Accurate cross cuts

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:12:33 +0000 (UTC), nuk <[email protected]> wrote:

>For those of us just getting up to speed, would you care to explain the
>best way to check the squareness of a square? I've always heard the
>thing about putting it up against a straight flat edge of wood, whether
>jointed or a sheet good factory edge, and draw one line, and then flip
>the square over and draw a second line parallel to the first, and then
>measure the difference (hopefully none).

You don't need to draw TWO lines. Just draw the line...then flip
it...and see if it lines up with the square.

>Most of my squares, whether
>carpentry, try, or large/small combo squares seem reasonable on by this
>method (I have a framing square that needs adjusted, it seems), but I
>question how accurate the method is, especially w/ that little 6" combo
>square (not a very long line to pick up error on). Any suggestions
>would be helpful.

The square will only be accurate for a given distance. There is NO
square the will be accurate ad infinitum. So 'square' for YOUR work
is all that is necessary.

I make things square for MY projects...usually spanning 8 to 12 ft.
And I've built some wooden, quick squares precisely for this...2', 4',
6' in length, etc. These are dead-on...for my uses.

If you set up a square...and draw a line 10,000 miles long...lol...its
not gonna be square at the end of that line. But it may be perfectly
square at 4 ft. So its also relative.

IMHO, a combo square is one of the least accurate tools you can buy.
I've never seen one yet that doesn't have at least a little play in
them.

Draftsman's T-squares are usually pretty accurate.

Best is to make your own. And a good template can be a sheet of 4x8
plywood.


Have a nice week...

Trent


Cat...the OTHER white meat!

.
>
>
> Make various jigs, that index off the fence, for the angles you require and keep
> the saw at 90 degrees.
>
> --
> Jack Novak

==========================================================
Yep.... my old (60's..Crapsman) has not moved off 90 degrees in 30 years

Actually I have very little problems with keeping it "dead on"...

I still haul out the sled for the table saw however when I need a
perfect cut....I use the RAS for rough cuts when 89.9 degrees is close
enough... lol

The key is never swing the arm....

Bob G

Steve Radoci wrote:
>
> What is the best piece of equipment to use (and who makes it) to obtain
> accurate cross cuts? I have a Sears radial arm saw and it seems like I spend
> all my time adjusting it. Any recommendations would be appreciated.

Shooting board and a #5.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area
Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

> Maybe I should have been a bit more specific.... I use the Starret square
for
> aligning my woodworking tools, principally the jointer and the table saw.

Yep - propagation of errors theory. Makes perfect sense to me that the
"first line" tools should be as "dead-on" as possible, not dead-on as
practical.

> I have two 12" combination squares, a Starrett that I use for
woodworking, and
> a Sears that I use for rough carpentry. The Starrett is square +/-
0.001" over
> its entire length (90 degrees +/- 17 arc-seconds). The Sears deviates
from the
> Starret by 0.011" along its length (90 degrees +/- 3 minutes 9
seconds).

For anyone keeping score at home, 99.9% of normal people use a speed
square for rough carpentry since they don't want to bang up their combo
square in a rough carpentry environment.

A marking pencil or knife is going to be significantly thicker than .001
rendering that sort of accuracy useless for woodworking. Additionally,
unless you're using a robotic arm to mark, the line is going to waiver
as your arm moves the knife or pencil. You can also add in blade
deflection, wood movement, etc. and figure out that .001 accuracy is
complete overkill in woodworking.

So get the cool .00000001 accurate tools if you want but please don't
think that they're going to do any better for you than a .01 tool.

In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>FINALLY! the voice of reason. well said, Steve
>
>dave
>
>Steve wrote:
>
>>>I have two 12" combination squares, a Starrett that I use for
>> woodworking, and
>>>a Sears that I use for rough carpentry. The Starrett is square +/-
>> 0.001" over
>>>its entire length (90 degrees +/- 17 arc-seconds). The Sears deviates
>> from the
>>>Starret by 0.011" along its length (90 degrees +/- 3 minutes 9
>> seconds).
>>
>> For anyone keeping score at home, 99.9% of normal people use a speed
>> square for rough carpentry since they don't want to bang up their combo
>> square in a rough carpentry environment.
>>
>> A marking pencil or knife is going to be significantly thicker than .001
>> rendering that sort of accuracy useless for woodworking. Additionally,
>> unless you're using a robotic arm to mark, the line is going to waiver
>> as your arm moves the knife or pencil. You can also add in blade
>> deflection, wood movement, etc. and figure out that .001 accuracy is
>> complete overkill in woodworking.
>>
>> So get the cool .00000001 accurate tools if you want but please don't
>> think that they're going to do any better for you than a .01 tool.

Maybe I should have been a bit more specific.... I use the Starret square for
aligning my woodworking tools, principally the jointer and the table saw.

Then again, maybe you should have read more carefully, too, and not made up
your numbers. I said a square accurate to 3 minutes (0.05 degrees) isn't good
enough in my opinion, but one accurate to 17 seconds (0.005 degrees) is. I
didn't comment on the adequacy of "a .01 tool" but for the record I'd imagine
it's good enough. But you won't find a square at Sears that's that accurate.

Accuracy of results will be no better than accuracy of setup. If you're
content with your results using squares from Sears, fine, more power to you. I
bought the Starrett square specifically because I was *not* content with the
results I achieved using the inaccurate stuff from Sears to set up my tools.

I am very pleased with the results I get using better equipment.




--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

CW wrote:

> If there was enough damage to affect the square, there would be obvious
> signs. Like a smashed box.

I've always been under the impression that if you drop a precision square on
the floor one good time, it's probably no longer precise.

If those big dollar squares are packaged the same way that other typical
squares are, with hanging card thingies and something like 10 or 15 to a
carton in a fairly thin box, then I can see them getting abused enough in
transit to get knocked out of whack.

I'm a truck driver. I drive for a private carrier run by a distributor who
operates its own trucks because common carriers were destroying all of our
merchandise. A lot of it was concealed damage. Box looks fine. Contents
are borked.

I look into the back of Yellow/Overnite/etc. trucks all the time, and see a
gigantic mess of stuff strewn everywhere with a loose, unsecured pallet
jack slamming around tearing stuff up.

So I'm just curious. I'm not being a smartass. I just wonder if Starret
(?) takes special care to package those things so that they can withstand
the abuse of shipping intact. Some kind of wooden box with egg crate stuff
in it would probably suffice. Do they come like that?

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
Confirmed post number: 17294 Approximate word count: 518820
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

Ha! Reminds me of the opening sequence in Ace Ventura - Pet Detective.
What a riot!


dave

Silvan wrote:

> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>
>>whatever length. Or simply buy such a square in the first place. Starrett
>>makes an excellent 12" combination square, which can be had for about
>>US$60 if you shop around some.
>
>
> So here's the $50,000 question. How do they guarantee the squareness of
> their squares considering the horrors of shipping? Are they individually
> packaged in some kind of shock resistant box or something?
>
> I'm rather serious. Seems to me unless they courier it to you directly and
> only entrust it to a driver who knows what it is, and who is paid to be
> extremely careful, could they possibly ensure the kind of tolerances you're
> talking about. Somebody jiggles a pallet the wrong way and the carton of
> expensive squares falls 13' to the ground.....
>

On 8/19/03 5:37 PM, "Steve Radoci" <[email protected]> wrote:

> What is the best piece of equipment to use (and who makes it) to obtain
> accurate cross cuts? I have a Sears radial arm saw and it seems like I spend
> all my time adjusting it. Any recommendations would be appreciated.

Are you asking how to use your RAS better or for recommendations for new
equipment?

I have a 25 year old Sears RAS and it stays in adjustment quite
satisfactorily as long as I change in in the bevel and miter modes. If I
switch to rip mode or move the motor in the vertical mode for surface
planing, then I have to at least check the alignment when I go back to cross
cut mode. The big advantage of a radial arm saw is its flexibility, but you
pay for this in terms of more frequent adjustments.

If you are looking for recommendations that involve other equipment, then I
would suggest a miter saw (chop saw) dedicated to cross cutting smaller
width pieces or a table saw with a cross cut sled. If you work with large
width pieces, then you might invest in a panel saw.

FINALLY! the voice of reason. well said, Steve

dave

Steve wrote:

>>I have two 12" combination squares, a Starrett that I use for
>
> woodworking, and
>
>>a Sears that I use for rough carpentry. The Starrett is square +/-
>
> 0.001" over
>
>>its entire length (90 degrees +/- 17 arc-seconds). The Sears deviates
>
> from the
>
>>Starret by 0.011" along its length (90 degrees +/- 3 minutes 9
>
> seconds).
>
> For anyone keeping score at home, 99.9% of normal people use a speed
> square for rough carpentry since they don't want to bang up their combo
> square in a rough carpentry environment.
>
> A marking pencil or knife is going to be significantly thicker than .001
> rendering that sort of accuracy useless for woodworking. Additionally,
> unless you're using a robotic arm to mark, the line is going to waiver
> as your arm moves the knife or pencil. You can also add in blade
> deflection, wood movement, etc. and figure out that .001 accuracy is
> complete overkill in woodworking.
>
> So get the cool .00000001 accurate tools if you want but please don't
> think that they're going to do any better for you than a .01 tool.
>
>

No, if you have a cylindrical grinder and are really pretty good using it,
you can make a reference square to a few tenths per foot. You'd be a pretty
long time getting that on a lathe, and it would be by luck not skill in the
end.

Brian

"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:xka1b.165954$Oz4.43442@rwcrnsc54...
>
> "nuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Couple more questions:
> >
> >
> > 1) how are the Incra Guaranteed squares as a 'reference' square? Any
> > others of similar design i.e. reference square that would be worth
> > investigating?
>
> Couldn't say about the Incra, never seen one. If you have a metal lathe
and
> the ability to use it well, a reference square can be made, accurate to
> .0002-.0003 per foot, fairly easily. If you want to buy one, do a Google
> search on "cylindrical square".
>
> >
> > 2) I've heard a bit o' rumbling here and there about the combo square
> > not being the best choice for a 'trusted' square due mainly to the
> > moving parts. Any comments in that department?
>
> In theory, that is quite correct. In practice, a good combo square, well
> maintained, will be more accurate than what you can get out of woodworking
> tools.
>
> >
> > I've been eyeballing some Starrett equipment to go along w/ some
> > Mitutuoyo that I have for some other uses (digital calipers and
> > micrometers). Suggestions on places for the best prices?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > nuk
> >
> > --
> > I know more than enough *nix to do some very destructive things,
> > and not nearly enough to do very many useful things.
>
>

for sure! (Not that I have Neandered yet!) :)

dave

Steve wrote:

> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>come to think of it, I rarely mark a piece with pencil. I cut all
>>similar pieces (crosscuts OR rips) with the fence set on the TS. For
>>crosscuts, I use a 1" thick aux fence as a stop when using the sled.
>
> No
>
>>fiddling around with a square or pencil. that's a time waster and
>>completely unnecessary to get accurate 90 degree crosscuts.
>>
>>dave
>>
>
>
>
> More of an issue when doing mortises, tennons, cut outs for inlays, etc.
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, "Absinthe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'll say this, I may have had some questionable electric tools from Sears, I
>have never had much reason to curse a hand tool I got from them.
>
>Square is easy, draw a line, flip the square and draw another line, if they
>are parallel then it is square if they converge then they are not...

This is sufficient to demonstrate approximate squareness, but is not
sufficiently precise to determine a truly accurate square.

> Or take
>a small machinist square with you and use it to check them, but I can't
>imagine that would work any better.

Actually, that will work a *lot* better. You need a machinist's square of
known precision, a straightedge also of known precision to base them against,
and a set of feeler gauges to measure the deviation between them.

> Come to think of it, I would think
>there were some neanders here that have built countless of their own squares
>which I'm sure they will also claim to be dead on...

Oh, no, not *that* debate again (Strickland vs. Bennett).

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

I too have RAS, made by Ridgid. My complaint is not flexing, but the fact
there is no indexing of the arm at any angle, much less 90 degrees. The only
way to really set it is to use a framing square off the fence, and then do a
crosscut on a broad piece of wood, flipping it over to see if the gap is
closed on the cut. A hassle, don't like it, but dealing with it..Otherwise,
I like the flexibility of cuts you can make..


"Steve Radoci" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What is the best piece of equipment to use (and who makes it) to obtain
> accurate cross cuts? I have a Sears radial arm saw and it seems like I
spend
> all my time adjusting it. Any recommendations would be appreciated.
>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, "Steve Radoci" <[email protected]> wrote:
>What is the best piece of equipment to use (and who makes it) to obtain
>accurate cross cuts? I have a Sears radial arm saw and it seems like I spend
>all my time adjusting it. Any recommendations would be appreciated.
>

If you have an accurate square, you already have all the equipment you need.
NOTE: if your square also came from Sears, you do not have an accurate square.
Accurate squares come from specialty dealers catering to woodworkers or
machinists. Starrett is a particularly good brand. A bit pricy, but worth it.

You can make accurate, repeatable 90-degree crosscuts with this saw, provided
that you (a) take the time to align it dead-on to 90 degrees using an accurate
square, (b) have a good straight, flat, and smooth fence board, (c) never
budge it off of 90 degrees once you have it set up (or take the time to
realign it to 90 after you change the angle), and (d) check periodically to
make sure it's still square.

It is not possible to accurately set *both* the 45- and 90-degree stops on
this saw. Setting one of them accurately misaligns the other by a fraction of
a degree.

Another option is a good-quality table saw (these also don't come from Sears),
and a precision miter gauge for it, such as one of the Incra miter gauges
(www.incra.com). I have an Incra 2000 that I'd be willing to sell, so that I
can buy an Incra 3000; if you're interested, email me at the address shown in
my sig line and we can talk about it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Thank You All,
I am going to make a "sled" and use the table saw. I see that an RAS is
o.k. if you don't move the arm. That seems to defeat its versatility.

Thanks,
Steve


"Steve Radoci" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What is the best piece of equipment to use (and who makes it) to obtain
> accurate cross cuts? I have a Sears radial arm saw and it seems like I
spend
> all my time adjusting it. Any recommendations would be appreciated.
>
>
>

I remember that post and I agree with him. The subject was dial calipers and
he prefered Mititoyo over Starrett. The Starrett required repair far more
often than Mititoyo. This has also been my experience. Some of Starretts
tools are quite good. Some I wouldn't touch. Just like any other tool
manufacturer, they do some things well and others not so well.
"nuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:21:41 -0400, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
I recall a fellow a while back here
> on the Wreck saying that he'd been having issues w/ Starrett over the
> last few years, and preferred a different (even more expensive!) brand,
> but he worked in a metrology (i.e. calibration) shop and I'd guess is a
> little more picky than I am ;) Haven't heard any complaints otherwise,
> but then, I guess most people aren't equipped or qualified to make those
> kind of evaluations...
>
> nuk
>
>
> --
> I know more than enough *nix to do some very destructive things,
> and not nearly enough to do very many useful things.

"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:12:33 +0000 (UTC), nuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The square will only be accurate for a given distance. There is NO
> square the will be accurate ad infinitum. So 'square' for YOUR work
> is all that is necessary.

If the blade is strait and it is out of square at any distance, it is out of
square at all distances. It just becomes more obvious at longer distances.
>
> I make things square for MY projects...usually spanning 8 to 12 ft.
> And I've built some wooden, quick squares precisely for this...2', 4',
> 6' in length, etc. These are dead-on...for my uses.
>
> If you set up a square...and draw a line 10,000 miles long...lol...its
> not gonna be square at the end of that line. But it may be perfectly
> square at 4 ft. So its also relative.

No it won't. See above.
>
> IMHO, a combo square is one of the least accurate tools you can buy.
> I've never seen one yet that doesn't have at least a little play in
> them.

Quit buying those Chinese squares. Try a Starrett or Mititoyo. You'll change
your mind.
>

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:41:35 GMT, "Steve" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>> I have two 12" combination squares, a Starrett that I use for
>woodworking, and
>> a Sears that I use for rough carpentry. The Starrett is square +/-
>0.001" over
>> its entire length (90 degrees +/- 17 arc-seconds). The Sears deviates
>from the
>> Starret by 0.011" along its length (90 degrees +/- 3 minutes 9
>seconds).
>
>For anyone keeping score at home, 99.9% of normal people use a speed
>square for rough carpentry since they don't want to bang up their combo
>square in a rough carpentry environment.
>
>A marking pencil or knife is going to be significantly thicker than .001
>rendering that sort of accuracy useless for woodworking. Additionally,
>unless you're using a robotic arm to mark, the line is going to waiver
>as your arm moves the knife or pencil. You can also add in blade
>deflection, wood movement, etc. and figure out that .001 accuracy is
>complete overkill in woodworking.
>
>So get the cool .00000001 accurate tools if you want but please don't
>think that they're going to do any better for you than a .01 tool.
>

Well said.


Have a nice week...

Trent


Cat...the OTHER white meat!

What an idiot.
"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:31:22 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
> Change my mind? I don't think so.
>
> There IS no square square...as we've both stated.
>
> Its all relative...to the distance yer tryin' to traverse.
>
>
> Have a nice week...
>
> Trent
>
>
> Cat...the OTHER white meat!

The companies that sell precision tools (Starrett, Mititoyo, ect) know about
shipping and do pack their tools appropriately. To the distributor. It is up
to the distributor to get it to you. Your best bet for precision tools is to
buy from a tool supplier such as Rutland Tool, Travers, ect. They deal with
this stuff for a living and do pack appropriately. The woodworking tool
places may not, though I would bet that most do pretty well. In any case, go
to a real tool suplier for precision tools. Not only do they have a better
selection, they often have better prices. When I was first starting out (as
a machinist), I lived in a place that no precision tools were available.
Everything was mail order. I dealt with the big tool suppliers. Never had
anything damaged in shipping.
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CW wrote:
>
> > If there was enough damage to affect the square, there would be obvious
> > signs. Like a smashed box.
>
> I've always been under the impression that if you drop a precision square
on
> the floor one good time, it's probably no longer precise.
>
> If those big dollar squares are packaged the same way that other typical
> squares are, with hanging card thingies and something like 10 or 15 to a
> carton in a fairly thin box, then I can see them getting abused enough in
> transit to get knocked out of whack.
>
> I'm a truck driver. I drive for a private carrier run by a distributor
who
> operates its own trucks because common carriers were destroying all of our
> merchandise. A lot of it was concealed damage. Box looks fine. Contents
> are borked.
>
> I look into the back of Yellow/Overnite/etc. trucks all the time, and see
a
> gigantic mess of stuff strewn everywhere with a loose, unsecured pallet
> jack slamming around tearing stuff up.
>
> So I'm just curious. I'm not being a smartass. I just wonder if Starret
> (?) takes special care to package those things so that they can withstand
> the abuse of shipping intact. Some kind of wooden box with egg crate
stuff
> in it would probably suffice. Do they come like that?
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> Confirmed post number: 17294 Approximate word count: 518820
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
>

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:31:22 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:12:33 +0000 (UTC), nuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> The square will only be accurate for a given distance. There is NO
>> square the will be accurate ad infinitum. So 'square' for YOUR work
>> is all that is necessary.
>
>If the blade is strait and it is out of square at any distance, it is out of
>square at all distances. It just becomes more obvious at longer distances.
>>
>> I make things square for MY projects...usually spanning 8 to 12 ft.
>> And I've built some wooden, quick squares precisely for this...2', 4',
>> 6' in length, etc. These are dead-on...for my uses.
>>
>> If you set up a square...and draw a line 10,000 miles long...lol...its
>> not gonna be square at the end of that line. But it may be perfectly
>> square at 4 ft. So its also relative.
>
>No it won't. See above.
>>
>> IMHO, a combo square is one of the least accurate tools you can buy.
>> I've never seen one yet that doesn't have at least a little play in
>> them.
>
>Quit buying those Chinese squares. Try a Starrett or Mititoyo. You'll change
>your mind.

Change my mind? I don't think so.

There IS no square square...as we've both stated.

Its all relative...to the distance yer tryin' to traverse.


Have a nice week...

Trent


Cat...the OTHER white meat!

Doug Miller wrote:

> whatever length. Or simply buy such a square in the first place. Starrett
> makes an excellent 12" combination square, which can be had for about
> US$60 if you shop around some.

So here's the $50,000 question. How do they guarantee the squareness of
their squares considering the horrors of shipping? Are they individually
packaged in some kind of shock resistant box or something?

I'm rather serious. Seems to me unless they courier it to you directly and
only entrust it to a driver who knows what it is, and who is paid to be
extremely careful, could they possibly ensure the kind of tolerances you're
talking about. Somebody jiggles a pallet the wrong way and the carton of
expensive squares falls 13' to the ground.....

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
Confirmed post number: 17286 Approximate word count: 518580
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

if you are talking setting up the equipment, I agree that AFFORDABLE
accuracy is imperative to excellent woodworking results. Rather than
spring for Starrett stuff, I check the squares for reasonable accuracy.
The one I picked up at a WW show last year is fine. The framing
square I've had for years is a joke. It would work for rough-in, but
that's about it.

BTW, I DO have one Starrett product: a digital tape. Now that's a
contradiction. If you use the digital readout, accuracy is worse than
1/64, at best!

dave

Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>FINALLY! the voice of reason. well said, Steve
>>
>>dave
>>
>>Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I have two 12" combination squares, a Starrett that I use for
>>>
>>>woodworking, and
>>>
>>>>a Sears that I use for rough carpentry. The Starrett is square +/-
>>>
>>>0.001" over
>>>
>>>>its entire length (90 degrees +/- 17 arc-seconds). The Sears deviates
>>>
>>>from the
>>>
>>>>Starret by 0.011" along its length (90 degrees +/- 3 minutes 9
>>>
>>>seconds).
>>>
>>>For anyone keeping score at home, 99.9% of normal people use a speed
>>>square for rough carpentry since they don't want to bang up their combo
>>>square in a rough carpentry environment.
>>>
>>>A marking pencil or knife is going to be significantly thicker than .001
>>>rendering that sort of accuracy useless for woodworking. Additionally,
>>>unless you're using a robotic arm to mark, the line is going to waiver
>>>as your arm moves the knife or pencil. You can also add in blade
>>>deflection, wood movement, etc. and figure out that .001 accuracy is
>>>complete overkill in woodworking.
>>>
>>>So get the cool .00000001 accurate tools if you want but please don't
>>>think that they're going to do any better for you than a .01 tool.
>
>
> Maybe I should have been a bit more specific.... I use the Starret square for
> aligning my woodworking tools, principally the jointer and the table saw.
>
> Then again, maybe you should have read more carefully, too, and not made up
> your numbers. I said a square accurate to 3 minutes (0.05 degrees) isn't good
> enough in my opinion, but one accurate to 17 seconds (0.005 degrees) is. I
> didn't comment on the adequacy of "a .01 tool" but for the record I'd imagine
> it's good enough. But you won't find a square at Sears that's that accurate.
>
> Accuracy of results will be no better than accuracy of setup. If you're
> content with your results using squares from Sears, fine, more power to you. I
> bought the Starrett square specifically because I was *not* content with the
> results I achieved using the inaccurate stuff from Sears to set up my tools.
>
> I am very pleased with the results I get using better equipment.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:34:27 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The best suggestion I have for checking the squareness of a square is to
>> compare it against a square of known accuracy, one which is certified by its
>> manufacturer to be accurate to so many thousandths of an inch per whatever
>> length. Or simply buy such a square in the first place. Starrett makes an
>> excellent 12" combination square, which can be had for about US$60 if you
> shop
>> around some.
>
>Couple more questions:
>
>
>1) how are the Incra Guaranteed squares as a 'reference' square? Any
>others of similar design i.e. reference square that would be worth
>investigating?
>
I haven't used those, but if they're as accurate as Incra's table saw miter
gauges, they ought to be pretty darn good.

>2) I've heard a bit o' rumbling here and there about the combo square
>not being the best choice for a 'trusted' square due mainly to the
>moving parts. Any comments in that department?

Undoubtedly true, but when looking at precision tools, you're comparing
differences of only a couple thousandths per foot anyway. For me, being able
to buy *one* tool that gives precise 45 and 90 degree angles *and* linear
measurement accurate to 1/64" is more important than a difference of two or
three thousandths per foot.

>I've been eyeballing some Starrett equipment to go along w/ some
>Mitutuoyo that I have for some other uses (digital calipers and
>micrometers). Suggestions on places for the best prices?

Can't help you much there. Rockler has decent pricing, not the best, not the
worst. Other than that, I don't really know. Sorry.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Horseshit.
"Brian" <brian.evans@mci%%%.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No, if you have a cylindrical grinder and are really pretty good using it,
> you can make a reference square to a few tenths per foot. You'd be a
pretty
> long time getting that on a lathe, and it would be by luck not skill in
the
> end.
>
> Brian
>
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:xka1b.165954$Oz4.43442@rwcrnsc54...
> >
> > "nuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Couple more questions:
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) how are the Incra Guaranteed squares as a 'reference' square? Any
> > > others of similar design i.e. reference square that would be worth
> > > investigating?
> >
> > Couldn't say about the Incra, never seen one. If you have a metal lathe
> and
> > the ability to use it well, a reference square can be made, accurate to
> > .0002-.0003 per foot, fairly easily. If you want to buy one, do a Google
> > search on "cylindrical square".
> >
> > >
> > > 2) I've heard a bit o' rumbling here and there about the combo square
> > > not being the best choice for a 'trusted' square due mainly to the
> > > moving parts. Any comments in that department?
> >
> > In theory, that is quite correct. In practice, a good combo square, well
> > maintained, will be more accurate than what you can get out of
woodworking
> > tools.
> >
> > >
> > > I've been eyeballing some Starrett equipment to go along w/ some
> > > Mitutuoyo that I have for some other uses (digital calipers and
> > > micrometers). Suggestions on places for the best prices?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > nuk
> > >
> > > --
> > > I know more than enough *nix to do some very destructive things,
> > > and not nearly enough to do very many useful things.
> >
> >
>
>

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:02:02 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>>>If you have an accurate square, you already have all the equipment you need.
>>>NOTE: if your square also came from Sears, you do not have an accurate square.
>>
>>Hogwash!
>
>If you think this is "hogwash" then you've never had your hands on an accurate
>square -- or else your definition of "accurate" differs considerably from
>mine.
>
>I do NOT consider 89.95 or 90.05 degrees to be accurate. Maybe you do. But
>that is about the best you're going to get from Sears.

I consider it accurate if I get an accurate cut across the entire
length of the work area...usually 8 to 12 ft. for most of my work.

What device are you using?...to discover that a square is off .05
degrees? lol And are you drawing that 'square' line with an 8' for
12' square? Or are you putting another fallible scribing tool on the
work to finish the line?

>>I've got several different kinds of squares...none that I paid more
>>than $20 for...and they're all dead-on. They can easily be checked
>>for accuracy before you purchase them.
>>
>"Dead on" means no measurable deviation.

Correct...by a 'measuring' device'.

> Unless you're using precision
>measuring instuments (e.g. a dial indicator, or a set of feeler gauges), you
>have no basis for making that claim. Making a pencil mark, flipping the square
>over, and making another pencil mark is sufficient to demonstrate approximate
>squareness (+/- 0.05 to 0.1 degrees), but is insufficient to support the claim
>of "dead-on" accuracy.

I meant 'dead-on' for my purposes, of course. Why would you think I
meant differently?

How far off do you think the bubble on a LEVEL is? lol

Its all relative. If you think a line drawn with a square should be
dead-on...meaning NO deviation whatsoever...then I have never had a
proper square.

And I don't think you have, either.

>>And one is from Sears.
>
>Either your definition of "accurate" is *very* different from mine, or you
>don't know how to measure it.

Obviously, its very different.

>I have two 12" combination squares, a Starrett that I use for woodworking, and
>a Sears that I use for rough carpentry. The Starrett is square +/- 0.001" over
>its entire length (90 degrees +/- 17 arc-seconds). The Sears deviates from the
>Starret by 0.011" along its length (90 degrees +/- 3 minutes 9 seconds).

Hardly accurate across 100 ft. But just as accurate as any of
mine...for woodworking.

>By *my* definition, the Sears tool is not accurate. Perhaps by your definition
>it is.

Yes...it is.

>>
>>Even most of the $2.95 framing squares are dead-on accurate nowadays.
>
>Speaking of hogwash...!!
>
>You say three-dollar framing squares are "dead-on accurate". I say, prove it.
>Compare one against a square of known accuracy (e.g. a 24" Starrett), and
>measure the deviation with feeler gauges. Then post your results.

I've got several 'squares' that I've
built...2'x4'...2'x8'...etc...that are 'dead-on'...for what I want to
do.

>>>Another option is a good-quality table saw (these also don't come from Sears),
>>
>>Correct. Sears doesn't make table saws...or most of their stuff.
>
>I didn't say they did -- but they do sell them. Thus, in a sense, at least,
>some table saws come from Sears. Just not what I would define as good-quality
>ones. Apparently you define this term differently also.

Sears doesn't just sell Sears stuff. There are some good quality
tools...all kinds including powered...that come from Sears. Some even
have the Sears name on them.

My last take on this.


Have a nice week...

Trent


Cat...the OTHER white meat!

If there was enough damage to affect the square, there would be obvious
signs. Like a smashed box.
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
> > whatever length. Or simply buy such a square in the first place.
Starrett
> > makes an excellent 12" combination square, which can be had for about
> > US$60 if you shop around some.
>
> So here's the $50,000 question. How do they guarantee the squareness of
> their squares considering the horrors of shipping? Are they individually
> packaged in some kind of shock resistant box or something?
>
> I'm rather serious. Seems to me unless they courier it to you directly
and
> only entrust it to a driver who knows what it is, and who is paid to be
> extremely careful, could they possibly ensure the kind of tolerances
you're
> talking about. Somebody jiggles a pallet the wrong way and the carton of
> expensive squares falls 13' to the ground.....
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> Confirmed post number: 17286 Approximate word count: 518580
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
>

In article <[email protected]>, Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:02:02 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>>>If you have an accurate square, you already have all the equipment you need.
>
>>>>NOTE: if your square also came from Sears, you do not have an accurate
> square.
>>>
>>>Hogwash!
>>
>>If you think this is "hogwash" then you've never had your hands on an accurate
>
>>square -- or else your definition of "accurate" differs considerably from
>>mine.
>>
>>I do NOT consider 89.95 or 90.05 degrees to be accurate. Maybe you do. But
>>that is about the best you're going to get from Sears.
>
>I consider it accurate if I get an accurate cut across the entire
>length of the work area...usually 8 to 12 ft. for most of my work.
>
>What device are you using?...to discover that a square is off .05
>degrees? lol

Feeler gauges to determine deviation. Quick mental calculation to determine
deviation per unit length. Calculator to convert deviation per unit length to
deviation in fractional degrees. It's simple trigonometry.

>And are you drawing that 'square' line with an 8' for
>12' square? Or are you putting another fallible scribing tool on the
>work to finish the line?

As I mentioned in another post, I'm using the square to align my table saw,
jointer, and radial arm saw. I never mentioned using it to scribe lines, and
in fact I don't do that.

>
>>>I've got several different kinds of squares...none that I paid more
>>>than $20 for...and they're all dead-on. They can easily be checked
>>>for accuracy before you purchase them.
>>>
>>"Dead on" means no measurable deviation.
>
>Correct...by a 'measuring' device'.
>
>> Unless you're using precision
>>measuring instuments (e.g. a dial indicator, or a set of feeler gauges), you
>>have no basis for making that claim. Making a pencil mark, flipping the square
>
>>over, and making another pencil mark is sufficient to demonstrate approximate
>>squareness (+/- 0.05 to 0.1 degrees), but is insufficient to support the claim
>>of "dead-on" accuracy.
>
>I meant 'dead-on' for my purposes, of course. Why would you think I
>meant differently?

Then you're using terminology incorrectly. Dead-on is an absolute term, not a
relative one. There is no such thing as "dead-on for your purposes". It's
either dead-on, or it's not.

What you meant was it's close enough for your purposes. And I have no quarrel
with it, stated that way.

>How far off do you think the bubble on a LEVEL is? lol

Irrelevant.

>Its all relative. If you think a line drawn with a square should be
>dead-on...meaning NO deviation whatsoever...then I have never had a
>proper square.
>
>And I don't think you have, either.

Quite so. I *do* have one that's accurate to +/- 0.001", though. You don't.

>>>And one is from Sears.
>>
>>Either your definition of "accurate" is *very* different from mine, or you
>>don't know how to measure it.
>
>Obviously, its very different.
>
>>I have two 12" combination squares, a Starrett that I use for woodworking, and
>>a Sears that I use for rough carpentry. The Starrett is square +/- 0.001" over
>>its entire length (90 degrees +/- 17 arc-seconds). The Sears deviates from the
>>Starret by 0.011" along its length (90 degrees +/- 3 minutes 9 seconds).
>
>Hardly accurate across 100 ft. But just as accurate as any of
>mine...for woodworking.

No, it's not. Align your table saw with your square. Then use that square to
set your miter gauge at 45 degrees. Now cut a mitered frame, say 30 by 38
inches (which happens to be the size of my living room coffee table). Assemble
the frame. Then measure the gaps at the joints. Maybe you're happy with what
you see.

When I do this, the joints have no visible gaps, and a 0.002" feeler gauge
(the thinnest I have) cannot be inserted.

>
>>By *my* definition, the Sears tool is not accurate. Perhaps by your definition
>>it is.
>
>Yes...it is.

If it's good enough for you, fine. But don't claim that it's "dead-on" when
you understand neither what the term means, nor how to measure it.
>
>>>
>>>Even most of the $2.95 framing squares are dead-on accurate nowadays.
>>
>>Speaking of hogwash...!!
>>
>>You say three-dollar framing squares are "dead-on accurate". I say, prove it.
>>Compare one against a square of known accuracy (e.g. a 24" Starrett), and
>>measure the deviation with feeler gauges. Then post your results.
>
>I've got several 'squares' that I've
>built...2'x4'...2'x8'...etc...that are 'dead-on'...for what I want to
>do.

"Good enough" is *not* the same as "dead on".


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For those of us just getting up to speed, would you care to explain the
best way to check the squareness of a square? I've always heard the
thing about putting it up against a straight flat edge of wood, whether
jointed or a sheet good factory edge, and draw one line, and then flip
the square over and draw a second line parallel to the first, and then
measure the difference (hopefully none). Most of my squares, whether
carpentry, try, or large/small combo squares seem reasonable on by this
method (I have a framing square that needs adjusted, it seems), but I
question how accurate the method is, especially w/ that little 6" combo
square (not a very long line to pick up error on). Any suggestions
would be helpful.

Thanks,

nuk


--
I know more than enough *nix to do some very destructive things,
and not nearly enough to do very many useful things.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:34:27 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> The best suggestion I have for checking the squareness of a square is to
> compare it against a square of known accuracy, one which is certified by its
> manufacturer to be accurate to so many thousandths of an inch per whatever
> length. Or simply buy such a square in the first place. Starrett makes an
> excellent 12" combination square, which can be had for about US$60 if you shop
> around some.

Couple more questions:


1) how are the Incra Guaranteed squares as a 'reference' square? Any
others of similar design i.e. reference square that would be worth
investigating?

2) I've heard a bit o' rumbling here and there about the combo square
not being the best choice for a 'trusted' square due mainly to the
moving parts. Any comments in that department?

I've been eyeballing some Starrett equipment to go along w/ some
Mitutuoyo that I have for some other uses (digital calipers and
micrometers). Suggestions on places for the best prices?

Thanks,

nuk

--
I know more than enough *nix to do some very destructive things,
and not nearly enough to do very many useful things.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:21:41 -0400, Silvan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So I'm just curious. I'm not being a smartass. I just wonder if Starret
> (?) takes special care to package those things so that they can withstand
> the abuse of shipping intact. Some kind of wooden box with egg crate stuff
> in it would probably suffice. Do they come like that?
>

I agree that it would be nice to have them coming in some kind of
hardwood instrument type case, since thats basically what they are. I
found this on Amazon (about the only negative comment I could find on
the 12" combo square):

<snip>
I'll admit, that I was a bit disappointed by the fact that it was
shipped in a plain cardboard box, and not a more permanent storage
container.
<snip>

So it doesn't seem like they come w/ much in the way of protection from
the manufacturer. But I'd hazard a guess that since about every
good mechanic and machinist I've ever come in contact w/ swears by
Starrett and considers them basically a 'gold' standard, that the tools
aren't *that* easy to mess up, whether due to simple design, close
tolerances, or quality materials. I recall a fellow a while back here
on the Wreck saying that he'd been having issues w/ Starrett over the
last few years, and preferred a different (even more expensive!) brand,
but he worked in a metrology (i.e. calibration) shop and I'd guess is a
little more picky than I am ;) Haven't heard any complaints otherwise,
but then, I guess most people aren't equipped or qualified to make those
kind of evaluations...

nuk


--
I know more than enough *nix to do some very destructive things,
and not nearly enough to do very many useful things.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 22:09:02 GMT, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "nuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:21:41 -0400, Silvan
><[email protected]> wrote:
> But I'd hazard a guess that since about every
>> good mechanic and machinist I've ever come in contact w/ swears by
>> Starrett and considers them basically a 'gold' standard,
>
>
> You apparently haven't talked to enough of them.
>

No need to get snotty about it. But while we're at it, lets see: a few
years back, in the U.S. Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program, the dial
indicators and micrometers and calipers and about every other mechanical
measuring device I came in contact w/ was Starrett (disclaimer: I was a
sub nuke electrician). Don't remember using
anything else. Just like we used Fluke for the multimeters, Techtronics
for the oscilloscopes, etc. There *might* be other equipment that could
be arguably better, but generally speaking, if there was, I'd be
surprised they weren't using it. Military contracts or not. Picky
doesn't even *begin* to describe the attitude towards tools and
procedures in that program.

Then when I got out, in the (big) steel mill in Kansas City I worked in,
the millwrights and machinists and motor rebuild shops used, thats
right, Starrett. I went from there to a civilian nuke plant for a brief
time, and the stuff in the electrical maint. shop at least was Starrett
and some Mitutoyo.

Now I work at a hydro power plant, and a brief tour thru the tool room
reveals an awful lot of Starrett stuff, and again, some Mitutoyo. A
friend of mine is a fairly skilled machinist who used to work at LE
Wilson Tool & Die here in central Washington. Since most people don't
know that name, they make custom dies for centerfire rifle competition
shooters, of whom many are machinists, mechanics, engineers, or other
picky sorts. Take a wild guess at what he used there, and still uses
for instruments: Starrett. Most of the shooters have a small amount
invested in calipers, either dial or digital, micrometers, and dial
indicators, and when people step up from the $20 steel calipers from
RCBS, or $50 mikes from Midway, they go either Mitutoyo or Starrett. In
a sport where its not uncommon for people to have $3k plus tied up in
just the gun, be it Benchrest or HighPower, if there was something
significantly 'better', I think it'd be selling like hotcakes.

Not knocking Brown and Sharpe, but the above is why when someone
mentioned Starrett slipping and Brown and Sharpe being 'better', my
initial response was 'Brown and who?!?'

Now, I might be barking up the wrong tree here, and maybe B&S does make
some product that is better than a comparable product from Starrett.
That's entirely possible. But please don't go making assumptions about
the machinists and mechanics I know. They might take it wrong ;)

In any event, I'm working at getting some better tools myself, and it
may come down to the same thing that resulted in me getting Mitutoyo
digital calipers and micrometers instead of Starrett: For my uses, they
are accurate *enough*. I most likely wouldn't notice the difference
btwn Mitutoyo, Starret, or Brown & Sharpe for what I'm doing.

Anyway, time to get off the soap box. Have a nice night ;)

nuk




--
I know more than enough *nix to do some very destructive things,
and not nearly enough to do very many useful things.

Larry, that wasn't a very "humane" thing to do was it? Give it to
...Humanity I mean?
\
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:05:26 GMT, "Lawrence L'Hote" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Steve Radoci" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> What is the best piece of equipment to use (and who makes it) to obtain
>> accurate cross cuts? I have a Sears radial arm saw and it seems like I
>spend
>> all my time adjusting it. Any recommendations would be appreciated.
>
>Well, you are not alone. The problem you describe has been discussed on
>this forum many times before and, seemingly, is common to radial arm saws
>and in particular the Sears(a.k.a. Crapsman) saw. I had a Cman RAS and
>finally gave it away to Habitat for Humanity out of frustration and need for
>space. I realize that none of my remarks are of much help.
>Larry

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:15:17 GMT, "Absinthe"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'll say this, I may have had some questionable electric tools from Sears, I
>have never had much reason to curse a hand tool I got from them.
>
>Square is easy, draw a line, flip the square and draw another line, if they
>are parallel then it is square if they converge then they are not... Or take
>a small machinist square with you and use it to check them, but I can't
>imagine that would work any better. Come to think of it, I would think
>there were some neanders here that have built countless of their own squares
>which I'm sure they will also claim to be dead on...

You don't need to draw the other line. Just flip it.


Have a nice week...

Trent


Cat...the OTHER white meat!

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> What is the best piece of equipment to use (and who makes it) to obtain
> accurate cross cuts? I have a Sears radial arm saw and it seems like I spend
> all my time adjusting it. Any recommendations would be appreciated.
>
>
>
>
Steve;
I've had a 12" model for over 25 years. I used to use it for everything
since I didn't have other options at the time. If that's the case for
you, than making the adjustments goes with the territory. Here are a
couple of quick tips that may help.

1. Once I get the thing to make perfectly square cuts (arm
perpendicular to the fence, blade perpendicular to the table with no
toe-in or out) I often use jigs to hold the work for cuts that are not
square. This may seem to be defeating the purpose of having a RAS
somewhat, but if it's only a few cuts, it's quicker whip up a quick jig
than it is to get the thing re-aligned.

2. When swinging the arm back to where it is square to the fence,
always swing arm in the same direction. If you "overshoot", back up and
try again. I normally swing from the left to right since the right side
of the blade registers against the arbor flange and provides a constant
reference plane. That way, it doesn't matter what kind of blade I'm
using, the right side of the blade is always at the same point and the
arm is square to the fence.

3. You can also set up a gauge block, that you can mount temporarily
during alignment, that references a fixed point on the table. Then to
get the arm square to the table, you swing it back to where it just
"kisses" the end of the gauge block.

Doug

--
use att.net as isp for functional addrress

come to think of it, I rarely mark a piece with pencil. I cut all
similar pieces (crosscuts OR rips) with the fence set on the TS. For
crosscuts, I use a 1" thick aux fence as a stop when using the sled. No
fiddling around with a square or pencil. that's a time waster and
completely unnecessary to get accurate 90 degree crosscuts.

dave

Steve wrote:

>>I have two 12" combination squares, a Starrett that I use for
>
> woodworking, and
>
>>a Sears that I use for rough carpentry. The Starrett is square +/-
>
> 0.001" over
>
>>its entire length (90 degrees +/- 17 arc-seconds). The Sears deviates
>
> from the
>
>>Starret by 0.011" along its length (90 degrees +/- 3 minutes 9
>
> seconds).
>
> For anyone keeping score at home, 99.9% of normal people use a speed
> square for rough carpentry since they don't want to bang up their combo
> square in a rough carpentry environment.
>
> A marking pencil or knife is going to be significantly thicker than .001
> rendering that sort of accuracy useless for woodworking. Additionally,
> unless you're using a robotic arm to mark, the line is going to waiver
> as your arm moves the knife or pencil. You can also add in blade
> deflection, wood movement, etc. and figure out that .001 accuracy is
> complete overkill in woodworking.
>
> So get the cool .00000001 accurate tools if you want but please don't
> think that they're going to do any better for you than a .01 tool.
>
>

"nuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Couple more questions:
>
>
> 1) how are the Incra Guaranteed squares as a 'reference' square? Any
> others of similar design i.e. reference square that would be worth
> investigating?

Couldn't say about the Incra, never seen one. If you have a metal lathe and
the ability to use it well, a reference square can be made, accurate to
.0002-.0003 per foot, fairly easily. If you want to buy one, do a Google
search on "cylindrical square".

>
> 2) I've heard a bit o' rumbling here and there about the combo square
> not being the best choice for a 'trusted' square due mainly to the
> moving parts. Any comments in that department?

In theory, that is quite correct. In practice, a good combo square, well
maintained, will be more accurate than what you can get out of woodworking
tools.

>
> I've been eyeballing some Starrett equipment to go along w/ some
> Mitutuoyo that I have for some other uses (digital calipers and
> micrometers). Suggestions on places for the best prices?
>
> Thanks,
>
> nuk
>
> --
> I know more than enough *nix to do some very destructive things,
> and not nearly enough to do very many useful things.