My Table Saw Aligner Jr. finally arrived the other day. Today I put it
on the saw and took some measurements.

The blade is 0.01 (10 thou) out of parallel from the miter slot,
measured from the front to the back of the blade with the blade raised
all the way.

I just measured the blade plate. I know you're supposed to measure the
same tooth front and back, but it's really difficult to move the blade
by hand and have it end up in the right place because of the belts. Is
this really a critical issue?

The fence is 0.02 (20 thou) out of parallel from the miter slot. The
back of the fence is further away than the front (which is the better
direction to be out by).

At these "close enough"? Are they worth worrying about to try and get
better or will I just end up chasing a level of precision that's not
practical to achieve?

If the fence and blade skews are in the same direction you could be off
by as much as 1/32" over 7 or 8 inches. To me this is too much.

I was able to get my WW II blade parallel to the miter slot within
+/-0.0005". (I can't do that with non-Forrest blades though.)

My Unifence diverges from being parallel with the miter slot by about
0.004 at the back of the blade when compared to the distance away at the
front of the blade.

Happily, when I re-check I find that there is no measurable movement
over time.

RB

Roy Smith wrote:
My Table Saw Aligner Jr. finally arrived the other day. Today I put it
on the saw and took some measurements.

The blade is 0.01 (10 thou) out of parallel from the miter slot,
measured from the front to the back of the blade with the blade raised
all the way.

I just measured the blade plate. I know you're supposed to measure the
same tooth front and back, but it's really difficult to move the blade
by hand and have it end up in the right place because of the belts. Is
this really a critical issue?

The fence is 0.02 (20 thou) out of parallel from the miter slot. The
back of the fence is further away than the front (which is the better
direction to be out by).

At these "close enough"? Are they worth worrying about to try and get
better or will I just end up chasing a level of precision that's not
practical to achieve?

"RB" wrote in message
...
If the fence and blade skews are in the same direction you could be off
by as much as 1/32" over 7 or 8 inches. To me this is too much.

I was able to get my WW II blade parallel to the miter slot within
+/-0.0005". (I can't do that with non-Forrest blades though.)

If it is truly aligned, the blade type isn't going to make any diference.
What you are (should) be doing is aligning the arbor perpendicular to the
miter slot.

I thought what he was saying was the Forrest blade was more true than his
other blades. I could believe there are differences.

Bob

"CW" wrote in message
...

"RB" wrote in message
...
If the fence and blade skews are in the same direction you could be off
by as much as 1/32" over 7 or 8 inches. To me this is too much.

I was able to get my WW II blade parallel to the miter slot within
+/-0.0005". (I can't do that with non-Forrest blades though.)

If it is truly aligned, the blade type isn't going to make any diference.
What you are (should) be doing is aligning the arbor perpendicular to the
miter slot.

That's true, but my experience is that the Forrest blades are extremely
flat, my other's aren't. I just got a couple of Freud blades back that
I sent to Forrest to have sharpened. I'll see how these perform now.
They were not flat before.

RB

CW wrote:
"RB" wrote in message
...

If the fence and blade skews are in the same direction you could be off
by as much as 1/32" over 7 or 8 inches. To me this is too much.

I was able to get my WW II blade parallel to the miter slot within
+/-0.0005". (I can't do that with non-Forrest blades though.)


If it is truly aligned, the blade type isn't going to make any diference.
What you are (should) be doing is aligning the arbor perpendicular to the
miter slot.

RB responds:


That's true, but my experience is that the Forrest blades are extremely
flat, my other's aren't. I just got a couple of Freud blades back that
I sent to Forrest to have sharpened. I'll see how these perform now.
They were not flat before.

Well, another point: when you try to use blade plate flatness as a basis, what
happens if the arbor flange is a hair off in one direction or the other? The
blade may be perfect or as close as possible. If the flange is off, you're
still screwed.

Of course, all of this should start with a check of flange flatness (feeler
gauge and an accurate, short straightedge), arbor washer flatness, and arobor
run out. Do that before you start fooling with blade to miter slot alignment
and fence alignment. You can, if you wish, buy specific measuring plates of a
guaranteed flatness to help in the latter stages. But the best way still is to
mark one tooth, put on a good, sturdy glove and MOVE that thing front or back
as needed. After all, you will be working with that blade, so getting things
accurate with that blade is sensible.

Charlie Self
"We're 269 days from the election, and that's several political lifetimes."
TERRY HOLT, Bush campaign spokesman.


http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/m.../business.html

"RB" wrote in message ...
That's true, but my experience is that the Forrest blades are extremely
flat, my other's aren't. I just got a couple of Freud blades back that
I sent to Forrest to have sharpened. I'll see how these perform now.
They were not flat before.


Umm hopefully when you sent your blades to Forrest to be sharpened that you
also requested that they be brought back to factory specs as sharpening
alone does not flatten a blade.

Yup. Forrest does a good job. I just tell them to do whatever it takes
to bring them up to spec. They don't do anything that doesn't need to
be done.

RB

Leon wrote:
"RB" wrote in message ...

That's true, but my experience is that the Forrest blades are extremely
flat, my other's aren't. I just got a couple of Freud blades back that
I sent to Forrest to have sharpened. I'll see how these perform now.
They were not flat before.



Umm hopefully when you sent your blades to Forrest to be sharpened that you
also requested that they be brought back to factory specs as sharpening
alone does not flatten a blade.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
My Table Saw Aligner Jr. finally arrived the other day. Today I put it
on the saw and took some measurements.

The blade is 0.01 (10 thou) out of parallel from the miter slot,
measured from the front to the back of the blade with the blade raised
all the way.

I just measured the blade plate. I know you're supposed to measure the
same tooth front and back, but it's really difficult to move the blade
by hand and have it end up in the right place because of the belts. Is
this really a critical issue?

Yes. Just measuring the blade plate, you have no way of knowing if what you
are measuring is arbor alignment, blade warp, flange alignment or a
combination of all three. I have never tried intentional misalignment to
find out how much is to much but Ed Bennet recommends .005 or less. I would
imagine that he has tried it.


The fence is 0.02 (20 thou) out of parallel from the miter slot. The
back of the fence is further away than the front (which is the better
direction to be out by).

If this was measured over the entire length of the fence, I'd leave it
alone. If it was measured over the length of the blade, I'd get it closer.

At these "close enough"? Are they worth worrying about to try and get
better or will I just end up chasing a level of precision that's not
practical to achieve?

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 00:32:13 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:

I just measured the blade plate. I know you're supposed to measure the
same tooth front and back, but it's really difficult to move the blade
by hand and have it end up in the right place because of the belts. Is
this really a critical issue?

Yes! What if one tooth you chose is bent,a nd another isn't? Also,
some blades have more set in the teeth than others, choosing different
teeth on opposite set sides may mess you up. If you use the same
tooth, it dosen't matter.

At these "close enough"? Are they worth worrying about to try and get
better or will I just end up chasing a level of precision that's not
practical to achieve?

How does it cut wood? That's my final measurement, and the one that
really counts in my opinion.

Barry

:
, Roy Smith wrote:

I know you're supposed to measure
the same tooth front and back, but it's really difficult to move the
blade by hand and have it end up in the right place because of the
belts. Is this really a critical issue?
--

It was pretty dumb of someone to come up with a measuring method that is so
difficult. Life is tough enough without having to choose and mark a single
tooth on the blade. The other 39 sure are just as good and should be given
equal access to your gauge.

I'd suggest that instead of measuring the single tooth, you would sell the
TS Aligner on eBay. Write your Congressmen and tell them how tough this is
and see if they have some programs to assist you. Tell them about the
preferential tratement of one tooth while others are being oppressed.

Anything else n life too hard for you? Just skip it then..
Ed

http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

I already did that and he said they would set up a committee to evaluate the
problem, failing that he will call for a full house vote on the floor
whether or not to take the matter under advisement. mjh

--




"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. com...
:
, Roy Smith wrote:

I know you're supposed to measure
the same tooth front and back, but it's really difficult to move the
blade by hand and have it end up in the right place because of the
belts. Is this really a critical issue?
--

It was pretty dumb of someone to come up with a measuring method that is
so
difficult. Life is tough enough without having to choose and mark a single
tooth on the blade. The other 39 sure are just as good and should be
given
equal access to your gauge.

I'd suggest that instead of measuring the single tooth, you would sell the
TS Aligner on eBay. Write your Congressmen and tell them how tough this
is
and see if they have some programs to assist you. Tell them about the
preferential tratement of one tooth while others are being oppressed.

Anything else n life too hard for you? Just skip it then..
Ed

http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

Ahhhhhh jeeeeesh Ed.........give the poor troll a break....;-)

Bob S.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. com...
:
, Roy Smith wrote:

I know you're supposed to measure
the same tooth front and back, but it's really difficult to move the
blade by hand and have it end up in the right place because of the
belts. Is this really a critical issue?
--

It was pretty dumb of someone to come up with a measuring method that is
so
difficult. Life is tough enough without having to choose and mark a single
tooth on the blade. The other 39 sure are just as good and should be
given
equal access to your gauge.

I'd suggest that instead of measuring the single tooth, you would sell the
TS Aligner on eBay. Write your Congressmen and tell them how tough this
is
and see if they have some programs to assist you. Tell them about the
preferential tratement of one tooth while others are being oppressed.

Anything else n life too hard for you? Just skip it then..
Ed

http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

In article , Roy Smith wrote:
My Table Saw Aligner Jr. finally arrived the other day. Today I put it
on the saw and took some measurements.

The blade is 0.01 (10 thou) out of parallel from the miter slot,
measured from the front to the back of the blade with the blade raised
all the way.

That's a lot. I have the TS-Aligner Jr also, and mine is within 0.001" of
parallel.

I just measured the blade plate. I know you're supposed to measure the
same tooth front and back, but it's really difficult to move the blade
by hand and have it end up in the right place because of the belts. Is
this really a critical issue?

Not with a good blade. According to Forrest, their blades have total runout of
0.002" or less.

The fence is 0.02 (20 thou) out of parallel from the miter slot. The
back of the fence is further away than the front (which is the better
direction to be out by).

Better still to be dead parallel IMO, but not a big problem.

At these "close enough"? Are they worth worrying about to try and get
better or will I just end up chasing a level of precision that's not
practical to achieve?

No, they're not close enough IMO -- particularly given the high-precision
alignment tool that you now have. If you have a decent saw, it should be
possible with very little effort to get your miter slots parallel to the blade
within two or three thousandths, and likewise the fence.

You won't produce results that are any more accurate than the accuracy of your
setups.

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

The simple answer is, are you happy with the results of your cuts? Unless
you measure the blade to miter slot properly you probably need not bother at
all. Doing the measuring properly by the blade tooth will also indicate if
the blade needs attention also. I try to take that tooth measurement set up
more than once to verify the blade is not part of the problem.
Anyway the tooth measurement generally sought after is in the .003-.0001
range.
I seldom measure the fence setting. I simply cut a piece of wood and look
at the results. If I don't like them I adjust the blade according to the
results.


"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
My Table Saw Aligner Jr. finally arrived the other day. Today I put it
on the saw and took some measurements.

The blade is 0.01 (10 thou) out of parallel from the miter slot,
measured from the front to the back of the blade with the blade raised
all the way.

I just measured the blade plate. I know you're supposed to measure the
same tooth front and back, but it's really difficult to move the blade
by hand and have it end up in the right place because of the belts. Is
this really a critical issue?

The fence is 0.02 (20 thou) out of parallel from the miter slot. The
back of the fence is further away than the front (which is the better
direction to be out by).

At these "close enough"? Are they worth worrying about to try and get
better or will I just end up chasing a level of precision that's not
practical to achieve?

"Leon" wrote in message .com...
The simple answer is, are you happy with the results of your cuts? Unless
you measure the blade to miter slot properly you probably need not bother at
all. Doing the measuring properly by the blade tooth will also indicate if
the blade needs attention also. I try to take that tooth measurement set up
more than once to verify the blade is not part of the problem.
Anyway the tooth measurement generally sought after is in the .003-.0001
range.
I seldom measure the fence setting. I simply cut a piece of wood and look
at the results. If I don't like them I adjust the blade according to the
results.


Listen to Leon. His is the only good answer you got. Judge it by the
results of the wood you've cut.

Make my last sentence, Adjust the fence and not the blade.


"Leon" wrote in message
. com...
The simple answer is, are you happy with the results of your cuts? Unless
you measure the blade to miter slot properly you probably need not bother
at
all. Doing the measuring properly by the blade tooth will also indicate
if
the blade needs attention also. I try to take that tooth measurement set
up
more than once to verify the blade is not part of the problem.
Anyway the tooth measurement generally sought after is in the .003-.0001
range.
I seldom measure the fence setting. I simply cut a piece of wood and look
at the results. If I don't like them I adjust the blade according to the
results.