Blade/table alignment issues

[rpd]

Dennis mentioned this already, but just to be sure, Do you have the Quill Lock engaged?

[tbolish]

Rest assured I’ve triple checked everything is locked, and I’ve attached the aux table to aid in stiffness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[reible]

Here are a few random thoughts. And a few assumptions which have to be made and we can go from there.

I'm assuming the cuts that are not square are cross cuts. In that case the blade to miter gauge face needs to be 90 degrees. The miter slot the gauge runs in needs to be parallel to the blade. This needs to be as close as you can get with in reason.

For this to be checked you need to make sure all the locks are locked and that nothing moves when "locked". So starting at the headstock, lock in place and see if you can slide it while locked, it should not move. Next try the carriage, when locked again it should not move. The quill should be locked and should not move when you try to use the quill advance lever. Makes sure the nut on the arbor ti tight. The angle of the table should be locked at 90 degrees to the blade. The ponytail clamp should be clamped and tight.

This is now the starting point for adjustments. I see a machine square is being used which is fine but one needs to make sure it is square, if you don't know how to do that ask. If the square is off then everything you use it to adjust will also be off, and if you then use it to test cuts they will either look square or be twice as far off......

If you are using a blade make sure you are using the same tooth to measure to at the front and then the back of the slot. I don't find the dial indicators to be very useful for this, but some people like it. I do use the gauge after I have it set up for checking and for later checks. I like to try to get within .005" of the miter slots blade, closer is better. At a later time you will need to adjust the rip fence but I don't think you need to do that at this point since we are dealing with cross cuts.

Once you are sure this alignment is correct you can now do the angle of the miter gauge. Again you have to have a reliable square to set this as you have shown. After make sure you adjust the stop so you can return to the same spot. Also make sure the gauge can't rotate with the nut tight. Some people have messed with gauges and have washers in the wrong location or missing so check that too. After doing the setting you should check to make sure nothing moved.

Now with a piece of mdf or plywood made a cut that is say 10" long. Mark the edge that is against the miter gauge and using a large square check to see if you can see light on either the top or bottom of the cut. Check the miter gauge to blade again if you see light, if nothing has changed then it likely has to be the wood moving while cutting. Add an auxiliary fence with sand paper face might help that. Also if the miter gauge has the hold down on it make sure you have it adjusted to hold the work piece tight when gripped.

Ed

[jsburger]

Rest assured I’ve triple checked everything is locked, and I’ve attached the aux table to aid in stiffness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It certainly looks as if everything is aligned properly. The only other variable is stock movement during the cut.

Try clamping your stock to the miter gauge or use an auxiliary fence on the miter gauge with a stop block. If you use the built in miter gauge hold down make sure it is adjusted so that it is actually holding the stock. I found years ago that if the stock is very wide ( greater than 2 or 3 inches) it is hard to keep it from sliding sideways by hand. It only takes a little bit that you won't even notice.

If I am only making one or two cuts I use a clamp. For multiple cuts the same length I use a stop block. I also always use an auxiliary fence on the miter gauge unless the stock is very short.

[davebodner]

My only suggestion is that the machinist's square used to ensure the miter gauge is square to the blade seems small. A larger woodworking square might not be as precise, but it'll cover the entire face of the miter gauge.

[DLB]

One lesson I learned the hard way is that large table flatness errors can create alignment issues. I picked up a used 520 that had a major bow from front to back, worst part was just to the left of the insert and was something like .060 low. I was getting really inconsistent results when I tried to align it before I realized what the problem was. It only takes a couple of minutes using any straightedge you trust, I like to use a level or the back of a 520 fence. (No experience on whether the 510 fence is as good for this.) I like to check front to back and left to right, generally the tables are very good but the 510/520 tables are definitely weaker to the left of the insert cutout. If this is an issue for you we can talk about how to straighten it, not an exact science.

Similarly your measurements can be thrown off by the table insert, especially with a small square. Ideally the insert would never be the highest or lowest point on the table, but I don't think this ever happens. If it creates a high spot that I couldn't adjust out I wouldn't use it, and if it is a bit low I just make sure my square is clearing it. That is going to be hard to do with a small square. I think your picture where you are squaring the table tilt is an example of this, it looks to me like the square is not flat on the table because it is 'falling off' to the low insert. You can easily check this by lowering the table and holding the short side of the square against the blade and see if it still seems square.

- David

[chapmanruss]

I wanted to back up a bit to David's comment about the arbors. He said

I have used both the 555118 (early 510 arbor like the OP's) and 555608 (current) 5/8" saw arbors and have not noticed any performance difference between them. The primary difference is that the 555608 arbor has far more rotating mass on the headstock side but if there is an engineering reason for the change it is not obvious to me.

I do not know why Shopsmith Inc. changed from using the 5/8" Arbor P/N 555118 in favor of the current 5/8" Arbor P/N 555608. The 555608 Arbor was already being made for the Sawsmith Table Saw so was it because they didn't want to make two Arbors that provide the same blade placement? Using that logic they could have used the Sawsmith 1-1/4" Arbor P/N 555572 that looks the same as 555608 but has a 1-1/4" raised shoulder instead of a recess on the base around the threaded shaft. 555572 would be used instead of 555130. Maybe they didn't want the shorter 500 Arbor (555321) to be confused with the longer 510 Arbor (555118). But again the 1-1/4" Arbor for the 500 (505511) looks a lot like the 1-1/4" Arbor for the 510 (555130) just shorter. Maybe they didn't want to use the 555572 1-1/4" Arbor instead of the 555130 Arbor since the 1-1/4" Arbors have the nut on the quill side of the arbor unlike all the other arbors and wanted to keep it that way. So the real answer to why the change from 555118 to 555608, who knows. There may not be anyone left at Shopsmith anymore that even knows why. No matter why the change either 5/8" Arbor, 555118 or 555608 will work just well on your Mark V 510,505, 520 or Mark 7. The same is true for the 1-1/4" Arbors, 555130 or 555572 on the same models but the 555572 is not often found and was discontinued over 20 years ago.

[wa2crk]

This may sound like it coming out of left field but here I go.
When I teach some of our students in our retirement community table saw techniques I play a trick to prove a point. I show them how to check the table saw for proper alignment and show them how to make a right angle cross cut which never turns out right. Then I joint one edge and make another incorrect cross cut
Then I make another cross cut without doing anything else which will be correct. Why the difference? The second cut was made with the jointed edge against the miter gauge and it was square but not was not square to the opposite edge because the opposite edge was not parallel to the jointed edge.
This lesson was on how to square up stock for a project.
Flatten one face of the board, then joint one edge with the flattened face against the jointer fence, then rip the second edge on table saw so it is parallel to the first edge and finally plane the stock to thickness.
You should get good 90' cuts across the stock.
So, are the edges of the stock parallel to each other? You should check. My students never realize that I flip the board or that I intentionally taper the board very slightly before the instruction.
Bill V

[tbolish]

One lesson I learned the hard way is that large table flatness errors can create alignment issues. I picked up a used 520 that had a major bow from front to back, worst part was just to the left of the insert and was something like .060 low. I was getting really inconsistent results when I tried to align it before I realized what the problem was. It only takes a couple of minutes using any straightedge you trust, I like to use a level or the back of a 520 fence. (No experience on whether the 510 fence is as good for this.) I like to check front to back and left to right, generally the tables are very good but the 510/520 tables are definitely weaker to the left of the insert cutout. If this is an issue for you we can talk about how to straighten it, not an exact science.

Similarly your measurements can be thrown off by the table insert, especially with a small square. Ideally the insert would never be the highest or lowest point on the table, but I don't think this ever happens. If it creates a high spot that I couldn't adjust out I wouldn't use it, and if it is a bit low I just make sure my square is clearing it. That is going to be hard to do with a small square. I think your picture where you are squaring the table tilt is an example of this, it looks to me like the square is not flat on the table because it is 'falling off' to the low insert. You can easily check this by lowering the table and holding the short side of the square against the blade and see if it still seems square.

- David

I haven’t check this out yet, I’ll see what I can find. I sadly don’t have a really large straight edge that I trust. Probably should pick up a new level...the one I have is probably from the 1940’s and was my grandfather’s, ha.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tbolish]

This may sound like it coming out of left field but here I go.
When I teach some of our students in our retirement community table saw techniques I play a trick to prove a point. I show them how to check the table saw for proper alignment and show them how to make a right angle cross cut which never turns out right. Then I joint one edge and make another incorrect cross cut
Then I make another cross cut without doing anything else which will be correct. Why the difference? The second cut was made with the jointed edge against the miter gauge and it was square but not was not square to the opposite edge because the opposite edge was not parallel to the jointed edge.
This lesson was on how to square up stock for a project.
Flatten one face of the board, then joint one edge with the flattened face against the jointer fence, then rip the second edge on table saw so it is parallel to the first edge and finally plane the stock to thickness.
You should get good 90' cuts across the stock.
So, are the edges of the stock parallel to each other? You should check. My students never realize that I flip the board or that I intentionally taper the board very slightly before the instruction.
Bill V

I also never really thought that this could be a problem as I was just using scrap plywood...

Without having to chew up my jointer blades on 3/4” plywood edges, shouldn’t I be able to have a decent 90° cut IF I rip a really clean straight cut through my plywood, then place that edge on my recently aligned miter gauge?

In my head I don’t see why I wouldn’t be able to get a near perfect 90° cut where the two cuts intersect,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk