510 table alignment

[Sazerac81]

Hey all,

I wanted to revisit this issue to see if anyone had figured out a good system to allow for a very good alignment for the 510 system.

I have my 520 system dialed in pretty well at this point and it is much easier due to the upward locking design of the thumbscrews as had mentioned in prior threads.

I have taken apart the whole 510 assembly I have at this point. The table guide rails have been removed so I can start from scratch to see if I can get a better result in terms of decent alignment of the main table with the floating tables and extension table.

Any pointers on the assembly process starting from scratch? Scratch meaning all guide rails off of the table.

Or is it a lost cause and I just have to accept that getting great alignment of tables on the 510 is more a function of serendipity than due diligence.

It's honestly not a big deal since I have the 520 setup very well. There is maybe a 1/32" inch difference in tables on that setup... maybe.

I can accept sub-optimal alignment on the 510 table system if it can't be helped because my other table system is good at this point.

Cheers,
John

[dusty]

I could not accept sub-optimal results an the Mark V, Model 510. The Model 510 sets up with precision just as well as the Model 520.

Without talking about the fence being "heavier" what is there about the Model 510 that causes you to feel that sub-optimal characteristics are inherent with the Model 510.

The vast majority of the weak points in the Model 510 are the same exact points in the Model 510; Way and Bench Tubes, same carriage and carriage locks, same table and table locks and same table tilt and table tilt locks.

The fence on the Model 510 does not secure to the rails as well as does the Model 510 but then you are not suppose to be exerting that kind of force to the fence.

Again, what is there about the 520 that makes it all that more accurate than the 510?

I have both and use they each about the same amount so my opinions are not without some exposure.

BEFORE we go any further, let us make certain that we are discussing the same matter. When you ask--- "is it a lost cause and I just have to accept that getting great alignment of tables on the 510 is more a function of serendipity than due diligence" what do you experience that prevents great alignment.

[Sazerac81]

Hey dusty,

It seems as if the tables when secured with the large knob screw tend to decide to never be very reliable in terms of there they wish to ultimately rest. The main table and extension table are fine. It's just when you want the floating tables to align is when I find that the floating table can be a bit lower or higher than the main or extension table.

Cheers,
John

[dusty]

Hey dusty,

It seems as if the tables when secured with the large knob screw tend to decide to never be very reliable in terms of there they wish to ultimately rest. The main table and extension table are fine. It's just when you want the floating tables to align is when I find that the floating table can be a bit lower or higher than the main or extension table.

Cheers,
John

Yup, that happens. 510 and 520.

With 510 tables, here is how I align the table rails to mate with other tables.

Loosen at the nuts that secure the tubes to the tables. Turn the tables upside down on a "known flat surface". Insert extension tubes through the entire group of tables. Tighten the knurled knows that push the tubes toward the tables. All of them tight. . Tighten all the devices that secure the rails to the tables.

At this point I would assume that the table rails are parallel to the table surface . Remove the extension tubes from the table rails and mount the tables normally.

Now, when you tighten the knurled knobs to secure the rails to the tubes, the tables should align one to another and all to the table.

[reible]

I too had issues with alignment on the 510 I had.

Try as I might it was never right. Now I got it used as a basket case so it could be the previous owner(s) bent something or in general messed things up....

After having a 520 first I wasn't so impressed with the 510 and with the added issues of alignment I upgraded it to a 520. The 520 version of it did align as expected so it was something to do with the 510 tubes that was messed up.

The issue was when trying to work across tables, main to floating or main to fixed. I spent way to much time on this issue and with out resolution.

Ed

[JPG]

[quote="reible" . . .

The issue was when trying to work across tables, main to floating or main to fixed. I spent way to much time on this issue and with out resolution.

Ed[/quote]

Something a greenie or goldie with narrow aux table owner can only dream of obtaining. That be the reason for the second blade slot in the main table.

P.S. The wide aux table is an improvement but really does not get there.

[everettdavis]

Hey all,

I wanted to revisit this issue to see if anyone had figured out a good system to allow for a very good alignment for the 510 system.

I have my 520 system dialed in pretty well at this point and it is much easier due to the upward locking design of the thumbscrews as had mentioned in prior threads.

I have taken apart the whole 510 assembly I have at this point. The table guide rails have been removed so I can start from scratch to see if I can get a better result in terms of decent alignment of the main table with the floating tables and extension table.

Any pointers on the assembly process starting from scratch? Scratch meaning all guide rails off of the table.

Or is it a lost cause and I just have to accept that getting great alignment of tables on the 510 is more a function of serendipity than due diligence.

It's honestly not a big deal since I have the 520 setup very well. There is maybe a 1/32" inch difference in tables on that setup... maybe.

I can accept sub-optimal alignment on the 510 table system if it can't be helped because my other table system is good at this point.

Cheers,
John

You might look at my method to the alignment process document. It works for me and may help you with some of those rail issues.

It is a PDF at https://www.shopsmith.com/ss_forum/view ... 90#p185690

Everett

[dusty]

There are many naysayers on this subject. Many with many years of experience. The odds would indicate that you can not. HOWEVER, science and mathematics disagree. If you have a chance at all, that will first be known if you assemble your unit NOT on its own feet but rather setting on a known flat and horizontal surface. Assemble only the tubes head rest and base and base arm assemble.

Now install two extension tables (but take off the tables. What do you have? Four vertaical posts that by all account should be at the same height and all "parralel to one another. Measure the diagonals of the frectangle those four posts form. If the diagonals are not exactly equal - you don't have a chance from this point of making it any better.

If the diagonals are "exactly" equal, you stand a very good chance of achieving your ojective.

Good luck. BTW, it feels real good when you finally make it. However savor the victory for the fruits of your labor will sour soon.

[everettdavis]

This post on a 500 may pique your interest http://www.shopsmith.com/ss_forum/viewt ... 53#p190053

My notion now would be to use course stud to fine to improve micro adjustments hard to achieve with course threads only.

Everett

Exchange Table Studs to Course Mount and Fine Threads - Everett.jpg (47.48 KiB) Viewed 3901 times

[masonsailor2]

I agree the 510 system lacks repeatable perfect alignment. I don't think there is much you can do about it other than occasionally adjust the tables when the project requires that kind of accuracy. It's the main reason I played with the Incra system ( the standard version as opposed to the SS version ). So far it has shown impressive repeatability and required no further adjustment from initial setup to remain perfectly aligned and offers the same functionality as the 510/520 system.
Paul