Shopsmith Forums

Dusty wants his rip fence to align correctly using a single extension table mounted on either end.

It is the table aligning on either end that I consider an unlikely happenstance.

DeCristoforo knew of the extension table problem when he designed the machine.

This is evidenced by the fact that he made the Extension Table Base adjustable. In the perfect world, this base could be permanently affixed to the Extension Table.

dusty wrote:DeCristoforo knew of the extension table problem when he designed the machine.

This is evidenced by the fact that he made the Extension Table Base adjustable. In the perfect world, this base could be permanently affixed to the Extension Table.

I was not aware that he had anything to do with designing the machine. Just getting the most out of it.
Are we maybe talking about Hans Goldschmidt?


.

robinson46176 wrote:I was not aware that he had anything to do with designing the machine. Just getting the most out of it.
Are we maybe talking about Hans Goldschmidt?


.

Either him or his successors!

Hans designed the 10E for sure, but the 10E did not include fence mounting to extension table except in a very clumsy, sloppy manner. The fence was bolted to the extension table with no angle reference(rail).

However the 10ER changed that, but had the extension table with screws inserted through oversized holes so the table front(rail) could be aligned to the main table slots. I doubt there was any intention of making the mount and extension table end for end reversible, since doing so on the 10ER placed the front(rail) facing the rear when mounted to the left end.

I am not even sure there was an intention of being able to do so with the Mark 5 either. Any one seen an 'official' pix of the fence mounted on an extension table at the left end with the purpose of being a rip guide?

robinson46176 wrote:I was not aware that he had anything to do with designing the machine. Just getting the most out of it.
Are we maybe talking about Hans Goldschmidt?


.

Yes, you are absolutely correct.

Yes, I am losing it day by day.

And maybe I don't mean either one of them. I just hate to talk about people by referring to them as those guys or the engineers but that is who I really meant. Those guys, the engineers and maybe woodworkers who came up with the basic design of the Mark 5. You know - those guys.

dusty wrote:Yes, you are absolutely correct.

Yes, I am losing it day by day.

And maybe I don't mean either one of them. I just hate to talk about people by referring to them as those guys or the engineers but that is who I really meant. Those guys, the engineers and maybe woodworkers who came up with the basic design of the Mark 5. You know - those guys.

Perhaps, but there is sooooo much moooore to lose!;)



i.e. Do Not sweat it!:)

dusty wrote:Yes, you are absolutely correct.

Yes, I am losing it day by day.

And maybe I don't mean either one of them. I just hate to talk about people by referring to them as those guys or the engineers but that is who I really meant. Those guys, the engineers and maybe woodworkers who came up with the basic design of the Mark 5. You know - those guys.

I have not lost any of mine... I just often can't access it...


.

==========================

Thank You!

At 48" you are likely sawing sheet goods.

At that width minor mis-alignment would not be an 'issue'.

I stand corrected! Methinks a bit of a stretch though.

Hmmmmmmm!

[ATTACH]17890[/ATTACH]