Crazy? (on topic)

On 1/28/2014 4:27 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> On 1/28/2014 5:02 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2014 3:51 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>
>>>> Geeze - I'm getting so damned slow these days...
>>>
>>> Not just you ... must something Obama put in the water, eh?
>>>
>>> ;)
>>>
>>
>> Don't forget, Obama's going to be talking tonight!
>
> Thank god I'll be playing volleyball. I can't stomach these dog and pony
> shows anymore. NO MATTER WHOSE IN OFFICE.
>
> They always get my blood boiling with the lies and deceit.
> And the congress is so partisan and greedy.. They are really the problem.

Won't be playing volleyball, but won't be watching either ... for the
very reasons you mention.

Think I'll head to the indoor range. What better way to celebrate a
'State of the Union' than exercise a Constitutional right and run a few
mags of .45ACP.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

Greg Guarino <[email protected]> wrote:

> I quickly measured down from the office chair I was sitting in while I
> was drawing it. It's probably more like 19. But that drawing is far from
> a finished design in any case. It would be a good idea to try out some
> heights, measure some chairs, etc.
>>

Except for ADA requirements, there are no real standards, but the following
offers some good guidelines that are important when designing furniture for
use by others:

http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/library/furnituredimensions.pdf

http://www.brezlin.com/design/chairguidelines.html

--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

On 1/27/2014 2:24 PM, Leon wrote:
> And I agree with Swingman but I still think a TS is going to be better
> for cutting dado's/ groves and cross cutting. A BS will rip but IMHO
> the larger table on a TS helps support the work more so that the
> relatively small BS table and typically you do have much more fence to
> help guide on a TS. Track saws are great, I use mine as my joiner to
> straighten S2S stock. And given that I now have the Festool work table
> with the track to use my TS75 saw for angle and cross cutting I'm still
> going to use my TS for those cuts in most cases.

Absolutely agree ... would never willinhly give up my table saw for what
I do.

I could do without it, however. And were I scaling back to doing just
the odd piece of furniture, and even small cabinet jobs, I could make do
with a bandsaw, the TS-75, and a router table, although I would sorely
miss the TS, time wise, for batch ripping and dado stack work. The fewer
'like parts' needed, the less need for the TS, IME

I used the TS-75 on those two remodels in AR last year, in lieu of the
TS. What I missed the most was the dead-on accuracy of batch cutting
'like parts' on the table saw, and using a handheld router for dadoes.

I believe you might be able to mitigate that somewhat with a good MFT
setup ... and another $5-10k investment in Festoolies. ;)

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 1/30/2014 9:11 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Thinking it's almost
> time to pull the trigger (so to speak...) on a new gun. Still undecided
> whether I'm going to go with a .40S&W or a 9mm. Good arguments on both
> sides and I keep bouncing back and forth. I want something that conceals
> well which makes me tend toward the 9mm but I like the overall
> characteristics of the .40S&W.

Ruger SR40c is a good concealed weapon in .40S&W:
3.5" barrel weighs 23.4 oz., 6.85"L x 4.6"H x 1.27"W.
It takes both 9 and 15 round magazines.
http://ruger.com/products/sr40c/models.html
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/ruger-sr40c-review/
http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SR40C.htm

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:59:54 -0500, Greg Guarino <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 1/25/2014 3:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:48:33 -0500, Greg Guarino <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been drawing a lot of different things, enough to take me a year to
>>> build at my usual pace. But we (now that my wife has found the benefits
>>> of custom - if amateur-built - furniture) are entertaining a bunch of
>>> ideas that would need to work together.
>>>
>>> She tossed out the idea of a bench for extra seating against a wall, but
>>> something that could also be used to serve buffet-style. This is what I
>>> came up with. Keep in mind this is all schematic so far; all of the
>>> dimensions would likely change and I have left out many details:
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138064105/in/photostream/
>>>
>>> Let's leave aside the question of whether or not I could build this. The
>>> legs would certainly present a challenge. But does it raise any red
>>> flags that I'm not seeing?
>>>
>>> At 70" long (which could change), the span is a concern. I figure that
>>> it would be plenty strong in the "down" position for people to sit on,
>>> but I wonder if the top would tend to bow with a bunch of (full) serving
>>> pieces on it when raised. The top as I've drawn it would be 3/4" ply. I
>>> suppose I could double it up; I plan on a border around it anyway.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>> Piece of cake, and plenty strong.
>>
>Thanks, but I find cakes to be a challenge too. :)

Very simple to make funtional
Not too hard to make pretty.
But functional AND pretty can be a stretch!!

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:31:31 -0500, Greg Guarino <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 1/25/2014 4:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:35:01 -0500, Greg Guarino <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/25/2014 2:57 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 1/25/2014 1:48 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>>>>> I've been drawing a lot of different things, enough to take me a year to
>>>>> build at my usual pace. But we (now that my wife has found the benefits
>>>>> of custom - if amateur-built - furniture) are entertaining a bunch of
>>>>> ideas that would need to work together.
>>>>>
>>>>> She tossed out the idea of a bench for extra seating against a wall, but
>>>>> something that could also be used to serve buffet-style. This is what I
>>>>> came up with. Keep in mind this is all schematic so far; all of the
>>>>> dimensions would likely change and I have left out many details:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138064105/in/photostream/
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's leave aside the question of whether or not I could build this. The
>>>>> legs would certainly present a challenge. But does it raise any red
>>>>> flags that I'm not seeing?
>>>>>
>>>>> At 70" long (which could change), the span is a concern. I figure that
>>>>> it would be plenty strong in the "down" position for people to sit on,
>>>>> but I wonder if the top would tend to bow with a bunch of (full) serving
>>>>> pieces on it when raised. The top as I've drawn it would be 3/4" ply. I
>>>>> suppose I could double it up; I plan on a border around it anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Certainly doable but let me mention some things you need to think about.
>>>>
>>>> The telescoping legs will need to fit relatively snug so that a gap
>>>> between the outer and inner leg does not show, unless there is not
>>>> concern for that.
>>>
>>> I figured to make them pretty loose, maybe an eighth all around, for the
>>> reasons you mention.
>>>>
>>>> The closer the fit, the more you will need to insure that all legs are
>>>> perfectly parallel to each other, inner and outer legs.
>>>
>>> Exactly. And I think I have a reasonably accurate assessment of my own
>>> skills, which is why I'd leave some slop.
>>>>
>>>> The closer the tolerances the more the need for raising and lowering to
>>>> be a two person operation. The upper unit will bind if only one person
>>>> lifts and does not lift straight up.
>>>
>>> Definitely a two-person job, yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That said, the raised unit should not sag as long as you are working
>>>> with a hard wood apron and it is at least 2" wide.
>>>
>>> Thanks. A slightly wider apron. Check.
>>>
>>> I just did some more thinking about your "parallel" comment above and
>>> have altered the drawing a bit:
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
>> Could be made simpler. Don't need to drill the outside legs for the
>> pegs. Drill inside legs right at top to store the pins, and at right
>> position for pins to rest on top of the frame when extended - no more
>> problem trying to get the $%# & pins lined up!!!!
>>
>Thanks. I just thought of that while looking at the drawing. Harder to
>move the unit though; grabbing it by the apron would just pull the top
>right out. And I do SO hate bending down. :)
So put a small braket on the inside of the outer leg to hold the pin.
Doesn't have to be much, or very strong - even a little cable loop.
Just enough to hold the legs when you pick it up.

On 1/25/2014 2:53 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:

> There's still a fair amount of screaming over here, you just can't hear
> it. :)

Times have changed. When I first started touting SU in this forum you'd
sworn I pissed in someone's Wheaties.

> The problem now is that I can draw things with relative ease that
> I may not be able to build.

That's a good thing ... you can now design things that you know you
can't build, _before_ getting halfway through a project in the shop and
having to design your way out of an expensive corner.

This was an all too common occurrence in the old days, and why even good
woodworkers, or those who have yet to snap to the benefits of 3D
modeling software, often used someone elses plans for all their projects.

Now, as an increasingly accomplished SU user, you can leverage the
learning new skills and techniques, and put that plan money toward a
tool, or project supplies.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 1/25/2014 1:48 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> I've been drawing a lot of different things, enough to take me a year to
> build at my usual pace. But we (now that my wife has found the benefits
> of custom - if amateur-built - furniture) are entertaining a bunch of
> ideas that would need to work together.
>
> She tossed out the idea of a bench for extra seating against a wall, but
> something that could also be used to serve buffet-style. This is what I
> came up with. Keep in mind this is all schematic so far; all of the
> dimensions would likely change and I have left out many details:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
>
> and
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138064105/in/photostream/
>
> Let's leave aside the question of whether or not I could build this. The
> legs would certainly present a challenge. But does it raise any red
> flags that I'm not seeing?
>
> At 70" long (which could change), the span is a concern. I figure that
> it would be plenty strong in the "down" position for people to sit on,
> but I wonder if the top would tend to bow with a bunch of (full) serving
> pieces on it when raised. The top as I've drawn it would be 3/4" ply. I
> suppose I could double it up; I plan on a border around it anyway.
>
> Comments?



Certainly doable but let me mention some things you need to think about.

The telescoping legs will need to fit relatively snug so that a gap
between the outer and inner leg does not show, unless there is not
concern for that.

The closer the fit, the more you will need to insure that all legs are
perfectly parallel to each other, inner and outer legs.

The closer the tolerances the more the need for raising and lowering to
be a two person operation. The upper unit will bind if only one person
lifts and does not lift straight up.


That said, the raised unit should not sag as long as you are working
with a hard wood apron and it is at least 2" wide.

On 1/26/2014 1:13 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 1/25/2014 6:51 PM, dadiOH wrote:
>> "Greg Guarino" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> I've been drawing a lot of different things, enough to
>>> take me a year to build at my usual pace. But we (now
>>> that my wife has found the benefits of custom - if
>>> amateur-built - furniture) are entertaining a bunch of
>>> ideas that would need to work together.
>>> She tossed out the idea of a bench for extra seating
>>> against a wall, but something that could also be used to
>>> serve buffet-style. This is what I came up with. Keep in
>>> mind this is all schematic so far; all of the dimensions
>>> would likely change and I have left out many details:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138064105/in/photostream/
>>>
>>> Let's leave aside the question of whether or not I could
>>> build this. The legs would certainly present a challenge.
>>> But does it raise any red flags that I'm not seeing?
>>>
>>> At 70" long (which could change), the span is a concern.
>>> I figure that it would be plenty strong in the "down"
>>> position for people to sit on, but I wonder if the top
>>> would tend to bow with a bunch of (full) serving pieces
>>> on it when raised. The top as I've drawn it would be 3/4"
>>> ply. I suppose I could double it up; I plan on a border
>>> around it anyway.
>>> Comments?
>>
>> 1. It isn't going to sag.
>
> Thanks
>>
>> 2. 20" is on the high side for a seat.
>
> I quickly measured down from the office chair I was sitting in while I
> was drawing it. It's probably more like 19. But that drawing is far from
> a finished design in any case. It would be a good idea to try out some
> heights, measure some chairs, etc.
>>
>>
>
Is your office chair padded? Padding will be more comfortable if the
height is a bit high. If your legs are hanging over a hard edge you
might not be so comfortable. Any way our wooden dining room chairs with
no padding are just under 17.75" high. Just something to think about.
Furniture that you sit on/in needs to have more focus on comfort than
aesthetics if you plan to use it for that purpose.

On 1/26/2014 12:01 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 1/25/2014 4:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 1/25/2014 2:53 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> Snip
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The problem now is that I can draw things with relative ease that I may
>>> not be able to build.
>>>
>>
>> Well you seem to be doing wonders with out a TS. ;~) You may be
>> unstoppable if you get one. LOL
>
> Thanks for the (over-generous) compliment. Keep them coming.
> Encouragement is always welcome. But I am making strides; each project
> looks a little nicer than the one before.
>
> Sometimes you can turn lemons into lemonade. Without a TS, the hardest
> thing is to rip narrow stock, so I try to "design" for standard
> dimensions. I just had an(other) idea for how to make the legs on my
> bench/serving table.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12156402766/
>
> I was thinking to rip down the wider pieces to close to the right width,
> make the dadoes and then trim the edges flush with a router after
> assembly. But while I was drawing it, I wondered if it might be a nice
> design element to leave the "excess" width as-is. I'll have to copy the
> "new" leg design into the full drawing, but so far I think it might work.
>


OK, seriously, you need to get a decent TS. I really like the way you
are experimenting with Sketchup. I think your skills would slingshot
ahead with the ideas you are coming up with. That last design is really
unique.

Now take another look at it again and consider the possible forces that
the outer pieces will be having to resist. I am absolutely not saying
that the strength is not adequate so much as to get you to consider that
possibility. Just something to watch out for when thinking outside of
the box. Keep it up.

On 1/28/2014 5:02 PM, Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/28/2014 3:51 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>> Geeze - I'm getting so damned slow these days...
>>
>> Not just you ... must something Obama put in the water, eh?
>>
>> ;)
>>
>
> Don't forget, Obama's going to be talking tonight!

Thank god I'll be playing volleyball. I can't stomach these dog and pony
shows anymore. NO MATTER WHOSE IN OFFICE.

They always get my blood boiling with the lies and deceit.
And the congress is so partisan and greedy.. They are really the problem.


--
Jeff

On 1/28/2014 7:46 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 1/28/2014 2:52 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>>> The big thing is...
>>> 1) can the saw be set up to perform well - many cannot
>>
>> And a great many that can, will not hold their settings, like entry
>> level BS's.
>>
>> And that is why many of us buy the $2K+ saws.
>
> Very true. But you and I both know that the saw I mentioned (60's era
> craftsman) can be set up to dead nut and it will hold it. Not the power
> house that a good cabinet saw is, but way plenty good to meet the needs of
> most here. Good stable table, good solid trunion mounts, just needs a
> decent motor on it, good pulleys and a link belt - but the latter couple of
> items apply well to most saws. Maybe I should have been more specific about
> the craftsman - mine is a model 100. Perhaps there was also junk being sold
> by Sears back then, but these seem to be the really common finds. I think
> my point to Greg stands well on its own merits.
>


That/yours was reportedly an excellent saw. But so many that want to
buy new and the same style saw would be very disappointed if they had
started with a cabinet saw and had to scale down.

And yes your points to Greg did have qualified merit. I just wanted to
add that the search for such a saw is probably going to be more involved
than if one were looking for a heavier built unit to start with. We all
choose the effort to expense ratio that we want to put into our equipment.

On 1/27/2014 3:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 1/27/2014 2:24 PM, Leon wrote:
>> And I agree with Swingman but I still think a TS is going to be better
>> for cutting dado's/ groves and cross cutting. A BS will rip but IMHO
>> the larger table on a TS helps support the work more so that the
>> relatively small BS table and typically you do have much more fence to
>> help guide on a TS. Track saws are great, I use mine as my joiner to
>> straighten S2S stock. And given that I now have the Festool work table
>> with the track to use my TS75 saw for angle and cross cutting I'm still
>> going to use my TS for those cuts in most cases.
>
> Absolutely agree ... would never willinhly give up my table saw for what
> I do.
>
> I could do without it, however. And were I scaling back to doing just
> the odd piece of furniture, and even small cabinet jobs, I could make do
> with a bandsaw, the TS-75, and a router table, although I would sorely
> miss the TS, time wise, for batch ripping and dado stack work. The fewer
> 'like parts' needed, the less need for the TS, IME
>
> I used the TS-75 on those two remodels in AR last year, in lieu of the
> TS. What I missed the most was the dead-on accuracy of batch cutting
> 'like parts' on the table saw, and using a handheld router for dadoes.
>
> I believe you might be able to mitigate that somewhat with a good MFT
> setup ... and another $5-10k investment in Festoolies. ;)
>


LOL. And to let you know where I am coming from with Greg, he seems
like the type that might get into producing quite a bit if a TS were
available at home.

On 1/27/2014 10:08 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 1/26/2014 12:01 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>
>> Sometimes you can turn lemons into lemonade. Without a TS, the hardest
>> thing is to rip narrow stock, so I try to "design" for standard
>> dimensions.
>
> In the span of time I've been woodworking I've had use of a table saw
> less than 50% of that time, but was fortunate to have learned early how
> to use a handsaw to rip, then finish up with a hand plane.
>
> It takes longer, as dimensioning stock to project dimensions with hand
> tools takes a good deal of practice, but it is by no means an
> insurmountable limitation for building one off pieces of
> furniture/cabinetry.
>
> If you've got the time, go for it.
>
> AAMOF, were I were a hobbyist today in a shop as small as mine, in lieu
> of a table saw I would consider either a good band saw, and/or a plunge
> saw and guide rail/MFT system, like the Festool.
>
> AAMOF, I take my TS-75 plunge saw to the job site, in lieu of a table
> saw, these days.
>
I was going to reply to Leon's post.
But you said it all in yours, you were dead on.

I think that most europeans gave up on the TS for job site. The track
saw seems to rule.

I was given advice to buy a bandsaw first. I didn't.

I was frustrated at first with my bandsaw. Even though I thought I Had
it setup right. My problem was the OLSON blades.. once I switched to
timberwolf my problems went away. The thing cut perfectly to the fence
(adjusted once now, and not touched for years). So I agree about the
bandsaw.. And whenever you have a dangerous cut on the TS I go to the BS
usually.

Hand tools and planes ... the more power tools I have the more I
appreciate my hand tools. Especially my planes. Enough can not be said
about learning to use and sharpen them...

--
Jeff

On 1/25/2014 1:48 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> I've been drawing a lot of different things, enough to take me a year to
> build at my usual pace. But we (now that my wife has found the benefits
> of custom - if amateur-built - furniture) are entertaining a bunch of
> ideas that would need to work together.


> Let's leave aside the question of whether or not I could build this. The
> legs would certainly present a challenge. But does it raise any red
> flags that I'm not seeing?
>
> At 70" long (which could change), the span is a concern. I figure that
> it would be plenty strong in the "down" position for people to sit on,
> but I wonder if the top would tend to bow with a bunch of (full) serving
> pieces on it when raised. The top as I've drawn it would be 3/4" ply. I
> suppose I could double it up; I plan on a border around it anyway.

Basically what Leon said.

I rather like your concept, and any leg issue can be dealt with handily.
Perhaps stout pins which are installed from the inside of the leg
instead of showing on the outside?

On another, and IMO, most important note:.

What you, and others like Bill, are doing with SketchUp amply
illustrates the amazing value and utility to the woodworker of having
this free, readily available means to get his ideas and thoughts down in
form that can be shared, as well as inestimably beneficial in both
design and build.

Just a few years back it was hard to find anyone who grasped the
benefits of SketchUp, and most had to be brought kicking and screaming
to the table.

Really nice to see you guys make such good use of this particular bit of
technology as a tool in their arsenal. To me, just as important a tool
for the ultimate success of the end product as the finest tool and skill
you possess.

Kudos in the regard, Greg and Bill! Well done.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 1/25/2014 2:53 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
Snip


>
> The problem now is that I can draw things with relative ease that I may
> not be able to build.
>

Well you seem to be doing wonders with out a TS. ;~) You may be
unstoppable if you get one. LOL

With your above comment in mind, I have been using CAD programs for damn
near 30 years now. With out a doubt Sketchup is so ideally suited for
wood workers that I finally dropped the use of AutoCAD.
This drawing program works so well that you will absolutely become a
better woodworker. I have been doing serious woodworking for 30+ years
but until I started using Sketchup exclusively I seldom embarked on
complicated projects. Now most of my projects would be considered
pretty complex and large. With the aid of Sketchup and it's ability to
show me every detail from any angle that I want I don't give these
complicated projects a second thought, once I am happy with the design,
before going to the shop and starting..

On 1/27/2014 3:24 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/27/2014 1:29 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>> On 1/27/2014 10:08 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 1/26/2014 12:01 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sometimes you can turn lemons into lemonade. Without a TS, the hardest
>>>> thing is to rip narrow stock, so I try to "design" for standard
>>>> dimensions.
>>>
>>> In the span of time I've been woodworking I've had use of a table saw
>>> less than 50% of that time, but was fortunate to have learned early how
>>> to use a handsaw to rip, then finish up with a hand plane.
>>>
>>> It takes longer, as dimensioning stock to project dimensions with hand
>>> tools takes a good deal of practice, but it is by no means an
>>> insurmountable limitation for building one off pieces of
>>> furniture/cabinetry.
>>>
>>> If you've got the time, go for it.
>>>
>>> AAMOF, were I were a hobbyist today in a shop as small as mine, in lieu
>>> of a table saw I would consider either a good band saw, and/or a plunge
>>> saw and guide rail/MFT system, like the Festool.
>>>
>>> AAMOF, I take my TS-75 plunge saw to the job site, in lieu of a table
>>> saw, these days.
>>>
>> I was going to reply to Leon's post.
>> But you said it all in yours, you were dead on.
>>
>> I think that most europeans gave up on the TS for job site. The track
>> saw seems to rule.
>>
>> I was given advice to buy a bandsaw first. I didn't.
>>
>> I was frustrated at first with my bandsaw. Even though I thought I Had
>> it setup right. My problem was the OLSON blades.. once I switched to
>> timberwolf my problems went away. The thing cut perfectly to the fence
>> (adjusted once now, and not touched for years). So I agree about the
>> bandsaw.. And whenever you have a dangerous cut on the TS I go to the BS
>> usually.
>>
>> Hand tools and planes ... the more power tools I have the more I
>> appreciate my hand tools. Especially my planes. Enough can not be said
>> about learning to use and sharpen them...
>>
>
> And I agree with Swingman but I still think a TS is going to be better
> for cutting dado's/ groves and cross cutting. A BS will rip but IMHO
> the larger table on a TS helps support the work more so that the
> relatively small BS table and typically you do have much more fence to
> help guide on a TS. Track saws are great, I use mine as my joiner to
> straighten S2S stock. And given that I now have the Festool work table
> with the track to use my TS75 saw for angle and cross cutting I'm still
> going to use my TS for those cuts in most cases.
>
> And going on to the BS problems you were having with the Olson blades. I
> have found that through using 3 different BS's that the structural
> strength of the saw has more to do with the ability to get a good cut
> From any given blade.
>
> I had a 10" Craftsman and seldom used it in the many years that I had
> it. I ordered an 18" Rykon to replace it and long story short ended up
> buying a Laguna LT16HD BS. My problem with the Rykon is that I would
> not cut well with the Timberwolf blades but cut quite well with the
> blade that came with it and one that I had made for it. There were
> other issues but I won't get into those. Timberwolf worked with me to
> resolve the problem but we were unsuccessful. So oddly some blades
> worked well some did not. The Laguna does not care what I put on it and
> I very seldom have to adjust the tilt on the top wheel for tracking
> unless I go from 1/4" to 1-1/4". This saw is so ridged that once set
> up, from the beginning, blade types and widths require little to no
> adjustment when swapping out. Mostly the only adjustment is moving the
> guides forward or backward to accept the larger or smaller blades.
>
>
>
I never have to change my tracking. I spent lots of time getting this
coplanar and everything else. I have a USA made delta 14" POC.

my wheels were wobbly and not round... I had to sit there truing them
up... my riser I had to remove the pins to get it lined up..
I also had to reem and shim my guide shaft. The hole had been bored so
that raising and lowering it required massive changes in the guide block
setup. So I reamed it a little oversize so I could put brass shims in to
get it straight... it runs well now.. but that's a lot of work for what
should have been a good saw.

Delta was useless, if Delta hadn't been sold it would not matter, I
would not have bought another new Delta.. I have bought used.. (jointer).


--
Jeff

On 1/28/2014 3:51 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

> Geeze - I'm getting so damned slow these days...

Not just you ... must something Obama put in the water, eh?

;)

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 1/28/2014 11:35 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 1/27/2014 6:37 PM, Leon wrote:
>> LOL. And to let you know where I am coming from with Greg, he seems
>> like the type that might get into producing quite a bit if a TS were
>> available at home.
>
>
> Well, Greg has a lot of "big ideas", that's for sure. But only some of
> them come to fruition. A table saw (and a place to put it) doesn't seem
> to be in the cards for the immediate future.
>
> Frankly, the thing that slows me down the most is finishing. Using a
> circular saw (with guides), a miter saw and a router (frequently with a
> dado jig) I manage to fashion the parts in a reasonable amount of time.
> But the finishing slows things to a crawl.
>
> Thanks to the helpful folks here, I prefinish as many parts as I can,
> masking off surfaces to be glued. That makes things a lot easier but
> there's still an awful lot to do, and do again, and again and again. And
> life responsibilities usually ensure that several days elapse between
> those "agains".
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
>
Greg, you may also consider a Dewalt jobsite TS. They will do a lot. And
if you look in Craigslist you will see many TS on sale. The nice thing
about the Dewalt is the rack and pinion fence.. and the fences low bar,
for cutting narrow , thin stock. In a garage workshop you can pick it up
and put it to the side when not using it, and also just put it on a set
of saw horses when you need it, or a bench.

--
Jeff

On 1/28/2014 2:52 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> woodchucker wrote:
>
>> Greg, you may also consider a Dewalt jobsite TS. They will do a lot.
>> And if you look in Craigslist you will see many TS on sale. The nice
>> thing about the Dewalt is the rack and pinion fence.. and the fences
>> low bar, for cutting narrow , thin stock. In a garage workshop you
>> can pick it up and put it to the side when not using it, and also
>> just put it on a set of saw horses when you need it, or a bench.
>
> Echo Jeff - and don't overlook such gems as the ''60s models of the
> Craftsman 10" saws. Or other brands - I only happen to own a 10" Craftsman
> so I am familiar with it in particular. Can be had cheap on Craigslist, are
> very good - repeat... very good saws that offer a lot of the features you
> would want from a really good cabinet saw. Yeah - may take a little
> tinkering but not all that much. In a week and with an investment of under
> $100 after the purchase of the saw, you can have a first rate saw that will
> do 90% (ok.... maybe that number is a bit arguable...) of what one of those
> $2K saws will do. So - all in - probably under $200.
>
> The big thing is...
> 1) can the saw be set up to perform well - many cannot

And a great many that can, will not hold their settings, like entry
level BS's.

And that is why many of us buy the $2K+ saws.

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:51:43 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Greg Guarino" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> I've been drawing a lot of different things, enough to
>> take me a year to build at my usual pace. But we (now
>> that my wife has found the benefits of custom - if
>> amateur-built - furniture) are entertaining a bunch of
>> ideas that would need to work together.
>> She tossed out the idea of a bench for extra seating
>> against a wall, but something that could also be used to
>> serve buffet-style. This is what I came up with. Keep in
>> mind this is all schematic so far; all of the dimensions
>> would likely change and I have left out many details:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138064105/in/photostream/
>>
>> Let's leave aside the question of whether or not I could
>> build this. The legs would certainly present a challenge.
>> But does it raise any red flags that I'm not seeing?
>>
>> At 70" long (which could change), the span is a concern.
>> I figure that it would be plenty strong in the "down"
>> position for people to sit on, but I wonder if the top
>> would tend to bow with a bunch of (full) serving pieces
>> on it when raised. The top as I've drawn it would be 3/4"
>> ply. I suppose I could double it up; I plan on a border
>> around it anyway.
>> Comments?
>
>1. It isn't going to sag.
>
>2. 20" is on the high side for a seat.
It's comfortable for guys with long legs like mine.

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:35:01 -0500, Greg Guarino <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 1/25/2014 2:57 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 1/25/2014 1:48 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>>> I've been drawing a lot of different things, enough to take me a year to
>>> build at my usual pace. But we (now that my wife has found the benefits
>>> of custom - if amateur-built - furniture) are entertaining a bunch of
>>> ideas that would need to work together.
>>>
>>> She tossed out the idea of a bench for extra seating against a wall, but
>>> something that could also be used to serve buffet-style. This is what I
>>> came up with. Keep in mind this is all schematic so far; all of the
>>> dimensions would likely change and I have left out many details:
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138064105/in/photostream/
>>>
>>> Let's leave aside the question of whether or not I could build this. The
>>> legs would certainly present a challenge. But does it raise any red
>>> flags that I'm not seeing?
>>>
>>> At 70" long (which could change), the span is a concern. I figure that
>>> it would be plenty strong in the "down" position for people to sit on,
>>> but I wonder if the top would tend to bow with a bunch of (full) serving
>>> pieces on it when raised. The top as I've drawn it would be 3/4" ply. I
>>> suppose I could double it up; I plan on a border around it anyway.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>>
>>
>> Certainly doable but let me mention some things you need to think about.
>>
>> The telescoping legs will need to fit relatively snug so that a gap
>> between the outer and inner leg does not show, unless there is not
>> concern for that.
>
>I figured to make them pretty loose, maybe an eighth all around, for the
>reasons you mention.
>>
>> The closer the fit, the more you will need to insure that all legs are
>> perfectly parallel to each other, inner and outer legs.
>
>Exactly. And I think I have a reasonably accurate assessment of my own
>skills, which is why I'd leave some slop.
>>
>> The closer the tolerances the more the need for raising and lowering to
>> be a two person operation. The upper unit will bind if only one person
>> lifts and does not lift straight up.
>
>Definitely a two-person job, yes.
>>
>>
>> That said, the raised unit should not sag as long as you are working
>> with a hard wood apron and it is at least 2" wide.
>
>Thanks. A slightly wider apron. Check.
>
>I just did some more thinking about your "parallel" comment above and
>have altered the drawing a bit:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
Could be made simpler. Don't need to drill the outside legs for the
pegs. Drill inside legs right at top to store the pins, and at right
position for pins to rest on top of the frame when extended - no more
problem trying to get the $%# & pins lined up!!!!

On 1/25/2014 2:57 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/25/2014 1:48 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> I've been drawing a lot of different things, enough to take me a year to
>> build at my usual pace. But we (now that my wife has found the benefits
>> of custom - if amateur-built - furniture) are entertaining a bunch of
>> ideas that would need to work together.
>>
>> She tossed out the idea of a bench for extra seating against a wall, but
>> something that could also be used to serve buffet-style. This is what I
>> came up with. Keep in mind this is all schematic so far; all of the
>> dimensions would likely change and I have left out many details:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138064105/in/photostream/
>>
>> Let's leave aside the question of whether or not I could build this. The
>> legs would certainly present a challenge. But does it raise any red
>> flags that I'm not seeing?
>>
>> At 70" long (which could change), the span is a concern. I figure that
>> it would be plenty strong in the "down" position for people to sit on,
>> but I wonder if the top would tend to bow with a bunch of (full) serving
>> pieces on it when raised. The top as I've drawn it would be 3/4" ply. I
>> suppose I could double it up; I plan on a border around it anyway.
>>
>> Comments?
>
>
>
> Certainly doable but let me mention some things you need to think about.
>
> The telescoping legs will need to fit relatively snug so that a gap
> between the outer and inner leg does not show, unless there is not
> concern for that.

I figured to make them pretty loose, maybe an eighth all around, for the
reasons you mention.
>
> The closer the fit, the more you will need to insure that all legs are
> perfectly parallel to each other, inner and outer legs.

Exactly. And I think I have a reasonably accurate assessment of my own
skills, which is why I'd leave some slop.
>
> The closer the tolerances the more the need for raising and lowering to
> be a two person operation. The upper unit will bind if only one person
> lifts and does not lift straight up.

Definitely a two-person job, yes.
>
>
> That said, the raised unit should not sag as long as you are working
> with a hard wood apron and it is at least 2" wide.

Thanks. A slightly wider apron. Check.

I just did some more thinking about your "parallel" comment above and
have altered the drawing a bit:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/

On 1/25/2014 3:25 PM, Swingman wrote:
> Basically what Leon said.
>
> I rather like your concept, and any leg issue can be dealt with handily.
> Perhaps stout pins which are installed from the inside of the leg
> instead of showing on the outside?

I could do that, although I feel like I'd need to bore halfway into the
second side of the leg to support that end of the pin. I think it might
be a nice visual element to leave it visible, though.

> On another, and IMO, most important note:.
>
> What you, and others like Bill, are doing with SketchUp amply
> illustrates the amazing value and utility to the woodworker of having
> this free, readily available means to get his ideas and thoughts down in
> form that can be shared, as well as inestimably beneficial in both
> design and build.
>
> Just a few years back it was hard to find anyone who grasped the
> benefits of SketchUp, and most had to be brought kicking and screaming
> to the table.

There's still a fair amount of screaming over here, you just can't hear
it. :)

I just discovered something as I was adding leg braces to the drawing,
something I remember worked on various CAD programs. I wanted to copy
the braces from the "down" drawing to the "up" drawing, but there was no
"defined" point on the legs that touches the braces. I selected the
three "brace" components, clicked "move" and then chose a point at the
bottom corner of one of the legs (a point NOT on the object being moved)
as the reference. I dragged the group until that point met the
corresponding point on the other drawing, and voila, perfect
positioning. Just a few hours ago I was still drawing a "disposable"
line to do that task.
>
> Really nice to see you guys make such good use of this particular bit of
> technology as a tool in their arsenal. To me, just as important a tool
> for the ultimate success of the end product as the finest tool and skill
> you possess.

The problem now is that I can draw things with relative ease that I may
not be able to build.

On 1/25/2014 3:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:48:33 -0500, Greg Guarino <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I've been drawing a lot of different things, enough to take me a year to
>> build at my usual pace. But we (now that my wife has found the benefits
>> of custom - if amateur-built - furniture) are entertaining a bunch of
>> ideas that would need to work together.
>>
>> She tossed out the idea of a bench for extra seating against a wall, but
>> something that could also be used to serve buffet-style. This is what I
>> came up with. Keep in mind this is all schematic so far; all of the
>> dimensions would likely change and I have left out many details:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138064105/in/photostream/
>>
>> Let's leave aside the question of whether or not I could build this. The
>> legs would certainly present a challenge. But does it raise any red
>> flags that I'm not seeing?
>>
>> At 70" long (which could change), the span is a concern. I figure that
>> it would be plenty strong in the "down" position for people to sit on,
>> but I wonder if the top would tend to bow with a bunch of (full) serving
>> pieces on it when raised. The top as I've drawn it would be 3/4" ply. I
>> suppose I could double it up; I plan on a border around it anyway.
>>
>> Comments?
> Piece of cake, and plenty strong.
>
Thanks, but I find cakes to be a challenge too. :)

On 1/25/2014 4:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:35:01 -0500, Greg Guarino <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/25/2014 2:57 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 1/25/2014 1:48 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>>>> I've been drawing a lot of different things, enough to take me a year to
>>>> build at my usual pace. But we (now that my wife has found the benefits
>>>> of custom - if amateur-built - furniture) are entertaining a bunch of
>>>> ideas that would need to work together.
>>>>
>>>> She tossed out the idea of a bench for extra seating against a wall, but
>>>> something that could also be used to serve buffet-style. This is what I
>>>> came up with. Keep in mind this is all schematic so far; all of the
>>>> dimensions would likely change and I have left out many details:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138064105/in/photostream/
>>>>
>>>> Let's leave aside the question of whether or not I could build this. The
>>>> legs would certainly present a challenge. But does it raise any red
>>>> flags that I'm not seeing?
>>>>
>>>> At 70" long (which could change), the span is a concern. I figure that
>>>> it would be plenty strong in the "down" position for people to sit on,
>>>> but I wonder if the top would tend to bow with a bunch of (full) serving
>>>> pieces on it when raised. The top as I've drawn it would be 3/4" ply. I
>>>> suppose I could double it up; I plan on a border around it anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Comments?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Certainly doable but let me mention some things you need to think about.
>>>
>>> The telescoping legs will need to fit relatively snug so that a gap
>>> between the outer and inner leg does not show, unless there is not
>>> concern for that.
>>
>> I figured to make them pretty loose, maybe an eighth all around, for the
>> reasons you mention.
>>>
>>> The closer the fit, the more you will need to insure that all legs are
>>> perfectly parallel to each other, inner and outer legs.
>>
>> Exactly. And I think I have a reasonably accurate assessment of my own
>> skills, which is why I'd leave some slop.
>>>
>>> The closer the tolerances the more the need for raising and lowering to
>>> be a two person operation. The upper unit will bind if only one person
>>> lifts and does not lift straight up.
>>
>> Definitely a two-person job, yes.
>>>
>>>
>>> That said, the raised unit should not sag as long as you are working
>>> with a hard wood apron and it is at least 2" wide.
>>
>> Thanks. A slightly wider apron. Check.
>>
>> I just did some more thinking about your "parallel" comment above and
>> have altered the drawing a bit:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
> Could be made simpler. Don't need to drill the outside legs for the
> pegs. Drill inside legs right at top to store the pins, and at right
> position for pins to rest on top of the frame when extended - no more
> problem trying to get the $%# & pins lined up!!!!
>
Thanks. I just thought of that while looking at the drawing. Harder to
move the unit though; grabbing it by the apron would just pull the top
right out. And I do SO hate bending down. :)

"Greg Guarino" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> I've been drawing a lot of different things, enough to
> take me a year to build at my usual pace. But we (now
> that my wife has found the benefits of custom - if
> amateur-built - furniture) are entertaining a bunch of
> ideas that would need to work together.
> She tossed out the idea of a bench for extra seating
> against a wall, but something that could also be used to
> serve buffet-style. This is what I came up with. Keep in
> mind this is all schematic so far; all of the dimensions
> would likely change and I have left out many details:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
>
> and
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138064105/in/photostream/
>
> Let's leave aside the question of whether or not I could
> build this. The legs would certainly present a challenge.
> But does it raise any red flags that I'm not seeing?
>
> At 70" long (which could change), the span is a concern.
> I figure that it would be plenty strong in the "down"
> position for people to sit on, but I wonder if the top
> would tend to bow with a bunch of (full) serving pieces
> on it when raised. The top as I've drawn it would be 3/4"
> ply. I suppose I could double it up; I plan on a border
> around it anyway.
> Comments?

1. It isn't going to sag.

2. 20" is on the high side for a seat.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On 1/25/2014 6:51 PM, dadiOH wrote:
> "Greg Guarino" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> I've been drawing a lot of different things, enough to
>> take me a year to build at my usual pace. But we (now
>> that my wife has found the benefits of custom - if
>> amateur-built - furniture) are entertaining a bunch of
>> ideas that would need to work together.
>> She tossed out the idea of a bench for extra seating
>> against a wall, but something that could also be used to
>> serve buffet-style. This is what I came up with. Keep in
>> mind this is all schematic so far; all of the dimensions
>> would likely change and I have left out many details:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138064105/in/photostream/
>>
>> Let's leave aside the question of whether or not I could
>> build this. The legs would certainly present a challenge.
>> But does it raise any red flags that I'm not seeing?
>>
>> At 70" long (which could change), the span is a concern.
>> I figure that it would be plenty strong in the "down"
>> position for people to sit on, but I wonder if the top
>> would tend to bow with a bunch of (full) serving pieces
>> on it when raised. The top as I've drawn it would be 3/4"
>> ply. I suppose I could double it up; I plan on a border
>> around it anyway.
>> Comments?
>
> 1. It isn't going to sag.

Thanks
>
> 2. 20" is on the high side for a seat.

I quickly measured down from the office chair I was sitting in while I
was drawing it. It's probably more like 19. But that drawing is far from
a finished design in any case. It would be a good idea to try out some
heights, measure some chairs, etc.
>
>

On 1/26/2014 12:43 PM, Leon wrote:
> Is your office chair padded?

Yes. Definitely needs some more thinking. Luckily, it will probably be
months before I get to actually build it.

On 1/25/2014 4:33 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/25/2014 2:53 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> Snip
>
>
>>
>> The problem now is that I can draw things with relative ease that I may
>> not be able to build.
>>
>
> Well you seem to be doing wonders with out a TS. ;~) You may be
> unstoppable if you get one. LOL

Thanks for the (over-generous) compliment. Keep them coming.
Encouragement is always welcome. But I am making strides; each project
looks a little nicer than the one before.

Sometimes you can turn lemons into lemonade. Without a TS, the hardest
thing is to rip narrow stock, so I try to "design" for standard
dimensions. I just had an(other) idea for how to make the legs on my
bench/serving table.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12156402766/

I was thinking to rip down the wider pieces to close to the right width,
make the dadoes and then trim the edges flush with a router after
assembly. But while I was drawing it, I wondered if it might be a nice
design element to leave the "excess" width as-is. I'll have to copy the
"new" leg design into the full drawing, but so far I think it might work.

On 1/27/2014 6:37 PM, Leon wrote:
> LOL. And to let you know where I am coming from with Greg, he seems
> like the type that might get into producing quite a bit if a TS were
> available at home.


Well, Greg has a lot of "big ideas", that's for sure. But only some of
them come to fruition. A table saw (and a place to put it) doesn't seem
to be in the cards for the immediate future.

Frankly, the thing that slows me down the most is finishing. Using a
circular saw (with guides), a miter saw and a router (frequently with a
dado jig) I manage to fashion the parts in a reasonable amount of time.
But the finishing slows things to a crawl.

Thanks to the helpful folks here, I prefinish as many parts as I can,
masking off surfaces to be glued. That makes things a lot easier but
there's still an awful lot to do, and do again, and again and again. And
life responsibilities usually ensure that several days elapse between
those "agains".

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

woodchucker wrote:

> Greg, you may also consider a Dewalt jobsite TS. They will do a lot.
> And if you look in Craigslist you will see many TS on sale. The nice
> thing about the Dewalt is the rack and pinion fence.. and the fences
> low bar, for cutting narrow , thin stock. In a garage workshop you
> can pick it up and put it to the side when not using it, and also
> just put it on a set of saw horses when you need it, or a bench.

Echo Jeff - and don't overlook such gems as the ''60s models of the
Craftsman 10" saws. Or other brands - I only happen to own a 10" Craftsman
so I am familiar with it in particular. Can be had cheap on Craigslist, are
very good - repeat... very good saws that offer a lot of the features you
would want from a really good cabinet saw. Yeah - may take a little
tinkering but not all that much. In a week and with an investment of under
$100 after the purchase of the saw, you can have a first rate saw that will
do 90% (ok.... maybe that number is a bit arguable...) of what one of those
$2K saws will do. So - all in - probably under $200.

The big thing is...
1) can the saw be set up to perform well - many cannot
2) will you spend 1-2 days farting around to make that happen
3) well - I guess I can't think of a number 3...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Mike Marlow wrote:
> woodchucker wrote:
>
>> Greg, you may also consider a Dewalt jobsite TS. They will do a lot.
>> And if you look in Craigslist you will see many TS on sale. The nice
>> thing about the Dewalt is the rack and pinion fence.. and the fences
>> low bar, for cutting narrow , thin stock. In a garage workshop you
>> can pick it up and put it to the side when not using it, and also
>> just put it on a set of saw horses when you need it, or a bench.
> Echo Jeff - and don't overlook such gems as the ''60s models of the
> Craftsman 10" saws. Or other brands - I only happen to own a 10" Craftsman
> so I am familiar with it in particular. Can be had cheap on Craigslist, are
> very good - repeat... very good saws that offer a lot of the features you
> would want from a really good cabinet saw. Yeah - may take a little
> tinkering but not all that much. In a week and with an investment of under
> $100 after the purchase of the saw, you can have a first rate saw that will
> do 90% (ok.... maybe that number is a bit arguable...) of what one of those
> $2K saws will do. So - all in - probably under $200.
>
> The big thing is...
> 1) can the saw be set up to perform well - many cannot
> 2) will you spend 1-2 days farting around to make that happen
> 3) well - I guess I can't think of a number 3...

(3), Are you going to put new belts and a $130 blade on it?

Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> woodchucker wrote:
>>
>>> Greg, you may also consider a Dewalt jobsite TS. They will do a lot.
>>> And if you look in Craigslist you will see many TS on sale. The nice
>>> thing about the Dewalt is the rack and pinion fence.. and the fences
>>> low bar, for cutting narrow , thin stock. In a garage workshop you
>>> can pick it up and put it to the side when not using it, and also
>>> just put it on a set of saw horses when you need it, or a bench.
>> Echo Jeff - and don't overlook such gems as the ''60s models of the
>> Craftsman 10" saws. Or other brands - I only happen to own a 10"
>> Craftsman so I am familiar with it in particular. Can be had cheap
>> on Craigslist, are very good - repeat... very good saws that offer a
>> lot of the features you would want from a really good cabinet saw. Yeah -
>> may take a little tinkering but not all that much. In a week
>> and with an investment of under $100 after the purchase of the saw,
>> you can have a first rate saw that will do 90% (ok.... maybe that
>> number is a bit arguable...) of what one of those $2K saws will do. So -
>> all in - probably under $200. The big thing is...
>> 1) can the saw be set up to perform well - many cannot
>> 2) will you spend 1-2 days farting around to make that happen
>> 3) well - I guess I can't think of a number 3...
>
> (3), Are you going to put new belts and a $130 blade on it?

why not? it's a good platform to start from and those additions along with
good cast pulleys are worth the very small expense. As for the $130 blade -
you're going to pay that no matter what the saw is so that's kind of
irrelevant. Is the saw as a platform worth that blade - hell yes.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> woodchucker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greg, you may also consider a Dewalt jobsite TS. They will do a
>>>> lot. And if you look in Craigslist you will see many TS on sale.
>>>> The nice thing about the Dewalt is the rack and pinion fence.. and
>>>> the fences low bar, for cutting narrow , thin stock. In a garage
>>>> workshop you can pick it up and put it to the side when not using
>>>> it, and also just put it on a set of saw horses when you need it,
>>>> or a bench.
>>> Echo Jeff - and don't overlook such gems as the ''60s models of the
>>> Craftsman 10" saws. Or other brands - I only happen to own a 10"
>>> Craftsman so I am familiar with it in particular. Can be had cheap
>>> on Craigslist, are very good - repeat... very good saws that offer a
>>> lot of the features you would want from a really good cabinet saw.
>>> Yeah - may take a little tinkering but not all that much. In a week
>>> and with an investment of under $100 after the purchase of the saw,
>>> you can have a first rate saw that will do 90% (ok.... maybe that
>>> number is a bit arguable...) of what one of those $2K saws will do.
>>> So - all in - probably under $200. The big thing is...
>>> 1) can the saw be set up to perform well - many cannot
>>> 2) will you spend 1-2 days farting around to make that happen
>>> 3) well - I guess I can't think of a number 3...
>>
>> (3), Are you going to put new belts and a $130 blade on it?
>
> why not? it's a good platform to start from and those additions
> along with good cast pulleys are worth the very small expense. As
> for the $130 blade - you're going to pay that no matter what the saw
> is so that's kind of irrelevant. Is the saw as a platform worth that
> blade - hell yes.

oops Bill - I missed the intent of your post. My bad. Thought you were
asking a question. Upon review I saw you were simply adding a third
question. Geeze - I'm getting so damned slow these days...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Mike Marlow wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> woodchucker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Greg, you may also consider a Dewalt jobsite TS. They will do a
>>>>> lot. And if you look in Craigslist you will see many TS on sale.
>>>>> The nice thing about the Dewalt is the rack and pinion fence.. and
>>>>> the fences low bar, for cutting narrow , thin stock. In a garage
>>>>> workshop you can pick it up and put it to the side when not using
>>>>> it, and also just put it on a set of saw horses when you need it,
>>>>> or a bench.
>>>> Echo Jeff - and don't overlook such gems as the ''60s models of the
>>>> Craftsman 10" saws. Or other brands - I only happen to own a 10"
>>>> Craftsman so I am familiar with it in particular. Can be had cheap
>>>> on Craigslist, are very good - repeat... very good saws that offer a
>>>> lot of the features you would want from a really good cabinet saw.
>>>> Yeah - may take a little tinkering but not all that much. In a week
>>>> and with an investment of under $100 after the purchase of the saw,
>>>> you can have a first rate saw that will do 90% (ok.... maybe that
>>>> number is a bit arguable...) of what one of those $2K saws will do.
>>>> So - all in - probably under $200. The big thing is...
>>>> 1) can the saw be set up to perform well - many cannot
>>>> 2) will you spend 1-2 days farting around to make that happen
>>>> 3) well - I guess I can't think of a number 3...
>>> (3), Are you going to put new belts and a $130 blade on it?
>> why not? it's a good platform to start from and those additions
>> along with good cast pulleys are worth the very small expense. As
>> for the $130 blade - you're going to pay that no matter what the saw
>> is so that's kind of irrelevant. Is the saw as a platform worth that
>> blade - hell yes.
> oops Bill - I missed the intent of your post. My bad. Thought you were
> asking a question. Upon review I saw you were simply adding a third
> question. Geeze - I'm getting so damned slow these days...
>

No problem, Mike. I was just raising a thought. I know there are a lot
of great old saws the run smoothely and have little runout.
And a person who brings a good blade and knows how to examine one has a
great advantage (see the book "Table Saw Magic", by Tolpin, for instance).

Bill

Swingman wrote:
> On 1/28/2014 3:51 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> Geeze - I'm getting so damned slow these days...
>
> Not just you ... must something Obama put in the water, eh?
>
> ;)
>

Don't forget, Obama's going to be talking tonight!

woodchucker wrote:
> On 1/28/2014 5:02 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2014 3:51 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>
>>>> Geeze - I'm getting so damned slow these days...
>>>
>>> Not just you ... must something Obama put in the water, eh?
>>>
>>> ;)
>>>
>>
>> Don't forget, Obama's going to be talking tonight!
>
> Thank god I'll be playing volleyball. I can't stomach these dog and
> pony shows anymore. NO MATTER WHOSE IN OFFICE.
>
> They always get my blood boiling with the lies and deceit.
> And the congress is so partisan and greedy.. They are really the problem.
>
>

We agree on that. Good luck to us on them legislating anything against
their personal best interests.

Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/28/2014 3:51 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>> Geeze - I'm getting so damned slow these days...
>>
>> Not just you ... must something Obama put in the water, eh?
>>
>> ;)
>>
>
> Don't forget, Obama's going to be talking tonight!

Snooze... if his lips move he's lying...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Leon wrote:
> On 1/28/2014 2:52 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

>> The big thing is...
>> 1) can the saw be set up to perform well - many cannot
>
> And a great many that can, will not hold their settings, like entry
> level BS's.
>
> And that is why many of us buy the $2K+ saws.

Very true. But you and I both know that the saw I mentioned (60's era
craftsman) can be set up to dead nut and it will hold it. Not the power
house that a good cabinet saw is, but way plenty good to meet the needs of
most here. Good stable table, good solid trunion mounts, just needs a
decent motor on it, good pulleys and a link belt - but the latter couple of
items apply well to most saws. Maybe I should have been more specific about
the craftsman - mine is a model 100. Perhaps there was also junk being sold
by Sears back then, but these seem to be the really common finds. I think
my point to Greg stands well on its own merits.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Swingman wrote:

>
> Think I'll head to the indoor range. What better way to celebrate a
> 'State of the Union' than exercise a Constitutional right and run a
> few mags of .45ACP.

I don't have an indoor range nearby to go shoot at and if I did, I don't
know if they'd let me shoot my .41Mag anyway. Too cold to set up some
targets outside right now, but your comment did get me thinking about it.
Might wait for temps to get back up into the 30's so that it will feel like
a heat wave and we look for something to do outside. Thinking it's almost
time to pull the trigger (so to speak...) on a new gun. Still undecided
whether I'm going to go with a .40S&W or a 9mm. Good arguments on both
sides and I keep bouncing back and forth. I want something that conceals
well which makes me tend toward the 9mm but I like the overall
characteristics of the .40S&W. I'm not one who sees the 9mm as a useless
gun. All I know at this point is that an auto is in the near future for me.
Probably early summer.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Just Wondering wrote:
> On 1/30/2014 9:11 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Thinking it's almost
>> time to pull the trigger (so to speak...) on a new gun. Still
>> undecided whether I'm going to go with a .40S&W or a 9mm. Good
>> arguments on both sides and I keep bouncing back and forth. I want
>> something that conceals well which makes me tend toward the 9mm but
>> I like the overall characteristics of the .40S&W.
>
> Ruger SR40c is a good concealed weapon in .40S&W:
> 3.5" barrel weighs 23.4 oz., 6.85"L x 4.6"H x 1.27"W.
> It takes both 9 and 15 round magazines.
> http://ruger.com/products/sr40c/models.html
> http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/ruger-sr40c-review/
> http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SR40C.htm

That is one of the top of the list guns for me right now. I'm a Ruger guy.
They are a great company and build great guns. The SR40C keeps sticking its
head over the top of the list...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Swingman wrote:
> On 1/30/2014 12:04 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> That is one of the top of the list guns for me right now. I'm a
>> Ruger guy. They are a great company and build great guns. The SR40C
>> keeps sticking its head over the top of the list...
>
> (For some reason I did not see "Just Wondering"'s post?)
>
> One of my sisters carries the Ruger SR40C and loves it. I fired it few
> times and personally was just not comfortable with the trigger
> safety/firing pin block, and don't know if I could ever be with it
> for a ccw.
>
> I'm just not a fan of striker fired pistols for my use. If I was
> younger I would probably join the Glock crowd, but, being 1911
> trained, I want either a DA wheel gun for ccw (my S&W Model 38); or a
> 1911 type action I can carry cocked and locked and be able to rely on
> years of muscle memory/combat training instinct behind it. AAMOF,
> I've looked at the Springfield EMP in .40S&W for that very reason,
> but have still not decided to change from the old DA Bodyguard.

Isn't it weird how that works - such different guns, yet some just feel
better for some, and others feel better for the rest. I guess it's like you
said in part - what you're used to. Since my .41Mag is a wheel guy, I've
pretty well resigned myself to adapting to a different feel. I'm fine with
that. I've shot my son's S&W .40S&W and I just could not get over the
difference in the feel of firning the two guns. But - I wasn't opposed to
his gun - just simply realized that I was very conscience of the difference.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 1/26/2014 12:01 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:

> Sometimes you can turn lemons into lemonade. Without a TS, the hardest
> thing is to rip narrow stock, so I try to "design" for standard dimensions.

In the span of time I've been woodworking I've had use of a table saw
less than 50% of that time, but was fortunate to have learned early how
to use a handsaw to rip, then finish up with a hand plane.

It takes longer, as dimensioning stock to project dimensions with hand
tools takes a good deal of practice, but it is by no means an
insurmountable limitation for building one off pieces of
furniture/cabinetry.

If you've got the time, go for it.

AAMOF, were I were a hobbyist today in a shop as small as mine, in lieu
of a table saw I would consider either a good band saw, and/or a plunge
saw and guide rail/MFT system, like the Festool.

AAMOF, I take my TS-75 plunge saw to the job site, in lieu of a table
saw, these days.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:48:33 -0500, Greg Guarino <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I've been drawing a lot of different things, enough to take me a year to
>build at my usual pace. But we (now that my wife has found the benefits
>of custom - if amateur-built - furniture) are entertaining a bunch of
>ideas that would need to work together.
>
>She tossed out the idea of a bench for extra seating against a wall, but
>something that could also be used to serve buffet-style. This is what I
>came up with. Keep in mind this is all schematic so far; all of the
>dimensions would likely change and I have left out many details:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
>
>and
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138064105/in/photostream/
>
>Let's leave aside the question of whether or not I could build this. The
>legs would certainly present a challenge. But does it raise any red
>flags that I'm not seeing?
>
>At 70" long (which could change), the span is a concern. I figure that
>it would be plenty strong in the "down" position for people to sit on,
>but I wonder if the top would tend to bow with a bunch of (full) serving
>pieces on it when raised. The top as I've drawn it would be 3/4" ply. I
>suppose I could double it up; I plan on a border around it anyway.
>
>Comments?
Piece of cake, and plenty strong.

On 1/25/2014 2:35 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 1/25/2014 2:57 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 1/25/2014 1:48 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>>> I've been drawing a lot of different things, enough to take me a year to
>>> build at my usual pace. But we (now that my wife has found the benefits
>>> of custom - if amateur-built - furniture) are entertaining a bunch of
>>> ideas that would need to work together.
>>>
>>> She tossed out the idea of a bench for extra seating against a wall, but
>>> something that could also be used to serve buffet-style. This is what I
>>> came up with. Keep in mind this is all schematic so far; all of the
>>> dimensions would likely change and I have left out many details:
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138064105/in/photostream/
>>>
>>> Let's leave aside the question of whether or not I could build this. The
>>> legs would certainly present a challenge. But does it raise any red
>>> flags that I'm not seeing?
>>>
>>> At 70" long (which could change), the span is a concern. I figure that
>>> it would be plenty strong in the "down" position for people to sit on,
>>> but I wonder if the top would tend to bow with a bunch of (full) serving
>>> pieces on it when raised. The top as I've drawn it would be 3/4" ply. I
>>> suppose I could double it up; I plan on a border around it anyway.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>>
>>
>> Certainly doable but let me mention some things you need to think about.
>>
>> The telescoping legs will need to fit relatively snug so that a gap
>> between the outer and inner leg does not show, unless there is not
>> concern for that.
>
> I figured to make them pretty loose, maybe an eighth all around, for the
> reasons you mention.
>>
>> The closer the fit, the more you will need to insure that all legs are
>> perfectly parallel to each other, inner and outer legs.
>
> Exactly. And I think I have a reasonably accurate assessment of my own
> skills, which is why I'd leave some slop.
>>
>> The closer the tolerances the more the need for raising and lowering to
>> be a two person operation. The upper unit will bind if only one person
>> lifts and does not lift straight up.
>
> Definitely a two-person job, yes.
>>
>>
>> That said, the raised unit should not sag as long as you are working
>> with a hard wood apron and it is at least 2" wide.
>
> Thanks. A slightly wider apron. Check.
>
> I just did some more thinking about your "parallel" comment above and
> have altered the drawing a bit:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/12138472454/in/photostream/
>
I was going to suggest that but did not want to alter your design.
Those stretchers will certainly keep thing from becoming rickety.

Another word of caution it will work best if you attach the lower
stretchers with the upper table section fully down. Test clamp the
stretcher is place and make a trial run lifting the table up and down.

On 1/27/2014 1:29 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> On 1/27/2014 10:08 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/26/2014 12:01 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>>
>>> Sometimes you can turn lemons into lemonade. Without a TS, the hardest
>>> thing is to rip narrow stock, so I try to "design" for standard
>>> dimensions.
>>
>> In the span of time I've been woodworking I've had use of a table saw
>> less than 50% of that time, but was fortunate to have learned early how
>> to use a handsaw to rip, then finish up with a hand plane.
>>
>> It takes longer, as dimensioning stock to project dimensions with hand
>> tools takes a good deal of practice, but it is by no means an
>> insurmountable limitation for building one off pieces of
>> furniture/cabinetry.
>>
>> If you've got the time, go for it.
>>
>> AAMOF, were I were a hobbyist today in a shop as small as mine, in lieu
>> of a table saw I would consider either a good band saw, and/or a plunge
>> saw and guide rail/MFT system, like the Festool.
>>
>> AAMOF, I take my TS-75 plunge saw to the job site, in lieu of a table
>> saw, these days.
>>
> I was going to reply to Leon's post.
> But you said it all in yours, you were dead on.
>
> I think that most europeans gave up on the TS for job site. The track
> saw seems to rule.
>
> I was given advice to buy a bandsaw first. I didn't.
>
> I was frustrated at first with my bandsaw. Even though I thought I Had
> it setup right. My problem was the OLSON blades.. once I switched to
> timberwolf my problems went away. The thing cut perfectly to the fence
> (adjusted once now, and not touched for years). So I agree about the
> bandsaw.. And whenever you have a dangerous cut on the TS I go to the BS
> usually.
>
> Hand tools and planes ... the more power tools I have the more I
> appreciate my hand tools. Especially my planes. Enough can not be said
> about learning to use and sharpen them...
>

And I agree with Swingman but I still think a TS is going to be better
for cutting dado's/ groves and cross cutting. A BS will rip but IMHO
the larger table on a TS helps support the work more so that the
relatively small BS table and typically you do have much more fence to
help guide on a TS. Track saws are great, I use mine as my joiner to
straighten S2S stock. And given that I now have the Festool work table
with the track to use my TS75 saw for angle and cross cutting I'm still
going to use my TS for those cuts in most cases.

And going on to the BS problems you were having with the Olson blades.
I have found that through using 3 different BS's that the structural
strength of the saw has more to do with the ability to get a good cut
From any given blade.

I had a 10" Craftsman and seldom used it in the many years that I had
it. I ordered an 18" Rykon to replace it and long story short ended up
buying a Laguna LT16HD BS. My problem with the Rykon is that I would
not cut well with the Timberwolf blades but cut quite well with the
blade that came with it and one that I had made for it. There were
other issues but I won't get into those. Timberwolf worked with me to
resolve the problem but we were unsuccessful. So oddly some blades
worked well some did not. The Laguna does not care what I put on it and
I very seldom have to adjust the tilt on the top wheel for tracking
unless I go from 1/4" to 1-1/4". This saw is so ridged that once set
up, from the beginning, blade types and widths require little to no
adjustment when swapping out. Mostly the only adjustment is moving the
guides forward or backward to accept the larger or smaller blades.

On 1/30/2014 12:04 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

> That is one of the top of the list guns for me right now. I'm a Ruger guy.
> They are a great company and build great guns. The SR40C keeps sticking its
> head over the top of the list...

(For some reason I did not see "Just Wondering"'s post?)

One of my sisters carries the Ruger SR40C and loves it. I fired it few
times and personally was just not comfortable with the trigger
safety/firing pin block, and don't know if I could ever be with it for a
ccw.

I'm just not a fan of striker fired pistols for my use. If I was younger
I would probably join the Glock crowd, but, being 1911 trained, I want
either a DA wheel gun for ccw (my S&W Model 38); or a 1911 type action I
can carry cocked and locked and be able to rely on years of muscle
memory/combat training instinct behind it. AAMOF, I've looked at the
Springfield EMP in .40S&W for that very reason, but have still not
decided to change from the old DA Bodyguard.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)