Today while trying to adjust the out/infeed tables on my DW733 planer, The
tab, and then the eyelet that attaches the dust shroud to the planer snapped
off. The weight/tension of my dust collection hose tourqued it just a bit
too much and snapped this marginally designed connector of this part.
Needless to say I was fit to be tied.
Option 1: Fix it. I doubt slathering epoxy on this thing will offer any
strength. I would have to do a repair that was stronger then the original
repair. Encase it in fiberglass mesh & resin perhaps? Would that stick to
plastic?
Option 2 replace it:
http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/attachment_detail.asp?productID=1792
The part Dewalt shows on line is NOT what I have. Mine exhausts 90 degrees
to the left. This one exits 45 degrees to the right and has no visible tabs
on the corners. While the new version looks improved from an airflow
perspective, I can't see how it attaches. I'm wondering if Dewalt realized
that the tabs were just an accident waiting to happen and redesigned it.
Does anybody have the new version of the dust shroud? How does it attach?
Did it come with your 733, or did you get it after?
Thanks,
Steve
they mark everything up 20% just for me!
dav
B a r r y B u r k e J r . wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:48:59 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>That is a good idea, Barry. I'll see what CB Tools has in stock next
>>time I go down there. Thanks!
>
>
> Just don't pay too much for it. =8^0
>
> Barry
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 02:58:49 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>the plastic portion attached to the hose is a quick coupling that works
>on ALL my other equipment. Besides, even with the coupling off, it's a
>PITA to get the hose end over the dewalt fitting. it just isn't
>dimensioned correctly. The ports on the TS, BS, router table, and
>jointer all fit the hose coupling. The dewalt is the maverick.
Ah, quick connects!
How about adding a short, maybe a foot long, section of hose to the
DeWalt, with a matching quick connect at the other end? You could
then permanently attach the short hose to the planer, and still be
able to quick connect with ease.
Barry
This part seems to be made of nylon, and if true, nothing's going to
adhere to it. You'll have to get a new one if you want it to work the
same as it did before breaking.
Or you try fixing the one one you have with metal tabs pop riveted to
it.
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 08:54:54 -0500, "Stephen Meier"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Today while trying to adjust the out/infeed tables on my DW733 planer, The
>tab, and then the eyelet that attaches the dust shroud to the planer snapped
>off. The weight/tension of my dust collection hose tourqued it just a bit
>too much and snapped this marginally designed connector of this part.
>
>Needless to say I was fit to be tied.
>
>Option 1: Fix it. I doubt slathering epoxy on this thing will offer any
>strength. I would have to do a repair that was stronger then the original
>repair. Encase it in fiberglass mesh & resin perhaps? Would that stick to
>plastic?
>
>Option 2 replace it:
>
>http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/attachment_detail.asp?productID=1792
>
>The part Dewalt shows on line is NOT what I have. Mine exhausts 90 degrees
>to the left. This one exits 45 degrees to the right and has no visible tabs
>on the corners. While the new version looks improved from an airflow
>perspective, I can't see how it attaches. I'm wondering if Dewalt realized
>that the tabs were just an accident waiting to happen and redesigned it.
>
>Does anybody have the new version of the dust shroud? How does it attach?
>Did it come with your 733, or did you get it after?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Steve
>
>
you could always duct tape it back on........
Stephen Meier wrote:
> Today while trying to adjust the out/infeed tables on my DW733 planer, The
> tab, and then the eyelet that attaches the dust shroud to the planer snapped
> off. The weight/tension of my dust collection hose tourqued it just a bit
> too much and snapped this marginally designed connector of this part.
>
> Needless to say I was fit to be tied.
>
> Option 1: Fix it. I doubt slathering epoxy on this thing will offer any
> strength. I would have to do a repair that was stronger then the original
> repair. Encase it in fiberglass mesh & resin perhaps? Would that stick to
> plastic?
>
> Option 2 replace it:
>
> http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/attachment_detail.asp?productID=1792
>
> The part Dewalt shows on line is NOT what I have. Mine exhausts 90 degrees
> to the left. This one exits 45 degrees to the right and has no visible tabs
> on the corners. While the new version looks improved from an airflow
> perspective, I can't see how it attaches. I'm wondering if Dewalt realized
> that the tabs were just an accident waiting to happen and redesigned it.
>
> Does anybody have the new version of the dust shroud? How does it attach?
> Did it come with your 733, or did you get it after?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
Just like my dad used to do. Anything that broke, he called the
manufacturer or wrote them a letter. Pretty soon, here comes a new part
or item in the mail.
He had an ice maker quit working after 8 years, wrote to GE, got a new
one in the mail about 3 weeks later.
I always accused him of being cheap. He was, but he was good at it too.
Rich wrote:
> I had one break and dewalt sent one free of charge.
>
> Rich
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robert,
>
>
>Excellent primer! NO S & W. I've got a HUGE dictionary which we use
>when playing word games such as Milton Bradley's Upwords. (Ever played
>that? We prefer it to Scrabble®). When I'm on the pc I will use the
>online references.
>
>You might have noticed that my usual method of emphasis is to use UPPER
>CASE. It is simple and I HOPE most folks "get it". :)
By long-standing USENET convention, all-caps, except when used for
identifying an acronym, is the equivalent of shouting. It's the _most_
_emphatic_ modifier you can apply.
>
>BTW, I've been "mis-understood" more than a coupla times! <g>
>
>Cheers,
>
>dave
>
>
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Robert, could you 'splain something to me?
>>
>>
>> Just remember, "You *ASKED* for it" <grin>
>>
>>>Sometimes you set off your text with underscores,
>>>
>>>sometimes you use asterisks,
>>>
>>>another time you'll opt for apostrophes,
>>>
>>>or quotes;
>>>
>>>but for the LIFE of me I cannot discern the reason why you choose a
>>>particular punctuation mark or keyboard symbol to set off your words.
>>
>>
>> You mean you don't have a copy of Strunk & White on your bookshelf??
>>
>>
>>>to wit:
>>>
>>>'planing'
>>
>>
>> This one is standard typography.
>> The word is being used literally, i.e. not meaning what it is defined to mean,
>> but standing for the word itself. Single- and double-quotes can be used
>> more-or-less interchangeably for this (and for _most_ uses of quote-marks),
>> subject to the risks of confusion when employed in differing uses, in relative
>> lexical proximity.
>>
>>
>>>it _isn't_ there
>>
>>
>> Think underlined. something one cannot do in plain ASCII
>> (a traditional usage dating back 30+ years, when using 'plain text' mediums
>> that do not support over-printing.)
>>
>>
>>>*are*also*
>>
>>
>> and bold-face.
>> (of similar antiquity, and origins, as _underline_ )
>> [ also, -italic-, and (comparatively rare) =double-underline= ]
>> [ all showing "emphasis", differing in degree and/or type ]
>>
>>
>> USENET is generally closer to the spoken version of the language, than the
>> formal written language. DESPITE being written down. bold, underline, all-
>> caps, italic, etc. all convey what would be indicated by varying degrees of
>> emphasis/stress on the spoken word.
>>
>>
>>> -- like woodworking --
>>
>>
>> Again, a _standard_ typographical convention. (in real printing, it's an "em
>> dash", before and after, rather than two "minus sign" characters. Similar to
>> a parenthetical phrase; an interruption in the flow that clarifies the
>> preceding remark.
>>
>>
>>>"quality"
>>
>>
>> There are several standard typographical uses for this, beyond straight
>> quotation. Including, not necessarily in frequency of use:
>> a) a literal, as mentioned above, re: "'planing'"
>> b) a thing being named
>> c) a "suspect" usage -- where you want to emphasize that the word doesn't
>> actually mean what it usually means. e.g. "quality" Harbor
>Freight tools.
>> d) a characteristic of a class of objects, as distinct from the meaning of
>> that characteristic as associated with a specific object.
>>
>>
>>
>>>exotic/archaic/rarely-used
>>
>>
>> Yet again, just standard typography. Multiple things that all fit.
>>
>>
>>>I'm merely curious. There's 'no' *need/reason* "to" -- get -- _your_
>>>nose out of joint. :)
>>
>>
>> Zats' awright. You mis-used almost all the typographical conventions,
>> anyway. (underlining 'your' *was* an appropriate use -- you slipped up on
>> that one :) I take it though, it's ok with you for me to get
>"somebody else's"
>> nose out of joint ? <chuckle>
>>
>> Seriously, it is _very_ difficult to convey precise "shades" of intonation
>> and/or meaning in the printed word. Which is almost the entire reason that
>> all the complexities and features of typesetting/typography exist. Things
>> like: different type faces, font sizes, "bold", "italic", "underline", "all-
>> caps", "small caps", etc., etc., ad nauseum Probably 90% of which is not
>> *consciously* noted by at least 90% of the readership. Emphasis on the word
>> "consciously".
>>
>> When one is limited to "Dumb-ass key terminals" (as a friend's wife once
>> referred to the machine sitting on her desk at work), and the accompanying
>> limitations of ASCII-only display, the substitutes/work-arounds for those
>> means of conveying shades of meaning do become more 'consciously noticed'.
>>
>> The more aware one is of the possibilities for mis-reading/mis-interpreting
>> casually jotted-down "off the cuff" remarks, the more likely one is to add
>> 'cues' as to how to read the remarks so as to reduce, as much as possible,
>> the likelihood of such mis-interpretation.
>>
>>
>> In other words, "Yes, Dave, there _is_ a madness to my method."
>>
>
Do we need proof of purchase or a photo to prove
that it broke. What about a broken router bit.
Tibur
"Mapdude" wrote in message
> Just like my dad used to do. Anything that broke, he called the
> manufacturer or wrote them a letter. Pretty soon, here comes a new part
> or item in the mail.
>
> He had an ice maker quit working after 8 years, wrote to GE, got a new
> one in the mail about 3 weeks later.
>
> I always accused him of being cheap. He was, but he was good at it too.
>
>
> Rich wrote:
> > I had one break and dewalt sent one free of charge.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >
>
NO! there is a hose clamp on the hose to the plastic end that stays on
the hose. I can't clamp that part to the dewalt! the plastic end is a
bit too small to go far enough onto the dewalt's dust port. get it???
dave
B a r r y B u r k e J r . wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:08:52 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>don't worry about the lip on the port. I've been using that same dust
>>port for at least a year and it doesn't impact performance. The biggest
>>problem is that the port is slightly too large to allow the DC hose end
>>(tapered plastic) to slip over it far enough not to fall off half the
>>time. Starting up the planer with the DC hose lying on the ground is a
>>real pisser when the chips start flying all over the shop. I've
>>resorted to securing the hose with a piece of tape.
>
>
> Hose clamp? <G>
>
> Barry
maybe I need to post a picture for you...
dave
B a r r y B u r k e J r . wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:08:52 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>don't worry about the lip on the port. I've been using that same dust
>>port for at least a year and it doesn't impact performance. The biggest
>>problem is that the port is slightly too large to allow the DC hose end
>>(tapered plastic) to slip over it far enough not to fall off half the
>>time. Starting up the planer with the DC hose lying on the ground is a
>>real pisser when the chips start flying all over the shop. I've
>>resorted to securing the hose with a piece of tape.
>
>
> Hose clamp? <G>
>
> Barry
don't worry about the lip on the port. I've been using that same dust
port for at least a year and it doesn't impact performance. The biggest
problem is that the port is slightly too large to allow the DC hose end
(tapered plastic) to slip over it far enough not to fall off half the
time. Starting up the planer with the DC hose lying on the ground is a
real pisser when the chips start flying all over the shop. I've
resorted to securing the hose with a piece of tape.
dave
Stephen Meier wrote:
> The part arrived from Dewalt yesterday via UPS Ground... I think it has been
> 8 days since I contacted dewalt. The metal dust shroud it is
> *way-more-beefy* than the plastic original.
>
> As I mentioned previously, the new part exhausts at 45 degrees right as
> opposed to 90 degrees left. There is a significant turned-in-lip in the 4"
> port. While this lip gives support to the structure of the port, it will
> also impede air flow a bit. I suspect this will negate any benefit of the
> decreased exit angle.
>
> Also, it now exits on the oposite side from the power cord???? Not a big
> deal, but it makes me wonder why?
>
> Anyway, I'm happy to have a the new part courtesy of Dewalt. I'll repost if
> I there is a noticable change in performance.
>
> -Steve
>
>
> "Stephen Meier" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Today while trying to adjust the out/infeed tables on my DW733 planer, The
>>tab, and then the eyelet that attaches the dust shroud to the planer
>
> snapped
>
>>off. The weight/tension of my dust collection hose tourqued it just a bit
>>too much and snapped this marginally designed connector of this part.
>>
>>Needless to say I was fit to be tied.
>>
>>Option 1: Fix it. I doubt slathering epoxy on this thing will offer any
>>strength. I would have to do a repair that was stronger then the original
>>repair. Encase it in fiberglass mesh & resin perhaps? Would that stick to
>>plastic?
>>
>>Option 2 replace it:
>>
>>http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/attachment_detail.asp?productID=1792
>>
>>The part Dewalt shows on line is NOT what I have. Mine exhausts 90 degrees
>>to the left. This one exits 45 degrees to the right and has no visible
>
> tabs
>
>>on the corners. While the new version looks improved from an airflow
>>perspective, I can't see how it attaches. I'm wondering if Dewalt realized
>>that the tabs were just an accident waiting to happen and redesigned it.
>>
>>Does anybody have the new version of the dust shroud? How does it attach?
>>Did it come with your 733, or did you get it after?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
the plastic portion attached to the hose is a quick coupling that works
on ALL my other equipment. Besides, even with the coupling off, it's a
PITA to get the hose end over the dewalt fitting. it just isn't
dimensioned correctly. The ports on the TS, BS, router table, and
jointer all fit the hose coupling. The dewalt is the maverick.
dave
B a r r y B u r k e J r . wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:56:51 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>NO! there is a hose clamp on the hose to the plastic end that stays on
>>the hose. I can't clamp that part to the dewalt! the plastic end is a
>>bit too small to go far enough onto the dewalt's dust port. get it???
>
>
> Not really.
>
> Can't you simply clamp the hose directly to the DeWalt fitting? My DC
> hose goes OVER the DeWalt fitting, there are no plastic pieces in
> between.
>
> Barry
Robert, could you 'splain something to me?
Sometimes you set off your text with underscores,
sometimes you use asterisks,
another time you'll opt for apostrophes,
or quotes;
but for the LIFE of me I cannot discern the reason why you choose a
particular punctuation mark or keyboard symbol to set off your words.
to wit:
'planing'
it _isn't_ there
*are*also*
-- like woodworking --
"quality"
exotic/archaic/rarely-used
I'm merely curious. There's 'no' *need/reason* "to" -- get -- _your_
nose out of joint. :)
dave
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> KYHighlander <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>just sent that last message and can't believe that 'planing' isn't in the
>>spell checker.
>
>
> Actually, there's a good reason why it _isn't_ there.
>
> The vast majority of 'mis-spelled' words *are*also* legitimate words, if
> you consult a 'big enough' dictionary.
>
> Except in a few specialized contexts -- like woodworking -- 'planing' is
> much more likely to be a mis-spelling of "planning" than it is to be the
> word that was actually 'intiended'.
>
> A "quality" dictionary for spell-checking has an interesting 'conflict'
> of requirements. Obviously, it needs to recognize 'commonly encountered'
> words that are spelled correctly. However, if it recognizes 'commonly
> encountered' *mis-spellings* of common words as "correct spelling of an
> exotic/archaic/rarely-used word", It's usefulness _as_ a spelling checker
> is greatly diminished.
>
> To make even a 'moderately reliable' GUESS at whether any given word is
> (a) a mis-spelling of a different word, or (b) the correct spelling of a
> less-common word, is a *very* difficult proposition. Checking the grammar
> _can_ help somewhat, but is neither easy, nor definitive. Beyond that,
> one must have extensive knowledge of the -meaning- of words, and the
> ability to analyze the external context which they describe.
>
> A 'textbook' exmaple:
> (A) Fruit flies like a banana.
> (B) Time flies like an arrow.
>
> "Whatintheh*ll" does the word "like' mean in each statement? or "flies"?
>
> And _how_ do you know whicn meaning to associate with the word in each
> context?
>
> Let alone a more frivolous construct -- everybody knows about the cousin
> of a frog -- the toad. Some of which live primarily up trees. (there,
> I got in the obligarory wood reference!) Of those who do, one method
> of classification is the number of appendages on their feet. Thus, there
> is the "three-toed tree toad". Put one of them in a cart that is being
> pulled by 'something else', and you have a "towed three-toed toad", aka
> a 'three-toed towed toad'. And I betcha your spell-checker will *not*
> choke over "three-toad toed towed". I'm pretty sure that that -last-
> varient wouldn't get by a grammar-checker, but I wouldn't want to bet that
> either of the first two forms _would_.
>
> Not to mention the difficulties encountered in transcribing the former,
> as a *spoken* phrase into written language. (yes, I'm _sure_ he *said*:
> "Three towed towed towed", no I _don 't_ understand what he *meant*!)
>
>
just sent that last message and can't believe that 'planing' isn't in the
spell checker.
--
http://users.adelphia.net/~kyhighland
"Stephen Meier" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Today while trying to adjust the out/infeed tables on my DW733 planer, The
> tab, and then the eyelet that attaches the dust shroud to the planer
snapped
> off. The weight/tension of my dust collection hose tourqued it just a bit
> too much and snapped this marginally designed connector of this part.
>
> Needless to say I was fit to be tied.
>
> Option 1: Fix it. I doubt slathering epoxy on this thing will offer any
> strength. I would have to do a repair that was stronger then the original
> repair. Encase it in fiberglass mesh & resin perhaps? Would that stick to
> plastic?
>
> Option 2 replace it:
>
> http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/attachment_detail.asp?productID=1792
>
> The part Dewalt shows on line is NOT what I have. Mine exhausts 90 degrees
> to the left. This one exits 45 degrees to the right and has no visible
tabs
> on the corners. While the new version looks improved from an airflow
> perspective, I can't see how it attaches. I'm wondering if Dewalt realized
> that the tabs were just an accident waiting to happen and redesigned it.
>
> Does anybody have the new version of the dust shroud? How does it attach?
> Did it come with your 733, or did you get it after?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
Never did attach the shroud to mine, I'd just a soon sweep afterward, the
savings are so big they don't get in the air. I only use it for planing down
dimensional lumber anyway, if I want to plane oak or other hardwoods I use
my 18" planer and it is connected to the DC.
--
http://users.adelphia.net/~kyhighland
"Stephen Meier" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Today while trying to adjust the out/infeed tables on my DW733 planer, The
> tab, and then the eyelet that attaches the dust shroud to the planer
snapped
> off. The weight/tension of my dust collection hose tourqued it just a bit
> too much and snapped this marginally designed connector of this part.
>
> Needless to say I was fit to be tied.
>
> Option 1: Fix it. I doubt slathering epoxy on this thing will offer any
> strength. I would have to do a repair that was stronger then the original
> repair. Encase it in fiberglass mesh & resin perhaps? Would that stick to
> plastic?
>
> Option 2 replace it:
>
> http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/attachment_detail.asp?productID=1792
>
> The part Dewalt shows on line is NOT what I have. Mine exhausts 90 degrees
> to the left. This one exits 45 degrees to the right and has no visible
tabs
> on the corners. While the new version looks improved from an airflow
> perspective, I can't see how it attaches. I'm wondering if Dewalt realized
> that the tabs were just an accident waiting to happen and redesigned it.
>
> Does anybody have the new version of the dust shroud? How does it attach?
> Did it come with your 733, or did you get it after?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
Robert,
Excellent primer! NO S & W. I've got a HUGE dictionary which we use
when playing word games such as Milton Bradley's Upwords. (Ever played
that? We prefer it to Scrabble®). When I'm on the pc I will use the
online references.
You might have noticed that my usual method of emphasis is to use UPPER
CASE. It is simple and I HOPE most folks "get it". :)
BTW, I've been "mis-understood" more than a coupla times! <g>
Cheers,
dave
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Robert, could you 'splain something to me?
>
>
> Just remember, "You *ASKED* for it" <grin>
>
>>Sometimes you set off your text with underscores,
>>
>>sometimes you use asterisks,
>>
>>another time you'll opt for apostrophes,
>>
>>or quotes;
>>
>>but for the LIFE of me I cannot discern the reason why you choose a
>>particular punctuation mark or keyboard symbol to set off your words.
>
>
> You mean you don't have a copy of Strunk & White on your bookshelf??
>
>
>>to wit:
>>
>>'planing'
>
>
> This one is standard typography.
> The word is being used literally, i.e. not meaning what it is defined to mean,
> but standing for the word itself. Single- and double-quotes can be used
> more-or-less interchangeably for this (and for _most_ uses of quote-marks),
> subject to the risks of confusion when employed in differing uses, in relative
> lexical proximity.
>
>
>>it _isn't_ there
>
>
> Think underlined. something one cannot do in plain ASCII
> (a traditional usage dating back 30+ years, when using 'plain text' mediums
> that do not support over-printing.)
>
>
>>*are*also*
>
>
> and bold-face.
> (of similar antiquity, and origins, as _underline_ )
> [ also, -italic-, and (comparatively rare) =double-underline= ]
> [ all showing "emphasis", differing in degree and/or type ]
>
>
> USENET is generally closer to the spoken version of the language, than the
> formal written language. DESPITE being written down. bold, underline, all-
> caps, italic, etc. all convey what would be indicated by varying degrees of
> emphasis/stress on the spoken word.
>
>
>> -- like woodworking --
>
>
> Again, a _standard_ typographical convention. (in real printing, it's an "em
> dash", before and after, rather than two "minus sign" characters. Similar to
> a parenthetical phrase; an interruption in the flow that clarifies the
> preceding remark.
>
>
>>"quality"
>
>
> There are several standard typographical uses for this, beyond straight
> quotation. Including, not necessarily in frequency of use:
> a) a literal, as mentioned above, re: "'planing'"
> b) a thing being named
> c) a "suspect" usage -- where you want to emphasize that the word doesn't
> actually mean what it usually means. e.g. "quality" Harbor Freight tools.
> d) a characteristic of a class of objects, as distinct from the meaning of
> that characteristic as associated with a specific object.
>
>
>
>>exotic/archaic/rarely-used
>
>
> Yet again, just standard typography. Multiple things that all fit.
>
>
>>I'm merely curious. There's 'no' *need/reason* "to" -- get -- _your_
>>nose out of joint. :)
>
>
> Zats' awright. You mis-used almost all the typographical conventions,
> anyway. (underlining 'your' *was* an appropriate use -- you slipped up on
> that one :) I take it though, it's ok with you for me to get "somebody else's"
> nose out of joint ? <chuckle>
>
> Seriously, it is _very_ difficult to convey precise "shades" of intonation
> and/or meaning in the printed word. Which is almost the entire reason that
> all the complexities and features of typesetting/typography exist. Things
> like: different type faces, font sizes, "bold", "italic", "underline", "all-
> caps", "small caps", etc., etc., ad nauseum Probably 90% of which is not
> *consciously* noted by at least 90% of the readership. Emphasis on the word
> "consciously".
>
> When one is limited to "Dumb-ass key terminals" (as a friend's wife once
> referred to the machine sitting on her desk at work), and the accompanying
> limitations of ASCII-only display, the substitutes/work-arounds for those
> means of conveying shades of meaning do become more 'consciously noticed'.
>
> The more aware one is of the possibilities for mis-reading/mis-interpreting
> casually jotted-down "off the cuff" remarks, the more likely one is to add
> 'cues' as to how to read the remarks so as to reduce, as much as possible,
> the likelihood of such mis-interpretation.
>
>
> In other words, "Yes, Dave, there _is_ a madness to my method."
>
Lazarus Long <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> This part seems to be made of nylon, and if true, nothing's going to
> adhere to it. You'll have to get a new one if you want it to work the
> same as it did before breaking.
>
> Or you try fixing the one one you have with metal tabs pop riveted to
> it.
>
>
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 08:54:54 -0500, "Stephen Meier"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Today while trying to adjust the out/infeed tables on my DW733 planer,
>>The tab, and then the eyelet that attaches the dust shroud to the
>>planer snapped off. The weight/tension of my dust collection hose
>>tourqued it just a bit too much and snapped this marginally designed
>>connector of this part.
>>
>>Needless to say I was fit to be tied.
>>
>>Option 1: Fix it. I doubt slathering epoxy on this thing will offer
>>any strength. I would have to do a repair that was stronger then the
>>original repair. Encase it in fiberglass mesh & resin perhaps? Would
>>that stick to plastic?
>>
>>Option 2 replace it:
>>
>>http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/attachment_detail.asp?productID=1792
>>
>>The part Dewalt shows on line is NOT what I have. Mine exhausts 90
>>degrees to the left. This one exits 45 degrees to the right and has no
>>visible tabs on the corners. While the new version looks improved from
>>an airflow perspective, I can't see how it attaches. I'm wondering if
>>Dewalt realized that the tabs were just an accident waiting to happen
>>and redesigned it.
>>
>>Does anybody have the new version of the dust shroud? How does it
>>attach? Did it come with your 733, or did you get it after?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Steve
>>
Third option - what I did.
I got a thin strip on sheet metal. About 2 inches long and 3/4 inch
wide. It was probably 16 or 18 guage. I bent a hook on the flat side
to catch the lip on the planer. I bent it in the general shape of the
original. Then I just pop rivited it to the hood. Works beter than
ever. Took about 15 minutes.
"Stephen M" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I was ready to give the pop-rivet and metal tab a try (thanks for the
> suggestions guys... I would not have noticed that little metal lip had
> it not been pointed out.) but I thougth I would give Dewalt a shot.
>
> I got a warm body on the phone on about a minute, and "Tim" offered to
> send me out a "metal dust shroud" in place of the plastic one...free
> of charge, without even asking for the serial number, or date of sale.
>
> Kudos to Dewalt for comming through with a replacement part for a weak
> link in an otherwise great product.
>
> -Steve
>
>
>
I didn't even know such an animal exists! My planer is a year old now
so it is probably not covered by warentee. If the dust shroud should
fail again I will have to order one.
"Stephen Meier" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Option 1: Fix it. I doubt slathering epoxy on this thing will offer any
> strength. I would have to do a repair that was stronger then the original
> repair. Encase it in fiberglass mesh & resin perhaps? Would that stick to
> plastic?
It should if you rough it up a bit. I suposse you could pop
rivit a piece of sheet metal to the hood, and put your exoxy or fiberglass
over that.
Tony D.
I was ready to give the pop-rivet and metal tab a try (thanks for the
suggestions guys... I would not have noticed that little metal lip had it
not been pointed out.) but I thougth I would give Dewalt a shot.
I got a warm body on the phone on about a minute, and "Tim" offered to send
me out a "metal dust shroud" in place of the plastic one...free of charge,
without even asking for the serial number, or date of sale.
Kudos to Dewalt for comming through with a replacement part for a weak link
in an otherwise great product.
-Steve
>
>
> I didn't even know such an animal exists! My planer is a year old now
> so it is probably not covered by warentee. If the dust shroud should
> fail again I will have to order one.
Maybe not. (that is you may not have to pay for one)
My machine is 2 years old. The warantee period is one year. They did not
ask. I can only presume that, to them, customer satisfaction is more
important than strict warantee enforcement. I'm also willing to bet that
this part has failed for quite a few people and they are aware that it is a
weak point in the design (why else would they redesign the part?).
-Steve
The part arrived from Dewalt yesterday via UPS Ground... I think it has been
8 days since I contacted dewalt. The metal dust shroud it is
*way-more-beefy* than the plastic original.
As I mentioned previously, the new part exhausts at 45 degrees right as
opposed to 90 degrees left. There is a significant turned-in-lip in the 4"
port. While this lip gives support to the structure of the port, it will
also impede air flow a bit. I suspect this will negate any benefit of the
decreased exit angle.
Also, it now exits on the oposite side from the power cord???? Not a big
deal, but it makes me wonder why?
Anyway, I'm happy to have a the new part courtesy of Dewalt. I'll repost if
I there is a noticable change in performance.
-Steve
"Stephen Meier" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Today while trying to adjust the out/infeed tables on my DW733 planer, The
> tab, and then the eyelet that attaches the dust shroud to the planer
snapped
> off. The weight/tension of my dust collection hose tourqued it just a bit
> too much and snapped this marginally designed connector of this part.
>
> Needless to say I was fit to be tied.
>
> Option 1: Fix it. I doubt slathering epoxy on this thing will offer any
> strength. I would have to do a repair that was stronger then the original
> repair. Encase it in fiberglass mesh & resin perhaps? Would that stick to
> plastic?
>
> Option 2 replace it:
>
> http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/attachment_detail.asp?productID=1792
>
> The part Dewalt shows on line is NOT what I have. Mine exhausts 90 degrees
> to the left. This one exits 45 degrees to the right and has no visible
tabs
> on the corners. While the new version looks improved from an airflow
> perspective, I can't see how it attaches. I'm wondering if Dewalt realized
> that the tabs were just an accident waiting to happen and redesigned it.
>
> Does anybody have the new version of the dust shroud? How does it attach?
> Did it come with your 733, or did you get it after?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robert, could you 'splain something to me?
Just remember, "You *ASKED* for it" <grin>
>Sometimes you set off your text with underscores,
>
>sometimes you use asterisks,
>
>another time you'll opt for apostrophes,
>
>or quotes;
>
>but for the LIFE of me I cannot discern the reason why you choose a
>particular punctuation mark or keyboard symbol to set off your words.
You mean you don't have a copy of Strunk & White on your bookshelf??
>to wit:
>
>'planing'
This one is standard typography.
The word is being used literally, i.e. not meaning what it is defined to mean,
but standing for the word itself. Single- and double-quotes can be used
more-or-less interchangeably for this (and for _most_ uses of quote-marks),
subject to the risks of confusion when employed in differing uses, in relative
lexical proximity.
>it _isn't_ there
Think underlined. something one cannot do in plain ASCII
(a traditional usage dating back 30+ years, when using 'plain text' mediums
that do not support over-printing.)
>*are*also*
and bold-face.
(of similar antiquity, and origins, as _underline_ )
[ also, -italic-, and (comparatively rare) =double-underline= ]
[ all showing "emphasis", differing in degree and/or type ]
USENET is generally closer to the spoken version of the language, than the
formal written language. DESPITE being written down. bold, underline, all-
caps, italic, etc. all convey what would be indicated by varying degrees of
emphasis/stress on the spoken word.
> -- like woodworking --
Again, a _standard_ typographical convention. (in real printing, it's an "em
dash", before and after, rather than two "minus sign" characters. Similar to
a parenthetical phrase; an interruption in the flow that clarifies the
preceding remark.
>"quality"
There are several standard typographical uses for this, beyond straight
quotation. Including, not necessarily in frequency of use:
a) a literal, as mentioned above, re: "'planing'"
b) a thing being named
c) a "suspect" usage -- where you want to emphasize that the word doesn't
actually mean what it usually means. e.g. "quality" Harbor Freight tools.
d) a characteristic of a class of objects, as distinct from the meaning of
that characteristic as associated with a specific object.
>exotic/archaic/rarely-used
Yet again, just standard typography. Multiple things that all fit.
>I'm merely curious. There's 'no' *need/reason* "to" -- get -- _your_
>nose out of joint. :)
Zats' awright. You mis-used almost all the typographical conventions,
anyway. (underlining 'your' *was* an appropriate use -- you slipped up on
that one :) I take it though, it's ok with you for me to get "somebody else's"
nose out of joint ? <chuckle>
Seriously, it is _very_ difficult to convey precise "shades" of intonation
and/or meaning in the printed word. Which is almost the entire reason that
all the complexities and features of typesetting/typography exist. Things
like: different type faces, font sizes, "bold", "italic", "underline", "all-
caps", "small caps", etc., etc., ad nauseum Probably 90% of which is not
*consciously* noted by at least 90% of the readership. Emphasis on the word
"consciously".
When one is limited to "Dumb-ass key terminals" (as a friend's wife once
referred to the machine sitting on her desk at work), and the accompanying
limitations of ASCII-only display, the substitutes/work-arounds for those
means of conveying shades of meaning do become more 'consciously noticed'.
The more aware one is of the possibilities for mis-reading/mis-interpreting
casually jotted-down "off the cuff" remarks, the more likely one is to add
'cues' as to how to read the remarks so as to reduce, as much as possible,
the likelihood of such mis-interpretation.
In other words, "Yes, Dave, there _is_ a madness to my method."
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:48:59 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>That is a good idea, Barry. I'll see what CB Tools has in stock next
>time I go down there. Thanks!
Just don't pay too much for it. =8^0
Barry
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:08:52 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>don't worry about the lip on the port. I've been using that same dust
>port for at least a year and it doesn't impact performance. The biggest
>problem is that the port is slightly too large to allow the DC hose end
>(tapered plastic) to slip over it far enough not to fall off half the
>time. Starting up the planer with the DC hose lying on the ground is a
>real pisser when the chips start flying all over the shop. I've
>resorted to securing the hose with a piece of tape.
Hose clamp? <G>
Barry
In article <[email protected]>,
KYHighlander <[email protected]> wrote:
>just sent that last message and can't believe that 'planing' isn't in the
>spell checker.
Actually, there's a good reason why it _isn't_ there.
The vast majority of 'mis-spelled' words *are*also* legitimate words, if
you consult a 'big enough' dictionary.
Except in a few specialized contexts -- like woodworking -- 'planing' is
much more likely to be a mis-spelling of "planning" than it is to be the
word that was actually 'intiended'.
A "quality" dictionary for spell-checking has an interesting 'conflict'
of requirements. Obviously, it needs to recognize 'commonly encountered'
words that are spelled correctly. However, if it recognizes 'commonly
encountered' *mis-spellings* of common words as "correct spelling of an
exotic/archaic/rarely-used word", It's usefulness _as_ a spelling checker
is greatly diminished.
To make even a 'moderately reliable' GUESS at whether any given word is
(a) a mis-spelling of a different word, or (b) the correct spelling of a
less-common word, is a *very* difficult proposition. Checking the grammar
_can_ help somewhat, but is neither easy, nor definitive. Beyond that,
one must have extensive knowledge of the -meaning- of words, and the
ability to analyze the external context which they describe.
A 'textbook' exmaple:
(A) Fruit flies like a banana.
(B) Time flies like an arrow.
"Whatintheh*ll" does the word "like' mean in each statement? or "flies"?
And _how_ do you know whicn meaning to associate with the word in each
context?
Let alone a more frivolous construct -- everybody knows about the cousin
of a frog -- the toad. Some of which live primarily up trees. (there,
I got in the obligarory wood reference!) Of those who do, one method
of classification is the number of appendages on their feet. Thus, there
is the "three-toed tree toad". Put one of them in a cart that is being
pulled by 'something else', and you have a "towed three-toed toad", aka
a 'three-toed towed toad'. And I betcha your spell-checker will *not*
choke over "three-toad toed towed". I'm pretty sure that that -last-
varient wouldn't get by a grammar-checker, but I wouldn't want to bet that
either of the first two forms _would_.
Not to mention the difficulties encountered in transcribing the former,
as a *spoken* phrase into written language. (yes, I'm _sure_ he *said*:
"Three towed towed towed", no I _don 't_ understand what he *meant*!)
"Joe Willmann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Stephen M" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > I was ready to give the pop-rivet and metal tab a try (thanks for the
> > suggestions guys... I would not have noticed that little metal lip had
> > it not been pointed out.) but I thougth I would give Dewalt a shot.
> >
> > I got a warm body on the phone on about a minute, and "Tim" offered to
> > send me out a "metal dust shroud" in place of the plastic one...free
> > of charge, without even asking for the serial number, or date of sale.
> >
> > Kudos to Dewalt for comming through with a replacement part for a weak
> > link in an otherwise great product.
> >
> > -Steve
> >
> >
> >
>
> I didn't even know such an animal exists! My planer is a year old now
> so it is probably not covered by warentee. If the dust shroud should
> fail again I will have to order one.
Funny, I didn't know they made a plastic one! ;-) Mine is metal...
John
I've had severe problems with this trying to surface resawn tiger maple.
I'm resawing 3/4" stock for bookmatching, and planing the resawn surface
smooth, the thinner it gets the more it takes huge chunks out. I wasn't
sure if it was just the heavily figured wood, because I have planed jatoba
as thin as 1/8" with no problems.
I've had a lot of problems with the tiger maple, the planer tears it up,
hand planes tear it out a little, and my drum sander is out of commission
:( (waiting on parts from grizzly)
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 08:54:54 -0500, Stephen Meier wrote:
> Today while trying to adjust the out/infeed tables on my DW733 planer, The
> tab, and then the eyelet that attaches the dust shroud to the planer snapped
> off. The weight/tension of my dust collection hose tourqued it just a bit
> too much and snapped this marginally designed connector of this part.
>
> Needless to say I was fit to be tied.
>
> Option 1: Fix it. I doubt slathering epoxy on this thing will offer any
> strength. I would have to do a repair that was stronger then the original
> repair. Encase it in fiberglass mesh & resin perhaps? Would that stick to
> plastic?
>
> Option 2 replace it:
>
> http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/attachment_detail.asp?productID=1792
>
> The part Dewalt shows on line is NOT what I have. Mine exhausts 90 degrees
> to the left. This one exits 45 degrees to the right and has no visible tabs
> on the corners. While the new version looks improved from an airflow
> perspective, I can't see how it attaches. I'm wondering if Dewalt realized
> that the tabs were just an accident waiting to happen and redesigned it.
>
> Does anybody have the new version of the dust shroud? How does it attach?
> Did it come with your 733, or did you get it after?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:56:51 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>NO! there is a hose clamp on the hose to the plastic end that stays on
>the hose. I can't clamp that part to the dewalt! the plastic end is a
>bit too small to go far enough onto the dewalt's dust port. get it???
Not really.
Can't you simply clamp the hose directly to the DeWalt fitting? My DC
hose goes OVER the DeWalt fitting, there are no plastic pieces in
between.
Barry
In article <[email protected]>,
"Stephen Meier" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Option 2 replace it:
>
> http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/attachment_detail.asp?productID=1792
>
> The part Dewalt shows on line is NOT what I have. Mine exhausts 90 degrees
> to the left. This one exits 45 degrees to the right and has no visible tabs
> on the corners. While the new version looks improved from an airflow
> perspective, I can't see how it attaches.
Look carefully at the photo (it's easier to see in the larger version).
There's a little sheet metal lip on the top. There are two slotted
holes (totally invisible in the photo) in this top lip. A couple of
small screws go vertically down through this lip into the planer body.
A third screw goes horizontally through a slotted hole in the bottom lip
(this one is easy to see in the photo).
I got my DW733 metal dust shroud from Lowe's for $15.00 on a close out.
They had a whole shopping cart filled with them.
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> they mark everything up 20% just for me!
>
> dav
>
> B a r r y B u r k e J r . wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:48:59 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>That is a good idea, Barry. I'll see what CB Tools has in stock next
> >>time I go down there. Thanks!
> >
> >
> > Just don't pay too much for it. =8^0
> >
> > Barry
>
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:07:06 GMT, Joe Willmann
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Third option - what I did.
>
>I got a thin strip on sheet metal. About 2 inches long and 3/4 inch
>wide. It was probably 16 or 18 guage. I bent a hook on the flat side
>to catch the lip on the planer. I bent it in the general shape of the
>original. Then I just pop rivited it to the hood. Works beter than
>ever. Took about 15 minutes.
This is what I meant. Great minds thing alike. ;)
That is a good idea, Barry. I'll see what CB Tools has in stock next
time I go down there. Thanks!
dave
B a r r y B u r k e J r . wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 02:58:49 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>the plastic portion attached to the hose is a quick coupling that works
>>on ALL my other equipment. Besides, even with the coupling off, it's a
>>PITA to get the hose end over the dewalt fitting. it just isn't
>>dimensioned correctly. The ports on the TS, BS, router table, and
>>jointer all fit the hose coupling. The dewalt is the maverick.
>
>
> Ah, quick connects!
>
> How about adding a short, maybe a foot long, section of hose to the
> DeWalt, with a matching quick connect at the other end? You could
> then permanently attach the short hose to the planer, and still be
> able to quick connect with ease.
>
> Barry