In another thread there has been some very informative discussion about the rip fence and its alignment. The discussion got me to thinking about how my rip fence would check out if measured on both sides with respect to the blade.
I align, typically with the rip fence to the right of the blade bit I often move the rip fence to the other side for use. If not well aligned, this could introduce potential problems.
I put my rip fence right in the middle between the two miter tracks and measured the deviations along both sides of the miter fence. I have two rip fences so I have two sets of numbers.
Are the two fences equally good (or bad).
[ATTACH]16768[/ATTACH]
Rip Fence
Moderator: admin
-
dusty
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 21530
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:52 am
- Location: Tucson (Wildcat Country), Arizona
Rip Fence
- Attachments
-
Rip Fence Offset.doc- (29 KiB) Downloaded 464 times
"Making Sawdust Safely"
Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
Since the fence is used in combination with a saw blade, another part of this equation is the saw blade itself and the distance between the carbide teeth and the plate of the blade. For a Freud LU83R thin kerf blade, the carbide teeth are .091" wide and the plate is .071" thick, so there is about .010" clearance on either side of the blade. Given these measurements, you have little room for error when aligning the fence to the blade.
On Thursday I purchased a CMT thin kerf blade, model 10050 at Lowes. It has a bit more clearance than the Freud blade with a kerf of .098" vs a plate thickness of .071", giving a clearance of .0135" on either side of the blade. These are CMT's specifications; I measured a plate thickness of about .074" using a digital caliper, so either the caliper is off or the teflon coating is .0015" thick.
On Thursday I purchased a CMT thin kerf blade, model 10050 at Lowes. It has a bit more clearance than the Freud blade with a kerf of .098" vs a plate thickness of .071", giving a clearance of .0135" on either side of the blade. These are CMT's specifications; I measured a plate thickness of about .074" using a digital caliper, so either the caliper is off or the teflon coating is .0015" thick.
Art in Western Pennsylvania
Dusty,
I'm not sure what to make of these numbers, other than there appears to be a disconcerting amount of deviation on both faces of both fences as measured from front to back -- much more than I would have expected in a well aligned saw. [Edit: There is also a small amount of deviation between the apparent parallelism of the faces,] but it is impossible to tell from the data whether this is because the (1) the two faces of each of the two rip fence are not exactly parallel to each other, (2) the two miter slots are not exactly parallel to each other or (3) a combination of both (1) and (2).
Regardless, I am suspect of the [Edit: front to back deviation as measured in the] data because I think you would have noticed unacceptable results while using the fences in the condition indicated by the data.
If the data is correct, and if I correctly recall that you normally align your fences to the right slot by putting a piece of milled wood in the slot and adjusting the fence to it, I would re-check the flatness and straightness of that piece very, very carefully. I would also put a straight edge against both faces of both fences to check for straightness.
And it wouldn't hurt to recheck table alignment. I'd use the disc sander with no sandpaper and a dial indicator to check the alignment from both the right hand miter slot (measuring off the front of the disc) and left hand miter slot (measuring off the back of the disc). This should tell you whether your slots are parallel.
Al
I'm not sure what to make of these numbers, other than there appears to be a disconcerting amount of deviation on both faces of both fences as measured from front to back -- much more than I would have expected in a well aligned saw. [Edit: There is also a small amount of deviation between the apparent parallelism of the faces,] but it is impossible to tell from the data whether this is because the (1) the two faces of each of the two rip fence are not exactly parallel to each other, (2) the two miter slots are not exactly parallel to each other or (3) a combination of both (1) and (2).
Regardless, I am suspect of the [Edit: front to back deviation as measured in the] data because I think you would have noticed unacceptable results while using the fences in the condition indicated by the data.
If the data is correct, and if I correctly recall that you normally align your fences to the right slot by putting a piece of milled wood in the slot and adjusting the fence to it, I would re-check the flatness and straightness of that piece very, very carefully. I would also put a straight edge against both faces of both fences to check for straightness.
And it wouldn't hurt to recheck table alignment. I'd use the disc sander with no sandpaper and a dial indicator to check the alignment from both the right hand miter slot (measuring off the front of the disc) and left hand miter slot (measuring off the back of the disc). This should tell you whether your slots are parallel.
Al
Dusty, given the numbers you got, another thing you might want to check on is if the two slots are parallel to one another. You could then compare those measurements to your fence measurements and determine how parallel the two sides of your fences are.
Regardless, for cutting wood, given that you have two fences, maybe you'd want to set up one fence for the right side of the blade and the other for the left side, and mark each accordingly. And, since it's the alignment of the fence to the blade that one is after, simply sliding the fence up against a saw blade or sanding disk for alignment purposes would be the easiest solution.
Regardless, for cutting wood, given that you have two fences, maybe you'd want to set up one fence for the right side of the blade and the other for the left side, and mark each accordingly. And, since it's the alignment of the fence to the blade that one is after, simply sliding the fence up against a saw blade or sanding disk for alignment purposes would be the easiest solution.
Art in Western Pennsylvania
-
mountainbreeze
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 511
- Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:58 pm
- Location: Ocala, FL
-
dusty
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 21530
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:52 am
- Location: Tucson (Wildcat Country), Arizona
pennview wrote:Dusty, given the numbers you got, another thing you might want to check on is if the two slots are parallel to one another. You could then compare those measurements to your fence measurements and determine how parallel the two sides of your fences are.
Regardless, for cutting wood, given that you have two fences, maybe you'd want to set up one fence for the right side of the blade and the other for the left side, and mark each accordingly. And, since it's the alignment of the fence to the blade that one is after, simply sliding the fence up against a saw blade or sanding disk for alignment purposes would be the easiest solution.
I have checked the two miter tracks and as far as I am concerned, they are dead on. Unfortunately, I cannot measure the separation between the two tracks with the micrometer; I have to trust my metal ruler and my eye.
Therefore, you have no choice but to trust that my miter tracks are parallel to one another.
Now having said that, I do feel a need to remeasure the variances along the length of the rip fences (on both sides). I have done this and my rip fences are not true by any means. The best rip fence face I have deviates .008" from one end to the other. The worst deviates .018" over the entire length; if employed as I normally would, this worst surface would be my rip face most of the time. Maybe I now know why it was offered on EBay.
The right hand face of one fence is somewhat questionable in appearance and that may be a factor. I bought one fence new and the other fence was purchased through ebay from someone named Folkerth.
I use both fences interchangeably. I have experienced no problems with either fence on either side of the blade. It is possibly notable that I check main table alignment in a manner completely different that what is being discussed here but my results are every bit as accurate.
I will post addition results later.
mountainbreeze: I believe that your rip fence is most certainly a keeper on either side but especially on the left side. The left side would be most important to me because I do nearly all ripping with the fence to the right of the blade.
"Making Sawdust Safely"
Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
-
JPG
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 35600
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:42 pm
- Location: Lexington, Ky (TAMECAT territory)
As a result of all this dial indication/measurement, I dug out my 510 manual and perused the Alignment and adjustment section.
And I quote "To zalign and adjust the Shopsmith Mark V, you'll need to gauge flat surfaces, 45° and 90° angles. A good combination square will perform all three tasks. If you don't have a combination szquare, you can also use a 45° drafting triangle.
. . .
Besides an accurate square you will also need:
Small and medium sized blade screwdrivers
1/2" socket with extension
Adjustable wrench or 9/16" and q1/2" wrenches
5/32" Allen wrench . . .
5/16" Allen wrench . . .
Mineral spirits or turpentine
Clean rag
Grease pencil or bar soap
Notice anything?
No measuring gadgets!
All adjustments use 'visual' aligning methods.
Now I do not know how good y'all's eyes are, but mine are not accurate to better than 0.010(maybe in ultra bright light).
I have to conclude that all this consternation over micro deviations is self inflicted pain.
Eye balling with a combination square or drafting triangle is not likely to guarantee accuracy better than twice Dusty's 'limit' of 0.005.
Any body with a dial Gauge care to adjust using the 'book' procedure and then dig out the gauge and publish the measurements? I think the data should prove 'interesting'.
Now since I have been recently, properly chastised, I add the following.
After all alignment and adjustments have been made, test the front/rear rip fence to blade separation(parallelness) by carefully cutting a wide board about a foot long. Take note if the back side of the blade is nipping at the workpiece with the workpiece tight against the fence. If so adjust the fence to just eliminate said 'nipping'. Do this on the side of the blade where you will do most of your ripping. Alternatively start a rip cut, turn the ss off, remove the workpiece, turn it end for end, position it between the rip fence and the blade with the same blade/fence orientation as when starting the cut, then manually rotate the saw blade to see which side of the kerf the blade may contact. If to the fence side, adjust the fence as above away from the blade at the back. Need I say to securely hold the workpiece at all times the ss is running!
And I quote "To zalign and adjust the Shopsmith Mark V, you'll need to gauge flat surfaces, 45° and 90° angles. A good combination square will perform all three tasks. If you don't have a combination szquare, you can also use a 45° drafting triangle.
. . .
Besides an accurate square you will also need:
Small and medium sized blade screwdrivers
1/2" socket with extension
Adjustable wrench or 9/16" and q1/2" wrenches
5/32" Allen wrench . . .
5/16" Allen wrench . . .
Mineral spirits or turpentine
Clean rag
Grease pencil or bar soap
Notice anything?
No measuring gadgets!
All adjustments use 'visual' aligning methods.
Now I do not know how good y'all's eyes are, but mine are not accurate to better than 0.010(maybe in ultra bright light).
I have to conclude that all this consternation over micro deviations is self inflicted pain.
Eye balling with a combination square or drafting triangle is not likely to guarantee accuracy better than twice Dusty's 'limit' of 0.005.
Any body with a dial Gauge care to adjust using the 'book' procedure and then dig out the gauge and publish the measurements? I think the data should prove 'interesting'.
Now since I have been recently, properly chastised, I add the following.
After all alignment and adjustments have been made, test the front/rear rip fence to blade separation(parallelness) by carefully cutting a wide board about a foot long. Take note if the back side of the blade is nipping at the workpiece with the workpiece tight against the fence. If so adjust the fence to just eliminate said 'nipping'. Do this on the side of the blade where you will do most of your ripping. Alternatively start a rip cut, turn the ss off, remove the workpiece, turn it end for end, position it between the rip fence and the blade with the same blade/fence orientation as when starting the cut, then manually rotate the saw blade to see which side of the kerf the blade may contact. If to the fence side, adjust the fence as above away from the blade at the back. Need I say to securely hold the workpiece at all times the ss is running!
╔═══╗
╟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'/ 10E[/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
╟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'/ 10E[/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
I took a few measurements of my 510 and found that the fence has a consistent width of 1.352 to 1.353" along its entire length give or take another .0005", according to my digital caliper. I don't have a machinists straight edge to check how flat the fence is, but I do have a #7 Bailey jointer plane with a sole length that is about as long as the fence and using the sole of the plane, the fence appears flat along its entire length. I also checked for the miter slots being parallel to one another and they are within .001 to .002 along their entire length according to my TS-Aligner Junior. Since I used a piece of birch plywood in one of the slots, it is clearly possible that the slots are truly parallel along their entire length.
Art in Western Pennsylvania
-
dusty
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 21530
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:52 am
- Location: Tucson (Wildcat Country), Arizona
We are woodworking here, right. We are not machinists. With those metrics, your fence is truly straight and the miter slots are parallel.pennview wrote:I took a few measurements of my 510 and found that the fence has a consistent width of 1.352 to 1.353" along its entire length give or take another .0005", according to my digital caliper. I don't have a machinists straight edge to check how flat the fence is, but I do have a #7 Bailey jointer plane with a sole length that is about as long as the fence and using the sole of the plane, the fence appears flat along its entire length. I also checked for the miter slots being parallel to one another and they are within .001 to .002 along their entire length according to my TS-Aligner Junior. Since I used a piece of birch plywood in one of the slots, it is clearly possible that the slots are truly parallel along their entire length.
As long as you have not dribbled your Bailey across the garage floor, it is probably as straight as any straight edge you might be able to afford.
"Making Sawdust Safely"
Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.