Hi Folks,

Just thought some of you might be interested. No charge, it's an
on-line video (for those with high speed connections). No spam, no
harvesting. Nothing but interesting (and hopefully useful) videos.

http://www.ts-aligner.com/videos.htm

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Ed Bennett

Hi Ed,
I tried to view the sliding table clip with media player 10 but it gave the
message "unable to open..."
And the player window was blank, so I clicked the link, to no avail.
Thanks,
Tom
Maker of Fine Sawdust and Thin Shavings
wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi Folks,

Just thought some of you might be interested. No charge, it's an
on-line video (for those with high speed connections). No spam, no
harvesting. Nothing but interesting (and hopefully useful) videos.

http://www.ts-aligner.com/videos.htm

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Ed Bennett

"Tom" advanced-AT-EWOLdotcom wrote in message
I tried to view the sliding table clip with media player 10 but it gave
the
message "unable to open..."
And the player window was blank, so I clicked the link, to no avail.

I've got version 10.00.00.4019 and it runs fine. Perhaps you've got some
firewall interference affecting Media Player?

Hi Tom,

Sorry about that. Right after I posted the message I went back to test
it and it worked fine. But, I noticed that it wanted to run at 700
kbps - a bit high. So, I re-made the video file and replaced the
online version. It could be that you managed to try it while I was in
the middle of transfering the new file. I wouldn't have thought that
this could be a problem but it's a possibility. It took several
minutes for the transfer to take place (some 17.6 mb). Give it another
try. As was also mentioned, you might look into your security
settings.

The sliding table video can be downloaded and played seperately (the
link to the side) or played through the Windows Media Player (I put it
right after the "Table Saw" section).

Let me know if you still can't get it to go.

Thanks,
Ed

Tom wrote:
Hi Ed,
I tried to view the sliding table clip with media player 10 but it gave the
message "unable to open..."
And the player window was blank, so I clicked the link, to no avail.
Thanks,
Tom
Maker of Fine Sawdust and Thin Shavings
wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi Folks,

Just thought some of you might be interested. No charge, it's an
on-line video (for those with high speed connections). No spam, no
harvesting. Nothing but interesting (and hopefully useful) videos.

http://www.ts-aligner.com/videos.htm

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Ed Bennett

Hello Ed,
Here's the message I see if I click on the link...
"Windows Media Player cannot play the file because a network error occurred.
The server might not be available. Verify that you are connected to the
network and that your proxy settings are correct."
The mini player on the page works, but the sliding table segment doesn't
seem to be on the play list.
TIA
Tom





wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi Tom,

Sorry about that. Right after I posted the message I went back to test
snippage

Hi Tim,

Yep, this is the classic test cut method and it can produce very
accurate results. You've improved on it a bit by including precise
measurement of the final cutoff (via micrometer or calipers) and the
use of a dial indicator to monitor the fence adjustment. Personally, I
can't help but feel that it's actually a more costly and time consuming
method. Sure, you avoid buying a large square but you could still
obtain accuracy to within thousandths with a smaller square (+/-0.001"
at 6" is +/-0.003" at 18"). And, there is some cost in cutting up a
peice of sheet goods every time you want to square up your sliding
table (not to mention the investment in time). The ordeal would make
me reluctant to check my alignment (which I do frequently) and
reluctant to change the setting (cut angles). The indicator/square
method is quick, easy, accurate, and economical - which means it will
be done without hesitation whenever it is necessary.

Thanks,
Ed Bennett


wrote:
Ed,

I looked yesterday afternoon and it worked fine for me.

For squaring the fence on the sliding table, I'll suggest another
approach that doesn't require an 18" precision square.

Take a rectangular panel (plywood, particle board, masonite, etc.) that
is about the maximum your table will cut. Using the roughly-squared
fence, do a trim cut on Edge 1 of the panel. Now rotate the panel 90
degrees so Edge 1 is against the fence, and do a trim cut on Edge 2.

Repeat until Edge 4 has been cut and is against the fence. Now cut a
narrow strip off Edge 1. Measure the width of both ends of the strip.
If they're the same, your fence is perfectly square to the table
travel. If there is a taper, the fence isn't square.

I believe if the leading edge of the strip (first part into the blade)
is narrower than the trailing edge, the fence is set to greater than 90
degrees, and vice-versa, but I could have that backwards.

I clamp a dial indicator to the sliding table to measure the outboard
end of the fence, so as the fence is rotated the dial indicator will
tell me how much. Because of the geometry of the parts, there's no
formula and you have to do some trial and error, like in the current
video. Make an adjustment on the fence, make the five cuts, measure
the strip, and repeat if necessary.

I found that writing down the measurements helps a lot to see the
trends and how much an adjustment on the fence changes the width of the
strip.

Because of the repeated cuts, any error in squareness of the fence is
quadrupled on the width of the strip. A micrometer or vernier caliper
is useful for measuring the strip. This method gives you very accurate
squareness on the fence.

Otherwise, it's a great series of videos.

Cheers,

Tim


wrote:
Hi Folks,

Just thought some of you might be interested. No charge, it's an
on-line video (for those with high speed connections). No spam, no
harvesting. Nothing but interesting (and hopefully useful) videos.

http://www.ts-aligner.com/videos.htm

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Ed Bennett

Hi Ed,

I guess the costs depend on your situation. I use an off-cut that is
laying around anyway, and most of it remains when I'm done, so my
material cost is zero. I don't have an 18" precision square, however,
and that would be significant cash for a tool that I would only ever
use to square this sliding table fence.

I agree that the initial squaring can take more time than with a big
precision square, but we're talking the order of a few minutes. Once
the fence is squared, scribe a line on the sliding table so it's easy
to return it to the square position without recalibration.

As for periodic checking of squareness, you just need to grab a scrap
panel, make five cuts on it, break the resulting strip in half and
compare the width of the ends between your fingers. On the other hand,
getting out a square and dial indicator, doing the check and putting
them away takes time, too. If one process takes longer than the other,
I expect it wouldn't be by much. I'd never think to describe making
five cuts on a tablesaw as an "ordeal", but perhaps some woodworkers
do.

I do agree that using the precision square to align the fence every
time you change the fence will give you better squareness accuracy than
using the rotating stop or a scribed line. If I can resolve a scribed
line to 0.010" by eye, and that scribe mark is about 24" away from the
fence pivot point, my squareness would be within about 0.0075" in 18"
compared to your 0.001" in 18". There may be situations in woodworking
where this extra accuracy would be helpful, but I'm at a loss to think
of any at the moment.

As always, your milage may vary.

Cheers,

Tim


wrote:
Hi Tim,

Yep, this is the classic test cut method and it can produce very
accurate results. You've improved on it a bit by including precise
measurement of the final cutoff (via micrometer or calipers) and the
use of a dial indicator to monitor the fence adjustment. Personally, I
can't help but feel that it's actually a more costly and time consuming
method. Sure, you avoid buying a large square but you could still
obtain accuracy to within thousandths with a smaller square (+/-0.001"
at 6" is +/-0.003" at 18"). And, there is some cost in cutting up a
peice of sheet goods every time you want to square up your sliding
table (not to mention the investment in time). The ordeal would make
me reluctant to check my alignment (which I do frequently) and
reluctant to change the setting (cut angles). The indicator/square
method is quick, easy, accurate, and economical - which means it will
be done without hesitation whenever it is necessary.

Thanks,
Ed Bennett

Hi Tim,

The last guy I discussed this with was also pleased to tell me that the
panel stock he used for the test cuts was "free" to him too. You have
to admit, somewhere along the way the wood cost something. And,
keeping it for test cuts doesn't exactly make it free. At the very
least, it could be made into something if it wasn't being reserved for
test cuts.

I used to think that people who advocate trial and error "test cut"
methods just have an aversion to using precise measurement instruments
(dial indicators, calipers, etc.). However, lately I've seen more and
more of them use these instruments to assist them in the process. So,
I just have to assume that people who advocate trial and error just
plain like the method. After all, they could use the instruments to
adjust the machine directly instead of using them to measure test cuts.
I've heard people describe it as a "skill" so perhaps there is some
sense of pride in finally arriving at a correct machine setting after a
challenging sequence of getting it wrong over and over.

Personally, I hate trial and error. I have a goal in mind (to produce
a finely crafted item of some sort) and I don't want fussy machine
adjustments to get in the way. I want the machine to do exactly what I
tell it to do on the first try - not after a dozen or so test cuts.
And I don't like a shop cluttered with peices being saved for test cuts
or the cutoffs from test cuts. If trial and error is a "skill", then
proficiency must be measured in ones ability to achieve the greatest
accuracy with the least number of test cuts. One could not do better
than to obtain the right setting without any test cuts. That's what I
do but I've been told by test cut enthusiasts that I "cheat". That's
OK by me, my goal is to produce a finely crafted item, not a pile of
test cuts.

This particular procedure (squaring up the fence on a sliding table by
trial and error) is most offensive to me because five test cuts must be
made before any results can be evaluated and any error correcting
adjustment can be made. Then another five test cuts must be made to
evaluate the adjustment to see if it was correct. So, unless you're
astoundingly lucky and get the right setting on the very first try,
you're in it for at least ten test cuts with a panel which (as you
said) should be near the capacity of your sliding table (48" for me!).
I'd call lugging around a half sheet of panel stock on the sliding
table an ordeal which I would definitely be reluctant to perform. And
a half sheet of anyting is hardly a "scrap".

Finally, at my age, there's no hope in resolving a scribed line to
within 0.010" by eye. The 100ths divisions on my scale just look grey
to me anymore. It would involve a magnifier, or perhaps I would use it
only for crude adjustments. If the whole machine were outfitted with
precise adjustments including vernier scales then the topic would be
moot. Nobody would think that there was any virtue in doing test cuts.
But, most woodworking machines have very crude adjustments. I've got
a square and a dial indicator and that's all that I need to do the job
right - with no test cuts.

Thanks,

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com


wrote:
Hi Ed,

I guess the costs depend on your situation. I use an off-cut that is
laying around anyway, and most of it remains when I'm done, so my
material cost is zero. I don't have an 18" precision square, however,
and that would be significant cash for a tool that I would only ever
use to square this sliding table fence.

I agree that the initial squaring can take more time than with a big
precision square, but we're talking the order of a few minutes. Once
the fence is squared, scribe a line on the sliding table so it's easy
to return it to the square position without recalibration.

As for periodic checking of squareness, you just need to grab a scrap
panel, make five cuts on it, break the resulting strip in half and
compare the width of the ends between your fingers. On the other hand,
getting out a square and dial indicator, doing the check and putting
them away takes time, too. If one process takes longer than the other,
I expect it wouldn't be by much. I'd never think to describe making
five cuts on a tablesaw as an "ordeal", but perhaps some woodworkers
do.

I do agree that using the precision square to align the fence every
time you change the fence will give you better squareness accuracy than
using the rotating stop or a scribed line. If I can resolve a scribed
line to 0.010" by eye, and that scribe mark is about 24" away from the
fence pivot point, my squareness would be within about 0.0075" in 18"
compared to your 0.001" in 18". There may be situations in woodworking
where this extra accuracy would be helpful, but I'm at a loss to think
of any at the moment.

As always, your milage may vary.

Cheers,

Tim

wrote in news:1153516188.868969.50920
@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

I used to think that people who advocate trial and error "test cut"
methods just have an aversion to using precise measurement instruments
(dial indicators, calipers, etc.). However, lately I've seen more and
more of them use these instruments to assist them in the process. So,
I just have to assume that people who advocate trial and error just
plain like the method. After all, they could use the instruments to
adjust the machine directly instead of using them to measure test cuts.
snippage

When I was in college decades ago, it was said that the whole world could
be divided between accountants and economists. I have always been on the
side of the economist...

On another axis, people, woodworkers, too, can divide along the lines of
engineers and artists. (This has all of the validity of most of these
generalisms, but work with me here.) An engineer, as you seem to be, values
the measure and the exactness. If you want to make something replicable,
and to a measured drawering, there is great validity to that tack. But it
has little appeal to me as an artist. The second of anything simply is an
exercise to see if I can remove some of the errors of the first, but the
thrill is gone of having made the first.

Makes for a lousy business, but a great hobby, at least for a while.

Nice that the world is more than large enough for all kinds, is it not?

Patriarch,
thankful for engineers making neat, exact, repeatable tools...

Patriarch wrote:

When I was in college decades ago, it was said that the whole world
could
be divided between accountants and economists. I have always been
on the
side of the economist...

Yep.

Still remember a chief engineer I worked for who would tell upper
management,
"Give up 6 more months along with $100K (this was a long time ago) and
we will give you a better answer".

Basic problem with engineers, they don't know when to stop?

Like a kitty cat playing with a ball of string.

Basic reason I got out of it.

Lew

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi Tom,

Not sure what is happening with this "network error". Does it happen
after a while of downloading or right away? When you click on an
individual clip, it doesn't stream the video, it downloads the entire

snip
Normally not a problem...

The sliding table alignment video is in the play list - right after the
table saw section. I have used the skip forward button to get to it
without any problem. snip

Ah... I ASSUMED it was in the order listed... I did the fast forward bit
and viewed the file. Thanks.

If you are still having trouble, send me an email
with your snail mail address and I'll send a DVD copy of it to you.

Thanks,
Ed Bennett


No need, Ed... but thanks anyway.
Tom

Hi Lew,

Of course they know when to stop. It's when time and/or money run out!

It's the age old triad of engineering: time, money, and quality. You
can never have all three at once (quick, cheap, and good). You must
sacrifice one of the three in order to get the other two. For example,
if you want it quick and good then it will cost a lot of money. If you
want it quick and cheap then you better be ready to accept low quality.
If you want it good and cheap, then expect to invest a lot of time.

This rule, of course, doesn't apply to the world of the artist ;-)

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Still remember a chief engineer I worked for who would tell upper
management,
"Give up 6 more months along with $100K (this was a long time ago) and
we will give you a better answer".

Basic problem with engineers, they don't know when to stop?

Like a kitty cat playing with a ball of string.

Basic reason I got out of it.

Lew

wrote:
snip
Personally, I hate trial and error. snip

Better not look at that video, Ed. Unless the guy tapping the fence
into a new position between measurements has calibrated knuckles, he's
certainly doing trial and error. ;-)

My approach was to do the five cuts, then measure the taper on the
strip with a digital caliper. I put an indicator with magnetic base on
the outboard end of the fence, then try an adjustment, say 10 or 20
thou. Then repeat the five cuts, and measure the new taper value. If
10 thou fence adjustment reduced taper by X thou, then adjust the fence
another (current taper/X) x 10 thou. One more test cut, and Bob's yer
uncle, it should be right on.

This morning I tried a modification to this. Instead of putting the
indicator at any position along the fence, I put it L inches away from
the fence pivot, where L is about the length of each side of the test
panel. With my 10 thou fence adjustment, I was basically finding a
calibration factor for the system with the indicator wherever it was
and the test panel whatever size it was. By keeping these dimesions
the same, the calibration factor is just 4 (the amount of the
squareness error is increased going around the four corners of the
panel).

I roughly squared the fence with a $6 combination square. The first
test on a ~24" panel gave 0.180" taper. I put the indicator 24" from
the pivot, adjusted the fence 0.045" ( = 0.180"/4) and the second test
gave me 0.005" taper over about 24". Although I've heard of a guy who
aligned his contractor saw to within 0.000050" of true, this squareness
is good enough for me. (I wonder what ever happened to him? ;-)

I expect some cosine error since the fence pivot point is offset from
the fence face, and my magnetic indicator base isn't terribly rigid,
but even if a third test cut was required it would be no biggie. I
didn't time it, but this probably took me ten minutes to square the
fence from scratch.

Now, if I had a TS-Aligner and an 18" precision square to square a
sliding table fence, for instance, rather than measuring, tapping,
measuring, tapping, etc., until I was happy, I'd try a little different
process:

1) Measure out-of-squareness. Call this X.
2) Move the TS-Aligner to the sliding table. Use one hand to hold it
against the fence at a position 18" from the fence pivot.
3) Use the other hand to tap the fence a distance -X and lock the fence
down.
4) Re-check out of squareness. It should be zero, or pretty close to
it.
5) Done.

And I don't like a shop cluttered with peices being saved for test cuts
or the cutoffs from test cuts.

There's no magic to a test panel -- it's just something of convenient
size that comes out of the offcut bin for a few minutes and goes right
back slightly smaller.

One could not do better
than to obtain the right setting without any test cuts.

Actually, the right setting with the least investment in time and money
is my definition of better. I don't have the square, so test cuts is
better for me. You do have one, so no test cuts is better for you.

A corollary is that if your customers have 18" precision squares, the
method in the video will help them, if your customers don't have such
squares, the video won't help them.

So, unless you're
astoundingly lucky and get the right setting on the very first try,
you're in it for at least ten test cuts with a panel which (as you
said) should be near the capacity of your sliding table (48" for me!).
I'd call lugging around a half sheet of panel stock on the sliding
table an ordeal which I would definitely be reluctant to perform. And
a half sheet of anyting is hardly a "scrap".

Sorry, I didn't express that well. I have the medium size Excalibur
table. With the fence at the front of the table there is about a 27"
cross cut capacity. I also have a bunch of 2' x 4' masonite offcuts
from some years ago that I use for 2' square test pieces. This size
also serves when the fence is at the back of the table, even though it
then has 48" crosscut capacity. Because error is multiplied by 4 each
time around, it turns you you don't need a big piece to get good
resolution. I haven't tried it, but 12" pieces would probably work
just fine, too.

Finally, at my age, there's no hope in resolving a scribed line to
within 0.010" by eye.

It sounds like you don't have a rotating stop for the zero position on
the fence. I'd strongly suggest looking into one. I set mine two
years ago, and after resquaring the fence this morning, the stop was
still dead on. This is with moving the fence between the front and
back of the table very frequenly over that time. If someone was
resquaring the fence from scratch each time it was moved, I could
certainly see why they'd avoid using the 5-cut method to square it.
With the rotating stop, set the fence against it and you're squared
without any measurement or adjustment.

The scribed line would then be a nice back-up to periodically check the
rotating stop hasn't moved.

Cheers,

Tim

wrote:

Hi Lew,

Of course they know when to stop. It's when time and/or money run out!

Naw, they wait for more money or another project.

Problem with engineers is they are never taught how to make a decision
and move on.

The engineering curriculum is a great tool for teaching a person how
to think, but not necessarily how to make a decision.

One of the basic reasons you don't see more engineers in top management.



Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

wrote:

Hi Lew,

Of course they know when to stop. It's when time and/or money run out!

Naw, they wait for more money or another project.

Problem with engineers is they are never taught how to make a decision
and move on.

The engineering curriculum is a great tool for teaching a person how
to think, but not necessarily how to make a decision.

One of the basic reasons you don't see more engineers in top management.

Actually the major reason IMO is that engineers have trouble seeing beyond
the product.



Lew

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

Lew, I think you mean to say something other than what you said.

Engineering is all about making decisions. What material to use. What
size. What shape. What weight. How much should it cost. How long
should it last. How should it be made. Etc. And, the process of
making those decisions (which is taught in Engineering schools) is very
rigorous. It involves an exhaustive review of the variables,
parameters and objectives. Perhaps it is the process itself that you
have trouble with. Maybe you misunderstand the systematic approach to
decision making. You probably believe that good decision making "comes
from the gut" and is based on "sound judgment" - not endless
examination of every minute detail. Right?

Without knowing it, I'm sure that you trust countless engineering
decisions every day. I'm sure a person could live without trusting any
of these decisions, but it wouldn't be a very comfortable life. Next
time you drive a car, walk on a floor, live in a house, work in a
building, talk on the phone, type on a computer, surf on the Internet,
or anything else, think about the engineering decisions which made it
all possible.

I'm also sure that a very brief examination of the Fortune 500
companies would reveal that a majority of them were founded by and very
successfully run by people who could apply their engineering skills to
management. HP, Ford, GE, Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Boeing, just to
name a few. I've seen lots of situations where the internal political
environment in a big company makes it difficult for a disciplined
engineering mind to contribute. But, I really don't think that there
is anything inherently deficient in Engineers which makes them
inadequate for upper management positions. On the contrary, these last
several years have seen a number of "non-technical" individuals behind
bars for their mis-deeds in top management positions. Perhaps
something in their decision making process was flawed. ;-)

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:

Hi Lew,

Of course they know when to stop. It's when time and/or money run out!

Naw, they wait for more money or another project.

Problem with engineers is they are never taught how to make a decision
and move on.

The engineering curriculum is a great tool for teaching a person how
to think, but not necessarily how to make a decision.

One of the basic reasons you don't see more engineers in top management.



Lew

wrote:

Lew, I think you mean to say something other than what you said.

Engineering is all about making decisions. What material to use. What
size. What shape. What weight. How much should it cost. How long
should it last. How should it be made. Etc. And, the process of
making those decisions (which is taught in Engineering schools) is very
rigorous. It involves an exhaustive review of the variables,
parameters and objectives. Perhaps it is the process itself that you
have trouble with. Maybe you misunderstand the systematic approach to
decision making. You probably believe that good decision making "comes
from the gut" and is based on "sound judgment" - not endless
examination of every minute detail. Right?

Without knowing it, I'm sure that you trust countless engineering
decisions every day. I'm sure a person could live without trusting any
of these decisions, but it wouldn't be a very comfortable life. Next
time you drive a car, walk on a floor, live in a house, work in a
building, talk on the phone, type on a computer, surf on the Internet,
or anything else, think about the engineering decisions which made it
all possible.

I'm also sure that a very brief examination of the Fortune 500
companies would reveal that a majority of them were founded by and very
successfully run by people who could apply their engineering skills to
management. HP, Ford, GE, Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Boeing, just to
name a few.

The ones that did really well generally had at least two guys involved, one
the technical guy and the other the business guy. With Apple it was Steve
Wozniak and Steve Jobs--Woz was the technical guy and Jobs the business
guy, and it turned out that Jobs wasn't all that good a manager himself,
which is why Sculley was brought in. With Microsoft it was Bill Gates and
Steve Ballmer. With Intel it was Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce--while both
were engineers it was Noyce that ran the show during the period of rapid
growth. With HP it was William Hewlett and David Packard, but I'm not sure
who was the technical guy and who the business guy. William Boeing was
already a wealthy man in the timber trade when he and Conrad Westervelt
decided that they could improve on the design of a Curtis airplane that
they were trying to repair. Ford seems to be the exception.

I've seen lots of situations where the internal political
environment in a big company makes it difficult for a disciplined
engineering mind to contribute. But, I really don't think that there
is anything inherently deficient in Engineers which makes them
inadequate for upper management positions.

The big problem I see with engineers is a tendency to sneer at the marketing
people and the bean counters and the other non-engineering specialists who
are necessary to actually grow a business instead of filling a warehouse
full of widgets that nobody buys.

On the contrary, these last
several years have seen a number of "non-technical" individuals behind
bars for their mis-deeds in top management positions. Perhaps
something in their decision making process was flawed. ;-)

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:

Hi Lew,

Of course they know when to stop. It's when time and/or money run
out!

Naw, they wait for more money or another project.

Problem with engineers is they are never taught how to make a decision
and move on.

The engineering curriculum is a great tool for teaching a person how
to think, but not necessarily how to make a decision.

One of the basic reasons you don't see more engineers in top management.



Lew

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

Hi Tim,

wrote:
Better not look at that video, Ed. Unless the guy tapping the fence
into a new position between measurements has calibrated knuckles, he's
certainly doing trial and error. ;-)

I'll have you know that those knuckles have been certified tracable to
NIST standards! ;-)There is no "trial" of the fence setting in the
video. Just measurement during an adjustment process. The "trial"
comes when you make the test cut with the machine. The error is
reflected in the accuracy of that test cut. There is no error if there
is no inaccurate test cut.

My approach was to do the five cuts, then measure the taper on the
strip with a digital caliper. I put an indicator with magnetic base on
the outboard end of the fence, then try an adjustment, say 10 or 20
thou. Then repeat the five cuts, and measure the new taper value. If
10 thou fence adjustment reduced taper by X thou, then adjust the fence
another (current taper/X) x 10 thou. One more test cut, and Bob's yer
uncle, it should be right on.

Lots of trial and lots of error Tim. Let's see here, the first five
test cuts all have error. Then you make a measured adjustment and five
more test cuts with error. This "calibrates" your adjustment process.
So, then you make your final adjustment and another set of five test
cuts (not "One more test cut") and only after all 15 test cuts is "Bob
yer uncle". I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm not saying it's
inaccurate. I'm not telling anybody to avoid it. I'm just saying that
I don't like it. It's not something that I find productive.

This morning I tried a modification to this. Instead of putting the
indicator at any position along the fence, I put it L inches away from
the fence pivot, where L is about the length of each side of the test
panel. With my 10 thou fence adjustment, I was basically finding a
calibration factor for the system with the indicator wherever it was
and the test panel whatever size it was. By keeping these dimesions
the same, the calibration factor is just 4 (the amount of the
squareness error is increased going around the four corners of the
panel).

That's very good.

I roughly squared the fence with a $6 combination square. The first
test on a ~24" panel gave 0.180" taper. I put the indicator 24" from
the pivot, adjusted the fence 0.045" ( = 0.180"/4) and the second test
gave me 0.005" taper over about 24".

I'm sure that with a little math you could figure out the exact spot to
put the indicator. This provides you with a predictable mechanism to
use for monitoring the adjustment of your fence. But, you would do one
better to have a mechanism to monitor the actual setting of the fence
(it's actual angle). That's what you get when you use the square with
the dial indicator. Direct feedback on how close the fence is to 90
degrees.

Although I've heard of a guy who
aligned his contractor saw to within 0.000050" of true, this squareness
is good enough for me. (I wonder what ever happened to him? ;-)

He probably went to a very hot place for lying. There is nothing on a
contractor's saw which is stable to 50 millionths. Nothing. There are
people who buy these low cost digital indicators which can read to 50u"
and suddenly they become a Metrologist and all around expert on
machinery setup. Don't you believe it!

I expect some cosine error since the fence pivot point is offset from
the fence face, and my magnetic indicator base isn't terribly rigid,
but even if a third test cut was required it would be no biggie. I
didn't time it, but this probably took me ten minutes to square the
fence from scratch.

Not bad. You see me do it real-time in the video. No CGI; no cuts, no
time lapse video, and no stunt double. How long do you think that is?
The whole video (all three procedures) is less than 5 minutes (4:66).
Squaring the fence took about 2 minutes and I was deliberately going
slow so that people could follow what was happening.

Now, if I had a TS-Aligner and an 18" precision square to square a
sliding table fence, for instance, rather than measuring, tapping,
measuring, tapping, etc., until I was happy, I'd try a little different
process:

1) Measure out-of-squareness. Call this X.
2) Move the TS-Aligner to the sliding table. Use one hand to hold it
against the fence at a position 18" from the fence pivot.
3) Use the other hand to tap the fence a distance -X and lock the fence
down.
4) Re-check out of squareness. It should be zero, or pretty close to
it.
5) Done.

Sure enough. Yep, I'm sure it would work. But, if you're already
going to do 2 or three iterations of the adjust/check cycle, then the
extra effort doesn't really save you much.

What I show in the video is a procedure which is easy to understand and
follow for those who haven't done it before. "Step 1, step 2, step 3,
repeat as necessary, etc." However, after a while you realize that you
don't really want to bring the indicator back to zero. You actualy
want to go a little bit past zero. And, with a little practice it can
be done without much thought on the first adjustment. But wait! The
real expert discovers that the change in reading on the indicator can
be slowed and even halted by adjusting the fence while it is moving. I
do this all the time. There's not even a real need to establish a
reference (set the indicator to zero). So, for me it's just too much
bother to try and quantify the amount of correction needed in the fence
angle. I just do it.

There's no magic to a test panel -- it's just something of convenient
size that comes out of the offcut bin for a few minutes and goes right
back slightly smaller.

No problem. I'm just saying that it's not free.

Actually, the right setting with the least investment in time and money
is my definition of better. I don't have the square, so test cuts is
better for me. You do have one, so no test cuts is better for you.

Try it with a smaller square. All woodworkers must have a square,
right? Like I said, 0.001" at 6" is the same as 0.003" at 18" - or
0.004" at 24" which rivals what you described above.

A corollary is that if your customers have 18" precision squares, the
method in the video will help them, if your customers don't have such
squares, the video won't help them.

Not quite.

It sounds like you don't have a rotating stop for the zero position on
the fence. I'd strongly suggest looking into one. I set mine two
years ago, and after resquaring the fence this morning, the stop was
still dead on. This is with moving the fence between the front and
back of the table very frequenly over that time. If someone was
resquaring the fence from scratch each time it was moved, I could
certainly see why they'd avoid using the 5-cut method to square it.
With the rotating stop, set the fence against it and you're squared
without any measurement or adjustment.

As you can see from the video, I have the large Excalibur. It also has
the rotating stop but I just don't use it. Too many things go wrong
with stops. After a few years in the machine shop, you learn to check
everything all the time.

The scribed line would then be a nice back-up to periodically check the
rotating stop hasn't moved.

Stops and lines are great for quick and rough setups. But, when I need
something to be accurate, I trust my square and indicator.

Thanks,
Ed Bennett

J. Clarke wrote:

The ones that did really well generally had at least two guys involved, one
the technical guy and the other the business guy...
snip

Yes, of course. Good managers don't try to do everything alone, they
assemble a team of experts and coordinate their efforts. The point
being that there is nothing inherent in the discipline of Engineering
which excludes it from top management. All these folks were Engineers
who very successfully filled roles in "top management" whether they
partnered with complimentary skills or not.

The reason you see more Marketing/Finance people in mid/upper level
management in large companies is purely political. These folks tend to
do a lot of presentations to executive management and receive a lot of
visibility for it. It colors everything that that top management sees.
Promotions naturally follow.

The big problem I see with engineers is a tendency to sneer at the marketing
people and the bean counters and the other non-engineering specialists who
are necessary to actually grow a business instead of filling a warehouse
full of widgets that nobody buys.

Finally, the real issue comes through! In my 17+ years with HP, I
worked in a position which was right in the middle between the lab
(engineers), marketing, finance, and manufacturing. So, I'm quite
familiar with the issues between the "propeller heads" and marketing
"weenies". Believe me, it goes both ways!

I am one Engineer who really appreciates the disciplines of Marketing
and Finance. Out of necessity I am forced to cover these functions
myself and I know they suffer as a result. Unfortunately, it's
difficult (impossible?) to find people in these disciplines who are
willing to "risk" some of their time and effort on their own abilities
(i.e. "pay for results"). The latest challenge has been developing a
Marketing Plan with which to attract the services of a Marketing
Agency. It's quite a "chicken and the egg" situation.

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

wrote in
ps.com:

snip

Finally, the real issue comes through! In my 17+ years with HP, I
worked in a position which was right in the middle between the lab
(engineers), marketing, finance, and manufacturing. So, I'm quite
familiar with the issues between the "propeller heads" and marketing
"weenies". Believe me, it goes both ways!

I am one Engineer who really appreciates the disciplines of Marketing
and Finance. Out of necessity I am forced to cover these functions
myself and I know they suffer as a result. Unfortunately, it's
difficult (impossible?) to find people in these disciplines who are
willing to "risk" some of their time and effort on their own abilities
(i.e. "pay for results"). The latest challenge has been developing a
Marketing Plan with which to attract the services of a Marketing
Agency. It's quite a "chicken and the egg" situation.


Well, Ed, here comes another opinion, unsolicited...

That marketing plan is no more a single, unchanging document than the
engineering plan is that the propellerheads slave over in the lab. It
develops, matures, changes and responds as tha market, competition and
the surrounding environment change. It is no more a 'do it once' effort
than anything else in business. Aged marketing plans are of little use.

So it always takes someone interested in the success of the business to
keep the marketing current and fresh, just like the engineers keep
chasing the next, important development in the product. And the finance
folks try to keep profit together, pay the taxes and employees and
suppliers, and hopefully, save a little to grow on.

It can be one person, but they have to care about everything, and it
takes a dedicated one to make it work. And probably a few good
counselors, advisors and subcontractors, too.

I've found this thread interesting. Hope I'm not alone. ;-)

Patriarch

wrote in message
ps.com...


The reason you see more Marketing/Finance people in mid/upper level
management in large companies is purely political. These folks tend to
do a lot of presentations to executive management and receive a lot of
visibility for it. It colors everything that that top management sees.
Promotions naturally follow.

Not really. Marketing and Finance types typically have Business Degrees.
That is what makes them more likely to become upper level management.



Finally, the real issue comes through! In my 17+ years with HP, I
worked in a position which was right in the middle between the lab
(engineers), marketing, finance, and manufacturing. So, I'm quite
familiar with the issues between the "propeller heads" and marketing
"weenies". Believe me, it goes both ways!

Yes it does.


--

-Mike-

wrote:

The reason you see more Marketing/Finance people in mid/upper level
management in large companies is purely political. These folks tend to
do a lot of presentations to executive management and receive a lot of
visibility for it. It colors everything that that top management sees.
Promotions naturally follow.

IMHO, rubbish.

Engineers tend to forget to ask the basic question, "Why are we here?"

They are to busy getting lost in the details.

I have found that Business types at least try to think along these lines.

Basic reason I got out of pure engineering and into sales/application
engineering. Chased details to death.

As a sales engineer, probably got to do more creative engineering in a
month than most engineers get to do in a year.

The first question you ask as a sales engineer is, "Is this project
funded?"

If it is, it now becomes a fight about money between you and your
competitors. That requires being creative and quickly finding the
right solution.

If it isn't funded, be polite and move on and come back when it is funded.

The big problem I see with engineers is a tendency to sneer at the
marketing
people and the bean counters and the other non-engineering
specialists who
are necessary to actually grow a business instead of filling a
warehouse
full of widgets that nobody buys.

That is a management failure to show the way to the goal, IMHO.

Nobody asked "WHY".

I am one Engineer who really appreciates the disciplines of Marketing
and Finance. Out of necessity I am forced to cover these functions
myself and I know they suffer as a result. Unfortunately, it's
difficult (impossible?) to find people in these disciplines who are
willing to "risk" some of their time and effort on their own abilities
(i.e. "pay for results"). The latest challenge has been developing a
Marketing Plan with which to attract the services of a Marketing
Agency. It's quite a "chicken and the egg" situation.

Had a district manager who used the following sorting system for all
incoming mail. (This was long before the internet)

1) Checks.
2) New Orders
3) Change orders to existing orders
4) RFQ's

Everything else went in the circular file.

When asked if he might not be throwing something important away, he
answered, "If it's that important, they'll send it again."

He made regional mgr in record time.

Lew

Patriarch wrote:

Well, Ed, here comes another opinion, unsolicited...

That's what the newsgroup is for!

That marketing plan is no more a single, unchanging document than the
engineering plan is that the propellerheads slave over in the lab. It
develops, matures, changes and responds as tha market, competition and
the surrounding environment change. It is no more a 'do it once' effort
than anything else in business. Aged marketing plans are of little use.

Couldn't agree more.

So it always takes someone interested in the success of the business to
keep the marketing current and fresh, just like the engineers keep
chasing the next, important development in the product. And the finance
folks try to keep profit together, pay the taxes and employees and
suppliers, and hopefully, save a little to grow on.

Absolutely. I have found such individuals but they are all me. The
next best thing to do is find other people who are interested in
getting paid for bringing success to the business. In general this is
a very difficult task. Many want to get paid but few are interested in
the success of the business.

It can be one person, but they have to care about everything, and it
takes a dedicated one to make it work. And probably a few good
counselors, advisors and subcontractors, too.

One person can make it work on a limited basis but things are always on
the edge of getting out of control. So, it becomes a monumental task
of keeping lids on about six boiling pots.

I've found this thread interesting. Hope I'm not alone. ;-)

A lot more interesting than I thought it would be! I hope people are
enjoying the video and the discussion.

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Mike Marlow wrote:

Not really. Marketing and Finance types typically have Business Degrees.
That is what makes them more likely to become upper level management.

One would like to believe this. Experience and observations are to the
contrary. Business skills often (very often) interfere with upper
level management activities and objectives. I have been personally
informed that they are "threatening" with an official reprimand to
reinforce the message. This may not be apparent to someone with a few
years (or less) in the corporate environment. In a small company the
effects of a bad business decision can be absulutely devastating. The
same decision might go completely unnoticed in a big company. In fact,
I've seen countless such blunders spun in such a way that they were
praised and rewarded. Such situations are not conducive to the topic
of Business School basics. Bringing them up isn't exactly a good
career move.

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

wrote in message
ups.com...


So it always takes someone interested in the success of the business to
keep the marketing current and fresh, just like the engineers keep
chasing the next, important development in the product. And the finance
folks try to keep profit together, pay the taxes and employees and
suppliers, and hopefully, save a little to grow on.

Absolutely. I have found such individuals but they are all me. The
next best thing to do is find other people who are interested in
getting paid for bringing success to the business. In general this is
a very difficult task. Many want to get paid but few are interested in
the success of the business.

This really sounds like you are looking for people in the wrong places.
Typical professionals are very motivated by the success of the business -
often even more so than by the compensation. I would bet you might be
looking at people who are more like you professionally than you are at
business types. The other problem with small scale businesses is that they
either don't want to or haven't properly financed themselves to be able to
pay for what they want. There are real world wages to be considered and
they are often out of reach of the small business. Unfortunately there is
some truth to the old axiom that you get what you pay for.



One person can make it work on a limited basis but things are always on
the edge of getting out of control. So, it becomes a monumental task
of keeping lids on about six boiling pots.


Very true. And... that one person can only manage things to a certain point
of growth. Not because it's overwhelming in terms of work but because they
typically lack the vision, the understanding or the insight into how to get
to the next level. Any one person can only truly be good at one thing.
Mabye a couple, but not all.


A lot more interesting than I thought it would be! I hope people are
enjoying the video and the discussion.


I've been waiting for the scenes with the nekkid wimin. Which tape is that
on?

--

-Mike-

wrote in message
oups.com...
Mike Marlow wrote:

Not really. Marketing and Finance types typically have Business
Degrees.
That is what makes them more likely to become upper level management.

One would like to believe this. Experience and observations are to the
contrary.

I've got over 30 years of corporate experience. Our experiences may differ
in some respects but my observations and experiences bear testimony to what
I've said - at least as much as yours do.

Business skills often (very often) interfere with upper
level management activities and objectives.

That would be what we call... politics. You are right that politics do
often prevail but that's something of a peripheral point.

I have been personally
informed that they are "threatening" with an official reprimand to
reinforce the message.

I've seen this sort of thing as well but that is not an indictment of what I
stated earlier, which was that business degrees are what advance managers
more than the politics and proximity of certain departments like Marketing
and Finance. What you suggest is a personality issue and not really
reflective of who gets where based on the department they work in.

This may not be apparent to someone with a few
years (or less) in the corporate environment. In a small company the
effects of a bad business decision can be absulutely devastating.

Very true. The beauty of starting your own company is that you can learn
from mistakes observed in others and hopefully not step into those same
potholes.

The
same decision might go completely unnoticed in a big company. In fact,
I've seen countless such blunders spun in such a way that they were
praised and rewarded. Such situations are not conducive to the topic
of Business School basics. Bringing them up isn't exactly a good
career move.


Well, I never suggested that everyone with a business degree is above the
human shortcomings of ego and the rest. These things do happen every day,
as do a million other types of bad judgment calls. There are bad designs
created every day. That does not suggest that engineers are a bad trade.
They are equally defended by the author of the design, very commonly in the
face of empirical evidence that the design should change. You know - the
"it's my baby" syndrome or NIH. These are people issues, not issues of
degrees.

The best part of having been part of corporate environments where one has
observed behaviors they consider reprehensible is that one now has a mental
image of the offender in their mind, and they can daily compare their own
actions with that image front and center.

--

-Mike-

Hi Lew, glad to see you were able to reply.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Engineers tend to forget to ask the basic question, "Why are we here?"

Some do. Some don't. I've seen the same trend in all areas including
Marketing, Finance, Sales, Manufacturing, etc. The generalization
isn't necessarily valid for any single group. Having spent many years
as an advocate for customer needs, I've seen just about every single
discipline exhibit complete neglect for this question.

They are to busy getting lost in the details.

Many are. But, this is what they get paid for. You don't want
Engineers who can't tolerate the tedious details. Leave the "big
picture" to the project managers.

I have found that Business types at least try to think along these lines.

Not sure I follow. I've observed a lot of "Business types" who think
only about stuffing their own pockets and promoting their own agenda.
Like a parasite, they don't look far enough into the future to realize
that they will kill the business they feed on. I wouldn't say this is
characteristic of all "Business types" or even a majority. Such
generalizations would be absurdly simplistic and completely invalid.

Basic reason I got out of pure engineering and into sales/application
engineering. Chased details to death.

Some people are detail orientated. They are very comfortable and
successful in situations where every detail is extremely significant.
But, it inhibits them from getting their heads around large and complex
systems or situations. Some people are very frustrated by details and
need to see the big picture. Like you, they are much more comfortable
(and successful) in environments where details are few and
insignificant. Both types of people are needed in a successful
business. Two clichés come to mind:

"The devil is in the details"
"Can't see the forest for the trees"

The challenge is to learn how to appreciate both types of people and
apply their skills so that they excell at what they do. Their efforts
should compliment eachother, not clash. That's what a good management
team is supposed to be doing.

As a sales engineer, probably got to do more creative engineering in a
month than most engineers get to do in a year.

I've been on the receiving end of many such efforts. Trust me, the
details often matter a great deal.

The first question you ask as a sales engineer is, "Is this project
funded?"

If it is, it now becomes a fight about money between you and your
competitors. That requires being creative and quickly finding the
right solution.

If it isn't funded, be polite and move on and come back when it is funded.

Perhaps there is more here than appears. It sounds a lot like the
simple example you used in your first reply.

The big problem I see with engineers is a tendency to sneer at the
marketing
people and the bean counters and the other non-engineering
specialists who
are necessary to actually grow a business instead of filling a
warehouse
full of widgets that nobody buys.

That is a management failure to show the way to the goal, IMHO.

Nobody asked "WHY".

A lot of these problems are management issues. Unfortunately, a lot of
what passes for management in the US corporate environment has become
nothing more than politics. Organization and control of the business
is often completely neglected.

Had a district manager who used the following sorting system for all
incoming mail. (This was long before the internet)

1) Checks.
2) New Orders
3) Change orders to existing orders
4) RFQ's

Everything else went in the circular file.

When asked if he might not be throwing something important away, he
answered, "If it's that important, they'll send it again."

He made regional mgr in record time.

Personally, I would say he was lucky. He could have easily been
surprised by a number of extremely important things (like customer
complaints, legal issues, cancellations, regulatory issues, company
policy changes, organizational issues, etc.). I suspect that his rule
wasn't quite so hard and fast as you remember it to be.

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

wrote:

Hi Lew, glad to see you were able to reply.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Engineers tend to forget to ask the basic question, "Why are we here?"

Some do. Some don't. I've seen the same trend in all areas including
Marketing, Finance, Sales, Manufacturing, etc. The generalization
isn't necessarily valid for any single group. Having spent many years
as an advocate for customer needs, I've seen just about every single
discipline exhibit complete neglect for this question.

They are to busy getting lost in the details.

Many are. But, this is what they get paid for. You don't want
Engineers who can't tolerate the tedious details. Leave the "big
picture" to the project managers.

The trouble comes when engineers get promoted to project manager without
adequate attitude adjustment. At Enormous Aerospace one guy would
routinely sabotage bids because "there wasn't any money in them" (a few
tens of millions of dollars "wasn't any money" to him). He honestly
believed that some day the Air Force was going to come in with an order for
airplane propellers of the same magnitude as the ones that they got during
WWII.

I have found that Business types at least try to think along these lines.

Not sure I follow. I've observed a lot of "Business types" who think
only about stuffing their own pockets and promoting their own agenda.
Like a parasite, they don't look far enough into the future to realize
that they will kill the business they feed on. I wouldn't say this is
characteristic of all "Business types" or even a majority. Such
generalizations would be absurdly simplistic and completely invalid.

At the other extreme there are the ones always in search of the magic bullet
that will make them the next Microsoft, and will spend vast amounts of
money on that bullet that would have been better spent on boring mundane
things like advertising and sales staff.

Basic reason I got out of pure engineering and into sales/application
engineering. Chased details to death.

Some people are detail orientated. They are very comfortable and
successful in situations where every detail is extremely significant.
But, it inhibits them from getting their heads around large and complex
systems or situations. Some people are very frustrated by details and
need to see the big picture. Like you, they are much more comfortable
(and successful) in environments where details are few and
insignificant. Both types of people are needed in a successful
business. Two clichés come to mind:

"The devil is in the details"
"Can't see the forest for the trees"

The challenge is to learn how to appreciate both types of people and
apply their skills so that they excell at what they do. Their efforts
should compliment eachother, not clash. That's what a good management
team is supposed to be doing.

As a sales engineer, probably got to do more creative engineering in a
month than most engineers get to do in a year.

I've been on the receiving end of many such efforts. Trust me, the
details often matter a great deal.

The first question you ask as a sales engineer is, "Is this project
funded?"

If it is, it now becomes a fight about money between you and your
competitors. That requires being creative and quickly finding the
right solution.

If it isn't funded, be polite and move on and come back when it is
funded.

Perhaps there is more here than appears. It sounds a lot like the
simple example you used in your first reply.

The big problem I see with engineers is a tendency to sneer at the
marketing
people and the bean counters and the other non-engineering
specialists who
are necessary to actually grow a business instead of filling a
warehouse
full of widgets that nobody buys.

That is a management failure to show the way to the goal, IMHO.

Nobody asked "WHY".

A lot of these problems are management issues. Unfortunately, a lot of
what passes for management in the US corporate environment has become
nothing more than politics. Organization and control of the business
is often completely neglected.

Had a district manager who used the following sorting system for all
incoming mail. (This was long before the internet)

1) Checks.
2) New Orders
3) Change orders to existing orders
4) RFQ's

Everything else went in the circular file.

When asked if he might not be throwing something important away, he
answered, "If it's that important, they'll send it again."

He made regional mgr in record time.

Personally, I would say he was lucky. He could have easily been
surprised by a number of extremely important things (like customer
complaints, legal issues, cancellations, regulatory issues, company
policy changes, organizational issues, etc.). I suspect that his rule
wasn't quite so hard and fast as you remember it to be.

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

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

Mike Marlow wrote:

This really sounds like you are looking for people in the wrong places.
Typical professionals are very motivated by the success of the business -
often even more so than by the compensation. I would bet you might be
looking at people who are more like you professionally than you are at
business types. The other problem with small scale businesses is that they
either don't want to or haven't properly financed themselves to be able to
pay for what they want. There are real world wages to be considered and
they are often out of reach of the small business. Unfortunately there is
some truth to the old axiom that you get what you pay for.

I think you hit the nail on the head - "small scale business". I don't
think that my situation merits a full time professional salaried
Marketing person. So, I've been trying to find an agency to help me
out. For some reason, agencies are being rather selective. I started
out thinking that they had to sell me on their ideas. Now I learn that
I have to sell them on mine. These are the folks that want me to come
to them with the Marketing Plan (complete with market research). Go
figure. Somebody obviously has far too much business. This is a lot
like the tax prep service which says "You need to organize all your
records like this and then tabulate these categories and bring them to
us on summary sheets. Then we will fill in the forms." Well, the hard
part ain't the little boxes on the forms!

I've solicited for independents. Problem is that a lot of these are
the dregs. The first thing I look for is an ability to represent their
own services/business. If they cannot promote themselves, then they
cannot possibly promote my products. So far, exactly zero have passed
this first qualification. Am I expecting too much?

The ideal "perfect" candidate would be a woodworking enthusiast who can
comprehend the products, their uses and need. He/she would likely be
retired or have some other reason for not being interested in a full
time position - just something to keep them busy and bring in some
extra money. Perhaps they would even be interested in a profit sharing
or limited partnership arrangement. I like this because then they have
some stake in the success of their own efforts. Nothing would make me
more upset than to pay for a whole bunch of "work" which results in
absolutely no positive impact on sales (except maybe a negative impact
on sales!).

Very true. And... that one person can only manage things to a certain point
of growth. Not because it's overwhelming in terms of work but because they
typically lack the vision, the understanding or the insight into how to get
to the next level. Any one person can only truly be good at one thing.
Mabye a couple, but not all.

You definitely have your finger on the pulse. I have a facility which
is capable of pumping out 10 times as much as it does today. I just
don't have the marketing know-how to grow sales to meet this capacity.
I'm sure it will eventually get there if I keep plodding along. But,
this is sub-optimal.

I've been waiting for the scenes with the nekkid wimin. Which tape is that
on?

Sorry, this is one aspect of the videos which is bound to dissappoint
many. No nekkid wimin.

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Mike Marlow wrote:

I've got over 30 years of corporate experience. Our experiences may differ
in some respects but my observations and experiences bear testimony to what
I've said - at least as much as yours do.

The generalization is probably invalid. I suppose that this sort of
thing is dependent on the individual(s) running the organization and
making the promotional decisions. I would seem to have been exposed to
more than my share of those who weigh visibility very heavily and value
a team of "yes men".

Business skills often (very often) interfere with upper
level management activities and objectives.

That would be what we call... politics. You are right that politics do
often prevail but that's something of a peripheral point.

Not necessarily. I think it's exactly my point. I think that politics
plays a far bigger role in upper management decisions (like promotions
and assignments) than academic records. At lower levels I believe that
people are more likely to be evaluated by educational background. A
lot of Engineers are getting an MBA added to their portfolio as a
result. But, my observations over the last few decades lead me to
believe that choices for execuitive management positions rarely take
into account the educational background. The effects (knowledge and
expertise) of that background might or might not have an effect
depending on the local politics (perceived as an asset or a threat).

I've seen this sort of thing as well but that is not an indictment of what I
stated earlier, which was that business degrees are what advance managers
more than the politics and proximity of certain departments like Marketing
and Finance. What you suggest is a personality issue and not really
reflective of who gets where based on the department they work in.

What I'm saying is that business degrees are like personality - both
dependent on local politics. I'm the sort of guy who doesn't mind
working with an abrasive or offensive individual that is the best at
what they do. I seek out people who demonstrate high qualifications.
Someone else might prefer to disreguard talent and qualifications and
decide against such a person. They often choose from among the "top of
mind" individuals that they best get along with. I've seen virtually
none of the former and a boatload of the latter. It does color my view
of the world.

snip

The best part of having been part of corporate environments where one has
observed behaviors they consider reprehensible is that one now has a mental
image of the offender in their mind, and they can daily compare their own
actions with that image front and center.

Absolutely.

Thanks,
Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

I think you hit the nail on the head - "small scale business". I don't
think that my situation merits a full time professional salaried
Marketing person. So, I've been trying to find an agency to help me
out. For some reason, agencies are being rather selective. I started
out thinking that they had to sell me on their ideas. Now I learn that
I have to sell them on mine. These are the folks that want me to come
to them with the Marketing Plan (complete with market research). Go
figure. Somebody obviously has far too much business.
snip

No, it is their way of finding out "Is this project funded?"

Are you for real?

What investment have you made to get your idea this far along?

From my perspective, they are just being prudent.

Lew

Well Lew, I've been doing this since 1991. Do you think that's far
enough along for these guys? When I started there was no such thing as
a commercially made dial indicator alignment tool for woodworking
machinery. TS-Aligner was the first. I invented the whole category.
Now there are about a dozen competitors. If you're right, and they are
just fishing for the deepest pockets, then I don't need anything that
they can possibly offer. From my perspective, they would be parasites
looking for a big, fat, lazy, juicy host with far more money than
brains. They don't want to help grow a business, they want to see how
much they can get from it right away.

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Lew Hodgett wrote:
I think you hit the nail on the head - "small scale business". I don't
think that my situation merits a full time professional salaried
Marketing person. So, I've been trying to find an agency to help me
out. For some reason, agencies are being rather selective. I started
out thinking that they had to sell me on their ideas. Now I learn that
I have to sell them on mine. These are the folks that want me to come
to them with the Marketing Plan (complete with market research). Go
figure. Somebody obviously has far too much business.
snip

No, it is their way of finding out "Is this project funded?"

Are you for real?

What investment have you made to get your idea this far along?

From my perspective, they are just being prudent.

Lew

wrote:

Well Lew, I've been doing this since 1991. Do you think that's far
enough along for these guys? When I started there was no such thing as
a commercially made dial indicator alignment tool for woodworking
machinery. TS-Aligner was the first. I invented the whole category.
Now there are about a dozen competitors. If you're right, and they are
just fishing for the deepest pockets, then I don't need anything that
they can possibly offer. From my perspective, they would be parasites
looking for a big, fat, lazy, juicy host with far more money than
brains. They don't want to help grow a business, they want to see how
much they can get from it right away.

You have a right to be proud of your accomplishments, but that doesn't
include the right to have a chip on your shoulder.

These people who you are trying to find to help you don't know you
from a hole in the wall.

They want to minimize their risk. You can't blame them.

Time for a little salesmanship.

Document your history, then ask for some help by asking a questions
such as, "This is where I've been, where do WE go from here?", "How do
we get to the next level?"

You would be surprised at some of the loony birds who have this latest
and greatest gadget that just needs a little marketing help to make a
million dollars.

Most of them don't have enough sense to come in out of the rain.

Ever wonder why there are so many late night TV commercials offering
to help "inventors"?

Lew

That seems to be typical these days. You need to prove that you are good
enough for them to take your money.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
ink.net...
wrote:

Well Lew, I've been doing this since 1991. Do you think that's far
enough along for these guys? When I started there was no such thing as
a commercially made dial indicator alignment tool for woodworking
machinery. TS-Aligner was the first. I invented the whole category.
Now there are about a dozen competitors. If you're right, and they are
just fishing for the deepest pockets, then I don't need anything that
they can possibly offer. From my perspective, they would be parasites
looking for a big, fat, lazy, juicy host with far more money than
brains. They don't want to help grow a business, they want to see how
much they can get from it right away.

You have a right to be proud of your accomplishments, but that doesn't
include the right to have a chip on your shoulder.

These people who you are trying to find to help you don't know you
from a hole in the wall.

They want to minimize their risk. You can't blame them.

Time for a little salesmanship.

Document your history, then ask for some help by asking a questions
such as, "This is where I've been, where do WE go from here?", "How do
we get to the next level?"

You would be surprised at some of the loony birds who have this latest
and greatest gadget that just needs a little marketing help to make a
million dollars.

Most of them don't have enough sense to come in out of the rain.

Ever wonder why there are so many late night TV commercials offering
to help "inventors"?

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

You have a right to be proud of your accomplishments, but that doesn't
include the right to have a chip on your shoulder.

There is a great deal of annoyance, but it's not a "chip" on my
shoulder. I confess, your efforts to find fault with everything
"engineering" and defend/promote everything "business" has become just
a bit exasperating. Perhaps I can explain in my reply here.

These people who you are trying to find to help you don't know you
from a hole in the wall.

Everybody in business needs to to check out clients/customers or even
suppliers at some time or another. It only takes a few minutes to do
an Internet search to find out almost anything about a company. For
example, a search on the brand "TS-Aligner" yields some 500+
references. This is perhaps the best way to get info on the cheap. If
the deal is substantial enough, one could cough up $80 to get financial
data from a D&B report. The report on my company would tell them that
I'm not a huge outfit but I have successfully completed some rather
sizeable financial responsibilities and that I always pay my bills on
time.

They want to minimize their risk. You can't blame them.

So, instead of doing a quick web search or running a D&B report, they
ask the client to do the work, and then they ask the client for money.
And, when the projected sales don't materialize, I'm sure they say
"Well, it was your Marketing Plan. We were only implementing your
ideas." Hmmmm......I guess it's a way to get money from people without
ever doing anything for it. That's just about minimizes the risk to
zero.

I think their share of the blame is pretty heavy in this situation but
I'd have to assign some to any bone-headed idiot who falls for such a
scam.

Time for a little salesmanship.

Yes, they need to convince me that my money is well spent on their
services. I'm the customer, they are supposedly trying to sell me
their services. If they decide that they don't want me as a client,
then they can very politely tell me so and I will be happy to go find
someone else.

Document your history, then ask for some help by asking a questions
such as, "This is where I've been, where do WE go from here?", "How do
we get to the next level?"

They can find out as much as they like without my lifting a finger.
I'm not asking them to buy anything from me. I don't need to convince
them of anything. If I'm looking for a partnership, and they are
looking to assume some of the risk, then I'll use the word "WE".
Otherwise, I expect them to act like a company trying to sell me a
service. "WE" doesn't apply to anyone trying to minimize their risk to
zero.

You would be surprised at some of the loony birds who have this latest
and greatest gadget that just needs a little marketing help to make a
million dollars.

Most of them don't have enough sense to come in out of the rain.

Ever wonder why there are so many late night TV commercials offering
to help "inventors"?

I would not be surprised at all. You forget, I've been doing this for
quite some time. Over the years I've had many people approach me
looking for some manufacturing capability for their ideas. I'm willing
to make their widgets for a price, but many want me to make them and
develop the market and sell them and then pay back a royalty. In other
words, the risk is all mine. Fortunately, I'm not in that business and
it saves me from most of these people you refer to.

So, in case you missed it I'll summarize. I'm annoyed because you
claim to be very business savy, complain about the lack of business
acumen among Engineers, and yet this extremely basic and elementry
business topic seems to elude you. In fact, you defend and would
probably fall prey to these parasites. Have you checked your shoulders
for chips lately?

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

wrote in message
oups.com...


They can find out as much as they like without my lifting a finger.
I'm not asking them to buy anything from me. I don't need to convince
them of anything. If I'm looking for a partnership, and they are
looking to assume some of the risk, then I'll use the word "WE".
Otherwise, I expect them to act like a company trying to sell me a
service. "WE" doesn't apply to anyone trying to minimize their risk to
zero.


Ed, I've been kind of hit and miss in this discussion, so apologies up front
if this is ground you've already covered.

There is one thing that has somewhat haunted me while I've watched the
pieces of this thread that I have. I keep seeing your desire for a
partnership and for a risk buy-in. Don't get me wrong... I don't believe
those are inappropriate ambitions. I do wonder though, if maybe you aren't
looking in the wrong places for those contributions. That's more the kind
of thing I would expect out of an investor - a venture capitalist. It just
seems to me that you might be mixing up a need for marketing with a need for
a business partner. Those two are really different animals. Typically, if
one is able to secure financing the marketing comes much easier, as the
proof of a good business plan, etc. are theoretically already established.

Frankly, I'd want to keep apples in the apple basket and oranges in the
vodka if I were you. I'd be looking for investment/risk partners in the VC
space and then going after marketing once positioned. I'm a sales guy and
the last thing I'd want is to entrust my business development to a marketing
group. Their focus is just not in that place. By its very defininition,
Marketing has to assume the marketability of a product (proof already
established) and assumes the creative responsibility for making that happen.
If it is simply the study of marketability that one is engaged in, then
that's a service to be paid for and typically from a different organization.
It would be hard to hope for risk sharing at that point.

Like I said - if I missed the obvious points by not staying closely coupled
to this thread then feel free to discard my ramblings. Well, at least some
of them. I'm sure there *must* be a nugget or two in there somewhere
though...

--

-Mike-

Hi Mike,

I think you and I are in perfect sync. I has been pretty obvious that
you have some real experience in these matters. I am looking for an
agency to help with the Marketing. These would be folks who look at
the product line, understand the target market, do some market
research, put together a Marketing Plan with recommendations for an
approach, a theme, an ad campaign, web-site look and feel, awareness
activities, etc.

For example, I read an article once about how the "Redbow Popcorn
Company" got started. It was founded by the guy who worked out a
unique hybrid poping corn (a "propeller head" no doubt!). They had a
lot of trouble selling it at first. Finally, they went to such an
agency for advice (a "Marketing Plan"). The agency advised them to use
the founder's name: "Orville Redenbacher" and refer to the product as
"Gourmet Poping Corn". Packaging was designed (jar, label, etc.), an
ad-campaign was created, and the rest is history. I'm sure that the
very article I read was part of the marketing plan that the agency
developed for him.

I would never want to partner with such an organization - just pay for
their services. I have approached a few and they want me to provide
them with the Marketing Plan. Lew seems to think that this is an
entirely acceptable practice designed to "minimize their risk". At the
very least, he believes that I should help them get to know me and
treat them like a partner (the "WE" stuff). I don't think I want to
pay anybody for doing work that they should be doing for me. I also
think that they should be trying to get my business, I shouldn't be
trying to get them to take my business. And, finally, I don't ever
want them to forget who is paying the bills!

On the other hand, there are organizations where such a "partnership"
of sorts is entirely appropriate. For example, an independent Sales
Agency would certainly need to see a Marketing Plan. Such a thing is
absolutely necessary for a sales force. They should certainly be
included in and coordinated with any advertising and awareness
activities. The word "WE" would be very appropriate and probably get
used quite often. Perhaps Lew has confused the Marketing Agency with
the Sales Agency. It's my understanding that HPs first sales rep was
an independent named Norm Neeley. The whole deal was made on a
handshake and Norm went off to sell oscillators to Disney!

Fund raising is another completely different topic. Some people will
grow a business by taking on partners (or acquisitions). I always
consider this when it comes to adding complimentary skills but it
hasn't happened yet. Some people go to the VCs. Some people go into
debt. Some people issue stock. So far, I'm self funded. And, since
my resources are fairly modest, it means growth needs to be slow and
controlled. I learned this lesson the hard way in the spring of '01
when I really screwed up my reseller channel. So, I'm not looking for
someone who will come along and turn my small shop into a
multi-bazillion doller operation. I now have a lot of excess capacity
which isn't getting used so it's time for some growth. I want an
agency to help me develop a new plan, point me in the right direction,
and get me going on the right foot. Everything to date was developed
in a vacuum by one individual (me) whose speciality isn't Marketing. I
haven't done too bad but it's time to pop the lid on this vacuum and
let some air in.

Thanks,
Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com



Mike Marlow wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


They can find out as much as they like without my lifting a finger.
I'm not asking them to buy anything from me. I don't need to convince
them of anything. If I'm looking for a partnership, and they are
looking to assume some of the risk, then I'll use the word "WE".
Otherwise, I expect them to act like a company trying to sell me a
service. "WE" doesn't apply to anyone trying to minimize their risk to
zero.


Ed, I've been kind of hit and miss in this discussion, so apologies up front
if this is ground you've already covered.

There is one thing that has somewhat haunted me while I've watched the
pieces of this thread that I have. I keep seeing your desire for a
partnership and for a risk buy-in. Don't get me wrong... I don't believe
those are inappropriate ambitions. I do wonder though, if maybe you aren't
looking in the wrong places for those contributions. That's more the kind
of thing I would expect out of an investor - a venture capitalist. It just
seems to me that you might be mixing up a need for marketing with a need for
a business partner. Those two are really different animals. Typically, if
one is able to secure financing the marketing comes much easier, as the
proof of a good business plan, etc. are theoretically already established.

Frankly, I'd want to keep apples in the apple basket and oranges in the
vodka if I were you. I'd be looking for investment/risk partners in the VC
space and then going after marketing once positioned. I'm a sales guy and
the last thing I'd want is to entrust my business development to a marketing
group. Their focus is just not in that place. By its very defininition,
Marketing has to assume the marketability of a product (proof already
established) and assumes the creative responsibility for making that happen.
If it is simply the study of marketability that one is engaged in, then
that's a service to be paid for and typically from a different organization.
It would be hard to hope for risk sharing at that point.

Like I said - if I missed the obvious points by not staying closely coupled
to this thread then feel free to discard my ramblings. Well, at least some
of them. I'm sure there *must* be a nugget or two in there somewhere
though...

--

-Mike-