A Question About the Procedure

[jsburger]

I have a thought for your consideration that involves changing out the studs or converting to studs for tables that did not have them.

My notion was that the course threads on the factory studs does contribute some to the in-ability to adjust the table.

My notion involves swapping out the studs for ones that have the proper thread for the table, but incorporates fine threads on the opposite end providing more granular adjustment since the rotation of the nut produces a finer adjustment.

I know there is discussion on using the same tooth of the blade to insure a proper alignment. I had published the PDF "My Method to the Alignment Process" which involves the larger diameter sanding disc and outlines a good bit of the thought process why I feel it is an easier method.

Equally, the PDF titled "What Can a Single Cross-Cut Tell You?" is a very simple method to find out IF you need alignment in the first place.

They are simple methods, and use use a piece of rod stock, the allen wrench, or a dial indicator to do exactly the same thing with the process.

I had not considered the Nylock Nut component, but that would be an excellent addition the the fine thread stud system I show in the attached photo.

I cannot encourage an owner enough to read those two PDF's as it really helps get one's head around the process.

The early machines had bolts and washers, and newer table designs incorporated the studs allowing for a more granular adjustment.

Everett
Exchange Table Studs to Course Mount and Fine Threads - Everett.jpg

That is fine for the extension table. However, the main table does not have studs, it has bolts threaded into the table so that is not an option.

I agree with algale's method. Just compensate fore the movement in the beginning. I find the movement is about the same each time so compensating for it makes alignment much quicker and easier.

[Hobbyman2]

On the topic of alignment , this has all ways been done every where I have worked , the tables should all be nearly perfectly square to the miter tracks ,but I wont go into that too much as I know some have issues in faith or double checking for accuracy , off topic a few years back I sent off and got a machined piece of granite to tool leather , it is guaranteed to be accurate to tolerances much greater then my SS, it is very heavy , nearly 50 lbs ,, it is also guaranteed to be flat , it makes checking blades, or any thing else very easy .
I dont think I have any new blades of any quality where the teeth are not true , I havent sent off any blades to be redone in a long time but if they are done and ground properly they will be accurate , I know the ss alignment describes using a rod or the allen wrench along with the miter gage to test the blade alignment , for me that is the most simple and most accurate as any digital read out.
you should be able to set it so it indexes each tooth one at a time as you slowly rotate the blade .
My guess is the example given is a test for accuracy of the blade as well as the alignment .if you want a 1/8 inch wide cut using a 1/8 inch kerf your blade cant wobble and our teeth need to be in a perfect row . JM.02

[dusty]

Table alignment to the blade should be almost a "don't care" proposition.

The way the Table Bar and Tube, the Trunnions and the Table stack up together, proper positioning is almost automatic. With trunnions that have NOT been redrilled, if you simply push the table (loose trunnion bolts) as far as it will go to the right (operators perspective), you will find that the blade is position very, very close to center in the cutout. Secure the trunnion bolts and the table is nearly good to go.

The deviation from machine to machine will be in hole size and actual positioning.

I think this drawing shows what I am alluding to (precision machined holes would eliminate the need for table to blade alignment (on a properly assembled and undamaged machine).

A Perspective on Trunnion Holes and Bolts.png (167.41 KiB) Viewed 6409 times

The carriage would be pushed against the headstock with the rubber bumper controlling position. This png does not detail the carriage. You need to trust the positioning of the arbor and blade. They are not arbitrary.

[jsburger]

On the topic of alignment , this has all ways been done every where I have worked , the tables should all be nearly perfectly square to the miter tracks ,but I wont go into that too much as I know some have issues in faith or double checking for accuracy , off topic a few years back I sent off and got a machined piece of granite to tool leather , it is guaranteed to be accurate to tolerances much greater then my SS, it is very heavy , nearly 50 lbs ,, it is also guaranteed to be flat , it makes checking blades, or any thing else very easy .
I dont think I have any new blades of any quality where the teeth are not true , I havent sent off any blades to be redone in a long time but if they are done and ground properly they will be accurate , I know the ss alignment describes using a rod or the allen wrench along with the miter gage to test the blade alignment , for me that is the most simple and most accurate as any digital read out.
you should be able to set it so it indexes each tooth one at a time as you slowly rotate the blade .
My guess is the example given is a test for accuracy of the blade as well as the alignment .if you want a 1/8 inch wide cut using a 1/8 inch kerf your blade cant wobble and our teeth need to be in a perfect row . JM.02

I totally agree with your .02 cents worth. This is wood working not metal working for space components. All of this angst over alignment to 0.005 or under is not necessary. 1/128" is just under 0.008 (0.0078125). You can probably interpolate 1/128 with a scale graduated to 1/64 (If your eyes are good enough) but why? My Forrest saw blades cut so smooth that the jointer is not necessary for a glue up.

Please don't misunderstand, I am an advocate of getting the most precision possible. I used 3 point Starret bore gauges to measure generator bearing liners when I was overhauling aircraft generators for the Air force. The tolerances were typically 5 to 7 tenths (0.0005-0.0007). I also used a Zeiss CMM machine to measure main stator concentricity.

The point is that the SS alignment procedure with the miter gauge and the hex wrench is more relevant today than it was in 1947 when the SS was invented. Reason being that back before precision ground, flat plate carbide tooth saw blades you needed to use the same tooth to guarantee accuracy because the blade plate may not be perfectly flat and the teeth were filed by hand.

[dusty]

I don't disagree with anything you have said, John. You are dead on. Extremely precise measurements are not necessary for wood working.

I am curious though. To what level of accuracy do you strive when doing a table to blade parallelism verification. Is 1/64" (.015625") close enough to be safe and to do fine wood working?

[Hobbyman2]

My issue is , was , If I want to cut a dado in a board 6 ft long and I set up the dado blades to the proper size, I want the saw to cut it the size I want , not try to allow for a wobble and try to guess how much of the wobble will stay consistent through the entire cut . If I cut into a board with a 1/8 in kerf blade I dont want the blade to wonder or bind up do to excess end play in the shaft or a out of balance blade, especially with a large dia blade making a deep cut .JMO I think this might lead to more then just accuracy ,yet it plays the part rather well,, that may be why SS alignment details are what they are.

JMO.

I have seen many so called professionals using blades that have burn marks on the sides of the blades , to me this is a sign of a poor alignment ,tool neglect and pure laziness , not to mention a major safety issue . again jmo .

If you take care of your blades they will last a long long time and you will reduce wear on your saw.

[JPG]

And then there be warped boards.

All is not always 'perfect'.

[Hobbyman2]

Good point , still there is a difference between cutting the end off a board then making joinery .
, if it aint tight , it aint right . jm.02

[Hobbyman2]

Table alignment to the blade should be almost a "don't care" proposition.

The way the Table Bar and Tube, the Trunnions and the Table stack up together, proper positioning is almost automatic. With trunnions that have NOT been redrilled, if you simply push the table (loose trunnion bolts) as far as it will go to the right (operators perspective), you will find that the blade is position very, very close to center in the cutout. Secure the trunnion bolts and the table is nearly good to go.

The deviation from machine to machine will be in hole size and actual positioning.

I think this drawing shows what I am alluding to (precision machined holes would eliminate the need for table to blade alignment (on a properly assembled and undamaged machine).

A Perspective on Trunnion Holes and Bolts.png

The carriage would be pushed against the headstock with the rubber bumper controlling position. This png does not detail the carriage. You need to trust the positioning of the arbor and blade. They are not arbitrary.

==============

Dusty that is a great post .
The drawing lines are all square and perpendicular , if you sent that to a machine shop the product you get back should be identical , square and all lines perpendicular .
If not send it back , find a shop that can do it right and get one that is done right .
You would be able to bump the table to the blade and it should true every thing at one time as long as the blade doesnt wobble . JM.02

[dusty]

Table alignment to the blade should be almost a "don't care" proposition.

The way the Table Bar and Tube, the Trunnions and the Table stack up together, proper positioning is almost automatic. With trunnions that have NOT been redrilled, if you simply push the table (loose trunnion bolts) as far as it will go to the right (operators perspective), you will find that the blade is position very, very close to center in the cutout. Secure the trunnion bolts and the table is nearly good to go.

The deviation from machine to machine will be in hole size and actual positioning.

I think this drawing shows what I am alluding to (precision machined holes would eliminate the need for table to blade alignment (on a properly assembled and undamaged machine).

A Perspective on Trunnion Holes and Bolts.png

The carriage would be pushed against the headstock with the rubber bumper controlling position. This png does not detail the carriage. You need to trust the positioning of the arbor and blade. They are not arbitrary.

==============

Dusty that is a great post .
The drawing lines are all square and perpendicular , if you sent that to a machine shop the product you get back should be identical , square and all lines perpendicular .
If not send it back , find a shop that can do it right and get one that is done right .
You would be able to bump the table to the blade and it should true every thing at one time as long as the blade doesnt wobble . JM.02

This was done with the intentions of it being "proof of concept",

I took measurements from the right side of the miter slot to the right face of the alignment disk - at both the infeed side and the outfeed side.

The readings were 3.57" and 3.563". The sketch that I posted earlier would tell you that the anticipated reading would be 3.609". This difference of .039" I believe is because those measurements are from possibly a different table and one that I considered perfectly aligned (had been tweaked).

There was no tweaking involved. I simply moved the table as far to the right as the trunnion bolts allowed. In fact, in these photos the bolts are still loose.

20180828_045204.jpg (1.77 MiB) Viewed 6331 times

20180828_045249.jpg (1.97 MiB) Viewed 6331 times

20180828_045318.jpg (2.02 MiB) Viewed 6331 times