It took less than half an hour to diagnose and fix a minor alignment issue
with my table saw. The combination square indicated the blade was parallel
to the miter slow, and the fence was out slightly.
The initial sign of trouble was that the rising teeth would throw up quite
a bit of sawdust. If I stopped pushing the wood through, there would be a
circular "rainbow" left where the blade was.
After adjusting the fence the cuts are much smoother, the rising teeth
aren't throwing up as much sawdust, and there's no more unwanted "rainbow"
effects. The difference is like going from an ok blade to a good one.
Why did I wait so long?
Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
"eclipsme" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
Snip
>
> I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be absolutely
> parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the blade by a few
> thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible binding described
> above.
Can't agree with that statement, while to some the thought of the fence
veering away from the blade to create "some" clearance between the
fence,work, and blade this pulls danger out of the right pocket and puts it
in the left pocket.
The work tracking away from the right back side of the blade also causes the
wood to track into the blade on the opposite side.
Use a splitter to and a parallel fence for best and safest results.
On Oct 3, 9:15=A0am, Steve Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/03/2010 08:05 AM, eclipsme wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
> >> It took less than half an hour to diagnose and fix a minor alignment i=
ssue
> >> with my table saw. The combination square indicated the blade was para=
llel
> >> to the miter slow, and the fence was out slightly.
>
> >> The initial sign of trouble was that the rising teeth would throw up q=
uite
> >> a bit of sawdust. If I stopped pushing the wood through, there would b=
e a
> >> circular "rainbow" left where the blade was.
>
> >> After adjusting the fence the cuts are much smoother, the rising teeth
> >> aren't throwing up as much sawdust, and there's no more unwanted "rain=
bow"
> >> effects. The difference is like going from an ok blade to a good one.
>
> >> Why did I wait so long?
>
> >> Puckdropper
>
> > Yes, it truly makes a big difference having your tools tuned up. I was =
away from
> > woodwoorking for many years. Though I had my tools, they were in storag=
e. Then, with a new
> > house came a new shop.
>
> > I began setting up my tools, a PowerMatic table saw among them. I began=
alligning it, and
> > took great pains to get the slot parallel to the blade, and the fence p=
arallel to the slot,
> > and thus to the blade.
>
> > A week later, I was ripping a small piece of plywood and the rising too=
th caught the edge
> > closest to the fence and flung the plywood into my belly. dropping me t=
o the floor.
> > Bruising, but no internals damaged, luckily.
>
> > I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be absolut=
ely parallel to the
> > slot/blade, but should veer away from the blade by a few thousandths of=
an inch so as to
> > relieve the possible binding described above.
>
> Better yet, install a good splitter or riving knife.
And a hold down. The smaller the piece the more attention to
restraining movement on cut piece and off-cut. The ol' F=3DMA shows up
on those small pieces, and small pieces tend to enter you instead of
bruising or breaking.
R
<<much snipping>>
>
>I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be
>absolutely parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the
>blade by a few thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible
>binding described above.
>
>ER visits are expensive!
>
>Harvey
with great humility and humbleness, for myself, I have to disagree...
...If for no other reason that the fact that I work on BOTH sides of
the blade, so that means that if I kick the back of the fence out by
.003" on the right side of the blade, that puts me at double that if
I'm on the LEFT side.
I firmly believe that by setting the fence with NO induced variation
and then followed by using the correct riving knife/splitter/hold
downs is the proper way to handle a fence on a table saw.
Your mileage will vary....side effects include lots of bad things like
your willy may fall off and you may go bald...in areas that you don't
WANT to be bald.
Luck
Mike
>> I believe that I have found the problem...
>>
>> ....you are looking at the deviation from nominal...
>>
>> ...whereas I am looking at the total deviation...
>>
>> in other words, both are wrong and both are right.
>>
>> We do, however, agree that the BEST way is to set the fence parallel
>> with the blade.
>>
>> Luck and all that...
>>
>OK, I'll let you back out of this relatively gracefully.
>
Don't do me any favors, moron
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
>> left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference
>
>No, it doesn't. Think about it.
CW's right. If you had a sled which was 0.003 off and you cut both
sides of a panel with it without flipping it, it would be 0.006 off.
But you're referencing the fence on your saw BUT the splitter holds
the board/panel inline. It might bind and burn just a wee bit on the
second cut, but there should be no 0.006" difference.
--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Don't do me any favors, moron
------------------------------
The above and $5.00 will get you a cup of coffee in a cheap
restaurant.
Lew
On Oct 3, 8:02=A0am, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> It took less than half an hour to diagnose and fix a minor alignment issu=
e
> with my table saw. =A0The combination square indicated the blade was para=
llel
> to the miter slow, and the fence was out slightly.
>
> The initial sign of trouble was that the rising teeth would throw up quit=
e
> a bit of sawdust. =A0If I stopped pushing the wood through, there would b=
e a
> circular "rainbow" left where the blade was.
>
> After adjusting the fence the cuts are much smoother, the rising teeth
> aren't throwing up as much sawdust, and there's no more unwanted "rainbow=
"
> effects. =A0The difference is like going from an ok blade to a good one.
>
> Why did I wait so long?
>
> Puckdropper
> --
> Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
"The combination square indicated the blade was parallel..."
Oy vey.
On Oct 3, 6:02=A0am, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> It took less than half an hour to diagnose and fix a minor alignment issu=
e
> with my table saw. =A0The combination square indicated the blade was para=
llel
> to the miter slow, and the fence was out slightly.
>
> The initial sign of trouble was that the rising teeth would throw up quit=
e
> a bit of sawdust. =A0If I stopped pushing the wood through, there would b=
e a
> circular "rainbow" left where the blade was.
>
> After adjusting the fence the cuts are much smoother, the rising teeth
> aren't throwing up as much sawdust, and there's no more unwanted "rainbow=
"
> effects. =A0The difference is like going from an ok blade to a good one.
>
> Why did I wait so long?
Enjoy your "new table saw" !
Some people -- when they lay out the steps for a new project --
include "setting up all the machines," (saws and jointer, for me,
primarily) before they begin.
I don't do it *nearly* so often, but ... I think of setup as I think
of oil changes, and probably with the same frequency.
Like everything else, once you're in the habit, it only takes a few
minutes with a good square (combination, machinist's, or other) to be
sure that everything is square and parallel, as it ought to be.
On the bandsaw, for example, the square checks take ... like a minute,
and -- almost always -- checking bearing clearance is a lightning fast
visual. Mine don't seem to come out of adjustment, unless (obviously)
I've done a blade change.
And the difference -- to carry on the car analogy -- IS improved
safety AND performance.
"-MIKE-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 10/4/10 8:03 AM, Leon wrote:
>> "eclipsme"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>> Snip
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be
>>> absolutely
>>> parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the blade by a few
>>> thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible binding described
>>> above.
>>
>>
>> Can't agree with that statement, while to some the thought of the fence
>> veering away from the blade to create "some" clearance between the
>> fence,work, and blade this pulls danger out of the right pocket and puts
>> it
>> in the left pocket.
>>
>> The work tracking away from the right back side of the blade also causes
>> the
>> wood to track into the blade on the opposite side.
>>
>> Use a splitter to and a parallel fence for best and safest results.
>>
>
> At least a couple fence manufacturers suggest the set-up technique of
> having the outboard end on the fence a couple thousandths out.
>
> I don't know if I agree with it or not.
> I think a splitter does the most to stop kickback.
I have seen several manufacturers especially the blade manufacturers
recommend the tilted out setting. They are mostly trying to sell a blade or
fence with particular focus being placed on the piece against the fence.
They typically do not rip a 1x8 down the center so much as work pieces with
a majority of the wood ending up against the fence.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> ...for a total difference of....SIX thou which is double
>
> Feel free to draw it up sometime
1 degree either way.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>> I believe that I have found the problem...
>>>
>>> ....you are looking at the deviation from nominal...
>>>
>>> ...whereas I am looking at the total deviation...
>>>
>>> in other words, both are wrong and both are right.
>>>
>>> We do, however, agree that the BEST way is to set the fence parallel
>>> with the blade.
>>>
>>> Luck and all that...
>>>
>>OK, I'll let you back out of this relatively gracefully.
>>
>
> Don't do me any favors, moron
This from the geometrically challenged. Just makes you look worse.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
> left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference
No, it doesn't. Think about it.
"eclipsme" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 10/6/2010 9:44 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 8:16 am, eclipsme<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 10/4/2010 5:14 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700, "CW"<[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>>> SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
>>>>>> left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference
>>>
>>>>> No, it doesn't. Think about it.
>>>
>>>> CW's right. If you had a sled which was 0.003 off and you cut both
>>>> sides of a panel with it without flipping it, it would be 0.006 off.
>>>
>>>> But you're referencing the fence on your saw BUT the splitter holds
>>>> the board/panel inline. It might bind and burn just a wee bit on the
>>>> second cut, but there should be no 0.006" difference.
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Know how to listen, and you will
>>>> profit even from those who talk badly.
>>>> -- Plutarch
>>>
>>> For a while, I had a zero-insert that I cut a short slot into in-line
>>> with the blade and the same thickness of the blade. I took a thin piece
>>> of cherry and glued it into the slot. This made for a very nice
>>> splitter, until I snapped off the cherry one day by sliding a board
>>> across it.
>>>
>>> I would be interested in hearing of any improvements to this technique.
>>
>> http://www.microjig.com/products/mj-splitter/index.shtml
>> ...in steel. I snapped off a plastic one too.
>>
>>
> That looks interesting. This is steel? It looks like plastic. Never
> thought of making the splitter part be removable. Thanks! Harvey
Translucent plastic incasing steel. I have been using this style for about
4 years and it holds up well.
"eclipsme" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 10/4/2010 9:03 AM, Leon wrote:
>> "eclipsme"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>> Snip
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be
>>> absolutely
>>> parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the blade by a few
>>> thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible binding described
>>> above.
>>
>>
>> Can't agree with that statement, while to some the thought of the fence
>> veering away from the blade to create "some" clearance between the
>> fence,work, and blade this pulls danger out of the right pocket and puts
>> it
>> in the left pocket.
>>
>> The work tracking away from the right back side of the blade also causes
>> the
>> wood to track into the blade on the opposite side.
>>
>> Use a splitter to and a parallel fence for best and safest results.
>>
>>
> You are undoubtedly correct about using the splitter but I admit to not
> using one because of the PITA quotient. I use hold downs and skew the
> fence very slightly away from the blade as discussed. I never use the
> fence on the opposite side, so that really doesn't matter for me.
>
> Harvey
Although you do not use the fence on the opposite side often let me restate,
If your fence is skewed away from the blade and you are ripping a 1x6 into
say 2 or more usable pieces the waste side will be pulled into the blade on
the back opposite side of the blade. This will both add tooth marks to the
wast eside of the board and will prevent the whole board from tracking
properly against the fence.
>> <<much snipping>>
>>>
>>>I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be
>>>absolutely parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the
>>>blade by a few thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible
>>>binding described above.
>>>
>>>ER visits are expensive!
>>>
>>>Harvey
>>
>> with great humility and humbleness, for myself, I have to disagree...
>>
>> ...If for no other reason that the fact that I work on BOTH sides of
>> the blade, so that means that if I kick the back of the fence out by
>> .003" on the right side of the blade, that puts me at double that if
>> I'm on the LEFT side.
>
>
>Where did the "double" come from? Are the faces not parallel to each other?
>That's actually a rhetorical question as I know they are not.
The double comes from the faces of my fence are parallel...as are any
I've ever used....granted, that would actually only be 3 others, but
that makes for 4 and when you get down to it, that's enough for
me...which means that if you move the fence OUT of parallel by 3 thou
to the right and your fence is ON the right, the outfeed end will be
further away then the infeed end.
If you then move the fence to the other side of the blade and make
adjustments, it will be three thou CLOSER to the outfeed as compared
to the infeed.
SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference
>
>>
>> I firmly believe that by setting the fence with NO induced variation
>> and then followed by using the correct riving knife/splitter/hold
>> downs is the proper way to handle a fence on a table saw.
>>
>
>Parallel is the way to go. That and a Gripper have worked for me for a long
>time.
>
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 23:12:23 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> ...for a total difference of....SIX thou which is double
>>
>> Feel free to draw it up sometime
>
>
>1 degree either way.
>
I believe that I have found the problem...
....you are looking at the deviation from nominal...
...whereas I am looking at the total deviation...
in other words, both are wrong and both are right.
We do, however, agree that the BEST way is to set the fence parallel
with the blade.
Luck and all that...
Mike
On Oct 6, 8:16=A0am, eclipsme <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/4/2010 5:14 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700, "CW"<[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >> <[email protected]> =A0wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>> SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
> >>> left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference
>
> >> No, it doesn't. Think about it.
>
> > CW's right. =A0If you had a sled which was 0.003 off and you cut both
> > sides of a panel with it without flipping it, it would be 0.006 off.
>
> > But you're referencing the fence on your saw BUT the splitter holds
> > the board/panel inline. =A0It might bind and burn just a wee bit on the
> > second cut, but there should be no 0.006" difference.
>
> > --
> > Know how to listen, and you will
> > profit even from those who talk badly.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0-- Plutarch
>
> For a while, I had a zero-insert that I cut a short slot into in-line
> with the blade and the same thickness of the blade. I took a thin piece
> of cherry and glued it into the slot. This made for a very nice
> splitter, until I snapped off the cherry one day by sliding a board
> across it.
>
> I would be interested in hearing of any improvements to this technique.
http://www.microjig.com/products/mj-splitter/index.shtml
...in steel. I snapped off a plastic one too.
On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
> It took less than half an hour to diagnose and fix a minor alignment issue
> with my table saw. The combination square indicated the blade was parallel
> to the miter slow, and the fence was out slightly.
>
> The initial sign of trouble was that the rising teeth would throw up quite
> a bit of sawdust. If I stopped pushing the wood through, there would be a
> circular "rainbow" left where the blade was.
>
> After adjusting the fence the cuts are much smoother, the rising teeth
> aren't throwing up as much sawdust, and there's no more unwanted "rainbow"
> effects. The difference is like going from an ok blade to a good one.
>
> Why did I wait so long?
>
> Puckdropper
Yes, it truly makes a big difference having your tools tuned up. I was
away from woodwoorking for many years. Though I had my tools, they were
in storage. Then, with a new house came a new shop.
I began setting up my tools, a PowerMatic table saw among them. I began
alligning it, and took great pains to get the slot parallel to the
blade, and the fence parallel to the slot, and thus to the blade.
A week later, I was ripping a small piece of plywood and the rising
tooth caught the edge closest to the fence and flung the plywood into my
belly. dropping me to the floor. Bruising, but no internals damaged,
luckily.
I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be
absolutely parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the
blade by a few thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible
binding described above.
ER visits are expensive!
Harvey
On 10/03/2010 08:05 AM, eclipsme wrote:
> On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>> It took less than half an hour to diagnose and fix a minor alignment issue
>> with my table saw. The combination square indicated the blade was parallel
>> to the miter slow, and the fence was out slightly.
>>
>> The initial sign of trouble was that the rising teeth would throw up quite
>> a bit of sawdust. If I stopped pushing the wood through, there would be a
>> circular "rainbow" left where the blade was.
>>
>> After adjusting the fence the cuts are much smoother, the rising teeth
>> aren't throwing up as much sawdust, and there's no more unwanted "rainbow"
>> effects. The difference is like going from an ok blade to a good one.
>>
>> Why did I wait so long?
>>
>> Puckdropper
>
> Yes, it truly makes a big difference having your tools tuned up. I was away from
> woodwoorking for many years. Though I had my tools, they were in storage. Then, with a new
> house came a new shop.
>
> I began setting up my tools, a PowerMatic table saw among them. I began alligning it, and
> took great pains to get the slot parallel to the blade, and the fence parallel to the slot,
> and thus to the blade.
>
> A week later, I was ripping a small piece of plywood and the rising tooth caught the edge
> closest to the fence and flung the plywood into my belly. dropping me to the floor.
> Bruising, but no internals damaged, luckily.
>
> I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be absolutely parallel to the
> slot/blade, but should veer away from the blade by a few thousandths of an inch so as to
> relieve the possible binding described above.
Better yet, install a good splitter or riving knife.
--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
In article <[email protected]>, eclipsme <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>
>A week later, I was ripping a small piece of plywood and the rising
>tooth caught the edge closest to the fence and flung the plywood into my
>belly. dropping me to the floor. Bruising, but no internals damaged,
>luckily.
Were you using a splitter?
On 10/4/10 8:03 AM, Leon wrote:
> "eclipsme"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
> Snip
>
>
>>
>> I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be absolutely
>> parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the blade by a few
>> thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible binding described
>> above.
>
>
> Can't agree with that statement, while to some the thought of the fence
> veering away from the blade to create "some" clearance between the
> fence,work, and blade this pulls danger out of the right pocket and puts it
> in the left pocket.
>
> The work tracking away from the right back side of the blade also causes the
> wood to track into the blade on the opposite side.
>
> Use a splitter to and a parallel fence for best and safest results.
>
At least a couple fence manufacturers suggest the set-up technique of
having the outboard end on the fence a couple thousandths out.
I don't know if I agree with it or not.
I think a splitter does the most to stop kickback.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 10/4/2010 9:03 AM, Leon wrote:
> "eclipsme"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
> Snip
>
>
>>
>> I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be absolutely
>> parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the blade by a few
>> thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible binding described
>> above.
>
>
> Can't agree with that statement, while to some the thought of the fence
> veering away from the blade to create "some" clearance between the
> fence,work, and blade this pulls danger out of the right pocket and puts it
> in the left pocket.
>
> The work tracking away from the right back side of the blade also causes the
> wood to track into the blade on the opposite side.
>
> Use a splitter to and a parallel fence for best and safest results.
>
>
You are undoubtedly correct about using the splitter but I admit to not
using one because of the PITA quotient. I use hold downs and skew the
fence very slightly away from the blade as discussed. I never use the
fence on the opposite side, so that really doesn't matter for me.
Harvey
On 10/4/2010 5:14 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700, "CW"<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>> SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
>>> left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Think about it.
>
> CW's right. If you had a sled which was 0.003 off and you cut both
> sides of a panel with it without flipping it, it would be 0.006 off.
>
> But you're referencing the fence on your saw BUT the splitter holds
> the board/panel inline. It might bind and burn just a wee bit on the
> second cut, but there should be no 0.006" difference.
>
> --
> Know how to listen, and you will
> profit even from those who talk badly.
> -- Plutarch
For a while, I had a zero-insert that I cut a short slot into in-line
with the blade and the same thickness of the blade. I took a thin piece
of cherry and glued it into the slot. This made for a very nice
splitter, until I snapped off the cherry one day by sliding a board
across it.
I would be interested in hearing of any improvements to this technique.
Harvey
On 10/6/10 8:16 AM, eclipsme wrote:
> For a while, I had a zero-insert that I cut a short slot into in-line
> with the blade and the same thickness of the blade. I took a thin piece
> of cherry and glued it into the slot. This made for a very nice
> splitter, until I snapped off the cherry one day by sliding a board
> across it.
>
> I would be interested in hearing of any improvements to this technique.
>
> Harvey
>
I guess the improvement would be to have a few spares sitting, ready to
go in.
When I made my ZCI's, I contemplated using 2 trim screws to hold in the
splitter, instead of glue, so I could take it out when running dados,
etc. But then I figured I'd I have to take the ZCI out of the table to
take the splitter out. I may as well just have another ZCI made, sans
splitter, and just swap them.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 10/6/2010 9:44 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Oct 6, 8:16 am, eclipsme<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 10/4/2010 5:14 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700, "CW"<[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>> SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
>>>>> left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference
>>
>>>> No, it doesn't. Think about it.
>>
>>> CW's right. If you had a sled which was 0.003 off and you cut both
>>> sides of a panel with it without flipping it, it would be 0.006 off.
>>
>>> But you're referencing the fence on your saw BUT the splitter holds
>>> the board/panel inline. It might bind and burn just a wee bit on the
>>> second cut, but there should be no 0.006" difference.
>>
>>> --
>>> Know how to listen, and you will
>>> profit even from those who talk badly.
>>> -- Plutarch
>>
>> For a while, I had a zero-insert that I cut a short slot into in-line
>> with the blade and the same thickness of the blade. I took a thin piece
>> of cherry and glued it into the slot. This made for a very nice
>> splitter, until I snapped off the cherry one day by sliding a board
>> across it.
>>
>> I would be interested in hearing of any improvements to this technique.
>
> http://www.microjig.com/products/mj-splitter/index.shtml
> ...in steel. I snapped off a plastic one too.
>
>
That looks interesting. This is steel? It looks like plastic. Never
thought of making the splitter part be removable. Thanks! Harvey
On 10/6/2010 11:32 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:16:53 -0400, eclipsme<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/4/2010 5:14 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700, "CW"<[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
>>>>> left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't. Think about it.
>>>
>>> CW's right. If you had a sled which was 0.003 off and you cut both
>>> sides of a panel with it without flipping it, it would be 0.006 off.
>>>
>>> But you're referencing the fence on your saw BUT the splitter holds
>>> the board/panel inline. It might bind and burn just a wee bit on the
>>> second cut, but there should be no 0.006" difference.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Know how to listen, and you will
>>> profit even from those who talk badly.
>>> -- Plutarch
>> For a while, I had a zero-insert that I cut a short slot into in-line
>> with the blade and the same thickness of the blade. I took a thin piece
>> of cherry and glued it into the slot. This made for a very nice
>> splitter, until I snapped off the cherry one day by sliding a board
>> across it.
>>
>> I would be interested in hearing of any improvements to this technique.
>
> Throw that surfboard on the planer and take off 1/8". Now put on a
> steel bottom with steel fin (welded) comin' up. Screw and glue, done.
>
> --
> Know how to listen, and you will
> profit even from those who talk badly.
> -- Plutarch
hmm... interesting!
Harvey
On 10/6/2010 12:27 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 10/6/10 8:16 AM, eclipsme wrote:
>> For a while, I had a zero-insert that I cut a short slot into in-line
>> with the blade and the same thickness of the blade. I took a thin piece
>> of cherry and glued it into the slot. This made for a very nice
>> splitter, until I snapped off the cherry one day by sliding a board
>> across it.
>>
>> I would be interested in hearing of any improvements to this technique.
>>
>> Harvey
>>
>
> I guess the improvement would be to have a few spares sitting, ready to
> go in.
>
> When I made my ZCI's, I contemplated using 2 trim screws to hold in the
> splitter, instead of glue, so I could take it out when running dados,
> etc. But then I figured I'd I have to take the ZCI out of the table to
> take the splitter out. I may as well just have another ZCI made, sans
> splitter, and just swap them.
>
>
Yep, this would be a simple way around making the splitter removable,
wouldn't it? Just make 2. Thanks.
Harvey
On 10/7/10 6:15 AM, eclipsme wrote:
>> When I made my ZCI's, I contemplated using 2 trim screws to hold in the
>> splitter, instead of glue, so I could take it out when running dados,
>> etc. But then I figured I'd I have to take the ZCI out of the table to
>> take the splitter out. I may as well just have another ZCI made, sans
>> splitter, and just swap them.
>>
>>
> Yep, this would be a simple way around making the splitter removable,
> wouldn't it? Just make 2. Thanks.
> Harvey
>
Or 5 or 6 or 7. :-)
One for each blade or dado set you use.
Once you are set up to make one, the other take 1/10 of the time.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 10/7/2010 9:23 AM, Leon wrote:
> "eclipsme"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 10/4/2010 9:03 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> "eclipsme"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>> Snip
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be
>>>> absolutely
>>>> parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the blade by a few
>>>> thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible binding described
>>>> above.
>>>
>>>
>>> Can't agree with that statement, while to some the thought of the fence
>>> veering away from the blade to create "some" clearance between the
>>> fence,work, and blade this pulls danger out of the right pocket and puts
>>> it
>>> in the left pocket.
>>>
>>> The work tracking away from the right back side of the blade also causes
>>> the
>>> wood to track into the blade on the opposite side.
>>>
>>> Use a splitter to and a parallel fence for best and safest results.
>>>
>>>
>> You are undoubtedly correct about using the splitter but I admit to not
>> using one because of the PITA quotient. I use hold downs and skew the
>> fence very slightly away from the blade as discussed. I never use the
>> fence on the opposite side, so that really doesn't matter for me.
>>
>> Harvey
>
> Although you do not use the fence on the opposite side often let me restate,
> If your fence is skewed away from the blade and you are ripping a 1x6 into
> say 2 or more usable pieces the waste side will be pulled into the blade on
> the back opposite side of the blade. This will both add tooth marks to the
> wast eside of the board and will prevent the whole board from tracking
> properly against the fence.
>
>
Oh, I get your point now. Thanks for clarifying. I think you may be
envisioning more skew than I am using. I don't seem to experience this
problem, but will look for them specifically next time I rip.
Harvey
On 10/7/2010 7:41 AM, Upscale wrote:
> "eclipsme"<[email protected]> wrote in message news:
>> That looks interesting. This is steel? It looks like plastic. Never
>> thought of making the splitter part be removable. Thanks! Harvey
>
> Lee Valley Tools sells that splitter in two incarnations should you be
> interested in a purchase.
> http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/page.aspx?p=51151&cat=1,41080,51225
> http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/page.aspx?p=65138&cat=1,41080,51225
>
>
Thanks for the links. I likee.
harvey
In article <[email protected]>,
eclipsme <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 10/7/2010 9:23 AM, Leon wrote:
<<...snipped...>>
>> Although you do not use the fence on the opposite side often let me restate,
>> If your fence is skewed away from the blade and you are ripping a 1x6 into
>> say 2 or more usable pieces the waste side will be pulled into the blade on
>> the back opposite side of the blade. This will both add tooth marks to the
>> wast eside of the board and will prevent the whole board from tracking
>> properly against the fence.
>>
>>
>Oh, I get your point now. Thanks for clarifying. I think you may be
>envisioning more skew than I am using. I don't seem to experience this
>problem, but will look for them specifically next time I rip.
The teeth a on a carbide sawblade are slightly wider than the steel body
of the blade. The fence would have to be skewed so far so that a workpiece
would contact the blade body before the trailing (rising) teeth for it
to keep from tracking against the teeth properly. You probably have a
point about the tooth marks (or is it teeth marks) though. (BTW I am in
"dead parallel" camp because I sometimes use the fence to the left of the
blade.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
>> left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference
>
>No, it doesn't. Think about it.
I have....it does....YOU think about it....
....draw it up sometime....
....if the fence is skewed to one side by one degree to the right when
it's on the right side of the blade, that will put the end of the
fence farther away by X amount...
...move the fence to the left side of the blade but leave the skewing
the same, it'll be CLOSER to the blade by the same amount....in effect
doubling the difference.
What that gives me is 3 thou or so of EXTRA space between the saw
blade and the fence on the right side....
....then when I go to the left, there is 3 thou of interference....
...for a total difference of....SIX thou which is double
Feel free to draw it up sometime
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:16:53 -0400, eclipsme <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 10/4/2010 5:14 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700, "CW"<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
>>>> left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. Think about it.
>>
>> CW's right. If you had a sled which was 0.003 off and you cut both
>> sides of a panel with it without flipping it, it would be 0.006 off.
>>
>> But you're referencing the fence on your saw BUT the splitter holds
>> the board/panel inline. It might bind and burn just a wee bit on the
>> second cut, but there should be no 0.006" difference.
>>
>> --
>> Know how to listen, and you will
>> profit even from those who talk badly.
>> -- Plutarch
>For a while, I had a zero-insert that I cut a short slot into in-line
>with the blade and the same thickness of the blade. I took a thin piece
>of cherry and glued it into the slot. This made for a very nice
>splitter, until I snapped off the cherry one day by sliding a board
>across it.
>
>I would be interested in hearing of any improvements to this technique.
Throw that surfboard on the planer and take off 1/8". Now put on a
steel bottom with steel fin (welded) comin' up. Screw and glue, done.
--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <<much snipping>>
>>
>>I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be
>>absolutely parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the
>>blade by a few thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible
>>binding described above.
>>
>>ER visits are expensive!
>>
>>Harvey
>
> with great humility and humbleness, for myself, I have to disagree...
>
> ...If for no other reason that the fact that I work on BOTH sides of
> the blade, so that means that if I kick the back of the fence out by
> .003" on the right side of the blade, that puts me at double that if
> I'm on the LEFT side.
Where did the "double" come from? Are the faces not parallel to each other?
That's actually a rhetorical question as I know they are not.
>
> I firmly believe that by setting the fence with NO induced variation
> and then followed by using the correct riving knife/splitter/hold
> downs is the proper way to handle a fence on a table saw.
>
Parallel is the way to go. That and a Gripper have worked for me for a long
time.
"eclipsme" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:
> That looks interesting. This is steel? It looks like plastic. Never
> thought of making the splitter part be removable. Thanks! Harvey
Lee Valley Tools sells that splitter in two incarnations should you be
interested in a purchase.
http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/page.aspx?p=51151&cat=1,41080,51225
http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/page.aspx?p=65138&cat=1,41080,51225
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>> SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
>>> left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference
>>
>>No, it doesn't. Think about it.
>
> I have....it does....YOU think about it....
>
> ....draw it up sometime....
>
> ....if the fence is skewed to one side by one degree to the right when
> it's on the right side of the blade, that will put the end of the
> fence farther away by X amount...
>
> ...move the fence to the left side of the blade but leave the skewing
> the same, it'll be CLOSER to the blade by the same amount....in effect
> doubling the difference.
>
> What that gives me is 3 thou or so of EXTRA space between the saw
> blade and the fence on the right side....
>
> ....then when I go to the left, there is 3 thou of interference....
>
> ...for a total difference of....SIX thou which is double
>
> Feel free to draw it up sometime
Keep in mind that when you move the fence to the other side of the blade you
are no longer using it on the right side. Basically the error does not
double in use because you are not using the fence on both sides at the same
time. The total amount of error is the same on both sides providing both
sides of the fence are parallel.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 23:12:23 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> ...for a total difference of....SIX thou which is double
>>>
>>> Feel free to draw it up sometime
>>
>>
>>1 degree either way.
>>
>
> I believe that I have found the problem...
>
> ....you are looking at the deviation from nominal...
>
> ...whereas I am looking at the total deviation...
>
> in other words, both are wrong and both are right.
>
> We do, however, agree that the BEST way is to set the fence parallel
> with the blade.
>
> Luck and all that...
>
OK, I'll let you back out of this relatively gracefully.