Excuse me if this is a repost of my request. I tried to post it previously
and it did not show up in my sent folder, so I posted it again.

I have a Grizzly G0444Z TS. The back of my blade when I rip a board is
almost a quarter of an inch closer to the fence than the front of my blade
and causes gunk to build up on the right side of the saw blade, and causes
the board to bind up and I have to force it through. .I used ovenoff to
clean the blade. My sawblade is not bent. According to my saw manual it says
to loosen the trunnion bolts and move the assembly to the right or left and
retighten the bolts. I did this I cannot get the blade dead-on. The assembly
will not move any farther. It is off by a 1/16th of an inch. Is this an
acceptable tolerance or do any of you have any suggestions as to how I can
get it perfect? Thank you all for your suggestions.

retighten the bolts. I did this I cannot get the blade dead-on. The
assembly
will not move any farther. It is off by a 1/16th of an inch. Is this an
acceptable tolerance or do any of you have any suggestions as to how I can
get it perfect? Thank you all for your suggestions.





To get it dead-on perfect get one of these: (TS-Aligner Jr.) You can't go
wrong with having one in the shop.
http://www.ts-aligner.com/tsalignerjr.htm

Watch the instruction video for table saw on his website.

Read my review he
http://www.garagewoodworks.com/TS_aligner.htm

--
Stoutman
www.garagewoodworks.com

Tom wrote:
Excuse me if this is a repost of my request. I tried to post it previously
and it did not show up in my sent folder, so I posted it again.

I have a Grizzly G0444Z TS. The back of my blade when I rip a board is
almost a quarter of an inch closer to the fence than the front of my blade
and causes gunk to build up on the right side of the saw blade, and causes
the board to bind up and I have to force it through. .I used ovenoff to
clean the blade. My sawblade is not bent. According to my saw manual it says
to loosen the trunnion bolts and move the assembly to the right or left and
retighten the bolts. I did this I cannot get the blade dead-on. The assembly
will not move any farther. It is off by a 1/16th of an inch. Is this an
acceptable tolerance or do any of you have any suggestions as to how I can
get it perfect? Thank you all for your suggestions.

1. First you need to get your blade parallel to the miter slots in the
table. I had a Grizzly saw that wouldn't adjust far enough to get
parallel to the slots. I had to take the trunnion sector block (the
part that bolts to the bottom of the table) off and egg the holes out
with a round file to get it in the right place. To check if the blade
is parallel to the slot, get a pointy piece of wood and put on the
miter gage as if to cut it. Instead, check to see if the point just
scrapes the blade on the front AND back as it slides by. If it only
scrapes one or the other, you still have adjustments to make.

2. After you have your blade parallel to the miter slots, you need to
adjust the FENCE so that it locks down parallel to the blade. There
are bolts on the fence that allow you to adjust the angle at which it
locks down. Unless Grizzly has improved their fence a lot since I had
mine, your fence may not always lock down in the same relationship to
the blade. It may heel in one time and out another depending on which
direction you last moved it. If that is the case, you need to measure
from the fence to the front and back of the blade with a tape to be
sure it locks down parallel. After a little practice, you may learn to
always make the last movement in whichever direction that causes it to
lock down correctly every time.

3. DO NOT continue to operate the saw with the back of the fence
closer to the blade than the front. It is a recipe for nasty kickback,
in addition to overheating your blade and burning your wood. It is
best to have the fence absolutely parallel to the blade, but if you
can't consistently accomplish that, then it is better to have the back
of the fence slightly (1/32 or so) farther away from the blade than the
front.

Good Luck and Be Careful!

DonkeyHody
"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit
there." - Will Rogers

Stoutman wrote:

To get it dead-on perfect get one of these: (TS-Aligner Jr.) You can't go
wrong with having one in the shop.
http://www.ts-aligner.com/tsalignerjr.htm

Watch the instruction video for table saw on his website.



I have the TS-Aligner Jr. too, and I highly recommend it if you can
spare the $130 or so for admission. But you can get from the unsafe
condition you have now to a much safer condition without one. Just
DON'T keep going with the fence closer to the blade in the back. It
will bite you!

DonkeyHody
"We can't all be heroes because someone has to sit at the curb and clap
as they go by." - Will Rogers

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Excuse me if this is a repost of my request. I tried to post it previously
and it did not show up in my sent folder, so I posted it again.

I have a Grizzly G0444Z TS. The back of my blade when I rip a board is
almost a quarter of an inch closer to the fence than the front of my blade
and causes gunk to build up on the right side of the saw blade, and causes
the board to bind up and I have to force it through. .I used ovenoff to
clean the blade. My sawblade is not bent. According to my saw manual it
says
to loosen the trunnion bolts and move the assembly to the right or left
and
retighten the bolts. I did this I cannot get the blade dead-on. The
assembly
will not move any farther. It is off by a 1/16th of an inch. Is this an
acceptable tolerance or do any of you have any suggestions as to how I can
get it perfect? Thank you all for your suggestions.



Tom do you have a problem when cross cutting? If not, you trunion alignment
is probably OK or was OK.
If you are only having the problem with rips, you fence needs to be adjusted
parallel to the blade.

Typically the blade should first be made parallel to the "miter slot" by
adjusting the trunion and then the fence made parallel to the miter slot or
blade. Do not adjust the trunion to be parallel to the fence, only adjust
the trunion to be parallel to the miter slot and then the fence to the miter
slot or blade.

Folks I'm sorry for all the reposts. The only way I could receive you
answers is by getting them on my laptop PC. Outlook Express is all screwed
up on my desktop pc.I installed OE 7 and then went back to OE 6.
I will get the problem fixed soon. Thank you all very much for your
suggestions and have a very Merry Christmas!!!!





..
..

DonkeyHody wrote:
2. After you have your blade parallel to the miter slots, you need to
adjust the FENCE so that it locks down parallel to the blade.

It's best if you align both the fence and the blade so that they are
parallel to the miter slot. You don't want to use a short thing (like
the blade) as the alignment reference for a long thing (like the
fence). Small variations in the blade (which is rarely very flat) will
result in larger misalignments in the fence.

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

DonkeyHody wrote:
I have the TS-Aligner Jr. too, and I highly recommend it if you can
spare the $130 or so for admission. But you can get from the unsafe
condition you have now to a much safer condition without one. Just
DON'T keep going with the fence closer to the blade in the back. It
will bite you!

Thanks for the recommendation DH! Actually, the "price for admission"
is much lower (about $76). And, if all you want to do is basic
tablesaw alignment, you can put together a "dial indicator on a stick"
for less than $15:

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

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

wrote in message
ups.com...
DonkeyHody wrote:
2. After you have your blade parallel to the miter slots, you need to
adjust the FENCE so that it locks down parallel to the blade.

It's best if you align both the fence and the blade so that they are
parallel to the miter slot. You don't want to use a short thing (like
the blade) as the alignment reference for a long thing (like the
fence). Small variations in the blade (which is rarely very flat) will
result in larger misalignments in the fence.

While I understand what you are saying here Ed, you seem to contradict your
first sentence with your second sentence. You mention that you do not want
to use a short thing like the blade as the alignment reference for a long
thing like the fence. How is that not OK, when it is OK to use a short
thing like the blade as the alignment reference to align a long thing like
the miter slot?
I under stand the concept you are referencing here, it is easier to align
long parallel lines than a short and long one. The problem here is that the
short one was used to align the long reference that you want to align the
fence with.
Am I missing something here? It seems to me if it is acceptable to align
the slot to the blade, doing the same to align the fence is not much
different since the original reference point for the whole process of
aligning the fence was the blade.

Hi Leon,

No contradiction. It's not just a "length makes measurements easier"
thing either. It really deals with using a procedure which provides
the best possible information so that good decisions can be made and
correct action can be taken.

What I recommend is to use the miter slot as the alignment reference
for a table saw. The blade is aligned parallel to the slot, not the
slot to the blade. The fence is aligned parallel to the slot, not to
the blade. I know it seems like the same thing and under ideal
conditions you will accomplish the same results. But, the parts of a
table saw are far from ideal. When you choose a reference, you don't
want that reference to introduce error into the measurement process.
When the reference introduces error, then uncertainty creeps into the
measurement process. Uncertainty leads to bad decisions. Bad
decisions cause incorrect actions. Blades and fences often have
considerable surface variations. These variations introduce error into
the measurement process. However, the miter slot is a machined feature
with some substantial material behind it so it is most likely to be
accurate (straight).

An example might help clarify. In this particular case, the OP was
measuring between the fence and the blade. He observed variation and
assumed that the blade alignment was to blame. He was assuming that
his fence was straight and properly aligned. Therefore, his choice of
reference was the fence. So he attempted to adjust the alignment of
the blade to match that of the fence. But, that didn't solve the
problem. Bad reference, bad decision, incorrect action.

Suppose he chooses the blade as his reference and adjusts the fence.
This might not resolve the problem either. Variations in reading
between the two surfaces could be due to misalignment or they could be
due to variations in either surface. The small segment in the middle
of the fence (where distance to the blade can be measured) might not
represent its actual shape. More instrumentation will be required. He
could verify the accuracy of the fence by checking it with a straight
edge. But, he still can't be certain if the variation is due to blade
warp (or some other runout problem) or misalignment. So, more tests
are needed to confirm the accuracy of the blade (his reference). Some
people choose to purchase a flat blade replacement plate at this point.
While this might eliminate warp in the blade plate, it doesn't
eliminate other sources of runout (arbor, flange, bearings,...) and
cannot guarantee good results.

When he's done eliminating all the various possibilities, he will still
need to concern himself with miter slot alignment if he wants to use
his miter gauge. Moving the blade/slot alignment at this point will
disrupt the blade/fence alignment. So, now order becomes important
because the accuracy of one alignment influences the accuracy of
another - all because of the choice of reference.

Suppose he chooses the miter slot as his reference. Now the blade/slot
and fence/slot alignments are completely independent. The miter slot
is far less likely to be warped or deformed so it can be used to judge
the quality of the other surfaces (just like a straight edge). It's
long enough to fully characterize the fence (not just a small portion
in the middle). Variations in reading can be attributed to the fence
or the blade with fairly good confidence. There is little or no
uncertainty. Decisions are more likely to be good and lead to correct
actions. Even on a cabinet saw, where you literally move the slot
(because it's part of the table) you are still using it as your
reference because it is being used as the standard to independently
judge the condition and alignment of the other surfaces.

I know it's long winded but I hope it helps you to understand why I
recommend using the miter slot as the alignment reference and what sort
of problems you can encounter by choosing the blade or the fence
instead.

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com


Leon wrote:

While I understand what you are saying here Ed, you seem to contradict your
first sentence with your second sentence. You mention that you do not want
to use a short thing like the blade as the alignment reference for a long
thing like the fence. How is that not OK, when it is OK to use a short
thing like the blade as the alignment reference to align a long thing like
the miter slot?
I under stand the concept you are referencing here, it is easier to align
long parallel lines than a short and long one. The problem here is that the
short one was used to align the long reference that you want to align the
fence with.
Am I missing something here? It seems to me if it is acceptable to align
the slot to the blade, doing the same to align the fence is not much
different since the original reference point for the whole process of
aligning the fence was the blade.

I know it's long winded but I hope it helps you to understand why I
recommend using the miter slot as the alignment reference and what sort
of problems you can encounter by choosing the blade or the fence
instead.

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Ed,
Thanks for taking the time to explain the WHY of your recommendation.
Being somewhat anal myself, and an engineer to boot, I assumed I knew
what to do. My reasoning was, that since the blade-to-fence distance
is most critical, I'd rather take that measurement directly instead of
taking two measurments, with the chance that the errors in measurements
or inconsistency of construction of both blade and fence may stack up.
After reading your explanation, I can accept that your way is indeed
better. You have obviously spent a great deal of time thinking over
these matters. I wouldn't have thought the issue important enough to
argue with you about, but I would have just kept doing it my way
without your very articulate explanation.

DonkeyHody
"We are all ignorant, just about different things." - Will Rogers

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

No contradiction. It's not just a "length makes measurements easier"
thing either. It really deals with using a procedure which provides
the best possible information so that good decisions can be made and
correct action can be taken.

This I will agree with.


What I recommend is to use the miter slot as the alignment reference
for a table saw. The blade is aligned parallel to the slot, not the
slot to the blade.

Understood, Sorry If I lead you to think that using the blade slot was to be
used in the mix.

The fence is aligned parallel to the slot, not to
the blade. I know it seems like the same thing and under ideal
conditions you will accomplish the same results.

Correct and the point I was trying to make. My point was that I see no
difference except in ease of aligning the miter slot and the fence to the
blade. Theoreticaly if you use a reference that was aligned to the blade as
the reference to align the fence you could be introducing an incorrect
setting or compounding a setting problem.
For example if you use a length of wood to mark boards to be cut to a given
length you get more consistant results than if you use the last cut piece
each time to reference the next mark.
Esentually, if you align the miter slots and the fence in the correct
order both have used the blade as the starting reference point. It seems to
me that adding another reference point/miter slot into the mix increases the
chance for erreor.

If you are simply saying that referencing the fence to the miter slot vs.
the blade is easier and there fore may decreased the chance for procedure
error, I totally agree.

IMHO if you use the blade as a reference to align both the miter slot and
the fence you will get closer results than if you use the blade to align the
miter slot and then use the miter slit to align the fence. Since nothing
is perfect, adding the miter slot into the mix of another alignment
procedure would introduce the potential for more error. I like to keep the
common denominator as simple as possible.

But, the parts of a
table saw are far from ideal. When you choose a reference, you don't
want that reference to introduce error into the measurement process.
When the reference introduces error, then uncertainty creeps into the
measurement process. Uncertainty leads to bad decisions. Bad
decisions cause incorrect actions. Blades and fences often have
considerable surface variations. These variations introduce error into
the measurement process. However, the miter slot is a machined feature
with some substantial material behind it so it is most likely to be
accurate (straight).


Another reason that I have brought this up, it is also important to use the
same miter slot to align the fence as the one that you aligned to the blade.
While we hope that the miter slot is a precision cut feature of a saw there
have been instances where the 2 miter slots are not parallel to each other.
Granted they are supose to be but again not all equipment is perfect or
created equally.


An example might help clarify. In this particular case, the OP was
measuring between the fence and the blade. He observed variation and
assumed that the blade alignment was to blame. He was assuming that
his fence was straight and properly aligned. Therefore, his choice of
reference was the fence. So he attempted to adjust the alignment of
the blade to match that of the fence. But, that didn't solve the
problem. Bad reference, bad decision, incorrect action.

Exactly.

Suppose he chooses the blade as his reference and adjusts the fence.
This might not resolve the problem either.

Correct, Might not, but certainly possible.

Snip


I know it's long winded but I hope it helps you to understand why I
recommend using the miter slot as the alignment reference and what sort
of problems you can encounter by choosing the blade or the fence
instead.

I understand but still, ;~) and I know that you are going to crenge. I set
my Jet cabinet saw up then I first bought it 6 years ago. It was and still
is equiped with Forrest blades. I did use a dial indicator to check arbor
run out and the blade to miter slot and found both to be better than needed
and or expected straight out of the box. I used the miter slot to align the
fence and got good results but not quite what I was looking for. My cross
cuts were producing clean and burnished results but signs of tooth marks
were evident on the riped pieces. Several times I rechecked the fence being
parallel to the miter slot.
Finally I simply looked at the results and simply adjusted the fence using
no reference at all other than the results. I made 1 or 2 minute
adjustments to one of the adjusting set screws and I achieved and continue
to achieve a ripped surface that shows no sign of tooth marks and the
surface on hard woods will reflect objects. Basically I can see glare on
the cut surface.
Because my and most fences are long and only fixed at one end deflection is
possible. An individuals feed technique can and does in many cases add yet
another factor to how/where a fence should be aligned that a dial indicator
may be able to duplicate but not achieve to begin with.
While a dial indicator does permit near perfect alignment of a TS it cannot
predict an individuals technique that may cause less than perfect results.

Thanks ED.





Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com


Leon wrote:

While I understand what you are saying here Ed, you seem to contradict
your
first sentence with your second sentence. You mention that you do not
want
to use a short thing like the blade as the alignment reference for a long
thing like the fence. How is that not OK, when it is OK to use a short
thing like the blade as the alignment reference to align a long thing
like
the miter slot?
I under stand the concept you are referencing here, it is easier to align
long parallel lines than a short and long one. The problem here is that
the
short one was used to align the long reference that you want to align the
fence with.
Am I missing something here? It seems to me if it is acceptable to align
the slot to the blade, doing the same to align the fence is not much
different since the original reference point for the whole process of
aligning the fence was the blade.

Hi DH,

Sorry about not explaining it the first time around. Sometimes people
say that they feel like I'm browbeating them when I offer the
exhaustive explanation up front. So, lately I've been giving out
shorter answers. Glad that you finally got the info that you needed.

Thanks,
Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

DonkeyHody wrote:
Ed,
Thanks for taking the time to explain the WHY of your recommendation.
Being somewhat anal myself, and an engineer to boot, I assumed I knew
what to do. My reasoning was, that since the blade-to-fence distance
is most critical, I'd rather take that measurement directly instead of
taking two measurments, with the chance that the errors in measurements
or inconsistency of construction of both blade and fence may stack up.
After reading your explanation, I can accept that your way is indeed
better. You have obviously spent a great deal of time thinking over
these matters. I wouldn't have thought the issue important enough to
argue with you about, but I would have just kept doing it my way
without your very articulate explanation.

DonkeyHody
"We are all ignorant, just about different things." - Will Rogers

Leon wrote:
Understood, Sorry If I lead you to think that using the blade slot was to be
used in the mix.

No, I knew you were talking about the miter slot. I just wanted to
make sure everyone else did too.

The fence is aligned parallel to the slot, not to
the blade. I know it seems like the same thing and under ideal
conditions you will accomplish the same results.

Correct and the point I was trying to make. My point was that I see no
difference except in ease of aligning the miter slot and the fence to the
blade.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ease". I can't imagine a more difficult
task that to use the blade as a reference - unless, of course, you
ignore the potential for error that can influence the outcome.

Theoreticaly if you use a reference that was aligned to the blade as
the reference to align the fence you could be introducing an incorrect
setting or compounding a setting problem.

This sounds just like BLeeds! The bottom line is this: I have to
recommend a procedure which works best for everyone under all
circumstances. I can't recommend a procedure that works only under
ideal conditions. It's better to align two unknown surfaces to a known
surface than to try to align them directly to each other. The known
surface reveals the errors in the unknown surfaces. Aligning two
unknown surfaces to each other allows the errors to remain hidden, lead
to incorrect actions, and influence the accuracy of the results.
Sorry Leon, I've really agonized about how to explain this in such a
way that you could understand it. Perhaps someone else can do a better
job.

For example if you use a length of wood to mark boards to be cut to a given
length you get more consistant results than if you use the last cut piece
each time to reference the next mark.

This is a good example of the use of a length standard (or reference).
But, it's not quite analogous to this situation. Think of it this way:
suppose you need two 36" pieces of wood. Instead of using a reference
for 36" (like a tape measure), you pick a piece of wood that looks like
it's about 36". You use this as your reference and cut another piece
of equal length. Yes, you end up with two pieces of wood that are the
same length, but you don't really know if they are 36" long. You don't
introduce more error by using known standard (the tape measure) - you
ensure that both pieces of wood have less error because they conform to
a known standard.

Esentually, if you align the miter slots and the fence in the correct
order both have used the blade as the starting reference point.

It's just bad practice to use a procedure that makes the accuracy of
one adjustment dependent on the accuracy of a previous adjustment.
Sometimes it's unavoidable. In this case it's not.

It seems to
me that adding another reference point/miter slot into the mix increases the
chance for erreor.

It's not "adding another reference"; it's "choosing the best
reference". You actually decrease the chance of error because the
reference you choose is superior to the items you are aligning -
allowing you to characterize otherwise unknown surfaces.

If you are simply saying that referencing the fence to the miter slot vs.
the blade is easier and there fore may decreased the chance for procedure
error, I totally agree.

Nope. It's not a matter of ease. BLeeds used to say that he
formulated his blade/fence alignment idea because he found it difficult
to achieve accurate travel in the miter slot.

IMHO if you use the blade as a reference to align both the miter slot and
the fence you will get closer results than if you use the blade to align the
miter slot and then use the miter slit to align the fence. Since nothing
is perfect, adding the miter slot into the mix of another alignment
procedure would introduce the potential for more error. I like to keep the
common denominator as simple as possible.

Of course, you are welcome to do (and think) whatever you like. BLeeds
said the exact same thing (practically word for word). I seem to
recall that you used to recommend aligning the blade and the fence to
the miter slot. Did you change your mind recently?

It's true that nothing is perfect, but the miter slot is a lot closer
to perfection than the blade or the fence. And, it's long enough to
characterize both. It's just a much better choice.

Another reason that I have brought this up, it is also important to use the
same miter slot to align the fence as the one that you aligned to the blade.
While we hope that the miter slot is a precision cut feature of a saw there
have been instances where the 2 miter slots are not parallel to each other.
Granted they are supose to be but again not all equipment is perfect or
created equally.

I would say that this is a good practice. I personally haven't ever
encountered a saw where the two miter slots weren't parallel but it
"can" happen (the table shifts in the fixturing during machining). I'd
call it defective.

snip

I understand but still, ;~) and I know that you are going to crenge. I set
my Jet cabinet saw up then I first bought it 6 years ago. It was and still
is equiped with Forrest blades. I did use a dial indicator to check arbor
run out and the blade to miter slot and found both to be better than needed
and or expected straight out of the box. I used the miter slot to align the
fence and got good results but not quite what I was looking for. My cross
cuts were producing clean and burnished results but signs of tooth marks
were evident on the riped pieces. Several times I rechecked the fence being
parallel to the miter slot.

Finally I simply looked at the results and simply adjusted the fence using
no reference at all other than the results. I made 1 or 2 minute
adjustments to one of the adjusting set screws and I achieved and continue
to achieve a ripped surface that shows no sign of tooth marks and the
surface on hard woods will reflect objects. Basically I can see glare on
the cut surface.

You must have changed your position on this just recently. I found a
number of messages where you talk about the fence and blade needing to
be absolutely parallel to the miter slot (with no toe-out) and that
this is how you get "shinny smooth" cuts:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...d5a48daf378b33
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...beaf57c206b6c8
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...24b7e9bfc66335
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...3d0766101747f1
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...facbd1798e06a2
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...b8b556d98637f4
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...dd80d5ecf97677
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...39900d12706291
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...294acb4e7b0269
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...0d90518ca5aeed
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...9ff945bf75eb88

So, when you were recommending that people align their blade and fence
parallel to the miter slot, were the cuts "shinny smooth" or showing
"signs of tooth marks"? I guess I'm trying to reconcile your previous
statements with the ones you are making today.

Here's one where you say it both ways (parallel to the blade and
parallel to the slot):

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...6a95c834ec3479

I'm confused.

Because my and most fences are long and only fixed at one end deflection is
possible. An individuals feed technique can and does in many cases add yet
another factor to how/where a fence should be aligned that a dial indicator
may be able to duplicate but not achieve to begin with.
While a dial indicator does permit near perfect alignment of a TS it cannot
predict an individuals technique that may cause less than perfect results.

In other words, a perfectly aligned saw can produce bad results if the
operator doesn't have good technique. And, it is possible that
alignment can be used to compensate for poor technique. I can see how
that might be true.

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

wrote in message
oups.com...


You must have changed your position on this just recently. I found a
number of messages where you talk about the fence and blade needing to
be absolutely parallel to the miter slot (with no toe-out) and that
this is how you get "shinny smooth" cuts:

YES, ;~) I still do recomend the miter slot as it is pretty easy to use as
a reference. I do however believe that the blade can be used also. IMHO
one no better than the other but one is easier.



I'm confused.

By something I said???? ;~) I can be confusing.


Because my and most fences are long and only fixed at one end deflection
is
possible. An individuals feed technique can and does in many cases add
yet
another factor to how/where a fence should be aligned that a dial
indicator
may be able to duplicate but not achieve to begin with.
While a dial indicator does permit near perfect alignment of a TS it
cannot
predict an individuals technique that may cause less than perfect
results.

In other words, a perfectly aligned saw can produce bad results if the
operator doesn't have good technique. And, it is possible that
alignment can be used to compensate for poor technique. I can see how
that might be true.

Yeah.

Thanks for the clarification.

Good answer. Thanks, I'm no longer confused.

Ed Bennett

http://www.ts-aligner.com

Leon wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


You must have changed your position on this just recently. I found a
number of messages where you talk about the fence and blade needing to
be absolutely parallel to the miter slot (with no toe-out) and that
this is how you get "shinny smooth" cuts:

YES, ;~) I still do recomend the miter slot as it is pretty easy to use as
a reference. I do however believe that the blade can be used also. IMHO
one no better than the other but one is easier.



I'm confused.

By something I said???? ;~) I can be confusing.


In other words, a perfectly aligned saw can produce bad results if the
operator doesn't have good technique. And, it is possible that
alignment can be used to compensate for poor technique. I can see how
that might be true.

Yeah.

Thanks for the clarification.