On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:50:02 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

I think Rick's point (and mine too) was that you shouldn't confuse tolerances
of five thou on dimensions, and fifteen minutes (!) of arc on angles, with
actually doing precision work.

Ok Doug, I see your point- I just have no idea what else to call it.
It's hardly "sloppy work" in the grand scheme of things. If you've
got a suitable term for it, I'll use that instead.

Hey Ed-

I just re-read this thread, and I'm really in the wrong here. I must
have got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, and took the
sweeping and cleaning sump pumps crack far harder than I should have.
I did a whole lot of bull work before I got to my current position,
and took a lot of flak when I was learning the trade. The comment
brought back all the days I spent splitting wood to heat the shop as
an apprentice, and the couple of years in spent in grind and sawing
blanks for the other guys while I learned to do setups in one big,
ugly rush.

So, for what it's worth, I apologize for going way out on a tangent
and reading a lot of crap into what you said that really isn't there.
Looking back a few messages, I can see that I was just spouting off
about a peeve of mine after a long week, and your view of things was
very reasonable all along.

I have to admit, I'm a little ashamed of myself for it- Stoutman, it's
a clever little jig you've got there, and I apologise to you as well,
for making this into an argument that went way off topic.

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
Hey Ed-



I have to admit, I'm a little ashamed of myself for it- Stoutman, it's
a clever little jig you've got there, and I apologise to you as well,
for making this into an argument that went way off topic.

I too think that Stoutmans jig is pretty neat. It gets the job dine. Its
just a shame that he cannot rely on his saw to stop at 90 degrees
repeatedly.

In article , "Leon" wrote:

I too think that Stoutmans jig is pretty neat. It gets the job dine. Its
just a shame that he cannot rely on his saw to stop at 90 degrees
repeatedly.

If you were to measure yours with a precision instrument, you might find that
it's not quite as repeatably accurate as you think it is. :-)

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

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

All well and good, but I think I'll stick with my method. Not because it's
better, but because it's quick and it works for me: slide a (known true)
square against the blade, and test the fit with a feeler gauge. If I can't
fit
a 0.002" feeler gauge between the blade and the square at either top or
bottom
then it's good. That means the blade is within 0.002" over 3" of being
square
to the table. FWIW, that's +/- 0.038 degrees (89.96 to 90.04).

That's probably within the range of error introduced by stray bits of
sawdust
on the saw table or on the square... so I'm happy.

I'm glad you find your method quick.

For me it is much faster (I'm not bull sh*ting here) to slap the dial
indicator jig into the blade and look at the dial than to squint at a
square.

The major turn on for me with this jig was speed, the added accuracy was
just a bonus!

I noticed one other neat thing about the jig last night. My homemade throat
plate was a smidge high from the table. So I hit it with the jointer a
little, but I can remove my throat plate and STILL use my jig. Not sure you
could with a square?

Anyway. I don't want to drag this out more than it needs to be. I just
wanted to share

I am still waiting for FineWoodWorking to contact me for their "Methods of
Work". --Just kidding.





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

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

In article , "Stoutman" .@. wrote:
All well and good, but I think I'll stick with my method. Not because it's
better, but because it's quick and it works for me: slide a (known true)
square against the blade, and test the fit with a feeler gauge. If I can't
fit
a 0.002" feeler gauge between the blade and the square at either top or
bottom
then it's good. That means the blade is within 0.002" over 3" of being
square
to the table. FWIW, that's +/- 0.038 degrees (89.96 to 90.04).

That's probably within the range of error introduced by stray bits of
sawdust
on the saw table or on the square... so I'm happy.

I'm glad you find your method quick.

For me it is much faster (I'm not bull sh*ting here) to slap the dial
indicator jig into the blade and look at the dial than to squint at a
square.

Well, that's not all you're doing, right? You still have to push that jig up
against a known square reference, such as your jointer fence, first, every
time you use the jig.

Or did you zero it once against a reference, and then leave the dial indicator
permanently mounted to the jig?

I think I'd rather continue to use a true square and a feeler gauge than to
dedicate a dial indicator to one single-purpose jig.

The major turn on for me with this jig was speed, the added accuracy was
just a bonus!

Hmmm... I see it the other way around: the major advantages from my
perspective are accuracy and ease of use. I'll admit I haven't used your jig
or one like it, and doing so might well change my mind, but I find it tough to
see how there's an improvement in speed.

I noticed one other neat thing about the jig last night. My homemade throat
plate was a smidge high from the table.

I make my throat plates deliberately too thin (1/2" MDF), and use countersunk
flat-head machine screws to adjust them flush to the table. (BTW, Ed Bennett,
if you're still reading this thread -- that's another application for the
TS-Aligner!)

So I hit it with the jointer a
little, but I can remove my throat plate and STILL use my jig. Not sure you
could with a square?

Yes. That's how I normally do it.

Anyway. I don't want to drag this out more than it needs to be. I just
wanted to share

I am still waiting for FineWoodWorking to contact me for their "Methods of
Work". --Just kidding.

Send it to them. You might get something for it.

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

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

Prometheus wrote:

Yep.

I still get a kick out of guys who turn up their noses at anything
that is more than a couple of years old- all the new and improved
stuff came from somewhere, after all. During my apprenticeship, my
uncle taught be how to grind carbide to within a thou, with angles
just as tight using a manual machine that had no computers, and got
it's three-phase power from a home made convertor we started by
wrapping a bit of rope around the spindle and giving it a yank before
hitting the switch. We checked the product with the old tools his
father brought with him from Austria during WWII, carefully maintained
and cared for over decades of use (I wish I had tools that nice- but
they went to his son, when he took over the business.) The "modern
machine shops" we sharpened and made inserts for never seemed to have

Modern machine shops rarely sharpen inserts. As a general rule, inserts
are used and discarded.

any complaints about the quality- they must have forgotten to check
them with their Chordal Measuring Machines. (And the production

You are mixing apples and oranges. Who is talking about anything other
than setting a table saw blade to 90 degrees?

woodworking shops were happy with their blades, too)

Don't get me wrong, I like CNC controls and modern measurement tools
just fine- but the old ways didn't just stop working because someone
made a new widget and declared that it was better,

No one said the old methods do not work. Reread this thread and show me
where anyone said that the old methods are flawed. Stoutman merely
demonstrated a high tech jig that is one solution to the problem.

Rick

Prometheus wrote:

We've got these buggers, with magnifying lenses mounted over the
scales.

http://catalog.starrett.com/catalog/...sp?GroupID=148


Yes, this would be the protractor I was referring to. 1/12 degree (5
arc minutes) is a far cry from 1/100 degree. And, both are "not nearly
absolutely perfect". It amounts to a little more than 0.007" on a 5"
sine bar. A machinist can do this with his eyes shut.

The standard low cost angle set (less than $50) is spec'ed at 30 arc
seconds (0.00015" per inch). It's what my angle blocks are spec'ed at.
Your average machine shop will use a standard gage block set with size
increments to 0.0001" to set a 5" sine bar (that's 0.00002" per inch or
about 4.1 seconds). If you don't mind the yield hit, it's just barely
adequate for making such angle blocks. You really need to follow the
10:1 rule here.

When I make my angle blocks, I use Starrett LM gauge blocks (grade 0.5)
to set my sine plate and sine vise. These have size increments to
0.000005" (yes, five millionths of an inch) which means I'm able to
adjust the setting by one millionth of an inch per inch (about 1 arc
second). It is, for all practical purposes, way below the noise level
of my machinery and measurment capabilities (which is where it needs to
be for the work that I do). I run batches with 100% yield all the
time.

Most machine shops won't attempt this sort of work. Even so, it's
still "not nearly absolutely perfect". I inspect my work with a
Starrett LM angle gage block set (AG16.LM):

http://catalog.starrett.com/catalog/.../4200/4153.pdf

At 0.25 arc secnd accuracy, these are "nearly" but not quite perfect.
A machinest knows from experience that nothing is perfect. Nothing is
"dead-on" accurate. There are only degrees of accuracy (no pun
intended).

You caught me being a buffoon there. I never really bothered to look
at the things all that closely- they're in a different area, and the
last time I really had to care about them was over a decade ago.

Ya, I kinda figured as much. Sorry about that but perhaps now you will
realize that I do know what I'm talking about and it won't be even
remotely easy to BS me. It seems so easy to just say things in a
newsgroup because there are so many people around who don't know any
better. But it isn't always the case.

I
run the breaks as a operator once in a while to help out when I have
time, but it's not my job.

For those who aren't familiar, a "break" is used for bending sheet
metal. It kind of explains the accuracy needs of your situation. Most
people would call this a fab shop, not a machine shop.

Laser cutting and manual milling on the
Bridgeport is, and I spend my time measuring in decimals, not minutes,
so that's what I pulled out of my ass. Like I said, in-process QC is
done with these squares.

Hmmmmm.......So, unless you are just an "operator" who loads parts and
pushes a button (pulls a handle, turns a wheel, flips a lever, etc.)
then you use indicators all the time, right? You have to align vises
on the table, tram the head, locate references, etc. So, I still don't
get it. You can't be a machinist using a Bridgeport type mill and not
use indicators all the time, for every single setup. It's another one
of these scenearios which sounds like it comes from a woodworker's
imagination.

http://catalog.starrett.com/catalog/...asp?GroupID=68

Yep, nice squares! Very pricey but worth it.

And, are you saying that nobody in this shop uses indicators on sine
bars or angle blocks? They just use this "adjustable square" to set
angles? And, never with an indicator? Frankly, I'm having some
trouble picturing this. I'm inclined to think that this "machine shop"
comes from the imagination of a woodworker.

Only for final QC. The parts have a wide enough tolerances that the
squares, mics and calipers work fine on the floor. Your inclination
is wrong, but only in that we've had experiences in shops with
tolerances that are obviously very different. As noted in another
post, we're much more likely to make a mount than a piston- other
shops with better equipment do that work, and I'm fine with that. I
use all the same G-codes you do, just while making less precise parts.
The customers still have a fit if the fit and finish is not perfect.

Hmmmm........So, as I picture it in my mind, you guys run a fab shop.
Basically, you assemble things - drilling holes or milling slots as
necessary. You bend up some sheet metal to rough angles - maybe some
welding too? The tolerances are a mile wide. I still don't get your
comment about the "G-codes". Is your Bridgeport a CNC machine?

You make it sound like if a part isn't within a .0001 of nominal, you
have to beat the damn thing into place with a sledgehammer.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. This should be like second
nature to a machinist but let's take it from the top again. The "rule
of thumb" for achieving a desired tolerance is this: your measurement
devices used for setup and inspection should provide accuracy which is
ten times that of your tolerance. If your tolerance is 0.0001", then
you should be prepared to set up your machines and check the results
with instruments which can discern 10 millionths of an inch
(0.000010"). Otherwise, you will be swamped with all sorts of
uncertainty and guesswork which will result in poor fits and poor
yield.

Another more applicable example would be very good. Someone here said
that 1/64" is a good woodworking tolerance. Great. So, if you really
want to achieve this level of accuracy, then you should be using
instruments which can discern 0.0015" or better. Why? Because the
decimal equivalent of 1/64" is 0.015". The 10:1 rule would have you
use an instrument accurate to 0.0015". Therefore, your everyday
hand-dandy 0.001"/div dial indicator is the most logical and practical
choice. If, however, you choose devices which are only capable of
measuring to 1/64", then you will be swamped with all sorts of
uncertainty and guesswork. It's likely that you will spend a lot of
time doing test cuts and re-working joints by hand - which is what a
lot of woodworkers do (and they think it demonstrates an elevated level
of skill and expertise). I know it's a strong and blunt word, but do
you see why the average machinist considers this to be "ignorant"?

It would be asinine for me to apply at a place that requires that
level of precision, because that isn't what I've been doing for most
of my working life (though I don't imagine it would take much to learn
it from where I'm at). Like I said, I'm comfortable with that- lots
of things need to be made, not just TS-aligners and precision gears.
But simply because I do a different job than you is hardly reason to
imply that I'm only qualified to sweep floors and wish that I was a
spiffy as you.

But you are not working in a machine shop. You are not a machinist.
You are working as a machine operator in a fab shop. There's a whole
world of difference here. You guys don't do anything even remotely
near perfect. By machine shop standards it really is "half assed". I
agree, as fab shops go you are probably better than most (at least you
aren't using drafting triangles and protractors from the office supply
store). If you didn't go to a community college or tech school for an
associate degree then you would enter a real machine shop with a broom
in your hand. Yes, you would probably learn quickly and eventually
understand exactly what I am talking about. I don't say this to make
you feel bad. I say this to make you see reality.

Odds are fairly good you'd gunk up the works in my shop as well- a guy
that spent all day bitching about not having an optical comparitor
next to his machine or spending an hour adjusting offsets to within a
tenth (on a machine that is not manufactured to that level of
precision, no less) when a .003 tolerance is called for instead of
doing his work would be out the door there, too.

Well, not quite. I wouldn't think too highly of anybody who took more
than an hour to do a machine setup for any of the TS-Aligner parts
(including machine warm up and coolant transfer). A good machinest can
read the print, understand the tolerances, choose the right
instruments, fixturing, tooling, etc. and make the part to specs. The
reason why a guy like me wouldn't last too long in your shop is that I
would be running circles around everyone else making them look really
bad. Next thing I know is that my machines, tools, parts, etc. would
be getting sabotaged. The boss would be getting bad reports about me
(I don't play well with others, etc.). Before long I'm out. Been
there, done that, don't like it a bit.

I might, at that. But I'd certainly worry about trim nails pounded
into a block of wood being tweaked the first time you bumped them with
somthing, or busting that indicator if the jig fell on the floor.

Squares get tweaked too, and you'd notice it even less than a bent
nail. Things do happen to all precision instruments. A good machinist
knows to check the calibration of an instrument before using it (or at
least periodically). Always close the calipers to be sure that the
reading returns to zero (especially on digital calipers!). Always use
the micrometer standard. And Stoutman should always check the
calibration of his jig before using it. That's why I suggested he get
an angle plate to use as a reference. Using the jointer fence isn't a
good idea. But, as suggested by another, a self checking technique
(measuring both sides of the blade) is a great practice.

Look, Ed. I understand that you make a product that is very precise
for aligning table saws, and it's in your best interests to advocate
super precision when setting a saw up. I'm not demeaning your
product, or saying that it's valueless. From what I've seen here,
it's reputed to be a good product, and a lot of guys are getting a
decent value from it. It's not my intention to attack the way you
earn your living, or try and deny you sales.

I didn't say that you were. I did say that people who use precise
instruments to align and adjust their woodworking machinery are being
demeaned. Forgive me for being blunt, but it's a case of the ingorant
looking down on the intelligent. I'm just trying to point out, it
really should be the other way around (as it generally is in machine
shops). I'm doing my best to educate people so that they adopt more
intelligent ways of doing things. Sure, it's in my best interest to do
so but I am going way above and beyond what I will ever recieve in
return.

But the thread started as a way to align a table saw blade to 90*- I
use the positive stops in the saw, and a machinist square to double
check it. What you've effectively done here, unintentionally or not,
is to tell me that not only is that particular setup not good enough
for my hobby, but also that I am so poor at my day job that I am fit
for nothing better than janitorial work. It's really tough not to
just tell you where to stick it.

I'm sorry that you've taken it that way but I suppose I shouldn't be
too surprised. I didn't say that your way wasn't good enough for your
purposes. This was a conclusion that you created all by yourself. I
said that *I* didn't like it for *my* purposes. I said that Leon's
"test cut method works and is very accurate when done properly" but
that I still prefer accurate instruments over test cuts. I said that
using an accurate instrument like Stoutman's was easier, faster, and
more accurate. The suggestion from myself and Stoutman is that people
should try it before jumping all over us for suggesting it.

I also didn't say that you were poor at your day job. What I did was
to challenge what you said about your job. You were claiming to be a
machinist who worked in a machine shop. Unfortunately, all your facts
and figures were so screwed up that it's was very obviously a load of
bovine fecal matter. You are really a machine operator in a fab shop.
I did it in a pretty polite way but honestly I believe that someone who
would try to pass off such obvious nonsense should be just a bit
embarrassed about being caught in the act. It's a little disingenuous
to be indignant over being caught in a blatent lie, don't you think?

Most of the folks here have a *hobby* woodworking. In my case, I make
a lot of sort of fancy end tables and vases on the lathe. The tables
end up scattered around my house, and are there for my enjoyment and
use, along with the other stuff I make. I don't care to be bullied
and told that because I'm not using a sine bar and dial indicator,
optical comparator, or a laser measurement system to set up my
contractor's saw to make those projects, they're fit for nothing
better than firewood (which is what I'm getting from your attitude
about the subject.)

I never said anything even remotely resembling this. I believe that
you have things turned around a bit. It was you that jumped all over
Stoutman (and me) about using a dial indicator jig. I am just
defending my (and Stoutman's) position. And, if my defense makes you
feel like your technique is inadequate and that the resulting work is
inferior, then it's time for a bit of retrospection, not recrimination.

If I was running a cabinet shop, I'd probably buy
your alignment tool- but I'm not. And neither are most of the people
on this group. There's a good deal of sense in buying tools with good
motors and careful construction from decent materials, but when it
comes time to rip a board, I'm just fine with using a square to set
the blade angle, and a cabinet maker's rule to check that the fence is
parallel to the blade, and get on with actually making something-
there's never been any fiddling around or wasting time involved in it.

Fine. Then there really was no need for you to jump all over Stoutman
for his idea or to present lies about your job in order to try and make
it sound like you were an authority on such matters when you really
aren't.

It's just a constant drone on some of these threads about how
everything has to be expensive, precise, and robust to do any goddamn
thing.

Stoutman's jig is probably a lot less expensive than your square. The
"drone" here seems to be about a bunch of people who feel so insecure
about themselves that they need to ignorantly attack what is a very
good, well designed, low cost, and accurate jig.

's the wrong impression to give someone who is just starting
out and checks out this group because they'd like to make some plywood
cutouts of an old lady's butt to put in the garden, or a desk for
their 4 year old to color on. If I'd have listened to too much of
this crap when I was first starting to putz around with woodworking, I
still wouldn't have ever even attempted anything more difficult than
rough house framing- but maybe I could have saved up enough money to
get a 5hp Unisaw and a phase convertor that could sit alone in my
basement by now. Then maybe in a year or two later, I could buy a
router- and ten years from now, a jointer. Boy, I bet I'd be almost
ready to make a birdhouse by 2025.

Just a bit over the top, don't you think? Here's what I think:

If the beginner were to learn about how to properly align their
machines using instruments which provide the proper degree of accuracy,
then they wouldn't agnoze over all this stupid BS that you seem
paralyzed by. Imagine spending $15 on Stoutman's jig so that you can
know for sure that the machinery you have is perfectly accurate, well
aligned and precisely adjusted for all the work that you want to do.
No guess work required - no uncertainty. Nobody saying anything about
lasers or millionths of an inch in any newsgroup would ever be able to
rattle the confidence you had in your machinery or the work that you
produce. Your knowledge and expertise would prevent you from becoming
defensive whenever a new idea comes along. Instead of attacking it out
of ignorance you would be able to evaluate it and decide for yourself
if it had any merit.

The nonsense about always having the best is just that. Try walking
into most any job shop, and demand that they buy you all new
top-of-the-line consumables before you get to work and see how long
they laugh at you before they show you the door. The best serves a
purpose, and it's nice to have, but you don't need it to do good work.

I agree, it's nonsense. And only an ignorant person who refuses to
educate themselves about the basics of Metrology, machinery alignment
and adjustment would be rattled by such stupid nonsense.

Do you really want to know what is so frustrating? Just ask.

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Doug Miller wrote:

I make my throat plates deliberately too thin (1/2" MDF), and use countersunk
flat-head machine screws to adjust them flush to the table. (BTW, Ed Bennett,
if you're still reading this thread -- that's another application for the
TS-Aligner!)

Yup, still reading. Watch your video, it's in there! You can also use
the Angle Attachment Gage to set the blade to 90 degrees (just like
Stoutman's jig). So, you also have that capability. And, of course
there are the angles....

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

I'm glad you find your method quick.

For me it is much faster (I'm not bull sh*ting here) to slap the dial
indicator jig into the blade and look at the dial than to squint at a
square.

Well, that's not all you're doing, right? You still have to push that jig
up
against a known square reference, such as your jointer fence, first, every
time you use the jig.

I plan on setting it once and checking it once in a while.


Or did you zero it once against a reference, and then leave the dial
indicator
permanently mounted to the jig?

yes

I think I'd rather continue to use a true square and a feeler gauge than
to
dedicate a dial indicator to one single-purpose jig.

The major turn on for me with this jig was speed, the added accuracy was
just a bonus!

Hmmm... I see it the other way around: the major advantages from my
perspective are accuracy and ease of use. I'll admit I haven't used your
jig
or one like it, and doing so might well change my mind, but I find it
tough to
see how there's an improvement in speed.

It seems to me that by using a square to set 90o you must be sacrificing
speed over accuracy (if you are doing it as fast as I think you are). You
can't possibly have both, it must be one or the other.

With my jig you get both speed and accuracy with no sacrifice in either one.

I say again: Why not?


Yes. That's how I normally do it.

My square is too small.

Anyway. I don't want to drag this out more than it needs to be. I just
wanted to share

I am still waiting for FineWoodWorking to contact me for their "Methods of
Work". --Just kidding.

Send it to them. You might get something for it.

Sent!

It seems to me that by using a square to set 90o you must be sacrificing
speed over accuracy (if you are doing it as fast as I think you are). You
can't possibly have both, it must be one or the other.

What I meant to write was : If you are setting 90 with a square that fast,
you must be sacrificing accuracy. If you take your time a really zero in
with the square you are sacrificing speed.

Not sure you can have both speed and accuracy.

Prometheus wrote:
So, the response is really directed less at you and Swingman than at
those beginners that might be lurking and reading this thread. It's
just a sanity check and reminder that while a guy *can* tune up their
equipment until it's good enough to manufacture aircraft, it's not an
absolute requirement for making something that is functional and
attractive. The jig is a neat idea, but I still feel it is probably
overkill for myself and most others.

Beginners need to learn about the tolerances needed to do the sort of
work that they want to do. They need to know how to properly check,
setup, and adjust their machines to achieve those tolerances. When
they know these things, then they can make an intelligent decision
concerning the adequacy of their tools and machines. It's not about
overkill, it's about knowing what it takes to do the job right.

The situation you suffered was from a lack of knowledge and expertise.
You didn't know what tolerances your projects needed. You didn't know
how to properly check, align, and setup your machines. So, you didn't
know if they could do the work. Everything you read in newsgroups and
forums rattled you because you had no basis from which to judge. You
eventually just dove in and hoped for the best. Trial and error.
Fortunately, you found out that your machines could do the work.
Essentially this is your message to the beginners. "Dive in and hope
for the best. You might be surprised like I was and find out that your
tools are good enough."

The problem is this: Some people struggle for years trying to make
things. They read stuff like this and blame their skills or waste
money on all sorts of stupid plastic gadgets from the catalogs. Darn
few of them ever wander in my direction (where they can learn the
things they need to know) because there are so many people putting down
intelligent solutions in favor of "trial and error", "test cuts", and
all other manner of ignorant nonsense. Most just give up on
woodworking because they think that the "skills" are beyond their
ability. And, the few that make it naturally join the ignorant chorus
against intelligent solutions. After all, if you don't learn it the
hard way, then you're cheating. Right?

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Well I saw your other reply first so I responded to it. Hope you
understand as well. No insult intended - I was just trying to put you
into your place (which it seems you were already in by the time I
responded). And, no insult perceived - these discussions do tend to go
off on tangents.

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Prometheus wrote:
Hey Ed-

I just re-read this thread, and I'm really in the wrong here. I must
have got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, and took the
sweeping and cleaning sump pumps crack far harder than I should have.
I did a whole lot of bull work before I got to my current position,
and took a lot of flak when I was learning the trade. The comment
brought back all the days I spent splitting wood to heat the shop as
an apprentice, and the couple of years in spent in grind and sawing
blanks for the other guys while I learned to do setups in one big,
ugly rush.

So, for what it's worth, I apologize for going way out on a tangent
and reading a lot of crap into what you said that really isn't there.
Looking back a few messages, I can see that I was just spouting off
about a peeve of mine after a long week, and your view of things was
very reasonable all along.

I have to admit, I'm a little ashamed of myself for it- Stoutman, it's
a clever little jig you've got there, and I apologise to you as well,
for making this into an argument that went way off topic.

I say again: Why not?

I re-read this and thought it sounded a little snooty. Sorry.

On 11 Nov 2006 15:55:18 -0800, wrote:

Well I saw your other reply first so I responded to it. Hope you
understand as well. No insult intended - I was just trying to put you
into your place (which it seems you were already in by the time I
responded). And, no insult perceived - these discussions do tend to go
off on tangents.

Thanks for being understanding about it- just a rotten day, and I was
itching for a fight without even realizing it.

If you call it a fab shop, that's fine, and it seems clear enough that
I'm not in a real position to argue. I'm not just an operator-
though. I run an Amada laser cutter, and do a fair amount of the
programming (*not* just CNC edits, full programming) and am
responsible for making the jigs for custom parts and prototyping
(which may well be more complex than you think, when we need to cut
features at several Z heights after the parts have been on the brake).

The only real differences from my perspective between that and a mill
are that the Z-axis is much easier to handle and the maximum accuracy
is .0004 with repeatability is that is only somewhat lower- which puts
it well out of the class of somthing like a Mazak mill that is able to
run parts with a .0001 tolerance- which is why the measurement tools
we're using are less precise. Feed and speed are still important,
even though the cutter is a laser, and not a cutterhead with inserts,
and things like gas pressure, focus and alignment come into play
during the setup.

We've got the Bridgeport for milling parts that mount into the
finished products, and I'm the only guy that sets it up and runs it
right now. Should be fairly clear that it is not an operator's task-
putting in a part and hitting a button won't do squat on a manual
machine, and I have met plenty of guys who were doing high precision
work that could not even use a manual machine. As noted in the other
response you sent, of course it does not use G-codes- it's just got a
digital readout, and yes, I use dial indicators to check the parts and
set it up.

It's not that I was lying to you about my job- it's more that I have a
different concept of what I am doing than yourself. Even though it's
less precise than another machine shop, I still consider it
machinist's work, as do the people I work for and my coworkers. I've
done precision machinist's work in the past, but it's been a long time
and the places I worked were small, and not state of the art by any
means- when I was trained in it, we still used equipment, including
measuring equipment, that you would probably consider primative-
including squares and feeler guages. Whether it was good technique
that isn't very common any more or just plain dumb luck, the stuff we
put out of those places was still up to snuff.

On 11 Nov 2006 15:39:42 -0800, wrote:

Essentially this is your message to the beginners. "Dive in and hope
for the best. You might be surprised like I was and find out that your
tools are good enough."

Aptly summarized. It often seems that this forum (and everywhere
else) is heavily segregated by income. I cringe when I see
suggestions that someone must spend more money than they have to do
something that could just as easily have been done with a little more
practice and a set of inexpensive tools.

This thread really was a poor example, as the jig Stoutman posted for
consideration was an inexpensive solution- provided you can find a
place to ship a dial indicator to you for less than the cost of the
thing, of course.

The problem is this: Some people struggle for years trying to make
things. They read stuff like this and blame their skills or waste
money on all sorts of stupid plastic gadgets from the catalogs.

Again, very close to my point.

Darn few of them ever wander in my direction (where they can learn the
things they need to know) because there are so many people putting down
intelligent solutions in favor of "trial and error", "test cuts", and
all other manner of ignorant nonsense. Most just give up on
woodworking because they think that the "skills" are beyond their
ability.

Well, I'd like to think I'm not in that group. My argument was for
another measurement tool, one that I've always considered perfectly
adequate for the task- not guessing at settings or using trial and
error.

And, the few that make it naturally join the ignorant chorus
against intelligent solutions. After all, if you don't learn it the
hard way, then you're cheating. Right?

I'll give you that one, simply because I really *don't* consider it
cheating to learn things in an easier manner.

At the same time, I'll admit that I have an aversion to making
woodworking into a machinist's job. If my home shop experience
involved drafting the parts in CAD and then loading the program into a
controller, doing a five, or even fourty-five minute setup, and then
letting a machine do the work, I'm not sure that I bother with it at
all as a hobby- I get plenty of that during the week. (Though I would
certainly do that if I were earning an income with it)

I like to work wood with my own hands- and honestly, I hold with Tom
Watson's suggestion of considering the Persian flaw. I don't belive
I've ever made a perfect thing from wood, but that's the way I like
it. Additional time and effort spent sanding, or using a router to
round over edges instead of a sanding block could yeild consistant
results as smooth as glass, but I kind of like one corner that is a
knocked down a just a tiny bit further than the others, and the odd
tiny rough spot or raised fiber. When I look at it or touch it, it
doesn't feel like it came from a factory, and that's what I like about
it.

In essence, there's nothing wrong with your suggestion that the tools
could be set up with supreme accuracy. It's just an aestetic argument
over whether or not they should be. While it's easy and
understandable to suggest that the school of hard knocks is an
igornant way of learning something, there is an argument for it that
is also valuable- it involves the personal pride that comes from
overcoming difficult problems on your own and an appreciation for
hard-won skills in both yourself and others. That's something that
can't be taught or sold, but can be learned- and woodworking is a good
place to learn it.

Mazaks are crap!!!

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
On 11 Nov 2006 15:55:18 -0800, wrote:

Well I saw your other reply first so I responded to it. Hope you
understand as well. No insult intended - I was just trying to put you
into your place (which it seems you were already in by the time I
responded). And, no insult perceived - these discussions do tend to go
off on tangents.

Thanks for being understanding about it- just a rotten day, and I was
itching for a fight without even realizing it.

If you call it a fab shop, that's fine, and it seems clear enough that
I'm not in a real position to argue. I'm not just an operator-
though. I run an Amada laser cutter, and do a fair amount of the
programming (*not* just CNC edits, full programming) and am
responsible for making the jigs for custom parts and prototyping
(which may well be more complex than you think, when we need to cut
features at several Z heights after the parts have been on the brake).

The only real differences from my perspective between that and a mill
are that the Z-axis is much easier to handle and the maximum accuracy
is .0004 with repeatability is that is only somewhat lower- which puts
it well out of the class of somthing like a Mazak mill that is able to
run parts with a .0001 tolerance- which is why the measurement tools
we're using are less precise. Feed and speed are still important,
even though the cutter is a laser, and not a cutterhead with inserts,
and things like gas pressure, focus and alignment come into play
during the setup.

We've got the Bridgeport for milling parts that mount into the
finished products, and I'm the only guy that sets it up and runs it
right now. Should be fairly clear that it is not an operator's task-
putting in a part and hitting a button won't do squat on a manual
machine, and I have met plenty of guys who were doing high precision
work that could not even use a manual machine. As noted in the other
response you sent, of course it does not use G-codes- it's just got a
digital readout, and yes, I use dial indicators to check the parts and
set it up.

It's not that I was lying to you about my job- it's more that I have a
different concept of what I am doing than yourself. Even though it's
less precise than another machine shop, I still consider it
machinist's work, as do the people I work for and my coworkers. I've
done precision machinist's work in the past, but it's been a long time
and the places I worked were small, and not state of the art by any
means- when I was trained in it, we still used equipment, including
measuring equipment, that you would probably consider primative-
including squares and feeler guages. Whether it was good technique
that isn't very common any more or just plain dumb luck, the stuff we
put out of those places was still up to snuff.

In article , "Stoutman" .@. wrote:

It seems to me that by using a square to set 90o you must be sacrificing
speed over accuracy (if you are doing it as fast as I think you are). You
can't possibly have both, it must be one or the other.

I may be underestimating the time I spend using the square, but I know I'm not
sacrificing accuracy: if I can't get a 0.002" feeler gauge between the square
and the blade anywhere, then I know I'm at 90.00 +/- less than 0.04 degrees.

With my jig you get both speed and accuracy with no sacrifice in either one.

I say again: Why not?

Well, you've just about convinced me to give it a try, and time myself using
your jig *and* again using my Starrett square and feeler gauges, and see which
one is really faster. I'll be busy with other things the next couple of days,
and won't be back in the shop until Wednesday morning. I'll get back to you on
this...

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

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

In article , "Stoutman" .@. wrote:
I say again: Why not?

I re-read this and thought it sounded a little snooty. Sorry.

Didn't sound that way to me, Stoutman. No offense taken, and no apology
necessary.

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

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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Stoutman"
.@. wrote:

It seems to me that by using a square to set 90o you must be sacrificing
speed over accuracy (if you are doing it as fast as I think you are). You
can't possibly have both, it must be one or the other.

I may be underestimating the time I spend using the square, but I know I'm
not
sacrificing accuracy: if I can't get a 0.002" feeler gauge between the
square
and the blade anywhere, then I know I'm at 90.00 +/- less than 0.04
degrees.

With my jig you get both speed and accuracy with no sacrifice in either
one.

I say again: Why not?

Well, you've just about convinced me to give it a try, and time myself
using
your jig *and* again using my Starrett square and feeler gauges, and see
which
one is really faster. I'll be busy with other things the next couple of
days,
and won't be back in the shop until Wednesday morning. I'll get back to
you on
this...


Cool. After you make the jig and zero it on 90, see how close you are
getting with the square. While you're at it, see if there is a correlation
between time spent squinting at the square and accuracy. In other words, do
you get closer to 90o with more time spent eyeing the square or is it a case
of diminishing return?




--
Stoutman
www.garagewoodworks.com

CW wrote:
Mazaks are crap!!!

Ya, Haas beats Mazak any day! ;-)
Rong-Fu beats all and if you don't agree then you aren't a real
machinist!

Hi Stoutman,

By using the feeler gauges, Doug has eliminated the need for good
backlighting, squinting, and error from parallax. It's not completely
free from subjectivity (using a feeler gauge does involve making some
subjective judgments) but It's definitely an intelligent improvement.
A heck of a lot better than trial and error.

While I still prefer reading a dial indicator, I wouldn't be surprised
if Doug can obtain nearly equivalent accuracy in roughly the same
amount of time. He should be able to do better than the thickness of
his feeler gauge (0.002). Moving to a thinner gauge only increases the
subjectivity so I understand why that's not practical. As far as
expense goes, your dial indicator jig is definitely going to beat the
cost of a good square (especially a Starrett) but every shop needs a
good square anyway.

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Stoutman wrote:
Cool. After you make the jig and zero it on 90, see how close you are
getting with the square. While you're at it, see if there is a correlation
between time spent squinting at the square and accuracy. In other words, do
you get closer to 90o with more time spent eyeing the square or is it a case
of diminishing return?

Prometheus wrote:
Thanks for being understanding about it- just a rotten day, and I was
itching for a fight without even realizing it.

No problem. You just can't make judgements about people based on a
discussion in the newsgroup. Sometimes they just go wild.

If you call it a fab shop, that's fine, and it seems clear enough that
I'm not in a real position to argue. I'm not just an operator-
though. I run an Amada laser cutter, and do a fair amount of the
programming (*not* just CNC edits, full programming) and am
responsible for making the jigs for custom parts and prototyping
(which may well be more complex than you think, when we need to cut
features at several Z heights after the parts have been on the brake).

It does sound like a lot more than I had invisioned. I really have to
wonder why you characterized it as a place where nobody on the shop
floor ever used dial indicators. Sure, nobody operating shears,
breaks, and rolls are going to be using dial indicators but you're not
going to be doing fixturing and complex setups on any milling machines
without them. Yes, it's a lot more complex than you led me to believe.


The only real differences from my perspective between that and a mill
are that the Z-axis is much easier to handle and the maximum accuracy
is .0004 with repeatability is that is only somewhat lower- which puts
it well out of the class of somthing like a Mazak mill that is able to
run parts with a .0001 tolerance- which is why the measurement tools
we're using are less precise. Feed and speed are still important,
even though the cutter is a laser, and not a cutterhead with inserts,
and things like gas pressure, focus and alignment come into play
during the setup.

I assume that most of your work with the laser is cutting all the way
through. So, yes, you don't have to worry much about the Z axis. And,
if you are just going to cut shapes from large sheets then there's
really no precise setup needed. Just set your working origin to the
machine origin.

We've got the Bridgeport for milling parts that mount into the
finished products, and I'm the only guy that sets it up and runs it
right now. Should be fairly clear that it is not an operator's task-
putting in a part and hitting a button won't do squat on a manual
machine, and I have met plenty of guys who were doing high precision
work that could not even use a manual machine. As noted in the other
response you sent, of course it does not use G-codes- it's just got a
digital readout, and yes, I use dial indicators to check the parts and
set it up.

It's the setup of a milling machine (manual or CNC) that requires the
skill. You can get unskilled labor to run a Bridgeport once it's set
up. Have you ever seen a handgun factory? Literally hundreds of
manual milling machines all set up with customized fixturing. Each one
set up to do one specific operation (drill a hole, mill a slot, face a
surface, etc.). The operator mounts the part and pulls a lever (the
quill feed or the table feed). All other adjustments are locked down.

It's not that I was lying to you about my job- it's more that I have a
different concept of what I am doing than yourself. Even though it's
less precise than another machine shop, I still consider it
machinist's work, as do the people I work for and my coworkers. I've
done precision machinist's work in the past, but it's been a long time
and the places I worked were small, and not state of the art by any
means- when I was trained in it, we still used equipment, including
measuring equipment, that you would probably consider primative-
including squares and feeler guages. Whether it was good technique
that isn't very common any more or just plain dumb luck, the stuff we
put out of those places was still up to snuff.

Again, the problem arose when you described doing this sort of work
without using dial indicators. Fact is that you do use dial indicators
- not for the sheet metal fab but for the real machinist work. To
bring it full circle, I would classify a table saw more like the
woodworker's version of a Bridgeport manual mill. It has a bunch of
alignments and adjustments that greatly benefit from the use of a dial
indicator. Strongman's jig addresses one of those adjustments.

It is possible to align a vise on a milling machine without an
indicator. But, what would you think of a machiniist who spends an
hour checking test cuts with a square (or by flipping parts over
looking for a gap)?

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Sounds like a guy we had a while ago. Claimed to be a toolmaker. Trial and
error were his thing. He often got it right eventually. Doesn't work for us
anymore. Not missed.
wrote in message
oups.com...


what would you think of a machiniist who spends an
hour checking test cuts with a square (or by flipping parts over
looking for a gap)?

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Prometheus wrote:
Aptly summarized. It often seems that this forum (and everywhere
else) is heavily segregated by income. I cringe when I see
suggestions that someone must spend more money than they have to do
something that could just as easily have been done with a little more
practice and a set of inexpensive tools.

These would be the tool snobs! They are the minority that TJ and I
were discussing in the other thread. They are naturally very vocal (no
point in being a snob if you can't rub people's noses in it).

This thread really was a poor example, as the jig Stoutman posted for
consideration was an inexpensive solution- provided you can find a
place to ship a dial indicator to you for less than the cost of the
thing, of course.

Even if you only pay $12 for shipping, it's still pretty cheap. It can
easily be added to an order containing other tools and supplies. Or,
it can be purchased locally. Even here in Boise, ID there are several
places where a cheap indicator can be purchased. And, when you
consider the alternative (blindly upgrading a tablesaw, hoping it
solves the problems) it seems like quite a bargain.

Well, I'd like to think I'm not in that group. My argument was for
another measurement tool, one that I've always considered perfectly
adequate for the task- not guessing at settings or using trial and
error.

At that point it's just a matter of preference. Using a square is
definitely a lot better than doing a bunch of test cuts. I prefer the
indicator jig because it eliminates so many possible sources of error
and tends to be quicker.

I'll give you that one, simply because I really *don't* consider it
cheating to learn things in an easier manner.

Good.

At the same time, I'll admit that I have an aversion to making
woodworking into a machinist's job. If my home shop experience
involved drafting the parts in CAD and then loading the program into a
controller, doing a five, or even fourty-five minute setup, and then
letting a machine do the work, I'm not sure that I bother with it at
all as a hobby- I get plenty of that during the week. (Though I would
certainly do that if I were earning an income with it)

I think you will admit that this is a bit over the top. Nobody is
talking about going this far in your home woodshop. It's pretty much a
strawman argument.

I like to work wood with my own hands- and honestly, I hold with Tom
Watson's suggestion of considering the Persian flaw. I don't belive
I've ever made a perfect thing from wood, but that's the way I like
it. Additional time and effort spent sanding, or using a router to
round over edges instead of a sanding block could yeild consistant
results as smooth as glass, but I kind of like one corner that is a
knocked down a just a tiny bit further than the others, and the odd
tiny rough spot or raised fiber. When I look at it or touch it, it
doesn't feel like it came from a factory, and that's what I like about
it.

Woodworking will never be reduced to just a machinist's job. It will
always be a blend of artistry and engineering. In my mind, it's the
end product which matters the most so design is at least as important
as construction. Craftsmanship involves turning a good design into a
high quality and functional work of art. It doesn't dictate specific
tools or specific techniques for using those tools. If someone wants
to do it all by hand tools then that's great. If they want to do the
whole thing with machinery then that's fine too. It doesn't matter if
they goof around with trial and error or if they apply more intellegent
methods for aligning and adjusting their machines. What matters is
that the end product is beautiful and built to last more than a
lifetime.

I'm not a real fan of deliberately including defects to "prove" that
it's handmade. The better factories put out decent work. But, it's my
opinion that if you can't make something with superior quality which is
obvious to even the least discerning observer, then you just haven't
arrived yet.

In essence, there's nothing wrong with your suggestion that the tools
could be set up with supreme accuracy.

Again, not "surpeme accuracy", it's "sufficient accuracy". I don't use
the Starrett AG16.LM angle blocks and the SGC Dialectron to set blade
tilts. I use instruments which supply the degree of accuracy which
eliminates the need for test cuts and post processing (cleaning up with
hand tools). How do I know what is "sufficient"? I use well accepted
"rules of thumb" or "best practices" and my brain. "Skill" can be
defined as "the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, and
aptitude, to do something well."

It's just an aestetic argument
over whether or not they should be. While it's easy and
understandable to suggest that the school of hard knocks is an
igornant way of learning something, there is an argument for it that
is also valuable- it involves the personal pride that comes from
overcoming difficult problems on your own and an appreciation for
hard-won skills in both yourself and others. That's something that
can't be taught or sold, but can be learned- and woodworking is a good
place to learn it.

Well, it's not uncommon to say that things learned the "hard way" are
difficult to forget. The problem is when people don't actually learn
from the "hard way", they just keep doing it the "hard way" and
ridicule those who advocate doing it the "intelligent way". It reminds
me of illiterate parents who redicule their children for what they
learn in school.

I never appreciated being called "ignorant" by machinists. But,
eventually I understood what they were talking about. I can really
appreciate the one machinist who had enough patience to help me out of
my ignorance. I've spent the last 16 yerars or so seeing things from
both sides of the fence (no pun intended) and I have to say it's
definitely not easy being so patient. You can't even get these guys to
"just try it". Geez, they complain about the cost of a $15 indicator
but happily advocate wasting much more money using expensive hardwood
for test cuts!

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Hi Stoutman,

By using the feeler gauges, Doug has eliminated the need for good
backlighting, squinting, and error from parallax. It's not completely
free from subjectivity (using a feeler gauge does involve making some
subjective judgments) but It's definitely an intelligent improvement.
A heck of a lot better than trial and error.

I would agree.

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:08:38 GMT, "Stoutman" .@. wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...

I may be underestimating the time I spend using the square, but I know I'm
not
sacrificing accuracy: if I can't get a 0.002" feeler gauge between the
square
and the blade anywhere, then I know I'm at 90.00 +/- less than 0.04
degrees.

Cool. After you make the jig and zero it on 90, see how close you are
getting with the square. While you're at it, see if there is a correlation
between time spent squinting at the square and accuracy. In other words, do
you get closer to 90o with more time spent eyeing the square or is it a case
of diminishing return?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the use of feeler guages
eliminate (or at least drastically reduce) the need to squint?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the use of feeler guages
eliminate (or at least drastically reduce) the need to squint?

I assume it does. I have never used feeler gauges. Maybe that is why I am
having a tough time picturing what he is doing and how he is getting speed
as well as decent accuracy from his alignment.

Yep, feeler gauges eliminate the need to squint. The feeler gage is a
flat piece of steel with a very precise thickness. In Doug's case it's
0.002" thick. If there is a gap that's bigger than 0.002", then such a
feeler gage can slip inside that gap. Under ideal conditions a smaller
gap won't let the feeler gage slip in.

The subjective element comes in when judging the fit of the feeler gage
in the gap. Was it tight? Was it loose? How tight is too tight?
(see why it's called a "feeler" gage?) Did it not get in because
there's a burr on the edge of the square? Did it get in because the
edges are rounded? Doug's application is a good one because he's not
trying to make an absolute measurement using feeler gages. He's just
trying to make a relative comparison.

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Stoutman wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the use of feeler guages
eliminate (or at least drastically reduce) the need to squint?

I assume it does. I have never used feeler gauges. Maybe that is why I am
having a tough time picturing what he is doing and how he is getting speed
as well as decent accuracy from his alignment.

On 12 Nov 2006 12:27:14 -0800, wrote:

I assume that most of your work with the laser is cutting all the way
through. So, yes, you don't have to worry much about the Z axis. And,
if you are just going to cut shapes from large sheets then there's
really no precise setup needed. Just set your working origin to the
machine origin.

Yes and no- there is a lot of etching scales and part numbers, but
that's more a function of cut conditions than Z-height. Leaving it
higher to etch would not only cause terribly ugly etching, but also
scatter laser radiation all over the shop. For through cutting.
there's a very small sweet spot with the focus that changes with
material composition and thickness.

And while you're correct that cutting shapes laser-complete does not
require precise setup, about 60% of what I do comes off a Vipros punch
first (that thing is a whole other ball of wax, and may be more than
most people think as well), and the setup requires careful adjustment
to get the cutouts to properly locate punched holes and formed
features. It's a little different than a mill, of course, because the
machine's zero is defined by a set of three stationary guage blocks
rather than points determined by an edge finder.

The tricky stuff really happens when the Vipros guy is loading
manually, and the sheets are cockeyed by an unspecified amount. I
need to compensate for that later by shimming the blocks. In effect,
the sheet itself has to be treated like a sine bar- where the guage
blocks on the X axis are like the pins, and feeler guages between the
sheet and the blocks are used to define the angle. It's a PITA,
because rather than using a set hypotenuse, it needs to be calculated
for each sheet by using the adjacent leg and a measured hypotenuse
(from the center of a punched hole or inside corner of a square punch
to a guage block) to find the angle of error, and then compensated
for. If that gets skipped or is calculated incorrectly, the
cumulative error on a sheet with 50 parts (or even 6 parts) can easily
throw the parts in the bottom corner out of spec, even if the first
part is apparently good.

The setup comes in with parts that have been to the brake as well-
sometimes, they need to be cut after they are broke to insure that the
holes are not deformed, or to remove alignment tabs that the brakes
use for their back gauges . In that case, the same technique applies,
as well as adjustment of of the Zht, often at multiple levels for
different features. Especially in the case of cutting off alignment
tabs, the setup has to be dead-on, or else the laser will make a very
nasty burr or divot on the lead-in or coming out of the cut- our
customers will generally not accept a ground or repaired edge (we just
cut off the tabs with a notcher for those that will), so it has to be
right the first time.

Add in the macro handling and nesting, and it's fairly involved.

I was avoiding the use of "sheet metal" when talking about it for an
obvious (to me) reason- as soon as those words get used, people get a
picture of making duct work out of gavanized steel with a shear and a
die grinder in thier heads right away, and immediately dismiss the
whole concept as contemptable- that exact tactic was even used by
another poster as an insult to your product in another thread.

What we do is about as similar to duct work as a pipe organ is to a
child's xylophone. Sure, the material comes in sheet form rather than
bar stock, but it fills a need in machining that would be wasteful to
do on a mill, and impossible to do on a lathe. The next time you open
your PC, try and imagine making those parts on a mill or machining
center, and I imagine you'll see what I mean- it can be done, but it'd
be a whole lot of senseless work and waste to use cutters, when
compared to the thin kerf of a laser. We make similar parts for
supercomputers that take up an entire room (yes, they still make them,
even with really good PCs available) where thousands of parts need to
fit together perfectly with both each other and the circuit board
features or the cumlative error is huge- and you can bet the end-user
is bound to get a little edgy if their multi-million dollar toy isn't
up to snuff.

It's the setup of a milling machine (manual or CNC) that requires the
skill. You can get unskilled labor to run a Bridgeport once it's set
up. Have you ever seen a handgun factory? Literally hundreds of
manual milling machines all set up with customized fixturing. Each one
set up to do one specific operation (drill a hole, mill a slot, face a
surface, etc.). The operator mounts the part and pulls a lever (the
quill feed or the table feed). All other adjustments are locked down.

Nope, but I see what you're saying- I have set up guys to do single
operations like countersinking or reaming holes on it when I'm too
busy to stand there and do it.

Again, the problem arose when you described doing this sort of work
without using dial indicators. Fact is that you do use dial indicators
- not for the sheet metal fab but for the real machinist work. To
bring it full circle, I would classify a table saw more like the
woodworker's version of a Bridgeport manual mill. It has a bunch of
alignments and adjustments that greatly benefit from the use of a dial
indicator. Strongman's jig addresses one of those adjustments.

It is possible to align a vise on a milling machine without an
indicator. But, what would you think of a machiniist who spends an
hour checking test cuts with a square (or by flipping parts over
looking for a gap)?

All right, point taken- I wouldn't think much of him.

(As this has been way off-topic for the group, I'll note that the
laser cutter can and occasionally does cut plywood as well.)

wrote in message
oups.com...


Ya, Haas beats Mazak any day! ;-)
It's a tosssup. Sorry Ed but Haas is a ways down my list too.

Rong-Fu beats all and if you don't agree then you aren't a real
machinist!

I know there was an attempt at humor here but I'm really not getting it.

Yep, I was trying to be funny. Sorry, I won't ever do it again
(today).


CW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


Ya, Haas beats Mazak any day! ;-)
It's a tosssup. Sorry Ed but Haas is a ways down my list too.

Rong-Fu beats all and if you don't agree then you aren't a real
machinist!

I know there was an attempt at humor here but I'm really not getting it.

I added a feature on my web page that allows you to calculate angle errors
from distance errors.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/dial_...jig_spread.htm

--
Stoutman
www.garagewoodworks.com

(Doug Miller) writes:


Or did you zero it once against a reference, and then leave the dial
indicator permanently mounted to the jig?

I think I'd rather continue to use a true square and a feeler gauge
than to dedicate a dial indicator to one single-purpose jig.


I'd have no problem dedicating a $7 indicator from Harbor Freight.
I still have my Starrett. :-)


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Hi Stoutman,

Did you consider the error introduced by dial indicator tilt? If the
plunger isn't parallel to the table surface then you will be
introducing some error (it will no longer be right triangle trig).
This is why I said earlier in the thread that your jig wasn't able to
measure angles.

Ed Bennett



Stoutman wrote:
I added a feature on my web page that allows you to calculate angle errors
from distance errors.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/dial_...jig_spread.htm

--
Stoutman
www.garagewoodworks.com

Hi Stoutman,

Did you consider the error introduced by dial indicator tilt? If the
plunger isn't parallel to the table surface then you will be
introducing some error (it will no longer be right triangle trig).
This is why I said earlier in the thread that your jig wasn't able to
measure angles.


Maybe I am not getting you, but I don't understand how the plunger isn't
parallel with the table in this operation. I didn't intent to use the jig
for angles; I just wanted to know how much angle error was introduced with a
particular reading.

Are you suggesting that as the saw blade tilts, the plunger is forced out of
parallel even though the base remains parallel?






Ed Bennett



Stoutman wrote:
I added a feature on my web page that allows you to calculate angle
errors
from distance errors.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/dial_...jig_spread.htm

--
Stoutman
www.garagewoodworks.com

Hi Stoutman,

Did you consider the error introduced by dial indicator tilt? If the
plunger isn't parallel to the table surface then you will be
introducing some error (it will no longer be right triangle trig).
This is why I said earlier in the thread that your jig wasn't able to
measure angles.

Ed,

Please ignore my other reply. I got ya now! Just took me a little longer.
I am assuming the plunger is parallel when it most likely is not!

Your correct. Unless I get the plunger perfectly parallel with the table I
can not measure angle error.

Thanks. This is the reason why I NEED your TS aligner Jr!



Ed Bennett



Stoutman wrote:
I added a feature on my web page that allows you to calculate angle
errors
from distance errors.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/dial_...jig_spread.htm

--
Stoutman
www.garagewoodworks.com

Ed,

Please ignore my other reply. I got ya now! Just took me a little longer.
I am assuming the plunger is parallel when it most likely is not!

You're correct. Unless I get the plunger perfectly parallel with the table
I
can not measure angle error.

Thanks. This is the reason why I NEED your TS aligner Jr!

Stoutman wrote:

Please ignore my other reply. I got ya now! Just took me a little longer.
I am assuming the plunger is parallel when it most likely is not!

It's roughly parallel (by eye anyway) but when you start looking at
things in thousandths of an inch it starts to matter. The error won't
affect the angle that you calibrate at (90 degrees) but will affect
your measurement of any other angles (like when you try to figure out
what angle a few thousandths of error equates to).


Your correct. Unless I get the plunger perfectly parallel with the table I
can not measure angle error.

Thanks. This is the reason why I NEED your TS aligner Jr!

If you need to measure angles, then having precise, machined geometry
and the ability to control tilt of the dial indicator would be pretty
handy (not to mention all the other machines and adjustments you might
need it for).

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Mostly I just consider my own errors. Yes I have a TS Jr. and use
it. But unless a tool is obviously out of alignment I figure I'm
responsible for most of the errors. I think when you are using non
production tools, ie no air hold downs, power feeds ect, every step
introduces errors. This puts you back to being a wood worker, you
have to figure the fudge factor, do a little hand planing or scraping,
combined with some sanding. Either you guys are way out of my league
or we are all problem solvers. There are no mistakes, just design
alterations.

Mike M


On 13 Nov 2006 10:37:21 -0800, wrote:

Hi Stoutman,

Did you consider the error introduced by dial indicator tilt? If the
plunger isn't parallel to the table surface then you will be
introducing some error (it will no longer be right triangle trig).
This is why I said earlier in the thread that your jig wasn't able to
measure angles.

Ed Bennett



Stoutman wrote:
I added a feature on my web page that allows you to calculate angle errors
from distance errors.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/dial_...jig_spread.htm

--
Stoutman
www.garagewoodworks.com