in at 89+ too. One is
> Johnson combination square, another is a Stanley combination, and the last
> is a Stanley, um, whatever you call an L shaped piece of metal kind of
> square with no moving parts.
>
> So do I trust the protractor or the squares? All were made in the USA,
and
> all have been well-treated.
>
> If I go buy a Starret (sp?) or comparable anal $BIGNUM square, will it
read
> 90.0 on this protractor?
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
>
In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>well, I'm glad you included the Incra, as that's MY "guaranteed square".
> 'twas a X-mas gift that I ask for when folks asked for ideas. I got
>the 5" one so that I can place it next to the BS blade to set the table
>perpendicular. Not that that's the only thing I use it for, of course.
>
As far as I can tell, there isn't much difference in accuracy between Incra
and Starrett; they're both as close to dead-on perfect as I need them to be. I
found the Starrett combination square preferable because (a) I needed an
accurate, easy-to-read rule as well, (b) it combines accurate 90 and 45 degree
angles in one tool, and (c) it's cheaper than buying an Incra 90 *and* an
Incra 45 *and* a rule.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
"Silvan" writes:
> I bought a stainless steel protractor.
<snip>
> I attempted to use this thing to see if saw blade is really set at 90 to
the
> table, after doing my absolute best to dial it in using my square.
<snip>
Why bother? Life is too short to clutter it up with a bunch of toys IMHO.
(BTW, my sail boat also reflects this simple approach to life.)
A square miter gage and a piece of scrap plywood is all that is needed to
determine if a saw blade is square with the table.
Extend the blade to full height, stand the plywood on edge (vertical) and
make a cut using the left table slot.
Rotate the piece 180 degrees, put the miter gage in the right table slot and
run the plywood thru again centering the first cut over the saw blade.
The sides of this double cut are now parallel indicating a square cut or
they are not parallel indicating adjustments are needed.
Works for me, YMMV.
Lew
.0095 degrees.
"Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug,
>
> Legit question - not jerkin your leg on this one or baiting you and I
agree
> with your statement below about not regretting purchasing Starrett.
>
> I own one, it's the off-the-shelf, $70 square and the certificate says
it's
> accurate to within .002" over the length of the 12" blade. So maybe it is
> square and maybe it isn't but certainly close enough for my woodworking
use.
>
> So the question is - if you care to respond:
>
> If it is off by the full .002" (max allowable error) and I haven't checked
> it yet, then what would that equate to in degrees from being square (90°)?
> This assumes the blade is .002" wider/narrower at one end, which is
possible
> but probably unlikey.
>
> Bob S.
>
>
> > >
> > Probably not -- but that will be the fault of the protractor, not the
> square.
> >
> > If you buy a Starrett, you will never regret it (not after the initial
> shock,
> > anyway). And you will never have to worry about this again, either. If
the
> > Starrett says something is square, it's square. Same goes for Incra.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
> >
> > For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
> > send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> >
> >
>
>
Doug, I've got one of the worlds LEAST accurate combo squares; a
Stanley. I should probably toss it into the recycle bin. I sure as
heck won't use it on a WW project. It's a LITTLE less accurate than
0.00955 degrees! :)
dave
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>well, I'm glad you included the Incra, as that's MY "guaranteed square".
>> 'twas a X-mas gift that I ask for when folks asked for ideas. I got
>>the 5" one so that I can place it next to the BS blade to set the table
>>perpendicular. Not that that's the only thing I use it for, of course.
>>
>
> As far as I can tell, there isn't much difference in accuracy between Incra
> and Starrett; they're both as close to dead-on perfect as I need them to be. I
> found the Starrett combination square preferable because (a) I needed an
> accurate, easy-to-read rule as well, (b) it combines accurate 90 and 45 degree
> angles in one tool, and (c) it's cheaper than buying an Incra 90 *and* an
> Incra 45 *and* a rule.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
> send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>
>
In article <[email protected]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug,
>
>Legit question - not jerkin your leg on this one or baiting you and I agree
>with your statement below about not regretting purchasing Starrett.
>
>I own one, it's the off-the-shelf, $70 square and the certificate says it's
>accurate to within .002" over the length of the 12" blade. So maybe it is
>square and maybe it isn't but certainly close enough for my woodworking use.
>
>So the question is - if you care to respond:
>
>If it is off by the full .002" (max allowable error) and I haven't checked
>it yet, then what would that equate to in degrees from being square (90°)?
>This assumes the blade is .002" wider/narrower at one end, which is possible
>but probably unlikey.
>
Angle of error = arctangent ( 0.002 / 12 ) = 0.00955 degrees
So it's within less than 1/100 degree of perfectly square.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
ohhhhhh........well JOAT has some yeller paint I'm sure he'd loan ya....
Bob S.
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mine is painted black and is from around the mid 70's.
>
> dave
>
> Bob S. wrote:
>
> > Au contraire there Dave. There was an article last year in one of the
> > trades where the Stanley was actually rated very highly - if it's the
yellow
> > bodied one. The article also showed how to true and tighten them up. I
was
> > surprised at how accurate they said some of the lower cost versions
were.
> >
> > Bob S.
> >
> >
> > "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Doug, I've got one of the worlds LEAST accurate combo squares; a
> >>Stanley. I should probably toss it into the recycle bin. I sure as
> >>heck won't use it on a WW project. It's a LITTLE less accurate than
> >>0.00955 degrees! :)
> >>
> >>dave
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
In article <[email protected]>, Silvan <[email protected]> wrote:
>I bought a stainless steel protractor. You've probably seen the like. It
>has a scale engraved onto a rectangular piece with a moving rule that ends
>in an angle indicator marking. I don't have the manufacturer in front of
>me, but it was made in the USA, and it seems to be a well-made little tool.
Yep, I have one like that too. The markings are a bit too wide to permit it to
be truly accurate.
>
>I attempted to use this thing to see if saw blade is really set at 90 to the
>table, after doing my absolute best to dial it in using my square. It came
>in at 89+ on one side, and 91- on the other side. I checked my square, and
>it came in at 89+.
>
>I checked two other squares, and both of them came in at 89+ too. One is
>Johnson combination square, another is a Stanley combination, and the last
>is a Stanley, um, whatever you call an L shaped piece of metal kind of
>square with no moving parts.
>
>So do I trust the protractor or the squares? All were made in the USA, and
>all have been well-treated.
Neither. :-)
>
>If I go buy a Starret (sp?) or comparable anal $BIGNUM square, will it read
>90.0 on this protractor?
>
Probably not -- but that will be the fault of the protractor, not the square.
If you buy a Starrett, you will never regret it (not after the initial shock,
anyway). And you will never have to worry about this again, either. If the
Starrett says something is square, it's square. Same goes for Incra.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Doug Miller wrote:
> If you buy a Starrett, you will never regret it (not after the initial
> shock, anyway). And you will never have to worry about this again, either.
> If the Starrett says something is square, it's square. Same goes for
> Incra.
Hafta take a pass. I just got the bill from my wisdom teeth. They
estimated $700 short.
Too bad surgery isn't like car repair. "Book says $1300, and I'm not paying
a penny more."
(It came to $2,000. OUCH! It's a lot of money to spend to get someone to
torture you. It would have been cheaper and far less painful to hit myself
in the nuts a couple good times with a sledge hammer.)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 21:19:28 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I bought a stainless steel protractor. You've probably seen the like. It
>has a scale engraved onto a rectangular piece with a moving rule that ends
>in an angle indicator marking. I don't have the manufacturer in front of
>me, but it was made in the USA, and it seems to be a well-made little tool.
I had a General that fits that description, and it was WAY off!
Barry
Silvan wrote:
>If I go buy a Starret (sp?) or comparable anal $BIGNUM square, will it read
>90.0 on this protractor?
The biggest, best and most $BIGNUM square you'll get from
Starrett is the Builder's Combination Square.
http://catalog.starrett.com/catalog/catalog/groupf.asp?groupid=395
Granted it will set you back $300ish but it's a fine tool.
(Don't Ask Me How I Know This).
Smaller heads for the standard blades (combination square)
are available and are precise but you'll need a jeweler's
loupe to use them (1) but will have a smaller blade and
body.
(1) I have a little 8X loupe I got at a camera store that
lives in my square drawer.
UA100
Doug,
Legit question - not jerkin your leg on this one or baiting you and I agree
with your statement below about not regretting purchasing Starrett.
I own one, it's the off-the-shelf, $70 square and the certificate says it's
accurate to within .002" over the length of the 12" blade. So maybe it is
square and maybe it isn't but certainly close enough for my woodworking use.
So the question is - if you care to respond:
If it is off by the full .002" (max allowable error) and I haven't checked
it yet, then what would that equate to in degrees from being square (90°)?
This assumes the blade is .002" wider/narrower at one end, which is possible
but probably unlikey.
Bob S.
> >
> Probably not -- but that will be the fault of the protractor, not the
square.
>
> If you buy a Starrett, you will never regret it (not after the initial
shock,
> anyway). And you will never have to worry about this again, either. If the
> Starrett says something is square, it's square. Same goes for Incra.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
> send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>
>
In article <030320042051403640%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Silvan
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So do I trust the protractor or the squares?
>
>It's pretty easy to check a square.
>
>Scribe a line. Flip the square. Does the line match?
>
This method presumes that the edge you're holding the square against is
straight. Unless you know that it is, you can't trust the results. :-)
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
CW wrote:
>> (It came to $2,000. OUCH! It's a lot of money to spend to get someone
>> to
>> torture you. It would have been cheaper and far less painful to hit
> myself
>> in the nuts a couple good times with a sledge hammer.)
>
>
> You could have done the same job with a pair of pliers and a bottle of
> whiskey. See how much money you could have saved? :)
That would have been cheaper, but not less painful.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Get one of those 30/60/90 plastic triangles, you know the one you had to
have for shop class. My shop teacher required we learn 6 weeks of drafting
before taking us into the machine shop. Probably the best and most useful
class I took in school and I'm not even referring to the woodworking skills
he attempted to teach me.
KY
--
http://users.adelphia.net/~kyhighland
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I bought a stainless steel protractor. You've probably seen the like. It
> has a scale engraved onto a rectangular piece with a moving rule that ends
> in an angle indicator marking. I don't have the manufacturer in front of
> me, but it was made in the USA, and it seems to be a well-made little
tool.
>
> I attempted to use this thing to see if saw blade is really set at 90 to
the
> table, after doing my absolute best to dial it in using my square. It
came
> in at 89+ on one side, and 91- on the other side. I checked my square,
and
> it came in at 89+.
>
> I checked two other squares, and both of them came in at 89+ too. One is
> Johnson combination square, another is a Stanley combination, and the last
> is a Stanley, um, whatever you call an L shaped piece of metal kind of
> square with no moving parts.
>
> So do I trust the protractor or the squares? All were made in the USA,
and
> all have been well-treated.
>
> If I go buy a Starret (sp?) or comparable anal $BIGNUM square, will it
read
> 90.0 on this protractor?
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
>
Frankly, I would trust a archetect's triangle to be closer to true
90degrees than most of the junk out there in the hardware stores/borg,
and it is a WHOLE lot cheaper and lastly if it get dinged/damaged, it
doesn't hurt too much to toss it and buy a new one
For an alternative, there are machinist's SQUARES for under $20 that
will let you know if it is square or NOT, just won't give you a read
out of the actual angle
John
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 22:48:05 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"John Grossbohlin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > I bought a stainless steel protractor. You've probably seen the like.
>It
>> > has a scale engraved onto a rectangular piece with a moving rule that
>ends
>> > in an angle indicator marking. I don't have the manufacturer in front
>of
>> > me, but it was made in the USA, and it seems to be a well-made little
>> tool.
>> >
>> > I attempted to use this thing to see if saw blade is really set at 90 to
>> the
>> > table, after doing my absolute best to dial it in using my square. It
>> came
>> > in at 89+ on one side, and 91- on the other side. I checked my square,
>> and
>> > it came in at 89+.
>> >
>> > I checked two other squares, and both of them came in at 89+ too. One
>is
>> > Johnson combination square, another is a Stanley combination, and the
>last
>> > is a Stanley, um, whatever you call an L shaped piece of metal kind of
>> > square with no moving parts.
>> >
>> > So do I trust the protractor or the squares? All were made in the USA,
>> and
>> > all have been well-treated.
>> >
>> > If I go buy a Starret (sp?) or comparable anal $BIGNUM square, will it
>> read
>> > 90.0 on this protractor?
>>
>>
>> I'd forgo the "questionable" tools all-together. Why not just cut a board
>> that is close to the maximum depth of cut in thickness and after the cut
>> flip one of the pieces over, butt the cut ends up against each other while
>> they lay on the table, and see if they match up square... if they don't
>then
>> the blade isn't perpendicular to the table. Since the maximum depth of
>(cut) is
>> typically a bit over 3" on a 10" saw it shouldn't be too difficult to see
>> any deviation from square. I suggest running a pencil line down the length
>> of the board on one side to help keep track of the flip.
>>
>> John
>
>I see I left a word out... classic case of reading what I thought I wrote
>instead of what I actually wrote! ;-)
>
>John
>
what Dave said, Michael.
scribe the lines and see if they overlap along their entire length.
dave
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Silvan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>So do I trust the protractor or the squares?
>
>
> It's pretty easy to check a square.
>
> Scribe a line. Flip the square. Does the line match?
>
> djb
>
"John Grossbohlin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I bought a stainless steel protractor. You've probably seen the like.
It
> > has a scale engraved onto a rectangular piece with a moving rule that
ends
> > in an angle indicator marking. I don't have the manufacturer in front
of
> > me, but it was made in the USA, and it seems to be a well-made little
> tool.
> >
> > I attempted to use this thing to see if saw blade is really set at 90 to
> the
> > table, after doing my absolute best to dial it in using my square. It
> came
> > in at 89+ on one side, and 91- on the other side. I checked my square,
> and
> > it came in at 89+.
> >
> > I checked two other squares, and both of them came in at 89+ too. One
is
> > Johnson combination square, another is a Stanley combination, and the
last
> > is a Stanley, um, whatever you call an L shaped piece of metal kind of
> > square with no moving parts.
> >
> > So do I trust the protractor or the squares? All were made in the USA,
> and
> > all have been well-treated.
> >
> > If I go buy a Starret (sp?) or comparable anal $BIGNUM square, will it
> read
> > 90.0 on this protractor?
>
>
> I'd forgo the "questionable" tools all-together. Why not just cut a board
> that is close to the maximum depth of cut in thickness and after the cut
> flip one of the pieces over, butt the cut ends up against each other while
> they lay on the table, and see if they match up square... if they don't
then
> the blade isn't perpendicular to the table. Since the maximum depth of
(cut) is
> typically a bit over 3" on a 10" saw it shouldn't be too difficult to see
> any deviation from square. I suggest running a pencil line down the length
> of the board on one side to help keep track of the flip.
>
> John
I see I left a word out... classic case of reading what I thought I wrote
instead of what I actually wrote! ;-)
John
Reminds me of an old one:
In this world, there are often two sides to an issue. One is right, the
other is wrong. It can be difficult to determine which is which, and we can
debate it for some time. In the interest of brevity, I have a simple
solution to determine who is right, and who is wrong. I'll take the former,
you take the latter. Case is settled.
Michael
"Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:lgR1c.123418$%[email protected]...
> I take it then by the no response Doug, that square really isn't square if
> its a Starrett. But I won't dog you on this as you did me over the word
> "must" since I knew what your intent was and I don't have to *prove* I was
> right...;-)
>
> Bob S.
>
>
>
>