Shopsmith Forums

dusty wrote: I might be content with your jig as well but I don't have your jig.

It does seem that the slop could be removed by shimming with tape but that did not work for me. Instead, I mage my own and have used it for some years now. The miter bar that I used on it came from my miter pro. When the need to use the miter pro arose and reassembled the miter pro and was left without a dial indicator. Last week I inadvertently created a need to realign the table thus the recent effort to redevelop the jig.

I understand the concerns/doubts stated by you and John but I feel I have this under control. Only time will tell. Can I align the table within a reasonable amount of time and to the self imposed specification of .005". We will see.

The two point method of table alignment has not been part of my procedure for several years now. I have no concern about that.

Well, you are many more times ingenious at this jig thing than I am, so I expect you will find that it works for your needs or you will make modifications to make it work!

My ? regarding two washers at each end has to do with why more than one? If greater surface contact 'area' is the concern, a single thicker washer would be more practical(assuming one has them or needs them).

I disagree re the 'same tooth' comment by thee. I think it is necessary as well as not touching the blade as it is rotated.

I think the vertical position above the table also needs to be constant(especially if two gauges are used).

I understand why two gauges are desired(eliminates the need to move a single gauge as the table is being moved into alignment).

Yes you have introduced some innovative ideas for this task. I just think if accuracy approaching 5 parts / thousand is the intent, greater attention to picky details is necessary.

Accuracy of the washer id and od can affect absolute measurements, but since the positioning of the miter slot surfaces is essentially two points on each end that minimizes any effect they may have.

All in all a clever approach.

JPG wrote:My ? regarding two washers at each end has to do with why more than one? If greater surface contact 'area' is the concern, a single thicker washer would be more practical(assuming one has them or needs them).

I disagree re the 'same tooth' comment by thee. I think it is necessary as well as not touching the blade as it is rotated.

I think the vertical position above the table also needs to be constant(especially if two gauges are used).

I understand why two gauges are desired(eliminates the need to move a single gauge as the table is being moved into alignment).

Yes you have introduced some innovative ideas for this task. I just think if accuracy approaching 5 parts / thousand is the intent, greater attention to picky details is necessary.

Accuracy of the washer id and od can affect absolute measurements, but since the positioning of the miter slot surfaces is essentially two points on each end that minimizes any effect they may have.

All in all a clever approach.

I rotate the shaft using the upper drive hub on the left end of the headstock (not the blade). I understand that you disagree with the "same tooth" comment. So be it. We disagree. If you are correct, I will not be able to get the table adjusted as accurately as I intend. This jig change will not improve accuracy but I expect it to reduce time needed.

Since the gauges are not relocated during the procedure, the elevation (with reference to table top) will be constant. The two stem tips may not be at the same level but they will have been zeroed at a common location.

Bad night last night. My grand daughter is consulting at OSU and she dorms very near the scene of the incident. This kept me awake much of the early morning. A good time to "make measurements".

Partial Conclusion 1: Sliding the dial indicator in the miter track with the stem being influenced by the ZCI does cause the readings to vary. Not a great amount but more than can be allowed for alignment.

Partial Conclusion 2: Sliding the dial indicator in the miter track with the stem riding on the edge of the table insert cutout produces minimal dial indicator movement.

Exchanging dial indicators made negligible difference in the readings.

Replacing the saw blade with my recently acquired reference plate altered the readings but that was to be expected because the plate is 1/8" (.125') thick while the blade is only .098". This produced only a slight improvement in repeat ability.

This has nixed the wooden table insert for the moment. These early morning test results have, however, been encouraging.