Shopsmith Forums

Hi Dusty,

I have to agree that removing the material would not be a problem to physically do. And it would not take a lot of material to be removed to get it to sit lower. Since it will not be having much force acting on it things should be fine... I would how ever keep as only a floating table and not revert it back to tasks that the main table would do.

I had little trouble raising or lowering the table with the floating table in place. Weight wise it might even or be sightly less then having two floating tables attached. The floating table I weighed came in just over 5 pounds so it would be very close with two of them verses the table top.

Another option would be to use this with the extension tables and support legs, then slide the headstock and main table in and out for height changes or hey maybe use then independently???

Lots more things to try.

Ed

dusty wrote:Grinding away the interferring materials on that main table will not be a problem. It grinds, files and drills quite easily. I filed the sides on three of my floating/extension tables so that I could attach miter tarcks. Without filing I could not get the tracks parallel to the main table miter tracks.

The only concern that I might have is removing that much material. What adverse effect might that have on the structural integrity of the table? Will it remain flat?

If one had a Mark V that was dedicated to the saw function, it makes one fine table top.

You CANNOT adjust depth of cut however without someone to help or without dismantling the extra table. The weigh torques the carriage so bad that it disables the lift.

Add a router table on the other side and you have one huge table.

Good questions, well first let's say that the shopsmith lends itself to letting you go wild with ideas. Sometimes the idea are just out there being ideas, other times they have a particular function you want them to serve. You might say research for the sake of research isn't worth much but if someone here picks up an idea and runs with it we all benefit, well providing the information is shared.

In this case Dusty has been "floating" ideas as have I for doing some table/extension table/floating table/router table and a whole mixed bag of other things.... so this was a natural extension of that work.

Several people here have set up two carriages and two tables but, so far as this being a common thing no it is not. One thing that happens with the additional carriage being added is that you are taking up space that can be needed for other operations such as lathe work or getting in the way of doing other things.... or requiring the use of extensions to attach band saws/jointers etc. The use of a floating table might be useful to those that have found they like the addition space (or?) of two tables.

However its perception is as a useful function will be subjective to who is interested in having it and what they want from it. For some it can be useful in terms of adding more support surface, or more room to put the rip fence without having to mess with moving surfaces, or for having additional miter slots for who knows what.

I posted this as a prelude to the posting of the real reason I wanted have a floating main table. You or other might have already spotted the idea of having the tables inline... something I've been envisioning since last winter. With the use of the extension table brackets this will be a real treat for some of us... shouldn't spill to much of the beans or someone will be posting it before I can....

I should have my early testing done in just a few days so stop back to see what is up my sleeve(weather permitting).

Ed

nomoman wrote:What is the advantage to having 2 main tables in series? Is it the addition of miter slots? Why not a floating table?

I had some time today to revisit this project today and snapped a few more pictures.

First I mounted the tables side by side to check out the alignment of the miter slots. From measurements they looked good but since there was a chance that the rulers were not perpendicular to the slots and the eye is only so good at best for getting a reading...

I took two miter gauges and mounted them with a board which I clamped in place on each one. The results were they slide like butter.... well within the slop of the equipment which would indicate this should be a way of making a much larger sled then can be done with a single table. I'm not going to go that way at least yet but for those interested this could be an interesting project.
[ATTACH]6335[/ATTACH]

Ed

They look good together, Ed. When ganged in this fashion, they certainly put an end to the complaint that the working surface is "too small".

I found that if I simply pull my two table tight together that the miter slots are parallel to within 1/64". They can very easily be made dead on.

I have just recently come to realize that one of my tables, like at least one of yours, has milled reference points on the sides of the table. I believe if you ganged two of them, they would be perfectly aligned.

I milled (filed) the sides of two of my floating tables to eliminate the rough edges left by the casting process. When I did that, I found that those tables are almost perfect as well. I do notice that the newer tables are finished much better than some of the older ones.

I'm looking forward to seeing where you are headed with this, Ed.

The other portion of this project that interested me was the mounting of the table in either the front or the back of the main table. Got to play with that today too.

Making use of the hardware shopsmith sells, that being the extension table brackets I now have the option of using the floating extension table(s) or my new floating table. The advantage of the table is the miter slots.

[ATTACH]6336[/ATTACH]

Now for the purpose of these photos I have shown a sled I own, this should work with most other sleds as well... the issue being the accurate placement of the the runner and fit of them. In my cases it seem to take a while to get the tables level, aligned and the height set up. I may look into some ways of improving that.

The results were that the sled was able to slide smoothly from point to point bridging the tables.

[ATTACH]6337[/ATTACH]

I was wondering how the spanning of about 8-3/4" would effect things. I guess at least in this case it doesn't.

[ATTACH]6338[/ATTACH]

Ed

To finish up today I wanted to remind you that both the rear or front table arrangement will be the same as if you used the floating extension tables. You will end up with 52-1/2" of supported length.

[ATTACH]6339[/ATTACH]

Of course I have to leave you with a picture of the floating table mounted in the front position.

[ATTACH]6340[/ATTACH]

Ed

This is a real inpiration and has set me to thinking which is dangerous sometimes. I really apreciate the post and pictures. This is the kid of thing that makes this forum great.

Ashbury

dusty wrote:Have you tried dual tables with dual carriages?

I have temporarily miss-placed my sketches of planned SS mods but "somewhere" I have one for a removable carriage (modified original) that can be attached or removed in seconds. It will weigh almost double the unmodified original since I usually work in steel rather than aluminum. If used in lathe mode it will reduce clearance by about 3/8ths of an inch. It could be used also to use a 500 table as a second support on a 510 but I have not really given any thought as to how well that would work. Just not really part of the original goal. It would be equally as easy to modify an extra 510 carriage. It should be just as easy to use a modified (removable) 510 carriage and 510 table on a 500. I do not know what the blade/guard/splitter situation would be in that case. Again that was not part of the plan or the reason I wanted to make a quick on/off carriage.
One of the thoughts I had about the quick on/off carriage was having the ability to quickly mount a saw table for support on the left side of the headstock. In theory I guess I could use two modified carriages and put a regular extension table on each end and have three 500 tables on one. OK, maybe a little extreme...

Could one of you gentleman who actually posses these extensions post a close up pix? Of interest is the 'adjustment method'. I assume it is in the 'shiney' end and screws against the table. Please

JPG40504 wrote:Could one of you gentleman who actually posses these extensions post a close up pix? Of interest is the 'adjustment method'. I assume it is in the 'shiney' end and screws against the table. Please

Are you asking about the extensions shown in reible's post #14 (this thread)?

If so, this is one of them used to support the makings of an infeed table.

[ATTACH]6363[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]6364[/ATTACH]