Decided to make a new x-cut sled in the DJMark's vein - big n' yeller and
with only a fence at the back. Sled #1 suffered from my ability to make the
fence dead-on-Starett-checked-ninety-degrees-square.

For Sled #2 - the epiphany was to let the left edge of the sled hang over
the table edge by an inch or two - enough room to get a small 6" Bessy clamp
on there.

One McFeely's screw at the right edge of the fence to act as the pivot point
and then it was simply adjust the fence, tighten the clamp, cut and check
for square. (Lather, rinse) repeat until accurate or frustration set in.
Then a few more McFeely's(*) to lock the fence into place.

The other "improvement" was using BORGesque Primed MDF as the rear fence.
Their 1x6"x6' was a buck or three. Cut it in half, glued the two halves back
to back to make a 1.5x6"x3' fence. Trimmed as appropriate on table saw and
band saw. Sealed edges back up w/ Kilz.

The MDF fence is flat n' cheap.
Ugly. B*tt ugly, in fact. But flat n' cheap.

Just thought I'd share since it's the season of sharing.

(*) Think Ray should just drop the whole notion of "screw" (noun and verb)
and just call it "McFeely". As in "Simply mcfeely (verb) in three more #6x1
1/4" McFeely's spaced evenly across the board."

"mttt" wrote in message

The MDF fence is flat n' cheap.
Ugly. B*tt ugly, in fact. But flat n' cheap.

Know the feeling ... about a month ago I finally broke loose and ordered the
Uni-T-Fence replacement for my Delta UniFence. (Don't know why I waited so
long.)

Long story, short ... went to HD, bought one of those 1000 pound sheets of
3/4" mdf, and made a selection of various sizes of tall, and sacrificial,
fences (ones that bolt on _flush_ to the fence by gawd ... no clamps to get
in the way or catch on the miter gauge extension), along with a new crosscut
sled.

B*tt ugly be damned .... "Flat n' cheap" and "flush" is good.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/05/04

"B a r r y" wrote in message
...


On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 22:43:45 GMT, "mttt"
wrote:

I threw my first attempts away. Isn't it amazingly easy once you get
the hang of it? G

Just like I hang on to all of my projects: I'm keeping Sled #1 as a
Testiclement to My Stoopidity. It'll sit right between the "climb cut to
prevent chip out" mirror and the "don't route without a starting pin" end
table.

Ok, how about an easy way to make a 90 degree miter sled? Any tricks?
dave



"mttt" wrote in message
...
Decided to make a new x-cut sled in the DJMark's vein - big n' yeller and
with only a fence at the back. Sled #1 suffered from my ability to make
the
fence dead-on-Starett-checked-ninety-degrees-square.

For Sled #2 - the epiphany was to let the left edge of the sled hang over
the table edge by an inch or two - enough room to get a small 6" Bessy
clamp
on there.

One McFeely's screw at the right edge of the fence to act as the pivot
point
and then it was simply adjust the fence, tighten the clamp, cut and check
for square. (Lather, rinse) repeat until accurate or frustration set in.
Then a few more McFeely's(*) to lock the fence into place.

The other "improvement" was using BORGesque Primed MDF as the rear fence.
Their 1x6"x6' was a buck or three. Cut it in half, glued the two halves
back
to back to make a 1.5x6"x3' fence. Trimmed as appropriate on table saw
and
band saw. Sealed edges back up w/ Kilz.

The MDF fence is flat n' cheap.
Ugly. B*tt ugly, in fact. But flat n' cheap.

Just thought I'd share since it's the season of sharing.

(*) Think Ray should just drop the whole notion of "screw" (noun and verb)
and just call it "McFeely". As in "Simply mcfeely (verb) in three more
#6x1
1/4" McFeely's spaced evenly across the board."

I pivoted fence ends close to the blade using T nuts and machine
screws and glued blocks so they were greater than 45° from blade.
Card stock shims pull then into true 45°. T nuts ans machine screws
secure when final adjustment reached.

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:50:21 GMT, B a r r y
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 20:00:18 -0500, "ClemsonDave"
wrote:

Ok, how about an easy way to make a 90 degree miter sled? Any tricks?
dave

Screw two cleats at as close to 90 degrees to each other to any sled
you have. Make the intersection of the cleats land over the existing
saw kerf. Mark one side "A" and the other "B". As long as one side
of each miter is cut with the "A" side and the other the "B", you get
perfect miters.

You could even make the cleats removable and make the sled do double
duty.

Barry

mttt

I like your thinking here. Use a few McFeely's to fasten the (fill in the
blank) sure has a nice ring to it, if I do say so myself. Hey, I like it so
much that I have decided that even though the month is not yet complete, you
are the first winner of the McFeely's Somewhat Occasional Best Use of a
Screw contest! (Send me your address to claim your prize).

And if it isn't considered a major breach of Netiquette, I may make this
"contest" official. So weigh in folks: let me know whether the occassional
awarding of a gift certificate to the person that posts the most
entertaining, instructive, or creative (catalog printable) tale of the
McFeely's screw (in my sole, somewhat unbiased opinion) is grossly
offensive, mildly entertaining, or a "can't wait to check my email" event.
If there is enough interest, and minimal objection, I'll post the "rules"
next week. Stay tuned!

Jim Ray, President
McFeely's Square Drive Screws
www.mcfeelys.com

"mttt" wrote in message
...
Decided to make a new x-cut sled in the DJMark's vein - big n' yeller and
with only a fence at the back. Sled #1 suffered from my ability to make
the
fence dead-on-Starett-checked-ninety-degrees-square.

For Sled #2 - the epiphany was to let the left edge of the sled hang over
the table edge by an inch or two - enough room to get a small 6" Bessy
clamp
on there.

One McFeely's screw at the right edge of the fence to act as the pivot
point
and then it was simply adjust the fence, tighten the clamp, cut and check
for square. (Lather, rinse) repeat until accurate or frustration set in.
Then a few more McFeely's(*) to lock the fence into place.

The other "improvement" was using BORGesque Primed MDF as the rear fence.
Their 1x6"x6' was a buck or three. Cut it in half, glued the two halves
back
to back to make a 1.5x6"x3' fence. Trimmed as appropriate on table saw
and
band saw. Sealed edges back up w/ Kilz.

The MDF fence is flat n' cheap.
Ugly. B*tt ugly, in fact. But flat n' cheap.

Just thought I'd share since it's the season of sharing.

(*) Think Ray should just drop the whole notion of "screw" (noun and verb)
and just call it "McFeely". As in "Simply mcfeely (verb) in three more
#6x1
1/4" McFeely's spaced evenly across the board."

"Jim" wrote in message
And if it isn't considered a major breach of Netiquette, I may make this
"contest" official. So weigh in folks: let me know whether the occassional
awarding of a gift certificate to the person that posts the most
entertaining, instructive, or creative (catalog printable) tale of the
McFeely's screw (in my sole, somewhat unbiased opinion) is grossly
offensive, mildly entertaining, or a "can't wait to check my email" event.
If there is enough interest, and minimal objection, I'll post the "rules"
next week. Stay tuned!

Jim,
You've been here and participated long enough that no one should think of
you as a spammer.

It would be fun to do something like that on occasion to stimulate ideas and
share a few tricks of the trade. IMO, we'd all benefit.
Ed

Jim wrote:
mttt

I like your thinking here. Use a few McFeely's to fasten the
(fill in the blank) sure has a nice ring to it, if I do say so
myself. Hey, I like it so much that I have decided that even
though the month is not yet complete, you are the first winner
of the McFeely's Somewhat Occasional Best Use of a Screw
contest! (Send me your address to claim your prize).

And if it isn't considered a major breach of Netiquette, I may
make this "contest" official. So weigh in folks: let me know
whether the occassional awarding of a gift certificate to the
person that posts the most entertaining, instructive, or
creative (catalog printable) tale of the McFeely's screw (in
my sole, somewhat unbiased opinion) is grossly offensive,
mildly entertaining, or a "can't wait to check my email"
event. If there is enough interest, and minimal objection,
I'll post the "rules" next week. Stay tuned!

Ummm, Jim, I don't think you've read this group emough. I'd like
to respectfully suggest that you rename the contest to: "Somewhat
Occasional Best Use of a McFeely's"...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

"Jim" wrote in message
...


mttt

I like your thinking here.

blush
forty-seven years I've waited for some one to say that...


I was kind'a hoping to get the whole lexicon hammered out...

mcfeely (v) - to fasten, whilst 'dorking, using a high quality square-drive
mcfeely

mcfeely (n) - a high-quality, cylindrical rod incised with helical / spiral
threads and a square drive recess in the top essential for proper 'dorking.
[ pl. "mcfeelys"] [ See "screw" for obsolete ]

mcfeely (adj) - the intense feeling of satisfaction that warms the soul
knowing you've mcfeely'd using mcfeelys and your dorking has reached new
levels of dorksmanship

mcfeelyfied - the behavioral modification that occurs when you switch from
buying borg-esque junk in tiny plastic wrappers to browsing the McFeely
Catalog in the throne room in between dork sessions. [**]

mcfeelyfication (?) - 1. the process of being mcfeelyfied. 2. indoctrination
of offspring into benefits of mcfeelying with mcfeelys. [***]

etc. etc. etc.

[**] Nota Bene: Report in Aug '03 DNA Today suggests that mcfeelyification
may result in an actual mutation. Possibly via isothiomeric dimers between
they hydroxl group on cytosine pairs. Greatest affected genomic change on
exons appear to be on the Y chromosone. Male offspring should inherit via
'nature'. Female offspring may require 'nuture'.

[***] See Ray, et.al. for studies on making Infant Mobiles from McFeely
Catalog snippets.

mcfeelyfication (?) - 1. the process of being mcfeelyfied. 2.
indoctrination
of offspring into benefits of mcfeelying with mcfeelys. [***]


I Mcfeelyfied my dad with the "DIY dozen" assortment. for his birthday. It
works in both directions.


etc. etc. etc.

[**] Nota Bene: Report in Aug '03 DNA Today suggests that mcfeelyification
may result in an actual mutation. Possibly via isothiomeric dimers between
they hydroxl group on cytosine pairs. Greatest affected genomic change on
exons appear to be on the Y chromosone. Male offspring should inherit via
'nature'. Female offspring may require 'nuture'.

In article ,
Morris Dovey wrote:
Jim wrote:
mttt

I like your thinking here. Use a few McFeely's to fasten the
(fill in the blank) sure has a nice ring to it, if I do say so
myself. Hey, I like it so much that I have decided that even
though the month is not yet complete, you are the first winner
of the McFeely's Somewhat Occasional Best Use of a Screw
contest! (Send me your address to claim your prize).

And if it isn't considered a major breach of Netiquette, I may
make this "contest" official. So weigh in folks: let me know
whether the occassional awarding of a gift certificate to the
person that posts the most entertaining, instructive, or
creative (catalog printable) tale of the McFeely's screw (in
my sole, somewhat unbiased opinion) is grossly offensive,
mildly entertaining, or a "can't wait to check my email"
event. If there is enough interest, and minimal objection,
I'll post the "rules" next week. Stay tuned!

Ummm, Jim, I don't think you've read this group emough. I'd like
to respectfully suggest that you rename the contest to: "Somewhat
Occasional Best Use of a McFeely's"...

Can't win -- somebody would construe that as involving wandering hands
whilst at a a particular chain of burger joints. Though, I guess that
it might not be totally inaccurate to call _that_ "wood working", too,
albeit in a *whole*nother* context. grin

"Stephen M" wrote in message
...



mcfeelyfication (?) - 1. the process of being mcfeelyfied. 2.
indoctrination
of offspring into benefits of mcfeelying with mcfeelys. [***]


I Mcfeelyfied my dad with the "DIY dozen" assortment. for his birthday.
It
works in both directions.

Wow! 3prime - 5prime kind of thing! Too cool! Wonder if you can mcfeelyfy
your grandpa?

"ClemsonDave" wrote in message
...


Ok, how about an easy way to make a 90 degree miter sled? Any tricks?
dave


After I finish 'dorking with an Outfeed table on that damned Jet Supersaw,
that's next on the Jig List. My attempt will entail cutting a right-angle
triangle off a piece of 3/4" MDF. Figure the factory corner should be 90
degrees.

Like Barry said - as long as you cut your miters using both sides, and the
net/net is 90 degrees, they should fit. Even if one is 46 degrees (relative
to the blade) the other side should be 44.

Ultimate router table, hell.
Real dorkers spend time building uber-sleds...

"mttt" wrote in message ...


(*) Think Ray should just drop the whole notion of "screw" (noun and verb)
and just call it "McFeely". As in "Simply mcfeely (verb) in three more #6x1
1/4" McFeely's spaced evenly across the board."

While I am sure that McFeely woudl be flattered by the notion there
is a potential snag.

IIUC, trademark protection is lost if the trademark becomes a noun in
common usage. Thus, if calling a screw a McFeely actually catches on
then McFeely would loose their rights to their own name.

That's why Xerox wants people to refer to copies made with their
machines as 'photocopies' instead of 'xeroxes'.


--

FF

B a r r y wrote:

Screw two cleats at as close to 90 degrees to each other to any sled
you have. Make the intersection of the cleats land over the existing
saw kerf. Mark one side "A" and the other "B". As long as one side
of each miter is cut with the "A" side and the other the "B", you get
perfect miters.

You could even make the cleats removable and make the sled do double
duty.

For the record... This works fine, but it's sort of annoying. Mine was
close, but not quite, so I ended up with pieces cut at 46 and 44 or
something. No problem, until something gets turned around at glue time,
and you're scrambling around trying to figure out which pieces are the
"left cuts" and which pieces are the "right cuts" after you've planed off
the pencil marks. (DAMHIKT.)

I made a new one that produced parts *much* closer to 45, and was happier
with it. It's worth taking the time to do it right IMHO, to save
frustration in the long run.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

Jim wrote:

offensive, mildly entertaining, or a "can't wait to check my email" event.
If there is enough interest, and minimal objection, I'll post the "rules"
next week. Stay tuned!

I'd say minimal to no objection. I'm not a customer of yours, and not
likely to be, simply because you're not selling anything I'm especially
interested in buying. I also detest spammers intensely. If I'm not
offended, you probably don't have much to worry about.

Just for the record, I'm not offended. Don't worry about it. Fire away
with your contest thingie.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in message . com...
"mttt" wrote in message ...


(*) Think Ray should just drop the whole notion of "screw" (noun and verb)
and just call it "McFeely". As in "Simply mcfeely (verb) in three more #6x1
1/4" McFeely's spaced evenly across the board."

While I am sure that McFeely woudl be flattered by the notion there
is a potential snag.

IIUC, trademark protection is lost if the trademark becomes a noun in
common usage. Thus, if calling a screw a McFeely actually catches on
then McFeely would loose their rights to their own name.

That's why Xerox wants people to refer to copies made with their
machines as 'photocopies' instead of 'xeroxes'.

.....and yet I still xerox stuff using my HP scanner and my Canon
printer. At work my secretary xeroxs stuff for me on the Mikita. Of
course, I use Puffs brand kleenexes, drink cokes made by RC and Pepsi,
and jetski on my Seadoo.

Dave Hall

"Silvan" wrote in message
...


I'd say minimal to no objection. I'm not a customer of yours, and not
likely to be, simply because you're not selling anything I'm especially
interested in buying.

Silvan - give those square drive screws a try. Like crack... You'll be
hooked...
Their catalogs have useful information and looking at the Festool stuff is
fun.
Unaffordable, but fun.

I also detest spammers intensely.

??? Don't understand ???
I've never been spammed by Jim Ray or McFeelys. Have you?

In article ,
"mttt" wrote:

"Silvan" wrote in message
...

Silvan - give those square drive screws a try. Like crack... You'll be
hooked...
Their catalogs have useful information and looking at the Festool stuff is
fun.
Unaffordable, but fun.

As a canuck, I was brought up on Robertson screws (as they are called
round here). My dad (a finish carpenter) would use nothing else. Hell, I
didn't even know about others until a later age I think. When I found
out that people routinely use Philips screws in other countries I was
deeply shocked. It is senseless. A roberston screw is vastly superior to
a philips in convience and ease, especially if you need to get into a
tight spot. Put screw on end of driver, place where you wish to screw,
go to it. Much less chance of marring work from a slipping driver, no
stripped screws, no screws falling off the driver, etc etc.

On 11 Mar 2004 08:34:22 -0800, (David Hall)
wrote:

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in message . com...
"mttt" wrote in message ...


(*) Think Ray should just drop the whole notion of "screw" (noun and verb)
and just call it "McFeely". As in "Simply mcfeely (verb) in three more #6x1
1/4" McFeely's spaced evenly across the board."

While I am sure that McFeely woudl be flattered by the notion there
is a potential snag.

IIUC, trademark protection is lost if the trademark becomes a noun in
common usage. Thus, if calling a screw a McFeely actually catches on
then McFeely would loose their rights to their own name.

That's why Xerox wants people to refer to copies made with their
machines as 'photocopies' instead of 'xeroxes'.

....and yet I still xerox stuff using my HP scanner and my Canon
printer. At work my secretary xeroxs stuff for me on the Mikita. Of
course, I use Puffs brand kleenexes, drink cokes made by RC and Pepsi,
and jetski on my Seadoo.

Not to mention taking asprin to deal with the headache caused by
trying to keep all that straight.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

mttt wrote:

Silvan - give those square drive screws a try. Like crack... You'll be
hooked...

I just don't use many screws.

I also detest spammers intensely.

??? Don't understand ???
I've never been spammed by Jim Ray or McFeelys. Have you?

No. I hate spammers. I don't hate Jim. Ergo I don't consider Jim a
spammer.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

B a r r y wrote:

: Screw two cleats at as close to 90 degrees to each other to any sled
: you have. Make the intersection of the cleats land over the existing
: saw kerf. Mark one side "A" and the other "B". As long as one side
: of each miter is cut with the "A" side and the other the "B", you get
: perfect miters.


No you don't. Unless they are at an exact 45 degrees, one will be longer
than the other.

-- Andy Barss

In article ,
B a r r y writes:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 04:51:15 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:


No you don't. Unless they are at an exact 45 degrees, one will be longer
than the other.

B.) Many miters have one side longer than the other. Think
rectangular box, trimming the base of a bookcase, etc...

I think you're thinking of perfect squares only.

I won't claim to know what Andrew was/is thinking, but when the
angle isn't 45 degrees, one cut will be longer than the other.
(If this isn't clear, you can draw a simple picture to see
what is meant.) This will most often give a result which few would
argue is a "perfect miter."

The length of the sticks being joined isn't the point of contention,
it's the joint which will look bad.

--
Jeff Thunder
Dept. of Mathematical Sciences
Northern Illinois Univ.
jthunder at math dot niu dot edu

"Jeffrey Thunder" wrote in message
B a r r y writes:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 04:51:15 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

No you don't. Unless they are at an exact 45 degrees, one will be
longer
than the other.

B.) Many miters have one side longer than the other. Think
rectangular box, trimming the base of a bookcase, etc...

I think you're thinking of perfect squares only.

I won't claim to know what Andrew was/is thinking, but when the
angle isn't 45 degrees, one cut will be longer than the other.
(If this isn't clear, you can draw a simple picture to see
what is meant.) This will most often give a result which few would
argue is a "perfect miter."

The length of the sticks being joined isn't the point of contention,
it's the joint which will look bad.

Yabbut, with the miter jig as described, whereby complementary angles are
used to arrive at a 90 degree joint, the angle discrepancy is generally so
small that it doesn't make a tinker's damm about the length of one side
versus the other.

IOW, anyone who has ever used a properly made jig of this type will testify
that there is nothing wrong with the appearance of the resulting miter
joint.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/05/04

In article ,
"Swingman" writes:
"Jeffrey Thunder" wrote in message
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 04:51:15 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

No you don't. Unless they are at an exact 45 degrees, one will be
longer
than the other.

B.) Many miters have one side longer than the other. Think
rectangular box, trimming the base of a bookcase, etc...

I think you're thinking of perfect squares only.

I won't claim to know what Andrew was/is thinking, but when the
angle isn't 45 degrees, one cut will be longer than the other.
(If this isn't clear, you can draw a simple picture to see
what is meant.) This will most often give a result which few would
argue is a "perfect miter."

The length of the sticks being joined isn't the point of contention,
it's the joint which will look bad.

Yabbut, with the miter jig as described, whereby complementary angles are
used to arrive at a 90 degree joint, the angle discrepancy is generally so
small that it doesn't make a tinker's damm about the length of one side
versus the other.

You don't understand. Yes, the resulting angle when you join
the pieces is indeed 90 degrees. But the joint won't look right.

Here's a simple thing anyone can try. Take two strips of
paper (cheaper than wood for these experiments) of equal width.
Cut one "miter" at an angle larger than 45 degrees (don't
try to get it close to 45 degrees) on one of the strips and
cut a complementary "miter" on the other strip. Join them
together. Sure enough, they form a 90 degree angle. But
where they join looks terrible. One cut is longer than
the other. You can either have the outside corners meet
or the inside, but not both.

Another way to do it is to take a sheet of paper and make a
cut at one corner. Now cut equal width strips from the
adjoining sides.

IOW, anyone who has ever used a properly made jig of this type will testify
that there is nothing wrong with the appearance of the resulting miter
joint.

If the jig is not set very close to 45 degrees, the appearance
of the resulting miter most definitely looks bad. That
is what is wrong with Barry's contention in his post (essentially
that as long as one cuts at complementary angles,
the result is "perfect miters").

--
Jeff Thunder
Dept. of Mathematical Sciences
Northern Illinois Univ.
jthunder at math dot niu dot edu

"Jeffrey Thunder" wrote in message

You don't understand. Yes, the resulting angle when you join
the pieces is indeed 90 degrees. But the joint won't look right.

Au contraire ... it is you who apparently "don't understand". This is
woodworking, where the absoutes of mathematical theory are often of little,
or no, consequence, because of the tolerances involved.

While I will grant you that the "length' of cut becomes an issue the _wider_
the stock, you are apparently assuming that most miter joints cut this way
are done in wide stock and the angular error is great enough. From practical
experience, that is NOT the case in typical woodworking projects.

Once again, the difference in angle in a properly built sled is so small as
to make joint length mismatch a none issue in the width of the stock likely
to be used in the typical woodworking project that requires miter joints.

Now, the 'proof is in the pudding', so to speak. I am telling you that I use
such a miter sled on the table saw and that the resultant joints "look" NO
differently than when cut on my SCMS, and more importantly, ultimately fit
better around the four corners. I routinely use the sled to make picture
frames, and to frame glass table tops, with NO ill effects on appearance
whatsoever.

Now, lest you think I am the only one ... one of the most asked about table
saw miter sleds is the one used by David J. Marks on Wood Works, which is
designed using this very principle.

Theory is fine, but practical application, particularly when using the
tolerances involved in woodworking, is far less likely to stifel creative
solutions in cutting tight joints.

IOW, if you haven't used such a miter sled on a table saw, you need to
loosen up and give it a try before embarking on a theoretical campaign to
discount its usefulness for cutting miters in typical woodworking projects.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/05/04

"Jeffrey Thunder" wrote in message

You don't understand. Yes, the resulting angle when you join
the pieces is indeed 90 degrees. But the joint won't look right.

http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/parts.jpg
http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/joint.jpg

Go ahead, zoom in to your hearts content and tell me that the 90 degree
miter joint, cut in 4 1/2" wide scrap plywood, on opposite sides of my table
saw miter sled, that cuts insuring complementary angles, doesn't "look
right".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/05/04

In article ,
"Swingman" writes:
"Jeffrey Thunder" wrote in message

You don't understand. Yes, the resulting angle when you join
the pieces is indeed 90 degrees. But the joint won't look right.

Au contraire ... it is you who apparently "don't understand". This is
woodworking, where the absoutes of mathematical theory are often of little,
or no, consequence, because of the tolerances involved.

Who mentioned anything about "absoutes [sic] of mathematical theory"?
All I said is that if the complementary angles aren't very close to
45, the resulting joint will look bad.

While I will grant you that the "length' of cut becomes an issue the _wider_
the stock, you are apparently assuming that most miter joints cut this way
are done in wide stock and the angular error is great enough. From practical
experience, that is NOT the case in typical woodworking projects.

At what point is the "angular error" great enough
to be a problem? The original contention (if you read the post)
was that it didn't matter if the cut was 45 degrees, as long
as the angles were complementary. I say it does matter.

If you take two one inch wide (say) sticks (or do as I
suggested before and use paper), cut one at 40 degrees, say, and
the other at 50 degrees, the resulting joint will look crappy.

Once again, the difference in angle in a properly built sled is so small as
to make joint length mismatch a none issue in the width of the stock likely
to be used in the typical woodworking project that requires miter joints.

By "properly built," you mean the angle is fairly close to 45 degrees.

Now, the 'proof is in the pudding', so to speak. I am telling you that I use
such a miter sled on the table saw and that the resultant joints "look" NO
differently than when cut on my SCMS, and more importantly, ultimately fit
better around the four corners. I routinely use the sled to make picture
frames, and to frame glass table tops, with NO ill effects on appearance
whatsoever.

So tell us, what complementary angles does your sled cut in order
to make such nice joints?

Now, lest you think I am the only one ... one of the most asked about table
saw miter sleds is the one used by David J. Marks on Wood Works, which is
designed using this very principle.

Theory is fine, but practical application, particularly when using the
tolerances involved in woodworking, is far less likely to stifel creative
solutions in cutting tight joints.

IOW, if you haven't used such a miter sled on a table saw, you need to
loosen up and give it a try before embarking on a theoretical campaign to
discount its usefulness for cutting miters in typical woodworking projects.

I have and do use sleds on a table saw.
What Barry suggested is incorrect: that the angles
don't matter as long as they're complementary.


--
Jeff Thunder
Dept. of Mathematical Sciences
Northern Illinois Univ.
jthunder at math dot niu dot edu

"Jeffrey Thunder" wrote in message
In article
"Swingman" writes:
"Jeffrey Thunder" wrote in message

You don't understand. Yes, the resulting angle when you join
the pieces is indeed 90 degrees. But the joint won't look right.

Au contraire ... it is you who apparently "don't understand". This is
woodworking, where the absoutes of mathematical theory are often of
little,
or no, consequence, because of the tolerances involved.

Who mentioned anything about "absoutes [sic] of mathematical theory"?
All I said is that if the complementary angles aren't very close to
45, the resulting joint will look bad.

Nope ... exactly you said is: "when the angle isn't 45 degrees, one cut
will be longer than the other" .. and "the joint will look bad".

While I will grant you that the "length' of cut becomes an issue the
_wider_
the stock, you are apparently assuming that most miter joints cut this
way
are done in wide stock and the angular error is great enough. From
practical
experience, that is NOT the case in typical woodworking projects.

At what point is the "angular error" great enough
to be a problem? The original contention (if you read the post)
was that it didn't matter if the cut was 45 degrees, as long
as the angles were complementary.

?? 45 degrees _is_ the complementary angle to 90 degrees.

I say it does matter.

Yep, you do/did ... but I _proved_ that, for all practical purposes for
which the sled in question was designed, it does NOT matter, and that the
joint does NOT "look bad" ... wanna see the picture again?

http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/joint.jpg

If you take two one inch wide (say) sticks (or do as I
suggested before and use paper), cut one at 40 degrees, say, and
the other at 50 degrees, the resulting joint will look crappy.

No argument there ... but why would any one build a sled specifically for
cutting miters on the table saw and NOT attempt to get BOTH as close to
cutting a 45 degree angle as possible?

Once again, the difference in angle in a properly built sled is so small
as
to make joint length mismatch a none issue in the width of the stock
likely
to be used in the typical woodworking project that requires miter
joints.

By "properly built," you mean the angle is fairly close to 45 degrees.

Absolutely. See above.

The accepted practice is to use adjacent factory edges of a sheet of
plywood, cut to a triangle, with the apex being the factory corner used to
cut the complementary angles..

Now, the 'proof is in the pudding', so to speak. I am telling you that I
use
such a miter sled on the table saw and that the resultant joints "look"
NO
differently than when cut on my SCMS, and more importantly, ultimately
fit
better around the four corners. I routinely use the sled to make picture
frames, and to frame glass table tops, with NO ill effects on appearance
whatsoever.

So tell us, what complementary angles does your sled cut in order
to make such nice joints?

That's the point ... it does NOT matter precisely what the angles are. They
are, if properly done, by defintion, "complementary' and as close to 45
degrees as possible.

But then, you know ALL this already.

Now, lest you think I am the only one ... one of the most asked about
table
saw miter sleds is the one used by David J. Marks on Wood Works, which
is
designed using this very principle.

Theory is fine, but practical application, particularly when using the
tolerances involved in woodworking, is far less likely to stifel
creative
solutions in cutting tight joints.

IOW, if you haven't used such a miter sled on a table saw, you need to
loosen up and give it a try before embarking on a theoretical campaign
to
discount its usefulness for cutting miters in typical woodworking
projects.

I have and do use sleds on a table saw.
What Barry suggested is incorrect: that the angles
don't matter as long as they're complementary.

Well hell, if your problem was with Barry said all along, why start in on me
with "you don't understand" as a result of a very clear, qualified, remark,
as follows?

"Yabbut, with the miter jig as described, whereby complementary angles are
used to arrive at a 90 degree joint, the angle discrepancy is generally so
small that it doesn't make a tinker's damm about the length of one side
versus the other."

That still stands, unscathed.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/05/04

B a r r y wrote:

We can start with miter sleds and why the miter gauge doesn't have to
be 90 degrees to check the slot to blade alignment. G

13.5 works fine.

As for the complimentary angle thing, I had a 44/46ish sled, and the results
looked fine. My problem with it was only the difficulty in matching up
adjoining parts with several sets of flat frame pieces on the bench. No
routed profiles, no rabbets, nothing to clearly indicate which side was up.
It was a real puzzle.

I eliminated the puzzle by building a better sled that was much, much closer
to producing actual 45-degree cuts. Probably still not completely perfect,
but using that saw, nothing ever could have been.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

Swingman wrote:
: "Jeffrey Thunder" wrote in message

: You don't understand. Yes, the resulting angle when you join
: the pieces is indeed 90 degrees. But the joint won't look right.

: Au contraire ... it is you who apparently "don't understand". This is
: woodworking, where the absoutes of mathematical theory are often of little,
: or no, consequence, because of the tolerances involved.


Horsefeathers. Try a mitre joint with one at 43 degrees, the other at 47
degrees. They'll be off so much they not only feel bad, they look bad.

: While I will grant you that the "length' of cut becomes an issue the _wider_
: the stock, you are apparently assuming that most miter joints cut this way
: are done in wide stock and the angular error is great enough. From practical
: experience, that is NOT the case in typical woodworking projects.

Try it with, say, a 1.5" wide frame.


: Once again, the difference in angle in a properly built sled is so small as
: to make joint length mismatch a none issue in the width of the stock likely
: to be used in the typical woodworking project that requires miter joints.

Nope.

: Now, the 'proof is in the pudding', so to speak. I am telling you that I use
: such a miter sled on the table saw and that the resultant joints "look" NO
: differently than when cut on my SCMS, and more importantly, ultimately fit
: better around the four corners. I routinely use the sled to make picture
: frames, and to frame glass table tops, with NO ill effects on appearance
: whatsoever.

Then you're either got a jig that is very accurately 45 degrees, or
else you're using extremely thin stock.


: Now, lest you think I am the only one ... one of the most asked about table
: saw miter sleds is the one used by David J. Marks on Wood Works, which is
: designed using this very principle.

Hunh? I'll bet you a ten dollar bill his jig is within less than half a
degree from perfectly 45/45.

Theory is fine, but practical application, particularly when using the
: tolerances involved in woodworking, is far less likely to stifel creative
: solutions in cutting tight joints.

: IOW, if you haven't used such a miter sled on a table saw, you need to
: loosen up and give it a try before embarking on a theoretical campaign to
: discount its usefulness for cutting miters in typical woodworking projects.

You need to measure your jig's deviance from 45 degrees befoe making such
pronouncements.

-- Andy Barss

Swingman wrote:
: "Jeffrey Thunder" wrote in message

: Nope ... exactly you said is: "when the angle isn't 45 degrees, one cut
: will be longer than the other" .. and "the joint will look bad".


And JT is completely right.

: While I will grant you that the "length' of cut becomes an issue the
: _wider_
: the stock, you are apparently assuming that most miter joints cut this
: way
: are done in wide stock and the angular error is great enough. From
: practical
: experience, that is NOT the case in typical woodworking projects.


False. Try a 1 1/2" joint, like for a medium-sized picture frame.

: ?? 45 degrees _is_ the complementary angle to 90 degrees.

Um, no. Way, way no.

- Andy Barss

Swingman wrote:
: "Jeffrey Thunder" wrote in message

: You don't understand. Yes, the resulting angle when you join
: the pieces is indeed 90 degrees. But the joint won't look right.

: http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/parts.jpg
: http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/joint.jpg

: Go ahead, zoom in to your hearts content and tell me that the 90 degree
: miter joint, cut in 4 1/2" wide scrap plywood, on opposite sides of my table
: saw miter sled, that cuts insuring complementary angles, doesn't "look
: right".


Two questions:

1) How much did the cuts deviate from 45 degrees?

2) What was the angle formed by the two pieces (i.e., what was the
deviation from 90 degrees)?

-- Andy Barss

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
Swingman wrote:
: "Jeffrey Thunder" wrote in message

: You don't understand. Yes, the resulting angle when you join
: the pieces is indeed 90 degrees. But the joint won't look right.

: Au contraire ... it is you who apparently "don't understand". This is
: woodworking, where the absoutes of mathematical theory are often of
little,
: or no, consequence, because of the tolerances involved.


Horsefeathers. Try a mitre joint with one at 43 degrees, the other at 47
degrees. They'll be off so much they not only feel bad, they look bad.

Why would anyone attempting to build a miter sled for a table saw do such a
sloppy job as to NOT get the two cuts as close to 45 degrees as possible?


: While I will grant you that the "length' of cut becomes an issue the
_wider_
: the stock, you are apparently assuming that most miter joints cut this
way
: are done in wide stock and the angular error is great enough. From
practical
: experience, that is NOT the case in typical woodworking projects.

Try it with, say, a 1.5" wide frame.

You won't cut that on your miter saw either.


: Once again, the difference in angle in a properly built sled is so small
as
: to make joint length mismatch a none issue in the width of the stock
likely
: to be used in the typical woodworking project that requires miter
joints.

Nope.

Yep.


: Now, the 'proof is in the pudding', so to speak. I am telling you that I
use
: such a miter sled on the table saw and that the resultant joints "look"
NO
: differently than when cut on my SCMS, and more importantly, ultimately
fit
: better around the four corners. I routinely use the sled to make picture
: frames, and to frame glass table tops, with NO ill effects on appearance
: whatsoever.

Then you're either got a jig that is very accurately 45 degrees, or
else you're using extremely thin stock.

As you say, "horsefeathers" ... take a look at the picutres I posted.


: Now, lest you think I am the only one ... one of the most asked about
table
: saw miter sleds is the one used by David J. Marks on Wood Works, which
is
: designed using this very principle.

Hunh? I'll bet you a ten dollar bill his jig is within less than half a
degree from perfectly 45/45.

That's the point!


Theory is fine, but practical application, particularly when using the
: tolerances involved in woodworking, is far less likely to stifel
creative
: solutions in cutting tight joints.

: IOW, if you haven't used such a miter sled on a table saw, you need to
: loosen up and give it a try before embarking on a theoretical campaign
to
: discount its usefulness for cutting miters in typical woodworking
projects.

You need to measure your jig's deviance from 45 degrees befoe making such
pronouncements.

You don't read very well do you?


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/11/04

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
Swingman wrote:
: "Jeffrey Thunder" wrote in message

: Nope ... exactly you said is: "when the angle isn't 45 degrees, one cut
: will be longer than the other" .. and "the joint will look bad".


And JT is completely right.

Right in theory, wrong in actualy practice. Did you READ what JT originally
took exception to? Obviously not.

: While I will grant you that the "length' of cut becomes an issue the
: _wider_
: the stock, you are apparently assuming that most miter joints cut
this
: way
: are done in wide stock and the angular error is great enough. From
: practical
: experience, that is NOT the case in typical woodworking projects.


False. Try a 1 1/2" joint, like for a medium-sized picture frame.

I've already proved that's not the case .READ what I said!

: ?? 45 degrees _is_ the complementary angle to 90 degrees.

Um, no. Way, way no.

If you don't know what "complementary angle" is, you shouldn't be in the
discussion.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/11/04

"Andrew Barss" pontificated

Swingman wrote:
: "Jeffrey Thunder" wrote in message

: You don't understand. Yes, the resulting angle when you join
: the pieces is indeed 90 degrees. But the joint won't look right.

: http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/parts.jpg
: http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/joint.jpg

: Go ahead, zoom in to your hearts content and tell me that the 90 degree
: miter joint, cut in 4 1/2" wide scrap plywood, on opposite sides of my
table
: saw miter sled, that cuts insuring complementary angles, doesn't "look
: right".


Two questions:

1) How much did the cuts deviate from 45 degrees?

Who cares as long as they are complementary angles (total 90 degrees,
Andrew)? The object is to make the sled cut as close to 45 degrees for each
cut ... only a fool would make a sled so sloppy as to have the angular
deviation as large as you keep theorizing.


2) What was the angle formed by the two pieces (i.e., what was the
deviation from 90 degrees)?

As close to 90 degrees as an engineers square will measure, and from
countless past experiences, all four corners will meet without gaps
providing the length of the sides are cut properly.

Taking advantage of complementary cuts is an OLD practice in jig building
and using tools ... both of you have acted like you've been on Usenet longer
than in woodworking.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/11/04

In article ,
"Swingman" writes:

Well hell, if your problem was with Barry said all along, why start in on me
with "you don't understand" as a result of a very clear, qualified, remark,
as follows?

"Yabbut, with the miter jig as described, whereby complementary angles are
used to arrive at a 90 degree joint, the angle discrepancy is generally so
small that it doesn't make a tinker's damm about the length of one side
versus the other."

I'm sorry. I didn't leave enough context in my posts, so I'm afraid
there's been some miscommunication on my part. Here is the post
by Barry to which I was referring. (This is the post which started the
whole subthread according to my news readers.)

[begin quoted post]

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 20:00:18 -0500, "ClemsonDave"
wrote:

Ok, how about an easy way to make a 90 degree miter sled? Any tricks?
dave

Screw two cleats at as close to 90 degrees to each other to any sled
you have. Make the intersection of the cleats land over the existing
saw kerf. Mark one side "A" and the other "B". As long as one side
of each miter is cut with the "A" side and the other the "B", you get
perfect miters.

[end quoted post]

So you see, in my reading of this post the "miter jig as described" makes
absolutely no mention of trying to get the angle even close to
45 degrees. I thought this post was what your reply referred to as well.

Truce?

--
Jeff Thunder
The From: header above is wrong on porpoise
To reply, use jeffthunder (at) comcast (dot) net

"Jeff Thunder" wrote in message

So you see, in my reading of this post the "miter jig as described" makes
absolutely no mention of trying to get the angle even close to
45 degrees. I thought this post was what your reply referred to as well.

Truce?

Absolutely... I understand your point perfectly, and have nothing but
respect for your past participation.

Jeff, I tried hard not make it seem personal with the "smiley" stuff, as
much as I hate them... and I apologize if I failed and got a little ornery,
as I do get carried away in "discussion".

Besides, we were actually "ON TOPIC" ... which should be viewed as
commendable these days.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/11/04

Swingman wrote:

Besides, we were actually "ON TOPIC" ... which should be viewed as
commendable these days.

Hell yeah. You guys argue like truck drivers.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

In article ,
"Swingman" writes:
Besides, we were actually "ON TOPIC" ... which should be viewed as
commendable these days.

Yep. And there was no top posting either. But I was lazy with
my original post here and didn't make it clear what I was
referring to. I should have quoted exactly what I thought
was misleading/incorrect.

Bottom line: poor use of Usenet on my part.

Dirty little secret: When I made my first miter sled I did exactly
as Barry described. After all, I should get complementary angles and
a perfect miter, right? The first test cuts showed how I was wrong
to neglect getting the cleats as close as possible to 45 degrees from
the blade. I had a perfect 90 degree miter that looked like crap.
No, I never measured how far off 45 degrees from the blade they
were, and yes, I had make a passing effort at getting them close. But
that wasn't good enough.

The original post brought up not-so-fond memories, and I wanted
to make it clear that one can't just ignore the angle between the
cleats and the blade. Instead, I ended up wasting bandwidth and
time (mine and others'). My apologies to all involved.

--
Jeff Thunder, still in wreck.hell
The From: header above is wrong on porpoise
To reply, use jeffthunder (at) comcast (dot) net