John wrote:

Just walked out to the shop and measured the depth of the channle, and
there is approx 1in of clearance from the bottom of the green pad and
the inside upper edge of the gripper. So, you can have the blade
approx 1in above the workpiece and NOT cut the GRRRipper

Gosh, someone who actually owns a GRRRipper is posting on this instead
of just trying to guess about this from the pictures on the Gripper
website - will wonders never cease vbg!

I find it interesting that your measurement comes so close to my "guess".

John

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:41:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Upscale wrote:

"Lee Gordon" wrote in message
...
The difference is that the Grr-Ripper is low. So low that I can't fit
it past the blade, without dropping the blade to a position I'd regard
as less than ideal for ripping.

Not sure what the problem is that he's having, but the pictures on the
microjig.com website shows that it can easily clear 5" which is well
above the maximum height of a 10" blade.

Huh? Looking at the Microjig site, they claim that the narrow leg is 1/4"
wide. Scaling from that the throat depth is about an inch. Now, scaling
from an online photo is not the most accurate process in the world, but
still there's no way I'm off by a factor of 5 on that.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Just walked out to the shop and measured the depth of the channle, and
there is approx 1in of clearance from the bottom of the green pad and
the inside upper edge of the gripper. So, you can have the blade
approx 1in above the workpiece and NOT cut the GRRRipper

Gosh, someone who actually owns a GRRRipper is posting on this instead
of just trying to guess about this from the pictures on the Gripper
website - will wonders never cease vbg!

I just came inside from measuring mine, as well. And I can confirm that
there is indeed one inch of clearance between the bottom of the rubber pads
and the "bridge." So Andy is correct that you can't raise the blade to full
elevation and run the Grr-ripper over it without cutting into it and/or your
hand. However, the McGuffin here is that the Grr-ripper does not ride flat
on the table; it sits on top of the workpiece. So if you are ripping a 2"
thick piece of stock, you can raise the blade to just a hair under 3" and be
OK. I can see if someone doesn't want to work that way but it doesn't
bother me.

Lee



--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

All my life I have noticed the tendency of a board to "ride up" if the
blade
is low when ripping, and that tendency disappears with the blade set up
high.

But that tendency can be counteracted when you are able to apply downward
pressure on the workpiece in the vicinity of the blade while simultaneously
applying lateral force to keep the piece tight to the fence, which is what I
like most about the Grr-ripper.

Lee



--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

"Lee Gordon" wrote in message
All my life I have noticed the tendency of a board to "ride up" if the
blade
is low when ripping, and that tendency disappears with the blade set up
high.

But that tendency can be counteracted when you are able to apply downward
pressure on the workpiece in the vicinity of the blade while
simultaneously
applying lateral force to keep the piece tight to the fence, which is what
I
like most about the Grr-ripper.

I agree ... but It takes a week to walk to Dallas from here, which can be
counteracted by using various other means of transportation. That doesn't
change the underlying facts.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/14/05

"Swingman" wrote in message news:6bCdnZCmsvrCov_fRVn-

I agree ... but It takes a week to walk to Dallas from here, which can be
counteracted by using various other means of transportation. That doesn't
change the underlying facts.

Absurd comparison. Hope you're not planning on entering any debates soon.

"Upscale" wrote in message
"Swingman" wrote in message

I agree ... but It takes a week to walk to Dallas from here, which can
be
counteracted by using various other means of transportation. That
doesn't
change the underlying facts.

Absurd comparison. Hope you're not planning on entering any debates soon.

LOL .. If you believe that, then you're most definitely out of your league.
The underlying structural relationships in the 'analogy' are rock solid to
any one capable of logical thought ... but you do have to be smart enough to
recognize the parallels.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/17/05

"Swingman" wrote in message news:rIWdnToxb6du6__fRVn-
I agree ... but It takes a week to walk to Dallas from here, which can
be counteracted by using various other means of transportation. That
doesn't change the underlying facts.

Absurd comparison. Hope you're not planning on entering any debates
soon.

LOL .. If you believe that, then you're most definitely out of your
league.
The underlying structural relationships in the 'analogy' are rock solid to
any one capable of logical thought ... but you do have to be smart enough
to
recognize the parallels.

The structural relationship you are claiming between walking to Dallas and
the Grr-gripper is simple equivocation and still meets the standard of
absurdity. As far as saying I'm not smart enough to see the parallels,
that's an ad hominem response and plainly demonstrates your poor debating
skills, as I've already intimidated. It doesn't meet the standards of
adequacy and fails to be acceptable. Come back when you have something a
little more substantial to offer.

Come back when you have something a
little more substantial to offer.

It may be a while. He's walking to Dallas. g

Lee


--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

Upscale wrote:
....
...as I've already intimidated. ...

That wud be intimated methinks, I doubt you'll intimidate Swingman.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

That wud be intimated methinks, I doubt you'll intimidate Swingman.

Yeah, mind thought one thing, fingers did something else and I didn't notice
until I'd posted the message. I'm sure Swingman will attempt to use it to
his advantage.

"Upscale"wrote in message

"Swingman" wrote in message
I agree ... but It takes a week to walk to Dallas from here, which
can
be counteracted by using various other means of transportation. That
doesn't change the underlying facts.

Absurd comparison. Hope you're not planning on entering any debates
soon.

LOL .. If you believe that, then you're most definitely out of your
league.
The underlying structural relationships in the 'analogy' are rock solid
to
any one capable of logical thought ... but you do have to be smart
enough
to
recognize the parallels.

The structural relationship you are claiming between walking to Dallas and
the Grr-gripper is simple equivocation and still meets the standard of
absurdity. As far as saying I'm not smart enough to see the parallels,
that's an ad hominem response and plainly demonstrates your poor debating
skills, as I've already intimidated.

Ahh, but the shoe fits you too well ... and "ad hominen" was tit for tat in
case you didn't even notice your ad hominem "debate" response.

It doesn't meet the standards of
adequacy and fails to be acceptable. Come back when you have something a
little more substantial to offer.

Well, let's see if we can't get your elevator a little closer to the top
floor:

In both instances there is an underlying problem in the realization of a
goal, and various means to "counteract" the problem:

Goal Problem Possible Solution
Rip cut - board rises - raise blade/use hold down device
Get to Dallas - long walk - use device with motor/wheels/wings

Shame on you for not being able to figure out something so simple for
yourself ... and so much for your qualifications on making judgments on
others ability to "debate".

Now go **** yourself.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/17/05

"Swingman" wrote in message news:htGdnSVpRep2WP_fRVn-

Shame on you for not being able to figure out something so simple for
yourself ... and so much for your qualifications on making judgments on
others ability to "debate".

The childish comparison you used was simple to see. Anyone with even
rudimentary language skills can form a relationship between two things,
objects or words. That's simple logic. I dismissed the relationship you
developed as being irrelevent because the two ideas were too foreign to each
other.

Now go **** yourself.

Ahh, now we get down to the real sentiment of the discussion. Failing to
prove any valid points, you've digressed to profanity. Very appropriate and
more than anything else, demonstrates your lack of debating skills. Let's
talk again sometime when you've got something more apropos to say.

"Upscale" wrote in message ...

The childish comparison you used was simple to see.

Wel, it was becoming apparent that an attempt to dumb it down to your level
was necessary ... obvioulsy even that failed.

Anyone with even
rudimentary language skills can form a relationship between two things,
objects or words. That's simple logic. I dismissed the relationship you
developed as being irrelevent because the two ideas were too foreign to
each
other.

It is more likely that you "dismissed it" for lack of comprehension ...
provable by your missing the STATED point of the analogy, to wit:

... none of the solutions "change the underlying facts."

Now go **** yourself.

Ahh, now we get down to the real sentiment of the discussion. Failing to
prove any valid points, you've digressed to profanity. Very appropriate
and
more than anything else, demonstrates your lack of debating skills. Let's
talk again sometime when you've got something more apropos to say.

No thanks ... the suggested action is much more "apropos", and tailored for
you personally, due to the twist you've managed to inject, with the uncalled
for snideness in your first post in the thread, into what was heretofore a
pleasant little discussion.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/17/05

"Swingman" wrote in message

No thanks ... the suggested action is much more "apropos", and tailored
for
you personally, due to the twist you've managed to inject, with the
uncalled
for snideness in your first post in the thread, into what was heretofore a
pleasant little discussion.

Pleasant until someone disagreed with you. What does that say about your
apparently fragile ego that you can't handle a little rebuttal?

I bought the full package because that is all they had. I use the basic
part frequently, but have never used the rest. YMMV.