Bevel Ripping

greitz · Post by **greitz** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:35 pm

From the Shopsmith jointer safety information page (http://www.woodworkingjointer.com/page3.htm)

"Never joint or surface stock less than 10" long or more than 4" wide, edge rabbet stock wider than 1", surface stock less than 1/4" thick or joint the end grain of stock less than 10 "wide."

So it looks like Shopsmith would not recommend jointing an 8" piece.

How about if you attach it to a wider board with double-sided tape, then joint it?

Gary

reible · Post by **reible** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:53 pm

Hi,

Perhaps a few picture might help, before we get to carried away on this project.

First, a picture of the 520 with the item I attempted to describe earlier. The sample piece is 8 x 8 inches and you have room to make the cut without any additional help. On the smaller 500 table you would need the front extension, if you don't already own one get one now.

[ATTACH]6541[/ATTACH]

Since I started with the most simple way to do this I'll then show you a simple "sled" that will work without the front extension. I've posted this sort of sled before but you may have missed it. In this case I took a 12 x 12 inch square of 1/4" plywood, attached it to a board that would mount on the miter gauge. The plywood contacts the table and the board sits on the plywood. Make sure to use brass screws and to make sure they will not be in line with the cut. You have a few options when doing this, one shown on the 520 is with the sled cut off on one side to match the edge where the cut happens. Shown on the 500 would be the sled with the cut leaving support on both sides of the cut, this would be the preferred method.

[ATTACH]6542[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]6543[/ATTACH]

In the picture if the tape measure is readable it will say 11-1/4" in front of the table insert opening. This is about the outside limit due to wiggle on the miter bar, at least on my table/miter bar combination. Yours might be better or worse but by the time you get to cutting something 8" long it should be fine.

Ed

reible · Post by **reible** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:03 pm

Hi,

I didn't go watch the video but the wixey doesn't to level, it is always in relation to where it is zeroed. This was one of the reasons I went with the beall. If he did not use the machine as a reference then I would agree with you about it not a good example of how to do this.... most people would not have the machine that level.

Ed

heathicus wrote:I just watched that video and I liked his jig! But, I think he missed an important step when using the inclinometer and the Wixey angle gauge. He set the angle relative to the Earth instead of relative to the blade. Maybe his floor and other machine adjustments were in close enough alignment that it didn't matter in his case, but I would think it important to make sure the table angle is relative to the blade. Or have I gotten something wrong again?

Gene Howe · Post by **Gene Howe** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:22 pm

I often use a long fence on my miter gauge. It used to frustrate me when trying to cut wide pieces and the fence would fall off the table. So I made a set of extensions.

Don't have my camera available so, I'll try to explain my front extension pieces for the 500.

Started with a 4X6 piece of 1/4" BB and covered it with a piece of laminate so that it was level with the table when laid on the fence guide. Then cut and planed a piece of oak that nested in the guide. Glued and pin nailed the BB and to the oak as it sat in the guide. The glued on the laminate. I then cut a piece of 3/4 BB 4X4 and drilled an inserted a "T" nut for a 1/4-20 fully threaded bolt. Glued and pin nailed that just behind the guide. Left a little more than the bolt head thickness between the guide and the board with the "T" nut. Inserted the bolt so the head would contact the front edge of the guide. There wasn't enough room for a handle so I used pliers to tighten.

In use, I just sat the oak strip in the guide slot and tighten the bolt against the front edge with the pliers. Made 3 of these. One each for the left and right side of the miter gauge. (to leave room for the bar) and one for the aux. table.
That gave me room to cut a 14" wide piece, IIRC.
Could have drilled a hole through the threaded end of the bolt for a short rod and peened both ends so I'd have a handle, but I'm lazy.

After all that, years later I installed the Jointech Saw train and had to reconfigure (actually, re make) the extensions.

gregwarren · Post by **gregwarren** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:52 pm

Reible - Thanks for the pictures. I think that's what I'll try.

You've all provided great help - thanks!

Greg Warren

stew · Post by **stew** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:18 pm

Ok, I know I have done things that I probably should not have done with my SS over the years, so take this suggestion for what its worth.

I have had a 500 for 20+ years before I upgraded and I have done this many times.

Why not turn your miter gauge around in the miter track and hold the piece of wood against the miter gauge and pull it across the blade from behind. You would be standing on the outfeed side of the SS while cutting the piece. Just be very careful.

I am interested in feedback as to the dangers with this method that I am missing.

Gene Howe · Post by **Gene Howe** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:24 pm

That works, Stew.

charlese · Post by **charlese** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:12 pm

stew wrote: Why not turn your miter gauge around in the miter track and hold the piece of wood against the miter gauge and pull it across the blade from behind. You would be standing on the outfeed side of the SS while cutting the piece. Just be very careful.

I am interested in feedback as to the dangers with this method that I am missing.

This method will work - the danger I envision is the workpiece dragging and twisting making the last of the cut force itself into the blade. This can be avoided by using a miter gauge extension and clamping the board to the extension.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:28 am

heathicus wrote:I just watched that video and I liked his jig! But, I think he missed an important step when using the inclinometer and the Wixey angle gauge. He set the angle relative to the Earth instead of relative to the blade. Maybe his floor and other machine adjustments were in close enough alignment that it didn't matter in his case, but I would think it important to make sure the table angle is relative to the blade. Or have I gotten something wrong again?

Au Countraire! He set the Wixey relative to the table in horizontal position, not 'the earth'.

I think it reasonable to assume Nicks table was properly aligned to the blade.

It is because the floor etc. may not be 'level' that makes the procedure he used(referencing the wixey to the table) a correct one.(he did not assume the floor to be 'level').

The inclinometer is referenced to 'earth' and would have the problem you pointed out.

heathicus · Post by **heathicus** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:16 am

JPG40504 wrote:Au Countraire! He set the Wixey relative to the table in horizontal position, not 'the earth'.

Yeah, I thought about that after posting, but didn't go back and revise my post.

JPG40504 wrote:I think it reasonable to assume Nicks table was properly aligned to the blade.

It is reasonable given the man's expertise, but it's not guaranteed and wasn't checked as part of the process.

JPG40504 wrote:It is because the floor etc. may not be 'level' that makes the procedure he used(referencing the wixey to the table) a correct one.(he did not assume the floor to be 'level').

The inclinometer is referenced to 'earth' and would have the problem you pointed out.

I'm not doubting Nick's alignment of his Shopsmith. Maybe he checked that with the Wixey prior to filming. But checking that is an important part of the process. On film, he zeroed the Wixey on the table, then tilted the table to 30 degrees. So that 30 degrees was relative to the table's original position. But, what if the original position was not 90 degrees with the blade? If it was at 89 degrees, then the table after tilting would be at 29 degrees instead of 30. Like I said, maybe he checked he table to blade alignment before filming, but it wasn't shown as part of the process in the video. And if that's not performed, then the rest of the procedure can not be guaranteed to be accurate.

And again, with the inclinometer, the table was at 0 degrees and 30 degrees relative with the earth (since it uses gravity to measure the tilt), but he didn't make sure the blade was 90 degrees relative to the earth (on camera anyway). So again, the table tilt relative to the blade can not be guaranteed to be accurate.

And then, he used each device as a check against the other one, and both of those devices as a check against the vernier scale on the trunnion. The Wixey and the inclinometer and the vernier scale each had a slightly different reading. His conclusion was that the vernier scale was off a hair, but it could have very well been dead accurate and it was the Wixey and inclinometer that were "off" because the first step to using those - checking table alignment to the blade - was not performed.

This may all be pointless because it's "close enough" and within the tolerances of the expansion and contraction and movement of the wood itself. And I'm not trying to knock Nick here at all. I'm just pointing out what I believe to be an incomplete process as demonstrated in the video. But, I've been wrong a couple of other times recently, maybe I'm still wrong?