On 1/1/2014 3:03 AM, Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
I am considering using my router template (bushings?) kit, along with
some double-fluted bits. According to the the folks who make
Makrolon, HSS double or triple fluted bits can be used on the material
(of course, that may indeed yield a lower standard). That raised a
thought: It seems like, given a choice, one would want to use larger
diameter bits, both for stability and to help disiplate any
heat--though it would increase the effective speed (proportionally
with diameter). In contrast, all of the spiral bits I've seen are of
small diameter. I don't argue that smaller bits may be more
versatile. I would have experimented already, but I'm going to have
to make a make-shift router table to accomplish this task.

Bill


I was reading at Pat Warner's website, and he indicates that large bits
be avoided for the sake of unnecessary vibration (and resonance).

Bill

Well, Pat's a smart guy with a lot of good stuff, but if you need a
profile, I would not hesitate to use a large bit.

After a certain size though, it pays to use a shaper, or profile in
small sizes and join if possible. Most of the time it's not hence the
need for large bits.

Also you can go to vertical bits, but they scallop more.

--
Jeff

Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Just go slow and easy and don't try to get it all in one smooth pass
- that just won't happen.

I understand better now what you were saying. In your experience, do you
get better results edge-trimming 1/16" or 1/8" off of plastic? I think
the answer might be 1/8", and the appropriate speed for the router may
be close to 30,000 RPM (rather than much, much, slower), and the work
piece needs to be pushed through much faster than for wood. I need to
build an ad-hoc router table to find out for sure. I take back some of
my earlier sentiments that working plastic and wood were probably very
similar.

How about routing around a steep bend on a router table, against a
template? This seems to be similar for wood or plastic. I suppose one
needs to be careful about the the way the material is held, and a blade
cover around the bit would surely not be bad idea either.

At least I've learned enough that when I read that the base of router is
made out of polycarbonate, it doesn't go completely over my head (i.e.
I've seen the "bullet test" applied to polycarbonate and acrylic,
side-by-side)! I'll check and see it Bill Hylton has anything to say
about some of my questions in his book (WATR).

Bill

Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Just go slow and easy and don't try to get it all in one smooth pass
- that just won't happen.

I understand better now what you were saying. In your experience, do
you get better results edge-trimming 1/16" or 1/8" off of plastic? I
think the answer might be 1/8", and the appropriate speed for the
router may be close to 30,000 RPM (rather than much, much, slower),
and the work piece needs to be pushed through much faster than for
wood. I need to build an ad-hoc router table to find out for sure. I
take back some of my earlier sentiments that working plastic and
wood were probably very similar.

How about routing around a steep bend on a router table, against a
template? This seems to be similar for wood or plastic. I suppose one
needs to be careful about the the way the material is held, and a
blade cover around the bit would surely not be bad idea either.


So, I'd recommend starting slow and building up your feel for the task at
hand. I'd start at 1/16th of an inch and take bigger bites as you observe
how it goes, and as you become comfortable routing. You should have no
problem making tight bends around a template. Check out Pat's site for some
good information on this.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Just go slow and easy and don't try to get it all in one smooth pass
- that just won't happen.
I understand better now what you were saying. In your experience, do
you get better results edge-trimming 1/16" or 1/8" off of plastic? I
think the answer might be 1/8", and the appropriate speed for the
router may be close to 30,000 RPM (rather than much, much, slower),
and the work piece needs to be pushed through much faster than for
wood. I need to build an ad-hoc router table to find out for sure. I
take back some of my earlier sentiments that working plastic and
wood were probably very similar.

How about routing around a steep bend on a router table, against a
template? This seems to be similar for wood or plastic. I suppose one
needs to be careful about the the way the material is held, and a
blade cover around the bit would surely not be bad idea either.

So, I'd recommend starting slow and building up your feel for the task at
hand. I'd start at 1/16th of an inch and take bigger bites as you observe
how it goes, and as you become comfortable routing. You should have no
problem making tight bends around a template. Check out Pat's site for some
good information on this.



I ALWAYS find something interesting when I go to his site. But
regarding "machining plastics", that seems to be an area in which he
prefers to give lessons in person.

He is selling his information on templets too (templets is the way he
spells templates). He write that he spells it that way just to bother
people like me (J/K!)

Bill

Mike Marlow wrote:
So, I'd recommend starting slow and building up your feel for the task
at hand. I'd start at 1/16th of an inch and take bigger bites as you
observe how it goes, and as you become comfortable routing. You should
have no problem making tight bends around a template. Check out Pat's
site for some good information on this.


I went back to Bill Hylton's book (WWwTR), and read what he had to say
about using templates and guide bushings. BH is one of the great WW-Book
writers! He didn't come right out and say it, but I gained the
impression effective shortening a bushing by pushing it through my
ad-hoc router table may not be "prudent". What he said (paraphrased)
was that you should refrain from cutting them shorter with a hack saw.
That amounts to the same thing... Next thing you know, someone will
suggest that I shouldn't just pound in a short length of EMT into my
ad-hoc router table! ; ) That's a JOKE peoples!

Anyway, I recommend the book WWwTR with much enthusiasm even though it
doesn't delve into cutting Polycarbonate.

I may need to re-examine my strategy. Hmmm.. I have a 17/32" ID/ 5/8"
OD guide-bushing with collar size 1/2". For a 1/4" bit, Hylton
recommend 3/8" ID (an extra 1/8"). This bushing is 5/32" greater than
that. But after going through the table, that may leave me pushing
against 1/4" of "collar"... OTOH, with some workarounds, I may be
able to do the cut without the benefit of a router table. It's
"interesting" because the template has to be on top (against the guide
bushing) and the polycarbonate on the bottom. The problem with this is
the workpiece is not supported. I could do it edge by edge off the side
of a table maybe with proper "clamping"....

By the way, BH points out several advantages of guide-bushings over
bearings in general (for instance, they can be used with many of your
router bits). No matter how it works out, I can't say I didn't learn
something. And I tried to spread the joy.

Bill

Bill wrote:
Next thing you know, someone will suggest that I shouldn't just pound
in a short length of EMT into my ad-hoc router table! ; ) That's
a JOKE peoples!

That doesn't sound nearly as dumb to me now as the first time it went
by. Who says I can't make my own bushing-guide?! Other suggestions on
materials (to hammer into a piece of wood)? I don't think EMT flexes
much...lol I could stick in a few wedges to hold it in place.

Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Next thing you know, someone will suggest that I shouldn't just pound
in a short length of EMT into my ad-hoc router table! ; ) That's
a JOKE peoples!

That doesn't sound nearly as dumb to me now as the first time it went
by. Who says I can't make my own bushing-guide?! Other suggestions
on materials (to hammer into a piece of wood)? I don't think EMT
flexes much...lol I could stick in a few wedges to hold it in place.


Here's the last idea. How about "extending" a bushing? For instance,
if I piece of EMT fit snugly over one of the bushings I have, that may work.

Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Next thing you know, someone will suggest that I shouldn't just
pound in a short length of EMT into my ad-hoc router table! ; )
That's a JOKE peoples!

That doesn't sound nearly as dumb to me now as the first time it went
by. Who says I can't make my own bushing-guide?! Other suggestions
on materials (to hammer into a piece of wood)? I don't think EMT
flexes much...lol I could stick in a few wedges to hold it in place.



You may not believe this, but 3 years ago in a different forum some
people in Washington and other places were having a discussion along
these very lines! : )

Bill wrote in
:

Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Next thing you know, someone will suggest that I shouldn't just
pound in a short length of EMT into my ad-hoc router table! ; )
That's a JOKE peoples!

That doesn't sound nearly as dumb to me now as the first time it
went by. Who says I can't make my own bushing-guide?! Other
suggestions on materials (to hammer into a piece of wood)? I don't
think EMT flexes much...lol I could stick in a few wedges to hold
it in place.



You may not believe this, but 3 years ago in a different forum some
people in Washington and other places were having a discussion along
these very lines! : )


Were they as diverse and eloquent as you^h^h^h^h us?

*g*

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Next thing you know, someone will suggest that I shouldn't just pound
in a short length of EMT into my ad-hoc router table! ; ) That's
a JOKE peoples!

That doesn't sound nearly as dumb to me now as the first time it went
by. Who says I can't make my own bushing-guide?! Other suggestions
on materials (to hammer into a piece of wood)? I don't think EMT
flexes much...lol I could stick in a few wedges to hold it in place.

You're thinking in a good direction Bill. I have not given this idea any
thought - and I probably won't... but your thinking is in the right
direction. Whether it is worth the effort compared to what a set of guide
bushings would cost you at Harbor Freight is another question. But then
again, some times, some things are just fun to do whether they are
economically feasible or not. Whatever you do - if you make your own - just
spend the time to ensure the stability of your "guide". A router is not a
tool that you want to suddenly take off in your hands because your guide
bushing let go.

--

-Mike-

Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Next thing you know, someone will suggest that I shouldn't just
pound in a short length of EMT into my ad-hoc router table! ; )
That's a JOKE peoples!

That doesn't sound nearly as dumb to me now as the first time it went
by. Who says I can't make my own bushing-guide?! Other suggestions
on materials (to hammer into a piece of wood)? I don't think EMT
flexes much...lol I could stick in a few wedges to hold it in
place.

Here's the last idea. How about "extending" a bushing? For instance,
if I piece of EMT fit snugly over one of the bushings I have, that
may work.

It may - but just measure the benefit of re-inventing the wheel over simply
going to Harbor Freight.

--

-Mike-

Puckdropper wrote:
Bill wrote in
:

Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Next thing you know, someone will suggest that I shouldn't just
pound in a short length of EMT into my ad-hoc router table! ; )
That's a JOKE peoples!

That doesn't sound nearly as dumb to me now as the first time it
went by. Who says I can't make my own bushing-guide?! Other
suggestions on materials (to hammer into a piece of wood)? I don't
think EMT flexes much...lol I could stick in a few wedges to hold
it in place.



You may not believe this, but 3 years ago in a different forum some
people in Washington and other places were having a discussion along
these very lines! : )


Were they as diverse and eloquent as you^h^h^h^h us?


Bill isn't diverse and eloquent - he's just a wood schmuck like the rest of
us.

Don't worry Bill - I've got your back. I won't let these guys talk about
you like that.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Next thing you know, someone will suggest that I shouldn't just
pound in a short length of EMT into my ad-hoc router table! ; )
That's a JOKE peoples!

That doesn't sound nearly as dumb to me now as the first time it went
by. Who says I can't make my own bushing-guide?! Other suggestions
on materials (to hammer into a piece of wood)? I don't think EMT
flexes much...lol I could stick in a few wedges to hold it in

It may - but just measure the benefit of re-inventing the wheel over simply
going to Harbor Freight.


I may not have adequately relayed my circumstances. It's not that I
don't have a set of router guide bushing, as I do. It's that after a
bushing has passed through a router table, from underneath, not so much
of its collar is showing. It may be enough, but more is better (for
safety/performance). The one bushing I mentioned earlier had a collar
that is 1/2" high. After it goes through a router plate (which I don't
have) or just a panel of wood, less is sticking out the other side to
use as a "fence".

It's -5-degrees F. here now at 5:15 pm, and it supposed to get COLD
tonight.

BTW, the fix to my HTML/Text problems (characters running together) with
the SeaMonkey/Thunderbird/Mozilla client seems to be ctl+sht+y
("Discontinue Text Styles").

Bill

Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Next thing you know, someone will suggest that I shouldn't just
pound in a short length of EMT into my ad-hoc router table! ; )
That's a JOKE peoples!

That doesn't sound nearly as dumb to me now as the first time it
went by. Who says I can't make my own bushing-guide?! Other
suggestions on materials (to hammer into a piece of wood)? I
don't think EMT flexes much...lol I could stick in a few wedges
to hold it in
It may - but just measure the benefit of re-inventing the wheel over
simply going to Harbor Freight.


I may not have adequately relayed my circumstances. It's not that I
don't have a set of router guide bushing, as I do. It's that after a
bushing has passed through a router table, from underneath, not so
much of its collar is showing. It may be enough, but more is better
(for safety/performance). The one bushing I mentioned earlier had a
collar that is 1/2" high. After it goes through a router plate
(which I don't have) or just a panel of wood, less is sticking out
the other side to use as a "fence".


Hve you looked at Pat's site yet? I think he may address a lot of your
concerns.


It's -5-degrees F. here now at 5:15 pm, and it supposed to get COLD
tonight.


Wow - if it's going to get cold, then...


BTW, the fix to my HTML/Text problems (characters running together)
with the SeaMonkey/Thunderbird/Mozilla client seems to be
ctl+sht+y ("Discontinue Text Styles").


Does seem to be better.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
Hve you looked at Pat's site yet? I think he may address a lot of your
concerns.

I did go to Pat's site. I didn't see much in the way of free information
regarding this matter, or I didn't understand what I was looking at.

Bill

Mike Marlow wrote:
Puckdropper wrote:
Bill wrote in
:

Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Next thing you know, someone will suggest that I shouldn't just
pound in a short length of EMT into my ad-hoc router table! ; )
That's a JOKE peoples!

That doesn't sound nearly as dumb to me now as the first time it
went by. Who says I can't make my own bushing-guide?! Other
suggestions on materials (to hammer into a piece of wood)? I don't
think EMT flexes much...lol I could stick in a few wedges to hold
it in place.

You may not believe this, but 3 years ago in a different forum some
people in Washington and other places were having a discussion along
these very lines! : )

Were they as diverse and eloquent as you^h^h^h^h us?

Bill isn't diverse and eloquent - he's just a wood schmuck like the rest of
us.

If you look up the origins of that "muck" word, it may provide fresh
insight into another famous word.

Regarding eloquence, my goal is to write ever clearer and clearer, until
Roy Underhill recognizes me and has me on his show! : )

I'll tote one of the original polycarbonate blade guards I have
collected, crude but over 100 years old! ; )

Bill



Don't worry Bill - I've got your back. I won't let these guys talk about
you like that.

Bill wrote:
The morning I am thinking of a structure based on a "quilt rack"
model--upside down "T" ends, as legs, with a mast of of 3/4" steel
square tubing.
To that I can attach a Loxan polycarbonate box (blade cover), with
hinged front, sides and back--like the box in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxZOO_zcpNM

As you suggest, I can always improve upon it.



Consider a 72" long beam consisting of 2" by 2" square steel tubing,
1/8" thick, fixed at each end. Assume I attach a 3' beam right in the
middle, perhaps cantilevered, to which my blade guard is affixed. How
much "rigidness" have I bought myself, as far as the beam is concerned?
I believe we are talking about the "strength" of the steel tubing. I
realize that if I shorten the 72" beam, the rigidness will improve, but
how is it doing so far? By comparison, lesser material options that are
available would probably seem flimsy, no? To provide a more complete
picture, I intend that this beam will span an outfeed table.

Thanks!
Bill

Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
The morning I am thinking of a structure based on a "quilt rack"
model--upside down "T" ends, as legs, with a mast of of 3/4" steel
square tubing.
To that I can attach a Loxan polycarbonate box (blade cover), with
hinged front, sides and back--like the box in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxZOO_zcpNM

As you suggest, I can always improve upon it.



Consider a 72" long beam consisting of 2" by 2" square steel tubing,
1/8" thick, fixed at each end. Assume I attach a 3' beam right in the
middle, perhaps cantilevered, to which my blade guard is affixed.
How much "rigidness" have I bought myself, as far as the beam is
concerned? I believe we are talking about the "strength" of the steel
tubing. I realize that if I shorten the 72" beam, the rigidness will
improve, but how is it doing so far? By comparison, lesser material
options that are available would probably seem flimsy, no? To
provide a more complete picture, I intend that this beam will span an
outfeed table.

Thanks!
Bill

A related question is "Will it sag with time?" (like a 2by4 hanging in
the same manner would?)
Maybe I need to use an I-beam (that's a joke!) Maybe a small I-beam
(that's not a joke!)

Bill

Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
The morning I am thinking of a structure based on a "quilt rack"
model--upside down "T" ends, as legs, with a mast of of 3/4" steel
square tubing.
To that I can attach a Loxan polycarbonate box (blade cover), with
hinged front, sides and back--like the box in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxZOO_zcpNM

As you suggest, I can always improve upon it.



Consider a 72" long beam consisting of 2" by 2" square steel tubing,
1/8" thick, fixed at each end. Assume I attach a 3' beam right in
the middle, perhaps cantilevered, to which my blade guard is affixed.
How much "rigidness" have I bought myself, as far as the beam is
concerned? I believe we are talking about the "strength" of the steel
tubing. I realize that if I shorten the 72" beam, the rigidness will
improve, but how is it doing so far? By comparison, lesser material
options that are available would probably seem flimsy, no? To
provide a more complete picture, I intend that this beam will span an
outfeed table.

Thanks!
Bill

A related question is "Will it sag with time?" (like a 2by4 hanging in
the same manner would?)
Maybe I need to use an I-beam (that's a joke!) Maybe a small I-beam
(that's not a joke!)


I have to admit Bill that I'm lost with your ideas. Having said that - I
can't imagine any need for the monster you're contemplating, just to fab a
blade guard. I can't say for sure because like I said - I'm kinda lost
here, but I'm guessing you're over engineering the hell out of this.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
The morning I am thinking of a structure based on a "quilt rack"
model--upside down "T" ends, as legs, with a mast of of 3/4" steel
square tubing.
To that I can attach a Loxan polycarbonate box (blade cover), with
hinged front, sides and back--like the box in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxZOO_zcpNM

As you suggest, I can always improve upon it.


Consider a 72" long beam consisting of 2" by 2" square steel tubing,
1/8" thick, fixed at each end. Assume I attach a 3' beam right in
the middle, perhaps cantilevered, to which my blade guard is affixed.
How much "rigidness" have I bought myself, as far as the beam is
concerned? I believe we are talking about the "strength" of the steel
tubing. I realize that if I shorten the 72" beam, the rigidness will
improve, but how is it doing so far? By comparison, lesser material
options that are available would probably seem flimsy, no? To
provide a more complete picture, I intend that this beam will span an
outfeed table.

Thanks!
Bill
A related question is "Will it sag with time?" (like a 2by4 hanging in
the same manner would?)
Maybe I need to use an I-beam (that's a joke!) Maybe a small I-beam
(that's not a joke!)

I have to admit Bill that I'm lost with your ideas. Having said that - I
can't imagine any need for the monster you're contemplating, just to fab a
blade guard. I can't say for sure because like I said - I'm kinda lost
here, but I'm guessing you're over engineering the hell out of this.


Think of it as a "Simply-Supported Overhead Gantry-Crane Supporting
Scissored Linkage To A Polycarbonate Blade Guard, Constructed With The
Help Of My First Homemade Router Table--My Shrine To Table Saw
Safety". Except for "router table", most/all of the above engineering
and material terminology and technology is brand new to me. Maybe when
I'm done, I'll have something besides a blade guard?

Thank you for your reply! I like your use of the word "monster" ;
) Though, if it gets attached to the ceiling some day, it may appear
less awesome... Thus far, it is only coming together on paper. As I
mentioned in an earlier post, there are 3 parts: Support, linkage, and
guard. I appreciate better now why folks "over-built" things, back in
the days of yesteryear...

Cheers,
Bill

One can usually test the span, and or get a sense if there is any
bending......
It sounds like with square tubing, and 6' you have little flex.
Many engineered beams take advantage of light weight plywood for the
strength
similar to "I" beam trusses....
If a person were to use that in combination with the tubing, no flexing
would happen.
Again, it is a tough picture to see.......
john

"Bill" wrote in message ...

Bill wrote:
The morning I am thinking of a structure based on a "quilt rack"
model--upside down "T" ends, as legs, with a mast of of 3/4" steel square
tubing.
To that I can attach a Loxan polycarbonate box (blade cover), with hinged
front, sides and back--like the box in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxZOO_zcpNM

As you suggest, I can always improve upon it.



Consider a 72" long beam consisting of 2" by 2" square steel tubing,
1/8" thick, fixed at each end. Assume I attach a 3' beam right in the
middle, perhaps cantilevered, to which my blade guard is affixed. How
much "rigidness" have I bought myself, as far as the beam is concerned?
I believe we are talking about the "strength" of the steel tubing. I
realize that if I shorten the 72" beam, the rigidness will improve, but
how is it doing so far? By comparison, lesser material options that are
available would probably seem flimsy, no? To provide a more complete
picture, I intend that this beam will span an outfeed table.

Thanks!
Bill

Bill wrote:

Think of it as a "Simply-Supported Overhead Gantry-Crane Supporting
Scissored Linkage To A Polycarbonate Blade Guard, Constructed With The
Help Of My First Homemade Router Table--My Shrine To Table Saw
Safety". Except for "router table", most/all of the above
engineering and material terminology and technology is brand new to
me. Maybe when I'm done, I'll have something besides a blade guard?


Oh yeah - I should have gone back and looked that web site you reference a
while ago, but I was too lazy to look it up. I forgot about the scissor
links. Way overkill in my opinion but you have to remember - I don't use a
blade guard so my opinion might not be all that relevant. I'm the kind of
guy that likes mobility, so I would not design an overhead mount myself - if
I were to use a blade guard. I'd go with something that was affixed to my
saw so no matter where my saw was, the guard was there - ready to go. But
then again - I have a table saw that I stow and move out when I need it, so
your world may be different with that big ol' cabinet saw of yours. (little
bit of envy there...)


Thank you for your reply! I like your use of the word "monster" ;
) Though, if it gets attached to the ceiling some day, it may
appear less awesome... Thus far, it is only coming together on
paper. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are 3 parts: Support,
linkage, and guard. I appreciate better now why folks "over-built"
things, back in the days of yesteryear...

We've all overbuilt. Most of us justify it in our own minds, but in the end
I really believe it's because we really did not understand properly, things
like strength of materials, etc. So - we overbuild 'cause it don't hurt.


--

-Mike-

jloomis wrote:
One can usually test the span, and or get a sense if there is any
bending......
It sounds like with square tubing, and 6' you have little flex.

Not from a strength of materials perspective, but from a practical
experience perspective... I'd agree with John. I can't see 2" square tube
going anywhere in a 6' span. More importantly, you are not carrying any
weight at all on that tubing, and you are not subjecting it to any forces at
all, so I just can't see it creating any problems for you. For what you are
doing, you might be able to get away with half that strength - but I'm not
advocating that. It's just a thought.

Many engineered beams take advantage of light weight plywood for the
strength
similar to "I" beam trusses....
If a person were to use that in combination with the tubing, no
flexing would happen.

I'd have to believe that a 2" I-beam would offer all the support necessary
all by itself. Think of weights like those found on barn doors which can
use either an I-beam of similar size or and open box channel, or even a
C-channel which has to be the weakest of the options. They are carrying
many, many, many more times the weight - even allowing for the fact that
they carry it over two rollers, and they last out in the elements for
decades. I'd still find the 2" box to be way more than adequate though.
Maybe even a proper level of overkill.


--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:
I appreciate better now why folks "over-built"
things, back in the days of yesteryear...
We've all overbuilt. Most of us justify it in our own minds, but in the end
I really believe it's because we really did not understand properly, things
like strength of materials, etc. So - we overbuild 'cause it don't hurt.



Yes, I doubt that terrible things would happen if the blade guard got
pushed against the moving blade, but I am not anxious to find out. When
I compare 1"and 2" square steel tubing, in my mind, there is little
doubt about which seems more appropriate. The kind that is "perforated"
(having holes along the edges) may simplify things for me when I settle
on a good way to attach my crossbeam.

Picking up a basic knowledge about steel tubing and polycarbonate is
part of the "fun". I visited Henry Ford's personal workshop at The
Henry Ford Museum last summer. Now, at least from the looks of things,
Henry Ford was a guy who liked to play with heavy machinery! His
personal workshop was so big he probably had at least 6 assistants to
help him run it--or at least a few to maintain it. All of the machines
were belt driven, powered by steam. The people who work there now are
not knowledgeable about what the machines do. Mike Marlow, you gotta
think Henry Ford was your "get things done" sort of guy! He must have
been the "Lew" of his day.

Bill

jloomis wrote:
One can usually test the span, and or get a sense if there is any
bending......
It sounds like with square tubing, and 6' you have little flex.
Many engineered beams take advantage of light weight plywood for the
strength
similar to "I" beam trusses....
If a person were to use that in combination with the tubing, no
flexing would happen.
Again, it is a tough picture to see.......
john

"

Thank you for extending my "universe" of materials (and building
techniques)!
Where I grew up, an I-beam really looked like an I-beam. I see that
things are more complicated now!

Bill

"Bill" wrote:
Thank you for extending my "universe" of materials (and building
techniques)!
Where I grew up, an I-beam really looked like an I-beam. I see that
things are more complicated now!
-------------------------------------------------------
Dig out a strength of materials text, learn and understand the
following:

I^3 = (bh^3)/12 + 1/2(Ad^2)

It's the basis of all beam design and application.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Bill" wrote:
Thank you for extending my "universe" of materials (and building
techniques)!
Where I grew up, an I-beam really looked like an I-beam. I see that
things are more complicated now!
-------------------------------------------------------
Dig out a strength of materials text, learn and understand the
following:

I^3 = (bh^3)/12 + 1/2(Ad^2)

It's the basis of all beam design and application.

So are you saying that you didn't need to look it up??? : ) I trust
you, I'm just curious.

I was doing okay on Wikipedia, until I ran into the units MPa.




Lew



I spent the whole evening learning more about steel. %-)
As every Wrecker is surely aware, steel has lots of recipes and is comes
is sold in a variety of molecular patterns. I doubt you can get square
tube that is not annealed (A) in retail. Online, all I can do is "go
bigger". I'm up to 1/4" thick now, I just don't want it to
flex...lol I'm going to physically visit Lowes and actually hold some
in my hand, so I can get a better feeling for wall thicknesses.

If I was clever enough, I could probably back up a few steps and build a
wooden truss instead (and have fun doing it). I didn't know what a
"truss" was until John Loomis mentioned the term in an earlier post
yesterday. That is a great word for me to know for what I wish to
accomplish. Even if the tubing did flex, I truss could be use to firm
it up (as he suggested), which is reassuring, and reminds me of the
nature of all of our woodworking experiments.

I have no reason to rush this purchase. I tried to resolve it, but it
can wait. I think I'll take a break, and do some of my work for work!

Cheers,
Bill

Lew Hodgett wrote :

Dig out a strength of materials text, learn and understand the
following:

I^3 = (bh^3)/12 + 1/2(Ad^2)

It's the basis of all beam design and application.
--------------------------------------------------------
"Bill" wrote:

So are you saying that you didn't need to look it up??? : ) I
trust you, I'm just curious.

-----------------------------------------------------
Alzheimers may be in my future but doesn't seem to have arrived yet.

Anyway, that formula was beat into me more than 50 years ago by
my structural prof who would begin his homework assignments with
"Gentlemen, put on your coolie hats and have fun tonight".

You don't forget that experience.

Have fun.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote :

Dig out a strength of materials text, learn and understand the
following:
I^3 = (bh^3)/12 + 1/2(Ad^2)
It's the basis of all beam design and application.
--------------------------------------------------------
"Bill" wrote:

So are you saying that you didn't need to look it up??? : ) I
trust you, I'm just curious.
-----------------------------------------------------
Alzheimers may be in my future but doesn't seem to have arrived yet.

Anyway, that formula was beat into me more than 50 years ago by
my structural prof who would begin his homework assignments with
"Gentlemen, put on your coolie hats and have fun tonight".

You don't forget that experience.

Have fun.

Lew

Here's a link in case anybody doesn't know what a coolie hat is:

http://www.shindigz.com/party/coolie...kid=GFSZHATCSE

Swingman wrote:
Bill wrote:
Though the fence is Aluminum
and may flex a little--you can see I've been reading!
Don't let the Unifence deter you. Very flexible:

http://www.amazon.com/Uni-t-fence-Ta.../dp/B001LYHYH6

This Uni-T-fence is sold in 43" and 36". When ripping a large piece do
you slide your fence forward a bit (toward you), so that you can get
more of the edge of the stuff you are cutting against the fence before
it reaches the blade? Otherwise, I don't understand why one would be
concerned about the additional length here.

Question: If you were trimming a 40" piece of plywood using the fence (I
hesitate to call it "ripping"), would you stand right behind it and hold
it down real well near the blade and hold it real well against the
fence? It seems what is really called for here is a good sled (that
may be supported in part by the extension table as well as the miter
slots). But if that were really true then the fence wouldn't be able
to travel so far away from the blade (50"). I haven't yet really made
sense of this. If I "knew absolutely nothing" this would make more
sense to me...


Works great with the delta Unifence. Been using one for ten years and
recommend it. Great for jigs and easy add ons, like sacrificial fences.
Only caveat is that the Unifence doesn't work well with "hold downs" (board
buddies), which I don't use in any event.

Ah, my recollection had been that you liked the board buddies. Jim
Tolpin, the author of "Table Saw Secrets" certainly likes them for
dados, and especially for stopped dados. That was what got me thinking
about the Uni-T-fence again. The Woodworking Show is coming to town
this weekend.

You surely already know that dado blades are not allowed in some
countries (I just mentioned that for a little "woodworking trivia"). Be
careful when you travel abroad... ; )

Bill

On 1/14/2014 5:25 AM, Bill wrote:
Swingman wrote:
Bill wrote:
Though the fence is Aluminum
and may flex a little--you can see I've been reading!
Don't let the Unifence deter you. Very flexible:

http://www.amazon.com/Uni-t-fence-Ta.../dp/B001LYHYH6


This Uni-T-fence is sold in 43" and 36". When ripping a large piece do
you slide your fence forward a bit (toward you), so that you can get
more of the edge of the stuff you are cutting against the fence before
it reaches the blade? Otherwise, I don't understand why one would be
concerned about the additional length here.

Sliding the fence out toward you to give you more of a guide before
reaching the blade would be a definite advantage. If you check into
most Euro style table saws most all use this type fence.
The big advantage would be when cutting sheets of plywood and you are
about 7' back from the front of the saw. It is tough to keep the panel
parallel along a 12" section of fence before a blade than a much longer
section before the blade.

Secondly you can use the fence to cross cut shore pieces more safely.
The end of the fence can be slid to the front of the blade so that short
pieces will not be trapped between the fence and the blade.





Question: If you were trimming a 40" piece of plywood using the fence (I
hesitate to call it "ripping"), would you stand right behind it and hold
it down real well near the blade and hold it real well against the
fence? It seems what is really called for here is a good sled (that
may be supported in part by the extension table as well as the miter
slots). But if that were really true then the fence wouldn't be able
to travel so far away from the blade (50"). I haven't yet really made
sense of this. If I "knew absolutely nothing" this would make more
sense to me...

That would depend on the other dimension of the 40" piece of plywood.
Consider that the heavier the piece of panel the less likely that the
blade will throw the panel any appreciable distance. ;~)

If I am trimming a few inches off of a 40 x40 panel I stand in the
middle of the panel pushing with my right hand and using my left hand to
gently push the panel up against the fence. Basically I give most of
the push towards the blade with my right hand and a little bit of push,
just enough to keep the panel flat against the fence, with my left hand.






Works great with the delta Unifence. Been using one for ten years and
recommend it. Great for jigs and easy add ons, like sacrificial fences.
Only caveat is that the Unifence doesn't work well with "hold downs"
(board
buddies), which I don't use in any event.

Ah, my recollection had been that you liked the board buddies. Jim
Tolpin, the author of "Table Saw Secrets" certainly likes them for
dados, and especially for stopped dados. That was what got me thinking
about the Uni-T-fence again. The Woodworking Show is coming to town
this weekend.

You surely already know that dado blades are not allowed in some
countries (I just mentioned that for a little "woodworking trivia"). Be
careful when you travel abroad... ; )

Bill

Actually I believe it is the "stacked" dado blades that are frowned
upon. There are however dado blades, they call them something else.
that will cut wide slots. These are typically more like a sharper
cutter as they are wide and fixed in width IIRC.

http://www.felder-tooling.us/8head-0...019-text-0320#

Bill wrote:
If I "knew absolutely nothing" this would make more sense to me...

At this point, nothing will answer your questions better than a good deal
more up close and personal experience using your table saw.

--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

Swingman wrote:
Bill wrote:
If I "knew absolutely nothing" this would make more sense to me...

At this point, nothing will answer your questions better than a good
deal more up close and personal experience using your table saw.

Correct. One cannot engineer, or design solutions for things that they
don't fully understand. Best to use it first and then tackle approaches to
problems that you see as you use it - regardless of what others are telling
you are the problems that need to be addressed. If that makes any sense...

--

-Mike-

Swingman wrote:
Bill wrote:
If I "knew absolutely nothing" this would make more sense to me...

At this point, nothing will answer your questions better than a good deal
more up close and personal experience using your table saw.


I just don't want it to throw anything at me (and I don't want to be in
the line of fire if it tries....) And I don't want to have to explain
that I didn't know I was doing something in a "stupid" way. As you
suggested, Leon provided me with good answers to my questions.

Bill

On 1/14/2014 5:02 PM, Bill wrote:
Swingman wrote:
Bill wrote:
If I "knew absolutely nothing" this would make more sense to me...

At this point, nothing will answer your questions better than a good deal
more up close and personal experience using your table saw.


I just don't want it to throw anything at me (and I don't want to be in
the line of fire if it tries....) And I don't want to have to explain
that I didn't know I was doing something in a "stupid" way. As you
suggested, Leon provided me with good answers to my questions.

Bill




All in all you can't foresee what is going to be best for you. You
cannot foresee all possible problems. You cannot foresee any gotcha's.

Like Swingman indicated, until you actually start using the saw, shop,
over blade guard/dust collector you have no clue what you are going to
actually want to end up with.

You can way over think all of this, and possibly put a lot of work into
something that you may end up not liking. Better to make a decision
from actual experience vs. a preconceived notion of something you have
read or think you wold prefer.

Leon wrote:

All in all you can't foresee what is going to be best for you. You
cannot foresee all possible problems. You cannot foresee any gotcha's.

Like Swingman indicated, until you actually start using the saw, shop,
over blade guard/dust collector you have no clue what you are going to
actually want to end up with.

You can way over think all of this, and possibly put a lot of work
into something that you may end up not liking. Better to make a
decision from actual experience vs. a preconceived notion of something
you have read or think you wold prefer.


Okay. But having said that, what do you think of this choice of blades:

(Freud)
LU74R (30-tooth, "glue-line rip")
LU-85R (80-tooth, "ultimate cut-off")

and possibly LU80R ("Ultimate plywood"--so that LU85R above, doesn't get
"abused").

I know there are a lot of Forrest WW-II fans, but the reviews were not
very overwhelming, so it's sort of a tough call (but you can see which
way I'm leaning).

According to my measurements, my Biesemeyer Blade spreader is .105-.107
inches. I'm not sure how small of a kerf I can go down to (and was not
able to find further direction). Two of the blades above have kerfs of
..116 and .118. We talking about a 1/100" of an inch, and "blade
runout" (however much there is) is on my side here, so it doesn't seem
like a problem. FWIW, I have no plan to cut anything thicker than 3/4"
for now.

As Jeff suggested, I'll surely buy a lesser blade (if I can find any
full kerf ones) to practice on. The Freud-Diablo's, IIRC, seem to have
kerf around .91.

Bill

"Bill" wrote:

Okay. But having said that, what do you think of this choice of
blades:

(Freud)
LU74R (30-tooth, "glue-line rip")
LU-85R (80-tooth, "ultimate cut-off")

and possibly LU80R ("Ultimate plywood"--so that LU85R above, doesn't
get "abused").
-------------------------------------------------------------
Freud once offered a set of blades consisting of a 24T rip, a 50T
General purpose,
and an 80T cross cut ply.

That set met all my needs when I added the 8" Freud stacked dado set.

Might want to check if the set is still offered at a set price.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bill" wrote:

I know there are a lot of Forrest WW-II fans, but the reviews were
not very overwhelming, so it's sort of a tough call (but you can see
which way I'm leaning).
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pardon my French, but after Leon signs off on a blade, who gives a
****
what the rest of the world has to say?

Time to spend some money.

Lew

Bill wrote:
Leon wrote:

All in all you can't foresee what is going to be best for you. You
cannot foresee all possible problems. You cannot foresee any
gotcha's. Like Swingman indicated, until you actually start using the
saw,
shop, over blade guard/dust collector you have no clue what you are
going to actually want to end up with.

You can way over think all of this, and possibly put a lot of work
into something that you may end up not liking. Better to make a
decision from actual experience vs. a preconceived notion of
something you have read or think you wold prefer.


Okay. But having said that, what do you think of this choice of
blades:
(Freud)
LU74R (30-tooth, "glue-line rip")
LU-85R (80-tooth, "ultimate cut-off")

and possibly LU80R ("Ultimate plywood"--so that LU85R above, doesn't
get "abused").

I know there are a lot of Forrest WW-II fans, but the reviews were not
very overwhelming, so it's sort of a tough call (but you can see which
way I'm leaning).

According to my measurements, my Biesemeyer Blade spreader is
.105-.107 inches. I'm not sure how small of a kerf I can go down to
(and was not able to find further direction). Two of the blades above
have kerfs of .116 and .118. We talking about a 1/100" of an inch,
and "blade runout" (however much there is) is on my side here, so it
doesn't seem like a problem. FWIW, I have no plan to cut anything
thicker than 3/4" for now.

As Jeff suggested, I'll surely buy a lesser blade (if I can find any
full kerf ones) to practice on. The Freud-Diablo's, IIRC, seem to
have kerf around .91.


Hey Bill - just an idea - why not just go to your local big box store and
bjy a decent table saw blade? It's certainly going to better than what you
are doing now which is just talking. Buy it, put it on, and see what you
get. You may well find it to be very acceptable. The point is you don't
even know that at this point, and you're exploring areas beyond that.
Hell - just go buy a blade and use that damned saw! You bought it, no go
do what you paid for!

--

-Mike-

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Bill" wrote:

Okay. But having said that, what do you think of this choice of
blades:

(Freud)
LU74R (30-tooth, "glue-line rip")
LU-85R (80-tooth, "ultimate cut-off")

and possibly LU80R ("Ultimate plywood"--so that LU85R above, doesn't
get "abused").
-------------------------------------------------------------
Freud once offered a set of blades consisting of a 24T rip, a 50T
General purpose,
and an 80T cross cut ply.

Yes, that set has been on my Amazon wish list ever since you mentioned
it, and I even searched the Internet for it (for hours, at first), but
Freud apparent has not chosen to sell that set ("PGM 1060") since. The
salesperson at Rockler remembered it too, but he didn't know whether it
would be offered again either. Studying the details of the set did
however improve my knowledge about blades at the time.

I sort of created my own "1060" set above. I'll see if I can get
abbreviated-pricing at the woodworking show.


That set met all my needs when I added the 8" Freud stacked dado set.
I picked up the same dado set a few months ago when I had a Rockler
20%-off coupon burning a hole in my pocket.

Bill


Might want to check if the set is still offered at a set price.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

On 1/14/2014 10:09 PM, Bill wrote:
Leon wrote:

All in all you can't foresee what is going to be best for you. You
cannot foresee all possible problems. You cannot foresee any gotcha's.

Like Swingman indicated, until you actually start using the saw, shop,
over blade guard/dust collector you have no clue what you are going to
actually want to end up with.

You can way over think all of this, and possibly put a lot of work
into something that you may end up not liking. Better to make a
decision from actual experience vs. a preconceived notion of something
you have read or think you wold prefer.


Okay. But having said that, what do you think of this choice of blades:

(Freud)
LU74R (30-tooth, "glue-line rip")
LU-85R (80-tooth, "ultimate cut-off")

and possibly LU80R ("Ultimate plywood"--so that LU85R above, doesn't get
"abused").

I know there are a lot of Forrest WW-II fans, but the reviews were not
very overwhelming, so it's sort of a tough call (but you can see which
way I'm leaning).
What reviews were not very good. WWII is generally the best blade in
reviews.

Get yourself a 40T 1/8 kerf blade. You can't use a thin kerf blade with
the Bies splitter.

According to my measurements, my Biesemeyer Blade spreader is .105-.107
inches. I'm not sure how small of a kerf I can go down to (and was not
able to find further direction). Two of the blades above have kerfs of
.116 and .118. We talking about a 1/100" of an inch, and "blade
runout" (however much there is) is on my side here, so it doesn't seem
like a problem. FWIW, I have no plan to cut anything thicker than 3/4"
for now.

As Jeff suggested, I'll surely buy a lesser blade (if I can find any
full kerf ones) to practice on. The Freud-Diablo's, IIRC, seem to have
kerf around .91.

Just a good way of getting used to the saw before you do something
dumb.. we all do dumb **** when we are learning. If you are not pushing
the envelope you are not learning.

Bill


--
Jeff