Problem with jointer knife sharpening guide

[dusty]

Observation and 'opinion' of a bystander(I do not own one of these[yet].

It appears to me that the purpose of the spring washers is to help release the blade(s) from the clamp by pressing up on the clamp so it moves away from the blade(s) when the wing nuts are loosened. To be effective, the height of the spring washers and the spring constant must be sufficient to move the clamp far enough to enable removing the blade(s). Thus the size used was determined by the requirements just mentioned.

Unfortunately the location of the wingnut studs and the possible shifting of the spring washers was/has apparently been overlooked.

I think it would function properly with the spring washers removed, but you would be giving up the release assist they provide.

An alternative to removal would be to try spot gluing one end of the washer to the bed in a position clear of the clamp lip but that would allow the other side of the spring washer to 'float'. A rubbery adhesive should work(it needs to tolerate the spring motion as it is depressed).

The jointer and planer blades are wedges. The blades are thicker at the base than at the cutting edge. When properly secured, it is this wedge action that keep the blades secure]Same sharpening guide - different question.[/U]

The 3 wing nuts each screw unto a short threaded rod that has a screw driver slot in the end. Does this serve any purpose other than to hold the screw from turning while screwing on/off the wing nut?

[JPG]

The spring washers do not contribute anything to the 'squeezing' action of the clamp. The taper is accommodated by the shape of the clamp and base.

The spring washers do help by offsetting gravity on the clamp when removing the blade(s). The wing nuts must be loosened sufficiently to allow clearance of the 'fat' bottom of the blade(s).

Although much of the praise heaped upon 'ss engineering' is well deserved, they are human beings. Add to that the likelihood the engineer is not always in the decision loop when production changes are made.

There have been blunders made, but no positive purpose is served by enumerating them here.

I understand a reluctance to deviate from 'original purchased hardware' but at times self correction is self evident. IMHO this is such a time.

P.S. Re the slot in the stud: They need to be assembled somehow. I assume from the comments/? that they are headless.(also see a difficult assembly problem if they needed to be inserted from inside the extrusion and no access holes in the bottom) I cannot imagine assembling them with fingers rotating the threads. Perhaps access holes and bolts are another prudent 'alteration'.

[dusty]

[quote="JPG40504"]The spring washers do not contribute anything to the 'squeezing' action of the clamp. The taper is accommodated by the shape of the clamp and base.

The spring washers do help by offsetting gravity on the clamp when removing the blade(s). The wing nuts must be loosened sufficiently to allow clearance of the 'fat' bottom of the blade(s).

Although much of the praise heaped upon 'ss engineering' is well deserved, they are human beings. Add to that the likelihood the engineer is not always in the decision loop when production changes are made.

There have been blunders made, but no positive purpose is served by enumerating them here.

I understand a reluctance to deviate from 'original purchased hardware' but at times self correction is self evident. IMHO this is such a time.]

Since I do NOT have the design documentation, it is difficult (no impossible) for me to intelligently argue this point one way or the other. However, having been a acceptance test engineer for many years, I judge myself as qualified to detect a blunder in something so simple as the application of a wing nut and spring washer. In this case, though I can not give an explanation for why an apparently oversized spring washer is called out, I do not see this an error that needs immediate attention (if at all).

I think you are probable correct in your assessment as to why there is a slot in the end of that threaded rod. It cannot be installed or held from turning in any other way.

[charlese]

Same sharpening guide - different question.

The 3 wing nuts each screw unto a short threaded rod that has a screw driver slot in the end. Does this serve any purpose other than to hold the screw from turning while screwing on/off the wing nut?

I thought the slots allow the user to raise or lower the screws as needed to make the top protrude high enough to accommodate the wing nuts.

Also if the wing nuts ever get jammed, one could hold the screw with a screwdriver while removing the nut.

So, my answer is both YES and NO!

P.S. If the little rods were fixed into the base and they ever got dammaged, the jig would be dammaged. With the slots, one can remove the rods.

[charlese]

[quote="JPG40504"]
Although much of the praise heaped upon 'ss engineering' is well deserved, they are human beings. Add to that the likelihood the engineer is not always in the decision loop when production changes are made.

There have been blunders made, but no positive purpose is served by enumerating them here.

I understand a reluctance to deviate from 'original purchased hardware' but at times self correction is self evident. IMHO this is such a time.]
What one person will see as a non-issue - that a "self correction" is evident is not the case with all of us! If things like this were "Self Evident" there would be no questions and no need for the forum!

I offer this post as an example: S Henderson's post was made January 19 and the answer to his problem was not pinpointed until 17 posts and 21 days later. 15 or so folks responded and this issue was not "self evident". http://www.shopsmith.net/forums/showpos ... stcount=17 If you wish to read the entire thread, go to archives, "general woodworking", page 5, thread #113

The over-sized washers are a subversive inconspicuous little part that can cause a result of ruining expensive blades. Yes!!!! They should have been changed! However, as they have not - these postings will point out, to some users, a fix is simple. Just change out to 7mm spring washers.

Common, face it! Engineers are not the solution to all designing! I think I can remember a faulty drive belt that was approved by engineers. Glad they got rid of that one! IMHO continued use would have shaken headstocks enough to cause breakdowns.

[mickyd]

What one person will see as a non-issue .....

If you wish to read the entire thread, go to archives, "general woodworking", page 5, thread #113

Where do you get the thread number from chuck? I've never seen thread numbers in the archive.

[dusty]

What one person will see as a non-issue - that a "self correction" is evident is not the case with all of us! If things like this were "Self Evident" there would be no questions and no need for the forum!

I offer this post as an example: S Henderson's post was made January 19 and the answer to his problem was not pinpointed until 17 posts and 21 days later. 15 or so folks responded and this issue was not "self evident". https://forum.shopsmith.com/viewtopic.php?p=1861&postcount=17 If you wish to read the entire thread, go to archives, "general woodworking", page 5, thread #113

The over-sized washers are a subversive inconspicuous little part that can cause a result of ruining expensive blades. Yes!!!! They should have been changed! However, as they have not - these postings will point out, to some users, a fix is simple. Just change out to 7mm spring washers.

Common, face it! Engineers are not the solution to all designing! I think I can remember a faulty drive belt that was approved by engineers. Glad they got rid of that one! IMHO continued use would have shaken headstocks enough to cause breakdowns.

http://www.shopsmith.net/forums/showthr ... 1#post1861

[dusty]

I disaassembled and reassembled the Sharpening Jig a couple times looking for ways that could easily cause problems that might not be readily detected. It certainly can be done.

I present some images that I think show how a blade set could very easily be destroyed (along with a couple good shots).

[charlese]

Where do you get the thread number from chuck? I've never seen thread numbers in the archive.

In the archives, the threads are numbered in order of their date. The oldest thread being #1. (In "General Woodworking" and "Beginning Woodworking" - #1 is a Welcome from Bob Folkerth dated 07-19-2006)

[mickyd]

In the archives, the threads are numbered in order of their date. The oldest thread being #1. (In "General Woodworking" and "Beginning Woodworking" - #1 is a Welcome from Bob Folkerth dated 07-19-2006)

Where is "in the archives"? I ask because what I consider the archive is http://www.shopsmith.net/forums/ and clicking on one of the 5 main wooodworking forums. I do that and me ain'ts gots no numbas near any posts....