ZCI material

[JPG]

As for the 'bump ring' deformation/interfacing sloping surface, I like using a piece of pvc pipe with about 1/3 of it cut out so it slips onto the way tube snugly. A carry over from the hard plastic stop ring my Goldie came with.

[DLB]

Just a question for those who "micro-adjust.....what level of precision do you demand of yourself when performing a table alignment (to the blade).?

In the interest of not getting too far off topic with this, I attempted to answer in a new thread: (viewtopic.php?p=319615#p319615).

- David

[algale]

However, there was a much simpler solution to this one particular problem. Mike says the Shopsmith insert is precisely 3.0" wide. WHY not take a machinist 1-2-3 block and set the rip fence to blade to give a 3.0" cut width that way? Heck of A LOT faster and more precise AND no messing with the quill adjustment! Also cut will be precisely 3.0" because Mike's method requires no human error in sighting the tape measure to the blade while simultaneously adjusting the quill. Since it is exactly a 3.0" width cut, a 1-2-3 block between the sawblade inside carbide tooth tip and the rip fence would precisely set a 3.0" width cut with NO human error.

You are right that he could have used a 1-2-3 block to set the width using the method you say.

But he also could have used the quill adjustment feature and the factory insert to exactly set the width of the rip (or any object he wanted to duplicate in width) without any measurement or 1-2-3 blcok simply by putting the object (here a factory insert) against the fence and then moving the quill until the inside tooth of the blade touched the insert (or other object). Now lock the quill. Next, set depth stop to zero and lock the depth stop. Now unlock the quill, retract it and remove the object (here the insert) to be duplicated. Now extend quill to the 0 stop you previously set and lock the quill again. You've now duplicated exactly the width you need to rip to and you haven't used a tape measurer, ruler or 1-2-3 block (in case it ain't one, two or three inches), and no human error.

This discussion reminds me why I haven't been keen to use zero clearance inserts. This method of adjusting rip width can't be used if you install a ZCI.

[algale]

I am confused...and...I may be wrong but if you push the carriage tight against the rubber bumper (with the rubber bumper against the headstock) does the blade not come up through the table insert opening "in the center" of the opening... About 3.047inches away from the blade.


Just a question for those who "micro-adjust.....what level of precision do you demand of yourself when performing a table alignment (to the blade).?

The rubber bumper ring works well enough to get the blade centered more or less in the factory insert. It isn't repeatable enough if you have a ZCI installed in the table.

Also, I usually try aim to get my table alignment to within .003 inches but not more than .005. It was hard to do before I redrilled my table trunion (let's not reopen that can of worms).

[RFGuy]

You are right that he could have used a 1-2-3 block to set the width using the method you say.

But he also could have used the quill adjustment feature and the factory insert to exactly set the width of the rip (or any object he wanted to duplicate in width) without any measurement or 1-2-3 blcok simply by putting the object (here a factory insert) against the fence and then moving the quill until the inside tooth of the blade touched the insert (or other object).

Alan,

I had the same thought as you, but didn't post it because I don't agree 100%. The problem is trying to line up that tablesaw insert with the correct carbide tooth (one leaning in towards the rip fence - for lack of a better description). Doing this I believe would be more problematic than the 1-2-3 block. Might be easier to register a contact surface on the 1-2-3 block to that carbide tooth and you can use two 1-2-3 blocks, one fore and one aft to very accurately set the rip fence width at 3.0". It might work just as well with the Shopsmith insert to set the rip width, but I kind of see it in my mind as being awkward to say the least because you have to keep that insert flat and register its outside edge to one of the correct carbide teeth. I don't know...try it and tell me how well it works. Thanks.

[JPG]

And you need to get the tooth that is nearest to the fence.

Sorry but I cannot get excited to the extent to be concerned with accuracy at such small dimensions(less than 0.010). I think repeatability is questionable at that precision(as well as variability of the object being 'cut").

[RFGuy]

And you need to get the tooth that is nearest to the fence.

Sorry but I cannot get excited to the extent to be concerned with accuracy at such small dimensions(less than 0.010). I think repeatability is questionable at that precision(as well as variability of the object being 'cut").

JPG,

Yeah, I agree. My main point was that there is always another way to do something and sometimes that way is better. This was reflecting back on the procedure Dennis offered for ZCI centering and if I find that it is better when I try it out then I will adopt his method. On my particular Mark V, I just haven't seen a problem with my method, but I am open to trying his. Another point I was making had to do with using a known standard such as a 1-2-3 block. The tolerance variation on that 1-2-3 block (around 0.0001"), I am sure is much less than the tolerance variation across multiple Shopsmith inserts due to manufacturing variability. So, any given Shopsmith insert is likely to vary too much compared to a 1-2-3 block. Then there is the awkwardness of getting it on that nearest tooth to register against it to set the rip width. However, to Alan's point, I completely agree that when one wants to replicate a particular dimension of something that doesn't match a known standard, using the object itself to set the rip width can be a good way to do it.

I try to setup a cut to get the most accurate cut that I can, but I know there is tolerance/runout on the sawblade and other factors that ultimately will mean I don't hit that accuracy, but that is okay because this is woodworking.

P.S. Whenever a known standard is available, I am going to use it. There are even purpose built standards for woodworking, often called "setup blocks". I use these in my shop often and this is the set that I have:

https://www.leevalley.com/en-us/shop/to ... 8Agvm08DJO

SetupBlocks.jpg (236.62 KiB) Viewed 801 times

[dusty]

And you need to get the tooth that is nearest to the fence.

Sorry but I cannot get excited to the extent to be concerned with accuracy at such small dimensions(less than 0.010). I think repeatability is questionable at that precision(as well as variability of the object being 'cut").

JPG,

Yeah, I agree. My main point was that there is always another way to do something and sometimes that way is better. This was reflecting back on the procedure Dennis offered for ZCI centering and if I find that it is better when I try it out then I will adopt his method. On my particular Mark V, I just haven't seen a problem with my method, but I am open to trying his. Another point I was making had to do with using a known standard such as a 1-2-3 block. The tolerance variation on that 1-2-3 block (around 0.0001"), I am sure is much less than the tolerance variation across multiple Shopsmith inserts due to manufacturing variability. So, any given Shopsmith insert is likely to vary too much compared to a 1-2-3 block. Then there is the awkwardness of getting it on that nearest tooth to register against it to set the rip width. However, to Alan's point, I completely agree that when one wants to replicate a particular dimension of something that doesn't match a known standard, using the object itself to set the rip width can be a good way to do it.

I try to setup a cut to get the most accurate cut that I can, but I know there is tolerance on the sawblade and other factors that ultimately will mean I don't hit that accuracy, but that is okay because this is woodworking.

P.S. Whenever a known standard is available, I am going to use it. There are even purpose built standards for woodworking, often called "setup blocks". I use these in my shop often and this is the set that I have:

https://www.leevalley.com/en-us/shop/to ... 8Agvm08DJO
SetupBlocks.jpg

Nice set of blocks. How much did they set you back?

[RFGuy]

Nice set of blocks. How much did they set you back?

Dusty,

Thanks. It was around $100 for this Veritas set, but there are cheaper sets on the market. I just really like Veritas & Lee Valley tools. I don't have many of them, but those that I do, I love to use them in the shop. There is a very similar set that Home Depot has for around $50 shown below:

https://www.homedepot.com/p/POWERTEC-15 ... 49pZyOwZfc

SetupBlocks_HD.jpg (88.77 KiB) Viewed 782 times

[DLB]

Possibly unique to mine, I found the Model 500 style fence (mine was a Greenie) much fussier to set accurately than a 520. This was true whether I was using a measuring device or a spacer device of whatever type. It was simply harder to precisely maintain fence position while locking due to a) a lighter fence; and b) the rotational force needed to lock it in place. This is what led me to embrace the quill fine adjust method.

- David