Advice before I put on riser block? (Coplanar attempt too...)

On 7-Apr-2004, "Stephen M" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think it's clear that less crown makes a saw more vulnerable to
> non-coplaner issues causing a tracking problem.

Something I knew intuitively, especially since my BS has flattish
tires (certainly compared to yours). Watching the behavior of mine
without covers on, with different degrees of co-planar and tracking
makes it easy to agree.

> So if you have a
> "situation", shim if you can, but if you have old tires, replacing or
> recrowning *may* help considerably.

Good advice. Certainly more useful that "coplanar is a myth". It also
points back to the issue that folks with high-quality bandsaws that come
well set up from the factory shouldn't be giving off-hand advice to the
rest of the world.

This has been a useful discussion, I think.

Mike

In article <[email protected]>, Hoyt Weathers
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In reading this thread from the beginning, It has occurred to me that it
> might be
> possible to put one or more washers on one side or the other of one of the
> wheels -
> say the top wheel if it is not driven. Could the remedy of the out of coplanar
> situation be as simple as that?

But... but...

What fun would *that* be?

;-)

djb

--
Okay, so this is my new sig line, eh?

On 7-Apr-2004, Rick Chamberlain <[email protected]> wrote:

> I use the book as a starting point.
> If it works, I leave it. If it doesn't, I tune it according to common
> sense and feel.

That sounds right to me - the starting point is a coplanar bandsaw.
I haven't argued for anything else. Screwing around with a wildly
ooc bandsaw is a good way to waste a lot of time.

> Reasonably coplanar is not coplanar, therefore "coplanar is a myth" is
> technically correct. :-)

Splitting hairs isn't going to solve anyone's problems. If making it
coplanar requires a gazzillion dollar widget and several days to get
it perfect, there's a perfectly reasonable expectation that folks
will balk. However, using a straightedge and aligning it accordingly
is a reasonable attempt at making it coplanar. If you're still
out by 1/8" or more, then you probably shouldn't be using a bandsaw.

Mike

On 4-Apr-2004, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Would it? You are assuming the blade is going to track on center of the
> bottom wheel, but what if it does not?

I make no such assumption. The blade will ride on the part of the tire
that allows it to come into equilibrium with the forces on it. But unless
the curvature of the tire match _exactly_ to the degree of out-of-plane,
the blade will be twisted.

> I was at a Scott Phillips demo about bandsaw setup and he dismissed the
> co-planer thing also. To him, tracking the top wheel and proper tension is
> needed for true running.

I'm talking about stress on the blade.

Imaging someone telling you that a frame in a car doesn't have to be straight.
They drive around with a bent frame and think everything is fine. They say
the auto engineers don't know anything about cars and body shops that straighten
frames are ripping people off. Does that make it ok to have a bent car frame?
Is that in turn the same as saying that no one should have a straight frame?

Just because you can make it work, doesn't mean that it's all right. I like
to see things running square and true. You can true your equipment with a
sledge hammer for all I care, but don't tell me it's right. It's not like
aligning the bandsaw wheels is a big deal - it takes a few minutes. If you
have that much trouble with it, are you sure this is the hobby for you?

If out of plane is ok, how much is ok? 1/4"? 1/2"? 2"? 10"? Let's hear
some facts about this out-of-plane acceptability.

Mike

On 6-Apr-2004, "Stephen M" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Because that's what tracking adjustment *IS*. Adjusting where the blade runs
> on the tire. Tires are generally a little bigger than the largest
> recommended blade size.

Ok, that's acceptable. Not for my BS, though. It's a chiwanese quasijunk
model and the tires are narrow, almost flat and yet they say I can use a
1" blade. The tire is barely 1" wide. It will likely still allow for tracking
adjustment, but with little or no rubber outside of the blade.

> Yes, if it's new and it it grossly non-coplaner replace is the most
> appropriate advise.

I agree - can we nail this advice into the foreheads of unisaw, BAD and
the other "coplanar is a myth" crowd?

> For my saw. The tires are 1-3/8", max blade 1"... that's 3/16ths
> either way.

Much wider than mine - hence a difference in view between me and you.
The replacement tires I've seen have all been narrow too. What BS is
yours?

Mike

On 4-Apr-2004, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Or the tire will flex to match the blade.

You must have awfully mushy tires. I can barely see any deflection
in the surface of mine. They're crowned, but kinda flat (i.e.
long-radius curvature) too. Behavior with a 1/4" blade will be
very different than that of a 3/4". I put more faith in coplanar
than in some undefined capacity of the tires to fix any potential
stress problems in a blade that's running at over 10,000psi and
a couple of thousand feet per minute!


> Plenty of cars on the road do have frames not aligned.

I read somewhere that engineers keep their cars in better condition
than the average driver. I wonder why? I'm an engineer and I tend
to prefer to keep things set up well and running well. But then
I don't have unlimited faith in the materials we use in our world.

> I don't know as I've not done any testing. My saw seems to be very close and
> hte blade tracks just fine so I'm not going to change anything

Every time this comes up, the guys that say it's unimportant eventually
admit that they have a BS that's fairly true or is a high-end model that's
quite true out of the factory. But the guys asking the questions about
coplanar have the chiwanese quasijunk that is way out of adjustment
and performs accordingly.

Open question remains - if out of plane is acceptable, what are its
limits? If no one can answer that with a realistic answer, then
I'll stick with the folks like Duginske who actually know what
they're talking about.

Mike

On 5-Apr-2004, "Stephen M" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'll go out on a limb and say 1/4".

Why? Based on what?*

I don't see why they can't make a bandsaw that's better than that even
if assembled by demented monkeys. Even in the days before assembly
lines and standardized parts they could make things better than that!

> Let me say this alittle differently: The blade is not twisting, It is riding
> normally, but in a *slightly* different axis. No twist = no additional
> stress.

Unisaw claims his is out of alignment and _doesn't_ run on a different axis.
Two different stories. Which one is correct?

Put two wheels out of alignment by 5 inches and try to get them to run a blade
without twisting. Now tell me how you know that, oh... 2" will ride flat without
twisting. How about 0.5"? You're making an assumption based on thinking that
the tires will magically account for any out-of-plane error. I agree that they
_can_ correct for some degree of misalignment, but I don't know how much and I'm
not going to guess. I do know that the crown on the tires on my BS are large
radius and I doubt it can handle a big misalignment without twisting.

I'm still waiting for the "myth of the coplanar" crowd to come up with some
facts instead of opinions. We already know they're misquoting and misinterpreting
Duginske. They still can't come up with anything to quantify their claims.

Mike

* My BS came out of the factory with around 1/4" error and did track. Didn't cut
well, but it did track. YMMV

> <all snipped>

For starters, I do not own a band saw and I do not recall ever using one. There have
been times when I wished I had one, but got along somehow without buying one.

In reading this thread from the beginning, It has occurred to me that it might be
possible to put one or more washers on one side or the other of one of the wheels -
say the top wheel if it is not driven. Could the remedy of the out of coplanar
situation be as simple as that?

Hoyt W.

On 7-Apr-2004, Rick Chamberlain <[email protected]> wrote:

> Not sure how to do this Mike - sorta like proving a negative. :-)

No, it's proving a positive. Just DAGS on this ng and find a post
by one of the naysayers showing that they actually address the
severe ooc condition. I only remember them saying, bluntly and
unconditionally, that it's a myth and ignore it.

Mike

On 4-Apr-2004, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote:

> My "understanding of their position" is,
>
> 1) Wheels not coplanar can be the cause of bands not
> tracking.

You say "can be" not "is". That seems to sum up a lot.

> 2) A band can track on a saw with wheels not coplanar.

But will twist continuously from its free orientation to
its conform-to-the-wheel position. Can you say "fatigue"?
Coplanar means no twist.

Mike

Hylourgos wrote:
>Hello Mr. 'Saur,

Mr. Saur was my father.

>What's to prevent me from drilling new holes for the pins?

Absolutely nothing. If you feel you can precisely align
four holes in two mating pieces of cast iron then you go
girl. Me? I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot (approx. 3
metre David) pole.

>My riser kit even comes with a nice drill bit for that purpose.

You're kidding, right? Isn't this kinda of a sign that the
company that made the saw "isn't really too sure but we'll
ship along some tooling for you to clean it up in case we
didn't get it right"? Not something I'd be putting in the
ad copy if you know what I mean.

>I won't pretend to know whether coplanar wheels make a bit of
>difference,

There is no pretending (or dress up) required with this one.
Either the band tracks or it doesn't.

Does the band track correctly?

>but theoretically the idea that your two wheels should
>line up seems just common sense to me.

In theory you are correct but with this one theory isn't
needed onna 'count of we have a real world situation that we
can draw from. The basis for my argument is, "if the band
tracks, you don't have any worries". To be seeing demons
where none exist might make for a great hobby but isn't
necessary for good fun with wooddorking.

So, we ask again. Does the band track correctly?

>Since I'm messing wth a new riser block anyway, I thought
>I'd give it a try. If it works out and makes any difference I'll let you know.

Now this is where the choo-choo comes off the tracks. An
adjustment made to the riser to compensate for the myth of
co-planar might work if your wheels were "slightly" out of
alignment. In your case, and if I m'member correctly, your
wheels are out 3/8". This would mean that you would have to
re-drill the holes 3/8" away from where they presently are.
I'm not sure the fixing bolt will fit with that gross of a
misalignment, not to mention how screwy it would look. And
oh by the way, what if after all of this you've gone an
introduced further error? Re-read this last sentence,
especially if you have a problem with cause and effect and
seeing something to the end injineering wise.

Again, I think you need to determine if the myth of
co-planar is a problem first. Tackle that independently of
the riser block. If you cannot contain yourself and feel
you must screw with the riser it might make more/better
sense to shim the riser on one side or the other. This will
tip the upper wheel in or out. Now, the only problem with
this is you'll now introduce a situation where your upper
blade guides are now totally out of alignment and you'll be
shimming those.

See where all of this is going? By orbiting around the
issue (not looking at/doing something specific with/to the
upper wheel) you begin the begets and just create more work
for yourself elsewhere. I'd be willing to bet that by the
time the whole thing is over you'll be too afraid to operate
the saw because it'll be so held together with chewing gum
and duct tape that simply turning it on will throw out all
alignments.

Hear me now, believe me later.

UA100 (Jr.)

Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Hylourgos wrote:
> >Soon I'll install a riser block on my Taiwan 14" BS. Right now it's
> >about 3/8" out of being coplanar. Rather than shim the upper wheel,
> >I'd like to seat the upper arm more correctly so the wheels will be
> >parallel.
>
> >Any tips? Caveats?
>
>
>
> With the two dowel pins you won't be doing too much in the
> way of aligning it other than the way it's already going to
> align itself. In other words, it will only fit one way.
>
> By the way, up till now has the myth of coplanar presented
> itself as a problem?
>
> UA100

Hello Mr. 'Saur,

What's to prevent me from drilling new holes for the pins? I've read
that some people have done this to their (stock, not riser) units
because they weren't aligned correctly in the first place. My riser
kit even comes with a nice drill bit for that purpose.

I won't pretend to know whether coplanar wheels make a bit of
difference, but theoretically the idea that your two wheels should
line up seems just common sense to me. Since I'm messing wth a new
riser block anyway, I thought I'd give it a try. If it works out and
makes any difference I'll let you know.

H

Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
<snip>
> >What's to prevent me from drilling new holes for the pins?
>
> Absolutely nothing. If you feel you can precisely align
> four holes in two mating pieces of cast iron then you go
> girl. Me? I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot (approx. 3
> metre David) pole.

I had some great metal shop teachers. I think I can handle those holes
if I want to....
>
> >My riser kit even comes with a nice drill bit for that purpose.
>
> You're kidding, right?

Nope, but the whole kit cost me all of $10 at a hardware store yard
sale, so it's possible someone tossed it in for fun. The size and type
of bit are curiously appropriate though.

> Isn't this kinda of a sign that the
> company that made the saw "isn't really too sure but we'll
> ship along some tooling for you to clean it up in case we
> didn't get it right"? Not something I'd be putting in the
> ad copy if you know what I mean.

When I DAGNGS on riser blocks and coplanar I read several threads
where participants had moved the arm rather than shim because the
bearing shaft was not long enough to achieve coplanar by shimming
alone. So the process is not uncommon. Among cheaper brands of BSs,
the arm is often not accurately mounted in the first place.

Since earlier thread participants mentioned that they had remounted
the arm and they didn't mention any big trouble doing it, I am curious
about your hesitation: have you tried it?

>
> >I won't pretend to know whether coplanar wheels make a bit of
> >difference,
>
> There is no pretending (or dress up) required with this one.
> Either the band tracks or it doesn't.

Well, to be fair, the argument about coplanar wheels and whether
they're useful or necessary does not, for its proponents, rely on
whether the band tracks without it. Or is that your understanding of
their position?

>
> Does the band track correctly?
>
So far. But I've only tried it once, with the blade I got with it, a
3/8" blade. *And* the upper wheel is tilted ALL the way in order to
get it to track. Now, my experience with other bandsaws tells me that
getting a 1/2 or 3/4 blade to track on this unit might be difficult if
a 3/8" tracks only on full tilt. I want to use 1/2" blade mostly, so
it looks like shim or move the arm, or see about moving the lower
wheel on the shaft. Since I'm installing a riser block, I thought to
consider a riser modification first.

<snip>

> An
> adjustment made to the riser to compensate for the myth of
> co-planar might work if your wheels were "slightly" out of
> alignment. In your case, and if I m'member correctly, your
> wheels are out 3/8". This would mean that you would have to
> re-drill the holes 3/8" away from where they presently are.
> I'm not sure the fixing bolt will fit with that gross of a
> misalignment, not to mention how screwy it would look. And
> oh by the way, what if after all of this you've gone an
> introduced further error? <snip>

Very good point. Accurate placement is assumed. My usual procedure
would be a mock up with clamps, spot welds or whatever temporary fix
works to see if things will line up conveniently. Tom's point about
the guidepost (thanks Tom) and yours here about the other alignment
issues are exactly the caveats I'm looking for. Honestly I hadn't
considered those issues (although a mock-up would probably have
revealed them), so thanks is in order.

> Again, I think you need to determine if the myth of
> co-planar is a problem first. Tackle that independently of
> the riser block.

OK, I will. Where's the best place to read about the opposing view?

<snip ideas about shimming the post, which sound as bad to me as to
you>
>
> See where all of this is going? By orbiting around the
> issue (not looking at/doing something specific with/to the
> upper wheel) you begin the begets and just create more work
> for yourself elsewhere.

Quite possible, and I appreciate your monitions.

> I'd be willing to bet that by the
> time the whole thing is over you'll be too afraid to operate
> the saw because it'll be so held together with chewing gum
> and duct tape that simply turning it on will throw out all
> alignments.

That's a bet you don't want to take.

H, who made more pipe bombs and zip guns before he was 12 than all the
unisaws you've ever touched.

Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Hylourgos wrote:
> >Since earlier thread participants mentioned that they had remounted
> >the arm and they didn't mention any big trouble doing it, I am curious
> >about your hesitation: have you tried it?
>
> My hesitation comes from working with machines and real life
> usage and a fairly good ability to predict the outcome of a
> given procedure which for the most part comes true more
> often than not

And I do appreciate that.

> >Well, to be fair, the argument about coplanar wheels and whether
> >they're useful or necessary does not, for its proponents, rely on
> >whether the band tracks without it. Or is that your understanding of
> >their position?
>
> My "understanding of their position" is,
>
> 1) Wheels not coplanar can be the cause of bands not
> tracking.
>
> 2) A band can track on a saw with wheels not coplanar.
>
> Conclusion: Coplanar, it could be the solution as well as
> not.
>
> That's why I was asking (and secretly wondering why you were
> skirting around the issue).

I don't think I skirted any issue. My understanding of "The Duginske
Doctrine" is just from reading, not from experience, but his argument
appears sound to me, and so far I haven't seen or read anything
convincing that is contradictory.

Your syllogism, according to my reading of Duginske, is faulty at #1.
Tracking is not the problem for which coplanar wheels are the cure.
I'll quote from one of his books on this. The last sentence sums up
the goals of coplanar wheel alignment:

"The objective in tracking wide blades [greater than 1/4"] is to allow
the blade to run as straight as possible. If the wheels are coplanar,
the blade will find its own equilibrium and essentially track itself
[so OK, a bit to do with tracking, but not primarily]. With
coplanar-tracking, the blade exerts the same amount of pressure on the
tires at all points of contact. There is no binding, which occurs when
the top wheel is angled. The blade will last longer and cut
straighter, and will require less tension for good performance" (Mark
Duginske, Band Saw Workhop Bench Reference, p. 72)

Seems like admirable goals to me, and straightforward geometrical
principle. Assuming that's true, it may work fine without, but it will
work better with, so why not?

> >Very good point. Accurate placement is assumed. My usual procedure
> >would be a mock up with clamps, spot welds or whatever temporary fix
> >works to see if things will line up conveniently.
>
> Mock ups are good. I wouldn't braze the cast iron for all
> the obvious reasons.

Right, brazing would not be the welding choice, for obvious reasons.
I've used certanium and palco 808 before to good effect. MIG might
even work for temp. stuff but would be hard to break off.
>
> >OK, I will. Where's the best place to read about the opposing view?
>
> I couldn't tell you. My position on coplanar is from real
> world situations and usage (see above) and not blindly
> following the book writers.

Since I haven't done it before, I happily admit that I'm blind on the
issue, so I have no option but to follow "books writers"—or NG posters
even. Now whether your "real world situations and usage" exceeds
Duginske's with respect to BS wheel alignment I have no idea. To me
you're both WWing writers with experience and opinions. I've read
enough of this NG to respect your opinion, but I've also had enough
"real world situations" to be unafraid of asking question. Even
follow-up questions.

It would interest me to know: have you made at least one BS coplanar
and been dissatisfied with the results?

> I suppose if you really have to
> see the words in print you could search Google but you'll
> more than likely only find what I've had to say. Me, not
> being a book writer, would probably make anything I've said
> invalid, that is if you only believe what you read in books.

I have DAGS, but all I've found were testimonials to Duginske—which is
precisely why I'm interested in what you have to say. You generally
know what you're talking about and you disagree with Duginske, which
is pretty rare. I want to know the opposing view. And of course I
don't believe everything I read in books—or NGs—so I'm going to ask
questions.
>
> >H, who made more pipe bombs and zip guns before he was 12 than all the
> >unisaws you've ever touched.
>
> I'm sure your mother is quite proud to see you listing this
> on your resume.

Did you have to bring my mother into this? She probably wouldn't
believe it. None of the mothers did.
>
> By the way, before you go Bay Area Dave on us here and start
> getting your tutu in too much of a bunch, you asked the
> question, right?

Yea, my panties are still clean. Yours? You seem uptight about being
challenged.

So far, your understanding of Duginske's position on coplanar
alignment does not accord with my understanding. One of us doesn't
understand Duginske's point.

> Had I known this was all a foregone
> conclusion on your part, I'd a passed on by. My hopes were
> to see to it you didn't go and screw up your saw or spend an
> awful lot of time orbiting the solution.

And I do really appreciate that and will think twice before I touch
the saw. Duginske doesn't advocate arm re-placement to acheive
coplanar alignment, so your advice is valuable to me. Moreover,
Duginske's not my god, and the BS is not my religion. Hell, I bought
the Asian whore for $50. I won't feel bad if my experiments don't work
out.

> I can see now that
> your saw is in very capable hands and should you become too
> frustrated with it you possess the knowledge for the proper
> means for disposal.
>
Well, I hope for my kids' sake that that part of my life is over and I
have learned something from it.

H, pipe-bomb free and troll free since 1976 (however, recidivism with
an underwater bang-stick incident in 2002. Sting-ray tastes a lot like
chicken....)

Thanks Dan, that's exactly the kind of warning I'm looking for.

Regards,
H.


"Dan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> For what its worth: take readings on the pins with a caliper or micrometer
> once you separate the top casting from the bottom casting in preparation for
> adding the riser block. You may find the top of the protruding pin to be
> smaller than the base of the pin. Drilling at this point will reduce your
> saw to two very inefficient boat anchors. Taper pins are sometimes used to
> insure precision fit on castings. I added a riser block to a Rockwell 14
> incher a few years back. The Rockwell did indeed use taper pins for locating
> the top casting relative to the bottom casting. No slop, no play, and no
> adjustment possible.
>
> You might want to take time to pose this question over on
> rec.crafts.metalworking before you get the drill out and take the chance of
> making a very expensive mistake.
>
> Dan
> "Eccentric by Nature"
>
> "Hylourgos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Hylourgos wrote:
> > > >Soon I'll install a riser block on my Taiwan 14" BS. Right now it's
> > > >about 3/8" out of being coplanar. Rather than shim the upper wheel,
> > > >I'd like to seat the upper arm more correctly so the wheels will be
> > > >parallel.
>
> > > >Any tips? Caveats?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > With the two dowel pins you won't be doing too much in the
> > > way of aligning it other than the way it's already going to
> > > align itself. In other words, it will only fit one way.
> > >
> > > By the way, up till now has the myth of coplanar presented
> > > itself as a problem?
> > >
> > > UA100
> >
> > Hello Mr. 'Saur,
> >
> > What's to prevent me from drilling new holes for the pins? I've read
> > that some people have done this to their (stock, not riser) units
> > because they weren't aligned correctly in the first place. My riser
> > kit even comes with a nice drill bit for that purpose.
> >
> > I won't pretend to know whether coplanar wheels make a bit of
> > difference, but theoretically the idea that your two wheels should
> > line up seems just common sense to me. Since I'm messing wth a new
> > riser block anyway, I thought I'd give it a try. If it works out and
> > makes any difference I'll let you know.
> >
> > H

Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 2 Apr 2004 12:36:50 -0800, [email protected] (Hylourgos) wrote:
>
> >Soon I'll install a riser block on my Taiwan 14" BS. Right now it's
> >about 3/8" out of being coplanar. Rather than shim the upper wheel,
> >I'd like to seat the upper arm more correctly so the wheels will be
> >parallel.
> >
> >Any tips? Caveats?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >H
>
>
> 3/8" seems a tad excessive.
>
I'm glad you asked me that. I had measured, but it was not careful. I
went back out just now and reinstalled the top wheel. Where I had left
the top wheel tilt adjustment was, I just now noticed, not on a
parallel plane with the lower wheel. Once I did that and remeasured,
more carefully this time, it was just a whisker under 1/8".

So thanks for the scepticism, it saved me some grief.

<snip>
>
> Bandsaws are funny critters. They aren't available to the rectilinear
> tuneup stuff that you can do with a tablesaw. The whole deal is to
> wind up with a blade that will track well (or, at least predictably)
> under working tension. This can vary according to the parallelism of
> the wheels, the condition of the tires (tyres, Mike Hide), the width
> of the blade, the tension used on the blade for the type (tipe, bad),
> the kind of metal layup that is used for the blade, and the phase of
> the moon.
>
<snip experiments that boil down to...>
> Fuggit. I put the disco light away and cut my stuff.
>
> All I know is that you need to get the wheels moderately parallel and
> adjust your blade tension to the size of the blade. If the saw
> doesn't sound right, or cut right - you mess with the angle adjustment
> of the top wheel until it does.
>
> If you run out of options - buy a Laguna - I hear they're real nice
> right ought of the box.

Good advice. I'll see if I can't get this girl working right. If not,
time to start a new piggy bank.

Thanks,
H

Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Hylourgos wrote:
> >It would interest me to know: have you made at least one BS coplanar
> >and been dissatisfied with the results?
>
> My band saw (see short write up here)
>
> http://www.owwm.com/PhotoIndex/detail.asp?id=973
>
> is out but despite this it tracks fine. Being that it is
> tracking fine I elected to leave well enough alone.

That's a nice description, I hadn't seen that before (I'm fond of the
stuff I've seen before about your unisaws). You certainly took
everything, including alignment, into consideration. You wrote: "The
blade ran dead on the center line of both wheels. This was in spite of
the fact that the wheels were not coplanar. I have since been taught
that this is OK (The Myth of Co-Planar)."

See, this is where I gather that one of us does not understand
Duginske's point. As I read it, the goal of coplanar alignment is not
to get the blade to run on the center line of both wheels. That is
clearly done, perhaps by a majority of BS users, without the wheels
being coplanar.

I also liked where you wrote: "...I now know what it might be like to
be in love with an ugly woman." My $50 Asian whore may not be as
ugly--or alluring--as your Gumby, but I've become fond of her too. I
aspire to a Powermatic....
>
> >You seem uptight about being challenged.
>
> I'm unsure where this analogy came from. I saw a request
> for opinions and responded. The next thing I know you're
> flashing a zip gun around and boasting about pipe bombs.
>
Ha, that's good! The point of my saying that was not a boast, quite
the opposite, as I mentioned to Charlie. You had written, "I'd be
willing to bet that by the time the whole thing is over you'll be too
afraid to operate the saw...". Now, I'm not bad with machining. And
I've done things, especially in my youth, that were far more
dangerous, and should be feared, that I'd never do again. Dicking with
a BS will cause me no concern. That was my point, I really wasn't
waving a anything around at you. If I did not make the connection from
your statement to my point as clear as needed, I hope this has cleared
it up. Maybe both our tutus were fluffed up....

> Grandma always told me, "Kee-Kee honey, never argue with an
> FGN". Of course grandma had a way with words and didn't
> initialize.

OK, I'll bite (but have the feeling I'll regret it): what's FGN stand
for?

H

Hey Michael,

How come all your posts are hidden on the web google NG? All I see is
what Edwin includes in his posts.

Curious,
H


"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > Ok then - what's level of adjustment is too anal? 0.001"? 1/16"? 1/3"?
> 3"?
> >
> > I see the hand waving and lip flapping, but I'm asking for a real answer.
> > If you or anyone else thinks that coplanar isn't an issue - then give us
> > the real answer on what level of misalignment _is_ an issue so folks can
> > judge how they're doing.
> >
> > If you can't, then my answer is that you should do the best job you can at
> > making it coplanar and don't ignore it - even if you think it's tracking
> > reasonably. Why?
>
> Any amount that still allows the blade to track properly is acceptable. If
> my blade is cutting straight, making curves with east, re=sawing accurately,
> then it is close enough. I've not done any research nor have I owned many
> brands of saw to give you hard data. It either works, or it doesn't.
> Ed

Yep, that was it. Now we both know.

H.

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 5-Apr-2004, [email protected] (Hylourgos) wrote:
>
> > How come all your posts are hidden on the web google NG? All I see is
> > what Edwin includes in his posts.
>
> No idea - but I noticed that my posts contain: X-No-Archive: Yes.
> I don't know if google uses that to decide whether to include or not.
> I changed it to No and see if that fixes it.
>
> Mike

Hi Hoyt,

Yes, shimming with washers is the common way to go. [Dave: your
average 5/8" hardware store variety work fine on Deltas and clones.]

My first measurement, which was a 3/8" out-of-alignment wheel (and
which measurement turned out to be wrong), made it impractical to fix
with shims since the bearing shaft on the upper wheel has only so much
room before you run out of thread for the nut.

In addition, I didn't like the idea of a half-ass workaround to fix
alignment that was that far off; if I could get the thing aligned at
the frame level that would be better, and since I was putting on a
riser block anyway why not try to fix it then.

I have, owing mostly to this thread, realized that may be more
difficult than I had imagined, but I had the good fortune of realizing
that my alignment was not out 3/8", but only 1/8", so shimming is not
so onerous, if necessary at all.

H.

Hoyt Weathers <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > <all snipped>
>
> For starters, I do not own a band saw and I do not recall ever using one. There have
> been times when I wished I had one, but got along somehow without buying one.
>
> In reading this thread from the beginning, It has occurred to me that it might be
> possible to put one or more washers on one side or the other of one of the wheels -
> say the top wheel if it is not driven. Could the remedy of the out of coplanar
> situation be as simple as that?
>
> Hoyt W.

Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Hylourgos wrote:
> >OK, I'll bite (but have the feeling I'll regret it): what's FGN stand
> >for?
>
> Fucking G*n N*t.
>
> Have you noticed how worked up everyone if getting over the
> coplanar issue?
>
> UA100

I had to wipe the Cheerios off my screen when I figured that one out.
Your grandma was wise. Most every FGN I've had a run-in with also had
serious issues with women.

Yes, anything to do with measurement seems to get folks worked up on
this WWNG. I don't really know much about coplanaritization yet, so I
can't afford to take a side. Wait a few weeks, maybe I'll have my saw
working and can mount the podium as a Henry Clay pro or con.

H, who likes women.

Hylourgos wrote:
>Soon I'll install a riser block on my Taiwan 14" BS. Right now it's
>about 3/8" out of being coplanar. Rather than shim the upper wheel,
>I'd like to seat the upper arm more correctly so the wheels will be
>parallel.

>Any tips? Caveats?



With the two dowel pins you won't be doing too much in the
way of aligning it other than the way it's already going to
align itself. In other words, it will only fit one way.

By the way, up till now has the myth of coplanar presented
itself as a problem?

UA100

It's so nice watching the kids play.

UA100

that's why I continue to disagree with your assessment of a
"problem". NOW do you get it, Michael?? ") Nice try
though and as someone more profound that myself has said
many times, "thanks for playing". NOW can we drop this
non-argument? 'Cause if YOU don't drop it, you'll be
arguing with yourself next.

dave

Michael Daly wrote:

> On 4-Apr-2004, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>read every word. let's just agree to disagree.
>
>
> Disagree on what? Your comments had absolutely nothing to
> do with what I wrote!
>
> Mike

On 4-Apr-2004, [email protected] (Jeffrey Thunder) wrote:

> But I'm not sure I follow what you mean here. Would you
> explain things a bit further for those of us in the audience?

Under tension, the blade is forced to ride tight to the wheel
(well, tire actually). Think of two wheels that are coplanar.
The blade is straight up and down between the wheels.

Now consider non-coplanar. One wheel is to, say, the left of the
other. The blade has to be forced to the left as it leaves one
wheel and goes to the other:

|| ||
|| ||
|| //
|| //
|| ||
|| ||

coplanar non-coplanar.

Obviously highly exaggerated due to the limits of ASCII art.
The non=coplanar puts additional stresses on the blade and
the blade is constantly twisting to conform to the tires.
You can force it to track, but that doesn't mean you're
doing it right.

Mike

Can't. I drove him crazy already. He's now locked up in a
state mental ward.

dave

Unisaw A100 wrote:

> The Pantload writes:
>
>>I assume you DO see a therapist?
>
>
>
> Care to recommend your's?
>
> UA100

On 7-Apr-2004, Rick Chamberlain <[email protected]> wrote:

> Same thing for a bandsaw. The problem with most bandsaws is that you
> can't state a blanket "no more than 1/8" out of coplanar", because of
> manufacturing issues - cast or sheet metal frame, single or double wall
> construction, aluminum or cast wheels, rubber or urethane tires, size of
> crown, type of bearing, etc.

I think that unless the bandsaw is a real loser, the only significant
issue is tire type and geometry.

> Most hobbyists don't really care about the fatigue on a band,

That's entirely possible. However, I keep it in the realm of the
possible that for some situations, fatigue _might_ reduce the life
of the blade. Without doing some calcs, I don't know. However,
the conservative engineer part of me says "do it right and don't
even consider the possibility." Setting up a bandsaw is not
hard, so don't make an issue of _not_ setting it up right.

> Is Duginske wrong? Not necessarily. But is perfectly coplanar
> necessary for a well tuned 67 Mustang? I'll leave it to you to decide.

I've already said that perfect is not possible, but "good enough" is.
"Coplanar is a myth" doesn't even address good enough. Since making
the bandsaw reasonably coplanar is straightforward, do it and if you're
still having problems, you know to look elsewhere for a solution.

Mike

On 4-Apr-2004, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

> I have a Powermatic which tracks all
> size blades perfectly and it isn't coplanar

You didn't read a thing I wrote now, did you Dave?

Mike

On 4-Apr-2004, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

> read every word. let's just agree to disagree.

Disagree on what? Your comments had absolutely nothing to
do with what I wrote!

Mike

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Ok then - what's level of adjustment is too anal? 0.001"? 1/16"? 1/3"?
3"?
>
> I see the hand waving and lip flapping, but I'm asking for a real answer.
> If you or anyone else thinks that coplanar isn't an issue - then give us
> the real answer on what level of misalignment _is_ an issue so folks can
> judge how they're doing.
>
> If you can't, then my answer is that you should do the best job you can at
> making it coplanar and don't ignore it - even if you think it's tracking
> reasonably. Why?

Any amount that still allows the blade to track properly is acceptable. If
my blade is cutting straight, making curves with east, re=sawing accurately,
then it is close enough. I've not done any research nor have I owned many
brands of saw to give you hard data. It either works, or it doesn't.
Ed

I'm not so sure about that. I must have SOME entertainment
value; witness the undo attention I receive from the likes
(or more to the point, the ilk) of TW.



dave

Michael Daly wrote:

> On 7-Apr-2004, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>This coplanar thing is gonna become your legacy.
>
>
> Beats having your reputation, BAD boy.
>
> Mike

On 4-Apr-2004, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Most tires are a rubber compound. Rubber compounds are usually designed to
> deflect or move in some manner or they would just use steel or aluminum.
> Must be a reason. As an engineer, you know that.

I didn't say they don't deflect, I said that I can barely see any deflection.
Big difference. These are hard tires. If there is little deflection, there
is less ability to adjust to misalignment than with a soft tire.

> Junk is junk no matter how it is adjusted. Thee is more at work there than
> just co-planer.

You're avoiding the statement I'm making - the guys that are claiming that
coplanar is not important don't have coplanar problems to begin with. BAD
has a fancy BS that's only 1/16 out - the OP has one that's 3/8 out.
I hope the lurkers are catching on to what's going on here - it's like
a guy with a $300 LN or LV plane telling the guy with the $20 Footprint plane
that sole flatness isn't an issue. Duh!

> Nothing wrong wit co-planer or any adjustments being as good as possible.
> There is a point where it just becomes too anal.

Ok then - what's level of adjustment is too anal? 0.001"? 1/16"? 1/3"? 3"?

I see the hand waving and lip flapping, but I'm asking for a real answer.
If you or anyone else thinks that coplanar isn't an issue - then give us
the real answer on what level of misalignment _is_ an issue so folks can
judge how they're doing.

If you can't, then my answer is that you should do the best job you can at
making it coplanar and don't ignore it - even if you think it's tracking
reasonably. Why? For the same reason I spent a lot of time flattening
the sole of an old Millers Falls plane I bought at a garage sale for $4
- because it's better that way!

Mike

On 5-Apr-2004, "Stephen M" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The crown of the tire not only allows tracking but mitigates any modest
> coplaner issues.

I know that and addressed it in another post. However, I keep asking -
What is "modest"? It's one thing to keep saying x amount of misalignment
is ok, but no one wants to make a statement on what x is! If you phrase
it like some do - "coplanar is nonsense" that's clearly wrong! However,
making it perfect is not possible.

Edwin suggests that if it tracks, then the misalignment is not significant.
On one level, I can accept that, but it still doesn't address whether
you can make it track but still be stressing the blade more than necessary.
Personally, I think you should make it as coplanar as possible - as I said,
that's not hard to do.

Mike

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> writes:
>On 5-Apr-2004, [email protected] (Hylourgos) wrote:
>
>> How come all your posts are hidden on the web google NG? All I see is
>> what Edwin includes in his posts.
>
>No idea - but I noticed that my posts contain: X-No-Archive: Yes.
>I don't know if google uses that to decide whether to include or not.
>I changed it to No and see if that fixes it.
>
>Mike

That is indeed the case. Google honors the X-No-Archive header.

scott

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Every time this comes up, the guys that say it's unimportant eventually
> admit that they have a BS that's fairly true or is a high-end model that's
> quite true out of the factory. But the guys asking the questions about
> coplanar have the chiwanese quasijunk that is way out of adjustment
> and performs accordingly.
>
> Open question remains - if out of plane is acceptable, what are its
> limits? If no one can answer that with a realistic answer, then
> I'll stick with the folks like Duginske who actually know what
> they're talking about.

We're not talking about a precision cutting machine here Mike. But, in
any event, I'll try to sum it up with an analogy.

Being an engineer, I'm sure you know that older cars had points that
required adjustment in order for the engines to run properly. I
remember an old Mustang I worked on in high school - I could never get
that thing running quite right. Did everything by the book - points
were perfect, timing was perfect, vacuum advance was perfect, all
according to the book.

When I asked the instructor what could be wrong, he said that sometimes
you start with the factory settings and tune according to feel. Once I
figured out what he meant, I adjusted the points and timing a bit and
that Mustang purred.

Same thing for a bandsaw. The problem with most bandsaws is that you
can't state a blanket "no more than 1/8" out of coplanar", because of
manufacturing issues - cast or sheet metal frame, single or double wall
construction, aluminum or cast wheels, rubber or urethane tires, size of
crown, type of bearing, etc.

Most hobbyists don't really care about the fatigue on a band, as we
don't use our tools in a production environment, and if they read all
the books by Duginske, they already know to detension the band after
use. I would say that most hobbyists are more concerned about
performance, and in my case that is all I care about. My bandsaw is
close to 50 years old - a sheet metal framed Delta 20" with new
bearings, tires, even paint. No matter what band I use on her, she's a
bit outta whack. I could shim and check, shim and check, shim and
check. Or, I can leave well enough alone and cut wood.

I don't have a newer bandsaw to compare to, so I have no idea how much
out of factory spec the new Deltas, Jets, or Lagunas might be.

Is Duginske wrong? Not necessarily. But is perfectly coplanar
necessary for a well tuned 67 Mustang? I'll leave it to you to decide.

--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)

In article <[email protected]>, smeier-
[email protected] says...
<snip>
> I think it's clear that less crown makes a saw more vulnerable to
> non-coplaner issues causing a tracking problem. So if you have a
> "situation", shim if you can, but if you have old tires, replacing or
> recrowning *may* help considerably.

Steve,

There is no doubt that recrowning *does* help considerably. It's not a
hypothesis, it is fact.

In a prior life I worked as a pinsetter mechanic. The mechanism used to
send bowling balls back to the bowler is called the accelerator.
Nothing but a large flat belt riding on two crowned pulleys (kinda like
a bandsaur) with a ramp underneath. The ball gets caught in the ramp,
the belt stretches as the ball climbs the ramp, and at the end of the
ramp the ball comes out at about 15-20 mph. Can you imagine what
happens when the crown on those pulleys wears down? No adjustment in
the world would keep those belts in place, and you can adjust the
pulleys front to back and left to right.

But, put new pulleys in there, and you could be so far OOW (out of
whack) on the coplanar thing and the belt would track properly with no
adverse effects, regardless of belt wear or adjustments made to the
pulleys.

Both you and Mike are missing the point here. You're working so hard to
calculate the OOC (out of coplanar) factor and the fudge factor that
you've not addressed what the manufacturers say are acceptable levels of
OOC. Nor do you address the fact that bands may actually *require* an
OOC condition to run properly.

I've not found anyone here say that a severe OOC condition shouldn't be
considered a drawback, or if one appears on a new bandsaw that it should
not be addressed by the manufacturer's warranty. But there is a whole
lot of information from a whole lot of knowledgeable folk here to
support "coplanar is a myth". I guess I'd rather be cutting wood
instead of fretting over a 1/8" deflection in my BS blade, especially
since I don't know if that 120" blade is 100% true to begin with.

See my previous post about the 67 Mustang if you don't get it.
--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On 7-Apr-2004, Rick Chamberlain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Same thing for a bandsaw. The problem with most bandsaws is that you
> > can't state a blanket "no more than 1/8" out of coplanar", because of
> > manufacturing issues - cast or sheet metal frame, single or double wall
> > construction, aluminum or cast wheels, rubber or urethane tires, size of
> > crown, type of bearing, etc.
>
> I think that unless the bandsaw is a real loser, the only significant
> issue is tire type and geometry.

If you mean geometry of the crown, I'd agree. The problem with geometry
is dealing with a particular band or tensioning device/spring. A 1/8"
band on my 20" Delta may require the upper wheel to be at a severe
angle, thus negating or accentuating the OOC (out of coplanar)
condition. OTOH, a 1" resaw blade requires so much tension that the
wheel could be forced true.

In these cases, geometry is directly affected by the size, type, and
material construction of the band - not to mention the weld/solder
joint, which could open up another can of worms...

> > Most hobbyists don't really care about the fatigue on a band,
>
> That's entirely possible. However, I keep it in the realm of the
> possible that for some situations, fatigue _might_ reduce the life
> of the blade. Without doing some calcs, I don't know. However,
> the conservative engineer part of me says "do it right and don't
> even consider the possibility." Setting up a bandsaw is not
> hard, so don't make an issue of _not_ setting it up right.

Agreed. But just what is *right*? There is clinical right, which is
probably close to what you espouse. There is functional right, which is
more of a gray area and works on the premise of feel instead of original
spec. In reality, no one is wrong. I use the book as a starting point.
If it works, I leave it. If it doesn't, I tune it according to common
sense and feel. Am I "more right" than you? I don't really care, but my
way works for me.

> > Is Duginske wrong? Not necessarily. But is perfectly coplanar
> > necessary for a well tuned 67 Mustang? I'll leave it to you to decide.
>
> I've already said that perfect is not possible, but "good enough" is.
> "Coplanar is a myth" doesn't even address good enough. Since making
> the bandsaw reasonably coplanar is straightforward, do it and if you're
> still having problems, you know to look elsewhere for a solution.

Agreed, but aren't you contradicting yourself a bit here? First thing I
learned as a network engineer is that similar is spelled "different".
Reasonably coplanar is not coplanar, therefore "coplanar is a myth" is
technically correct. :-)

--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On 7-Apr-2004, Rick Chamberlain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Both you and Mike are missing the point here. You're working so hard to
> > calculate the OOC (out of coplanar) factor and the fudge factor that
> > you've not addressed what the manufacturers say are acceptable levels of
> > OOC.
>
> On the contrary - I've specifically asked for any info that would define
> what an acceptable ooc would be. No one has come forward with any useful
> information with the exception of Steve (who's sort of working from first
> principles).

You've asked this group, but have you asked the manufacturers? IOW,
Delta may say that 1/2" OOC is ok, while Jet says 1".

> > I've not found anyone here say that a severe OOC condition shouldn't be
> > considered a drawback, or if one appears on a new bandsaw that it should
> > not be addressed by the manufacturer's warranty.
>
> I can't remember seeing anything of the sort. Can you give a reference to
> a post by one of the coplanar is a myth crowd that actually does address
> this?

Not sure how to do this Mike - sorta like proving a negative. :-)

--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On 7-Apr-2004, Rick Chamberlain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I use the book as a starting point.
> > If it works, I leave it. If it doesn't, I tune it according to common
> > sense and feel.
>
> That sounds right to me - the starting point is a coplanar bandsaw.
> I haven't argued for anything else. Screwing around with a wildly
> ooc bandsaw is a good way to waste a lot of time.

No doubt - I'm sure everyone would prefer to start off with a pristine
bandsaw within all MFG tolerances. In reality, probably ain't gonna
happen.

> > Reasonably coplanar is not coplanar, therefore "coplanar is a myth" is
> > technically correct. :-)
>
> Splitting hairs isn't going to solve anyone's problems. If making it
> coplanar requires a gazzillion dollar widget and several days to get
> it perfect, there's a perfectly reasonable expectation that folks
> will balk. However, using a straightedge and aligning it accordingly
> is a reasonable attempt at making it coplanar. If you're still
> out by 1/8" or more, then you probably shouldn't be using a bandsaw.

Mike, isn't splitting hairs what engineers do? :-) I tried to point
out the contradictory choice of words. Similar *does* actually mean
different, doesn't it?

--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)

In article <[email protected]>, smeier-
[email protected] says...
>
> > > > Reasonably coplanar is not coplanar, therefore
> <snip>
>
> > Mike, isn't splitting hairs what engineers do? :-) I tried to point
> > out the contradictory choice of words. Similar *does* actually mean
> > different, doesn't it?
>
> Um, no.
>
> Mike, as a digital professional (I R 1), sometimes it's it easy to forget
> the leave the discrete world or 1's and 0's and return to the real (in the
> mathematical sense) world. There is no such thing in the real world as
> straight, flat, perpendicular, flat or coplaner. If you think it is, then
> you need a better measuring tool. Even light bends.
>
> Common usage of "straight" really means "straight enough" or "relatively
> straight". The same thing goes for "coplanar".
>
> I would submit that in the context of woodworking, "similar" at least as
> often as not *does* mean "same".
>
> As a "software engineer", I am invoking the right bestowed upon me by my
> employer and the State (University) of New York, to split that baby right
> down to the follicle :-)

Steve,

I think you made my point. :-)
--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)

On 7-Apr-2004, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

> This coplanar thing is gonna become your legacy.

Beats having your reputation, BAD boy.

Mike

read every word. let's just agree to disagree.

dave

Michael Daly wrote:

> On 4-Apr-2004, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> I have a Powermatic which tracks all
>>size blades perfectly and it isn't coplanar
>
>
> You didn't read a thing I wrote now, did you Dave?
>
> Mike

<snip> By the way, up till now has the myth of coplanar presented
itself as a problem?

UA100

LOL

P.S. You forgot to ask whether he could stand a nickle on the table

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I make no such assumption. The blade will ride on the part of the tire
> that allows it to come into equilibrium with the forces on it. But unless
> the curvature of the tire match _exactly_ to the degree of out-of-plane,
> the blade will be twisted.

Or the tire will flex to match the blade.


>
> > I was at a Scott Phillips demo about bandsaw setup and he dismissed the
> > co-planer thing also. To him, tracking the top wheel and proper tension
is
> > needed for true running.
>
> I'm talking about stress on the blade.
>
> Imaging someone telling you that a frame in a car doesn't have to be
straight.
> They drive around with a bent frame and think everything is fine. They
say
> the auto engineers don't know anything about cars and body shops that
straighten
> frames are ripping people off. Does that make it ok to have a bent car
frame?
> Is that in turn the same as saying that no one should have a straight
frame?

I'm not saying no one SHOULD have coplaner, but you don't necessarily HAVE
to have it to be operating properly. Plenty of cars on the road do have
frames not aligned.


> If out of plane is ok, how much is ok? 1/4"? 1/2"? 2"? 10"? Let's
hear
> some facts about this out-of-plane acceptability.

I don't know as I've not done any testing. My saw seems to be very close and
hte blade tracks just fine so I'm not going to change anything, nor will I
do any more checks of it unless a problem occurs. What I am interested in
is a perfect cut. As long as I get that, the rest is just a bother.
Ed

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Now consider non-coplanar. One wheel is to, say, the left of the
> other. The blade has to be forced to the left as it leaves one
> wheel and goes to the other:
>
> || ||
> || ||
> || //
> || //
> || ||
> || ||
>
> coplanar non-coplanar.

Would it? You are assuming the blade is going to track on center of the
bottom wheel, but what if it does not?

I was at a Scott Phillips demo about bandsaw setup and he dismissed the
co-planer thing also. To him, tracking the top wheel and proper tension is
needed for true running.
Ed

On 4-Apr-2004, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

> I can tell you aren't into empirical testing, are you
> Michael? Instead of using JUST logic, you should do some
> TESTING of your hypothesis. Then you would undoubtedly
> change your tune.

DAGS on this ng and you'll likely find a coupla posts where I
explained my tests.

Change my tune? To what? Any old bandsaw adjustment is ok and
who cares?

Mike

Michael, you set yours up the way YOU want, and rest assured
that my Powermatic works best as it came from the factory.



dave

Michael Daly wrote:

> On 6-Apr-2004, "Stephen M" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Because that's what tracking adjustment *IS*. Adjusting where the blade runs
>>on the tire. Tires are generally a little bigger than the largest
>>recommended blade size.
>
>
> Ok, that's acceptable. Not for my BS, though. It's a chiwanese quasijunk
> model and the tires are narrow, almost flat and yet they say I can use a
> 1" blade. The tire is barely 1" wide. It will likely still allow for tracking
> adjustment, but with little or no rubber outside of the blade.
>
>
>>Yes, if it's new and it it grossly non-coplaner replace is the most
>>appropriate advise.
>
>
> I agree - can we nail this advice into the foreheads of unisaw, BAD and
> the other "coplanar is a myth" crowd?
>
>
>>For my saw. The tires are 1-3/8", max blade 1"... that's 3/16ths
>>either way.
>
>
> Much wider than mine - hence a difference in view between me and you.
> The replacement tires I've seen have all been narrow too. What BS is
> yours?
>
> Mike

I can tell you aren't into empirical testing, are you
Michael? Instead of using JUST logic, you should do some
TESTING of your hypothesis. Then you would undoubtedly
change your tune.

dave

Michael Daly wrote:
> On 4-Apr-2004, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Would it? You are assuming the blade is going to track on center of the
>>bottom wheel, but what if it does not?
>
>
> I make no such assumption. The blade will ride on the part of the tire
> that allows it to come into equilibrium with the forces on it. But unless
> the curvature of the tire match _exactly_ to the degree of out-of-plane,
> the blade will be twisted.
>
>
>>I was at a Scott Phillips demo about bandsaw setup and he dismissed the
>>co-planer thing also. To him, tracking the top wheel and proper tension is
>>needed for true running.
>
>
> I'm talking about stress on the blade.
>
> Imaging someone telling you that a frame in a car doesn't have to be straight.
> They drive around with a bent frame and think everything is fine. They say
> the auto engineers don't know anything about cars and body shops that straighten
> frames are ripping people off. Does that make it ok to have a bent car frame?
> Is that in turn the same as saying that no one should have a straight frame?
>
> Just because you can make it work, doesn't mean that it's all right. I like
> to see things running square and true. You can true your equipment with a
> sledge hammer for all I care, but don't tell me it's right. It's not like
> aligning the bandsaw wheels is a big deal - it takes a few minutes. If you
> have that much trouble with it, are you sure this is the hobby for you?
>
> If out of plane is ok, how much is ok? 1/4"? 1/2"? 2"? 10"? Let's hear
> some facts about this out-of-plane acceptability.
>
> Mike

Tom Kohlman wrote:
>P.S. You forgot to ask whether he could stand a nickle on the table


Yahbut, we all know where that discussion would go.
Grandma, Jets, the Sinai, make up and our favorite
myth of them all, the lumber car.

UA100

Michael Daly:
>Now consider non-coplanar. One wheel is to, say, the left of the
>other. The blade has to be forced to the left as it leaves one
>wheel and goes to the other:

> || ||
> || ||
> || //
> || //
> || ||
> || ||

>coplanar non-coplanar.



Well I'll be damned. It must be true. I mean, look up,
there it is.

UA100

I'm not saying that one should not carefully adjust the
guides and set the blade to track near the center of the top
wheel, but the coplanar "thing" is really much ado about
nothing. The wheels of my Powermatic are about 1/16" out of
being perfectly aligned, when under tension for a 5/8"
blade. The blade runs true, quietly, and cuts fine. When I
shim the upper wheel so that it is truly coplanar while
under tension, then the blade doesn't track nearly as well
due to the slight tilt of the upper wheel. I see no gain in
messing with the factory set-up of the BS. I DO pay VERY
particular attention to setting the Carter guides "by the
book", so to speak. And all is well with my bandsawing
operations... To suggest that I am not picky about setting
up my equipment is a laugher.

dave

Michael Daly wrote:
> On 4-Apr-2004, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I can tell you aren't into empirical testing, are you
>>Michael? Instead of using JUST logic, you should do some
>>TESTING of your hypothesis. Then you would undoubtedly
>>change your tune.
>
>
> DAGS on this ng and you'll likely find a coupla posts where I
> explained my tests.
>
> Change my tune? To what? Any old bandsaw adjustment is ok and
> who cares?
>
> Mike

In article <[email protected]>,
"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> writes:
> On 4-Apr-2004, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> My "understanding of their position" is,
[snip]
>> 2) A band can track on a saw with wheels not coplanar.
>
> But will twist continuously from its free orientation to
> its conform-to-the-wheel position. Can you say "fatigue"?
> Coplanar means no twist.

I can both say and spell "fatigue" (in two languages, even!).
But I'm not sure I follow what you mean here. Would you
explain things a bit further for those of us in the audience?
Thanks.

--
Jeff Thunder
Dept. of Mathematical Sciences
Northern Illinois Univ.
jthunder at math dot niu dot edu

For what its worth: take readings on the pins with a caliper or micrometer
once you separate the top casting from the bottom casting in preparation for
adding the riser block. You may find the top of the protruding pin to be
smaller than the base of the pin. Drilling at this point will reduce your
saw to two very inefficient boat anchors. Taper pins are sometimes used to
insure precision fit on castings. I added a riser block to a Rockwell 14
incher a few years back. The Rockwell did indeed use taper pins for locating
the top casting relative to the bottom casting. No slop, no play, and no
adjustment possible.

You might want to take time to pose this question over on
rec.crafts.metalworking before you get the drill out and take the chance of
making a very expensive mistake.

Dan
"Eccentric by Nature"

"Hylourgos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Hylourgos wrote:
> > >Soon I'll install a riser block on my Taiwan 14" BS. Right now it's
> > >about 3/8" out of being coplanar. Rather than shim the upper wheel,
> > >I'd like to seat the upper arm more correctly so the wheels will be
> > >parallel.
> >
> > >Any tips? Caveats?
> >
> >
> >
> > With the two dowel pins you won't be doing too much in the
> > way of aligning it other than the way it's already going to
> > align itself. In other words, it will only fit one way.
> >
> > By the way, up till now has the myth of coplanar presented
> > itself as a problem?
> >
> > UA100
>
> Hello Mr. 'Saur,
>
> What's to prevent me from drilling new holes for the pins? I've read
> that some people have done this to their (stock, not riser) units
> because they weren't aligned correctly in the first place. My riser
> kit even comes with a nice drill bit for that purpose.
>
> I won't pretend to know whether coplanar wheels make a bit of
> difference, but theoretically the idea that your two wheels should
> line up seems just common sense to me. Since I'm messing wth a new
> riser block anyway, I thought I'd give it a try. If it works out and
> makes any difference I'll let you know.
>
> H

Mike,

Here's why I think the coplaner thing doesn't matter if the misallignment is
not too large:

Your ascii art suggests that the wheel (tire more specifically) is a
cylinder. It's not. Properly formed tires have a crown. If the wheels are
parallel but in different planes, the blade will ride in on one tire and out
on the other (slightly). The inner surface of the band will still be tangent
to the curve of the crown. Therefore there is no "twisting" of the blade. It
is, however, running at a *very* slight angle to the table.

The crown of the tire not only allows tracking but mitigates any modest
coplaner issues.

-Steve






"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 4-Apr-2004, [email protected] (Jeffrey Thunder) wrote:
>
> > But I'm not sure I follow what you mean here. Would you
> > explain things a bit further for those of us in the audience?
>
> Under tension, the blade is forced to ride tight to the wheel
> (well, tire actually). Think of two wheels that are coplanar.
> The blade is straight up and down between the wheels.
>
> Now consider non-coplanar. One wheel is to, say, the left of the
> other. The blade has to be forced to the left as it leaves one
> wheel and goes to the other:
>
> || ||
> || ||
> || //
> || //
> || ||
> || ||
>
> coplanar non-coplanar.
>
> Obviously highly exaggerated due to the limits of ASCII art.
> The non=coplanar puts additional stresses on the blade and
> the blade is constantly twisting to conform to the tires.
> You can force it to track, but that doesn't mean you're
> doing it right.
>
> Mike

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 5-Apr-2004, "Stephen M" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The crown of the tire not only allows tracking but mitigates any modest
> > coplaner issues.
>
> I know that and addressed it in another post.

I'm busted. I did not read the entire thread.

> However, I keep asking -
> What is "modest"? It's one thing to keep saying x amount of misalignment
> is ok, but no one wants to make a statement on what x is!

I'll go out on a limb and say 1/4". I think it is reasonable to assume that
any new saw ought to be manufactured to within that tolerance... even
"chiawanise junk". On older saws, I would suspect abuse.

> If you phrase
> it like some do - "coplanar is nonsense" that's clearly wrong! However,
> making it perfect is not possible.

No. i would not go quite that far. I would say that it's worth checking. If
it's so far out that seriously effects tracking on new tires with a proper
crown, I would call it a "defect" not and "adjustment".

>
> Edwin suggests that if it tracks, then the misalignment is not
significant.
> On one level, I can accept that, but it still doesn't address whether
> you can make it track but still be stressing the blade more than
necessary.

Let me say this alittle differently: The blade is not twisting, It is riding
normally, but in a *slightly* different axis. No twist = no additional
stress.

> Personally, I think you should make it as coplanar as possible - as I
said,
> that's not hard to do.

I agree, It certainley can't hurt. I have a new bandsaw. I forgot to check
it while the table was off, and chose not to bother once I found that
everything tracked well. Maybe I'm just lucky. BTW it was ade in Taiwan.

Cheers

-steve

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 5-Apr-2004, "Stephen M" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'll go out on a limb and say 1/4".
>
> Why? Based on what?*
1. Assume your upper wheel is alligned plumb.
2. There should be enough extra space on a tire for the blade to shift at
least 1/8".
3. draw a line tangent to the crown of the blade at a position 1/8" off
center. This will "point" more than 1/4" out of the axis of the wheel. This
is the "fudge factor" of non-planer acceptability

Geometry.

>
> I don't see why they can't make a bandsaw that's better than that even
> if assembled by demented monkeys. Even in the days before assembly
> lines and standardized parts they could make things better than that!

You are reinforcing my point that out of coplaner by more than the "fudge
factor" is a major DEFECT, not a setup issue withing the normal parameters
of adjustment.

>
> > Let me say this alittle differently: The blade is not twisting, It is
riding
> > normally, but in a *slightly* different axis. No twist = no additional
> > stress.
>
> Unisaw claims his is out of alignment and _doesn't_ run on a different
axis.
> Two different stories. Which one is correct?

I will not speak for unisaw.

>
> Put two wheels out of alignment by 5 inches and try to get them to run a
blade
> without twisting.

That is what any reasonable person would call a defect. My assertion was
that a perperly manufactured saw could handle a "modest" (which I have
defined) non-coplaner situation

> Now tell me how you know that, oh... 2" will ride flat without
> twisting. How about 0.5"? You're making an assumption based on thinking
that
> the tires will magically account for any out-of-plane error.

No magic. The geometry of crowned tires as explained above.

>I agree that they
> _can_ correct for some degree of misalignment, but I don't know how much
and I'm
> not going to guess.

It is a function of the radius of the crown. Granted, tough to compute
accurately, because it should be done as a function of the crown under
tension (rubber sightly compressed), but I think eye-balling it is good
enough to show that it works.

>I do know that the crown on the tires on my BS are large
> radius and I doubt it can handle a big misalignment without twisting.
With axels 48" apart, 1 degree equals just inder an inch of fudge factor.

e.g. tan(a)= fudge/angle

>
> I'm still waiting for the "myth of the coplanar" crowd to come up with
some
> facts instead of opinions. We already know they're misquoting and
misinterpreting
> Duginske. They still can't come up with anything to quantify their
claims.

Later I will take some accurate measurements of the crown and comute the
actual angular change associated with the proposed 1/8th inch shift.

>
> Mike
>



> * My BS came out of the factory with around 1/4" error and did track.
Didn't cut
> well, but it did track. YMMV

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6-Apr-2004, "Stephen M" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 2. There should be enough extra space on a tire for the blade to shift
at
> > least 1/8".
>
> Why? I can't help but think you're making this up as you go along.

Because that's what tracking adjustment *IS*. Adjusting where the blade runs
on the tire. Tires are generally a little bigger than the largest
recommended blade size.

>
> > You are reinforcing my point that out of coplaner by more than the
"fudge
> > factor" is a major DEFECT,
>
> Defect or not, it still comes into play. If someone has a defective BS,
> the advice they get on the wreck is not "get the manufacturer to replace
> your BS", it's "Don't worry, coplanar isn't an issue."
>

Yes, if it's new and it it grossly non-coplaner replace is the most
appropriate advise. If it's modestly non-coplaner it probably does not
effect the ctting ability of the saw. If it's used and grossly out if
whack.... shim where you can to get it close.... then it's no linger an
issue.

> > No magic. The geometry of crowned tires as explained above
>
> You're not following. At what point does the crown cease to correct the
> blade effectively?...
>
> > It is a function of the radius of the crown.
>
> Ahh, you do know conceptually.

Huh?

>
> > Granted, tough to compute
> > accurately, because it should be done as a function of the crown under
> > tension (rubber sightly compressed), but I think eye-balling it is good
> > enough to show that it works.
>
> By eye, I can barely detect any compression on my tires. The radius seems
> large and even a small error in assumptions will have a large effect on
> the result. We're not talking about large angles here - eyeballing it
won't
> help...
>
> > 1 degree equals just inder an inch of fudge factor>
> Can anyone realistically eyeball less than one degree? I know that most
> folks can't judge angles worth a damn.

No, but the width an height of the crown can be measured. The radius of the
crown can be calculated from that measurement, and what I call the fudge
factor can calculated from radius and blade shift. My point was that a very
subtle angular change caused by a blade shift results in a comparatively
large distance in "fudge factor" because that small angular change is
measured over the distance between the axels (3 or 4 feet)

>
> > Later I will take some accurate measurements of the crown and comute the
> > actual angular change associated with the proposed 1/8th inch shift.
>
> But it still relies on your 1/8 assumption. A good start if you can
justify
> that. Better than anyone else has done so far.

I can. For my saw. The tires are 1-3/8", max blade 1"... that's 3/16ths
either way.
YMMV

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6-Apr-2004, "Stephen M" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Because that's what tracking adjustment *IS*. Adjusting where the blade
runs
> > on the tire. Tires are generally a little bigger than the largest
> > recommended blade size.
>
> Ok, that's acceptable. Not for my BS, though. It's a chiwanese quasijunk
> model and the tires are narrow, almost flat and yet they say I can use a
> 1" blade. The tire is barely 1" wide. It will likely still allow for
tracking
> adjustment, but with little or no rubber outside of the blade.
>
> > Yes, if it's new and it it grossly non-coplaner replace is the most
> > appropriate advise.
>
> I agree - can we nail this advice into the foreheads of unisaw, BAD and
> the other "coplanar is a myth" crowd?

Good. I glad we have found some common ground. Particularly sice we have
been called "children".

>
> > For my saw. The tires are 1-3/8", max blade 1"... that's 3/16ths
> > either way.
>
> Much wider than mine - hence a difference in view between me and you.
> The replacement tires I've seen have all been narrow too. What BS is
> yours?

Woodtek 18"

FWIW I ran the numbers and I was surprised by some of the numbers for My
saw:

The wheel is 1-3/8 the tire is actually 1-1/4.
The crown is about 3/32
The distance between axels is about 44"

From that, I calculated that the radius of the crown is a shockingly small
2.95" (lets call that 'r').

Lets suggest more modest 1/8th" blade shift. That means that at 1r (about
3") below the a upper axel the blade would pas back across plane defined by
the upper wheel.

For each r thereafter, it would be 1/8th" back in the opposite direction
from the shift.
44"/r -r = 13-2/3r

1/8" * 13-2/3 = 1.7" (my *calculted* coplaner fudge factor)

Adjustments for reality:

The crown is on my tires appears to be more like a triange than an arc this
would tend to increase the fudge factor.
The tires are mushy, This would tend to decrease the fudge factor.

I'll bet that the later has more impact. than the former. This supports my
hypothesis that the fudge factor allowed by the crown on *my* BS is > the
tolerances of even a half-assed manufacturing process.

I will aknowledge that the mushy tire factor makes this rather less than
perfect, but at least lets us get our arms around the order of magnitude to
which crowning can help mitigate a non-coplaner situation.

What practical lessons can we learn from this excercise?

I think it's clear that less crown makes a saw more vulnerable to
non-coplaner issues causing a tracking problem. So if you have a
"situation", shim if you can, but if you have old tires, replacing or
recrowning *may* help considerably.

-Steve

> > > Reasonably coplanar is not coplanar, therefore
<snip>

> Mike, isn't splitting hairs what engineers do? :-) I tried to point
> out the contradictory choice of words. Similar *does* actually mean
> different, doesn't it?

Um, no.

Mike, as a digital professional (I R 1), sometimes it's it easy to forget
the leave the discrete world or 1's and 0's and return to the real (in the
mathematical sense) world. There is no such thing in the real world as
straight, flat, perpendicular, flat or coplaner. If you think it is, then
you need a better measuring tool. Even light bends.

Common usage of "straight" really means "straight enough" or "relatively
straight". The same thing goes for "coplanar".

I would submit that in the context of woodworking, "similar" at least as
often as not *does* mean "same".

As a "software engineer", I am invoking the right bestowed upon me by my
employer and the State (University) of New York, to split that baby right
down to the follicle :-)

-Steve

Hylourgos wrote:
>OK, I'll bite (but have the feeling I'll regret it): what's FGN stand
>for?


Fucking G*n N*t.

Have you noticed how worked up everyone if getting over the
coplanar issue?

UA100

On 5-Apr-2004, [email protected] (Hylourgos) wrote:

> How come all your posts are hidden on the web google NG? All I see is
> what Edwin includes in his posts.

No idea - but I noticed that my posts contain: X-No-Archive: Yes.
I don't know if google uses that to decide whether to include or not.
I changed it to No and see if that fixes it.

Mike

so see if you can put Duginski's "logic" to practical use.
Been there; done that. Had to undo it.

dave

Hylourgos wrote:

> Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>Hylourgos wrote:
>>
>>>Since earlier thread participants mentioned that they had remounted
>>>the arm and they didn't mention any big trouble doing it, I am curious
>>>about your hesitation: have you tried it?
>>
>>My hesitation comes from working with machines and real life
>>usage and a fairly good ability to predict the outcome of a
>>given procedure which for the most part comes true more
>>often than not
>
>
> And I do appreciate that.
>
>
>>>Well, to be fair, the argument about coplanar wheels and whether
>>>they're useful or necessary does not, for its proponents, rely on
>>>whether the band tracks without it. Or is that your understanding of
>>>their position?
>>
>>My "understanding of their position" is,
>>
>>1) Wheels not coplanar can be the cause of bands not
>>tracking.
>>
>>2) A band can track on a saw with wheels not coplanar.
>>
>>Conclusion: Coplanar, it could be the solution as well as
>>not.
>>
>>That's why I was asking (and secretly wondering why you were
>>skirting around the issue).
>
>
> I don't think I skirted any issue. My understanding of "The Duginske
> Doctrine" is just from reading, not from experience, but his argument
> appears sound to me, and so far I haven't seen or read anything
> convincing that is contradictory.
>
> Your syllogism, according to my reading of Duginske, is faulty at #1.
> Tracking is not the problem for which coplanar wheels are the cure.
> I'll quote from one of his books on this. The last sentence sums up
> the goals of coplanar wheel alignment:
>
> "The objective in tracking wide blades [greater than 1/4"] is to allow
> the blade to run as straight as possible. If the wheels are coplanar,
> the blade will find its own equilibrium and essentially track itself
> [so OK, a bit to do with tracking, but not primarily]. With
> coplanar-tracking, the blade exerts the same amount of pressure on the
> tires at all points of contact. There is no binding, which occurs when
> the top wheel is angled. The blade will last longer and cut
> straighter, and will require less tension for good performance" (Mark
> Duginske, Band Saw Workhop Bench Reference, p. 72)
>
> Seems like admirable goals to me, and straightforward geometrical
> principle. Assuming that's true, it may work fine without, but it will
> work better with, so why not?
>
>
>>>Very good point. Accurate placement is assumed. My usual procedure
>>>would be a mock up with clamps, spot welds or whatever temporary fix
>>>works to see if things will line up conveniently.
>>
>>Mock ups are good. I wouldn't braze the cast iron for all
>>the obvious reasons.
>
>
> Right, brazing would not be the welding choice, for obvious reasons.
> I've used certanium and palco 808 before to good effect. MIG might
> even work for temp. stuff but would be hard to break off.
>
>>>OK, I will. Where's the best place to read about the opposing view?
>>
>>I couldn't tell you. My position on coplanar is from real
>>world situations and usage (see above) and not blindly
>>following the book writers.
>
>
> Since I haven't done it before, I happily admit that I'm blind on the
> issue, so I have no option but to follow "books writers"—or NG posters
> even. Now whether your "real world situations and usage" exceeds
> Duginske's with respect to BS wheel alignment I have no idea. To me
> you're both WWing writers with experience and opinions. I've read
> enough of this NG to respect your opinion, but I've also had enough
> "real world situations" to be unafraid of asking question. Even
> follow-up questions.
>
> It would interest me to know: have you made at least one BS coplanar
> and been dissatisfied with the results?
>
>
>> I suppose if you really have to
>>see the words in print you could search Google but you'll
>>more than likely only find what I've had to say. Me, not
>>being a book writer, would probably make anything I've said
>>invalid, that is if you only believe what you read in books.
>
>
> I have DAGS, but all I've found were testimonials to Duginske—which is
> precisely why I'm interested in what you have to say. You generally
> know what you're talking about and you disagree with Duginske, which
> is pretty rare. I want to know the opposing view. And of course I
> don't believe everything I read in books—or NGs—so I'm going to ask
> questions.
>
>>>H, who made more pipe bombs and zip guns before he was 12 than all the
>>>unisaws you've ever touched.
>>
>>I'm sure your mother is quite proud to see you listing this
>>on your resume.
>
>
> Did you have to bring my mother into this? She probably wouldn't
> believe it. None of the mothers did.
>
>>By the way, before you go Bay Area Dave on us here and start
>>getting your tutu in too much of a bunch, you asked the
>>question, right?
>
>
> Yea, my panties are still clean. Yours? You seem uptight about being
> challenged.
>
> So far, your understanding of Duginske's position on coplanar
> alignment does not accord with my understanding. One of us doesn't
> understand Duginske's point.
>
>
>> Had I known this was all a foregone
>>conclusion on your part, I'd a passed on by. My hopes were
>>to see to it you didn't go and screw up your saw or spend an
>>awful lot of time orbiting the solution.
>
>
> And I do really appreciate that and will think twice before I touch
> the saw. Duginske doesn't advocate arm re-placement to acheive
> coplanar alignment, so your advice is valuable to me. Moreover,
> Duginske's not my god, and the BS is not my religion. Hell, I bought
> the Asian whore for $50. I won't feel bad if my experiments don't work
> out.
>
>
>> I can see now that
>>your saw is in very capable hands and should you become too
>>frustrated with it you possess the knowledge for the proper
>>means for disposal.
>>
>
> Well, I hope for my kids' sake that that part of my life is over and I
> have learned something from it.
>
> H, pipe-bomb free and troll free since 1976 (however, recidivism with
> an underwater bang-stick incident in 2002. Sting-ray tastes a lot like
> chicken....)

you just couldn't help yourself could you?

Try not to fixate on me as much. That way you can spend
more time dealing with your other issues, at your next
session. I assume you DO see a therapist?

dave

Unisaw A100 wrote:

>
> By the way, before you go Bay Area Dave on us here and start

The Pantload writes:
> I assume you DO see a therapist?


Care to recommend your's?

UA100

as long as you've got a whopper of large hole in your washers.

dave

Hoyt Weathers wrote:

>><all snipped>
>
>
> For starters, I do not own a band saw and I do not recall ever using one. There have
> been times when I wished I had one, but got along somehow without buying one.
>
> In reading this thread from the beginning, It has occurred to me that it might be
> possible to put one or more washers on one side or the other of one of the wheels -
> say the top wheel if it is not driven. Could the remedy of the out of coplanar
> situation be as simple as that?
>
> Hoyt W.
>
>
>
>

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> You must have awfully mushy tires. I can barely see any deflection
> in the surface of mine. They're crowned, but kinda flat (i.e.
> long-radius curvature) too.


Most tires are a rubber compound. Rubber compounds are usually designed to
deflect or move in some manner or they would just use steel or aluminum.
Must be a reason. As an engineer, you know that.

>
> But the guys asking the questions about
> coplanar have the chiwanese quasijunk that is way out of adjustment
> and performs accordingly.

Junk is junk no matter how it is adjusted. Thee is more at work there than
just co-planer.


> Open question remains - if out of plane is acceptable, what are its
> limits? If no one can answer that with a realistic answer, then
> I'll stick with the folks like Duginske who actually know what
> they're talking about.

Nothing wrong wit co-planer or any adjustments being as good as possible.
There is a point where it just becomes too anal. I'm not knocking Duginske
(I have his book) but I've also seen the work Phillips has done.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

Hylourgos wrote:
>It would interest me to know: have you made at least one BS coplanar
>and been dissatisfied with the results?

My band saw (see short write up here)

http://www.owwm.com/PhotoIndex/detail.asp?id=973

is out but despite this it tracks fine. Being that it is
tracking fine I elected to leave well enough alone.

>You seem uptight about being challenged.

I'm unsure where this analogy came from. I saw a request
for opinions and responded. The next thing I know you're
flashing a zip gun around and boasting about pipe bombs.

Grandma always told me, "Kee-Kee honey, never argue with an
FGN". Of course grandma had a way with words and didn't
initialize.

UA100

On 6-Apr-2004, "Stephen M" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 2. There should be enough extra space on a tire for the blade to shift at
> least 1/8".

Why? I can't help but think you're making this up as you go along.

> You are reinforcing my point that out of coplaner by more than the "fudge
> factor" is a major DEFECT,

Defect or not, it still comes into play. If someone has a defective BS,
the advice they get on the wreck is not "get the manufacturer to replace
your BS", it's "Don't worry, coplanar isn't an issue."

> No magic. The geometry of crowned tires as explained above

You're not following. At what point does the crown cease to correct the
blade effectively?...

> It is a function of the radius of the crown.

Ahh, you do know conceptually.

> Granted, tough to compute
> accurately, because it should be done as a function of the crown under
> tension (rubber sightly compressed), but I think eye-balling it is good
> enough to show that it works.

By eye, I can barely detect any compression on my tires. The radius seems
large and even a small error in assumptions will have a large effect on
the result. We're not talking about large angles here - eyeballing it won't
help...

> 1 degree equals just inder an inch of fudge factor

Can anyone realistically eyeball less than one degree? I know that most
folks can't judge angles worth a damn.

> Later I will take some accurate measurements of the crown and comute the
> actual angular change associated with the proposed 1/8th inch shift.

But it still relies on your 1/8 assumption. A good start if you can justify
that. Better than anyone else has done so far.

Mike

On 2 Apr 2004 12:36:50 -0800, [email protected] (Hylourgos) wrote:

>Soon I'll install a riser block on my Taiwan 14" BS. Right now it's
>about 3/8" out of being coplanar. Rather than shim the upper wheel,
>I'd like to seat the upper arm more correctly so the wheels will be
>parallel.
>
>Any tips? Caveats?
>
>Thanks,
>H


3/8" seems a tad excessive.

Is the sucker running without any "slap", now.

You need to be at least a half-assed farm mechanic to set up some of
these Chiwanese kit saws - and even the Delta that most of them are
perversed-enginineered from.

Bandsaws are funny critters. They aren't available to the rectilinear
tuneup stuff that you can do with a tablesaw. The whole deal is to
wind up with a blade that will track well (or, at least predictably)
under working tension. This can vary according to the parallelism of
the wheels, the condition of the tires (tyres, Mike Hide), the width
of the blade, the tension used on the blade for the type (tipe, bad),
the kind of metal layup that is used for the blade, and the phase of
the moon.

I once got excited about getting the blade to run without any side to
side motion. I set the wheels up dead perfect under no load. I put
in a 1/4" blade and cranked the tension up to that for a 3/4" blade
(according to the pissant scale on the saw), and then cut with it. It
cut fine and dandy for what I was doing.

Then I put a 3/4" resaw blade in it and it cut fine and dandy too,
after I cranked up the tension a little bit - prior to that it
wandered around.

Being a curious sort, I thought to get out my old timing light (saved
from the days that I could still tune my own ride) and darkened the
shop, so I could see what the blade travel looked like under the disco
light.

Well, that were not pretty. The pulsing light showed a good deal of
side to side travel on the blade - but the blade cut fine.

Fuggit. I put the disco light away and cut my stuff.

All I know is that you need to get the wheels moderately parallel and
adjust your blade tension to the size of the blade. If the saw
doesn't sound right, or cut right - you mess with the angle adjustment
of the top wheel until it does.

If you run out of options - buy a Laguna - I hear they're real nice
right ought of the box.


Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

Jeffrey Thunder wrote:
>I can both say and spell "fatigue" (in two languages, even!).
>But I'm not sure I follow what you mean here. Would you
>explain things a bit further for those of us in the audience?
>Thanks.


I think what's missing from the formula that's making up the
sum (Hey! Math talk!) is that the band is riding the crown
which means it's traveling under no more stress with
coplanar as than without.

UA100

Hylourgos wrote:
>Since earlier thread participants mentioned that they had remounted
>the arm and they didn't mention any big trouble doing it, I am curious
>about your hesitation: have you tried it?

My hesitation comes from working with machines and real life
usage and a fairly good ability to predict the outcome of a
given procedure which for the most part comes true more
often than not. When it doesn't I file away what I've
learned and use it the next time a same or similar situation
arises.

Have I been doing it wrong all of these years?

>Well, to be fair, the argument about coplanar wheels and whether
>they're useful or necessary does not, for its proponents, rely on
>whether the band tracks without it. Or is that your understanding of
>their position?

My "understanding of their position" is,

1) Wheels not coplanar can be the cause of bands not
tracking.

2) A band can track on a saw with wheels not coplanar.

Conclusion: Coplanar, it could be the solution as well as
not.

That's why I was asking (and secretly wondering why you were
skirting around the issue).

>Very good point. Accurate placement is assumed. My usual procedure
>would be a mock up with clamps, spot welds or whatever temporary fix
>works to see if things will line up conveniently.

Mock ups are good. I wouldn't braze the cast iron for all
the obvious reasons.

>OK, I will. Where's the best place to read about the opposing view?

I couldn't tell you. My position on coplanar is from real
world situations and usage (see above) and not blindly
following the book writers. I suppose if you really have to
see the words in print you could search Google but you'll
more than likely only find what I've had to say. Me, not
being a book writer, would probably make anything I've said
invalid, that is if you only believe what you read in books.

>H, who made more pipe bombs and zip guns before he was 12 than all the
>unisaws you've ever touched.

I'm sure your mother is quite proud to see you listing this
on your resume.

By the way, before you go Bay Area Dave on us here and start
getting your tutu in too much of a bunch, you asked the
question, right? Had I known this was all a foregone
conclusion on your part, I'd a passed on by. My hopes were
to see to it you didn't go and screw up your saw or spend an
awful lot of time orbiting the solution. I can see now that
your saw is in very capable hands and should you become too
frustrated with it you possess the knowledge for the proper
means for disposal.

Knock yourself out there now.

UA100, who is usually better with troll detection but thanks
you none the less for this chance to recalc the meter...

[email protected] (Hylourgos) writes:
>Soon I'll install a riser block on my Taiwan 14" BS. Right now it's
>about 3/8" out of being coplanar. Rather than shim the upper wheel,
>I'd like to seat the upper arm more correctly so the wheels will be
>parallel.

My Jet 14" had pins to align the top and bottom sections that fit
into the riser block. I don't think you have much leeway wrt
how the riser block seats.

scott

On 7-Apr-2004, Rick Chamberlain <[email protected]> wrote:

> Both you and Mike are missing the point here. You're working so hard to
> calculate the OOC (out of coplanar) factor and the fudge factor that
> you've not addressed what the manufacturers say are acceptable levels of
> OOC.

On the contrary - I've specifically asked for any info that would define
what an acceptable ooc would be. No one has come forward with any useful
information with the exception of Steve (who's sort of working from first
principles).

> I've not found anyone here say that a severe OOC condition shouldn't be
> considered a drawback, or if one appears on a new bandsaw that it should
> not be addressed by the manufacturer's warranty.

I can't remember seeing anything of the sort. Can you give a reference to
a post by one of the coplanar is a myth crowd that actually does address
this?

Mike

You aren't by any chance the fellow that goes by George
Preddy in the digital photo NG are you? He is a Foveon
fanatic who's posted OVER 3,500 posts on the merits of that
sensor over Bayer sensors which are used in Canons, et al.
This coplanar thing is gonna become your legacy.

Go have a beer and relax, Michael...

dave

Michael Daly wrote:

> On 7-Apr-2004, Rick Chamberlain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> I use the book as a starting point.
>>If it works, I leave it. If it doesn't, I tune it according to common
>>sense and feel.
>
>
> That sounds right to me - the starting point is a coplanar bandsaw.
> I haven't argued for anything else. Screwing around with a wildly
> ooc bandsaw is a good way to waste a lot of time.
>
>
>>Reasonably coplanar is not coplanar, therefore "coplanar is a myth" is
>>technically correct. :-)
>
>
> Splitting hairs isn't going to solve anyone's problems. If making it
> coplanar requires a gazzillion dollar widget and several days to get
> it perfect, there's a perfectly reasonable expectation that folks
> will balk. However, using a straightedge and aligning it accordingly
> is a reasonable attempt at making it coplanar. If you're still
> out by 1/8" or more, then you probably shouldn't be using a bandsaw.
>
> Mike

I gotta agree with Keeter on this one; coplanar is not all
it's cracked up to be. I have a Powermatic which tracks all
size blades perfectly and it isn't coplanar, by a small
amount when the tension is set. I adjusted it coplanar for
grins, and it ran like crap. The mfgr. knows a little bit
more about how to design the tool then the net pundits, in
this case.

I followed Duginski's instructions, BTW. While I generally
liked his Bandsaw book, the coplanar thing is NOT exactly legit.

In theory, it sounds great! In practice, not all saws work
well when "adjusted" to coplanar geometry.

If you have had good success with coplanar, I'm not about to
disagree with your experience, but for my saw, leaving it
stock is best. The good news is I didn't break anything and
only wasted an hour or two screwing around with it (mostly
to find a suitable shim).

dave

Michael Daly wrote:

> On 4-Apr-2004, [email protected] (Jeffrey Thunder) wrote:
>
>
>>But I'm not sure I follow what you mean here. Would you
>>explain things a bit further for those of us in the audience?
>
>
> Under tension, the blade is forced to ride tight to the wheel
> (well, tire actually). Think of two wheels that are coplanar.
> The blade is straight up and down between the wheels.
>
> Now consider non-coplanar. One wheel is to, say, the left of the
> other. The blade has to be forced to the left as it leaves one
> wheel and goes to the other:
>
> || ||
> || ||
> || //
> || //
> || ||
> || ||
>
> coplanar non-coplanar.
>
> Obviously highly exaggerated due to the limits of ASCII art.
> The non=coplanar puts additional stresses on the blade and
> the blade is constantly twisting to conform to the tires.
> You can force it to track, but that doesn't mean you're
> doing it right.
>
> Mike