masonsailor2 wrote:I think that both solutions would get you close but you still would have to rely on the test cut. There are three variables in getting a perfectly square cut. The blade to table alignment, the alignment of the guide device ( miter bar, fence, etc) and then the effect of the RPM on the blade. In most blades, especially thin curf the blade set is different when it is at speed vs at rest. So in the end with all variables considered you get it as close as you can and then adjust using test cuts. The four square method used with sleds is an example. The final adjustment is in the fixture you are using and they will all differ slightly. With each fixture a slight final adjustment is usuall necessary to get the perfect ( or close to perfect ) square cut.
Paul
As usual, the injuneer types are flapping about pickey details. Not so to disagree so much as to make all aware of assumptions that can lead to the Ed and Charlese result.
Aligning ALL there is to adjust requires complete understanding AND persistence to DO IT ALL with extreme patience(we do not have a precision jig/fixture to do so as they do at the MS).
I agree the blade does alter from static(hand rotating) to dynamic(spinning), and that is why tooth at front/at back is not an old wives tale. It does not however alter the 4/5 1* cut test cut result.
I agree the other two factors are what determines cut result(ignoring cockpit factors).
However the table to blade alignment really only affects the degree of blade drag at the rear(it affects cross cutting as well as ripping).
The resultant angle is solely the result of the miter gauge alone(again ignoring cockpit issues).
If we want to get real picky, the blade to table parallel deviation can result in a concave cut edge as well as blade jamming at the rear.
* I prefer the one cut method - straight edge test board(long) against the mitergauge, cut, then set the just cut ends flat on the table with the 'straight edges' adjacent. The far end will reveal any lack of a square cut - quicker!