A view on alignment of the shopsmith.

[reible]

Perhaps if some of you want to see another example of how to do alignment watching this video should provide a few other options, all of which are totally doable on a shopsmith and for cheap. Yes some of the methods used are different on the saw he is setting up the methods employed are still worth while checking out.

https://thewoodwhisperer.com/videos/tab ... neup-pt-1/

Ed

[RFGuy]

JPG, lahola1, jsburger,

Thanks for the feedback, but you are missing the intent of my posts here. I do know and understand the pitfalls of chasing precision. Trust me...I have seen the video of Nick trying to set planer blades by dial indicator. Also, I am sure I have been guilty of it more than once before, like most everyone has. Chasing thousandths in multiple iterations is not what I intend to do. The OP of this thread, Ed (reible) posted about his own alignment procedure using a MasterGage MasterPlate. Following this, I replied to the OP stating that I couldn't get good results with my Woodpecker Saw Gauge 1.0 in the non-standard sized Shopsmith miter bar slot. ALL of my posts on this thread have been discussing the use of a Masterplate with a Saw Gauge 1.0 and a Shopsmith miter slot. I haven't gotten to attempting an alignment yet using these, so there is no discussion here (from me) about alignment, YET. Please be patient as I try to resolve whether I can use or trust these aftermarket tools.

Ed, Dusty,

Thanks. I have always followed the Shopsmith instructions for alignments in the past and never really thought much about it or fussed over it, though I have been intrigued by some of the alignment discussions on this forum since I have been here. I purchased the MasterPlate and Saw Gauge thinking it might be useful for quick alignment checks, but couldn't get good results with it at first so I put it in a drawer to collect dust until Ed started this thread. With your advice, I think I have more repeatable results now with the Saw Gauge 1.0 in the miter slot, but it is still a bit finicky. I did notice that my measurements could be almost twice as much when I changed the height of the table - meaning that the surface flatness of the MasterPlate can change significantly depending on where you choose to measure across it. I get that the MasterPlate is meant to be a reference so your advice to treat it as pure flat with no deviation is good advice, but the fact that I can't get good results at different heights up the MasterPlate tells me either the plate isn't so perfect or I am still challenged by my SawGauge 1.0 setup in the miter slot. Appreciate any advice or insights here because these two tools are quite expensive so I would hate to leave them in the drawer, but until I can trust them that is what will happen to them. So, as I stated above, I haven't gotten to using these new tools in my alignment yet, but if/when I do I will be sure to review your alignment advice here. It is appreciated. By the way, I like the Infinity Tools table saw setup disc and kind of wish I had gotten it instead of the MasterPlate.

[JPG]

For an explanation of varying measurements with different table heights one need look no further than the mounting posts and the bores in which they slide and the pinion gear bevels that provide the lock function.

I doubt the 'plate' is conical.

[RFGuy]

For an explanation of varying measurements with different table heights one need look no further than the mounting posts and the bores in which they slide and the pinion gear bevels that provide the lock function.

I doubt the 'plate' is conical.

Thanks JPG. So, I only changed the table height by less than 1/4" just to see how my measurements would change on a different part of the MasterPlate. So, my table is fixed, i.e. nothing is loose (everything locked and no nuts loose for table mount, etc.). In the best case I measure +/-0.006" between the front to back of the MasterPlate mounted to the arbor, so total variation was 0.012". I can't remember the exact numbers, but when I moved 1/4" in height on the MasterPlate, I measured something like 0.025" total variation. I was expecting this to be static and not varying for different heights. Assuming the MasterPlate is perfectly ground flat then I should be just measuring the variation down the length of the Shopsmith miter slot. In theory, this is all that I am measuring, so I don't understand why a change in table height causes this to change. Can you elaborate more on why the pinion gears that raise/lower the table can cause a change in this measurement of what should be a perfect flat plate? Perhaps my measurement setup isn't clear here and I need to post pictures. If so, let me know and I will try to set it up again and take some snapshots.

[dusty]

Is the miter slot parallel to the Master Plate?

That is the objective of this exercise.!

[RFGuy]

Is the miter slot parallel to the Master Plate?

That is the objective of this exercise.!

Yes. It is mounted on a DADO arbor and attached to the Mark V spindle, then table is lowered over it.

[JPG]

I cannot say for sure that the table mount is suspect, but for the moment let us assume:

The plate IS flat.

The table is NOT flexing, but merely changing elevation.

So WHAT is left to affect the readings?

Slop in the table mounting post bores(carriage).

Mounting tubes not straight.

Clamping force from the pinion gears skewing the table(rotating about a vertical axis).

A very small move down there will create a much larger variation at the table due to the lever arm length from the source of motion.

However detecting this movement is impossible due to the minuscule amount of motion compared to the large movement above(a few 1/000 ths).

Any thing that causes the table to tilt(rock in/out from the plate) will affect the gauge readings.

Then there is the effect of applying any external force to the table which will add to the problem.

[reible]

And have you rotated the plate 90 degrees and used a good quality square to make sure the table is at 90 degrees to the plate?

Ed

[JPG]

But of course that will affect the results from elevating! Why did I not think of that? But it does not explain why edge to edge doubled.

[dusty]

Is the miter slot parallel to the Master Plate?

That is the objective of this exercise.!

My comment was intended to emphasis that the objective is to verify that the miter slot(s) and blade are parallel to one another. Analyzing all of these other variables (such as they are) can not be resolved by simply repositioning the table on the trunnions.