Steaks on the Shopsmith

fjimp · Post by **fjimp** » Wed May 11, 2011 6:09 pm

At least now I know why there was no smoke. I have used that same table arrangement and found it worked well. fjimp

notlem · Post by **notlem** » Fri May 13, 2011 11:44 pm

That's a great solution. It's got me thinking about picking up a second 510 conversion kit on Craigs List.

camerio · Post by **camerio** » Sat May 14, 2011 6:56 am

damagi wrote:I suppose thats the benefit of having a 510 over the 520 - the tubes in front/back are symmetrical and therefore you can use the fence regardless of the orientation of the floating table..right?

Do you mean to say, that I would not be able to that with a 520 ?

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Sat May 14, 2011 7:11 am

damagi wrote:I suppose thats the benefit of having a 510 over the 520 - the tubes in front/back are symmetrical and therefore you can use the fence regardless of the orientation of the floating table..right?

Please explain how this is a benefit of the 510 configuration over the 520.

It is true that the 520 rails are not symmetrical (front and rear) but they can still be used in this manner.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Sat May 14, 2011 12:09 pm

Yes! But you gotta keep the fronts/backs 'orderly'.

Shouldn't require too much forethought! ;>}

Not intuitively obvious!

damagi · Post by **damagi** » Sat May 14, 2011 5:13 pm

dusty wrote:Please explain how this is a benefit of the 510 configuration over the 520.

It is true that the 520 rails are not symmetrical (front and rear) but they can still be used in this manner.

The table configuration itself - sure

Can you mount the fence backwards on a 510? If so, then the benefit of the 510 over the 520 would be if you were ripping something wide enough that you needed to put the fence on the extension table. In that scenario, a 510 would let you use the fence with controls on the infeed side as normal.

On a 520 the fence can only be mounted in the one direction because the rails are not symmetrical. As such, in a wide rip with outfeed scenario you would have to mount the fence backwards. This would be inconvenient, as well as might cause you to realign your fence (if you set your fence 1/64" out as some people suggest).

Maybe I'm wrong...

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Sat May 14, 2011 5:39 pm

damagi wrote:The table configuration itself - sure

Can you mount the fence backwards on a 510? If so, then the benefit of the 510 over the 520 would be if you were ripping something wide enough that you needed to put the fence on the extension table. In that scenario, a 510 would let you use the fence with controls on the infeed side as normal.

On a 520 the fence can only be mounted in the one direction because the rails are not symmetrical. As such, in a wide rip with outfeed scenario you would have to mount the fence backwards. This would be inconvenient, as well as might cause you to realign your fence (if you set your fence 1/64" out as some people suggest).

Maybe I'm wrong...

OK....I am not disagreeing, I just do not understand what the task is here. I guess I am getting slower than I really want to admit.

I did go to the shop to mount the 510 fence backwards. You already know that it worked. Yes, I checked. I cannot mount the 520 fence backwards.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Sat May 14, 2011 6:22 pm

damagi wrote:The table configuration itself - sure

Can you mount the fence backwards on a 510? If so, then the benefit of the 510 over the 520 would be if you were ripping something wide enough that you needed to put the fence on the extension table. In that scenario, a 510 would let you use the fence with controls on the infeed side as normal.

On a 520 the fence can only be mounted in the one direction because the rails are not symmetrical. As such, in a wide rip with outfeed scenario you would have to mount the fence backwards. This would be inconvenient, as well as might cause you to realign your fence (if you set your fence 1/64" out as some people suggest).

Maybe I'm wrong...

I think that can be done using a setup similar to the one above the setup with the extension table 'backwards'. With a wide rip, there is room for setting up those floating tables between the extension table(on the left) and the work table.

Just because the one setup would require a backwards mounted fence is no reason to not look for other configurations that would not require mounting backwards.

Think for ourselves, and use 'suggestions' as food for thought!

Now there may be rip widths that will not be possible, but consider swapping the rails(front to back) on the extension table as an option!(I am assuming that is possible since the rail mounting screw hole locations are the same front and rear). I do not have 520 hardware!] TWO[/B] extension tables and showed FOUR floating tables(not your 'standard' inventory)!

P.P.S. Also it included a "Rip sled"! I had not consider that before!

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Sat May 14, 2011 7:05 pm

I've been studying the image that started this thread, looking for four floating tables which I did not find (only three).

BUT I notice something that I must try out. It appears that the extension tables have been installed backward which allows the main table to operate independent of the extension tubes. This necessitates the use of a 5' extension tube (to reach from extension table to extension table).

Neat trick!

PS I just found the fourth floater.

damagi · Post by **damagi** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:04 pm

dusty wrote:I've been studying the image that started this thread, looking for four floating tables which I did not find (only three).

BUT I notice something that I must try out. It appears that the extension tables have been installed backward which allows the main table to operate independent of the extension tubes. This necessitates the use of a 5' extension tube (to reach from extension table to extension table).

Neat trick!

PS I just found the fourth floater.

The bolded part was what I was referring to with regard to the rip fence.