Jointer Trouble

How long is the board you're working with? For adjustment and checking
purposes I'd start with a board not much longer than the infeed bed,
that was fairly straight to begin with.

Jointing a long, warped board on a benchtop jointer is an art I was
never able to master.

Swingman wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > I get
> > the hand over hand, weight transfer from outfeed to infeed idea.
>
> ??
>
> Sounds to me like you got that backwards ... indeed, you might want to
> review your technique.

Yep, sounds like the perfect recipe to create a tapered cut...

I think maybe you want to much from a jointer. If you edge or face a
board over and over on the same side you will start to see the board
get smaller on the tail end or one one edge. It's just the physics of
the system in my opinion.

I think you can rely on a jointer to:

A: Flatten one face of a board. If this takes several passes you will
likely notice that one edge or end is thinner than the other.

B: Straighten one edge by indexing the newly flattened face against the
fence. Now you have one flat face with one edge at exact 90 (if you
have a good setup on the fence).

Now you can use the Planer to flatten the other face relative to the
already flattened face and the TS to straighten the other edge relative
to the straight edge.

Does this sound right?


[email protected] wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm close to loosing all patience with my 6 1/8" jointer/planer and
> hoping for some advice. It's a Craftsman bench top model and my
> history with sears woodworking tools leaves me to first suspect the
> machine. Let me get to the problem first.
>
> All boards I plane (and I have only worked with 4S softwood pine) will
> produce a flat face, but this flat face is always deeper on one end
> than the other. Thus, I start with two sides something close to 90deg
> and working on edge 1 starts moving the two sides closer to 80deg. If
> I try to correct the problem by on edge two I get even closer to 70deg.
> Obviously one side of the blades/plates/something is lower/higher than
> the other but I can't figure it out. My straight edges aren't as
> reliable as I'd like so I tried a 1-2-3 block on the out feed with
> feeler guages on the infeed to check for differences along the length.
> Might I mention I can't get the infeed to the same level as the outfeed
> so this is the only way to check for coplanar tables as well. The
> feeler guage didn't seem to show any difference between the two in
> terms of height but I don't feel as confident as I might if I could
> compare the two on a granite surface out in space to make sure that
> everything is truly level to 0.0000000001+- inches. Do you see how
> nuts this is making me?
>
> I would like to think the problem rests in my technique and I've read
> the book on technique. I understand snipe (not a problem with me at
> this point), I get the concept of planing an edge, then a face then
> surface planing opposite face then finishing edge on the joiner. I get
> the hand over hand, weight transfer from outfeed to infeed idea. I've
> read, get and tried it all and still get these boards that close in
> from 90 to 0 degrees. Last night I jointed 1 inch off a board, worked
> until 1:08AM adjusting the blades (lost the allen wrench between the
> roller/infeed, took apart the entire machine, rebuilt it, readjusted
> blades), felt confident I was getting a flat face/90deg cut, tried it
> this morning and same thing.
>
> Help!

[email protected] wrote:
...
> All boards I plane (and I have only worked with 4S softwood pine) will
> produce a flat face, but this flat face is always deeper on one end
> than the other. Thus, I start with two sides something close to 90deg
> and working on edge 1 starts moving the two sides closer to 80deg. ...

I can't tell which surface and which dimension/angle with respect of
surface to edge you're having a problem with from your description...

Are you ending up w/ stock of varying thickness while trying to surface
it or an edge that is out of square w/ the face?

If the former, there's a note from Swingman that I concur is quite
likely a possibility that is technique-related unless you made a
description error. If the latter, the fence may be out of square w/
the tables rather than the knives being out of adjustment.

Your description of technique/process also left me a little confused as
well as to what you're after w/ a jointer. The point/sequence of
face-jointing first w/ the jointer is to get one flat surface which
becomes the reference. Then need to get the opposite surface flat and
parallel to that one and the jointer isn't the ideal way to do that --
that's the planer's job. Problem w/ the jointer for the second face is
that once you've taken some material off the first face or if it was
rough-sawn material to begin with, the second face isn't parallel to
the first but the cut is referenced only to that surface so, in
general, you end up w/ a second face also flat but not parallel to the
first. It is _extremely_ difficult to manually adjust the amount of
cut in the right place to correct the initial discrepancy unless it is
very large and so typically every pass simply compounds the problem...

I can probably help you out (or at least figure out what's going
wrong).

[email protected] wrote:
> All boards I plane (and I have only worked with 4S softwood pine) will
> produce a flat face, but this flat face is always deeper on one end
> than the other.

It's hard for me to be sure exactly what you are talking about. To me,
the "ends" of a board are the shorter width. "End grain" is on the
ends of a board. Are you saying that you are jointing a face or an
edge of a board and that you are having trouble keeping it parallel
with the opposite face/edge? Or, are you saying that the depth of the
cut across the width of the board isn't consistent?

> Thus, I start with two sides something close to 90deg
> and working on edge 1 starts moving the two sides closer to 80deg.

Please don't interchange the terms "sides" or "edge". It makes it very
difficult to follow what you are describing. Use the term "edge" to
describe a narrow side. Use the term "face" to describe a wide side.
If the piece being jointed is square, then they are all faces.

So, are you saying that you are having trouble jointing an edge so that
it is square to a face?

> If
> I try to correct the problem by on edge two I get even closer to 70deg.

Is "edge two" opposite or adjacent to "edge 1"? See, I just can't
picture what you are talking about. Use "opposite edge" or "adjacent
face".

> Obviously one side of the blades/plates/something is lower/higher than
> the other but I can't figure it out. My straight edges aren't as
> reliable as I'd like so I tried a 1-2-3 block on the out feed with
> feeler guages on the infeed to check for differences along the length.

Proper jointer alignment starts with making sure that the knives are
all at the same level as the outfeed table. It could be that this is
your problem, I don't know. Then you want to make sure that the infeed
table is parallel to the outfeed table. It could be that this is your
problem, I don't know. Finally, you want to make sure that the fence
is square with both tables. This could also be your problem.

First, I will have to understand your symptoms. Then I can direct you
through all the steps needed to check each one of the major alignments
on a jointer. You might also find it handy to view the video on this
page:

http://www.ts-aligner.com/jointer.htm

There's another video with different voice-over on this page under the
heading "Using a flat indicator tip to set jointer knives" (which is a
practice which will can lead to the problems that you are suffering).

http://www.ts-aligner.com/alignmentmyths.htm

You'll notice that I advocate the use of a dial indicator. This
eliminates all of the guess work that you are currently finding so
frustrating. It doesn't have to be a TS-Aligner Jr. Any indicator jig
that can point the dial indicator downward will work. It takes
considerable skill to subjectively discern jointer knives using a 123
block and some feeler gages. I certainly can't do it as well as I can
with a dial indicator.

> Might I mention I can't get the infeed to the same level as the outfeed
> so this is the only way to check for coplanar tables as well. The
> feeler guage didn't seem to show any difference between the two in
> terms of height but I don't feel as confident as I might if I could
> compare the two on a granite surface out in space to make sure that
> everything is truly level to 0.0000000001+- inches. Do you see how
> nuts this is making me?

Yep. There's another way to do a relative comparison of the two tables
without going juts. The two tables don't have to be at the same level
(in fact, it's easier if they are not). It does involve the use of a
long straight edge and a dial indicator. Here's the setup (photo from
a customer):

http://www.ts-aligner.com/jointertables.jpg

The straight edge being used here is from Lee Valley:

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&p=50074&cat=1,240,45313

> I would like to think the problem rests in my technique and I've read
> the book on technique. I understand snipe (not a problem with me at
> this point), I get the concept of planing an edge, then a face then
> surface planing opposite face then finishing edge on the joiner.

Hmmm.... Try it this way: Joint a face, then joint an adjcent edge
using the jointed face against the fence. Then use your tablesaw to
rip the opposite edge parallel. And finally use a surface planer to
make the opposite face parallel. It's not generally practical to use a
jointer to make two faces or two edges parallel. It's good for
creating a flat surface (facing) and for squaring two adjcent faces (or
a face to an edge).

> I get
> the hand over hand, weight transfer from outfeed to infeed idea.

I'm sure you mean "infeed to outfeed" here.

> I've
> read, get and tried it all and still get these boards that close in
> from 90 to 0 degrees.

I just don't understand what this means. How do boards "close in from
90 to 0 degrees"? 90 degrees is square. 0 degrees is flat (no angle).

> Last night I jointed 1 inch off a board, worked
> until 1:08AM adjusting the blades (lost the allen wrench between the
> roller/infeed, took apart the entire machine, rebuilt it, readjusted
> blades), felt confident I was getting a flat face/90deg cut, tried it
> this morning and same thing.

Go get yourself a low cost dial indicator and I'll help you to figure
out exactly what is wrong without any guess work or frustration.

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

Sorry dpb, I wrote my description before going to lunch and was simply
fried. After re-reading it I think it's confusing too so I'll start
over.

Let's say I have a 2"x4"x4' board with sides A (top), B (right), C
(bottom), D (left), E (front), F (back). I want to get C and D at 90
deg, and they're close to start with. I know that I will have snipe
affecting E & F based upon where I place my weight as the board passes
over the knives. My concern isn't so much E&F as C&B. C&B start close
to 90deg then gets closer to 0deg with ever pass that C stays where it
is. C always remains flat but the angle of C in relation to B moves in
to 0Degrees.

So, I have this nice flat surface (C) even though it's less than 90deg
in relation to B. I should be able to run C against the vertical fence
and make B = 90. Nope. As I run it, C and B edge closer to 0 as the
board begins turning into a long board with wedged D side .

Thank you so much for your suggestions and links. As I mentioned to
dbs, my description of the problem was confusing (sorry).

Thanks everyone for offering help, really. I think I'm simply being
reluctant to purchase a dial indicator for set-up but I'm starting to
think that is unavoidable when you own woodworking machines. PS I love
Lee Valley/Veritas. Too bad every company doesn't work as hard as they
do to provide value and accuracy.


[email protected] wrote:
> I can probably help you out (or at least figure out what's going
> wrong).
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > All boards I plane (and I have only worked with 4S softwood pine) will
> > produce a flat face, but this flat face is always deeper on one end
> > than the other.
>
> It's hard for me to be sure exactly what you are talking about. To me,
> the "ends" of a board are the shorter width. "End grain" is on the
> ends of a board. Are you saying that you are jointing a face or an
> edge of a board and that you are having trouble keeping it parallel
> with the opposite face/edge? Or, are you saying that the depth of the
> cut across the width of the board isn't consistent?
>
> > Thus, I start with two sides something close to 90deg
> > and working on edge 1 starts moving the two sides closer to 80deg.
>
> Please don't interchange the terms "sides" or "edge". It makes it very
> difficult to follow what you are describing. Use the term "edge" to
> describe a narrow side. Use the term "face" to describe a wide side.
> If the piece being jointed is square, then they are all faces.
>
> So, are you saying that you are having trouble jointing an edge so that
> it is square to a face?
>
> > If
> > I try to correct the problem by on edge two I get even closer to 70deg.
>
> Is "edge two" opposite or adjacent to "edge 1"? See, I just can't
> picture what you are talking about. Use "opposite edge" or "adjacent
> face".
>
> > Obviously one side of the blades/plates/something is lower/higher than
> > the other but I can't figure it out. My straight edges aren't as
> > reliable as I'd like so I tried a 1-2-3 block on the out feed with
> > feeler guages on the infeed to check for differences along the length.
>
> Proper jointer alignment starts with making sure that the knives are
> all at the same level as the outfeed table. It could be that this is
> your problem, I don't know. Then you want to make sure that the infeed
> table is parallel to the outfeed table. It could be that this is your
> problem, I don't know. Finally, you want to make sure that the fence
> is square with both tables. This could also be your problem.
>
> First, I will have to understand your symptoms. Then I can direct you
> through all the steps needed to check each one of the major alignments
> on a jointer. You might also find it handy to view the video on this
> page:
>
> http://www.ts-aligner.com/jointer.htm
>
> There's another video with different voice-over on this page under the
> heading "Using a flat indicator tip to set jointer knives" (which is a
> practice which will can lead to the problems that you are suffering).
>
> http://www.ts-aligner.com/alignmentmyths.htm
>
> You'll notice that I advocate the use of a dial indicator. This
> eliminates all of the guess work that you are currently finding so
> frustrating. It doesn't have to be a TS-Aligner Jr. Any indicator jig
> that can point the dial indicator downward will work. It takes
> considerable skill to subjectively discern jointer knives using a 123
> block and some feeler gages. I certainly can't do it as well as I can
> with a dial indicator.
>
> > Might I mention I can't get the infeed to the same level as the outfeed
> > so this is the only way to check for coplanar tables as well. The
> > feeler guage didn't seem to show any difference between the two in
> > terms of height but I don't feel as confident as I might if I could
> > compare the two on a granite surface out in space to make sure that
> > everything is truly level to 0.0000000001+- inches. Do you see how
> > nuts this is making me?
>
> Yep. There's another way to do a relative comparison of the two tables
> without going juts. The two tables don't have to be at the same level
> (in fact, it's easier if they are not). It does involve the use of a
> long straight edge and a dial indicator. Here's the setup (photo from
> a customer):
>
> http://www.ts-aligner.com/jointertables.jpg
>
> The straight edge being used here is from Lee Valley:
>
> http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&p=50074&cat=1,240,45313
>
> > I would like to think the problem rests in my technique and I've read
> > the book on technique. I understand snipe (not a problem with me at
> > this point), I get the concept of planing an edge, then a face then
> > surface planing opposite face then finishing edge on the joiner.
>
> Hmmm.... Try it this way: Joint a face, then joint an adjcent edge
> using the jointed face against the fence. Then use your tablesaw to
> rip the opposite edge parallel. And finally use a surface planer to
> make the opposite face parallel. It's not generally practical to use a
> jointer to make two faces or two edges parallel. It's good for
> creating a flat surface (facing) and for squaring two adjcent faces (or
> a face to an edge).
>
> > I get
> > the hand over hand, weight transfer from outfeed to infeed idea.
>
> I'm sure you mean "infeed to outfeed" here.
>
> > I've
> > read, get and tried it all and still get these boards that close in
> > from 90 to 0 degrees.
>
> I just don't understand what this means. How do boards "close in from
> 90 to 0 degrees"? 90 degrees is square. 0 degrees is flat (no angle).
>
> > Last night I jointed 1 inch off a board, worked
> > until 1:08AM adjusting the blades (lost the allen wrench between the
> > roller/infeed, took apart the entire machine, rebuilt it, readjusted
> > blades), felt confident I was getting a flat face/90deg cut, tried it
> > this morning and same thing.
>
> Go get yourself a low cost dial indicator and I'll help you to figure
> out exactly what is wrong without any guess work or frustration.
>
> Ed Bennett
> [email protected]
> http://www.ts-aligner.com

[email protected] wrote:
> Let's say I have a 2"x4"x4' board with sides A (top), B (right), C
> (bottom), D (left), E (front), F (back). I want to get C and D at 90
> deg, and they're close to start with. I know that I will have snipe
> affecting E & F based upon where I place my weight as the board passes
> over the knives. My concern isn't so much E&F as C&B. C&B start close
> to 90deg then gets closer to 0deg with ever pass that C stays where it
> is. C always remains flat but the angle of C in relation to B moves in
> to 0Degrees.
>
> So, I have this nice flat surface (C) even though it's less than 90deg
> in relation to B. I should be able to run C against the vertical fence
> and make B = 90. Nope. As I run it, C and B edge closer to 0 as the
> board begins turning into a long board with wedged D side .

This sounds to me like your fence is not square with the tables. This
would cause each pass jointing an edge to get progressively worse.

Either that or your infeed or outfeed tables are twisted at a funny
angle. I don't even know how that is possible on a jointer, but I guess
it could be the case.

Either way, sounds like the angle between your tables and fence is not
at 90 degrees.

I read through the revised description. I might be able to figure it
out, but I don't think so. "left", "right", "top", "bottom", etc. are
all relative terms. Your left is my right and if you turn a board to
do something then the top, which was side "A" is not the top any more,
etc. And, there's no way for me to know if side A is a face or an
edge. And, "C and B edge closer to 0 as the board begins turning into
a long board with wedged D side" is a complete mystery to me. Does
this mean that the angle between a face and an edge is becoming larger
or smaller than 90 degrees? Is the board actually growing longer? How
is a side becomming "wedged"? Does this mean that opposite sides are
not parallel? Which way are they not parallel (along their length,
across their width, or both)?

Please use standard terms: face, edge, adjcent, opposite, etc.

More and more I'm beginning to think that you want your jointer to do
the entire task of stock preparation on all four sides of the board.
This just isn't what it was meant for. It is good at making a surface
flat and square in relation to another surface. However, it is not
intended to be used to make two surfaces parallel. Do one face side
and one edge side on the jointer, period. Then finish up the board on
a table saw (the opposite edge) and the planer (opposite face).
Everything will be flat, square, and parallel.

Using dial indicators is not unavoidable. There are plenty of people
who avoid them. Some even insist on avoiding them with religious
fervor!. But, if you expect your machines to do their work properly
and accurately, and you don't like being frustrated, then a dial
indicator is a nice thing to have. It's natural to be a bit
aprehensive about using an unfamiliar tool but dial indicators are low
cost and extremely easy to use. And, after having handled literally
thousands of them, I've never been bitten.

Thanks,
Ed Bennett
[email protected]

[email protected] wrote:
> Thank you so much for your suggestions and links. As I mentioned to
> dbs, my description of the problem was confusing (sorry).
>
> Thanks everyone for offering help, really. I think I'm simply being
> reluctant to purchase a dial indicator for set-up but I'm starting to
> think that is unavoidable when you own woodworking machines. PS I love
> Lee Valley/Veritas. Too bad every company doesn't work as hard as they
> do to provide value and accuracy.

Hello helpful woodworkers. I seem to be confusing a few posters so
I'll try to reclarify the board directions. Before I do, let me state
I am not trying to square four sides of a board on a jointer alone. I
realized how difficult that was when I first bought the machine and
fixed the issue by purchasing a decent planer. Also, I have nothing
against gagetry (particularly gauges). I am quite a supporter of
guages for setting machines better than fingers or eyes can.

OK, that said, I'd listed sides A (top), B (right), C (bottom), D
(left), E (front), F (back). I did not list their relationship to the
joiner clearly enough. The board would be fed E (front) from infeed
table to outfeed table with A (top of board) facing up. Side B (the
right side as looking down the planer tables from infeed to outfeed
table) would face the fence and side D (the side of the board opposite
the fence) would face me.

On each successive pass over the joiner Side C gets closer and closer
to side A on the D side but not on the B side. That is, the board acts
as if the fence is angled toward me but the fence is set with a 123
block at 90degrees. Thus in the 2"x4"x4' board demonstration, let's
imagine the board is perfectly square with the length (E to F) being
4', the depth of the board (A to C) being 2" and the width of the board
(B to D) being 4". For simplicity sake, let's say I take 1" off the
board. With my current set up, after I pass the board through the
jointer . E to F (lenght of board) is still = 4', B to D (width) is
still 4", but Side D is now 1" and Side B = 2".

Someone suggested it might be the blade setting but I wanted to know if
it was the blade, tables, table (in or out), or operator. The fence
and tables are set to 90 as measured by a 123 block. I do not know
that the tables are coplanar to eachother.

Again, sorry if this has frustrated anyone and thank you for your help.

[email protected] wrote:
...

> So, I have this nice flat surface (C) even though it's less than 90deg
> in relation to B. I should be able to run C against the vertical fence
> and make B = 90. Nope. As I run it, C and B edge closer to 0 as the
> board begins turning into a long board with wedged D side .

Then the fence isn't perpendicular to the table (assuming you've got
the knives parallel to the table).

It is possible for a fence in particular to have warp in it but in that
case you would probably be able to feel some rock and see that the
bottom edge doesn't stay straight and flat as well as the tendency to
create an out of square edge (with respect to the face against the
fence). If it is simply the fence out of square, then if you make one
pass and reverse the piece (assuming you've run it thru the planer to
have the two faces parallel, you should return it back to the previous
condition. If the fence actually were warped, there's little recourse
other than having a machine shop resurface it.

Also, it is necessary to make sure you actually are holding the face
firmly against the fence and not letting the bottom edge control the
cut in order to correct an out of square edge. This is easy to let
happen if you put excessive vertical pressure on the workpiece. If the
fence isn't rigid, it's also possible to cause it to move some by
exerting excess force in the horizontal direction as well.

On a related topic, your comment regarding snipe is indicative of
either an operational or setup problem -- if the knives are properly
set and the downward force is not excessive or in the wrong place,
there should be virtually no discernible snipe. If there is, something
ain't right. The key is to start w/ the infeed table controlling and
then transfer to the outfeed table controlling as the jointed edge
moves to the outfeed. W/ a properly set up jointer, this will achieve
a straight jointed edge with no snipe on either end.

Yep, there's definitely some religious fervor in these responses!

True, a dial indicator isn't absolutely needed. But, if you had one,
and had used it to check the alignment of your jointer, then...

1. You wouldn't be so unsure about your jointer knife alignment.
2. You would have found and accurately corrected any possible infeed
table misalignment.
3. You wouldn't have wasted a whole bunch of time and wood trying to
learn "Jointerese" by trial and error.
4. You wouldn't be so frustrated trying to "feel the force" because you
would be able to measure it with a reliable instrument.

People do it both ways successfully. It all depends on how you want to
approach the problem. You can spend $15 on a dial indicator and get
your jointer aligned quickly without any test cuts, trial and error, or
doubts. Or, if your time is absolutely worthless to you, then you can
continue to spend hours (maybe even days) doing more test cuts, making
more adjustments based on what you think the machine is saying to you,
and hoping that the results eventually show some improvement. I think
you've already spent a fair amount of time trying to learn
"Jointerese". How about taking a more intelligent (and less religious)
approach?

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

I had no idea I would spark this much conversation- and useful tips.
If this were 'Who wants to be a millionaire' I believe my lifeline
(i.e. this discussion) strongly believes it's the knives. I am apt to
suspect them, or at least want to check them, first. I don't have a
dial indicator.
Last night I rummaged through every industrial and woodworking supplier
I could to look for dial indicator deals and realized there are quite a
few doo-dads and gizmos that claim to help set the knives. What is sad
is that there isn't a standard practice/device for the operation and
what's sadder is that the jointer I have has no locking mechanism on
the spindle. I don't know that other jointers have this feature since
every advice I've come across talk about finding center and working
from there. It's kind of nuts that manufacturers might build this
machine knowing full well owners may one day have to change the knives
and have to perform a Houdini trick to get the task done right. At
least, one would think, they could put a pin that you could slide to
lock the spindle.

Also, after looking through industrial catalogues (i.e. Enco, MSC) at
metal milling machines I find that accuracy is built into the lowliest
of machines where as manufacturers who build machines for wood allow
much higher tolerances. Yeah, we can sand out imperfections and
materials are less expensive but don't we deserve the same treatment?

Anyway, I will be buying a dial indicator but until that arrives I'll
see what I can do by hand using the methods suggested in this forum. I
have to say I've gotten more out of this forum about jointing than I
have in any woodworking book. In some sense it makes me appreciate the
incident.

Thanks guys and gals! Happy wooding and feel free to add to the
conversation.

Hi Doug,

This is what I do. I bridge a magnet between the cutterhead and the
infeed table. Holds the cutter head pretty still but it's not locked
down so tight that it can not be adjusted. Give it a try.

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


Doug Miller wrote:
> A rare-earth magnet attached to the block might keep the head from rotating
> backward, though....hmmmm..... think I'll give that a try next time I need to
> adjust the jointer knives.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Chrisgiraffe wrote:
> Last night I rummaged through every industrial and woodworking supplier
> I could to look for dial indicator deals and realized there are quite a
> few doo-dads and gizmos that claim to help set the knives.

Yes there are! The existence of these products is a testament to the
failure and frustration that people have using traditional trial and
error methods. A few are good. Most reflect a very poor understanding
of machinery alignment and Metrology. You don't really need any of
them.

> What is sad
> is that there isn't a standard practice/device for the operation

The standard practice which reflects a good understanding of machinery
alignment and Metrology is contained in the link that I provided
earlier in this thread:

http://www.ts-aligner.com/jointer.htm

or:

http://www.ts-aligner.com/alignmentmyths.htm

The standard device needed for this operation is the dial indicator.
You don't need to have a TS-Aligner Jr. to do this. You can perform
this technique with any dial indicator jig that can point the dial
indicator down. A standard magnetic base is fine or you can make your
own from wood. Unfortunately, there are a few nay sayers in the group
who would insist that you must do it the hard way (trial and error) and
make it sound like getting a dial indicator is a monumental mistake.

> and
> what's sadder is that the jointer I have has no locking mechanism on
> the spindle. I don't know that other jointers have this feature since
> every advice I've come across talk about finding center and working
> from there. It's kind of nuts that manufacturers might build this
> machine knowing full well owners may one day have to change the knives
> and have to perform a Houdini trick to get the task done right. At
> least, one would think, they could put a pin that you could slide to
> lock the spindle.

I agree, one would think that such a thing would be possible. After
all, top dead center will always be located in the same place for each
knife. I bridge a high strength magnet between the side of the
cutterhead and the side of the infeed table. This holds the knife in
place while doing the alignment but doesn't prevent fine adjustment.
You can also clamp a board between the motor and cutterhead pulleys.
I've done it this way but it wasn't very convenient.

> Also, after looking through industrial catalogues (i.e. Enco, MSC) at
> metal milling machines I find that accuracy is built into the lowliest
> of machines where as manufacturers who build machines for wood allow
> much higher tolerances. Yeah, we can sand out imperfections and
> materials are less expensive but don't we deserve the same treatment?

Alas, as you have noticed, most woodworking machinery is built for the
lowest possible cost and the least acceptable accuracy. And, most
woodworkers (especially the trial and error crowd) never notice the
difference. They can't fool the machinists into buying such poor
machinery but they have many woodworkers eating out of their hands.
Once you learn how to use a dial indicator, you will be a much more
discerning buyer (eating from your own plate!).

> Anyway, I will be buying a dial indicator but until that arrives I'll
> see what I can do by hand using the methods suggested in this forum.

It will definitely keep you busy.

> I
> have to say I've gotten more out of this forum about jointing than I
> have in any woodworking book. In some sense it makes me appreciate the
> incident.

Yes, it's a good place to come and discuss such things. You do have to
wade through the opinions and sift out wannabes and dogmatics.

> Thanks guys and gals! Happy wooding and feel free to add to the
> conversation.

You're welcome. Feel free to send me email if you have any questions.

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

Mr. Clark. I read through your message very carefully and have
prepared a response which I doubt will please you. However, I would
wish that you read through it and consider it as carefully as I have
considered your words so that you (and other interested readers) might
gain a better understanding of what you have said.

J. Clarke wrote:
> No, he needs your product that reflects a poor understanding of machinery
> alignment and metrology instead.

Well, that's just not a very good characterization of anything that has
happened in this thread. Nobody has suggested that the OP should buy a
TS-Aligner product. I even assured him that he could do the task
without one. I believe that your representation strays a bit from
actual fact.

> Hint--putting down the competition is a quick way to turn off a lot of
> potential customers.

I wasn't trying to "turn off" or "turn on" potential customers. I was
trying to help the OP solve his problem in the best possible way. And,
by commenting on the large array of devices being sold to solve this
particular problem, I'm hoping that others can be educated as well.

> Why should we believe your assertion that the other
> guy's product is improperly designed instead of believing his assertion that
> yours is?

You don't have to believe anything I say. An intelligent person will
educate himself on the topic and make up his own mind about which
products are properly designed. Perhaps this didn't occur to you?

> At least the other guy isn't coming in here and whoring his
> product at every opportunity and putting down everybody who uses an
> alternative method.

What you don't know about "the other guy" would make you ashamed of
ever having such a vile notion. Again, let me invite you to educate
yourself - it's always better to speak from actual knowledge and
experience. Go and investigate all the makers of the various alignment
tools. You certainly know very little about me and I suspect that you
know absolutely nothing about the others. Then report back to the
group on what you find. Specifically, enlighten us on the
capabilities, expertise, and competency of each maker. Tell us about
their manufacturing capabilities, quality control, attention to detail,
commitment to the customer, etc. Elaborate a bit by explaining exactly
what you think people would learn from "the other guys" if they were
active participants of this NG who were as open, honest, and blunt as I
have been.

> If that is "the standard practice" then please provide a reference to the
> standard and to a description of the process by which it was established as
> the standard. If you can't do that then it's not a "standard practice",
> it's _your_ practice and since you are in the business of selling gadgets
> whose nature is such that you would benefit by having it become "standard
> practice" forgive me if I take your assertions that this is some kind of
> standard with a large dose of salt.

Hmmmmm......you really do make it difficult for me to answer in a calm
and patient manner. Here goes...

The use of dial indicators to align and adjust machinery is so
universal and pervasive that you really tip your hand when you question
its validity. This isn't my practice or my method. I'm not trying to
push a new set of standard practices on the industry. My products are
simply fixtures for dial indicators. I have designed them so that
standard practices and methods for machinery alignment and adjustment
are easily applied to common woodworking machinery. People have been
using these practices and methods for more tha a century. When you
cast doubt on the universal acceptance of these practices and methods,
you reveal a glaring lack of knowledge on the subject.

It would be quite valuable for you to educate yourself on this topic.
Perhaps you might ride along with a machinery technician for a day or
two - a professional with formal training who maintains machinery for a
living. Or, maybe you could spend some time with the people who design
and build machinery. Go and visit a factory where machinery is not
only manufactured, but aligned and maintained. Or, how about visiting
a local machine shop and getting their perspective on machinery
alignment and adjustment. If you are really pressed for time maybe you
could just pick up a book on Metrology. Here's a good choice for you.
It's an easy read, written for an introductory course on the topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Dimensional-Metrology-Roger-Harlow/dp/0766820718/sr=8-1/qid=1163698278/ref=sr_1_1/002-2182051-9609664?ie=UTF8&s=books

And, if you can't read a book, then maybe you could look it up in some
magazines. I'm at somewhat of a loss to know exactly why this sort of
information, which literally saturates the industrial world, hasn't
managed to filter down to your particular corner of existence.

Even the hobbyist magazines and books address the topic on a regular
basis. The first article I saw was in FWW #24 (Sep/Oct 1980) entitled
"The Dial Indicator" by R. Bruce Hoadley. Included in the article were
instructions about jointer alignment. That was 26 years ago buddy! By
1991 I had been using dial indicators to align my machinery for several
years. I had already built a prototype of the first TS-Aligner. When
FWW #87 (March/April 1991) came out it gave me a real kick in the
pants. In it was an article entitled "Using Dial Indicators and
Calipers" by Robert Vaughan. With my butt finally in gear, TS-Aligner
appeared in an advertisement in FWW #90 (Sep/Oct 1991). It was the
first commercially made dial indicator jig for woodworkers but I was
not the first to apply these century old principles to woodworking
machinery.

> It seems like it is one sensible way to go about things--if you had kept it
> at that I would have little quarrel with you but you don't, you have to go
> claiming that your wishful thinking is some kind of "standard".

You flatter me no end! I wish I could take the credit but I didn't
come up with this stuff. These are universally accepted practices and
standards for Metrology, Engineering, and machinery alignment. I just
designed my products to take advantage of them. This is what seperates
my products from other devices on the market. Most of them are
designed by people who suffer from the same lack of knowledge and
experience that you seem to exhibit. They goof around in their home
woodworking shop for a few years and suddenly they think that they are
experts. So they grace the world with some goofy device which gets
molded in plastic and sold by woodworking dealers with a 10x markup.
My greatest frustration comes when people end up wasting their money on
these goofy things and get sorely disapointed by its lack of
performance. They incorrectly assume that all such devices are
similarly worthless.

> As for "nay sayers" who insist that "you must do it the hard way (trial and
> error)", what leads you to believe that doing this without a dial indicator
> is "trial and error" or "the hard way"?

Again, let me suggest that you educate yourself. Go get a dial
indicator and try it. Until you try it, you have absolutely no
authority on the topic. And, don't just set yourself up for failure by
doing everything wrong. Make every effort to understand what is
happening and why things need to be done in a certain manner. Take
time to learn something new and try to see the advantage that a little
knowledge can give you.

And, please re-read the thread and tell me why I characterized certain
respondants as "nay sayers". Did I start off by saying "don't use the
trial and error method"? Or was it someone else who, after reading my
message, suggested that a dial indicator wasn't needed?

> You seem to want to claim that
> anybody who does things differently from you is doing wrong, without
> bothering to find out what methods they use and to evaluate those methods
> first.

I can very easily see how it might seem that way to you. Again,
re-read the thread and find each and every instance where I said that
an alternative method was wrong or that it wouldn't work. I think
you'll come up with exactly zero. Somehow you have turned this around
in your mind to make it look like I have attacked other methods. In
truth, I am defending the use of a dial indicator *AFTER* someone else
dismissed its use as unnecessary.

Please try to get a slightly larger perspective on the topic. I didn't
just make this stuff up. I didn't just discover dial indicators
yesterday. I've been "goofing" around with woodworking and woodworking
machines for more than 30 years. I've tried every single method that
has been suggested in this thread. I have all the gadgets (including
the goofy magnets). And, I didn't just try these once or twice and
then give up. There was a time when I did my best to put these devices
and methods to use in my shop. But, after years of uncertainty and
frustration I was determined to learn about better methods. I think it
was this determination that encouraged the machinist friend of mine to
teach me. If I had presented him with your attitude then I most
certainly would have been laughed out of his shop. Some people do not
have particular knowledge but are eager to learn. Others refuse
knowledge and shut their mind to new ideas. Your task is to choose
which category you wish to live in.

> That, in combination with the fact that you have a monetary interest
> in having people do it _your_ way, makes you look like a the more obnoxious
> kind of salesman, the one who makes the mistake of putting down his
> potential customers when they don't instantly accept his claims about his
> product.

When I suggest that someone adopt an intelligent method by using an
accurate measurement instrument like the dial indicator, I'm not
promoting "my way" of doing things. I don't have any monetary interest
in telling someone to go out and get a low cost indicator and try it
for themselves. Stoutman didn't buy an Aligner but I defended his jig
from nay-sayers. The OP in this thread didn't buy an Aligner. Heck, I
told him that he didn't need to buy an Aligner. But I still defended
his decision to buy a dial indicator. Yes, I "DEFENDED" their use of
what is definitely a competitive alternative. Not exactly the most
fiscally expedient thing to do.

> You might want to read some Zig Ziglar--he addresses the mistakes that you
> are making here with your sales pitch. Or just hire a real marketing guy
> and YOU keep off the net before you antagonize so many people that they
> start resisting your product on general principle.

This isn't a sales pitch. This is evangelism. I'm trying my best to
enlighten individuals about intelligent ways of aligning and adjusting
their woodworking machinery. Eventually they might see the value of my
products and buy one. But, that's not my goal here in the NG. I just
want to save people from the ignorance which leads to "trial and error"
hell. Some will listen. Some will prefer ignorance, cover their
ears, and scream "la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-". Again, which are
you?

> > Alas, as you have noticed, most woodworking machinery is built for the
> > lowest possible cost and the least acceptable accuracy.
>
> I have noticed no such thing. Would you care to back up that assertion or
> are you just blowing more hot air? What are you going to do for your next
> act, start selling a $1500 jigsaw on the basis that Bosch makes imprecise
> junk?

I'll just have to ask you to educate yourself again. Go and visit a
machine shop. Compare the machines they have to what you know of
woodworking machinery. Look at the scales, crank the handles, turn the
knobs, listen to the motor, check out the massive castings, the finely
ground surfaces, etc.

> > And, most
> > woodworkers (especially the trial and error crowd) never notice the
> > difference.
>
> And yet they produce quite nice work regardless. Perhaps the machinery is
> in fact precise enough for their needs? And who would you classify as "the
> trial and error crowd"? Have some names?

I never said that trial and error doesn't work. I never said that a
person can't produce nice work if they use trial and error. I never
said that a person has to have the best possible tools in order to do
good work. You misunderstand completely.

Let me elaborate on what I said so that you can better understand it.
People who believe that a lot of goofing around (trial and error) is
neccessary in order to get good results will naturally find nothing
wrong with a crappy machine which requires a lot of goofing around.

>
> > They can't fool the machinists into buying such poor
> > machinery but they have many woodworkers eating out of their hands.
>
> Who does this?

Woodworking machinery manufacturers. Some to a greater degree, some to
a lesser degree.

> And which machinists routinely buy machinery more precise
> than is needed to do the work that puts food on their tables?

Those that anticipate a future need might. You miss the point entirely
(and really stretch my patience). A machinist won't waste his money on
a machine that requires a whole bunch of stupid tips and tricks to get
good results. He buys a machine that helps him to make efficient use
of his time (i.e. avoid goofing around with stupid nonsense like test
cuts).

> Personally I've been using dial indicators since some time in the late '60s.

Pardon me Mr. Clarke, but it doesn't show. Not even in the slightest.
And your behavior in this message, (distorting what was said, ranting
against me and my products) leads me to believe that you feel
personally threatened by the suggestion that a dial indicator is a good
solution for machinery alignment and adjustment. Until I see some more
intelligent discourse from you which reflects some actual knowledge on
the topic, I will continue to believe this.

> It's a useful tool for many purposes, but it is not the only tool useful for
> setting up machinery

I never said that it was. Again, you have turned this whole thing
around in your head.

> and to argue that the alternatives are a dial indicator
> or "trial and error" is at best disengenuous and at worst a deliberate lie.

Agreed. Who said that? I don't remember anybody saying this. Perhaps
you've overstated your case a bit.

> And quite frankly at this point you have shilled your overpriced crap enough
> that I am prepared to think the worst of you.

And, quite frankly, it's difficult for me to remain patient with you.
The phrases running through my mind right now...suffice it to say that
this statement is about three to four hundred million light years over
the top, don't you think? Get a grip Mr. Clarke. This borders on
libel.

> His big problem seems to be that his machine has no provision for locking at
> TDC. The dial indicator won't provide such a lock.

Hmmmm..... I think that his biggest problem is the proper alignment of
his jointer. He's been trying to use all the traditional methods but
they aren't working for him. He is uncertain and very frustrated. The
dial indicator will definitely help him.

> Well, now, the only "wannabee and dogmatic" I see here is you, with your
> wannabee "standard" and your dogmatic insistence that the only alternative
> to doing things _your_ way is "trial and error".

Again, this is one of those things that you should probably be ashamed
of having said. It really reflects poorly on your intellect, making
you appear much more ignorant that I believe you are. I really don't
know anything about your experience or knowledge so I'm not going to
make any rash judgements about you. I would suggest that you know as
much about me and should refrain as well.

> Oh, by the way, <plonk> you and your little ts-aligner too. Personally at
> this point if you _gave_ me one I'd throw the pieces in the scrap bin to cut
> up for robot parts.

Well, I probably would never try to sell you one either. At least not
in your current state of mind. Right now you are just not my kind of
customer. I'm not interested in people who lose control like this when
they get threatened by something as simple as a dial indicator. You
really have gone off the deep end turning things around and
manufacturing all sorts of ideas and statements which nobody ever said.
My door is always open to you if you decide to calm down and be
reasonable (and educate yourself a bit).

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

Hi Paul,

In many ways it's the same thing. You've just substituted the dial
indicator for a more subjective measurement technique. Yes, it can be
pretty "fiddley" and does take some practice. The "carry" (as people
like to refer to it) will be affected by how sharp the knives are.
Dull knives will tend to rub or scrape more than they carry -
especially with a steel rule. I have used this method with varying
degrees of success - mostly because I'm just not any good at judging
"rubs" and "scrapes". It wasn't too difficult to adjust a knife so
that it was fairly equal all the way across. However, I have found it
to be very difficult to obtain consistent results from knife to knife
so that they all travel in the same circle. There's just a whole bunch
of going round and round the cutter head from knife to knife
continuously adjusting until you think that they are all even. And, of
course, it doesn't address the infeed table adjustment.

With the dial indicator, you adjust till the needle points to zero.
End of story. No guessing. Every knife is level and equal with every
other knife. And, the infeed table adjustment is just as easy. I keep
hearing people say that the dial indicator is so much trouble to use
(or "a lot of unnecessary effort"). I just don't understand why. In
virtually every possible way it seems a heck of a lot easier and a lot
less frustrating (to me).

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

Paul D wrote:
> You can go down the dial indicator track if you want to go that way. I just
> find it a lot of unnessary effort. And by the way I have a shop full of dial
> indicators and micrometers but I still do it the same way as the tradies
> have done it for centuries.
>
> A simple tool to do exactly the same job just as quick
> a straight edge. be it a straight piece of timber. a small ruler of either
> plastic or steel doesnt really matter. I can hear ppl shuddering now at the
> thought of using a steel rule but if used correctly it will do no damage
> whatsoever to the blades, if it does buy a set of better quality blades.
>
> To find top dead centre of knife rotation
> Place rule on rear table.
> start to rotate knife by hand
> as soon as it hits the straight edge (remember you are placing no pressure
> on the straight edge it is just sitting there)... place a mark on the fence
> keep rotating cutter until knife clears straight edge ..... place another
> mark on fence
> measure half way between these 2 points
> align knife to middle mark ... and you are now on TDC
>
> OK now to set blade height
> bring each knife to TDC and adjust to straight edge. Knives are parrellel to
> and level with outfeed table. It will take you longer to undo the nuts on
> the cutter than it will to set the knives. You will 'feel' the knife on the
> straight edge. If a little unsure rotate cutter by hand straight edge should
> not move more than 1/32", you dont have to measure it you can see the
> straight edge move and guess how much. If your hearing is better than your
> eyesight all you have to do is listen to machine and it will tell you when
> its right. You can hear the knife scraping the straightedge. Without knowing
> the dia of cutter block to do exact calculations this will be within a thou
> A variation to this that some ppl use is basically the same method as when
> you are finding TDC. The straight edge should move the same distance on each
> end of the knife and on each knife. Only downside to doing it this way is
> that you will then have to adjust the outfeed table to match the knife
> height.
>
> The first few times you set up a set of knives it could be a little fiddly
> but once you get the feel of it it only takes a cpl of minutes to adjust a
> set of knives. The hardest part is usually learning how much to move the
> knife. I easiest way is to just nip up the 2 outside bolts on cutter just
> enough so knife doesnt move. Set the knife a little high and tap back down
> with a piece of wood to set correct height. Tighten bolts and recheck
> measurement.
>
>
> "Chrisgiraffe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I had no idea I would spark this much conversation- and useful tips.
> > If this were 'Who wants to be a millionaire' I believe my lifeline
> > (i.e. this discussion) strongly believes it's the knives. I am apt to
> > suspect them, or at least want to check them, first. I don't have a
> > dial indicator.
> > Last night I rummaged through every industrial and woodworking supplier
> > I could to look for dial indicator deals and realized there are quite a
> > few doo-dads and gizmos that claim to help set the knives. What is sad
> > is that there isn't a standard practice/device for the operation and
> > what's sadder is that the jointer I have has no locking mechanism on
> > the spindle. I don't know that other jointers have this feature since
> > every advice I've come across talk about finding center and working
> > from there. It's kind of nuts that manufacturers might build this
> > machine knowing full well owners may one day have to change the knives
> > and have to perform a Houdini trick to get the task done right. At
> > least, one would think, they could put a pin that you could slide to
> > lock the spindle.
> >
> > Also, after looking through industrial catalogues (i.e. Enco, MSC) at
> > metal milling machines I find that accuracy is built into the lowliest
> > of machines where as manufacturers who build machines for wood allow
> > much higher tolerances. Yeah, we can sand out imperfections and
> > materials are less expensive but don't we deserve the same treatment?
> >
> > Anyway, I will be buying a dial indicator but until that arrives I'll
> > see what I can do by hand using the methods suggested in this forum. I
> > have to say I've gotten more out of this forum about jointing than I
> > have in any woodworking book. In some sense it makes me appreciate the
> > incident.
> >
> > Thanks guys and gals! Happy wooding and feel free to add to the
> > conversation.
> >

Hi again Paul,

> > 1. You wouldn't be so unsure about your jointer knife alignment.

Paul D wrote:
> I am always 100%sure about my alignment. If it out the jointer tells me so.
> That's one of the reasons we were given eyes and ears

You have this confidence because you are proficient at using a
subjective measurement technique (what others are calling the "carry").
It is easy for you to judge rubs or scrapes and obtain accurate
results (or at least accurate enough to satisfy your needs). It's
pretty obvious that the OP doesn't have your level of proficiency. He
is frustrated and unsure. He needs a more objective measurement
technique.

> > 2. You would have found and accurately corrected any possible infeed
> > table misalignment.

I notice you didn't comment on this particular point.

> > 3. You wouldn't have wasted a whole bunch of time and wood trying to
> > learn "Jointerese" by trial and error.
>
> He has already wasted timber doing this. Now he just has to be able to
> understand what has been said to him. One pass would heve been enough of a
> test if you can see what it is telling you

With enough experience a person can look at the results from one pass
and come up with a list of likely causes for the symptoms. Obviously,
the OP doesn't have that level of experience. It doesn't do him any
good to say that he must apply skills and experience that he doesn't
have.

Even if a person has the experience to understand "Jointerese", he
would still need to decide which of the possible causes was the most
likely. Then, if he was still dogmatically opposed to using a dial
indicator, he would have to proceed with blindly making an adjustment
and doing another test cut to determine if the problem got worse,
better, or stayed the same. From those results, he would have to
decide to continue with the adjustments or try fixing another possible
cause. This is "test cut hell". Even the most experienced person
can't avoid doing more test cuts and suffering some degree of
frustrating uncertainty. There is no such frustration or uncertainty
when using a dial indicator.

An analogy might be helpful. What if a doctor approached his job in the
same manner: "Avoid diagnostic tests or equipment and let the patient
tell me what is wrong." So, you go in and tell him you have a
headache. Using his highly refined diagnostic skills he narrows the
symptoms down to "eyestrain" or "brain tumor". Since the latter is far
more serious than the former, he wants to rule it out first. So, he
schedules you for brain surgery.

> > 4. You wouldn't be so frustrated trying to "feel the force" because you
> > would be able to measure it with a reliable instrument.
>
> But what happens on the day he has to do a job that his life depends on
> worse still SHMBO says it has to be straight and square it I'll cut your
> ???? off and he has just droped his dial indicator in shear terror.... woops
> goodbye charlie.

I gotta give you this one. This particular sceneraio would definitely
put a guy like me in a big bind.

> > People do it both ways successfully. It all depends on how you want to
> > approach the problem.
>
> There are always numerous ways to approach a problem. The big secret to
> solving problems and a good tradie is being able to think logically .... see
> what is happening and then you can see how to fix it.

The brain is the best tool in the shop.

>
> > You can spend $15 on a dial indicator and get
> > your jointer aligned quickly without any test cuts, trial and error, or
> > doubts. Or, if your time is absolutely worthless to you,
>
> Well actually I currently charge my time out at $55/hr so I am certainly
> not cheap

People pay you $55 an hour to do test cuts? And they say that I charge
too much! Where can I sign up?

> >then you can
> > continue to spend hours (maybe even days) doing more test cuts, making
> > more adjustments based on what you think the machine is saying to you,
>
> He just hasnt seen or heard what is happening yet. Which is really more on
> the side of experiance using and understanding a jointer. in time to come
> with enough experience he wouldn't even have to think about it .... he will
> see/hear what the jointer is telling him.

In the meantime he would like to be doing woodworking rather than
goofing around with his machine and doing more test cuts. I just don't
understand the "dial indicator phobia" which compells people to avoid
using one and say whatever they can to dissuade others from using one.

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

Paul,

The dial indicator doesn't eliminate the need for thinking or for
understanding of the machine. It's not a shortcut on the road to
knowledge. It's just a measurement device which provides very accurate
and objective information about the machine's adjustments. You can
just blindly measure all the adjustments but you still need to
understand what they should be and why before you decide if they need
to be changed.

The difference between the two methods boils down to one (and only one)
thing. The measurement device (or technique) used to provide feedback
on any adjustments that might be needed. You advocate using the
results from test cuts to determine what needs to be adjusted and to
track your adjustment progress. I use the dial indicator. Both of us
agree that the knives need to be equal with the height of the outfeed
table. Both of us agree that the infeed table needs to be parallel to
the outfeed table.

Both of us can look at the results of a test cut and interpret the
symptoms to a likely set of causes. But, I'm not going to start
shimming slide ways until after I have actually measured and confirmed
that the infeed table is not parallel with the outfeed table. Having
no accurate measurement device (other than the test cut), you are
compelled to blindly start shimming (because you believe it is the most
likely cause) and then do another test cut to see what effect (if any)
it had.

Both methods work and both methods can be used to obtain equally
accurate results. I prefer using a dial indicator because I think it
is faster (no need for test cuts) and I think it's easier to obtain
accurate results (because you don't have to make subjective judgements
of scrapes or rubs).

The only thing I don't understand is why you like avoding the dial
indicator. Why do you try to dissuade others from using a dial
indicator? Do you feel they are somehow cheating? ("they always take
the short road"). Do you really believe that the dial indicator is
harder or more involved? Are you just opposed to intellectual progress
("...the traditional methods...have always worked for the craftsman of
the past..."). Is it because it's your job to advocate traditional
methods (i.e. you get paid for it)? Please help me to understand why
you would rather dive into shimming slideways and making test cuts
before knowing if the infeed table really is out of alignment.

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

Paul D wrote:
> I won't go to the trouble of replying to each comment. Basically what it all
> boils down to is lack of understanding of the machine. How does one get to
> understand the fundamentals of anything if they always take the short road.
> The methods I have passed on are the 'traditional' methods of setting up a
> jointer which have always worked for the craftsman of the past and still
> apply today.If you look at a jointer from back in say the early 1900's and
> look at a jointer from today (or any machine for that matter) the basic
> principles and design of the machine has not changed, with the exception of
> better guarding nowadays.Although the old methods do take a little more
> practise thye do encourage logical thinking and you will learn from the
> experience and from there next time something is happening you will know
> just where to start looking because you understand the mechanicals of what
> is happening, Once a quality machine(or even a reasonably quality for that
> matter) is set up properly there is no need for 'fine tuning' excepting
> after things like changing knives. Even then it should only involve
> resetting knife height which should take between cpl of minutes to half an
> hour depending on machine design.
>
> I wish I did get $55/hr just for test cuts. I actually specialise in
> traditional detail joinery and restoration done the traditional ways.
>
>

Hi Paul,

Like I said in the previous reply, using a dial indicator doesn't let
you ignore what the adjustments do or what they should be set to. You
still have to understand the fundamentals. The dial indicator just
gives you quick and and accurate feedback.

You seem to be avoiding one fact about adjusting machinery. You have
to know how much adjustment is needed, or you need to get feedback on
your adjustment in order to know if you have done enough. If you don't
use an accurate measurement device (like a dial indicator), then your
only feedback is going to be test cuts You can't adjust the infeed
table on a jointer (to make it parallel with the outfeed table) without
an accurate measurement device (like a dial indicator) or test cuts.

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

Paul D wrote:
> If one takes the time to understand the fundamentals of a machine in the
> learning days there is virtually no time or timber wasted on test cuts
> further down the track, or time wasted trying to figure out what is wrong by
> using dial indicators. The understanding from this experience wil enable one
> to diagnose future problems without virtually having to think about it. The
> dial indicator will solve this problem but it does very little towards
> understanding the mechanicals of what is happening.
>

Paul D wrote:

> First point here is why would you bother installing a set of dull knives in
> the first place. The only time a set of knives should need setting is after
> changing the knives .... which would be sharp. If the cutterblock is turned
> slowly and smoothly the knives would have to have a fair radius on the edge
> to not carry. The timber straight edge is probably the easiest and most
> common to use.

Hmmmm.....have you ever needed to shift the knives to avoid a nick?
Let's say that you use the traditional (hear the scrape, feel the rub)
method. But, you're not so good at it. So, one of your knives is
slightly higher than the others (say a few thousandths). That knife
will do most of the cutting and wear faster than the others. It will
be dull before the others. So, it doesn't respond the same in the
"carry" method. It doesn't rub or scrape the same. And, you know that
the knife alignment will need to be checked after shifting because it's
not likely that the front edge is parallel to the back to within a few
thousandths. Personally, I don't find this to be such an absurd or
remote situation. I think that this happens to everybody.

> It is all a matter of learning. How long did it take you to learn to walk?
> Do you now have to think everytime you take a step, or has it just become
> second nature to know just how high to lift your foot and how far to move
> it?
> No need to go round and round. Set the first knife to the height of outfeed
> table. When you have it set right move to the next knife. When you have it
> set accuratly move to the third knife ( assuming you have 3)

I'm just not good at guesswork. I don't have confidence in the
results. Too many times I have measured my performance at "feel the
rub" or "hear the scrape" methods and have found the results to be very
inaccurate. I know that some people can do it accurately but I don't
have that ability. And, based on the calls and email from countless
customers, I am confident that I'm not alone in this. Perhaps you just
have a natural ability here. Or, perhaps you have never measured the
results and, like so many others, you just don't expect much from your
woodworking machines. Maybe you would be completely amazed by the
performance of a properly aligned set of knives.

> With the carry method you also just set it to zero.
> End of story.
> No guessing.
> Every knife is level and equal with every other knife.

Sorry Paul, this is beginning to remind me of a load of bovine fecal
matter. There is no "zero" with the "carry" method. From a distance
of infinity to almost touching the bar (or rule or piece of wood)
nothing happens. Is this your "zero"? The whole problem comes in when
you try to judge that range between not touching and actually carrying
the bar. How much is a rub? A scrape? Did it move? Maybe, maybe
not, I can't tell. I think it lifted. No that was a rub. It scrapes
when using a rule but it carries a piece of wood. Oh no, the knife
squirmed a bit when tighteneing, it was scraping but now it's
definitely carrying. Geez, what a stupid ignorant nightmare. Is the
needle of the dial indicator on zero? Yes. Done.

> Unless a machine has had a major accident or been the victim of extreme
> violence the infeed table should not need any adjustment after inital setup.

Or it's a low quality model, or a moron sat on it, or you have
parallelogram mounts and not dovetail ways, ... Surely you aren't
saying that this adjustment is so uncommon that there's no need to
address it, are you?

> In this case there is a prob with the infeed table (which is what started
> all this debate).

So, it does happen!

> The problem of it being out of plane with the rear table can be very easily
> rectified using no more than a steel straight edge (deffinately steel in
> this case) and a pair of eyes.

So, something other than "jointerese"? Really! But I thought that you
didn't need any instruments. Just listen to what the machine was
telling you, right? Use the force, eh? One test cut and only one test
cut will solve the whole problem.

> lets look at the two methods.
>
> Old way
> lay straightedge on rear table towards one side above slides
> bring up front table to match (look across rule till you see no light
> between it and table)
> muve straight edge to other side of table above slides
> woops I see light under straight edge
> dig out some shims to fill gap between straight edge and table
> Now you have the shims for that side
> Problen solved.

Yep, that is a fine way to do it. I prefer reading a dial indicator to
sighting tiny gaps and subjectively judging the fit of shimms in a tiny
gap. However, this method works just fine. But, it isn't the method
that you first proposed. Originally you said that one could just learn
to listen to what the machine was saying and if you were smart enough
you could fix anything with nothing more than the results of a test
cut.

> Dial method
> Place dial indicator on rear table towards one side above slides
> bring up front table to zero indicator
> Move indicator to other side of table above slides
> woops I need .004" shim
> two possibble routes from here
> route 1
> go to drawer dig out vernier
> dig out some shims and measure till I find .004"
> Now you have the shims for that side
> route 2
> Oh shoot I dont have vernier or cant find it
> undo slide
> install shim which I think is about .004"
> tigthen gibs
> measure again
> woops that shim was only .003"
> undo, find a .001" shim
> tighten gigs
> measure again ... phew thats lucky i got it right this time

This definitely is a big load of bovine fecal matter. Geez, what a
rediculous strawman.

1. Place the indicator jig on the outfeed table with the stylus on the
infeed table.
2. Zero the dial indicator on the higher side of the infeed table (if
there really is a problem).
3. Move the stylus to the other side of the infeed table.
4. Place shims under stylus to bring the reading back up to zero.
5. Put shimms into slide way on the lower side of the table

Done. I think it's pretty obvious why you object to the dial
indicator. A little introspection might help. Why do you feel
compelled to make the dial indicator method look rediculous? It has
always been my experience that people usually ridicule, overstate their
case, and exaggerate to absurdity when they feel threatened by
something.

> People can choose which road they take. In this case they both lead to the
> same place. The only difference is what you see and learn along the way.

In this particular case, there is absolutely no difference in what you
see and learn. In both cases you use a measurement device to determine
the proper thickness of a shim. The difference is in the measurement
device. One is easy to read and provides you very accurate results
(dial indicator). The other requires you to sight a tiny gap and
subjectively fit shims (straight edge). Both can be used successfully
to solve the problem with accurate results.

The real point here is this: Using "jointerese" to correct error in the
infeed table of a jointer is so tedius and absurd that even it's
proponent doesn't recommend it.

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

Well Paul, I think that we're getting nowhere in this discussion. You
changed your tune. It started with you saying:

"you dont need dial indicators ... only implements required to set up
jointer accuratly is a cpl of pieces of timber. Let the machine talk to
you and tell you what the prob is rather than trying to find an
interpretor to talk to the machine"

While it stretches this idea of yours, I can see how you do the "carry"
method with just a piece of wood (even though it is acting as an
"interpretor" for you). But, now that you are backed into a corner
with the infeed table adjustment, you add a steel straight edge.
Sounds like another "interpretor" to me. It tells me a couple of
things. First, you are not speaking from experience. You are making
this up as you go along. This "jointerese" stuff that you advocate has
some degree of logic (everybody diagnoses problems based on symptoms)
but it breaks down when theory becomes practice (it will take a week if
you insist on doing adjustments by measuring the results of test cuts).

Second, it tells me that you really aren't interested in helping the OP
with his problem. You aren't even interested in the topic of jointer
alignment. You are simply arguing against the use of dial indicators.
You talk about having a bunch of dial indicators but it is apparent
from the absurd and rediculous scenarios you propose that you don't
have the slightest idea how to use them and haven't made any effort to
learn. I could go on and on dispelling all of your objections and
still get nowhere. And, you don't give any consideration to my points.
You are not being intellectually honest, you have an agenda.

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


Paul D wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Like I said in the previous reply, using a dial indicator doesn't let
> > you ignore what the adjustments do or what they should be set to. You
> > still have to understand the fundamentals. The dial indicator just
> > gives you quick and and accurate feedback.
> >
> > You seem to be avoiding one fact about adjusting machinery. You have
> > to know how much adjustment is needed,
>
> I heve seen tyeh light. Have you? I have the amount of adjustment required
> from the straight edge ... no guesswork
>
> > or you need to get feedback on
> > your adjustment in order to know if you have done enough.
>
> Just as you would set dial indicator back in place I use straight edge
>
> >If you don't
> > use an accurate measurement device (like a dial indicator), then your
> > only feedback is going to be test cuts
>
> Still not required refer above
>
> >You can't adjust the infeed
> > table on a jointer (to make it parallel with the outfeed table) without
> > an accurate measurement device (like a dial indicator) or test cuts.
> >
>
> I agree you cannot adjust infeed without some form of measurement, nobody is
> disputing that. We are just using 2 diff measuring devices which are just as
> accurate as each other used correcly.

George wrote:
> "Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > A machinist learns early on to trust indicators and known references,
> > such as a flat granite plate and a dial indicator. He then spends his
> > time refining techniques that allow him to achieve repeatability in
> > his measurements, and learning formulae that aid him in interpreting
> > his measurement devices.
>
> There it is. Fiddling with the measuring instruments becomes a major issue.

No George, it's not even the point. He was trying to describe two
different approaches to doing the same work. Two people from two
different backgrounds approach the same task in different ways. One
guy approaches it analytically, the other approaches it emperically.

> Consider, however, that the tolerances which apply to metals or materials of
> consistent composition are _irrelevant_ to working a material like wood.
> The material isn't capable of accepting and less capable even of maintaining
> such tolerances.

Nobody is saying that wood can hold the same tolerances as metals or
composites. The discussion is about aligning a machine. A machine
always needs to be aligned and adjusted more accurately than the
desired tolerances. The question at hand concerns which method
achieves this goal faster and easier. If you are really good at the
"carry" method, then there should be no accuracy difference between it
and using a dial indicator.

> Woodworking machines are built to less tolerance because they don't need to
> be. Advocates of finding out how far they're "off" rather than just finding
> out they're off might want to consider the course of action following the
> discovery. Got a micrometer adjust on the tool, or do you have to bump,
> tighten and recheck? No hands in the class for micrometers? Then don't
> add one.

Actually, woodworking machines can do some very precise and tight
tolerance work. It's the adjustments on the machine which are crude
(which leads to a lot of trial and error). Once the setting is
correct, a good tablesaw can do some amazing work. I regularly use my
tablesaw to cut aluminum to within +/-0.005". And, in case you haven't
noticed, a lot of woodworking tools are now comming equipped with
micrometer adjustments these days.

> The old micrometer to meataxe continuum again.

No, it's not. It's really the question of spending your time goofing
around with test cuts or spending your time working on your project.

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

Prometheus wrote:

> Any chance you've got a setup that will work on planer knives, too? I
> must have missed the bit on the jointer setup before.

As I mentioned in the other thread, the Aligners can do bed rollers,
feed rollers, chip breakers, and cutterhead. These are all the things
that can be adjusted from below on a planer. Thre is a restriction.
The 1" travel indicators that I ship with the Aligners are about 5"
long (from one end of the plunger to the other). So, your planer needs
to allow at least 5" underneath the head. Or, since the Aligners use a
standard AGD group 2 loop back indicator, you can get one with smaller
travel just for use on a shorter planer.

The knives on a planer need to be adjusted in relation to the
cutterhead. It can be done from below and some of my competition
advocates doing so. However, it seems like torture to me. They really
need to be set from above. I don't have a jig to do that right now.
There are some other jigs on the market which do it (not the magnet
ones, ones with dial indicators).

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

Prometheus wrote:
> Hey Ed-
>
> I've been thinking about this entire subject a great deal, and here's
> what I've come up with.

Good points. This must have taken some time to write!

> What you're advocating is an easy way for an unexperienced person to
> accurately set up and align machinery for the woodshop.

In some ways, yes. In others, no. It's also for the experienced
person who just doesn't have time for trial and error methods. Anybody
who is frustrated trying to get their woodworking machines to do what
they want is a good candidate.

> (In all the following argument, "carpenter" will be used to represent
> an average woodworker, as it is a common background from which many
> fine woodworkers come)

There is a big difference between a carpenter on a job site and a
woodworker in a shop. The methods that I advocate and the products
that I have designed are not for carpenters. I recognize that their
work environment, requirements, results are very different.

> Most woodworking equipment is not manufactured to a standard that will
> hold a machine shop's equipment's tolerances. (You can disagree, but
> I think that's a fair enough statement, having used both)

No, I agree. Nobody would respect a vertical mill which was only good
for +/-0.005". But, everybody has respect for a tablesaw or jointer
which can work in these tolerances.

> As a result of the poorer quality of manufacturing, combined with a
> common difference between woodworking and metalwork- namely, that
> woodworking machinery is more often moved to a jobsite than
> metalworking equipment, woodworkers have developed a vast array of
> hints and tips that depend heavily on a tradesman's "touch", whereas
> machinists have developed a standard that depends heavily on
> consistancy and measuring devices.

Again, I think it would be rediculus for someone on a jobsite to pull
out a dial indicator. Nothing about trim carpentry or framing requires
more than a speedsquare and a chop saw. I'm concerned mainly with
woodworking done in a shop (furniture and fine cabinetry).

> Neither is wrong- or even signifigantly more accurate than the other.
> (I will grant that machinist work is more precise, but precision and
> accuracy have different definitions.) What we are debating is
> experience V. inexperience.

I think we're talking about different approaches to essentially the
same work. In the end, the tolerances are the same. A joint is tight
because it has been worked to within several thousandths of an inch.
It doesn't matter if this work was done with a precisely aligned and
adjusted machine, done by trial and error, or with hand tools. The end
result is the same but the methods are different.

> Having worked in both trades, my personal assessment is this:
>
> A machinist requires a smaller, but signifigantly more precise and
> expensive set of tools one required by a carpenter, which can stay in
> one location, protected from the elements for years.

The woodworker in a shop is much more analogous to the machinist.

> A carpenter requires a larger and less expensive set of tools than a
> machinist, ant they need to be moved to each new jobsite as required-
> consistantly changing alignments and requiring lighter construction
> for easy transport.

Yes, and I can easily see how absurd it would be for the carpenter to
be using dial indicators.

> These two things create experience in fundimentally different ways-
>
> A machinist learns early on to trust indicators and known references,
> such as a flat granite plate and a dial indicator. He then spends his
> time refining techniques that allow him to achieve repeatability in
> his measurements, and learning formulae that aid him in interpreting
> his measurement devices.

Agreed. The whole approach to becoming a machinist is analytical and
education based.

> A carpenter learns early on that his square might be out of square for
> any number of reasons, ranging from dropping it from a rooftop, to one
> of the other guys on his crew dropping a saw on it while loading the
> truck. Because of this, he quickly develops a mistrust of measuring
> devices, and spends his time learning to "see" squareness, and "feel"
> straightness. I can tell you without any hyperbole whatsover that I
> can measure tape coming off a roll to within 1/16 of an inch by the
> sound it makes as it seperates from the layer below, and see
> squareness to within 15 minutes of a degree (even though I may think
> of it as one-quarter degree) without a measurement device. I've put
> up entire buildings with a roll of mason's twine and a tape measure
> with a bent hook and a rusty blade that were within 1/16" of square
> (corner to corner) over a 100' x 50' area by myself. To tell you the
> truth, I rarely even bother with a square *or* a level, until checking
> the final product to make sure my eye is still *calibrated.* If you
> doubt this, find any experienced framing carpenter and watch him whack
> the end off a 2x4 with a circular saw while it's balanced on his knee-
> then check the cut with whatever you like for squareness.

Whew! Good description. OK, here's what I think happens. The
jobsite woodworker eventually works his way into a shop. He takes his
tools and techniques into the shop with him. He draws from his
experience and applies his skills to machinery and work which demands
much more. His solution is to do much more - much more trial and
error, test cuts, etc. He doesn't apply new tools and techniques to
the new environment. He just tries to scale jobsite skills to the wood
shop.

> You understand the machinists' method, so I'm not going to pursue
> that- what I'll do from here on out is describe an average
> woodworker's point of view, which you have (for better or worse- I
> will not make that call, because I feel that they are both valuable)
> departed from.

<Snip woodworker's condition>

I understand this completely. Essentially, you are describing the
skills needed to overcome adverse working conditions (job site) and
what eventually ends up in the wood shop (where I believe they are
inappropriate).

> What you've been encountering when defending the use of machinists'
> measurement tools for woodworking is a result of this. Those
> "grooves" I described above are much more accurate than you might
> imagine, and they're a hard-won rewiring of a tradesman's brain. They
> don't "work" for oddball measurements (at least, not for me,) but they
> are very accurate for things like "parallel", "square", "even",
> "length", "distance", "pitch", "level" and common measurements
> (determined by the tradesman in question's specialty).

I think that there is naturally some pride in being able to overcome
adverse conditions. All noteworthy achievements carry some pride.
It's just natural.

> When you claim that these skills are resorting to mere trial-and-error
> in an experienced tradesman, it can be nothing *but* offensive. In a
> person new to the avocation or hobby, precision measurement is a very
> useful alternative.

It's an emotional response. Sure, I understand this. What I don't
understand is the inability or unwillingness to examine alternative
methods and judge them on their merrits. It's probably because I use
an analytical approach to problems. People who get threatened by new
ideas don't use the same objective analytical approach.

> I can machine a blank to within .002-.005 of nominal with a handheld
> die-grinder (though it's obviously a lot more work and mess than using
> a mill) without a caliper or mic because of my experiences in
> woodworking. I don't care if you believe that claim or not, and it's
> ultimately unimportant that you do- I am just trying to help you
> understand your target market a little better,

Actually, I don't mind letting the trial and error people continue to
do it their way. The problem comes in when they actively attempt to
dissuade others from considering the objective analytical approach.

> What you've got going with the Ts-aligner is not a bad idea- and it
> has the potential to shave a huge amount of effort off the
> woodworker's learning curve. There is nothing wrong with making the
> task easier and more repeatable- I am simply trying to help you with
> one particular sentiment that I have seen in many of your posts, both
> overtly and implied. That sentiment is that most woodworkers are
> *guessing* at measurements and settings if they are not using
> machinist's instruments to measure them.

I understand what you are saying. If you have been doing it a long
time and you feel like your estimating skills are refined and honed
then you are naturally insulted by someone who calls it "guessing".
You feel like these skills have a lot of value. You aren't going to be
happy with someone who presents tools and techniques which place no
value on them.

> It isn't true. It took me a bit of self-analysis to know why it
> isn't, but the above might help you understand- if you don't already.

I understand. Eventually, economics will dictate the methods used in
shops. This is what happened in machine shops. It has happened for
the most part in large industrial wood shops. It is happening now in
the mid-sized and smaller wood shops. It's just not going to be
economically feasible to let everyone who thinks they are good at
estimating to spend time and materials doing test cuts.

> As a way to help you get your point across, this may well be a useful
> thing to understand and acknowledge. I'm assuming that you are a
> woodworker yourself, and not just the manufacturer of a piece of
> woodworking equipment. Imagine if you were not making the Ts-aligner,
> and someone called you "ignorant" for using the skills you had earned
> through repeated use and consideration- you'd get a little hot under
> the collar, too.

There is a point where I get pretty impatient with nay-sayers. But, I
always do my best to understand their viewpoint first. It's my
analytical approach. I just don't respond emotionally before thinking
about it first.

> No need to alienate the folks you're trying to "educate," right? Both
> trades have their lessons to teach- just try and remember the
> woodworker's lessons when you're advocating the machinist's! Please
> don't take it personally- this isn't a lecture, but a gentle reminder
> of something you may have forgotten. To tell you the truth, I'm
> almost ready to get one of your tools for setting up my planer.

For the most part, I believe that these specific people are alienated
before I talk to them. They have an immediate emotional reaction when
they hear someone talking about dial indicators. They do not even
listen to what is being discussed. They do not consider alternatives.
They have so much time, work, and emotion invested in their hard earned
methods that such talk is personally threatening. It makes them feel
like a huge part of thier life was a waste of time and that their
"skills" are not needed. This is why I believe that they actively try
to dissuade others from "taking the easy road" and "cheating" with dial
indicators. I do not need to sell my products to these people. But, I
do not appreciate how they ridicule the use of dial indicators. There
is little choice for me but to engage them in a dialog to get them to
reveal their motives.

> Being a machinist helps me be a better woodworker, and being a
> woodworker helps me be a better machinist- keep that in mind. It's
> like learning multiple languages- each one makes the next a little
> easier- but learning a new one doesn't make the older ones obsolete!

Absolutely. I believe in adopting best practices from all areas of
one's experience.

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

Thanks for taking so much time and thought in your response.

One of the things that I have decided to do as a result of what you
have said is to update the "jointer" page on my web site with
demonstrations of alternative methods. I think you are right, this
will probably help. I don't know how long it will take me but I will
probably announce the updates here in the wreck.

I would like to respond to everything you've said here but I am not
sure how much time I will be able to spend. I think we are in
agreement on a good deal of it. There are a few points where we
disagree but I think that they are minor. Right now the VMC is calling
me. Must get back to work!

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

Prometheus wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2006 15:18:24 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >Prometheus wrote:
> >> Hey Ed-
> >>
> >> I've been thinking about this entire subject a great deal, and here's
> >> what I've come up with.
> >
> >Good points. This must have taken some time to write!
>
> Thanks. But not too much time- I type fast, and tend to just riff off
> a mental outline.
>
> >> (In all the following argument, "carpenter" will be used to represent
> >> an average woodworker, as it is a common background from which many
> >> fine woodworkers come)
> >
> >There is a big difference between a carpenter on a job site and a
> >woodworker in a shop. The methods that I advocate and the products
> >that I have designed are not for carpenters. I recognize that their
> >work environment, requirements, results are very different.
>
> Definately- as noted by yourself below, I was using the viewpoint of a
> carpenter moving into a woodshop. If a machinist moves into a
> woodshop, they're going to be using machine shop practices already. I
> don't know what everyone's background in these discussion is, but I
> suspect that if you strip off the shellac, there's more than a few
> guys that started woodworking as jobsite carpenters, like I did.
>
> >> As a result of the poorer quality of manufacturing, combined with a
> >> common difference between woodworking and metalwork- namely, that
> >> woodworking machinery is more often moved to a jobsite than
> >> metalworking equipment, woodworkers have developed a vast array of
> >> hints and tips that depend heavily on a tradesman's "touch", whereas
> >> machinists have developed a standard that depends heavily on
> >> consistancy and measuring devices.
> >
> >Again, I think it would be rediculus for someone on a jobsite to pull
> >out a dial indicator. Nothing about trim carpentry or framing requires
> >more than a speedsquare and a chop saw. I'm concerned mainly with
> >woodworking done in a shop (furniture and fine cabinetry).
>
> You might be surprised at how much fine cabinetmaking occurs during
> the install- and it's often the hardest part of the job. One example-
> scribing the back edge of a cabinet to mate to a brick wall. Takes a
> good deal of technique to get it right!
>
> >> Neither is wrong- or even signifigantly more accurate than the other.
> >> (I will grant that machinist work is more precise, but precision and
> >> accuracy have different definitions.) What we are debating is
> >> experience V. inexperience.
> >
> >I think we're talking about different approaches to essentially the
> >same work. In the end, the tolerances are the same. A joint is tight
> >because it has been worked to within several thousandths of an inch.
> >It doesn't matter if this work was done with a precisely aligned and
> >adjusted machine, done by trial and error, or with hand tools. The end
> >result is the same but the methods are different.
>
> There you go!
>
> >> A machinist requires a smaller, but signifigantly more precise and
> >> expensive set of tools one required by a carpenter, which can stay in
> >> one location, protected from the elements for years.
> >
> >The woodworker in a shop is much more analogous to the machinist.
>
> Granted- though it is often the case that even a fine cabinetmaker
> needs to take some tools on the road. This was, of course, more about
> background than shop conditions in any case.
>
> >Whew! Good description. OK, here's what I think happens. The
> >jobsite woodworker eventually works his way into a shop. He takes his
> >tools and techniques into the shop with him. He draws from his
> >experience and applies his skills to machinery and work which demands
> >much more. His solution is to do much more - much more trial and
> >error, test cuts, etc. He doesn't apply new tools and techniques to
> >the new environment. He just tries to scale jobsite skills to the wood
> >shop.
>
> Exactly- people use what they know, and if it works for them, there is
> not a great incentive to change. As you've stated several time, it's
> an emotional issue, not a purely logical one. If a guy does something
> the same way for 20 years and gets fine results, he's going to get
> worked up if someone tells him his methods are slipshod and
> half-assed.
>
> >I understand this completely. Essentially, you are describing the
> >skills needed to overcome adverse working conditions (job site) and
> >what eventually ends up in the wood shop (where I believe they are
> >inappropriate).
>
> Well, it may or may not be inappropriate- that's where a little give
> on your part might go a long way to ending these debates. Some folks
> require more assistance to acheive an acceptable level of precision-
> but others don't. It's kind of like the difference between needing
> glasses and having perfect vision- or a musician who uses sheet music
> to learn a new tune verses the guy who can play it perfectly after
> hearing it once. In any case, anyone can achieve the same result as
> someone else, but they may need to take different paths to get there.
>
> Consider that guy with an analog to perfect pitch in a woodshop, who
> is not familiar with the proper set up and use of indicators- it is
> still appropriate for him to simply set the machine into the proper
> alignment, especially if using the machinist's tools will cost him a
> great deal of time, effort, and frustration. Sure, he could overcome
> all those things with time and practice, but for him- it's pointless.
>
> It's very difficult to see things from another person's perspective-
> I've been guilty of failing to do so over and over again, and I'm sure
> it will happen many more times in the future. If *I* can do
> something, and it seems easy to me- I just assume that everyone else
> can as well, and if they do not or will not, they're just being lazy
> or stubborn.
>
> Using this logic, if I then see something like (for instance) a cd
> sold to teach people how to use Internet Explorer or check their
> e-mail, I get irritated, and start to think that the person selling
> these things is some kind of con man- never even considering the idea
> that the product may be a godsend to millions of other people who need
> a little help. If I happened to run into that guy some time later, I
> might challenge his motives and accuse him of any number of
> unflattering things. The same thing is happening here with
> woodworking products- there's absolutely nothing wrong with the use of
> an indicator, but there's certainly a little sourness over the idea
> that one must have one to do good work.
>
> >It's an emotional response. Sure, I understand this. What I don't
> >understand is the inability or unwillingness to examine alternative
> >methods and judge them on their merrits. It's probably because I use
> >an analytical approach to problems. People who get threatened by new
> >ideas don't use the same objective analytical approach.
>
> Yes- and it's also a response to some of the words you're using. If
> someone feels that they're being talked down to or mocked, they're
> going to get angry enough that they no longer care what the original
> point was. Once again, I've been guity of it myself more than a few
> times, and probably will be again.
>
> >I understand what you are saying. If you have been doing it a long
> >time and you feel like your estimating skills are refined and honed
> >then you are naturally insulted by someone who calls it "guessing".
> >You feel like these skills have a lot of value. You aren't going to be
> >happy with someone who presents tools and techniques which place no
> >value on them.
>
> That's the whole shooting match right there. It's not so much the
> existance or presentation of the product, as it is the insult of the
> use of the words "guessing" and "trial-and-error." The fact that they
> *are* skills indicates that they are neither guesswork nor trial and
> error.
>
> >> It isn't true. It took me a bit of self-analysis to know why it
> >> isn't, but the above might help you understand- if you don't already.
> >
> >I understand. Eventually, economics will dictate the methods used in
> >shops. This is what happened in machine shops. It has happened for
> >the most part in large industrial wood shops. It is happening now in
> >the mid-sized and smaller wood shops. It's just not going to be
> >economically feasible to let everyone who thinks they are good at
> >estimating to spend time and materials doing test cuts.
>
> Sure- and that's part of this, too. A lot of the folks on this group
> are engaging in a hobby or very small businesses- not worrying about
> employees or financial decisions. The folks that don't need to do
> woodworking to put food on the table have the time to learn the older
> methods, and may find a lot more pleasure in using them.
>
> This is one of those things that I (even if I'm alone it the idea) do
> to escape a constant pressure and drive to maintain profitability
> during working hours. It's nice to not worry about how much a thing
> costs to make in terms of a balance sheet, and just focus on making
> something you like.
>
> >There is a point where I get pretty impatient with nay-sayers. But, I
> >always do my best to understand their viewpoint first. It's my
> >analytical approach. I just don't respond emotionally before thinking
> >about it first.
>
> Sure, and I've seen that in you, or else I would not have bothered
> with this to begin with. Sometimes running a syllogism in your head
> comes up with the wrong human answer- most people are not severely
> bound by the constrants of an impersonal logic. If you're going to
> sell things, you aught to know that- and probably do.
>
> >For the most part, I believe that these specific people are alienated
> >before I talk to them. They have an immediate emotional reaction when
> >they hear someone talking about dial indicators. They do not even
> >listen to what is being discussed. They do not consider alternatives.
> >They have so much time, work, and emotion invested in their hard earned
> >methods that such talk is personally threatening. It makes them feel
> >like a huge part of thier life was a waste of time and that their
> >"skills" are not needed. This is why I believe that they actively try
> >to dissuade others from "taking the easy road" and "cheating" with dial
> >indicators. I do not need to sell my products to these people.
>
> No, you may not need to sell your product to "these people"- but
> wouldn't it be nice if you did?
>
> >But, I
> >do not appreciate how they ridicule the use of dial indicators. There
> >is little choice for me but to engage them in a dialog to get them to
> >reveal their motives.
>
> I disagree. As you've noted above, you feel that economic stresses
> will inevitably cause a change in the production woodshop. If that's
> the case- and there's certainly an argument for that, you don't need
> to engage nay-sayers at all. The product will be it's own spokesman,
> as it does the job and gets recommended. Look at the example of Lee
> Valley- I've never seen Rob Lee jump in on a thread about how Amazon
> has good deals to question the motives of the person who made the
> statement, and they get more free advertising on this group than I
> might have believed possible without seeing it firsthand. There's a
> lesson to be learned in that.
>
> No problem at all with announcing sales, explaining the product, etc.-
> but if you start to dig at folks to uncover hidden motives, they start
> to get sore about it. I know that in most cases, you're trying to
> help with something unrelated to your own product, but there are some
> subtile barbs in a lot of those posts you may not be aware of.
> There's no conspiracy to keep indicators out of the shop, just
> head-butting over wording.
>
> >> Being a machinist helps me be a better woodworker, and being a
> >> woodworker helps me be a better machinist- keep that in mind. It's
> >> like learning multiple languages- each one makes the next a little
> >> easier- but learning a new one doesn't make the older ones obsolete!
> >
> >Absolutely. I believe in adopting best practices from all areas of
> >one's experience.
>
> Well, I'm off to bed. Hope all this helps calm the recent spat of
> arguments over the dreaded dial-indicator at least a little. If not,
> I suppose it's something to read.

Yes, of course, the math.

In order for the "carry" method to be as accurate as the dial
indicator, the chord length must be less than 1/8" (chord height
=0.0013" for length 0.125" on a 3" circle). This seems easy enough in
theory. Unfortunately in my experience the practice leaves a bit to be
desired. Like I said, measuring the results with a dial indicator
reveal nowhere near this level of accuracy. So, there must be other
uncontrolled variables affecting my outcome (I have no problem
admitting that I'm no good at it). I've suggested one that would
result in a carry which is significantly shorter than the chord length
(a dull knife). It's not too hard to think of others (weight,
friction, speed, etc.).

It's likely that some people find this method easy and accurate because
they control these variables (knowingly or not) much better than I do.
Or, it could be that they have low expectations of their machine and
never check the results with an indicator. If I hadn't checked my
results with an indicator I would never have known that they were
inaccurate (and I would never have known just how well my jointer could
perform). And, I suppose that some people believe that the "carry"
method is faster than a dial indicator because they are unfamiliar with
indicators (i.e. never tried it or did all the wrong things when they
did).

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

Paul D wrote:
> In answer to your reference ti trying dial indicator ..... yes I have
> as regards to accuracy ... do a little trig and calculate the height of an
> arc for say a 3" circle
> So we shall just agree to disagree

Paul D wrote:
> Believe what you will. At least I do not have to lower myself to personal
> attacks on ppl.

Not a personal attack, just simple deduction. It's apparent that your
original "let the machine talk to you" method has morphed considerably.
Interpreters (measurement devices) are now allowed so long as they are
not a dial indicator. And, it's obvious from your characterizations
that you want the dial indicator solution to look ridiculous.

> I do not know the history or experience af a lot of ppl in
> here and knew nothing of you untill a few posts ago. I find it sad that when
> ppl in the trade with real knowledge in the real world have their knowledge
> disputed by persons with probably no more than hobby experience.

Ya, it's a shame. So, you're just a hobbyist? I thought you said
something about getting paid for your woodworking? You can always
visit my web site to learn a bit about my history and experience.

> From your
> measuring devices I am assuming that you have some sort of engineering
> background.

You could say that.

> If you understand the theory and practice of setting up the way
> I and many others do you could also see that there is no need to do any test
> cuts for the setting up.

I understand that you started by telling the OP the following:

"you dont need dial indicators ... only implements required to set up
jointer accuratly is a cpl of pieces of timber. Let the machine talk to
you and tell you what the prob is rather than trying to find an
interpretor to talk to the machine

Be at one with the machine and 'feel the force' "

I don't know anybody who can "set up a jointer accurately" with this
sort of advice. Since it was a direct reply to one of my messages, I
decided to respond. I thought I was being fairly polite in that
response and even a little light hearted with the term "jointerese".

If you had meant to tell the OP about using straight edges and the
"carry" method and stuffing shimms into tiny gaps, then perhaps you
should have said so and left out the BS about talking machines and
feeling the force. It's only natural for me to compare your current
proposed method to the original post and decide that there have been
some inconsistencies.

> You are the only person insisting on doing 100's of
> test cuts.THe first cut whether that was a test cut or a real job told you
> the prob. Why do more cuts when you know it's wrong? Adjust it, then either
> do a test cut or if your confident as I would just go back to the job at
> hand

Well, the problem is that your advice to the OP didn't say anything
about how to "set up a jointer accurately" except to "let the machine
talk to you". Assuming that you weren't being literal (machines olny
"talk" to certain people when they forget to take their medication), I
figured that your reference to a "cpl pieces of timber" naturally menat
"test cuts". If you meant to include more, and elaborate on the
"carry" method then perhaps you should have. You seemed to remember
the part about "you dont need dial indicators" but you managed to
forget the part about "set up a jointer accurately".

> We are definatly talking 2 different languages. I am using English. From my
> apparently poor knowledge I was always of the understanding that knife/table
> alignment was contained within the subject of jointer alignment.

So, we're not talking "jointerese" anymore?

> PLEASE REFER TO EARLIER POSTS

That's what I did. Why do you think it appears a bit strange to me?
Do you think that your description on how to do jointer alignment has
been consistent the whole time?

> I believe I was the one who pointed out at the top of this thread what I
> believed the problem was from his description. You are the one arguing the
> merits of dial indicators which I can understand since you sell knife
> aligning products. I told the OP the problem, gave him a solution. Using
> measurement or the carry method. What else could I do? ... go and fix it for
> him. It was from that solution that the debate on dial indicators has
> continued

Hmmmm.....Yep, you did say what you thought the problem might be. You
gave him three suggestions (ignore the fence, check the knives, and
check the infeed table). Then you launched into the whole jointerese
thing. Care to review it yourself?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/69c4036c32c4c826

There's nothing in your message about how to do any jointer alignment
except to say "you don't need dial indicators" and "let the machine
talk to you".

> To repeat myself once again
> Believe what you will. At least I do not have to lower myself to personal
> attacks on ppl.
> I have no agenda except to help ppl to understand that there is other
> options to spending money on 'measuring devices' The method I relayed was
> able to be performed immediatly with no delay waithing a cpl of days to buy
> a dial indicator.

You said "you don't need dial indicators" and "let the machine talk to
you". You didn't tell him how to do anything. There was no real
method described. No procedure that could be "performed immediately".
Nothing.

> As this is now just lowering itself to personal attacks I think we should
> just let it go as it is only going round in circles. In near perfect
> allignment too I might add. It is offering no practical content to the
> discussion. THe 2 methods have been raised and it is an individual choice
> from there. Although a few might be getting some amusment value from our
> bickering.

Absolutely. If you are going to play the "personal attack" card, try
to make dial indicators look ridiculous, and avoid addressing the
issues that I raise, then there is no point in discussing anything. Of
course, you can always admit that this "let the machine talk to you"
stuff wasn't really a description on how to align a jointer. You could
also admit that you have deliberately used absurd descriptions to
characterize the use of dial indicators as ridiculous. And, you can
admit that the "personal attack" crap is an effort to deflect some
rather pointed issues which you would rather not discuss. Only then
can we have a good, honest discussion.

> You continue to flog your measuring devices and I will just simply continue
> doing some real work.

Thirty lashes for the next Aligner! (No Aligner leaves the shop
without being flogged).

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

Noted. I guess I was wrong Paul. All along I thought that you were
deliberately trying to dissuade people from using dial indicators. The
alternative was just too difficult for me to believe. But, if you
insist, then I believe that *FOR YOU* using a dial indicator is a lot
of "unnecessary effort". And, the characterizations that I thought
were deliberately "ridiculous" apparently reflect the actual difficulty
that *YOU* have understanding and using this simple measurement device.
Sorry, I suppose I grossly misjudged your knowledge, abilities, and
expertise.

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

Paul D wrote:
<snip>

> You can go down the dial indicator track if you want to go that way. I just
> find it a lot of unnessary effort.
> NOTE THAT I SAID THAT "I FIND IT UNNECESSARY"

<snip>

Hi Prometheus,

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you on this. Here's an
example of a home-made jig that works OK.

http://benchmark.20m.com/articles/SettingPlanerKnives/SettingPlanerKnives.html

I've seen a few magazine articles showing similar jigs. The only
commercial jig that I could locate on the web is from a vendor which
I've had some really bad experience with. So, I'm not inclined to
recommend it to anybody.

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


Prometheus wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2006 13:31:41 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Prometheus wrote:
> >
> >> Any chance you've got a setup that will work on planer knives, too? I
> >> must have missed the bit on the jointer setup before.
> >
> >As I mentioned in the other thread, the Aligners can do bed rollers,
> >feed rollers, chip breakers, and cutterhead. These are all the things
> >that can be adjusted from below on a planer. Thre is a restriction.
> >The 1" travel indicators that I ship with the Aligners are about 5"
> >long (from one end of the plunger to the other). So, your planer needs
> >to allow at least 5" underneath the head. Or, since the Aligners use a
> >standard AGD group 2 loop back indicator, you can get one with smaller
> >travel just for use on a shorter planer.
> >
> >The knives on a planer need to be adjusted in relation to the
> >cutterhead. It can be done from below and some of my competition
> >advocates doing so. However, it seems like torture to me. They really
> >need to be set from above. I don't have a jig to do that right now.
>
> >There are some other jigs on the market which do it (not the magnet
> >ones, ones with dial indicators).
>
> Any good suggestions for those? I'll admit- that F#$%$ng planer takes
> me a lot of time, and the results are less than stellar. The old
> plastic guage with magnets just isn't working out for me. Half the
> time, I end up using a hand plane instead, which sort of defeats the
> purpose of having that expensive piece of equipment sitting in the
> corner.

Rather than reply to each and every point, maybe I can just summarize
some of the themes here.

The workshop doesn't suffer the same environmental turmoil that the
jobsite does (unless it's a really crappy workshop). On the jobsite, a
woodworker must learn to cope with adverse working conditions in order
to perform his job. These conditions compromise the performance and
accuracy of tools, machinery and measurement instruments. So, these
"coping skills" involve tricks, methods, and techniques designed to
produce quality craftsmanship in spite of the hardships.

In a workshop the tools, machinery, and measurement instruments can be
maintained at a high level of quality, accuracy, and reliability.
There is no need to treat them the same way that they are treated on a
jobsite. When properly used, they can be trusted to do accurate and
reliable work. The "coping skills" used on the jobsite can be (and
often are) used to produce quality craftsmanship in the workshop, but
they generally require more time and result in excessive scrap. The
reliability, accuracy, and efficiency of these tools, machines, and
instruments are therefore neglected.

People who continue to use jobsite "coping skills" in a woodshop are
very proud of their abilities. They advocate them to others, teaching
them how to cope with conditions which do not exist. Their "skills"
demonstrate abilities and accomplishments which earn them some prestige
and respect. So, it is only natural that they find it very difficult
to accept methods and skills which involve the proper use of the tools,
machinery, and measurement instruments in the workshop. Their skills
are based on the notion that these things are unreliable and should not
be trusted. So the suggestion that they can be used properly to
achieve accurate results which rival the highest levels of
craftsmanship is summarily dismissed without the least thought. When
challenged they often become defensive and critical of the methods and
those who advocate them. In some cases they actively dissuade others
from adopting these methods because they feel very threatened by the
suggestion that their "coping skills" are not needed, inappropriate, or
just plain ignorant.

Is it possible to win these people over to an approach that doesn't
include their "coping skills"? Back in the 70's there were incidences
where a group of UAW workers would get together to destroy a Japanese
car. The idea was to strike back at "the competition" and expose them
as evil. Quite often, the process would reveal the very thing that
threatened them the most - the Japanese car really was a lot better.
Even after everyone could see the stupidity of their efforts, they did
not recognize their error. I think the situation here is the same.
You cannot challenge a blind pride. These people must be willing to
abandon their "coping skills" in favor of something better before they
will be able to entertain new ideas. If they actively dissuade others
from having an open mind, then they are completely blinded by their
pride.

A good example of this is our friend "Paul D". He is so blinded by his
pride that can't seem to recognize the dilemma he has put himself in.
He has taken the argument to such an absurd extreme that he
characterizes the use of dial indicators as idiocy. And yet, he
professes proficiency in their use. It's a contradiction. It's easier
for him to walk away looking like an idiot than to admit that he is
deliberately trying to dissuade others from using dial indicators. Why
can't he just admit that using a dial indicator is a good method but he
prefers the "carry" method? Blind pride.

Some minor comments:

> You might be surprised at how much fine cabinetmaking occurs during
> the install- and it's often the hardest part of the job. One example-
> scribing the back edge of a cabinet to mate to a brick wall. Takes a
> good deal of technique to get it right!

This isn't cabinetmaking! And, it's not cabinetmaking to build a
plywood carcass and apply some factory made doors and drawers.
Scribing cabinets to walls does require some skill but it's not like
making fine furniture.

> It's kind of like the difference between needing
> glasses and having perfect vision- or a musician who uses sheet music
> to learn a new tune verses the guy who can play it perfectly after
> hearing it once. In any case, anyone can achieve the same result as
> someone else, but they may need to take different paths to get there.

The guy who plays by ear should recognize that there are some
disadvantages to being musically illiterate. The person who has poor
vision should also recognize the disadvantages of not getting it
corrected. I look at it more like the "machinist" who aligns his vise
using test cuts. The guy is wasting a whole bunch of time and
materials because he just can't recognize the disadvantages in avoiding
the use of an indicator. Same is true with the woodworker who insists
on trial and error.

> Consider that guy with an analog to perfect pitch in a woodshop, who
> is not familiar with the proper set up and use of indicators - it is
> still appropriate for him to simply set the machine into the proper
> alignment, especially if using the machinist's tools will cost him a
> great deal of time, effort, and frustration. Sure, he could overcome
> all those things with time and practice, but for him- it's pointless.

Very true, if a person could "eyeball" the correct setting without any
test cuts then using a dial indicator would be a waste of time. That
would be the epitome of skill, right? But, that's not what we are
discussing. Everyone who argues against the use of dial indicators is
advocating a method which involves much more time, labor, and/or
materials. They are not advocating the "zero" test cut method or the
"trial" and no error method.

> there's absolutely nothing wrong with the use of
> an indicator, but there's certainly a little sourness over the idea
> that one must have one to do good work.

But, that's not what is happening here. In each and every instance I
have been extremely careful to explicitly say that there are people who
use the traditional "trial and error" methods to do excellent quality
work. I am not even arguing with the notion that dial indicators are
"not necessary". Of course they are not necessary. Everything that
can be done with a dial indicator can be done without one. And, fine
woodworking has been done for hundreds (if not thousands) of years
without dial indicators (and the same thing can be said for the
Jointer, the Planer, the Table Saw, etc.).

The argument develops when someone falsely characterizes the use of the
dial indicator in an effort to dissuade others from using it. *They*
say that people who use dial indicators aren't craftsmen. *They* say
it's "the easy road". *They* say that using a dial indicator is
"harder", "more trouble", "difficult", "tedious", "time consuming",
cheating, etc.

> That's the whole shooting match right there. It's not so much the
> existance or presentation of the product, as it is the insult of the
> use of the words "guessing" and "trial-and-error." The fact that they
> *are* skills indicates that they are neither guesswork nor trial and
> error.

I would say that every time a person uses test cuts to achieve some
sort of machine setting they are "guessing" and using "trial and
error". It is the most primitive and least skilled method. If they
are insulted by this then they should really spend some time thinking
about it. Their "skill" isn't in getting it wrong and making fine
corrections ("trial and error") - it's in getting it right. If they
can achieve the proper setting without using test cuts then they have
demonstrated some real skill that has value. If they choose to do this
by eyeball, then nobody can argue that it's a remarkable feat. If they
choose to do this with a dial indicator, it's just as fine. Getting it
wrong over and over isn't a valuable "skill". Getting it right the
first time is a valuable skill that an employer or client would very
quickly recognize.

> No, you may not need to sell your product to "these people"- but
> wouldn't it be nice if you did?

Nope. Later on they complain to others that they bought the thing but
never use it. They make it sound as if it is not very useful but the
truth is that they were never willing to abandon their trial and error
methods. They align their saw blade and fence and never touch it
again. People who are willing to learn new things make good customers.

> >But, I
> >do not appreciate how they ridicule the use of dial indicators. There
> >is little choice for me but to engage them in a dialog to get them to
> >reveal their motives.
>
> I disagree. As you've noted above, you feel that economic stresses
> will inevitably cause a change in the production woodshop. If that's
> the case- and there's certainly an argument for that, you don't need
> to engage nay-sayers at all. The product will be it's own spokesman,
> as it does the job and gets recommended.

There is some truth to this. Year after year the business grows. More
and more people appreciate better ways of doing things. But, every
year the nay-sayers become more adamant in their attempts to dissuade
others.

> Look at the example of Lee
> Valley- I've never seen Rob Lee jump in on a thread about how Amazon
> has good deals to question the motives of the person who made the
> statement, and they get more free advertising on this group than I
> might have believed possible without seeing it firsthand. There's a
> lesson to be learned in that.

OK. People make these comparisons and I have largely ignored them but
I think that this deserves a bit of attention this time. The analogy
breaks down when you look at the details. I am not arguing with people
who advocate a competitive product or idea. I'm not questioning the
motive of the guy who came up with his own dial indicator jig. Geez,
I'm supporting his use of it! I'm recommending it to others! I'm not
questioning the motives of the guy who prefers to use trial and error.
I am questioning the motive of the guy who is trying to dissuade others
from using any thing related to dial indicators (including my
products).

It seems unlikely that Rob Lee would jump in on a thread where someone
was praising a competitive dealer. But, this isn't an analogous
situation. I think that he would jump in on a thread if someone were
trying to dissuade people from buying anything from Lee Valley. If
that person were making ridiculous and untrue characterizations about
Lee Valley in this newsgroup I would not be surprised to see Rob Lee do
something, including jump into the thread. It didn't take me long to
find several threads that he jumped into when someone had a complaint -
even the slightest complaint. Here are a few examples:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/tree/browse_frm/thread/85215ddb8014b349/cca83d5348cdc742?rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.woodworking%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F85215ddb8014b349%2F79df57229539a741%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3D%26rnum%3D6%26#doc_cca83d5348cdc742

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/tree/browse_frm/thread/5c3ebfb73c4bd8dd/49dd2a181b495091?rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.woodworking%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F5c3ebfb73c4bd8dd%2F8fd4d36365999149%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3D%26rnum%3D7%26#doc_49dd2a181b495091

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/tree/browse_frm/thread/d9f27bbf6074d706/8de2b68cbd98a496?rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.woodworking%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fd9f27bbf6074d706%2Fa7c68d2c9c39d7b6%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3D%26rnum%3D3%26#doc_8de2b68cbd98a496

And, these might be of particular interest:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/e2afb0665fb3371f

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/cb1c71c7108f99b5

I didn't do an exhaustive search but I couldn't find a single complaint
that Rob didn't jump into the thread on. And, he's not above making
critical remarks about certain competitors and their practices. I
don't quote these to embarrass Rob; I think such action make him most
admirable and commendable. I have a lot of respect for someone who
defends the honor of their business and has enough integrity to show
his face in the wreck.

Beyond all of this, Rob Lee and I are in two completely different
situations. I run a one man shop which struggles every month to make
ends meet. Rob sits on top of a multi-million dollar empire with lots
of people taking care of lots of stuff for him. He has huge resources
at his disposal and can marshal them to take care of anything for him
but his participation here proves that he is every bit as passionate
about his company and its products as I am about mine. The difference
is that he doesn't do it for survival.

'nuff said.

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

I can't handle this bickering and arguing over $170 or so worth of
equipment. This is rediculous. I asked a simple question and then it
turned into flaming. I've gone through other threads over instrument
alignment and I can't believe how people still go back and forth with
Ed Bennett over his TS-Aligner. In some sense I think it's their being
irked by his refusing to give an inch. But, people, consider this.
Whether you agree or disagree with his methods the man is still doing
something that many find immensely valuable and helpful. That process,
as woodworkers, should be what we strive for. OK, there are other
methods to get the same results, but Bennett never says otherwise. He
tells the truth, tries to help people, is productive and makes a
product that obviously have value. Why take shots at the guy over
semantics and technique? In fact, when have all the bashers made a
decent product that a single woodworker can attest to by saying, 'that
helped me'? If we're going to argue with anyone about anything it
shouldn't be someone who's really working to make the world a better
place and not hurting anyone in the process. You don't have to buy the
TS Aligner but you don't have to knock a man for trying to make things
easier for the rest of his fellow workers. If anything, shouldn't we
be mad as hell about the tool manufacturers who contract all their work
to be done in Chinese sweatshops and pretend to the American public
that they're still getting the same quality they used to get in 1950?
Or how about the fact that public high schools make education regarding
hand made crafts (wood and metal working) seem like a second class
education fit only for criminals- even though much of what we gain
through science and industry is based upon it?

I think those who bash Ed really need to step back, have a beer (or
wine or water or whatever makes them take it easy) and refocus. We
have a common interest. Why make things painful for those who want to
help it along?

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > his participation here proves that he is every bit as passionate
> > about his company and its products as I am about mine. The difference
> > is that he doesn't do it for survival.
> >
>
> Sure he does.

I think he does far better than survive! There are thousands of
dealers and manufacturers who have absolutely no presence in this
group. They still survive. Rob is here because he wants to be here.
It really is proof of his passion for the business. I'm hard pressed
to think of any other corporate officer from any other retail company
who is willing to deal directly with customers. In general, they just
like to move in, rape the company for gazillions of dollars of
unjustified salary and bonuses, and then bail out with a golden
parachute a few years later.

I have no trouble saying that the wreck is vital to my survival. Not
just for sales (which doesn't amount to much), but for a lot of market
research, honest feedback, dishonest feedback, product ideas, etc. I
can't afford to pay a market research firm for this information. Heck,
I can't even afford to pay anybody to clean the toilet for me! But, I
can show my appreciation to the group by sharing technical expertise
and offering the annual specials. It's ironic, the people who resent
my presence the most tend to provide me with the best information.

If I didn't have a passion for this, I would go back to making money
for a living.

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

[email protected] wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm close to loosing all patience with my 6 1/8" jointer/planer and
> hoping for some advice. It's a Craftsman bench top model and my
> history with sears woodworking tools leaves me to first suspect the
> machine. Let me get to the problem first.
>
> All boards I plane (and I have only worked with 4S softwood pine) will
> produce a flat face, but this flat face is always deeper on one end
> than the other. Thus, I start with two sides something close to 90deg
> and working on edge 1 starts moving the two sides closer to 80deg. If
> I try to correct the problem by on edge two I get even closer to 70deg.
> Obviously one side of the blades/plates/something is lower/higher than
> the other but I can't figure it out. My straight edges aren't as
> reliable as I'd like so I tried a 1-2-3 block on the out feed with
> feeler guages on the infeed to check for differences along the length.
> Might I mention I can't get the infeed to the same level as the outfeed
> so this is the only way to check for coplanar tables as well. The
> feeler guage didn't seem to show any difference between the two in
> terms of height but I don't feel as confident as I might if I could
> compare the two on a granite surface out in space to make sure that
> everything is truly level to 0.0000000001+- inches. Do you see how
> nuts this is making me?
>
> I would like to think the problem rests in my technique and I've read
> the book on technique. I understand snipe (not a problem with me at
> this point), I get the concept of planing an edge, then a face then
> surface planing opposite face then finishing edge on the joiner. I get
> the hand over hand, weight transfer from outfeed to infeed idea. I've
> read, get and tried it all and still get these boards that close in
> from 90 to 0 degrees. Last night I jointed 1 inch off a board, worked
> until 1:08AM adjusting the blades (lost the allen wrench between the
> roller/infeed, took apart the entire machine, rebuilt it, readjusted
> blades), felt confident I was getting a flat face/90deg cut, tried it
> this morning and same thing.
>
> Help!
>
If I understand what you're saying, it sounds like the outfeed is not
horizontal in relation to the infeed.

[email protected] wrote:

> Let's say I have a 2"x4"x4' board with sides A (top), B (right), C
> (bottom), D (left), E (front), F (back). I want to get C and D at 90
> deg, and they're close to start with.

> ...C&B start close
> to 90deg then gets closer to 0deg with ever pass that C stays where it
> is. C always remains flat but the angle of C in relation to B moves in
> to 0Degrees.

Assuming that your fence isn't moving during the operation, it sounds
like a technique problem.

Assuming you've jointed face C, and maybe thickness-planed face E.

To edge-joint B (or D) you should be pressing C (or E, depending on
grain direction) against the fence directly over the cutterhead. If you
do this, and the fence is at 90 degrees to the cutterhead, then the face
and edge will be perpendicular.

Chris

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello,
> I'm close to loosing all patience with my 6 1/8" jointer/planer and
> hoping for some advice. It's a Craftsman bench top model and my
> history with sears woodworking tools leaves me to first suspect the
> machine. Let me get to the problem first.
snip

I initially found it a rather rude surprise that a 6 1/4 inch jointer/planer
(or any other size) could not reliably plane two parallel sides.......what
you are trying to do is not what the tool wants or can do very well.....You
can
joint one edge and one side with your jointer then use a thickness planer
(different tool) to
do the other side and then your table saw for the other edge ......but with
a jointer only you will not get the result you desire.....Can't blame Sears
for this one<G>....Rod

[email protected] wrote:

> On each successive pass over the joiner Side C gets closer and closer
> to side A on the D side but not on the B side.

Ah, the problem occurs when you're face jointing. A light dawns.

There is possibly an alignment issue. You need to check that 1) your
knives are aligned with the outfeed table, and 2) your infeed table is
aligned to the outfeed table.

Chris

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> The standard device needed for this operation is the dial indicator.
>> You don't need to have a TS-Aligner Jr. to do this. You can perform
>> this technique with any dial indicator jig that can point the dial
>> indicator down. A standard magnetic base is fine or you can make your
>> own from wood. Unfortunately, there are a few nay sayers in the group
>> who would insist that you must do it the hard way (trial and error) and
>> make it sound like getting a dial indicator is a monumental mistake.
>
> If that is "the standard practice" then please provide a reference to the
> standard and to a description of the process by which it was established
> as the standard. If you can't do that then it's not a "standard
> practice", it's _your_ practice and since you are in the business of
> selling gadgets whose nature is such that you would benefit by having it
> become "standard practice" forgive me if I take your assertions that this
> is some kind of standard with a large dose of salt.

Before getting your shorts all in a knot you should READ and understand what
he actually said.....he did not specifically hustle his own product, in fact
he said any dial indicator would suffice.....his provided link/ video
specifically said "The video features the use of my TS-Aligner Jr. product.
You can perform many of these alignments and adjustments by making your own
jig, a low cost dial indicator attached to a stick." .....how you can take
fault with that is quite beyond rational.....Rod

I've had three ex-wives tell me I didn't know what I was talking about
so you guys can just get in line behind them.

I bridge two heavy duty magnets from the outfeed table on the theory
that they will contact the arc of the cutters at one, and only one,
point ... TDC ... the point of tangency. In reality, they make contact
over a short range of motion but, combined with eyeballing their
orientation, it's 'close enough for horseshoes'.

With the blades thus suspended, I adjust the outfeed table so that the
blade height matches the setting spider and then tighten the gibs to
lock them down. This particular adjustment takes roughly 5 minutes for
both jointer blades.

Now, if I could just stop trying to joint embedded gravel ....

Bill




BTW ... Wife #4 and I have our 6th anniversary in about 2 weeks. SHE
thinks I have a clue.

On 15 Nov 2006 14:40:47 -0800, [email protected] wrote:


>The standard practice which reflects a good understanding of machinery
>alignment and Metrology is contained in the link that I provided
>earlier in this thread:
>
>http://www.ts-aligner.com/jointer.htm

Any chance you've got a setup that will work on planer knives, too? I
must have missed the bit on the jointer setup before.

"Chrisgiraffe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Also, after looking through industrial catalogues (i.e. Enco, MSC) at
> metal milling machines I find that accuracy is built into the lowliest
> of machines where as manufacturers who build machines for wood allow
> much higher tolerances. Yeah, we can sand out imperfections and
> materials are less expensive but don't we deserve the same treatment?

You'd probably feel differently when had to pay for that $15000.00 jointer.

In article <[email protected]>, "Paul D" <[email protected]> wrote:

>You achieve all teh same things with carry method or dial ... just
>different method of measurement. THe actuall adjusting of the knives is what
>takes the time, not the measuring. Either method of measurement should take
>the same time.

It's clear that you've never used a dial indicator to set jointer knives.
Before I bought a TS-Aligner, I used to set my jointer knives using the "carry
method" too -- and it works just fine, don't get me wrong, I got fine results
that way. But after the first time that I set jointer knives using the dial
indicator, I abandoned the carry method permanently because the dial indicator
is so much faster (and more accurate, besides).

In a nutshell: with the carry method, you have to see how far the straightedge
is carried, adjust the knife what you hope is the right amount, and check the
carry again -- and *repeat* this process until the carry is where you want it.
Even if your first adjustment was dead-on perfect, you still have to check the
carry again to verify it.

With the dial indicator, you set the stylus on the knife and turn the
adjusting screw until the indicator reads zero. DONE.

The time required isn't anywhere nearly the same. You have no basis for
claiming that it is. I've used both methods. You haven't. And you're badly
mistaken.

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

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

If the knives are not parallel to outfeed table (one side high) there will
be rocking as the board moves to tha outfeed table which you should be able
to feel. A common error for ppl learning to use a jointer is they place
tooooooo much force trying to hold timber down. You don't need to stand on a
board to keep it flat, your main purpose is to guide the board through. A
reasonable gentle touch is all that is required.From the description it
sounds very much like the infeed table is not parallel to outfeed table but
knives are parallel to outfeed. This would cause more to be planed from one
side than the other and increase the amount of error with each successive
pass.

my suggestions would be

1.
Ignore the fence ..... nothing to do with face jointing.
If the fence is not square to table when jointing a edge the angle would
not change with successive passes, it would always remain tha same degree of
error, even after 100 passes.

2.
Check and adjust knives to outfeed table .... both level with and parallel
to outfeed table

3.
Check infeed table for level in relation to outfeed table either by
measurement
or
Let teh machine tell you what is wrong. Run piece through jointer (E end
first, mark on timber so you dont get as confused as we are) ...
measure. If out of parallel feed back through jointer opposite end first
( F end) ... measure. If board now same thickness either side (within
reason) your infeed table is not parallel to outfeed. mmmmmm guess I know
what your doing for the next cpl of hours

you dont need dial indicators ... only implements required to set up jointer
accuratly is a cpl of pieces of timber. Let the machine talk to you and tell
you what the prob is rather than trying to find an interpretor to talk to
the machine

Be at one with the machine and 'feel the force'


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I can probably help you out (or at least figure out what's going
> wrong).
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > All boards I plane (and I have only worked with 4S softwood pine) will
> > produce a flat face, but this flat face is always deeper on one end
> > than the other.
>
> It's hard for me to be sure exactly what you are talking about. To me,
> the "ends" of a board are the shorter width. "End grain" is on the
> ends of a board. Are you saying that you are jointing a face or an
> edge of a board and that you are having trouble keeping it parallel
> with the opposite face/edge? Or, are you saying that the depth of the
> cut across the width of the board isn't consistent?
>
> > Thus, I start with two sides something close to 90deg
> > and working on edge 1 starts moving the two sides closer to 80deg.
>
> Please don't interchange the terms "sides" or "edge". It makes it very
> difficult to follow what you are describing. Use the term "edge" to
> describe a narrow side. Use the term "face" to describe a wide side.
> If the piece being jointed is square, then they are all faces.
>
> So, are you saying that you are having trouble jointing an edge so that
> it is square to a face?
>
> > If
> > I try to correct the problem by on edge two I get even closer to 70deg.
>
> Is "edge two" opposite or adjacent to "edge 1"? See, I just can't
> picture what you are talking about. Use "opposite edge" or "adjacent
> face".
>
> > Obviously one side of the blades/plates/something is lower/higher than
> > the other but I can't figure it out. My straight edges aren't as
> > reliable as I'd like so I tried a 1-2-3 block on the out feed with
> > feeler guages on the infeed to check for differences along the length.
>
> Proper jointer alignment starts with making sure that the knives are
> all at the same level as the outfeed table. It could be that this is
> your problem, I don't know. Then you want to make sure that the infeed
> table is parallel to the outfeed table. It could be that this is your
> problem, I don't know. Finally, you want to make sure that the fence
> is square with both tables. This could also be your problem.
>
> First, I will have to understand your symptoms. Then I can direct you
> through all the steps needed to check each one of the major alignments
> on a jointer. You might also find it handy to view the video on this
> page:
>
> http://www.ts-aligner.com/jointer.htm
>
> There's another video with different voice-over on this page under the
> heading "Using a flat indicator tip to set jointer knives" (which is a
> practice which will can lead to the problems that you are suffering).
>
> http://www.ts-aligner.com/alignmentmyths.htm
>
> You'll notice that I advocate the use of a dial indicator. This
> eliminates all of the guess work that you are currently finding so
> frustrating. It doesn't have to be a TS-Aligner Jr. Any indicator jig
> that can point the dial indicator downward will work. It takes
> considerable skill to subjectively discern jointer knives using a 123
> block and some feeler gages. I certainly can't do it as well as I can
> with a dial indicator.
>
> > Might I mention I can't get the infeed to the same level as the outfeed
> > so this is the only way to check for coplanar tables as well. The
> > feeler guage didn't seem to show any difference between the two in
> > terms of height but I don't feel as confident as I might if I could
> > compare the two on a granite surface out in space to make sure that
> > everything is truly level to 0.0000000001+- inches. Do you see how
> > nuts this is making me?
>
> Yep. There's another way to do a relative comparison of the two tables
> without going juts. The two tables don't have to be at the same level
> (in fact, it's easier if they are not). It does involve the use of a
> long straight edge and a dial indicator. Here's the setup (photo from
> a customer):
>
> http://www.ts-aligner.com/jointertables.jpg
>
> The straight edge being used here is from Lee Valley:
>
> http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&p=50074&cat=1,240,45313
>
> > I would like to think the problem rests in my technique and I've read
> > the book on technique. I understand snipe (not a problem with me at
> > this point), I get the concept of planing an edge, then a face then
> > surface planing opposite face then finishing edge on the joiner.
>
> Hmmm.... Try it this way: Joint a face, then joint an adjcent edge
> using the jointed face against the fence. Then use your tablesaw to
> rip the opposite edge parallel. And finally use a surface planer to
> make the opposite face parallel. It's not generally practical to use a
> jointer to make two faces or two edges parallel. It's good for
> creating a flat surface (facing) and for squaring two adjcent faces (or
> a face to an edge).
>
> > I get
> > the hand over hand, weight transfer from outfeed to infeed idea.
>
> I'm sure you mean "infeed to outfeed" here.
>
> > I've
> > read, get and tried it all and still get these boards that close in
> > from 90 to 0 degrees.
>
> I just don't understand what this means. How do boards "close in from
> 90 to 0 degrees"? 90 degrees is square. 0 degrees is flat (no angle).
>
> > Last night I jointed 1 inch off a board, worked
> > until 1:08AM adjusting the blades (lost the allen wrench between the
> > roller/infeed, took apart the entire machine, rebuilt it, readjusted
> > blades), felt confident I was getting a flat face/90deg cut, tried it
> > this morning and same thing.
>
> Go get yourself a low cost dial indicator and I'll help you to figure
> out exactly what is wrong without any guess work or frustration.
>
> Ed Bennett
> [email protected]
> http://www.ts-aligner.com
>