Power Pro Planner help

[JPG]

A sample.

4608x3456 resized to 1573x1180(max height).jpg (272.62 KiB) Viewed 6397 times

[chapmanruss]

David,

There are "nuts" as part of the Infeed Roller Assembly. See the picture below.

Infeed Roller Detail.jpg (147.35 KiB) Viewed 6394 times

Is that the nut you are referring to? It is part of the assembly so it is not listed separately. Notice the Special Washer between it and the Pivot Arm. From your last description the brass bearing in the Pivot Arm may be the problem.

Just to clear things up my Pro Planer is a 1992. The manual and parts list/exploded diagrams I have for it was purchased only a couple years ago. I purchased my Pro Planer used and it did not have a manual with it. I do not believe they made any changes to them.

[JPG]

Them ain't nuts!!!

The feed roller raw material is hex shaped bar stock.

The ends are machined to create the shafts and threaded end and keyway.

The knurled rollers have a hex shaped 'bore'. They slide onto the hex shaped roller and are secured at each end with what appears to be a set screw.

The pix above agrees with both the roller upgrade instructions and my earlier manual re the two special washers on both ends. The washers were also used with the original infeed roller and the outfeed roller.

[godavid2]

Update: weird situation the pivot arms were on backwards found out by accident. Tried another infeed roller to see if the original infeed was defective and no binding with roller so put the original roller back in with the pivot arms in same position. Never would have guessed. I do believe the brass bushing was misaligned causing the binding in the first place. Until next time. thanks for everybody's input.

[JPG]

HTH can the 'same/identical' part be installed 'backwards'?

Upside down?

[garys]

Nothing is quite as much fun as getting a tool that was "refurbished or upgraded" by a prevous owner who didn't have a clue what he was doing.
Most people today should have their hands slapped if they attempt to work on a machine.

[JPG]

Nothing is quite as much fun as getting a tool that was "refurbished or upgraded" by a prevous owner who didn't have a clue what he was doing.
Most people today should have their hands slapped if they attempt to work on a machine.

Wise words from the teenager out in the lower 40 all by himself!

Oh I do feel the 'pain' in those wise words.

[godavid2]

My bad like I said before weird situation "HTH can the pivot arms be in backwards. I don't know but when I test another infeed roller and had free movement. I installed the original roller and had free movement which is what I wanted in the first place. And I understand the purpose of the nut like fittings on the ends of the roller now. Why did SS quit putting parts diagrams in the manuals? And why does not the earlier parts manuals have the pictures of the infeed roller with the nut like fitting. This is a 2006 pro planner guys and it has never been used except to turn on. I do not like the pro planner because it is too heavy with the cast iron table and trying to get the newer bigger pulleys adjusted right is a bit"h. That is something SS did change in case some of you have not notice. SS added a 5" motor pulley instead of the 3 1/2".

[JPG]

Again, "them ain't nuts'.

Nor are they relevant to the operation of the feed roller. They are merely the bounds of the machined ends.

I would 'guess' that bad experience with early owners attempting repairs on that unservicable(clam shell designs suck) SPT caused them to discontinue supplying the diagrams.

However that did not deter them from offering the feed roller upgrade/replacement products.

There may be liability issues as well?

[chapmanruss]

David,

You are correct about the pulley size change and it was offered as an upgrade. As for the parts list and exploded diagrams not being included in the manual, that first started with the early Mark 5. Every time a part changed on the Mark 5 it required a new manual even though the operation was the same. In 1957 they started printing them separately. It hasn't held true for all products but it is easy to understand the reasoning for separating them. If you compare the first Mark 5 Manual from 1954 to the first Shopsmith Inc. Manual from 1972 there is very little difference in the operational instructions. Even the picture are the same.