Page 2 of 6
Re: Carriage Stop Ring 516667, the intended function??
Posted: Sat May 21, 2016 12:30 pm
by reible
I'd like to duplicate what you have done here on my machine. I'm not clear what part of the blade you used to determine it being in the same plane as the legs.
Now I know we have different spacers and I know you have a shopsmith blade and I an Infinity etc etc. So I'd like to see how close we come when those factors are figured in.
When I measure from the blade body, no teeth involved I get .036" space between the plane of the blade and the plane of the legs.
Now if we look at the spacers, mine is 1-29/64 and yours 1-3/8. Doing the math that is about .078". This leaves about .042" to be accounted for.
So you see where this is going? Unless you used the teeth of the blade and that dimension is .042" something else is different. BTW body to tooth tip is going to be a whole lot less then this, I'd say maybe .003" or so. That is leaving us with some space to account for.
Now for procedure, I used a straight edge and held it against the blade between teeth then used a feeler gauge to check the space between the straight edge and the tube. My set only goes to .035" so I had to combine .017" and .018" to measure the .036". I have other sets that have that but I'm pretty confident that the .036" is correct as the .035 was just about right but still a little loose, if anything the number could be larger...
So as the world turns........
Ed
Re: Carriage Stop Ring 516667, the intended function??
Posted: Sat May 21, 2016 12:40 pm
by JPG
The last pix clearly exposes the non precise nature of the mating. The sloping away top makes plausible the reason for differing 'opinions' re proper length of the stop 'ring'.
I do not know if that amount of top/bottom has been there historically, but will check my Goldie later today.
I am inclined to just use a pvc pipe cutoff(1 3/8") and forget about the rubber tube. I do think both sides is preferable to only one.
The Goldie having a hard ring isn't affected.
BTW the Goldie has the ring on the back tube.
Re: Carriage Stop Ring 516667, the intended function??
Posted: Sat May 21, 2016 1:05 pm
by reible
JPG wrote:The last pix clearly exposes the non precise nature of the mating. The sloping away top makes plausible the reason for differing 'opinions' re proper length of the stop 'ring'.
I do not know if that amount of top/bottom has been there historically, but will check my Goldie later today.
I am inclined to just use a pvc pipe cutoff(1 3/8") and forget about the rubber tube. I do think both sides is preferable to only one.
The Goldie having a hard ring isn't affected.
BTW the Goldie has the ring on the back tube.
Interesting, all of my rings are on the back. My factory 500 had it there and when I upgraded I put the new one back there. I'll see if there were instructions as to where to put it later today.
I just looked at this photo from the shopsmith site and no sign of it being in the front..........
- 1f.jpg (120.89 KiB) Viewed 6977 times
The only place I could find with it showing at the front is in the parts diagram, which could be wrong?
Ed
Re: Carriage Stop Ring 516667, the intended function??
Posted: Sat May 21, 2016 4:45 pm
by dusty
reible wrote:I'd like to duplicate what you have done here on my machine. I'm not clear what part of the blade you used to determine it being in the same plane as the legs.
I made the determination that the blade and left side of the legs were coplanar using a piece of string. I switched to the panters tape for photographic reasons.
Now I know we have different spacers and I know you have a shopsmith blade and I an Infinity etc etc. So I'd like to see how close we come when those factors are figured in.
That blade is a thin kerf. Any thing other than that will certainly check out differently.
When I measure from the blade body, no teeth involved I get .036" space between the plane of the blade and the plane of the legs.
Now if we look at the spacers, mine is 1-29/64 and yours 1-3/8. Doing the math that is about .078". This leaves about .042" to be accounted for.
So you see where this is going? Unless you used the teeth of the blade and that dimension is .042" something else is different. BTW body to tooth tip is going to be a whole lot less then this, I'd say maybe .003" or so. That is leaving us with some space to account for.
Now for procedure, I used a straight edge and held it against the blade between teeth then used a feeler gauge to check the space between the straight edge and the tube. My set only goes to .035" so I had to combine .017" and .018" to measure the .036". I have other sets that have that but I'm pretty confident that the .036" is correct as the .035 was just about right but still a little loose, if anything the number could be larger...
So as the world turns........
Ed
I am coming to believe some of what I have been told in the past. This machine, being multi-functional, will never check out the way I am testing it. I don't so much want to change (fix) anything. I want to understand wqhere the inconsistencies come from.
POST SCRIPT: Thinking about this, when these machines were designed there was no such thing as a thin kerf circular saw blade; at least not for the typical non-commercial machine.
Re: Carriage Stop Ring 516667, the intended function??
Posted: Sat May 21, 2016 4:53 pm
by dusty
JPG wrote:The last pix clearly exposes the non precise nature of the mating. The sloping away top makes plausible the reason for differing 'opinions' re proper length of the stop 'ring'.
I am not certain that the slope of the stop ring indicates a lack of precision. There is a single point of contact (that little nib) that counts. With the contours of the headstock, it is going to be difficult.
I do not know if that amount of top/bottom has been there historically, but will check my Goldie later today.
I am inclined to just use a pvc pipe cutoff(1 3/8") and forget about the rubber tube. I do think both sides is preferable to only one.
I agree that bumpers on both sides is preferable for shock absorbance but for spacing I am undecided.
The Goldie having a hard ring isn't affected.
BTW the Goldie has the ring on the back tube.
It has been fun even though I made no saw dust and I understand an awful lot more about the Mark V.
Re: Carriage Stop Ring 516667, the intended function??
Posted: Sat May 21, 2016 6:48 pm
by robinson46176
The "possible" variance from the sloped faces would only be a problem with a soft ring... and based on how hard the operator "squished" (technical term
) the carriage and headstock together during setup.
As I said before, my priority when I cut two soft rings for a refurbed SS was almost totally impact protection and I cut them both alike. Thinking about it as a positioning function priority I am wondering if anyone has checked (I didn't) to see if when two rings are used that they really do need to be the exact same width both front and rear. Is the front space exactly the same as the rear? If so is it "always" the same or can it vary from one SS to another?
Dusty said: "It has been fun even though I made no saw dust and I understand an awful lot more about the Mark V."
Dusty, I would recommend that you keep a small bucket of saw dust handy and on these occasions take out a small handful of saw dust and sprinkle it around to prove that you have indeed been productive...
.
Re: Carriage Stop Ring 516667, the intended function??
Posted: Sat May 21, 2016 7:53 pm
by JPG
The top of the headstock slopes, not the ring.
Pay attention to Francis!
Re: Carriage Stop Ring 516667, the intended function??
Posted: Sat May 21, 2016 8:28 pm
by dusty
It is six one way and half a dozen the other but look close at the photo image. The stop ring cocks sideways to mate with the carriage and not the headstock.
Re: Carriage Stop Ring 516667, the intended function??
Posted: Sat May 21, 2016 10:26 pm
by ERLover
just venting, so dont take it personally, this subject has been beaten to death and then beaten to life again.
Re: Carriage Stop Ring 516667, the intended function??
Posted: Sat May 21, 2016 11:15 pm
by JPG
ERLover wrote:just venting, so dont take it personally, this subject has been beaten to death and then beaten to life again.
I tend to agree, but at least we succeeded it getting Dusty to 'see the light'(realize it is not a baby bumper, but a spacer)(finally!!!).
I think we also revealed Hans' wisdom in not making it out of a rubber tube.
