"John Grossbohlin" wrote in
m:


"Han" wrote in message
...
Bill wrote in :


Btw, the instructions say to occasionally sharpen the teeth on the
antikickbackpawls, but you know ...

Rip or Cross-Cut? ;~)

Doesn't really matter, John.
}

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

-MIKE- wrote in news:ka8a2a$hqk$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

Many other times, these letter to the editor leave out key aspects of
the incident which illustrate proof of the writer's foolishness and/or
ignorance that was the cause of the problem to begin with.

Such letters are generally the writer's own therapy.

Healing therapy, that is
}

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman wrote in
:

On 12/11/2012 2:08 PM, Han wrote:

My jointer is a 6" Delta Shopmaster model JT160. The instructions
say nothing about my problem. I am rather sure it's my technique
that did this.

Might not be all your technique ... spend some time being anal about
the tables being set up properly. Chances that it was done to a gnat's
ass at the factory is slim to none.

I have to get the thing in a better place and practice with some
disposable wood. OTOH, one of the jigs that Karl (Swingman)
mentioned may do the trick too.

The general rule of thumb for the length of board you can practically
joint on any particular jointer is 1 1/2 times the combined length of
the tables.

IOW, on a well set up jointer with a combined table length of +/- 30",
and with proper technique, the average user can practically joint
boards in the neighborhood of 45" in length.

This can be increased with practiced technique, but probably not much
more than double for all practical purposes, and that will take some
practiced experience.

Then I was at the upper limit, or just a hair above ...
I'm going to try one of your jigs as soon as I have the chance.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 12/11/2012 2:08 PM, Han wrote:
....

My jointer is a 6" Delta Shopmaster model JT160. The instructions say
nothing about my problem. I am rather sure it's my technique that did
this. I have to get the thing in a better place and practice with some
disposable wood. OTOH, one of the jigs that Karl (Swingman) mentioned
may do the trick too.

....

OK, I wasn't familiar w/ it--that is a benchtop model.

I did some searching and found several reviews and downloaded the
manual. About half the reviews said they had trouble w/ the beds either
not being coplanar or at least one or the other not flat/straight. That
would certainly cause problems; the longer the work, the more evident a
problem.

One mentioned his outfeed table sagged and he was able to shim it--it
looks to me from the picture on the cover of the manual that there are
four mounting screws for the tables--I'd expect one could manage to fix
a coplanar problem by judicious diddling thereat--if the tables aren't
actually flat, however, there's nothing to be done but have them surface
ground or get warranty service to repair the problem (as one review I
saw said a local service center did for his).

All in all, I'm sorry to say, it looks like a marginal machine but one
would hope one could manage to tune one up...

--

On 12/11/2012 1:21 PM, Bill wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 12/11/2012 12:37 PM, Bill wrote:

Peronally, I don't think I would have foreseen the accident described
above. It reminds me just enough of what you described above, to mention
it--especially for the sake of anyone using a TS without a riving knife.

I don't know of a single commercially available table saw that does not
come with, at a minimum, a splitter.

Be careful what you see in these magazines about safety, some of it is
valid, some sheer political correctness.

Awareness of and an unflagging practice of "Safety" in the shop is
unarguably the single most valuable component of a lasting enjoyment of
same. However, too often in the current world of print and bits and
bytes, playing the "safety" card has become a mixture of the tone of
political correctness, a whiff of wikipedia wisdom, and a nagging fear
of being held accountable, presented in toto with a smug assertiveness
that presupposes the purveyor's superior ken, but, in actuality is
little more than ignorance of underlying issues swept under the shop mat.


I definitely agree with you. When did "splitters" start being required
on new saws?

Long before the 70's They were fundamentally a part of the guard.


BTW, the page number is 12, and the letter was from Andy Olerud from
Driggs, Idaho. Maybe he is reading?

On 12/11/2012 11:52 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 12/11/2012 10:40 AM, Han wrote:

I glued the boards together and will cut through the glued joint with
my fancy Freud blade to "joint" the edges that way, then reglue the
boards.

Depending upon the wood, its grain and any released tension, that may
or may not work.

Simply make a jointing sled for your table saw:

http://www.toolcrib.com/blog/2009/02...-jig-plans-str
aight-edge-no-jointer

That one is more complicated than necessary, but you get the idea.

This one is simple and would be easy to make ... used one like it for
years before buying a jointer:

http://www.rockler.com/product.cfm?p...5&site=ROCKLER

It seemed to work - Now gluing it up

https://plus.google.com/photos/10653...s/582074621296
8281185?authkey=CPPji_beg6TKkwE

Looking at those setups now!



I had a small 6" jointer that I bought in 83. It was used so seldom I
think I sharpened the knives 1 time. Considering it's capacity it was
easier to cut a straight edge with the TS fence for short stock and I
later built a sled for 8 footers. Now the track saw.

Han wrote:
Bill wrote in :

Han wrote:

Btw, the instructions say to occasionally sharpen the teeth on the
antikickbackpawls, but you know ...


I never even heard anyone mention that before, but it makes sense!

If they lose their grip, it's probably time.

How often do they mean by "occasionally"? That must have been written
in by a lawyer. : )

Juast going by memory. I had to peruse the manual a little while ago. I
have always had a bit of trouble getting the blade adjusted to an angle,
and then back to 90°. The Wixey digital angle readout widget is always a
great help.


I already picked up one of those, and I don't even have a TS yet!
If Grizzly would come up with a coupon, I'd click for a TS and a
jointer. I'm just in the shopping mood. Although something tells me I
may be sorry if I don't finish painting the work area first! : )

The Incra 1000/HD Miter Guage is still on sale for $119 at Amazon. I
just can't click on that w/o having the saw--at least I haven't yet. If
it should drop another 10 bucks or more, I think I'll have to!

Bill

Leon wrote:
On 12/11/2012 1:21 PM, Bill wrote:

I definitely agree with you. When did "splitters" start being required
on new saws?

Long before the 70's They were fundamentally a part of the guard.


My dads Craftsman TS was half-homemade. It sat resting waist high on a
metal bench with a piece of plywood supporting the saw (with a hole
underneath for the sawdust to fall through) and the motor behind it.
Cutting, fitting and varnishing the plywood top was my dad's early
woodworking projects (he was more of a gardener). Being a very young
kid, I watched. I think the saw was a hand-me-down in the late 60s, so
it was probably pretty old.

Cutting big pieces of plywood on it routinely pinched the blade and it
could kick a little--but it wasn't powerful like today's monsters. It
had no splitter and no guard and we weren't sophisticated enough for a
roller stand or outfeed table--we just used more hands.

It still sits right where it did, but my dad told me a few years before
he passed that he "didn't trust it" anymore. So I'll discard it someday
without turning it on again. Of course, cutting plywood gave me
shortness of breath even back then before dust masks were invented, so I
didn't use it much. And to be frank, I learned to stay plenty far away
when my dad ran it.

If it sounds interesting to you, and you're in SE Michigan, I can direct
you to where you can pick it up for free. It may be a valuable antique!
: ) Sorry for the long post.

Bill

Bill wrote:


It still sits right where it did, but my dad told me a few years
before he passed that he "didn't trust it" anymore. So I'll discard
it someday without turning it on again. Of course, cutting plywood
gave me shortness of breath even back then before dust masks were
invented, so I didn't use it much. And to be frank, I learned to
stay plenty far away when my dad ran it.


Maybe and maybe not Bill. Most of those old saws had a lot of the right
pieces to make them near great saws. They generally had nice flat cast iron
tops. They typically had a trunion mount system that is indeed inferior to
what you find on a quality cabinet saw, but is also useful enough for most
hobby woodworkers. Most of the shortcomings of those saws can easily enough
be overcome, and at reasonably low cost. They really are much better than
you might be thinking.


If it sounds interesting to you, and you're in SE Michigan, I can
direct you to where you can pick it up for free. It may be a
valuable antique! : ) Sorry for the long post.


It's is good to see something like this end up in the hands of someone who
is willing to put a little time and money into turning it into a decent
saw - even if you're not interested in pursing that yourself.

--

-Mike-

dpb wrote in :

On 12/11/2012 2:08 PM, Han wrote:
...

My jointer is a 6" Delta Shopmaster model JT160. The instructions
say nothing about my problem. I am rather sure it's my technique
that did this. I have to get the thing in a better place and
practice with some disposable wood. OTOH, one of the jigs that Karl
(Swingman) mentioned may do the trick too.

...

OK, I wasn't familiar w/ it--that is a benchtop model.

I did some searching and found several reviews and downloaded the
manual. About half the reviews said they had trouble w/ the beds
either not being coplanar or at least one or the other not
flat/straight. That would certainly cause problems; the longer the
work, the more evident a problem.

One mentioned his outfeed table sagged and he was able to shim it--it
looks to me from the picture on the cover of the manual that there are
four mounting screws for the tables--I'd expect one could manage to
fix a coplanar problem by judicious diddling thereat--if the tables
aren't actually flat, however, there's nothing to be done but have
them surface ground or get warranty service to repair the problem (as
one review I saw said a local service center did for his).

All in all, I'm sorry to say, it looks like a marginal machine but one
would hope one could manage to tune one up...

I'm going to be busy doing other stuff until the beginning of next week.
But I will take a look and see what I can do to tune it up. Or I will
just build me a sled.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:33:11 -0600, Leon wrote:

I definitely agree with you. When did "splitters" start being required
on new saws?

Long before the 70's They were fundamentally a part of the guard.

I have a 1948 Delta "contractor" saw and it has an overhead guard and a
splitter. So yes, they've been around a while.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:33:11 -0600, Leon wrote:

I definitely agree with you. When did "splitters" start being required
on new saws?

Long before the 70's They were fundamentally a part of the guard.

I have a 1948 Delta "contractor" saw and it has an overhead guard and a
splitter. So yes, they've been around a while.

I guess even long ago, folks didn't like having boards kicked-back at
them! : ) Thanks.

On 12/11/2012 9:44 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in :
....

All in all, I'm sorry to say, it looks like a marginal machine but one
would hope one could manage to tune one up...

I'm going to be busy doing other stuff until the beginning of next week.
But I will take a look and see what I can do to tune it up. Or I will
just build me a sled.

I don't know what you do in general but if this one ends up not
satisfying but you're limited in space, consider scouring around for one
of the _old_ Delta|Rockwell/Delta 4" guys...

http://vintagemachinery.org/photoindex/detail.aspx?id=11995

These won't set benchtop but don't take much space and while small are
very much capable.

If you really don't need the width for surface jointing wider material
you can't go wrong. They come up now and again for a pittance
(comparatively to anything of similar quality these days, anyway).

--

dpb wrote in :

On 12/11/2012 9:44 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in :
...

All in all, I'm sorry to say, it looks like a marginal machine but
one would hope one could manage to tune one up...

I'm going to be busy doing other stuff until the beginning of next
week. But I will take a look and see what I can do to tune it up. Or
I will just build me a sled.

I don't know what you do in general but if this one ends up not
satisfying but you're limited in space, consider scouring around for
one of the _old_ Delta|Rockwell/Delta 4" guys...

http://vintagemachinery.org/photoindex/detail.aspx?id=11995

These won't set benchtop but don't take much space and while small are
very much capable.

If you really don't need the width for surface jointing wider material
you can't go wrong. They come up now and again for a pittance
(comparatively to anything of similar quality these days, anyway).

Thanks! Copied.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Me Who Has No Experience says: Your glue-up would go better if it were
1/16" (or probably even more) FATTER in the middle--that's supposed to
be even better than FLAT.

I thought "sprung joints" were supposed to have a slight gap in the
middle (1/16" might be too much) and touch at the ends.

-Zz

Zz Yzx wrote:

Me Who Has No Experience says: Your glue-up would go better if it were
1/16" (or probably even more) FATTER in the middle--that's supposed to
be even better than FLAT.

I thought "sprung joints" were supposed to have a slight gap in the
middle (1/16" might be too much) and touch at the ends.

-Zz


Yeah, I corrected that in a previous post. I was thinking of clamping
"cauls" (that are fatter in the middle). While I'm at it, "convex" is a
nicer word than fatter.

Bill

Bill wrote:
Zz Yzx wrote:

Me Who Has No Experience says: Your glue-up would go better if it
were 1/16" (or probably even more) FATTER in the middle--that's
supposed to be even better than FLAT.

I thought "sprung joints" were supposed to have a slight gap in the
middle (1/16" might be too much) and touch at the ends.

-Zz


Yeah, I corrected that in a previous post. I was thinking of clamping
"cauls" (that are fatter in the middle). While I'm at it, "convex"
is a nicer word than fatter.



Does this dress make my fanny look "convex"? Nah - "fatter" has a better
ring to it...

--

-Mike-

On 12/13/2012 8:13 PM, Zz Yzx wrote:

Me Who Has No Experience says: Your glue-up would go better if it were
1/16" (or probably even more) FATTER in the middle--that's supposed to
be even better than FLAT.

I thought "sprung joints" were supposed to have a slight gap in the
middle (1/16" might be too much) and touch at the ends.

-Zz

Yea, 1/16 is crazy big

a 1/64 is even on the large side. the spring is not that much
just enough that when you get shrinkage in the winter (the ends shrink
faster) it doesn't split at the ends.

Again it depends on your humidity differentials.