Shopsmith Forums

Okay Now I understand. THANKS DUSTY!!!!!


Stutter and fluter evidently to some of you is 1" of drop at the end of the added on outfeed table. I didn't know that and I couldn't figure out the problem. Sorry

Dusty you are the man as far as I'm concerned perfecting an outfeed table that adjusts with the Main. Something SS needs.
I know they have one but is just adds more adjustments you have to make every time you raise of lower the main table.

Again I say THANKS to Dusty for explaning the problem so I could understand it and for working on the outfeed table in the first place. Dusty gets a ton of praise in my book.

dusty wrote:
BTW JPG, please meet Alan.

???? Not sure any introduction is needed. Least not on my part. I saw the earlier reference to me in one of JPG's earlier emails debunking my theory (that you must have told him about) that the pivot couldn't be in the same plane with the table legs. 'Twas a beautiful theory debunked by ugly facts (the Mark VII).

Alan

algale wrote:???? Not sure any introduction is needed. Least not on my part. I saw the earlier reference to me in one of JPG's earlier emails debunking my theory (that you must have told him about) that the pivot couldn't be in the same plane with the table legs. 'Twas a beautiful theory debunked by ugly facts (the Mark VII).

Alan

I thought a pm was in the mix, but, I did not know 'who'.

In 'retrospect'(because of seeing Dusty's pix), I have come to realize that there is nothing that can be done to eliminate the diagonal tube adjustment need when tilting the table without moving the lower end of the tube to be directly below the pivot. The tube then will trace the outer surface of a cone of constant height(sorry about the geometry reference:eek:).

BTW I also thought as you did until I gandered upon the M VII table.

So Dusty's 520 is not 'Alan' afterall.

As for the reason for the post/pivot,blade offset, my conjecture is that it allows minimizing blade adjustment when tilting while also providing sufficient clearance for the arbors and structural considerations.

Historically, the 10 had nothing not offset. Pivot to post was one direction, while pivot to the blade was offset the opposite direction.

I think the need to adjust the blade when tilting was recognized as a problem(it is far greater than 510/20 requirement).

When the Mark 5 aka 500 was designed an attempt to reduce the amount of adjusting for tilt was done. The pivot was moved to eliminate the blade/pivot offset. Methinks the post position was determined by carriage design and arbor/guard clearance needs as well as structural considerations for the trunion functions. i.e. an opinionated best compromise.

Then when the Mark VII came along, the need to align the post with the pivot to simplify 90/90 degree stops against the post required the blade to be offset considerably. Back came the greater blade adjustment when tilting.

So with the 505-520 redesign(which returned to a 45/90 tilt range) the blade/pivot offset was again restored to 0. The post offset was slightly reduced by a redesign of the shape of the tiebar across the trunion. The carriage redesign may have also contributed to that reduction.

Bear in mind the designers were not considering how any offset would affect future out feed table attachments.

I think the post offset made other other design considerations 'easier'. As far as the saw function goes, the post location was irrelevant as long as everything came together.

Ed in Tampa wrote:Okay Now I understand. THANKS DUSTY!!!!!


Stutter and fluter evidently to some of you is 1" of drop at the end of the added on outfeed table. I didn't know that and I couldn't figure out the problem. Sorry

Dusty you are the man as far as I'm concerned perfecting an outfeed table that adjusts with the Main. Something SS needs.
I know they have one but is just adds more adjustments you have to make every time you raise of lower the main table.

Again I say THANKS to Dusty for explaning the problem so I could understand it and for working on the outfeed table in the first place. Dusty gets a ton of praise in my book.

I believe the 'flutter/stutter' issue discussed in an earlier thread was caused by the same 'issue' as the table drop. The diagonal tube needed to be `a different length as the table(s) were tilted. Kudos indeed to Dusty for the post attachment idea and his persistence in 'overcoming non obvious(initially) 'problems'.

Photos explain it all!!!! Thanks!

OK, I admit that I was not understanding the problem well until that last picture... Kind of an AH- HAAA! moment...
I also admit to not being highly motivated since I rarely use my SS's as table saws now but I know that this is very important to Dusty.
I think that I may be correct as to the reason SS put that offset in there.

The answer is simple... Dusty needs a Mark VII...
Am I thinking right... That Dusty's extension would just work automatically on a Mark VII?


.

robinson46176 wrote:OK, I admit that I was not understanding the problem well until that last picture... Kind of an AH- HAAA! moment...
I also admit to not being highly motivated since I rarely use my SS's as table saws now but I know that this is very important to Dusty.
I think that I may be correct as to the reason SS put that offset in there.

The answer is simple... Dusty needs a Mark VII...
Am I thinking right... That Dusty's extension would just work automatically on a Mark VII?


.

I agree! Maybe he should just 'give up' and send it to one of 'us'.

robinson46176 wrote:...The answer is simple... Dusty needs a Mark VII...
Am I thinking right... That Dusty's extension would just work automatically on a Mark VII?.

Yes!!! and he also needs a PowerPro - so the mark VII would be just the ticket!;)

Rough sketch but I think it would work.

[ATTACH]20248[/ATTACH]

JPG40504 wrote:Rough sketch but I think it would work.

[ATTACH]20248[/ATTACH]

Yes, I think it would. Not shabby. Thanks for the feedback.