Trouble setting up new table saw
Dan
slot to blade and miter slot to fence parallel adjustments using a dial
indicator. I was able to get both to within .002". So far so good. Today,
I've place the blade at 45 deg., and the measurement from the front of the
blade to the rear is +.016". I understand this indicates the table is
sloping at the front side & needs to be shimmed. OK, I get that. HOWEVER,
if I loosen the 2 bolts on the front side of the table & lift, the error
INCREASES. If I loosen the 2 bolts on the REAR SIDE of the table & lift,
the error ALSO INCREASES. How an this be??? Any suggestions appreciated.
TIA
Dan
Frank Boettcher
>Recently got a Powermatic PM2000 cabinet saw. Yesterday I set the miter
>slot to blade and miter slot to fence parallel adjustments using a dial
>indicator. I was able to get both to within .002". So far so good. Today,
>I've place the blade at 45 deg., and the measurement from the front of the
>blade to the rear is +.016". I understand this indicates the table is
>sloping at the front side & needs to be shimmed.
Not necessarily.
>
> OK, I get that. HOWEVER,
>if I loosen the 2 bolts on the front side of the table & lift, the error
>INCREASES. If I loosen the 2 bolts on the REAR SIDE of the table & lift,
>the error ALSO INCREASES. How an this be??? Any suggestions appreciated.
>
>TIA
>
>Dan
>
First suggestion is that a range of .002" to .016" from 90 to 45
degrees is more than likely well within the tolerance specifications
of the machine.
Secondly, it is not only the table that can cause the change. The
machined tolerances of the trunions, trunion brackets, plane of the
cabinet flange, change in the moment arm created by the motor, the
blade if that is what you are checking off of. as well as the
flatness of the table, how parrallel the table bottom bosses are to
the top, etc.
During the assembly process the manufacturer sets the alignment at 90
to as close to zero as possible. The tolerance stack up of all the
other parts mentioned above is what determines what that becomes at
45. The manufacture then rolls it over to 45 and checks the alignment
to the slot and has a tolerance that qualifies the saw as a good unit.
Often there is nothing you can do unless you want to loose the close
setting at 90. to improve the 45.
Frank
Dan
news:58i5f3tcrf2g830n4...@4ax.com...
Frank-thanks for the reply. I'm using a good quality blade (Forrest
woodworker II) which I have measured & which has minimal runout. Plus I am
measuring at the same point on the blade front & back (rotating the blade).
I understand what you mean about tolerances stacking up. I also understand
the issue may not be purely the top is uniformly lower in the front; could
be one corner, etc. However a .016 variation is more than 1/64 of an inch.
This amount would make it virtually impossible to make anything like a tight
edge miter of any length (say, for a speaker cabinet) with the blade tilted.
I expect more from a $2000 saw.
dpb
> "Frank Boettcher" <fboet...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:58i5f3tcrf2g830n4...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:23:43 -0700, "Dan" <no...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Recently got a Powermatic PM2000 cabinet saw. Yesterday I set the miter
>>> slot to blade and miter slot to fence parallel adjustments using a dial
>>> indicator. I was able to get both to within .002". So far so good.
>>> Today,
>>> I've place the blade at 45 deg., and the measurement from the front of the
>>> blade to the rear is +.016". I understand this indicates the table is
>>> sloping at the front side & needs to be shimmed.
>> Not necessarily.
>>
>> First suggestion is that a range of .002" to .016" from 90 to 45
>> degrees is more than likely well within the tolerance specifications
>> of the machine.
>>
>> Secondly, it is not only the table that can cause the change. The
>> machined tolerances of the trunions, trunion brackets, plane of the
>> cabinet flange, change in the moment arm created by the motor, the
>> blade if that is what you are checking off of. as well as the
>> flatness of the table, how parrallel the table bottom bosses are to
>> the top, etc.
>>
>> During the assembly process the manufacturer sets the alignment at 90
>> to as close to zero as possible. The tolerance stack up of all the
>> other parts mentioned above is what determines what that becomes at
>> 45. The manufacture then rolls it over to 45 and checks the alignment
>> to the slot and has a tolerance that qualifies the saw as a good unit.
>> Often there is nothing you can do unless you want to loose the close
>> setting at 90. to improve the 45.
>>
> Frank-thanks for the reply. I'm using a good quality blade (Forrest
> woodworker II) which I have measured & which has minimal runout. Plus I am
> measuring at the same point on the blade front & back (rotating the blade).
> I understand what you mean about tolerances stacking up. I also understand
> the issue may not be purely the top is uniformly lower in the front; could
> be one corner, etc. However a .016 variation is more than 1/64 of an inch.
> This amount would make it virtually impossible to make anything like a tight
> edge miter of any length (say, for a speaker cabinet) with the blade tilted.
> I expect more from a $2000 saw.
Check w/ PM. I would expect better as well. I don't know what they've
done w/ the mounts on the PM2000 vis a vis the PM66 which I have.
--
Frank Boettcher
>"Frank Boettcher" <fboet...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:58i5f3tcrf2g830n4...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:23:43 -0700, "Dan" <no...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
<snipped a bunch>
> However a .016 variation is more than 1/64 of an inch.
>This amount would make it virtually impossible to make anything like a tight
>edge miter of any length (say, for a speaker cabinet) with the blade tilted.
>
Once again, not necessarily. You might get a surface that is ever so
slightly more rough than perfection. Probably take a profilometer to
measure it. You might get a touch of burn, although I doubt it. But
the wood travels past the whole blade. Doesn't mean that any part of
your cut is .016" off to any other part of the same board.
However, as you might know, a plane is established by three points
only and your table and cabinet are four. You may improve by shimming
one corner, if the bulk of the "problem" is either parrallel of the
plane of the bosses to the top of the table or plane of the top plate
on the cabinet. It is all trial and error. Or if bevel cuts are a
way of life for you, you might cheat your 90 setting the other way a
little.
And you might call Powermatic to see if they have any tricks. They
will probably tell you it is within specs. but may give you some
ideas.
However, if it were mine and I were within .016" with a dead on 90,
I'd lock it down and cut wood.
Frank
Frank
Leon
"Dan" <no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48GdnRGx98lBTG_b...@comcast.com...
>>
>>
>> Frank
>
> Frank-thanks for the reply. I'm using a good quality blade (Forrest
> woodworker II) which I have measured & which has minimal runout. Plus I
> am measuring at the same point on the blade front & back (rotating the
> blade). I understand what you mean about tolerances stacking up. I also
> understand the issue may not be purely the top is uniformly lower in the
> front; could be one corner, etc. However a .016 variation is more than
> 1/64 of an inch. This amount would make it virtually impossible to make
> anything like a tight edge miter of any length (say, for a speaker
> cabinet) with the blade tilted. I expect more from a $2000 saw.
>
I would at this point suggest to first take Frank's advice and start cutting
some wood. While exacting tolerances are a plus, sometimes we cannot take
full advantages of these fine settings because of the quality of the
material that we cut and or out technique can be sub par to the machine
tolerances.
First see how the saw cuts at a 45 degree bevel. If you don't see any kerf
marks or burning you should be good to go.
We often get a bit too wrapped up in using a dial indicator to measure
"everything".
If you are not happy with the cutting results call Powermatic and get them
involved.
Swingman
> However, if it were mine and I were within .016" with a dead on 90,
> I'd lock it down and cut wood.
Ditto. The proof is in the pudding ... or, as an old friend, full of
(resigned) Italian wisdom, oft stated: "What you lose on the bananas, you
make on the grapes".
One of the most time wasting tools in the hands of an anal wooddorker is an
alignment tool. How do I know? ... just finished my regularly scheduled,
once a decade, more or less, alignment of the table saw last week, so the
subject be (too) fresh on my mind. :)
When I start chasing my tail, I split the difference ... cuz, what you make
on the grapes, you also lose on the banana's.
Boudreaux says c'est la vie.... and make some sawdust.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/08/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Dan
news:4K6dnZtpdJSMdm_b...@giganews.com...
Thanks for the replies. I guess the net result of the blade being angled
~.016, all other things being equal, would be a kerf wider by that amount.
By futzing around, I was able to get a tradeoff error of .008 on 90, .009 on
45. One reason I'm a bit obsessed with this is about a year ago I bought a
Bosch 5412 slide miter saw, specifically to execute a dining room table
design I had in mind. Hard to describe in words, but where the members
which connect to the legs attach to a center longitudinal member entailed 4
45 degree cuts. No matter how much screwing around I did with that saw, I
could not get this joint to not have gaps in the range 3/64". The pieces
kept getting shorter & shorter as I attempted to get the joint to be tight.
Made a lot of expensive sawdust (but no table) with that one.
Dan
~.016, all other things being equal, would be a kerf wider by that amount.
> By futzing around, I was able to get a tradeoff error of .008 on 90, .009
> on 45.
After setting the saw this way, I made some test cuts on a piece of 3/4"
inch plywood, 4.5" wide by 10.5" long. The board is perfectly square and
flat. A 90 degree cut made on each end is perfect. However when I switch
to 45 & make an edge miter cut, the angle is perfect, but the trailing edge
of the cut protrudes 1 full 1/16" above the square when the leading edge is
brought flush with the square on that end. In other words, the board is now
1/16 inch longer on one edge at the miter cut than at the other. Try to
make a box with 8 such cuts & you'd produce a spiral. If anyone has further
suggestions please share them.
Dan
Larry Blanchard
> Recently got a Powermatic PM2000 cabinet saw. Yesterday I set the miter
> slot to blade and miter slot to fence parallel adjustments using a dial
> indicator. I was able to get both to within .002". So far so good. Today,
> I've place the blade at 45 deg., and the measurement from the front of the
> blade to the rear is +.016".
On a contractors saw, this problem is usually caused by the two trunnions
not being parallel and the answer is to shim one side of one of the
trunnions. I don't know if the same applies to cabinet saws, but they do
have trunnions - perhaps someone else can comment.
Ed Bennett
> After setting the saw this way, I made some test cuts on a piece of 3/4"
> inch plywood, 4.5" wide by 10.5" long. The board is perfectly square and
> flat. A 90 degree cut made on each end is perfect. However when I switch
> to 45 & make an edge miter cut, the angle is perfect, but the trailing edge
> of the cut protrudes 1 full 1/16" above the square when the leading edge is
> brought flush with the square on that end. In other words, the board is now
> 1/16 inch longer on one edge at the miter cut than at the other. Try to
> make a box with 8 such cuts & you'd produce a spiral. If anyone has further
> suggestions please share them.
>
> Dan
Hi Dan,
I read through the original problem and your replies so far. Sorry I
didn't notice the thread earlier. As you have now discovered, the
situation isn't quite as tolerable as some have said. There has to be
a reason why shimming the table doesn't fix the problem but makes it
worse. It doesn't make any sense that this should happen. I'm sure
that it wouldn't take long to figure it out if I could come by to look
at it but I suspect that you are not in my neighborhood (Boise, ID).
So, you'll have to do the legwork.
If the reading at the rear of the blade is higher than the reading at
the front, then the rear side of the table needs shimming (bringing up
the table will, in effect, lower the blade). If the reading at the
front of the blade is higher than the reading at the rear, then the
front needs to be shimmed. Pay careful attention to the magnitude and
direction of the reading because it's easy to get confused. You might
think that you've made it worse, only to discover that you have over
corrected and caused larger error in the other direction. And, don't
use any paper, wood, or other fiberous material for the shimms. I'm
not a big fan of plastic either. I like using aluminum. Thicker
pieces can be cut from soda cans, thinner pieces can be had from a
roll of foil.
Give me a call on the phone if you want to go through it in real time:
1-800-333-4994
Ed Bennett
e...@ts-aligner.com
http://www.ts-aligner.com
Home of the TS-Aligner
Lew Hodgett
Remember the old saying, "A Flying Red Horse can't tell the difference
from 1,000 ft"?
It applies.
Lew
PS:
Ask the guys in metrology about the magnitude of built in errors of
single ended vs differential measurements.
Measurements under discussion are single ended.
Swingman
> If anyone has further suggestions please share them.
Yeah ..., make some goddamn furniture and quit f*cking with the table saw!
<G>
If nothing else, what I did for the 30 years before I had a table saw worth
"setting up" ... a plane and a shooting board.
It is absolutely ridiculous to get bogged down in measuring, in thousandths
the tools we use, in a medium that is liable to change +/- 1/16th between
sundown and sunrise.
And ... beware of those who do nothing else but measure, and make no sawdust
whatsoever.
Dan
news:1190333368....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 20, 4:48 pm, "Dan" <n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I read through the original problem and your replies so far. Sorry I
> didn't notice the thread earlier. As you have now discovered, the
> situation isn't quite as tolerable as some have said. There has to be
> a reason why shimming the table doesn't fix the problem but makes it
> worse. It doesn't make any sense that this should happen. I'm sure
> that it wouldn't take long to figure it out if I could come by to look
> at it but I suspect that you are not in my neighborhood (Boise, ID).
> So, you'll have to do the legwork.
Ed-Thanks for the reply. Seattle's not THAT far from Boise! ;-) Saw is
left tilt, I'm using the right miter slot. On 90, both slots measure the
same, so are parallel to one another. I reset the 90 to about .003, at
which point the 45 is about +.012. To me this says the table is HIGHER in
the rear (gauge tip is going up the left tilting blade as it moves front to
rear, and thus increasing the gap). I'll try the pop can shims. And thanks
for the offer of phone assistance, I may end up taking you up on that!
I understand the "make some sawdust" sentiment, but cutting expensive wood
before the saw is all it should be makes no sense. If you bought a brand
new sports car which pulled to one side, would the response be "just go for
a drive"? 1/16" of error across a 4.5" cut is simply not acceptable. I
could better that result cutting by eye with my circular saw.
Dan
Ed Bennett
> Ed-Thanks for the reply. Seattle's not THAT far from Boise! ;-)
Bit much for a day trip ;-)
> Saw is
> left tilt, I'm using the right miter slot. On 90, both slots measure the
> same, so are parallel to one another. I reset the 90 to about .003, at
> which point the 45 is about +.012. To me this says the table is HIGHER in
> the rear (gauge tip is going up the left tilting blade as it moves front to
> rear, and thus increasing the gap).
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, the reading on the indicator is
going down (counter-clockwise) as you move from the front to the
back. Correct? This would correspond to the table being higher
(blade being lower) in the rear. This means that you need to shim in
the front.
You can quickly approximate the amount of shim needed by knowing how
much the reading changes and how far apart the two readings are.
First, correct the reading for cosine errors. Then figure out the
ammount of change per inch. Finally, multiply this by the distance
between your table bolts.
So, for example, if your blade is tilted to 45 degrees, then the
correction factor is going to be 0.7071 (cos(45)). If you measure
0.012" misalignment, then the actual change is 0.0085" (0.012 *
0.7071). If it was measured over a distance of 8", then you have a
change of 0.0011" per inch (0.0085 / 8). Then, if your bolts are 20"
apart, then you should start with 0.022" (0.0011 * 20) worth of
shims. This isn't going to be exact but it's a good place to start.
> I'll try the pop can shims. And thanks
> for the offer of phone assistance, I may end up taking you up on that!
No problem. Glad to help.
> I understand the "make some sawdust" sentiment, but cutting expensive wood
> before the saw is all it should be makes no sense. If you bought a brand
> new sports car which pulled to one side, would the response be "just go for
> a drive"? 1/16" of error across a 4.5" cut is simply not acceptable. I
> could better that result cutting by eye with my circular saw.
I understand completely. If you wanted to spend your time reworking
everything that your tablesaw should have done correctly, then you
wouldn't have spent $2000 on a new tablesaw.
Beware of the guy who spends more time making sawdust than
furniture. ;-)
Dan
> So, for example, if your blade is tilted to 45 degrees, then the
> correction factor is going to be 0.7071 (cos(45)). If you measure
> 0.012" misalignment, then the actual change is 0.0085" (0.012 *
> 0.7071). If it was measured over a distance of 8", then you have a
> change of 0.0011" per inch (0.0085 / 8). Then, if your bolts are 20"
> apart, then you should start with 0.022" (0.0011 * 20) worth of
You have the scenario exactly, and I must say I'm very impressed, though I
am simultaneously saddened by the fact that at one time I actually *did
know* all that trigonometry. Now get this: After some experimenting (and
BEFORE I read your prediction) I was able to get the error of both 90 & 45
degrees down to ~.003 by inserting a .025" washer under the table at the 2
front table corner bolts. Again, very impressed you were able to predict
this so closely with calculations.
Cuts are now PERFECT!
LET'S MAKE SOME SAWDUST!!!!!!!!!
BTW if anyone is interested, I can email PDF's of several articles I have
on tablesaw tune-ups which helped me work this out, a video of one of which
can be seen at
http://www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/ToolGuide/ToolGuideArticle.aspx?id=5313.
Thanks for your support!
Dan
Chris Friesen
> During the assembly process the manufacturer sets the alignment at 90
> to as close to zero as possible. ...
> The manufacture then rolls it over to 45 and checks the alignment
> to the slot and has a tolerance that qualifies the saw as a good unit.
> Often there is nothing you can do unless you want to loose the close
> setting at 90. to improve the 45.
If the only problem is that the axis of rotation of the arbor is not
parallel to the table, then shimming the table relative to the cabinet
can fix the problem.
If there is other slop and play in the mechanism, I agree that there
isn't much that can be done.
Chris
Chris Friesen
> It is absolutely ridiculous to get bogged down in measuring, in thousandths
> the tools we use, in a medium that is liable to change +/- 1/16th between
> sundown and sunrise.
Good quality pieces are designed to handle wood dimension changes. It's
expected. That doesn't mean that you can cut your parts to +/- 1/16th
and have it come out anywhere close to decent right off the saw.
If the power tools aren't accurately set up it means that the hand tools
get more of a workout paring and shooting to get everything accurate.
Chris
Ed Bennett
> You have the scenario exactly, and I must say I'm very impressed, though I
> am simultaneously saddened by the fact that at one time I actually *did
> know* all that trigonometry. Now get this: After some experimenting (and
> BEFORE I read your prediction) I was able to get the error of both 90 & 45
> degrees down to ~.003 by inserting a .025" washer under the table at the 2
> front table corner bolts. Again, very impressed you were able to predict
> this so closely with calculations.
>
> Cuts are now PERFECT!
>
> LET'S MAKE SOME SAWDUST!!!!!!!!!
>
> BTW if anyone is interested, I can email PDF's of several articles I have
> on tablesaw tune-ups which helped me work this out, a video of one of which
>
> Thanks for your support!
>
> Dan
You're welcome! Every now and then the old gray matter comes in
handy.
I wouldn't mind seeing these articles you mention.
Thanks,
John Martin
It's possible that you're cranking the blade too hard against the 45
or 90 degree stops. I might try cuts at 46 and 89 degrees, just to
see if the stops are the problem.
Hard to imagine how the error can increase no matter which way you
tilt the table.
John Martin
Dan
news:1190345621.2...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
John-I finally worked it out with .025" shims, now I'm good to ~.003 on
each. I think the error was that prying the table on one side didn't really
replicate the effect of shims.
Dan
You got it, Ed.
Dan
dadiOH
> "Ed Bennett" <e...@ts-aligner.com> wrote in message
> news:1190339960....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> So, for example, if your blade is tilted to 45 degrees, then the
>> correction factor is going to be 0.7071 (cos(45)). If you measure
>> 0.012" misalignment, then the actual change is 0.0085" (0.012 *
>> 0.7071). If it was measured over a distance of 8", then you have a
>> change of 0.0011" per inch (0.0085 / 8). Then, if your bolts are
>> 20" apart, then you should start with 0.022" (0.0011 * 20) worth of
>
>
> You have the scenario exactly, and I must say I'm very impressed,
> though I am simultaneously saddened by the fact that at one time I
> actually *did know* all that trigonometry. Now get this: After
> some experimenting (and BEFORE I read your prediction) I was able
> to get the error of both 90 & 45 degrees down to ~.003 by inserting
> a .025" washer under the table at the 2 front table corner bolts.
> Again, very impressed you were able to predict this so closely with
> calculations.
Dang shame you didn't have a .022 washer so the .003 error disappeared
:)
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Vic Baron
Y'know - after many years of lurking and occasional posting in this
newsgroup and having to deal with the seasonal trolls that surface, it's
nice to be reminded of the good stuff - like someone actually helping
someone else.
OK, enough sentiment - gotta go make some noise & sawdust!
Vic
"Dan" <no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:__idnTqASfEPom7b...@comcast.com...
Dan
>
> I would also appreciate the PDF articles you mentioned in your post.
>
> TIA.
> Ed F.
Ed - They're on their way, let me know if you have any trouble receiving
them.
Dan
whit3rd
>...where the members
> which connect to the legs attach to a center longitudinal member entailed 4
> 45 degree cuts. No matter how much screwing around I did with that saw, I
> could not get this joint to not have gaps in the range 3/64".
45 degrees is always described (by careful persons) as 45 +/-
something-or-other.
So the typical way to get a full circle out of 45 degree wedges is to
join
four wedges for the left half, join four wedges for the right half,
and joint both
halves to make the final joints fit. Another way is to temporary-
mount the items
side-to-side with the crack, run it through the table saw to open that
crack to
a straight 1/8" void, then close the joint. Kerfing was what Roy
Underhill
called it, though his technique used a handsaw...
Ed Bennett
> 45 degrees is always described (by careful persons) as 45 +/-
> something-or-other.
Very true! The words "dead on" are somewhat of a misnomer.
Everything has some error if you look closely enough.
> So the typical way to get a full circle out of 45 degree wedges is to
> join
> four wedges for the left half, join four wedges for the right half,
> and joint both
> halves to make the final joints fit.
I've heard of this. It's a popular technique among those who do
segmented turnings. The joints will all be tight but the circle
becomes a bit less circular. The lathe guys end up having to make the
walls of their turnings a bit thicker so that they can then turn them
round.
> Another way is to temporary-
> mount the items
> side-to-side with the crack, run it through the table saw to open that
> crack to
> a straight 1/8" void, then close the joint. Kerfing was what Roy
> Underhill
> called it, though his technique used a handsaw...
In other words, cut both pieces at the same time. Yes, I've used this
technique (long, long ago). You pretty much want to assemble the
whole thing first. For something like a frame, where you have to
maintain equal lengths on opposite sides, you'll end up cutting
through all of the joints - gap or no.
There's a third option that you didn't mention. That is, cut the
pieces accurately enough to avoid the gap in the first place. Then
you don't have to use these or any other methods to rework the
joint(s). It takes a bit more skill and knowledge but it's much
faster and cleaner in the end. The other techniques are good for
those who are not interested in developing their machinery skills.
Ed Bennett
e...@ts-aligner.com
http://www.ts-aligner.com
Home of the TS-Aligner.com
Ed Bennett
news:13f631h...@corp.supernews.com...
> PS:
>
> Ask the guys in metrology about the magnitude of built in errors of
> single ended vs differential measurements.
>
> Measurements under discussion are single ended.
There's something I've never heard of before!
I've heard of "single-ended" and "differential" used to describe electrical
interfaces. In that application, the differential interface is very immune
to noise. There are many measurement instruments that take advantage of
this interface. They're not mechanical instruments.
I've heard of (and used) measurement setups where the output of two gauges
are combined by a dual channel amplifier to produce a sum or difference
reading. I wouldn't exactly call such a setup less prone to error! And
I've never heard it described as "differential". I've never heard of single
gage setups as being "single-ended".
I've been designing and manufacturing measurement instruments since 1991 and
have never heard the terms "single-ended" or "differential" used to describe
the measurement technique/process itself. Please do tell.
Dan
news:1190405244....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> Another way is to temporary-
> mount the items
> side-to-side with the crack, run it through the table saw to open that
> crack to
> a straight 1/8" void, then close the joint. Kerfing was what Roy
> Underhill
> called it, though his technique used a handsaw...
Thanks for the reply. An interesting technique, I'll have to keep it in
mind.
Dan
Ed Bennett
news:B3PIi.28098$eY....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> Ed, it sounds like he's offering to pay your travel expenses. <g>
Doh! Blew that one big time!
Anybody in Hawaii need help with their table saw? Perhaps sometime in
January or February? ;-)
Ed Bennett
news:NMednf_IbvMxL27b...@giganews.com...
> LOL ... the key to actually "making furniture" is to make more more
> sawdust than OCD measurements. ;)
I'd like to think that there's a happy medium between those two extremes.
Certainly, you can't avoid making some sawdust while woodworking. But, the
guy who spends all his time doing test cuts and reworking joints doesn't
really have much authority on the topic of machinery skills and the need for
proper alignment. Neither does the guy who can't apply his machinery skills
to solve real world woodworking problems.
Some guys, when they first get an alignment jig, are like a kid who has
never had candy before. They eat so much of it that they end up with a
tummy ache.
Dan
Well in my case I had the applicable measuring tools from a number of engine
overhauls I had done some years ago, they were readily adapted to this task,
and using them in this way was not a special "treat".
Individuals have varying philosophies about what is important in all manner
of things; I guess woodworking is no different. But referring to someone's
attempt to simply realize the full potential of a sizable investment as
"OCD" strikes me as childish name calling and requires no further response.
Thanks again to those who made helpful replies to my post.
Dan
Leon
> "Swingman" <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:NMednf_IbvMxL27b...@giganews.com...
>> LOL ... the key to actually "making furniture" is to make more more
>> sawdust than OCD measurements. ;)
>
> I'd like to think that there's a happy medium between those two extremes.
> Certainly, you can't avoid making some sawdust while woodworking. But,
> the guy who spends all his time doing test cuts and reworking joints
> doesn't really have much authority on the topic of machinery skills and
> the need for proper alignment. Neither does the guy who can't apply his
> machinery skills to solve real world woodworking problems.
Well, ;~) spending a lot of time doing test cuts to sneak up on a setting
is certainly less than desirable.
However, ;~) If you don't make a test cut after changing a bevel or miter
angle you are making a test cut on you project wood. I stole that from the,
"test a finish on scraps rather than your project".
Almost always I make the test cut to verify that I have set the machine up
to the correct angle to start with. LOL
Ed Bennett
> Well, ;~) spending a lot of time doing test cuts to sneak up on a setting
> is certainly less than desirable.
> However, ;~) If you don't make a test cut after changing a bevel or miter
> angle you are making a test cut on you project wood. I stole that from the,
> "test a finish on scraps rather than your project".
> Almost always I make the test cut to verify that I have set the machine up
> to the correct angle to start with. LOL
Thanks Leon, it sounds like your medium is much happier than some
others!
Swingman
> of things; I guess woodworking is no different. But referring to
someone's
> attempt to simply realize the full potential of a sizable investment as
> "OCD" strikes me as childish name calling and requires no further
response.
Bzzzzt! ... If you'd been around a little longer, you'd realized that "OCD"
was a reference to Ed's self characterization in a recent thread on plywood
manufacture.
You apology is accepted. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/8/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Dan
> "Dan" wrote in message
>
>> of things; I guess woodworking is no different. But referring to
> someone's
>> attempt to simply realize the full potential of a sizable investment as
>> "OCD" strikes me as childish name calling and requires no further
> response.
>
> Bzzzzt! ... If you'd been around a little longer, you'd realized that
> "OCD"
> was a reference to Ed's self characterization in a recent thread on
> plywood
> manufacture.
Yeah, right.
>
> You apology is accepted. :)
You've got to be kidding me.
Swingman
>
> You've got to be kidding me.
Actually, you're kidding yourself if you think it was in reference to you.
Nonetheless, I'm indeed sorry that you took it that way.
Swingman
"Dan" wrote in message
> "Swingman" wrote in message
>> Bzzzzt! ... If you'd been around a little longer, you'd realized that
>> "OCD" was a reference to Ed's self characterization in a recent thread on
>> plywood manufacture.
>
> Yeah, right.
Here ya go, Bubba:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/57f55af26b79bd38
... read it and weep.
>> You apology is accepted. :)
>
> You've got to be kidding me.
Nope, as I said, and as you see from the above, you were actually kidding
yourself.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/08/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Swingman
"Ed Bennett" wrote in message
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> > LOL ... the key to actually "making furniture" is to make more more
> > sawdust than OCD measurements. ;)
>
> I'd like to think that there's a happy medium between those two extremes.
Well, Ed ... and since you haven't noticed, that pretty well sums up my
point all along about "making sawdust". :)
> Certainly, you can't avoid making some sawdust while woodworking. But,
the
> guy who spends all his time doing test cuts and reworking joints doesn't
> really have much authority on the topic of machinery skills and the need
for
> proper alignment. Neither does the guy who can't apply his machinery
skills
> to solve real world woodworking problems.
Nor will you get an argument from me on that score ... and we also need to
keep in mind that the vast majority of woodworkers, even with today's
technology, are doing excellent work without a TS saw capable of being
aligned, or maintaining alignment, to that thousandths of a gnats ass.
> Some guys, when they first get an alignment jig, are like a kid who has
> never had candy before. They eat so much of it that they end up with a
> tummy ache.
Rarely happens to those who don't fixate on alignment at the exclusion of
working wood :)
FWIW, my table saw is aligned to ".003" all around, which has pretty much
always been proven by the end product ... you just provided the verification
... thanks, again! :)
Dan
So what? The 2 discussions are in no way connected. He also uses the word
"the" many times in his posts. Does that mean every time you use that word
it's in reference to Ed? I originated a post about measurements, and it was
obviously my concerns about them which you were characterizing as "OCD".
Your comment in no way implies anything else. Instead of being an adult and
apologizing, you're trotting out this bullshit.
PLONK, mallethead.
Lee Michaels
"Dan" babbled some nonsense and plonked
I always wonder about these guys. They get all upset about a light hearted
remark. And then shut themselves off from the real resources of the
newsgroup.
I am not going to defend swingman. Not only did he not do anything, I can't
imagine anybody taking Dan seriously. And I am sure the Mr Bennet would
have found Mr Swingman's comment to be funny.
This is a classic example of style over substance. Or political correctness
run amok. OCD is a term that many overacheivers use to describe themselves.
It is not the insult that some folks imagine. Ed Bennet used it to describe
himself.
Is it OK for Ed to characterize himself in this fashion? If so, are others
guilty of some kinda cosmic trangression if they describe Ed in the same
fashion?
Maybe it is a joke thing. The Joke Police want to outlaw all humor. A joke
was made. Most of us laughed. Somebody went nuts and imagined all kinds of
horrors because we commited a cardinal sin of laughing at a joke.
Apparently this guy suffers from Humor Impairment Syndrome.
I have a simple criteria for reading posts. Are they of value to me? Are
they educational? Are they enjoyable? Most of the folks who post good
things on this forum are also blessed with a sense of humor. It makes this a
fun place.
Frank Drackman
Wow, do you usually make friends this easily?
Ed Bennett
wrote:
> I always wonder about these guys. They get all upset about a light hearted
> remark. And then shut themselves off from the real resources of the
> newsgroup.
I think he just got fed up with all the mocking taunts. Dan had a
real problem with real consequences and he was looking for real
answers. Emotocons should be used to indicate the meaning behind the
statement, not as a license to belittle someone.
I don't think Dan shut himself off from "real" resources. After all,
swingman didn't actually offer a solution to the problem, just a way
to live with it. Which is pretty surprising given that he owns such
an expensive tablesaw, a good alignment tool, and has 30 years of
experience.
> I am not going to defend swingman. Not only did he not do anything, I can't
> imagine anybody taking Dan seriously. And I am sure the Mr Bennet would
> have found Mr Swingman's comment to be funny.
I'm certainly not going to defend swingman either. I think he should
have a lot more to offer than a bunch of belittling taunts. Just look
at his web site. Clearly, he shouldn't need to put others down in
order to feel good about himself.
> This is a classic example of style over substance. Or political correctness
> run amok. OCD is a term that many overacheivers use to describe themselves.
> It is not the insult that some folks imagine. Ed Bennet used it to describe
> himself.
Taken by itself, I don't think the OCD comment is the problem. But,
conbined with all the other comments (including the "your apology is
accepted") it is clearly the last straw in a couple of bales worth of
demeaning statements.
> Is it OK for Ed to characterize himself in this fashion?
I think so.
> If so, are others
> guilty of some kinda cosmic trangression if they describe Ed in the same
> fashion?
Nope. I think we all want the manufacturers of our tools to be
obsessed with quality and accuracy. And, I think the finest
woodworking comes from people who are obsessed with the details. So,
I'm always surprised to hear some self proclaimed expert making fun of
detail oriented people. It makes me think twice about their
"expertise".
> Maybe it is a joke thing. The Joke Police want to outlaw all humor. A joke
> was made. Most of us laughed. Somebody went nuts and imagined all kinds of
> horrors because we commited a cardinal sin of laughing at a joke.
> Apparently this guy suffers from Humor Impairment Syndrome.
Well, while I don't mind being characterized as obsessive and
compulsive when it comes to quality and accuracy, I do mind having my
products described as the biggest waste of time for anal woodworkers.
It mocks me, my products, and my customers. And, making fun of the
real solution to Dan's problem is pretty annoying too.
An alalogy might help. What if someone was going around saying that
the pictures on swingman's web site weren't of his work. He's really
a hack that can't put together a plywood box to save his life. He has
a shop full of expensive tools and machinery but can't figure out how
to use them. The only people who hire him are those who have more
money than brains. That's why he taunts people in the newsgroup - he
isn't busy doing woodworking and it's the only way he can feel good
about himself. He couldn't have solved Dan's problem in a million
years. ;-)
Does the smiley make it all better? Hmmm....swingman might even get a
bit defensive.
I realize his comments were made in jest (since swingman is one of my
customers) but people will read them for years to come and may not
realize that it's self deprecating (until they read this). And, the
smiley doesn't really make it any better.
> I have a simple criteria for reading posts. Are they of value to me? Are
> they educational? Are they enjoyable? Most of the folks who post good
> things on this forum are also blessed with a sense of humor. It makes this a
> fun place.
I think Dan probably ascribes to the same philosophy. He just didn't
appreciate being the butt end of this particular humor. Good friends
can poke and jibe at eachother without insult. Not quite the same
thing when dealing with strangers.
Swingman
<snip>
> mocks me, my products, and my customers.
Tsk, tsk. Don't flatter yourself, Ed. Go make some sawdust ... there's a
slim chance that it just may help with that wrongheaded, humorless, self
righteousness.
Leon
Careful Swingman, the bait has been carefully placed and the fisherman has
spied a catch that he probably hopes he can reel in. ;~)
Lew Hodgett
There are over a billion Chinese people.
My guess is less than 100 million can read this thread.
Of that 100 million, probably less than 50 million can understand the
thread.
Of that 50 million, probably less than 25 give a fuck about the thread.
Lew
Frank Boettcher
Yes but a few thousand of them are making table saws, and are insuring
that ole Ed will have a bright and prosperous future selling those
gadgets to try to reset them. :~)
Frank
Frank Boettcher
>
Well this has been an eye opening thread and I think I've seen the
light. You see, when I needed to upgrade my table saw I went back to
"salvage" (the place where freight damgage, dealer inventory resets,
individuals who do not believe in the laws of random variability, and
the rare individual who actually has a real problem send their units
back to) and asked Jerry if he had a Unisaw. Says Frank I've got this
one that came back "alledged defective" (the usual RMA cause) but I've
checked it and can't find the reason (the usual outcome) it's within
specs., so I say let me go pay finance and I'll back my truck up. I
never checked the saw for alignment that day or ever.
Now that was 13 years ago or so, and I've made a whole lot of
furniture since then with this saw and while my friends and realtives
comment favorably on my work, as the builder I know where all the
flaws are that they don't see.
I've always assumed that the flaws were human error, where I measure a
little wrong, or skipped a step here or there, or whatever. But now
I'm beginning to think I can blame all those flaws on the saw.
So I guess I need to get one of those gadgets that Ed sells and get to
tweaking this saw so I can achieve the perfection that I know exists
out there somewhere.
Frank
Ed Bennett
the first table saw I purchased was a Sears Crapsman (about 25 years
ago). I learned a heck of a lot of woodworking on that machine and
never received a single negative comment from anyone about the quality
of my work. There was always a healthy amount of test cuts, re-
working joints and "creative fixes" involved in the process and I
figured that it was all a matter of skill (and a lack thereof). If I
could refine my skills enough then these problems would go away. But,
it didn't quite work out that way. Instead, I learned which tasks and
design elements proved to be the most troublesome and time consuming
so that I could avoid them. It struck me one day when I was trying to
talk a customer (an interior designer) out of doing what she wanted me
to do (mitered corners). I was being a brainless moron: going nowhere
and doing nothing. Pretty soon I'd be making kitchen cabinets as a
sub-contractor instead of furniture for designers.
Having the benefit of a formal education, I had the ability to work
through a problem in a logical manner. I could examine symptoms,
recognize specific causes, and develop systematic solutions to resolve
them. I purchased the proper instruments (dial indicator, magnetic
base, calipers, etc.) so that I could examine my machines to determine
what could be done to reduce or eliminate the test cuts, re-work, and
"creative fixes". Basically, I had decided to devote myself to
improving my machinery skills.
It didn't take me long to recognize major problem areas. The first
thing I did was replace the rip fence. It proved to be an
astoundingly amazing improvement. So much so that I decided that the
entire saw was a lost cause. I replaced it with the Unisaw that I
have today and realized yet another quantum leap in the quality of
work that came right off the machine. I probably could have continued
to use the Sears saw and optimize its performance but I was impatient.
During this same time, I was developing tools and techniques for
eliminating test cuts and rework. With the help of a machinist friend
and some engineers, I combined these tools and techniques into the
first TS-Aligner. That was in the spring of 1990 - more than 17 years
ago. I tested it on a commission from a designer that I would have
flatly turned down a year earlier: a night stand made in the shape of
an "A". Every joint came together at a compound angle (including the
dovetailed drawer sides). I pulled it off without a test cut. No re-
work. It was done to budget in record time.
For years I had fought against a poorly maintained junker saw thinking
that my woodworking skills were deficient. In reality, it was my
machinery skills that needed help. The quality of my wood work was
never the issue, it was the enormous time and effort that went into
making anything that went beyond simple square joinery, stock molding
profiles, curves, angles, shapes, etc. I was wasting time and effort
fixing everything that the machine did wrong - leading me to avoid
projects that could stretch and develop my woodworking skills.
There are a number of people who want to turn this into flame fest
against machinery and its proper alignment. They cite their personal
anecdotes about how many years they have been producing fine
woodworking without any regard for alignment. In addition to being
exasperating, this is nothing more than a straw man argument. The
issue has nothing to do with $2000 saws and alignment to within a
"thousandths of a gnat's ass". Amazing woodworking has been done for
thousands of years before table saws were even invented. Nobody is
saying that you have to spend a certain amount of money, or have a
certain machine, or align it in a certain way before you can do fine
woodworking. People who rant and rave on this point expose themselves
as extremely insecure.
This thread is about helping one person to make the most of a recent
machinery investment. It's about helping him to learn and apply some
machinery skills. It is not a waste of time; it is a way to avoid
wasting a lot of time and effort. People who can't sit by without
ridiculing him and continually citing examples of how well they get by
without any machinery skills are saying a lot more about themselves
than they realize.
Swingman
> This thread is about helping one person to make the most of a recent
> machinery investment.
That's real sweet, Ed ... but the way you keep it going it's starting to
sound a whole lot more like pious, holier than thou, spam.
Frank Boettcher
wrote:
<snipped some personal anecdotal information with no offense intended>
>
>There are a number of people who want to turn this into flame fest
>against machinery and its proper alignment. They cite their personal
>anecdotes about how many years they have been producing fine
>woodworking without any regard for alignment.
Well, I didn't see that (flame fest). I saw opinions offered about
whether it was necessary to align a saw to within a few thousandths or
if you could do work that was just as good at .016" 45 degree
alignment. If the OP was not interested in opinions that might vary
significantly, and would not find that helpful he probably should have
contacted you directly rather than posting on a usenet forum or at
least ignored the opposing opinions.
Obviously, his opinion is that you* have* to align a saw to a "gnat's
ass", and I'm happy your were able to help him. Those who don't share
that opinion and offer an alternative "of just cut some wood" are not
engaging in a "flame fest" IMHO.
In addition to being
>exasperating, this is nothing more than a straw man argument. The
>issue has nothing to do with $2000 saws and alignment to within a
>"thousandths of a gnat's ass". Amazing woodworking has been done for
>thousands of years before table saws were even invented. Nobody is
>saying that you have to spend a certain amount of money, or have a
>certain machine, or align it in a certain way before you can do fine
>woodworking. People who rant and rave on this point expose themselves
>as extremely insecure.
ranting and raving? A little touchy are we. Need to work on that
sense of humor.
>
>This thread is about helping one person to make the most of a recent
>machinery investment. It's about helping him to learn and apply some
>machinery skills. It is not a waste of time; it is a way to avoid
>wasting a lot of time and effort. People who can't sit by without
>ridiculing him and continually citing examples of how well they get by
>without any machinery skills are saying a lot more about themselves
>than they realize.
All the above eloquent Ed, however, some may feel it is a waste of
time, and I believe you may be the only one here who has a vested
financial interest in having everyone believe that it is not a waste
of time.
Frank
El
Maxwell Lol
> I've always assumed that the flaws were human error, where I measure a
> little wrong, or skipped a step here or there, or whatever. But now
> I'm beginning to think I can blame all those flaws on the saw.
I built a 12"x12"x12" box made with 1/4" plywood, and 4 of the edges
were joined with a box joint. I built a prototype before I had Ed's
tool, and then built the real one after. It was a LOT easier getting
everything lined up precisely square after using the TS Aligner Jr.
Ed even helped me figure out how to align the cross-cut sled
precisely. This "just make sawdust" is fine for some jobs. But when
errors are multiplied, adjusting a fit afterwards can be a PITA.
Ed Bennett
Sorry about the delay in responding. I've been pretty busy and
haven't even been able to manage even one post per day.
Hmmmm....and I was thinking that the thread was starting to sound like
the glorification of ignorance. Funny how two people can look at the
same thing and get two completely different impressions.
Spam? No, it was just a story - much like the one that Frank told. I
wrote it with the hope that I could inspire some to approach their
woodworking in a more intelligent manner (and perhaps discourage
others from ridiculing them in the process).
I received a number of email messages in response. This one pretty
much represents the overall sentiment:
"I hope the idiocy here doesn't prevent you from participating in the
future. It generally prevents me, but I learn a lot just by watching.
I learn because folks like you dare to participate, financial interest
or not."
The group used to be a lot more active and it was pretty rare that
people would get flamed and ridiculed for asking legitimate questions
or making a genuine request for help. At the worst, people would get
told to search the archives. It would seem that things have become a
bit stifled.
Pious? Holier that thou? Hmmm....again, two people can see things in
completely different ways. The situation reminds me of how Galileo
was treated when his innovative ideas threatened the pious ignorance
of the time.
Thanks,
Ed Bennett
Swingman
> It would seem that things have become a
> bit stifled.
Only if you don't recall the "Bennet War" flamefests that polluted this
forum, ad infinitum, at one point.
> Pious? Holier that thou? Hmmm....again, two people can see things in
> completely different ways. The situation reminds me of how Galileo
> was treated when his innovative ideas threatened the pious ignorance
> of the time.
Well Galileo, go back and re-examine your public mea culpa from the above
... you're slipping back to your old ways.
--
Mike Marlow
>
> Pious? Holier that thou? Hmmm....again, two people can see things in
> completely different ways. The situation reminds me of how Galileo
> was treated when his innovative ideas threatened the pious ignorance
> of the time.
>
Oh no - you're not going to get up on some gilded throne, and try to
proclaim that the world is really round now... are you?
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@alltel.net
Ed Bennett
> Well, I didn't see that (flame fest).
Perhaps the various eruptions escaped your notice; re-read the thread
when you finish here.
> I saw opinions offered about
> whether it was necessary to align a saw to within a few thousandths or
> if you could do work that was just as good at .016" 45 degree
> alignment. If the OP was not interested in opinions that might vary
> significantly, and would not find that helpful he probably should have
> contacted you directly rather than posting on a usenet forum or at
> least ignored the opposing opinions.
There were a number of solutions and opinions offered. I thought that
your initial ideas were pretty darn good. If I had determined that
Dan was doing everything correctly and still getting the wrong
results, I would likely have deferred to some of the things that you
had mentioned.
Dan offered very polite answers to all the alternative opinions. You
probably just didn't notice it when he explained why it wasn't
acceptable for him to ignore the situation. Or, perhaps you just
weren't willing to accept the idea that he didn't share your opinion.
> Obviously, his opinion is that you* have* to align a saw to a "gnat's
> ass", and I'm happy your were able to help him. Those who don't share
> that opinion and offer an alternative "of just cut some wood" are not
> engaging in a "flame fest" IMHO.
The "gnat's ass" comment wasn't his words. It's the sort of
derogatory term used by what you have pretty much referred to as
"sharing an alternative opinion". When people use disparaging,
critical, insulting, offensive, deprecating, or belittling terms I
pretty much call it a flame fest. There was an effort made to
discredit those who did not share this particular opinion.
It's not that an alternative was offered, it's that it was repeatedly
offered with ever increasing fervor even after Dan had politely
dismissed it. Before long, the person who would spend $2000 on a
table saw and expect it to work properly was being represented as an
idiot and an alignment tool is the biggest waste of time for the anal
woodworker. You tell me, in your honest opinion; wouldn't that make
you feel a bit steamed?
> ranting and raving? A little touchy are we. Need to work on that
> sense of humor.
I would have said "frothing at the mouth" but "ranting and raving"
fits the medium better. This reminds me of a proverb:
"Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows and death, so is the man
who deceives his neighbor, and says, "Was I not joking?" "
The "sense of humor" thing is wearing a bit thin, don't you think?
Let's admit it, I got your collective dander up a bit when I said: "As
you have now discovered, the situation isn't quite as tolerable as
some have said." I can see how this sort of statement can be
threatening to someone who would take it as commentary on the quality
of their woodworking. I assure you it was not meant in such a
manner. But, as I have already mentioned, responding as if threatened
is very revealing.
> All the above eloquent Ed, however, some may feel it is a waste of
> time, and I believe you may be the only one here who has a vested
> financial interest in having everyone believe that it is not a waste
> of time.
Based on what Maxwell said, and numerous email messages received, I'd
have to say that this opinion has little if any merit. Think about
the logic of Dan's situation. This particular alignment is pretty
much a one time event. If it takes him a week to get it right (and it
only took one evening), then he can count on having accurate bevel
cuts forever on that saw. If he ignores it and "just makes
sawdust" (as you and swingman have so exasperatingly recommended),
then he will need to rework every single bevel cut he makes on that
saw in order to obtain tight joints. Now, in your honest opinion,
which is the bigger waste of time?
Either way, the woodworking is going to be the same. Both methods
will end up producing high quality joints. But, one is clearly more
time intensive than the other. There is some merit to futzing around
with the "OCD measurements".
Ed Bennett
> Only if you don't recall the "Bennet War" flamefests that polluted this
> forum, ad infinitum, at one point.
I do recall them. I don't recall you though. Perhaps you went by
another moniker? As you "recall", it wasn't about flaming newbies for
asking questions or looking for help - jumping all over their ass for
wanting to make the most of their new table saw.
Back then the demigod who ran around the group picking on people was
Bennett Leeds (we used to go by real names back in '95). Disagree
with Mr. Leeds and you had a flame buddy for life. Today it's....
> Well Galileo, go back and re-examine your public mea culpa from the above
> ... you're slipping back to your old ways.
Really. And all of this has what to do with the topic of this thread?
Frank Boettcher
wrote:
>
> The situation reminds me of how Galileo
>was treated when his innovative ideas threatened the pious ignorance
>of the time.
>
LOL. Ed, please tell me this is a troll. Or do you actually feel
that anyone who does not share your opinion on this matter is
ignorant?
>Thanks,
>Ed Bennett
>
>
>
Frank Boettcher
wrote:
>On Sep 24, 2:46 pm, Frank Boettcher <fboettc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Well, I didn't see that (flame fest).
>Perhaps the various eruptions escaped your notice; re-read the thread
>when you finish here.
I did. Before I posted. It was initially and remains my "opinion"
that it was not a flame fest.
>
>> I saw opinions offered about
>> whether it was necessary to align a saw to within a few thousandths or
>> if you could do work that was just as good at .016" 45 degree
>> alignment. If the OP was not interested in opinions that might vary
>> significantly, and would not find that helpful he probably should have
>> contacted you directly rather than posting on a usenet forum or at
>> least ignored the opposing opinions.
>
>There were a number of solutions and opinions offered. I thought that
>your initial ideas were pretty darn good. If I had determined that
>Dan was doing everything correctly and still getting the wrong
>results, I would likely have deferred to some of the things that you
>had mentioned.
>
>Dan offered very polite answers to all the alternative opinions. You
>probably just didn't notice it when he explained why it wasn't
>acceptable for him to ignore the situation. Or, perhaps you just
>weren't willing to accept the idea that he didn't share your opinion.
I care not if he or you or anyone in this group shares my opinion.
That's what opinions are all about.
>
>> Obviously, his opinion is that you* have* to align a saw to a "gnat's
>> ass", and I'm happy your were able to help him. Those who don't share
>> that opinion and offer an alternative "of just cut some wood" are not
>> engaging in a "flame fest" IMHO.
>
>The "gnat's ass" comment wasn't his words. It's the sort of
>derogatory term used by what you have pretty much referred to as
>"sharing an alternative opinion". When people use disparaging,
>critical, insulting, offensive, deprecating, or belittling terms I
>pretty much call it a flame fest. There was an effort made to
>discredit those who did not share this particular opinion.
????? Derogatory term? What planet are you from?
>
>It's not that an alternative was offered, it's that it was repeatedly
>offered with ever increasing fervor even after Dan had politely
>dismissed it. Before long, the person who would spend $2000 on a
>table saw and expect it to work properly was being represented as an
>idiot and an alignment tool is the biggest waste of time for the anal
>woodworker. You tell me, in your honest opinion; wouldn't that make
>you feel a bit steamed?
Might, if that was what had happened. Who exactly called him an idot
or expressed that his position on the matter was because of ignorance?
And I don't thin an alignment tool was mentioned until long after his
problem was essentially solved to his satisfaction.
>
>> ranting and raving? A little touchy are we. Need to work on that
>> sense of humor.
>
>I would have said "frothing at the mouth" but "ranting and raving"
>fits the medium better. This reminds me of a proverb:
>
>"Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows and death, so is the man
>who deceives his neighbor, and says, "Was I not joking?" "
>
>The "sense of humor" thing is wearing a bit thin, don't you think?
>Let's admit it, I got your collective dander up a bit when I said: "As
>you have now discovered, the situation isn't quite as tolerable as
>some have said." I can see how this sort of statement can be
>threatening to someone who would take it as commentary on the quality
>of their woodworking. I assure you it was not meant in such a
>manner. But, as I have already mentioned, responding as if threatened
>is very revealing.
Responding as if threatened? LOL.
>
>> All the above eloquent Ed, however, some may feel it is a waste of
>> time, and I believe you may be the only one here who has a vested
>> financial interest in having everyone believe that it is not a waste
>> of time.
>
>Based on what Maxwell said, and numerous email messages received, I'd
>have to say that this opinion has little if any merit.
That statement pretty much sums up who is intolerant of the opinions
of others.
Think about
>the logic of Dan's situation. This particular alignment is pretty
>much a one time event. If it takes him a week to get it right (and it
>only took one evening), then he can count on having accurate bevel
>cuts forever on that saw. If he ignores it and "just makes
>sawdust" (as you and swingman have so exasperatingly recommended),
>then he will need to rework every single bevel cut he makes on that
>saw in order to obtain tight joints. Now, in your honest opinion,
>which is the bigger waste of time?
Made twelve ogive corner feet this morning, didn't rework a one. But
that's not the point. I don't care if he aligns it every week until
the end of time. That's his business. And those that don't and don't
consider it necessary have a perfect right to their opinion and to
express that opinion when a thread starts on the subject. If he,or you
don't believe that then just killfile the lot of us.
Frank
Swingman
> Really. And all of this has what to do with the topic of this thread?
LOL ... I guess we'll just have to ask Galileo, or his modern incarnation.
:)
Swingman
> Made twelve ogive corner feet this morning, didn't rework a one.
Wish like hell I could say that!
I've been working on 20, hard maple, kitchen drawers for a new kitchen job
for what seems like weeks (actually just days, but too many of them at this
point) ... basically sick and tired of being sick and tired, of filling and
sanding.
That's why I keep coming in from the shop and wasting time ... to get some
comic relief between grits. :)
One of the jig fingers apparently, and mysteriously with no signs of doing
so to this day, moved/slipped at some point in the middle of a "production
run" of 40 tail boards and I've been "magicing" the results on about half
the drawers ever since.
The second time the D4 has done that on a run of drawers ... too bad there's
no effective way to "align" that tool to the elusive "gnat's ass" and have
it stay that way.
Nonetheless, a perfect example of the contention of how "misalignment" can
cause hours of extra work ... a concept I've certainly never argued with,
having experienced it too painfully myself.
bridg...@yahoo.com
> "Ed Bennett" wrote in message
> > This thread is about helping one person to make the most of a recent
> > machinery investment.
>
> That's real sweet, Ed ... but the way you keep it going it's starting to
> sound a whole lot more like pious, holier than thou, spam.
>
well, swing, without a doubt Ed does enjoy a long winded post, and
he's not shy about putting his product up front and center.
he even can be a bit self righteous. but he 'aint generally an out and
out asshole, which is more than I can say for you.
Swingman
> he even can be a bit self righteous. but he 'aint generally an out and
> out asshole, which is more than I can say for you.
Real classy there, bridger ... another heard from who can pretend to be
insulted while doing the insulting. You guys be sure to keep the pretense up
by e-mailing each other, you hear?
Frank Boettcher
>Nonetheless, a perfect example of the contention of how "misalignment" can
>cause hours of extra work ... a concept I've certainly never argued with,
>having experienced it too painfully myself.
Me too, but with those sliding tapered dovetails on that omnijig.
Theoretically if you start both your male and female cuts at exactly
the same place on the taper jig, they should slide together and snug
up just fine. But with that grandbaby on the way and a great need to
finish a cradle in time to let the solvent fumes fully evaporate, I
struggled for several days trying to get the fit right. Finally got
it but not sure how, so reluctant to go there again.
Seems like a real good way to do that cross grain assembly without
offending the cross grain glue up gods, wish I could get the hang of
it.
Frank
Swingman
"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
> Seems like a real good way to do that cross grain assembly without
> offending the cross grain glue up gods, wish I could get the hang of it.
Exercising the theory behind reproducing identical/matching parts, in a
practical and efficient manner, in a medium that moves, _is_ the definition
of fru$tration.
... but when you do get lucky, it feels so good. :)
Ed Bennett
> I did. Before I posted. It was initially and remains my "opinion"
> that it was not a flame fest.
You are free to believe whatever you like. I'd bet that Dan felt a
bit singed around the edges; at which point you questioned his ability
to make friends. Does that help put things in perspective?
> I care not if he or you or anyone in this group shares my opinion.
> That's what opinions are all about.
Which is why you keep repeating it over and over, right?
> ????? Derogatory term? What planet are you from?
Perhaps it's been a while since you've engaged in polite conversation.
> Might, if that was what had happened. Who exactly called him an idot
> or expressed that his position on the matter was because of ignorance?
> And I don't thin an alignment tool was mentioned until long after his
> problem was essentially solved to his satisfaction.
Apparently you didn't read the thread. Or maybe your news server
doesn't contain all the messages. For some reason I had trouble using
Google to read certain messages (the particular ones where swingman
started "ranting and raving"). I just found a different news server.
> Responding as if threatened? LOL.
Yes, indeed. Did anybody ever say that your saw needed alignment?
Did anybody say it was incapable of doing precise work? Did anybody
criticize your work as sloppy? Did anybody even tell you that you
should align your saw? I don't recall anybody saying anything of the
sort. And yet, every message contains an anecdote defending the
quality of your woodworking and your practice of ignoring table saw
alignment completely (as if it was normal and that everyone should do
likewise). Why is that Frank?
> >> All the above eloquent Ed, however, some may feel it is a waste of
> >> time, and I believe you may be the only one here who has a vested
> >> financial interest in having everyone believe that it is not a waste
> >> of time.
>
> >Based on what Maxwell said, and numerous email messages received, I'd
> >have to say that this opinion has little if any merit.
>
> That statement pretty much sums up who is intolerant of the opinions
> of others.
Hmmm.... Perhaps you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that I'm
not alone in my opinion that proper alignment is important. You are
right; "some" feel that it's a waste of time. Obviously, this is your
position. But, since you don't actually know the current state of
your machine (aligned or misaligned) I don't understand how you can be
so confident in your assertion.
> >Think about
> >the logic of Dan's situation. This particular alignment is pretty
> >much a one time event. If it takes him a week to get it right (and it
> >only took one evening), then he can count on having accurate bevel
> >cuts forever on that saw. If he ignores it and "just makes
> >sawdust" (as you and swingman have so exasperatingly recommended),
> >then he will need to rework every single bevel cut he makes on that
> >saw in order to obtain tight joints. Now, in your honest opinion,
> >which is the bigger waste of time?
Sorry Frank, I missed your answer to the question. For Dan, which
option is the bigger waste of time? The logic is very simple and easy
to follow. Why do you avoid answering the question?
> Made twelve ogive corner feet this morning, didn't rework a one. But
> that's not the point. I don't care if he aligns it every week until
> the end of time. That's his business. And those that don't and don't
> consider it necessary have a perfect right to their opinion and to
> express that opinion when a thread starts on the subject. If he,or you
> don't believe that then just killfile the lot of us.
Perhaps I should explain why this anecdotal evidence is meaningless.
First of all, it doesn't speak to Dan's situation and the thread is
about Dan's desire to align his saw - not your ability to perform some
specific task without any regard for the alignment of your saw.
Second, I have absolutely no idea what level of quality you consider
adequate and what level would prompt you to re-work a joint. Third,
maybe you are post processing these "ogive feet" in such a way that
would be considered re-work by some but not by you (i.e. flattening
the tops or bottoms to correct for angular error on the miter).
Fourth, nobody can examine the evidence to know whether or not the
anecdote actually applies to the situation (i.e. maybe your "ogive
feet" can be cut all day on a misaligned saw without any
consequence). Fifth, by plain old dumb luck your saw might just be in
good alignment and you would never know how bad it could be if it
weren't. Sixth, the anecdote could be a complete fabrication of your
imagination specifically designed to address your point. Shall I
continue?
Here's the truth of what you say above. Dan has a right to maintain
his machinery any way he wants to and doesn't need to justify his
decisions to anybody else. You have a right to do the same. Both of
you are free to make recommendations to the other. Either of you can
turn down the other's recommendation for any reason. Neither of you
should feel compelled to defend your woodworking skills and abilities
as a result of having a recommendation rejected. In other words, you
don't need to keep posting anecdotes describing how you can do good
woodworking even though you choose to ignore the alignment of your
saw. OK? Can we all agree that Dan's desire to align his saw doesn't
automatically cast aspersions on your woodworking?
Ed Bennett
Sorry Frank, you misunderstood. It's a statement about how Galileo
was treated for having innovative ideas. It's not about Galileo's (or
anybody elses) opinion of those who mistreated him.
Swingman
personal e-mail inbox. Ignoring the troll, as Leon wisely advised, is the
best bet.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/08/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Ed Bennett
>
> Oh no - you're not going to get up on some gilded throne, and try to
> proclaim that the world is really round now... are you?
>
OK, I've spent all day looking for one of these gilded thrones.
Nobody in Boise has any in stock (no surprise there!). They all say
that they can order one (gee, I could have done that for myself, so
what purpose do the local shops serve?). So, until the throne arrives
we will just have to live with a flat world located at the center of
the solar system. I'll keep you posted on any progress. In the
meantime, we need to get hold of someone in Rome and let them know
about the delay. We certainly don't want any councils declaring
anything rash before the actual proclamation occurs. After all, if
they arrest me before the throne arrives then I'll be charged with
crimes that haven't yet occurred. What a mess! Next time we'll need
to think of a better platform for these announcements; something that
can be obtained locally. ;-)
Thanks Mike,
Maxwell Lol
> > ????? Derogatory term? What planet are you from?
>
> Perhaps it's been a while since you've engaged in polite conversation.
"gnat's ass" isn't a derogatory term. It's a unit of measurement!
Mike Marlow
"Maxwell Lol" <nos...@com.invalid> wrote in message
news:86zlz6b...@localhost.localdomain...
Only in mixed company where you can't say RCH...
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@alltel.net
Frank Boettcher
wrote:
>On Sep 27, 3:53 pm, Frank Boettcher <fboettc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I did. Before I posted. It was initially and remains my "opinion"
>> that it was not a flame fest.
>
>You are free to believe whatever you like.
Thank you so very much.
> I'd bet that Dan felt a
>bit singed around the edges; at which point you questioned his ability
>to make friends. Does that help put things in perspective?
Recognizing the futility of continuing, I'll ignore all below, let
those who are following this thread decide for themself. Hopefully you
will also grant each of them the right to believe whatever they like.
But in this case you have specifically accused me of "questioning
Dan's ability to make friends". I did nothing of the kind. I don't
know where you got that but I think since it is a specific accusation
that you should either apologise or offer corroborating evidence.
Please cut and paste the information from any post where I said
anything directly related to that accusation or any other personal
derogatory remarks regarding the OP.
Frank
Frank Boettcher
wrote:
>On Sep 27, 3:03 pm, Frank Boettcher <fboettc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:11:39 -0700, Ed Bennett <e...@ts-aligner.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The situation reminds me of how Galileo
>> >was treated when his innovative ideas threatened the pious ignorance
>> >of the time.
>>
>> LOL. Ed, please tell me this is a troll. Or do you actually feel
>> that anyone who does not share your opinion on this matter is
>> ignorant?
>
>Sorry Frank, you misunderstood. It's a statement about how Galileo
>was treated for having innovative ideas. It's not about Galileo's (or
>anybody elses) opinion of those who mistreated him.
So what did you mean Ed? You used the statement in an analogous
manner. Are you like Galileo with the innovative ideas and those who
don't accept those ideas are" piously ignorant"?
Frank
Ed Bennett
> Recognizing the futility of continuing, I'll ignore all below, let
> those who are following this thread decide for themself. Hopefully you
> will also grant each of them the right to believe whatever they like.
Sounds good to me.
> But in this case you have specifically accused me of "questioning
> Dan's ability to make friends". I did nothing of the kind. I don't
> know where you got that but I think since it is a specific accusation
> that you should either apologise or offer corroborating evidence.
> Please cut and paste the information from any post where I said
> anything directly related to that accusation or any other personal
> derogatory remarks regarding the OP.
Sorry Frank, it looks like I made a mistake and owe you an apology.
Here's the message that I was thinking of:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/8492fa1ee2e6859b
I had you confused with another Frank and it was an injustice to
attribute that statement to you. I hope you can forgive me. And, I
hope that anybody else who might have been misled by my mistake will
see this and not allow my blunder to change their opinion of you.
There have also been a number of occasions where I interpreted your
statements as more antagonistic than they may have been intended
because you and swingman were arguing the same point of view ("ignore
the problem and just make sawdust"). In the absence of swingman's
derogatory remarks I may not have taken them the same way. So, I
apologize for this as well.
I'm still wondering if you think Dan was wasting his time to align his
saw. Is it better for him to live with the problem (rework all his
bevel cuts) or invest the time up front to eliminate the problem once
and for all?
Thanks,
Ed Bennett
e...@ts-aligner.com
http://www.ts-aligner.com
Home of the TS-Aligner.com
Frank Boettcher
wrote:
>On Sep 29, 6:50 am, Frank Boettcher <fboettc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Recognizing the futility of continuing, I'll ignore all below, let
>> those who are following this thread decide for themself. Hopefully you
>> will also grant each of them the right to believe whatever they like.
>
>Sounds good to me.
>
>> But in this case you have specifically accused me of "questioning
>> Dan's ability to make friends". I did nothing of the kind. I don't
>> know where you got that but I think since it is a specific accusation
>> that you should either apologise or offer corroborating evidence.
>> Please cut and paste the information from any post where I said
>> anything directly related to that accusation or any other personal
>> derogatory remarks regarding the OP.
>
>Sorry Frank, it looks like I made a mistake and owe you an apology.
>Here's the message that I was thinking of:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/8492fa1ee2e6859b
>
>I had you confused with another Frank and it was an injustice to
>attribute that statement to you. I hope you can forgive me. And, I
>hope that anybody else who might have been misled by my mistake will
>see this and not allow my blunder to change their opinion of you.
Certainly, apology accepted.
>
>There have also been a number of occasions where I interpreted your
>statements as more antagonistic than they may have been intended
>because you and swingman were arguing the same point of view ("ignore
>the problem and just make sawdust"). In the absence of swingman's
>derogatory remarks I may not have taken them the same way. So, I
>apologize for this as well.
I didn't find those comments offensive, but opinions must vary,
depending on one's point of view.
>
>I'm still wondering if you think Dan was wasting his time to align his
>saw. Is it better for him to live with the problem (rework all his
>bevel cuts) or invest the time up front to eliminate the problem once
>and for all?
It's not a waste of time for him if he wants alignment more precise
than what he had. My position is that the rework that he anticpates
is not what I would have expected with those original readings. He
said he experienced a bad fit while using the saw prior to realigning
it. I never questioned that nor commented on it, but was surprised by
it. I'm glad you were able to help him. Sounds like he had a simple
case of a cabinet top plate plane or a table boss plane that was not
perfectly (and there is no such thing except randomly) parallel to the
table top. But I would bet that it was within both Powermatics
specifications and the natural statistical process capability range
for the process. And, as originally stated, I expect that the feature
reading (45) was also.
Frank
Ed Bennett
> So what did you mean Ed? You used the statement in an analogous
> manner. Are you like Galileo with the innovative ideas and those who
> don't accept those ideas are" piously ignorant"?
The analogy is really aimed and encouraging people to examine the
facts and use their intelligence to judge the merits of proper
alignment. It was also intended to discourage people from ignoring
the facts, dispensing with their intellect and arguing "just make
sawdust". I thought it was a particularly keen analogy to answer
swingman's accusation that I was being pious and holier than thou.
That was it's primary purpose.
However, I don't mind attributing the role of Galileo with those who
believe that they can improve the performance of their machinery (and
subsequently the quality of their woodworking) with proper alignment.
I wouldn't want to have the role of the Roman authorities attributed
to me. I wouldn't want to be in the position of ridiculing and
persecuting the modern Galileos. So, I think each person needs to
examine their own attitude and determine if they like the role that
they have chosen to play.
That said...With regard to your own saw of 13 years, you said: "I
never checked the saw for alignment that [first] day or ever." You
also indicate that you believe that precise alignment is a waste of
time. In your recommendation to Dan, you said "...if it were mine and
I were within .016" with a dead on 90, I'd lock it down and cut
wood." (although I can't seem to get you to now say if you think it
was a waste of time for Dan to get this resolved). You include
yourself in the group of those who think that alignment is
unimportant. But, since you don't actually know the current state of
your machine (aligned or misaligned) I don't understand how you can be
so confident in your assertion. Maybe your saw is (by sheer luck)
well aligned. Maybe it isn't and you just don't recognize the
problems.
I don't doubt that you want to know which part I think you play in the
analogy. I could tell you what I think based on the evidence I've
seen (reviewed above for your convenience). But, this really is a
question that you need to answer for yourself. You need to play the
part that you believe is right, argue it's merits, and hope that time
doesn't treat you as badly as it did the Roman authorities.
It's not for me to tell you which role to play. I recognize that the
Galileo role is a lonely one with many trials and tribulations ;-).
But, I choose it and argue it's merits becaue I believe that it is
right. By contrast, the Roman role is grounded in piety ("we're not
wood machinists") and enjoys relative ease in the consensus of many.
Ed Bennett
Unfortunately I don't have any instruments calibrated in gnat's asses
(or even thousandths of a gnat's ass). I'll check the NIST web site to
see if they list the conversion factor between inches and gnat's
asses. I'm sure that they maintain a standard gnat's ass from which
all certified instruments can trace their calibration. ;-)
Seriously, swingman was making fun of (mocking) Dan's efforts to
eliminate 0.016" of alignment error. That's about 1/64" for those not
conversant in thousandths (and one hell of a big gnatt if this is
equivalent to one thousandth of it's ass!). It's about three times the
ammount that matters (0.005"). It certainly affects accuracy and
borders on dangerous (i.e. kickback). It's an easy thing to fix. I
just can't imagine why it has caused so much antagonism.
Ed Bennett
> It's not a waste of time for him if he wants alignment more precise
> than what he had. My position is that the rework that he anticpates
> is not what I would have expected with those original readings. He
> said he experienced a bad fit while using the saw prior to realigning
> it. I never questioned that nor commented on it, but was surprised by
> it.
Two things can happen when you have bad blade alignment. The work can
pinch between the fence and the blade resulting in a burned edge. Or,
the work can wander away from the fence during the cut resulting in an
inaccurate cut. When using a miter gauge, the work has a tendency to
slide to one side or the other. It all depends on which direction the
misalignment takes. If you prevent the wandering with clamps (miter
gauge) or feather boards (fence) you end up with a burned edge (and a
wider kerf if you follow all the way through).
The same things happen when the blade is tilted. However, the
wandering or pinching isn't just horizontal, it will also have a
vertical component. Most people notice the horizontal wandering but
don't catch the vertical.
> I'm glad you were able to help him. Sounds like he had a simple
> case of a cabinet top plate plane or a table boss plane that was not
> perfectly (and there is no such thing except randomly) parallel to the
> table top. But I would bet that it was within both Powermatics
> specifications and the natural statistical process capability range
> for the process. And, as originally stated, I expect that the feature
> reading (45) was also.
There are wide specs and large variability. I don't know what the PM
specs are but I suspect that you are right. I've had a lot of
customers complain about interactions with woodworking machinery
manufacturers. Most of these companies just don't think that their
customers will ever notice or care. And, since the market is so price
competitive, they're not to keen on making an investment in this
area. I've talked with Manufacturing Engineers at Delta (about 12
years ago). They have jigs like mine that they use internally for
audit checks (sold a Sr. and associated accessories to their facility
in Pittsburgh) but it's not 100% inspection. They just want to make
sure that their process is still in control.
Maxwell Lol
> Seriously, swingman was making fun of (mocking) Dan's efforts to
> eliminate 0.016" of alignment error. That's about 1/64" for those not
> conversant in thousandths (and one hell of a big gnatt if this is
> equivalent to one thousandth of it's ass!). It's about three times the
> ammount that matters (0.005"). It certainly affects accuracy and
> borders on dangerous (i.e. kickback). It's an easy thing to fix. I
> just can't imagine why it has caused so much antagonism.
Well, *you* said it was "the sort of derogatory comment."
I'm just pointing out that it is not. It's slang.
Frank Boettcher
wrote:
> I've talked with Manufacturing Engineers at Delta (about 12
>years ago). They have jigs like mine that they use internally for
>audit checks (sold a Sr. and associated accessories to their facility
>in Pittsburgh) but it's not 100% inspection. They just want to make
>sure that their process is still in control.
The individuals in Pittsburgh had nothing to do with the quality
inspection of my product. They were dealing with far eastern
imports. I did do 100% inspection of the features in questions in
addition to various statistical methods. Please don't blend the two
together if you don't know what you are talking about. That
(confusion of the source) has already pretty much destroyed the
quality image of the brand. That's all I have to say about that.
Ed Bennett
> The individuals in Pittsburgh had nothing to do with the quality
> inspection of my product. They were dealing with far eastern
> imports. I did do 100% inspection of the features in questions in
> addition to various statistical methods. Please don't blend the two
> together if you don't know what you are talking about. That
> (confusion of the source) has already pretty much destroyed the
> quality image of the brand. That's all I have to say about that.
You are right, I really don't know anything about what Delta does in
Pittsburgh. I just know what they told me. I thought it was a bit
strange that they only needed one Aligner to support their entire
production line. They explained that the Aligner would only be used
for occasional audits. I tried to convince them that every service
center needed one. Didn't work. :-(
bridg...@yahoo.com
>
> > "gnat's ass" isn't a derogatory term. It's a unit of measurement!
>
> Unfortunately I don't have any instruments calibrated in gnat's asses
> (or even thousandths of a gnat's ass). I'll check the NIST web site to
> see if they list the conversion factor between inches and gnat's
> asses. I'm sure that they maintain a standard gnat's ass from which
> all certified instruments can trace their calibration. ;-)
a gnat's ass is a unit of measurement approximately one order of
magnitude smaller than that offered by the most accurate instrument in
your shop... which in your case makes it pretty damn thin.....
Swingman
> the problem and just make sawdust"). In the absence of swingman's
> derogatory remarks I may not have taken them the same way
> Seriously, swingman was making fun of (mocking) Dan's efforts to
> eliminate 0.016" of alignment error.
> I just can't imagine why it has caused so much antagonism.
Bullshit, all around ... what folks need to know is that the real
"mocking"/"ranting and raving" and "antagonism" is your vile, unsolicited
e-mail backed up on my hard drive.
it's real, it's provable, and it's disturbing.
It's also damn sad.
Ed Bennett
> a gnat's ass is a unit of measurement approximately one order of
> magnitude smaller than that offered by the most accurate instrument in
> your shop... which in your case makes it pretty damn thin.....
No luck with NIST ;-) Well, I can measure to within a millionth of an
inch (with some uncertainty) so that would be pretty darn small
indeed!
Yes, I know that "gnat's ass" is slang. People use it to describe
something that is extremely small and insignificant. It's hyperbole
(an obvious and intentional exaggeration). People use hyperbole to
illustrate something that is ridiculous (causing or worthy of ridicule
or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable). To characterize Dan's
desire to align his saw as the persuit of "thousandths of a gnat's
ass" just emphasizes the ridiculous nature of the task. It's
hyperbole on top of hyperbole.
I don't think that 0.016" of misalignment is absurd, preposterous,
laughable, or worthy of ridicule. It's hard for me to understand such
a characterization as anything other than derogatory (tending to
lessen the merit or reputation of a person or thing; disparaging;
depreciatory). But, that's just me. Others may not feel the same
way. It depends on their point of view and the effects that it has on
the individual. Nobody likes to have their profession characterized
in such a way.
I can understand jokes and how people poke fun at eachother in a light
hearted way. Sometimes it's not appreciated. Maybe it strikes a
chord or pushes a button that is particularly sensitive. Maybe it
even has tangible consequences that can affect a person's livelihood.
The proper thing to do is make a private appeal for the "humor" to
cease. When presented with such an appeal, most of us will recognize
the unintended consequences and back off. Some may even feel
compelled to offer an apology. The really rare individual might even
make the apology public so that everyone would understand that no harm
was intended. This is how people manage misunderstandings in polite
society.
A person who cannot recognize any potential for offense, denies the
appeal and places the blame on the offended with further jabs ("you're
obtuse", "wrong headed", "have no sense of humor", etc.) is being
particularly callous (insensitive; indifferent; unsympathetic). If
they step up the public activity with deliberately embarrassing jabs
then they shouldn't be too surpirsed when the offended begins to take
overt actions to remedy the situation (limit the damage). If they are
lucky, they will receive yet another private appeal with very strong
and direct language with exact specifics and blunt descriptions of the
offending behavior, it's consequences, and how it is being
interpreted. To deny the appeal at this level and counter with
maliciously embarrassing public jabs truely places one in the category
of "asshole". At this point, it is clear that no reason or appeal can
be used to remedy the situation. It is, by definition, beyond all
reason.
Ed Bennett
> Bullshit, all around ... what folks need to know is that the real
> "mocking"/"ranting and raving" and "antagonism" is your vile, unsolicited
> e-mail backed up on my hard drive.
>
> it's real, it's provable, and it's disturbing.
>
> It's also damn sad.
This just isn't the direction you want to go Karl. Don't take my word
for it, please ask someone else. Frank, for example, can tell you
exactly why this isn't a good idea.
Please re-consider the jokes, jabs, and fun that you have been having
at my expense and think about choosing a different course of action.
It would be better for everyone all around.
FrozenNorth
and wrote the following:
> On Sep 30, 11:16 am, "Swingman" <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Bullshit, all around ... what folks need to know is that the real
>> "mocking"/"ranting and raving" and "antagonism" is your vile, unsolicited
>> e-mail backed up on my hard drive.
>>
>> it's real, it's provable, and it's disturbing.
>>
>> It's also damn sad.
>
> This just isn't the direction you want to go Karl. Don't take my word
> for it, please ask someone else. Frank, for example, can tell you
> exactly why this isn't a good idea.
>
> Please re-consider the jokes, jabs, and fun that you have been having
> at my expense and think about choosing a different course of action.
> It would be better for everyone all around.
>
Ed, I have been lurking here for a long time, I recently posted when I had a
serious question concerning wood finishing. I hang around in some of the
more volatile groups on usenet, and offer this advice, you *do* *not* have
the personality or self confidence to survive the path you are choosing.
You may be better off going to a web board of some description to
support/promote your products, you will not win here, and most of these
folks are amateurs at usenet battles/flames compared to many other groups.
Don't bother responding, as I won't, I came here peacefully, and will stay
here that way. You have my 2 cents, it is up to you how you want to spend
them.
--
Lits Slut #9
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.
Swingman
> This just isn't the direction you want to go Karl. Don't take my word
> for it, please ask someone else. Frank, for example, can tell you
> exactly why this isn't a good idea.
>
> Please re-consider the jokes, jabs, and fun that you have been having
> at my expense and think about choosing a different course of action.
> It would be better for everyone all around.
I agree, Ed ... all things considered, it would certainly be much better for
_you_. AAMOF, I hereby suggest (not threaten as you attempt to do above)
that _you_ drop the whole thing.
You're simply worth no further consideration on my part. I fully expect
you'll continue along the same line, but EOT, as far as my participation.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Swingman
"FrozenNorth" wrote
> You may be better off going to a web board of some description to
> support/promote your products, you will not win here.
>, and most of these
> folks are amateurs at usenet battles/flames compared to many other groups.
While I agree with the later half, I vehemently disagree with the first
premise above
Contrary to what Ed has decided as my take on his product is, it is an
_excellent_ product, something every serious woodworker will find of great
value and, as such, has always deserved as much publicity amongst the
woodworking community as possible.
To suggest otherwise would be a loss to the woodworking community
hereabouts.
Despite our differences of opinion, this is simple fact ... I've said the
same to Ed, on posts here on the wRec, and on my website.
FrozenNorth
wrote the following:
>
> "FrozenNorth" wrote
>
>> You may be better off going to a web board of some description to
>> support/promote your products, you will not win here.
>
>>, and most of these
>> folks are amateurs at usenet battles/flames compared to many other
>> groups.
>
> While I agree with the later half, I vehemently disagree with the first
> premise above
Fine here, as I said I came here with no cause to create probs, I am doing
more finish carpentry than serious wooddorking. I am just suggesting Ed's
skin is a bit too thin for usenet.
>
> Contrary to what Ed has decided as my take on his product is, it is an
> _excellent_ product, something every serious woodworker will find of great
> value and, as such, has always deserved as much publicity amongst the
> woodworking community as possible.
>
> To suggest otherwise would be a loss to the woodworking community
> hereabouts.
>
> Despite our differences of opinion, this is simple fact ... I've said the
> same to Ed, on posts here on the wRec, and on my website.
>
I don't own a tablesaw, I have numerous tools, the only one which needs
aligning is a CMS, mainly drills corded and not, hammer drill, various
saws, a portable electric hand planer, sanders etc. I do all this to save
cash, done the kitchen, bathrooms, basement, various tiling, electrical,
carpentry work etc., just an IT guy for a living. I've been checking out
this place and alt.home.repair for many years, after a while you learn who
are the people with good advice, and who doesn't offer anything but a waste
of bandwidth.
Have a nice evening.
:-)
Swingman
"FrozenNorth" wrote in message \
> and who doesn't offer anything but a waste
> of bandwidth.
Unfortunately, we almost all take a turn in that barrell at some point or
other. :)
>
> Have a nice evening.
Same to you.
B A R R Y
wrote:
>
>Yes, I know that "gnat's ass" is slang. People use it to describe
>something that is extremely small and insignificant.
Unless you're the gnat.
---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------
Edwin Pawlowski
"Ed Bennett" <e...@ts-aligner.com> wrote in message
>
> This just isn't the direction you want to go Karl. Don't take my word
> for it, please ask someone else. Frank, for example, can tell you
> exactly why this isn't a good idea.
>
> Please re-consider the jokes, jabs, and fun that you have been having
> at my expense and think about choosing a different course of action.
> It would be better for everyone all around.
All of this sound very ominous to me.
If I was a business owner, I'd be very careful of how I come across to my
potential customers. Being argumentative, cantankerous, or anything like
that can cost customers or distributors.
But what do I know? I'm just an uninterested observer.
Ed Bennett
> I agree, Ed ... all things considered, it would certainly be much better for
> _you_. AAMOF, I hereby suggest (not threaten as you attempt to do above)
> that _you_ drop the whole thing.
>
> You're simply worth no further consideration on my part. I fully expect
> you'll continue along the same line, but EOT, as far as my participation.
Not a threat, just a warning. Kind of like the label on ladders that
says "Do not stand at or above this step". It's just not safe or
stable. There could be unforseen consequences that everyone would
regret.
shin...@hotmail.com
I have read through this entire thread and come away with this
conclusion: You guys have way, WAY too much time on your hands and
have no shame about how far you will push an issue. You sound like an
angry 90 year old couple. It's a wonder any one of you make a living
because it appears that you spend most of your time typing and
thinking up "the perfect reply". Ed; you really don't have to reply to
every negative comment. It makes you look bad. Swingman; stop picking
on someone just because you know he will argue with you. He makes a
good product and you know it. Find something more constructive to do
rather than tormenting Ed.
Chuck