Shopsmith Forums

dusty wrote:Maybe for the record you should definitively state which SPT it did support and which it did not support. We all know that almost anything can be adapted.

It supported the A34 Jig Saw and the 4E Jointer as 10ER SPTs. The 4E Jointer and the headreet required to use it are almost as rare the A and B SPT adapters. The attaching bracket to attach the Jointer to the headrest is probably rarer than the A and B SPT brackets. In the picture the adapter bracket is the piece hanging down on the right side of the headrest. It is cast iron and the two tabs at the bottom is what the Jointer bolts to. Very light weight compared to the Jointer and easily broken. That is probably why the are so rare.

BTW, If anyone has one of those attaching brackets they are willing to give up I need one. I have another Jointer and headrest but no bracket.

With the A and B SPT adapters all of the MK V SPTs are supported except the planer. The MK V jointer is another question since it is not driven by the quill shaft on the MK V. With the 4e an extra pulley was added to the motor shaft outside the normal 3 step pulley and there is a small pulley on the Jointer shaft. Since the 4E Jpinter and MK V jointers are the same except the method of mounting, I don't see why the MK V Jointer can not be driven the same way with the 10ER SPT adapters. I have not tried it yet.

As is often the case a simple subject has been talked to death. Interesting details surface, but not all are relevant to the original premise(or whatever).

Since the adapters were indeed created by Magna, spts were definitely supported.

As for which ones, the obvious answer is those which existed then.

That eliminates the scroll saw, the strip sander, and the thickness planer.

The first two however are reasonable. In addition to physical limitations, the 10 motor is woefully inadequate(1/2 hp) for the planer.

BTW I really like shipwright's inherited wooden adapter. I have some 100+ year old lumber that will likely end up being one. Likely heart pine, but until I break the scum I do not know.

JPG wrote:As is often the case a simple subject has been talked to death. Interesting details surface, but not all are relevant to the original premise(or whatever).

Since the adapters were indeed created by Magna, spts were definitely supported.

As for which ones, the obvious answer is those which existed then.

That eliminates the scroll saw, the strip sander, and the thickness planer.

The first two however are reasonable. In addition to physical limitations, the 10 motor is woefully inadequate(1/2 hp) for the planer.

BTW I really like shipwright's inherited wooden adapter. I have some 100+ year old lumber that will likely end up being one. Likely heart pine, but until I break the scum I do not know.

OK, it has only been talked to death because you keep tweaking the subject. What details are not relevant to the question asked by skou?

As for which MK V SPTs were supported at the time when Magna made the A and B adapters, of course the only ones that were available at the time. Since SS is mostly backwards compatible, that premiss obviously started with the Model 10. All future MK V SPTs have the same compatibility as the ones that were available when Magna made the A and B adapters. That means they all fit.

I have already said the thickness planer doesn't count in more than one post and it was not one of the original MK V SPTs so why do you include it in this discussion? Neither were the Strip Sander and the Scroll saw, although they work since they connect the same as all other SPTs. So what were the first MK V SPTs? My guess is the jointer and the Band saw. Then the belt sander. Then the Scroll saw and the strip sander. They all mount the same way. Since they all mount the same why (excerpt the jointer, which I have already commented about) why will they not work on the 10ER?

I guess when I get 83974 refurbished and put back together I will take pictures of all the MK V SPTs (EXCEPT the planer) mounted on it.

Skou was not the original poster.

The original post was relative to the air compressor. So we did indeed go irrelevant to that.

JPG wrote:Skou was not the original poster.

The original post was relative to the air compressor. So we did indeed go irrelevant to that.

That is correct but he is the one who asked the SPT question.