Shopsmith Forums

Gene Howe wrote:Thanks, Dusty. But, I still can't figure how it's attached. I'd buy one if I was sure it would work my gauge.

Is the issue that you can not insert a rod into the head of the miter gauge OR that you can not secure it once there?

In the first case, I would suggest that the set screws are inserted far enough to block passage of the rod. In the later I would suggest that there are no set screws.

You should be able to see through the hole where the rod goes and if you look down into the set screw holes you will see either the rod or the tops of set screws.

Note: A long allen wrench used where the rod is installed will work just as well as the rod.

Aha!! I FINALLY got it. I have the rod and setscrew, too. THANK YOU! You just saved me $25 + shipping.
The next time we meet in The Old Pueblo, lunch is on me.

After playing with my new toy for a week or so, I am again modifying my approach to table alignment. I am doing this for the sake of expedience while doing an alignment but in so doing do not believe that I have given up anything in the way of accuracy. Now I know that there are some who feel that I have been anal in that area and that is OKAY. You will do your alignments the way you want to anyhow.

It is my intention to make no further comment to this thread.

dusty wrote:After playing with my new toy for a week or so, I am again modifying my approach to table alignment. I am doing this for the sake of expedience while doing an alignment but in so doing do not believe that I have given up anything in the way of accuracy. Now I know that there are some who feel that I have been anal in that area and that is OKAY. You will do your alignments the way you want to anyhow.

It is my intention to make no further comment to this thread.

Dusty that is not fair, you said, " i am again modifying my approach to table alignment". But then you said you are go to do any further comment on this thread. You have got to tell us your new approach!

Well this morning I stopped by the forum and noticed this thread and my head is spinning. I have been using my shopsmith since the early'80's and had to align my table several times due to moves and upgrading to a 510. I use the simple method that shopsmith suggests to get the best alignment starting point.

A static alignment is okay for the most part but if you are making miter and/or compound miter cuts this static alignment may still produce errors in the angles due to the forces applied to the saw blade due to centrifugal force. Small imperfections in the blade are amplified with the increased number of angles you are cutting.

If I am going to create a project with many angles (i.e. 6,8, etc.) I will use the six cut method to make fine adjustments to the miter gauge.

I use a Incra Miter Express and a 1000SE miter gauge for my crosscutting and miter cuts.

When adjusting the miter gauge to fine tune alignment using the six cut method set the miter gauge at 30 degrees and cut six pieces of stock to and equal length with 30 degree miters on both ends. After you have the pieces cut assemble the hexagon and check to see if the angle where piece six meets piece one has a gap. The width of the gap if any will determine the error in the miter gauge to the saw blade when saw is running. Remember that this error is cumulative due to the 12 angles.

Here is a good video explaining this procedure. Even though it is based on an Incra miter gauge it can be applied to any miter gauge.

https://youtu.be/QzV-o4_kacc

Thanks

Mike

Mike, I totally agree with you and George that dynamic testing is superior to static testing. However, after following SS's alignment instructions and then using the Master Plate, alignment was still a smidge off. Possibly my error somewhere along the line.
So, it seems to me the more perfect the blade/miter slot alignment is, the more perfect will be the miter gauge settings.
Now, when the Miterset is used for angles, my gauge readings are correct and the cuts are as perfect as I could ask for.

Gene Howe wrote:Mike, I totally agree with you and George that dynamic testing is superior to static testing. However, after following SS's alignment instructions and then using the Master Plate, alignment was still a smidge off. Possibly my error somewhere along the line.
So, it seems to me the more perfect the blade/miter slot alignment is, the more perfect will be the miter gauge settings.
Now, when the Miterset is used for angles, my gauge readings are correct and the cuts are as perfect as I could ask for.

[/quote]

That is all you can ask for is that it meets your needs.

Mike

Well it has happened again!

Thread started about table alignment and has transitioned to miter gauge alignment.

IMO George is again making a lot of assumptions.

JPG wrote:Well it has happened again!

Thread started about table alignment and has transitioned to miter gauge alignment.

IMO George is again making a lot of assumptions.

Sorry to upset the apple cart. But if the table is only static aligned and that is all your are concerned about hope all your projects meet your standards. Keep the saw dust flying.

mmcdonough wrote:

JPG wrote:Well it has happened again!

Thread started about table alignment and has transitioned to miter gauge alignment.

IMO George is again making a lot of assumptions.

Sorry to upset the apple cart. But if the table is only static aligned and that is all your are concerned about hope all your projects meet your standards. Keep the saw dust flying.

I be curious what 'dynamic' variation of the saw blade causes significant errors in accuracy of an angle cut.

In any event alignment of the table to the axis of rotation of the spindle is what counts. I do not know of any effect that the static procedure misses on that alignment. The blade alignment is secondary to the goal of alignment to the spindle. If anything, static is less error prone.

No I do not consider the apple cart 'upset'. Neither do I think introducing an additional variation in the table alignment is prudent. Besides I do not think any of us has the equipment to do it while the blade is rotating under power. I see no reason to alter the alignment procedure to attempt to compensate for different blades. That will end in an endless loop.

The goal is not table(miter slot) to blade alignment. The blade(or some other disk) is used as a means to achieve that and assumes the face of the disk is normal to the quill axis.

BTW Georges error gap is 1/12 x the individual cutting error.