I'm trying to line up my new saw as best I can without buying any fancy
dongles to take ultra precise measurements.
Today's project was getting the blade lined up parallel to the miter slots.
I sharpened a pencil to a tiny point, marked a tooth, then clamped the
pencil to my miter gauge. Moving pencil and tooth to the back of the
table, there was a significant gap.
After dicking around with the six bolts and wiggling around on the saw guts
for a couple of hours, the best I was able to accomplish is that there is
still a 0.014" gap between the pencil point and the marked tooth at the
back of the table. I could never manage to get it closer than that and
keep it there while the bolts were tightened back up.
Unfortunately, the gap indicates that the blade is closer to the rip fence
at the back than at the front, which is really seriously not cool. Still,
I don't see what else I can do about it. This was the product of much
fiddling, and it was hard to get it even this close. (BTW, the rip fence
is to the right of the blade. I was using the left miter slot.)
I don't have much lumber on hand to do test cuts with, but I tried a piece
of 4/4 red oak about 3' long. I ripped a strip 1" wide and measured it at
various points with dial calipers. It's damn close. The difference in
measurement from point to point is less than I can measure without a
micrometer, though there *is* some minute variation. Theer were no burn
marks at all, no binding, no feeling of impending kickback, and it was a
very smooth cut.
So what does the Wreck say? Keep dicking with it or leave it alone until I
see burn marks and other indications of a serious alignment problem? Maybe
try some 6/4 or larger and see how that changes things...
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 10:00:05 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Bridger wrote:
>
>> good choice.
>>
>> now you're going to have to learn how to tram your drill press...
>
>Yes, actually, I am. Any other uses for the thing?
tons of uses. pretty much anything that can be adjusted can be
adjusted better with an indicator.
how about:
router fence adjustments.
the "rest" of your table saw:
http://www.ts-aligner.com/tsaligner.htm
http://www.woodworking.org/WC/GArchive99/9_19jjohnstsaligner.html
http://www.mastergage.com/downloads/SuperBar%20Manual.pdf
http://www.runnerduck.com/tune_up.htm
setting jointer knives:
http://benchmark.20m.com/workshop/Jigs_Dial/Jigs_Dial.html
tensioning your band saw:
http://www.lenoxsaw.com/tension.htm
tune up your drill press:
http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/DPMeasurements.shtml
http://www.runnerduck.com/tune_up.htm
depth of drilled holes:
http://pweb.netcom.com/~madyn/Electronics/xyzr%20table/main%20supports%20drilling%20halfway.jpg
check things like router collets for truth.
and some general info...
http://www.shopnotes.com/main/article-dialindicator.html
http://www.mastergage.com/downloads/02-06-19%20MG%20Classic%20Manual.PDF
http://www.mini-lathe.com/Measurement/Dial_indicators/Dial_indicators.htm
http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/dial_indicator.shtml
http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/0301gage.html
http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/0303gage.html
http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/0398gage.html
http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/0401gage.html
http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/0602gage.html
http://longislandindicator.com/
Seems to me it wouldn't matter how the miter gauge was aligned. Even if you
had the guage at, say 29 degrees, the difference between the pencil point
and the blade at the front or back of the blade would be the same.
Silvan, did you try tapping hardwood wedges between the trunions as you
tightened the bolts back down? Maybe you could get it moved over enough so
that, even though you might still have an .014 gap or so, at least the blade
would be further from the fence at the back of the blade. I'm not saying
that it should be, just that it would be better that way it seems. Ideally
(and of course by reading your post I can tell you already know this), the
blade should be (nearly) perfectly aligned with the miter guage slots, and
any desired variance between the blade and fence should be adjusted at the
fence.
Larry
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm trying to line up my new saw as best I can without buying any fancy
> dongles to take ultra precise measurements.
>
> Today's project was getting the blade lined up parallel to the miter
slots.
> I sharpened a pencil to a tiny point, marked a tooth, then clamped the
> pencil to my miter gauge. Moving pencil and tooth to the back of the
> table, there was a significant gap.
>
> After dicking around with the six bolts and wiggling around on the saw
guts
> for a couple of hours, the best I was able to accomplish is that there is
> still a 0.014" gap between the pencil point and the marked tooth at the
> back of the table. I could never manage to get it closer than that and
> keep it there while the bolts were tightened back up.
>
> Unfortunately, the gap indicates that the blade is closer to the rip fence
> at the back than at the front, which is really seriously not cool. Still,
> I don't see what else I can do about it. This was the product of much
> fiddling, and it was hard to get it even this close. (BTW, the rip fence
> is to the right of the blade. I was using the left miter slot.)
>
> I don't have much lumber on hand to do test cuts with, but I tried a piece
> of 4/4 red oak about 3' long. I ripped a strip 1" wide and measured it at
> various points with dial calipers. It's damn close. The difference in
> measurement from point to point is less than I can measure without a
> micrometer, though there *is* some minute variation. Theer were no burn
> marks at all, no binding, no feeling of impending kickback, and it was a
> very smooth cut.
>
> So what does the Wreck say? Keep dicking with it or leave it alone until
I
> see burn marks and other indications of a serious alignment problem?
Maybe
> try some 6/4 or larger and see how that changes things...
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
>
Irrespective of the angle of the miter head the distance of anything fixed
to it should be the same when the head is moved between the front and rear
of the blade. As was originally stated a marked tooth is being used as the
reference, there bye eliminating any eccentricity of the mounting boss.
When the blade is truly parallel to the miter slot it may not be at 90 deg.
to the front of the table but the fence has adjustment to compensate for
this.
Though a dial indicator is the recommended tool feeler gauges work just as
well.
Bernard R
"Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:aEM0c.104126$%[email protected]...
> Larry,
>
> If he used a used a try square to align the miter head to the blade, the
> head would be at one position (angle to the blade) and when it's holding a
> pencil, it's used at the front of the blade and then at the rear. The
> difference will be more/less as the gauge is moved along the blade. With
> the miter aligned to the blade while it's out of adjustment and then using
> it to try and align the slot to the blade is not going to work.
>
> He could turn the miter gauge upside down in the slot and align the head
> with the front edge of the table. Then reverse it and put it in the slot
> upside down again at the rear edge and see if there's a difference. If
so,
> then the slot is not perpendicular to the edges referenced.
>
> So saying it doesn't make a difference is not exactly correct - right?
>
> Bob S.
>
>
> "Lawrence R Horgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Seems to me it wouldn't matter how the miter gauge was aligned. Even if
> you
> > had the guage at, say 29 degrees, the difference between the pencil
point
> > and the blade at the front or back of the blade would be the same.
> >
>
>
> Bernard,
>
> Think about it... The table top (miter slots) are not parallel to the
> blade - hence the distance from a point on the front of the blade and a
> reference point on the miter gauge head will be more/less as the miter
gauge
> is moved to the rear of the blade. Do you need a drawing to visualize it
?
> ASCII art below is exaggerated but shows what I mean. As the Ref point
> moves towards the rear of the blade the distance from Ref point to the
blade
> is less. Now if the miter gauge head is not perpendicular to the slot,
that
> introduces even more error as well and if the slot is not perpendicular to
> the table edge - more error is introduced.
>
Yes...HOWEVER, this has nothing to do with the angle of the miter
GAUGE...not the miter SLOT.
The angle of the miter gauge doesn't matter for checking the blade to the
slots for the same reason that you can actually cut a miter with said gauge
after the table is aligned to the slot.
Mike
Bob S,
I see what you're saying, but it doesn't address the problem. Bernard has it
right.
Look at it this way... Your goal is to align the blade to the miter slot.
The angle that the miter guage is set at is irrelevant... as long as the
indicator (in Silvan's case - a pencil) doesn't change position on the miter
guage as the guage is slid from front to back.
If you clamp a pencil in a miter guage set at 90 degrees, then slide the
guage from front to back, the tip of the pencil, however far out it extends,
will always be parrallel with the miter guage slot. Now, if you clamp a
pencil in a miter guage set at 13 degrees, the tip of the pencil will still
always be parrallel with the slot. I'm sorry I can;t explain it any better,
but as long as Silvan gets his blade as nearly perfect in parrallel with his
miter guage slot, then all is well.
--
Americans
[email protected]
"Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:o%[email protected]...
> "Yes......However".....WTF ?
>
> Wow...what a tough friggin crowd we have here tonight. Just trying to
help
> the OP and two guy's jump in looking for a fight nitpicking without
looking
> at was said.
>
> Good enough guy's - obviously I'm wrong and you two geniuses can give him
> the straight answer so he can solve the problem.
>
> Bob S.
>
>
>
Bob S.
I read all the posts and I didn;t see anyone nitpicking, nor did I see
anyone looking for a fight. Look, the miter guage issue is an aside. Let's
just forget that.
Silvan ALREADY KNOWS how to adjust his saw, you can tell by reading his
post. His only real problem is that, he gets his adjustment correct but then
it changes when he tightens down the hardware. This is not uncommon. About
16 years ago I adjusted mine. I bet it took me 3 hours. Once I got it where
I wanted it, I'm almost embarrassed to say, I never checked it again
(because I didn;t wnat to go through the hassle again). It performs
beautifully for me, so I don;t mess with it or check it. The point of this
little "aside" is only to say I can sympathize with Silvan's frustration.
--
Americans
[email protected]
"Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:aEM0c.104126$%[email protected]...
> Larry,
>
> If he used a used a try square to align the miter head to the blade, the
> head would be at one position (angle to the blade) and when it's holding a
> pencil, it's used at the front of the blade and then at the rear. The
> difference will be more/less as the gauge is moved along the blade. With
> the miter aligned to the blade while it's out of adjustment and then using
> it to try and align the slot to the blade is not going to work.
>
> He could turn the miter gauge upside down in the slot and align the head
> with the front edge of the table. Then reverse it and put it in the slot
> upside down again at the rear edge and see if there's a difference. If
so,
> then the slot is not perpendicular to the edges referenced.
>
> So saying it doesn't make a difference is not exactly correct - right?
>
> Bob S.
>
>
> "Lawrence R Horgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Seems to me it wouldn't matter how the miter gauge was aligned. Even if
> you
> > had the guage at, say 29 degrees, the difference between the pencil
point
> > and the blade at the front or back of the blade would be the same.
> >
>
>
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:44:38 GMT, Paul Kierstead
<[email protected]> wrote:
>it isn't any easier or more difficult if the gauge is at 90 degrees; in
>fact it makes no difference whatsoever. If you don't see this, then you
>haven't tried it.
The angle makes so little difference that I've done it with $5 combo
squares, and another time with two sticks glued at approximately right
angles, and a screw driven into the end grain nearest the blade.
Barry
Silvan,
After re-reading your post I see that it is a new saw, as such I would be
very inclined to return it to the vendor and have him fix the problem.
Personally I have never liked using a miter gauge for cross cutting I just
don't think there is enough support and the actual fulcrum point is too far
away from the blade. My own saw is a sliding table and I have a 40" home
made fence, however when I was working abroad and used the company's hobby
shop, I made a sled and that works resonably well, certainly much better and
safer than a single miter gauge.
Bernard R
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm trying to line up my new saw as best I can without buying any fancy
> dongles to take ultra precise measurements.
>
> Today's project was getting the blade lined up parallel to the miter
slots.
> I sharpened a pencil to a tiny point, marked a tooth, then clamped the
> pencil to my miter gauge. Moving pencil and tooth to the back of the
> table, there was a significant gap.
>
> After dicking around with the six bolts and wiggling around on the saw
guts
> for a couple of hours, the best I was able to accomplish is that there is
> still a 0.014" gap between the pencil point and the marked tooth at the
> back of the table. I could never manage to get it closer than that and
> keep it there while the bolts were tightened back up.
>
> Unfortunately, the gap indicates that the blade is closer to the rip fence
> at the back than at the front, which is really seriously not cool. Still,
> I don't see what else I can do about it. This was the product of much
> fiddling, and it was hard to get it even this close. (BTW, the rip fence
> is to the right of the blade. I was using the left miter slot.)
>
> I don't have much lumber on hand to do test cuts with, but I tried a piece
> of 4/4 red oak about 3' long. I ripped a strip 1" wide and measured it at
> various points with dial calipers. It's damn close. The difference in
> measurement from point to point is less than I can measure without a
> micrometer, though there *is* some minute variation. Theer were no burn
> marks at all, no binding, no feeling of impending kickback, and it was a
> very smooth cut.
>
> So what does the Wreck say? Keep dicking with it or leave it alone until
I
> see burn marks and other indications of a serious alignment problem?
Maybe
> try some 6/4 or larger and see how that changes things...
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
>
Silvan wrote:
Group: rec.woodworking Date: Sun, Feb 29, 2004, 8:04pm From:
[email protected] (Silvan)
I'm trying to line up my new saw as best I can without buying any fancy
dongles to take ultra precise measurements.
<snip>
******************************************************
There are inexpensive dial indicators which you can clamp to your miter
gauge, if you are really serious about obtaining the best alignment
possible.
Peace ~ Sir Edgar
=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=
=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8=F8
(Silvan)
>I'm trying to line up my new saw as best I can without buying any fancy
>dongles to take ultra precise measurements.
Keep trying. You don't need fancy dongles to take ultra precise measurements,
just a set of feeler gauges and a combination square. Tom, still gleaning.
Someday, it'll all be over....
To others that object to this thread - then don't read it - real simple. But
don't tell me that bashing your tablesaw into alignment is a good thing and
that wood moves. You can bash on your tools if you like, I prefer to find
out why they won't align and fix the problem - properly. As you'll note,
several others have advised him to return the saw.
Okay Doug,
Please go back and cut and paste in your next post exactly what it is that I
said was wrong. Below is the statement I think you're referring to but hell
I've been wrong on every other count according to you - so please show me.
Here's that post verbatim....(and I pointed out in an earlier post how to
align the miter gauge to 90°)
"Also read your other post below. To make the point clear, since it is not
irrelevant, the miter gauge needs to be 90° to the miter slot before any
alignment if it is the point of reference. As adjustments are being made,
(this being the key thought) the angle will change (angle of attack) and so
will the distance between the blade and reference point. He must >> reset<<
his reference point to the front of the blade and then push it forward to
check for any differences."
Past that, I agreed the miter gauge could be at other than 90° - as long as
the point of reference (miter gauge) is reset after making an adjustment.
It's not a wrong statement at all. Would the word "should" be substituted
for "needs" in the above statement clarify it any better?
How would you have stated it?
How about just take your tape measure and measure from the blade to the
miter slot? How would you insure the angle of the tape was the same after
each measurement? My point was and is, set it at 90° and use that as the
reference. You want something other than that - fine but it doesn't make my
statement wrong.
Should I have said pick any angle you want and align the blade? What
purpose would that have served? It probably would have confused him but only
he could answer that. I provided a reference for him - just as you would
when you're trying to teach someone something. I was trying to impart a
proper method and steps for him to follow.
So if that's wrong then so be it.
Bob S.
>
> The *entire* substance of the disagreement between us is your repeated and
> erroneous claim that the angle between the miter gauge and the miter slot
> somehow makes a difference in aligning the miter slot to the blade.
Address
> *that* issue, without raising any further red herrings, or be quiet.
If you read what I said instead of just taking a sentence and using what
part you want, you would realize my statement is as correct as yours. In
fact, you agreed with it if you care to look.
But to stop your beating it to death, here's your opportunity to prove it
wrong - let's see your version of aligning a tablesaw, then we'll see what
procedures are the best ones to use.
This is an open invitation to show us you know what in the hell you're
talking about. You own a Jet TS I believe - so use it as the example and
you can improve on Jets alignment procedures. Some pics would be nice too.
Bob S.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <Qdm1c.117854$%[email protected]>, "Bob S."
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >It must be in your blood to discredit whatever somebody else say's Doug.
>
> You really have a problem with admitting mistakes, Bob. You repeatedly
posted
> something that just isn't true, and I refuted it. Now you're going off on
me,
> saying that I have this attitude that everybody else is wrong. Go back and
> read *all* the posts in the thread, Bob. I never said "everybody else" is
> wrong -- I said *you* are wrong. And you are. And FOUR other people said
that
> too. Go rag on them for a while.
> >
> >So, to put this to rest - finally. Perhaps you can enlighten the group as
to
> >how to accurately and correctly align a Contractors style tablesaw so
that
> >we may compare your methods and procedures against those that do this
sort
> >of thing for a living. And as I did with my posts several years back
that
> >covered the Delta CS, please credit the original reference material, note
> >your changes, tips/hints, improvements and rationale.
> >
> That was never the issue between us -- the issue was only your repeated,
> mistaken insistence that it was necessary to have the miter gauge at 90
> degrees to the miter slot.
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
Bob S. wrote:
> Crikey....ya just can't leave us hanging there... what angle did you set
> the miter gauge at while you were aligning that beast? We *must*
> know....;)
13 1/2.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Silvan wrote:
>
> Lawrence R Horgan wrote:
>
> > Silvan ALREADY KNOWS how to adjust his saw, you can tell by reading his
>
> Crikey. What a mess I started!
>
> OK, let's try this on for size. I got a dial indicator, and I bought four
> cap screws. I'm going to fabricate my own version of the PALS system for
> $2 in materials (using angle iron I already have) and see if that works. I
> think it just might.
Probably. I had to file my PALS brackets (Delta CS model) to make them
fit properly.
Doug,
No argument... you started this - remember? And changing the subject? No, I
asked you to provide instructions on how to align a tablesaw - dead on topic
and you weaseled out of that.
Bob S.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "CW"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >Doug, I think this guy just wants to pick a fight with someone and you
seem
> >to be the one he has selected.
> >
> Well, he certainly seems to want to argue about something. I haven't quite
> figured out *what*, yet, since he keeps changing the subject. :-)
>
> --
> 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,
>
>If you had read what was written instead of trying to prove someone is wrong
>all the time, it may have dawned on you that I did not state the miter
>couldn't be at any other angle.
I *did* read what was written, and you certainly *did* state that. You wrote,
"the miter gauge needs to be 90° to the miter slot before any alignment if it
is the point of reference." And that just isn't true.
> But why would you align a saw with it not set at 90° is beyond me.
Why, or why not? It doesn't matter -- as you have been told by at least four
others in addition to myself.
>You turned it into a point that I was wrong and
>that you were right and so damn righteous about it too. Nobody can be
>better than Doug at anything it appears and you certainly went to great
>lengths to prove that today.
You certainly have a hard time admitting that you were wrong, don't you?
--
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
Lawrence R Horgan wrote:
> Silvan ALREADY KNOWS how to adjust his saw, you can tell by reading his
Crikey. What a mess I started!
OK, let's try this on for size. I got a dial indicator, and I bought four
cap screws. I'm going to fabricate my own version of the PALS system for
$2 in materials (using angle iron I already have) and see if that works. I
think it just might.
--
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]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug,
>
>It was not a mistake. It was a method of doing the alignment which you
>agreed with but dismissed other points to suit your arrogance and stress
>that only Doug can be right.. Go back and read what was written.
>
In this case, I *am* right. And you are not.
*You* go back and read it. The only thing I "dismissed" was your repeated, and
utterly mistaken, contention that the angle of the miter gauge makes any
difference at all in the alignment procedure.
You said, "god forbid if anyone has an opinion that should differ from yours".
However, this is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of mathematical *fact*.
It is equally a matter of fact, not of opinion, that your statements on the
subject are incorrect. If you find it "arrogant" of me to point it out, so be
it. I note that I am not the only one to have done so.
--
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
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > From your post, I infer that you are trying to align a contractor saw.
> > If I guessed right, go to Woodcraft.com and purchase a PALS alignment
> > system for your saw (under $30 including shipping). You will now be
> > able to adjust your contractors saw to the tolerances you need.
> >
> I can heartily agree with that. I've got a no-name import
> bought many years ago from HomeBase and I had a lot of alignment
> problems till I bought the PALS system. A very simple but
> elegant solution. Try it, you'll like it :-).
Let me be the third to agree. The PALS alignment gizmo will
help first to nudge the trunnion over to where you want it to
be and second to hold it there while you tighten it down.
It worked for me.
Ken
Silvan <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
Snip
> I could never manage to get it closer than that and
> keep it there while the bolts were tightened back up.
Hi Silvan,
You seem to have gotten a lot of advice on how to measure the gap but
very little on how to solve the problem of keeping everything aligned
when you tighten the bolts. Things to try:
1) Tighten one bolt at a time and check the alignment after each bolt
is tightened. It may be there are one or two bolts that are pulling
things back out of alignment. If so, tighten the offending bolts last
and just snug them up don't get them as tight as the rest.
2) How loose were the bolts when you made the adjustment? Try moving
things around while the bolts are just barely loose so that you can
tap everything into place with a wooden mallet. It could be there is
a small gap somewhere that is causing some flexing when the bolts are
tightened. Keeping the iron in tension should help.
3) Sit down, relax for a while, and then call customer service. Maybe
this one should be first. :-)
4) Return it and get a different one. If there is a flaw in the
manufacturing process that is causing the alignment problem, then it
will always be causing you headaches. Getting a placement will let
you know if the problem is in the design or manufacture.
Good Luck,
Weldon
In article <[email protected]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>Advise you to do a search on "tablesaw alignments" . Here's one that Steve
>Strickland wrote http://www.puzzlecraft.com/Projects/HTMAP/07saw.htm that
>may help open your eyes to what is at play.
The discussions on the wreck between Steve Strickland and Ed Bennett of about
two years ago demonstrated that Steve's understanding of table saw alignment,
and of geometry, is seriously deficient. It's quite illuminating to read
those, to see how Ed (and others) point out Steve's errors.
The article you cite is just a rehash of the nonsense that Steve posted here,
that has been repeatedly discredited in this group. In particular, his claim
of adjusting a table saw, using his methods, to produce accuracy to within
0.0001" has been _proven_ false.
Better advice: _ignore_ everything Steve Strickland says about table saw
adjustment.
--
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
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:55:58 GMT, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>Bernard,
>
>Think about it... The table top (miter slots) are not parallel to the
>blade - hence the distance from a point on the front of the blade and a
>reference point on the miter gauge head will be more/less as the miter gauge
>is moved to the rear of the blade. Do you need a drawing to visualize it ?
Once it's cut, it's cut.
Clamp wood to a miter gauge, use only the front edge of the blade to
cut the wood, back up, then STOP, and shut off the saw.
Without unclamping the wood, slide it forward to the back of the
blade. If the slot is parallel, the wood will be the same distance
from both edges of the blade. If not one edge will be closer to the
wood than the other.
This test can be done with a perfect 90, or a 21.67894, it'll work the
same, as long as neither the stock nor the angle changes.
Try it.
Barry
No, the angle of the gage makes no difference.
"Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:og11c.104550$%[email protected]...
> Larry,
>
> Also read your other post below. To make the point clear, since it is not
> irrelevant, the miter gauge needs to be 90° to the miter slot before any
> alignment if it is the point of reference. As adjustments are being made,
> (this being the key thought) the angle will change (angle of attack) and
so
> will the distance between the blade and reference point. He must >>
reset<<
> his reference point to the front of the blade and then push it forward to
> check for any differences.
>
> This is exactly what you do with a TS Aligner. You pre-load the dial
gauge
> at the front tooth, zero the gauge and then rotate the blade and check the
> same tooth at the rear. Meanwhile, the dial gauge is being held perfectly
> aligned to the miter slot. And the reference point is a small point on the
> dial indicator - not a flat edge.
>
> I agree with the statement that the miter gauge can be set at any angle
and
> the measurement can be taken - for that one adjustment. But... make an
> adjustment to the blade in relation to the reference point and the
distance
> (more/less) will change. He must reset the reference point before making
> the next check. Now as he stated, he was using a pencil so it has a pointy
> end and the angle is not measurable between the point and the blade. If it
> was a cut piece of wood as suggested, there will be an angle cut on the
> reference edge of something other than 90°. As the adjustment approaches
> parallel (blade to ref point) the angle and the distance between the
> reference point and the blade approaches zero - front and rear - as long
as
> the reference edge was 90°. That's what I tried to show in the ASCII art
> diagram above.
>
> So to sum this up:
>
> 1. Use a pointy object as the reference and reset the reference after each
> adjustment
> 2. If you use an edge (such as a cut piece of wood), it needs to be 90° to
> the miter slot so as the adjustments approach being parallel, the 90° edge
> of the reference point will (ideally) now be flat against the blade with
no
> discernable gap along the edge.
> 3. Buy a TS Aligner and be done with it....
>
> As for addressing his "real" problem as you noted, I have written several
> past posts that dealt with that little problem for Contractor type saws.
> The information was based on a Delta, using their procedures, added some
> notes and tips on info they didn't tell you in the manual plus dealing
with
> parts that were not milled correctly and how to compensate for some of
that
> "jumping" when locking it down. Most of what you read from others is
about
> whacking the trunnions with a hammer, using some 3rd party adjusters
> add-on's etc. He didn't state whether it was a cabinet saw or a CS. But
> the fix - if its a CS - is to turn the saw over, replace two of the bolts,
> check and flatten the bosses on the trunnions and base, add a shim or two
if
> needed, clean, lube and done. Next alignment (if ever needed) is loosen
the
> 4 bolts (now much easier) adjust by hand (no hammer needed - it slides
> easily), lock it down and you're done in 15 min.
>
> Guy's there's probably as many ways to verify alignment and perform the
> alignments as there are woodworkers. I should have provided an example to
> illustrate my point, like take a 12" ruler and place the end (edge)
against
> the edge of your bench/table/desk and its at 90° to the edge. That whole
end
> edge of the ruler is your reference. Cock it a bit and you have a gap and
> now your reference is only the point of the ruler edge that touches the
> table. As you make adjustments, that angle will change as will the
> distance.
>
> Bob S.
>
> "Lawrence R Horgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Bob S,
> >
> > I see what you're saying, but it doesn't address the problem. Bernard
has
> it
> > right.
> >
> > Look at it this way... Your goal is to align the blade to the miter
slot.
> > The angle that the miter guage is set at is irrelevant... as long as the
> > indicator (in Silvan's case - a pencil) doesn't change position on the
> miter
> > guage as the guage is slid from front to back.
> >
> > If you clamp a pencil in a miter guage set at 90 degrees, then slide the
> > guage from front to back, the tip of the pencil, however far out it
> extends,
> > will always be parrallel with the miter guage slot. Now, if you clamp a
> > pencil in a miter guage set at 13 degrees, the tip of the pencil will
> still
> > always be parrallel with the slot. I'm sorry I can;t explain it any
> better,
> > but as long as Silvan gets his blade as nearly perfect in parrallel with
> his
> > miter guage slot, then all is well.
> >
> > --
>
>
In article <[email protected]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>If you read what I said instead of just taking a sentence and using what
>part you want, you would realize my statement is as correct as yours. In
>fact, you agreed with it if you care to look.
>
>But to stop your beating it to death, here's your opportunity to prove it
>wrong - let's see your version of aligning a tablesaw, then we'll see what
>procedures are the best ones to use.
>
>This is an open invitation to show us you know what in the hell you're
>talking about. You own a Jet TS I believe - so use it as the example and
>you can improve on Jets alignment procedures. Some pics would be nice too.
>
You have a real talent for evading the issue.
I never disagreed with your methods of alignment _in_general_, nor did I ever
claim to be able to do it better than you, or to have more experience at it,
or any of the other straw men you keep inventing to avoid discussing the
issue. You have never pointed out any part of my post which was incorrect, and
have now begun attacking me for things which I never wrote but are entirely
the product of your own imagination.
The *entire* substance of the disagreement between us is your repeated and
erroneous claim that the angle between the miter gauge and the miter slot
somehow makes a difference in aligning the miter slot to the blade. Address
*that* issue, without raising any further red herrings, or be quiet.
--
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
Hi Mike
Signs of serious misalignment problems really isn't the issue. The issue is
what you can live with in the way of error when putting a project together.
To be honest I really don't know how much of a throw down a .014" gap is
going to give you but I suspect, not a lot.
The only real way you are going to be able to tell is when it comes time to
assemble something.
If you were lining up the miter slot to the blade, ripping stock against the
fence isn't going to give you any kind of an indication of how well the saw
is lined up since it's perfectly possible, with fences I'm familiar with, to
adjust them so they are parallel to the blade regardless of what the miter
slot is doing. The test is to set your miter gauge at 90 degrees to the
blade and cross cut something.
Take the two pieces, flip one over, put the two cut ends together. How close
they mate with the boards forming a straight edge is the measure of how good
the line up is.
Good luck
--
Mike G.
[email protected]
Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm trying to line up my new saw as best I can without buying any fancy
> dongles to take ultra precise measurements.
>
> Today's project was getting the blade lined up parallel to the miter
slots.
> I sharpened a pencil to a tiny point, marked a tooth, then clamped the
> pencil to my miter gauge. Moving pencil and tooth to the back of the
> table, there was a significant gap.
>
> After dicking around with the six bolts and wiggling around on the saw
guts
> for a couple of hours, the best I was able to accomplish is that there is
> still a 0.014" gap between the pencil point and the marked tooth at the
> back of the table. I could never manage to get it closer than that and
> keep it there while the bolts were tightened back up.
>
> Unfortunately, the gap indicates that the blade is closer to the rip fence
> at the back than at the front, which is really seriously not cool. Still,
> I don't see what else I can do about it. This was the product of much
> fiddling, and it was hard to get it even this close. (BTW, the rip fence
> is to the right of the blade. I was using the left miter slot.)
>
> I don't have much lumber on hand to do test cuts with, but I tried a piece
> of 4/4 red oak about 3' long. I ripped a strip 1" wide and measured it at
> various points with dial calipers. It's damn close. The difference in
> measurement from point to point is less than I can measure without a
> micrometer, though there *is* some minute variation. Theer were no burn
> marks at all, no binding, no feeling of impending kickback, and it was a
> very smooth cut.
>
> So what does the Wreck say? Keep dicking with it or leave it alone until
I
> see burn marks and other indications of a serious alignment problem?
Maybe
> try some 6/4 or larger and see how that changes things...
>
> --
> 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]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>To others that object to this thread - then don't read it - real simple. But
>don't tell me that bashing your tablesaw into alignment is a good thing and
>that wood moves. You can bash on your tools if you like, I prefer to find
>out why they won't align and fix the problem - properly. As you'll note,
>several others have advised him to return the saw.
Who ever said that bashing a TS into alignment *was* a good idea? Not me. Or
is that another one of your red herrings?
>
>Okay Doug,
>
>Please go back and cut and paste in your next post exactly what it is that I
>said was wrong. Below is the statement I think you're referring to but hell
>I've been wrong on every other count according to you - so please show me.
>
I already did that in an earlier post, but it appears you weren't paying
attention. If you had been, you wouldn't "think" that this is the statement
which I took issue with, you would know, because I quoted it and _explicitly_
stated that this was the one.
No need for me to do it again, especially as you have just done it for me.
Or perhaps you could go back and re-read the first post I made in this thread
(which you either failed to read, or failed to understand), in which I pointed
out your mistaken statements.
>Here's that post verbatim....(and I pointed out in an earlier post how to
>align the miter gauge to 90°)
>
>"Also read your other post below. To make the point clear, since it is not
>irrelevant, the miter gauge needs to be 90° to the miter slot before any
>alignment if it is the point of reference.
RIGHT THERE. "the miter gauge needs to be 90° to the miter slot". FALSE.
> As adjustments are being made,
>(this being the key thought) the angle will change (angle of attack) and so
>will the distance between the blade and reference point. He must >> reset<<
>his reference point to the front of the blade and then push it forward to
>check for any differences."
>
>Past that, I agreed the miter gauge could be at other than 90° - as long as
>the point of reference (miter gauge) is reset after making an adjustment.
So you contradicted yourself. Want a cookie?
>It's not a wrong statement at all. Would the word "should" be substituted
>for "needs" in the above statement clarify it any better?
No, because it would still be a false statement. The miter gauge can be at any
angle you please -- as long as it stays at the *same* angle for any given pair
of fore-and-aft measurements.
>How would you have stated it?
See above.
>
>How about just take your tape measure and measure from the blade to the
>miter slot?
Not accurate enough to suit me. Maybe it is for you.
>How would you insure the angle of the tape was the same after
>each measurement? My point was and is, set it at 90° and use that as the
>reference. You want something other than that - fine but it doesn't make my
>statement wrong.
Your statement that it "needs to be at 90" IS wrong.
>
>Should I have said pick any angle you want and align the blade?
Of course -- it's the truth.
>What purpose would that have served?
Avoiding making you look silly?
>It probably would have confused him but only
>he could answer that. I provided a reference for him - just as you would
>when you're trying to teach someone something. I was trying to impart a
>proper method and steps for him to follow.
Your method's fine. It's just that _one_statement_ I take issue with.
>
>So if that's wrong then so be it.
>
>Bob S.
>
>> The *entire* substance of the disagreement between us is your repeated and
>> erroneous claim that the angle between the miter gauge and the miter slot
>> somehow makes a difference in aligning the miter slot to the blade.
>Address
>> *that* issue, without raising any further red herrings, or be quiet.
>
>
--
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
Michael,
I'm sure the genius will jump on in here and correct me but before that
happens consider that by using the PALS you may be masking the problem. The
alignment of the saw depends on the undercarriage being square and true to
the table. Bosses on the trunnions must be flat, the tie-bar alignment must
not be putting torque on the trunnions and other adjustments come into play
to insure the alignment is correct or you'll forever be fighting it.
Advise you to do a search on "tablesaw alignments" . Here's one that Steve
Strickland wrote http://www.puzzlecraft.com/Projects/HTMAP/07saw.htm that
may help open your eyes to what is at play.
It's a good article and doing a search will uncover many more for you to get
ideas. As I said earlier, do yourself a favor and turn the table over and
fix the problem - don't mask it and introduce more problems.
Bob S.
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lawrence R Horgan wrote:
>
> > Silvan ALREADY KNOWS how to adjust his saw, you can tell by reading his
>
> Crikey. What a mess I started!
>
> OK, let's try this on for size. I got a dial indicator, and I bought four
> cap screws. I'm going to fabricate my own version of the PALS system for
> $2 in materials (using angle iron I already have) and see if that works.
I
> think it just might.
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
>
In article <[email protected]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug,
>
>No argument... you started this - remember?
I remember how it started: you posted, repeatedly, a claim that was nonsense.
And I called it nonsense.
>And changing the subject? No, I
>asked you to provide instructions on how to align a tablesaw - dead on topic
>and you weaseled out of that.
>
That's changing the subject, Bob. The disagreement between us is over whether
the angle of the miter gauge to the miter slot makes any difference. *You* are
the one weaseling out, by your continuous raising of red herrings to avoid
discussing that issue.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
"Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:aKw0c.97834$%[email protected]...
> Silvan,
>
> I have to ask how you aligned your miter gauge before clamping your
> reference pencil to it. That may be the error you're seeing now.
>
That will make no difference.
Jeessuusssss - give me a break Doug. It doesn't matter anymore - I think
we've lost everyone's interest and they left - save one poor soul.
But to sum up this whole thing for the archives:
"It doesn't matter how you align your tablesaw folks, wood moves and
accuracy is not important but most of all, and this is crucial to aligning a
tablesaw - you can align your blade using your miter gauge set at any angle
you please - cause Doug say's so and that's the truth ...he proved it too."
That should about cover it,
Bob S.
PS - I told you this troll wouldn't work and they would soon get tired of
the bickering..... The Slipit troll was much better if you remeber that
one....:-)
>snip a whole lotta stuff about table saw alignment<
Jeeeesh, Doug and Bob! What a mess! This is like watching two uncles go
after each other at a family gathering. All the other family members know
that one uncle made a goof and is trying to cover his tracks while the uncle
that is "right" just keeps prying for submission. Meanwhile, the family
forgets what started the argument in the first place.
I think a more valid point to argue is whether there is slop between the
miter track and the runner. Or a better argument: Using a pencil as a
precise measurement instrument? How much graphite you think wears off each
time the tip touches the blade or a feeler gauge? I'm sure a 0.01" or twelve
could be lost in that process. The original question dealt with how anal
should adjustment be. I feel you cannot be too anal until you use a more
solid standard of instrument. A stick, threaded rod, knitting needle, etc.
Yes, even one of those fancy aligner kits, if that makes you feel better.
For table saw adjustments, however, I have found that whether I used feeler
gauges and a dowel or a dial caliper on a slide, it did not make a hill of
beans difference. Not enough to make a pot of soup, anyways.
C Ya,
Mikey
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003
It must be in your blood to discredit whatever somebody else say's Doug.
So, to put this to rest - finally. Perhaps you can enlighten the group as to
how to accurately and correctly align a Contractors style tablesaw so that
we may compare your methods and procedures against those that do this sort
of thing for a living. And as I did with my posts several years back that
covered the Delta CS, please credit the original reference material, note
your changes, tips/hints, improvements and rationale.
I'm sure a great number of readers would benefit more from that exercise
than our bickering.
Bob S.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Bob S."
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >Advise you to do a search on "tablesaw alignments" . Here's one that
Steve
> >Strickland wrote http://www.puzzlecraft.com/Projects/HTMAP/07saw.htm that
> >may help open your eyes to what is at play.
>
> The discussions on the wreck between Steve Strickland and Ed Bennett of
about
> two years ago demonstrated that Steve's understanding of table saw
alignment,
> and of geometry, is seriously deficient. It's quite illuminating to read
> those, to see how Ed (and others) point out Steve's errors.
>
> The article you cite is just a rehash of the nonsense that Steve posted
here,
> that has been repeatedly discredited in this group. In particular, his
claim
> of adjusting a table saw, using his methods, to produce accuracy to within
> 0.0001" has been _proven_ false.
>
> Better advice: _ignore_ everything Steve Strickland says about table saw
> adjustment.
>
> --
> 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:
>
>>setting jointer knives:
>>http://benchmark.20m.com/workshop/Jigs_Dial/Jigs_Dial.html
>
>
> Ain't that the truth. What used to be a royal gold-plated PITA is now, well,
> not quite easy, but a whole lot less difficult. Woo-hoo! What a difference!
Much easier if you have a button contact point.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)
In article <[email protected]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug,
>
>You're absolutely right and I dare not challenge a member of Mensa for all
>the wrath that will provoke... And god forbid if anyone has an opinion that
>should differ from yours.
>
If anything I said was incorrect, point out my mistake, as I pointed out
yours.
>How many tablesaws was it you said you've aligned?
How many geometry tests was it you said you passed?
--
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
Jerry Gilreath wrote:
> I've been watching this thread with some intent now, because it's kinda
> funny. Silvan, it's been so long since I've seen the original post, what
Yeah, a simple question that turned into a 50,000 word school yard brawl.
> kind of saw is it? Is it possible the trunion bolts have molded (for lack
> of a better word) themselves to the trunion, making indentions in it,
> causing it to go back to the same location? Could you not try different
It's a Crapsman. Yes, a brand shiney new Crapsman. It was what I could
afford, and it's 500% better than the piece of crap it replaced even if I
never get the blade lined up right. I'm just trying to get as much out of
it as I can.
> size washers on the bolts? It sort of makes sense to me. BTW, who do you
> drive for? I know your a stick hauler.
A local outfit you've likely never heard of. New Energy.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Larry,
If he used a used a try square to align the miter head to the blade, the
head would be at one position (angle to the blade) and when it's holding a
pencil, it's used at the front of the blade and then at the rear. The
difference will be more/less as the gauge is moved along the blade. With
the miter aligned to the blade while it's out of adjustment and then using
it to try and align the slot to the blade is not going to work.
He could turn the miter gauge upside down in the slot and align the head
with the front edge of the table. Then reverse it and put it in the slot
upside down again at the rear edge and see if there's a difference. If so,
then the slot is not perpendicular to the edges referenced.
So saying it doesn't make a difference is not exactly correct - right?
Bob S.
"Lawrence R Horgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Seems to me it wouldn't matter how the miter gauge was aligned. Even if
you
> had the guage at, say 29 degrees, the difference between the pencil point
> and the blade at the front or back of the blade would be the same.
>
Silvan,
I have to ask how you aligned your miter gauge before clamping your
reference pencil to it. That may be the error you're seeing now.
Bob S.
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm trying to line up my new saw as best I can without buying any fancy
> dongles to take ultra precise measurements.
>
> Today's project was getting the blade lined up parallel to the miter
slots.
> I sharpened a pencil to a tiny point, marked a tooth, then clamped the
> pencil to my miter gauge. Moving pencil and tooth to the back of the
> table, there was a significant gap.
>
> After dicking around with the six bolts and wiggling around on the saw
guts
> for a couple of hours, the best I was able to accomplish is that there is
> still a 0.014" gap between the pencil point and the marked tooth at the
> back of the table. I could never manage to get it closer than that and
> keep it there while the bolts were tightened back up.
>
> Unfortunately, the gap indicates that the blade is closer to the rip fence
> at the back than at the front, which is really seriously not cool. Still,
> I don't see what else I can do about it. This was the product of much
> fiddling, and it was hard to get it even this close. (BTW, the rip fence
> is to the right of the blade. I was using the left miter slot.)
>
> I don't have much lumber on hand to do test cuts with, but I tried a piece
> of 4/4 red oak about 3' long. I ripped a strip 1" wide and measured it at
> various points with dial calipers. It's damn close. The difference in
> measurement from point to point is less than I can measure without a
> micrometer, though there *is* some minute variation. Theer were no burn
> marks at all, no binding, no feeling of impending kickback, and it was a
> very smooth cut.
>
> So what does the Wreck say? Keep dicking with it or leave it alone until
I
> see burn marks and other indications of a serious alignment problem?
Maybe
> try some 6/4 or larger and see how that changes things...
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
>
In article <Qdm1c.117854$%[email protected]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>It must be in your blood to discredit whatever somebody else say's Doug.
You really have a problem with admitting mistakes, Bob. You repeatedly posted
something that just isn't true, and I refuted it. Now you're going off on me,
saying that I have this attitude that everybody else is wrong. Go back and
read *all* the posts in the thread, Bob. I never said "everybody else" is
wrong -- I said *you* are wrong. And you are. And FOUR other people said that
too. Go rag on them for a while.
>
>So, to put this to rest - finally. Perhaps you can enlighten the group as to
>how to accurately and correctly align a Contractors style tablesaw so that
>we may compare your methods and procedures against those that do this sort
>of thing for a living. And as I did with my posts several years back that
>covered the Delta CS, please credit the original reference material, note
>your changes, tips/hints, improvements and rationale.
>
That was never the issue between us -- the issue was only your repeated,
mistaken insistence that it was necessary to have the miter gauge at 90
degrees to the miter slot.
--
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]>,
[email protected] says...
> From your post, I infer that you are trying to align a contractor saw.
> If I guessed right, go to Woodcraft.com and purchase a PALS alignment
> system for your saw (under $30 including shipping). You will now be
> able to adjust your contractors saw to the tolerances you need.
>
I can heartily agree with that. I've got a no-name import
bought many years ago from HomeBase and I had a lot of alignment
problems till I bought the PALS system. A very simple but
elegant solution. Try it, you'll like it :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <og11c.104550$%[email protected]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry,
>
>Also read your other post below. To make the point clear, since it is not
>irrelevant, the miter gauge needs to be 90° to the miter slot before any
>alignment if it is the point of reference. As adjustments are being made,
>(this being the key thought) the angle will change (angle of attack) and so
>will the distance between the blade and reference point. He must >> reset<<
>his reference point to the front of the blade and then push it forward to
>check for any differences.
The angle doesn't matter, and neither does the distance of the reference
point from the front of the blade. All that matters is the *difference*
between the distance from the reference point to the front, and to the rear,
of the blade. Granted, that difference is easiest to measure when one or the
other of those distances is zero, but that is *not* required.
In any event, your point about resetting the reference point to the front of
the blade applies regardless of the angle of the miter gauge -- that is, it's
no less important with the miter gauge at 90 than with it at, say, 45.
>
>This is exactly what you do with a TS Aligner. You pre-load the dial gauge
>at the front tooth, zero the gauge and then rotate the blade and check the
>same tooth at the rear. Meanwhile, the dial gauge is being held perfectly
>aligned to the miter slot. And the reference point is a small point on the
>dial indicator - not a flat edge.
All true. But the angle _does_not_matter_. The TS-Aligner would work just as
well (for aligning table saws, anyway), if the bar that holds the dial
indicator were mounted at a thirty-nine degree angle to the miter slot. The
path traveled by the reference point is _always_parallel_ to the miter slot,
no matter what angle the miter gauge is set at.
Consider a four-sided figure with its corners defined thus:
a) point end of a pencil clamped to miter fence and touching front of blade
b) dead-center of the miter gauge fence when pencil is touching front of blade
c) point end of same pencil when miter gauge is moved to rear of blade
d) dead-center of miter gauge fence in this latter position
These four points define a parallelogram (opposite sides are parallel). If the
miter guage is set at ninety degrees to the miter slot, that parallelogram
happens to be a rectangle. No matter the angle, the path of the pencil point
is dead parallel to the path of the miter guage and hence to the miter slot.
And thus aligning the blade to the path of the pencil guarantees that the
blade and miter slot are parallel, completely independent of the angle of the
miter gauge.
>
>I agree with the statement that the miter gauge can be set at any angle and
>the measurement can be taken - for that one adjustment. But... make an
>adjustment to the blade in relation to the reference point and the distance
>(more/less) will change. He must reset the reference point before making
>the next check.
So? That's an artifact of having changed the angle of the miter slot relative
to the trunnion, and is completely unrelated to the angle of the miter gauge
relative to the miter slot. It makes no difference *what* the angle of the
miter gauge is, you *still* have to either reset the reference point to the
front of the blade, or measure the distance between them, before taking the
next measurement at the rear of the blade.
>Now as he stated, he was using a pencil so it has a pointy
>end and the angle is not measurable between the point and the blade.
The angle between the point and the blade is irrelevant. The *distance*
between them, fore and aft, is _all_that_matters_.
[snip]
>So to sum this up:
>
>1. Use a pointy object as the reference and reset the reference after each
>adjustment
Bingo! *Regardless* of the angle set on the miter gauge.
>2. If you use an edge (such as a cut piece of wood), it needs to be 90° to
>the miter slot so as the adjustments approach being parallel, the 90° edge
>of the reference point will (ideally) now be flat against the blade with no
>discernable gap along the edge.
Checking for gaps fore and aft on a cut piece of wood is functionally
identical to checking the gaps at the front and back of the cut. This in turn
is functionally identical to using a "pointy object" as the reference, at two
places separated by a distance equal to the width of the cut piece -- and
unless that piece is the same width as the blade, it's guaranteed to be a less
accurate test than using a point reference at the front and rear of the blade.
And thus, if you use an edge such as a cut piece of wood, it's imperative that
the miter gauge be set at any angle _except_ 90 degrees, so that the cut piece
of wood presents a _corner_ as the reference surface instead of a flat face.
Which puts you right back to Number 1: use a point reference to start with.
>3. Buy a TS Aligner and be done with it....
Works great for those who can afford it. IIRC, the OP is on a limited budget.
--
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
ohhhhhhh........ok..........now see if I help you again......;)
Bob S.
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob S. wrote:
>
> > Crikey....ya just can't leave us hanging there... what angle did you set
> > the miter gauge at while you were aligning that beast? We *must*
> > know....;)
>
> 13 1/2.
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
>
Lawrence R Horgan wrote:
> Silvan ALREADY KNOWS how to adjust his saw, you can tell by reading his
> post. His only real problem is that, he gets his adjustment correct but
> then it changes when he tightens down the hardware. This is not uncommon.
Right. There seems to be some kind of self-centering action going on here.
To mitigate this, I tried jacking up the whole blade carriage gizmo (the
trunions?) from directly below the arbor, to keep it flush with the bottom
of the table while loosening the bolts. I wiggled it into position with
all six bolts extremely loose, and it seemed to be pretty nearly dead on
(plus or minus less than a sheet of origami paper.) Then when I tightened
everything up, it was right smack back where I started.
Good points raised elsewhere about how ripping is no indication in of
itself. My crosscuts seemed to be pretty well dead on, but then I thought
to try the *other* slot, and now I see how severe the problem is.
Crosscutting with the left slot, the results are excellent, but no cutting
or contact whatsoever takes place on the far side of the blade. Switch to
the right slot, and the work binds horribly on the far side of the cut as
the blade digs in at an angle. The resulting cut is slanted.
I could slant the fence the same way, and only use the left miter slot, but
that's not really acceptable. Back to the drawing board.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
I've been watching this thread with some intent now, because it's kinda
funny. Silvan, it's been so long since I've seen the original post, what
kind of saw is it? Is it possible the trunion bolts have molded (for lack of
a better word) themselves to the trunion, making indentions in it, causing
it to go back to the same location? Could you not try different size washers
on the bolts? It sort of makes sense to me. BTW, who do you drive for? I
know your a stick hauler.
--
"Cartoons don't have any deep meaning.
They're just stupid drawings that give you a cheap laugh."
Homer Simpson
Jerry© The Phoneman®
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lawrence R Horgan wrote:
>
> > Silvan ALREADY KNOWS how to adjust his saw, you can tell by reading his
>
> Crikey. What a mess I started!
>
> OK, let's try this on for size. I got a dial indicator, and I bought four
> cap screws. I'm going to fabricate my own version of the PALS system for
> $2 in materials (using angle iron I already have) and see if that works.
I
> think it just might.
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
>
You said:
After dicking around with the six bolts and wiggling around on the saw
guts
> for a couple of hours, the best I was able to accomplish is that there is
> still a 0.014" gap between the pencil point and the marked tooth at the
> back of the table. I could never manage to get it closer than that and
> keep it there while the bolts were tightened back up.
>
> Unfortunately, the gap indicates that the blade is closer to the rip fence
> at the back than at the front, which is really seriously not cool. Still,
> I don't see what else I can do about it. This was the product of much
> fiddling, and it was hard to get it even this close. (BTW, the rip fence
> is to the right of the blade. I was using the left miter slot.)
From your post, I infer that you are trying to align a contractor saw.
If I guessed right, go to Woodcraft.com and purchase a PALS alignment
system for your saw (under $30 including shipping). You will now be
able to adjust your contractors saw to the tolerances you need.
I have no ties to the manufacturer or Woodcraft but I am a satisfied
customer who dialed in his Craftsman table saw using the system in
under an hour.
Silvan <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I'm trying to line up my new saw as best I can without buying any fancy
> dongles to take ultra precise measurements.
>
Snip
Until I got my $25 magnetic dial indicator, here's what I did:
My miter gauge had some slots on the vertical surface (the "back") of
it. I screwed a piece of 2x4 onto the miter gauge so that the end of
the 2x was about a half inch from the blade. I screwed a screw into
the end grain (on the blade side) of the 2x until there was about a
half inch sticking out. Pick a saw blade tooth and bring it to the
height of the screw. Screw or unscrew until the screw head is just
touching the blade. Mark tooth with tape, crayon, blood, etc. Slide
2x to the back of the blade and rotate mark to where the screw hits
the marked tooth in the back of the blade. Adjust as necessary. Pick
another saw tooth and repeat.
I've never adjusted a saw such as yours (nice neener, BTW), but I
would think that the process of adjusting your saw table would be
pretty much the same as mine. There's a few bolts holding the table
to the base, right? Loosen some (or almost all) of them and twist the
whole table surface until the miter slots are parallel with the blade.
Then, carefully tighten bolts down. It took me about an hour to do
mine.
Incidentally, my 2x4 screw method (that I think I got from Charlie
Self--thanks, Charlie) proved to have less than .001" deviation as
measured with my cheap-ass dial indicator. Knowing that, I still use
the ol' 2x4 screw method for periodic checks of my miter slots. It's
easier than the dial indicator.
I would say that .014" is kinda a lot, though. If you're not getting
any burning, it may be that the rip fence is parallel to the blade,
but not to the saw table. Or maybe that the carbide hangs over the
edge of the blade by that much.
My brother-in-law called my saw Old Smoky for a while there.
Hope it helps, Sylvan.
-Phil Crow
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 14:56:20 GMT, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry,
>
>Also read your other post below. To make the point clear, since it is not
>irrelevant, the miter gauge needs to be 90° to the miter slot before any
>alignment if it is the point of reference.
NO, IT DOSEN 'T! <G>
The angle just has to stay the SAME!
You can do this with a warped stick found on the side of the road, as
long as the warp stays constant long enough to complete the job.
Barry
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 19:38:03 -0500, "Mike G"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi Mike
>
>Signs of serious misalignment problems really isn't the issue. The issue is
>what you can live with in the way of error when putting a project together.
>
>To be honest I really don't know how much of a throw down a .014" gap is
>going to give you but I suspect, not a lot.
If it cuts nice, I'd adjust the cursor and go.
>Take the two pieces, flip one over, put the two cut ends together. How close
>they mate with the boards forming a straight edge is the measure of how good
>the line up is.
This is also an excellent test for blade tilt, simply look at the side
of the boards. The gap Mike mentions will be twice the error.
Barry
Silvan wrote:
> Lawrence R Horgan wrote:
>
>
>>Silvan ALREADY KNOWS how to adjust his saw, you can tell by reading his
>
>
> Crikey. What a mess I started!
Are you happy now??
Well, are you?
>
> OK, let's try this on for size. I got a dial indicator, and I bought four
> cap screws. I'm going to fabricate my own version of the PALS system for
> $2 in materials (using angle iron I already have) and see if that works. I
> think it just might.
You really want to stir things up, don't you?
You *have to* spend money on the aligning tool, not because you need to but
because , well, you just won't be part of the gang if you don't. No, you wont!
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)
To get the clean cuts with no tooth marks and a smooth surface, pretty anal
is helpful.. Usually in the .000 to .003 range for the blade being parallel
to the miter slots from the front of the blade to the back of the blade as
you measured.
Have you tried your cuts yet? Maybe your cuts are good enough for you. If
you are not happy, keep at it.
Mikey Darden wrote:
> For table saw adjustments, however, I have found that whether I used
> feeler gauges and a dowel or a dial caliper on a slide, it did not make a
> hill of beans difference. Not enough to make a pot of soup, anyways.
Well, everybody can rest easy and quit fighting now. My faux PALS proved to
be a waste of time to fabricate, due to the limitations imposed by the
design of the saw. I couldn't get enough of a screw on one side to do any
good, so I scrapped the whole idea in favor of some 3/16" thick washers.
That took care of the self-centering problem. Using the dial indicator to
measure, and a pair of bar clamps to move things around and hold them
there, as best I can figure I have less than 0.001" of difference between
the fore and aft readings. I think it's time to give it a rest and quit
while I'm ahead.
Next stop, the fence. We'll see just how parallel it really is.
Then I guess I'd better go buy some lumber!
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
In article <pmkierst-F3CF19.11201203032004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, Paul Kierstead <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <Qdm1c.117854$%[email protected]>,
> "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It must be in your blood to discredit whatever somebody else say's Doug.
>
>
>OK, I think Doug may not have been very diplomatic, but:
>- It doesn't matter what angle the guage is at. Why would you use other
>then 90 degrees you say? Well, because you gauge is not yet squared the
>the blade is why. So it might be 89.7, or whatever
Hey, Bob -- that makes FIVE now, besides me, who say you're wrong about that.
Go jump on Paul, now.
--
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
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:04:13 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
\
>I don't have much lumber on hand to do test cuts with, but I tried a piece
>of 4/4 red oak about 3' long. I ripped a strip 1" wide and measured it at
>various points with dial calipers. It's damn close. The difference in
>measurement from point to point is less than I can measure without a
>micrometer, though there *is* some minute variation. Theer were no burn
>marks at all, no binding, no feeling of impending kickback, and it was a
>very smooth cut.
I think you're close, but what do you mean by "minute variation"?
Barry
>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:04:13 -0500, Silvan
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>\
>>I don't have much lumber on hand to do test cuts with, but I tried a piece
>>of 4/4 red oak about 3' long. I ripped a strip 1" wide and measured it at
>>various points with dial calipers. It's damn close. The difference in
>>measurement from point to point is less than I can measure without a
>>micrometer, though there *is* some minute variation. Theer were no burn
>>marks at all, no binding, no feeling of impending kickback, and it was a
>>very smooth cut.
Then Barry wrote:
>I think you're close, but what do you mean by "minute variation"?
>
It's pronounced MY-NOOT, and it means small or miniscule. Sylvan, the
variation you tried to measure on the 3 foot test rip won't tell you much. But
try a crosscut on a ten inch wide piece with a sled, and you'll see the effects
of your saw's maladjustment. Careful! Tom
Someday, it'll all be over....
In article <di71c.104782$%[email protected]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>You are right Doug....now go soak your head...it's swelling up quite a bit.
>
Does this mean you're going to stop posting that nonsense that nobody but you
agrees with?
--
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
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:04:13 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> scribbled:
<snip>
>After dicking around with the six bolts and wiggling around on the saw guts
>for a couple of hours, the best I was able to accomplish is that there is
>still a 0.014" gap between the pencil point and the marked tooth at the
>back of the table. I could never manage to get it closer than that and
>keep it there while the bolts were tightened back up.
<snip>
>So what does the Wreck say? Keep dicking with it or leave it alone until I
>see burn marks and other indications of a serious alignment problem? Maybe
>try some 6/4 or larger and see how that changes things...
One thought - is the mitre gauge (miter gage, Keith) slot milled
straight or is there some bow in it? Might be worth checking first.
0.014" sounds like a lot over the width of the blade. It's almost
1/64". I'm surprised you're not getting any burning.
Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
Bridger wrote:
> good choice.
>
> now you're going to have to learn how to tram your drill press...
Yes, actually, I am. Any other uses for the thing?
--
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]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>No... I won't go after Paul. I read his procedure on how to align a
>tablesaw.... ;-)
>
>But to set the record straight, Doug came after me if you care to read the
>thread.
>
Bob, the posts are publicly available. You made a false statement, and I
pointed out that it was false and explained why. If that's "coming after you",
well... it's probably time for another layer of tin foil in your hat.
--
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]>, Bridger <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 10:00:05 -0500, Silvan
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Bridger wrote:
>>
>>> good choice.
>>>
>>> now you're going to have to learn how to tram your drill press...
>>
>>Yes, actually, I am. Any other uses for the thing?
>
>
>
>tons of uses. pretty much anything that can be adjusted can be
>adjusted better with an indicator.
>
>how about:
>
>router fence adjustments.
And shaper fences.
[snip]
>
>setting jointer knives:
>http://benchmark.20m.com/workshop/Jigs_Dial/Jigs_Dial.html
Ain't that the truth. What used to be a royal gold-plated PITA is now, well,
not quite easy, but a whole lot less difficult. Woo-hoo! What a difference!
>
>tensioning your band saw:
>http://www.lenoxsaw.com/tension.htm
Hmmm. Hadn't thought of that one. Thanks!
And thanks for the list of links. That's definitely going "in the files".
--
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
"Yes......However".....WTF ?
Wow...what a tough friggin crowd we have here tonight. Just trying to help
the OP and two guy's jump in looking for a fight nitpicking without looking
at was said.
Good enough guy's - obviously I'm wrong and you two geniuses can give him
the straight answer so he can solve the problem.
Bob S.
Mark wrote:
>> Crikey. What a mess I started!
>
> Are you happy now??
>
> Well, are you?
No, not really. I'm ashamed that such an innocent and perfectly legitimate
question had to descend to this.
> You *have to* spend money on the aligning tool, not because you need to
> but because , well, you just won't be part of the gang if you don't. No,
> you wont!
I did. I bought a dial indicator. It seems potentially useful. I made my
own aligning tool that's accurate plus or minus whatever slop there is in
the miter slot itself. I did't spend $150 either.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Larry,
Also read your other post below. To make the point clear, since it is not
irrelevant, the miter gauge needs to be 90° to the miter slot before any
alignment if it is the point of reference. As adjustments are being made,
(this being the key thought) the angle will change (angle of attack) and so
will the distance between the blade and reference point. He must >> reset<<
his reference point to the front of the blade and then push it forward to
check for any differences.
This is exactly what you do with a TS Aligner. You pre-load the dial gauge
at the front tooth, zero the gauge and then rotate the blade and check the
same tooth at the rear. Meanwhile, the dial gauge is being held perfectly
aligned to the miter slot. And the reference point is a small point on the
dial indicator - not a flat edge.
I agree with the statement that the miter gauge can be set at any angle and
the measurement can be taken - for that one adjustment. But... make an
adjustment to the blade in relation to the reference point and the distance
(more/less) will change. He must reset the reference point before making
the next check. Now as he stated, he was using a pencil so it has a pointy
end and the angle is not measurable between the point and the blade. If it
was a cut piece of wood as suggested, there will be an angle cut on the
reference edge of something other than 90°. As the adjustment approaches
parallel (blade to ref point) the angle and the distance between the
reference point and the blade approaches zero - front and rear - as long as
the reference edge was 90°. That's what I tried to show in the ASCII art
diagram above.
So to sum this up:
1. Use a pointy object as the reference and reset the reference after each
adjustment
2. If you use an edge (such as a cut piece of wood), it needs to be 90° to
the miter slot so as the adjustments approach being parallel, the 90° edge
of the reference point will (ideally) now be flat against the blade with no
discernable gap along the edge.
3. Buy a TS Aligner and be done with it....
As for addressing his "real" problem as you noted, I have written several
past posts that dealt with that little problem for Contractor type saws.
The information was based on a Delta, using their procedures, added some
notes and tips on info they didn't tell you in the manual plus dealing with
parts that were not milled correctly and how to compensate for some of that
"jumping" when locking it down. Most of what you read from others is about
whacking the trunnions with a hammer, using some 3rd party adjusters
add-on's etc. He didn't state whether it was a cabinet saw or a CS. But
the fix - if its a CS - is to turn the saw over, replace two of the bolts,
check and flatten the bosses on the trunnions and base, add a shim or two if
needed, clean, lube and done. Next alignment (if ever needed) is loosen the
4 bolts (now much easier) adjust by hand (no hammer needed - it slides
easily), lock it down and you're done in 15 min.
Guy's there's probably as many ways to verify alignment and perform the
alignments as there are woodworkers. I should have provided an example to
illustrate my point, like take a 12" ruler and place the end (edge) against
the edge of your bench/table/desk and its at 90° to the edge. That whole end
edge of the ruler is your reference. Cock it a bit and you have a gap and
now your reference is only the point of the ruler edge that touches the
table. As you make adjustments, that angle will change as will the
distance.
Bob S.
"Lawrence R Horgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob S,
>
> I see what you're saying, but it doesn't address the problem. Bernard has
it
> right.
>
> Look at it this way... Your goal is to align the blade to the miter slot.
> The angle that the miter guage is set at is irrelevant... as long as the
> indicator (in Silvan's case - a pencil) doesn't change position on the
miter
> guage as the guage is slid from front to back.
>
> If you clamp a pencil in a miter guage set at 90 degrees, then slide the
> guage from front to back, the tip of the pencil, however far out it
extends,
> will always be parrallel with the miter guage slot. Now, if you clamp a
> pencil in a miter guage set at 13 degrees, the tip of the pencil will
still
> always be parrallel with the slot. I'm sorry I can;t explain it any
better,
> but as long as Silvan gets his blade as nearly perfect in parrallel with
his
> miter guage slot, then all is well.
>
> --
I have to say again.... Doug's right. The angle of the mitre gauge doesn;t
matter one bit. The mitre gauge is what started this whole interesting and
comical thread.
And thanks Bob for reminding me of the Slipit post..... that brought back
some memories that made me smile :-). Must;ve been, what, 5 or six years
ago? About 97 or 98? hehehe
Larry
--
Americans
[email protected]
"Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Someone wrote:>You can go home now...it's over....;-)
>
> Thank God. And Barry's right about Doug being right.
> Someday, it'll all be over....
You didn't really think I was going to say Doug was "right" after all that
now did you.... Hell has a better chance of freezing over. I could just see
his shorts getting all knotty like.....;-)
Has it been that long since Matt Ritter and Slipit rode through here? Damn,
time flies when you're having fun.....
And Doug (if you haven't filtered me yet), about half-way through that
diatribe I did decide to jerk your chain a bit. I was thinking you might
notice but obviously the smiley wasn't enough. Yes, you got my hair up too
but that's what "open discussions" sometimes do. Enjoyed it and we even
managed to stay on topic - well for the most part anyway.
Bob S.
(but I'm still right.....)
"Lawrence R Horgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have to say again.... Doug's right. The angle of the mitre gauge doesn;t
> matter one bit. The mitre gauge is what started this whole interesting and
> comical thread.
>
> And thanks Bob for reminding me of the Slipit post..... that brought back
> some memories that made me smile :-). Must;ve been, what, 5 or six years
> ago? About 97 or 98? hehehe
>
> Larry
>
> --
> Americans
> [email protected]
> "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Someone wrote:>You can go home now...it's over....;-)
> >
> > Thank God. And Barry's right about Doug being right.
> > Someday, it'll all be over....
>
>
"Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You didn't really think I was going to say Doug was "right" after all that
> now did you.... Hell has a better chance of freezing over. >
>
No, I didn't expect that you would admit that you were wrong. Certainly not
after all the effort you put into backpedaling. I'm beginning to wonder if
you're not the puzzle guy ander a false name. Same style.
Wow...
Guess your shorts really were tied in a knot over this - to bad. Need to
learn to lighten up a bit there fella and enjoy life. There's more to it
than being right.
I'll keep preaching to set the miter gauge for 90° before aligning a table
saw. It has to be set at some angle - may as well be 90° right Doug?
Bob S.
In article <[email protected]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>You didn't really think I was going to say Doug was "right" after all that
>now did you... [snip]
Of course I didn't expect that. Because you don't believe it:
>(but I'm still right.....)
No, you're not. And I've *proven* it mathematically.
Haven't you noticed *yet* that you are the *only* one who thinks so?
>"Lawrence R Horgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I have to say again.... Doug's right. The angle of the mitre gauge doesn;t
>> matter one bit.
>> "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Thank God. And Barry's right about Doug being right.
>> > Someday, it'll all be over....
--
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
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 23:08:44 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Hopefully the FINAL WORD in this thread I started...
Word!
Barry
In article <[email protected]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug,
>
>You didn't prove me wrong, you said that it could be set at any angle and
>the last I checked, 90° was still an angle...
Yes, I did. You said it had to be 90, or it wouldn't work. That's false, and I
proved it false.
>
>The only point I insisted on is that it setting it at 90° is not wrong - and
>you agree.
That's just not true, Bob. The point you insisted on is that it _had_to_be_ 90
degrees, and that's false.
>
>We done yet or we going for chapter two?
>
Apparently you've already started chapter two all on your own. In chapter one,
you managed to talk about everything under the sun *except* your mistaken
claim that the miter gauge had to be set at 90 degrees. Now, in chapter two,
you've begun denying that you ever said that.
Won't work, Bob. It's there in Google. You said it. You were wrong. Now you
deny saying it. Give it up, Bob. You're becoming pathetic.
--
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
Hopefully the FINAL WORD in this thread I started...
I puttered and piddled and diddle and dicked, and I got it even closer than
it was when I posted earlier. I've subsequently changed blades and checked
against the new blade with the same result. It's only a couple of gnat's
asses either side of 0 on the dial indicator, and if I hold my mouth right,
sometimes no gnat asses at all.
I won't even ask how anal I should be about getting the fence lined up next.
I'll keep at it until I get it right.
Then we'll see about a WWII. :)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Get the WWII you'll appreciate it. I had been using a 70's craftsman
until a couple of weeks ago when a great deal on a unisaw came my way.
I couldn't afford it but I bought it anyway. It has a WWII blade on
it and I swear my sanding has been cut in half. As a bonus it has a
large Laguna sliding table and many other add ons but so far that
blade has really impressed me as I had been using a systimatic blade.
Mike
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 23:08:44 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Hopefully the FINAL WORD in this thread I started...
>
>I puttered and piddled and diddle and dicked, and I got it even closer than
>it was when I posted earlier. I've subsequently changed blades and checked
>against the new blade with the same result. It's only a couple of gnat's
>asses either side of 0 on the dial indicator, and if I hold my mouth right,
>sometimes no gnat asses at all.
>
>I won't even ask how anal I should be about getting the fence lined up next.
>I'll keep at it until I get it right.
>
>Then we'll see about a WWII. :)
In article <[email protected]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>There's more to it
>than being right.
Maybe you should take that advice to heart and stop insisting that you are
"still right", despite having been proven wrong, despite having nobody agree
with you...
>
>I'll keep preaching to set the miter gauge for 90° before aligning a table
>saw.
Keep preaching that is *must* be set to 90° and I'll keep telling you that
you're full of beans.
> It has to be set at some angle - may as well be 90° right Doug?
May as well be 90, sure. Doesn't have to be. May as well be anything else,
too. Just has to be consistent.
--
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]>, Silvan <[email protected]> wrote:
>I won't even ask how anal I should be about getting the fence lined up next.
That's an entirely different can of worms. I expect to see a long and heated
debate over whether the fence should be dead parallel to the blade, or toe out
by a few thou, or toe out by a few 64ths.
Let's start it now!
<rubbing hands together and cackling in mad glee>
The closest you can get to dead parallel without toeing in, is the way to go
IMO -- but it's *much* more important to avoid toeing *in* by even the
slightest amount than to get it dead parallel.
--
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:
> To others that object to this thread - then don't read it - real simple.
I object to other being mislead that this is difficult. It isn't. It is
easy and requires not special tools or anything fancy.
> But
> don't tell me that bashing your tablesaw into alignment is a good thing and
> that wood moves. You can bash on your tools if you like, I prefer to find
> out why they won't align and fix the problem - properly. As you'll note,
> several others have advised him to return the saw.
The wood moves comment was with respect to the moron who things 0.0001"
accuracy is desirable. It is a waste of time. It wasn't directed at you.
If you do not understand why bashing is necessary, then:
Either
A) You have never actually performed this procedure on a
contractor-style TS
or
B) It took you an awfully long time.
In the odd event that anyone is reading this and would like to try it,
here is the trick:
Loosen the trunion bolts VERY slightly. Were people get into trouble is
they loosen them too much. Then when they re-tighten, the trunion moves
quite a bit. This is the natural outcome of the torque of tightening, it
is not "something wrong". By loosening them very slightly and using a
little force (trust me, you could bash all day with a rubber mallet on a
heavy trunion without any damage), there is very little movement when
re-tightening. This makes the procedure much much easier.
> Past that, I agreed the miter gauge could be at other than 90° - as long as
> the point of reference (miter gauge) is reset after making an adjustment.
> It's not a wrong statement at all. Would the word "should" be substituted
> for "needs" in the above statement clarify it any better?
Lets assume the left slot.
1. Clamp stick to miter gauge so that it just touches the side of the
saw at from.
2. Slide miter guage towards the back.
A) If the stick binds, then the trunion is twisted counter clockwise,
i.e the back of the trunion needs to move left when view from the front,
right when you at the back doing the actual adjustment.
B) If a gap appears between the stick and the blade, then the trunion
is twisted clockwise.
C) if it stays barely touching all the way through, then life is very
good. Stop now.
3. loosen and adjust as above
4. Repeat (1) - (3) until you hit the stop (condition 2 C)
it isn't any easier or more difficult if the gauge is at 90 degrees; in
fact it makes no difference whatsoever. If you don't see this, then you
haven't tried it.
> How about just take your tape measure and measure from the blade to the
> miter slot? How would you insure the angle of the tape was the same after
> each measurement? My point was and is, set it at 90° and use that as the
> reference. You want something other than that - fine but it doesn't make my
> statement wrong.
Using a tape measure would be a disasterous way to do it. The whole
point of the above method is to NOT depend on miter gauge accuracy,
reading accurately, etc. The only thing that really matters is that the
miter gauge does not have any play in the slot.
In article <Qdm1c.117854$%[email protected]>,
"Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
> It must be in your blood to discredit whatever somebody else say's Doug.
OK, I think Doug may not have been very diplomatic, but:
- It doesn't matter what angle the guage is at. Why would you use other
then 90 degrees you say? Well, because you gauge is not yet squared the
the blade is why. So it might be 89.7, or whatever
- Have you read strickland's article? The man is insane. This is WOOD we
are cutting. Right after you cut it, it warps a little, probable expands
a little, etc. It has a mind of its own. I am all for accuracy, but
0.001, 0.0001, 0.002 are all pretty much the same. And no matter what,
you want a very high quality edge, the TS isn't going to give it to you.
- Who aligns tablesaws for a living???
- It isn't rocket science.
1. Rig something to compare difference between blade to miter slot at
the front and back of the blade. A stick clamped to a tight fitting
miter guage works fine and is highly accurate. No "aligner" kits needed.
2. Lossen trunion bolts very slightly. I leave one actually tight.
3. bash trunion with rubber mallet (not Steel!!! I use a deadblow one)
to make difference in (1) as close to zero as you have patience for.
4. tighten bolt. Remeasure. It will no longer be zero. Observe which
direction it is not zero and eyeball how much
5. repeat (2) -(4), except knock it out of square to account for
tightening action. If you have a good eye an a little luck, you can nail
this the first cycle. Otherwise you might need to repeat a little.
That is it. The system from woodcraft will make life a little easier,
but only a little. I did the above in under an hour, and most of that
was spent trying to get the right combination of socket extensions so I
could effectively torque the (*&(*# trunion bolts which are waaaay in
there.
All this bickering is ridiculous.
>
> So, to put this to rest - finally. Perhaps you can enlighten the group as to
> how to accurately and correctly align a Contractors style tablesaw so that
> we may compare your methods and procedures against those that do this sort
> of thing for a living. And as I did with my posts several years back that
> covered the Delta CS, please credit the original reference material, note
> your changes, tips/hints, improvements and rationale.
>
> I'm sure a great number of readers would benefit more from that exercise
> than our bickering.
>
> Bob S.
>
>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Bob S."
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >Advise you to do a search on "tablesaw alignments" . Here's one that
> Steve
> > >Strickland wrote http://www.puzzlecraft.com/Projects/HTMAP/07saw.htm that
> > >may help open your eyes to what is at play.
> >
> > The discussions on the wreck between Steve Strickland and Ed Bennett of
> about
> > two years ago demonstrated that Steve's understanding of table saw
> alignment,
> > and of geometry, is seriously deficient. It's quite illuminating to read
> > those, to see how Ed (and others) point out Steve's errors.
> >
> > The article you cite is just a rehash of the nonsense that Steve posted
> here,
> > that has been repeatedly discredited in this group. In particular, his
> claim
> > of adjusting a table saw, using his methods, to produce accuracy to within
> > 0.0001" has been _proven_ false.
> >
> > Better advice: _ignore_ everything Steve Strickland says about table saw
> > adjustment.
> >
> > --
> > 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,
If you had read what was written instead of trying to prove someone is wrong
all the time, it may have dawned on you that I did not state the miter
couldn't be at any other angle. But why would you align a saw with it not
set at 90° is beyond me. You turned it into a point that I was wrong and
that you were right and so damn righteous about it too. Nobody can be
better than Doug at anything it appears and you certainly went to great
lengths to prove that today.
As far as it being nonsense Doug, go look at some of the posts you've made.
Instead of you trying to be helpful - you're always the one to try and play
one-upmanship instead of offering help.
You sir, are a total, arrogant butt-head and that's being kind. Now, go
align a tablesaw and come back when you can offer some real advice to the
person asking the question instead of jumping in on another's response and
doing your best to prove it wrong.
Bob S.
In article <[email protected]>, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>But to sum up this whole thing for the archives:
>
>"It doesn't matter how you align your tablesaw folks,
I never said that...
> wood moves
nor that... (although true, it's absolutely irrelevant to this discussion)
>and accuracy is not important
nor that...
> but most of all, and this is crucial to aligning a tablesaw -
nor that. Are you finished producing red herrings now?
>you can align your blade using your miter gauge set at any angle
>you please -
I *did* say that.
>cause Doug say's so
No, not because I say so. Because it's a mathematical fact. Anyone who
disagrees is free to point out where I made a mistake. I note that you are
unable to do so.
> and that's the truth ...he proved it too."
Correct finally: it *is* the truth, and I *did* prove it. Not my fault that
you understand neither the concept nor the proof; I tried.
Why do you find it so hard to admit that you were wrong? I guess that's the
closest you can bring yourself to saying so... that's too bad.
--
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
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:18:30 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>
>>> Crikey. What a mess I started!
>>
>> Are you happy now??
>>
>> Well, are you?
>
>No, not really. I'm ashamed that such an innocent and perfectly legitimate
>question had to descend to this.
>
>> You *have to* spend money on the aligning tool, not because you need to
>> but because , well, you just won't be part of the gang if you don't. No,
>> you wont!
>
>I did. I bought a dial indicator. It seems potentially useful. I made my
>own aligning tool that's accurate plus or minus whatever slop there is in
>the miter slot itself. I did't spend $150 either.
good choice.
now you're going to have to learn how to tram your drill press...
In article <[email protected]>, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug, I think this guy just wants to pick a fight with someone and you seem
>to be the one he has selected.
>
Well, he certainly seems to want to argue about something. I haven't quite
figured out *what*, yet, since he keeps changing the subject. :-)
--
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 think this guy just wants to pick a fight with someone and you seem
to be the one he has selected.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:jHo1c.29995
> Hey, Bob -- that makes FIVE now, besides me, who say you're wrong about
that.
> Go jump on Paul, now.
>
> --
> 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
>
>
"Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Advise you to do a search on "tablesaw alignments" . Here's one that Steve
> Strickland wrote http://www.puzzlecraft.com/Projects/HTMAP/07saw.htm that
> may help open your eyes to what is at play.
Yes, that explains a lot.
There's your problem.Listen to the puzzle guy and you'll be all screwed up.
Bernard,
Think about it... The table top (miter slots) are not parallel to the
blade - hence the distance from a point on the front of the blade and a
reference point on the miter gauge head will be more/less as the miter gauge
is moved to the rear of the blade. Do you need a drawing to visualize it ?
ASCII art below is exaggerated but shows what I mean. As the Ref point
moves towards the rear of the blade the distance from Ref point to the blade
is less. Now if the miter gauge head is not perpendicular to the slot, that
introduces even more error as well and if the slot is not perpendicular to
the table edge - more error is introduced.
| | \ \
| | \ \
| | \ \
| | \ \
|------------| \ \
Ref \ \
Miter Slot - Head Blade
Bob S.
"Bernard Randall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Irrespective of the angle of the miter head the distance of anything fixed
> to it should be the same when the head is moved between the front and rear
> of the blade. As was originally stated a marked tooth is being used as
the
> reference, there bye eliminating any eccentricity of the mounting boss.
> When the blade is truly parallel to the miter slot it may not be at 90
deg.
> to the front of the table but the fence has adjustment to compensate for
> this.
>
> Though a dial indicator is the recommended tool feeler gauges work just as
> well.
>
> Bernard R
>
> "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:aEM0c.104126$%[email protected]...
> > Larry,
> >
> > If he used a used a try square to align the miter head to the blade, the
> > head would be at one position (angle to the blade) and when it's holding
a
> > pencil, it's used at the front of the blade and then at the rear. The
> > difference will be more/less as the gauge is moved along the blade.
With
> > the miter aligned to the blade while it's out of adjustment and then
using
> > it to try and align the slot to the blade is not going to work.
> >
> > He could turn the miter gauge upside down in the slot and align the head
> > with the front edge of the table. Then reverse it and put it in the
slot
> > upside down again at the rear edge and see if there's a difference. If
> so,
> > then the slot is not perpendicular to the edges referenced.
> >
> > So saying it doesn't make a difference is not exactly correct - right?
> >
> > Bob S.
> >
> >
> > "Lawrence R Horgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Seems to me it wouldn't matter how the miter gauge was aligned. Even
if
> > you
> > > had the guage at, say 29 degrees, the difference between the pencil
> point
> > > and the blade at the front or back of the blade would be the same.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
In your mind.
"Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> But to set the record straight, Doug came after me if you care to read the
> thread.
>
> Bob S.
>
>