Dial Indicator Jig for Table Alignment ?

pennview · Post by **pennview** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:06 am

JPG, you originally said that it was OK for the fence to be set withing .020 closer at the back of the blade than at the front, citing some so-called, unnamed experts. Personally, I doubt that you could ever find a responsible person making such a statement. You were dead wrong on that score, and had I not pointed it out that bogus and dangerous information would still be posted. That could get someone hurt and you need to think about that before jumping on someone else's posts.

And, had you paid attention to what was also posted in this thread you would have seen that the original poster didn't get his blade perfectly aligned to the slot, and another poster said that .005 was acceptable.

Go back an read my post on the subject.

mountainbreeze · Post by **mountainbreeze** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:47 am

JPG40504 wrote:... My point was that although your assertion of blade to fence is what really matters(absolutely correct in and of itself), we should have already assured slot to blade parallelism. To set the fence to the blade without first setting the table/slots to the blade is folly and will have to be done again once the table is aligned. If the table is not aligned to the blade other gremlins appear. ...

This leads me to believe I may be doing something wrong. I interpret the above quote to mean I should adjust the miter slot (table) to the the blade and then align the fence to the blade. What I have been doing is aligning the miter slot (table) to the blade and also aligning the fence to the miter slot. Is that an incorrect procedure?

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:58 am

mountainbreeze wrote:This leads me to believe I may be doing something wrong. I interpret the above quote to mean I should adjust the miter slot (table) to be the blade and then align the fence to the blade. What I have been doing is aligning the miter slot (table) to the blade and also aligning the fence to the miter slot. Is that an incorrect procedure?

I believe you will get opposing answers to this question.

However, back in high school, I was taught that two lines that are parallel to a third line are also parallel to one another. That axiom (maybe it's a theorem) being true, I don't believe it matters.

I would say that I align the table so that the miter track is parallel to the blade. I then align the fence so that it is parallel to the miter track.

Thus: Two items (table and fence) both parallel to a third item (blade) are parallel to one another.

mountainbreeze · Post by **mountainbreeze** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:05 am

That's what I thought too. Thanks.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:22 am

mountainbreeze wrote:That's what I thought too. Thanks.

Actually, to make what I believe to be your point and mine, I do this alignment a bit differently.

I apply the axiom (theorem) (or maybe it's a conclusion) that two lines perpendicular to a third line are parallel to one another.

This approach allows me to check the miter gauge at the same time I am checking the table against the blade but I do not use the dial gauge.

pennview · Post by **pennview** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:17 am

From my perspective, key to all of this is whether you actually have the blade PARALLEL to the miter gauge slot or not when setting up the Shopsmith. By parallel, I mean the standard definition -- the distance between the blade and the slot is EXACTLY the same at the front and back of the blade, i.e., ZERO deviation between the two measurements.

Based on my observations on this forum, most folks settle for something other than parallel when setting up the Shopsmith saw. In light of this observation, I feel obliged to point out the distinction between aligning the fence to the blade and the fence to the miter gauge slot.

What you want is the fence parallel to the blade, or a few thousands of an inch further away at the back of the blade then at the front of the blade.

If the blade and slot are parallel, then you can align the fence to the slot; it's that simple.

However, if blade and slot are NOT parallel, then, when using the slot to align the fence, you need to think about the extent of the misalignment and direction the two items are running. If they converge at the back of the blade, you could be looking at a problem. Excessive divergence is not good either.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:47 pm

pennview wrote:JPG, you originally said that it was OK for the fence to be set withing .020 closer at the back of the blade than at the front, citing some so-called, unnamed experts. Personally, I doubt that you could ever find a responsible person making such a statement.You were dead wrong ( I have already admitted that and removed/corrected that)on that score, and had I not pointed it out (Absolutely accurate) that bogus and dangerous information would still be posted. That could get someone hurt and you need to think about that before jumping on someone else's posts. I did not 'jump on' over those details.

And, had you paid attention to what was also posted in this thread you would have seen that the original poster didn't get his blade perfectly aligned to the slot, and another poster said that .005 was acceptable. I do not disagree with Dusty there!

Go back an read my post on the subject.

I suggest thee does the same, and TRY to see it all from my vantage point and the real purpose of the post. This 0.020 thing was merely an attempt(failed) to indicate that there are opinions external to this forum that are grossly different. I really screwed up by getting less than/greater than reversed! The first line says it all - Point of order - The slots should be as close to parallel to the blade as you can make it FIRST!

Everything else was supplemental info.

I WILL try to be more careful with my <> in the future!

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:53 pm

mountainbreeze wrote:That's what I thought too. Thanks.

That makes three of us!

Dusty: What are you 'checking' on the miter gauge sans dial indicator?

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:10 pm

JPG40504 wrote:That makes three of us!

Dusty: What are you 'checking' on the miter gauge sans dial indicator?

I use a Wixey or a MiterSet to test/set the Shopsmith miter gauges. If using a Wixey, I zero the Wixey against the miter bar (clamped in a vise to be near vertical and immobile) and then adjust the angle with the Wixey setting on the face of the miter gauge.

I no longer test the Incra V120. I simply trust that it is what I have set it to be.

The only advantage that I see of the Incra over the Shopsmith miter gauges occurs when I am changing angles frequently. The Incra then shines.