It took less than half an hour to diagnose and fix a minor alignment issue
with my table saw. The combination square indicated the blade was parallel
to the miter slow, and the fence was out slightly.

The initial sign of trouble was that the rising teeth would throw up quite
a bit of sawdust. If I stopped pushing the wood through, there would be a
circular "rainbow" left where the blade was.

After adjusting the fence the cuts are much smoother, the rising teeth
aren't throwing up as much sawdust, and there's no more unwanted "rainbow"
effects. The difference is like going from an ok blade to a good one.

Why did I wait so long?

Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.

On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
It took less than half an hour to diagnose and fix a minor alignment issue
with my table saw. The combination square indicated the blade was parallel
to the miter slow, and the fence was out slightly.

The initial sign of trouble was that the rising teeth would throw up quite
a bit of sawdust. If I stopped pushing the wood through, there would be a
circular "rainbow" left where the blade was.

After adjusting the fence the cuts are much smoother, the rising teeth
aren't throwing up as much sawdust, and there's no more unwanted "rainbow"
effects. The difference is like going from an ok blade to a good one.

Why did I wait so long?

Puckdropper

Yes, it truly makes a big difference having your tools tuned up. I was
away from woodwoorking for many years. Though I had my tools, they were
in storage. Then, with a new house came a new shop.

I began setting up my tools, a PowerMatic table saw among them. I began
alligning it, and took great pains to get the slot parallel to the
blade, and the fence parallel to the slot, and thus to the blade.

A week later, I was ripping a small piece of plywood and the rising
tooth caught the edge closest to the fence and flung the plywood into my
belly. dropping me to the floor. Bruising, but no internals damaged,
luckily.

I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be
absolutely parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the
blade by a few thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible
binding described above.

ER visits are expensive!

Harvey

On 10/03/2010 08:05 AM, eclipsme wrote:
On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
It took less than half an hour to diagnose and fix a minor alignment issue
with my table saw. The combination square indicated the blade was parallel
to the miter slow, and the fence was out slightly.

The initial sign of trouble was that the rising teeth would throw up quite
a bit of sawdust. If I stopped pushing the wood through, there would be a
circular "rainbow" left where the blade was.

After adjusting the fence the cuts are much smoother, the rising teeth
aren't throwing up as much sawdust, and there's no more unwanted "rainbow"
effects. The difference is like going from an ok blade to a good one.

Why did I wait so long?

Puckdropper

Yes, it truly makes a big difference having your tools tuned up. I was away from
woodwoorking for many years. Though I had my tools, they were in storage. Then, with a new
house came a new shop.

I began setting up my tools, a PowerMatic table saw among them. I began alligning it, and
took great pains to get the slot parallel to the blade, and the fence parallel to the slot,
and thus to the blade.

A week later, I was ripping a small piece of plywood and the rising tooth caught the edge
closest to the fence and flung the plywood into my belly. dropping me to the floor.
Bruising, but no internals damaged, luckily.

I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be absolutely parallel to the
slot/blade, but should veer away from the blade by a few thousandths of an inch so as to
relieve the possible binding described above.

Better yet, install a good splitter or riving knife.

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Oct 3, 9:15*am, Steve Turner wrote:
On 10/03/2010 08:05 AM, eclipsme wrote:



On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
It took less than half an hour to diagnose and fix a minor alignment issue
with my table saw. The combination square indicated the blade was parallel
to the miter slow, and the fence was out slightly.

The initial sign of trouble was that the rising teeth would throw up quite
a bit of sawdust. If I stopped pushing the wood through, there would be a
circular "rainbow" left where the blade was.

After adjusting the fence the cuts are much smoother, the rising teeth
aren't throwing up as much sawdust, and there's no more unwanted "rainbow"
effects. The difference is like going from an ok blade to a good one.

Why did I wait so long?

Puckdropper

Yes, it truly makes a big difference having your tools tuned up. I was away from
woodwoorking for many years. Though I had my tools, they were in storage. Then, with a new
house came a new shop.

I began setting up my tools, a PowerMatic table saw among them. I began alligning it, and
took great pains to get the slot parallel to the blade, and the fence parallel to the slot,
and thus to the blade.

A week later, I was ripping a small piece of plywood and the rising tooth caught the edge
closest to the fence and flung the plywood into my belly. dropping me to the floor.
Bruising, but no internals damaged, luckily.

I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be absolutely parallel to the
slot/blade, but should veer away from the blade by a few thousandths of an inch so as to
relieve the possible binding described above.

Better yet, install a good splitter or riving knife.

And a hold down. The smaller the piece the more attention to
restraining movement on cut piece and off-cut. The ol' F=MA shows up
on those small pieces, and small pieces tend to enter you instead of
bruising or breaking.

R

In article , eclipsme wrote:
[...]

A week later, I was ripping a small piece of plywood and the rising
tooth caught the edge closest to the fence and flung the plywood into my
belly. dropping me to the floor. Bruising, but no internals damaged,
luckily.

Were you using a splitter?

much snipping

I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be
absolutely parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the
blade by a few thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible
binding described above.

ER visits are expensive!

Harvey

with great humility and humbleness, for myself, I have to disagree...

....If for no other reason that the fact that I work on BOTH sides of
the blade, so that means that if I kick the back of the fence out by
..003" on the right side of the blade, that puts me at double that if
I'm on the LEFT side.

I firmly believe that by setting the fence with NO induced variation
and then followed by using the correct riving knife/splitter/hold
downs is the proper way to handle a fence on a table saw.

Your mileage will vary....side effects include lots of bad things like
your willy may fall off and you may go bald...in areas that you don't
WANT to be bald.

Luck

Mike

wrote in message
...
much snipping

I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be
absolutely parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the
blade by a few thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible
binding described above.

ER visits are expensive!

Harvey

with great humility and humbleness, for myself, I have to disagree...

...If for no other reason that the fact that I work on BOTH sides of
the blade, so that means that if I kick the back of the fence out by
.003" on the right side of the blade, that puts me at double that if
I'm on the LEFT side.


Where did the "double" come from? Are the faces not parallel to each other?
That's actually a rhetorical question as I know they are not.


I firmly believe that by setting the fence with NO induced variation
and then followed by using the correct riving knife/splitter/hold
downs is the proper way to handle a fence on a table saw.


Parallel is the way to go. That and a Gripper have worked for me for a long
time.

On Oct 3, 8:02*am, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:
It took less than half an hour to diagnose and fix a minor alignment issue
with my table saw. *The combination square indicated the blade was parallel
to the miter slow, and the fence was out slightly.

The initial sign of trouble was that the rising teeth would throw up quite
a bit of sawdust. *If I stopped pushing the wood through, there would be a
circular "rainbow" left where the blade was.

After adjusting the fence the cuts are much smoother, the rising teeth
aren't throwing up as much sawdust, and there's no more unwanted "rainbow"
effects. *The difference is like going from an ok blade to a good one.

Why did I wait so long?

Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.


"The combination square indicated the blade was parallel..."

Oy vey.

much snipping

I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be
absolutely parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the
blade by a few thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible
binding described above.

ER visits are expensive!

Harvey

with great humility and humbleness, for myself, I have to disagree...

...If for no other reason that the fact that I work on BOTH sides of
the blade, so that means that if I kick the back of the fence out by
.003" on the right side of the blade, that puts me at double that if
I'm on the LEFT side.


Where did the "double" come from? Are the faces not parallel to each other?
That's actually a rhetorical question as I know they are not.

The double comes from the faces of my fence are parallel...as are any
I've ever used....granted, that would actually only be 3 others, but
that makes for 4 and when you get down to it, that's enough for
me...which means that if you move the fence OUT of parallel by 3 thou
to the right and your fence is ON the right, the outfeed end will be
further away then the infeed end.

If you then move the fence to the other side of the blade and make
adjustments, it will be three thou CLOSER to the outfeed as compared
to the infeed.

SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference





I firmly believe that by setting the fence with NO induced variation
and then followed by using the correct riving knife/splitter/hold
downs is the proper way to handle a fence on a table saw.


Parallel is the way to go. That and a Gripper have worked for me for a long
time.

wrote in message
...


SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference

No, it doesn't. Think about it.

On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700, "CW"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .


SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference

No, it doesn't. Think about it.

I have....it does....YOU think about it....

.....draw it up sometime....

.....if the fence is skewed to one side by one degree to the right when
it's on the right side of the blade, that will put the end of the
fence farther away by X amount...

....move the fence to the left side of the blade but leave the skewing
the same, it'll be CLOSER to the blade by the same amount....in effect
doubling the difference.

What that gives me is 3 thou or so of EXTRA space between the saw
blade and the fence on the right side....

.....then when I go to the left, there is 3 thou of interference....

....for a total difference of....SIX thou which is double

Feel free to draw it up sometime

wrote in message
...

...for a total difference of....SIX thou which is double

Feel free to draw it up sometime


1 degree either way.

"eclipsme" wrote in message
...
On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
Snip



I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be absolutely
parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the blade by a few
thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible binding described
above.


Can't agree with that statement, while to some the thought of the fence
veering away from the blade to create "some" clearance between the
fence,work, and blade this pulls danger out of the right pocket and puts it
in the left pocket.

The work tracking away from the right back side of the blade also causes the
wood to track into the blade on the opposite side.

Use a splitter to and a parallel fence for best and safest results.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700, "CW"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..


SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference

No, it doesn't. Think about it.

I have....it does....YOU think about it....

....draw it up sometime....

....if the fence is skewed to one side by one degree to the right when
it's on the right side of the blade, that will put the end of the
fence farther away by X amount...

...move the fence to the left side of the blade but leave the skewing
the same, it'll be CLOSER to the blade by the same amount....in effect
doubling the difference.

What that gives me is 3 thou or so of EXTRA space between the saw
blade and the fence on the right side....

....then when I go to the left, there is 3 thou of interference....

...for a total difference of....SIX thou which is double

Feel free to draw it up sometime

Keep in mind that when you move the fence to the other side of the blade you
are no longer using it on the right side. Basically the error does not
double in use because you are not using the fence on both sides at the same
time. The total amount of error is the same on both sides providing both
sides of the fence are parallel.

On 10/4/10 8:03 AM, Leon wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
Snip



I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be absolutely
parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the blade by a few
thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible binding described
above.


Can't agree with that statement, while to some the thought of the fence
veering away from the blade to create "some" clearance between the
fence,work, and blade this pulls danger out of the right pocket and puts it
in the left pocket.

The work tracking away from the right back side of the blade also causes the
wood to track into the blade on the opposite side.

Use a splitter to and a parallel fence for best and safest results.


At least a couple fence manufacturers suggest the set-up technique of
having the outboard end on the fence a couple thousandths out.

I don't know if I agree with it or not.
I think a splitter does the most to stop kickback.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Oct 3, 6:02*am, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:
It took less than half an hour to diagnose and fix a minor alignment issue
with my table saw. *The combination square indicated the blade was parallel
to the miter slow, and the fence was out slightly.

The initial sign of trouble was that the rising teeth would throw up quite
a bit of sawdust. *If I stopped pushing the wood through, there would be a
circular "rainbow" left where the blade was.

After adjusting the fence the cuts are much smoother, the rising teeth
aren't throwing up as much sawdust, and there's no more unwanted "rainbow"
effects. *The difference is like going from an ok blade to a good one.

Why did I wait so long?

Enjoy your "new table saw" !

Some people -- when they lay out the steps for a new project --
include "setting up all the machines," (saws and jointer, for me,
primarily) before they begin.

I don't do it *nearly* so often, but ... I think of setup as I think
of oil changes, and probably with the same frequency.

Like everything else, once you're in the habit, it only takes a few
minutes with a good square (combination, machinist's, or other) to be
sure that everything is square and parallel, as it ought to be.

On the bandsaw, for example, the square checks take ... like a minute,
and -- almost always -- checking bearing clearance is a lightning fast
visual. Mine don't seem to come out of adjustment, unless (obviously)
I've done a blade change.

And the difference -- to carry on the car analogy -- IS improved
safety AND performance.

"-MIKE-" wrote in message
...
On 10/4/10 8:03 AM, Leon wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
Snip



I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be
absolutely
parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the blade by a few
thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible binding described
above.


Can't agree with that statement, while to some the thought of the fence
veering away from the blade to create "some" clearance between the
fence,work, and blade this pulls danger out of the right pocket and puts
it
in the left pocket.

The work tracking away from the right back side of the blade also causes
the
wood to track into the blade on the opposite side.

Use a splitter to and a parallel fence for best and safest results.


At least a couple fence manufacturers suggest the set-up technique of
having the outboard end on the fence a couple thousandths out.

I don't know if I agree with it or not.
I think a splitter does the most to stop kickback.


I have seen several manufacturers especially the blade manufacturers
recommend the tilted out setting. They are mostly trying to sell a blade or
fence with particular focus being placed on the piece against the fence.
They typically do not rip a 1x8 down the center so much as work pieces with
a majority of the wood ending up against the fence.

On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700, "CW"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .


SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference

No, it doesn't. Think about it.

CW's right. If you had a sled which was 0.003 off and you cut both
sides of a panel with it without flipping it, it would be 0.006 off.

But you're referencing the fence on your saw BUT the splitter holds
the board/panel inline. It might bind and burn just a wee bit on the
second cut, but there should be no 0.006" difference.

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch

On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 23:12:23 -0700, "CW"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

...for a total difference of....SIX thou which is double

Feel free to draw it up sometime


1 degree either way.


I believe that I have found the problem...

.....you are looking at the deviation from nominal...

....whereas I am looking at the total deviation...

in other words, both are wrong and both are right.

We do, however, agree that the BEST way is to set the fence parallel
with the blade.

Luck and all that...

Mike

On 10/4/2010 9:03 AM, Leon wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
Snip



I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be absolutely
parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the blade by a few
thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible binding described
above.


Can't agree with that statement, while to some the thought of the fence
veering away from the blade to create "some" clearance between the
fence,work, and blade this pulls danger out of the right pocket and puts it
in the left pocket.

The work tracking away from the right back side of the blade also causes the
wood to track into the blade on the opposite side.

Use a splitter to and a parallel fence for best and safest results.


You are undoubtedly correct about using the splitter but I admit to not
using one because of the PITA quotient. I use hold downs and skew the
fence very slightly away from the blade as discussed. I never use the
fence on the opposite side, so that really doesn't matter for me.

Harvey

On 10/4/2010 5:14 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700,
wrote:


wrote in message
...


SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference

No, it doesn't. Think about it.

CW's right. If you had a sled which was 0.003 off and you cut both
sides of a panel with it without flipping it, it would be 0.006 off.

But you're referencing the fence on your saw BUT the splitter holds
the board/panel inline. It might bind and burn just a wee bit on the
second cut, but there should be no 0.006" difference.

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch
For a while, I had a zero-insert that I cut a short slot into in-line
with the blade and the same thickness of the blade. I took a thin piece
of cherry and glued it into the slot. This made for a very nice
splitter, until I snapped off the cherry one day by sliding a board
across it.

I would be interested in hearing of any improvements to this technique.

Harvey

On Oct 6, 8:16*am, eclipsme wrote:
On 10/4/2010 5:14 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700,
wrote:

*wrote in message
. ..

SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference

No, it doesn't. Think about it.

CW's right. *If you had a sled which was 0.003 off and you cut both
sides of a panel with it without flipping it, it would be 0.006 off.

But you're referencing the fence on your saw BUT the splitter holds
the board/panel inline. *It might bind and burn just a wee bit on the
second cut, but there should be no 0.006" difference.

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Plutarch

For a while, I had a zero-insert that I cut a short slot into in-line
with the blade and the same thickness of the blade. I took a thin piece
of cherry and glued it into the slot. This made for a very nice
splitter, until I snapped off the cherry one day by sliding a board
across it.

I would be interested in hearing of any improvements to this technique.

http://www.microjig.com/products/mj-...er/index.shtml
....in steel. I snapped off a plastic one too.

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:16:53 -0400, eclipsme
wrote:

On 10/4/2010 5:14 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700,
wrote:


wrote in message
...


SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference

No, it doesn't. Think about it.

CW's right. If you had a sled which was 0.003 off and you cut both
sides of a panel with it without flipping it, it would be 0.006 off.

But you're referencing the fence on your saw BUT the splitter holds
the board/panel inline. It might bind and burn just a wee bit on the
second cut, but there should be no 0.006" difference.

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch
For a while, I had a zero-insert that I cut a short slot into in-line
with the blade and the same thickness of the blade. I took a thin piece
of cherry and glued it into the slot. This made for a very nice
splitter, until I snapped off the cherry one day by sliding a board
across it.

I would be interested in hearing of any improvements to this technique.

Throw that surfboard on the planer and take off 1/8". Now put on a
steel bottom with steel fin (welded) comin' up. Screw and glue, done.

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch

On 10/6/10 8:16 AM, eclipsme wrote:
For a while, I had a zero-insert that I cut a short slot into in-line
with the blade and the same thickness of the blade. I took a thin piece
of cherry and glued it into the slot. This made for a very nice
splitter, until I snapped off the cherry one day by sliding a board
across it.

I would be interested in hearing of any improvements to this technique.

Harvey


I guess the improvement would be to have a few spares sitting, ready to
go in.

When I made my ZCI's, I contemplated using 2 trim screws to hold in the
splitter, instead of glue, so I could take it out when running dados,
etc. But then I figured I'd I have to take the ZCI out of the table to
take the splitter out. I may as well just have another ZCI made, sans
splitter, and just swap them.



--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 23:12:23 -0700, "CW"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

...for a total difference of....SIX thou which is double

Feel free to draw it up sometime


1 degree either way.


I believe that I have found the problem...

....you are looking at the deviation from nominal...

...whereas I am looking at the total deviation...

in other words, both are wrong and both are right.

We do, however, agree that the BEST way is to set the fence parallel
with the blade.

Luck and all that...

OK, I'll let you back out of this relatively gracefully.

On 10/6/2010 9:44 AM, wrote:
On Oct 6, 8:16 am, wrote:
On 10/4/2010 5:14 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700,
wrote:

wrote in message
...

SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference

No, it doesn't. Think about it.

CW's right. If you had a sled which was 0.003 off and you cut both
sides of a panel with it without flipping it, it would be 0.006 off.

But you're referencing the fence on your saw BUT the splitter holds
the board/panel inline. It might bind and burn just a wee bit on the
second cut, but there should be no 0.006" difference.

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch

For a while, I had a zero-insert that I cut a short slot into in-line
with the blade and the same thickness of the blade. I took a thin piece
of cherry and glued it into the slot. This made for a very nice
splitter, until I snapped off the cherry one day by sliding a board
across it.

I would be interested in hearing of any improvements to this technique.

http://www.microjig.com/products/mj-...er/index.shtml
...in steel. I snapped off a plastic one too.


That looks interesting. This is steel? It looks like plastic. Never
thought of making the splitter part be removable. Thanks! Harvey

On 10/6/2010 11:32 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:16:53 -0400,
wrote:

On 10/4/2010 5:14 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700,
wrote:


wrote in message
...


SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference

No, it doesn't. Think about it.

CW's right. If you had a sled which was 0.003 off and you cut both
sides of a panel with it without flipping it, it would be 0.006 off.

But you're referencing the fence on your saw BUT the splitter holds
the board/panel inline. It might bind and burn just a wee bit on the
second cut, but there should be no 0.006" difference.

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch
For a while, I had a zero-insert that I cut a short slot into in-line
with the blade and the same thickness of the blade. I took a thin piece
of cherry and glued it into the slot. This made for a very nice
splitter, until I snapped off the cherry one day by sliding a board
across it.

I would be interested in hearing of any improvements to this technique.

Throw that surfboard on the planer and take off 1/8". Now put on a
steel bottom with steel fin (welded) comin' up. Screw and glue, done.

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch
hmm... interesting!
Harvey

On 10/6/2010 12:27 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 10/6/10 8:16 AM, eclipsme wrote:
For a while, I had a zero-insert that I cut a short slot into in-line
with the blade and the same thickness of the blade. I took a thin piece
of cherry and glued it into the slot. This made for a very nice
splitter, until I snapped off the cherry one day by sliding a board
across it.

I would be interested in hearing of any improvements to this technique.

Harvey


I guess the improvement would be to have a few spares sitting, ready to
go in.

When I made my ZCI's, I contemplated using 2 trim screws to hold in the
splitter, instead of glue, so I could take it out when running dados,
etc. But then I figured I'd I have to take the ZCI out of the table to
take the splitter out. I may as well just have another ZCI made, sans
splitter, and just swap them.


Yep, this would be a simple way around making the splitter removable,
wouldn't it? Just make 2. Thanks.
Harvey

"eclipsme" wrote in message news:
That looks interesting. This is steel? It looks like plastic. Never
thought of making the splitter part be removable. Thanks! Harvey

Lee Valley Tools sells that splitter in two incarnations should you be
interested in a purchase.
http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/pag...=1,41080,51225
http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/pag...=1,41080,51225

"eclipsme" wrote in message
...
On 10/4/2010 9:03 AM, Leon wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
Snip



I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be
absolutely
parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the blade by a few
thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible binding described
above.


Can't agree with that statement, while to some the thought of the fence
veering away from the blade to create "some" clearance between the
fence,work, and blade this pulls danger out of the right pocket and puts
it
in the left pocket.

The work tracking away from the right back side of the blade also causes
the
wood to track into the blade on the opposite side.

Use a splitter to and a parallel fence for best and safest results.


You are undoubtedly correct about using the splitter but I admit to not
using one because of the PITA quotient. I use hold downs and skew the
fence very slightly away from the blade as discussed. I never use the
fence on the opposite side, so that really doesn't matter for me.

Harvey

Although you do not use the fence on the opposite side often let me restate,
If your fence is skewed away from the blade and you are ripping a 1x6 into
say 2 or more usable pieces the waste side will be pulled into the blade on
the back opposite side of the blade. This will both add tooth marks to the
wast eside of the board and will prevent the whole board from tracking
properly against the fence.

"eclipsme" wrote in message
...
On 10/6/2010 9:44 AM, wrote:
On Oct 6, 8:16 am, wrote:
On 10/4/2010 5:14 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:46:13 -0700,
wrote:

wrote in message
...

SO....you have positive 3 on the right and negative 3 on the
left.....that makes for a total of 6 thou difference

No, it doesn't. Think about it.

CW's right. If you had a sled which was 0.003 off and you cut both
sides of a panel with it without flipping it, it would be 0.006 off.

But you're referencing the fence on your saw BUT the splitter holds
the board/panel inline. It might bind and burn just a wee bit on the
second cut, but there should be no 0.006" difference.

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch

For a while, I had a zero-insert that I cut a short slot into in-line
with the blade and the same thickness of the blade. I took a thin piece
of cherry and glued it into the slot. This made for a very nice
splitter, until I snapped off the cherry one day by sliding a board
across it.

I would be interested in hearing of any improvements to this technique.

http://www.microjig.com/products/mj-...er/index.shtml
...in steel. I snapped off a plastic one too.


That looks interesting. This is steel? It looks like plastic. Never
thought of making the splitter part be removable. Thanks! Harvey

Translucent plastic incasing steel. I have been using this style for about
4 years and it holds up well.

On 10/7/10 6:15 AM, eclipsme wrote:
When I made my ZCI's, I contemplated using 2 trim screws to hold in the
splitter, instead of glue, so I could take it out when running dados,
etc. But then I figured I'd I have to take the ZCI out of the table to
take the splitter out. I may as well just have another ZCI made, sans
splitter, and just swap them.


Yep, this would be a simple way around making the splitter removable,
wouldn't it? Just make 2. Thanks.
Harvey


Or 5 or 6 or 7. :-)
One for each blade or dado set you use.
Once you are set up to make one, the other take 1/10 of the time.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 10/7/2010 9:23 AM, Leon wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 10/4/2010 9:03 AM, Leon wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 10/3/2010 8:02 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
Snip



I say this all to point out that, IMHO, the fence should not be
absolutely
parallel to the slot/blade, but should veer away from the blade by a few
thousandths of an inch so as to relieve the possible binding described
above.


Can't agree with that statement, while to some the thought of the fence
veering away from the blade to create "some" clearance between the
fence,work, and blade this pulls danger out of the right pocket and puts
it
in the left pocket.

The work tracking away from the right back side of the blade also causes
the
wood to track into the blade on the opposite side.

Use a splitter to and a parallel fence for best and safest results.


You are undoubtedly correct about using the splitter but I admit to not
using one because of the PITA quotient. I use hold downs and skew the
fence very slightly away from the blade as discussed. I never use the
fence on the opposite side, so that really doesn't matter for me.

Harvey

Although you do not use the fence on the opposite side often let me restate,
If your fence is skewed away from the blade and you are ripping a 1x6 into
say 2 or more usable pieces the waste side will be pulled into the blade on
the back opposite side of the blade. This will both add tooth marks to the
wast eside of the board and will prevent the whole board from tracking
properly against the fence.


Oh, I get your point now. Thanks for clarifying. I think you may be
envisioning more skew than I am using. I don't seem to experience this
problem, but will look for them specifically next time I rip.

Harvey

On 10/7/2010 7:41 AM, Upscale wrote:
wrote in message news:
That looks interesting. This is steel? It looks like plastic. Never
thought of making the splitter part be removable. Thanks! Harvey

Lee Valley Tools sells that splitter in two incarnations should you be
interested in a purchase.
http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/pag...=1,41080,51225
http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/pag...=1,41080,51225


Thanks for the links. I likee.

harvey

In article ,
eclipsme wrote:
On 10/7/2010 9:23 AM, Leon wrote:
...snipped...
Although you do not use the fence on the opposite side often let me restate,
If your fence is skewed away from the blade and you are ripping a 1x6 into
say 2 or more usable pieces the waste side will be pulled into the blade on
the back opposite side of the blade. This will both add tooth marks to the
wast eside of the board and will prevent the whole board from tracking
properly against the fence.


Oh, I get your point now. Thanks for clarifying. I think you may be
envisioning more skew than I am using. I don't seem to experience this
problem, but will look for them specifically next time I rip.

The teeth a on a carbide sawblade are slightly wider than the steel body
of the blade. The fence would have to be skewed so far so that a workpiece
would contact the blade body before the trailing (rising) teeth for it
to keep from tracking against the teeth properly. You probably have a
point about the tooth marks (or is it teeth marks) though. (BTW I am in
"dead parallel" camp because I sometimes use the fence to the left of the
blade.

--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

I believe that I have found the problem...

....you are looking at the deviation from nominal...

...whereas I am looking at the total deviation...

in other words, both are wrong and both are right.

We do, however, agree that the BEST way is to set the fence parallel
with the blade.

Luck and all that...

OK, I'll let you back out of this relatively gracefully.


Don't do me any favors, moron

wrote in message
...

I believe that I have found the problem...

....you are looking at the deviation from nominal...

...whereas I am looking at the total deviation...

in other words, both are wrong and both are right.

We do, however, agree that the BEST way is to set the fence parallel
with the blade.

Luck and all that...

OK, I'll let you back out of this relatively gracefully.


Don't do me any favors, moron


This from the geometrically challenged. Just makes you look worse.