New forum member

Moderators: HopefulSSer, admin

DLB
Platinum Member
Posts: 1985
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:24 am
Location: Joshua Texas

Re: New forum member

Post by DLB »

HopefulSSer wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 8:33 am David, I respectfully disagree. It's easy enough to see if the chuck or rod has any runout -- simply rotate the shaft. With a rod that long even tiny runout will be greatly amplified at the free end (and if you can't easily see the runout, there's not enough to matter). Then just rotate such that the runout is horizontal instead of vertical (analogous to how you mark and rotate the sanding disk in the "official" procedure to avoid the high spot). With the runout in the horizontal plane, the rod will be coplaner with the quill in the vertical plane. Then align the table to the rod and set the 0º stop. It seems to me this process should be very accurate.
I'm sorry, not sure what you are disagreeing with. All I meant to say was how I interpreted the photos. I like the method, assuming a few things, and would surely try it if I had a suitable rod. All variables are known, measurable, and potentially controllable. And there are less variables. I don't see the book procedure that way at all. If the OD of the rod is 1/2" I'd expect better results with a router chuck, but here again that is measurable and quantifiable.

- David
HopefulSSer
Gold Member
Posts: 398
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2021 6:07 pm
Location: NC

Re: New forum member

Post by HopefulSSer »

DLB wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 9:17 am
HopefulSSer wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 8:33 am David, I respectfully disagree. It's easy enough to see if the chuck or rod has any runout -- simply rotate the shaft. With a rod that long even tiny runout will be greatly amplified at the free end (and if you can't easily see the runout, there's not enough to matter). Then just rotate such that the runout is horizontal instead of vertical (analogous to how you mark and rotate the sanding disk in the "official" procedure to avoid the high spot). With the runout in the horizontal plane, the rod will be coplaner with the quill in the vertical plane. Then align the table to the rod and set the 0º stop. It seems to me this process should be very accurate.
I'm sorry, not sure what you are disagreeing with. All I meant to say was how I interpreted the photos. I like the method, assuming a few things, and would surely try it if I had a suitable rod. All variables are known, measurable, and potentially controllable. And there are less variables. I don't see the book procedure that way at all. If the OD of the rod is 1/2" I'd expect better results with a router chuck, but here again that is measurable and quantifiable.

- David
I'm disagreeing with the amount of coffee I've had this morning! ;) I was actually addressing RFGuy. Sorry about that. I've edited my post.
Greenie SN 362819 (upgraded to 510), Bandsaw 106878, Jointer SS16466
RFGuy
Platinum Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:05 am
Location: a suburb of PHX, AZ

Re: New forum member

Post by RFGuy »

I disagree with you guys...just going to leave it at that.
📶RF Guy

Mark V 520 (Bought New '98) | 4" jointer | 6" beltsander | 12" planer | bandsaw | router table | speed reducer | univ. tool rest
Porter Cable 12" Compound Miter Saw | Rikon 8" Low Speed Bench Grinder w/CBN wheels | Jessem Clear-Cut TS™ Stock Guides
Festool (Emerald): DF 500 Q | RO 150 FEQ | OF 1400 EQ | TS 55 REQ | CT 26 E
DC3300 | Shopvac w/ClearVue CV06 Mini Cyclone | JDS AirTech 2000 | Sundstrom PAPR | Dylos DC1100 Pro particulate monitor
User avatar
dusty
Platinum Member
Posts: 21359
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:52 am
Location: Tucson (Wildcat Country), Arizona

Re: New forum member

Post by dusty »

AEA wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:13 pm So a picture is worth a thousand words or four pictures are worth several pages of forum comments. :D
Yes, Steve, your procedure works and it works very well so long ss your only purpose is to set the Main Table parallel to the axis of rotation. I did not have a rod that was long enough to traverse the table but what I had worked well enough to see the merit. The rod must be perfectly straight to get accurate results but I think you know that.

I verified the table position first by measuring at four points the distance from the top of the table to the top of the way tubes. I then further verified by utilizing a digital level, watching the table adjust to the rod while simultaneously watching the digital level.

In your last picture if you would measure from the edge of a miter track to both of the way tubes you should find the two measurements to be exactly the same. Another good indicator that the Table will be parallel to the blade.
"Making Sawdust Safely"
Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
User avatar
JPG
Platinum Member
Posts: 34610
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:42 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky (TAMECAT territory)

Re: New forum member

Post by JPG »

The drill press positioning of the table does not depend upon the tilt o° stop. The table is rotated 90° from there and has a different stop for drill press operation. If the slide rod were short, it COULD be used to set the drill press stop but a drill bit will do.(or a coat hanger wire).
╔═══╗
╟JPG ╢
╚═══╝

Goldie(Bought New SN 377425)/4" jointer/6" beltsander/12" planer/stripsander/bandsaw/powerstation /Scroll saw/Jig saw /Craftsman 10" ras/Craftsman 6" thicknessplaner/ Dayton10"tablesaw(restoredfromneighborstrashpile)/ Mark VII restoration in 'progress'/ 10
E[/size](SN E3779) restoration in progress, a 510 on the back burner and a growing pile of items to be eventually returned to useful life. - aka Red Grange
RFGuy
Platinum Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:05 am
Location: a suburb of PHX, AZ

Re: New forum member

Post by RFGuy »

JPG wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:30 pm The drill press positioning of the table does not depend upon the tilt o° stop. The table is rotated 90° from there and has a different stop for drill press operation. If the slide rod were short, it COULD be used to set the drill press stop but a drill bit will do.(or a coat hanger wire).
JPG,

So, I have attached the Shopsmith manual that I have with the relevant pages that this proposed new alignment procedure replaces. Since pdf's seem to be the preferred format on the forum now, I attached the pages in pdf format. I disagree with the assumption on this thread, that many forum members are making, that any kind of alignment using a drillpress chuck translates unadulterated to an alignment that is useful for tablesaw mode when a sawblade arbor is mounted on the spindle. All systems that require calibration/alignment do so under a set of specified conditions, which in this case means the machine is vertical, drillpress chuck is mounted and main table is at 90° stop (based on the OP's description and his picture #4). So, as I stated previously this looks like a good replacement of the original alignment, but ONLY for setting the 90° stop as detailed in the attached pdf. I don't subscribe to the idea that a "1/2" dia ball bushing shafting" is useful in setting the 0° stop. My reason is that I don't trust any systematic offsets are zero between the two cases. Now for tablesaw mode, I need the machine to be horizontal, sawblade arbor is mounted and main table is at 0° stop. This is where the alignment for 0° stop with a sawblade mounted is important IMHO. Others believe you can rotate the "1/2" dia ball bushing shafting" in hortizontal mode and get it perfectly level then raise the table (0° stop) up to meet it and set an alignment for this that applies to the tablesaw mode, but I disagree. This "might" be a great shortcut, but is not an alignment I would trust for setting the 0° stop in tablesaw mode. Frankly, I am a bit surprised by this thread. Usually anything related to "alignment" and there is copious discussion on the forum with differing viewpoints. I am a bit gobsmacked that everyone on the forum, except for me, has embraced this new alignment recommendation on this thread, whereas usually they would challenge it. Like I said, it might be a great shortcut for some users, but I am going to stick with the recommended alignments. Alignments/calibrations are the one area where I always try to follow the rules/procedures in place because they exist for a reason, i.e. to counteract specific systematic offsets inherent to the machine for a particular set of conditions.
Shopsmith_Alignment_0_90_stops.pdf
(1.37 MiB) Downloaded 123 times
📶RF Guy

Mark V 520 (Bought New '98) | 4" jointer | 6" beltsander | 12" planer | bandsaw | router table | speed reducer | univ. tool rest
Porter Cable 12" Compound Miter Saw | Rikon 8" Low Speed Bench Grinder w/CBN wheels | Jessem Clear-Cut TS™ Stock Guides
Festool (Emerald): DF 500 Q | RO 150 FEQ | OF 1400 EQ | TS 55 REQ | CT 26 E
DC3300 | Shopvac w/ClearVue CV06 Mini Cyclone | JDS AirTech 2000 | Sundstrom PAPR | Dylos DC1100 Pro particulate monitor
User avatar
dusty
Platinum Member
Posts: 21359
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:52 am
Location: Tucson (Wildcat Country), Arizona

Re: New forum member

Post by dusty »

RFGuy wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:50 am
JPG wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:30 pm The drill press positioning of the table does not depend upon the tilt o° stop. The table is rotated 90° from there and has a different stop for drill press operation. If the slide rod were short, it COULD be used to set the drill press stop but a drill bit will do.(or a coat hanger wire).
JPG,

So, I have attached the Shopsmith manual that I have with the relevant pages that this proposed new alignment procedure replaces. Since pdf's seem to be the preferred format on the forum now, I attached the pages in pdf format. I disagree with the assumption on this thread, that many forum members are making, that any kind of alignment using a drillpress chuck translates unadulterated to an alignment that is useful for tablesaw mode when a sawblade arbor is mounted on the spindle. All systems that require calibration/alignment do so under a set of specified conditions, which in this case means the machine is vertical, drillpress chuck is mounted and main table is at 90° stop (based on the OP's description and his picture #4). So, as I stated previously this looks like a good replacement of the original alignment, but ONLY for setting the 90° stop as detailed in the attached pdf. I don't subscribe to the idea that a "1/2" dia ball bushing shafting" is useful in setting the 0° stop. My reason is that I don't trust any systematic offsets are zero between the two cases. Now for tablesaw mode, I need the machine to be horizontal, sawblade arbor is mounted and main table is at 0° stop. This is where the alignment for 0° stop with a sawblade mounted is important IMHO. Others believe you can rotate the "1/2" dia ball bushing shafting" in hortizontal mode and get it perfectly level then raise the table (0° stop) up to meet it and set an alignment for this that applies to the tablesaw mode, but I disagree. This "might" be a great shortcut, but is not an alignment I would trust for setting the 0° stop in tablesaw mode. Frankly, I am a bit surprised by this thread. Usually anything related to "alignment" and there is copious discussion on the forum with differing viewpoints. I am a bit gobsmacked that everyone on the forum, except for me, has embraced this new alignment recommendation on this thread, whereas usually they would challenge it. Like I said, it might be a great shortcut for some users, but I am going to stick with the recommended alignments. Alignments/calibrations are the one area where I always try to follow the rules/procedures in place because they exist for a reason, i.e. to counteract specific systematic offsets inherent to the machine for a particular set of conditions.

Shopsmith_Alignment_0_90_stops.pdf
I think that the alignment procedures published by Shopsmith yield acceptable results but are, at the same time. grossly in need of update. I follow all of ther general procedures but do so using by own tools and reference points.

Everything is relative...the questions is "relative to what". In the case of the table saw, the setting is relative to the saw blade. What angle does the user what as a result. It might be 90 degrees but it might not. I have the 90 degree stop set but I seldom rely on the stop. It 90 degrees is important to me, I verify by some means other than the stop.

I say the same for the miter slots being parallel to the blade. Just how far off can they be and still perform properly and SAFELY?

I also feel that Shopsmith should utilize videos more when discussing alignment procedures. The printed sketches in the existing procedures in gross need of update.
"Making Sawdust Safely"
Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
RFGuy
Platinum Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:05 am
Location: a suburb of PHX, AZ

Re: New forum member

Post by RFGuy »

dusty wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 9:04 am I think that the alignment procedures published by Shopsmith yield acceptable results but are, at the same time. grossly in need of update.
Thanks Dusty. I agree that it should be possible to update the Shopsmith alignment procedures with newer, or better, techniques. This is why I pointed out that the OP's new procedure could be a great replacement for setting the 90° stop (only useful for drillpress mode).

What I am challenging is the presumption, on this thread, that this translates to being useful for setting the 0° stop and for tablesaw mode alignment.
📶RF Guy

Mark V 520 (Bought New '98) | 4" jointer | 6" beltsander | 12" planer | bandsaw | router table | speed reducer | univ. tool rest
Porter Cable 12" Compound Miter Saw | Rikon 8" Low Speed Bench Grinder w/CBN wheels | Jessem Clear-Cut TS™ Stock Guides
Festool (Emerald): DF 500 Q | RO 150 FEQ | OF 1400 EQ | TS 55 REQ | CT 26 E
DC3300 | Shopvac w/ClearVue CV06 Mini Cyclone | JDS AirTech 2000 | Sundstrom PAPR | Dylos DC1100 Pro particulate monitor
User avatar
SteveMaryland
Gold Member
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2021 3:41 pm
Location: Baltimore, Maryland

Re: New forum member

Post by SteveMaryland »

I'm the OP that started all of this, so let me try to fix it...

We make assumptions when measuring anything. We assume our ruler is "perfect".

Do we all agree that the quill axis is the primary datum for everything on the Shopsmith? We assume the quill axis is "perfect". We also assume that the shaft (or drill rod or whatever) is "perfect". We further assume that the whole quill /chuck/arbor/sawblade/shaft combination, is also "perfect".

If our chucks, saw arbors et cetera aren't "perfect", we must get new ones. And if we drop our Shopsmith down a flight of stairs and bend the quill axis, then we must get a new Shopsmith.

The object is to get the table deadnuts "orthogonal" to the quill axis, and then lock-in this orthogonality. And have a "perfect" non-sloppy tool to verify as needed.

This is true: "if there are any errors between the runout/axial alignment of the sawblade arbor relative to the drill chuck" then we have problems. But the solution is to get a new, "perfect" chuck or arbor.

Actually an ideal way to true the table to the quill axis would be to have a cast table with a cast-in deep hole factory-bored perpendicular to the surface. When a quill-mounted shaft fits through the hole, the table is true in pitch and roll axes.
Mark V, Model 555510, Serial No. 102689, purchased November 1989. Upgraded to 520
RFGuy
Platinum Member
Posts: 2740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:05 am
Location: a suburb of PHX, AZ

Re: New forum member

Post by RFGuy »

Thanks Steve. Appreciate your response. Please know I am not trying to nitpick your proposal on this thread, but just trying to understand where I think it excels and where it might need some more thought/discussion. So, I have been burned by concentricity errors on more than one occasion in recent years. Once was on an expensive router that I own and other times while lathe turning on my Mark V. So this is my starting point which causes me to question assumptions like the drill press chuck and the sawblade arbor are perfect, ideal with zero runout, zero concentric errors, etc., etc. Shopsmith makes good quality tools, but like ANY manufacturer they do have issues sometimes and have to replace parts that are out of spec. Still, there is always a spec, not shared with us, so we never know the errors on these parts unless we have the ability to measure them ourselves. Therefore it is just a bridge too far for me to travel and say that I trust implicitly their chuck and arbors as being anywhere close to ideal. Given this and the fact there is a table rotation between the applied mode and the alignment method just gives me a bit of trepidation. It may be that I am worrying for nothing here, but this is why I am trying to take a step back and look at first principles, e.g. what are we trying to align, how do we do it and why? I am glad I didn't scare you off of the forum with my questioning on this thread...just trying to understand the merits of your proposal.

By the way, what is a typical spec for runout, straightness on a "1/2" dia ball bushing shafting" out of curiosity?
📶RF Guy

Mark V 520 (Bought New '98) | 4" jointer | 6" beltsander | 12" planer | bandsaw | router table | speed reducer | univ. tool rest
Porter Cable 12" Compound Miter Saw | Rikon 8" Low Speed Bench Grinder w/CBN wheels | Jessem Clear-Cut TS™ Stock Guides
Festool (Emerald): DF 500 Q | RO 150 FEQ | OF 1400 EQ | TS 55 REQ | CT 26 E
DC3300 | Shopvac w/ClearVue CV06 Mini Cyclone | JDS AirTech 2000 | Sundstrom PAPR | Dylos DC1100 Pro particulate monitor
Post Reply