Whenever I tape legs I always have to cleanup one side to get the
beginning of the taper perpendicular to the leg.

I am curious why? This leg that was squared in the planer has pencil
marks for clarity.

One side is perpendicular,
The other side is not. The blade comes up all the way thru and then
some, I use a high blade not just thru.

The way I rotate offers support on the backside.

Does anyone know why this is happening? I am getting tired of fixing
these after the fact.

Whenever I tape legs I always have to cleanup one side to get the
beginning of the taper perpendicular to the leg.

I am curious why? This leg that was squared in the planer has pencil
marks for clarity.

One side is perpendicular,
The other side is not. The blade comes up all the way thru and then
some, I use a high blade not just thru.

The way I rotate offers support on the backside.

Does anyone know why this is happening? I am getting tired of fixing
these after the fact.

In article ,
tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote:

Whenever I tape legs I always have to cleanup one side to get the
beginning of the taper perpendicular to the leg.

I am curious why? This leg that was squared in the planer has pencil
marks for clarity.

One side is perpendicular,
The other side is not. The blade comes up all the way thru and then
some, I use a high blade not just thru.

The way I rotate offers support on the backside.

Does anyone know why this is happening? I am getting tired of fixing
these after the fact.


Note that the lower picture as resized (or the upper one big) has the
taper perpendicular to the flat side of the leg. The upper one (lower in
big) has it perpendicular to the cut side of the leg, which makes me
think than that cut side of the leg is being used as a reference for
that cut. Either order the cuts so that does not happen, or make like a
cabriole leg and tape on the waste to shim the stock back to roughly
square before further cuts.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

I am curious why? This leg that was squared in the planer has pencil
marks for clarity.

One side is perpendicular,
The other side is not. The blade comes up all the way thru and then
some, I use a high blade not just thru.

The way I rotate offers support on the backside.

Does anyone know why this is happening? I am getting tired of fixing
these after the fact.


Note that the lower picture as resized (or the upper one big) has the
taper perpendicular to the flat side of the leg. The upper one (lower
in big) has it perpendicular to the cut side of the leg, which makes
me think than that cut side of the leg is being used as a reference
for that cut. Either order the cuts so that does not happen, or make
like a cabriole leg and tape on the waste to shim the stock back to
roughly square before further cuts.

It looks to me like you are making at least one cut with an already
tapered leg resting on the table. The square top has to be the
reference for the fence AND the table, for every cut.

"tiredofspam" nospam.nospam.com wrote in message
...
Whenever I tape legs I always have to cleanup one side to get the
beginning of the taper perpendicular to the leg.

I am curious why? This leg that was squared in the planer has pencil
marks for clarity.

One side is perpendicular,
The other side is not. The blade comes up all the way thru and then
some, I use a high blade not just thru.

The way I rotate offers support on the backside.

Does anyone know why this is happening? I am getting tired of fixing
these after the fact.


Looking at he smaller picture, I would say that you are not keeping the top
surface of the leg parallel to the TS top surface. If you are cutting a
taper and using another taper cut as the TS top reference this will happen.

"tiredofspam" nospam.nospam.com wrote in message ...
Whenever I tape legs I always have to cleanup one side to get the
beginning of the taper perpendicular to the leg.

I am curious why? This leg that was squared in the planer has pencil
marks for clarity.

Are you sure that the leg is square? A planer will make opposite sides
parallel. However a planer does not ensure that adjacent sides are
at 90 degrees.

If your saw blade is slightly off of 90 degrees then you can have this
sort of problem. For example if your saw blade is at 89 degrees and
use the saw to 'square' the leg, then one corner will be at 89 and the
next corner will be at 91 degrees. When you then use the saw to cut the
tapers you will have the effect that you see. When the saw cuts a taper
along the 89 degree corner, it will produce a square end to the taper.
When the saw cuts a taper along the 91 degree corner, there will be
a 2 degree difference (89 vs 91) between the side of the leg and
the saw blade. This difference will be magnified by the slope of the
taper. For instance, if your taper is 1/2 inch in a 10 inch length, you
will have a 20 : 1 slope. The 2 degree difference between the side
and the blade will be multiplied by the 20:1 factor. The result will be
a 40 degree angle at the end of the taper.

No, that's not it.
The leg is cut with the flat side to the table
then rotated to the other flat.



Ecnerwal wrote:
In article ,
tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote:

Whenever I tape legs I always have to cleanup one side to get the
beginning of the taper perpendicular to the leg.

I am curious why? This leg that was squared in the planer has pencil
marks for clarity.

One side is perpendicular,
The other side is not. The blade comes up all the way thru and then
some, I use a high blade not just thru.

The way I rotate offers support on the backside.

Does anyone know why this is happening? I am getting tired of fixing
these after the fact.


Note that the lower picture as resized (or the upper one big) has the
taper perpendicular to the flat side of the leg. The upper one (lower in
big) has it perpendicular to the cut side of the leg, which makes me
think than that cut side of the leg is being used as a reference for
that cut. Either order the cuts so that does not happen, or make like a
cabriole leg and tape on the waste to shim the stock back to roughly
square before further cuts.

Just checked with a square, and all sides are square.


Dan Coby wrote:
"tiredofspam" nospam.nospam.com wrote in message ...
Whenever I tape legs I always have to cleanup one side to get the
beginning of the taper perpendicular to the leg.

I am curious why? This leg that was squared in the planer has pencil
marks for clarity.

Are you sure that the leg is square? A planer will make opposite sides
parallel. However a planer does not ensure that adjacent sides are
at 90 degrees.

If your saw blade is slightly off of 90 degrees then you can have this
sort of problem. For example if your saw blade is at 89 degrees and
use the saw to 'square' the leg, then one corner will be at 89 and the
next corner will be at 91 degrees. When you then use the saw to cut the
tapers you will have the effect that you see. When the saw cuts a taper
along the 89 degree corner, it will produce a square end to the taper.
When the saw cuts a taper along the 91 degree corner, there will be
a 2 degree difference (89 vs 91) between the side of the leg and
the saw blade. This difference will be magnified by the slope of the
taper. For instance, if your taper is 1/2 inch in a 10 inch length, you
will have a 20 : 1 slope. The 2 degree difference between the side
and the blade will be multiplied by the 20:1 factor. The result will be
a 40 degree angle at the end of the taper.

tiredofspam wrote:

Just checked with a square, and all sides are square.



Are you cutting the first taper beginning at the bottom of the leg
cutting to the shoulder and the second taper starting at the shoulder
cutting to the bottom of the leg? If so your blade may be deflecting as
it enters the shoulder in the second taper.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

Both are cut at the shoulder.

I have a sliding table taper jig.
The runner sits in the table saws miter slot.
Destaco clamps on top of a board that sets the angle..

Pretty much the OTHER standard taper jig.


Nova wrote:
tiredofspam wrote:

Just checked with a square, and all sides are square.



Are you cutting the first taper beginning at the bottom of the leg
cutting to the shoulder and the second taper starting at the shoulder
cutting to the bottom of the leg? If so your blade may be deflecting as
it enters the shoulder in the second taper.

"tiredofspam" nospam.nospam.com wrote in message
...
Whenever I tape legs I always have to cleanup one side to get the
beginning of the taper perpendicular to the leg.

I am curious why? This leg that was squared in the planer has pencil
marks for clarity.

One side is perpendicular,
The other side is not. The blade comes up all the way thru and then
some, I use a high blade not just thru.

The way I rotate offers support on the backside.

Does anyone know why this is happening? I am getting tired of fixing
these after the fact.


Think about what you are doing here a bit. Your blade is round. Think
stopped dado being made on a TS. Is the end straight up and down/ square?
No. Tapering the cut exaggerates the result. Because the upper part of
the round blade begins to cut farther down the taper you get the slanted
line.
You need to use a blade that cuts perpendicular to the work to have a taper
begin or end squarely. Try your bandsaw.

"Leon" wrote

You need to use a blade that cuts perpendicular to the work to have a
taper begin or end squarely. Try your bandsaw.

Still doesn't explain why, in the OP's original query, one cut on the TS
will be square/perpendicular, and the next not?

( I usually sand my way out of this same situation when using a taper jig,
but still experience the phenomenon occasionally myself.)

Obviously, the juxtaposition between the blade, the stock, and the jig
(stock always varying, however minutely, in dimension/flatness throughout
its length) is at the root of the problem, but I'll be damned if I've
figured out how to overcome it myself when using a tapering jig on the TS.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

In article , "Leon" wrote:

"tiredofspam" nospam.nospam.com wrote in message
.. .
Whenever I tape legs I always have to cleanup one side to get the
beginning of the taper perpendicular to the leg.

I am curious why? This leg that was squared in the planer has pencil
marks for clarity.

One side is perpendicular,
The other side is not. The blade comes up all the way thru and then
some, I use a high blade not just thru.

The way I rotate offers support on the backside.

Does anyone know why this is happening? I am getting tired of fixing
these after the fact.


Think about what you are doing here a bit. Your blade is round. Think
stopped dado being made on a TS. Is the end straight up and down/ square?
No.

He's making through cuts, not dados.

Tapering the cut exaggerates the result. Because the upper part of
the round blade begins to cut farther down the taper you get the slanted
line.

Ummmm.... no.

Maybe you should try an experiment or two.

You need to use a blade that cuts perpendicular to the work to have a taper
begin or end squarely.

Utter nonsense.

Try your bandsaw.

A better alternative is to figure out what he's doing wrong on the tablesaw.

For the OP: Sorry, I don't know what that might be. But I do know that
perfectly fine tapers with nice perpendicular edges can easily be cut on a
tablesaw if it's done properly.

Double-check your setups. Make *certain* that:
- the leg blanks are square in cross-section, and free of twist.
- the saw blade is at 90 degrees to the table.
- the jig is traveling exactly parallel to the blade.

If you can, reverse the jig so that you're cutting from the end of the leg up
to the shoulder, rather than from the shoulder to the end. If you can't, get
or make a jig that does allow this. Novak's right about blade deflection. That
might not be the (entire) problem you're having, but it's not helping, and
should be eliminated as a possible cause.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"tiredofspam" nospam.nospam.com wrote in message ...
Just checked with a square, and all sides are square.

Everything needs to be square. This includes:

1) The sides of the leg needs to be square to each other
2) The saw blade needs to be square (perpendicular) to the table.
3) The jig needs to hold the leg square to the blade.

The problem that you have indicates that one or more of these is
not square.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the taper in the leg amplifies
the effect of anything being out of square so check very carefully.

"Swingman" wrote in message
...


Still doesn't explain why, in the OP's original query, one cut on the TS
will be square/perpendicular, and the next not?

YEAH! LOL and does not hold up when cuting a miter.

If the stock that he is using is truely square it has to boil down to
technique. I am betting the resulting taper is no longer square to the
sides.

Exactly. The saw blade is in the same position,
the stock is square.
The magnification doesn't happen if the stock is square.
The blade is square, hence the perpendicular cut.

wish I knew why this happens.

Swingman wrote:
"Leon" wrote

You need to use a blade that cuts perpendicular to the work to have a
taper begin or end squarely. Try your bandsaw.

Still doesn't explain why, in the OP's original query, one cut on the TS
will be square/perpendicular, and the next not?

( I usually sand my way out of this same situation when using a taper jig,
but still experience the phenomenon occasionally myself.)

Obviously, the juxtaposition between the blade, the stock, and the jig
(stock always varying, however minutely, in dimension/flatness throughout
its length) is at the root of the problem, but I'll be damned if I've
figured out how to overcome it myself when using a tapering jig on the TS.

The blade is a Forrest WW II
With the large stabilizer.
So there is a lot of support to prevent deflection.
Although the stabilizer is meant for vibration to get clean cuts, I am
sure it helps with deflection.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Leon" wrote:
"tiredofspam" nospam.nospam.com wrote in message
...
Whenever I tape legs I always have to cleanup one side to get the
beginning of the taper perpendicular to the leg.

I am curious why? This leg that was squared in the planer has pencil
marks for clarity.

One side is perpendicular,
The other side is not. The blade comes up all the way thru and then
some, I use a high blade not just thru.

The way I rotate offers support on the backside.

Does anyone know why this is happening? I am getting tired of fixing
these after the fact.

Think about what you are doing here a bit. Your blade is round. Think
stopped dado being made on a TS. Is the end straight up and down/ square?
No.

He's making through cuts, not dados.

Tapering the cut exaggerates the result. Because the upper part of
the round blade begins to cut farther down the taper you get the slanted
line.

Ummmm.... no.

Maybe you should try an experiment or two.

You need to use a blade that cuts perpendicular to the work to have a taper
begin or end squarely.

Utter nonsense.

Try your bandsaw.

A better alternative is to figure out what he's doing wrong on the tablesaw.

For the OP: Sorry, I don't know what that might be. But I do know that
perfectly fine tapers with nice perpendicular edges can easily be cut on a
tablesaw if it's done properly.

Double-check your setups. Make *certain* that:
- the leg blanks are square in cross-section, and free of twist.
- the saw blade is at 90 degrees to the table.
- the jig is traveling exactly parallel to the blade.

If you can, reverse the jig so that you're cutting from the end of the leg up
to the shoulder, rather than from the shoulder to the end. If you can't, get
or make a jig that does allow this. Novak's right about blade deflection. That
might not be the (entire) problem you're having, but it's not helping, and
should be eliminated as a possible cause.

In article , tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote:
[top posting corrected]

Doug Miller wrote:
If you can, reverse the jig so that you're cutting from the end of the leg up
to the shoulder, rather than from the shoulder to the end. If you can't, get
or make a jig that does allow this. Novak's right about blade deflection. That
might not be the (entire) problem you're having, but it's not helping, and
should be eliminated as a possible cause.

The blade is a Forrest WW II
With the large stabilizer.
So there is a lot of support to prevent deflection.
Although the stabilizer is meant for vibration to get clean cuts, I am
sure it helps with deflection.

Yes, it helps, but much less than you suppose. Think of the taper as a wedge
pushing the blade sideways; if the taper is, say, a quarter-inch per foot,
that wedge gives you a 48-to-1 mechanical advantage, which translates into a
helluva sideways force on the blade.

Try cutting your tapers starting at the end of the leg and finishing at the
shoulder. If that doesn't fix the problem, then I suspect something in your
setup isn't square or straight.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"tiredofspam" wrote
Exactly. The saw blade is in the same position,
the stock is square.
The magnification doesn't happen if the stock is square.
The blade is square, hence the perpendicular cut.

wish I knew why this happens.

Swingman wrote:


Obviously, the juxtaposition between the blade, the stock, and the jig
(stock always varying, however minutely, in dimension/flatness
throughout
its length) is at the root of the problem, but I'll be damned if I've
figured out how to overcome it myself when using a tapering jig on the
TS.

I think it's a combination of factors, and, like an intermittent,
non-reproducible, bug in a complicated piece of computer code, I've learned
to just deal with the aftermath.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

tiredofspam wrote:
No, that's not it.
The leg is cut with the flat side to the table
then rotated to the other flat.

Can you post some photos of how you're making your cuts? I'm having
trouble envisioning the process...

....Kevin
--
Kevin Miller
Juneau, Alaska
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb

Will try to get that tonight.

Kevin Miller wrote:
tiredofspam wrote:
No, that's not it.
The leg is cut with the flat side to the table
then rotated to the other flat.

Can you post some photos of how you're making your cuts? I'm having
trouble envisioning the process...

...Kevin

Doug Miller wrote:

Try cutting your tapers starting at the end of the leg and finishing at the
shoulder. If that doesn't fix the problem, then I suspect something in your
setup isn't square or straight.


Also check you jig to make sure it isn't bowed. A Destaco clamp can
exert a lot of pressure and may be flexing the jig.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

"Nova" wrote

Also check you jig to make sure it isn't bowed. A Destaco clamp can
exert a lot of pressure and may be flexing the jig.

Good point ... "clamping pressure" on the jig may certainly be a
contributing factor that would be easy to overlook providing that the
clamping pressure, on subsequent taper cuts, is applied to the previously
cut taper on the leg.

However, if the clamp is on a part of the leg that remains square, and, if
the leg is indeed square, as the OP states he verified, then the pressure
exerted by any clamp on the jig should be the same for both the cuts that
work, and those that don't.

That something ain't exactly "square", in some plane, is a sure bet ...
finding out what it is from cut to cut, and whether you can do anything
about it, still remains a mystery.

I'm glad the OP brought this up, because I've noted the same thing for
years, but got to the point the I expected to have deal with it on at least
one tapered leg out of four.

I generally only taper the two inside faces when I taper legs, and almost
always, just as the OP described, at least one cut on some leg is a bit
"off", although rarely so bad that it can't be dealt with ... but you still
have to deal with it.

.... still looking for that "eureka!"


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

In article , "Swingman" wrote:

That something ain't exactly "square", in some plane, is a sure bet ...
finding out what it is from cut to cut, and whether you can do anything
about it, still remains a mystery.

I wonder if the OP's square is square...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Swingman wrote:

"Nova" wrote


Also check you jig to make sure it isn't bowed. A Destaco clamp can
exert a lot of pressure and may be flexing the jig.


Good point ... "clamping pressure" on the jig may certainly be a
contributing factor that would be easy to overlook providing that the
clamping pressure, on subsequent taper cuts, is applied to the previously
cut taper on the leg.

However, if the clamp is on a part of the leg that remains square, and, if
the leg is indeed square, as the OP states he verified, then the pressure
exerted by any clamp on the jig should be the same for both the cuts that
work, and those that don't.


I think it could also be a matter of where the clamp sits on the stock
in relation to the centerline of the piece. Once the first taper is cut
and flipped over the clamp may be causing the stock to rotate slightly.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

In article Feg6j.73$sf.36@trndny04, Nova wrote:

I think it could also be a matter of where the clamp sits on the stock
in relation to the centerline of the piece. Once the first taper is cut
and flipped over the clamp may be causing the stock to rotate slightly.

If he rotates the leg to put the first taper *down*, instead of up, before
making the second cut, that certainly could contribute to the problem (or
even be the sole cause). If the second cut is made with the first taper up,
that shouldn't be an issue.

Or is the OP cutting tapers on all four sides? That wasn't clear to me from
the initial post. If that's the case, then clearly it's not possible to avoid
making two of the cuts with an already-tapered side down -- and the last one
will have an already-tapered side against the fence, too. Positioning of the
clamp(s) over the untapered part of the leg is critical in that case.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Well, someone asked me to post how I cut them.
The destacos are just snugged down.
When I have a thick piece of wood I use shims under the top table
(sitting on the saw in one picture).
Here are some images. The wood used for this demo wasn't squared.
A friend had moved and I had a piece of his wood with a label so it was
great you can see I rotated the label to the fence.
The destacos are not causing the cut to be off. The first cut would be
off then. It is always the second cut I believe.
In this case it was.

Cutting from the bottom up is not ideal. Logic will tell you you are
cutting against the grain, while tapering toward the bottom you are
going with the grain. Hence you get cleaner cuts cutting toward the bottom.
While cutting from the bottom may make the problem go away I don't want
to tear out and ruin a leg.



tiredofspam wrote:
Whenever I tape legs I always have to cleanup one side to get the
beginning of the taper perpendicular to the leg.

I am curious why? This leg that was squared in the planer has pencil
marks for clarity.

One side is perpendicular,
The other side is not. The blade comes up all the way thru and then
some, I use a high blade not just thru.

The way I rotate offers support on the backside.

Does anyone know why this is happening? I am getting tired of fixing
these after the fact.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------

tiredofspam wrote:
Well, someone asked me to post how I cut them.
The destacos are just snugged down.

If I'm seeing the pictures correctly you are starting the cut at the
widest part of the taper, cutting to the narrowest. The blade will
deflect as it enters the stock. Try reversing the angle of the jig and
flipping the leg to start the cut at the narrowest end of the leg where
the blade won't enter the wood at a "tangent" (for lack of a better word
at the moment).

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

Again, that would be happening on both cuts. It only happens on 1.
Plus you risk tearout coming out the side, where as tapering to the
bottom I don't.

I'd rather fix it than chew up wood because I blew out the side.

Nova wrote:
tiredofspam wrote:
Well, someone asked me to post how I cut them.
The destacos are just snugged down.

If I'm seeing the pictures correctly you are starting the cut at the
widest part of the taper, cutting to the narrowest. The blade will
deflect as it enters the stock. Try reversing the angle of the jig and
flipping the leg to start the cut at the narrowest end of the leg where
the blade won't enter the wood at a "tangent" (for lack of a better word
at the moment).

tiredofspam wrote:
Again, that would be happening on both cuts. It only happens on 1.

Not necessarily. One cut will be perpendicular to the growth rings, the
other tangent. The blade would be more prone to deflect on the cut made
tangent to the growth rings.

By chance are you also using a thin kerf blade?

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

Yes I am.


Nova wrote:
tiredofspam wrote:
Again, that would be happening on both cuts. It only happens on 1.

Not necessarily. One cut will be perpendicular to the growth rings, the
other tangent. The blade would be more prone to deflect on the cut made
tangent to the growth rings.

By chance are you also using a thin kerf blade?

In article , tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote:
[top posting corrected]
Nova wrote:
tiredofspam wrote:
Again, that would be happening on both cuts. It only happens on 1.

Not necessarily. One cut will be perpendicular to the growth rings, the
other tangent. The blade would be more prone to deflect on the cut made
tangent to the growth rings.

By chance are you also using a thin kerf blade?

Yes I am.

Even more reason to think the problem is exactly as Jack and I have said: the
blade is deflecting. It seems to me you have three choices:

1) Switch to a standard-kerf blade. This may not eliminate the problem, but
it's likely to reduce it.

2) Cut the tapers from the bottom up. The risk of tearout is nowhere nearly as
great as you fear it to be.

3) Live with the problem.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

I guess I'll have to take that for face value.
Somehow I find it hard to believe that it doesn't happen on both sides.



Doug Miller wrote:
In article , tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote:
[top posting corrected]
Nova wrote:
tiredofspam wrote:
Again, that would be happening on both cuts. It only happens on 1.
Not necessarily. One cut will be perpendicular to the growth rings, the
other tangent. The blade would be more prone to deflect on the cut made
tangent to the growth rings.

By chance are you also using a thin kerf blade?

Yes I am.

Even more reason to think the problem is exactly as Jack and I have said: the
blade is deflecting. It seems to me you have three choices:

1) Switch to a standard-kerf blade. This may not eliminate the problem, but
it's likely to reduce it.

2) Cut the tapers from the bottom up. The risk of tearout is nowhere nearly as
great as you fear it to be.

3) Live with the problem.

In article , tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote:
[top posting corrected]
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , tiredofspam
nospam.nospam.com wrote:
[top posting corrected]
Nova wrote:
By chance are you also using a thin kerf blade?

Yes I am.

Even more reason to think the problem is exactly as Jack and I have said: the
blade is deflecting. It seems to me you have three choices:

1) Switch to a standard-kerf blade. This may not eliminate the problem, but
it's likely to reduce it.

2) Cut the tapers from the bottom up. The risk of tearout is nowhere nearly as
great as you fear it to be.

3) Live with the problem.

I guess I'll have to take that for face value.
Somehow I find it hard to believe that it doesn't happen on both sides.

I'm afraid I don't have an explanation for that. But I still urge you to try
cutting a few from the bottom up, and see what kind of results you get. At
least, if you still have the problem, you'll know it's not due to blade
deflection.

I'm still wondering, too, if everything is as close to square as you think it
is. What type of square are you using to check your setups? Have you verified
that your square is square?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

My square is an un-named combo square. It has ATHOL Mass written on it.
It was owned by a machinist who past away.
I also have, machinists squares with knife edges (ownded by him as well)
to double check it.
It is square!... I have verified it against the machinist squares and by
drawing a line and fliping it.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote:
[top posting corrected]
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , tiredofspam
nospam.nospam.com wrote:
[top posting corrected]
Nova wrote:
By chance are you also using a thin kerf blade?

Yes I am.

Even more reason to think the problem is exactly as Jack and I have said: the
blade is deflecting. It seems to me you have three choices:

1) Switch to a standard-kerf blade. This may not eliminate the problem, but
it's likely to reduce it.

2) Cut the tapers from the bottom up. The risk of tearout is nowhere nearly as
great as you fear it to be.

3) Live with the problem.

I guess I'll have to take that for face value.
Somehow I find it hard to believe that it doesn't happen on both sides.

I'm afraid I don't have an explanation for that. But I still urge you to try
cutting a few from the bottom up, and see what kind of results you get. At
least, if you still have the problem, you'll know it's not due to blade
deflection.

I'm still wondering, too, if everything is as close to square as you think it
is. What type of square are you using to check your setups? Have you verified
that your square is square?

In article , tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote:
[top-posting corrected]
Doug Miller wrote:

I'm afraid I don't have an explanation for that. But I still urge you to try
cutting a few from the bottom up, and see what kind of results you get. At
least, if you still have the problem, you'll know it's not due to blade
deflection.

I'm still wondering, too, if everything is as close to square as you think it
is. What type of square are you using to check your setups? Have you verified
that your square is square?

My square is an un-named combo square. It has ATHOL Mass written on it.

Very possibly a Starrett, then -- among the very best.

It was owned by a machinist who past away.
I also have, machinists squares with knife edges (ownded by him as well)
to double check it.
It is square!... I have verified it against the machinist squares and by
drawing a line and fliping it.

Sounds like you've eliminated that as a possible source of the problem. How
about the alignment of your saw?
- blade absolutely perpendicular to the table
- miter slots absolutely parallel to the blade
- fence nearly parallel to blade (a slight toe-out is acceptable)

Still a good idea to cut a few tapers bottom-up to see how they come out.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Yep, parallel, and perp..
After I finish this project, I will experiment with cutting from the
bottom up.




Doug Miller wrote:
In article , tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote:
[top-posting corrected]
Doug Miller wrote:
I'm afraid I don't have an explanation for that. But I still urge you to try
cutting a few from the bottom up, and see what kind of results you get. At
least, if you still have the problem, you'll know it's not due to blade
deflection.

I'm still wondering, too, if everything is as close to square as you think it
is. What type of square are you using to check your setups? Have you verified
that your square is square?

My square is an un-named combo square. It has ATHOL Mass written on it.

Very possibly a Starrett, then -- among the very best.

It was owned by a machinist who past away.
I also have, machinists squares with knife edges (ownded by him as well)
to double check it.
It is square!... I have verified it against the machinist squares and by
drawing a line and fliping it.

Sounds like you've eliminated that as a possible source of the problem. How
about the alignment of your saw?
- blade absolutely perpendicular to the table
- miter slots absolutely parallel to the blade
- fence nearly parallel to blade (a slight toe-out is acceptable)

Still a good idea to cut a few tapers bottom-up to see how they come out.

In article , tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote:
Yep, parallel, and perp..

Perpendicular, I assume you checked with your machinist squares. How did you
verify parallel?

After I finish this project, I will experiment with cutting from the
bottom up.

Let us know how that comes out, OK?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Parallel was with a dial gauge. Mounted on a magnetic holder. The holder
is clamped to my Incra miter gauge..


I have also used it attached to my tenoning jig. Magnetic so it works
nice. I set it up high, come over the blade then point back to the blade.
Right now I am out a little under .001 very acceptable on a contractor saw.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote:
Yep, parallel, and perp..

Perpendicular, I assume you checked with your machinist squares. How did you
verify parallel?

After I finish this project, I will experiment with cutting from the
bottom up.

Let us know how that comes out, OK?

In article , tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote:
[top posting corrected]
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , tiredofspam
nospam.nospam.com wrote:
Yep, parallel, and perp..

Perpendicular, I assume you checked with your machinist squares. How did you
verify parallel?

Parallel was with a dial gauge. Mounted on a magnetic holder. The holder
is clamped to my Incra miter gauge..

Sounds like you're doing everything right on your setups.

Let us know how the bottom-up experiments come out.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.