TS_Alignment_Reinventing_the_Wheel?

"Stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I have been frustrated lately trying to quickly and accurately align my TS
>blade to 90o. I made the jig pictured at the link below, to combat this
>problem. It seems to work nicely. I fist 'zero' the indicator at my
>jointer fence (which I know to be 90o) and then place it against the TS
>blade. The slightest turn of the TS wheel causes a big move at the
>indicator dial. I'm sure most have you have thought of this already, but
>it took me a while :)
>
> Question:
> After I set my blade to 90o and put on my cross cut sled and re-measure,
> guess what? It's off by a smidge (can't quantitate). Should I re-align
> my blade when using my sled? Should I make a new sled? Am I being
> crazy?


This may sound a little like the short story Tom Watson posted a few days
ago but,,,

One of the quickest ways to determine if you blade is 90 degrees to the
table is to cross cut a 2x4, turn one piece over and then slid the two cut
ends back together. If there is a gap, your blade is not set to 90 degrees.
Additionally, use your cutting results to determine if you saw is set up
properly.

I would say build a new sled with a bottom that is parallel to your saw
table and use flat wood when you cut.

Are you being crazy, no, maybe a little too caught up in what is acceptable
according to the dial on your gauge.
Again, what does the wood look like after you cut it?

In article <%[email protected]>, Leon
<[email protected]> wrote:

> One of the quickest ways to determine if you blade is 90 degrees to the
> table is to cross cut a 2x4, turn one piece over and then slid the two cut
> ends back together. If there is a gap, your blade is not set to 90 degrees.

A 2x4?

You have 2x4s that are flat where you live?

How do you factor in the _ing twist that is going to be present even in
a short cutoff?

Thanks for the chuckle, Leon, but the LAST thing I'd use to calibrate
ANYTHING is a _ing 2x4.

In article <[email protected]>, Leon
<[email protected]> wrote:

> The 2x4 can be Oak not just framing
> lumber.

2x4 oak? Do you buy 16/4 and then go through the effort of jointing and
planing so you can cut it in half to check your saw?

Good job!

I have seen another jig very similar to this on a web site that I can't
locate right now. While your jig can't measure angles it will do a
very nice job squaring things up. Cheap, reliable, easy to read,
extremely accurate, and quick.

To keep from having to rely on the accuracy of your jointer fence
setting for calibration, you could get a machinist's angle plate like
this one:

http://www.use-enco.com/CGI/INSRIT?PARTPG=INLMKD&PMPXNO=945531&PMAKA=418-4315

Or, you could use a single point as your fixed reference (instead of
the two) and just use an ordinary square to calibrate. You can use one
of the side edges of your jig as a reference. Make sure the reference
edge is inline with the square when calibrating by using a straight
edge and a spacer. Use a square against the reference edge when
checking the your blade or jointer fence.

The big advantage of using a single point for your fixed reference is
the ability to measure vertical angles with the help of common
machinist's angle blocks. The edge you measure will be square with the
table when the blade (or fence) is tilted to the correct angle.

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com


Stoutman wrote:
> I have been frustrated lately trying to quickly and accurately align my TS
> blade to 90o. I made the jig pictured at the link below, to combat this
> problem. It seems to work nicely. I fist 'zero' the indicator at my
> jointer fence (which I know to be 90o) and then place it against the TS
> blade. The slightest turn of the TS wheel causes a big move at the
> indicator dial. I'm sure most have you have thought of this already, but it
> took me a while :)
>
> Question:
> After I set my blade to 90o and put on my cross cut sled and re-measure,
> guess what? It's off by a smidge (can't quantitate). Should I re-align my
> blade when using my sled? Should I make a new sled? Am I being crazy?
>
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/jigsfixtures.htm
>
> --
> Stoutman
> www.garagewoodworks.com

OOPS! Forgot to answer the question.

Stoutman wrote:
> Question:
> After I set my blade to 90o and put on my cross cut sled and re-measure,
> guess what? It's off by a smidge (can't quantitate). Should I re-align my
> blade when using my sled? Should I make a new sled? Am I being crazy?

If it's less than a couple of thousandths then forget about it. This
is noise level for woodworking.

Your jig will be showing the squareness between whatever surface you
put it on (the cross cut sled) and the blade. So, if it's several
thousandths and you believe it will adversely affect the quality of
your work (i.e. accumulated errors), then make the adjustment. It's
quick and easy to do so there's no reason to agonize over the issue.

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Bill wrote:
> This question is sort of off on a tangent ... but why the nails in that
> jig? I'd like to know your reasoning for them. They look like a fragile
> thing sticking way out in harms way when all you really needed to do was
> to use a good piece of hardwod and cut a convex shape in the face,
> possibly driving a couple of screws or pieces of brass rod flush with the
> faces to provide wear points.

These are fixed references for the measurement. Point contact reduces
the possibility that some sort of debris would get caught between the
jig and the blade and cause error. A convex shape would provide line
contact and still be superior to a full surface contact but not quite
as good as two point contact.

>
> Hang the plunger out a little further and measure acute angles using a
> sine bar.

I can't quite picture what you mean...

> You and Ed have got my creative juices going. While I WANT his gauge, I
> think I can adapt stuff I already own to make up a 'good enough' gauge of
> my own until I can afford his.
>
> In fact, I think I've got a piece of honduran rosewood just asking for
> something constructive to do.

Absolutely! Go for it!

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Paul D wrote:
> Why does everyone have to make fancy little jigs that measure to within a
> thou. You are working with wood not engineering a bearing shaft.

It's for machine setup, not workpiece tolerances. I don't think that
anybody here (except perhaps Mr. Strickland) believes that wood can (or
should) be worked to within thousandths of an inch. The idea is to
provide a very easy to read method for eliminating guesswork in a
setup. Eliminating guesswork requires accuracy and precision which
exceeds the required tolerances by a good margin. The "rule of thumb"
for machinists for that margin is 10:1. In other words, the
measurement device should be able to provide 10 times the accuracy you
need in the workpiece. If you want accuracy to within hundredths, then
you should be setting up your machine using an instrument accurate to
within thousandths.

Or, if you don't care about eliminating guesswork, you can squint for a
gap with your average woodworking square and proceed with trial and
error until you are satisfied.

> First
> argument on jig is what is to say that the jointer fence is set accuratly?

Good point. I suggested he get one of these:

http://www.use-enco.com/CGI/INSRIT?PARTPG=INLMKD&PMPXNO=945531&PMAKA=418-4315

> Secondly I am sure the every one has (or at least should have) a tool in
> their kit designed to set the blade and anything else for that matter at 90
> deg. For those of you who do not know what it is called or what it is used
> for it is called a square. It looks like a funny L shaped piece of steel.
> You sit it in the table and hold it up against the blade. If you see light
> at the top or the bottom the blade isn't at 90 deg so just adjust the blade
> till you see no light between the blade and square. Very simple, takes
> little time to dig out of draw or off the wall and works every time. And for
> those who really want to be anal about it and accurate to within a thou just
> use a good engineers square.

This involves the "squint for a gap" method. Yep, it can be done.
I've done it myself, countless times. It doesn't fit my idea of an
"easy to read" method. It depends on ideal lighting and the assurance
that parallax isn't introducing error. Give Stoutman's dial indicator
jig a try and I bet you'll find yourself squinting a whole lot less. I
can't imagine it would cost you more than $15 and you might just learn
something new.

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Prometheus wrote:
> Gotta agree with you there, Paul. I have a decent square hanging off
> almost every tool in the shop. When I misplace one (or in the course
> of a large project, all of them) I've even been known to use a speed
> square.
>
> It's really never been a problem- but if it were one, I don't think
> I'd make a jig- I'd just carefully reset the positive stops.

This reminds me of a visit I paid to a local professional shop many
years ago. The owner basically said the same thing to me. "Why do I
need your jig when I can just use a square?" So, I walked over to his
saw and started cranking on the blade tilt so that I could demonstrate.
Suddenly I heard this loud scream: "STOP! What the hell are you
doing?!". I was really startled by this and turned around quickly to
see the look of sheer panic and horror on this guys face. He then got
really mad at me for disturbing the setting on his "square cutting"
table saw. You see, he had two saws in the shop. One was very
carefully adjusted (using a square a a lot of test cuts) to exactly 90
degrees. The other was used for cutting angles. After I showed him
how easy it was to return the setting to perfectly square (or any other
angle), he wrote me a check.

Depending on the sort of work you do, a precise setting might be so
important that you would invest thousands in a duplicate machine (this
guy's "square cutting" table saw). Or, you might be quite satisfied
with the results you get from a speed square.

By the way, I long ago abandon the use of the stops on my blade tilt.
On more than one occasion I discovered that they had become covered in
sawdust and the setting was no longer accurate. Unfortunately the
discovery was made after the cut. Now I just back them off completely
and every setting that requires accuracy is checked with an Aligner.

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Leon wrote:
> One of the quickest ways to determine if you blade is 90 degrees to the
> table is to cross cut a 2x4, turn one piece over and then slid the two cut
> ends back together. If there is a gap, your blade is not set to 90 degrees.
> Additionally, use your cutting results to determine if you saw is set up
> properly.

Or, it could indicate that the opposite edges of your 2x4 were not
straight and parallel. This is one if the most common mistakes that
people make when doing test cuts. The stock that you use for test cuts
needs to be prepared as accurately as you want your finished work to
be. This includes any planing, jointing squaring, or any other stock
preparation that is applied to the project wood. You can't just trust
any old 2x4 out of the scrap pile.

Based on experience, I would not say that using test cuts is the
quickest (or most reliable) way to square up your blade. Your mileage
might vary.

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Hi Leon,

I assure you, there is no money for me in promoting the use of
Stoutman's jig. In fact, there are probably people who might have
purchased one of my products that will now go off and try Stoutman's
jig. Like I've said before, I'm a "truth and honesty at all costs"
sort of guy. I took one look at Stoutman's idea and knew it was a good
one. I could have come out attacking it and trying to make it look bad
but then everyone would know that I had a bad motive. So, I chose to
come out in support of his idea and suggest some improvements. Then,
perhaps someday when a person sees the need for a better solution, they
will remember me and my products.

As I see it, the best thing for me to do in a situation like this is to
provide a review comparing my product to Stoutman's idea (like my "dial
indicator on a stick" review). Or, even better, get someone else to do
the review. Still costs me money but might save a few sales.

The flaw in your method has nothing to do with my jig or his jig or
anybody making any money.

Thanks,
Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Leon wrote:

> Jeez Ed, I would not expect you say anything different given your need to
> sell your product. :~)
> Like you say however, my mileage does vary.

Hi Leon,

I know that the test cut method works and is very accurate when done
properly. Having read your messages for years I'm sure that you find
it easier and faster than using a dial indicator. And, if you don't
mind wasting some carefully prepared 8/4 piece of oak (your "2x4") for
test cuts then I should be the last person in the world to stand in
your way.

Having read my messages for years, you probably know that I hate test
cuts because I don't like to waste the time or wood on trial and error.
I much prefer to use instruments (like the dial indicator jig) to
obtain precise settings so that the first cut is the final cut. I
realize that many people (yourself included) feel like I am somehow
cheating because it appears as if my method requires no skill (or less
skill) and certainly a lot less work (for most people). I would say
that it just requires different skills. I know that I can't expect you
(or any of the other test cut enthusiasts) to respect my preference,
but it sure would be nice if you guys didn't feel compelled to ridicule
it (and those of us who advocate it).

Thanks,
Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Leon wrote:

> Well Ed, I agree with what you say but not that my method is flawed. The is
> a diminishing return after a certain point. If I see no gap in a joint,
> that is good enough for me.

Bravo Leon! I could not agree more! In other words, the use of a
precision instrument (like Stoutman's dial indicator jig) does not
guarantee high quality or accurate results. Such a device might save a
lot of time and work "in the long run" but skill and proper technique
are still required.

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Leon wrote:
> Absolutely. But also keep in mind that regardless of how accurately your
> saw is set up the quality of cut is also reflected by your technique when
> feeding the wood.
...
> I'll be the first to say that a machine not set up properly will always
> create more work for you in the long run

Leon wrote:
> Ed you have read me wrong perhaps.

Sorry about that. I didn't intend to get the wrong impression it just
seemed to happen that way.

> I have complete respect for you and your
> product and your methods. They work.

Thanks.

> I just think using a dial indicator
> on a daily basis to set a blade to 90 degrees is a lot of work.

Actually, anytime square cuts are needed (which would probably be quite
a bit more than daily). Imagine what could be accomplished by the
average woodworker if they had no fear of tilting their blade (and the
subsequent saga of "trial and error" that would naturally follow).

If you are familiar with metal working machinery then you know that it
has scales and digital readouts and computer controls that are actually
accurate (as opposed to what woodworking machinery has). Even still,
the most used tool in the shop is still an indicator. Why? Because
machinists really look down on a person who does their work by trial
and error, using test cuts to make adjustments to their machinery.
It's considered a major waste of time and a demonstration of ignorance.


> I
> completely rely on my 90 degree stop on my saw and it has never let me
> down.

Mine has, which is why I just backed it off completely. Same with the
45 degree stop. Sawdust and other debris get caught on the stop and
cause it to be inaccurate. If you don't clean out the inside of your
saw regularly (likely because it's hooked up to dust collection) then
this can happen to you too. Since I have a very quick, reliable, and
accurate way to adjust my blade tilt, I don't need the stops.

> You do have to admit that using a dial indicator to set a blade to 90
> degrees is a lot more work than turning the bevel wheel until it stops. ;~)

Unless, of course, the stop has sawdust on it and the resulting cuts
are inaccurate. It might go unnoticed while all the parts of a project
are cut out. Then, suddenly, it doesn't seem like so much "work" to
pull out the indicator to check that the saw is properly adjusted.

> I think what Stoutman really needs is a better saw and his dial indicators
> to set it up initially.

If he can use his $15 (or less) dial indicator jig to get all the
accuracy he needs from his current saw, then I would say that buying a
better one would be a waste of money.

Thanks,
Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Leon wrote:
> I guess I have been spoiled working on a cabinet saw all the time. My 90
> degree stop never lets me down.

Mine is a Unisaw. Perhaps they have made some improvements in airflow
over the years but there are some real dead zones inside where sawdust
tends to collect and the stops seem to be strategicly placed within
them! It has happened to me too many times. Maybe it has happened to
you too but you just didn't notice.

> > machinists really look down on a person who does their work by trial
> > and error, using test cuts to make adjustments to their machinery.
> > It's considered a major waste of time and a demonstration of ignorance.
>
> Well it's a good thing I am only cutting wood. ;~)

Machinists work in all sorts of materials - including wood. Most
people associate them with metalworking but a machinist is just someone
who shapes a material (metal, ceramic, plastic, rubber, phenolic, wax,
wood, etc.) using machinery. Technically, you could classify most
woodworkers as machinists but you wouldn't want to say it out loud in a
machine shop. There just isn't a lot of respect - mostly because
woodworkers are viewed as hacks that are always goofing around because
they do not know how to use their machinery.

I gave this topic some thought last night. I guess I'd have to
classify myself as an evalgelist to woodworkers for proper machine use.
I'm pretty fortunate to have met a rather friendly machinist many
years ago. He taught me how to use my machinery without goofing around
(test cuts and other nonsense). These ideas and techniques are
starting to catch on in industry and larger cabinet shops. An old hack
who wastes a sheet of plywood to square up the fence on an Altendorf
might just find himself with a smaller paycheck - or even looking for a
new job.

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Prometheus wrote:

> It's really just the dial indicator that gives me pause- I work in a
> machine shop, and we use squares to check for square. There are some
> very nice adjustable Starret ones that will measure to 1/100 of a
> degree and have magnifying lenses on them to make the marks readable
> for setup, but there no dial indicators to be found when measuring the
> angles. In-process checks are done with regular old squares.

Hmmmm...... You are saying that there is an adjustable square from
Starrett that measures to 1/100 of a degree? If it's a machinist's
protractor, then it's not a "square" and it uses a vernier scale
graduated to 5 minutes of arc. Never seen one graduated in 100ths of a
degree (or any other decimal fraction of a degree). Always degrees and
minutes. Maybe you could browse through the Starrett catalog and let
us know which product it is:

http://catalog.starrett.com/catalog/home/home.asp

And, are you saying that nobody in this shop uses indicators on sine
bars or angle blocks? They just use this "adjustable square" to set
angles? And, never with an indicator? Frankly, I'm having some
trouble picturing this. I'm inclined to think that this "machine shop"
comes from the imagination of a woodworker.

> Most of those parts are going to very discerning customers who are not
> shy about rejecting anything that is less than absolutely perfect- so
> it's not as though we're able to just do a half-assed job.

You say "absolutely perfect". I'm afraid your shop probably wouldn't
get hired by most of the companies here in Boise (HP, Micron, etc.).
And, a machinist who doesn't use an indicator to align a vise, tram the
spindle, or check a sine plate setting probably wouldn't get hired by
most of the machine shops around here (except to operate that tool with
a long wooden handle and a brush mounted on one end (broom) or for
collant reservoir maintenance (clean out sumps)). I can't imagine what
would happen to a person who tried to use a square to check a spindle
tram.

> It just seems like overkill to use a more complex and precise
> measurement system to set up a tablesaw than what is customarily used
> for machine shop work (note the use of "precise"- the accuracy of a
> system using nails as stops is a little shady).

You might be surprised to see what sort of instruments use reference
points which resemble the nails that Stoutman used. I think that it's
a rather insightful feature of his jig which solves a problem which
isn't obvious to people unfamiliar with Metrology.

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Prometheus wrote:

> We've got these buggers, with magnifying lenses mounted over the
> scales.
>
> http://catalog.starrett.com/catalog/catalog/groups.asp?GroupID=148
>

Yes, this would be the protractor I was referring to. 1/12 degree (5
arc minutes) is a far cry from 1/100 degree. And, both are "not nearly
absolutely perfect". It amounts to a little more than 0.007" on a 5"
sine bar. A machinist can do this with his eyes shut.

The standard low cost angle set (less than $50) is spec'ed at 30 arc
seconds (0.00015" per inch). It's what my angle blocks are spec'ed at.
Your average machine shop will use a standard gage block set with size
increments to 0.0001" to set a 5" sine bar (that's 0.00002" per inch or
about 4.1 seconds). If you don't mind the yield hit, it's just barely
adequate for making such angle blocks. You really need to follow the
10:1 rule here.

When I make my angle blocks, I use Starrett LM gauge blocks (grade 0.5)
to set my sine plate and sine vise. These have size increments to
0.000005" (yes, five millionths of an inch) which means I'm able to
adjust the setting by one millionth of an inch per inch (about 1 arc
second). It is, for all practical purposes, way below the noise level
of my machinery and measurment capabilities (which is where it needs to
be for the work that I do). I run batches with 100% yield all the
time.

Most machine shops won't attempt this sort of work. Even so, it's
still "not nearly absolutely perfect". I inspect my work with a
Starrett LM angle gage block set (AG16.LM):

http://catalog.starrett.com/catalog/images/objects/4200/4153.pdf

At 0.25 arc secnd accuracy, these are "nearly" but not quite perfect.
A machinest knows from experience that nothing is perfect. Nothing is
"dead-on" accurate. There are only degrees of accuracy (no pun
intended).

> You caught me being a buffoon there. I never really bothered to look
> at the things all that closely- they're in a different area, and the
> last time I really had to care about them was over a decade ago.

Ya, I kinda figured as much. Sorry about that but perhaps now you will
realize that I do know what I'm talking about and it won't be even
remotely easy to BS me. It seems so easy to just say things in a
newsgroup because there are so many people around who don't know any
better. But it isn't always the case.

> I
> run the breaks as a operator once in a while to help out when I have
> time, but it's not my job.

For those who aren't familiar, a "break" is used for bending sheet
metal. It kind of explains the accuracy needs of your situation. Most
people would call this a fab shop, not a machine shop.

> Laser cutting and manual milling on the
> Bridgeport is, and I spend my time measuring in decimals, not minutes,
> so that's what I pulled out of my ass. Like I said, in-process QC is
> done with these squares.

Hmmmmm.......So, unless you are just an "operator" who loads parts and
pushes a button (pulls a handle, turns a wheel, flips a lever, etc.)
then you use indicators all the time, right? You have to align vises
on the table, tram the head, locate references, etc. So, I still don't
get it. You can't be a machinist using a Bridgeport type mill and not
use indicators all the time, for every single setup. It's another one
of these scenearios which sounds like it comes from a woodworker's
imagination.

> http://catalog.starrett.com/catalog/catalog/groups.asp?GroupID=68

Yep, nice squares! Very pricey but worth it.

> >And, are you saying that nobody in this shop uses indicators on sine
> >bars or angle blocks? They just use this "adjustable square" to set
> >angles? And, never with an indicator? Frankly, I'm having some
> >trouble picturing this. I'm inclined to think that this "machine shop"
> >comes from the imagination of a woodworker.
>
> Only for final QC. The parts have a wide enough tolerances that the
> squares, mics and calipers work fine on the floor. Your inclination
> is wrong, but only in that we've had experiences in shops with
> tolerances that are obviously very different. As noted in another
> post, we're much more likely to make a mount than a piston- other
> shops with better equipment do that work, and I'm fine with that. I
> use all the same G-codes you do, just while making less precise parts.
> The customers still have a fit if the fit and finish is not perfect.

Hmmmm........So, as I picture it in my mind, you guys run a fab shop.
Basically, you assemble things - drilling holes or milling slots as
necessary. You bend up some sheet metal to rough angles - maybe some
welding too? The tolerances are a mile wide. I still don't get your
comment about the "G-codes". Is your Bridgeport a CNC machine?

> You make it sound like if a part isn't within a .0001 of nominal, you
> have to beat the damn thing into place with a sledgehammer.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. This should be like second
nature to a machinist but let's take it from the top again. The "rule
of thumb" for achieving a desired tolerance is this: your measurement
devices used for setup and inspection should provide accuracy which is
ten times that of your tolerance. If your tolerance is 0.0001", then
you should be prepared to set up your machines and check the results
with instruments which can discern 10 millionths of an inch
(0.000010"). Otherwise, you will be swamped with all sorts of
uncertainty and guesswork which will result in poor fits and poor
yield.

Another more applicable example would be very good. Someone here said
that 1/64" is a good woodworking tolerance. Great. So, if you really
want to achieve this level of accuracy, then you should be using
instruments which can discern 0.0015" or better. Why? Because the
decimal equivalent of 1/64" is 0.015". The 10:1 rule would have you
use an instrument accurate to 0.0015". Therefore, your everyday
hand-dandy 0.001"/div dial indicator is the most logical and practical
choice. If, however, you choose devices which are only capable of
measuring to 1/64", then you will be swamped with all sorts of
uncertainty and guesswork. It's likely that you will spend a lot of
time doing test cuts and re-working joints by hand - which is what a
lot of woodworkers do (and they think it demonstrates an elevated level
of skill and expertise). I know it's a strong and blunt word, but do
you see why the average machinist considers this to be "ignorant"?

> It would be asinine for me to apply at a place that requires that
> level of precision, because that isn't what I've been doing for most
> of my working life (though I don't imagine it would take much to learn
> it from where I'm at). Like I said, I'm comfortable with that- lots
> of things need to be made, not just TS-aligners and precision gears.
> But simply because I do a different job than you is hardly reason to
> imply that I'm only qualified to sweep floors and wish that I was a
> spiffy as you.

But you are not working in a machine shop. You are not a machinist.
You are working as a machine operator in a fab shop. There's a whole
world of difference here. You guys don't do anything even remotely
near perfect. By machine shop standards it really is "half assed". I
agree, as fab shops go you are probably better than most (at least you
aren't using drafting triangles and protractors from the office supply
store). If you didn't go to a community college or tech school for an
associate degree then you would enter a real machine shop with a broom
in your hand. Yes, you would probably learn quickly and eventually
understand exactly what I am talking about. I don't say this to make
you feel bad. I say this to make you see reality.

> Odds are fairly good you'd gunk up the works in my shop as well- a guy
> that spent all day bitching about not having an optical comparitor
> next to his machine or spending an hour adjusting offsets to within a
> tenth (on a machine that is not manufactured to that level of
> precision, no less) when a .003 tolerance is called for instead of
> doing his work would be out the door there, too.

Well, not quite. I wouldn't think too highly of anybody who took more
than an hour to do a machine setup for any of the TS-Aligner parts
(including machine warm up and coolant transfer). A good machinest can
read the print, understand the tolerances, choose the right
instruments, fixturing, tooling, etc. and make the part to specs. The
reason why a guy like me wouldn't last too long in your shop is that I
would be running circles around everyone else making them look really
bad. Next thing I know is that my machines, tools, parts, etc. would
be getting sabotaged. The boss would be getting bad reports about me
(I don't play well with others, etc.). Before long I'm out. Been
there, done that, don't like it a bit.

> I might, at that. But I'd certainly worry about trim nails pounded
> into a block of wood being tweaked the first time you bumped them with
> somthing, or busting that indicator if the jig fell on the floor.

Squares get tweaked too, and you'd notice it even less than a bent
nail. Things do happen to all precision instruments. A good machinist
knows to check the calibration of an instrument before using it (or at
least periodically). Always close the calipers to be sure that the
reading returns to zero (especially on digital calipers!). Always use
the micrometer standard. And Stoutman should always check the
calibration of his jig before using it. That's why I suggested he get
an angle plate to use as a reference. Using the jointer fence isn't a
good idea. But, as suggested by another, a self checking technique
(measuring both sides of the blade) is a great practice.

> Look, Ed. I understand that you make a product that is very precise
> for aligning table saws, and it's in your best interests to advocate
> super precision when setting a saw up. I'm not demeaning your
> product, or saying that it's valueless. From what I've seen here,
> it's reputed to be a good product, and a lot of guys are getting a
> decent value from it. It's not my intention to attack the way you
> earn your living, or try and deny you sales.

I didn't say that you were. I did say that people who use precise
instruments to align and adjust their woodworking machinery are being
demeaned. Forgive me for being blunt, but it's a case of the ingorant
looking down on the intelligent. I'm just trying to point out, it
really should be the other way around (as it generally is in machine
shops). I'm doing my best to educate people so that they adopt more
intelligent ways of doing things. Sure, it's in my best interest to do
so but I am going way above and beyond what I will ever recieve in
return.

> But the thread started as a way to align a table saw blade to 90*- I
> use the positive stops in the saw, and a machinist square to double
> check it. What you've effectively done here, unintentionally or not,
> is to tell me that not only is that particular setup not good enough
> for my hobby, but also that I am so poor at my day job that I am fit
> for nothing better than janitorial work. It's really tough not to
> just tell you where to stick it.

I'm sorry that you've taken it that way but I suppose I shouldn't be
too surprised. I didn't say that your way wasn't good enough for your
purposes. This was a conclusion that you created all by yourself. I
said that *I* didn't like it for *my* purposes. I said that Leon's
"test cut method works and is very accurate when done properly" but
that I still prefer accurate instruments over test cuts. I said that
using an accurate instrument like Stoutman's was easier, faster, and
more accurate. The suggestion from myself and Stoutman is that people
should try it before jumping all over us for suggesting it.

I also didn't say that you were poor at your day job. What I did was
to challenge what you said about your job. You were claiming to be a
machinist who worked in a machine shop. Unfortunately, all your facts
and figures were so screwed up that it's was very obviously a load of
bovine fecal matter. You are really a machine operator in a fab shop.
I did it in a pretty polite way but honestly I believe that someone who
would try to pass off such obvious nonsense should be just a bit
embarrassed about being caught in the act. It's a little disingenuous
to be indignant over being caught in a blatent lie, don't you think?

> Most of the folks here have a *hobby* woodworking. In my case, I make
> a lot of sort of fancy end tables and vases on the lathe. The tables
> end up scattered around my house, and are there for my enjoyment and
> use, along with the other stuff I make. I don't care to be bullied
> and told that because I'm not using a sine bar and dial indicator,
> optical comparator, or a laser measurement system to set up my
> contractor's saw to make those projects, they're fit for nothing
> better than firewood (which is what I'm getting from your attitude
> about the subject.)

I never said anything even remotely resembling this. I believe that
you have things turned around a bit. It was you that jumped all over
Stoutman (and me) about using a dial indicator jig. I am just
defending my (and Stoutman's) position. And, if my defense makes you
feel like your technique is inadequate and that the resulting work is
inferior, then it's time for a bit of retrospection, not recrimination.

> If I was running a cabinet shop, I'd probably buy
> your alignment tool- but I'm not. And neither are most of the people
> on this group. There's a good deal of sense in buying tools with good
> motors and careful construction from decent materials, but when it
> comes time to rip a board, I'm just fine with using a square to set
> the blade angle, and a cabinet maker's rule to check that the fence is
> parallel to the blade, and get on with actually making something-
> there's never been any fiddling around or wasting time involved in it.

Fine. Then there really was no need for you to jump all over Stoutman
for his idea or to present lies about your job in order to try and make
it sound like you were an authority on such matters when you really
aren't.

> It's just a constant drone on some of these threads about how
> everything has to be expensive, precise, and robust to do any goddamn
> thing.

Stoutman's jig is probably a lot less expensive than your square. The
"drone" here seems to be about a bunch of people who feel so insecure
about themselves that they need to ignorantly attack what is a very
good, well designed, low cost, and accurate jig.

> 's the wrong impression to give someone who is just starting
> out and checks out this group because they'd like to make some plywood
> cutouts of an old lady's butt to put in the garden, or a desk for
> their 4 year old to color on. If I'd have listened to too much of
> this crap when I was first starting to putz around with woodworking, I
> still wouldn't have ever even attempted anything more difficult than
> rough house framing- but maybe I could have saved up enough money to
> get a 5hp Unisaw and a phase convertor that could sit alone in my
> basement by now. Then maybe in a year or two later, I could buy a
> router- and ten years from now, a jointer. Boy, I bet I'd be almost
> ready to make a birdhouse by 2025.

Just a bit over the top, don't you think? Here's what I think:

If the beginner were to learn about how to properly align their
machines using instruments which provide the proper degree of accuracy,
then they wouldn't agnoze over all this stupid BS that you seem
paralyzed by. Imagine spending $15 on Stoutman's jig so that you can
know for sure that the machinery you have is perfectly accurate, well
aligned and precisely adjusted for all the work that you want to do.
No guess work required - no uncertainty. Nobody saying anything about
lasers or millionths of an inch in any newsgroup would ever be able to
rattle the confidence you had in your machinery or the work that you
produce. Your knowledge and expertise would prevent you from becoming
defensive whenever a new idea comes along. Instead of attacking it out
of ignorance you would be able to evaluate it and decide for yourself
if it had any merit.

> The nonsense about always having the best is just that. Try walking
> into most any job shop, and demand that they buy you all new
> top-of-the-line consumables before you get to work and see how long
> they laugh at you before they show you the door. The best serves a
> purpose, and it's nice to have, but you don't need it to do good work.

I agree, it's nonsense. And only an ignorant person who refuses to
educate themselves about the basics of Metrology, machinery alignment
and adjustment would be rattled by such stupid nonsense.

Do you really want to know what is so frustrating? Just ask.

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Doug Miller wrote:

> I make my throat plates deliberately too thin (1/2" MDF), and use countersunk
> flat-head machine screws to adjust them flush to the table. (BTW, Ed Bennett,
> if you're still reading this thread -- that's another application for the
> TS-Aligner!)

Yup, still reading. Watch your video, it's in there! You can also use
the Angle Attachment Gage to set the blade to 90 degrees (just like
Stoutman's jig). So, you also have that capability. And, of course
there are the angles....

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Prometheus wrote:
> So, the response is really directed less at you and Swingman than at
> those beginners that might be lurking and reading this thread. It's
> just a sanity check and reminder that while a guy *can* tune up their
> equipment until it's good enough to manufacture aircraft, it's not an
> absolute requirement for making something that is functional and
> attractive. The jig is a neat idea, but I still feel it is probably
> overkill for myself and most others.

Beginners need to learn about the tolerances needed to do the sort of
work that they want to do. They need to know how to properly check,
setup, and adjust their machines to achieve those tolerances. When
they know these things, then they can make an intelligent decision
concerning the adequacy of their tools and machines. It's not about
overkill, it's about knowing what it takes to do the job right.

The situation you suffered was from a lack of knowledge and expertise.
You didn't know what tolerances your projects needed. You didn't know
how to properly check, align, and setup your machines. So, you didn't
know if they could do the work. Everything you read in newsgroups and
forums rattled you because you had no basis from which to judge. You
eventually just dove in and hoped for the best. Trial and error.
Fortunately, you found out that your machines could do the work.
Essentially this is your message to the beginners. "Dive in and hope
for the best. You might be surprised like I was and find out that your
tools are good enough."

The problem is this: Some people struggle for years trying to make
things. They read stuff like this and blame their skills or waste
money on all sorts of stupid plastic gadgets from the catalogs. Darn
few of them ever wander in my direction (where they can learn the
things they need to know) because there are so many people putting down
intelligent solutions in favor of "trial and error", "test cuts", and
all other manner of ignorant nonsense. Most just give up on
woodworking because they think that the "skills" are beyond their
ability. And, the few that make it naturally join the ignorant chorus
against intelligent solutions. After all, if you don't learn it the
hard way, then you're cheating. Right?

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Well I saw your other reply first so I responded to it. Hope you
understand as well. No insult intended - I was just trying to put you
into your place (which it seems you were already in by the time I
responded). And, no insult perceived - these discussions do tend to go
off on tangents.

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Prometheus wrote:
> Hey Ed-
>
> I just re-read this thread, and I'm really in the wrong here. I must
> have got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, and took the
> sweeping and cleaning sump pumps crack far harder than I should have.
> I did a whole lot of bull work before I got to my current position,
> and took a lot of flak when I was learning the trade. The comment
> brought back all the days I spent splitting wood to heat the shop as
> an apprentice, and the couple of years in spent in grind and sawing
> blanks for the other guys while I learned to do setups in one big,
> ugly rush.
>
> So, for what it's worth, I apologize for going way out on a tangent
> and reading a lot of crap into what you said that really isn't there.
> Looking back a few messages, I can see that I was just spouting off
> about a peeve of mine after a long week, and your view of things was
> very reasonable all along.
>
> I have to admit, I'm a little ashamed of myself for it- Stoutman, it's
> a clever little jig you've got there, and I apologise to you as well,
> for making this into an argument that went way off topic.

CW wrote:
> Mazaks are crap!!!

Ya, Haas beats Mazak any day! ;-)
Rong-Fu beats all and if you don't agree then you aren't a real
machinist!

Hi Stoutman,

By using the feeler gauges, Doug has eliminated the need for good
backlighting, squinting, and error from parallax. It's not completely
free from subjectivity (using a feeler gauge does involve making some
subjective judgments) but It's definitely an intelligent improvement.
A heck of a lot better than trial and error.

While I still prefer reading a dial indicator, I wouldn't be surprised
if Doug can obtain nearly equivalent accuracy in roughly the same
amount of time. He should be able to do better than the thickness of
his feeler gauge (0.002). Moving to a thinner gauge only increases the
subjectivity so I understand why that's not practical. As far as
expense goes, your dial indicator jig is definitely going to beat the
cost of a good square (especially a Starrett) but every shop needs a
good square anyway.

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Stoutman wrote:
> Cool. After you make the jig and zero it on 90, see how close you are
> getting with the square. While you're at it, see if there is a correlation
> between time spent squinting at the square and accuracy. In other words, do
> you get closer to 90o with more time spent eyeing the square or is it a case
> of diminishing return?

Prometheus wrote:
> Thanks for being understanding about it- just a rotten day, and I was
> itching for a fight without even realizing it.

No problem. You just can't make judgements about people based on a
discussion in the newsgroup. Sometimes they just go wild.

> If you call it a fab shop, that's fine, and it seems clear enough that
> I'm not in a real position to argue. I'm not just an operator-
> though. I run an Amada laser cutter, and do a fair amount of the
> programming (*not* just CNC edits, full programming) and am
> responsible for making the jigs for custom parts and prototyping
> (which may well be more complex than you think, when we need to cut
> features at several Z heights after the parts have been on the brake).

It does sound like a lot more than I had invisioned. I really have to
wonder why you characterized it as a place where nobody on the shop
floor ever used dial indicators. Sure, nobody operating shears,
breaks, and rolls are going to be using dial indicators but you're not
going to be doing fixturing and complex setups on any milling machines
without them. Yes, it's a lot more complex than you led me to believe.


> The only real differences from my perspective between that and a mill
> are that the Z-axis is much easier to handle and the maximum accuracy
> is .0004 with repeatability is that is only somewhat lower- which puts
> it well out of the class of somthing like a Mazak mill that is able to
> run parts with a .0001 tolerance- which is why the measurement tools
> we're using are less precise. Feed and speed are still important,
> even though the cutter is a laser, and not a cutterhead with inserts,
> and things like gas pressure, focus and alignment come into play
> during the setup.

I assume that most of your work with the laser is cutting all the way
through. So, yes, you don't have to worry much about the Z axis. And,
if you are just going to cut shapes from large sheets then there's
really no precise setup needed. Just set your working origin to the
machine origin.

> We've got the Bridgeport for milling parts that mount into the
> finished products, and I'm the only guy that sets it up and runs it
> right now. Should be fairly clear that it is not an operator's task-
> putting in a part and hitting a button won't do squat on a manual
> machine, and I have met plenty of guys who were doing high precision
> work that could not even use a manual machine. As noted in the other
> response you sent, of course it does not use G-codes- it's just got a
> digital readout, and yes, I use dial indicators to check the parts and
> set it up.

It's the setup of a milling machine (manual or CNC) that requires the
skill. You can get unskilled labor to run a Bridgeport once it's set
up. Have you ever seen a handgun factory? Literally hundreds of
manual milling machines all set up with customized fixturing. Each one
set up to do one specific operation (drill a hole, mill a slot, face a
surface, etc.). The operator mounts the part and pulls a lever (the
quill feed or the table feed). All other adjustments are locked down.

> It's not that I was lying to you about my job- it's more that I have a
> different concept of what I am doing than yourself. Even though it's
> less precise than another machine shop, I still consider it
> machinist's work, as do the people I work for and my coworkers. I've
> done precision machinist's work in the past, but it's been a long time
> and the places I worked were small, and not state of the art by any
> means- when I was trained in it, we still used equipment, including
> measuring equipment, that you would probably consider primative-
> including squares and feeler guages. Whether it was good technique
> that isn't very common any more or just plain dumb luck, the stuff we
> put out of those places was still up to snuff.

Again, the problem arose when you described doing this sort of work
without using dial indicators. Fact is that you do use dial indicators
- not for the sheet metal fab but for the real machinist work. To
bring it full circle, I would classify a table saw more like the
woodworker's version of a Bridgeport manual mill. It has a bunch of
alignments and adjustments that greatly benefit from the use of a dial
indicator. Strongman's jig addresses one of those adjustments.

It is possible to align a vise on a milling machine without an
indicator. But, what would you think of a machiniist who spends an
hour checking test cuts with a square (or by flipping parts over
looking for a gap)?

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Prometheus wrote:
> Aptly summarized. It often seems that this forum (and everywhere
> else) is heavily segregated by income. I cringe when I see
> suggestions that someone must spend more money than they have to do
> something that could just as easily have been done with a little more
> practice and a set of inexpensive tools.

These would be the tool snobs! They are the minority that TJ and I
were discussing in the other thread. They are naturally very vocal (no
point in being a snob if you can't rub people's noses in it).

> This thread really was a poor example, as the jig Stoutman posted for
> consideration was an inexpensive solution- provided you can find a
> place to ship a dial indicator to you for less than the cost of the
> thing, of course.

Even if you only pay $12 for shipping, it's still pretty cheap. It can
easily be added to an order containing other tools and supplies. Or,
it can be purchased locally. Even here in Boise, ID there are several
places where a cheap indicator can be purchased. And, when you
consider the alternative (blindly upgrading a tablesaw, hoping it
solves the problems) it seems like quite a bargain.

> Well, I'd like to think I'm not in that group. My argument was for
> another measurement tool, one that I've always considered perfectly
> adequate for the task- not guessing at settings or using trial and
> error.

At that point it's just a matter of preference. Using a square is
definitely a lot better than doing a bunch of test cuts. I prefer the
indicator jig because it eliminates so many possible sources of error
and tends to be quicker.

> I'll give you that one, simply because I really *don't* consider it
> cheating to learn things in an easier manner.

Good.

> At the same time, I'll admit that I have an aversion to making
> woodworking into a machinist's job. If my home shop experience
> involved drafting the parts in CAD and then loading the program into a
> controller, doing a five, or even fourty-five minute setup, and then
> letting a machine do the work, I'm not sure that I bother with it at
> all as a hobby- I get plenty of that during the week. (Though I would
> certainly do that if I were earning an income with it)

I think you will admit that this is a bit over the top. Nobody is
talking about going this far in your home woodshop. It's pretty much a
strawman argument.

> I like to work wood with my own hands- and honestly, I hold with Tom
> Watson's suggestion of considering the Persian flaw. I don't belive
> I've ever made a perfect thing from wood, but that's the way I like
> it. Additional time and effort spent sanding, or using a router to
> round over edges instead of a sanding block could yeild consistant
> results as smooth as glass, but I kind of like one corner that is a
> knocked down a just a tiny bit further than the others, and the odd
> tiny rough spot or raised fiber. When I look at it or touch it, it
> doesn't feel like it came from a factory, and that's what I like about
> it.

Woodworking will never be reduced to just a machinist's job. It will
always be a blend of artistry and engineering. In my mind, it's the
end product which matters the most so design is at least as important
as construction. Craftsmanship involves turning a good design into a
high quality and functional work of art. It doesn't dictate specific
tools or specific techniques for using those tools. If someone wants
to do it all by hand tools then that's great. If they want to do the
whole thing with machinery then that's fine too. It doesn't matter if
they goof around with trial and error or if they apply more intellegent
methods for aligning and adjusting their machines. What matters is
that the end product is beautiful and built to last more than a
lifetime.

I'm not a real fan of deliberately including defects to "prove" that
it's handmade. The better factories put out decent work. But, it's my
opinion that if you can't make something with superior quality which is
obvious to even the least discerning observer, then you just haven't
arrived yet.

> In essence, there's nothing wrong with your suggestion that the tools
> could be set up with supreme accuracy.

Again, not "surpeme accuracy", it's "sufficient accuracy". I don't use
the Starrett AG16.LM angle blocks and the SGC Dialectron to set blade
tilts. I use instruments which supply the degree of accuracy which
eliminates the need for test cuts and post processing (cleaning up with
hand tools). How do I know what is "sufficient"? I use well accepted
"rules of thumb" or "best practices" and my brain. "Skill" can be
defined as "the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, and
aptitude, to do something well."

> It's just an aestetic argument
> over whether or not they should be. While it's easy and
> understandable to suggest that the school of hard knocks is an
> igornant way of learning something, there is an argument for it that
> is also valuable- it involves the personal pride that comes from
> overcoming difficult problems on your own and an appreciation for
> hard-won skills in both yourself and others. That's something that
> can't be taught or sold, but can be learned- and woodworking is a good
> place to learn it.

Well, it's not uncommon to say that things learned the "hard way" are
difficult to forget. The problem is when people don't actually learn
from the "hard way", they just keep doing it the "hard way" and
ridicule those who advocate doing it the "intelligent way". It reminds
me of illiterate parents who redicule their children for what they
learn in school.

I never appreciated being called "ignorant" by machinists. But,
eventually I understood what they were talking about. I can really
appreciate the one machinist who had enough patience to help me out of
my ignorance. I've spent the last 16 yerars or so seeing things from
both sides of the fence (no pun intended) and I have to say it's
definitely not easy being so patient. You can't even get these guys to
"just try it". Geez, they complain about the cost of a $15 indicator
but happily advocate wasting much more money using expensive hardwood
for test cuts!

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Yep, feeler gauges eliminate the need to squint. The feeler gage is a
flat piece of steel with a very precise thickness. In Doug's case it's
0.002" thick. If there is a gap that's bigger than 0.002", then such a
feeler gage can slip inside that gap. Under ideal conditions a smaller
gap won't let the feeler gage slip in.

The subjective element comes in when judging the fit of the feeler gage
in the gap. Was it tight? Was it loose? How tight is too tight?
(see why it's called a "feeler" gage?) Did it not get in because
there's a burr on the edge of the square? Did it get in because the
edges are rounded? Doug's application is a good one because he's not
trying to make an absolute measurement using feeler gages. He's just
trying to make a relative comparison.

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Stoutman wrote:
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the use of feeler guages
> > eliminate (or at least drastically reduce) the need to squint?
>
> I assume it does. I have never used feeler gauges. Maybe that is why I am
> having a tough time picturing what he is doing and how he is getting speed
> as well as decent accuracy from his alignment.

Yep, I was trying to be funny. Sorry, I won't ever do it again
(today).


CW wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>
> > Ya, Haas beats Mazak any day! ;-)
> It's a tosssup. Sorry Ed but Haas is a ways down my list too.
>
> > Rong-Fu beats all and if you don't agree then you aren't a real
> > machinist!
> >
> I know there was an attempt at humor here but I'm really not getting it.

Hi Stoutman,

Did you consider the error introduced by dial indicator tilt? If the
plunger isn't parallel to the table surface then you will be
introducing some error (it will no longer be right triangle trig).
This is why I said earlier in the thread that your jig wasn't able to
measure angles.

Ed Bennett
[email protected]


Stoutman wrote:
> I added a feature on my web page that allows you to calculate angle errors
> from distance errors.
>
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/dial_indicator_jig_spread.htm
>
> --
> Stoutman
> www.garagewoodworks.com

Stoutman wrote:

> Please ignore my other reply. I got ya now! Just took me a little longer.
> I am assuming the plunger is parallel when it most likely is not!

It's roughly parallel (by eye anyway) but when you start looking at
things in thousandths of an inch it starts to matter. The error won't
affect the angle that you calibrate at (90 degrees) but will affect
your measurement of any other angles (like when you try to figure out
what angle a few thousandths of error equates to).

>
> Your correct. Unless I get the plunger perfectly parallel with the table I
> can not measure angle error.
>
> Thanks. This is the reason why I NEED your TS aligner Jr!

If you need to measure angles, then having precise, machined geometry
and the ability to control tilt of the dial indicator would be pretty
handy (not to mention all the other machines and adjustments you might
need it for).

Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:16:13 +0000, Stoutman wrote:

> I have been frustrated lately trying to quickly and accurately align my TS
> blade to 90o. I made the jig pictured at the link below, to combat this
> problem. It seems to work nicely. I fist 'zero' the indicator at my
> jointer fence (which I know to be 90o) and then place it against the TS
> blade. The slightest turn of the TS wheel causes a big move at the
> indicator dial. I'm sure most have you have thought of this already, but it
> took me a while :)
>
> Question:
> After I set my blade to 90o and put on my cross cut sled and re-measure,
> guess what? It's off by a smidge (can't quantitate). Should I re-align my
> blade when using my sled? Should I make a new sled? Am I being crazy?
>
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/jigsfixtures.htm
>

This question is sort of off on a tangent ... but why the nails in that
jig? I'd like to know your reasoning for them. They look like a fragile
thing sticking way out in harms way when all you really needed to do was
to use a good piece of hardwod and cut a convex shape in the face,
possibly driving a couple of screws or pieces of brass rod flush with the
faces to provide wear points.

Hang the plunger out a little further and measure acute angles using a
sine bar.

You and Ed have got my creative juices going. While I WANT his gauge, I
think I can adapt stuff I already own to make up a 'good enough' gauge of
my own until I can afford his.

In fact, I think I've got a piece of honduran rosewood just asking for
something constructive to do.

Bill

Doug Miller wrote:

> I'm missing something here, BIG TIME. Maybe the coffee hasn't kicked in yet
> this morning... but how do you know it's square? Help me out on this one.

It's calibrated against a known-square reference--in this case the
jointer fence. Zero the indicator at that point, take it to the saw,
get blade roughly vertical, then adjust the tilt so the indicator reads
zero again.

Chris

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:23:24 -0800, ejb wrote:

>>
>> Hang the plunger out a little further and measure acute angles using a
>> sine bar.
>
> I can't quite picture what you mean...

And with good reason ... I was wrong ... it won't work. What I had in mind
was to use a sine bar and jo-blocks (which I already own) instead of the
fixed angle blocks you offer on your website (which I do NOT already own).

But the design I had in mind won't work.

Type first, think later. :-)
Bill

In article <[email protected]>, Richard Faust <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> No kidding. My FIL is a retired tool-and-die maker. He said that in most of
>> the shops he worked in, they routinely worked to a tolerance of "a half",
>> meaning half a thousandth. He didn't even start to consider something as
>> being precision work until the tolerance was down to a tenth.
>
>Did he use a square to check anything above .0001?

Don't know -- but I have my doubts. I'll ask him sometime.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Question:
> After I set my blade to 90o and put on my cross cut sled and re-measure,
> guess what? It's off by a smidge (can't quantitate). Should I re-align
my
> blade when using my sled? Should I make a new sled? Am I being crazy?
>

What happens when you try to put together two pieces of wood that were cut
on the saw? Do they fit togther nicely? Can you see the smidge (sic)?
Don't let this stuff drive you crazy. If you're not there already, worrying
too much about smidges, smidgens, RCH's, and tads will certainly get you
there.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Given all the comments about your set up an jig, Good For You, Stoutman.
You solved a problem that has been hampering your enjoyment.




"Stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I have been frustrated lately trying to quickly and accurately align my TS
>blade to 90o. I made the jig pictured at the link below, to combat this
>problem. It seems to work nicely. I fist 'zero' the indicator at my
>jointer fence (which I know to be 90o) and then place it against the TS
>blade. The slightest turn of the TS wheel causes a big move at the
>indicator dial. I'm sure most have you have thought of this already, but
>it took me a while :)
>
> Question:
> After I set my blade to 90o and put on my cross cut sled and re-measure,
> guess what? It's off by a smidge (can't quantitate). Should I re-align
> my blade when using my sled? Should I make a new sled? Am I being
> crazy?
>
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/jigsfixtures.htm
>
> --
> Stoutman
> www.garagewoodworks.com
>
>

Hey Ed-

I just re-read this thread, and I'm really in the wrong here. I must
have got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, and took the
sweeping and cleaning sump pumps crack far harder than I should have.
I did a whole lot of bull work before I got to my current position,
and took a lot of flak when I was learning the trade. The comment
brought back all the days I spent splitting wood to heat the shop as
an apprentice, and the couple of years in spent in grind and sawing
blanks for the other guys while I learned to do setups in one big,
ugly rush.

So, for what it's worth, I apologize for going way out on a tangent
and reading a lot of crap into what you said that really isn't there.
Looking back a few messages, I can see that I was just spouting off
about a peeve of mine after a long week, and your view of things was
very reasonable all along.

I have to admit, I'm a little ashamed of myself for it- Stoutman, it's
a clever little jig you've got there, and I apologise to you as well,
for making this into an argument that went way off topic.

> All well and good, but I think I'll stick with my method. Not because it's
> better, but because it's quick and it works for me: slide a (known true)
> square against the blade, and test the fit with a feeler gauge. If I can't
> fit
> a 0.002" feeler gauge between the blade and the square at either top or
> bottom
> then it's good. That means the blade is within 0.002" over 3" of being
> square
> to the table. FWIW, that's +/- 0.038 degrees (89.96 to 90.04).
>
> That's probably within the range of error introduced by stray bits of
> sawdust
> on the saw table or on the square... so I'm happy.

I'm glad you find your method quick.

For me it is much faster (I'm not bull sh*ting here) to slap the dial
indicator jig into the blade and look at the dial than to squint at a
square.

The major turn on for me with this jig was speed, the added accuracy was
just a bonus!

I noticed one other neat thing about the jig last night. My homemade throat
plate was a smidge high from the table. So I hit it with the jointer a
little, but I can remove my throat plate and STILL use my jig. Not sure you
could with a square?

Anyway. I don't want to drag this out more than it needs to be. I just
wanted to share :)

I am still waiting for FineWoodWorking to contact me for their "Methods of
Work". --Just kidding.





> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Leon wrote:

> This may sound a little like the short story Tom Watson posted a few days
> ago but,,,
>
> One of the quickest ways to determine if you blade is 90 degrees to the
> table is to cross cut a 2x4, turn one piece over and then slid the two cut
> ends back together. If there is a gap, your blade is not set to 90 degrees.
> Additionally, use your cutting results to determine if you saw is set up
> properly.

That quickest way only determines a problem, it is not a solution. Your
method can be a lengthy trial and error process.

> I would say build a new sled with a bottom that is parallel to your saw
> table and use flat wood when you cut.

Agreed.

> Are you being crazy, no, maybe a little too caught up in what is acceptable
> according to the dial on your gauge.

Why the criticism of a good idea? If you like cutting a stack of wood to
set your blade then have fun. You will never beat the indicator set-up
for speed and accuracy. Stoutman will have his blade set before you
match up your first cut.

> Again, what does the wood look like after you cut it?

A true blade will always yield the best results.

Rick

In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>>
>> Or did you zero it once against a reference, and then leave the dial
>> indicator permanently mounted to the jig?
>>
>> I think I'd rather continue to use a true square and a feeler gauge
>> than to dedicate a dial indicator to one single-purpose jig.
>
>I'd have no problem dedicating a $7 indicator from Harbor Freight.
>I still have my Starrett. :-)

How accurate and precise is that $7 HF indicator, though?

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Prometheus wrote:

> Only the top, but it doesn't look too bad from that view. From what
> your pictures show, it appears to be cast-iron- so I'm assuming it's
> not a $100 benchtop special. But, I may be spoiled with my saw's
> system, so I'll cheerfully take the suggestion back.
>
> It's really just the dial indicator that gives me pause- I work in a
> machine shop, and we use squares to check for square. There are some
> very nice adjustable Starret ones that will measure to 1/100 of a
> degree and have magnifying lenses on them to make the marks readable
> for setup, but there no dial indicators to be found when measuring the
> angles. In-process checks are done with regular old squares.

What kind of precision does your machine shop provide. Most modern
machine shops use Optical Comparators, Sine Bar & Indicator and Chordal
Measuring Machines to check angles. Regular old squares are used by
woodworkers, not machinists.

> Most of those parts are going to very discerning customers who are not
> shy about rejecting anything that is less than absolutely perfect- so
> it's not as though we're able to just do a half-assed job.

"Absolutely perfect" cannot be obtained using regular old squares. If
your shop uses regular old squares to check critical dimensions then the
work put out is something less than precise.

> It just seems like overkill to use a more complex and precise
> measurement system to set up a tablesaw than what is customarily used
> for machine shop work (note the use of "precise"- the accuracy of a
> system using nails as stops is a little shady). After a few passes,
> I've had enough sap built up on a blade (depending on the wood) to
> affect that level of precision. But as noted above, if it really
> makes your shop time easier and more enjoyable, that's reason enough
> for it.

The dial indicator jig is an alternate method. No one is twisting your
arm to use it. If you prefer to sight the table saw blade in with a
plain old square then continue to do so. No one is knocking you. Just
remember there is no need to knock someone else who offers and alternate
method for setting the table saw blade to 90 degrees.

Rick

Prometheus wrote:

> To a certain extent, I can see your, and the OP's point. There's
> nothing wrong with getting your tools set up carefully and doing high
> quality work.

Then why the following rant?

> My response to the idea is informed by a realization I had when I was
> first building my shop- I was reading a lot of woodworking magazines,
> and reading the newsgroups, and found that with all the endless debate
> regarding precision and which tools were the absolute "best", I
> started to despair that I would never be able to make anything nicer
> than a half-assed birdhouse or magazine rack. For several months, I
> had myself so worked up over the whole deal that I didn't actually do
> any woodworking at all- having convinced myself that I should wait
> until I could afford new and better tools to replace the ones I
> already had so I didn't just ruin the expensive wood I had bought.
>
> Of course, with the shop sitting idle, but there for use nonetheless,
> I eventually got over it a little, and had a project I really needed
> to do. To my surprise, it came out just fine, even with tools I had
> been told were garbage over and over again by the glossy pictures in
> magazines, and intensely precise woodworkers here and on other forums
> that were agonizing over the .001" of deviation on their table saw
> tops. Boy, if you were to see the stuff I had availible for use back
> then, you'd probably declare it not only chintzy, but possibly
> dangerous to boot after reading threads like this.
>
> So, the response is really directed less at you and Swingman than at
> those beginners that might be lurking and reading this thread. It's
> just a sanity check and reminder that while a guy *can* tune up their
> equipment until it's good enough to manufacture aircraft, it's not an
> absolute requirement for making something that is functional and
> attractive. The jig is a neat idea, but I still feel it is probably
> overkill for myself and most others.

No one suggested that the indicator jig was the only method or even
needed. The original poster merely suggested that his new found jig
worked well for him.

> No intent to start a pissing match over it, or hurt anyone's feelings-
> just a reminder that it's not always necessary to have the absolute
> best to make good product.

No one said you had to have the best. This is your erroneous assumption.

Stoutman (in [email protected]) said:

| I have been frustrated lately trying to quickly and accurately
| align my TS blade to 90o. I made the jig pictured at the link
| below, to combat this problem. It seems to work nicely. I fist
| 'zero' the indicator at my jointer fence (which I know to be 90o)
| and then place it against the TS blade. The slightest turn of the
| TS wheel causes a big move at the indicator dial. I'm sure most
| have you have thought of this already, but it took me a while :)
|
| Question:
| After I set my blade to 90o and put on my cross cut sled and
| re-measure, guess what? It's off by a smidge (can't quantitate).
| Should I re-align my blade when using my sled? Should I make a new
| sled? Am I being crazy?
|
| http://www.garagewoodworks.com/jigsfixtures.htm

Er... Is it possible that the top surface of your crosscut sled isn't
exactly parallel to the saw table?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Stoutman (in [email protected]) said:

|| Er... Is it possible that the top surface of your crosscut sled
|| isn't exactly parallel to the saw table?
|
| Yep, that's what I suspect. The sled is made from 1/4" hardboard
| and is a little too flimsy. I think I need to make a new one with
| a more rigid surface. 1/2" ply?

Up to you. My first guesses would be that either there's some debris
between the table and the sled; or that the sled's runners are riding
on the bottom of the table slot and/or on debris in the slot) and
lifting the hardboard just a little bit - in which case I'd try
sanding a bit off the runners.

My crosscut sled uses 1/4" (0.022") cheap plywood - but since the
runners don't touch the bottom of the slots everything seems to stay
squared.

Your original rationale for choosing the 1/4" hardboard was probably a
good one. Don't be in a big rush to replace it.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Why does everyone have to make fancy little jigs that measure to within a
thou. You are working with wood not engineering a bearing shaft. First
argument on jig is what is to say that the jointer fence is set accuratly?
Secondly I am sure the every one has (or at least should have) a tool in
their kit designed to set the blade and anything else for that matter at 90
deg. For those of you who do not know what it is called or what it is used
for it is called a square. It looks like a funny L shaped piece of steel.
You sit it in the table and hold it up against the blade. If you see light
at the top or the bottom the blade isn't at 90 deg so just adjust the blade
till you see no light between the blade and square. Very simple, takes
little time to dig out of draw or off the wall and works every time. And for
those who really want to be anal about it and accurate to within a thou just
use a good engineers square.


"Stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have been frustrated lately trying to quickly and accurately align my TS
> blade to 90o. I made the jig pictured at the link below, to combat this
> problem. It seems to work nicely. I fist 'zero' the indicator at my
> jointer fence (which I know to be 90o) and then place it against the TS
> blade. The slightest turn of the TS wheel causes a big move at the
> indicator dial. I'm sure most have you have thought of this already, but
it
> took me a while :)
>
> Question:
> After I set my blade to 90o and put on my cross cut sled and re-measure,
> guess what? It's off by a smidge (can't quantitate). Should I re-align
my
> blade when using my sled? Should I make a new sled? Am I being crazy?
>
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/jigsfixtures.htm
>
> --
> Stoutman
> www.garagewoodworks.com
>
>

CW (in [email protected]) said:

| "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
|| Stoutman (in [email protected]) said:
|| My crosscut sled uses 1/4" (0.022") cheap plywood
| Should that have not read .220?

Yeah, +/- 0.00019" before I sneezed on it.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Stoutman (in [email protected]) said:

| I have been frustrated lately trying to quickly and accurately
| align my TS blade to 90o. I made the jig pictured at the link
| below, to combat this problem. It seems to work nicely. I fist
| 'zero' the indicator at my jointer fence (which I know to be 90o)
| and then place it against the TS blade. The slightest turn of the
| TS wheel causes a big move at the indicator dial. I'm sure most
| have you have thought of this already, but it took me a while :)

Well, /I/ hadn't thought of it - and it reflects some good
problem-solving talent.

I would suggest applying your aligner to _both_ sides of the saw
blade; and adjusting the tilt so that you got the same indicator
reading on both sides (BTW, this would relieve you of the need to set
set up the device using some other reference.)

Didja have to use a /bent/ nail? ;-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

In article <[email protected]>, "Stoutman" <.@.> wrote:
>Just for curiosities sake I wanted to know how much distance error (dial
>indicator) equated to angle error.
[snip calculations and go straight to results]
>For my jig, a dial indicator reading of 0.001 (if zeroed at 90o) equals an
>angle of 89.97o.

All well and good, but I think I'll stick with my method. Not because it's
better, but because it's quick and it works for me: slide a (known true)
square against the blade, and test the fit with a feeler gauge. If I can't fit
a 0.002" feeler gauge between the blade and the square at either top or bottom
then it's good. That means the blade is within 0.002" over 3" of being square
to the table. FWIW, that's +/- 0.038 degrees (89.96 to 90.04).

That's probably within the range of error introduced by stray bits of sawdust
on the saw table or on the square... so I'm happy.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 02:58:39 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>> Hey, if it works for you, fine. I'm not knocking it. Just the same,
>> I'm quite happy with the speed and accuracy I get with a Starrett
>> square, and I think I'll stick with that. That's what works for
>> me. :-)
>
>
>Well, that's just one setting.
>
>There the alignment of the blade to the slots.
>Alignment of the fence to the slots.
>Alignment of the sliding table.
>Alignment of a crosscut sled.
>Setting the blade to angles other than 90 degrees.
>
>Can't do those with a square.....

Nope- but you can do a fine and servicable job of all those with a
square and a rule.

On 11 Nov 2006 15:55:18 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>Well I saw your other reply first so I responded to it. Hope you
>understand as well. No insult intended - I was just trying to put you
>into your place (which it seems you were already in by the time I
>responded). And, no insult perceived - these discussions do tend to go
>off on tangents.

Thanks for being understanding about it- just a rotten day, and I was
itching for a fight without even realizing it.

If you call it a fab shop, that's fine, and it seems clear enough that
I'm not in a real position to argue. I'm not just an operator-
though. I run an Amada laser cutter, and do a fair amount of the
programming (*not* just CNC edits, full programming) and am
responsible for making the jigs for custom parts and prototyping
(which may well be more complex than you think, when we need to cut
features at several Z heights after the parts have been on the brake).

The only real differences from my perspective between that and a mill
are that the Z-axis is much easier to handle and the maximum accuracy
is .0004 with repeatability is that is only somewhat lower- which puts
it well out of the class of somthing like a Mazak mill that is able to
run parts with a .0001 tolerance- which is why the measurement tools
we're using are less precise. Feed and speed are still important,
even though the cutter is a laser, and not a cutterhead with inserts,
and things like gas pressure, focus and alignment come into play
during the setup.

We've got the Bridgeport for milling parts that mount into the
finished products, and I'm the only guy that sets it up and runs it
right now. Should be fairly clear that it is not an operator's task-
putting in a part and hitting a button won't do squat on a manual
machine, and I have met plenty of guys who were doing high precision
work that could not even use a manual machine. As noted in the other
response you sent, of course it does not use G-codes- it's just got a
digital readout, and yes, I use dial indicators to check the parts and
set it up.

It's not that I was lying to you about my job- it's more that I have a
different concept of what I am doing than yourself. Even though it's
less precise than another machine shop, I still consider it
machinist's work, as do the people I work for and my coworkers. I've
done precision machinist's work in the past, but it's been a long time
and the places I worked were small, and not state of the art by any
means- when I was trained in it, we still used equipment, including
measuring equipment, that you would probably consider primative-
including squares and feeler guages. Whether it was good technique
that isn't very common any more or just plain dumb luck, the stuff we
put out of those places was still up to snuff.

Sounds like a guy we had a while ago. Claimed to be a toolmaker. Trial and
error were his thing. He often got it right eventually. Doesn't work for us
anymore. Not missed.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

> what would you think of a machiniist who spends an
> hour checking test cuts with a square (or by flipping parts over
> looking for a gap)?
>
> Ed Bennett
> [email protected]
> http://www.ts-aligner.com
>

In article <[email protected]>, "Stoutman" <.@.> wrote:

>It seems to me that by using a square to set 90o you must be sacrificing
>speed over accuracy (if you are doing it as fast as I think you are). You
>can't possibly have both, it must be one or the other.

I may be underestimating the time I spend using the square, but I know I'm not
sacrificing accuracy: if I can't get a 0.002" feeler gauge between the square
and the blade anywhere, then I know I'm at 90.00 +/- less than 0.04 degrees.
>
>With my jig you get both speed and accuracy with no sacrifice in either one.
>
>I say again: Why not?

Well, you've just about convinced me to give it a try, and time myself using
your jig *and* again using my Starrett square and feeler gauges, and see which
one is really faster. I'll be busy with other things the next couple of days,
and won't be back in the shop until Wednesday morning. I'll get back to you on
this...

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:50:02 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>I think Rick's point (and mine too) was that you shouldn't confuse tolerances
>of five thou on dimensions, and fifteen minutes (!) of arc on angles, with
>actually doing precision work.

Ok Doug, I see your point- I just have no idea what else to call it.
It's hardly "sloppy work" in the grand scheme of things. If you've
got a suitable term for it, I'll use that instead.

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:16:13 GMT, "Stoutman" <.@.> wrote:

>I have been frustrated lately trying to quickly and accurately align my TS
>blade to 90o. I made the jig pictured at the link below, to combat this
>problem. It seems to work nicely. I fist 'zero' the indicator at my
>jointer fence (which I know to be 90o) and then place it against the TS
>blade. The slightest turn of the TS wheel causes a big move at the
>indicator dial. I'm sure most have you have thought of this already, but it
>took me a while :)
>
>Question:
>After I set my blade to 90o and put on my cross cut sled and re-measure,
>guess what? It's off by a smidge (can't quantitate). Should I re-align my
>blade when using my sled? Should I make a new sled? Am I being crazy?
>
>http://www.garagewoodworks.com/jigsfixtures.htm

I check my equipment periodically - probably a few times a month.
I do not use gauges or dials, etc.
I cut a piece of stock and put my square to it. I also pay great
attention to how things are going together. Thats it.
Now, if Lockheed Martin calls and requests a set of stairs for say an
F-16, then I'll worry more about tolerance beyond the human eye.

Leon wrote:

> Well, for some maybe but it requires no set up so it works pretty quickly
> for me.

Did you look at Stoutman' indicator jig? It's a dedicated alignment
device. Set it once (takes about 10 seconds) and set your TS blade. The
total alignment operation takes about one minute.

>> Why the criticism of a good idea?
>
> Not criticisiing, I have a dial indicator and find it takes longer to tweek
> the settings.

How are you using it? What are you tweaking? How long does it take to
zero it out?

>> If you like cutting a stack of wood to set your blade then have fun.
>
> You do not need a new board for every test cut and if you really know what
> you are doing, 3 or 4 test cuts should be more than enough.

And this takes how long? And how accurate? Can you make three or four
cuts and adjust the blade in less than one minute?

> You will never beat the indicator set-up for speed and accuracy.
>
> Well, you may not but many of us do.

Your eyeball will never be more accurate than an indicator!

Rick

PS - It doesn't matter how you set your blade; that indeed is your
choice. Given the choice of your trial and error method or to use the
precision indicator jig, I will always choose the precision method hands
down. As long as you are happy with your choice that is all that matters!

Prometheus wrote:

> Yep.
>
> I still get a kick out of guys who turn up their noses at anything
> that is more than a couple of years old- all the new and improved
> stuff came from somewhere, after all. During my apprenticeship, my
> uncle taught be how to grind carbide to within a thou, with angles
> just as tight using a manual machine that had no computers, and got
> it's three-phase power from a home made convertor we started by
> wrapping a bit of rope around the spindle and giving it a yank before
> hitting the switch. We checked the product with the old tools his
> father brought with him from Austria during WWII, carefully maintained
> and cared for over decades of use (I wish I had tools that nice- but
> they went to his son, when he took over the business.) The "modern
> machine shops" we sharpened and made inserts for never seemed to have

Modern machine shops rarely sharpen inserts. As a general rule, inserts
are used and discarded.

> any complaints about the quality- they must have forgotten to check
> them with their Chordal Measuring Machines. :) (And the production

You are mixing apples and oranges. Who is talking about anything other
than setting a table saw blade to 90 degrees?

> woodworking shops were happy with their blades, too)
>
> Don't get me wrong, I like CNC controls and modern measurement tools
> just fine- but the old ways didn't just stop working because someone
> made a new widget and declared that it was better,

No one said the old methods do not work. Reread this thread and show me
where anyone said that the old methods are flawed. Stoutman merely
demonstrated a high tech jig that is one solution to the problem.

Rick

> I say again: Why not?

I re-read this and thought it sounded a little snooty. Sorry.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Leon wrote:
>> Ed you have read me wrong perhaps.
>
> Sorry about that. I didn't intend to get the wrong impression it just
> seemed to happen that way.
>
>> I have complete respect for you and your
>> product and your methods. They work.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> I just think using a dial indicator
>> on a daily basis to set a blade to 90 degrees is a lot of work.
>
> Actually, anytime square cuts are needed (which would probably be quite
> a bit more than daily). Imagine what could be accomplished by the
> average woodworker if they had no fear of tilting their blade (and the
> subsequent saga of "trial and error" that would naturally follow).

I guess I have been spoiled working on a cabinet saw all the time. My 90
degree stop never lets me down.

> If you are familiar with metal working machinery then you know that it
> has scales and digital readouts and computer controls that are actually
> accurate (as opposed to what woodworking machinery has). Even still,
> the most used tool in the shop is still an indicator. Why? Because
> machinists really look down on a person who does their work by trial
> and error, using test cuts to make adjustments to their machinery.
> It's considered a major waste of time and a demonstration of ignorance.

Well it's a good thing I am only cutting wood. ;~)

> Well, /I/ hadn't thought of it - and it reflects some good
> problem-solving talent.
>
> I would suggest applying your aligner to _both_ sides of the saw
> blade; and adjusting the tilt so that you got the same indicator
> reading on both sides (BTW, this would relieve you of the need to set
> set up the device using some other reference.)

I hadn't thought of that! Good tip.

> Didja have to use a /bent/ nail? ;-)

Geesh Morris! Couldn't you tell that the bent nails are a design feature?
;)


> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
>
>

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:59:27 -0500, Richard Faust <[email protected]>
wrote:


>OK. I understand that you are not holding tight tolerances. In that case
>a square is just fine.

There ya go- that was the whole point. And no, I don't know that a
square is good to a tenth- I can measure a tenth with a mic, but just
barely (I've got repeatability issues with that fine a measurement,
not being used to making them). But checking every few parts with a
square while the machine is running hundreds of identical parts is a
perfectly reasonable way to make sure something dramatic hasn't
changed, like a chip getting stuck a vise or chuck.

>I don't agree. Most quality table saws will hold a precision adjustment.
>The object is to set it right the first time and let the uncontrollable
>variables fall into place.

I suppose that's going to depend on the saw, and the level of
precision we're talking about. Mine won't, and I have serious doubts
about the Unisaws I've used ability to hold a really fine adjustment
as well. Might just be an erroneous perception on my part, or poorly
maintained tools. Mine (Delta 36-680) could never do that in the
first place.

>> When we start seeing (for example) miter gauges riding in dovetailed
>> ways with micro-adjustable automatic feeds and CNC controllers, then
>> it'll start making sense to measure their alignment with machinist
>> tools- but as long as most of them are still pot metal castings
>> attached to a bit of flat stock riding in a slot with a little slop,
>> it seems like a waste of resources and thought to hem and haw over
>
>Sounds like you are referring to something other than the alignment of
>the saw blade to the table. That has nothing to do with the cut being
>perpendicular (a perfect 90).

Well sure, it was just an example. It could have been worded
differently to reference the angle of the blade, but that seemed a lot
more involved to me.

>BTW - I have been a machinist for the past 30 years. This may explain
>why I like the precision of Stoutman's jig.

Well, you've got me easily outclassed then- you've been doing the job
at least four times longer than I have, and I've taken a couple long
"breaks" from it to do construction over the years. Turns out, I'm
more successful (financially) at working with metal, so I've dropped
the construction work for good, and have just recently started the
machining work back up. (Life is what happens when you're trying to
make other plans, right?)

The job is going well, but I still mess up the terminology a bit when
trying to talk about it. Doesn't help that we seem to be talking
about entirely different finished products, either. I've put in time
in very precise shops when I was learning, but it was many years ago.
The sheet metal work with secondary manual milling has been a great
way to ease back into it.

>Have a nice day!

You too, Rick.

In article <[email protected]>, "Stoutman" <.@.> wrote:
>> I say again: Why not?
>
>I re-read this and thought it sounded a little snooty. Sorry.

Didn't sound that way to me, Stoutman. No offense taken, and no apology
necessary.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article <[email protected]>, "Stoutman" <.@.> wrote:
>> Gotcha. And the known-square reference is established.... by using an
>> accurate
>> square, I imagine. Seems to me that it's easier to just use that accurate
>> square to set the table saw, too... but whatever works...
>
>Read my response to Paul D. Don't knock it until you try it.

Hey, if it works for you, fine. I'm not knocking it. Just the same, I'm quite
happy with the speed and accuracy I get with a Starrett square, and I think
I'll stick with that. That's what works for me. :-)

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article <[email protected]>, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> I'm missing something here, BIG TIME. Maybe the coffee hasn't kicked in yet
>> this morning... but how do you know it's square? Help me out on this one.
>
>It's calibrated against a known-square reference--in this case the
>jointer fence. Zero the indicator at that point, take it to the saw,
>get blade roughly vertical, then adjust the tilt so the indicator reads
>zero again.

Gotcha. And the known-square reference is established.... by using an accurate
square, I imagine. Seems to me that it's easier to just use that accurate
square to set the table saw, too... but whatever works...

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

> Hi Stoutman,
>
> Did you consider the error introduced by dial indicator tilt? If the
> plunger isn't parallel to the table surface then you will be
> introducing some error (it will no longer be right triangle trig).
> This is why I said earlier in the thread that your jig wasn't able to
> measure angles.

Ed,

Please ignore my other reply. I got ya now! Just took me a little longer.
I am assuming the plunger is parallel when it most likely is not!

Your correct. Unless I get the plunger perfectly parallel with the table I
can not measure angle error.

Thanks. This is the reason why I NEED your TS aligner Jr!


>
> Ed Bennett
> [email protected]
>
>
> Stoutman wrote:
>> I added a feature on my web page that allows you to calculate angle
>> errors
>> from distance errors.
>>
>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/dial_indicator_jig_spread.htm
>>
>> --
>> Stoutman
>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>

Prometheus wrote:
> Tolerances on breaks are usually .125 - .25 degrees, measured dims are
> usually .003 to .005. We're not an engine shop, or making gears.

OK. Now I see why you use a square. Your tolerances are wide open.

> 80%+ of the work is military equipment and supercomputer (Cray)
> components, and a lot of it is high-end sheet metal work with
> integrated milled parts. The applications don't require greater
> precision than that- in most cases. There are a few German companies
> we do work for that have tighter controls, but they're not the bulk of
> the business.
>
> I used to work in a place that did a lot of engine-oriented lathe
> work, and the tolerances were much tighter, often as low as .0001.
> But even there, while there were comparators in QC, machinists'
> squares were used for in-process checks on most parts. A good square

You can check .0001 with a square?

> will tell you a lot, and they can rest on the table next to you- a
> comparator loses some of it's value if you're checking every third or
> fourth part, and need to wind through a crowded shop to get to it.
>
> It's a matter of degree. If you're looking at the alignment of the
> atoms in the material, then an optical comparator won't get you there
> either. The customers set the specs, and they pay for greater

No one is talking about checking the alignment of atoms.

> precision- most of the time, the specs they set are easily met by
> using a good square.

?

> Many of the products we produce are very large, and even if there were
> a comparator on the shop floor, they would not fit on it- unless the
> company were to spring for a huge one, and another addition to house
> it. But a square with 12-16" legs that shows no gap over that run
> gets you awfully close to perfect.

OK. I understand that you are not holding tight tolerances. In that case
a square is just fine.

> Same deal with woodworking (ignoring the fact that the material itself
> is too variable to hold a tolerance as tight as metal)- most folks are
> not making tiny, precise models of things on their table saws- more
> often, we are making things that are large enough to make a 1/64"
> inaccuracy unimportant.

True.

> I'll take that under advisement, and apologize for making an ass of
> myself. I didn't intend to knock another person's method, I just get
> tired of the same arguments over precision that crop up here all the
> time.

No problem. To each his own.

> Even with the best instruments in the world, nobody is going to get a
> regular consumer-oriented woodworking tool to hold an adjustment that
> precise- they're just not designed or manufactured to that standard.

I don't agree. Most quality table saws will hold a precision adjustment.
The object is to set it right the first time and let the uncontrollable
variables fall into place.

> When we start seeing (for example) miter gauges riding in dovetailed
> ways with micro-adjustable automatic feeds and CNC controllers, then
> it'll start making sense to measure their alignment with machinist
> tools- but as long as most of them are still pot metal castings
> attached to a bit of flat stock riding in a slot with a little slop,
> it seems like a waste of resources and thought to hem and haw over

Sounds like you are referring to something other than the alignment of
the saw blade to the table. That has nothing to do with the cut being
perpendicular (a perfect 90).

> getting them set to an obsene level of precision. Same with any other
> component- while it might be fun to get a straightedge and a set of
> feeler guages to see if your saw's top is within .001" of complete
> flatness over it's entire run, it's not going to make a real
> difference unless you can see that the sucker is obviously twisted or
> warped with a quick visual inspection.

Precision is what it is. Some people want their equipment set up to the
nth degree and others are happy with just OK. No problem either way. I
don't force my ideas down anyones throat. I believe in a variety of
solutions.

BTW - I have been a machinist for the past 30 years. This may explain
why I like the precision of Stoutman's jig.

Have a nice day!

Rick

Mazaks are crap!!!

"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 11 Nov 2006 15:55:18 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Well I saw your other reply first so I responded to it. Hope you
> >understand as well. No insult intended - I was just trying to put you
> >into your place (which it seems you were already in by the time I
> >responded). And, no insult perceived - these discussions do tend to go
> >off on tangents.
>
> Thanks for being understanding about it- just a rotten day, and I was
> itching for a fight without even realizing it.
>
> If you call it a fab shop, that's fine, and it seems clear enough that
> I'm not in a real position to argue. I'm not just an operator-
> though. I run an Amada laser cutter, and do a fair amount of the
> programming (*not* just CNC edits, full programming) and am
> responsible for making the jigs for custom parts and prototyping
> (which may well be more complex than you think, when we need to cut
> features at several Z heights after the parts have been on the brake).
>
> The only real differences from my perspective between that and a mill
> are that the Z-axis is much easier to handle and the maximum accuracy
> is .0004 with repeatability is that is only somewhat lower- which puts
> it well out of the class of somthing like a Mazak mill that is able to
> run parts with a .0001 tolerance- which is why the measurement tools
> we're using are less precise. Feed and speed are still important,
> even though the cutter is a laser, and not a cutterhead with inserts,
> and things like gas pressure, focus and alignment come into play
> during the setup.
>
> We've got the Bridgeport for milling parts that mount into the
> finished products, and I'm the only guy that sets it up and runs it
> right now. Should be fairly clear that it is not an operator's task-
> putting in a part and hitting a button won't do squat on a manual
> machine, and I have met plenty of guys who were doing high precision
> work that could not even use a manual machine. As noted in the other
> response you sent, of course it does not use G-codes- it's just got a
> digital readout, and yes, I use dial indicators to check the parts and
> set it up.
>
> It's not that I was lying to you about my job- it's more that I have a
> different concept of what I am doing than yourself. Even though it's
> less precise than another machine shop, I still consider it
> machinist's work, as do the people I work for and my coworkers. I've
> done precision machinist's work in the past, but it's been a long time
> and the places I worked were small, and not state of the art by any
> means- when I was trained in it, we still used equipment, including
> measuring equipment, that you would probably consider primative-
> including squares and feeler guages. Whether it was good technique
> that isn't very common any more or just plain dumb luck, the stuff we
> put out of those places was still up to snuff.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Stoutman"
> <.@.> wrote:
>
>>It seems to me that by using a square to set 90o you must be sacrificing
>>speed over accuracy (if you are doing it as fast as I think you are). You
>>can't possibly have both, it must be one or the other.
>
> I may be underestimating the time I spend using the square, but I know I'm
> not
> sacrificing accuracy: if I can't get a 0.002" feeler gauge between the
> square
> and the blade anywhere, then I know I'm at 90.00 +/- less than 0.04
> degrees.
>>
>>With my jig you get both speed and accuracy with no sacrifice in either
>>one.
>>
>>I say again: Why not?
>
> Well, you've just about convinced me to give it a try, and time myself
> using
> your jig *and* again using my Starrett square and feeler gauges, and see
> which
> one is really faster. I'll be busy with other things the next couple of
> days,
> and won't be back in the shop until Wednesday morning. I'll get back to
> you on
> this...


Cool. After you make the jig and zero it on 90, see how close you are
getting with the square. While you're at it, see if there is a correlation
between time spent squinting at the square and accuracy. In other words, do
you get closer to 90o with more time spent eyeing the square or is it a case
of diminishing return?




--
Stoutman
www.garagewoodworks.com

> Er... Is it possible that the top surface of your crosscut sled isn't
> exactly parallel to the saw table?

Yep, that's what I suspect. The sled is made from 1/4" hardboard and is a
little too flimsy. I think I need to make a new one with a more rigid
surface. 1/2" ply?


>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
>
>

I added a feature on my web page that allows you to calculate angle errors
from distance errors.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/dial_indicator_jig_spread.htm

--
Stoutman
www.garagewoodworks.com

In article <[email protected]>, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:22:35 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Richard Faust <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>Prometheus wrote:
>>> > Tolerances on breaks are usually .125 - .25 degrees, measured dims are
>>>> usually .003 to .005. We're not an engine shop, or making gears.
>>>
>>>OK. Now I see why you use a square. Your tolerances are wide open.
>>
>>No kidding. My FIL is a retired tool-and-die maker. He said that in most of
>>the shops he worked in, they routinely worked to a tolerance of "a half",
>>meaning half a thousandth. He didn't even start to consider something as
>>being precision work until the tolerance was down to a tenth.
>
>Well, fine. I work with the specs I'm given, and we sell the parts to
>customers as precision work. All of those specs are tighter than
>woodwork can reasonably hold owing to wood movement, which was point.
>I'm not going to start claiming that I am the best precision machinist
>in the world, and as noted previously, we use tools that are able to
>measure the tolerances required by the customers.

I think Rick's point (and mine too) was that you shouldn't confuse tolerances
of five thou on dimensions, and fifteen minutes (!) of arc on angles, with
actually doing precision work.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

> Gotta agree with you there, Paul.

Have you tried what i did? If not, I'm not sure you can agree with Paul.


>I have a decent square hanging off
> almost every tool in the shop. When I misplace one (or in the course
> of a large project, all of them) I've even been known to use a speed
> square.
>
> It's really never been a problem- but if it were one, I don't think
> I'd make a jig- I'd just carefully reset the positive stops.

Setting the stops on my saw is a PITA!! Did you see my saw? :(

In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>> Hey, if it works for you, fine. I'm not knocking it. Just the same,
>> I'm quite happy with the speed and accuracy I get with a Starrett
>> square, and I think I'll stick with that. That's what works for
>> me. :-)
>
>
>Well, that's just one setting.
>
>There the alignment of the blade to the slots.
>Alignment of the fence to the slots.
>Alignment of the sliding table.
>Alignment of a crosscut sled.
>Setting the blade to angles other than 90 degrees.
>
>Can't do those with a square.....

Can't do those with the jig we were talking about, either. What's your point?

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

--
Stoutman> Well, sure I can- considering the effort and cost involved in
going
> out to buy a dial indicator of any sort, and then dedicating it to
> squaring my saw blade, it comes out to a *lot* more work than just
> using the squares that are already there and ready for use.

Dial indicators are cheap and you can use them for a bunch of stuff.

The indicator is FASTER and EASIER than using a square and has the added
advantage of being more ACCURATE.

Why not?

Do you still use a Slide Rule? :)

<SNIP>

Bruce Barnett wrote:
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>> Hey, if it works for you, fine. I'm not knocking it. Just the same,
>> I'm quite happy with the speed and accuracy I get with a Starrett
>> square, and I think I'll stick with that. That's what works for
>> me. :-)
>
>
> Well, that's just one setting.
>
> There the alignment of the blade to the slots.
> Alignment of the fence to the slots.
> Alignment of the sliding table.
> Alignment of a crosscut sled.
> Setting the blade to angles other than 90 degrees.
>
> Can't do those with a square.....
>
>
Sure you can, all but the last.
I have a really poor fence so every time I change
the fence position I use a machinist square to
make sure the fence is parallel to the fence
slots; the slide against the fence and the handle
against the slot side (at each end of the fence).
Same think when adjusting the table slots to be
parallel with the saw blade.

"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hey Ed-
>

>
> I have to admit, I'm a little ashamed of myself for it- Stoutman, it's
> a clever little jig you've got there, and I apologise to you as well,
> for making this into an argument that went way off topic.

I too think that Stoutmans jig is pretty neat. It gets the job dine. Its
just a shame that he cannot rely on his saw to stop at 90 degrees
repeatedly.

In article <[email protected]>, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'd certainly worry about trim nails pounded
>into a block of wood being tweaked the first time you bumped them with
>somthing [...]

It doesn't matter -- that's the real beauty of the jig. The nails don't have
to project out from the base by the same amount; they don't even have to be
close. They don't have to be in the same place every time you use the jig. You
just push it up against some known square reference and zero the indicator,
then push it up against your saw blade, and adjust the blade until the
indicator reads zero again.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi Leon,
>
> I know that the test cut method works and is very accurate when done
> properly. Having read your messages for years I'm sure that you find
> it easier and faster than using a dial indicator. And, if you don't
> mind wasting some carefully prepared 8/4 piece of oak (your "2x4") for
> test cuts then I should be the last person in the world to stand in
> your way.

Well, ;~) I do not use pieces that are not scheduled to go in to the smoker
or fire place.

>
> Having read my messages for years, you probably know that I hate test
> cuts because I don't like to waste the time or wood on trial and error.
> I much prefer to use instruments (like the dial indicator jig) to
> obtain precise settings so that the first cut is the final cut. I
> realize that many people (yourself included) feel like I am somehow
> cheating because it appears as if my method requires no skill (or less
> skill) and certainly a lot less work (for most people).

Noooooo, I DO NOT feel that you are cheating. I believe in doing things ins
a way that best fit your style. Almost all of my tools have a cord. I am
not cheatin geither. ;~)


> I would say that it just requires different skills.

Absolutely.

I know that I can't expect you (or any of the other test cut enthusiasts)
to respect my preference,
> but it sure would be nice if you guys didn't feel compelled to ridicule it
> (and those of us who advocate it).

Ed you have read me wrong perhaps. I have complete respect for you and your
product and your methods. They work. I just think using a dial indicator
on a daily basis to set a blade to 90 degrees is a lot of work. I
completely rely on my 90 degree stop on my saw and it has never let me
down. You do have to admit that using a dial indicator to set a blade to 90
degrees is a lot more work than turning the bevel wheel until it stops. ;~)
I think what Stoutman really needs is a better saw and his dial indicators
to set it up initially.

In article <[email protected]>, "Stoutman" <.@.> wrote:
>>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the use of feeler guages
>> eliminate (or at least drastically reduce) the need to squint?
>
>I assume it does. I have never used feeler gauges. Maybe that is why I am
>having a tough time picturing what he is doing and how he is getting speed
>as well as decent accuracy from his alignment.

A picture is worth a thousand words:

http://www.milmac.com/wood/SquaringTableSawBlade.jpg

I measure the clearance (if any) between the square and the blade, using a
0.002" feeler gauge, at the top of the blade, as shown in the photo, and again
just above the level of the table. The two measurements are taken about 2.5"
apart. (I had previously said 3", but that's not correct -- it's 2.5".) If the
feeler gauge won't fit at either point, then the blade deviates from the
square by less than 0.002" in 2.5", or about +/- 0.046 degrees.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article <[email protected]>,
Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Well, that's just one setting.
>
>There the alignment of the blade to the slots.
>Alignment of the fence to the slots.
>Alignment of the sliding table.
>Alignment of a crosscut sled.
>Setting the blade to angles other than 90 degrees.
>
>Can't do those with a square.....
>
>

I'm not making any recommendations one way or the other here, but you
can sure do the 1st four with a combination square and could set the
blade tilt to 45 too.
.
--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore, Maryland - [email protected]

> I check my equipment periodically - probably a few times a month.
> I do not use gauges or dials, etc.
> I cut a piece of stock and put my square to it. I also pay great
> attention to how things are going together. Thats it.
> Now, if Lockheed Martin calls and requests a set of stairs for say an
> F-16, then I'll worry more about tolerance beyond the human eye.

Its NOT just tolerances, its SPEED and convenience too. This jig is faster
and easier to use and it has the added advantage of being more accurate as
well.

>>I'm glad you find your method quick.
>>
>>For me it is much faster (I'm not bull sh*ting here) to slap the dial
>>indicator jig into the blade and look at the dial than to squint at a
>>square.

> Well, that's not all you're doing, right? You still have to push that jig
> up
> against a known square reference, such as your jointer fence, first, every
> time you use the jig.

I plan on setting it once and checking it once in a while.


> Or did you zero it once against a reference, and then leave the dial
> indicator
> permanently mounted to the jig?

yes

> I think I'd rather continue to use a true square and a feeler gauge than
> to
> dedicate a dial indicator to one single-purpose jig.
>>
>>The major turn on for me with this jig was speed, the added accuracy was
>>just a bonus!
>
> Hmmm... I see it the other way around: the major advantages from my
> perspective are accuracy and ease of use. I'll admit I haven't used your
> jig
> or one like it, and doing so might well change my mind, but I find it
> tough to
> see how there's an improvement in speed.

It seems to me that by using a square to set 90o you must be sacrificing
speed over accuracy (if you are doing it as fast as I think you are). You
can't possibly have both, it must be one or the other.

With my jig you get both speed and accuracy with no sacrifice in either one.

I say again: Why not?

>
> Yes. That's how I normally do it.

My square is too small.

>>Anyway. I don't want to drag this out more than it needs to be. I just
>>wanted to share :)
>>
>>I am still waiting for FineWoodWorking to contact me for their "Methods of
>>Work". --Just kidding.
>
> Send it to them. You might get something for it.

Sent!

> I have seen another jig very similar to this on a web site that I can't
> locate right now. While your jig can't measure angles it will do a
> very nice job squaring things up. Cheap, reliable, easy to read,
> extremely accurate, and quick.

Thanks Ed. Your correct, the jig is limited to 90o set-ups.

> To keep from having to rely on the accuracy of your jointer fence
> setting for calibration, you could get a machinist's angle plate like
> this one:
>
> http://www.use-enco.com/CGI/INSRIT?PARTPG=INLMKD&PMPXNO=945531&PMAKA=418-4315

I was not aware that these even existed. Thanks!

> Or, you could use a single point as your fixed reference (instead of
> the two) and just use an ordinary square to calibrate. You can use one
> of the side edges of your jig as a reference. Make sure the reference
> edge is inline with the square when calibrating by using a straight
> edge and a spacer. Use a square against the reference edge when
> checking the your blade or jointer fence.
>
> The big advantage of using a single point for your fixed reference is
> the ability to measure vertical angles with the help of common
> machinist's angle blocks. The edge you measure will be square with the
> table when the blade (or fence) is tilted to the correct angle.
>
> Ed Bennett
> [email protected]
> http://www.ts-aligner.com
>

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
> Ya, Haas beats Mazak any day! ;-)
It's a tosssup. Sorry Ed but Haas is a ways down my list too.

> Rong-Fu beats all and if you don't agree then you aren't a real
> machinist!
>
I know there was an attempt at humor here but I'm really not getting it.

In article <[email protected]>, "Stoutman" <.@.> wrote:
>
>"Paul D" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Why does everyone have to make fancy little jigs that measure to within a
>> thou.
>
>It's not just for thousands. Its SPEED. I can set my blade to 90 with this
>jig faster than it takes you to bend down to squint at your "funny L shaped
>piece of steel".
>I just slap it against my blade and look at the dial. Turn one way or the
>other on the adjustment nob and I'm there. And I 'know I'm there'.

I'm missing something here, BIG TIME. Maybe the coffee hasn't kicked in yet
this morning... but how do you know it's square? Help me out on this one.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Richard Faust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
> How are you using it? What are you tweaking? How long does it take to zero
> it out?

I had it attached to a piece of 1/2" piece of Baltic Birch indexed in the
miter slot. It worked fine but took some time to pull the tool out and find
the jig. ;~)

>
> And this takes how long? And how accurate? Can you make three or four cuts
> and adjust the blade in less than one minute?

Absolutely. About as much time as setting the blade bevel to make a 22.5
degree cut or any where in between. I have a few pieces of wood precut to
measure against for different angles. Typically however the 90 degree stop
is dead on or at least close enough that even "squinting your eye" reveils
no error.

>
>> You will never beat the indicator set-up for speed and accuracy.
>>
>> Well, you may not but many of us do.
>
> Your eyeball will never be more accurate than an indicator!

I absolutely agree but this is woodworking, not metal working. And while
many of us strive for that perfectly fitting joint and you would probably
find no fault with mine, its a touchey feeley thing for me when making many
of my adjustments. After almost 30 years of serious woodworking, I have
learned a few tricks that work well for me.


> Rick
>
> PS - It doesn't matter how you set your blade; that indeed is your choice.
> Given the choice of your trial and error method or to use the precision
> indicator jig, I will always choose the precision method hands down. As
> long as you are happy with your choice that is all that matters!

Absolutely. But also keep in mind that regardless of how accurately your
saw is set up the quality of cut is also reflected by your technique when
feeding the wood. I am only saying to not get too caught up in having a
machine set up so perfectly that you do not have time to actually use it.
I'll be the first to say that a machine not set up properly will always
create more work for you in the long run but setting it up does not require
dial indicators for everyday adjustments. I have not had my dial indicator
out since I first got my cabinet saw set up and running about 7 years ago.

Morris Dovey wrote:

> I would suggest applying your aligner to _both_ sides of the saw
> blade; and adjusting the tilt so that you got the same indicator
> reading on both sides (BTW, this would relieve you of the need to set
> set up the device using some other reference.)

Good suggestion!

Rick

Mostly I just consider my own errors. Yes I have a TS Jr. and use
it. But unless a tool is obviously out of alignment I figure I'm
responsible for most of the errors. I think when you are using non
production tools, ie no air hold downs, power feeds ect, every step
introduces errors. This puts you back to being a wood worker, you
have to figure the fudge factor, do a little hand planing or scraping,
combined with some sanding. Either you guys are way out of my league
or we are all problem solvers. There are no mistakes, just design
alterations.

Mike M


On 13 Nov 2006 10:37:21 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>Hi Stoutman,
>
>Did you consider the error introduced by dial indicator tilt? If the
>plunger isn't parallel to the table surface then you will be
>introducing some error (it will no longer be right triangle trig).
>This is why I said earlier in the thread that your jig wasn't able to
>measure angles.
>
>Ed Bennett
>[email protected]
>
>
>Stoutman wrote:
>> I added a feature on my web page that allows you to calculate angle errors
>> from distance errors.
>>
>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/dial_indicator_jig_spread.htm
>>
>> --
>> Stoutman
>> www.garagewoodworks.com

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 10:46:28 -0500, Richard Faust <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Prometheus wrote:
>
>> Only the top, but it doesn't look too bad from that view. From what
>> your pictures show, it appears to be cast-iron- so I'm assuming it's
>> not a $100 benchtop special. But, I may be spoiled with my saw's
>> system, so I'll cheerfully take the suggestion back.
>>
>> It's really just the dial indicator that gives me pause- I work in a
>> machine shop, and we use squares to check for square. There are some
>> very nice adjustable Starret ones that will measure to 1/100 of a
>> degree and have magnifying lenses on them to make the marks readable
>> for setup, but there no dial indicators to be found when measuring the
>> angles. In-process checks are done with regular old squares.
>
>What kind of precision does your machine shop provide. Most modern
>machine shops use Optical Comparators, Sine Bar & Indicator and Chordal
>Measuring Machines to check angles. Regular old squares are used by
>woodworkers, not machinists.

Tolerances on breaks are usually .125 - .25 degrees, measured dims are
usually .003 to .005. We're not an engine shop, or making gears.
80%+ of the work is military equipment and supercomputer (Cray)
components, and a lot of it is high-end sheet metal work with
integrated milled parts. The applications don't require greater
precision than that- in most cases. There are a few German companies
we do work for that have tighter controls, but they're not the bulk of
the business.

I used to work in a place that did a lot of engine-oriented lathe
work, and the tolerances were much tighter, often as low as .0001.
But even there, while there were comparators in QC, machinists'
squares were used for in-process checks on most parts. A good square
will tell you a lot, and they can rest on the table next to you- a
comparator loses some of it's value if you're checking every third or
fourth part, and need to wind through a crowded shop to get to it.

>> Most of those parts are going to very discerning customers who are not
>> shy about rejecting anything that is less than absolutely perfect- so
>> it's not as though we're able to just do a half-assed job.
>
>"Absolutely perfect" cannot be obtained using regular old squares. If
>your shop uses regular old squares to check critical dimensions then the
>work put out is something less than precise.

It's a matter of degree. If you're looking at the alignment of the
atoms in the material, then an optical comparator won't get you there
either. The customers set the specs, and they pay for greater
precision- most of the time, the specs they set are easily met by
using a good square.

Many of the products we produce are very large, and even if there were
a comparator on the shop floor, they would not fit on it- unless the
company were to spring for a huge one, and another addition to house
it. But a square with 12-16" legs that shows no gap over that run
gets you awfully close to perfect.

Same deal with woodworking (ignoring the fact that the material itself
is too variable to hold a tolerance as tight as metal)- most folks are
not making tiny, precise models of things on their table saws- more
often, we are making things that are large enough to make a 1/64"
inaccuracy unimportant.

>> It just seems like overkill to use a more complex and precise
>> measurement system to set up a tablesaw than what is customarily used
>> for machine shop work (note the use of "precise"- the accuracy of a
>> system using nails as stops is a little shady). After a few passes,
>> I've had enough sap built up on a blade (depending on the wood) to
>> affect that level of precision. But as noted above, if it really
>> makes your shop time easier and more enjoyable, that's reason enough
>> for it.
>
>The dial indicator jig is an alternate method. No one is twisting your
>arm to use it. If you prefer to sight the table saw blade in with a
>plain old square then continue to do so. No one is knocking you. Just
>remember there is no need to knock someone else who offers and alternate
>method for setting the table saw blade to 90 degrees.

I'll take that under advisement, and apologize for making an ass of
myself. I didn't intend to knock another person's method, I just get
tired of the same arguments over precision that crop up here all the
time.

Even with the best instruments in the world, nobody is going to get a
regular consumer-oriented woodworking tool to hold an adjustment that
precise- they're just not designed or manufactured to that standard.
When we start seeing (for example) miter gauges riding in dovetailed
ways with micro-adjustable automatic feeds and CNC controllers, then
it'll start making sense to measure their alignment with machinist
tools- but as long as most of them are still pot metal castings
attached to a bit of flat stock riding in a slot with a little slop,
it seems like a waste of resources and thought to hem and haw over
getting them set to an obsene level of precision. Same with any other
component- while it might be fun to get a straightedge and a set of
feeler guages to see if your saw's top is within .001" of complete
flatness over it's entire run, it's not going to make a real
difference unless you can see that the sucker is obviously twisted or
warped with a quick visual inspection.

On 8 Nov 2006 16:00:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Prometheus wrote:
>> Gotta agree with you there, Paul. I have a decent square hanging off
>> almost every tool in the shop. When I misplace one (or in the course
>> of a large project, all of them) I've even been known to use a speed
>> square.
>>
>> It's really never been a problem- but if it were one, I don't think
>> I'd make a jig- I'd just carefully reset the positive stops.
>
>This reminds me of a visit I paid to a local professional shop many
>years ago. The owner basically said the same thing to me. "Why do I
>need your jig when I can just use a square?" So, I walked over to his
>saw and started cranking on the blade tilt so that I could demonstrate.
> Suddenly I heard this loud scream: "STOP! What the hell are you
>doing?!". I was really startled by this and turned around quickly to
>see the look of sheer panic and horror on this guys face. He then got
>really mad at me for disturbing the setting on his "square cutting"
>table saw. You see, he had two saws in the shop. One was very
>carefully adjusted (using a square a a lot of test cuts) to exactly 90
>degrees. The other was used for cutting angles. After I showed him
>how easy it was to return the setting to perfectly square (or any other
>angle), he wrote me a check.
>
>Depending on the sort of work you do, a precise setting might be so
>important that you would invest thousands in a duplicate machine (this
>guy's "square cutting" table saw). Or, you might be quite satisfied
>with the results you get from a speed square.
>
>By the way, I long ago abandon the use of the stops on my blade tilt.
>On more than one occasion I discovered that they had become covered in
>sawdust and the setting was no longer accurate. Unfortunately the
>discovery was made after the cut. Now I just back them off completely
>and every setting that requires accuracy is checked with an Aligner.

To a certain extent, I can see your, and the OP's point. There's
nothing wrong with getting your tools set up carefully and doing high
quality work.

My response to the idea is informed by a realization I had when I was
first building my shop- I was reading a lot of woodworking magazines,
and reading the newsgroups, and found that with all the endless debate
regarding precision and which tools were the absolute "best", I
started to despair that I would never be able to make anything nicer
than a half-assed birdhouse or magazine rack. For several months, I
had myself so worked up over the whole deal that I didn't actually do
any woodworking at all- having convinced myself that I should wait
until I could afford new and better tools to replace the ones I
already had so I didn't just ruin the expensive wood I had bought.

Of course, with the shop sitting idle, but there for use nonetheless,
I eventually got over it a little, and had a project I really needed
to do. To my surprise, it came out just fine, even with tools I had
been told were garbage over and over again by the glossy pictures in
magazines, and intensely precise woodworkers here and on other forums
that were agonizing over the .001" of deviation on their table saw
tops. Boy, if you were to see the stuff I had availible for use back
then, you'd probably declare it not only chintzy, but possibly
dangerous to boot after reading threads like this.

So, the response is really directed less at you and Swingman than at
those beginners that might be lurking and reading this thread. It's
just a sanity check and reminder that while a guy *can* tune up their
equipment until it's good enough to manufacture aircraft, it's not an
absolute requirement for making something that is functional and
attractive. The jig is a neat idea, but I still feel it is probably
overkill for myself and most others.

No intent to start a pissing match over it, or hurt anyone's feelings-
just a reminder that it's not always necessary to have the absolute
best to make good product.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:07:27 +1100, "Paul D" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Why does everyone have to make fancy little jigs that measure to within a
>thou. You are working with wood not engineering a bearing shaft. First
>argument on jig is what is to say that the jointer fence is set accuratly?
>Secondly I am sure the every one has (or at least should have) a tool in
>their kit designed to set the blade and anything else for that matter at 90
>deg. For those of you who do not know what it is called or what it is used
>for it is called a square. It looks like a funny L shaped piece of steel.
>You sit it in the table and hold it up against the blade. If you see light
>at the top or the bottom the blade isn't at 90 deg so just adjust the blade
>till you see no light between the blade and square. Very simple, takes
>little time to dig out of draw or off the wall and works every time. And for
>those who really want to be anal about it and accurate to within a thou just
>use a good engineers square.

Gotta agree with you there, Paul. I have a decent square hanging off
almost every tool in the shop. When I misplace one (or in the course
of a large project, all of them) I've even been known to use a speed
square.

It's really never been a problem- but if it were one, I don't think
I'd make a jig- I'd just carefully reset the positive stops.

"Richard Faust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
>> This may sound a little like the short story Tom Watson posted a few days
>> ago but,,,
>>
>> One of the quickest ways to determine if you blade is 90 degrees to the
>> table is to cross cut a 2x4, turn one piece over and then slid the two
>> cut ends back together. If there is a gap, your blade is not set to 90
>> degrees.
>> Additionally, use your cutting results to determine if you saw is set up
>> properly.
>
> That quickest way only determines a problem, it is not a solution. Your
> method can be a lengthy trial and error process.

Well, for some maybe but it requires no set up so it works pretty quickly
for me.


>
> Why the criticism of a good idea?

Not criticisiing, I have a dial indicator and find it takes longer to tweek
the settings.


>If you like cutting a stack of wood to set your blade then have fun.

You do not need a new board for every test cut and if you really know what
you are doing, 3 or 4 test cuts should be more than enough.


You will never beat the indicator set-up for speed and accuracy.

Well, you may not but many of us do.

In article <[email protected]>, "Stoutman" <.@.> wrote:
>> All well and good, but I think I'll stick with my method. Not because it's
>> better, but because it's quick and it works for me: slide a (known true)
>> square against the blade, and test the fit with a feeler gauge. If I can't
>> fit
>> a 0.002" feeler gauge between the blade and the square at either top or
>> bottom
>> then it's good. That means the blade is within 0.002" over 3" of being
>> square
>> to the table. FWIW, that's +/- 0.038 degrees (89.96 to 90.04).
>>
>> That's probably within the range of error introduced by stray bits of
>> sawdust
>> on the saw table or on the square... so I'm happy.
>
>I'm glad you find your method quick.
>
>For me it is much faster (I'm not bull sh*ting here) to slap the dial
>indicator jig into the blade and look at the dial than to squint at a
>square.

Well, that's not all you're doing, right? You still have to push that jig up
against a known square reference, such as your jointer fence, first, every
time you use the jig.

Or did you zero it once against a reference, and then leave the dial indicator
permanently mounted to the jig?

I think I'd rather continue to use a true square and a feeler gauge than to
dedicate a dial indicator to one single-purpose jig.
>
>The major turn on for me with this jig was speed, the added accuracy was
>just a bonus!

Hmmm... I see it the other way around: the major advantages from my
perspective are accuracy and ease of use. I'll admit I haven't used your jig
or one like it, and doing so might well change my mind, but I find it tough to
see how there's an improvement in speed.
>
>I noticed one other neat thing about the jig last night. My homemade throat
>plate was a smidge high from the table.

I make my throat plates deliberately too thin (1/2" MDF), and use countersunk
flat-head machine screws to adjust them flush to the table. (BTW, Ed Bennett,
if you're still reading this thread -- that's another application for the
TS-Aligner!)

> So I hit it with the jointer a
>little, but I can remove my throat plate and STILL use my jig. Not sure you
>could with a square?

Yes. That's how I normally do it.
>
>Anyway. I don't want to drag this out more than it needs to be. I just
>wanted to share :)
>
>I am still waiting for FineWoodWorking to contact me for their "Methods of
>Work". --Just kidding.

Send it to them. You might get something for it.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Paul D" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why does everyone have to make fancy little jigs that measure to within a
> thou.

It's not just for thousands. Its SPEED. I can set my blade to 90 with this
jig faster than it takes you to bend down to squint at your "funny L shaped
piece of steel".
I just slap it against my blade and look at the dial. Turn one way or the
other on the adjustment nob and I'm there. And I 'know I'm there'.

I find it a pain in the arse to hold a square against a blade and squint for
light on the top and bottom as I adjsust the angle.

>You are working with wood not engineering a bearing shaft. First
> argument on jig is what is to say that the jointer fence is set accuratly?

It is much easier to hold a square againsta a jointer fence and set to 90
than it is to set a square against a blade on a TS (for me anyway). Plus my
jointer is set at 90 and stays at 90 >90% of the time.

> Secondly I am sure the every one has (or at least should have) a tool in
> their kit designed to set the blade and anything else for that matter at
> 90
> deg. For those of you who do not know what it is called or what it is used
> for it is called a square. It looks like a funny L shaped piece of steel.

I understand your tendency to knock what I did, but before you get the
straight jacket ready for me, TRY IT! You will never slap a square against
your TS blade again.

> You sit it in the table and hold it up against the blade. If you see light
> at the top or the bottom the blade isn't at 90 deg so just adjust the
> blade
> till you see no light between the blade and square. Very simple, takes
> little time to dig out of draw or off the wall and works every time. And
> for
> those who really want to be anal about it and accurate to within a thou
> just
> use a good engineers square.

Its not anal. Its lazyness. It is much faster and easier to use my jig
than to use a square. Not sure about that? Try it!!

>
>
> "Stoutman" <.@.> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I have been frustrated lately trying to quickly and accurately align my
>> TS
>> blade to 90o. I made the jig pictured at the link below, to combat this
>> problem. It seems to work nicely. I fist 'zero' the indicator at my
>> jointer fence (which I know to be 90o) and then place it against the TS
>> blade. The slightest turn of the TS wheel causes a big move at the
>> indicator dial. I'm sure most have you have thought of this already, but
> it
>> took me a while :)
>>
>> Question:
>> After I set my blade to 90o and put on my cross cut sled and re-measure,
>> guess what? It's off by a smidge (can't quantitate). Should I re-align
> my
>> blade when using my sled? Should I make a new sled? Am I being crazy?
>>
>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/jigsfixtures.htm
>>
>> --
>> Stoutman
>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>>
>>
>
>

You really need to get acquainted with real machinist. Look for about a 60+
year old toolmaker. He will show you how wrong you are about a square. While
you're at it, ask him to show you how to measure within a few thou with a
scale. Yes, you can do it (I can and I'm sure you could too with a bit of
practice).

"Richard Faust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What kind of precision does your machine shop provide. Most modern
> machine shops use Optical Comparators, Sine Bar & Indicator and Chordal
> Measuring Machines to check angles. Regular old squares are used by
> woodworkers, not machinists.
> "Absolutely perfect" cannot be obtained using regular old squares. If
> your shop uses regular old squares to check critical dimensions then the
> work put out is something less than precise.
>

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:23:56 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:

>You really need to get acquainted with real machinist. Look for about a 60+
>year old toolmaker. He will show you how wrong you are about a square. While
>you're at it, ask him to show you how to measure within a few thou with a
>scale. Yes, you can do it (I can and I'm sure you could too with a bit of
>practice).

Yep.

I still get a kick out of guys who turn up their noses at anything
that is more than a couple of years old- all the new and improved
stuff came from somewhere, after all. During my apprenticeship, my
uncle taught be how to grind carbide to within a thou, with angles
just as tight using a manual machine that had no computers, and got
it's three-phase power from a home made convertor we started by
wrapping a bit of rope around the spindle and giving it a yank before
hitting the switch. We checked the product with the old tools his
father brought with him from Austria during WWII, carefully maintained
and cared for over decades of use (I wish I had tools that nice- but
they went to his son, when he took over the business.) The "modern
machine shops" we sharpened and made inserts for never seemed to have
any complaints about the quality- they must have forgotten to check
them with their Chordal Measuring Machines. :) (And the production
woodworking shops were happy with their blades, too)

Don't get me wrong, I like CNC controls and modern measurement tools
just fine- but the old ways didn't just stop working because someone
made a new widget and declared that it was better,

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:08:38 GMT, "Stoutman" <.@.> wrote:

>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> I may be underestimating the time I spend using the square, but I know I'm
>> not
>> sacrificing accuracy: if I can't get a 0.002" feeler gauge between the
>> square
>> and the blade anywhere, then I know I'm at 90.00 +/- less than 0.04
>> degrees.

>Cool. After you make the jig and zero it on 90, see how close you are
>getting with the square. While you're at it, see if there is a correlation
>between time spent squinting at the square and accuracy. In other words, do
>you get closer to 90o with more time spent eyeing the square or is it a case
>of diminishing return?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the use of feeler guages
eliminate (or at least drastically reduce) the need to squint?

> It seems to me that by using a square to set 90o you must be sacrificing
> speed over accuracy (if you are doing it as fast as I think you are). You
> can't possibly have both, it must be one or the other.

What I meant to write was : If you are setting 90 with a square that fast,
you must be sacrificing accuracy. If you take your time a really zero in
with the square you are sacrificing speed.

Not sure you can have both speed and accuracy.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:22:35 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Richard Faust <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Prometheus wrote:
>> > Tolerances on breaks are usually .125 - .25 degrees, measured dims are
>>> usually .003 to .005. We're not an engine shop, or making gears.
>>
>>OK. Now I see why you use a square. Your tolerances are wide open.
>
>No kidding. My FIL is a retired tool-and-die maker. He said that in most of
>the shops he worked in, they routinely worked to a tolerance of "a half",
>meaning half a thousandth. He didn't even start to consider something as
>being precision work until the tolerance was down to a tenth.

Well, fine. I work with the specs I'm given, and we sell the parts to
customers as precision work. All of those specs are tighter than
woodwork can reasonably hold owing to wood movement, which was point.
I'm not going to start claiming that I am the best precision machinist
in the world, and as noted previously, we use tools that are able to
measure the tolerances required by the customers.

So the customers are happy, my boss is pleased with my work, and the
job gets done properly. Might very well be the case that I wouldn't
cut it in the shops your father-in-law was in, but I do very well in
mine, both with machining and woodwork.

I took a tour of a place that was forming tiny sheet metal suspensions
for hard drives to a million on an inch once- but that didn't cause me
to doubt the value of the work I do, just as another shop's specs that
require precision in tenths don't either.

A pissing match over the deal is just obscuring the original point.
I'm sure you guys do great work, and as far as I'm (and the people who
sign my paycheck are) concerned, so do I. There are all sorts of
things that need making, and I'm glad you enjoy the stuff you're
doing. Doesn't make the product I turn out any less useful or
necessary.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Or, it could indicate that the opposite edges of your 2x4 were not
> straight and parallel. This is one if the most common mistakes that
> people make when doing test cuts. The stock that you use for test cuts
> needs to be prepared as accurately as you want your finished work to
> be. This includes any planing, jointing squaring, or any other stock
> preparation that is applied to the project wood. You can't just trust
> any old 2x4 out of the scrap pile.
>
> Based on experience, I would not say that using test cuts is the
> quickest (or most reliable) way to square up your blade. Your mileage
> might vary.


Jeez Ed, I would not expect you say anything different given your need to
sell your product. :~)
Like you say however, my mileage does vary.

>
> Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the use of feeler guages
> eliminate (or at least drastically reduce) the need to squint?

I assume it does. I have never used feeler gauges. Maybe that is why I am
having a tough time picturing what he is doing and how he is getting speed
as well as decent accuracy from his alignment.

Should that have not read .220?
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Stoutman (in [email protected]) said:
> My crosscut sled uses 1/4" (0.022") cheap plywood

Doug Miller wrote:

> No kidding. My FIL is a retired tool-and-die maker. He said that in most of
> the shops he worked in, they routinely worked to a tolerance of "a half",
> meaning half a thousandth. He didn't even start to consider something as
> being precision work until the tolerance was down to a tenth.

Did he use a square to check anything above .0001?

Rick

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi Leon,
>
> I assure you, there is no money for me in promoting the use of
> Stoutman's jig. In fact, there are probably people who might have
> purchased one of my products that will now go off and try Stoutman's
> jig. Like I've said before, I'm a "truth and honesty at all costs"
> sort of guy. I took one look at Stoutman's idea and knew it was a good
> one. I could have come out attacking it and trying to make it look bad
> but then everyone would know that I had a bad motive. So, I chose to
> come out in support of his idea and suggest some improvements. Then,
> perhaps someday when a person sees the need for a better solution, they
> will remember me and my products.
>
> As I see it, the best thing for me to do in a situation like this is to
> provide a review comparing my product to Stoutman's idea (like my "dial
> indicator on a stick" review). Or, even better, get someone else to do
> the review. Still costs me money but might save a few sales.
>
> The flaw in your method has nothing to do with my jig or his jig or
> anybody making any money.
>


Well Ed, I agree with what you say but not that my method is flawed. The is
a diminishing return after a certain point. If I see no gap in a joint,
that is good enough for me.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> I guess I have been spoiled working on a cabinet saw all the time. My 90
>> degree stop never lets me down.
>
> Mine is a Unisaw. Perhaps they have made some improvements in airflow
> over the years but there are some real dead zones inside where sawdust
> tends to collect and the stops seem to be strategicly placed within
> them! It has happened to me too many times. Maybe it has happened to
> you too but you just didn't notice.

Well, I am using a Jet cabinet saw which suposidly is a clone of the Unisaw.
The Jet uses a bolt and lock nut on each end of the front trunnion rack.
The 45 stop bolt head top is vertical when the saw is set at 90 degrees and
is in plain sight through the arc opening that the height wheel travels in.
The 90 degree stop is on the oppoisite end and on the left side of the rack
and in the 90 degree position it is way up near the table top and shielded
by the trunion from the blade. I have never cleaned either in the last 6
years and in fact had forgotten where they were located. I just looked and
both have no build up at all. Until earlier this year I never used dust
collection and never emptied the cabinet untill the dust was at the bottom
of the motor. So perhaps the Jet desigh is a better one in this respect.

Many of the contractor saws use a stop collar located along the bevel rod.
When the trunion hits the collar it stops moving. My old saw was like that
but again build up was not a problem as I used a dry lubricant that did not
attract dust. I cleaned the factory grease off and sprayed TopCote IIRC on
the threaded bevel rod. When turning the bevel wheel any build up on that
rod would fall off.




>> > machinists really look down on a person who does their work by trial
>> > and error, using test cuts to make adjustments to their machinery.
>> > It's considered a major waste of time and a demonstration of ignorance.

Well again, I really seldom make test cuts unless I am going for something
between 90 and 45 degrees. Even when I do use an external device to set
the cut I still make a test cut just to be sure. Because wood is not as
stable as steel the needed angles can change with humidity changes over
night. The angle that you thought you needed may not actually be what you
have the saw up for. Hense the test cut for fit. I prefer testing on
scraps vs. the actual project. Doing furniture repair you run into cutting
odd angles all the time that were probably originally cut at angles that
you would expect.

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:46:50 GMT, "Stoutman" <.@.> wrote:

>
>"Paul D" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Why does everyone have to make fancy little jigs that measure to within a
>> thou.
>
>It's not just for thousands. Its SPEED. I can set my blade to 90 with this
>jig faster than it takes you to bend down to squint at your "funny L shaped
>piece of steel".
>I just slap it against my blade and look at the dial. Turn one way or the
>other on the adjustment nob and I'm there. And I 'know I'm there'.

Speed? I never took me that long to use a square, but if you're
looking for speed, why not use the positive stops in the saw? Mine
will put the blade within a 1/4 degree of square or so every time-
without any particular fiddling around. I usually just verify it
every so often to make sure the stop hasn't moved.

>I find it a pain in the arse to hold a square against a blade and squint for
>light on the top and bottom as I adjsust the angle.

Like I said, I think having a jig to set it square is a bit much, but
I can see one being handy for setting angles.

Ed,

Please ignore my other reply. I got ya now! Just took me a little longer.
I am assuming the plunger is parallel when it most likely is not!

You're correct. Unless I get the plunger perfectly parallel with the table
I
can not measure angle error.

Thanks. This is the reason why I NEED your TS aligner Jr!

"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:081120061834433462%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> In article <%[email protected]>, Leon
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> One of the quickest ways to determine if you blade is 90 degrees to the
>> table is to cross cut a 2x4, turn one piece over and then slid the two
>> cut
>> ends back together. If there is a gap, your blade is not set to 90
>> degrees.
>
> A 2x4?
>
> You have 2x4s that are flat where you live?
>
> How do you factor in the _ing twist that is going to be present even in
> a short cutoff?
>
> Thanks for the chuckle, Leon, but the LAST thing I'd use to calibrate
> ANYTHING is a _ing 2x4.

The proof is in the pudding I guess. The 2x4 can be Oak not just framing
lumber. I referred to that size so that the error would be exaggerated.
Look a little farther ahead. ;~)

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:49:31 GMT, "Stoutman" <.@.> wrote:

>> Gotta agree with you there, Paul.
>
>Have you tried what i did? If not, I'm not sure you can agree with Paul.

Well, sure I can- considering the effort and cost involved in going
out to buy a dial indicator of any sort, and then dedicating it to
squaring my saw blade, it comes out to a *lot* more work than just
using the squares that are already there and ready for use.

I'm glad it works for you, though. If it makes your hobby more
enjoyable, that's all you need to worry about.

>>I have a decent square hanging off
>> almost every tool in the shop. When I misplace one (or in the course
>> of a large project, all of them) I've even been known to use a speed
>> square.
>>
>> It's really never been a problem- but if it were one, I don't think
>> I'd make a jig- I'd just carefully reset the positive stops.
>
>Setting the stops on my saw is a PITA!! Did you see my saw? :(

Only the top, but it doesn't look too bad from that view. From what
your pictures show, it appears to be cast-iron- so I'm assuming it's
not a $100 benchtop special. But, I may be spoiled with my saw's
system, so I'll cheerfully take the suggestion back.

It's really just the dial indicator that gives me pause- I work in a
machine shop, and we use squares to check for square. There are some
very nice adjustable Starret ones that will measure to 1/100 of a
degree and have magnifying lenses on them to make the marks readable
for setup, but there no dial indicators to be found when measuring the
angles. In-process checks are done with regular old squares.

Most of those parts are going to very discerning customers who are not
shy about rejecting anything that is less than absolutely perfect- so
it's not as though we're able to just do a half-assed job.

It just seems like overkill to use a more complex and precise
measurement system to set up a tablesaw than what is customarily used
for machine shop work (note the use of "precise"- the accuracy of a
system using nails as stops is a little shady). After a few passes,
I've had enough sap built up on a blade (depending on the wood) to
affect that level of precision. But as noted above, if it really
makes your shop time easier and more enjoyable, that's reason enough
for it.

> Hi Stoutman,
>
> By using the feeler gauges, Doug has eliminated the need for good
> backlighting, squinting, and error from parallax. It's not completely
> free from subjectivity (using a feeler gauge does involve making some
> subjective judgments) but It's definitely an intelligent improvement.
> A heck of a lot better than trial and error.

I would agree.

On 11 Nov 2006 15:39:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>Essentially this is your message to the beginners. "Dive in and hope
>for the best. You might be surprised like I was and find out that your
>tools are good enough."

Aptly summarized. It often seems that this forum (and everywhere
else) is heavily segregated by income. I cringe when I see
suggestions that someone must spend more money than they have to do
something that could just as easily have been done with a little more
practice and a set of inexpensive tools.

This thread really was a poor example, as the jig Stoutman posted for
consideration was an inexpensive solution- provided you can find a
place to ship a dial indicator to you for less than the cost of the
thing, of course.

>The problem is this: Some people struggle for years trying to make
>things. They read stuff like this and blame their skills or waste
>money on all sorts of stupid plastic gadgets from the catalogs.

Again, very close to my point.

>Darn few of them ever wander in my direction (where they can learn the
>things they need to know) because there are so many people putting down
>intelligent solutions in favor of "trial and error", "test cuts", and
>all other manner of ignorant nonsense. Most just give up on
>woodworking because they think that the "skills" are beyond their
>ability.

Well, I'd like to think I'm not in that group. My argument was for
another measurement tool, one that I've always considered perfectly
adequate for the task- not guessing at settings or using trial and
error.

>And, the few that make it naturally join the ignorant chorus
>against intelligent solutions. After all, if you don't learn it the
>hard way, then you're cheating. Right?

I'll give you that one, simply because I really *don't* consider it
cheating to learn things in an easier manner.

At the same time, I'll admit that I have an aversion to making
woodworking into a machinist's job. If my home shop experience
involved drafting the parts in CAD and then loading the program into a
controller, doing a five, or even fourty-five minute setup, and then
letting a machine do the work, I'm not sure that I bother with it at
all as a hobby- I get plenty of that during the week. (Though I would
certainly do that if I were earning an income with it)

I like to work wood with my own hands- and honestly, I hold with Tom
Watson's suggestion of considering the Persian flaw. I don't belive
I've ever made a perfect thing from wood, but that's the way I like
it. Additional time and effort spent sanding, or using a router to
round over edges instead of a sanding block could yeild consistant
results as smooth as glass, but I kind of like one corner that is a
knocked down a just a tiny bit further than the others, and the odd
tiny rough spot or raised fiber. When I look at it or touch it, it
doesn't feel like it came from a factory, and that's what I like about
it.

In essence, there's nothing wrong with your suggestion that the tools
could be set up with supreme accuracy. It's just an aestetic argument
over whether or not they should be. While it's easy and
understandable to suggest that the school of hard knocks is an
igornant way of learning something, there is an argument for it that
is also valuable- it involves the personal pride that comes from
overcoming difficult problems on your own and an appreciation for
hard-won skills in both yourself and others. That's something that
can't be taught or sold, but can be learned- and woodworking is a good
place to learn it.

Prometheus wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 02:58:39 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>
>>> Hey, if it works for you, fine. I'm not knocking it. Just the same,
>>> I'm quite happy with the speed and accuracy I get with a Starrett
>>> square, and I think I'll stick with that. That's what works for
>>> me. :-)
>>
>> Well, that's just one setting.
>>
>> There the alignment of the blade to the slots.
>> Alignment of the fence to the slots.
>> Alignment of the sliding table.
>> Alignment of a crosscut sled.
>> Setting the blade to angles other than 90 degrees.
>>
>> Can't do those with a square.....
>
> Nope- but you can do a fine and servicable job of all those with a
> square and a rule.

Um, is that called a machinist square? :)

On 10 Nov 2006 10:39:46 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Prometheus wrote:
>
>> It's really just the dial indicator that gives me pause- I work in a
>> machine shop, and we use squares to check for square. There are some
>> very nice adjustable Starret ones that will measure to 1/100 of a
>> degree and have magnifying lenses on them to make the marks readable
>> for setup, but there no dial indicators to be found when measuring the
>> angles. In-process checks are done with regular old squares.
>
>Hmmmm...... You are saying that there is an adjustable square from
>Starrett that measures to 1/100 of a degree? If it's a machinist's
>protractor, then it's not a "square" and it uses a vernier scale
>graduated to 5 minutes of arc. Never seen one graduated in 100ths of a
>degree (or any other decimal fraction of a degree). Always degrees and
>minutes. Maybe you could browse through the Starrett catalog and let
>us know which product it is:
>
>http://catalog.starrett.com/catalog/home/home.asp

We've got these buggers, with magnifying lenses mounted over the
scales.

http://catalog.starrett.com/catalog/catalog/groups.asp?GroupID=148

You caught me being a buffoon there. I never really bothered to look
at the things all that closely- they're in a different area, and the
last time I really had to care about them was over a decade ago. I
run the breaks as a operator once in a while to help out when I have
time, but it's not my job. Laser cutting and manual milling on the
Bridgeport is, and I spend my time measuring in decimals, not minutes,
so that's what I pulled out of my ass. Like I said, in-process QC is
done with these squares.

http://catalog.starrett.com/catalog/catalog/groups.asp?GroupID=68

>And, are you saying that nobody in this shop uses indicators on sine
>bars or angle blocks? They just use this "adjustable square" to set
>angles? And, never with an indicator? Frankly, I'm having some
>trouble picturing this. I'm inclined to think that this "machine shop"
>comes from the imagination of a woodworker.

Only for final QC. The parts have a wide enough tolerances that the
squares, mics and calipers work fine on the floor. Your inclination
is wrong, but only in that we've had experiences in shops with
tolerances that are obviously very different. As noted in another
post, we're much more likely to make a mount than a piston- other
shops with better equipment do that work, and I'm fine with that. I
use all the same G-codes you do, just while making less precise parts.
The customers still have a fit if the fit and finish is not perfect.
You make it sound like if a part isn't within a .0001 of nominal, you
have to beat the damn thing into place with a sledgehammer.

>> Most of those parts are going to very discerning customers who are not
>> shy about rejecting anything that is less than absolutely perfect- so
>> it's not as though we're able to just do a half-assed job.
>
>You say "absolutely perfect". I'm afraid your shop probably wouldn't
>get hired by most of the companies here in Boise (HP, Micron, etc.).
>And, a machinist who doesn't use an indicator to align a vise, tram the
>spindle, or check a sine plate setting probably wouldn't get hired by
>most of the machine shops around here (except to operate that tool with
>a long wooden handle and a brush mounted on one end (broom) or for
>collant reservoir maintenance (clean out sumps)). I can't imagine what
>would happen to a person who tried to use a square to check a spindle
>tram.

It would be asinine for me to apply at a place that requires that
level of precision, because that isn't what I've been doing for most
of my working life (though I don't imagine it would take much to learn
it from where I'm at). Like I said, I'm comfortable with that- lots
of things need to be made, not just TS-aligners and precision gears.
But simply because I do a different job than you is hardly reason to
imply that I'm only qualified to sweep floors and wish that I was a
spiffy as you.

Odds are fairly good you'd gunk up the works in my shop as well- a guy
that spent all day bitching about not having an optical comparitor
next to his machine or spending an hour adjusting offsets to within a
tenth (on a machine that is not manufactured to that level of
precision, no less) when a .003 tolerance is called for instead of
doing his work would be out the door there, too.

>> It just seems like overkill to use a more complex and precise
>> measurement system to set up a tablesaw than what is customarily used
>> for machine shop work (note the use of "precise"- the accuracy of a
>> system using nails as stops is a little shady).
>
>You might be surprised to see what sort of instruments use reference
>points which resemble the nails that Stoutman used. I think that it's
>a rather insightful feature of his jig which solves a problem which
>isn't obvious to people unfamiliar with Metrology.

I might, at that. But I'd certainly worry about trim nails pounded
into a block of wood being tweaked the first time you bumped them with
somthing, or busting that indicator if the jig fell on the floor.

Look, Ed. I understand that you make a product that is very precise
for aligning table saws, and it's in your best interests to advocate
super precision when setting a saw up. I'm not demeaning your
product, or saying that it's valueless. From what I've seen here,
it's reputed to be a good product, and a lot of guys are getting a
decent value from it. It's not my intention to attack the way you
earn your living, or try and deny you sales.

But the thread started as a way to align a table saw blade to 90*- I
use the positive stops in the saw, and a machinist square to double
check it. What you've effectively done here, unintentionally or not,
is to tell me that not only is that particular setup not good enough
for my hobby, but also that I am so poor at my day job that I am fit
for nothing better than janitorial work. It's really tough not to
just tell you where to stick it.

Most of the folks here have a *hobby* woodworking. In my case, I make
a lot of sort of fancy end tables and vases on the lathe. The tables
end up scattered around my house, and are there for my enjoyment and
use, along with the other stuff I make. I don't care to be bullied
and told that because I'm not using a sine bar and dial indicator,
optical comparator, or a laser measurement system to set up my
contractor's saw to make those projects, they're fit for nothing
better than firewood (which is what I'm getting from your attitude
about the subject.) If I was running a cabinet shop, I'd probably buy
your alignment tool- but I'm not. And neither are most of the people
on this group. There's a good deal of sense in buying tools with good
motors and careful construction from decent materials, but when it
comes time to rip a board, I'm just fine with using a square to set
the blade angle, and a cabinet maker's rule to check that the fence is
parallel to the blade, and get on with actually making something-
there's never been any fiddling around or wasting time involved in it.

It's just a constant drone on some of these threads about how
everything has to be expensive, precise, and robust to do any goddamn
thing. It's the wrong impression to give someone who is just starting
out and checks out this group because they'd like to make some plywood
cutouts of an old lady's butt to put in the garden, or a desk for
their 4 year old to color on. If I'd have listened to too much of
this crap when I was first starting to putz around with woodworking, I
still wouldn't have ever even attempted anything more difficult than
rough house framing- but maybe I could have saved up enough money to
get a 5hp Unisaw and a phase convertor that could sit alone in my
basement by now. Then maybe in a year or two later, I could buy a
router- and ten years from now, a jointer. Boy, I bet I'd be almost
ready to make a birdhouse by 2025.

The nonsense about always having the best is just that. Try walking
into most any job shop, and demand that they buy you all new
top-of-the-line consumables before you get to work and see how long
they laugh at you before they show you the door. The best serves a
purpose, and it's nice to have, but you don't need it to do good work.

> Hi Stoutman,
>
> Did you consider the error introduced by dial indicator tilt? If the
> plunger isn't parallel to the table surface then you will be
> introducing some error (it will no longer be right triangle trig).
> This is why I said earlier in the thread that your jig wasn't able to
> measure angles.
>

Maybe I am not getting you, but I don't understand how the plunger isn't
parallel with the table in this operation. I didn't intent to use the jig
for angles; I just wanted to know how much angle error was introduced with a
particular reading.

Are you suggesting that as the saw blade tilts, the plunger is forced out of
parallel even though the base remains parallel?






> Ed Bennett
> [email protected]
>
>
> Stoutman wrote:
>> I added a feature on my web page that allows you to calculate angle
>> errors
>> from distance errors.
>>
>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/dial_indicator_jig_spread.htm
>>
>> --
>> Stoutman
>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>